This study of Malachi does not claim to be a scholarly work, for I am not a scholar, only a student of the Word of God. It does not reference all the works and commentaries written on Malachi. Indeed, very few commentaries were consulted during the study of this passage of Scripture. It seemed best, at least to this student, to allow the Scripture to speak for itself through the agency of the illuminating work of the Spirit of God, than to consult what others said that it said. More than anything else, the Biblical Hebrew grammar and language tools were utilized. Commentaries, if used, were consulted at the end.
While I did graduate from seminary with a major in Hebrew, I certainly do not consider myself to be an expert in that subject. Like many ministerial students, while had the intentions of keeping up and my study in the languages, over the years other things crowded out these efforts. I will readily confess I do not know as much as I should like to know, hence my reliance on these tools.
Concerning the Masoretic accentual system, there is much I need to learn. I know very little about the cantillation of the text and how to do this. My major interest is in how it added to the understanding the syntax of the text. I tend to follow Dr. Price’s views, recognizing there are many others as well. I still a student and the process of learning involves constantly reevaluating and revising one’s understanding. This is my understanding at this point in my study. These notes will be updated as I learn more. To that end, any critiques or suggestions that would aid to accomplish this goal would be welcome.
This is not so much a commentary as it is a collection of my notes about this book. Because of that, there are many abbreviations. A reference is provided. To help me remember where I found significant information, a list of frequently referenced works is provided. Because I am a very visually oriented person, I used a chart to help me see the overview of the Masoretic punctuation. This chart is a series of bars found above the Hebrew text. A key is given to that as well. I include my translation as well. It does interpret the text as I understand the sense of the verbs and the relationship between clauses. It is not a smooth translation into good English for that was not my purpose. The translation was to help me remember what the text said and implied. It was done for me. To read through the text in English to gain an understanding of the general flow, I suggest the more modern texts, NASB (1995), NIV, etc.
There are no inspired chapter, verse or paragraph divisions to the text; all being added well after the text was written. The Masoretes were the first to add verse divisions, indicated by the soph pasuq, and major and minor paragraph breaks, indicated by the petuchah (פ) and setumah (ס). Christian authorities later followed, keeping almost all of the verse divisions of the Old Testament but adding chapter divisions. Various translations and editors then added other paragraph divisions of their own to the verse and chapter breaks wherever they thought they belonged. I generally followed the Masoretic traditions but added other minor breaks. In the irregular outline that follows, the Roman numerals are the major Masoretic passages, the Latin capitals are the minor Masoretic episodes, and the Arabic numerals represent my subsequent divisions.
I. Masoretic Passage [1:1-2:9] |
A. Masoretic Episode (1:1-1:13) |
1. 1st Division {1:1} Title of Book |
2. 2nd Division {1:2-5}YHVH loves them |
3. 3rd Division {1:6-13} Priest dishonor YHVH in the sacrifices |
B. Masoretic Episode (1:14-2:9) |
4. 4th Division {1:14-2:9} YHVH’s judgment on these priests |
II. Masoretic Passage [2:10-12] |
5. 5th Division {2:10-12} Priests are marrying outside the faith |
III. Masoretic Passage [2:13-4:3/3:21] |
A. Masoretic Episode (2: 13-16) |
6. 6th Division {2:13-16} Priests are divorcing |
B. Masoretic Episode (2: 17-3:12) |
7. 7th Division {2:17-3:5} The priests boast in Lord’s coming but would not fare well |
8. 8th Division {3:6-12} Priests are stealing from Temple storehouse |
C. Masoretic Episode (3: 13-18) |
9. 9th Division {3:13-18} Contrast between who truly fear YHVH and those who don’t |
D. Masoretic Episode (4: 1-3 or 3:19-21) |
10. 10th Division {4: 1-3 or 3:19-21} Judgment and reward that are coming |
IV. Masoretic Passage [4:4-6 or 3:22-24] |
11. 11th Division {4:4-6 or 3:22-2} Remember the Law; I am sending Elijah |
Please note that this may be revised at any point as I come to better understand what the Spirit of God is teaching me.
BDB: The Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, based on the 1906 edition originally published by Clarendon Press: Oxford. References to Strong’s Concordance , Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, and Goodrich-Kohlenberger numbers have been added by Logos Research Systems, Inc.
TWOT: Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Harris, R. Laird et al 1st ed. Chicago, IL: Moody Bible Institute, 1980.
IBHS: An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax by Bruce K. Waltke and M, O’Connor, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana, 1990.
SMA: The Syntax of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible, 2nd, ed., revised and corrected, James D. Price, Ph.D. (Temple Baptist Seminary, 2010, Chattanooga, Tennessee)
GKC: Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar 2nd English Edition, ed. by E. Kautzsch, trans. by A. E. Cowley, Oxford University Press, London England.
BHS: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia 5th ed, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart 1967/77.
BUL: Figures of Speech Used in the Old Testament, E. W. Bullinger, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1968.
1 – first person | m – masculine |
2 – second person | mah – mahpak |
3 – third person | may – mayela |
a/abs – absolute | maq – maqqeph |
acc – accusative | mer – mereka |
adj – adjective | met – metheg |
adv – adverb | mun – munach |
art – article | n – noun |
ath – athnach | neg – negative/negation |
aux – auxiliary | nom – nominative |
azl – azla | num –number, numeral |
c – construct | ord – ordinal |
coh – cohortative | obj – object |
cond – conditional | p – plural |
conj – conjunction/conjunctive | pass – passive |
cons – consecutive | paz – pazer |
cop – copulative | pers – personal, person |
cstr – construct | Pf – perfective |
CVI – vav copulative imperfective | pn – proper noun, name |
CVP – copulative vav perfective | pred – predicate |
d – dual | prep – preposition |
dar – darga | pro – pronoun |
d.o. – direct object | psh – pashta |
def – definite | psq – paseq |
demo – demonstrative | ptcl – particle |
disj – disjunctive | ptcp – participle |
dme – double mereka | reb – rebia |
emph – emphatic | rel – relative |
excl – exclamation | RVI – relative vav imperfective consecutive) |
f – feminine | RVP – relative vav perfective |
gal – galgal | s – singular |
gar – garshaim | sec – second/secondary |
ger – geresh | seg – segolta |
gpz – great pazer | sha – shalsheleth |
gte – great telisha | sil – silluq |
gza – great zaqeph | sp – soph pasuq |
hypoth – hypothetical | sub – subordinate |
Impf – Imperfective | subj – subject |
imv – imperative | subst – substantive |
inf – infinitive | suf – suffix |
inter – interrogative | teb – tebir |
interj – interjection | tip – tiphchah |
jus – jussive | yet – yethib |
lte – little telisha | zar – zarqa |
lar – legarmeh | zaq – (little) zaqeph |
The Hebrew text in the notes sections have a series of colored bars above the text indicating the Masoretic accentual pattern. This pattern is based upon the syntax presented in The Syntax of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible. [1] 1 The Syntax of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible, 2nd, ed., revised and corrected, James D. Price, Ph.D. (Temple Baptist Seminary, 2010, Chattanooga, Tennessee) Accordingly, there are five levels of division or hierarchies. The first level is the segment marked by the soph pasuq or end of verse marker. This segment is not represented by a colored bar but consists of the whole verse. The verse then is usually divided into two hierarchy II segments, an athnach and a silluq segment. Each of these segments may be further divided into one or more hierarchy III segments. These in turn may be divided into one or more hierarchy IV segments which again in turn may be divided into one or more hierarchy V segments.
A red bar indicates a hierarchy II segment, silluq or athnach; orange, a hierarchy III segment tiphchah, little zaqeph, which is normally simply called zaqeph, (great zaqeph, identified as such), segolta or (shalsheleth); green, a hierarchy IV segment, tebir, pashta, (yethib), zarqa or rebia; blue, a hierarchy V segment, geresh, (garshaim), pazer, (great pazer), great telisha, or legarmeh. For these hierarchal divisions see SMA. If the segment of any hierarchy is a subordinate near domain, the white portion of the bar represents the word on which the superior governing disjunctive rests and any word-unit or units joined to it by a maqqeph or conjunctive accents. The accents enclosed in parentheses above represent accepted substitutes for the accents they follow.
While it is not always possible to carry the Hebrew accentual system over into an English translation, an attempt has been made to indicate some of the disjunctives separating units of thought. The Hebrew accents serve not only to mark the cantillation or chanting of the Hebrew text, they also serve as punctuation symbols. Because there are many more Hebrew accents than English punctuation marks and because they follow a much different set of rules, it is not possible to state one Hebrew accent is equivalent to one English punctuation mark. However, they are just as important for understanding the text in Hebrew as English punctuation marks are for understanding the text in English. The translation provided in this study is not intended to be smoothest, best sounding modern English. It certainly does not achieve that.[2] 2 For public readings and to read through larger portions to gain an overall view the author suggests using one of the major modern English translations available. Instead, it is an attempt to show the Hebrew structure as much as possible.
If a verse (hierarchy I) is divided into a silluq and an athnach segment (hierarchy II), these segments are indicated by separate lines in the English translation; the first line is the athnach segment, and the second is the silluq. If there is only a silluq segment, there will be just one line. The end of a line is indicated by the double dagger mark (‡). If a hierarchy II segment is divided into two or more hierarchy III segments, these segments are separated by a vertical line (|) in the text. A fractional hierarchy II segment with a single hierarchy III segment is not marked.
If a hierarchy III segment is divided into two or more hierarchy IV segments, these segments are separated by a back slash (\) in the text. A hierarchy III segment with a single hierarchy IV segment is not marked. Likewise, if a hierarchy IV segment is divided into two or more hierarchy V segments, these segments are separated by a tilde (~) in the text. A hierarchy IV segment with a single hierarchy V segment is not marked. Hierarchy V segments are not subdivided further.
Example, Malachi 1:6:
A full segment is one that has a near subordinate domain (a segment governed by a disjunctive in the hierarchy immediately below it) and one or more remote subordinate domains. A fractional segment is a segment with one subordinate near domain. An empty segment is a segment with no subordinate domains.
The burden of the word of YHVH to Israel‡ |
by the hand of Malachi (my messenger)‡ |
This verse is the title of the book. It is called a burden indicating the tone of the prophet’s message and is stated to be from YHWH. The agent that YHWH used to deliver this message is Malachi. This may be the name of the prophet himself or translated as “my messenger” with the prophet being unnamed. The message is sent to Israel, the nation as a whole, although the priests are singled out as the primary focus in the book itself.
Verse 1:1 is a noun phrase identifying or labeling the contents of the book. It divides into two parts, the first half being an athnach segment or line one and the second, a silluq segment or line two. This is the normal division of a verse (a soph pasuq segment) of all verses in Malachi with only one exception, 2:1 which is a fractional soph pasuq segment with only a subordinate near silluq segment.
Both the athnach and the silluq segments are fractional with each having only a subordinate near tiphchah segment. This division of an athnach or silluq segment occurs 22% of the time in Malachi. The most common arrangement is a full segment with two divisions, a remote subordinate domain and a near subordinate domain. This occurs 60% of the time. The least common division of an athnach or silluq segment is a full segment with three divisions, a near and two remote subordinate domains, 18% of the time.
Constructs are normally linked to their absolutes by a conjunctive accent or a maqqeph forming one word-unit. So it is in line one with משׂא דבר־יהוה being one such unit and אל־ישׂראל the another. Therefore, line one has only two word-units and can only support one hierarchy III disjunctive which must be a tiphchah. While the tiphchah’s domain is coterminal with the athnach’s, it cannot appear on the word-unit bearing the silluq but must fall on the word-unit preceding it. The tiphchah then serves to separate the proper domain of the athnach segment (that word-unit of a segment upon which the athnach falls and all conjunctives governed by it) from the rest of its domain. Line one is therefore divided into two parts, the first is a noun phrase stating the name of this document, “The burden of the word of YHVH,” and the second, a prepositional phrase stating to whom it is directed, “to Israel.”
Line two also is fractional with only an empty near tiphchah domain, having only two words. Normally, one would expect a conjunctive accent on the construct בְּיַד, linking it with its absolute מַלְאָכִי since the rules of accents allow a silluq to govern one conjunctive accent (a mereka). However, in this case one finds a tiphchah disjunctive separating these words. It might have been accented in this manner to throw more emphasis to the name Malachi, or what is more likely, to match the accentual pattern of line one. It is important to remember the accents were added first to preserve the traditional oral reading of a passage and then indicating its syntax. Often the musical considerations outweigh the syntactical.
Although there are in this verse two subordinate main segments, an athnach and a silluq, the syntactic division is weak, and the two segments are not of equal weight. The silluq functions in this case almost as a third part to the initial athnach segment, having the same weight as a hierarchy III disjunctive (zaqeph, tiphchah, etc.). The athnach divides syntactically into two parts; a noun phrase stating what this missive is and a prepositional phrase stating to whom it is sent. The silluq is another prepositional phrase stating the agent by whom it was sent.
מַשָּׂ֥א — nn: msc; conj accent, mer; (מַשָּׂא) — This word identifies this document. It is a burden which indicates the tone of the prophet’s message. While many modern translations translate this Hebrew word as “oracle” or “prophecy,” from a supposed root meaning “to utter” or “to receive," it seems best to keep the translation of older versions. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament defines it as[3] 3 TWOT, p. 602 “a prophetical speech of a threatening or minatory character.” The mereka conjunctive connects this word (a construct) with the following word-unit, the word of YHVH (construct-absolute).
דְבַר־ — n: msc; no accent, maq; (דָּבָר) — word, speech, message; Although this noun is the genitive after the construct משׂא, it is the construct for יהוה, to which it is connected by a maqqeph. The question must be asked, what type of genitive is it in relation to משׂא. One common way of understanding a genitive following משׂא is to see it as a topical genitive. “The … topical genitive specifies the topic of a discourse or the like, namely, C [the construct] is about G [the genitive].”[4] 4 IBHS, p, 152. The material in brackets added by author. This makes sense in most instances, for example in Isaiah 13:1, 15:1, 17:1, Nahum 1:1 and many other places. But here it does not work so well to say, “The burden about or concerning the word of YHVH,” especially if משׂא is to be translated as oracle or utterance. However, if one translates it as burden, then this genitive is a genitive of genus where “the individual is in the construct and the broader class to which it belongs is the genitive.”[5] 5 IBHS, p. 153 This is a particular type of prophetic speech of YHVH’s Word.
יְהוָ֖ה — pn: msa; disj accent, tip; (יְהוָה) — YHWH/the LORD; A genitive of authorship. The tiphchah marks the near subordinate domain of the athnach segment but also separates it from the proper domain of the athnach, separating the subject, משׂא דבר־יהוה, from the prepositional phrase indicating the recipient, אל־ישׂראל. Note: a subordinate near segment is by nature divided into two parts by its accent since the accent must be located on the word-unit preceding the dominating disjunctive. Whatever accent this word might have logically carried, had this segment been a remote segment rather than a near segment, is replaced by the subordinate disjunctive. A subordinate remote segment to be divided must have a lower ranking disjunctive itself, unless the segment is a hierarchy five segment which cannot be divided. In this case, the tiphchah probably stands in place of a lesser disjunctive separating the phrase משׂא דבר־יהוה from the phrase אל־ישׂראל.
אֶל־ — prep; no accent, maq; (אֵל) — to, toward concerning; BDB states that the basic idea of this word is a “prep. denoting motion to or direction towards (whether physical or mental).”[6] 6 BDB, p. 152 Waltke and O’Conner state that one of the logical senses is to mark “a simple dative (‘to’ the recipient of a gift or an address….)”[7] 7 IHBS, p. 193 Both of these ideas suggest an underlying but unstated idea that this משׂא was/is sent, given, delivered, etc. to the recipient. The maqqeph connects the preposition with its object ישׂראל, which is the normal case with אל.
יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל — pn: msa; disj accent, ath; (יִשְׂרָאֵל) — Israel; While this message is addressed to Israel, the nation as a whole, the priests are singled out as the primary focus in the book, as can be seen in 1:6, 2:1, 2:4, 2:7, 2:13, and 3:3. The athnach, the principal divider of the verse marks the end of the first line. The first line, the athnach segment states what this is and to whom it is sent. The last line, the silluq segment, identifies the agent YHVH used to deliver it.
בְּיַ֖ד — n: fsc; prep בְּ; disj accent, tip; (יָד) — by the hand of; With the preposition, בּ, may indicate by the agency or instrumentality of.[8] 8 BDB, p. 968 Waltke and O’Conner state that בּיד may be considered a complex preposition.[9] 9 IBHS, p. 155 This identifies the agent God used to deliver this message. A silluq segment may be empty. Here one might expect a conjunctive mereka conjoining construct and absolute since בּיד is in construct with מלאכי. The tiphchah instead is used, replacing the mereka, probably in order to parallel the accentual scheme of the athnach segment or perhaps to set the name of the prophet (if it is a personal name?) apart giving it a bit more emphasis.
מַלְאָכִֽי׃ — n: msc; 1cs suf; (מַלְאָךְ); or, pn: msa; disj accent, sil; (מַלְאָכִי) — my messenger/Malachi; This is either a prophet named Malachi who lived during the post exilic Persian period, or an unnamed prophet speaking for YHVH. Either way, the message is still divinely inspired.
Why study Malachi, since it is an Old Testament book, a very small one at that, being a Minor Prophet? But it was the last revelation to God’s people as they awaited the coming of their Messiah! That should tell us something. Often the last instructions a person gives before they leave or before they return are significant. That’s what they want people to remember as they wait. The nation was waiting for its prophesied Messiah to come. What did YHVH want his people, and especially its leaders and teachers to remember in the long intervening years before Messiah came? Malachi tells us this. And perhaps, as we wait, in the long intervening years before his second coming, we too, especially those of us who lead and teach, can learn lessons from this book.
The name Malachi itself is significant and plays a central role in this book. The Theological Workbook of the Old Testament on page 464 defines the word this way:
Messenger, representative, courtier, angel. “Messenger” is an inadequate term for the range of tasks carried out by the OT mal’āk. These were 1) to carry a message, 2) to perform some other specified commission, and 3) to represent more or less officially the one sending him. There were both human and supernatural melā’kîm , the latter including the Angel of Yahweh (i.e. the Angel of the Lord).
The word occurs four times in this book: once in verse 1:1, where it might represent a personal name; once in 2:7, where the priests are called the messengers of YHVH; and twice in 3:1, where YHVH states he will send his messenger, who is the Messenger of the Covenant. This last reference is to the second coming of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ in his coming to establish the Kingdom.
As we await his coming, we, not the Levitical priests are his messengers, his representatives his sent out ones. What can we, his messengers, learn from this book?
The prophet declares this is a burden of the word of the LORD (YHVH). It is not a particularly happy message, nor one of encouragement and hope, although the element of hope is indeed present, yet it is still his word. When YHVH speaks, it demands that the person or persons to whom he is speaking respond. It places an obligation or burden upon the hearer. The message is threating in that it is one to which the hearers, his people (the priests), must respond or else face discipline or judgment. See Malachi 2:1-2.
This same principle applies to believers in any age. When we read the Word of God or hear it expounded, how do we respond? Do we listen without really hearing? Do we read a passage because it is a habit or tradition without comprehending what the words in fact say? How many people go to a Sunday service at their church and leave, never interacting with the Word of God although it is read aloud and preached? Hearing, really listening, and comprehending God’s words are a burden. They are heavy, weighty, and they demand a response from us.
While this passage is addressed to Israel, all of YHVH’s chosen people, it focuses upon the leadership, the Levitical priests. Having been a pastor for several years and a teacher for many more, I know that when we preach or teach the Word of God, we try to make it relevant to our congregation or students. We ask, how does it apply to them? But in doing this, do we minimize or perhaps skip altogether the most important question we should first ask. How does this apply to me?
This book is addressed to Israel, all of God’s elected people because it was applicable to all of them. But it is focused on the leadership, those who were to be the examples, those who taught and ministered the word of the LORD. As you and I study, and perhaps teach this book, understand that it focuses first on us, those who teach and preach his word.
“I love you,” says YHWH, | |
“and yet you are saying, ‘How do you love us?’‡ |
Was not Esau a brother to Jacob?” proclaims YHWH, | |
“and yet I loved Jacob.”‡ |
Verses two through five comprise the first section of this discourse. It is written not as prose but as Hebrew poetry. In verse two, the prophet begins with a literary device which he uses multiple times[10] 10 See 1:6, 1:7, 2:13, 2:17, 3:7, 3:8, and 3:13. in the book. This device normally has three parts: first, speaking for YHWH, he makes a statement; next, he records the objection of the people/priests which takes the form of a question; finally, he answers their objection or question.
Malachi begins in verse 2 with a foundational issue, YHWH’s love for his people. It is first because a failure to firmly grasp this truth leads to or, at the least, exacerbates other problems. In line one, YHVH speaks saying that he loves them. The people/priests respond with a question of “How is this so?” This question is not one which seeks an answer, but one which forcefully says they do not really believe YHVH loves them. Then, YHVH begins his answer to this objection in the second line by responding that he chose Jacob over Esau.
In the athnach segment, the writer states the first two parts of this literary device, YHVH’s statement and the response or question of the priests or people. This grouping of the accusation and the response into one unit and separating it from YHVH’s response is normal. It is also done by the writer in 1:6 and in 1:7. The statement by YHVH and the objection or question by the people make up the athnach segment; YHVH’s response begins in the silluq segment.
The athnach section is full having a remote zaqeph segment and a near tiphchah segment. The fractional zaqeph segment is YHVH’s statement. It is divided into two parts by a pashta disjunctive with the proper domain of the zaqeph being the identification of the speaker, אמר יהוה, and the initial part of the segment being the content of what the speaker says, אהבתי אתכם. This is the common pattern when the clause, אמר יהוה, is used. The content of what YHVH says is stated first and is separated from אמר יהוה by a disjunctive. The content is the object of the verb אמר and normally precedes the verb..
The tiphchah of this first line is the response of the priests or people in contrast to what YHVH just has said. It also is divided into two parts, but, since this is a near subordinate segment, the tiphchah itself divides the segment into two parts. The word bearing the tiphchah is the subject/verb, ואמרתם, “and yet you are saying,” and the word-unit on which the athnach falls is the object of the verb and content of what they were saying,במה אהבתנו, “How do you love us?” In this case the subject/verb precedes the object thus giving the four clauses in this line a chiastic arrangement.[11] 11 the arrangement: ABBA
In the second line, the silluq segment, the writer then begins answering this objection which continues in the following verses. The accentual patterns of the second line parallel the first. In the remote zaqeph domains of both the athnach and silluq segments, a pashta disjunctive separates the content of a statement with identification of the speaker. In both segments the vav introducing the near tiphchah segments is a vav disjunctive expressing a contrast.
Again, that part of the zaqeph segment up to the pashta disjunctive accent itself is the YHVH’s declaration, הלוא־אחו ליעקב, “Was he not a brother, Esau to Jacob?” and the word-unit bearing the zaqeph accent is the identification of the speaker, נאם־יהוה, “proclaims YHWH.”
The tiphchah segment again states a contrast or something unexpected. Again, being a subordinate near segment, the tiphchah itself disjunctive divides the segment into two parts. The initial part of the segment, the word bearing the tiphchah accent, is the subject/verb, ואהב, “and yet I loved,” and the remainder of the segment, the word-unit bearing the silluq accent, את־יעקב, “Jacob.” is the direct object.
אָהַ֤בְתִּי — Qal Pf 1cs; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual ger; (אָהֵב) — to love; A durative stative perfective. “The durative stative perfective is found with quasi-fientive verbs, indicating an ongoing emotional response.”[12] 12 IBHS, p. 493 The conjunctive accent mahpak may tie the subject/verb together with the object, uniting them as a object of the verb אמר, or it may represent a disjunctive. A mahpak or its substitute, mereka, before a pashta may actually be a transformed geresh or its substitute a garshaim. In this case it seems best to understand it as a geresh, separating the subject/verb from the object. This would also be consistent with the right-heavy or remote-heavy pattern observed in disjunctives. By this I mean that the more remote a segment is, the more likely it is to be divided by another disjunctive of lower rank. This is true it seems on levels below the hierarchy II. Thus, if one looks at all the lines of a verse, represented by either a athnach domain or a silluq domain, the pattern is heavier with different levels of bars as one moves to the right. The more remote a segment is, the more likely it is to be divided into subordinate segments. Of the fifty-five verses in Malachi, only six have a pattern that contains either an athnach or silluq segment that does not conform to this pattern.
אֶתְכֶם֙ — ptcl, noun indicator + 2mp suf; disj accent, psh; (אֵת) — indicates the definite direct object. The suffix refers to those to whom the message is addressed, Israel and in particular, the priests. The pashta disjunctive separates the content of what is said from the identification of the speaker. The verbal clause, אהבתי אתכם, serves as the direct object of the verb אמר.
אָמַ֣ר — Qal Pf 3ms; conj accent, mun; (אָמַר) — to say, speak; instantaneous perfective “an instantaneous perfective represents a situation occurring at the very instant the expression is being uttered.”[13] 13 IBHS, p. 488The munach links the verb with the expressed subject.
יְהוָ֔ה — pn: msa; disj accent, zaq; (יְהוָה) — the LORD, YHWH; The zaqeph divides the first line into two parts; the first (zaqeph segment) is YHWH’s statement and the second (the tiphchah segment) is the response of the people or priests to that statement. It is a strong division separating and contrasting the statement of God’s love from the statement of the people’s doubt.
וַאֲמַרְתֶּ֖ם — Qal RVP + rel vav; disj accent, tip; (אָמַר) — to say, speak; a relative vav perfective following a perfective can represent an epexegetical situation in present time with an imperfective aspect,[14] 14 IBHS, p. 530“but you are saying.” The tiphchah disjunctive separates the subject/verb (the identification of the speaker) from the object of the verb (the content or what was being said) in the athnach proper segment.
בַּמָּ֣ה — inter pro + prep בְּ; conj accent, mun; (מָה) — whereby, wherewith, wherein, by what means, at what worth, for what. The interrogative pronoun indicates this is a question. It is the use of erotesis in refusal, denial or doubt.[15] 15 BUL, p. 953The munach links this prepositional phrase with the verb, making this unit the object of the verb ואמרתם.
אֲהַבְתָּ֑נוּ — Qal Pf 2ms + 1cp suf; disj accent, ath; (אָהֵב) — to love; A durative stative perfective. “do you love”. The athnach divides this verse into two parts: the first line (athnach segment) consisting of YHVW’s statement and the response of the people or priests and the second line (the silluq segment), the beginning of YHWH’s answer or rebuttal.
הֲלוֹא־ — neg adv + ה inter; no accent, maq; (לֹא לוֺא) — is it not; This often invites an affirmative answer.[16] 16 BDB p. 1250 This is the use of erotesis in negative affirmation. “… the question is put in the negative form, and the answer must be in the affirmative, and very emphatically so; the truth being thus much more forcibly brought out by the question than by mere cold and formal statement of the fact.”[17] 17 BUL, p. 947 The maqqeph unites the negative adverb and ה interrogative with the noun אח forming a single word-unit.
אָ֨ח — n: msa; conj accent, azl; (אָח) — brother; predicate nominative of nominal clause. The azla conjunctive unites this word-unit with the following word, עשׂו.
עֵשָׂ֤ו — pn: msa; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual geresh; (עֵשָׂו) — Esau; subject of nominal clause. As in the pashta segment in line one, this mahpak possibly could be a transformed garshaim. In which case, it separates the nominal clause, “Was he not a brother Esau,” from the adverbial prepositional phrase “to Jacob?”. Separating an adverbial phrase from a clause is not at all unusual.[18] 18 SMA, p. 34 If this is a mahpak, then the whole clause with the adverbial phrase is one unit found in נאם־יהוה by the pashta on ליעקב. It seems best to understand it as a virtual garshaim paralleling the athnach segment. This would be consistent with the remote-heavy pattern of disjunctives as well.
לְיַֽעֲקֹב֙ — pn: msa + prep לְ ; disj accent, psh; (יַּעֲקֹב, יַעֲקוֹב) — to/of Jacob; Again, the pashta disjunctive separates the content of what is said from the statement of who said it. The object is often separated from subject/verb.[19] 19 SMA, p. 34
נְאֻם־ — n: msc; no accent, maq; (נְאֻם) — says; a declaration of. a noun phrase used as a formula. “…noun occurs only as a formula (accompanied by the subject) declaring the divine…origin and authority of the message so described.”[20] 20 TWOT, 1273This statement is more forceful than, “says the Lord” (אמר יהוה), much like the difference between the statements, “The President proclaimed today…” and “The President said today….” The maqqeph unites the construct noun with the following absolute.
יְהוָ֔ה — pn: msa; disj accent, zaq; (יְהוָה) — LORD /YHWH; The subject of the verbal action indicated by נאם. The zaqeph marks the main division of the second line. This segment sets the stage for the statement in the tiphchah segment. Again, as in the athnach segment, this zaqeph disjunctive is strong marking the major division of the silluq segment of this verse.
וָאֹהַ֖ב — Qal RVI 1cs + vav cons; disj accent, tip; (אָהֵב) — to love; A RVI “Relative waw with a prefix form represents a situation that is usually successive and always subordinate to a preceding statement.”[21] 21 IBHS, p. 547The sequence is primarily a logical, one that is contrastive having a perfective aspect. It would represent a definite past action. “and yet I loved…” The tiphchah disjunctive in this tiphchah segment serves to separate the subject/verb from its object.
אֶֽת־ — ptcl, noun indicator; maq + aux accent, metheg; (אֵת) — Indicates the definite direct object. The maqqeph unites this marker with its noun. The metheg is an auxiliary marking secondary accent.
עַעֲקֹֽב׃ — pn: msa; disj accent, sil; (יַּעֲקֹב, יַעֲקוֹב) — Jacob; direct object of ואהב above. The silluq marks the end of its segment.
We often lose sight of the truth that God loves us just like Israel of old. In part, this was due to the fact that they, as have we, have altered the definition of what it means to love away from how the LORD defines the term. He is the definition of what love is or should be (1 John 4:8). The concept of love has been twisted by our degenerate nature and colored by our culture. We have centered the meaning of the word in in terms of what it means around the one who loves rather than the one who is loved. It has become a selfish word. What does it mean for me? Does it make me feel good? What do I get out of this? How will you benefit me? Instead, it ought to be a selfless word. What can I do for you, the person loved? How does it benefit you?
To be sure, it has an emotional dimension on the part of the person who loves, but it is so much deeper than that. It is a commitment to the subject that is being loved. Love does not just happen to a person. It is not just something a person feels. It is also something a person does. One chooses to love, or not love. If I love someone, I will do whatever it takes to benefit that person, regardless of how I might feel, without respect to the personal cost.
YHVH loved his people, Israel. Yes, he disciplined them, sent them into exile, devastating their nation. But was this because he enjoyed doing it? Had he given up on them? No, not in the least! It was because he loved them that all this had taken place; it happened to bring the nation back to himself. But the thinking of the priests was different. Their God had abandoned them. Babylon had brutalized them, ripping them from their land. Yes, they had come back, but even now they still were under the heavy hand of the Persian empire. Times were hard, taxes high. The crops were failing. Where was their God and all the promises that he had made to them? No, they really did not think their God loved them, and thus their question, “How do you love us?”
God quite often allows us to face hard and difficult times and situations, sometimes seemingly impossible circumstances. Is it because he does not love us? We often tend to believe, or at least feel, that he has forgotten us and given up on us. That is not the case! What he does is for his glory and for our best. It may be very hard to believe he loves us, but he does. If we fail to hang on to this truth, it will only lead us into further despair and deeper in sin taking us farther away from him, the source of life and peace and joy.
Esau, on the other hand, I hated! |
And I made his hill country a wasteland, | |
and his property, a wilderness for jackals.‡ |
This first line of this verse is complementary to the last line of the previous verse by finishing the contrast begun there. Although Jacob and Esau were brothers and one might expect YHWH to treat them the same, YHWH loved (chose) Jacob but hated (did not choose) Esau. It should be remembered that this is an idiomatic expression, to love one thing and hate another meant to choose one thing above another. The same idiom was used centuries later by our Lord when he told his followers in Luke 14:26, “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” After completing the contrast in line one, the second line goes on the explain how this choice of Jacob over Esau has been demonstrated in YHVH’s actions when he judged Esau’s descendants.
The short athnach segment completes the contrast begun in the last half of the silluq segment of the previous verse. Like it, it is fractional with only an empty tiphchah near segment. The similarity in accentual patterns aids one who reads or hears this to connect with the last part of verse 2. Indeed, it seems as if the athnach segment is more connected logically with the silluq segment in the previous verse than the silluq segment in this one. In translating this into English, the tendency is to make the last line of verse 2 a single sentence with verse 3.[22] 22 See KJV, NASB, NIV, ASV, ESV, etc.However, Hebrew structures it differently. So why is it accented this way rather than making a single verse with the idea of loving Jacob as the athnach segment and hating Esau as the silluq segment thus strengthening the contrast? I suspect the reason was to keep the focus on YHVH’s love for Israel in verse 2. This is the important idea. The contrast is important but only secondarily in that it highlights YHVH’s love for Israel. Therefore, the statement of YHVH’s love for Jacob is in verse 2, and his statement of his hate for Esau in the next verse. This short statement of YHVH’s not choosing Esau then leads to the rest of verse 3, the longer silluq segment.
This silluq segment of this verse is sequential and follows from the fact YHVH did not choose Esau. Pointing out YHVH’s judgment upon Edom, it divides into two parallel parts. The first half, a zaqeph segment, states YHVY made the hill country of Edom into a wasteland; the last half, the tiphchah segment, into a wilderness for jackals.
וְאֶת־ — ptcl, noun indicator + vav; maq; (אֵת) — Indicates the definite direct object; The vav, attached to את is disjunctive, marking this clause as opposed to the one in the previous verse. “Esau, on the other hand,” The maqqeph joins this particle to the following noun.
עֵשָׂ֖ו — pn: msa; disj accent, tip; (עֵשָׂו) — Esau; direct object of verb שׂנאתי. The accentual pattern of the athnach segment in this verse follows the pattern found in the immediately preceding segment of the previous verse. This and the chiastic arrangement of the words tie it closely with the preceding verse.
“and yet I loved
Jacob.
Esau, on the other hand,
I hated!”
While a tiphchah disjunctive marks this word, separating the verb and object, a munach might also have been used making the athnach an empty segment rather than fractional. The disjunctive, however, seems more appropriate, uniting as it does this segment with the previous yet separating the object from the verb thus strengthening the contrast.
שָׂנֵ֑אתִי — Qal Pf 1cs; disj accent, ath; (שָׂנֵא) — to hate. The use of the perfective is a definite past. The athnach marks the end of the first line which completes the contrast begun in the previous verse.
וָאָשִׂ֤ים — Qal RVI 1cs + vav cons; conj accent, mah; (Qal RVI 1cs + vav cons; conj accent, mah; (שׂוּם, שִׂים) — to put, place, set, establish, ordain, make; “The basic root idea of this verb is to put, place something somewhere…” It can be used “To Bring About a Change….changing not its location, but its condition.”[23] 23 TWOT, p. 872-873 The subject is YHVH; the direct object is הריו. The use of the relative vav imperfective is epexegetical explaining or demonstrating how YHWH did not choose Esau. It has a perfective aspect, definite past. שׂום can have two accusatives.[24] 24 BDB p. 2345 As has been noted, a geresh or garshaim disjunctive on the first word before a pashta is commonly transformed into a virtual geresh or garshaim represented by the conjunctive mahpak. While it makes no difference in the meaning of the text, it seems to this student at this point in his understanding at least, that it is best to see this as a virtual garshaim separating the subject/verb from its first object.
אֶת־ — ptcl, noun indicator; maq; (אֵת) — Indicates a definite direct object. As is quite common the maqqeph unites this particle with the object it points out.
הָרָיו֙ — n: mpc + 3ms suf; disj accent, psh; (הַר) — mountains, hill country; The first object of ואשׂים, refers to the object (what is acted upon). YHWH will make הריו (to be) שׁממה (what it becomes), the 2nd direct object of ואשׂים. The pashta disjunctive here separates the two direct objects of ואשׂים in this remote zaqeph segment.
שְׁמָמָ֔ה — n: fsa; disj accent, zaq; (שְׁמָמָה) — devastation, waste. The second object of ואשׂים, refers to the condition. The zaqeph marks the remote domain of the silluq and is the principal divider of the second line of verse 3. The first half of this line contains the subject (I, that is YHWH) and the verb (made or established) and one set of double direct objects (his hill country into a wasteland). The last half of this line contains parallel set of double direct objects (his inheritance into a wilderness for jackals).
וְאֶת־ — ptcl, noun indicator; + vav; maq; (אֵת) — Indicates a definite direct object. The vav attached to the accusative marker is copulative connecting the first of a second set of two accusatives (direct objects) to the verb ואשׂים. The maqqeph unites this particle with its object (the thing acted upon or changed).
נַחֲלָת֖וֹ — n: fsc + 3ms suf; disj accent, tip; (נַחֲלָה) — possession, property, inheritance The first of a second set of two direct objects of ואשׂים. YHWH will also make נחלתו (his territory/possession) to be מדבר, a wilderness. The tiphchah in this fractional segment separates the first direct object from the second and its connected prepositional phrase.
לְתַנּ֥וֹת — n: fpa + prep לְ; conj accent, mer; (תַּן) — jackal; the ל indicating possession, a wilderness for jackals. The mereka joins the prepositional phrase with the noun it qualifies.
מִדְבָּֽר׃ — n: msa; disj accent, sil; (מִדְבָּר) — wilderness, uninhabited land. The second direct object
In thinking about why the Spirit of God chose to arrange verses two and three as he did, it seems to me as stated earlier that it was to focus attention on YHVH’s love for Israel rather on the contrast between Israel and Edom. If we focus on the contrast, the tendence is to elevate one person or group above the other. It is somewhat like two children arguing with each other. One says, “Mom loves me more than you!” and the thinking then becomes, “I must be better than you.” Thus, Israel might think (And, indeed, so they did!), “We are God’s chosen people. We are better than you, the unchosen nations!” When, in fact, no one was better. They, both Israel and Edom, were under God’s judgment. Both had been devasted by Assyrian and then Babylon. Both experienced his wrath, judgment for their sin. Neither deserved his mercy. But God chose Israel and would demonstrate his mercy upon them; he would restore them, not Edom. And then through them, his mercy to all peoples. God wanted the focus to be in these verses, not on the contrast between the two, but on his choice to show mercy and love to his people.
Sometimes we as believers have the same attitude as Israel did. We have the attitude, sometimes unconsciously to be sure, that says, “Hey, I am a Christian; I must be better than those people who reject the Christian faith.” or we reason to ourselves, “God saved me; I must be a better person than those he did not save.” We fail to realize that each one of us, left to ourselves apart from the grace of God are totally depraved. We are all capable of any sin, no matter its depth of depravity. You may say, “Well, I’m not a terrorist. I would never butcher a whole village of people just because they were a different race or religion than me. I could never do that!” Did you choose to be born in this country with freedom and a (somewhat) spirit of religious tolerance? No. It was only by God’s grace you were. You might have been born in a impoverished third world country where you were persecuted and mistreated for who you were.
Given the right set of circumstances, any one of us is capable of any sin. It is only by the grace of God we have not faced those circumstances. He alone has kept us from these things. He does not love us because we were better than everyone else. In his grace he chose to love us in spite of the depravity we are capable of committing.
Though Edom may say, “We are beaten down, \ but we will return and build the ruins.” | |
thus says YHWH of Hosts | |
“They may build but I, on the other hand, will tear down!”‡ |
And so [people] will be calling them, “A wicked territory!” | |
and “[They are] the people against whom YHWH is forever indignant!”‡ |
YHWH has stated that he loves his people; a fact they did not believe. As evidence that he had chosen them (Jacob) over Esau, he pointed out that he had judged Edom, Esau’s descendants. Edom had been devastated by Babylon, as had they. Now the objection could easily have been made by these priests that Edom might come back and rebuild just as Israel was doing. So how did that make Edom any different than themselves? To forestall this objection, The writer will tell them in the first part of this verse that even if Edom should attempt to rebuild as Israel was doing, YHVH would negate any of their attempts. The last section of this verse states the ultimate outcome; people would realize Edom was under his judgment from that point onward.
The athnach segment contains what Edom might say they will do and what YHWH, in fact, states he will do. It divides into three parts, a near tiphchah and two remote zaqeph segments. The second and third segments, a fractional remote zaqeph and a empty near tiphchah, have a logical contrast with the first segment, a full remote zaqeph. first begins with כי־תאמר, a hypothetical/concessive particle with an imperfective of contingency, “Though (Edom) may say…,” and the second begins with כה אמר, an introductory adverb of place with an instantaneous perfect, “thus/now/here says/speaks (YHWH of Hosts).” The first zaqeph, therefore, marks the major logical division of the first line.
The silluq segment, which begins with a relative vav perfective representing a specific future with an imperfective aspect, states the logical consequence of YHWH’s actions stated in the athnach segment. It has just two fractional segments; the first, a remote zaqeph segment containing the verb and its objects “And so they will call them a wicked territory”, or as English idiom would put it, “And so they will be called, a wicked territory!” Parallel to this in the fractional near tiphchah segment, is another statement of what people will say of Edom with the verb carried over from the zaqeph segment “and [they are] the people against whom YHWH is forever indignant!”
כִּֽי־ — conj; maq + aux accent met; (כִּי) — כי is used to introduce various types of clauses in Hebrew (conditional, temporal, causal, etc.). Here, it seems to be used in a conditional or perhaps temporal way, “If Edom should say…” or “When Edom says…” giving this in context a concessive force “Though Edom may say….”[25] 25 (BDB p. 1151) It might even have a little adverbial emphatic force as well “Indeed, if Edom says….” A maqqeph unites this word with the following word-unit, the verb and subject. It also has a secondary auxiliary accent, a metheg.
תֹאמַ֨ר — Qal Impf 3fs; conj accent, azl; (אָמַר) — to say; Imperfective of contingency, “may say.” An azla conjunctive connects the verb with the stated subject, אדום.
אֱד֜וֹם — pn: fsa; disj accent, ger; (אֱדֹום) — Edom; subject of verb תאמר. A metonymy, the nation used in place of its people or leaders; The geresh divides the subject/verb, “Though Edom may say,” from the first part of the content (direct object) of that verb “We are beaten down,”
רֻשַּׁ֗שְׁנוּ — Pual Pf 1cp; disj accent, reb; (רָשַׁשׁ) — to be beaten down, shattered; This is either a persistent (present) perfective, “We have been beaten down,” or possibly a present perfect, “We are beaten down.” In either case, the emphasis seems to be on the current condition of the nation. The rebia separates this present condition Edom was experiencing from the following relative vav imperfective clause stating what they intended to do about that condition. This continues the content of the verb תאמר.
וְנָשׁוּב֙ — Qal CVI 1cs + vav cop; disj accent, psh; (שׁQal CVI 1cs + vav cop; disj accent, psh; (שׁוּב) — to return, turn back; The preceding verb, a persistent (present) perfective or present perfective רשׁשׁנו, sets the scene. The change in the conjugations from perfective to copulative vav imperfective indicates a logical connection “(Yes,) we are beaten down, (yet now) we will return and build the ruins.” The use of the imperfective here is a specific future. “…the prefix conjugation may represent a future situation as dependent or contingent on some other expressed or unexpressed situation. With reference to the time of speaking, the situation may be future or past. If the action is in the future, the sense is of a specific future.”[26] 26 IBHS, p. 512 שׁוב is often used with another verb as a hendiadys “denoting repetition, … return ( and ) do = do again”[27] 27 BDB, p.2425 When it is used this way, both verbs are normally adjacent as here, and the accent on שׁוב may be either a conjunctive joining the verbs or a disjunctive separating them. This may be translated as, “We will rebuild the ruins,” yet in this context, I prefer to see it as a separate idea. They will return (to the land from exile) and build, just as Israel returned and built upon the ruins of Jerusalem. Either way, the overall idea is the same.
וְנִבְנֶ֣ה — Qal CVI 1cs + vav cop; conj accent, munach; (בָּנָה) — Qal: to build; See above. The munach connects the subject/verb with its object.
חֳרָב֔וֹת — n: fpa; disj accent, zaqeph; (חָרְבָּה) — waste, desolation, ruin; direct object of verb ונבה. The zaqeph disjunctive here marks a major division in the first line emphasizing a contrast between what Edom may say they will do and what YHWH says. If one sees this segment as the apodosis of a conditional sentence, then the next two segments, a remote zaqeph and a near tiphchah, form the protasis. This is the major break in the first half of this verse.
כֹּ֤ה — dem adv; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual gar; (כֹּה) — thus, here; Note the contrast between כי־תאמר אדום, “Though Edom may say…” and כה אמר יהוה, “Thus says YHVH,”. While normally the content of what YHVH says (אמר יהוה) follows this phrase, here the adverb כה points ahead to the content found in the tiphchah segment. If this represents a mahpak conjunctive, then it joins this adverb with the following verb. If it represents a virtual garshaim, substituting for a geresh, then it sets apart the adverb כה from the אמר. The remote-heavy pattern would suggest that is a conjunctive rather than a virtual disjunctive.
אָמַר֙ — Qal Pf 3ms; disj accent, psh; (אָמַר) — to say, speak; an instantaneous perfective. The pashta disjunctive separates the verb from the stated subject.
יְהוָ֣ה — pn: msc; conj accent, mun; (יְהוָה) — LORD, YHVH; subject of אמר; the munach joins this word in construct with the absolute which follows.
צְבָא֔וֹת — n: mpa; disj accent, zaq; (צָבָה) — host, army, war, warfare; The use of this genitive, a genitive of possession;[28] 28 YHVH possesses or controls the armies of heaven. here emphasizes YHWN’s power and ability to do as he states. The use of the disjunctive zaqeph is noteworthy. One might have expected a lesser rank disjunctive (a tebir possibly) thus dividing this line into two sections and making the last half parallel to the first half, i.e., though Edom may say then the content of their statement contrasted with thus says YHVH of hosts and the content of his statement. It is normal to separate the content of what YHVH says from the identification of YHVH speaking. Usually, it is in a full segment with the content in a single remote domain and the statement “says YHVH” or “says YHVH of Hosts” in the near domain.[29] 29 This occurs fifteen times in Malachi(1:8, 10, 11, 13, 14; 2:2, 4, 8, 16; 3:1, 5, 11, 12, 17; 4:3). Three times the speaker and the content are found in a fractional segment (with נְאֻם (1:2), with אָמַר (1:2, and 3:13). Seven times it is in a segment with a near domain and two remote domains (1:4, 6, 9; 2:16; 3:7, 10, 4:1)In Malachi with the exception of this verse, the identification of the speaker is always in the near subordinate domain. Here it is found in a remote domain. The line is divided into three parts, isolating and centering thus says YHVH of hosts, and setting it on equal rank with the other two segments. At the very least, it focuses attention on these words and gives them more emphasis.
הֵ֥מָּה — pers pro 3mp; accent, mer; (הֵמָּה) — personal and demonstrative pronoun; The pronoun is stated to add emphasis to the contrast between what they plan or intend to do and what YHWH will do. The mereka conjunctive joins the subject pronoun with its verb.
יִבְנ֖וּ — Qal Impf 3mp; accent, tip; (בָּנָה) — to build; This is the protasis of a conditional clause with an imperfective of possibility. “They may build (If they build)…” The tiphchah disjunctive divides the protasis from the apodosis.
וַאֲנִ֣י — pers pro 1cs + vav disjunctive; conj accent, mun; (אָ֫נִי אֲנִי) — I; The pronoun with the disjunctive vav contrasts what Edom intends to do with what YHWN will, in reality, do. This is a strong contrast here. This starts the apodosis of the conditional clause. Again, the munach conjunctive unites the subject pronoun with its verb.
אֶהֱר֑וֹס — Qal Impf 1cs; disj accent, ath; (הָרַס) — to throw down, break down, tear down; This is an imperfective of specific future. The athnach divides this verse into two lines. The first line states a contrast between what Edom may intend to do with what YHWH will in fact do. The second line then gives the outcome of this.
וְקָרְא֤וּ — Qal RVP 3cp; + vav cons; conj accent, mah; / disj accent, virtual gar (קָרָא) — to call, proclaim, read; a vav relative perfective. This is a logical consequence of YHWH tearing down what they may build up. The subject, third person masculine plural, represent indefinite others, those out there. In English, this idea is more commonly stated as a passive. Instead of “They will be calling them,” English idiom would say “They will be called.” I prefer the translation, “[people] will be calling them,” because it preserves the imperfective aspect. The vav relative perfective would represent a specific future with an imperfective aspect. This verb can take two objects, (1) the person named and (2) the name.[30] 30 IBHS, p. 175 The mahpak conjunctive again seems to represent a virtual garshaim separating the verb from the person named.
לָהֶם֙ — prep + 3mp suf; disj accent, psh; (לְ) — to, for; The לְ introduces the person to whom a name, the accusative of appellation, is named (called). The pashta disjunctive separates this from the following noun which is an accusative (the name they are called) of the verb וקראו.
גְּב֣וּל — n: msc; conj accent, mun; (גְּבוּל) — border, boundary, territory; This noun names what the people of Edom will be called. While the word primarily refers to the boundaries of something, by metonymy it comes to refer to the area enclosed by those boundaries, thus territory. It is a second object following וקראו. The munach joins this construct with its absolute.
רִשְׁעָ֔ה — n: fsa; disj accent, zaq; (רִשְׁעָה) — wickedness; This is an attributive genitive. The absolute noun is an attribute of the construct. The disjunctive zaqeph divides this line into two parts. The zaqeph segment contains the main verb and subject of this half of verse 4, “They (indefinite) will call...” and one of the two things that they will be called, “a wicked territory.” The tiphchah segment gives the second thing said about Edom.
וְהָעָ֛ם — n: msa + art + vav cop; disj accent, teb; (עַם עָם) — people; The vav is a clausal conjunctive vav adding another thing that will be called out or said to/about Edom. This whole segment is a second description of Edom, i.e., a second accusative of appellation after the verb וקראו. It is a verbless clause of identification. The tebir disjunctive separates the subject, the people, from the predicate, against whom YHVH is indignant forever. The definite article’s use here lifts this out of the indefinite.
אֲשֶׁר־ — rel pro; maq; (אֲשֶׁר) — (with, against) whom; the relative introduces a clause describing עם above. The maqqeph links this word with the verb of the relative clause.
זָעַ֥ם — Qal Pf 3ms; conj accent, mer; (זָעַם) — to be indignant; A curative stative perfective which indicates an ongoing emotional response “is indignant against." The conjunctive mereka joins this with the subject of the verb.
יְהוָ֖ה — pn: msa; disj accent, tip; (יְהוָה) — LORD, YHWH; subject of זעם. The tiphchah segment is somewhat parallel to the remote zaqeph segment stating another thing that will be said about Edom. The tiphchah, separates the subject and verb from the prepositional phrase acting as an adverbial modifier.
עַד־ — prep; maq; (עַד) — as far as, up to, even to, until, while. The preposition is connected to its object with the maqqeph.
עוֹלָֽם׃ — n: msa; disj accent, sil; (עֹולָם) — long duration, antiquity, eternity. Silluq ends this line.
Although this was written in reference to a people, Edom, who rejected YHVH as their God, it is also relevant to believers today. While planning is very important and should been carefully done and while it is laudable to set one’s goals high, too often we make our plans and leave God out of the equation, not caring or neglecting what his will might be. In our pride, we think it depends only upon us (Proverbs 16:9; 21:31and James 4:13-17). We should always remember how our Lord taught us to pray. The first three things we should seek in prayer are (1) may your name be made holy, (2) may your kingdom come and (3) may your will be done. When we make our plans, set our objectives and seek God’s blessing in these endeavors, do we preface and, with sincerity, condition them with this prayer? Do we seek our will first or his?
We must also bear in mind that no matter how powerful a person or group may be or seem, how arrogantly they may boast of what they will do, they can do nothing unless the LORD of Hosts allows them to act. He alone is in ultimate control. It is he who has the armies, the hosts of heaven.
Now your eyes will see [this],‡ |
but you will say, “YHWH will be great | |
over (and beyond) the territory of Israel!”‡ |
Verse five continues and concludes the initial subject of God’s love for his people. Israel, the priests in particular, had ceased to believe this, and this failure had led to or exacerbated other problems. Yet as proof of his love, he points out that he chose them, Jacob’s descendants over the Edomites, Esau’s descendants and had destroyed Edom. As to the unstated objection that Edom may rebuild just as Israel was doing, YHWH said he would frustrate any attempt on their part to do so, and, as a result, people would realize and say Edom was a wicked nation which had been completely judged by him. In this verse which closes this section, YHVH states they also would see this, yet their conclusion would be different; their focus would be YHVH’s greatness. In particular, YHVH’s greatness would extend over and beyond their own small nation of Israel.
The first line, the athnach segment, begins with a disjunctive vav shifting the observers from the previous verse, “they will call them,” i.e., the people around Edom who see YHVH’s judgment on them, to “now your eyes”, or Israel, YHVH’s chosen people. This short fractional segment, just two Hebrew words, sets the stage of the silluq segment.
The second line also indicates a strong contrast, “but you will say.” While the other people around Edom spoke of YHVH’s judgment of Edom, Israel would instead see and speak of YHVH’s greatness. And this greatness would not just be over Israel but extend beyond to the nations. The silluq segment is full. The remote zaqeph segment contains the subject, “but you”, the verb, “will say”, and part of the content of what will be said, “Great will be YHVH….” The near tiphchah segment completes the content with the adverbial phrase, “over and beyond the territory of Israel.”
וְעֵינֵיכֶ֖ם — n: fdc + 2mp suf + vav; disj accent, accent, tip (עַיִן) — eye; The disjunctive vav indicates a shift in scene or new characters.[31] 31 IBHS p. 650-652The tiphchah disjunctive separates the subject from the verb.
תִּרְאֶ֑ינָה — Qal Impf 3fp; disj accent, ath (רָאָה) — to see; a specific future imperfective. The athnach marks the central division of this verse. A very short first line (two Hebrew words!) with a much longer second line. The athnach segment is fractional rather than empty, the subject being set apart from the verb by the tiphchah. This adds emphasis to the subject. In the previous verse the subject was an indefinite they, i.e., the peoples around Edom which included Israel but was not specifically pointing them out. People in general would see the destruction and comment on the state of Edom. YHWH now says, “But your eyes,” YOU, will see this and say/think something different. This contrast between what they will see and say is continued in the first two words of the second line (silluq segment) when the writer begins the 2nd person plural pronoun with the vav attached emphasizing a contrast.
וְאַתֶּ֤ם — pers pro 2mp + vav; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual garshaim (אַתֶּם) — you; There is a contrast between what they (undefined, indefinite audience) will say about the Edomites in the previous verse with what YHWH’s people (the priests and all Israel) will say when they see this. The mahpak probably represents a virtual garshaim separating the pronoun from the verb.
תֹּֽאמְרוּ֙ — Qal Impf 2mp; disj accent, psh and auxiliary accent met (אָמַר) — to say; a specific future imperfective which parallels the use of imperfective in תראינה above. The pashta disjunctive separates the subject and verb, “but you will say” from part of the content of what is said.
יִגְדַּ֣ל — Qal Impf/Jus 3ms; conj accent, mun (גָּדַל) — to grow up, to become great; While this could either be an imperfective, “YHVH will be great” or a jussive, “May YHWH be great,” I understand it in this context as a specific future imperfective. The munach links this verb with its subject.
יְהוָ֔ה — pn: msa; disj accent, zaq (יְהוָה) — LORD, YHWH; The subject of the verb יגדל. The zaqeph on this word marks the major division of this second line. The first half of this line, the zaqeph segment, states the subject, verb and content of the statement Israel will make, while the last part of this line, the tiphchah segment, is adverbial, stating the extent to which this is true. This placement of the zaqeph is somewhat unusual. One might have expected a zaqeph on the word תֹּֽאמְרוּ, which then would have separated the “but you will say” from the whole content of what they will say? Or why not have this silluq segment fractional with only a tiphchah segment. This would have the athnach separating two clauses of equal rank. A lesser disjunctive (tebir) then would separate the pronoun + verb from the object. This also might have expected. While a disjunctive can separate an adverbial phrase, from a clause, normally the adverbial phrase comes first. Here, instead, it separates the clause, but you will say, “YHVH will be great” from the adverbial phrase, “over/beyond the territory of Israel.”[32] 32 See SMA, pp. 33-34 This arrangement gives more weight to the extent of YHVH’s greatness.
מֵעַ֖ל — prep + מִן; disj accent, tip (עַל) — upon, over, from upon; BDB states. “chiefly late, and pleon. for, עַל, or else = the more class. syn מִמַּעַל לְ...Mal 1:5 upon, over the border (territory) of Israel (so Köhl Ke : but Hi Ew We beyond .”[33] 33 BDB, p. 1828 The idea of beyond comes with the addition of מן to the preposition על. Extending from over the borders, outward. That this is the idea seems to be corroborated by the next section where YHVH’s name will be great among the nations. The tiphchah necessarily falls in the preposition which is the next to last word-unit in the silluq segment.
לִגְב֥וּל — n: msc + prep לְ; conj accent, mer (גְּבוּל) — border, boundary, territory; Note: same word גבול is used in the previous verse in relation to Edom. Use of repetition, Epizeuxis[34] 34 BUL, p. 189 This use adds emphasis to the contrast made between God’s choosing (loving Jacob) but not choosing (hating) Esau. Again, this is a use of metonymy. The mereka conjoins this construct with the absolute noun, ישׂראל.
יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ — pn: msa; disj accent, sil (יִשְׂרָאֵל) — Israel; The silluq ends this half of the verse.
Sometimes Christians, at least those on the conservative end of the spectrum, downplay the idea of positive thinking. When this shifts the focus away from the work of a sovereign God responding to the faith of a believer to the power of a human being who thinks positive thoughts about something, it is indeed a problem. But much of the time believers look at events and see only the negative side rather than seeing, or at least understanding through faith that in all things a sovereign God is working things for His ultimate glory and our good (Romans 8:28-30).
I suspect that all of us when we stand before him in the kingdom will look back at episodes in our lives when all we saw were the hard times, difficulties, and struggles. And then we will see the fuller picture where the greatness and glory of our God shines through not just in our lives but beyond to others.
A son honors a father and a servant, his master.‡ |
“But if I am a father, where is my honor? ~ And if I am a master, where is my respect?” ~ says YHWH of Hosts \ to you, \ O Priests, who are despising my name. | |
Yet you are saying, | |
"How have we been despising your name?"‡ |
This verse begins a new paragraph which encompasses verses six through thirteen. The author began his message to the nation by dealing with an underlying belief that affected everything else they did. They did not really believe their God loved them. Now Malachi will deal with their actions that arise because of this misconception; namely, it was affecting how they carried out their duties as priests in the offering of the sacrifices. They were disrespecting Him. Using the same literary device he used in the first paragraph, the writer begins by stating they were despising YHVH’s name which is equivalent to saying they were despising him. Then he goes on to state objection of the priests to this statement in the form of a question, “How are we despising your name?” He will start the third part of this device in the following verse.
The first line is very short just five Hebrew words. In it, Malachi records a proverb, stating a general truth which provides the backdrop for the much longer second line, twenty-two words. The athnach segment is fractional having only a subordinate near tiphchah segment and does not have as strong a break as would a full athnach segment with a remote zaqeph segment. The overall idea of the proverb is that respect should be given to whom it is due. This being established then, the major emphasis now falls on the larger second line.
The silluq segment is full and much more complex with three major divisions, a near tiphchah segment (four words), a remote small great zaqeph segment (one word) and a large remote zaqeph segment (seventeen words). Again, this is the accusation and the response placed together. It sets the stage for YHVH’s response in the rest of this chapter. In this line, Malachi states the first two parts of the literary device he uses several times in this book. He makes an accusation against the priests in the first zaqeph segment which is the largest by far and receives the most emphasis; the priests respond to that accusation in the last two smaller segments, the second zaqeph segment and the closing tiphchah segment. The large zaqeph segment also is divided into three parts with the emphasis falling on the larger remote rebia segment. Here YHVH makes his accusation by way of two questions which are used not to elicit an answer but to dramatically make a statement.
The second subordinate division of the silluq segment, the second zaqeph segment, states that the priests, in contrast to YHVH, were saying something contrary. The last segment, the tiphchah segment, records the content of what they were saying. Again, it is in the form of a question not so much wanting a reply but rather to express their denial that they were disrespecting YHVH.
בֵּ֛ן — n: msa; disj accent, teb; (בֵּן) — son; בן is the subject of יכבד. The tebir disjunctive separates the subject from the verb and its object.
יְכַבֵּ֥ד — Piel Impf 3ms; conj accent, mer; (כָּבֵד) — to make heavy, honorable, to honor, glorify; Waltke and O’Conner would call this a habitual non-perfective. While a perfect would be a gnomic perfect representing this action as a whole, the use of the imperfective (non-perfective) represents it as an ongoing repeated action.[35] 35 IBHS p. 506 This is something that sons normally do all the time. The mereka conjunctive ties this to אב, the object of the verb, binding these into one word-unit.
אָ֖ב — n: msa; disj accent, tip; (אָב) — father; It is the direct object or acc of יכבד. The disjunctive tiphchah marks the major division in the first line, While the tiphchah segment is coterminal in this case to the athnach segment, it also serves to separate two parallel parts, the proper domain of the athnach from the rest of the tiphchah segment. This part of the tiphchah segment gives one example of honoring; the proper domain of the athnach segment gives a second example.
וְעֶ֣בֶד — n: msa + vav; conj accent, mun; (עֶבֶד) — servant; The vav is clausal, connecting the clauses. It is a simple conjunction placing propositions or clauses one after another, without indicating the hierarchical relation between them.[36] 36 IBHS. 649This is a nominal clause with the verb in the previous clause being understood but not stated. עבד is the subject. The conjunctive munach links this with the next word אדון. These two words in the proper domain state the subject and the object while the verb is unstated being drawn or understood from the stated verb earlier. A son honors a father and a servant, his master.
אֲדֹנָ֑יו — n: mpc + 3ms suf; disj accent, ath; (אָדוֹן) — lord, master; The context clearly indicates this to be a reference to a human master and not to YHWH. It is a plural of rank. The athnach indicates the major division of this verse marking the end of the first line. The first line states a truth in the form of a proverb which is the basis for the accusation made in the much longer second line. This segment is fractional, not strongly divided into two major parts by a tiphchah segment and a zaqeph segment. This seems to indicate that the major idea is that honor is due, regardless of whether it a son or a servant who is to give it.
וְאִם־ — cond ptcl + vav; maq; (אִם) — if; This particle introduces the protasis of a verbless conditional clause. The vav is mildly disjunctive and in this context, points out a change. The setting is the same as the preceding clause, i.e., sons honoring fathers, servants, masters, yet now it is specifically applied to YHWH as a father and Israel as sons. The maqqeph units this word strongly with the following word making them a single unit.
אָ֣ב — n: msa; conj accent, mun; (אָב) — father; pred nom of verbless clause; This is a clause of classification in which the normal word order is pred - subj, “But if I am a father....” It is a metaphor. YHVH speaks of himself anthropomorphically. He is not a father in the same way a man is the father of a human child, but he is comparing himself to a father in that his relationship with the nation of Israel is like a father-son relationship. He is their father in the sense that he brought them forth from the womb of Egypt as an infant nation. The munach unites the predicate with the subject.
אָ֣נִי — pers pro 1cs; conj accent, mun; (אָ֫נִי אֲנִי) — I; subj of a verbless clause; (see above). Again, there is a conjunctive accent which connects this word to the next. Had this been in a higher ranking segment[37] 37 This is a hierarchy five segment which does not admit further disjunctives. one would expect a disjunctive separating the protasis from the apodosis.
אַיֵּ֣ה — Inter ptcl; conj accent, mun; (אַיֵּה) — where? This is an interrogative locative particle used in verbless clauses.[38] 38 IBHS p. 328 As in the questions in verse 2, these are not so much informational but to dramatize the idea that the honor due YHVH as a father or as a master was lacking. This is the apodosis of this conditional statement. It is connected to the following noun with a munach conjunctive.
כְבוֹדִ֡י — n: m(f)sc + 1cs suf; disj accent, paz; (כָּבוֹד) — abundance, honor, glory; The pazer disjunctive separates this clause with the next which parallels it. This is a rhetorical question i.e., erotesis, in that YHWH is not so much asking for information as to where his honor is but strongly pointing out to the hearers that it is lacking. They do not honor him.
וְאִם־ — con/inter ptcl + vav; maq; (אִם) — if; This vav is a simple conjunctive vav connecting two parallel statements. Again, the particle אם introduces a verbless clause which forms the protasis of a conditional clause. As above, it is linked to the following word with a maqqeph.
אֲדוֹנִ֣ים — n: mpa; conj accent, mun; (אָדוֹן) — lord, master; Again, this is a metaphor. YHVH is speaking anthropomorphically as if he were a human master whom they served. As God is in authority over them; he is their creator and owner. As in the previous clause this is the predicate nominative of a verbless classification. “And if I am a master....” Again, a conjunctive munach joins this word with the next.
אָנִי֩ — personal pro 1cs; conj lte; (אָ֫נִי אֲנִי) — I; subj of a verbless clause; With a higher ranking disjunctive than geresh, one would have expected a disjunctive to separate the protasis from the apodosis. It can only be served by conjunctives; the expected conjunctives would be azla, little telisha and a munach in that order, which is the case. Since this is the second of three conjunctives, it is a little telisha.
אַיֵּ֨ה — adv inter; conj accent, azl; (אַיֵּה) — where? This is a interrogative locative particle used in verbless clauses. (See note on this word above.) The conjunctive is the expected azla.
מוֹרָאִ֜י — n: msc + 1cs suf; disj accent, ger; (מֹורָא) — fear, respect, reverence; This word “may refer to the emotion of fear as in the case of the fear of Noah placed in the animals (Gen 9:2) or reverence toward God (mal 1:6).”[39] 39 TWOT, p 400 Note that it parallels the use of כבוד. The geresh marks the end of this parallel remote domain[40] 40 Normally a geresh marks a subordinate near domain in a tebir, pashta, zarqa or rebia segment, but a rebia segment may have a subordinate legarmeh segment which functions in this case as the subordinate near segment. The geresh segment then functions as a remote subordinate segment.of the rebia segment. The two far segments (the geresh and the pazer) make up the content of What YHWH is saying ,the near segment (a legarmeh segment) identifies the speaker. It is YHWH. The geresh marks the main division of the rebia segment separating the content from the statement that YHWH says this.
אָמַ֣ר׀ — Qal Pf 3ms; disj accent, leg; (אָמַר) — to say, speak; instantaneous perfective; The legarmeh marks the near domain identifying the speaker of the content that is found in the two remote domains of the rebia segment. It also serves to separate the verb, אָמַר, from its stated subjected, יהוה צבאות.
יְהוָ֣ה — pn: msc; conj accent, mun; (יְהוָה) — LORD, YHWH; subject of אמר; The munach connects this word with its construct (genitive).
צְבָא֗וֹת — n: mpa; disj accent, reb; (צָבָה) — host, army, war, warfare; This description again emphasizes the power and authority of YHWH. He is a master that deserves respect and honor! The rebia disjunctive, marks the end of the first far remote subordinate domain of the zaqeph segment. In summary of this rebia segment, it was divided into three subordinate domains, a legarmeh, a geresh, and a pazer segment. These followed a normal pattern with the near segment, the legarmeh, identifying the speaker and the other two segments being parallel statements of the content of what the speaker said.
לָכֶם֙ — prep + 3mp suf; disj accent, pshB; (לְ) — to, for; This pashta-B is a substitute for a rebia disjunctive[41] 41 see SMA p. 62, footnote 21 because this segment consists of single word. What is noteworthy is that this makes this accusation personal. YHVH says this “To you!” He is singling out one specific group in Israel. The ל indicates to whom YHWH is speaking. He is speaking to you (i.e., the priests) and addressing them in the second person. The pashta-B then sets apart this identification from the explanation of to whom this pronoun refers in the pashta segment, the near subordinate domain of the zaqeph segment.
הַכֹּֽהֲנִים֙ — n: mpa + art; disj accent, psh; (כֹּהֵן) — priest; This pashta marks the near subordinate domain of the zaqeph segment. This is a nominative of address indicated by the previous second person pronoun and the noun having the article,[42] 42 IBHS p. 130 “…to you, O Priests.” This dramatically adds force to the singling out of the priests as the person who are addressed by YHVH. Although the pashta segment extends forward to the word bearing the zaqeph, the accent placed necessarily here does separate the vocative of address with the following description of the persons addressed.
בּוֹזֵ֣י — Qal act ptcp mpc; conj accent, mun; (בָּזָה) — to despise; This is a relative participle describing הכהנים. It is conjoined with a munach to the following word, the object of the verbal action described by the participle. While the relative participle does not express time or aspect in itself,[43] 43 IBHS, p. 623 context determines this, and it seems the priests had been doing this and were doing it at the time this was stated. This describes those whom YHVH was addressing.
שְׁמִ֔י — n: msc + 1cs suf; disj accent, zaq; (שֵׁם) — name; This is a reference to the personal covenant name of God (YHVH). By metonymy it becomes a designation for God himself.[44] 44 BDB, p. 2496 The zaqeph segment marks the end of the longest of the three sub segments of the silluq segment or last line. It is the major division of the silluq segment, separating what YHWH says to the priests from what they are saying in reply. The name, שׁם, represented the very person of God, to despise or disrespect his name meant to despise or disrespect YHVH himself.
וַאֲמַרְתֶּ֕ם — Qal RVP 2mp + vav cons; disj accent, great zaqeph; (אָמַר) — to say, speak; The disjunctive accent is a great zaqeph which is a substitute for a (little) zaqeph because the segment is empty and consists of only one word.[45] 45 SMA p. 66 It is a relative vav perfective indicating a logical connection (contrast) with the preceding. The RVP also indicates an imperfective aspect which could be progressive, “but you are saying,” or perhaps specific future, “but you will say.” This disjunctive disjoins the subject/verb from the content of what they are saying.
בַּמֶּ֥ה — inter pro + prep בְּ; conj accent, mer; (מָה) — whereby, wherewith, wherein, by what means, at what worth, for what; It is the use of erotesis in refusal, denial or doubt[46] 46 BUL, p. 953 as in 1:2. The mereka joins this word with the following.
בָזִ֖ינוּ — Qal Pf 1cp; disj accent, tip; (בָּזָה) — to despise; perhaps a persistent present perfect, an action in the past and continuing into the present. Although it is placed here, the tiphchah disjunctive is coterminal with the word on which the silluq disjunctive falls and it serves to separate the subject/verb from the object.
אֶת־ — ptcl, noun indicator; maq; (אֵת) — Indicates the definite direct object. This, as is common, is linked by a maqqeph to its object, שׁמך, your name.
שְׁמֶֽךָ — n: msc + 2ms suf; disj accent, sil; (שֵׁם) — name; The full silluq segment (second line) is much more complex than the athnach segment (first line). It has a near tiphchah segment and two remote segments, the first marked with a great zaqeph and the second marked with a (little) zaqeph. The greatest emphasis falls on the beginning of this line.
In the last part of line two of this verse, YHVH makes his accusation very personal. It reads, “to you,” i.e., those to whom the book is addressed; then he adds a vocative of address and a description, “O Priests, who are despising my name.” Imagine, if you will, the divine courtroom with the LORD God presiding not only as the judge, but unlike our system, the prosecutor as well. As he states the offense that, as a father and master, he has not received the honor and respect due him, he raises his hand and points his finger at the priests standing before him and says, “I say this to YOU, O priests, who are despising my name!” And all eyes turn and focus on this group of priests!
Their reply, the last two parts of line 2, like the first line, are very short (five Hebrew words). YHVH states, “Yet you are saying, ‘How have we been despising your name?’” This question is used as a denial of the accusation. After all, in their thinking they are the priests, those who stand before YHVH on behalf of the nation serving the one true God. How could they be despising his name? They would not think of saying anything disrespectful of their God! However, YHVH will tell them in the verses that follow that it is not what they actually said in words, but what they were saying in their deeds that disrespected him.
If our LORD Jesus Christ were to summon you before him today in his court of judgment, and if he were to point his finger at you and ask, “Where is the honor and glory due my name?” what would your response be? Would you reply as did these priests and say, “Just how have I been disrespecting your name?” or would you carefully examine your life to see if what the LORD said is indeed true, maybe not in words so much as in actions?
I am convinced that I have been and am guilty of that which YHVH accused these priests. I am also convinced that the majority of believers today, at least in our culture in this country, are guilty as well. May our God grant us all insight and wisdom as we examine our own lives in light of the continuing study of this book. May he grant us the spiritual strength needed to change what must be changed so that he, and he alone has all the glory and honor due his name.
[You are] bringing to my altar defiled food. | |
But you are saying 'How have we defiled you?'‡ |
When you say, | |
‘The table of the LORD, it is contemptible.’"‡ |
The writer now begins to answer the objection of the priests as to how they were disrespecting his name. He employs the same device he has used earlier. In the initial part of the first line, YHVH makes an accusation that they disrespect his name when offering on the altar defiled food, i.e., contaminated animals. He groups the accusation with the response of the priests, in the last part of this line, and states their objection in the form of a question. In the second line, YHVH begins to respond to their denial. Malachi explains they were doing this when they say the table of YHVH, a reference to the altar, was contemptible.
The verse divides into two lines, an athnach and a silluq segment; both are full. The athnach is divided into two parts, a near empty tiphchah segment and a remote fractional zaqeph segment. The zaqeph segment contains the accusation with the verb and prepositional phrase being separated from the direct object by the pashta disjunctive. The empty tiphchah segment contains the objection of the priests. In this case, the tiphchah disjunctive serves to separate the verb from its object, the content of what they were saying.
The silluq segment marks the start of YHVH’s response. Like the athnach segment it divides into two parts, a empty remote great zaqeph segment and a empty near tiphchah segment. The one-word great zaqeph segment is the verb, “When you say,” and the tiphchah segment is the content of what they, the priests, say, “the table of YHVH, it is contemptible.”
מַגִּישִׁ֤ים — Hiphil ptcp mpa; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual garshaim (נָגַשׁ) — to bring near approach; Pred use of the participle; The subject, which is not specified in this verse, but indicated by the masculine plural inflection, refers back to the הכהנים in previous verse. The use of the participle indicates this was an ongoing state of affairs.[47] 47 IBHS p. 625 This is YHWH's response to the question of the priests. This word is used by Malachi six times, and it is always in reference to making a sacrifice.[48] 48 TWOT, p. 554 The mahpak probably represents a virtual garshaim separating the verb (participle) with the prepositional phrase; if not, it unites them.
עַֽל־ — prep; maq + aux met accent (עַל) — over, upon, according to, against, above, beyond; The maqqeph joins the preposition with its object.
מִזְבְּחִי֙ — n: msc + 1cs suf; disj accent, psh (מִזבֵּחַ) — altar; object of preposition אל, The suffix is a genitive of possession.[49] 49 It could possibly be a genitive of association. See IBHS, p. 153. More notes in full footnote. See endnotes. The pashta separates the direct object from the rest of the clause.
לֶ֣חֶם — n: msa; conj accent, mun (לֶחֶם) — bread, food; direct object of מגישׁים; This is the figure of speech of hypocatastasis or comparison by implication. YHVH does not say their offerings are like food for a meal or feast (a simile) or that it is food for such (a metaphor). Rather, he simply implies this. This implied comparison is continued in the second line where he states the priest say that the table (not the altar) of YHVH is contemptible. Note that in the next verse he continues this comparison by suggesting they bring this to their governor. The munach links this noun with the participle which qualifies it.
מְגֹאָ֔ל — Pual ptcp msa; disj accent, zaq (גָאַל) — to be defiled; The participle is used as an attributive adjective, defiled food or food which is defiled. This defiling can be from any breach of moral or ceremonial law.[50] 50 TWOT, p. 145The zaqeph marks the division of the first line of this verse into two parts. the first part of line one (the zaqeph segment) is YHWH's answer to the question of the priests found in the last part of the previous verse. The last part of this first line (the tiphchah segment) records their response to YHWN's answer. This is another use of statement, question and rebuttal device used by Malachi.
וַאֲמַרְתֶּ֖ם — Qal RVPf 2mp; + vav cons; disj accent, tip (אָמַר) — to say, speak; It is a relative vav perfective indicating a logical connection (contrast) with the preceding. The relative vav perfective also indicates an imperfective aspect which could be progressive, “but you are saying,” or perhaps specific future, “but you will say.” The tiphchah disjunctive marks the empty subordinate near domain of the athnach segment. Although its domain is coterminal with the athnach, it also serves to separate the subject/verb from the content of what they were saying or will say.
בַּמֶּ֣ה — inter pro + prep בְּ; conj accent, mun; (מָה) — whereby, wherewith, wherein, by what means, at what worth, for what; The interrogative indicates the response by the priests is a question. Again, this is not a question seeking information as much as it is a rhetorical question expressing doubt or disbelief. The munach, the conjunctive which serves the athnach disjunctive, links this word with the following verb.
גֵֽאַלְנ֑וּךָ — Piel Pf 1cp; + 2ms suf; disj accent, ath (גָאַל) — to pollute, desecrate; a persistent (present) perfective; The second person singular suffix is interesting in that it indicates that in presenting defiled bread upon the altar they realize they are, in fact, defiling YHWH himself. The athnach here marks the end of the first line. In the first line of verse seven, YHWH answers the question of the priests found in the last line of verse six, i.e., “How have we been despising your name?” But YHWH’s answer only elicits another question from the priests. In the second line of verse seven, the silluq segment, YHWH responds to this question.
בֶּאֱמָרְכֶ֕ם — Qal inf cstr + 2mp suf + prep בְּ; disj accent, great zaq (אָמַר) — to say, speak; nominal use of infinitive construct, object of prep ב. The suffix is subjective. Temporal (possibly causal) use of prep ב with the infinitive construct; YHWH is addressing the priests here, the second masculine plural suffix referring back to הכהנים in verse six. “when you say...” The remote great zaqeph divides this second line of the verse into two parts; the first (great zaqeph segment) contains the subject and verb and, the last (tiphchah segment) the content of what they were saying. The verb אמר includes more than literally speaking out loud, instead here it is the idea of saying or thinking to themselves or the idea they were communicating (they were saying) by their actions.
שֻׁלְחַ֥ן — n: msc; conj accent, mer (שֻׁלְחָן) — table; This is the use of metonymy; here table represents the event associated with this noun, a dinner feast. Waltke and O’Connor offer two analyses of the word order here. A classifying verbless clause with subject-predicate-pronoun, or a casus pendens analysis where שֻׁלְחַ֥ן יְהוָ֖ה, the subject is focused upon or emphasized, followed by predicate-subject, the pronoun being the subject of the participle.[51] 51 IBHS, p.298 The accentuation seems to favor a casus pendens explanation, “The table of YHVH, it is contemptible.” See also verse twelve. As in the first line, this is hypocatastasis or an implied comparison. The mereka links this construct noun with its absolute acting as a possessive genitive.
יְהוָ֖ה — pn: msc; disj accent, tip (יְהוָה) — LORD YHWH; Possessive genitive; The tiphchah disjunctive in this silluq segment, as it does in the athnach segment, marks an empty subordinate near domain and serves to separate the noun and its genitive, which emphasize the subject, from the predicate and subject.
נִבְזֶ֥ה — Niphal ptcp msa; conj accent, mer (בָּזָה) — to be despised, despicable, contemptible; The use of this word connects this statement with the previous verse where this word was also used. This is a predicate use of the participle. The mereka, which is the conjunctive that serves the silluq disjunctive links the verb with its subject.
הֽוּא — Pers pro + 3ms; disj accent, sil (הוּא) — he/it, that, that one; subject of נבזה. See note above under שׁלחן.
The priests were dishonoring YHVH when they said (by their actions) that the task their God had appointed them to do, offering the sacrifices for themselves and their people, was contemptible. What exactly they thought about that task is not explicitly stated other than it was contemptible.
What has the LORD called us today to do? What task has he given us? Do we consider it trivial, below us? Does it not pay enough? Look at the attitude our current society has about women who choose to stay at home and be homemakers. They are given less recognition than women who have achieved high positions in business or government. Male or female, young or old, do you believe what you are currently doing beneath what you should or could be doing? Be careful! That attitude may result in your giving less than the best in the current task your God has given you just as it did for these priests so long ago.
"For when you bring a blind [animal] to sacrifice, is it not evil? | |
And when you bring a lame and sick [animal], is it not evil?‡ |
So, offer it now to your governor! \ Will he be pleased with you \ or favorably accept you?" | |
says YHWH of Hosts.‡ |
YHVH has stated the priests are saying the table of YHVH is contemptible and are thus defiling him in verse seven. Now in verse eight, he clarifies how they are doing this. First, he states forcefully they are offering flawed animals as sacrifices in violation of the Law. Having established this, in the second line, he now continues the comparison started in the previous verse. First, he tells them to give this offering to their governor for his table. Then, second, he asks, “Will this make the governor happy or more inclined to act in your favor?” The implied answer is very clear; of course not! Nor would they even consider doing this!
As is common, this verse divides into an athnach and silluq segment, both full. The athnach segment consists of a remote zaqeph segment and a near tiphchah segment. The zaqeph segment is fractional with only a near pashta domain. The pashta disjunctive serves to separate the dependent temporal clause, “when you bring a blind [animal] to sacrifice,” from the independent clause, “is it not evil?” The tiphchah segment, also fractional with a near tebir domain, is parallel to the zaqeph segment with a dependent temporal clause and an independent interrogative clause. However, in this case, the tebir disjunctive separates the verb of the temporal clause, “when you bring,” from its object, “a lame and sick [animal]” and the tiphchah disjunctive separates this temporal clause from the independent clause, “is it not evil?”
The second line or silluq segment has a full remote zaqeph domain and a fractional near tiphchah domain. The zaqeph segment consists of the content of a statement; the tiphchah segment is the declaration of who made that statement. The statement itself, the zaqeph segment, is divided into three subordinate domains, a remote rebia segment, a remote pashta-B segment substituting for musical reasons for a rebia segment, and a near yethib segment substituting for pashta segment.[52] 52 SMA, p.80, 83 The rebia segment is an imperative made in light of the idea found in the first line. The pashta-B and the yethib segments are rhetorical questions which follow from the potential execution of that command.
וְכִֽי־ — Conj + vav; maq (כִּי) — The vav is a clausal vav. It is epexegetical or one which “may stand before clauses which serve to clarify or specify the sense of the preceding clause....”[53] 53 IBHS, p. 652 The conjunction כי is conditional and introduces the protasis of a real conditional clause “for when...” or “for if….” YHVH is explain how they are saying the table of YHVH is contemptible. The maqqeph unites the conjunction with the following verb.
תַגִּשׁ֨וּן — Hiphil Impf 2mp + paragogic nun; conj accent, azl (נָגַשׁ) — to bring; The imperfective is an imperfective of contingency. The paragogic nun might indicate that the action performed by these priests was contrary to what was expected.[54] 54 IBHS, p. 517 The conjunction azla connects the verb with the direct object.
עִוֵּ֤ר — adj msa; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual garshaim (עִוֵּר) — blind; substantival adjective, direct object of תגשׁון. It is indefinite, a blind [animal], any animal that is blind. This might be a virtual garshaim which separates the subject/verb and object of the temporal clause, וְוכי־תגשׁון עור, from the purpose clause, לזבח, or simply a mahpak connecting these. At this point I am inclined to favor the virtual garshaim This would make the athnach segment more parallel in accentuation to the silluq and consistent with the remote-heavy pattern.
לִזְבֹּ֨חַ֙ — Qal inf cstr + prep לְ; disj accent, psh (זָבַח) — to slaughter for sacrifice; infinitive construct + ל expressing purpose.[55] 55 in order to sacrifice or for a sacrifice The disjunctive pashta governs the near domain of the fractional zaqeph segment and serves to separate the protasis from the apodosis of the conditional clause.
אֵ֣ין — existential ptcl; conj accent, mun (אֵין) — is it not? The context indicates this is a question. This is the apodosis of the first conditional clause. The subject of the existential particle is the previous clause, וכי־תגשׁון עור לזבח or “For when you bring a blind [animal] to sacrifice,” The munach links this negative with the following predicate adjective.
רָ֔ע — adj; msa; disj accent, zaq (רַע) — evil, bad; predicate adjective following אין; The zaqeph marks the end of the first half of the first line of verse eight. The second half of this line (the tiphchah segment) is another parallel conditional clause.
וְכִ֥י — Conj + vav; conj accent, mer / disj accent, virtual garshaim (כִּי) — The conjunction כי is conditional and introduces the protasis of a conditional clause “and when....” Here, the vav is a clausal vav conjoining two parallel conditional clauses. The mereka, if it is the conjunctive, connects the conjunction כי with the following verb; if a virtual garshaim, then it separates it. If the mahpak in the previous pashta segment is a virtual garshaim, then this could well be one also.
תַגִּ֛ישׁוּ — Hiphil Impf 2mp; disj accent, teb (נָגַשׁ) — to bring; The imperfective is one of contingency used in the protasis of a conditional clause. The use of the disjunctive tebir in this tiphchah segment separates the verb from its two direct objects.
פִּסֵּ֥חַ — adj msa; conj accent, mer (פִּסֵּחַ) — lame (substantival use); one (indefinite) direct object of תַגִּישׁוּ above. The mereka connects this object with the following one.
וְחֹלֶ֖ה — Qal ptcp msa + vav; disj accent, tip, (חָלָה) — be weak, sick; The participle is used substantively (or perhaps adjectivally as a substantive) one (an animal) that is sick. It is a second (indefinite) direct object of תגישׁו; the vav is a phrasal conjunctive joining the two direct objects. The tiphchah, while marking the end of the tiphchah near segment, also serves to separate the protasis from the apodosis.
אֵ֣ין — existential ptcl: conj accent, mun (אֵין) — is it not; (see above) Again the subject is the preceding clause, וכי תגישׁו פסח וחלה or “And when you bring a lame and sick [animal].” The munach connects this word with the following predicate adjective.
רָ֑ע — adj msa; disj accent, ath (רַע) — evil, bad; The athnach marks the major division of this verse. The first line (a full athnach segment) contains two parallel conditional clauses, (a near tiphchah and a remote zaqeph). The second line (a full silluq segment) also has a near tiphchah and a remote zaqeph segment.
הַקְרִיבֵ֨הוּ — Hiphil Imp 2ms + 3ms suf; conj accent, azl (קָרָב) — to bring near, present; This is use of a the figure of speech called heterosis (of the verb), where one form of the verb is used for another.[56] 56 BUL, p. 512 Although this is an imperative, it is not used as such. YHVH is not instructing them to do this, but in a very forceful manner, stating if they were to do this, the outcome would not be something they wished. The azla links this imperative with the next particle.
נָ֜א — Ptcl of entreaty or exhortation or logical ptcl; disj accent, ger (נָא) — now, I pray, please, etc. Evidence suggests this could be a logical particle which connects the command with the context of what has been stated.[57] 57 See IBHS, p. 578. “So (in light of the deplorable condition of the animals you have) offer it to….” The geresh disjunctive separates the subject/verb/direct object from the indirect object indicated by the preposition ל on the next word.
לְפֶחָתֶ֗ךָ — n; msc + 2ms suf + prep לְ; disj accent, reb (פֶּחָה) — governor; an Aramaic loan word;[58] 58 For a discussion of these dinners by Persian governors see “150 Men at Nehemiah’s Table? The Role of the Governor’s Meals in the Achaemenid Provincial Economy” by Lisbeth S. Fried, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 137, No. 4 (Winter 2018), pp. 821-831. The zaqeph segment of this second line is the content of what is said and the silluq segment is the identification that it is YHVH of Hosts who speaks. The content in the zaqeph is divided into three parts by disjunctives. The rebia on this word marks the end of the first part of that content, an injunctive. The last two parts of the content, interrogative clauses, are marked by a pashta-B and yethib disjunctives.
הֲיִרְצְךָ֙ — Qal Impf 3ms + ה inter + 2ms suf; disj accent, pshB (רָצָה) — be pleased; specific future/impf of possibility? The ה interrogative indicates a question; here it is an example of erotesis, where a question is used for a purpose other than to elicit information. In this case, the speaker, YHVH, expects a strong negative answer. Of course not! The pashta-B indicates the end of the second part of the content of what YHVH says. It is a question in light of the previous injunctive.
א֚וֹ — conj; disj accent, yet (אוֹ) — or; The yethib, a substitute for a pashta, marks the third part of the content, a second question in light of the injunctive.
הֲיִשָּׂ֣א — Qal Impf 3ms +ה inter; conj accent, mun (נָשָׂא) — to lift up (to lift up the face, idiomatic for accepting or receiving someone) See note on הירצך above. The munach unites this verb with its direct object, the next word.
פָנֶ֔יךָ — n: mpc + 2ms suf; disj accent, zaq (פָּנִים) — your face; see preceding word. The zaqeph divides this line into two parts, separating the statement from the speaker.
אָמַ֖ר — Qal Pf 3ms; disj accent, tip (אָמַר) — to say; instantaneous perfective; The tiphchah serves to separate the verb from its stated subject.
יְהוָ֥ה — pn: msc; conj accent, mer (יְהוָה) — YHVH, subject of אמר. The mereka connect the construct with the absolute.
צְבָאֽוֹת׃ — n: mpa; disj accent, sil (צָבָה) — of Hosts, genitive following יהוה.
In order to drive home the truth of their disrespect for YHVH, the prophet compares their offering of the sacrifices with the gifts they would have brought to the Persian governor’s dinners. According to the Persian custom, if you had a request to make of the governor, you would attend his dinner usually bringing a gift which often would have been provisions for such a meal. These were very large dinner parties!
In setting up this comparison, Malachi first points out that the animals used by the priests in their sacrifices did not conform to the Old Testament regulations; it was wrong to offer such animals. Then Malachi tells them to take these same animals and bring them to a governor’s dinner. Did they really think this would be acceptable? Did they think they would have a favorable response to whatever their requests might have been? The implied answer is certainly not!
Perhaps we should use the same type of test in our service to our LORD. If you or I were trying to impress someone, perhaps gain their favor for a request we might want to make, what kind of gifts would we offer? Something of poor quality, shabby or hastily thrown together? I doubt it. If we were romantically courting a certain person, what would we bring to them, if we truly wanted success?
Compare this with what we offer God in our service to him? Do you serve in the church as a preacher or teacher? How well do you prepare in preparation? Is it done to the best of your ability or hastily thrown together? Do you lead singing or sing? Do you welcome? Do you do cleaning? Whatever your service may be, how well do you perform it? To the best of your ability, or just something to get by?
We must remember, when we serve, however and wherever we serve, we do not serve another human being; we serve our LORD (Colossians 3:22-24).
“And now entreat the favor of God that he might be gracious to us!‡ |
At your hand, if this were to happen, | |
will he show favor because of you?” | |
says YHWH of Hosts.‡ |
Having compared the offering of sacrifices to YHVH with the bringing of diseased animals to the governor’s feast with the certain implication that these would not be acceptable, Malachi now forcefully applies this to the priests in their sacrificial and intercessory ministry. He asks, do they really think YHVH will respond favorably if they were to do offer these sacrifices in seeking his favor for themselves?
The athnach segment in this verse is factional with only a subordinate tiphchah segment. Similar to verses 1:3, 5 and 6, the use of a fractional segment reinforces that this line is the context or logical basis for the silluq segment. The emphasis then is shifted to second line.
The silluq domain is full, dividing into three parts, two remote zaqeph segments and a near tiphchah segment. Commonly, when the phrase “says YHVH (of Hosts)”, אמר יהוה (צבאות), is used, it is in the near domain of a full segment having one remote segment containing the content of what YHVH says (1:8, 10, 11, 13, 14; 2:2, 4, 8, 16; 3:1, 5, 11, 12, 17, 19, 21). Occasionally, as is found here, if the content has two major ideas or parallel ideas, the phrase, says YHVH (of Hosts), is the near domain of a full segment where the two remote domains split the content of what YHVH says (1:6, 9; 2:16; 3:7,10). Once, for emphasis, it is found in the middle segment (1:4). In verse nine, the two remote segments make up a conditional clause; the first zaqeph segment is the protasis, the second is the apodosis.
וְעַתָּ֛ה — adv. of time + vav; disj accent, teb (עַתָּה) — now; This may have a logical rather than strictly temporal force here. The tebir segment indicates a pause separating the domain proper of tiphchah from the near subordinate tebir segment. This seems to add a slight emphasis to the adverb connecting the two verses. “And NOW (in light of what has just been said), entreat the favor….”
חַלּוּ־ — Piel imv 2mp; maq (חָלָה) — entreat the favor of; This again, as in the previous verse, is use of the figure of speech, heterosis of the verb. Malachi is not commanding them to do this, but in a very forceful way saying if they did this, they would not receive a favorable answer. This word is united with logical or precative particle נא by the maqqeph.
נָ֥א — ptcl of entreaty or exhortation; conj accent, mer (נָא) — now, I pray, please, etc. Thomas O. Lambdin has argued that it is a logical rather than a precative particle and is better left untranslated: “The particle seems…to denote that the command in question is a logical consequence, either of an immediately preceding statement or of the general situation in which it is uttered.”[59] 59 IHBS, p. 578 The mereka joins this word-unit with the following word-unit פני־אל.
פְנֵי־ — n: mp cstr; maq (פּנִים) — face; With חלה this means make sweet or pleasant the face of God, i.e., seek his favor. Again, the maqqeph is used to make this a single word-unit much like how English uses a dash between words to form a single concept.
אֵ֖ל — n: ms abs; disj accent, tip (אֵל) — God; This word for God is used only three times in Malachi, here in chapter two, verse ten and eleven. While the root concept of the word is debated, being either “strength” or perhaps “fear,” it was a widely used term for “god” in the old Semitic languages. Although not in this verse, in most of the Old Testament is most often used with some qualification perhaps to distinguish it from any of the other false gods of the nations.[60] 60 TWOT, p. 93ff Why use this word here instead of God’s covenant name, YHVH? The context suggests that the writer in telling these priests to intercede to God for grace for the people should be aware that the one whose favor they seek who is strong, powerful and/or to be feared. He will also about to tell these priest that YHVH will be worshipped not just in Israel but throughout the world. Thus, he uses אל rather than יהוה. This tiphchah segment is fractional having just a near subordinate tebir segment. As in the case of the tebir above indicates a pause separating the domain proper of athnach from the near subordinate tiphchah segment. This separates the imperative clause from the subordinate purpose clause.
וִֽיחָנֵ֑נוּ — Qal Impf/jussive 3ms + vav conjunctive; disj accent, ath (חָנַן) — to show favor, be gracious; “Where a prefix-conjugation form is not morphologically marked in such a context, it may be taken as having jussive … or cohortative … force … The second volitional form signifies purpose or result, in contrast to the sequence imperative + imperative”[61] 61 IHBS, p. 577 “that He might be gracious to us” The athnach marks the end of the first line.
מִיֶּדְכֶם֙ — n: fsc + prep מִן; disj accent, psh (יָד) — by your hand; this indicates the agency of the action. The making of the request with the attendant sacrifices of polluted animals (lame weak and sick) was done by these priests. The pashta marks the near domain of this fractional segment. It also serves to separate the adverbial phrase מידכם from the verb and stated subject. Coming first in the clause and set off by a disjunctive gives this phrase more emphasis.
הָ֣יְתָה — Qal Pf 2fs: conj accent, mun (הָיָה) — to fall out, happen, be, come about, take place; This is the protasis of a conditional clause. The perfective looks at the existence and happening of the sacrifices as a whole and sets up a hypothetical situation. “if this were to take place...”[62] 62 IBHS, p. 493 The munach connects verb with subject.
זֹּ֔את — demo pron fs; disj accent, zaq (זֶה) — demo pron fs; disj accent, zaq (זֶה) — this; subject of the verb היתה; It points back at the first part of the verse where Malachi challenged these prophets to go ahead and seek YHWH's favor by offering these imperfect sacrifices. The zaqeph marks the end of the first of the two remote subordinate segments in the silluq domain. It is the protasis of the conditional clause. The second zaqeph segment is the apodosis, which takes the form of a question.
הֲיִשָּׂ֤א — Qal impf 3ms + ה inter; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual garshaim (נָשָׂא) — to lift up; Impf of possibility; Will he lift up the face (receive with favor)? The answer to be expected here in light of the context is a resounding no. If the accent is a mahpak, it connects the subject/verb with the adverbial prepositional phrase that follows. If, however, it is a transformed garshaim separating this subject/verb from the following adverbial prepositional phrase, the pause indicated by this accent might draw more attention to this phrase which because of its position in this zaqeph segment already has some focus.
מִכֶּם֙ — prep + 2mp suf; disj accent, psh (מִן) — because of, on account of you/ some of; Is the מִן used in the sense of out of or “of the remoter cause, the ultimate ground on account of which something happens or is done”[63] 63 BDB 2.f. on p. 1393 or is it partitive?[64] 64 BDB use #3 p. 1393 I prefer the remote agency. The position of this word seems a bit unusual. It would be more common to see it before הישׂא or following פנים, but not between these two words which would be expected to be joined by a conjunction (Mal. 1:8, 2:9, Gen. 19:21 and 2 King 9:32.). Placing it here with a disjunctive pashta is unexpected and seems to draw attention to it. This would underline the fact that the priests are responsible for whether or not YHVH responds favorably to their requests.
פָּנִ֔ים — n: mpa; disj accent, zaq (פּנִים) — face; The zaqeph here marks the end of the second of the two remote subordinate segments in silluq's domain. It is the apodosis of the conditional statement. This seems to be the major division of the silluq segment since the combined protasis and apodosis of the conditional statement are more closely linked than the statement of who declares this.
אָמַ֖ר — Qal Pf 3ms; disj accent, tip (אָמַר) — to say; instantaneous perfective; The tiphchah marks the identification of the speaker and separates the verb from its stated subject.
יְהוָ֥ה — pn: msc; conj accent, mer (יְהוָה) — LORD; the mereka unites the construct and absolute.
צְבָאֽוֹת׃ — n: mp abs; disj accent, sil (צָבָה) — Hosts; silluq ends the verse.
This verse forcefully links the effectiveness of the intercessory ministry of these priests with their sin in dishonoring YHVH’s name. The priests, as part of their service brought the requests of the people before God; they were the mediators. Offering of these sacrifices was part of the ritual to do this. Indeed, it looked forward to the sacrifice of our Lord on our behalf, to deal with our guilt and sin so we might stand before God. He alone now is our mediator. Through him alone, and no other, do we now approach God.
And yet each of us has been entrusted with the task of intercessory prayer on behalf of others. How sincerely do we take this task? I must confess that on many occasions I have told another person I would pray for them. Upon remembering this ,I have often just mothed some words silently to myself as a prayer, thinking, “Well, I kept my word. I prayed. I won’t be lying if I told them I have been praying for them.” How similar that is to what these priests were doing! God responds, “If you offer these sacrifices as part of your intercessory ministry, do you really think I will be inclined to answer favorably?”
There is a saying to the effect that God always answers prayer, sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes it is no and sometimes it is not now. For me, at least, that is a very unsatisfactory answer although there is an element of truth to it. I am convinced this is many times used to excuse our culpability. God has not favorably answered us because we are dishonoring him in not giving him the very best of our service. God’s favorable answers are contingent upon our spiritual relationship with him (James 1:6-8, 4:2-3, and 5:14-18).
“Oh, that there were one among you who would shut the doors | |
so you will not kindle my altar in vain!”‡ |
“I take no pleasure in you,” \ says YHWH of Hosts, | |
“and (as a consequence) an offering I will not accept at your hand.”‡ |
This verse answers the challenge and rhetorical question posed by Malachi in the last line of the previous verse. “At your hand, if this were to happen, will he show favor because of you? says YHWH of Hosts?” It is an extremely strong and emphatic answer. Will YHWH show favor because of you? Absolutely not! He would rather shut down the temple than have you offer these sacrifices. He will not accept an offering from you!
The verse divides into two parts; the first is an independent desiderative statement and the last, two declarative statements. The athnach segment divides into two parts, with a fractional zaqeph segment and an empty tiphchah segment. While the desiderative sense applies to the whole athnach segment, strictly speaking the zaqeph segment is the main independent desiderative clause while the tiphchah segment is a subordinate dependent purpose clause. This line begins to answer the question posed in the previous verse in a very emphatic and emotion packed way; in the next line, YHVH declares the answer plainly.
The silluq segment, the second line, also divides into two parts, a full zaqeph segment and an empty tiphchah segment. The full zaqeph segment consists of a pashta segment, אמר יהוה צבאות, “says YHVH of Hosts” and a rebia segment which is a verbless nominal clause acting as the object of the verb אמר. Tiphchah segment, beginning with a disjunctive vav, explains the consequences of YHVH’s displeasure, that is, he will not accept these sacrifices from them.
מִ֤י — Inter pro; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual gar (מִי) — who; “In Mal 1:10 the desiderative clause proper is coordinated with an interrogative clause, מִי גַם־בָּכֶם וְיִסְגּ רׄ דְּלָתַ יִ֫ם would that one were.”[65] 65 GKC 151 a “Exclamatory and rhetorical questions in מי must be recognized from context, though there are patterns associated with each group. Exclamatory questions usually have a non-perfective verb, and the sense is desiderative: ‘Who will act?’ < ‘Oh that someone would act’!”[66] 66 IBHS p. 321 “Oh, that there were one among you who would...” The azla connects the interrogative pronoun with the adverbial particle גם. If it represents a transformed or virtual garshaim then it separates this particle from the word-unit גם־בכם, thus emphasizing the idea that YHVH wishes there were someone among them, the priests, who would act to stop this useless dishonoring of his name. A virtual garshaim would be consistent with the remote-heavy accent pattern. The מי introduces what Bullinger calls the figure of œonismos or wishing which is “an Expression of Feeling by way of wishing or hoping for a thing.”[67] 67 BUL, p. 922 By using this figure of speech, the writer is expressing the intense negative feelings YHVH has about the actions of the priests.
גַם־ — adv denoting addition; maq (גַּם) — also, even In this instance it seems to have more an emphatic sense.[68] 68 IBHS p. 663 states, “The second major coordinator גּם though it is used as an item adverb, generally has more distinctly logical force than אף, though it can be used as an emphatic” The maqqeph unites this word with the next.
בָּכֶם֙ — prep + 2mp suf; disj accent, psh (בְּ) — among you; “presence in the midst of a multitude, among”[69] 69 BDB meaning I.2. The pashta marks the end of the remote rebia segment separating this verbless clause from the next clause.
וְיִסְגֹּ֣ר — Qal impf 3ms + vav conjunctive; conj accent, mun (סָגַר) — shut or close; The vav is conjunctive connecting this clause with the preceding one and continuing the desiderative force. The imperfective is normally used with a desiderative clause. See comments under מי above. This is a modal use. The munach connects the subject/verb with its direct object. This clause qualifies the preceding verbless clause and translates into English as a relative clause.
דְּלָתַ֔יִם — n: fda; disj accent, zaq (דֶּ֫לֶת) — doors (referring to a pair of doors); the doors or gates to the courtyard where the sacrifices were offered. the direct object of the verb ויסג. The zaqeph marks the end of the desiderative clause proper.
וְלֹֽא־ — adv neg + vav; maq (לֹא לוֹא) — no, not; The vav is a disjunctive clausal vav used epexegetically, that is, it explains the significance of shutting the doors. It is either a purpose or result clause. “In order that” or “with the result that” they would not carry out the sacrifices uselessly. The distinction between these ideas is often difficult to determine. The maqqeph unites the negative adverb with subject/verb.
תָאִ֥ירוּ — Hiphil impf 2mp; conj accent, mer (אוֹר) — to cause to light (kindle); The imperfective is normally used to represent a future situation as a logical consequence of some expressed or unexpressed situation.[70] 70 IBHS, p. 511 The mereka connects the subject/verb with its direct object.
מִזְבְּחִ֖י — n: msc + 1cs suf; disj accent, tip (מִזְבֵּחַ) — altar; direct object of תאירו; The tiphchah indicates the close of the subordinate near segment and also serves to separate the subject/verb and object from the adverbial modifier.
חִנָּ֑ם — adv; disj accent, ath (חִנָּם) — for nothing, in vain; “Freely, for nothing, unjustly, without cause, in vain….This adverb occurs thirty-two times. It has no inherent religious significance.”[71] 71 TWOT, p. 694 The athnach marks the end of the first half of verse 10 which is a desiderative statement. This first line is almost an interjection into the thought flow of the argument. Verse nine ends with the question, “At your hand, if this were to happen, will he show favor because of you? Says, YHWH of Hosts?” The writer then interjects this line, expressing the depth of YHVH’s feelings about what the priests were doing before he answers the question in the silluq segment.
אֵֽין־ — existential particle; maq (אֵין) — is it not; This verbless clause with the existential particle אין and the prep ל indicates possession. YHWH has no pleasure in these priests. The maqqeph unites this particle with the prepositional phrase לי.
לִ֨י — prep + 1cs suf; conj accent, azl (לְ) — to me (I have no pleasure); the azla connects this word-unit with the next word, חפץ.
חֵ֜פֶץ — n: msa; disj accent, ger (חֵ֫פֶץ) — delight, pleasure; The geresh disjunctive separates the object of YHWH's non pleasure from the statement that he does not take pleasure. This slightly emphasizes, points the finger, so to speak, at the priests. “The LORD is not happy” (Pause—finger pointing here) “with you guys!”
בָּכֶ֗ם — prep + 2mp suf; disj accent, reb (בְּ) — in you;[72] 72 BDB, p. 272: בְּ is used also with certain classes of verbs... with verbs of rejoicing, feeling pleasure or satisfaction... The rebia marks the end of this subordinate remote domain of zaqeph declaring the content of What YHWH says. It is a fractional segment having only a subordinate geresh near domain.
אָמַר֙ — Qal Pf 3ms; disj accent, psh (אָמַר) — to say; instantaneous perfective; The pashta subordinate near segment of the zaqeph domain is the statement of whose is speaking. This is YHWH himself saying this. It is not just the prophet's opinion; it is the word of the LORD!
יְהוָ֣ה — pn: msc; conj accent, mun (יְהוָה) — LORD YHVH; stated subject of אמר. The munach connects this construct with its absolute.
צְבָא֔וֹת — n: mp abs; disj accent, zaq (צָבָה) — Hosts; the zaqeph marks the close of the subordinate remote domain of the silluq segment. This zaqeph segment is full, with a near subordinate pashta domain and a remote subordinate rebia domain. The rebia segment contains the statement, and the pashta segment the declaration of who states it.
וּמִנְחָ֖ה — n: fs abs + vav; disj accent, tip (מִנְחָה) — gift, tribute, offering; disjunctive epexegetical vav. Here the purpose seems to be explaining the consequences of YHVH’s displeasure. He is not pleased with them and, as a consequence, he will not accept their sacrifices. The tiphchah both marks this as the concluding part of the silluq segment and serves to set apart the object from the subject/verb and its adverbial qualifiers. This draws the reader’s/hearer’s attention to this word giving it a little more emphasis. They should note he did not say the offering but an offering. This word is indefinite which indicates that YHVH was not going to accept any offering even if it were to be done correctly with unblemished animals. Their continuing dishonoring of YHVH has negated their effectiveness in prayer. Did they ever wonder why their prayers seemed to go unanswered? This is the reason.
לֹֽא־ — adv neg; maq (לֹא לוֹא) — no, not; the maqqeph unites this word with the following verb.
אֶרְצֶ֥ה — Qal impf 1cs; conj accent, mer (רָצָה) — be pleased with, accept; specific future use of imperfective. The mereka connects the verb with the prepositional phrase מידכם, by your hand or by you.
מִיֶּדְכֶֽם — n: fsc +prep m; disj accent, sil (יָד) — at your hand; The silluq marks the end of the second half of verse 10. While the first half expresses with emotion YHWH's attitude to the actions of these priest, this half declares the answer to the question posed by YHWH to the priest in the last half of verse 9. He is not pleased with them and (therefore) he will not accept their sacrifices. The silluq segment is full with a near tiphchah domain and a remote zaqeph domain. It is interesting to note that this line ends with the same Hebrew word with which the last line of the previous verse began, tying these lines together. AT YOUR HAND, if this were to take place (offering a sacrifice)…an offering I will not accept AT YOUR HAND!
What was YHVH’s attitude toward the actions of these priests? Did it bother him a little? Was it a constant annoyance like the drip of a leaky faucet or a pesky gnat that buzzes about your head? Or was it more? The Spirit of God takes time to tell us by breaking into the logical flow of thought, interjecting YHVH’s feelings by stating a wish YHVH might have. Speaking from a human perspective, YHVH says that he wishes there were one of these priests who would shut the doors of the temple to stop the sacrifices! He would rather shut the temple down, lock out these priests than have them continue. What was his attitude? He truly hated what they were doing!
Now shift ahead two and a half millennia to our day. What about his attitude toward the worship that takes place in many churches today? What would be his attitude toward the service you or I offered him? Are we giving him our very best? Or do we go through the motions thinking that this is good enough, no one will know the difference?
A university or school, a state or nation, or organization is invited to send an athletic team to compete in a tournament. As one responsible for selecting your team what do you look for? To be sure, you look for the talented and gifted athletes. But there is another, more critical factor involved, motivation. Will those chosen respect and honor that which they represent to the degree that they will give the very best effort of which they are capable? Do they care about the name of the institution, nation or group to give all they have to honor it, or will they slap together something, give it a shot and call it good?
As a coach, as a sponsor what would you say to an athlete representing you? Give it everything you have to give! Do your ultimate best; or go home! That is what the LORD is telling these priests, either give me the best you have or shut the doors and go home! That is what he wants us to do as well. We represent him. We serve him. Give him the best you have!
Another lesson, a very somber and somewhat frightening one, to me is that the failure of these priest to honor their God with their best affects others. In the previous line, the writer asks, tells them, “And now entreat the favor of God that he might be gracious to us!” Note that they were seeking God’s favor, not only for themselves, but for us, the people, the nation. Then he asks, “At your hand, if this were to happen, will he show favor because of you?” In this verse YHVH answers that question. He says, “I take no pleasure in you,” says YHWH of Hosts, “and (as a consequence) an offering I will not accept at your hand.” If he would not accept the sacrifice, he is not granting their request!
Your prayer affects others. The answers to your prayers affect others. Your relationship to the LORD affects how you pray and our LORD’s response to those prayers. The church is a single body; The spiritual health of one part of that body affects the whole body much more that we realize.
“Indeed, from the rising of the sun to its setting, \ great will be my name among the nations! | |
And everywhere \ incense is going to be brought to my name and a pure offering.‡ |
Indeed, great will be my name among the nations!” | |
says YHWH of Hosts.‡ |
After his initial discourse in verses 1:2-5 that YHVH loved his people, a fact they did not believe or had forgotten, Malachi in the remainder of chapter 1, declares that they, the priests in particular, were guilty of dishonoring YHVH, that is, disrespecting his name. In verses 1:6-10, he indicates they were doing this when they brought less than the best to YHVH in their priestly function of offering sacrifices. A new idea now is injected in verse 11. YHVH declares through the prophet that his, YHVH’s, name will be great throughout the world, in all the nations not just in Israel.
Verse eleven divides into two lines, the athnach segment fully stating the idea that YHVH will be honored and worshipped throughout the world, not just in Israel, and the silluq segment emphatically repeating the core idea that YHVH’s name will be great among the nations.
The athnach segment, as is quite common even in what is considered Hebrew prose, divides into two parallel parts, a remote zaqeph segment and a near tiphchah segment. Hebrew parallelism is often sliced into various categories depending upon the authorities referenced, but most would recognize this as synonymous parallelism in which an idea is restated in different words. While the two statements may differ slightly in meaning, the overall meaning is essentially the same. The zaqeph segment divides into a near pashta domain containing the main clause, “great will be my name among the nations,” and a remote rebia domain containing a prepositional phrase used adverbially indicating the extent to which this is true, “from the rising of the sun to its setting.” The parallel tiphchah segment also divides into two parts, a near tebir domain containing the main clause, “incense is going to be brought to my name and a pure offering” and a remote rebia domain, containing a prepositional phrase used adverbially indicating the extent to which this is true, “And everywhere.” The first half of line one, the zaqeph segment, states the idea, the second half of the line, the tiphchah segment restates it explaining how this is done.
The silluq segment of the verse also exhibits a form of parallelism with the athnach segment. Instead of expanding or explaining the idea in the first part, it condenses or summarizes the core idea. In this instance, it repeats a phrase from the first half of line one. It also divides into two segments, a fractional zaqeph segment containing the central clause, גדול שׁמי בגוים, “great will be my name,” and an empty tiphchah segment attributing this statement to YHVH, “says YHWH of Hosts.”
כִּ֣י — Conj/emphatic ptcl; conj accent, mun (כִּי) — The כי may be a causal particle indicating the logical connection of this verse with the previous. This is how most translators have understood it. (See NKJV, NIV, NASV, etc.) However, it makes little sense to say that the reason YHVH is displeased with them and consequentially will not accept their sacrifices is because his name will be great everywhere unless one adds the concept not stated in verse ten but picked up from the earlier context (verses 1:6-8) that they have dishonored him in their sacrifices.
The other option is that the כי , can be seen as an emphatic clausal adverb adding emphasis to this clause which introduces a new idea into Malachi’s argument.[73] 73 IBHS, p. 655 They were offering sacrifices of defective animals to YHVH that they would not have brought to the Persian governor over them. Did they not realize how great their God was? The days would come when all the world, all nations would bring pure offerings to him! The munach connects this conjunction/adverb with the following prepositional phrase.
מִמִּזְרַח־ — n: msc + מִן; maq (מִזְרָח) — place (of the sunrise, east); This is the first of two prepositional phrases conjoined by vav used adverbially to indicate the extent of the verbless statement גדול שׁמי בגוים. The maqqeph joins the construct and its absolute.
שֶׁ֜מֶשׁ — n: m(f)sa; disj accent, ger (שֶׁ֫מֶשׁ) — sun; The geresh marks the near subordinate segment of the rebia domain. Here it separates the two prepositional phrases used as a merism.
וְעַד־ — prep + vav; maq (עַד) — as far as, unto; The vav is conjunctive joining the two prepositional phrases. The maqqeph joins the preposition with its object.
מְבוֹא֗וֹ — n: msc + 3ms suf; disj accent, reb (מָבוֹא) — an entrance, a going in, (of the sun), i.e., it’s setting or the west; The phrase ממזרח שׁמשׁ ועד־מבואו means from east to west. It is a merism meaning everywhere, throughout the entire world. The rebia marks the end of the subordinate remote segment of the zaqeph domain. It separates the adverbial prepositional phrases from the core of the verbless clause stating YHWH's name will be great.
גָּד֤וֹל — adj msa; conj accent, mah / disj accent, transformed garshaim (גָּדֹול) — great; predicate use of the adj. Predicate of a verbless clause. If this is a mahpak, it connects the predicate with the subject; however, I prefer to see it as a virtual garshaim separating the predicate adjective from the subject.
שְׁמִי֙ — n: msc + 1cs suf; disj accent, psh (שֵׁם) — My name; subject of a verbless clause. The pashta marks the end of the subordinate near segment of the zaqeph segment. It also serves to separate the predicate and from its adverbial prepositional modifier.
בַּגּוֹיִ֔ם — n: mpa + art + בְ; disj accent, zaq (גֹּוי) — nation; another prep phrase used adverbially describing the sphere in which the greatness of his name is found. It is among the nations, i.e. those nations that are not Israel. Same phrase is repeated in the silluq segment thus underlining and highlighting the central idea in this verse. YHWH's name, which represents his person, will be great, i.e., honored everywhere throughout the world. And not just by God's chosen people, Israel but by all peoples of the world! The unstated, but obvious, question then is, why are you dishonoring it? The zaqeph marks the end of the subordinate remote segment of the athnach domain, the first half of the line one, separating the two parallel statements in this line.
וּבְכָל־ — n: msc + vav + בְ; maq (כֹּל) — all, every; The vav is clausal and conjunctive connecting two semi-parallel statements. It might be epexegetical in that it explains how it is seen that YHWH's name will be great. It will be great in that these people will be bringing incense and a pure offering—as opposed to these priests—to his name. The maqqeph joins this noun with its absolute.
מָק֗וֹם — n: msa; disj accent, reb (מָקֹום) — place; the absolute following ובכל, “in every place”; This prepositional phrase parallels the phrase ממזרח־שׁמשׁ ועד־מבואו “from east to west” in the zaqeph segment of this line. The rebia marks the end of this remote subordinate domain of the tiphchah segment. Here again the adverbial qualification of the extent is separated from the statement of the action or indicated by the verbal idea adding strong emphasis that this is not just a local thing; it is world-wide.
מֻקְטָ֥ר — n: msa; conj accent, mer / disj accent, virtual garshaim (מֻקְטָר) — incense; The writer uses this term which also was a ritual used in making sacrifices. It is associated with worship throughout the OT and also with prayer, Psalm 141:2, Jeremiah 11:12. As happened in the zaqeph segment of this line, this conjunctive may indeed be the conjunctive mereka or it may represent a disjunctive, a garshaim, which regularly transforms into a conjunctive in certain instances. If a mereka, it connects the stated subject with the following verbal participle. While it is common to separate a stated subject from the verb, they may also be conjoined accentually. It seems best to this student from the strong remote-deep pattern (although there are certainly exceptions to it!) to understand this again as simply a mereka conjunctive..
מֻגָּ֛שׁ — Hophal ptcp msa; disj accent, teb (נָגַשׁ) — cause to be brought near; will be/ is going to be brought near/to; verbal use of the participle. It normally “denotes the full range of ideas connoted by English ‘I am going to…,’ namely, certainty, often with immanency—the so-called futurum instans participle.”[74] 74 IBHS, p. 627 The tebir disjunctive marks the end of the subordinate near domain of the tiphchah segment. It also separates the verb and subject from the indirect object indicated by the לְ on the following word.
לִשְׁמִ֖י — n: msc + לְ disj; accent, tip (שֵׁם) — to my name; the tiphchah indicates the end of the subordinate near segment of the athnach domain. It has a full domain with a subordinate near tebir segment and a subordinate remote rebia segment. The tiphchah segment is somewhat parallel to the zaqeph segment in the idea that YHWH will be honored throughout the world. The tiphchah also separates the last word-unit of this line from the rest of the rest of the segment.
וּמִנְחָ֣ה — n: fsa + vav; conj accent, mun (מִנְחָה) — gift, tribute, offering; this word is also used in the previous verse where YHVH tells them he would not accept an offering by their hand. But here he states that a pure offering will be brought everywhere to him. The munach joins the noun with its qualifying adjective. This word and the next make up a second subject of the verbal participle מגשׁ. While these words might have followed the first subject מקטר, the author set them apart from the first subject, מֻקְטָ֥ר not only by the verb and the indirect object, but by tiphchah disjunctive on לשׁמי. This dramatically highlights these two words and emphasizes the contrast between these offerings and those that were currently then being made by Israel’s priests.
טְהוֹרָ֑ה — adj: fsa; disj accent, ath (טְהוֹר) — clean pure; adjectival use; The athnach marks the end of the first line of this verse and the silluq on the last word צבאות, marks the end of the last line The athnach and silluq are somewhat parallel, in that each of these two sections or segments is full. Both have a remote zaqeph segment whose main idea is “great will be my name among the nations!” (גדול שׁמי בגוים). The same phrase is repeated in both sections.
כִּֽי־ — conj/emphatic ptcl; maq and an aux accent, met (כִּי) — This again is an adverbial emphatic כי emphasizing by restatement the main idea found in the zaqeph segment of the first line. The maqqeph links the adverb with the next word.
גָד֤וֹל — adj: msa; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual garshaim (גָּדֹול) — great; predicate use of the adjective; Again the accent is understood to be a virtual garshaim.
שְׁמִי֙ — n: msc + 1cs suf; disj accent, psh (שֵׁם) — my name; subject of verbless clause; see discussion above.
בַּגּוֹיִ֔ם — n: mpa; + art + בְ disj accent, zaq (גֹּוי) — among the nations; The zaqeph marks the end of the subordinate remote domain of the silluq segment. This repeats the statement found in the parallel segment of the athnach segment. See discussion above.
אָמַ֖ר — Qal Pf 3ms; disj accent, tip (אָמַר) — to say; instantaneous perfective; The tiphchah marks the subordinate near domain of the silluq segment and separates verb from the named subject.
יְהוָ֥ה — n: msc; conj accent, mer (יְהוָה) — LORD YHVH; The mereka connects the construct with its absolute.
צְבָאֽוֹת׃ — n: mpa; disj accent, sil (צָבָה) — hosts;
In a world and culture which normally uses our Lord’s name as a curse word, we are desensitized to the degradation and shame it heaps upon the person of our God. We then accept as the norm this culture which does not recognize God nor renders the honor and respect due his name. We have lost a vision of what it should be, what some day it will be when the whole world praises and worships our savior and God. The danger or trouble is that we fit right in with our culture. Often it is done unconsciously; yet, at times, because we do not want to seem out of place, we purposely tailor our speech and our actions to fit in.
If the Kingdom is coming, if his name will be great throughout the world, if praises and pure offerings will be offered to him everywhere, should we who know him not offer these now, not just in private and with others who share our faith, but publicly in front of the watching world as well. While we, the church, do not offer literal animal sacrifices, there are many other sacrifices we do offer (Romans 12:1, Philippians 2:17, 4:18, Hebrews 13:15, 16, 1 Peter 2:5). Are those pure sacrifices or are they less than the best we can give?
But you are defiling it,‡ |
when you say \ the table of the Lord, it is defiled | |
and as for its fruit, its food is despicable‡ |
Malachi has declared how the priests had dishonored YHVH by defiling his name in verses six through ten and compared their offering sacrifices to YHVH with gifts of food brought to the Persian governor’s dinner table. In the previous verse, the prophet introduced the idea that YHVH’s name would be great throughout the world. Now he ties this together with their lack of respect in their sacrifices. While this Persian governor over them may have been an important man in the Persian empire, that is, a man with a big name in their small province, YHVH’s name would be great throughout the world, not just in their little part of it! They would not dare offer offense to their governor by bringing these poor quality animals for his use, but they were defiling YHVH’s name in their sacrifices to him.
This verse is in stark contrast with verse eleven. YHWH has just stated his name will be honored throughout all the Gentile world (כי־גדול שׁמי בגוים) but they, the priests of YHWH's own people, are dishonoring it! They do this when they say (by their actions) the altar and offering of these sacrifices is defiled.
The fractional athnach segment of this verse is short being a strong contrast with what was stated in the silluq segment of the previous verse. YHVH said, “Indeed, great will be my name among the nations!” The athnach segment states “But you are defiling it.” The silluq segment is explanatory stating either when (temporal clause) or possibly why (causal clause) this was true.
The second line, silluq segment, is much longer dividing into a remote zaqeph domain and a near tiphchah domain. The full zaqeph segment itself is divided into a remote rebia domain and a near pashta domain. The rebia domain consists of a dependent temporal clause, “when you say.” The pashta segment and the empty tiphchah segment then form two independent clauses serving as the objects of באמרכם stating what they were saying.
וְאַתֶּ֖ם — pers pro 2mp + vav; disj accent, tip (אַתֶּם) — you; the clausal vav attached to the pronoun indicates a disjunctive clause which contrasts what precedes. The tiphchah which marks the near domain of the fractional athnach segment and serves to separate the subject pronoun from the participle and its object which form the predicate.
מְחַלְּלִ֣ים — Piel ptcp mpa; conj accent, mun (חָלַל) — to defile , pollute; This is a predicate use of the participle. The subject is אתם. The participle here expresses an ongoing state of affairs. This is what they are doing. The munach connects the participle with its direct object.
אֹותֹ֑ו — ptcl, noun indicator + 3ms suf; disj accent, ath (אֵת) — it; the direct object of the participle מחללים. The suffix references שׁמי in the previous verse. The athnach marks the end of the first half of this verse. This is a fractional segment, the athnach having just a near subordinate empty tiphchah domain. The brevity of this segment highlights it against the much longer statement in verse 11 where twice YHVH says, “Great will be my name among the nations!” Now he says, “BUT you are defiling it!”
בֶּאֱמָרְכֶ֗ם — Qal inf cstr + 2mp suf + ב; disj; accent, reb (אָמַר) — to say; The infinitive construct used with prep בְּ may be temporal (most common) or causal.[75] 75 IBHS, p. 604 The overall difference here is minimal. The suffix is subjective, “when you say.” The rebia marks the close of the remote rebia domain of the zaqeph segment of this second line. The near pashta domain is what they say, i.e., the object of the participle.
שֻׁלְחַ֤ן — n: msc; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual gar (שֻׁלְחָן) — table; possessive genitive. This construct and the absolute which follows is a casus pendens adding emphasis to the subject. While the mahpak could represent a transformed garshaim, here it is probably indeed a mahpak uniting the construct and absolute. Note that the comparison of the offering with begun earlier is continued.
אֲדֹנָי֙ — n: mpa; disj accent, psh (אֲדֹנָי) — Lord; possessive gen. Note that in 1:7 it was שׁלחן יהוה, “table of YHVH,” here it is שׁלחן אדני, “table of the Lord.” Why the change? The shift possible might be because YHVH has now being identified as sovereign over all the earth (see verses eleven and fourteen). He is YHVH (יהוה) to his covenant people, but he is still lord or master (אדני) to all others. If these priests would show proper reverence to their Persian lord, why did they not show respect to YHVH who also is a lord/master, but not just over one nation but all the earth. The pashta disjunctive which marks the near domain of the zaqeph segment also separates the casus pendens from the participle and the pronoun, the subject of the participle.
מְגֹאָ֣ל — Pual ptcp msa; conj accent, mun (גָאַל) — be defiled; predicate use of participle in a verbless clause. It is an object clause of באמרכם. The subject is the 3rd person pronoun that follows. The munach connects the participle with its subject.
ה֔וּא — pers pro 3ms; disj accent, zaq (הוּא) — it; This is the subject of the participle מגאל. the zaqeph marks the end of the subordinate remote domain of the silluq segment.
וְנִיב֖וֹ — n: msc + vav + 3ms suf; disj accent, tip (נִיב) — fruit; clausal vav connecting the previous participle clause with this one. The vav may be epexegetical in that it explains why the table of the Lord is defiled. It is defiled because what is placed upon the table, its fruit, is despicable food. This noun is nominative absolute. It focuses the attention on the subject much like the construction שׁלחן אדני in the zaqeph segment. This tiphchah segment is parallel to the zaqeph segment explaining why the table of the Lord is defiled. It is defiled because what is put upon it, its fruit, its food, is despicable. The tiphchah marking this empty segment also serves to separate the nominative absolute from the participle and its subject which follow.
נִבְזֶ֥ה — Niphal ptcp msa; conj accent, mer (בָּזָה) — be despised, despicable, contemptible; As above this is a predicate use of the participle in a second object clause of באמרכם. The mereka connects it and its subject.
אָכְלֽוֹ׃ — n: msc + 3ms suf; disj accent, sil (אֹכֶל) — food; the subject of נבזה, above. The suffix references the noun שׁלחן, the food of the table, belonging to the table, on the table.
How did the priests in Malachi’s day defile or dishonor YBVH’s name? Were they offering sacrifices to the pagan gods of the nations around them? No! Were they using his name in vain, as a curse word as is commonly done in our culture? Certainly not! They probably would not have even spoken it aloud for fear of sullying it. Were they as a group engaged in gross sexual sin, in extortion, robbery or other crimes? Probably not. So just how were they dishonoring their God? They were saying, by their actions, that what YHVH had called them to do was unimportant and trivial, that these offerings they were required to perform for the people were beneath them. They were saying this when they did not give the best they had to offer, instead offering up sick, lame or in some manner defective animals.
How do we as believers dishonor our Lord’s name today? Are you worshiping one of the false gods worshipped in other lands today? Do you use his name in vain like the majority of our culture? Are you engaged in gross sexual sin, in extortion, robbery or other crimes? Probably not. But do you, by your actions, say that what YHVH has called you to do is unimportant and trivial? What spiritual gift has the Lord by his Spirit given you to exercise in the local church, his body? Are you exercising it to the best of your ability, or do you consider it unimportant and trivial?
“And (so) you are saying, ‘Look, what a weariness!’ and you are disdainfully snorting at it.” \ says YHWH of Hosts, | |
“And you are taking an injured animal \ and the lame and the weak, | |
and you are bringing this offering! | |
Should I accept it from you?” says YHWH.‡‡ |
This verse is the conclusion by way of a summary of this section which deals with the sin of these priests. It focuses on what they had done and were continuing to do. The next section beginning with 1:14 focuses on YHWH's response and what these priests must do. In verse 12, YHWH states these priests were dishonoring him when, by their actions, they were saying these sacrifices were defiled and despicable. In this verse he summarizes what they were doing. They were saying it was a tiresome, weary task, and were disdainful of doing it. With this attitude, they were getting [bringing] sacrifices that which had been torn, the lame and the sick, i.e., whatever was handy not trying to find the best unblemished animals! And this is what they were offering [bringing] to YHWH. He responds by asking rhetorically, should he accept it from them, a question to which he has already given answer and to which he will respond decisively in the next section.
As do all verses in Malachi except one, verse thirteen divides into two lines. In this verse there is a long athnach segment and a much shorter silluq segment. The athnach segment is the summary statement of their actions while the silluq segment is a concluding rhetorical question.
The athnach segment divides into three parts, two full remote zaqeph segments and a near empty tiphchah segment. Each of these begins with a vav relative perfect which summarizes an aspect of their disdain for YHVH. The initial remote zaqeph segment has two relative vav perfects; the second remote zaqeph segment and the tiphchah each have one. There is a logical progression of succession involved as well. The two verbs in the first zaqeph segment express an attitude toward their work. The second zaqeph segment indicates their subsequent choice of animals for sacrifice, and the final near tiphchah segment details its presentation to YHVH. What began as an attitude expressed in words was in the end embodied in actions.
The silluq segment is significantly shorter. It echoes the rhetorical questioned asked by the prophet in verse nine, “At your hand, if this were to happen, will he show favor because of you?” The answer is not given here being clearly understood because it was vividly answered by YHVH in verse ten. “Oh, that there were one among you who would shut the doors so you will not kindle my altar in vain! I take no pleasure in you,” says YHWH of Hosts, “and (as a consequence) an offering I will not accept by your hand,”
וַאֲמַרְתֶּם֩ — Qal RVP 2mp + vav cons; conj accent, lte (אָמַר) — to say; to say; Is the vav a relative vav or a copulative vav? The preceding verb connected to this form is the infinitive construct באמרכם used in verse twelve. If this is seen as just another thing they were saying (by their actions), the vav would be a copulative vav with a persistent present perfect use. “And you also have been saying...” However, it seems to me that this and the other perfectives with vavs in the athnach segment are an explanatory or summary statement of what these priests were doing.[76] 76 IBHS, p, 536 And in this summary statement there seems to be a logical sequence of actions as well. Therefore, I understand this and the following verbal forms to be relative vav perfectives expressing an imperfective progressive aspect. “And (so) you are saying...” The little telisha conjunctive joins this word with the following word-unit.
הִנֵּ֨ה — presentative ptcl; conj accent, azl (הִנֵּה) — now; This presentative particle introduces an exclamation of immediacy.[77] 77 IHBS, p. 675 When called upon to offer a sacrifice on behalf of someone, this is what they were saying or thinking. The azla connects this with מתלאה. Azla followed by the little telisha conjunctives are those expected with the following geresh disjunctive.
מַתְּלָאָ֜ה — n: fsa + מָה; disj accent, ger (תְּלָאָה) — weariness, hardship; What a weariness, hardship?! This is perhaps very similar to our colloquial expressions, What a drag! or What a pain! This is expressing their attitude to the job of offering these sacrifices. The geresh disjunctive separates the preceding expression of bother from the expression of disdain, both of which indicate an emotional response of the priests to their responsibilities. This exclamatory statement is the object of ואמרתם.
וְהִפַּחְתֶּ֣ם — Hiphil RVP 2mp + vav cons; conj accent, munach (נָפַח) — to cause to blow out, “huh!” A disdainful breath. Again, the choice is between a relative vav or a copulative. Hence again I understand a consecutive vav with a progressive non-perfective sense. BDB suggests “and ye have sniffed at it (in contempt).”[78] 78 BDB, p. 1585 The idea seems to be they were snorting at it expressing their disdain. This would be something akin to the action the English word, “harrumph” refers.[79] 79 “An expression of disdain, disbelief, protest, or dismissal; a huff, grunt, or snort.” Wiktionary, the free dictionary, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/harumph#:~:text=to%20bother%20helping.-,Noun,huff%2C%20grunt%2C%20or%20snort, Accessed 05/24/2024. The munach is the expected initial conjunctive linking this verb with its direct object אותו.
אוֹת֗וֹ — ptcl, noun indicator; +3ms suf; disj accent, reb (אֵת) — it; direct object of והפחתם; the 3ms suf points back to שׁלחן in the previous verse and what was offered upon it. These priests had a low view of their work in offering the sacrifices for those who came to the temple. The rebia disjunctive marks the end of the remote subordinate domain of this zaqeph segment. This is the statement of the attitude of the priests; the subordinate near pashta domain is the statement of the who says this. The person stating this is YHWH.
אָמַר֙ — Qal Pf 3ms; disj accent, psh (אָמַר) — to say; (instantaneous perfective); The pashta separates the verb from its stated subject.
יְהוָ֣ה — pn: msc; conj: accent, mun (יְהוָה) — LORD YHVH; Again, not just the opinion of the prophet. This is YHWH’s assessment of these priests. The munach unites the construct and absolute.
צְבָא֔וֹת — n: mpa; disj accent, zaq (צָבָה) — hosts; The zaqeph here marks the end of the first of the two subordinate domains of the athnach segment. This zaqeph segment is full with a subordinate near pashta domain and a remote rebia domain. The rebia segment describes the attitude of the priests by stating their words and actions while the pashta segment indicates that this was so stated by YHWH.
וַהֲבֵאתֶ֣ם — Hiphil RVP 2mp + vav cons; conj accent, mun (בּוֹא) — to bring; This is the third perfective with a cons vav, expressing another thing they were currently doing. “And you are bringing...” This clause seems to logically follow the previous. Because they had such a low attitude to what they were engaged in, they did not make an effort to make sure it was the best they could do. In acquiring the needed animals for sacrifice they took what was handy, whatever they happen to have on hand whether it was lame, sick, or injured from a predator attack. The first use of this verb refers to them binging or obtaining the sacrifice; the second use refers to their bringing or presenting it on the altar. This might be epexegesis. How were they saying, look, what a weariness? or how were disdainfully snorting at it? They were doing this by taking these imperfect sacrifices and offering them to YHVH!
גָּז֗וּל — Qal pass ptcp msa; disj accent, reb (גָּזַל) — to tear away, rob, seize; This could refer to that which was stolen or perhaps that which had been seized by a predator, i.e., an injured animal.[80] 80 “prob. that rescued after seizure by wild beasts, therefore mutilated.” BDB, p. 443 This is a substantival use of the participle. It is the direct object of the verb והבאתם. The rebia also marks the end of the remote domain of the zaqeph segment. This is one type of animal they were acquiring. Another type is found in the following subordinate near domain, the pashta segment. This participle is anarthrous indicating the class to which it belongs “an injured animal.”[81] 81 IBHS, p. 236
וְאֶת־ — ptcl, noun indicator; + vav; maq (אֵת) — This marks another object of והבאתם. This vav and the next are phrasal, connecting two other types of animals they were acquiring to present as sacrifices.
הַפִּסֵּ֨חַ֙ — adj: msa + art; disj accent, psh (פִּסֵּחַ) — lame; Another type or description of the animals they were getting to use as sacrifices. Substantival use of the adjective. The pashta disjunctive serves to separate the subordinate near domain from the domain proper of the zaqeph segment, i.e., the word-unit bearing the zaqeph. The adjective is definite indicating a generic class of animals, “The lame (animals).”[82] 82 IHBS, p. 244
וְאֶת־ — ptcl, noun indicator; + vav; maq (אֵת) — marking another direct object and again a phrasal vav connecting the object to the verb והבאתם above. The maqqeph unites this indicator with the word it points to.
הַ֣חוֹלֶ֔ה — Qal pass ptcp msa + art; disj accent, zaq (חָלָה) — the weak; substantival use of the participle. It is definite having the article which points a generic class of animals as above, “The weak (animals).” The zaqeph marks the end of the second subordinate domain of the athnach segment. This segment, beginning with the verb והבאתם, is a logical consequence of what preceded. The attitude influences the actions.
וַהֲבֵאתֶ֖ם — Hiphil RVP 2ms + vav cons; disj accent, tip (בּוֹא) — to bring; This is the last RVP in the sequence found in verse 13. They had a disdainful attitude and brought (taken) inferior animals and now brought (offered) them as a gift or tribute on the altar. The tiphchah marks near subordinate domain of the athnach segment.
אֶת־ — ptcl, noun indicator; maq (אֵת) — introduces a definite direct object; The maqqeph connects this word with its object.
הַמִּנְחָ֑ה — n: fsa + art; disj accent, ath (מִנְחָה) — gift, tribute, offering; The athnach marks the close of the first half of this verse. This athnach segment is full, with three subordinate domains, a near tiphchah, and two remote zaqeph domains. It is a summary statement of what these priests were doing; the silluq segment presents YHWH's response. Each of these three subordinate domains begins with a RVP with a logical/temporal sequence implied. First, they had a disdainful attitude, not considering this work of a priests to be worth their time (first zaqeph segment). Then or as a result they were bringing subpar sacrifices, whatever they had handy without trying to get the best, unblemished animals. Then having these less than perfect animals they brought them to YHWH to sacrifice. The article marks the sacrifice as definite, a particular one, one consisting of the animals just described. It might even be appropriate to translate this as a demonstrative here. “and you are bringing this offering.”[83] 83 IHBS, p. 243
הַאֶרְצֶ֥ה — Qal impf 1cs + ה inter; conj accent, mer / disj accent, transformed gar (רָצָה) — to accept; non-perfective of deliberation "Should I accept it..." This is a rhetorical question whose answer is known. These priests knew answer to this question. Of course, YHWH should not accept this! This, while it might indeed be a mereka connecting subject/verb and the direct object, it seems better to see it as a virtual garshaim disjoining them.
אוֹתָ֛הּ — ptcl, noun indicator; + 3fs suf; disj accent, teb (אֵת) — The suffix on the noun marker is feminine and is to be connected with המנחה above or the offering/gift brought to the altar. The tebir marking the near subordinate segment of the tiphchah segment also serves to separate the subject/verb and direct object from the adverbial qualifier מידכם, “at your hand.” This adds a bit of stress to the adverbial qualifier.
מִיֶּדְכֶ֖ם — n: fsc +2mp suf+ מִן; disj accent, tip (יָד) — hand; The tiphchah marks the end of the near subordinate segment of the silluq domain and serves to separate the content of what is said from the identification of the speaker. It should be noted that this same word is used back in verses nine and ten.
אָמַ֥ר — Qal Pf 3ms; conj accent, mer (אָמַר) — to say (instantaneous perfective); The mereka joins the verb from the stated speaker.
יְהוָֽה׃ ס — pn: msa; disj accent, sil (יְהוָה) — LORD YHVH; This silluq segment is much shorter than the athnach segment. It is YHWH’s response to what is described in the first part of this verse. It is a fractional segment having only a subordinate near tiphchah domain. The first major break, one usually indicated by a פ following the verse, is found between verses twelve and thirteen of chapter two. Here, the ס at the end of this verse indicates that the Jewish authorities felt there was a minor break in thought here. In verses two through thirteen, YHWH is addressing these priests, and pointing out their error. In 1:13 he begins to pronounce his judgment and what they must now do. The Masoretic symbol ס following the soph pasuq or end of verse marker indicates a minor paragraph break.
The priests in Malachi’s day served in the rebuilt temple in shifts, not year round. While not at the temple they served in their home villages and towns as teachers, arbitrators of disputes and worship leaders in the local assemblies or synagogues. Synagogue worship had been started in captivity and it was brought back by the exiles when they returned.
But for part of the year, they served in the temple performing the sacrificial rituals required by the law. Many probably felt this was a burden. They were away from their farms and herds, supported only by the tithes and offerings brought to the temple. They would have rather been back home where they were comfortable. And this affected their attitude.
This summary verse is instructive in that it begins with their attitudes and ends with their actions. They said/thought to themselves, “This is really a burden upon us. We are tired of doing this. It is inconvenient, a waste of our time. Harrumph! Here comes another wanting to offer a sacrifice. I’ve got more important things to do.” This attitude then led to the actions. They did not put any effort into doing the best. They just took an animal, any animal (After all, would the person who came to sacrifice even really know!) and they offered it. And in doing this they were disrespecting the one who had instructed them otherwise.
We must ourselves examine our attitudes. Why do we serve and do what we do? Is it because it is something we are required to do. Is our obedience to our Lord done because it is required to do we serve because we love him? Do we attend our local church because we love the Lord or do we do it because it is expected of us as good Christians. Do we sometimes think that it is a burden sometimes because we miss the big game on TV or because our friends went fishing and we really wanted to join them. Attitudes determine our actions and how we preform them. Remember what the Scripture says. Colossians 3:17: “Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.” 1 Peter 4:11 “Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”
Cursed be a deceiver \ because there is in his flock/herd a male | |
but who makes a vow and sacrifices a corrupt animal to his Lord,‡ |
because I am a great king,” \ says YHWH of Hosts | |
and my name is going to be honored among the nations‡ |
This verse begins a new section in this short book. While the English text includes this verse with chapter one making a break between this verse and 2:1, it is better to follow the Masoretic text and put the break between verse thirteen and verse fourteen. Having focused on the transgression of these priests in verses 1:2-13, the prophet now concentrates on YHVH’s response in 1:14-2:9. Verse 1:14 is the statement of YHVH’s judgment; in verses 2:1-9, this idea is expanded. This verse states YHVH’s judgment; there is a curse upon anyone who has an animal that is acceptable for sacrifice yet who knowingly offers something less than this. Then in 2:1 he applies this judgment, this judgment, directly to the priests.
The verse divides into two balanced parts, a full athnach segment and a full silluq segment. The athnach segment states the judgment in general terms based upon the actions of the priests as described in verses 1:6-10 and the silluq statement states the reason based upon the revelation in verses 1:11-13.
The full zaqeph segment of the first line contains the main verb and the subject “Cursed be (the) deceiver,” the rebia segment, and a description of this person, “there being in his flock/herd a male,” pashta segment. The fractional tiphchah segment the describes the actions of this persons, “but who makes a vow and sacrifices a corrupt animal to the/his Lord.”
The second line states the reason for this judgment echoing the idea found in verses 1:11-13. It is a full silluq segment, again with a remote zaqeph segment and a near tiphchah segment. The zaqeph segment divides into two parts, the first, a remote rebia segment giving the content of a statement, “because I am a great king,” and the near pasha segment the statement of who is speaking, “says YHWH of Hosts.” The empty tiphchah segment then adds further content, “and my name is going to be honored among the nations.”
וְאָר֣וּר — Qal pass ptcp msa + vav; conj accent, mun (אָרַר) — to curse; verbal use of participle; The vav is phrasal connecting verse fourteen with thirteen or perhaps, since a minor break is indicated by the ס at the end of the previous verse, it connects verses 1:2-12 with the next section 1:13-2:12. what is found here is logically sequential to what has been stated in 1:2-12 previously.
There are many words for curse in the Old Testament: ארר, קלל, אלה, קבב, נקב. This particular word is used in three general contexts, (1) the declaration of punishments, (2) in the utterance of threats and (3) in the proclamation of laws. It is used as the antonym of ברך twelve times. It has the idea of hemming in or binding with obstacles and difficulties, to make powerless. It is used in contexts when a person’s relationship with YHWH is violated.[84] 84 TWOT, p.75 The person who violates this relationship by dishonoring and disrespecting YHWH by knowingly offering corrupt sacrifices is cursed. They will be bound by misfortune and obstacles. This is the opposite of being blessed by YHWH where good will come their way. This is the word used in Deuteronomy where the people are cursed for disobeying the covenant and blessed when they keep it. Theses priests had indeed opposition from without, famine and other issues. The munach conjunctive serving the rebia unites the verbal participle with the following substantival participle functioning as the subject.
נוֹכֵ֗ל — Qal act ptcp msa; disj accent, reb (נָכַל) — be crafty, deceitful; substantive use of the participle; subj of ארור above; The rebia disjunctive separates the statement that the deceiver is cursed from the next statement, a verbless clause stating that there is in his flock, a male, understood but not stated to be without blemish.
וְיֵ֤שׁ — existential ptcl + vav; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual gar (יֵשׁ) — it is; the subject is זכר. The vav is clausal, It is disjunctive specifying a contemporary circumstance “with a male (animal) in his flock…” or a cause “because there is in his flock a male (animal).”[85] 85 IBHS, p. 651 A prepositional phrase may follow a construct participle or noun in construct.[86] 86 IBHS, p 155 The ישׁ is a substantive in the construct state followed by the prepositional phrase בעדרו. (the existing in his flock). This forms the predicate for the following absolute noun זכר. It seems to this student that this mahpak is the conjunctive not a transformed garshaim, joining the substantive ישׁ with בעדרו.
בְּעֶדְרוֹ֙ — n: msc + 3fs suf + בְ; disj accent, psh (עֵ֫דֶר) — flock, herd; This word and preposition are adverbial indicating the location of the subject. The pashta marks the near subordinate domain of the zaqeph segment and also separates the predicate from the subject which follows.
זָכָ֔ר — n/adj: msa; disj accent, zaq (זָכָר) — male; The zaqeph marks the end of the subordinate remote domain of the athnach segment. This segment seems to focus on the description of the person; he is a deceiver who is cursed, who has in his flock or herd a male animal, that is, unblemished. The tiphchah segment then focuses on what he does, explaining why he is a deceiver and why he is cursed. This zaqeph segment is a full segment, with a subordinate near pashta segment and a remote rebia segment. This word means male, and the context implies that it meets the requirements for sacrifice and not a blemished or corrupt animal.
וְנֹדֵ֛ר — Qal act ptcp msa + vav; disj accent, teb (נָדַר) — to vow, make a vow; The vav is clausal again connecting the previous clause (וישׁ בעדרו זכר) with this one word clause. , It is disjunctive, in this case, introducing a contrast, “but who makes a vow….” the participle is verbal. The subject is not specified in this clause or the next because it is same for all the verbal participle in the first half of this verse, i.e., נוכל, the deceiver. The tebir marks this as the subordinate near domain of the tiphchah segment and separates this short clause from the proper domain of the tiphchah, וזבח משׁחת.
וְזֹבֵ֥חַ — Qal act ptcp msa + vav; conj accent, mer (זָבַח) — to slaughter for sacrifice; the vav is clausal and either consecutive (one makes a vow then offers a sacrifice) or specifies a contemporary circumstance (making a vow and offering a sacrifice are all part of the same event). Again, it is a verbal use of the participle. The mereka connects the verb with its object משׁחת.
מָשְׁחָ֖ת — Hophal ptcp msa; disj accent, tip (שָׁחַת) —to be corrupt, spoiled; The participle is used as a substantive. It is indefinite representing a class of animals, one that is spoiled, i.e., by being lame, injured, sick, etc., in contrast to a זכר (a male) which represented an animal fit to offer. The tiphchah marks the near subordinate segment of the athnach domain and separates the direct object from the indirect object.
לַֽאדֹנָ֑י — n: mpa + לְ + art; disj accent, ath (אֲדֹנָי) — Lord; This is a divine reference. The use of the article here may be translated with a personal pronoun. To which Lord or master? The Lord or master of the one who is deceiving, i.e., “to his Lord….”[87] 87 IBHS, p.243 The athnach marks the main division of the verse. The athnach segment states the idea that a person so described is cursed, while the silluq segment gives the cause or reason.
כִּי֩ — Conj; conj accent, lte (כִּי) — for, because; this particle seems to be causal relating the silluq segment to the athnach segment in this verse. The deceiver who has the proper sacrifice, but instead offers a corrupt one is cursed because of who YHWH is. HE is a great king who deserves to be honored! The little telisha conjunctive unites this world with the following phrase.
מֶ֨לֶךְ — n: msa; conj accent, azl (מֶלֶךְ) — king; the predicate nominative of a verbless clause. The lack of the article indicates this points out a class rather than a particular. YHWH is saying he is a great king. This is who he is; this is his character, the class to which he belongs. He deserves their honor. The azla is the expected rank-1 conjunctive after a geresh. It unites the noun with adjective qualifier.
גָּד֜וֹל — adj: msa; disj accent, ger (גָּדֹול) — great; attributive adjective; The geresh marks the end of the subordinate near domain of the rebia segment and serves to separate the predicate from the subject of the verbless clause.
אָ֗נִי — pers pro 1s; disj accent, reb (אָ֫נִי אֲנִי) — I; subject of the verbless clause; The rebia marks the remote subordinate domain of the zaqeph segment containing the content of what is said. The subordinate near pashta segment then is the identification of who stated the content, namely, YHWH.
אָמַר֙ — Qal Pf 3ms; disj accent, psh (אָמַר) — to say; instantaneous perfective; The pashta marks the near subordinate domain of the zaqeph segment, the statement of who is speaking. It separates the verb from its stated subject.
יְהוָ֣ה — n: msc; conj accent, mun (יְהוָה) — LORD YHVH, subject of אמר. The munach unites the construct with its absolute.
צְבָא֔וֹת — n: mpa; disj accent, zaq (צָבָה) — of Hosts; The zaqeph marks the end of the remote subordinate domain of the silluq segment.
וּשְׁמִ֖י — n: msc + 1cs suf + vav; disj accent, tip (שֵׁם) — The vav is epexegetical clausal expanding/clarifying the thought expressed in the remote zaqeph segment. It is sequential in that it follows because YHVH is a great king that his name will be honored. YHWH is a great king, but not only over Israel; his name will be revered in all the nations. The tiphchah marks the remote subordinate domain and serves to separate the subject from the verb and adverbial qualifier.
נוֹרָ֥א — Niphal ptcp msa; conj accent, mer (יָרֵא) — to be feared, reverenced, honored; It is a verbal use emphasizing the certainty of this state of affairs,[88] 88 IBHS, p. 627 “is going to be honored.” The mereka conjoins the verb with its adverbial qualifier.
בַגּוֹיִֽם׃ — n: mpa + בְּ + art; disj accent, sil (גֹּוי) — nation; It is a definite group; they are identified and this sets them apart distinct from these priest who were of Judah, Israelites. The silluq ends the near subordinate segment of the verse.
This verse is the judgment by YHVH concerning the actions anyone described in the previous section, 1:6-13. It is given as a general principle here, not specifically directed to any group. However, it is applied directly to the priests in the next verse. The principle is this, if a person dishonors YHVH by making a vow and offering a sacrifice but offers less than the best to YHVH, he is cursed, i.e., bound by misfortunes and obstacles, not blessed by YHVH. This principle was the motivating factor to Israel living under the Law. They obeyed; therefore, they were blessed. They disobeyed; therefore, they were cursed. But things have changed! We are believers, now living under grace. The motivation is reversed! God has blessed us; therefore, we are to obey!
Yet the general principle still applies. Disobedience may still bring misfortune because our Father disciplines those who are his true children. Obedience still brings rewards. While we, as believers, seldom make vows or offer animal sacrifices today, we do make commitments to our LORD and God. We also offer different types of sacrifices. See Romans 12:1, Philippians 4:18, Hebrews 3:15-16 and 1 Peter 2:5.
Do we seek his blessing in these commitments? If we do, are we honoring his name by giving the very best we can give him or do we dishonor him by serving up something less than the best we have? If we do this, we are deceivers, deceiving ourselves and attempting to deceive others. He does not promise to bless such requests and endeavors. This verse states, there is a curse; hinderances, obstacles and things that block and hem one in. Our sin hinders or keeps us from being what we could be and doing what we could do!
And now, to you is this commandment, O Priests!‡ |
In the initial part of Malachi’s short book, YHVH told the people that he loves them although they truly did not believe it. He then told them, the priests in particular, that when they offered defective animals as sacrifices, they were disrespecting him, he whose name would be great throughout the world, not just their little part of it! The writer began the next section in the last verse of chapter one by stating YHVH’s judgment upon this. It is a general statement applying to anyone, “Cursed be (the) deceiver there being in his flock/herd a male but who makes a vow and sacrifices a corrupt animal to the/his Lord, because I am a great king,” says YHWH of Hosts, “and my name is going to be honored among the nations.” In chapter two, verse one, he makes this general statement personal, focusing it directly upon these priests. In essence he is saying in a loud voice, italicized, in bold print and highlighted in color, “Hey! You Priests, I am talking to you!”
Every verse in Malachi with the exception of this verse divide into two parts or lines, an athnach segment and a silluq segment. This departure from the norm is significant and should catch the attention of the reader or hearer. YHVH has just one thing to say here. It is a verbless clause, short, and to the point. A soph pasuq segment may not be empty; at the minimum it must contain a silluq segment. In this case the the silluq segment is fractional having just a near tiphchah segment in its domain with the tiphchah disjunctive falling on the next to the last word. The tiphchah segment itself is full with a near tebir segment containing the subject and indirect object, אֲלֵיכֶ֛ם הַמִּצְוָ֥ה הַזֹּ֖את, and a remote rebia segment separating this from the adverb, וְעַתָּ֗ה.
וְעַתָּ֗ה — Adv + vav; disj accent, reb(עַתָּה) — now; The vav is clausal connecting this verse with what precedes. The use of this adverb in this verse is not strictly temporal, now, (at this point in time), but has a logical force now, (based on what has been said). This word is used 3 times in Malachi, 1:9, 2:1 and 3:15. Each time it is the first word in the verse and has a disjunctive, setting it apart from what follows. The rebia sets this word apart from the next giving it emphasis.
אֲלֵיכֶ֛ם — prep + 2mp suf; disj accent, tebir (אֵל) — to, for, concerning you; See notes on verse 1:1 where אֵל marks the indirect object. Although there is no verb stated, it is implied that YHVH gives, commands or speaks this to the priests. The tebir disjunctive, marking the near subordinate segment of the tiphchah domain, also serves to separate the indirect object from the subject.
הַמִּצְוָ֥ה — n: fsa + art (הַ); conj accent: mereka (מִצְוָה) — commandment; This word is used in a range of meanings. It may refer to the terms of a contract or covenant between parties or the instructions given by a teacher to his pupil.[89] 89 TWOT, p. 757 It is a definite noun, a particular commandment, referring back to the judgment just handed down by YHVH in 1:14 and forward to the related instructions in 2:2 and following. The mereka conjoins this noun with its qualifying adjective, הַזֹּ֖את.
הַזֹּ֖את — dem adj: fpa + art (הַ); disj accent, tiphchah (זֶה); — this; This word qualifies the preceding definite noun indicating a particular commandment. The context identifies the commandment as the instruction to honor YHVH’s name in the offering of the sacrifices. The tiphchah marks the near subordinate domain and also serves to separate the preceding clause from the noun of direct address (vocative), הַכֹּהֲנִֽים.
הַכֹּהֲנִֽים — n: mpa + art; disj accent, silluq (כֹּהֵן) — priests; The noun is definite, marked by the definite article and represents direct address. The use of direct address makes this instruction emphatically personal.
Too often we, those who us who have been involved in what is commonly called full-time ministry as pastors, teachers and such, when we look at a passage trying to understand it and relate it to those we are teaching, focus on just that question, how does it apply to our audience. That is a grave mistake. While we must ask that question in order to make the passage relevant to those to whom we speak, we must first ask ourselves, how does this apply to me. Too often we do not do this. Without any doubt, that is what these priests were guilty of. If a supplicant came to the temple bringing their own animal, they would examine such and require that it be acceptible for this was the law. However, when they had to supply an animal from the herds kept for such purposes at the temple because the person coming, not having one themselves, had to purchase one, then they just took one without regard to its condition. After all, the supplicant would not see it! They applied the law, but did not start with themselves. Thus this verse. YHVH shouts at them, “Hey! You Priests, I am talking to you!”
We all are very good at seeing how Scripture applies to others. Before we examine the speck in the eye of another we must closely examine our own vision. Before God sends a messenger to speak his word, he speaks to the messenger. Before you speak the word of God to your audience, be certain the word of God has spoken to you.
“If you do not listen, ~ and if you do not take it to heart to give honor to my name,” \ says YHVH of Hosts, | |
“I will send against you the curse | |
and I will curse your blessings.‡ |
Indeed, I have cursed them [already] | because you are not setting it to heart!”‡ |
The general declaration issued by YHVH in the last verse of chapter one would not have been disputed by the priests; it was in keeping with the instructions and regulations of the sacrifices as revealed in the Law. The problem was that the priests in Malachi’s day somehow felt this applied to others, the people who presented animals to them to offer, but not to them as they procured animals themselves. In the previous verse, YHVH took this general statement and made it personal saying to them, “This applies to you!” He explains the consequences for them in this verse. First, he lays out the consequences of not giving him the honor he should have. He will send the curse, i.e., the one spoken of in the Law, against them and he will curse their blessings, those things they should be experiencing as his chosen people. Then in the second line of this verse, he adds he has already done this because they were not making this commitment to honor him.
The athnach segment of this verse is much longer than the silluq and states the major idea, which is that unless they repented, he would invoke the curse promised in the covenant. The silluq segment then reinforces this idea. Line one then is a conditional clause with the protasis comprising the first remote zaqeph segment and the apodosis, the second remote zaqeph segment and the near tiphchah segment. Line two is epexegetical to this in that it adds the idea that the consequences have already begun.
In line one, the first zaqeph segment containing the protasis is divided into a fractional pashta segment stating the identity of the speaker and a rebia segment giving the content of what he says. This rebia segment makes up the double protasis, being dividing into two parts. The first is marked with a pazer disjunctive and the second with a geresh. These protases are parallel, with the second explaining the first. The second zaqeph segment is the first of a double apodosis, the closing tiphchah segment is the second. Again, these two are parallel with the last one amplifying the first.
Line two, the silluq segment, is epexegetical to line one, noting that YHVH had already instituted this judgment. It divides into two parts, the initial zaqeph segment stating this and the concluding tiphchah segment giving the reason, namely, that they were not committing themselves to honor him.
אִם־ — cond/inter ptcl; no accent, maq (אִם) — if; This introduces the first part of a compound protases in a conditional clause. The maqqeph units this short word with the next, the negative adverb, into a single word-unit.
לֹ֣א — adv neg; conj accent, mun (לֹא לוֹא) — no, not; The munach, the conjunction expected after a pazer, unites this word-unit with the following verb.
תִשְׁמְע֡וּ — Qal Impf 2mp; disj accent, paz (שָׁמַע) — to hear, listen to, with intention of obedience. This is an imperfect of possibility.[90] 90 TWOT, p. 939 That this means more than just physically hearing is clearly indicated by the second part of the protasis. The full rebia segment is divided into three parts by two disjunctives. The pazer on this word marks the first element of the compound protasis.
וְאִם־ — cond/inter ptcl + vav; no accent, maq (אִם) — and if; The phrasal vav is conjunctive linking the first part of the protasis with the second. The maqqeph again unites the conditional particle with the negative adverb.
לֹא֩ — adv neg; conj accent, lte (לֹא לוֹא) — not; The conjunctive accents, the little telisha, on this word and the azla on the following unite these word-units with the positional phrase, עַל־לֵ֜ב. This phrase is an idiom which has the idea of making a commitment, of determining or setting one’s will to do something. This whole phrase is therefore united by these conjunctives.
תָשִׂ֨ימוּ — Qal impf 2mp; conj accent, azl (שׂוּם, שִׂים) — set, put, place; “The heart is the seat of the will. A decision may be described as “setting” the heart.”[91] 91 TWOT, p. 467 Again, the imperfect is one of possibility, normally used in the protasis of conditional clauses. The accent is a conjunctive as mentioned above uniting the verb with its following prepositional phrase.
עַל־ — upon; The prepositional phrase is used adverbially denoting the location or sphere where something is to be put or set. The maqqeph unites the preposition and its object into one unit.
לֵ֜ב — n: msa; disj accent, ger (לֵב) — heart; This Hebrew word rarely refers to the physical organ, instead it usually refers “either to the inner or immaterial nature in general or to one of the three traditional personality functions of man; emotion, thought, or will.”[92] 92 TWOT, p. 466 The geresh disjunctive separates the word-unit, וְאִם־לֹא֩ תָשִׂ֨ימוּ עַל־לֵ֜ב, which is the subject/verb from its verbal complement, לָתֵ֧ת כָּב֣וֹד לִשְׁמִ֗י, which is the third part of the rebia segment, the domain proper.
לָתֵ֧ת — Qal inf cstr + prep לְ + art; conj accent, dar (נָתַן) — to give; לְ with the infinitive construct is used as a verbal complement to תָשִׂימוּ denoting what is to set upon the heart, what decision of the will is to be made. The darga conjunctive connects the infinitive construct with its direct object.
כָּב֣וֹד — m: m(f)sa; conj accent, mun (כָּבוֹד) — abundance, honor, glory; the direct object of the infinitive construct לָתֵ֧ת. The munach connects the direct object with the following word which is the indirect object of the infinitive construct.
לִשְׁמִ֗י — n: msc + 1cs suf + prep (לְ); disj accent, reb (שֵׁם) — to my name; the לְ indicates the direct object of the infinitive construct. Again, this word stands in place of YHVH’s person. The rebia segment marks the end the content of what is said by the speaker who is indicated in the pashta segment of the first zaqeph segment.
אָמַר֙ — Qal pf 3ms; disj accent, psh (אָמַר) — says; instantaneous perfective; The pashta conjunctive marks the near subordinate domain of the first zaqeph segment. It also serves to separate the verb, אָמַר֙, from its stated subject.
יְהוָ֣ה — n: msc; conj accent, mun (יְהוָה) — LORD YHVH; The munach conjoins the construct with the absolute.
צְבָאז֔וֺת — n: msa; disj accent, zaq (צָבָה) — hosts; The zaqeph ends the first remote segment of line one which contains the protasis (rebia segment) and the identification of the speaker (pashta segment). The second remote zaqeph segment begins the apodosis which is concluded in the near tiphchah segment.
וְשִׁלַּחְתִּ֤י — Piel RVP 1cs + vav cons; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual gar (שָׁלַח) — send out, send away on a mission;[93] 93 BDB, p. 2474 The relative vav perfective has a contingent-future sense introducing the apodosis of the conditional clause. The mahpak accent may represent a virtual garshaim which would separate the verb from the indirect object indicated by the preposition בְּ. I prefer this understanding rather than it being the conjunctive mahpak and uniting them.
בָכֶם֙ — prep + 2mp suf; disj accent, pashta (בְּ) — against;[94] 94 BDB, (II.4.a.) p.269 The pashta disjunctive separates this indirect object indicated by the preposition בְּ from the definite direct object.
אֶת־ — ptcl, noun indicator; no accent, maqqeph (אֵת) — This is a definite curse, one which they would have been familiar with. Without doubt, it is the curse mentioned in Deuteronomy 28. The maqqeph unites this marker with the following word.
הַמְּאֵרָ֔ה — n: fsa + art; disj accent, zaqeph (מְאֵרָה) — curse; The article makes this a definite curse. This word also occurs in Mal. 3:9, Deut. 28:20, Prov. 3:33, & 28:27. The verbal form and root is אָרַר (see below). There are many words in the Old Testament translated curse. This particular word means to bind or hem in with obstacles or to make powerless to resist.[95] 95 TWOT, p. 75 It is used as the opposite of blessing as can be seen from this passage and the others where it is used. In that it has the definite article indicates it is a particular curse, referring back to the curse found in the immediate context of 1:14 which no doubt relates to the blessings and curses found in Deuteronomy 28. The zaqeph marks the end to the first part of this apodosis.
וְאָרוֹתִ֖י — Qal RVP 1cs + vav cons; disj accent, tiphchah (אָרַר ) — to curse; As with וְשִׁלַּחְתִּ֤י above, the relative vav perfective has a contingent-future sense introducing another part of the apodosis of the conditional clause. The tiphchah on this word marks the second part of the apodosis of the conditional clause found in this first line. Strictly speaking it does not add a distinctly different idea; rather, it expands the idea already stated that YHVH would send the curse. This curse would be directed against their blessings.
אֶת־ — ptcl, noun indicator; no accent, maqqeph (אֵת) — This marks the definite direct object of the previous verb with the maqqeph uniting this particle with the word it points to.
בִּרְכֽוֹתֵיכֶ֑ם — n: fpc; + 2mp suf; disj accent, athnach (בִּרָכָה) — blessing; This word refers, as John Oswald notes, to “Either the verbal enduement with good things or a collective expression for the good things themselves.”[96] 96 TWOT, p. 132 The athnach disjunctive ends line one; the following silluq segment is epexegetical adding the idea that the judgment has already begun.
וְגַם֙ — adv; + vav; disj accent, pashta (גַּם) — even also, גַּם has an emphatic force as it introduces this concluding statement of the conditional clause begun in line one.[97] 97 IBHS, p. 663 The pashta sets this introductory adverb apart from the rest of the initial zaqeph segment as is common.
אָרוֹתִ֔יהָ — Qal Pf 1cs + 3fs suf; disj accent, zaqeph (אָרַר ) — to curse; The perfective here seems to be an indefinite perfective or perhaps a recent perfective.[98] 98 IBHS, p. 487 The antecedent of the suffix is בִּרְכֽוֹתֵיכֶם, their blessings. The zaqeph marks the close of this short segment stating what YHVH has done. The concluding tiphchah segment states the reason for this action.
כִּ֥י — conj; conj accent, mer (כִּי) — because; The כִּי is used as a causal conjunction introducing a verbless clause. The mereka unites this conjunction with the following existential particle.
אֵינְכֶ֖ם — existential ptcl + 2mp suf; disj accent, tiphchah (אֵין) — This adverb or particle negates a verbless clause with the masculine plural suffix indicating the subject and the following participle the verbal action.[99] 99 IBHS, p. 661 “there is not to you a setting it to heart” which, in English as a finite verb form, becomes “because you are not setting it to heart.” The tiphchah, while marking the concluding segment of the silluq segment, also serves to separate the negative and the subject from the participial phrase denoting the verbal action.
שָׂמִ֥ים — Qal ptcp mpa; conj accent, mer (שׂוּם, שִׂים) — to set, put place; Predicate use of the participle in a verbless clause emphasizing the current state of affairs. The mereka unites this participle with the following prepositional phrase which completes the idiom.
עַל־ — prep; no accent, maq (עַל) — upon; The maqqeph unites the preposition and its object.
לֵֽב׃ — n: msa; disj accent, sil (לֵב) — heart; The silluq ends line two.
I am opposed to the prosperity gospel that teaches our God wants us all to be rich in this life. Most believers, myself included, would not handle wealth very well; we would be ensnared by it and serve it rather than our Lord. That being said, there is an element of truth to the statement God wants his children to prosper. One just need look at the blessings and curses found in Deuteronomy twenty-eight to see this. Being obedient to the covenant meant that YHVH would bless his people Israel, and this included material blessings. Disobedience canceled these blessings. This was true for the people and priests in Malachi’s day (Malachi 2:2 and 3:8-12), and, I believe, it is a principle for believers in this age as well.
Is it an absolute promise for every believer? In the ultimate outcome, yes indeed! In the short term, that term which encompasses our brief lives, no. While it is a principle and is generally true, there are exceptions. Not all of God’s children who walk in obedience to him are always materially and physically successful, but they are blessed spiritually and ultimately the material/physical will be true. Look at the persecutions in the early church. Examine the teachings of our Lord (Matthew 5:3, 19:21, Luke 16:13), and apostles (1 Corinthians 4:11, James 1:9, 2:5, Revelation 3:17).
But it is a general truth that God wishes his children to be blessed materially. Yet he loves us so much, he does not usually give us that which would turn us away from himself. He gives us what is best for us!
Another important observation and application can be found in this verse. Being blessed is the default state or condition. That is where we start. That is where the nation Israel started (Deuteronomy 4:32-40). It was not something they earned; YHVH in his grace chose them. If they continued in obedience, the blessings remained. But disobedience brought about a change in these blessings. In Malachi’s day their blessings, the material benefits promised by YHVH had already been bound or hemmed in by the curse brought about by the disobedience of these priests. So also it is with us. While physical and material blessings are not absolutely promised this side of the rapture or resurrection, they are the expected default state. That is where we start. We have been blessed. Do we seek to continue in that state or do we abuse God’s goodness and love by disobedience. Note Paul’s argument in Romans 5-7.
“Now I am about to rebuke against you the sowing, | |
and I will scatter offal upon your faces, | |
the offal of your festival gatherings!‡ |
And they (he) will carry you away in addition with it!”‡ |
In verse 1:14, YHVH introduces his judgment with a general provision, namely, that anyone who has a proper animal to offer as a sacrifice but who offers something else instead that is corrupt is cursed. In verse 2:1, he specifically says this applies to the priests. Then in verse 2:2 he warns them that he will invoke the curse found in Deuteronomy 28 if they do not set their will to fully honor him. Now in this verse he specifically explains what that will be. He tells them that he is going to rebuke their crops, the seed, i.e., what they have planted (See Deuteronomy 28:38.) and that he will scatter or disperse (sow as seed!) the offal from the sacrifices they perform on their faces, and as a result, they will be carried off with that offal and thrown away.
Like the verse before, this verse divides into a longer athnach segment and a short silluq segment. The athnach segment is full having two remote zaqeph segments and a near tiphchah. The first zaqeph segment is an independent clause; the second along with the closing tiphchah segment is another independent clause. The major syntactical break is therefore at the first zaqeph disjunctive. The tiphchah segment is an appositive qualifying or renaming the direct object of the verb in the second zaqeph segment.
The empty silluq segment follows sequentially logically from the previous clause. Having had offal (unclean) scattered upon their faces, these priests were then unclean, and along with the offal, would be discarded.
הִנְנִ֨י — presentative ptcl[100] 100 This is the term used by Waltke and O’Conner in An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 675. + 1cs suf; conj accent, azl (הִנֵּה) — Behold, see, now; הִנֵּה introduces an exclamation of immediacy. It also serves as a connection from the warning that YHVH would curse them unless they repented—and had indeed already begun to do this—to the description in this verse of what he will bring about.[101] 101 IBHS, p. 675 The azla unites this particle with the following participle.
גֹעֵ֤ר — Qal ptcp msa; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual garshaim (גָעַר) — to rebuke; predicate use. Its use with הִנֵּה indicates both an immediacy and the idea of certainty.[102] 102 IBHS, p. 627 The accent may be a mahpak conjoining the participle with the prepositional phrase, or a transformed garshaim disjoining them.
לָכֶם֙ — prep + 2mp suf; disj accent, psh (לְ) — with גָאַר indicates in reference to whom the LORD is about to rebuke; similar to dative of disadvantage “against you” or “for you.” The pashta disjunctive separates the first word-unit from the direct object of the participle.
אֶת־ — ptcl, noun indicator; no accent, maq (אֵת) — this indicates the direct object of גֹעֵ֤ר; The maqqeph unites the word marker with its object.
הַזֶּ֔רַע — n: msa + art; disj accent, zaq (זֶרַע) — sowing, seed, offspring; The vast majority of the English translations understand זֶרַע here to refer to physical descendants of these priests. However, BDB suggests that with הַזֶּרַה, which has the idea of sowing here, this means to prevent the usual harvest.[103] 103 BDB, p. 472 To rebuke the sowing or seeds mean they will not germinate and grow. This fits the context much better Note: Deuteronomy 28:38 and the play on words with זֶרַע, “sowing, seed,” and ,זָרַה “to scatter, disperse,” which was how sowing was performed in that day! The first zaqeph marks the major break in the athnach segment which details the first item of YHVH’s judgment against these priests.
וְזֵרִ֤יתִי — Piel RVP 1cs + vav cons; conj accent, mah / virtual ger (זָרַה) — to scatter; The relative vav perfective following the participle is used to describe a subsequent event in future time.[104] 104 IBHS, p. 630 It has a specific future sense. If the accent is a mahpak, it conjoins the subject/verb with the object; if a transformed geresh, it disjoins them. If the mahpak on גֹעֵר in the initial zaqeph segment represents a mahpak and not a transformed geresh, then this also is likely a mahpak; otherwise it might also represent a transformed geresh.
פֶ֨רֶשׁ֙ — n: msa; disj accent, psh (פֶּ֫רֶשׁ) — the fecal matter found in the intestine of a victim, offal; This is the direct object of וְזֵרִיתִי. The pashta disjunctive separates the subject/verb and object from the adverbial prepositional phrase denoting where the offal is scattered.
עַל־ — prep; no accent, maq (עַל) — upon; The maqqeph joins the preposition and its object.
פְּנֵיכֶ֔ם — n: m(f)pc + 2ms suf; disj accent, zaq (פָּנִים) — face; The object of the preposition עַל. The zaqeph marks the end of the second remote segment and separates it from the concluding tiphchah segment.
פֶּ֖רֶשׁ — n: msc; disj accent, tip (פֶּ֫רֶשׁ) — the fecal matter found in the intestine of a victim, offal; The tiphchah marks the concluding near segment of the first line. The tiphchah disjunctive, although on equal rank with a zaqeph, does not seem grammatically to mark a segment of equal rank. Each of the remote zaqeph segments is an independent clause which states what YHVH is about to do. The near tiphchah segment does not mark another clause but rather an appositive qualifying a noun in the previous clause. The tiphchah, which must fall here, replaces a conjunctive (munach) which would normally be found uniting a construct with its absolute. [Question: Why the tiphchah? Why not just have two subordinate segments in this line, a zaqeph and a tiphchah? Unless it is for purely a musical effect, it would appear that this elevates the stress on these two final words and gives them more emphasis. It would imply that YHVH was displeased with the actions of these priests especially during the great feast days of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles.]
חַגֵּיכֶ֑ם — n: mpc + 2mp suf; disj accent, ath (חַג) — festival gathering, feast, usually of one of the three great pilgrim feasts. The athnach marks the end of the first line.
וְנָשָׂ֥א — Qal RVP 3ms + vav cons; conj accent, mer (נָשָׂא) — to lift up, carry, carry away; The relative vav perfective, like the previous verb form (וְזֵרִיתִי), is used to describe a subsequent event in future time. Having spread the unclean offal on their faces, these priests are now unclean and will be carried away in addition to this offal and disposed of. The third masculine singular form is used as an indefinite person, much as English uses the third person plural form. The mereka joins the verb/subject with its direct object.
אֶתְכֶ֖ם — ptcl, noun indicator +2mp suf; disj accent, tip (אֵת) — you; the direct object of וְנָשָׂא; The antecedent of the second masculine plural pronoun in this verse and in verse two is הַכֹּהֲנִים, O Priests found in the first verse. The tiphchah marks the near subordinate segment. This clause is successive to the previous clause found in second zaqeph and final tiphchah clause of line one.
אֵלָֽיו׃ — prep + 3ms suf; disj accent, sil (אֵל) — in addition to;[105] 105 BDB, p. 154 under usage 5 The context suggests this meaning.
Sometimes it is very difficult to draw applications from a single verse. But then, a single verse should seldom be studied isolated from its context. In attempting to provide an application for each verse, one thing that strikes me at this point is that God’s judgment fits the offense. These priests were dishonoring YHVH in the manner in which they performed their duties as priests. They were taking unclean animals and offering then to him. When they refused to make the commitment to give him the honor he deserved, in judgment for their disobedience, the curse pronounced in Deuteronomy 28 would be evoked. Not only that, he would cause them to be unclean and subsequently removed from his service.
How does god judge or discipline you and I. We can be sure his discipline, which is to our best interest, fits each of us, to correct us in the areas we need. It is not like the legal system in our country where standard penalties are handed out. His judgment or discipline is taylored to each individual either in punishment for disobedience or in correction for his child.
“And you will know | |
that I have sent to you | |
this commandment‡ |
my covenant being with Levi.” | |
says YHVH of Hosts.‡ |
YHVH continues his explanation of his judgment against the priests. Having warned them that he will invoke the covenantal curse from Deuteronomy 28, he explained what he was about to do. Their crops would be cursed and fail, and they would be discarded from serving as priests before him. This verse now explains what they will come to understand from all this. They would understand that this commandment (1:14 and 2:1) was sent and applies specifically to them and that YHVH was doing this because of the covenant he had made with the descendants of Levi.
Verse four has a full athnach and a full silluq segment. The athnach segment has three subordinate segments, a remote great zaqeph, a remote (little) zaqeph and a near tiphchah segment. The great zaqeph marks the first segment consisting of a single word. While it can be an independent clause in itself, in this line, the second (little) zaqeph segment and the tiphchah segment make up an object clause which completes the idea. They may be considered to be in a sense the object of the verb/subject וִֽידַעְתֶּם, “and you will know….” The great zaqeph disjunctive is the main syntactical break in this line. The second zaqeph segment serves to separate the indirect object (אֲלֵיכֶם) from the direct object (אֵת הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת) which is the tiphchah segment.
The silluq segment adds an explanation. As is common, it has a remote zaqeph segment being the content of what YHVH says and a near tiphchah segment, being the identification that the one speaking is YHVH. The content of what YHVH is saying includes not only the remote zaqeph segment of this second line but extends back to the first line and to the previous verse as well.
וִֽידַעְתֶּ֕ם — Qal RVP 2mp + vav cons; disj accent, great zaq (יָדַע) — to know; This is the third in a series of vav relative perfectives with a specific future reference “you will know.” It is sequential in that it follows the carrying out of YHVH’s judgment. They will learn from it. The great zaqeph, which substitutes for a (little) zaqeph marks the first division of the athnach segment. This is the major syntactical division of this line separating the independent clause from the object clause that follows.
כִּ֚י — conj; disj accent, yet and aux accent met (כִּי) — that; כִּי introduces a verbal clause which is the object of וִידַעְתֶּם The yethib sets this word apart from the object clause it introduces.
שִׁלַּ֣חְתִּי — Piel Pf 1cs; conj accent, mun (שָׁלַח) — to send; a recent perfective; “I have sent” The munach unites the subject/verb with the indirect object which is indicated by the preposition אֵל.
אֲלֵיכֶ֔ם — prep + 2mp suf; disj accent, zaq (אֵל) — to; Used to indicate the indirect object. The zaqeph divides the clause serving as the object of וִידַעְתֶּם into two parts; the first part is the subject/verb and the indirect object, and the second part is the direct object. This accent pattern seems to give equal weight to the sender and what he sent thus giving the last two words, הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת or “this commandment” more emphasis than they would have had the zaqeph been a tebir.
אֵ֖ת — ptcl, noun indicator; disj accent, tip (אֵת) — sign of direct object; The tiphchah marks close of the last segment of line one which is the direct object of שִׁלַּחְתִּי. It necessarily falls on this short word that would normally be joined to the noun it points to with a maqqeph or a conjunctive accent because it cannot fall on the last word-unit bearing the athnach.
הַמִּצְוָ֣ה — n: fsa + art; conj accent, mun (מִצְוָה) — commandment; This word is definite, referring to the particular commandment mentioned in verse 2:1 and expanded on in verses 2:2-3. The munach unites this noun with its qualifier.
הַזֹּ֑את — demo adj fsa + art; disj accent, ath (זֶה) — this; qualifies מִצְוָה. The athnach marks the main division of the verse separating the independent clause and its object clause from the following dependent clause.
לִֽהְי֤וֹת — Qal inf cstr + לְ; conj accent, mah / disj accent virtual gar (הָיָה ) — to be; Although it might be either, the mahpak probably is the conjunctive uniting the subject and infinitive rather than a transformed garshaim. There are two possibilities regarding the infinitive construct with לְ. First, it might represent a purpose/result clause. This is how almost every English translation takes it. “And you will know that I have sent to you this commandment in order that my covenant might be with Levi.” If this is sense of the word, then it places the continuance of the covenant with the Levites in the hands of these priests. If they obey, the covenant continues; if not, it does not. However, there is another possibility; the infinitive construct with לְ can also be epexegetical.[106] 106 GKC, § 114. 4; IBHS, p. 608. Genesius states, “Finally, the infinitive with לְ is very frequently used in a much looser connection to state motives, attendant circumstances, or otherwise to define more exactly.” Waltke, O’Conner state, “As a gerundive, explanatory or epexegetical, the construction ל +infinitive often explains the circumstances or nature of a preceding action.” In this case the translation would be, “And you will know that I have sent to you this commandment my covenant being with Levi.”
There is an important issue in the translation of this verse. Is YHVH saying, he sent these instructions so that his covenant with Levi, i.e., the tribe of Levi, the Levites, may continue or is he saying he sent these instructions because his covenant is with the Levites. Is it a purpose/result clause or is it epexegetical and explanatory? The question that must be asked then was/is YHVH’s covenant with Levi conditional or unconditional? Note that this question is not whether or not the Levitical priesthood could once for all time deal with the sin issue. Hebrews, chapter 11 make it clear that it could not do so. A new High Priest was needed, Jesus Christ our Lord not from the priesthood of Levi but from Melchizedek. Nor is the question whether or not an individual priest could be removed from the priesthood. Witness the fate of Abihu and Nadab (Leviticus 10:1–2) and the sons of the high priest Eli (1 Samuel 2:12–17). The question is whether or not the priesthood could be removed from the tribe of Levi because of disobedience? Was or could it have been removed in Malachi’s day upon the refusal of these priests to give glory to YHVH? Was it removed when the priests in our Lord’s day condemned him to death? Was the covenant with Levi conditional dependent upon the actions of the priests or was it unconditional?
Scripture, I believe, indicates that it was unconditional. The Levitical Covenant is that part of the Mosaic Law which dealt specifically with the priesthood and the Levites. The Law regulated who could offer sacrifices, how and when they were to be offered and many other aspects of the priesthood. Much about the Law was very conditional in that the blessings for the nation were dependent upon their obedience to the law (Deuteronomy, chapter 28), but it made no provision for it to be removed from the tribe of Levi.
This is not to say individuals or groups could not be judged and removed but that it was a perpetual priesthood given to the Levites. Note Numbers 25:10-13. Note that in the Kingdom yet to be established, sacrifices are still offered (Ezekiel 43 and 44), sacrifices which look back not forward! According to the Scripture, while the Levitical priesthood could not accomplish our salvation and thus the need for the Great High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, it was not abolished. It was a perpetual covenant with the Levites. God was judging these priests not to abolish the covenant but disciplining them because his covenant was and is with them. He was purifying and refining them. See Malachi 3:1-4! Is it important how one translates this clause? Indeed, it is. It is an epexegetical, not a purpose or result clause.
בְּרִיתִי֙ — n: fsc + 1cs suf; disj accent, psh (בְּרִית) — covenant; subject of the infinitive construct; The pashta separates the infinitive and its subject from the prepositional phrase which qualifies בְּרִיתִי.
אֶת־ — prep; maq (אֶת) — with; The preposition specifies which covenant, the one in association with Levi. The prepositional phrase might also be a complement to the understood verbal idea “my covenant (which I made) with Levi.” The maqqeph unites the preposition with its object.
לֵוִ֔י — pn: msa; disj accent, zaq (לֵוִי) — Levi; object of the preposition. The zaqeph separates this clause from the next which identifies the speaker. This noun is used to represent Levi’s descendants, this is the figure of speech of metonymy.
אָמַ֖ר — Qal Pf 3ms; disj accent, tip (אָמַר) — to say; instantaneous perfective. The tiphchah marks the near subordinate segment of the silluq segment and also separates the verb from the stated subject.
יְהוָ֥ה — pn: msc; conj accent, mer (יְהוָה) — YHVH; subject of אָמַר. The mereka unites the construct and absolute.
צְבָאֽוֹת׃ — n: mpa; disj accent, sil (צָבָה) — host
Just as it is important to note and distinguish the sense of the infinitive construct phrase לִהְי֤וֹת in this verse as it applies to YHVH’s relationship to the Levites, it is important to see the application to us in our relationship to our LORD. YHVH made a unconditional covenant with the Levites. They would be his priests. While individuals and even groups might be judged and remove from that ministry, the covenant with the Levites was not dissolved in Malachi’s day or even in our Lord’s day. YHVH would work to purify them and restore them to what they should be. This he would do by means of the work of our Savior not only in his death and resurrection, but in the last days before he returns as the Messenger of the covenant.
So also ,our relationship with our LORD is based on an unconditional covenant. It is the New Covenant established by the shed blood of the Lamb of God, Jesus the Christ or Messiah. Having placed our faith in him, he promises to save us, to not cast us out (John 6:37). This does not mean he will not discipline us as he did the Levites, to refine and purify Hebrews 12:4-8.
Therefore, when discipline comes and we are exhorted to hear and obey, it is not in order that the New Covenant might be established with us, it is because the New Covenant is established with us. We do not obey God in order to be his children, we obey because we are his children!
My covenant with Levi was made (became to be) \ life and peace. | |
I gave them to him for respect. So he feared/respected me!‡ |
And before my name he stood in awe.‡ |
YHVH told the priests in the previous verse that he was judging or discipling them since his covenant is with Levi, i.e., the Levites. He now begins to explain what the covenant was intended to be and what the priests were supposed to do. In this verse he states this covenant with the Levites was to be that which led to a peaceful and good life; and that it was to produce in them a fear and respect for YHVH. And they, at least in the beginning, responded by respecting/fearing him and standing in awe of his name or person.
The first line is a full athnach segment comprised of a remote zaqeph segment and a near tiphchah. The zaqeph segment is one independent clause. It is full, divided into two parts; the first is a remote rebia segment containing the subject, verb and an adverbial prepositional phrase. The second part, a near pashta segment contains the predicate nominatives.
The closing tiphchah segment is empty yet has two independent related clauses separated by the tiphchah disjunctive. The first states the purpose that YHVH had in giving these benefits of life and peace to the Levites. The last clause then gives their response to YHVH’s action.
The last line is a fractional silluq segment with only a subordinate near tiphchah. It is another independent clause which adds another dimension to the last statement in the tiphchah segment of line one.
בְּרִיתִ֣י׀ — n: fsc + 1cs suf; disj accent, leg (בְּרִית) — covenant; subject of the verb הָיְתָה. The legarmeh sets apart the subject from the verb.
הָיְתָ֣ה — Qal Pf 3fs; conj accent, mun (הָיָה ) — The perfect is a definite past. This verb at this point has the idea of coming into being, to happen more than the simple existential idea of just being. This is much like the distinction between εἰμί and γίνομαι hence, the translation of “was made.” The munach unites the verb with the following adverbial prepositional phrase.
אִתּ֗וֹ — prep; + 3ms suf; disj accent, reb(אֵת) — with; As above, the preposition specifies which covenant, the one in association with Levi, the noun to which the pronoun refers. The rebia separates the verb and its qualifier from the predicate nominatives. Levi is used by metonymy for the tribe of Levi or the Levites.
הַֽחַיִּים֙ — n: mpa + art; disj accent, psh and aux accent met (חַיִּים) — (pl abstract) life; the first of two nouns which are the predicate nominative of הָיְתָה, came to be, i.e, was made (to be). This word and the next probably should be taken as a hendiadys, in which two words joined by “and” form a single idea with one word being the qualifier of the other. חַיִּים (life) is the noun which is qualified or characterized by the following word שָׁלֹום (heath, welfare, peace). The article is a generic use with collective plurals and abstracts. The pashta separates this noun from the next.[107] 107 Question: why a disjunctive here if this word and the next are a hendiadys; why not a conjunctive munach? Does it indicate that these two words are not to be taken as a hendiadys but as two separate ideas? Does the use of secondary azla accent in place of a metheg have anything to say about the grammar at this point, or is the accenting only for musical/poetic reasons? A study of the use of accents on word pairs forming a hendiadys would be helpful here. If this, because of the accents does not represent a hendiadys, then two distinct ideas are in view. הַֽחַיִּים֙, life “as consisting of earthly felicity combined (often) with spiritual blessedness”[108] 108 BDB, p.79 and הַשָּׁל֔וֹם, peace, the next word.
וְהַ֨שָּׁל֔וֹם — n: msa + art + vav conj; disj accent, zaq + secondary azla/metheg conj accent (שָׁלֹום) — health, welfare, peace; This noun seems to characterize the previous one, “a healthy, peaceful, good life.” There does not seem to be a single English word which captures all these ideas. This covenant given to them by YHVH became this for them, that is it resulted in this. The zaqeph marks the end of the first half of this line from the last separating this clause from the next two related clauses introduced by a relative vav.
וָאֶתְּנֵֽם־ — verb Qal RVI 1cs + 3mp suf +vav cons; maq + aux accent, metheg (נָתַן) — to give, put, set; definite past; the 3mp suf refers to the previous two nouns, life and peace or a peaceful/healthy/good life. The verb is a relative vav imperfective continuing the definite past idea. It is used epexegetically. It adds to the statement in the zaqeph segment. The Levitical covenant was made to bless the Levites but to another ultimate end. God gave these blessings to another end. The maqqeph conjoins the subject and the following prepositional phrase.
ל֥וֹ — prep + 3ms suf; conj accent, mer (לְ) — to; to; The preposition לְ indicates the indirect object. The mereka unites this word-unit with the noun מֹורָא. The pronoun refers to Levi who represents, not the actual individual, but by metonymy his descendants, the Levites.
מוֹרָ֖א — n: msa; disj accent, tip (מוֹרָה) — fear, respect; This noun is used as an adverbial accusative qualifying the verb. It indicates the goal of the action of the verb. YHVH gave this covenant for honor or for the purpose that these Levites might honor him. The tiphchah marks the close of the near subordinate segment.
וַיִּֽירָאֵ֑נִי — Qal RVImpf 3ms + 1cs suf + vav cons; disj accent, ath (יָרֵא) — to fear, respect; Another relative vav imperfective continuing the definite past. It is sequential and states that indeed the Levites (in the beginning at least) did fear or respect YHVH as he intended. The athnach marks the close of the first line of this verse.
וּמִפְּנֵ֥י — n: mpc + vav + prep מִן; conj accent, mer (פָּנִים) — at the presence of, from the presence of;[109] 109 BDB meaning II.2.b. This is a frozen prepositional phrase[110] 110 IBHS, p. 221 The preposition is joined to its object by the mereka conjunctive. The vav connects this clause with the previous clauses in the first line.
שְׁמִ֖י — n: msc +1cs suf; disj accent, tip (שֵׁם) —name; As has been noted before this noun is used by metonymy for the person of YHVH himself. Thus, the preposition means in the very presence of YHVH, and hints at the ministry of the Levites as they stood before the presence of YHVH in the sanctuary offering their sacrifices.
נִחַ֥ת — Niphal Pf 3ms; conj accent, mer (חָתַת) — to be broken, dismayed to be awed;[111] 111 BDB, p. 916 suggests “put in awe” for the Niphal; TWOT, p. 336 states, “Like other verbs of fearing…it can refer to awe and reverence….”This perfective is a definite past tense continuing the previous vav relative imperfectives. The choice of this word indicates that, at the very least, these Levites in the beginning did not consider what they did to be a mundane everyday event. It was not boring, a weariness, not something to be disdainfully snorted at (see verse 1:13!) It was something that was a bit “scary,” something to be done carefully, something to cause one to be in awe.
הֽוּא׃ — pron 3ms; disj accent, sil (הוּא) — he; The use of the pronoun at this point is an implicit contrast.[112] 112 IBHS, pp 295-296 These Levites (not the current priest to whom this book was written) stood in awe before YHVH!
There is much we can apply from what was written to these priests so long ago. YHVH had given them instructions, which went beyond the general instructions to the rest of the tribes. But these were not given by YHVH to constrict them and prevent them from being prosperous; they were given for just the opposite reason. This special relationship with him (YHVH was their inheritance rather than the land itself!) was made with them to be a prosperous, complete life not to deprive them of any happiness.
So too we as believers, sometimes think that the instructions our Lord gave us somehow bind us to live a life that is less happy or fulfilled than one that the typical unbeliever can live. But our Lord’s instructions are not designed by him to bind us or hem us in—rather that is what the curse of sin does! —instead they are designed to give us a prosperous and complete life.
How do we see our service to our Lord? When we exercise the gifts he has given us we are serving him. Do we see it as mundane, something that is trivial or do we serve out of fear and respect? When we pray for others, is it a burden, something that we know we should do but would rather be doing something else or do we stand in awe knowing that we are approaching the throne of our Lord and the Living, God, the Omnipotent Sovereign of the Cosmos? He has saved us, given us life and freedom. What is our response to Romans 8:31-39? Do we stand in awe before him?
In English, we distinguish between the fear of something and reverence and awe of something. We have divorced the two concepts.; we separate them. We use different words for them. In Biblical Hebrew they were much more closely tied together; the same words were used for both. Today, one might look at a beautiful sunset or a flowering alpine meadow. One might watch a video of volcanic eruptions or a desert thunderstorm. In all of these, there is very little fear. On the other hand, if one were present, near the volcanic activity, or in the desert in the midst of the storm, there might be much fear and little awe. Fear is more than just an emotional response; it involves the recognition of potential danger, the power and abilities of something apart from oneself. As an amateur snake enthusiast, I have caught many different species of snakes, some venomous. Am I afraid of snakes? No. But I did fear them, not so much in the sense of an emotional response, but in the sense that I was very aware of the danger they posed. Even non-venomous ones can deliver a nasty bite; I speak from experience. I respected what they are and what they are capable of.
I am convinced that much of our Christian culture has lost something of what should be included in the fear of the Lord. We have turned God into a kindly old father figure somewhere up there who wants the best for us, to whom one may go for help in time of need. Jesus Christ, our Savior, we view as a sandal-footed shepherd. We have lost that touch of fear that should be commingled with our respect. Our heavenly Father is our father indeed, although most believers do not know how, why or in what sense this is true. But he is so much more! He is YHVH of Hosts. Our Lord is the shepherd but so much more! He is the King of all kings who will return in power carrying out the wrath of God on a rebellious world. He will be the potentate that passes judgment on our lives. Yes, we reverence him and respect him, but is that touch of fear there because we truly see him for who and what he is? Yes, he helps us, grants us mercy to be sure. But he also judges sin, disciplines us when we disobey? Do we fear that? Do we stand in awe and tremble before him in awe and respect?
How do we see our service to our Lord? When we exercise the gifts, he has given us we are serving him. Do we see it as mundane, something that is trivial or do we serve out of fear and respect? When we pray for others, is it a burden, something that we know we should do but would rather be doing something else or do we stand in awe knowing that we are approaching the throne of our Lord and the Living, God, the Omnipotent Sovereign of the Cosmos? He has saved us, given us life and freedom. What is our response to Romans 8:31-39? Do we stand in awe before him?
Faithful instruction was in his mouth; | |
and injustice was not found on his lips.‡ |
In peace and uprightness he walked with me. | |
And many he turned back from iniquity.‡ |
Verse six continues the description started in the previous verse of how Levi, i.e., the early Levites, obeyed the covenant God gave to them. They taught true instruction; the true law and their teaching was not unjust or wrong. They were peaceful, lived an upright life and, as a result, they turned many away from iniquity.
Both lines in this verse are balanced. Each is full, having a remote fractional zaqeph segment and near empty tiphchah segment. Both have the same number of word units and essentially the same accentual pattern. Each zaqeph and tiphchah segment is an independent clause and each tiphchah segment is joined to its preceding zaqeph segment by a disjunctive clausal vav.
תּוֹרַ֤ת — n: fsc; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual garshaim (תּוֹרָה) — teaching, instruction, law; This word, found four times in this book, 2:6, 8, 9; 4:4, is often translated as law although its core meaning is teaching or instruction. It can refer to the action of teaching or that which is taught. It is also used specifically of those teachings God gave to Moses who then taught them to the people.[113] 113 TWOT, pp. 403-405This is the Torah or Law, the first five books of the Old Testament recorded by Moses. The teaching of the Law, YHVH’s instructions to the people, was a specific responsibility of the priests, Deuteronomy 17:8-11 and 33:8-10. They taught the Torah and its applications to the people.
What is its sense in this verse, 2:6? In 4:4, זִכְר֕וּ תּוֹרַ֖ת מֹשֶׁ֣ה עַבְדִּ֑י, “Remember the Torah of Moses, my servant,” the narrower reference to the Torah or the Law seems to be in view. However, in 2:7-9 it appears to be used in the wider sense of instruction or teaching, which without a doubt centered around the Law of Moses and the other parts of the Old Testament canon which had come to be recognized in Malachi’s day. The mahpak on this word is probably a mahpak joining the construct with its absolute and not a transformed garshaim.
אֱמֶת֙ — n: fsa; disj accent, psh(אֱמֶת) — truth, faithfulness, firmness; This word has the idea of something that is firm, confirmed, supported, dependable and faithful. It is something that can be relied upon. In our culture of unreason, where it is it is taught that truth is relative or unknowable, to say something is confirmed, supported or true is not popular. The absolute here could an objective genitive in which case truth is the object of the verbal idea of teaching. This is what they taught. Or it might be an attributive genitive in which case the teaching is characterized by truth or true teaching. The difference between these seems to be one of emphasis. On the one hand, instruction of the truth, an objective genitive, would imply that the teaching was true, dependable and faithful. On the other, true instruction, an attributive genitive, implies that the content of the teaching was truth. Certainly, the truth of God’s Word was the focus of their teaching, and, at the beginning at least, this they did faithfully. The pashta separates the subject from the predicate.
הָיְתָ֣ה — Qal Pf 3fs; conj accent, mun(הָיָה ) — to be; This is a definite past continuing the description of the actions of the Levites in the beginning of their ministry giving them by YHVH. The munach connects the verb with the prepositional phrase which completes the predicate.
בְּפִ֔יהוּ — n: msc + 3ms suf + prep בְּ; disj accent, zaq (פֶּה) —mouth; The use of this prepositional phrase is a reminder that the teaching was an oral ministry in that time period. The statement that the instruction of truth was in their mouth is idiomatic meaning this is what or how they spoke or taught. They truly taught and taught the truth. The zaqeph marks the end of the clause.
וְעַוְלָ֖ה — n: fsa + vav disj; disj accent, tip (עַוְלָה) —injustice, wrong; This noun is the subject of the verb נִמְצָא. The vav joined to the noun rather than the verb indicates a disjunctive vav. There is a contrast between the clause in the zaqeph segment and the next clause. This noun is used by metonymy (what is taught in place of the teaching) to refer to a type of teaching contrasted to the teaching of the truth in the previous clause. This is teaching which was unjust or wrong. This could refer to the teaching of something that was true for the wrong or unjust reason or to teaching content that was wrong or unjust. The tiphchah marks the closing segment of the athnach segment and also serves to separate subject from the predicate.
לֹא־ — adv neg; no accent, maq (לֹא לוֹא) — no, not; The negative adverb is joined to the verb by the maqqeph.
נִמְצָ֣א — Niphal Pf 3ms; conj accent, mun (מָצַא)— to be found; Again a definite past. The munach unites this with the following prepositional phrase, forming one word-unit upon which the athnach disjunctive falls.
בִשְׂפָתָ֑יו — n: fdc +3ms suf + prep בְּ; disj accent, ath (שָׂפָה) — lips; The בְּ indicates the location of the unjust teaching. Again, this has reference to the act of teaching which involves the lips. The athnach ends the first line.
בְּשָׁל֤וֹם — n: msa + prep בְּ; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual garshaim(שָׁלוֹם) — health, welfare, peace; As in the first line, the mahpak on this word is probably a mahpak joining two items and not a transformed garshaim. The בְּ marks the concomitant circumstances attending the Levite’s walking (living their lives). He walked in peace or peacefully.
וּבְמִישׁוֹר֙ — n: msa + prep (בְּ) +vav conj; disj accent, psh(מִישׁוֹר) — level place, uprightness; As in the previous word, the בְּ marks the concomitant circumstances attending the Levite’s walking, i.e., living their lives. He walked uprightly, levelly, equitably, or justly. The pashta disjunctive separates the preposition phrases describing the manner in which the Levites lived their lives from the verb and prepositional phrase describing in association with whom he walked or lived his life.
הָלַ֣ךְ — Qal Pf 3ms; conj accent, mun (הָלַךְ) — to walk; In a figurative sense it refers to ones walking through one’s lifetime, one’s living of life. It is a definite past; another in a series of definite pasts describing the Levites in the beginning.
אִתִּ֔י — prep + 1cs suf; disj accent, zaq (אֵת) — with me; The prepositional phrase indicates in association with whom the Levites lived their lives. The first person suffix has reference to YHVH. The zaqeph ends this clause and segment.
וְרַבִּ֖ים — adj: mpa + vav conj; disj accent, tip (רַב) — many; (used substantively); The vav with the adjective rather than the verb again is disjunctive. It does not introduce a contrast, but a shift of characters. In the previous clauses in this verse, the Levites were in focus. In the last clause, the idea was that the Levites were upright. In the verse, they caused many others, new characters, to also be upright, that is, to turn back from iniquity.
הֵשִׁ֥יב — Hiphil Pf 3ms; conj accent, mer (שׁוּב) — cause to turn back; Definite past perfective. By their teaching and by their life, their walk with YHVH, they caused many to turn away from iniquity.
מֵעָוֹֽן׃ — n: msa + prep מִן; disj accent, sil (עָוֹן) — iniquity, guilt or punishment for iniquity; The preposition מִן here has the idea away from.
In this description of the first Levites, the first line is more a reference to what and how they taught for they were teachers, teachers of the truth of the Law. They taught the truth and they truly taught. The first half of the second line speaks more to their lives than their teaching. They had a vital relationship with their LORD; they walked with him. Their lives were characterized by shalom, i.e., peace, health and wellbeing and by uprightness. The last line adds one more thing. It states they turned many back from iniquity. While it is not stated that there is a cause/result connection between these two statements, undoubtably there is just that. They had a positive effect of those around them; they made a difference by their words and their example.
What kind of difference do we make? What you say is important and that must be backed up by how you live. Whether you realize it or not, whether you wish it to be so or not you teach and influence others. Are you turning them back from the wrong path, or encouraging them onward?
Indeed! The lips of a priest should preserve knowledge. | |
Instruction, [people] should seek from his mouth.‡ |
Because a messenger of YHVH of Hosts he is!‡ |
Verse seven is a description of what a priest should be and do. It serves as a transition moving from a description of the early Levites in 2:5-6 to a description of the current priests in Malachi’s day in 2:8-9. In this verse, the prophet states that a priest should be teaching and instructing to guard and protect knowledge. While knowledge is not qualified in this verse the context strongly suggests that it is knowledge of the Word of YHVH and how this applies to living one’s life.
Not only this, but a priest should be such that people will be seeking to find instruction from him. This implies that not only his teaching and instruction be sound but that his life be such that it does not turn people away. Note the previous verse! This is so because as a priest he is YHVH’s messenger to the people.
The athnach segment is full. It consists of a fractional remote zaqeph segment, which is an independent clause, and an empty tiphchah segment, another independent clause. These are of equal rank being somewhat parallel, containing two complementary ideas. The second line or silluq segment is fractional having only a fractional tiphchah segment. This is a dependent causal clause and qualifies the statements made in the athnach segment.
כִּֽי־ — conj; aux accent, met (כִּי) — for, because, indeed; כִּי can have a logical sense (for, because) and/or an emphatic sense (indeed). Sometimes the distinction between them difficult to determine. Here, this is probably the emphatic use of כִּי. In verses five and six the subject is Levi (לֵוִי), i.e., the early Levites or priests following the establishment of the covenant and the priesthood. YHVH made this covenant with him (them) so that they might reverence him. And they did. They taught the truth and did not proclaim that which was wrong. They walked peaceably and equitably with YHVH. They responded this way because they respected/feared YHVH and stood in awe at his presence. In verse seven, the idea shifts. It is a new idea; not a continuation of how these early Levites responded to the covenant made with them by YHVH. The verb shifts from perfectives indicating a definite past action in verses five and six to an imperfective indicating obligation;[114] 114 IBHS, p. 508 the subject shifts from Levi to a priest (כֹּהֵן). Note that the second use of כִּי in this verse, however, is logical. כִּי can be used in the same statement in both senses.[115] 115 See IBHS, p. 665. As the authors note the concepts/meaning between the emphatic and causal use sometimes blur as is the case here. The maqqeph unites this conjunction/adverb with the following noun.
שִׂפְתֵ֤י — n: fdc; conj accent, mah disj accent, virtual garshaim (שָׂפָה) — lips; The use of this word and the next is of course figurative, being a metonymy. The lips stand for the teaching and instruction made by them. The mahpak is probably just that, connecting this construct with the following absolute.
כֹהֵן֙ — n: msa; disj accent, psh (כֹּהֵן) — priest; The word is indefinite indicating this refers to a class rather than a particular, a priest, any priest. The pashta disjunctive separates the stated subject from the rest of the zaqeph segment which is the predicate.
יִשְׁמְרוּ־ — Qal Impf 3mp; no accent, maq (שָׁמַר) — to watch, preserve, keep; The imperfective is an imperfective of obligation. TWOT has a good discussion of this word.[116] 116 TWOT, pp. 939-940 The basic root idea is to exercise great care over or to do something carefully and diligently. When the verb is used in connection with the laws and commands in the covenant it comes to mean to heed them or being careful to do them. It can also denote to take care of, tend or guard something or someone, to regard or pay attention to someone and then to preserving or storing up something. In this verse the idea is that in their teaching and instruction a priest should be diligent to preserve and guard knowledge. Although not stated, that knowledge would be that of the Law and its application to living one’s life. The maqqeph joins the verb to its direct object.
דַ֔עַת — knowledge; the direct object of יִשְׁמְרוּ; While this is a general term for knowledge, it is commonly used for moral cognition and in the prophets for the knowledge of God.[117] 117 TWOT, pp. 848-849The context indicates this is the case here. The zaqeph marks the end of this clause and the remote segment.
וְתוֹרָ֖ה — n: fsa + vav; disj accent, tip (תוֹרָה) — instruction/law; This word begins the last half of line one, the tiphchah segment. The clausal vav, being attached to the noun, may be disjunctive or epexegetical. It is difficult to determine which it may be and the distinction between the ideas may be blurred. If it is disjunctive, the connection seems to be causal, i.e., the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge (since or because) people (will or should) seek instruction from his mouth. If it is epexegetical it seems to be restating or paraphrasing the previous clause from a different perspective, i.e., the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, that is, people should seek instruction from his mouth.[118] 118 IBHS, pp. 651 and 653 I prefer the former at this point in my studies. The sense of the noun, תוֹרָה, I understand to be the broader idea of teaching or instruction rather than the narrow meaning of the Law (of Moses). However, that being said, it must be noted that this instruction would certainly be centered around the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. The tiphchah, which marks the near subordinate segment, serves to separate this word, which is the direct object of the following verb, from that verb and the adverbial prepositional phrase.
יְבַקְשׁ֣וּ — Piel Impf 3mp; conj accent, mun (בָּקַשׁ) — to seek; The imperfective probably continues the idea of obligation, “they (people) should seek.” Almost all English translations so understand it as this. However, it might possibly be a habitual imperfective stating this is what people do, “They seek instruction….” The munach connects this word with the following prepositional phrase which ends this segment.
מִפִּ֑יהוּ — n: msc + 3ms suf + prep מִן disj accent, ath (פֶּה) — mouth; The preposition conveys the idea of the source or author of an action, counsel or event[119] 119 BDB, p. 1392 under 2.d. The third personal pronoun refers to כֹּהֵן in the previous segment, from his mouth. The athnach marks the end of the first line.
כִּ֛י — conj; disj accent, teb (כִּי) — for, because, indeed; The causal conjunction connects and relates this line to the first. It is disjoined from the rest of the tiphchah segment by the tebir disjunctive. The reason or cause for the previous statements is what follows.
מַלְאַ֥ךְ — n: msc; conj accent, mer (מַלְאָךְ) — messenger; This is the second time this word occurs in this book. The first in verse, 1:1 might have been a personal name; here it is used as a noun meaning messenger.[120] 120 TWOT, p. 464; Messenger, representative, courtier, angel. “Messenger” is an inadequate term for the range of tasks carried out by the OT mal’āk. These were 1) to carry a message, 2) to perform some other specified commission, and 3) to represent more or less officially the one sending him. There were both human and supernatural melā’kîm , the latter including the Angel of Yahweh (i.e. the Angel of the Lord). This word and the next word unit, יְהוָה־צְבָאוֹת, form the predicate of verbless clause of classification. [121] 121 IBHS, p. 132 The priest, of all the people, has the great responsibility of being the messenger and representative of YHVH of hosts. The mereka joins this word with the following one, יְהוָה.
יְהוָֽה־ — n: msc; aux accent, met (יְהוָה) — LORD/YHVH; The maqqeph units this construct with its absolute. The messenger is one that belongs to or speaks in behalf of YHVH of hosts.
צְבָא֖וֹת — n: mpa; disj accent, tip (צָבָה) — hosts; The tiphchah marks this near subordinate segment and also separates the predicate from the personal pronoun which is the subject.
הֽוּא׃ — pers pron: 3ms, disj accent, sil (הוּא) — he (is) The subject of the verbless clause. The silluq closes the second line.
In the New Testament, our Lord did not leave instructions for a priestly system like Israel’s. The Book of Hebrews makes clear that forgiveness of sin, as pictured in the Levitical sacrifices, has been accomplished once for all time by the sacrifice of our Lord for all. Now every believer individually can approach God the Father through our Great High Priest, Jesus Christ. That being said, although we have no other priests who serve as mediators between God and man, we do have those who serve as teachers and pastor teachers, having been gifted by our Lord through the Spirit of God. How then does this statement of what a priest should do apply to us today?
Certainly, those who have been gifted to teach should exercise that gift in such a way as to watch, keep, or guard knowledge just as these priests in Malachi were to do. They were to exercise care and be diligent in what and how they taught. So are we, who teach. Romans 12:6-8 “Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith; if service, in his serving; or he who teaches, in his teaching; or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.” Paul, after instructing Timothy on many issues in in 1 Timothy, chapter 4, tells him in verse eleven to prescribe and teach these things. Then two verses later he says, “Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching.” The Greek word, translated as give attention to means to pay attention to, to give heed to, to be concerned about, to occupy oneself with, to devote or apply oneself to.
Those of us who teach, whether or not it be in a professional capacity, just as these priests ought to watch, to guard the truth we teach. If I were to give a charge to those who are headed for roles as pastors-teachers or teachers, this would be a wonderful passage to expound and apply. To guard, to be diligent with, to give attention to the knowledge with which you have been entrusted means one must study that diligently. What are you devoted to; to what do you give heed? The doctrinal statements of groups, denominations or organizations; the commentaries and opinions others have about the truth. Pay attention to, give heed to, be concerned about, occupy yourself with, devote or apply yourself to the only certainty you have, that knowledge entrusted to you, not the opinions of others about it, but the Word of YHVH himself. Allow him to speak to you then honor him in accurately teaching those who seek instruction.
“But you have turned aside from the way. | |
You have caused to stumble many by your instruction‡ |
You have corrupted the Levitical covenant.” | |
says YHVH of Hosts.‡ |
Having described the Levitical Covenant in verses 2:5-6 and what the role of a priest should be in verse 2:7, the writer now contrasts this with what the current priests were doing. They had turned aside from the way, the manner of life they should be living. As a result, they had caused many to stumble due to their teaching. In short, they had spoiled the covenant God had made with them. They made it useless and ineffective.
There are two lines, an athnach and a silluq segment. Each is divided into two parts with a fractional zaqeph segment and an empty tiphchah segment; each of these parts is an independent clause. The first clause is connected to the previous verse with a disjunctive vav on the initial pronoun indicating a strong contrast. The remaining are asyndetic, not connected by a vav or conjunction. In the first line the second clause is subordinate to the first; in the second line, the second line the first clause is subordinate to the previous. The first three clauses, the content of what is said, are object clauses of the last clause, the statement of who is speaking.
וְאַתֶּם֙ — pro pers 2mp + vav; disj accent, psh (אַתֶּם ) —you; The use of the vav with the pronoun coming first in the clause rather than the verb and especially after the pronoun coming last in the previous verse suggests a very strong contrast. This is reinforced by the pashta disjunctive separating this pronominal subject from the verb and the following prepositional phrase. This is what a priest (is supposed to do) does, BUT YOU, the current priests to whom this missive is sent, on the other hand, are doing something else!
סַרְתֶּ֣ם — Qal Pf 2mp; conj accent, mun (סוּר) — to turn aside This probably a persistent present perfect as suggested by the context, “you have turned aside.” Waltke, O’Connor state; “In the persistent (present) perfective, the suffix conjugation represents a single situation that started in the past but continues (persists) into the present.”[122] 122 IBHS, p. 487 The had done this and this was continuing into the present. The munach connects the verb with the prepositional phrase indicating what they had turned away from.
מִן־ — prep; no accent, maqqeph (מִן) — from; this expresses the idea of separation. The maqqeph unites the preposition with its object.
הַדֶּ֔רֶךְ — n: msa +art; disj accent, zaqeph (דֶּ֫רֶך) — the way; This word comes from the root meaning to tread. The noun then first refers to a path worn down by treading but is applied then to other broader ways such as roads. Because paths and roads lead to a destination it is then used of the way or direction toward something. Moving from the physical to more abstract ideas it represents the way, direction or manner in which one acts, behaves, or lives life.[123] 123 See BDB, pp. 550ff and TWOT, p. 196-7 Here the noun is definite having the article. This use of the article marks this noun as definite “designating either a particular person or thing necessarily understood to be present or vividly portraying someone or something whose identity is not otherwise indicated.” [124] 124 IHBS, p. 243 This understanding would have been clear to the original readers but not so much to us many centuries later.
What then is this way? That it refers to a manner of life seems to be clear. Is this a reference to a life in obedience to the Covenant law as BDB suggests.[125] 125 BDB, p.552 under 6.b. It also might have a narrower reference to the rules and regulations concerning the priesthood in particular. The zaqeph closes the segment comprising the first half of this verse.
הִכְשַׁלְתֶּ֥ם — Hiphil Pf 2mp; conj accent, mer (כָּשַׁל) — to cause to stumble; This is another persistent present perfect. This clause is joined asyndetically to the previous and is subordinate to it either as a result or concomitant circumstance but not two independent unrelated events. The tiphchah connects this subject/verb with its object.
רַבִּ֖ים — adj mpa; disj accent, tiphchah (רַב) — many; substantival use of. adjective, object of the previous verb. The tiphchah, necessarily placed here, disjoins this word from the next word-unit.
בַּתּוֹרָ֑ה — n: fsa + art + prep בְּ; disj accent, athnach (תּוֹרָה) — in the law; There are two issues with this word. First, to what does תּוֹרָה, (torah) refer? Is it specifically the Law, or more generally to the instruction given by these priests? Second and related to the first, what is the sense of the preposition בְּ? If תּוֹרָה is taken narrowly as the Law (of Moses), then the preposition בְּ most likely indicates the place or thing at which, or against which people stumbled. If, on the other hand, it has a more general reference to the instruction (of these priests) then the בְּ has an instrumental sense. English translations are variously divided between these views. תּוֹרָה is definite as indicated by the article. This might indicate that this refers to the well know law, The Law of Moses, but it could also refer to the previously mentioned use of תּוֹרָה in verse seven. If this is the case, then the article indicates this priestly instruction of these priests. It might then be translated using the pronoun “your.” I prefer the later view because of the context of verse seven and nine where תּוֹרָה is used again. It was not The Law that was the problem, but their teaching of it that caused people to stumble. The athnach marks the end of the first half of this verse.
שִֽׁחַתֶּם֙ — Piel pf 2mp; disj accent, psh(שָׁחַת) —to spoil, ruin; This word begins the last half of this verse, the silluq segment. It again is a persistent present perfective as were the two previous verbal forms without a vav. It begins a third independent clause but one which again is logically subsequent to the two prior clauses. They departed from the way (athnach-zaqeph segment). This then resulted or was seen in the fact they caused many to stumble by their teaching (athnach-tiphchah segment). In summary, they corrupted YHVH’s covenant with them (silluq-zaqeph segment). This verb has the root idea of to ruin, spoil, corrupt, or destroy.[126] 126 BDB., p. 2449; TWOT, p. 917 BDB suggests the sense of violate in this passage. From its usage, especially in the three instances in Malachi, the idea seems to be to spoil or ruin something to the point that it is unusable or ineffective. I do not like the translation of “destroy” because that suggests the idea that it is gone or done away with. The sacrifice in verse 1:14 was not destroyed but corrupted to the point it was unusable. In 3:11 YHVH would rebuke the destroyer (locusts, insect pests) so they would not ruin the harvest, make it unusable or ineffective. The covenant YHVH had made with the Levites was for their good and the good of the nation. Blessings came from it, but these priests had strayed from the way and as a result the covenant was corrupted, i.e. made ineffective. There was still a covenant, but there were no blessings either for the priests or benefits for the people to whom they ministered. The pashta separates the subject/verb from the direct object, בְּרִית הַלֵּוִי.
בְּרִ֣ית — n: fsc; conj accent, mun(בְּרִית) —covenant; The word is made definite by the following genitive which is a personal name. It is the object of the previous verb. The munach links this word, the construct, with the following one, the absolute or genitive.
הַלֵּוִ֔י — pn: msa + art; disj accent, zaqeph (לֵוִי) — of Levi; The personal name of this person is used in reference to the tribe descended from him, the Levites. The zaqeph marks the end of the first half of the silluq segment. This half, and the entire first line make up the content; the tiphchah segment is the statement of who is speaking.
אָמַ֖ר — Qal Pf 3ms; disj accent, tiphchah (אָמַר) — says; instantaneous perfective; The tiphchah marks the near subordinate segment of the silluq.
יְהוָ֥ה — n: msc; conj accent, mer (יְהוָה) — LORD, YHVH; The mereka unites this construct with its absolute.
צְבָאֽוֹת׃ — n: mpa; disj accent, silluq (צָבָה) — hosts; The silluq ends the second line.
As I consider the lessons to be learned from this passage I see the parallels in my own life with the experience of these priests. Disobedience spoils the covenant. YHVH intended his covenant with the Levites to be one which was for them, הַֽחַיִּים וְהַשָּׁלוֹם, life and peace, that is a joyful, peaceful life of wellbeing. It benefited them and their ministry of teaching and intercession benefited the people. But their disobedience ruined all that. It brought discipline upon themselves, rendered their intercessory ministry useless ,and their teaching caused many to stumble. The covenant was still there but they spoiled it and negated the positive benefits.
So also ,my Lord has promised me an abundant life. John 10:10, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” While this focuses on that life following the rapture or resurrection, but it also includes the present course of our lives. This is not a promise of a comfortable, prosperous and healthy life for every believer this side of the eternal state for our Lord tells us that there will be suffering for those who believe (Philippians 1:29 and 2 Timothy 3:12). Yet he promises peace (John 14:27) and victory over all adversity (Romans 8:31-37). With all these things given to me by our Lord, what is my response? Too often, I, just as did these priests, spoil everything by my disobedience to him. I have not destroyed his covenant with me; it is still there but I spoiled it, made it ineffective.
And so, I have made you humiliatingly despicable to everyone‡ |
In proportion to which you are not keeping my ways | |
and showing partiality in the instruction.‡ |
Verse 1:1 was the title to this book. Verses 1:2-5 take up the issue of the people and priests not really believing that YHVH loved them; then, in verses 1:6-2:9, the issue is that these priests are dishonoring YHVH in their lackadaisical performance of their priestly duties. This verse closes out this last section summarizing YHVH’s judgment upon them. He states he has and is making them odious to the people in proportion to their failure to keep his instructions and to fairly and equitably teach the truth.
The athnach segment of this verse is fractional with only a fractional tiphchah segment as the near subordinate domain. It is an independent clause stating YHVH’s judgment on the priests he addresses.
The silluq segment or line two is full and has a fractional zaqeph segment and an empty tiphchah segment. This is a compound dependent clause stating manner in which or the degree to which YHVH’s judgment is carried out. Both the zaqeph and the tiphchah segments are verbless clauses.
וְגַם־ — adv; + vav; no accent, maq (גַּם) — denoting addition and also/even; גַּם here indicates the close of this section of Malachi and connects this verse as the response to the previous verse.[127] 127 IBHS, p. 663 The maqqeph joins this adverb with the following first person pronoun.
אֲנִ֞י — pron 1cs; disj accent, gar (אָ֫נִי אֲנִי) — I; The garshaim substitutes for geresh when the stress is on the ultima and without a preceding azla,[128] 128 SMA, p. 96 and this isolates the stated subject from the verb form. This pause along with the use of the pronoun highlights the contrast between what the priests had done and were doing and what YHVH was doing.
נָתַ֧תִּי — Qal pf 1cs; conj accent, dar (נָתַן) — to give, put, set, make constitute; The perfective probably represents another persistent present perfective as above. Most English translations take it this way The context seems to bear this out since YHVH has stated in verse 2:2 that he had already cursed some of their blessings. Judgment had started and was still in progress. The other option possibly would be a prophetic perfective or what Waltke, O’Connor call a future accidental perfective. A couple of versions understand it that way. The sense of the verb here is to make or constitute, [129] 129 BDB, p. 1640and it may take two accusatives; the first is the thing that is made and the second that which it is made to be. The darga unites the verb with the first accusative.
אֶתְכֶ֛ם — ptcl, noun indicator +2mp suf; disj accent, teb (אֵת) — you; The particle indicates the first direct object of נָתַתִּי, the thing that is made or constituted to be something. The tebir disjunctive separates the first direct object from the following accusatives, or what it becomes.
נִבְזִ֥ים — Niphal ptcp mpa; conj accent, mer (בָּזָה) —to be despicable, contemptible; This is a substantival use of the participle, “contemptible persons.” It is the second accusative or object of the verb נָתַתִּי. This is what YHVH has and is making the priests to become or be. The use of this particular word is deliberate. This is the word describing what the priests were saying of the table (altar) of YHVH and the food upon the table (the sacrifice upon it). This is how the priests were treating YHVH’s name; they were despising or treating it as contemptible. See verses 1:6,7 and 12. The mereka unites this participle with the following adjective continuing the description of what YHVH is making these priests to be.
וּשְׁפָלִ֖ים — adj; mpa + vav; disj accent, tip (שָׁפָל) — low, humiliated; Again a substantival use as above; i.e., “humiliated persons.” The vav is conjunctive joining this substantive with the previous. This possibly is a hendiadys in which one of the items qualifies the other. If so, this would represent the idea of humiliatingly vile or despicable. The tiphchah marking the near segment sets apart the last word-unit from the rest of the first verse.
לְכָל־ — n: msc; + prep לְ; no accent, maq (כֹּל) — all, every; The לְ with this phrase could almost have an indirect object sense being used with the verb נָתַן, “I have given you, (i.e., the priests) (to be) humiliatingly despicable to all the people.” It might also be classified as a לְ of specification, “I have made you humiliatingly despicable in regard to all the people.” The maqqeph unites the construct with its absolute.
הָעָ֑ם — n: msa + art; disj accent, ath (עַם/עָם) — people; all of the people i.e., everyone. The athnach marks the end of line one.
כְּפִ֗י — n: msc + prep כְ; disj accent, reb (פֶּה) —according to, in proportion to, just as;[130] 130 BDB, p. 1941 under 6.b. כְּפִי serves as a conjunction relating the athnach segment with this silluq segment. Line two specifies the degree to which YHVH makes these priests odious to the people. He does so to the degree that it is in accordance with their actions of disobedience. The silluq segment is full having a full zaqeph segment and an empty tiphchah. The rebia disjunctive on this initial word prepositional phrase sets it apart from the remainder of clause.
אֲשֶׁ֤ר — relative pron; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual gar (אֲשֶׁר) — which, what; The relative connects the adverbial prepositional phrase with the first of two verbless clauses. The accent probably represents a mahpak uniting the pronoun with the following negative adverb.
אֵֽינְכֶם֙ — existential ptcl of neg + 2mp suf; disj accent, psh (אֵין) — no, not; This particle of negation or negative adverb is used to negate verbless clauses. The suffix indicates the subject of the following participle.[131] 131 IBHS, p. 661The pashta separates this adverb from the participle that follows.
שֹׁמְרִ֣ים — Qal ptcp mpa; conj accent, mun (שָׁמַר ) — to keep, watch, preserve; Predicate use of the participle in a verbless clause. It usually “describes an ongoing state of affairs, involving repeated … or continuous …action.”[132] 132 IBHS, p. 625 This is what they were currently not doing. The munach unites the participle with the direct object. Again, the verb has the idea to exercise great care or to be careful and diligent. They were not being careful to keep the ways YHVH had given them.
אֶת־ — ptcl, noun indicator; maq (אֵת) — Sign of direct object; .The noun indicator introduces the definite direct object of שֹׁמְרִים and is joined to it by the maqqeph.
דְּרָכַ֔י — n: mpc + 1cs suf; disj accent, zaq (דֶּ֫רֶך) — road path, way “my ways”; This word is used figuratively here as it was in the previous verse meaning the path or manner of ones life. This probably used in reference to the particular life required of a Levite. They were regulations that applied to them in particular as Levites. It seems they were not being careful to observe these. The zaqeph marks the end of the remote segment. The next segment, the tiphchah is another verbless clause.
וְנֹשְׂאִ֥ים — Qal act ptcp mpa + vav; conj accent, mer (נָשָׂא) — lift up; to lift up the face in bad sense show partiality.[133] 133 BDB, p 1618 under 1.b.(3) Predicate participle as was שֹׁמְרִים. The mereka connects this with its object.
פָּנִ֖ים — n: mpa; disj accent, tip (פָּנִים) — face; The tiphchah marks the near segment. See previous word.
בַּתּוֹרָֽה׃ פ — n: fsa + art + prep בְּ; disj accent, sil (תוֹרָה) — law, instruction; This probably has the wider idea of instruction here. As people came to them for legal opinions or judgments they played favorites, that is to say, they did not apply the law to life justly and equitably. They could be bought or influenced. They had regard for who was before them. The silluq ends the verse and the פ indicates the Masoretes considered this the end of a major section.
Again, it is to be noted that YHVH’s judgment or discipline of these priests was proportionate to their trespass. They considered the ministry of offering the sacrifices as despicable, something below them and thus were treating YHVH himself as that. As a result ,YHVH discipline was that they would become despicable in the eyes of all those around them. And this was as this verse states in proportion to the degree they were not keeping his ways.
“Do we not all have one father?” | |
Did not one God make us?‡ |
Why therefore, are we acting treacherously with each other | |
so as to defile the covenant of our fathers?‡ |
Following the title in verse 1:1, the writer introduces his missive in verses 1:2-5, where he explains that Israel, in particular the Levites, did not really believe YHVH loved them. Then in verses 1:6-2:9 he declares that these priests were guilty of dishonoring YHVH by the manner in which they carried out their duty of offering the sacrifices. They would not think of showing this kind of disrespect to their local leaders, yet they dishonored YHVH, who is the sovereign of the earth, and whose name would one day be honored everywhere.
Now in this verse, Malachi begins a new short section, verses 2:10-13. Again, while it may be applied to all of Israel, the force of its impact falls directly upon the Levites. He hammers these priests for their failure in their marriage relationships by taking wives outside the faith in disregard for the covenant regulations. In doing this, he says, they are acting treacherously or faithlessly against each other as well as (from verse 11) YHVH himself.
The relationship of the athnach segment or first line to the silluq segment or second line is very similar to verse 1:6 in that the athnach sets forth a truth which forms a foundation for an accusation stated emphatically in the form of a question in the silluq segment. However, in this verse, the full athnach segment is formed by a pair of interrogative clauses rather than declarative statements. The first is a noun clause introduced by הֲל֨וֹא in the fractional zaqeph segment. The second, also introduced by הֲל֨וֹא, is a verbal clause in the fractional tiphchah segment.
The silluq segment contains a zaqeph segment and a tiphchah segment. The zaqeph segment is full and is an independent interrogative verbal clause introduced by מַדּוּעַ. The tiphchah segment is empty and is a dependent result clause.
הֲל֨וֹא — neg + ה inter; conj accent: azl (לֹא לוֹא) — was not, is not; This negates a verbless interrogative clause and expects an affirmative answer. The azla connects the negative adverb with the subject of this clause.
אָ֤ב — n: msa; conj accent: mah / disj accent, virtual ger (אָב) — father; This is the subject of the verbless clause. The mahpak probably is itself rather than a virtual geresh and connects the noun with the qualifying adjective. Father refers to Abraham, the patriarch of the Jewish nation.
אֶחָד֙ — adj num: ms; disj accent: psh (אֶחָד) — one; This qualifies the noun אָב, father. The pashta disjunctive separates the subject from the prepositional phrase indicating possession.
לְכֻלָּ֔נוּ — noun ms +1cp suf + prep לְ; disj accent: zaq (כֹּל ) —all, every; The לְ is used to indicate possession. “Do we not all have one father?” The zaqeph marks the end of the remote segment of line one which is an independent interrogatory clause.
הֲל֛וֹא — neg adv + ה inter; disj accent: teb (לֹא לוֹא) — was not, is not; This again expects an affirmative answer introducing the second interrogatory clause.
אֵ֥ל — n: msa; conj accent: mer (אֵל) — God; אֵל is the subject of the verb בְּרָאָ֑נוּ. This is the second of the three times this word is used by Malachi. The first was in verse 1:9 and the last is in the next verse 2:10. The use of this word probably emphasizes power and strength of the creator God.
אֶֽחָ֖ד — adj num: msa; disj accent: tip (אֶחָד) — one; qualifies previous word.
בְּרָאָ֑נוּ — Qal Pf 3ms + 1cp suf; disj accent: ath (בָּרָא) — to create, fashion, form; definite past action. This would remind the readers of Genesis 1:1. The athnach ends the first line. This verse is very similar to verse 1:6 in that the first line sets the stage by stating a truth in the form of two questions which expect affirmative answers. The second line, silluq segment, then states the problem. This is again done by way of a question.
מַדּ֗וּעַ — adv; disj accent: reb (מַדּוּעַ) — wherefore, on what account; This interrogative adverb relates the idea in the two clauses of the athnach segment to the question posed in this segment. The use of a question to state the problem The rebia disjunctive sets this apart from the rest of this zaqeph segment.
נִבְגַּד֙ — Qal impf 1cp; disj accent: psh(בָּגַד) — act or deal treacherously; This is a progressive imperfective. “Here the non-perfective, instead of implying that a specific situation has ceased, represents it as ongoing.”[134] 134 IBHS, p. 504BDB suggests this means to “act or deal treacherously, faithlessly, deceitfully , in the marriage relation, in matters of property or right, in covenants, in word and in general conduct.” [135] 135 BDB, p. 281That this has reference to marriage relationships can be seen in the next verse and in the next section, verses 2;13-16. This particular verb is used five times in Malachi, (2:10, 11, 14, 15, 16), all these two sections. What must be asked is how were those addressed acting treacherously? While certainly they were dealing faithlessly against YHVH, the next two words, אִ֣ישׁ בְּאָחִ֔יו, indicate they there acting treacherously or dealing faithlessly against each other as well and thus defiling the covenant of their fathers. The use of the first common plural form of the verb as well as the first common plural pronouns in the athnach segment show that the writer is identifying with those he addresses. Is he identifying with them simply as a member of the Jewish nation, or since this seems to be directed mainly to the priests, as a member of the priesthood, a Levite? If this is so, how then are these priests acting treacherously or faithlessly against each other in a marriage context?
אִ֣ישׁ — n: msa (); conj accent: mun (אִישׁ) — man, distributive use meaning, each, every;
בְּאָחִ֔יו — n: msc + 3ms suf + prep בְּ; disj accent: zaq (אָח) — against his brother; The verb בָּגַד may be used without an expressed object or the object may be indicated by the preposition בְ. Although gender specific pronouns are used with the בְ, this phrase, אִ֣ישׁ בְּאָחִ֔יו, is used idiomatically in a genderless distributive sense simply meaning each other. The writer is not asking why they were acting faithlessly against other males, but why they were acting faithlessly against others in their community. See verses 2:14 and 15 where this verb is used with feminine objects.
לְחַלֵּ֖ל — Piel inf cstr + לְ); disj accent: tip (חָלַל) — to defile pollute The infinitive construct with a לְ is used to “express a consequence of the main verb”[136] 136 IBHS, p. 607,i.e., a result clause. This is the same word that the writer used in verse 1:12 to describe what the priests were doing to the sacrificial offerings and earlier in verse 1:7 where they were bringing defiled sacrifices to the altar thus defiling YHVH himself. The word refers to anything that breaches moral or ceremonial law.[137] 137 IBHS, p. 144The tiphchah marks the concluding near segment of this line and separates the verb from the word unit which is its direct object.
בְּרִ֥ית — n: fsc; conj accent: mer (בְּרִית) — the covenant; The mereka conjunctive links this construct with the following absolute.
אֲבֹתֵֽינוּ׃ — n: mpc +1cp suf; disj accent: sil (אָב) — father; This genitive qualifies the previous word specifying which covenant; it is the covenant of their fathers. This seems to be a genitive of mediated object.[138] 138 “The relationship of the genitive and implicit verb may be of the sort usually mediated by a preposition;” The covenant [made by YHVH] with their fathers (IBHS, p. 144).This has reference to the Mosaic Covenant and in particular to that part of it which relates to the descendants of Levi, the Levites. See context, verse 2:4. In the next verse, the prophet will explain how these priests have defiled the provisions of this covenant.
Our relationships with others, our wives in this context, affects our relationship with our God.
Judah has acted treacherously. | |
for an abomination has been committed in Israel, that is, in Jerusalem.‡ |
Indeed! Judah has defiled the holiness of YHVH which he loves | |
and has married the daughter of a foreign god.‡ |
In the previous verse Malachi introduced the issue with some rhetorical questions then asks why they acted treacherously with each other with the result they defiled the covenant of their fathers. In this verse he expands upon that by stating that Judah has acted treacherously because an abomination, an act that was morally, physically or ritually repulsive had been committed in Israel, specifically in Jerusalem. The people had defiled the holiness of YHVH, a metonymy referring to the priesthood, by taking foreign wives from the peoples around them.
The verse divides into two lines. The athnach domain is full having two subordinate segments. The initial empty zaqeph segment is a verbal clause stating Judah has acted treacherously. The fractional closing tiphchah segment is also a verbal clause beginning with a disjunctive vav. It is epexegetical giving the reason, for an abomination has been committed in Israel, that is, in Jerusalem.
The silluq domain is also full with two subordinate segments. Each is a verbal clause connected by a copulative vav. The initial full zaqeph is longer and more complex. It is an independent clause with a dependent relative clause. The subordinate rebia segment contains the verb and the stated subject, introduced by an emphatic כִּי, Indeed! Judah has defiled. The subordinate near pashta segment of the zaqeph contains the object of the verb and a qualifying relative clause, the holiness of YHVH which he loves. The tiphchah segment is another independent clause which explains the zaqeph, and has married the daughter of a foreign god.
בָּגְדָ֣ה — Qal Pf 3fs; conj accent, mun (בָּגַד) — to act or deal treacherously; This is a present perfect. The munach links the verb with the subject which follows.
יְהוּדָ֔ה — pn: msa; disj accent, zaq (יְהוּדָה) — Judah; subject of the verb בָּגְדָה. A couple of questions should arise at this point. If Malachi is speaking more specifically of the priests, why switch from Levi to Judah since priests were not from this tribe? Is he now still speaking about the priests, or has he changed his focus and begun speaking to the nation in general? This student understands he is continuing addressing the Levitical priesthood in particular. The context supports the latter. The name Judah, as a metonymy, became used as a general term for the inhabitants of the area with the focus on the location. This is supported by the use of the prepositional phrases בְיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וּבִירֽוּשָׁלִָ֑ם in the silluq segment of the first line. These priests, by their actions in their personal lives and then by their offering the sacrifices in the temple in Judah and Jerusalem had acted treacherously and committed an abomination. The second question is why did the writer use the third feminine singular form of the verb with a normally masculine noun as the subject? The answer probably is a missing head noun, אֶ֫רֶץ, “in the land (feminine) of Judah (masculine).”[139] 139 IBHS, p. 104 The gender of the verb is being determined by אֶ֫רֶץ rather than יְהוּדָה. This also indicates the writer is referencing the area rather than the tribe. The zaqeph marks the end of the first half of line one.
וְתוֹעֵבָ֛ה — n: fsa + disj vav; disj accent, teb (תוֹעֵבָה) — abomination; The vav is disjunctive being attached to the noun rather than the verb. Since the setting is the same, the connection seems to be causal stating why Judah has acted treacherously. It was treacherous or faithless because the priests had committed an abomination in Israel and in Jerusalem specifically. This word denotes something that is repulsive in a physical, moral or ritual sense.[140] 140 TWOT, p. 977 This is the subject of the clause. The tebir disjunctive separates the subject from the verb which follows.
נֶעֶשְׂתָ֥ה — Niphal Pf 3fs; conj accent, mer (עָשָׂה) —to be done be committed or made; Again this is a a present perfect. The mereka joins the word with the next word.
בְיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל — pn: msa + prep בְּ; disj accent, tip (יִשְׂרָאֵל) — Israel; The preposition בְּ is spatial, denoting where this abomination was being committed. The tiphchah, which marks the near subordinate segment of the first line, necessarily falls on this word, which is the word before the athnach. While it would seem more logical to me to switch the accenting on this word and the previous, thus joining the two prepositional phases and disjoining them from the subject/verb, this probably was not done due to the number of combined syllables in the last two words. Or there might have been other musical reasons?
וּבִירֽוּשָׁלִָ֑ם — pn: fda + prep בְּ +vav; disj accent, ath (יְרוּשָׁלַ֫םִ יְרוּשׁשלַ֫יִם) — Jerusalem; This phrasal vav joining a territory and a city, I understand to be more specifically explaining the first noun, i.e., an explicative vav.[141] 141 IBHS, p. 649 The athnach ends the first line.
כִּ֣י׀ — conj; disj accent, leg (כִּי) —indeed!; While almost every English version of this verse takes the כִּי as a causal particle here it seems best to this student to understand it as an emphatic adverb. The silluq segment not the logical cause for the athnach, rather it expands upon it.
חִלֵּ֣ל — Piel Pf 3ms; conj accent, mun(חָלַל) — to defile pollute; This is the third time the writer has used this verb. In 1:12, Malachi accused the priests of defiling YHVH’s name by their offering of defective sacrifices upon the altar. In the previous verse he accused them of defiling the covenant of their fathers, i.e., the provisions made to the Levites in the Law. Here he accuses them of defiling the holiness of YHVH. Again, this is a present perfective (or possibly a persistent present perfective) indicating something continuing into the present. The munach conjunctive connects this verb with its subject which follows.
יְהוּדָ֗ה — pn: msa; disj accent, reb (יְהוּדָה) — Judah; subject of the verb חִלֵּל; While this term is wide and includes the whole nation, the priests in Judah seem to be the main focus. The rebia marks the remote segment of the zaqeph segment, which is the first half of the second line. It separates the verb/subject from the object of the verb.
קֹ֤דֶשׁ — n: msc; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual ger (קֹ֫דֶשׁ) — apartness, holiness; According to TWOT, ‘The noun qōdesh connotes the concept of “holiness,” i.e. the essential nature of that which belongs to the sphere of the sacred and which is thus distinct from the common or profane.’ The authors of this reference also state that it refers, “…also to his character as totally good and entirely without evil.”[142] 142 TWOT, p. 787 The mahpak does not represent a transformed geresh but is a conjunctive and unites this word, a construct, with the following absolute.
יְהוָה֙ — pn: msa; disj accent, psh (יְהוָה) — LORD, YHVH; This is the absolute of the preceding construct. What function does this genitive have here? Since קֹדֶשׁ, holiness, seems to refer to state of set apartness it seems to be a genitive of quality.[143] 143 The genitive has or possesses the quality of the construct. The state or quality of holiness possessed by YHVH; IBHS, p. 183 This holiness, being the nature or quality of YHVH himself, is then used as a metonymy of adjunct to refer to those people, places or things that reflect YHVH’s presence or character. This could refer then to the altar, the temple or sanctuary, those who serve there, or even the city of Jerusalem being the location of the temple. Of these the context seems to favor the people or priests who served there, since these are described by the following relative phrase as those which he loved (see verse 1:2). In the second line, the writer explains how this holiness has been defiled by stating that he has married the daughter of a foreign god (see Nehemiah, chapters 11 and 12). The pashta separates this word unit from the following relative phrase qualifying it.
אֲשֶׁ֣ר — accent, mun (אֲשֶׁר) — whom, which; relative pronoun the antecedent of which is קֹדֶשׁ יְהוָה, the holiness of YHVH, and which serves as the direct object of אָהֵ֔ב, he loves, The munach ties this word to the following verb.
אָהֵ֔ב — Qal Pf 3ms; disj accent, zaq (אָהֵב) — to love; a durative stative perfective.
וּבָעַ֖ל — Qal Pf 3ms +vav copulative; disj accent, tip (בָעַל) — to marry, rule over. This continues the present perfective idea found in הִלֵּל. While this verb can certainly be fientive it also seems to have a stative quality, i.e., to marry someone as opposed to be married to someone. Waltke and O’Connor state that the perfect “may signify a present state that implicitly came about through an earlier situation.”[144] 144 IBHS, p. 492 The use of this verb elsewhere seems to point out the emphasis of the present state. I prefer the translation is married to rather than has married since it stresses the present condition rather than the past action. The tiphchah marking the closing near segment also separates the verb/subject from its object.
בַּת־ — daughter; The phrase, וּבָעַל בַּת־אֵל נֵכָר a daughter of a god of foreignness is idiomatic for a woman of a different faith, a foreign woman. It should be noted that this was forbidden to a Levite.
אֵ֥ל — n: msc; conj accent, mer (אֵל) — god; Used figuratively, denoting not the literal offspring of a god, but a person who worshipped a foreign or false god.
נֵכָֽר׃ — n: msa; disj accent, sil (נֵכָר) — foreignness (a foreign god); descriptive genitive.
In the deepest and most complete sense the holiness of YHVH indicates his apartness as uncreated creator from all that which he has or will create. In such a sense he is totally ‘other’ compared to all else that is. It includes the absolute completion of perfection of his attributes and character. He is existence, goodness, love, justice, wisdom, knowledge, creativity, power, and such. He defines these; they exist in him in perfection. Some of these at least have been communicated to his creation at least in part. Because that is what he is, all that he made was good and right and wise at least in the beginning, even Satan himself. But sin entered, through the choice of the creature and infected all the creation. That which was made in perfection became less. Goodness diminished became evil; life diminished became death; love diminished became hate and so on.
The priests, Levites were the holiness of YHVH. They were to represent that, and, as such, they were held to higher standards than the average Israelite. In intermarrying with the surrounding peoples they had slipped and had defiled the priesthood, the holiness of YHVH.
May YHVH cut off the one who is doing this who is fully aware, | |
from the tents of Jacob‡ |
And who brings an offering to YHVH of Hosts!‡ |
Malachi, after pointing out the error of these priests in taking foreign unbelieving wives, emphasizes the seriousness of their actions by an exclamation, an imprecation against those he has described. He implores YHVH to cut off, to remove from Israel, those who do this, i.e., take unbelieving wives from outside Israel, being fully aware of their actions and then who continue to minister in the priesthood by offering the sacrifices.
The verse, as is normal, has two major segments. The full athnach domain contains the main verbal statement in the zaqeph segment, May YHVH cut off the one who is doing this who is fully aware…. The tiphchah segment is a prepositional phrase qualifying the extent or degree of this action. The silluq domain, the second half of the verse is a relative participial phrase qualifying those YHVH is to cut off, giving a concomitant circumstance to their being married to foreign wives. They are continuing to minister by bringing sacrifices to YHVH, and who brings an offering to YHVH of Hosts.
יַכְרֵ֨ת — Hiphil jussive 3ms; conj accent: azl (כָּרַת) — to cut off, destroy the life of; With Hiphil active transitive verbs the לְ is often used to introduce the direct object.[145] 145 IHBS, p. 210 and footnote #85 BDB suggests - “May Yahweh cut off to the man – from the tents of Jacob.”[146] 146 See BDB under Hiphil 2.b. for כָּרַת, p. 1219. While this might be simple a specific future stating YHVH will judge those who does this, the context strongly suggests this is an emotional response on the part of the prophet.
יְהוָ֜ה — pn: msa; disj accent: ger (יְהוָה) — LORD, YHVH; Subject of verb, יכרת. Since this is a volitive directed toward a superior, it is a request rather than a direct command. In English such a request is often phrased as a question.
לָאִ֨ישׁ — n: msa + לְ; conj accent: azl (אִישׁ) — in reference to the man (distributive use perhaps); This seems to introduce the object of this verb in the Hiphil.
אֲשֶׁ֤ר — rel pron; conj accent: mah (אֲשֶׁר) — who; The relative introduces a verbal clause qualifying the object of the verb יכרת
יַעֲשֶׂ֨נָּה֙ — Qal Impf 3ms +3fs suf; disj accent: psh (עָשָׂה) — to do; progressive imperfective indicating the action is an ongoing at the time the prophet Zechariah was speaking.
עֵ֣ר — Qal ptcp msa; conj accent: mun (עוּר) — to rouse oneself, awake; This relative participle and the following one connected by a vav form a hendiadys. They, taken together, describe the state of the subject of the verb יעשׂנה. They are awake and responding, i.e., they are fully awake or fully aware. They understand what is happening; they are doing what they are doing, being married to foreign wives who do not worship YHVH with eyes wide open.
וְעֹנֶ֔ה — Qal ptcp msa + vav; disj accent: zaq (עָנַה) — to answer, respond; With the previous participle this describes the state of the subject of the main verb יעשׂנה. They are awake to the degree they are responding, fully roused, alert and aware. The zaqeph marks the end to this part of line one.
מֵאָהֳלֵ֖י — n: mpc + מִן; disj accent: tip (אֹ֫הֶל) — tent; The tiphchah segment is a prepositional phrase qualifying the main verb יכרת. They are cut off from the tens of Jacob, the nation of Israel.
יַֽעֲקֹ֑ב — pn: msa; disj accent: ath (יַֽעֲקֹב) — Jacob; absolute following the prior word. The athnach concludes line one which is the beginning of an imprecation delivered by the prophet against those who were taking foreign wives. The following silluq segment completes the description of those he wishes YHVH to cut off.
וּמַגִּ֣ישׁ — Hiphil ptcp msa + vav; conj accent: mun (נָגַשׁ) — to bring; This is another relative participle describing the object of the verb יכרת, the man who is married to a wife who does not worship YHVH being fully aware of the situation and yet who brings an offering to YHVH of Hosts. It was possible for an Israeli man to marry a foreigner wife, but they then became a worshiper of YHVH. The issue with these priests is that they were taking wives who were not converts to the worship of YHVH and continued to minister as priests making offerings to YHVH.
מִנְחָ֔ה — n: fsa; disj accent: zaq (מִנְחָה) — gift, tribute, offering; object of participle ומגּישׁ
לַֽיהוָ֖ה — pn: msc + לְ; disj accent: tip (יְהוָה) — LORD, YHVH; The ל indicates the indirect object of the verb ומגּישׁ.
צְבָאֽוֹת׃ פ — n: mpa; disj accent: sil (צָבָה) — of Hosts; An absolute following the construct יהוה.
Those who ministered before YHVH were required to maintain the highest standard of holiness. Those that did not and who knowingly violated the regulations set by YHVH and yet continued to serve as priests were acting treacherously, betraying their own people. They were defiling the priesthood and bringing judgment on themselves and the people they served. So serious is this, Malachi calls on YHVH to cut them off, remove them from the nation.
How polluted has the Christian ministry today become? Yet how concerned are we as believers about this?
Now, this second thing you are doing, | |
spreading tears over the altar of YHVH, | |
weeping and crying in distress,‡ |
Because he still does not \ look with favor at this offering, | |
to receive it favorably from your hand.‡ |
In verses 2:10-12 the prophet speaks of the treachery of these Levites in taking unbelieving wives from the peoples around them and then continuing to minister as priests by bringing the offerings. He continues with a different but related idea in verses 2:13-16. Not only were they taking wives from outside of Israel and continuing to serve as priests, but they were divorcing their first wives. This verse begins to introduce this by stating they were making a great emotional display of sorrow with tears and loud crying when offering a sacrifice because YHVH had not answered their prayers.
Both lines of this verse are full, the athnach domain having three subordinate segments and the silluq, two. The first line is an independent verbal clause connected with a disjunctive vav to the previous verse, stating what they were doing; the second line a dependent clause giving the reason for their action.
The initial zaqeph segment in the athnach domain is the direct object and subject-verb. The direct object with a vav precedes the verb indicating a disjunction, a contemporary circumstance, Now, this second thing you are doing. The medial zaqeph is an infinitive construct phrase in apposition to the direct object, identifying this second thing, spreading tears over the altar of YHVH. The concluding tiphchah segment is a pair of nouns used as an adverbial accusative of manner, weeping and crying in distress.
The second line states the cause for the first using two verbless clauses. The first, in the zaqeph segment, begins with the existential particle אין with the attached preposition מן. The subject is the infinitive construct and the object indicated by the prep אל. Because he still does not \ look with favor at this offering. The concluding tiphchah segment indicates the result or implication of the action in the zaqeph. It also is an infinitive construct used with the preposition ל. Here it seems it indicate a result, to receive it favorably from your hand.
וְזֹאת֙ — dem pro/adj; fpa + vav; disj accent, psh (זֶה) — this; qualifies the following word שׁנית; This vav is a disjunctive and seems to specify a contemporary circumstance. They were continuing to minister even though they had disqualified themselves by taking wives who were not worshipers of YHVH. And in offering the sacrifices they were doing this second thing as well.
שֵׁנִ֣ית — adj; fs; conj accent, mun (שֵׁנִית שֵׁנִי) — second (BDB “= again, of similar–not identical–act, or another point in a series”); The feminine gender can be explained by the fact that infinitives are often treated as feminine[147] 147 IBHS, p. 105 The second thing then is explained by the infinitive clause which follows in the second zaqeph segment of the athnach domain.
תַּֽעֲשׂ֔וּ — Qal Impf 2mp; disj accent, zaq (עָשָׂה) — to do; progressive imperfective
כַּסּ֤וֹת — Piel inf cstr; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual garshaim (כָּסָה) — to cover, clothe, spread over; This verb has two accusatives here, the thing that is used to cover and the thing that is covered. The infinitive is used almost as an appositive, further defining the another or second thing, שׁנית. The accent here probably represents a true mahpak.
דִּמְעָה֙ — n: fsa; disj accent, psh (דִּמְעָה) — tears; accusative of the thing that is used to cover
אֶת־ — ptcl, noun indicator; maq (אֵת) — sign of direct object; introduces the accusative of the thing that is covered
מִזְבַּ֣ח — n: msc; conj accent, mun (מִזְבֵּחַ) — altar; object of the noun indicator את
יְהוָ֔ה — pn: msa; disj accent, zaq (יְהוָה) — LORD, YHVH; absolute following מזבח above
בְּכִ֖י — n: msa; disj accent, tip (בְּכִי) — weeping; adverbial accusative of manner
וַֽאֲנָקָ֑ה — n: fsa + vav; disj accent, ath (אֲנָקָה) — crying, groaning in distress; accusative of manner; the previous noun and this one joined by a vav could be considered an hendiadys, weeping characterized by loud groans of distress. The English, “crying and groaning in distress” also conveys the same idea.
מֵאֵ֣ין — existential ptcl + prep; מִן; conj accent, mun (אֵין) — This word,[148] 148 See BDB, p. 142; meaning 6.d.β. While the note in BDB seems to imply a result clause, it seems better to see it as causal, Because there is still no regarding. begins the silluq domain which is made up of two verbless clauses stating the reason for the actions described in the first line.
ע֗וֹד — adv; disj accent, reb (עוֹד) — still, yet, again, besides; This adverb intervenes in the construct-absolute train. The absolute following מאין is פנות.
פְּנוֹת֙ — Qal inf cstr; disj accent, psh (פּנָהָ) — to turn, regard graciously;[149] 149 BDB, p. 1069 under 2.c. This is the absolute after the genitive מאין.
אֶל־ — prep; maq (אֵל) — to , toward; The prep is used with the verb פנה to indicate what is looked at.
הַמִּנְחָ֔ה — n: fsa + art; disj accent, zaq (מִנְחָה) — gift, tribute, offering; The article indicates a particular offering in this case, i.e., the one Malachi has spoken of in verses 1:10, 13, and 2:12. He will use this same word in verses 3:3 and 4 as well. Can be translated as a demonstrative here.
וְלָקַ֥חַת — Qal inf cstr + art + prep לְ; conj accent, mer (לָקַח) — to take; The infinitive construct seems to have a result flavor here following the initial zaqeph segment of this line. YHVH did not look favorably on their offering and as a result he does not receive or accept it from them.
רָצ֖וֹן — n: msa; disj accent, tip (רָצוֹן) — goodwill, favor, acceptance, will; adverbial accusative of manner
מִיֶּדְכֶֽם — n: fsc + prep מִן + 2mp suf; disj accent, sil (יָד) — hand; Note this is the same phrase as used in verses 1:9, 10 and 13.
How effective is our prayer? Does the LORD answer? Do we have to resort to the worn out, old cliché “God always answers prayer, Sometimes the answer is yes; sometimes, it’s no; sometimes it’s not now.”? Is he granting our requests? These priests were getting a lot of no’s and not now’s! And they were very fervent in their prayers. They would weep and wail and cover the altar with their tears. That must have looked very spiritual and been inspirational to others who observed! The issue, however, was themselves. They had defiled the priesthood, the holiness of YHVH, by taking wives outside the faith. And although they knew this was an abomination, they continued to minister as if nothing was amiss. Not only this, as the next verses will make clear they divorced their first wives to do this! YHVH hated this.
YHVH was not answering their prayers as evidenced by the rejection of the sacrifices or perhaps the rejection of their sacrifices was evidenced by the lack of answers to their petitions! The problem certainly could have been defiled sacrifices as seen earlier in this book; but here, the problem was defiled sacrificers.
How effective is our prayer? Does the LORD answer? Maybe, just maybe, the issue is us!
And [so] you are saying, “Why?” | |
“Because ~ YHVH testifies between you ~ and the wife of your youth \ against whom you have acted treacherously, | |
although she is your consort and your covenantal wife.‡ |
After YHVH tells these priests that they were making a huge display of mourning during the offering of their sacrifices because he was not accepting the sacrifices and answering their requests, they ask, “Why?” YHVH’s reply is that they have acted treacherously against their original wives whom he identifies as their consort/companion and the wife of your covenant.
The athnach domain is very short, a single fractional tiphchah segment of three Hebrew words or two word-units. It is a verbal clause stating the reply of these priests to YHVH’s statement in the previous verse. And [so] you are saying, “Why?”
The silluq domain is much longer being YHVH’s reply to that question. It is full, each of the various remote segments being full except the hierarchy V which cannot be subdivided further. This is the typical remote-heavy or right-heavy pattern. The rebia domain of the initial zaqeph segment of this line begins with על, which with the following particle כי, is used as a conjunction introducing a dependent clause. The independent clause is not stated but understood from the previous verse and the first line of this verse. [YHVH was not accepting their sacrifice] because…. The remainder of the rebia domain is the verbal clause, YHVH testifies between you ~ and the wife of your youth. The final pashta segment of this initial zaqeph is a relative phrase qualifying אשׁת נעוריך, against whom you have acted treacherously. The last part of line two is a verbless clause making up the concluding tiphchah segment. It is introduced by a disjunctive vav which indicates in this context an opposing or contrasting idea. In English the words although or even though convey the idea. although she is your consort and your covenantal wife.
וַאֲמַרְתֶּ֖ם — Qal RVP 2mp + vav cons; disj accent, tip (אָמַר) — to say; This relative vav perfective relates to the imperfective verb תעשׂו in the previous verse which had a progressive sense. Thus ואמרתם has a progressive sense as well and is consequential to latter. YHVH was not accepting their sacrifices, even with all this display of tears And (so) they are asking “Why?”
עַל־ — prep; maq (עַל) — upon; With the following pronoun the sense is wherefore or why?[150] 150 BDB, p. 1327, meaning 4.f.
מָ֑ה — Inter pron; disj accent, ath (מָה) — what; See above. The athnach ends this very short line, three Hebrew words. This was their response to what YHVH described in the verse before. This follows the pattern set in the second verse of this book; YHVH’s statement, the priest’s questionsr, then YHVH’s answer.
עַ֡ל — prep; disj accent, paz (עַל) — here used with כי as a conjunction; upon;[151] 151 DB, p. 1826, under III.b. = “because” This begins YHVH’s response to their question.
כִּי־ — conj; maq (כִּי) — that; See note above. על כי introduces a dependent clause. The independent clause is unstated but understood from the previous verse and the question posed by the priests. Why was YHVH disregarding their sacrifices given with weeping and cries of distress? (He was not accepting it) because…
יְהוָה֩ — pn: msa; conj accent, lte (יְהוָה) — LORD, YHVH; subject of העיד.
הֵעִ֨יד — Hiphil Pf 3ms; conj accent, azl (עוּד) — to 1. testify, bear witness, 2. cause to testify 3. protest affirm solemnly, warn; instantaneous perfective (possibly a definite past)
בֵּינְךָ֜ — prep + 2ms suf; disj accent, ger (בֵּין בַּין) — between [Question: Why does the writer switch from 2mp (plural) addressing priests to the (singular) 2ms here? Perhaps, the reason is that he is speaking to them, not as a group, but to each one individually? Another reason may be the fact the phrase, the wife of one’s youth is more common in the singular than the plural, the pronoun on the first בין was changed to the singular to be in line with this.]
וּבֵ֣ין׀ — prep + vav; disj accent, leg (בֵּין בַּין) — between, repeated here with second object
אֵ֣שֶׁת — n: fsc; conj accent, mun (אִשָּׁה) — woman, wife, female; object of second בין;
נְעוּרֶ֗יךָ — n: mpc +2ms suf; disj accent, reb (נְעוּרִים) — youth, early life; Absolute following אשׁת above. The wife of one’s youth refers to the wife they first married. One must remember that most of these marriages were arranged by families, very unlike the marriages we find in our culture. The rebia separates this from the next clause, a relative clause.
אֲשֶׁ֤ר — rel pron; conj accent, mah (אֲשֶׁר) — whom; This introduces a relative clause which extends through the end of this verse and which qualifies אשׁת נעוריך. The mahpak accent might represent a virtual garshaim.
אַתָּה֙ — pers pron 2ms; disj accent, psh (אַתֶּם) — you; The stated subject of the following verb. The use of the pronoun seems to add emphasis to this statement, Picture the judge pointing his finger at the accused while stating this.
בָּגַ֣דְתָּה — Qal Pf 2ms +3fs suf; conj accent, mun (בָּגַד) — act or deal treacherously; definite past; This is the same word that Malachi used back in verse ten.
בָּ֔הּ — prep +3fs suf; disj accent, zaq (בְּ) — against her; The ב here, as in verse ten, indicates the object of the verb. The zaqeph separates the dependent relative from the subordinate clause that follows.
וְהִ֥יא — pers pron 3fs + vav; conj accent, mer (הוּא) — she; This noun with an attached vav introduces a verbless clause. The vav is disjunctive introducing a subordinate clause with the pronoun is the subject of this clause.
חֲבֶרְתְּךָ֖ — n: fsc + 2ms suf; disj accent tip (חֲבֶ֫רֶת) — (hypox) consort/wife; This word used only here and comes from the root ,חבר meaning to join together. It “indicates the type of a close relationship which the root ḥābar expresses.”[152] 152 TWOT, p. 260 Along with the next word, the predicate nominative of the verbless clause.
וְאֵ֥שֶׁת — n: fsc + vav; conj accent, mer (אִשָּׁה) — woman, wife, female; Predicate nominative.
בְּרִיתֶֽךָ — n: fsc +2ms suf; disj accent, sil (בְּרִית) — your covenant; The idea may be that this was the wife allowed by the covenant, i.e., a wife from the tribe of Levi. It might refer to a covenant made between the man and wife in their marriage.
Not only did these priests marry unbelieving wives outside their tribe and nation, they were divorcing their original wives, ones they had from the beginning, ones from the tribe of Levi. This was an act of treachery against them. They, as Malachi points out, were the wives of their youth, their companions or consorts, and their covenantal wife. This may refer to the fact that they were to take wives from the Tribe of Levi according to the covenant, or possibly the covenant of marriage between them. In either case there was a covenant and they had broken it.
The LORD had originally intended marriage to be a partnership between too people, the wife was a helper and a companion. They were to support the priest in his life and ministry. But after sin entered, wives instead became things, possessions of men who were dominant. The priests were remarrying, looking at these foreign wives. Why? The reasons are not given here or elsewhere, but probably not dissimilar to the reasons that exist in our day. They are status symbols, they come into the marriage bring much wealth, they bring only sexual pleasure are some main ones. But in dismissing their former wives, they went against the covenant and incurred YHVH’s displeasure. How like them we are!
But no one ever did [this] \ who had a remnant of the Spirit! | |
Now did why this person [not do this]? | |
He was seeking godly offspring.‡ |
Take heed to the Spirit that is yours, | |
that one does not deal treacherously against the wife of your youth!‡ |
Malachi has told the priests that YHVH has not responded to their prayers and sacrifices even when offered with much weeping and wailing because of how they were treating their original wives. Now in this verse, after he tells them that no one who had even a bit of the Spirit had so done this, he exhorts them to pay heed to the Spirit which was theirs so that they did not treat their wives treacherously.
Both the athnach and the silluq domains are full. The athnach has three subordinate segments, an initial zaqeph, a medial zaqeph and a final tiphchah. The initial zaqeph domain starts with a verbal clause in the rebia segment introduced by a disjunctive vav used to contrast this clause with the previous, But no one ever did [this]. The final pashta segment is a dependent relative clause qualifying the subject, who had a remnant of the Spirit! The medial zaqeph segment is an independent verbless clause again introduced by a disjunctive vav which interrupts the narrative to ask the question, Now why did this person [not do this]? The final tiphchah segment is a verbless clause answering that question, He was seeking godly offspring.
The silluq domain has two subordinate segments, an initial zaqeph and a concluding tiphchah. Both of these subordinate domains are verbal clauses made in light of the statements in line one. The zaqeph segment begins with a vav relative perfective which has the sense of an imperfective with volitional force; Take heed to the Spirit that is yours. The final tiphchah segment is another volitional imperfective which signifies purpose or result in this context, that one does not deal treacherously against the wife of your youth.
וְלֹא־ — neg adv + vav; maq (לֹא לוֹא) — no, not; a disjunctive vav because there is a shift in subject; The maqqeph unites this negative adverb with the following noun. The לא is an item adverb here rather than clausal; Not one person did this rather than, One did not do this. This seems to be, at least in English, more emphatic, more exclusive.
אֶחָ֣ד — adj num; conj accent, mun (אֶחָד) — one; Used here as an indefinite pronoun, subject of עשׁה. The munach ties this subject with the verb which follows.
עָשָׂ֗ה — Qal Pf 3ms; disj accent, reb (עָשָׂה) — to do, make; This is an indefinite perfective and the context, i.e., the use of לא as an item adverb, here suggests “an emphasis on the uniqueness of an act in the indefinite past.”[153] 153 IBHS, p. 487 The rebia disjunctive ends this independent verbal clause and separates it from the dependent relative clause which follows.
וּשְׁאָ֥ר — n: msc + vav; conj accent, mer (שְׁאָר) — residue, rest, remnant; The vav attached to the relative pronoun introduces a dependent relative clause which qualifies the subject ולא־אחד.
ר֨וּחַ֙ — n: fsa; disj accent, psh (רוּחַ) — wind, breath, spirit; The question arises, to what does this refer, literally the wind or breath, the spirit of a person, or the Spirit of God? The option that makes the most sense is the latter, the Spirit of God. Translators vary on this question.[154] 154 For example the NASB and NKJV both take רוח to refer to the Spirit of God while the NIV, which is a much inferior translation for this verse in this student’s view, takes it as the human spirit.
ל֔וֹ — prep + 3ms suf; disj accent, zaq (לְ) —If רוח refers to the Spirit of God, this is a ל indicating possession “who had a remnant of the spirit”; if רוח refers to the human spirit, this is a ל of reference. “in reference to his spirit”. The former is much more natural and requires fewer unstated assumed ideas. The zaqeph ends the initial subordinate segment of the athnach domain and separates this independent complex clause from the next independent clause found in the medial zaqeph segment of this line.
וּמָה֙ — inter pro + vav; disj accent, psh (מָה) — why; The pashta marks the first word of the medial zaqeph segment of the athnach domain, it also links this interrogative with the last word bearing the zaqeph. This is a verbless clause with only the interrogative, in this case used adverbially, and the following word, the subject of the clause. The vav is disjunctive interrupting the narrative to pose a question.
הָֽאֶחָ֔ד — adj num + art; disj accent, zaq (אֶחָד) — one; The article marks this word as definite tying it to its previous occurrence in the rebia segment where it also was the subject. In this instance it would be appropriate to translate it as a demonstrative, this one or this person, i.e., the person just mentioned. The zaqeph then marks the end of this segment. There is no predicate stated for the subject and it must be supplied from the context. The simplest and most reasonable thing to supply is the verb mentioned just previously in this verse, But no one ever did [this]. This short clause asks why this is so.
מְבַקֵּ֖שׁ — Piel ptcp msa; disj accent, tip (בָּקַשׁ) — to seek; This word begins the third and final subordinate segment of line one, the tiphchah. It is also a verbless independent clause. The subject is not stated, having been identified in the previous two clauses. The use of the participle stresses the state of affairs more so than actual events and explains the reason for the actions just describe. These priests, who had a remnant of God’s Spirit did not divorce their original wives to marry foreign ones because they wanted godly children.
זֶ֣רַע — n: msc; conj accent, mun (זֶ֫רַע) — seed, offspring; direct object of מבקשׁ.
אֱלֹהִ֑ים — n: msa; disj accent, ath (אֱלֹהִים) — God; The absolute following the construct זרע. The genitive relationship here must be seen in light of the phrase used four verses earlier where these priests were described as marrying the daughter of a foreign god. They were not literal daughters of this false god but women who worshipped this god. So here, offspring of God denotes children who would be worshippers of the true God and not a false one. They wanted children who believed. The athnach ends this line.
וְנִשְׁמַרְתֶּם֙ — Niphal Pf 2mp + vav; disj accent, psh (שָׁמַר ) — to be on one’s guard, take heed (Note in BDB under Niphal 1.) ; The vav relative perfective here has the sense of an imperfective with volitional force.[155] 155 IBHS, p. 535 The command follows from the first line.
בְּר֣וּחֲכֶ֔ם — n: fsc +2mp suf + prep בְּ; disj accent, zaq (רוּחַ) — spirit; Two questions, at least, come to me with this word, first, what is the sense of רוח here. Does it refer to their spirit or does it refer to God’s Spirit. Can it be different than the sense of the word as used in line1? The second question is question then is what is the sense of the preposition ב in this phrase? The two questions are related; the answer to one affects the other. n: fsc +2mp suf + prep בְּ; disj accent, zaq (רוּחַ) — spirit; Two questions, at least, come to me with this word, first, what is the sense of רוח here. Does it refer to their spirit or does it refer to God’s Spirit. Can it be different than the sense of the word as used in line1? The second question then is what is the sense of the preposition ב in this phrase? The two questions are related; the answer to one affects the other. Concerning רוח, many of the translations which understand the first occurrence of רוח to refer to the Spirit of God do not understand this occurrence to mean the same, NASB and KJV for example. They understand this use to refer to the human spirit, as do all modern translations. To me it seems one should take them to be used in the same sense. What then is the sense of the preposition ב? It can mean ‘to ,in reference to’ and thus to take heed to or in reference to one’s own spirit makes a lot of sense. It would also make sense in the same manner to say one should take heed to or in reference to the Spirit of God. In Exodus 23:13 using the Niphal stem, YHVH tells the people to be on their guard concerning or in reference to everything which I have said to you, וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־אַמָרְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶם תִּשָּׁמֵרוּ. Another possibility is the causal use of ב, It could be translated then, Take heed because of the Spirit that is yours, (The remnant of the Spirit of God that was with them). It had guided some, these also should listen.
וּבְאֵ֥שֶׁת — n: fsc + prep בְּ + vav; conj accent, mer (אִשָּׁה) — woman, wife;
נְעוּרֶ֖יךָ — n: mpc +2ms suf; disj accent, tip (נְעוּרִים) — youth, early life;
אַל־ — neg. adv; maq (אַל) — no, not; This negative indicates that the verbal form which follows is volitional.
יִבְגֹּֽד׃ — Qal jussive 3ms; disj accent, sil (בָּגַד) — to act or deal treacherously; This volitional form should be taken to signify purpose or result in this context. It parallels the idea in the first line. Those who possessed the remnant of the Spirit did not divorce their wives, so here Malachi exhorts these to take heed to the Spirit which was theirs so that or with the result that they did not deal treacherously with the wives of their youth.
Marriages between a person of faith and an unbeliever often produce children who do not follow in faith. Thus, it was in Malachi’s day; so it is in ours. Children learn from the lives, character and actions of their parents. What are we producing in our marriages? Before one marries, the question should be seriously considered, What do we want our offspring to be?
“Because [I] hate divorce,” \ says YHVH, the God of Israel, | |
“and so spreading violence upon one's garments,” says YHVH of Hosts,‡ |
Take heed to the Spirit that is yours that you do not deal treacherously!‡ |
This verse ends the section dealing with the marriage relationships of the priests. In the last line of the previous verse, he exhorted them to listen to the witness of the Spirit so that they did not deal treacherously against the wives of their youth, i.e., their original wives. Now he concludes by stating YHVH hates divorce which pollutes their garments. Because of this he again ends with an exhortation to these priests to pay attention to the witness of the Spirit so as not to act treacherously.
This verse has many things in common with the previous verse. The accent pattern is very similar; both have an athnach domain with three subordinate segments, and both have a silluq domain with essentially the same exhortation. The initial zaqeph segment begins with the causal conjunction כי linking the dependent clause in this line with the independent clause in the next. The subordinate rebia segment is the statement, the closing pashta segment, the identification of the speaker. The rebia segment is a verbless clause with the subject being clearly understood from the context, Because [I] hate divorce…. The pashta segment is the statement of who is speaking, says YHVH, the God of Israel,… The medial zaqeph segment is a verbal clause epexegetical to the initial statement. Their divorcing of their wives is tantamount to polluting their garments and thus disqualifying them as priests. The concluding subordinate tiphchah segment again states that this is YHVH of Hosts speaking.
The second line is the exhortation based upon the reason stated in the first. It is similar to the silluq domain of the previous verse. This silluq is fractional with just a subordinate tiphchah segment. The first two words are identical to the first two in the previous verse, Take heed to the Spirit that is yours…. The last part differs in two respects; first, the verbal form shifts from a third singular person in verse fifteen to a second plural in this verse. Second, there is no object stated for the verb in this verse, that you do not deal treacherously, while verse fifteen, has a stated object , that one does not deal treacherously against the wife of your youth.
כִּֽי־ — conj; maq (כִּי) — because/that; The causal conjunction connects line one with the second line in this verse.
שָׂנֵ֣א — Qal act ptcp msa; conj accent, mun (שָׂנֵא) — to hate ; This is a predicate use of the participle in a verbless clause. The present continuing state is stressed by the use of the participle here. While the subject is not stated,[156] 156 Although it is not common (IBHS, p. 624), GKC notes that the 1cs pronoun, which is expected, is omitted here (GKC, §116 under 5). it is easily understood from the context. Thus, the English translation supplies the first person singular pronoun as the subject.
שַׁלַּ֗ח — Piel inf cstr; disj accent, reb (שָׁלַח) — to send away, divorce; used nominally as object of שׂנא. The rebia divides the initial zaqeph segment into two sections; the rebia segment is the content of what is said, the pashta being the statement of who speaks.
אָמַ֤ר — Qal Pf 3ms; conj accent, mah / virtual garshaim (אָמַר) — to say; instantaneous perfective. The accent probably is a conjunctive rather than a transformed disjunctive garshaim. It ties the verb with stated subject.
יְהוָה֙ — pn: msa; disj accent, psh (יְהוָה) — LORD, YHVH; the pashta separates this noun from the word-unit in apposition to it.
אֱלֹהֵ֣י — n: mpc; conj accent, mun (אֱלֹהִים) — God; This word and the construct which follows are in apposition to יהוה. [Question: Why add this appositional phrase? Perhaps it is to remind these priests which God they served. Divorce may have been an option for theses wives who were not from Israel, but YHVH, the true God of Israel hated it.]
יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל — pn: msa; disj accent, zaq (יִשְׂרָאֵל) — Israel; The absolute following previous construct.
וְכִסָּ֤ה — Piel RVP 3ms + rel vav / Pf + 3ms + vav cop; conj accent, mah (כָּסָה) — to cover, clothe, spread over; This verb introduces the clause which comprises the subordinate medial zaqeph segment of line one. The type of clause this is affects how the verse is translated. GKC suggests this is an independent relative clause qualifying an unstated pronoun which is the object of the participle שׁנא. “and him that covereth…”.[157] 157 GKC §155, 5, (b) This might be viewed as a constituent noun clause used as the object of a verb.[158] 158 IBHS, p. 644-645 and notes from Professor Don Glenn, Dallas Theological Seminary, given in class 1972-2973. This medial zaqeph segment would then be a second object of the participle שׂנא and translated much the same as the first option. YHVH hates divorce and the one who spreads violence upon his garments. A third possibility is that this is a relative vav perfective following a participle. In this case, it would be used to “describe a consequent situation, whether temporal…or logical.”[159] 159 IBHS, p. 535 Taken in the context of these priests and their ministry of offering the sacrifices and making intercession for the people, their divorcing their original wives was an act of treachery and tantamount to covering their priestly robes with violence or wrong disqualifying them from service. Not only were they sanctified, their priestly garments were as well. See Exodus 28. The vav relative perfective represents an imperfective action. This seems to fit the context much better than the first two options.
חָמָס֙ — — n: msa; disj accent, psh (חָמָס) — wrong, violence; This word can mean physical violence but also according to BDB, “but also wrong , incl. injurious language, harsh treatment.”[160] 160 BDB, p. 826 This seems to be the idea here.
עַל־ — prep; maq (עַל) — over, upon;
לְבוּשׁ֔וֹ — n: msc + 3ms suf; disj accent, zaq (לְבוּשׁ/לְבֻשׁ) — garment, clothing; A reference to the priestly garments worn by the Levites.
אָמַ֖ר — Qal Pf 3ms; disj accent, tip (אָמַר) — to say; instantaneous perfective.
יְהוָ֣ה — pn: msc; conj accent, mun (יְהוָה) — LORD YHVH;
צְבָא֑וֹת — n: mpa; disj accent, ath (צָבָה) — army, host;
וְנִשְׁמַרְתֶּ֥ם — Niphal Pf 2mp + vav; accent, mer (שָׁמַר) — to be on one’s guard, take heed (Note in BDB under Niphal 1.); As in the previous verse the vav relative perfective has the sense of an imperfective with volitional force. See reference in verse 2:15.
בְּרוּחֲכֶ֖ם — n: fsc +2mp suf + prep בְּ; disj accent, tip (רוּחַ) — spirit;
וְלֹ֥א — neg adv + vav; conj accent, mer (לֹא לוֹא) — and/but not;
תִבְגֹּֽדוּ — to act or deal treacherously; The negative is לא rather than אל. With second person לא is also used in the same sense.[161] 161 IBHS, p. 567 This should be taken as a jussive and seen to signify purpose or result as in verse 2:15.
Malachi is telling these priests that their relationship with their wives either validates their ministry or disqualifies it. It did not matter how sincere and emotional their ministry was, if they acted wrongly marrying women that did not share their faith and/or divorcing their first wives, he was not listening and would not answer their requests.
How sincerely have I prayed for something while refusing to acknowledge sin in my life, problems with my marriage that I have refused to deal with? Is there a relationship?
You have been wearying YHVH with your words. | |
But you are saying, “How have we wearied [you]?”‡ |
When you say, \ “Everyone who does evil § is good in the eyes of YHVH \ for in them he delights.” | |
or, “Where is the God of Justice?”‡ |
This verse begins a new section which extends through chapter three, verse six. Employing the same literary device with which he started this book, the prophet, speaking for YHVH makes a statement. In the first line he says they have wearied YHVH with their words. The priests then respond asking how this could be true. In the second line YHVH explains they do this when they say either YHVH has started blessing evil or he is gone and not a God of justice any longer.
Both the athnach and the silluq domain are full comprised of two subordinate segments. The first line contains YHVH’s indictment in the zaqeph segment and the response of the priests in the tiphchah. The second line is the beginning of YHVH’s rebuttal. The zaqeph segment of the athnach domain is an independent verbal clause. The tiphchah segment is also an independent verbal clause but is successive and subordinate being a contrast to what YHVH says.
The silluq segment is a dependent clause with an unexpressed but understood independent clause being equivalent to the first part of line one, [You have been wearing YHVH with your words] when you say…. The zaqeph segment of this line is full with three subordinate domains. The initial rebia segment contains the verbal statement, when you say (in your saying/by your saying, etc.). What follows in this line is the object of that infinitive construct, the content of what they were saying. The medial rebia segment and the pashta segment of the zaqeph form one statement. The tiphchah segment is another alternate statement.
The medial rebia segment is a verbless clause, “Everyone who does evil § is good in the eyes of YHVH; the pashta segment is a verbal clause joined by a vav disjunctive and is epexegetical explaining why this is seen as true, for in them he delights.” The closing tiphchah segment to line two is connected by the coordinating conjunction או which presents an alternative. It is a verbless interrogative clause, “Where is the God of Justice?”
הוֹגַעְתֶּ֤ם — Hiphil Pf 2mp; conj accent, mah (יָגַע יָגֵעַ) — to cause to grow weary, toil; a persistent present perfective; The mahpak on this world could represent a virtual garshaim.
יְהוָה֙ — pn: msa; disj accent, psh (יְהוָה) — LORD, YHVH; object of הוגעתם.
בְּדִבְרֵיכֶ֔ם — n: mpc + 2mp suf + prep בְּ; disj accent, zaq (דָּבָר) — word, speech; The ב indicates the means or instrument with which they wearied YHVH. The zaqeph ends this subordinate segment which is an independent verbal clause beginning a new section of this message by Malachi. You have been wearying YHVH with your words.
וַאֲמַרְתֶּ֖ם — Qal RVPf 2mp + vav cons; disj accent, tip (אָמַר) — to say; The relative vav perfective again indicates a logical connection (a contrast or opposition) with the preceding clause. The sense is progressive or perhaps specific future as in verse 1:7 for example. The tiphchah falls on this word rather than במה separating the verb, But you are saying…, from its object, i.e., what they were saying.
בַּמָּ֣ה — inter pron + prep בְּ; conj accent, mun (מָה) — in what way, how;
הוֹגָ֑עְנוּ — Hiphil Pf 1cp; disj accent, ath (יָגַע יָגֵעַ) — to cause to grow weary, toil; The object, is an understood you. A persistent present perfective.
בֶּאֱמָרְכֶ֗ם — Qal inf abs + 2mp suf + prep בְּ; disj accent, reb (אָמַר) — to say; nominal use of infinitive construct, object of prep ב. The suffix is subjective. Temporal (possibly causal) use of prep ב with the infinitive construct; This is similar to the construction in verse 1:7. In that verse, the verb included more the idea of what they were saying by their actions; here it seems to be more verbal. The rebia segment, one word, באמרכם, begins the initial zaqeph section of the second line. It is a dependent verbless clause with an unstated dependent clause. The tiphchah segment of line one ended with the question, “How have we wearied [you]?” Line two answers that question [You have been wearying me] when you say…. The rebia separates this verbal noun from its object, what they were saying.
כָּל־ — n: msc; maqqeph (כֹּל) — all, every; Subject of verbless clause that makes up the object of the infinitive construct. This begins the content of what they were saying. There are two statements, one in the rest of this zaqeph segment and the second in the concluding tiphchah segment. The maqqeph unites this construct with the following adjective.
עֹ֨שֵׂה — Qal ptcp msa; conj accent, azl (עָשָׂה) — to do, make; substantial use of participle, partitive genitive following כל. The azla connects the participle with its object.
רָ֜ע — adj msa; disj accent, ger (רַע) — evil, bad; substantial use of adjective. It is the object of the previous participle. The geresh separates the subject of this verbless clause from the predicate adjective.
ט֣וֹב׀ — adj msa; disj accent, leg (טוֹב) — pleasing, good agreeable; predicate adjective in a verbless clause.
בְּעֵינֵ֣י — n m/fdc + prep בְּ; conj accent, mun (עַיִן ) — eye; the prepositional phases used adverbially.
יְהוָ֗ה — n: msa; disj accent, reb (יְהוָה) — LORD, YHVH; Absolute following עיני. The rebia marks the end of this medial rebia segment of the zaqeph domain. It marks the end of the first part of the content of what these priests were saying.
וּבָהֶם֙ — prep; + 3mp suf + vav; disj accent, psh (בְּ) — in; This prepositional phase begins the last subordinate segment of the zaqeph, the pashta segment. It is a verbal clause introduced by a disjunctive vav. This clause is epexegetical explaining why the priests thought those who do evil were good. This must be the case because YHVH delights in them. They are successful and prosperous. They do not seem to be experiencing YHVH’s judgment! This reflected the common belief was that if one was good and blessed by YHVH it would show up materially and those that were not so blessed were in some way under his judgment.
ה֣וּא — pers pron 3ms; conj accent, mun (הוּא) — he, she, it; stated subject of verb. [Question: The writer might have said והוא בהם חפץ, ‘for he delights in them’ rather than ,ובהם הוא חפץ, ‘for in them he delights’, the disjunctive vav attached to the subject rather than the prepositional phrase. Is there a difference in emphasis then, with stress being on IN THEM rather than HE?]
חָפֵ֔ץ — Qal Pf 3ms; disj accent, zaq (חָפֵץ) — to delight in; durative stative perfective; It should be noted that YHVH has already stated that he takes no delight חפץ (noun form) in them, the priests.
א֥וֹ — conj; conj accent, mer (אֹו) — or; This conjunction joins two alternatives.[162] 162 IBHS, p. 654 The first alternative is stated in the zaqeph segment, this second is in this tiphchah segment. Either YHVH was blessing the evil person, or he was not there and not judging them.
אַיֵּ֖ה — inter adv; disj accent, tip (אַיֵּה) — where? The interrogative implies YHVH was not present?
אֱלֹהֵ֥י — n: mpc; conj accent, mer (אֱלֹהִים) — God;
הַמִּשְׁפָּֽט — n: msa + art; disj accent, sil (מִשְׁפָּט) — judgment; An attributive genitive, A God who is characterized by justice. They did not see that the evil who were prospering to be a just thing. Where was this just God who was supposed to judge sin and reward the righteous, they asked.
[XX] XX TEXTToo often conservative believers wonder to themselves—I know for I am one of them!—Why hasn’t God stepped in and judged the wicked? They seem to prosper and do just fine, while we suffer!” Those words are what these priests uttered, possibly aloud, but certainly to themselves. What did the LORD say about these thoughts? He said he was weary of it! He will soon answer why in the verses of the next chapter.
“Behold! I am about to send my messenger; | |
and he will clear the way before me.‡ |
And (then) suddenly he will come to his Temple, § the Lord whom you are seeking; \ and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight. Behold, he is coming!” | |
says YHVH of Hosts.‡ |
In verse 2:17, the first verse of this section, YHVH told these priests he was weary of hearing them complain about the wicked going unpunished and asking, “Where is the God of justice? In this verse he tells them his coming is imminent. He is just about to send his messenger, a forerunner to prepare the way. Then suddenly, the Lord, one they have been seeking, the messenger of the covenant, the one in whom they delight will come to the Temple of the Lord.
As is normal, the verse has two parts, but in this verse the athnach domain is much shorter (six Hebrew words) than the silluq (18 Hebrew words). The first line is divided into two independent clauses. The first is a verbless clause introduced by הנהי stressing the immediacy or sureness of YHVH’s actions, “Behold! I am about to send my messenger. The second is an independent verbal clause which is logically successive to the first, and he will clear the way before me.
The silluq domain of this verse is also divide into two parts. The fractional silluq which ends line two is the smaller, being the common formula that this is YHVH speaking, says YHVH of Hosts. The zaqeph domain is full with a full rebia segment and a fractional pashta. The opening geresh segment in this rebia segment is an independent clause beginning with an adverb with disjunctive vav. There is a shift in the participants. In the first line YHVH states he will send a messenger to clear the way before he comes. Now in this live the focus is not on this preparatory messenger but on the coming of YHVH. From the New Testament, it is clear this is the Messiah, Jesus Christ our Lord. The clause in this geresh segment is, And (then) suddenly he will come to his Temple. The clause which follows in the closing legarmeh segment of the rebia domain is in apposition. Who is this, he? It is the Lord whom you are seeking. The clause comprising the remainder of this zaqeph segment up to the word bearing the pashta disjunctive is a second appositional clause, and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight. The last two words of the zaqeph segment, the zaqeph proper domain is a new clause which completes the content of what YHVH says in an emphatic way, restating the idea, Behold, he is coming!” The line ends with the tiphchah segment containing the formula, says YHVH of Hosts.
הִנְנִ֤י — presentative ptcl + 1cs suf conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual gar (הִנֵּה) — Behold; The presentative particle implies immediacy. The pronominal suffix is the subject of the following participle. The mahpak conjunctive probably represents a transformed garshaim setting the particle and the subject of this verbless clause apart from the predicate participle,
שֹׁלֵחַ֙ — Qal ptcp msa; disj accent, psh (שָׁלַח) — to send; predicate use in a verbless clause; the pasta separates the subject and predicate from the object of the verb.
מַלְאָכִ֔י — n: msc + 1cs suf; disj accent, zaq (מַלְאָךְ) — messenger; This is exactly the same word used in verse one. Here it must mean my messenger and not be a proper name. It is prophetic of John the Baptist in a near fulfillment in reference to the first coming but ultimately it is a reference to Elijah (See chapter four, verses five and six.) who comes before the second coming, which is more what is view here. The zaqeph marks the end of this clause.
וּפִנָּה־ — Piel RVPf 3ms + vav cons; maq (פּנָהָ) — turn away, turn out of the way, to clear; This verbal clause is successive to the prior. The maqqeph unites the verb-subject with the object of the verb which follows. The relative vav perfect picks up the imminent future idea from the first clause of this line.
דֶ֖רֶךְ — n: msa; disj accent, tip (דֶּ֫רֶךְ) — road path, way; direct object of ופנה. The tiphchah marks the closing segment of this line and serves to set apart the last adverbial prepositional phrase.
לְפָנָ֑י — n: m/fpc + לְ + 1cs suf; disj accent, ath (פָּנִים) — before me; The athnach marks the end of line one which deals with the coming of the messenger. The second line then concerns the coming of YHVH.
וּפִתְאֹם֩ — adv: + vav disjunctive; conj accent, lte (פִתְאֹם) — suddenly; The vav attached to the non-verbal form indicates it is disjunctive. Here there is a change in participants. The focus changes from the messenger who is sent to the one he comes before.
יָב֨וֹא — Qal Pf 3ms; conj accent, azl (בּוֹא) — to come go; prophetic future emphasizing the certainty of the event by picturing it as complete.
אֵל־ — prep; maq (אֵל) — to , toward; A maqqeph connects this preposition with its object.
הֵיכָל֜וֹ — n: msc + 3ms suf; disj accent, ger (הֵיכָלֹ) — temple, palace; The pronoun on this word identifies the subject. Whose temple is it? It is YHVH’s. The geresh divides this remote rebia domain into two parts. This part is an independent verbal clause; the second part is a concluding legarmeh segment of the rebia. It is noun identifying the subject of the verb יבוא, followed by a relative phrase qualifying that noun.
הָאָד֣וֹן׀ — n: msa + art; disj accent, leg (אָדוֹן) — Lord; While this word might be considered to be the subject of יבוא, yet it seems best to see it and the relative clause qualifying it in apposition to the unstated subject. He will come into his Temple. Who is he? It is the Lord. The following relative clause further identifies Lord, since this word may refer either to a human lord or master or the divine Lord, God himself.
אֲשֶׁר־ — rel pro; maq (אֲשֶׁר) — whom; The referent is האדון, and the pronoun is the object of the participle מבקשׁים. This pronoun introduces a relative phrase qualifying האדון.
אַתֶּ֣ם — pers pro 2mp; conj accent, mun (אַתֶּם) — you; This is the subject of the following participle. It is a reference to the priests who have just asked, איה אלהי המשׁפט, Where is the God of justice?
מְבַקְשִׁ֗ים — Piel ptcp mpa; disj accent, reb (בָּקַשׁ) — to seek; not found in Qal stem; verbal use; subject is אתם The rebia marks the end of the initial segment of the zaqeph. The final part of this zaqeph domain is the following pashta segment.
וּמַלְאַ֨ךְ — n msc + vav; conj accent, azl (מַלְאָךְ) — messenger; Another noun phrase, used as a nominative absolute in apposition to the unstated subject of יבוא as was אדון earlier.. The azla connects this word in construct with the following absolute.
הַבְּרִ֜ית — n: fsa + art; disj accent, ger (בְּרִית) — covenant; What kind of genitive is this? This seems to be in a general sense an objective genitive. He is the one announcing or heralding the covenant.
אֲשֶׁר־ — rel pro; maq (אֲשֶׁר) — whom; The referent is מלאך הברית; the pronoun itself is the object of the participle חפצים.
אַתֶּ֤ם — pers pro 2mp; conj accent, mah (אַתֶּם) — you; This is the subject of the following participle. It is a reference to the priests to whom Malachi is speaking.
חֲפֵצִים֙ — Qal ptcp mpa; disj accent, psh (חָפֵץ)— to delight in; verbal use of the participle. The pashta marks the end of this appositional phrase and the complex clause which began this line, And (then) suddenly he will come to his Temple, the Lord whom you are seeking; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight. The last two words of this zaqeph sentence form another independent clause, Behold! He is coming!
הִנֵּה־ — presentative ptcl; maq (הִנֵּה) — Behold; The subject is unstated but understood from previous clause.
בָ֔א — Qal ptcp msa; disj accent, zaq (בּוֹא) — to come go; predicate use in verbless clause. The zaqeph ends this complex statement.
אָמַ֖ר — Qal Pf 3ms; disj accent, tip (אָמַר) — to say; instantaneous perfective. The tiphchah segment of the silluq domain is the declaration of the speaker.
יְהוָ֥ה — pn: msc; conj accent, mer (יְהוָה) — LORD YHVH;
צְבָאֽוֹת׃ — n: mpa; disj accent, sil (צָבָה) — Hosts;
The priests bemoaned the fact that YHVH had not yet come and set up his kingdom, that the wicked prospered (verse 2:17) and it was a tiresome thing to serve as an officiating priest offering the sacrifices (verse 1:13). Now he tells them he is about to send his messenger then he will come to the Temple! The next few verses , however, will make it very clear that he is coming to judge them and purify the priesthood. Not what they were expecting!
I wonder, how many conservative believers today do the same thing. Do we really want him to come and judge? Where will he begin? With whom will he start? Malachi tells us!
But who is going to endure the day of his coming? | |
Who is going to be the one standing when he appears‡ |
because he is like the fire of a refiner | |
and the alkali soap of a fuller.‡ |
This verse questions the expectations of these religious leaders. They asked, where was YHVH, meaning that he should come back and set up the promised kingdom. Note that both Haggai and Zechariah years earlier had prophesied of YHVH’s return to judge the nations and establish his kingdom. It had not yet taken place, nor did it seem to close. They wanted this to happen. But Malachi by these questions in the first line is saying, “Wait a minute now! Do you really think you want this? You will not escape his judgment when he comes! No one will. Do not think you will be left standing when this happens.” Then he explains, that when he returns, he will be like an extremely hot furnace fire burning out all impurities in the metal or like a caustic soap that bleaches out every stain. You are not exempt from this.
Both the athnach and the silluq domains are divided into two major segments. In the athnach domain each major segment is a verbless rhetorical question. The zaqeph and the tiphchah are parallel with the ideas intensifying each other. The silluq domain is a causal dependent clause giving the reason for the questions and their implied answers. It is a comparison clause with the zaqeph giving one comparison and the tiphchah another.
וּמִ֤י — inter pro +vav; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual garshaim (מִי) — who? The is a disjunctive vav introducing a contrasting idea from previous verse. The question is rhetorical not asking for an answer so much as emphasizing the expected answer that no one will endure the (second) coming of Messiah. This is in contrast to the idea that these priests professedly looked for and wanted the Messiah to come. When he comes, who will endure? No one! The pronoun is the subject of the verbless clause which makes up this zaqeph segment. The mahpak could be a transformed garshaim, yet here, if this segment parallels the tiphchah in accentuation, then it probably is a conjunctive mahpak.
מְכַלְכֵּל֙ — Pilpel ptcp msa; disj accent, psh(כּוּל) — Pilpel (this is a rare verbal stem made by dropping the 2nd radical and repeating the 1st and 3rd radical) “sustains, endures?” predicate participle in this verbless clause. Subject is מי. The sense is future in connection with previous verse. The pashta separates the subject-verb from the object of the verb similarly to the tiphchah segment of this line.
אֶת־ — ptcl, noun indicator; maq (אֵת) — indicates the definite object of the participle מכלכל. The maqqeph unites the particle with the noun to which it points.
י֣וֹם — n: msc; conj accent, mun (יֹום) — day; This is the object of the participle, the thing that is endured. The munach connects the construct with its absolute.
בּוֹא֔וֹ — Qal inf cstr + 3ms suf; disj accent, zaq (בּוֹא) — to come; It is a temporal genitive after יום; i.e., the day when he comes. The suffix represents the subject of the verbal action. The zaqeph marks the end of this segment.XXX
וּמִ֥י — inter pro +vav; conj accent, mun (מִי) — who? This word begins the tiphchah segment. The vav again is disjunctive. Here it is epexegetical introducing a parallel statement, serving to intensify the statement made in the zaqeph segment. As above, this is the subject of a verbless interrogative clause. The mereka unites subject and predicate nominative.
הָעֹמֵ֖ד — Qal ptcp msa + art; disj accent, tip (עָמַד) — to stand; relative participle as is indicated by the presence of the article, the one standing.[163] 163 IBHS, p. 621 Used as predicate nominative to מי. The tiphchah marks the end of this segment and also serves to separate the subject and predicate nominative from the temporal prepositional phrase which ends this line.
בְּהֵרָֽאוֹת֑וֹ — Niphal inf cstr + 3ms suf + prep בְּ; disj accent, ath + aux accent, metheg (רָאָה) — to present oneself, to appear (“in his appearance, when he appears?”) temporal use of ב. The suffix represents the subject of the verbal action of the infinitive construct. The athnach marks the end of the first line.
כִּֽי־ — conj; aux accent, met (כִּי) — because, for; causal conjunction. Introduces a verbless causal dependent clause. The maqqeph unites this conjunction and the following pronoun into a single word unit.
הוּא֙ — pers pro 3ms; disj accent, psh (הוּא) — he, she, it; subject of verbless clause. The pashta separates the pronoun subject from the first part of the compound comparison.
כְּאֵ֣שׁ — n: fsc + כְּ; conj accent, mun (אֵשׁ) — fire; The munach unites the construct with its absolute.
מְצָרֵ֔ף — Piel ptcp msa; disj accent, zaq (צָרַף) — to refine, used as a substantive; This is absolute used as genitive following כאשׁ. This could be a possessive genitive or more likely described as a genitive of mediated object, the fire (used by a refiner).[164] 164 IBHS, p. 146 The zaqeph marks the end of the first subordinate segment of the silluq domain.
וּכְבֹרִ֖ית — n: fsc + (כְּ) +vav; disj accent, tip (בֹּרִית) — lye, alkali, potash, soap; The copulative vav units this noun with אשׁ above. It is the second part of a compound comparison. The subject הוא and preposition כ is understood from the zaqeph segment.
מְכַבְּסִֽים׃ — Piel ptcp msa; disj accent, sil (כָּבַס) — to wash, cleanse; substantival use as above; As with מצרף this probably a genitive of mediated object.
I am convinced that the conservative church, at least in our country, is much like these priests. We talk about wanting the rapture to take place and our Lord to return but are we really ready. Will he find us prepared for his coming? For when he returns for us, we will all have to stand before him at his judgment seat. Are we ready to answer him for what we have done and how we have lived? When he comes, purification will start with those who claim at least to be his followers. It will be harsh and intense. Impurities in the church will be burned away; stains will be blotted out! Are we really ready?
For he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver | |
for he will cleanse the sons of Levi; he will refine them | |
as gold and as silver.‡ |
Then they will be to YHVH | |
presenters of offerings in righteousness.‡ |
This verse follows from the previous; it is epexegetical explaining the metaphor introduced by the prophet that when Messiah comes, he will be like a refiner’s fire or a fuller’s lye soap. In this verse he explains he will refine and purify the priesthood so that or with the result that they would become those who offer sacrifices in righteousness, something they were not currently doing.
The full athnach domain explains the metaphor in the silluq domain of the last verse. The silluq of this verse then offers the reason or result for YHVH’s action. The athnach consists of three subordinate segments, two zaqeph and a concluding tiphchah. The initial zaqeph segment is an independent clause beginning with a relative vav perfective. It is logically sequential to the clause in the preceding silluq domain explaining the metaphor. The medial zaqeph segment begins with another vav relative perfective clause in its subordinate pashta segment continuing that explanation explaining who he will refine and purify. A third relative vav perfective clause then begins in the last two words of this zaqeph segment, the proper domain following the pashta disjunctive. It also continues this explanation of the metaphor in the previous verse summarizing. The final tiphchah segment concludes this clause. It does not have appear to have an equal weight as the two initial zaqeph segments but rather completes the second zaqeph segment being somewhat subordinate to it.
The silluq domain begins with another vav relative perfective. The relationship is successive but includes the idea of result or purpose. This is why he refines them, the end result of their purification. The initial zaqeph segment of this domain contains the subject-verb and a prepositional phrase indicating for who or in reference to whom this is true; the final tiphchah segment contains the predicate nominative.
וְיָשַׁ֨ב — Qal RVP 3ms +vav rel; conj accent, azl (יָשַׁב) — to sit This common verb can have the idea of to sit in judgment as a judge or king. Context indicates this is the idea here.[165] 165 TWOT, p. 412 This clause in the initial zaqeph segment is clearly linked with the verbless clause in the last line of the previous verse. Being a relative vav perfective it is subordinate and seems to be epexegetical explaining how he is like the refiner’s fire or the lye soap of a fuller. The future sense also follows from the previous verses.
מְצָרֵ֤ף — Piel ptcp msa; conj accent, mah / disj accent, virtual gar (צָרַף) — to refine, used substantively as an adverbial accusative of specification. While this could be a transformed garshaim, in light of the copulative vav it seems better to take it as the conjunctive mahpak.
וּמְטַהֵר֙ — Piel ptcp msa +copulative vav; disj accent, psh (טָהֵר) — to cleanse; As above, it is used substantively as an adverbial accusative of specification. The pashta separates the two adverbial accusatives and subject-verb from its object.
כֶּ֔סֶף — n: msa; disj accent, zaq (כֶּ֫סֶף) — silver; accusative object of one or both participles above. The zaqeph ends this independent clause.
וְטִהַ֤ר — Piel RVP 3ms +vav rel; conj accent, mah (טָהֵר) — to cleanse; This continues the future idea from וישׁב above. This word begins the medial zaqeph segment. The pashta segment of this fractional domain is another independent clause. A vav relative perfective; it is subordinate and further defines in what sense he refines and purifies. While the mahpak could possibly be a transformed garshaim on this word preceding the pashta, it probably is indeed a mahpak.
אֶת־ — ptcl, noun indicator; maq (אֵת) — indicates direct object of וטהר The maqqeph connects this pointer to its object.
בְּנֵֽי־ — n: mpc; aux accent, met (בֵּן) — son; the accusative object of וטהר; The maqqeph unites the construct and absolute.
לֵוִי֙ — pn: msa; disj accent, psh (לֵוִי) — Levi; The pashta disjunctive ends this clause, but not the second zaqeph segment.
וְזִקַּ֣ק — Piel Pf 3ms +vav; conj accent, mun (זָקַק) — to refine; This is another vav relative perfective continuing the metaphor of YHVH cleansing and refining the priesthood of Levi. The object of the verb is indicated by the pointer את with the third masculine plural pronoun.
אֹתָ֔ם — ptcl, noun indicator + 3mp suf; disj accent, zaq (אֵת) — indicates object of וזקק; The zaqeph ends this medial segment but not the verbal clause. It places a major break between verb-subject, direct object and the two remaining prepositional phrases completing the clause.
כַּזָּהָ֖ב — n: msa + prep כְ + art; disj accent, tip (זָּהָב) — gold (The article is used with a collective singular noun.[166] 166 IBHS, p. 244 This prepositional phrase and the next, although they are part of the clause which starts in the proper domain of the second zaqeph segment is set apart in the closing tiphchah segment. [Question: Why accent this line as thus? Why not have the last two words of the medial zaqeph as part of the closing tiphchah instead? Is it for musical reasons? Was it to preserve a remote-heavy accent pattern? Was it possible to stress the words ‘gold and silver’ emphasizing that the coming judgment was not to destroy something worthless but to purify something valuable?]
וְכַכָּ֑סֶף — n: msa + prep כְ + art + vav; disj accent, ath (כֶּ֫סֶף) — silver; The article is used with a collective noun as with the word above. The athnach ends the first line.
וְהָיוּ֙ — Qal Pf 3cp +vav; disj accent, psh (הָיָה) — to be, become, happen; This is another vav relative perfective. It is subordinate and successive to the prior clause, temporally and logically. It could simply be a temporal succession or include the idea of result or purpose. It is difficult to determine which; perhaps both ideas are included here. Since there are no unintended consequences of anything YHVH does, can one really say what resulted from his actions was not purposed by him? One might translate, ‘With the intended result that.’ The English translation ‘Then’ allows includes or allows this idea.[167] 167 See IBHS, p. 525
לַֽיהוָ֔ה — pn: msa + prep לְ; disj accent, zaq (יְהוָה) — LORD, YHVH; The zaqeph ends the short initial segment of the silluq domain. The tiphchah segment is the predicate nominate of והיו.
מַגִּישֵׁ֥י — Hiphil ptcp mpc; conj accent, mer (נָגַשׁ) — to bring; substantival use, predicate nominative
מִנְחָ֖ה — n: fsa; disj accent, tip (מִנְחָה) — gift, tribute, offering; absolute following construct, objective genitive
בִּצְדָקָֽה׃ — n: fsa + prep בְּ; disj accent, sil (צְדָקָה) — righteousness;
The priests complained and gripped that YHVH was not judging the wicked because they were getting away with their actions. They seemed to prosper, and these priests were not. “Oh, when was YHVH going to judge! Where was he? Why has he not acted?” was their thinking. Malachi says, “He is going to act. He will send his messenger then suddenly come to his temple. But it is not what you think; he is going to start with you. First of all, he comes to purify the priesthood!
I cannot help but think of many conservative authorities who decry the sin and wickedness of our society today. And it indeed it is great, no debate there. But where does judgment need to begin? He is coming and it will be sudden. But when he does, it will be to purify the church. Judgment begins at home.
__________
1 The Syntax of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible, 2nd, ed., revised and corrected, James D. Price, Ph.D. (Temple Baptist Seminary, 2010, Chattanooga, Tennessee) Go to reference.
2 For public readings and to read through larger portions to gain an overall view the author suggests using one of the major modern English translations available. Go to reference.
3 TWOT, p. 602 Go to reference.
4 IBHS, p, 152. The material in brackets added by author. Go to reference.
5 IBHS, p. 153 Go to reference.
6 BDB, p. 152 Go to reference.
7 IHBS, p. 193 Go to reference.
8 BDB, p. 968 Go to reference.
9 IBHS, p. 155 Go to reference.
10 See 1:6, 1:7, 2:13, 2:17, 3:7, 3:8, and 3:13. Go to reference.
11 the arrangement: ABBA Go to reference.
12 IBHS, p. 493 Go to reference.
13 IBHS, p. 488 Go to reference.
14 IBHS, p. 530 Go to reference.
15 BUL, p. 953 Go to reference.
16 BDB p. 1250 Go to reference.
17 BUL, p. 947 Go to reference.
18 SMA, p. 34 Go to reference.
19 SMA, p. 34 Go to reference.
20 TWOT, 1273 Go to reference.
21 IBHS, p. 547 Go to reference.
22 See KJV, NASB, NIV, ASV, ESV, etc. Go to reference.
23 TWOT, p. 872-873 Go to reference.
24 BDB p. 2345 Go to reference.
25 BDB p. 1151 Go to reference.
26 IBHS, p. 512 Go to reference.
27 BDB, p. 2425 Go to reference.
28 YHVH possesses or controls the armies of heaven. Go to reference.
29 This occurs fifteen times in Malachi(1:8, 10, 11, 13, 14; 2:2, 4, 8, 16; 3:1, 5, 11, 12, 17; 4:3). Three times the speaker and the content are found in a fractional segment (with נְאֻם (1:2), with אָמַר (1:2, and 3:13). Seven times it is in a segment with a near domain and two remote domains (1:4, 6, 9; 2:16; 3:7, 10, 4:1) Go to reference.
30 IBHS, p. 175 Go to reference.
31 IBHS p. 650-652 Go to reference.
32 See SMA, pp. 33-34 Go to reference.
33 BDB, p. 1828 Go to reference.
34 BUL, p. 189 Go to reference.
35 IBHS p. 506 Go to reference.
36 IBHS. 649 Go to reference.
37 This is a hierarchy five segment which does not admit further disjunctives. Go to reference.
38 IBHS p. 328 Go to reference.
39 TWOT, p 400 Go to reference.
40 Normally a geresh marks a subordinate near domain in a tebir, pashta, zarqa or rebia segment, but a rebia segment may have a subordinate legarmeh segment which functions in this case as the subordinate near segment. The geresh segment then functions as a remote subordinate segment. Go to reference.
41 see SMA p. 62, footnote 21 Go to reference.
42 IBHS p. 130 Go to reference.
43 IBHS, p. 623 Go to reference.
44 BDB, p. 2496 Go to reference.
45 SMA p. 66 Go to reference.
46 BUL, p. 953 Go to reference.
47 IBHS p. 625 Go to reference.
48 TWOT, p. 554 Go to reference.
49 It could possibly be a genitive of association. See IBHS, p. 153. There were many altars associated with different false gods or deities of the different peoples of that day. This was the altar in Jerusalem associated with YHVH, the God of Israel. I prefer the genitive of possession with the idea that the temple, YHVH’s house, including the altar in it was something recognized as being the particular property of YHVH rather than being owned by the priests or Levites. Go to reference.
50 TWOT, p. 145 Go to reference.
51 IBHS, p.298 Go to reference.
52 SMA, p.80, 83 Go to reference.
53 IBHS, p. 652 Go to reference.
54 IBHS, p. 517 Go to reference.
55 in order to sacrifice or for a sacrifice Go to reference.
56 BUL, p. 512 Go to reference.
57 See IBHS, p. 578. Go to reference.
58 For a discussion of these dinners by Persian governors see “150 Men at Nehemiah’s Table? The Role of the Governor’s Meals in the Achaemenid Provincial Economy” by Lisbeth S. Fried, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 137, No. 4 (Winter 2018), pp. 821-831. Go to reference.
59 IHBS, p. 578 Go to reference.
60 TWOT, p. 93ff Go to reference.
61 IHBS, p. 577 Go to reference.
62 IBHS, p. 493 Go to reference.
63 BDB 2.f. on p. 1393 Go to reference.
64 BDB use #3 p. 1393 Go to reference.
65 GKC 151 a Go to reference.
66 IBHS p. 321 Go to reference.
67 BUL, p. 922 Go to reference.
68 IBHS p. 663 states, “The second major coordinator גּם though it is used as an item adverb, generally has more distinctly logical force than אף, though it can be used as an emphatic” Go to reference.
69 BDB meaning I.2. Go to reference.
70 IBHS, p. 511 Go to reference.
71 TWOT, p. 694 Go to reference.
72 BDB, p. 272: בְּ is used also with certain classes of verbs... with verbs of rejoicing, feeling pleasure or satisfaction... Go to reference.
73 IBHS, p. 655 Go to reference.
74 IBHS, p. 627 Go to reference.
75 IBHS, p. 604 Go to reference.
76 IBHS, p, 536 Go to reference.
77 IHBS, p. 675 Go to reference.
78 BDB, p. 1585 Go to reference.
79 “An expression of disdain, disbelief, protest, or dismissal; a huff, grunt, or snort.” Wiktionary, the free dictionary, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/harumph#:~:text=to%20bother%20helping.-,Noun,huff%2C%20grunt%2C%20or%20snort, Accessed 05/24/2024. Go to reference.
80 “prob. that rescued after seizure by wild beasts, therefore mutilated.” BDB, p. 443 Go to reference.
81 IBHS, p. 236 Go to reference.
82 IHBS, p. 244 Go to reference.
83 IHBS, p. 243 Go to reference.
84 TWOT, p.75 Go to reference.
85 IBHS, p. 651 Go to reference.
86 IBHS, p 155 Go to reference.
87 IBHS, p.243 Go to reference.
88 IBHS, p. 627 Go to reference.
89 TWOT, p. 757 Go to reference.
90 TWOT, p. 939 Go to reference.
91 TWOT, p. 467 Go to reference.
92 TWOT, p. 466 Go to reference.
93 BDB, p. 2474 Go to reference.
94 BDB, (II.4.a.) p.269 Go to reference.
95 TWOT, p. 75 Go to reference.
96 TWOT, p. 132 Go to reference.
97 IBHS, p. 663 Go to reference.
98 IBHS, p. 487 Go to reference.
99 IBHS, p. 661 Go to reference.
100 This is the term used by Waltke and O’Conner in An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 675. Go to reference.
101 IBHS, p. 675 Go to reference.
102 IBHS, p. 627 Go to reference.
103 BDB, p. 472 Go to reference.
104 IBHS, p. 630 Go to reference.
105 BDB, p. 154 under usage 5 Go to reference.
106 GKC, § 114. 4; IBHS, p. 608. Genesius states, “Finally, the infinitive with לְ is very frequently used in a much looser connection to state motives, attendant circumstances, or otherwise to define more exactly.” Waltke, O’Conner state, “As a gerundive, explanatory or epexegetical, the construction ל +infinitive often explains the circumstances or nature of a preceding action.” Go to reference.
107 Question: why a disjunctive here if this word and the next are a hendiadys; why not a conjunctive munach? Does it indicate that these two words are not to be taken as a hendiadys but as two separate ideas? Does the use of secondary azla accent in place of a metheg have anything to say about the grammar at this point, or is the accenting only for musical/poetic reasons? A study of the use of accents on word pairs forming a hendiadys would be helpful here. Go to reference.
108 BDB, p.79 Go to reference.
109 BDB meaning II.2.b. Go to reference.
110 IBHS, p. 221 Go to reference.
111 BDB, p. 916 suggests “put in awe” for the Niphal; TWOT, p. 336 states, “Like other verbs of fearing…it can refer to awe and reverence….” Go to reference.
112 IBHS, pp 295-296 Go to reference.
113 TWOT, pp. 403-405 Go to reference.
114 IBHS, p. 508 Go to reference.
115 See IBHS, p. 665. As the authors note the concepts/meaning between the emphatic and causal use sometimes blur as is the case here. Go to reference.
116 TWOT, pp. 939-940 Go to reference.
117 TWOT, pp. 848-849 Go to reference.
118 IBHS, pp. 651 and 653 Go to reference.
119 BDB, p. 1392 under 2.d. Go to reference.
120 TWOT, p. 464; Messenger, representative, courtier, angel. “Messenger” is an inadequate term for the range of tasks carried out by the OT mal’āk. These were 1) to carry a message, 2) to perform some other specified commission, and 3) to represent more or less officially the one sending him. There were both human and supernatural melā’kîm , the latter including the Angel of Yahweh (i.e. the Angel of the Lord). Go to reference.
121 IBHS, p. 132 Go to reference.
122 IBHS, p. 487 Go to reference.
123 See BDB, pp. 550ff and TWOT, p. 196-7 Go to reference.
124 IHBS, p. 243 Go to reference.
125 BDB, p.552 under 6.b. Go to reference.
126 BDB., p. 2449; TWOT, p. 917 Go to reference.
127 IBHS, p. 663 Go to reference.
128 SMA, p. 96 Go to reference.
129 BDB, p. 1640 Go to reference.
130 BDB, p. 1941 under 6.b. Go to reference.
131 IBHS, p. 661 Go to reference.
132 IBHS, p. 625 Go to reference.
133 BDB, p 1618 under 1.b.(3) Go to reference.
134 IBHS, p. 504 Go to reference.
135 BDB, p. 281 Go to reference.
136 IBHS, p. 607 Go to reference.
137 IBHS, p. 144 Go to reference.
138 “The relationship of the genitive and implicit verb may be of the sort usually mediated by a preposition;” The covenant [made by YHVH] with their fathers (IBHS, p. 144). Go to reference.
139 IBHS, p. 104 Go to reference.
140 TWOT, p. 977 Go to reference.
141 IBHS, p. 649 Go to reference.
142 TWOT, p. 787 Go to reference.
143 The genitive has or possesses the quality of the construct. The state or quality of holiness possessed by YHVH; IBHS, p. 183 Go to reference.
144 IBHS, p. 492 Go to reference.
145 IHBS, p. 210 and footnote #85 Go to reference.
146 See BDB under Hiphil 2.b. for כָּרַת, p. 1219. Go to reference.
147 IBHS, p. 105 Go to reference.
148 See BDB, p. 142; meaning 6.d.β. While the note in BDB seems to imply a result clause, it seems better to see it as causal, Because there is still no regarding. Go to reference.
149 BDB, p. 1069 under 2.c. Go to reference.
150 BDB, p. 1327, meaning 4.f. Go to reference.
151 DB, p. 1826, under III.b. = “because” Go to reference.
152 TWOT, p. 260 Go to reference.
153 IBHS, p. 487 Go to reference.
154 For example the NASB and NKJV both take רוח to refer to the Spirit of God while the NIV, which is a much inferior translation for this verse in this student’s view, takes it as the human spirit. Go to reference.
155 IBHS, p. 535 Go to reference.
156 Although it is not common (IBHS, p. 624), GKC notes that the 1cs pronoun, which is expected, is omitted here (GKC, §116 under 5). Go to reference.
157 GKC §155, 5, (b) Go to reference.
158 IBHS, p. 644-645 and notes from Professor Don Glenn, Dallas Theological Seminary, given in class 1972-2973. Go to reference.
159 IBHS, p. 535 Go to reference.
160 BDB, p. 826 Go to reference.
161 IBHS, p. 567 Go to reference.
162 IBHS, p. 654 Go to reference.
163 IBHS, p. 621 Go to reference.
164 IBHS, p. 146 Go to reference.
165 TWOT, p. 412 Go to reference.
166 IBHS, p. 244 Go to reference.
167 See IBHS, p. 525 Go to reference.
168 XXX Go to reference.
169 XXX Go to reference.
170 XXX Go to reference.