Barton's Bible Study Notes

Verse 1:1

The burden of the word of YHVH to Israel‡

by the hand of Malachi (my messenger)‡

Verse Summary:

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 Structure:

Verse 1:1 is a noun phrase identifying or labeling the contents of the book, a title if you will. It divides into two parts, the first half being an athnach segment or the first line 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, verse 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 the athnach or silluq segments 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 accentual unit. Thus, in line one משׂא דבר־יהוה is one such unit and אל־ישׂראלanother. 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 replaces whatever accent might have been placed here. Price states, “near disjunctive accents may be forced to rest (1) on a word which syntactically should have a conjunctive, (2) at a minor division within the domain of the disjunctive itself, or (3) in place of its companion remote accent.” (PRCE, p. 36) In this case, it probably falls on a lesser disjunctive. The tiphchah as a result 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. This line Might have been accented as an empty silluq segment. However, in this case one finds a tiphchah disjunctive separating these words replacing the expected conjunctive mereka. It might have been accented in this manner to throw more emphasis to the name Malachi, or what is more likely, I think, to match the accentual pattern of the first 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 segment is another prepositional phrase stating the agent by whom it was sent.

Word Analysis

מַשָּׂ֥א  —  noun, msc; מַשָּׂא, burden, oracle, prophecy; conjunctive accent, mereka; 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 “a prophetical speech of a threatening or minatory character.”(TWOT, p. 602) The mereka conjunctive connects this word, a construct with the following word-unit, the word of YHVH to form one accentual unit.

דְבַר־  —  noun, msc, דָּבָר, word, speech, message; maqqeph; 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].” (IBHS, p. 152;—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.” (IBHS, p. 153) This is a particular type of prophetic speech of YHVH’s Word.

יְהוָ֖ה  —  proper noun, msa, יְהוָה, YHWH or the LORD; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; This is 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 phrase, 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 carried, had this segment been a remote segment rather than a near segment, is replaced by the near 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 מַשָּׂא דְבַר־יְהוָה from the phrase אֶל־יִשְׂרָאֵל.

אֶל־  —  preposition, אֵל, to, toward, concerning; maqqeph The basic idea of this word is a “prep. denoting motion to or direction towards (whether physical or mental).” (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….)” (IBHS, p. 39) 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 normal with אל and forms one word-unit.

יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל  —  proper noun, msa, יִשְׂרָאֵל, Israel; disjunctive accent, athnach; 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 verses 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  —  noun, fsc, יָד, hand; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; The preposition, בּ, may indicate by the agency or instrumentality of. (BDB, p. 391) Waltke and O’Conner state that בּיד may be considered a complex + בְּ; preposition. (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׃  —  noun or proper noun, msc; 1cs suffix, מַלְאָךְ, messenger, or proper noun, msa מַלְאָכִי, Malachi; disjunctive accent, silluq; 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. The silluq ends this segment and the line. The soph pasuq ends the verse.

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

Why study Malachi, since it is an Old Testament book and a very small one at that being a Minor Prophet? Consider this; Malachi 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. TWOT 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 m^elā’kîm, the latter including the Angel of Yahweh (i.e. the Angel of the Lord).” (TWOT, p. 464)

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 second 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 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. Doing so is heavy, weighty, and demands 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 and 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, we must understand that it focuses first on us, those who teach and preach his word and then to those to whom we minister and teach.

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 1:2

“I love you,” says YHWH, |

“and yet you are saying, ‘How do you love us?’‡

Was he not a brother, Esau to Jacob?” [is] the declaration of YHWH, |

“and yet I loved Jacob.”‡

Verse Summary:

Verses two through five of chapter one comprise the first section of this discourse. Although it is written as prose, it is still very poetic and employs figurative language. In verse two, the prophet begins with a literary device which he uses multiple times in the book. See verses 1:6, 1:7, 2:13, 2:17, 3:7, 3:8, and 3:13. This device normally has three parts: The prophet, speaking for YHWH, 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?” expressing their unbelief. 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.

Verse Structure:

In the athnach segment, one finds 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 domain 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, ‘says YHVH’ and the initial part of the segment being the content of what the speaker says, אהבתי אתכם. ‘I love you’ This is the common pattern in Malachi when the phrase, 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 (AB-BA). This chiastic arrangement of words and phrases is also a common feature in Hebrew poetry and prose.

In the second line, the silluq segment, the writer then begins answering this objection which answer 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 content of 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 disjunctive itself 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.

Word Analysis

אָהַ֤בְתִּי  —  qal perfective 1cs; אָהב, to love; conjunctive accent, mahpak; This is a durative stative perfective. “The durative stative perfective is found with quasi-fientive verbs, indicating an ongoing emotional response.” (IBHS, p.493) The conjunctive accent mahpak may tie the subject/verb together with the object, uniting them as a single 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. It would be a virtual geresh separating the subject/verb from its 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. However, here it seems best to understand it as the conjunctive mahpak paralleling the accentuation pattern in the next line.

אֶתְכֶם֙  —  particle, noun indicator + 2mp suffix, אֵת; disjunctive accent, pashta; This particle 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 ‘I love you’ serves as the direct object of the verb אמר .

אָמַ֣ר  —  qal perfective 3ms; אָמַר; to say, speak; conjunctive accent, munach; The perfective represents an instantaneous perfective. An “instantaneous perfective represents a situation occurring at the very instant the expression is being uttered.” (IBHS, p. 488) The munach links the verb with the expressed subject.

יְהוָ֔ה  —  proper noun, msa, יְהוָה, YHWH or the LORD; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; The zaqeph divides the first line into two parts; the first, the zaqeph domain, is YHWH’s statement and the second, the tiphchah domain, 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 relative vav perfective 2mp, אָמַר; to say, speak + relative vav; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; A relative vav perfective following a perfective can represent an epexegetical situation in present time with an imperfective aspect, ( IBHS, p. 530) ‘but you are saying.’ The tiphchah disjunctive separates the subject/verb, i.e., the identification of the speaker, from the object of the verb, the content or what was being said, in the athnach proper domain.

בַּמָּ֣ה  —  interrogative pronoun, מָה, what, how + preposition בְּ, in ; במה has the idea of whereby, wherewith, wherein, by what means, how; conjunctive accent, munach; The interrogative pronoun indicates this is a question. This is the use of erotesis in refusal, denial or doubt. (BUL, p. 953) The munach links this prepositional phrase with the verb. The prepositional phrase is the object of the verb ואמרתם.

אֲהַבְתָּ֑נוּ  —  qal perfective 2ms, אָהֵב, to love + 1cp suffix; disjunctive accent, athnach; This is a durative stative perfective, ‘do you love’. The athnach divides this verse into two parts: the first line, athnach domain, consisting of YHVW’s statement and the response of the people or priests and the second line, the silluq domain, the beginning of YHWH’s answer or rebuttal.

הֲלוֹא־  —  negative adverb, לֹא לוֺא, no, not + ה interrogative, is/was it not?; maqqeph; This often invites an affirmative answer. (BDB p. 520) 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.” (BUL, p. 947) The maqqeph unites the negative adverb and ה interrogative with the noun אח forming a single word-unit.

אָ֨ח  —  noun, msa, אָח, brother; conjunctive accent, azla; This is the predicate nominative of the nominal clause. The azla conjunctive unites this word-unit with the following word, עשׂו.

עֵשָׂ֤ו  —  proper noun, msa, עֵשָׂו; Esau; conjunctive accent mahpak; The mahpak, preceding the pashta as it does, does not represent a transformed garshaim. If it did, then the preceding word must have a munach conjunctive (PRCE, p. 96) which it does not. The whole clause with the following adverbial phrase לְיַֽעֲקֹב is a single accentual unit separated from the verbal idea found in נאם־יהוה, ‘[is] the declaration of YHWH.’

לְיַֽעֲקֹב֙  —  proper noun, msa, יַּעֲקֹב, יַעֲקוֹב, Jacob; + preposition לְ, to, for; disjunctive accent, pashta; 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. (PRCE, p, 34).

נְאֻם־  —  noun, msc, נְאֻם, a declaration of; maqqeph;. This is a noun phrase used as a formula. This “…noun occurs only as a formula (accompanied by the subject) declaring the divine…origin and authority of the message so described.” (TWOT, p. 1273) This 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 forming a single accentual unit.

יְהוָ֔ה  —  proper noun, msa, יְהוָה, YHWH or the LORD; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; This noun is 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 relative vav imperfective, 1cs, אָהֵב, to love; + vav relative; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; This is a relative vav imperfective; “Relative waw with a prefix form represents a situation that is usually successive and always subordinate to a preceding statement.” (IBHS, p. 547) The 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־  —  particle, noun indicator, אֵת; maqqeph + auxiliary accent, metheg; This word indicates the definite direct object of the verb וָאֹהַב. The maqqeph unites this marker with its noun forming a single word-unit. The metheg is an auxiliary marking secondary accent.

עַעֲקֹֽב׃  —  proper noun, msa, יַעֲקוֹב, Jacob; disjunctive accent, silluq; Jacob is the direct object of ואהב above. The silluq marks the end of its segment.

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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? It’s how I feel! 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 to 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 did he do this because he enjoyed doing it? No, in fact, this hurt or grieved him. 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—by their definition of love—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.

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 1:3

Esau, on the other hand, I hated!

And I made his hill country a wasteland, |

and his property, a wilderness for jackals.‡

Verse Summary:

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 as used in Scripture; 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.

Verse Structure:

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 two. 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 two a single sentence with verse three. 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 being parallel, into a wilderness for jackals.

Word Analysis

וְאֶת־  —  particle, noun indicator, אֵת + vav; maqqeph; This indicates the definite direct object of the verb שׂנאתי. The vav, attached to את is disjunctive, indicating this clause opposed to the one in the previous verse; ‘Esau, on the other hand,’ The maqqeph joins this particle with the following noun into a single word-unit.

עֵשָׂ֖ו  —  proper noun, msa, עֵשָׂו, Esau; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; This is the 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 and separating the object from the verb thus strengthening the contrast.

שָׂנֵ֑אתִי  —  qal perfective 1cs, שָׂנֵא, to hate; disjunctive accent, athnach; 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 relative vav imperfective 1cs, שׂוּם, שִׂים, to put, place, set, establish, ordain, make; + vav relative; conjunctive accent, mahpak; 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.” (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, a definite past. שׂום can have two accusatives. (BDB, p. 964) 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־  —  particle, noun indicator, אֵת; maqqeph; This indicates a definite direct object. As is quite common the maqqeph unites this particle with the object it points out.

הָרָיו֙  —  noun, mpc + 3ms suffix, הַר, mountains, hill country; disjunctive accent, pashta; 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  —  noun, fsa, שְׁמָמָה, devastation, waste; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; The second object of ואשׂים refers to the condition into which YHVH made the hill country of Edom. The zaqeph marks the remote domain of the silluq and is the principal divider of the second line of verse three. 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־  —  particle, noun indicator, אֵת; + vav; maqqeph; This word indicates a definite direct object. The vav attached to the accusative marker is a phrasal 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  —  noun, fsc + 3ms suffix נַחֲלָה, possession, property, inheritance; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; This is the first of a second set of two direct objects of ואשׂים. YHWH will also make נחלתו (his territory/possession) to be לתנות מדבר, a wilderness for jackals. The tiphchah in this fractional segment separates the first direct object from the second and its connected prepositional phrase.

לְתַנּ֥וֹת  —  noun, fpa, תַּן, jackal + preposition לְ, to, for; conjunctive accent, mereka; The ל indicates possession, i.e., a wilderness of or for jackals. The mereka joins the prepositional phrase with the noun it qualifies.

מִדְבָּֽר׃  —  noun, msa, מִדְבָּר, wilderness, uninhabited land; disjunctive accent, silluq; This is the second direct object of the pair.

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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, but 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 or indoctrinated into a violent terrorist belief. You and I are what we are by God’s grace alone, not by any merit of our own whatsoever!

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.

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 1:4

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!”‡

Verse Summary:

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 itself 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.

Verse Structure:

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. The first begins with כי־תאמר, a hypothetical/concessive particle with an imperfective of contingency, ‘Though (Edom) may say…,’ and the third 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!’

Word Analysis

כִּֽי־  —  conjunction/emphatic particle, כִּי, that, for if, when, indeed; maqqeph + auxiliary accent metheg; This conjunction 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….’ (BDB, p. 473 under 2.c.) 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 imperfective, 3fs, אָמַר; to say, speak; conjunctive accent, azla; This may be an imperfective of contingency, ‘may say’ or a persistent present imperfective, ‘is saying.’ I prefer the latter, but the overall sense is the same. An azla conjunctive connects the verb with the stated subject, אדום.

אֱד֜וֹם  —  proper noun, fsa, אֱדֹום, Edom; disjunctive accent, geresh; This is the subject of verb תאמר. It is used as 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, the direct object, of that verb ‘We are beaten down.’

רֻשַּׁ֗שְׁנוּ  —  pual perfective 1cp, רָשַׁשׁ, to be beaten down, shattered; disjunctive accent, rebia; This is a persistent (present) perfective, ‘We have been beaten down,’ with the emphasis on the current state of the nation. The rebia separates this present condition Edom was experiencing from the following vav copulative imperfective clause stating what they were currently doing about that condition. This continues the content of the verb תאמר.

וְנָשׁוּב֙  —  qal vav copulative imperfective, 1cs שׁוּב, to return, turn back; + vav conjunctive-sequential; disjunctive accent, pashta; The preceding verb, a persistent (present) perfective, sets the scene. The change in the conjugations from perfective to copulative vav imperfective indicates a logical connection ‘(Yes,) we are beaten down, (and now) we are rebuilding the ruins.’ The use of the imperfective וְנָשׁוּב here is a progressive imperfective, indicating the action was ongoing. (IBHS, p. 504). שׁוב is often used with another verb as a hendiadys “denoting repetition, … return ( and ) do = do again” (BDB, p. 998). 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 build again’ or ‘We are rebuilding.’ This may also be seen 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. But because Edom had already probably returned, as had Israel, and started to rebuild, I prefer the former sense.

YHVH had pointed out to these priests that as a proof of his love for them, they only need to see YHVH had chosen them over Jacob’s brother Esau (the Edomites). They could have objected and asked, “How are we any better off than Edom? Like us they were destroyed, but they have returned and are boasting about rebuilding their nation!” So YHVH says they will not be successful.

וְנִבְנֶ֣ה  —  qal vav copulative imperfective, 1cs, בָּנָה, to build; + vav; conjunctive accent, munach; See notes on וְנָשׁוּב above. The munach connects the subject/verb with its object which follows. The vav is a conjunctive-sequential vav.

חֳרָב֔וֹת  —  noun, fpa, חָרְבָּה, waste, desolation, ruin; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; This word is the 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  —  demonstrative adverb, כֹּה, thus, here; conjunctive accent, mahpak; Note the contrast between כי־תאמר אדום, ‘Though Edom is saying…’ 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 the accent 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 perfective 3ms, אָמַר, to say, speak; disjunctive accent, pashta; This is an instantaneous perfective. The pashta disjunctive separates the verb from the stated subject.

יְהוָ֣ה  —  proper noun, msa, יְהוָה, YHWH or the LORD; conjunctive accent, munach; This is the stated subject of אמר. The munach joins this word in construct with the absolute which follows.

צְבָא֔וֹת  —  noun, mpa, צָבָה, host, army, war, warfare; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; The use of this genitive, a genitive of possession—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, I think. 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 followed by the content of their statement contrasted with thus says YHVH of hosts followed by 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. 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 in 1:2, with אָמַר in1:2, and 3:13. Seven times it is in a segment with a near domain and two remote domains: in 1:4, 6, 9; 2:16; 3:7, 10, and 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  —  personal pronoun 3mp, הֵמָּה, they, them; accent, mereka; The pronoun is stated to add emphasis to the contrast between what they are doing and what YHWH will do. The mereka conjunctive joins the subject pronoun with its verb.

יִבְנ֖וּ  —  qal imperfective, 3mp, בָּנָה, to build; accent, tiphchah; 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  —  personal pronoun 1cs, אָ֫נִי אֲנִי, I, me + vav; conjunctive accent, munach; The pronoun with the disjunctive vav contrasts what Edom intends to do with what YHWN will, in reality, do. This is a strong contrast. This starts the apodosis of the conditional clause. Again, the munach conjunctive unites the subject pronoun with its verb.

אֶהֱר֑וֹס  —  qal imperfective, 1cs, הָרַס, to throw down, break down, tear down; disjunctive accent, athnach; This is an imperfective of specific future. The athnach marks this segment and 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 relative vav perfective 3cp קָרָא, to call, proclaim, read; + vav; conjunctive accent, mahpak; 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 in the third person plural and as a passive. Instead of ‘he 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 an accidental future, i.e., the prophetic perfect or perfect of confidence, with an imperfective aspect. This verb can take two objects, (1) the person named and (2) the name. (IBHS, p. 175) The mahpak conjunctive might represent a virtual garshaim or it might be the conjunctive mahpak.

לָהֶם֙  —  preposition, לְ, to, for + 3mp suffix; disjunctive accent, pashta; The ל 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 of the verb, the name they are called, וקראו.

גְּב֣וּל  —  noun, msc, גְּבוּל, border, boundary, territory; conjunctive accent, munach; 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 or genitive.

רִשְׁעָ֔ה  —  noun, fsa, רִשְׁעָה, wickedness; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; 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 four, ‘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  —  noun, msa, עַם עָם, people + article + conjunctive vav; disjunctive accent, tebir; The vav is a phrasal 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. The tebir disjunctive separates the subject, the people, from the relative clause describing them. The definite article’s use here lifts this noun out of the indefinite to a particular group of people who are described in the following relative clause.

אֲשֶׁר־  —  relative pronoun, אֲשֶׁר, who, which, what, whom; maqqeph; The relative introduces a clause describing עם above. The maqqeph links this word with the verb of the relative clause.

זָעַ֥ם  —  qal perfective 3ms, זָעַם, to be indignant; conjunctive accent, mereka; A curative stative perfective which indicates an ongoing emotional response ‘is indignant against.’ The conjunctive mereka joins this with the subject of the verb into one accentual unit.

יְהוָ֖ה  —  proper noun, msa, יְהוָה, YHWH or the LORD; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; This is the 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־  —  preposition, עַד, as far as, up to, even to, until, while; maqqeph; The preposition is connected to its object with the maqqeph making a single word and accentual unit.

עוֹלָֽם׃  —  noun, msa, עוֹלָם, long duration, antiquity, eternity; disjunctive accent, silluq; The silluq ends this line.

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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. Central to everything we or anyone else may say or plan are the words ‘Thus says YHVH of Hosts!’ What he states will come to be.

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 1:5

Now your eyes will see [this],‡

but you will say, “YHWH will be great |

over (and beyond) the territory of Israel!”‡

Verse Summary:

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, that is, Israel and the priests, also would see this, yet their conclusion would be different; their focus would be YHVH’s greatness, and, in particular, that YHVH’s greatness would extend over and beyond their own small nation of Israel.

Verse Structure:

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.’

Word Analysis

וְעֵינֵיכֶ֖ם  —  noun, fdc, עַיִן, eye + 2mp suffix + disjunctive vav; disjunctive accent, accent, tiphchah; The disjunctive vav indicates a shift in scene or new characters. (IBHS p. 650-652) The tiphchah disjunctive separates the subject from the verb.

תִּרְאֶ֑ינָה  —  qal imperfective 3fp, רָאָה, to see; disjunctive accent, athnach; This is a specific future imperfective. The athnach marks the central division of this verse. This is 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, the silluq segment, when the writer begins the second person plural pronoun with the disjunctive vav attached emphasizing a contrast.

וְאַתֶּ֤ם  —  personal pronoun 2mp, אַתֶּם, you + disjunctive vav; conjunctive accent, mahpak or disjunctive accent, virtual garshaim There is a strong 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 represents a virtual garshaim separating the pronoun from the verb strengthening the contrast.

תֹּֽאמְרוּ֙  —  qal imperfective, 2mp, אָמַר, to say, speak; disjunctive accent, pashta and auxiliary accent metheg; This is a specific future imperfective paralleling 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 imperfective/jussive 3ms, גָּדַל, to grow up, to become great; conjunctive accent, munach; 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  —  proper noun, msa, יְהוָה, YHWH or the LORD; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; This is 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.’ See PRCE, pp. 33-34. This arrangement gives more weight to and highlights the extent of YHVH’s greatness.

מֵעַ֖ל  —  preposition, עַל, upon, over + מִן, from; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; The idea of beyond comes with the addition of מן to the preposition על. Extending from over the borders and outward. (BDB, p. 758) 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  —  noun, msc, גְּבוּל, border, boundary, territory + preposition לְ, to, for; conjunctive accent, mereka; Note: same word גבול is used in the previous verse in relation to Edom. This repetition 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׃  —  proper noun, msa, יִשְׂרָאֵל, Israel; disjunctive accent, silluq; The silluq ends this half of the verse.

Personal Thoughts and Applications::

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 shine through not just in our lives but beyond to others.

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 1:6

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?"‡

Verse Summary:

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 the 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.

Verse Structure:

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 medial 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 or medial 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.

Word Analysis

בֵּ֛ן  —  noun, msa, בֵּן, son; disjunctive accent, tebir; בן is the subject of יכבד. The tebir disjunctive separates the subject from the verb and its object.

יְכַבֵּ֥ד  —  piel imperfective 3ms, כָּבֵד, to make heavy, honorable, to honor, glorify; conjunctive accent, mereka; Waltke and O’Conner would call this a habitual non-perfective. While a perfect here would be a gnomic perfect representing this action as a whole, the use of the imperfective represents it as an ongoing repeated action. (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 accentual unit.

אָ֖ב  —  noun, msa, אָב, father; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; It is the direct object 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 athnach segment. This part of the athnach segment gives one example of honoring; the proper domain of the athnach segment gives a second example.

וְעֶ֣בֶד  —  noun, msa, עֶבֶד, servant + vav; conjunctive accent, munach; The vav is a clausal vav connecting the clauses. It is a simple conjunction placing propositions or clauses one after another, without indicating the hierarchical relation between them. (IBHS, p. 649) This 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, the direct object of the unstated verb, ‘a servant [honors] his master.’

אֲדֹנָ֑יו  —  noun, mpc, אָדוֹן, lord, master + 3ms suffix; disjunctive accent, athnach; The context clearly indicates this to be a reference to a human master and not to YHWH. It is an honorific plural (IBHS, p. 123). 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 to those in authority.

וְאִם־  —  conditional particle, אִם, if + vav; maqqeph; This particle introduces the protasis of a verbless conditional clause. The vav is mildly disjunctive and, in this context, indicates a change. The setting is the same as the preceding clause, i.e., sons honoring fathers and servants, masters, yet now it is specifically applied to YHWH as a father and Israel as sons. The maqqeph unites this word with the following word forming a single word-unit.

אָ֣ב  —  noun, msa, אָב, father; conjunctive accent, munach; This is the predicate nominative of verbless clause of classification in which the normal word order is predicate - subject. ‘But if I am a father....’ It is a metaphor in which 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  —  personal pronoun 1cs, אָ֫נִי אֲנִי, I, me; conjunctive accent, munach; אני is subject 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—This is a hierarchy five segment which does not admit further disjunctives—one would expect a disjunctive separating the protasis from the apodosis.

אַיֵּ֣ה  —  interrogative adverb, אַיֵּה, where?; conjunctive accent, munach; This is an interrogative locative particle used in verbless clauses. (IBHS p. 328) As in the questions in verse two, 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 the conditional statement. This word is connected to the following noun with a munach conjunctive.

כְבוֹדִ֡י  —  כְבוֹדִ֡י noun, msc, כָּבוֹד, abundance, honor, glory + 1cs suffix; disjunctive accent, pazer; 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־  —  conditional particle, אִם, if + vav; maqqeph; Again, This particle introduces the protasis of a verbless conditional clause. This vav here is a clausal vav connecting the clauses, a simple conjunctive vav. It is linked to the following word with a maqqeph.

אֲדוֹנִ֣ים  —  noun, mpa, אָדוֹן, lord, master; conjunctive accent, munach; The plural form is an honorific plural as above. Again, this is a metaphor. YHVH is speaking anthropomorphically as if he were a human master whom they served. 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....’ A conjunctive munach joins this word with the next.

אָנִי֩  —  personal pronoun 1cs, אָ֫נִי אֲנִי, I, me; conjunctive accent, little telisha; The pronoun is the subject of a verbless clause. With a higher ranking disjunctive than geresh, one would have expected a disjunctive to separate the protasis from the apodosis. Geresh can only be served by conjunctives; the expected conjunctives would be azla, little telisha and a munach in that order (PRCE, p. 95), which is the case. Since this is the second of three conjunctives, it is a little telisha.

אַיֵּ֨ה  —  interrogative adverb, אַיֵּה, where?; conjunctive accent, azla; This is an interrogative locative particle used in verbless clauses. See note on this word above. The conjunctive is the expected azla.

מוֹרָאִ֜י  —  noun, msc, מֹורָא, fear, respect, reverence + 1cs suffix; disjunctive accent, geresh; 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).” (TWOT, p 400) Note that it parallels the use of כבוד. The geresh marks the end of this parallel remote domain of the rebia segment. 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. The two remote 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 perfective 3ms, אָמַר, to say, speak; disjunctive accent, legarmeh; The imperfective is a 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 אמר from its stated subjected, יהוה צבאות.

יְהוָ֣ה  —  proper noun, msa, יְהוָה, YHWH or the LORD; conjunctive accent, munach; This is the subject of אמר. The munach unites this word with its construct.

צְבָא֗וֹת  —  noun, mpa, צָבָה, host, army, war, warfare; disjunctive accent, rebia; 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 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  —  preposition, לְ, to, for + 3mp suffix; disjunctive accent, pashta-B; This pashta-B is a substitute for a rebia disjunctive (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  —  noun, mpa, כֹּהֵן, priest + article; disjunctive accent, pashta; 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, (IBHS p. 130) ‘…to you, O Priests.’ This dramatically adds force to the singling out of the priests as the persons to YHVH speaks. Although the pashta segment extends forward to the word bearing the zaqeph, the accent placed necessarily here does separate the vocative of address from the following description of these persons.

בּוֹזֵ֣י  —  qal active participle mpc, בָּזָה, to despise; conjunctive accent, munach; 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, (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  —  noun, msc, שֵׁם, name + 1cs suffix; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; This is a reference to the personal covenant name of God (YHVH). By metonymy it becomes a designation for God himself. (BDB, p. 1028) The name, שׁם, represented the very person of God, to despise or disrespect his name meant to despise or disrespect YHVH himself. 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.

וַאֲמַרְתֶּ֕ם  —  qal relative vav perfective 2mp, אָמַר, to say, speak + vav; disjunctive accent, great zaqeph; 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. (PRCE p. 66) It is a relative vav perfective indicating a logical connection, a 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.’ This disjunctive disjoins the subject/verb from the content of what they are saying.

בַּמֶּ֥ה  —  interrogative pronoun, מָה, what, how + preposition בְּ, in ; במה has the idea of whereby, wherewith, wherein, by what means, how; conjunctive accent, mereka; It is the use of erotesis in refusal, denial or doubt (BUL, p. 953) as in 1:2. The mereka joins this word with the following word.

בָזִ֖ינוּ  —  qal perfective 1cp, בָּזָה, to despise; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; This is 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. Here it serves to separate the subject/verb from the object.

אֶת־  —  particle, noun indicator, אֵת; maqqeph; This indicates the definite direct object. This, as is common, is linked by a maqqeph to its object, שׁמך, your name.

שְׁמֶֽךָ  —  noun, msc, שֵׁם, name + 2ms suffix; disjunctive accent, silluq; This ends the silluq segment or line two.

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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 two, 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.

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 1:7

[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.’"‡

Verse Summary:

The writer now begins to answer the objection of the priests as to how they were disrespecting YHVH’s 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 first part of line one and in the last part 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.

Verse Structure:

The verse divides into two lines, an athnach and a silluq segment; both are full. The athnach domain 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 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.’

Word Analysis

מַגִּישִׁ֤ים  —  hiphil participle mpa, נָגַשׁ, to bring near, bring; conjunctive accent, mahpak / disjunctive accent, virtual garshaim; This is a predicate 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, the priests, in previous verse. The use of the participle indicates this was an ongoing state of affairs. (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. (TWOT, p. 554) The mahpak probably represents a virtual garshaim separating the verb (participle) from the prepositional phrase; if not, as the conjunctive, it unites them.

עַֽל־  —  preposition, עַל, over, upon; maqqeph + auxiliary metheg accent; The maqqeph unites the preposition with its object into one word-unit.

מִזְבְּחִי֙  —  noun, msc, מִזְבֵּחַ, altar + 1cs suffix; disjunctive accent, pashta; This is the object of preposition אל. The suffix is a genitive of possession. 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. The pashta separates the the participle and prepositional phrase from the rest of the clause which is the direct object of the participle מגיכים.

לֶ֣חֶם  —  noun, msa, לֶחֶם, bread, food; conjunctive accent, munach; direct object of מגישׁים; This is the figure of speech of hypocatastasis or comparison by implication. The author 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 that 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 adjectival participle which qualifies it.

מְגֹאָ֔ל  —  pual participle msa, גָאַל, to be defiled; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; 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. (TWOT, p. 145) The 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 the response of these priests to YHWN's statement. This is another use of statement, question and rebuttal device used by Malachi.

וַאֲמַרְתֶּ֖ם  —  qal relative vav perfective 2mp, אָמַר, to say, speak; + vav relative; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; It is a relative vav perfective indicating a logical connection, in this case, a 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 serves to separate the subject/verb from the content of what they were saying or will say.

בַּמֶּ֣ה  —  interrogative pronoun, מָה מָה, what, how + preposition בְּ, in ; במה has the idea of whereby, wherewith, wherein, by what means, how; conjunctive accent, munach; 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 perfective 1cp, גָאַל, to pollute, desecrate; + 2ms suffix; disjunctive accent, athnach; This is 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/denial from the priests. In the second line of verse seven, the silluq segment, YHWH responds to this question.

בֶּאֱמָרְכֶ֕ם  —  qal infinitive construct, אָמַר, to say, speak + 2mp suffix + preposition בְּ, in; disjunctive accent, great zaqeph; This is a nominal use of infinitive construct, object of preposition ב. The suffix is subjective. The use of the preposition ב is temporal, possibly causal, 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 or great zaqeph segment contains the subject and verb and, the last, the 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, i.e., they were saying, by their actions.

שֻׁלְחַ֥ן  —  noun, msc, שֻׁלְחָן, table; conjunctive accent, mereka; This is the use of metonymy. 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. (IBHS, p.298) The accentuation seems to favor a casus pendens explanation, ‘The table of YHVH, it is contemptible.’ See also verse 1:12. 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  —  proper noun, msa, יְהוָה, YHWH or the LORD; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; 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 from the predicate and subject. This places greater focus on the subject, i.e., the casus pendens analysis idea.

נִבְזֶ֥ה  —  niphal participle msa, בָּזָה, to be despised, despicable, contemptible; conjunctive accent, mereka; 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  —  personal pronoun + 3ms, הוּא, הִיא he, she, it; disjunctive accent, silluq; This word is the subject of נבזה. See note above under שׁלחן.

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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.

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 1:8

"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.‡

Verse Summary:

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 active in your favor?” The implied answer is very clear; of course not! Nor would they even consider doing this!

Verse Structure:

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. (PRCE, 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.

Word Analysis

וְכִֽי־  —  conjunction/emphatic particle, כִּי, that, for if, when, indeed; + vav; maqqeph + auxiliary metheg; 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....” (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 imperfective 2mp, נָגַשׁ, to bring near, approach + paragogic nun; conjunctive accent, azla; 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. (IBHS, p. 517) The conjunction azla connects the verb with the direct object.

עִוֵּ֤ר  —  adjective, msa, עִוֵּר, blind; conjunctive accent, mahpak or disjunctive accent, virtual garshaim; The adjective is substantival, the direct object of תגשׁון. It is indefinite, a blind [animal], any animal that is blind. This is probably a virtual geresh which separates the subject/verb and object of the temporal clause, וכי־תגשׁון עור, from the purpose clause, לזבח, rather than simply a mahpak connecting these. I favor the virtual geresh because this would make the athnach segment more parallel in accentuation to the silluq, and it is consistent with the remote-heavy pattern.

לִזְבֹּ֨חַ֙  —  qal infinitive construct, זָבַח, to slaughter for sacrifice + preposition לְ, to, for; disjunctive accent, pashta; The infinitive construct + ל expresses purpose, ‘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 particle, אֵין, is it not; conjunctive accent, munach; 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  —  adjective, msa, רַע, evil, bad; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; This is the 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  —  conjunction/emphatic particle, כִּי, that, for if, when, indeed; + vav; conjunctive accent, mereka or a disjunctive accent, virtual garshaim; Again, 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. I prefer the conjunction mereka at this point because it follows the pattern in the previous verse where כי was connected to the verb with a maqqeph. The conjunction does that here. It is also consistent with the remote-heavy pattern.

תַגִּ֛ישׁוּ  —  hiphil imperfective 2mp, נָגַשׁ, to bring near, bring; disjunctive accent, tebir; The imperfective is one of contingency used in the protasis of a conditional clause as in the athnach segment. The use of the disjunctive tebir in this tiphchah segment separates the verb from its two direct objects.

פִּסֵּ֥חַ  —  adjective, msa, פִּסֵּחַ, lame; conjunctive accent, mereka; This is a substantival use of the adjective. Again, it is an indefinite direct object of תגישׁו. The mereka connects this object with the following one.

וְחֹלֶ֖ה  —  qal participle msa, חָלָה, to be weak, sick + vav; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; The participle is used adjectivally as a substantive, a sick one (an animal). It is a second direct object of תגישׁו. The vav is a phrasal conjunctive joining the two direct objects. Here it is specifying an alternate, ‘or a sick one.’ (IBHS, p. 648) The tiphchah, while marking the tiphchah segment, also serves to separate the protasis from the apodosis.

אֵ֣ין  —  existential particle, אֵין, is it not; conjunctive accent, munach; See above. The subject is the preceding clause, וכי תגישׁו פסח וחלה or ‘And when you bring a lame or sick [animal].’ The munach connects this word with the following predicate adjective.

רָ֑ע  —  adjective, msa, רַע, evil, bad; disjunctive accent, athnach; 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 imperative 2ms, קָרָב, to bring near, present + 3ms suffix; conjunctive accent, azla; This is use of a the figure of speech called heterosis (of the verb), where one form of the verb is used for another. (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. The suffix refers to the sacrifice they were bringing to the altar, a blind, lame or sick animal.

נָ֜א  —  particle of entreaty or exhortation or logical particle, נָא, now, I pray, please, etc; disjunctive accent, geresh; Evidence suggests this could be a logical particle which connects the command with the context of what has been stated. (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 which is indicated by the preposition ל on the next word.

לְפֶחָתֶ֗ךָ  —  noun, msc, פֶּחָה, governor + 2ms suffix + preposition לְ, to, for; disjunctive accent, rebia; 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. The noun פחה is an Aramaic loan word for governor.—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.

הֲיִרְצְךָ֙  —  qal imperfective 3ms, רָצָה, to be pleased with, accept favorably + ה interrogative + 2ms suffix; disjunctive accent, pashta-B; This is a imperfective of possibility. The ה interrogative indicates a question. This is another 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 second masculine singular suffix is the direct object of the verb. The pashta-B indicates the end of the second part of the content of what YHVH says. It is a question posed in light of the previous injunctive.

א֚וֹ  —  conjunction, אוֹ, or; disjunctive accent, yethib; The yethib, a substitute for a pashta, marks the third part of the content of what YHVH says, a second question in light of the injunctive.

הֲיִשָּׂ֣א  —  qal imperfective 3ms, נָשָׂא, to lift up, to lift up the face is idiomatic for accepting or receiving someone +ה interrogative; conjunctive accent, munach; This question is a use of heterosis. See note on הירצך above. The munach unites this verb with its direct object, the next word.

פָנֶ֔יךָ  —  noun, mpc, פָּנִים, face + 2ms suffix; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; See the note on הישׂא above. The zaqeph divides this line into two parts, separating the content of what is said from the identification of the speaker.

אָמַ֖ר  —  qal perfective 3ms, אָמַר, to say, speak; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; The verb represents an instantaneous perfective. The tiphchah serves to separate the verb from its stated subject which follows.

יְהוָ֥ה  —  proper noun, msa, יְהוָה, YHWH or the LORD; conjunctive accent, mereka; The is the subject of אמר. The mereka connect the construct with the absolute.

צְבָאֽוֹת׃  —  noun, mpa, צָבָה, host, army, war, warfare; disjunctive accent, silluq; This is a genitive of possession following יהוה.

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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).

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 1:9

“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.‡

Verse Summary:

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 offer these sacrifices in seeking his favor for themselves or their nation?

Verse Structure:

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.

Word Analysis

וְעַתָּ֛ה  —  adverb. of time, עַתָּה, now + vav; disjunctive accent, tebir; This has 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….’ The vav is disjunctive and introduces a new scenario.

חַלּוּ־  —  piel imperative 2mp, חָלָה, entreat the favor of; maqqeph; 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 an extremely forceful way saying if they did this, they would not receive a favorable answer. This word is once more united with logical or precative particle נא by the maqqeph.

נָ֥א  —  particle of entreaty or exhortation or logical particle, נָא, now, I pray, please, etc; conjunctive accent, mereka; As in the preceding verse, this word suggests that the command in question is a logical consequence of a preceding statement. The mereka joins this word-unit with the following word-unit פני־אל.

פְנֵי־  —  noun, mpc, 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  —  noun, msa, אֵל, God, god; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; This word for God is used only three times in Malachi; it is used here and 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. (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 imperfective/jussive 3ms, חָנַן, to show favor, be gracious + vav; disjunctive accent, athnach; “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” (IHBS, p. 577) ‘that He might be gracious to us’ The athnach marks the end of the first line.

מִיֶּדְכֶם֙  —  noun, fsc, יָד, hand + preposition מִן, from + 2mp suffix; from or by your hand indicates the agency of the action. disjunctive accent, pashta; The making of the request to God with the attendant sacrifices of polluted animals, lame, weak or sick ones, 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 perfective 2fs, הָיָה, to fall out, happen, be, come about, take place: conjunctive accent, munach; 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... ’ (IBHS, p. 493) The munach connects verb with subject.

זֹּ֔את  —  demonstrative pronoun fs, זֶה, this, these; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; The pronoun is the 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 imperfective 3ms, נָשָׂא, to lift up + ה interrogative; conjunctive accent, mahpak or a disjunctive accent, virtual garshaim; imperfective of possibility; Will he lift up the face, i.e., 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. So far in my study, I prefer the virtual garshaim.

מִכֶּם֙  —  preposition + 2mp suffix, מִן, because of, on account of / some of; disjunctive accent, pashta; Is the מִן used in the sense “of the remoter cause, the ultimate ground on account of which something happens or is done” (BDB 2.f. on p. 580) or is it partitive? (BDB .3) 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 were the ones responsible for whether or not YHVH responds favorably to their requests.

פָּנִ֔ים  —  noun, mpa, פּנִים, face; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; 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 perfective 3ms, אָמַר, to say, speak; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; This is an instantaneous perfective. The tiphchah marks the segment identifying the speaker and separates the verb from its stated subject.

יְהוָ֥ה  —  proper noun, msa, יְהוָה, YHWH or the LORD; conjunctive accent, mereka; The mereka unites the construct and absolute.

צְבָאֽוֹת׃  —  noun, mpa, צָבָה, host, army, war, warfare; disjunctive accent, silluq; The silluq ends the second line; the soph pasuq, the verse.

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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).

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 1:10

“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.”‡

Verse Summary:

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!

Verse Structure:

The verse divides into two parts; the first is an independent desiderative statement and the last, two related 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 rebia segment which is a verbless nominal clause acting as the object of the verb אמר, i.e., the content of or what was said and a pashta segment identifying the speaker, אמר יהוה צבאות ‘says YHVH of Hosts’. The tiphchah segment, beginning with a disjunctive vav, explains the consequences of YHVH’s displeasure, that is, he will not accept these sacrifices from them.

Word Analysis

מִ֤י  —  interrogative pronoun, מִי, who; conjunctive accent, mahpak or disjunctive accent, virtual geresh; “In Mal 1:10 the desiderative clause proper is coordinated with an interrogative clause, מִי גַם־בָּכֶם וְיִסְגֹּר דְּלָתַיִם would that one were.” (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’!” (IBHS p. 321) ‘Oh, that there were one among you who would....’ If the conjunction is a mahpak, it connects the interrogative pronoun with the adverbial particle גם. If it represents a transformed or virtual geresh 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 geresh 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.” (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־  —  adverb denoting addition, גַּם, also, even, indeed; maqqeph; In this instance גם seems to have more an emphatic sense. (IBHS p. 663) The maqqeph unites this word with the next.

בָּכֶם֙  —  preposition, בְּ, among you + 2mp suffix; disjunctive accent, pashta; The ב can indicate “presence in the midst of a multitude, among”. (BDB meaning I.2.) The pashta marks the end of the remote rebia segment separating this verbless clause from the next clause.

וְיִסְגֹּ֣ר  —  qal imperfective 3ms, סָגַר, shut or close + vav; conjunctive accent, munach; 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 is best translated into English as a relative clause.

דְּלָתַ֔יִם  —  noun, fda, דֶּ֫לֶת, doors (referring to a pair of doors); disjunctive accent, zaqeph; This refers to the doors or gates to the courtyard where the sacrifices were offered. It is the direct object of the verb ויסג. The zaqeph marks the end of the desiderative clause proper.

וְלֹֽא־  —  adverb negative, לֹא לוֹא, no, not + vav; maqqeph; 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 imperfective 2mp, אוֹר, to cause to light (kindle); conjunctive accent, mereka; The imperfective is a specific future normally used to represent a future situation as a logical consequence of some expressed or unexpressed situation. (IBHS, p. 511) The mereka connects the subject/verb with its direct object.

מִזְבְּחִ֖י  —  noun, msc, מִזְבֵּחַ, altar + 1cs suffix; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; This is the direct object of תאירו. The tiphchah marks the subordinate near segment and also serves to separate the subject/verb and object from the adverbial modifier.

חִנָּ֑ם  —  adverb, חִנָּם, freely, for nothing, unjustly, without cause, in vain; disjunctive accent, athnach; “This adverb occurs thirty-two times. It has no inherent religious significance.” (TWOT, p. 694) The athnach marks the end of the first half of verse ten 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  —  preposition, לְ, to, for + 1cs suffix; conjunctive accent, azla; This says ‘there is not to me pleasure in you!’ or, in better English, ‘I take no pleasure in you!’. The azla connects this word-unit with the next word, חפץ.

חֵ֜פֶץ  —  noun, msa, חֵ֫פֶץ, delight, pleasure; disjunctive accent, geresh; The geresh disjunctive separates the object of YHWH's non pleasure from the statement that he does not take pleasure. This slight pause emphasizes, points the finger, so to speak, at the priests. ‘The LORD is not happy’ (Pause—finger pointing here) ‘with you guys!’;

בָּכֶ֗ם  —  preposition, בְּ, in + 2mp suffix; disjunctive accent, rebia; “בְּ is used also with certain classes of verbs... with verbs of rejoicing, feeling pleasure or satisfaction...” (BDB, p. 272) 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. The following near subordinate domain of the zaqeph indicates the speaker.

אָמַר֙  —  qal perfective 3ms, אָמַר, to say or speak; disjunctive accent, pashta; This is an 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  —  proper noun, msa, יְהוָה, YHWH or the LORD; conjunctive accent, munach; This is the stated subject of אמר. The munach connects this construct with its absolute.

צְבָא֔וֹת  —  noun, mpa, צָבָה, host, army, war, warfare; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; 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  —  noun, fsa, מִנְחָה, gift, tribute, offering + vav; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; This is a disjunctive/epexegetical vav. That the vav is disjunctive is seen in that it is attached to a non-verb. But the contrast does not seem to be with the immediately preceding clause. Rather it is a contrast with the previous verse and answers the question posed in the second line. It also is epexegetical in that this clause is 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 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. He did not say the offering in reference to the one mentioned in the previous verse, 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־  —  adverb negative, לֹא לוֹא, no, not; maqqeph; The maqqeph unites this word with the following verb forming a single word-unit.

אֶרְצֶ֥ה  —  qal imperfective1cs, רָצָה, to be pleased with, accept favorably; conjunctive accent, mereka; This is a specific future use of imperfective. The same word was used in verse eight where the prophet told these priests that if they were to attend the governor’s feast and bring these animals as gifts, the governor would not be pleased with them and accept them or their gifts! The mereka connects the verb with the adverbial prepositional phrase מידכם, by your hand or by you.

מִיֶּדְכֶֽם  —  noun, fsc, יָד, hand + preposition מִן, from+ 2mp suffix; disjunctive accent, silluq; This phrase indicates the agency of the action. The silluq marks the end of the second half of verse ten, the soph pasuq, the end of the verse. 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 nine. 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!’

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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 jump 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.

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 1:11

“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.‡

Verse Summary:

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 Structure:

Verse eleven divides into two lines, the full athnach segment stating the idea that YHVH will be honored and worshipped throughout the world, not just in Israel, and the full 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 with one complementing or expanding the other, the overall meaning is essentially the same. Indeed, both parallel parts together communicate a single central idea. 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 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.’ If we are to get one thing out of the verse it is this, ‘Great will be YHVH’s name!’

Word Analysis

כִּ֣י  —  conjunction/emphatic particle, כִּי, that, for if, when, indeed; conjunctive accent, munach; 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. (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/emphatic particle with the following prepositional phrase.

מִמִּזְרַח־  —  noun, msc, מִזְרָח, place (of the sunrise, east) + מִן, from; maqqeph; 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 this construct and with its absolute.

שֶׁ֜מֶשׁ  —  noun, msa, שֶׁ֫מֶשׁ, sun; disjunctive accent, geresh; The geresh marks the near subordinate segment of the factional rebia domain. Here it separates the two prepositional phrases used as a merism.

וְעַד־  —  preposition, עַד, as far as, unto + vav; maqqeph; The phrasal vav is conjunctive joining the two prepositional phrases. The maqqeph unites the preposition with its object.

מְבוֹא֗וֹ  —  noun, msc, מָבוֹא, an entrance, a going in, (of the sun), i.e., it’s setting or the west + 3ms suffix; disjunctive accent, rebia; 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  —  adjective msa, גָּדֹול, great; conjunctive accent, mahpak or disjunctive accent, transformed garshaim; This is a predicate use of the adjective in a verbless clause. If the accent 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  —  noun, msc, שֵׁם, name + 1cs suffix; disjunctive accent, pashta; This is the subject of the verbless clause. The pashta accent marks the pashta subordinate near segment of the zaqeph domain. It also serves to separate the predicate and from its adverbial prepositional modifier.

בַּגּוֹיִ֔ם  —  noun, mpa, גֹּוי, nation + article + בְ, in; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; This is another preposition 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־  —  noun, msc, כֹּל, all, every + vav + בְ, in; maqqeph; The vav is clausal and epexegetical connecting two semi-parallel statements 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  —  noun, msa, מָקֹום, place; disjunctive accent, rebia; מקום is 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, adding more emphasis that this is not just a local thing; it is world-wide.

מֻקְטָ֥ר  —  noun, msa, מֻקְטָר, incense; conjunctive accent, mereka or disjunctive accent, virtual garshaim; This term which refers to an item which was a ritual used when 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 participle msa, נָגַשׁ, to bring near bring; disjunctive accent, tebir; This is a 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.” (IBHS, p. 627) The tebir disjunctive marks the subordinate near domain of the tiphchah segment. It also serves to separate the verb and subject from the indirect object indicated by the לְ on the following word.

לִשְׁמִ֖י  —  noun, msc, שֵׁם, name + לְ, to, for; disjunctive; accent, tiphchah; The tiphchah indicates 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 this word from the rest of the rest of the tiphchah segment.

וּמִנְחָ֣ה  —  noun, fsa, מִנְחָה, gift, tribute, offering + vav; conjunctive accent, munach; 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—as opposed to the impure ones the priests were bringing— 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 incense, the author set them apart from it, 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  —  adjective: fsa, טְהוֹר, clean pure; disjunctive accent, athnach; The adjectival is used adjectivally qualifying the preceding word מנחה. The athnach marks the end of the first line of this verse. 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־  —  conjunction/emphatic particle, כִּי, that, for if, when, indeed; maqqeph and an auxiliary accent, metheg; 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  —  adjective msa, גָּדֹול, great; conjunctive accent, mahpak or disjunctive accent, transformed garshaim; As above this is a predicate use of the adjective. Again, the accent is understood to be a virtual garshaim. See notes about this clause above.

שְׁמִי֙  —  noun, msc, שֵׁם, name + 1cs suffix; disjunctive accent, pashta; See discussion above.

בַּגּוֹיִ֔ם  —  noun, mpa, גֹּוי, nation; + article + בְ, in; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; 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 the discussion above.

אָמַ֖ר  —  qal perfective 3ms, אָמַר, to say or speak; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; This is an instantaneous perfective. The tiphchah marks the subordinate near domain of the silluq segment and separates verb from the named subject.

יְהוָ֥ה  —  proper noun, msa, יְהוָה, YHWH or the LORD; conjunctive accent, mereka; The mereka connects the construct with its absolute.

צְבָאֽוֹת׃  —  noun, mpa, צָבָה, host, army, war, warfare; disjunctive accent, silluq; the silluq ends this line, the soph pasuq, the verse.

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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?

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 1:12

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‡

Verse Summary:

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.

Verse Structure:

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 an empty remote rebia domain and an empty 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.

Word Analysis

וְאַתֶּ֖ם  —  personal pronoun 2mp, אַתֶּם, you + vav; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; 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 serves to separate this subject pronoun from the participle and its object which form the predicate.

מְחַלְּלִ֣ים  —  piel participle mpa, חָלַל, to defile , pollute; conjunctive accent, munach; 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  —  particle, noun indicator, אֵת + 3ms suffix; disjunctive accent, athnach; This marks 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 eleven where twice YHVH says, ‘Great will be my name among the nations!’ Now he says, ‘BUT you are defiling it!’

בֶּאֱמָרְכֶ֗ם  —  qal infinitive construct, אָמַר, to say, speak + 2mp suffix + preposition בְּ, in; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; The infinitive construct used with preposition ב may be temporal, most common, or causal. (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 part of what they say, i.e., the object of the participle. The silluq segment continues the content of what they say.

שֻׁלְחַ֤ן  —  noun, msc, שֻׁלְחָן, table; conjunctive accent, mahpak / disjunctive accent, virtual garshaim; 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 food begun earlier is continued.

אֲדֹנָי֙  —  noun, mpa; אָדוֺן; LORD, lord; disjunctive accent, pashta; This is a possessive genitive indicating whose table it is. 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. It is a reference to God because of the particular way it is written in the Hebrew text, “When ’ādôn appears in the special plural form, with a first common singular pronominal suffix (’ǎdōnā[y]), it always refers to God.” (TWOT, p. 13) The pashta disjunctive which marks the near pashta domain of the zaqeph segment also separates the casus pendens from the participle and the pronoun, the subject of the participle.

מְגֹאָ֣ל  —  pual participle msa, גָאַל, to pollute, desecrate; conjunctive accent, munach; This is a predicate use of participle in a verbless clause. The clause itself is an object clause of באמרכם. The subject is the 3rd person pronoun that follows. The munach connects the participle with its subject.

ה֔וּא  —  personal pronoun 3ms, הוּא, הִיא, he, she, it; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; This is the subject of the participle מגאל. The zaqeph marks the end of the subordinate remote domain of the silluq segment.

וְנִיב֖וֹ  —  noun, msc, נִיב, fruit + vav + 3ms suffix; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; The clausal vav connects the previous participle clause with this one. The vav is 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. The tiphchah marking this empty segment also serves to separate the nominative absolute from the participle and its subject which follow.

נִבְזֶ֥ה  —  niphal participle msa, בָּזָה, to be despised, despicable, contemptible; conjunctive accent, mereka; 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׃  —  noun, msc, אֹכֶל, food + 3ms suffix; disjunctive accent, silluq; This word is the subject of נבזה above. The suffix references the noun שׁלחן, the food of the table, belonging to the table, on the table. The verse is ended by the soph pasuq and the line by the silluq accent.

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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 and probably keeping the healthy animals for themselves.

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, at least, I hope 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?

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 1:13

“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.‡‡

Verse Summary:

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 which he will directly address in the next section.

Verse Structure:

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 indeed 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,”’

Word Analysis

וַאֲמַרְתֶּם֩  —  qal relative vav perfective 2mp, אָמַר; to say, speak + vav relative; conjunctive accent, little telisha; 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. (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.

הִנֵּ֨ה  —  presentative particle, הִנֵּה, now; conjunctive accent, azla; This presentative particle introduces an exclamation of immediacy. (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  —  noun, fsa, תְּלָאָה, weariness, hardship + מָה, what, how; disjunctive accent, geresh; What a weariness, hardship! This is perhaps very similar to our colloquial expressions, ‘What a drag!’ or ‘What a pain!’ This expresses 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 relative vav perfective 2mp, נָפַח, to cause to blow out + vav; conjunctive accent, munach; This is a “huh!”, a disdainful breath. BDB suggests “and ye have sniffed at it (in contempt).” (BDB, p.656) 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. Again, the choice is between a relative vav or a copulative. I understand a relative vav with a progressive non-perfective sense. The munach is the expected initial conjunctive linking this verb with its direct object אותו.

אוֹת֗וֹ  —  particle, noun indicator; אֵת +3ms suffix, it; disjunctive accent, rebia; The pronominal suffix is the direct object of והפחתם. The 3ms suffix points back to שׁלחן in the previous verse and what was offered upon it. 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 is speaking.

אָמַר֙  —  qal perfective 3ms, אָמַר; to say, speak; disjunctive accent, pashta; This is an instantaneous perfective. The pashta separates the verb from its stated subject.

יְהוָ֣ה  —  proper noun, msa, יְהוָה, YHWH or the LORD; conjunctive accent, munach; Again, not just the opinion of the prophet. This is YHWH’s assessment of these priests. The munach unites the construct and absolute.

צְבָא֔וֹת  —  noun, mpa, צָבָה, host, army, war, warfare; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; 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 using their words and actions while the pashta segment indicates that this was so stated by YHWH.

וַהֲבֵאתֶ֣ם  —  hiphil relative vav perfective 2mp, בּוֹא, to bring + vav relative; conjunctive accent, munach; This is the third perfective with a relative 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 participle msa, גָּזַל, to tear away, rob, seize; disjunctive accent, rebia; This could refer to that which was stolen or perhaps that which had been seized by a predator, i.e., an injured animal. (BDB, pp.159-160) 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 this 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.’ (IBHS, p. 236)

וְאֶת־  —  particle, noun indicator, אֵת + vav; maqqeph; 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  —  adjective: msa, פִּסֵּחַ, lame + article; disjunctive accent, pashta; This is another type or description of the animals they were choosing to use as sacrifices. It is 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).’ (IHBS, p. 244)

וְאֶת־  —  particle, noun indicator, אֵת; + vav; maqqeph; This marks 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 participle msa, חָלָה, to be weak, sick + article; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; Again this is a 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 remote 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 relative vav perfective 2ms, בּוֹא, to bring + vav relative; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; This is the last relative vav perfective in the sequence found in verse 13. They had a disdainful attitude and were bringing (taking) inferior animals and now were bringing (offering) them as a gift or tribute on the altar. The tiphchah marks near subordinate domain of the athnach segment.

אֶת־  —  particle, noun indicator, אֵת; maqqeph; This introduces what follows as a definite direct object. The maqqeph connects this word with its object.

הַמִּנְחָ֑ה  —  noun, fsa, מִנְחָה, gift, tribute, offering + article; disjunctive accent, athnach; 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 relative vav perfective 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.’ (IHBS, p. 243)

הַאֶרְצֶ֥ה  —  qal imperfective 1cs, רָצָה, to be pleased with, accept favorably + ה interrogative; conjunctive accent, mereka / disjunctive accent, transformed garshaim; This imperfective is an imperfective 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 could also be a virtual garshaim. I prefer the virtual garshaim at this point and see it also separating the subject from the direct object. This places a little more stress on the object, ‘Should I accept IT, i.e., the sacrifice of an injured lame or weak animal just mention, from your hand?’

אוֹתָ֛הּ  —  particle, noun indicator, אֵת; + 3fs suffix; disjunctive accent, tebir; 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  —  noun, fsc, יָד, hand +2mp suffix+ מִן, from; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; The tiphchah marks 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 perfective 3ms, אָמַר; to say, speak; conjunctive accent, mereka; Again, an instantaneous perfective. The mereka links the verb with the subject.

יְהוָֽה׃ ס  —  proper noun, msa, יְהוָה, YHWH or the LORD; disjunctive accent, silluq; 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 end of verse marker or soph pasuq, is found between verses twelve and thirteen of chapter two. Here, the ס following the soph pasuq of this verse indicates that the Jewish authorities felt there was a minor break in thought here. In verses two through thirteen of this chapter, 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.

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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 begun in the 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 supplicant 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 or 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 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.”

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 1:14

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‡

Verse Summary:

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 broad terms; in verses 2:1-9, this idea is applied to a specific group. This verse states YHVH’s judgment, namely, that there is a curse upon anyone who has an animal that is acceptable for sacrifice, yet who knowingly offers something less than this because YHVH is a great king, and his name, he himself, will be honored among all the nations. Then in 2:1 he applies this judgment directly to the priests in particular.

Verse Structure:

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.’

Word Analysis

וְאָר֣וּר  —  qal pass participle msa, אָרַר, to curse + vav; conjunctive accent, munach; This is a verbal use of participle. The clausal vav is conjunctive and sequential 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. (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 obstacles; 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 active participle msa, נָכַל, be crafty, deceitful; disjunctive accent, rebia; As a substantive this participle is the subject of ארור above. The rebia disjunctive separates the statement that the deceiver is cursed from the next statement, a verbless clause describing him, stating that there is in his flock, a male; it is understood but not stated this animal is without blemish.

וְיֵ֤שׁ  —  existential particle, יֵשׁ, there being + vav; conjunctive accent, mahpak or disjunctive accent, virtual gar; The subject is of this verbless clause is זכר. The vav is clausal and disjunctive specifying a contemporary circumstance ‘with a male (animal) in his flock…’ or perhaps causal ‘because there is in his flock a male (animal).’ (IBHS, p. 651) A prepositional phrase may follow a construct participle or noun in construct. (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 at this point in his understanding that this mahpak represents a conjunctive and not a transformed garshaim joining the substantive ישׁ with בעדרו.

בְּעֶדְרוֹ֙  —  noun, msc, עֵ֫דֶר, flock, herd + 3fs suffix + בְ, in; disjunctive accent, pashta; 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 serves to separate the predicate from the subject which follows.

זָכָ֔ר  —  noun/adjective, msa, זָכָר, male; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; 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 active participle msa, נָדַר, to vow, make a vow + vav; disjunctive accent, tebir; The vav is a clausal connecting the previous clause, וישׁ בעדרו זכר, with this one word clause. It is conjunctive sequential, ‘and who makes a vow….’ The participle is again verbal. The subject is not specified in this clause or the next because it is same for all the verbal participles 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 active participle msa, זָבַח, to slaughter for sacrifice + vav; conjunctive accent, mereka; The vav is clausal and either consecutive, i.e., one makes a vow then offers a sacrifice, or specifies a contemporary circumstance, i.e., 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 participle msa, שָׁחַת, to be corrupt, spoiled; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; The participle is used as a substantive. It is indefinite representing an animal of 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  —  noun, mpa, אָדוֺן; LORD, lord + לְ, to, for + article; disjunctive accent, athnach; This is a divine reference. The ל indicates the indirect object. The athnach marks the main division of the verse. The athnach segment states the idea that a person so described is cursed, while the next segment, the silluq segment, gives the cause or reason.

כִּי֩  —  conjunction/emphatic particle, כִּי, that, for if, when, indeed; little telisha; 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  —  noun, msa, מֶלֶךְ, king; conjunctive accent, azla; 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  —  adjective: msa, גָּדֹול, great; disjunctive accent, geresh; This is an attributive adjective qualifying the previous word. 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  —  personal pronoun 1s, אָ֫נִי אֲנִי, I, me; disjunctive accent, rebia; This is the subject of the verbless clause. The rebia marks the remote subordinate domain of the zaqeph segment containing the part of the content of what is said. The subordinate near pashta segment then is the identification of who stated the content, namely, YHWH.

אָמַר֙  —  qal perfective 3ms, אָמַר; to say, speak; disjunctive accent, pashta; Again an 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  —  proper noun, msa, יְהוָה, YHWH or the LORD; conjunctive accent, munach; This is the subject of אמר. The munach unites the construct with its absolute.

צְבָא֔וֹת  —  noun, mpa, צָבָה, host, army, war, warfare; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; The zaqeph marks the end of the remote subordinate domain of the silluq segment.

וּשְׁמִ֖י  —  noun, msc, שֵׁם, name + 1cs suffix + vav; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; 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 participle msa, יָרֵא, to be feared, reverenced, honored; conjunctive accent, mereka; It is a verbal use emphasizing the certainty of this state of affairs, (IBHS, p. 627) ‘is going to be honored.’ The mereka conjoins the verb with its adverbial qualifier.

בַגּוֹיִֽם׃  —  noun, mpa, גֹּוי, nation + בְּ, in among + article; disjunctive accent, silluq; 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.

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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!

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 2:1

And now, \ to you is this commandment, O Priests!‡

Verse Summary:

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 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!”

Verse Structure:

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, אליכם המצוה הזאת, and a remote rebia segment separating this from the adverb, ועתה.

Word Analysis

וְעַתָּ֗ה  —  adverb, עַתָּה, now + vav; disjunctive accent, rebia; The vav is clausal connecting this verse with what precedes. The use of this adverb in this verse is not strictly temporal, now, i.e., at this point in time, but has a logical force now, i.e., 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 vav, setting it apart from what follows. The rebia sets this word apart from the next giving it emphasis.

אֲלֵיכֶ֛ם  —  preposition, אֵל, to, for, concerning + 2mp suffix; disjunctive accent, tebir; See notes on verse 1:1 where אל 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  —  noun, fsa, מִצְוָה, commandment + article; conjunctive accent, mereka; 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. (TWOT, p. 757) It is a definite noun as shown by the use of the article, a particular commandment, referring back to the judgment just handed down by YHVH in verse 1:14 and forward to the related instructions in verse 2:2 and following. The mereka conjoins this noun with its qualifying adjective, הזאת.

הַזֹּ֖את  —  demonstrative adjective, fpa, זֶה, this, these + article; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; 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), הכהנים.

הַכֹּהֲנִֽים  —  noun, mpa, כֹּהֵן, priest + article; disjunctive accent, silluq; The noun is definite, marked by the definite article and represents direct address. The use of direct address makes this instruction emphatically personal.

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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. They might have told the supplicant who brought an imperfect animal just what YHVH had said in the verse before this one, i.e., “You will be cursed if you offer such an animal.” They knew the law as it applied to the people. 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.

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 2:2

“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!”‡

Verse Summary:

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.

Verse Structure:

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 an initial 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.

Word Analysis

אִם־  —  conditional/interrogative particle, אִם, if; maqqeph; 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  —  adverb negative, לֹא לוֹא, no, not; conjunctive accent, munach; The munach, the conjunction expected before a pazer, unites this word-unit with the following verb.

תִשְׁמְע֡וּ  —  qal imperfective 2mp, שָׁמַע, to hear, listen to, with intention of obedience; disjunctive accent, pazer; This is an imperfective of possibility. (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־  —  conditional/interrogative particle, אִם, if + vav; no accent, maqqeph; 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  —  adverb negative, לֹא לוֹא, no, not; conjunctive accent, little telisha; The conjunctive accents, the little telisha, on this word and the azla on the following unite these word-units with the positional phrase, על־לב. 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 into one accentual unit by these conjunctives.

תָשִׂ֨ימוּ  —  qal imperfective 2mp, שׂוּם, שִׂים, to set, put, place; conjunctive accent, azla; “The heart is the seat of the will. A decision may be described as “setting” the heart.” (TWOT, p. 467) Again, the imperfective is one of possibility, normally used in the protasis of conditional clauses. The accent is a conjunctive azla as mentioned above uniting the verb with its following prepositional phrase.

עַל־  —  preposition, עַל, upon, over; maqqeph; 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 word-unit.

לֵ֜ב  —  noun, msa, לֵב, heart; disjunctive accent, geresh; 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.” (TWOT, p. 466) The geresh disjunctive separates the word-unit, ואם־לא תשׂימו על־לב, ‘and if you do not take it to heart’ from לתת כבוד לשׁמי, ‘to give honor to my name,’ which is the third part of the rebia segment, the domain proper.

לָתֵ֧ת  —  qal infinitive construct, נָתַן, to give, put, set + preposition לְ, to, for + article; conjunctive accent, darga; לְ with the infinitive construct is used as a verbal complement to תשׂימו denoting what is to be 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  —  noun: msa, כָּבוֹד, abundance, honor, glory; conjunctive accent, munach; This is 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  —  noun, msc, שֵׁם, name + 1cs suffix + preposition לְ, to, for; disjunctive accent, rebia; The לְ indicates the indirect object of the infinitive construct. Again, this word stands in place of YHVH’s person. The rebia segment marks the end of the segment which contains the content of what is said by the speaker.

אָמַר֙  —  qal perfective 3ms, אָמַר, to say, speak; disjunctive accent, pashta; This perfective is an instantaneous perfective. The pashta conjunctive marks the near subordinate domain of the first zaqeph segment. It also serves to separate the verb, אמר, from its stated subject.

יְהוָ֣ה  —  noun, msc, יְהוָה, YHWH or the LORD; conjunctive accent, munach; The munach conjoins the construct with the absolute.

צְבָאז֔ו  —  noun, msa, צָבָה, host, army, war, warfare; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; 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 relative vav perfective 1cs, שָׁלַח, to send out, send away on a mission + vav; conjunctive accent, mahpak or disjunctive accent, virtual garshaim; The relative vav perfective has a contingent-future sense introducing the apodosis of the conditional clause. The mahpak accent likely represents a virtual garshaim which would separate the verb from the remaining part of the clause. I prefer this idea rather than it being the conjunctive mahpak since the rest of the verbs in this verse are also separated.

בָכֶם֙  —  preposition, בְּ, in + 2mp suffix; disjunctive accent, pashta; The pashta disjunctive separates this indirect object indicated by the preposition ב from the definite direct object.

אֶת־  —  particle, noun indicator, אֵת; maqqeph; 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  —  noun, fsa, מְאֵרָה, curse + article; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; 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 ארר. 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. (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 relative vav perfective 1cs, אָרַר, to curse + vav; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; As with ושׁלחתי 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־  —  particle, noun indicator, אֵת; 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  —  noun,fpc, בִּרָכָה, blessing; + 2mp suffix; disjunctive accent, athnach; This word refers, as John Oswald notes, to “Either the verbal enduement with good things or a collective expression for the good things themselves.” (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  —  adverb, גַּם, even also; + vav; disjunctive accent, pashta; גַּם has an emphatic force as it introduces this concluding statement of the conditional clause begun in line one. (IBHS, p. 663) The pashta sets this introductory adverb apart from the rest of the initial zaqeph segment as is common.

אָרוֹתִ֔יהָ  —  qal perfective 1cs, אָרַר, to curse + 3fs suffix; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; The perfective here seems to be an indefinite perfective or perhaps a recent perfective. (IBHS, p. 487) The antecedent of the suffix is ברכותיכם 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  —  conjunction/emphatic particle, כִּי, that, for if, when, indeed; conjunctive accent, mereka; The כִּי is used as a causal conjunction introducing a verbless clause. The mereka unites this conjunction with the following existential particle.

אֵינְכֶ֖ם  —  existential particle of negation, אֵין, there/it is no + 2mp suffix; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; This adverb or particle negates a verbless clause with the masculine plural suffix indicating the subject and the following participle the verbal action. (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 participle mpa, שׂוּם, שִׂים, to set, put, place; conjunctive accent, mereka; This is a 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־  —  preposition, עַל, upon, over; no accent, maqqeph; The maqqeph unites the preposition and its object.

לֵֽב׃  —  noun, msa, לֵב, heart; disjunctive accent, silluq; The silluq marks the end of line two.

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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 prior to the rapture or resurrection, 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.

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 2:3

“Now I am going 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!”‡

Verse Summary:

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 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.

Verse Structure:

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, which is unclean, scattered upon their faces, these priests were then unclean, and along with the offal, would be discarded.

Word Analysis

הִנְנִ֨י  —  presentative particle; This is the term used by Waltke and O’Conner (IBHS, p. 675), הִנֵּה, behold, see, now + 1cs suffix; conjunctive accent, azla; 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. (IBHS, p. 675) The azla unites this particle with the following participle.

גֹעֵ֤ר  —  qal participle msa, גָעַר, to rebuke; conjunctive accent, mahpak or disjunctive accent, virtual garshaim; This is a predicate use of the participle. Its use with הִנֵּה indicates both an immediacy and the idea of certainty. (IBHS, p. 627) The accent may be a mahpak conjoining the participle with the prepositional phrase, or a transformed geresh disjoining them. I am inclined to see this as the disjunctive both here and on the word וזריתי in the following zaqeph segment. This would add more stress to the actions taken by YHVH against these offending priests.

לָכֶם֙  —  preposition, לְ, to, for + 2mp suffix; disjunctive accent, pashta; With גָאַר, it indicates in reference to whom the LORD is about to rebuke; similar to a dative of disadvantage, “against you” or “for you.” The pashta disjunctive separates this word from the next, the direct object of the participle.

אֶת־  —  particle, noun indicator, אֵת; maqqeph (אֵת) — this indicates the direct object of גער; The maqqeph unites the word marker with its object.

הַזֶּ֔רַע  —  noun, msa, זֶרַע, sowing, seed, offspring + article; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; The vast majority of the English translations understand זרע here to refer to physical descendants of these priests. However, here the word זרע denotes sowing and, with הזרה this means to prevent the usual harvest. 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 זרע, “sowing, seed,” and זרה, “to scatter, disperse,” which was how sowing was performed in that day! The first zaqeph accent marks the major break in the athnach segment which details the first item of YHVH’s judgment against these priests.

וְזֵרִ֤יתִי  —  piel relative vav perfective 1cs, זָרַה, to scatter + vav; conjunctive accent, mahpak or virtual geresh; The relative vav perfective following the participle is used to describe a subsequent event in future time. (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. I prefer the latter idea; see note on גֹעֵ֤ר above.

פֶ֨רֶשׁ֙  —  noun, msa, פֶּ֫רֶשׁ, the fecal matter found in the intestine of a victim, offal; disjunctive accent, pashta; 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־  —  preposition, עַל, upon, over; no accent, maqqeph; The maqqeph joins the preposition and its object.

פְּנֵיכֶ֔ם  —  noun, mpc, פָּנִים, face + 2ms suffix; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; This is the object of the preposition על. The zaqeph marks the end of the second remote segment and separates it from the concluding tiphchah segment.

פֶּ֖רֶשׁ  —  noun, msc, פֶּ֫רֶשׁ, the fecal matter found in the intestine of a victim, offal; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; 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  —  noun, mpc, חַג, festival gathering, feast, usually of one of the three great pilgrim feasts + 2mp suffix; disjunctive accent, athnach; The athnach marks the end of the first line.

וְנָשָׂ֥א  —  qal relative vav perfective 3ms, נָשָׂא, to lift up, carry, carry away + vav; conjunctive accent, mereka; The relative vav perfective, like the previous verb form, וזריתי, 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  —  particle, noun indicator + 2mp suffix; אֵת; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; This is the direct object of ונשׂא. The antecedent of the second masculine plural pronoun in this verse and in verse two is הכהנים, the 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׃  —  preposition, אֵל, in addition to + 3ms suffix; disjunctive accent, silluq; The meaning of in addition to is suggested by the context. (BDB, p.40 under usage 5)

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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 just as the offal from their sacrifices was removed and disposed of outside the temple area.

How does God judge or discipline you and me. 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.

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 2:4

“And you will know |

that I have sent to you |

this commandment‡

because my covenant is with Levi.” |

says YHVH of Hosts.‡

Verse Summary:

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; that YHVH was doing this because of the covenant he had made with Levi and his descendants.

Verse Structure:

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, וידעתם ‘and you will know….’ The great zaqeph disjunctive is the main syntactical break in this line. The second zaqeph segment serves to separate the verb and indirect object כי שׁלחתי אליכם, ‘that I have sent to you’ from the direct object תת המצוה הזאת, ‘this commandment’ 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.

Word Analysis

וִֽידַעְתֶּ֕ם  —  qal relative vav perfective 2mp, יָדַע, to know + vav; disjunctive accent, great zaqeph; 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 separates the independent clause from the object clause that follows.

כִּ֚י  —  conjunction/emphatic particle, כִּי, that, for if, when, indeed; disjunctive accent, yethib and auxiliary accent metheg; The כי introduces a verbal clause which is the object of וידעתם. The yethib sets this word apart from the object clause it introduces.

שִׁלַּ֣חְתִּי  —  piel perfective 1cs, שָׁלַח, to send out, send away on a mission; conjunctive accent, munach; This is a recent perfective, ‘I have sent’. The munach unites the subject/verb with the indirect object which is indicated by the preposition אל.

אֲלֵיכֶ֔ם  —  preposition, אֵל, to, for, concerning + 2mp suffix; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; This is used to indicate the indirect object. The zaqeph divides the clause serving as the object of וידעתם 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, המצוה הזאת or ‘this commandment’ more emphasis than they would have had the zaqeph been a tebir.

אֵ֖ת  —  particle, noun indicator, אֵת; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; The tiphchah marks close of the last segment of line one which is the direct object of שׁלחתי. It necessarily falls on this short word since it cannot fall on the last word-unit bearing the athnach. Normally it would be joined to the noun it points to with a maqqeph or a conjunctive accent.

הַמִּצְוָ֣ה  —  noun, fsa, מִצְוָה, commandment + article; conjunctive accent, munach; 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  —  demonstrative adjective, fsa, זֶה, this, these + article; disjunctive accent, athnach; This adjective 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 infinitive construct, הָיָה, to fall out, happen, be, come about, take place + לְ, to, for; conjunctive accent, mahpak or disjunctive accent virtual garshaim; 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 ל. 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 ל can also be epexegetical. 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.” (GKC, § 114. 4; IBHS, p. 608) In this case the translation would be, ‘And you will know that I have sent to you this commandment my covenant being with Levi.’ or ‘…since/because my covenant is 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  —  noun, fsc, בְּרִית, covenant + 1cs suffix; disjunctive accent, pashta; This is the subject of the infinitive construct. The pashta separates the infinitive and its subject from the prepositional phrase which qualifies בריתי.

אֶת־  —  preposition, אֵת, with; maqqeph; 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  —  proper noun, msa, לֵוִי, Levi; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; This is the 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 perfective 3ms, אָמַר, to say, speak; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; The perfective is an instantaneous perfective. The tiphchah marks the near subordinate segment of the silluq segment and also separates the verb from the stated subject.

יְהוָ֥ה  —  proper noun, msc, יְהוָה, YHWH or the LORD; conjunctive accent, mereka; This is the subject of אמר. The mereka unites the construct and absolute.

צְבָאֽוֹת׃  —  noun, mpa, צָבָה, host, army, war, warfare; disjunctive accent, silluq; The silluq disjunctive marks the end of the second line.

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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!

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 2:5

My covenant with him 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.‡

Verse Summary:

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.

Verse Structure:

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.

Word Analysis

בְּרִיתִ֣י׀  —  noun, fsc, בְּרִית, covenant + 1cs suffix; disjunctive accent, legarmeh; This word is the subject of the verb היתה. The legarmeh sets apart the subject from the verb.

הָיְתָ֣ה  —  qal perfective 3fs, הָיָה, to fall out, happen, be, come about, take place; conjunctive accent, munach; The perfective is a definite past. The 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  —  preposition, אֵת, with; + 3ms suffix; disjunctive accent, rebia; 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  —  noun, mpa, חַיִּים, (plural abstract) life + article; disjunctive accent, pashta and auxiliary accent metheg; This is the first of two nouns which make up the predicate nominative of היתה, 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. חיים (life) is the noun which is qualified or characterized by the following word שׁלום (heath, welfare, peace). The article is a generic use with collective plurals and abstracts. The pashta separates this noun from the next. If this, because of the accents does not represent a hendiadys, then two distinct ideas are in view. החיים, life “as consisting of earthly felicity combined (often) with spiritual blessedness” (BDB, p. 313 under 2.) and השׁלום, peace, the next word. 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.

וְהַ֨שָּׁל֔וֹם  —  noun, msa, שָׁלוֹם, health, welfare, peace + article + vav; disjunctive accent, zaqeph + auxiliary azla replacing a metheg accent; 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 relative vav imperfective 1cs, נָתַן, to give, put, set + 3mp suffix +vav; maqqeph + auxiliary accent, metheg; The 3mp suffix 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 to result in blessing for the Levites, to be sure, but ultimately for another end. The maqqeph conjoins the subject and the following prepositional phrase.

ל֥וֹ  —  preposition, לְ, to, for + 3ms suffix; conjunctive accent, mereka; The preposition ל indicates the indirect object. The mereka unites this word-unit with the noun מורא. The pronoun refers to Levi who represents, not the actual individual, but by metonymy his descendants, the Levites.

מוֹרָ֖א  —  noun, msa, מוֹרָה, fear, respect; disjunctive accent, tiphchah (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 near subordinate segment.

וַיִּֽירָאֵ֑נִי  —  qal relative vav imperfective 3ms, יָרֵא, to fear, respect + 1cs suffix + vav; disjunctive accent, athnach; This is 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  —  noun, mpc, פָּנִים, face + vav + preposition מִן, from before, because of; conjunctive accent, mereka; This is a frozen prepositional phrase. (IBHS, p. 221) The preposition is joined to its object by the mereka conjunctive. It has a causal sense here. The vav connects this clause with the previous clauses in the first line.

שְׁמִ֖י  —  noun, msc, שֵׁם, name +1cs suffix; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; As has been noted before this noun is used by metonymy for the person of YHVH himself. The text is saying because of serving in the very presence of YHVH they were in aweThis is a reference to the ministry of the Levites as they stood before the presence of YHVH in the sanctuary offering their sacrifices.

נִחַ֥ת  —  niphal perfective 3ms, חָתַת, to be broken, dismayed to be awed; conjunctive accent, mereka; BDB, (p. 369) 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׃  —  personal pronoun 3ms, הוּא, הִיא he, she, it; disjunctive accent, silluq; The use of the pronoun at this point is an implicit contrast. (IBHS, pp 295-296) These Levites—not the current priest to whom this book was written—stood in awe before YHVH!

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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.

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 being 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 loves us, 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?

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 2:6

Instruction of truth 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 Summary:

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.

Verse Structure:

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 accentual 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. Each line contains a pair of statements involving a contrast or comparison.

Word Analysis

תּוֹרַ֤ת  —  noun, fsc, תּוֹרָה, teaching, instruction, law; conjunctive accent, mahpak or disjunctive accent, virtual garshaim; This word, found four times in this book, verses 2:6, 8, 9; 4:4, is often translated as law although its core meaning is teaching or instruction. It can refer to the act 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. (TWOT, pp. 403-405) This 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, זכרו תורה משׁה עבדי ‘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 transformed garshaim which sets this first word apart giving it a special emphasis.

אֱמֶת֙  —  noun, fsa, אֱמֶת, truth, faithfulness, firmness; disjunctive accent, pashta; 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, implies that the content of the teaching was truth, no doubt the truth of YHVH; on the other, true instruction, an attributive genitive, would imply that the teaching was true, dependable and faithful. 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 stated subject from the predicate.

הָיְתָ֣ה  —  qal perfective 3fs, הָיָה, to fall out, happen, be, come about, take place; conjunctive accent, munach; This use of the perfective 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  —  noun, msc, פֶּה, mouth + 3ms suffix + preposition, בְּ, in; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; 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  —  noun, fsa, עַוְלָה, injustice, wrong + vav disjunctive; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; 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־  —  adverb negative, לֹא לוֹא, no, not; maqqeph; The negative adverb is joined to the verb by the maqqeph.

נִמְצָ֣א  —  niphal perfective 3ms, מָצַא, to be found; conjunctive accent, munach; Again this is a definite past. The munach unites this with the following prepositional phrase, forming one accentual unit upon which the athnach disjunctive falls.

בִשְׂפָתָ֑יו  —  noun, fdc, שָׂפָה, lips +3ms suffix + preposition בְּ, in, on; disjunctive accent, athnach; The בּ 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  —  noun, msa, שָׁלוֹם, health, welfare, peace + preposition בְּ, in, on; conjunctive accent, mahpak or disjunctive accent, virtual garshaim(שָׁלוֹם) — health, welfare, peace; As in the first line, the mahpak on this word is probably a transformed garshaim following the pattern in the first line. The בּ marks the concomitant circumstances attending the Levite’s walking (living their lives). He walked in peace or peacefully.

וּבְמִישׁוֹר֙  —  noun, msa, מִישׁוֹר, level place, uprightness + preposition, בְּ, in, on; +vav; disjunctive accent, pashta; As in the previous word, the בּ 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 perfective 3ms, הָלַךְ, to walk; conjunctive accent, munach; 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  —  preposition, אֵת, with + 1cs suffix; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; 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.

וְרַבִּ֖ים  —  adjective; mpa, רַב, many much + vav; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; The adjective is used 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 perfective 3ms, שׁוּב, cause to turn back; conjunctive accent, mereka; Again, this is a Definite past perfective. By their teaching and by their life, their walk with YHVH, they caused many to turn away from iniquity. The mereka joins this word with the next into one accentual unit.

מֵעָוֹֽן׃  —  noun, msa, עָוֹן, iniquity, guilt or punishment for iniquity + preposition מִן, from, because of, on account of / some of; disjunctive accent, silluq; The preposition מִן here has the idea away from. The silluq accent ends this second line.

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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 how they lived their lives than to what they taught by word. Yet this is still 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, there is a cause/result connection between these two statements. They had a positive effect of those around them; they made a difference by their words, and this was solidified by their lives.

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?

✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦

Verse 2:7

Indeed! Lips of a priest should preserve knowledge; |

instruction, they (people) should seek from his mouth.‡

Because a messenger of YHVH of Hosts he is!‡

Verse Summary:

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.

Verse Structure:

The first line is of a full athnach segment, containing two independent clauses. The first is a fractional remote zaqeph segment, the second, an empty tiphchah segment. 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.

Word Analysis

כִּֽי־  —  conjunction/emphatic particle, כִּי, that, for if, when, indeed; maqqeph and an auxiliary accent, metheg; כי 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. In verses five and six the subject is Levi (לוי), 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. (IBHS, p. 508) The subject shifts from Levi and/or his descendants to an indefinite priest (כהן) in general. Note that the second use of כי in this verse, however, is logical. כי can be used in the same statement in both senses. (See IBHS, p. 665) The maqqeph unites this conjunction/adverb with the following noun.

שִׂפְתֵ֤י  —  noun, fdc, שָׂפָה, lips; conjunctive accent, mahpak or disjunctive accent, virtual garshaim; The use of this word and the word פה is figurative, being a metonymy, the lips representing the teaching and instruction made by them. The mahpak is probably the conjunctive uniting the construct with its absolute.

כֹהֵן֙  —  noun, msa, כֹּהֵן, priest; disjunctive accent, pashta; The word is indefinite indicating this refers to a class rather than a particular priest, a priest in general. The pashta disjunctive separates the stated subject from the rest of the zaqeph segment which is the predicate.

יִשְׁמְרוּ־  —  qal imperfective 3mp, שָׁמַר, to watch, preserve, keep; maqqeph; The imperfective is an imperfective of obligation. TWOT has a good discussion of this word. (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  —  noun, fsa, דַּעַת, knowledge; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; The word is the direct object of ישׁמרו. While this is a general term for knowledge, it is commonly used for moral cognition and in the prophets for the knowledge of God. (TWOT, pp. 848-849) The context indicates this is the case here. The zaqeph marks the end of this clause and the remote segment.

וְתוֹרָ֖ה  —  noun, fsa, תּוֹרָה, teaching, instruction, law +vav; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; This word begins the last half of line one, the tiphchah segment. The clausal vav is epexegetical. It “may stand before clauses which serve to clarify or specify the sense of the preceding clause”. (IBHS, pp. 652) 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. Question to consider: If this phrase, דעת ותורה, is a hendiadys, what does it signify; what is its sense? 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 qualifying adverbial prepositional phrase.

יְבַקְשׁ֣וּ  —  piel imperfective 3mp, בָּקַשׁ, to seek; conjunctive accent, munach; 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  —  noun, msc, פֶּה, mouth + 3ms suffix + preposition מִן, because of, on account of / some of disjunctive accent, athnach; The preposition conveys the idea of the source or author of an action, counsel or event. (BDB, p. 579 under 2.d.) The third personal pronoun refers to כהן in the previous segment, from his mouth. The athnach marks the end of the first line.

כִּ֛י  —  conjunction/emphatic particle, כִּי, that, for if, when, indeed; disjunctive accent, tebir; 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  —  noun, msc, מַלְאָךְ, messenger; conjunctive accent, mereka; 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.

“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).” (TWOT, p. 464)

This word and the next word unit, יְהוָה־צְבָאוֹת, form the predicate of verbless clause of classification. (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, יהוה.

יְהוָֽה־  —  noun, msc, יְהוָה, YHWH or the LORD; auxiliary accent, metheg; The maqqeph units this construct with its absolute. The messenger is one that belongs to or speaks on behalf of YHVH of hosts.

צְבָא֖וֹת  —  noun, mpa, צָבָה, host, army, war, warfare; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; The tiphchah marks this near subordinate segment and also separates the predicate from the personal pronoun which is the subject.

הֽוּא׃  —  personal pronoun 3ms, הוּא, הִיא he, she, it, disjunctive accent, silluq; This is the subject of the verbless clause. The silluq closes the second line.

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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, and 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, is it the doctrinal statements of groups, denominations or organizations; the commentaries and opinions others have about the truth? Rather, 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.

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 2:8

“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.‡

Verse Summary:

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 priests were currently 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.

Verse Structure:

The two lines, an athnach and a silluq segment, are each is divided into two parts with a fractional zaqeph segment and an empty tiphchah segment. In the first line, the first clause found in the zaqeph segment is connected to the previous verses by a disjunctive vav on the initial pronoun indicating a strong contrast. In contrast to what a priest was supposed to be and do, this verse describes what these priests were doing. The clause in the tiphchah segment is asyndetic, i.e., not connected by a vav or conjunction. Although it is an independent clause, it is logically subordinate to the first. It follows from the first clause.

The clauses are also asyndetic in the second line, but again there is a sequential cast. The statement in the zaqeph segment follows from the ideas in the first line. The zaqeph segment, along with all of line one, is also the object of the verb אמר found in the closing tiphchah segment.

Word Analysis

וְאַתֶּם֙  —  pronoun personal 2mp, אַתֶּם, you + vav; disjunctive accent, pashta; 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 perfective 2mp, סוּר, to turn aside; conjunctive accent, munach; 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.” (IBHS, p. 487) They had done this and this was continuing into the present. The munach connects the verb with the prepositional phrase indicating that from which they had turned away.

מִן־  —  preposition, מִן, from, because of, on account of / some of; maqqeph; This expresses the idea of separation. The maqqeph unites the preposition with its object.

הַדֶּ֔רֶךְ  —  noun, msa, דֶּ֫רֶךְ, way, road, distance, journey, manner +article; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; 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. (BDB, pp. 202-4 and TWOT, p. 196-7) 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.” (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. (BDB, p. 203 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 perfective 2mp, כָּשַׁל, to cause to stumble; conjunctive accent, mereka; 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  —  adjective mpa, רַב, many much; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; This is a substantival use of the adjective, and it is the object of the previous verb. The tiphchah, necessarily placed here, disjoins this word from the following prepositional phrase.

בַּתּוֹרָ֑ה  —  noun, fsa, תּוֹרָה, teaching, instruction, law + article + preposition, בְּ, in; disjunctive accent, athnach; There are two questions with this word. First, to what does תורה, (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 בּ? If תורה is taken narrowly as the Law (of Moses), then the preposition בּ 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 בּ has an instrumental sense. English translations are variously divided between these views. תורה 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 תורה 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 תורה 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 perfective 2mp, שָׁחַת, to spoil, ruin; disjunctive accent, pashta; 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 (the athnach-zaqeph segment). This then resulted or was seen in the fact they caused many to stumble by their teaching (the athnach-tiphchah segment). In summary, they corrupted YHVH’s covenant with them (the silluq-zaqeph segment). This verb has the root idea of to ruin, spoil, corrupt. (BDB., p. 1007; 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, ברית הלוי.

בְּרִ֣ית  —  noun, fsc, בְּרִית, covenant; conjunctive accent, munach; 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  —  proper noun, msa, לֵוִי, Levi + article; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; 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 segment, and the entire first line make up the content of what is said. The tiphchah segment is the statement of who is speaking.

אָמַ֖ר  —  qal perfective 3ms, אָמַר, to say, speak; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; This is an instantaneous perfective. The stated subject follows. The tiphchah marks the near subordinate segment of the silluq.

יְהוָ֥ה  —  noun, msc, יְהוָה, YHWH or the LORD; conjunctive accent, mereka; This is the stated subject of אמר. The mereka unites this construct with its absolute.

צְבָאֽוֹת׃  —  noun, mpa, צָבָה, host, army, war, warfare; disjunctive accent, silluq; The silluq ends the second line.

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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, החיים והשׁלום, 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.

✦✦✦  Home  ✦✦✦  Malachi Main Menu  ✦✦✦  Discourse 1 Menu  ✦✦✦

Verse 2:9

And so, I have made you humiliatingly despicable people to everyone‡

In proportion to \ which you are not keeping my ways |

and showing partiality in the instruction.‡

Verse Summary:

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 and apply the truth of the Law.

Verse Structure:

Verse nine is one statement composed of an independent clause in the fractional athnach segment, and a dependent clause found in the full silluq segment. The athnach segment has a fractional tiphchah segment as the near subordinate domain stating what YHVH has done in judgment against these priests.

The silluq segment 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.

Word Analysis

וְגַם־  —  adverb, גַּם, even also; + vav; no accent, maqqeph (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. “It can signal a final climax in an exposition…and is the only Hebrew adverb that marks a discourse ending—all others mark beginnings or middles.” (IBHS, p. 663) The vav is epexegetical introducing this clause which summarizes YHVH’s judgment. The maqqeph joins this adverb with the following first person pronoun.

אֲנִ֞י  —  pronoun personal 1cs, אָ֫נִי אֲנִי, I, me; disjunctive accent,; The garshaim substitutes for geresh when the stress is on the ultima and without a preceding azla, (PRCE, p. 96). This separates the stated subject from the verb form and focuses emphasis upon it. This pause along with the use of the pronoun highlights the contrast between what the priests had done and were doing and YHVH’s response.

נָתַ֧תִּי  —  qal perfective 1cs, נָתַן, to give, put, set; conjunctive accent, darga; 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, (BDB, p. 681) and 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  —  particle, noun indicator + 2mp suffix, אֵת; disjunctive accent, tebir; The particle indicates the first direct object of נָתַתִּי, the thing that is made or constituted to be something. The second masculine plural suffix, ‘you,’ is the direct object. The tebir disjunctive separates the first direct object from the following accusatives, or what it becomes.

נִבְזִ֥ים  —  niphal participle mpa, בָּזָה, to be despised, despicable, contemptible; conjunctive accent, mereka; This is a substantival use of the participle, ‘contemptible people.’ 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  —  adjective; mpa, שָׁפָל, low, humiliated + vav; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; Again this is a substantival use as above; i.e., ‘humiliated people.’ 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 people. The tiphchah marking the near segment sets apart the last word-unit from the rest of the first verse.

לְכָל־  —  noun, msc, כֹּל, all, every; + preposition לְ, to, for; no accent, maqqeph; The ל with this phrase could almost have an indirect object sense being used with the verb נתן, “I have given you, (i.e., the priests) (to be) humiliatingly despicable to all the people.” It might also be classified as a ל of specification, “I have made you humiliatingly despicable in regard to all the people.” The maqqeph unites the construct with its absolute.

הָעָ֑ם  —  noun, msa, עַם/עָם, people + article; disjunctive accent, athnach; All of the people i.e., ‘everyone.’ The athnach marks the end of line one.

כְּפִ֗י  —  noun, msc, פֶּה, mouth + preposition, כְּ, the like of, like, as; disjunctive accent, rebia; The noun with the preposition כְּפִי means according to, in proportion to, just as (BDB, p. 805 under 6.b.). It 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 pronoun, אֲשֶׁ֤ר, which, what; conjunctive accent, mahpak or disjunctive accent, virtual garshaim; 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 particle of negation, אֵין, there/it is no + 2mp suffix; disjunctive accent, pashta; This particle of negation or negative adverb is used to negate verbless clauses. The suffix indicates the subject of the following participle. (IBHS, p. 661) The pashta separates this adverb from the participle that follows.

שֹׁמְרִ֣ים  —  qal participle mpa, שָׁמַר, to watch, preserve, keep; conjunctive accent, munach; This is a predicate use of the participle in a verbless clause. It usually “describes an ongoing state of affairs, involving repeated … or continuous …action.” (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־  —  particle, noun indicator, אֵת; maqqeph; .The noun indicator points to the definite direct object of שׁמרים and is joined to it by the maqqeph.

דְּרָכַ֔י  —  noun, mpc, דֶּ֫רֶךְ, way, road, distance, journey, manner + 1cs suffix; disjunctive accent, zaqeph; This word is used figuratively here as it was in the previous verse meaning the path or manner of one’s 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 active participle mpa, נָשָׂא, — to lift up, carry, carry away + vav; conjunctive accent, mereka; to lift up the face in bad sense means to show partiality. (BDB, p 670 under 1.b.(3)) This is a predicate participle as was שׁמרים. The mereka connects this with its object.

פָּנִ֖ים  —  noun, mpa, פָּנִים, face; disjunctive accent, tiphchah; The tiphchah marks the subordinate near segment. See previous word.

בַּתּוֹרָֽה׃ פ  —  noun, fsa, תּוֹרָה, teaching, instruction, law + article + preposition, בְּ, in; disjunctive accent, silluq; 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 second line and the soph pasuq the verse. The פ indicates the Masoretes considered this the end of a major section.

Personal Thoughts and Applications:

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.