Malachi 2:1-4
To: Malachi
Main Menu
To: Grace Notes Home
Page
Malachi 2:1
"And now this admonition is for you, O priests."
The term for "admonition" is the Pual future of TSAWAH, and is
more properly a threat of discipline than an admonition. And it refers
back to "cursed" in Malachi 1:14. Thus, God is providing a warning
before He administers punishment, and this is ever God's way. And the term
for "priests" is COHEN, and it is interesting to note that in
Job 12:19 the term is translated "princes." And this word, prince,
implies a relationship with royalty. This is precisely what the priests
of Malachi's day do not have: they are unbelievers and have no relationship
with Christ, the royal One, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
Malachi 2:2
"'If you do not listen, and if you do not set your heart to honor
my name,' says the Lord Almighty, 'I will send a curse upon you, and I will
curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have
not set your heart to honor me.'"
Verse 2 begins with the hypothetical particle which suggests that 'maybe
they will and maybe they will not' listen to God's warning and God's word;
the particle allows the freewill of the priests total predominance. The
Hebrew SUM, means "to set, to apply the heart to an object;" [33]
and the "heart" is the soul. So the priests are to place God's
word in their souls as spiritual information.
The term for "curse" is 'ARUR, and is referred to as the 'ARUR
FORMULA; for first the act of cursing takes place, then the curse is described
in the text. "In this case, the curse formula is the most severe means
of separating the community from the evildoer. It is significant that the
only ones who pronounce such a curse in the OT are God, the king, those
in positions of authority, or the whole assembly of the people. This sort
of curse is always conditional, and thus takes effect only when the situation
it is intended to prevent exists." [34] Thus, by their arrogance and
self-sufficiency the priests, in effect, 'curse' themselves.
The verse states that God will send the 'curse' upon them; thus God Himself
will administer and apportion the curse to the Levitical priests. Furthermore,
the verse adds that God will curse their "blessings." The term
for "blessings" is BARUKH, and the 'blessings' of the Levitical
priests were many and varied, but the two in view here are:
1. The blessing to the tribe of Levi and the line of Aaron
to be priests, i.e., "to approach God."
2. The blessing of speaking the blessings, or doctrines, of God to the
people. However, "it is necessary that the person uttering the blessing
be in fellowship with God, seek it, or be worthy of it. Therefore, the
blessing (like the curse) is revocable, and can be changed into a curse."
[35]
And the final sentence in verse 2 asserts that the curse is in effect and
will take place. Why? "Because you have not set your heart to honor
me." This pronouncement echoes that made in Deuteronomy 28:45, which
states, "All these curses will come upon you. They will pursue you
and overtake you Until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the Lord
your God and observe the commands and decrees he gave you."
Malachi 2:3
"Because of you I will rebuke your descendants; I will spread on
your faces the offal from your festival sacrifices, and you will be carried
off with it."
Verse 3 is the description of the curse just stated in verse 2. The curse
is said to be upon the "descendants" of the priesthood. The Hebrew
term for "rebuke" is GA'AR, "to rebuke." And Mal. 2:3
is acknowledged as a crux interpretum, which is a passage that is difficult
to interpret. However, comparing Deuteronomy 28:20, I Samuel 2:31, and
Malachi 2:3, clarifies the matter. Yahweh is cursing the descendants of
the Levitical priests with eradication. And both Robert Thieme and A. Caquot
sustain this translation. [36] In other words, the Levitical priesthood,
specifically, is at risk in this particular instance. And the fulfillment
of this prophetical statement in Malachi 2:3 arrived in Jerusalem in 70
AD, approximately 500 years after it was documented.
The Eradication of the Levitical Priesthood
Recall that the Levitical priesthood was restricted to the tribe of Levi,
the line of Aaron. Thus Aaron and his progeny comprised the Levitical priesthood.
In Malachi 2:3, God states that one of the components of the 'curse' to
the priests will be the eradication of their genealogical rolls. In other
words, the Rabbinical system of present day Judaism is apostate in the sense
that it is not traditional, nor is it founded on an accepted register of
ancestry, i.e., it is not from the tribe of Levi, the line of Aaron.
The Jews observe the feasts, but they do not satisfy the rituals of the
feasts. Why? Because satisfaction depends upon the function of a Levitical
priest. And because of the destruction of the records in the Temple in
70 AD, they cannot dogmatically assert who is and who is not from the tribe
of Levi, the line of Aaron. Thus, the Levitical priesthood was "confused"
and replaced by the Rabbinical system. [37] The priests have "offal"
or dung on their faces. And God has "spread" it there by corrupting
their "seed."
And the term for "offal" or dung is "excrement, dung",
so called as being separated and thrown off; dung of sacrifices." [38]
The connection is obvious; God has 'thrown off' the unbelieving priests
just as the priests threw off the excrement of the sacrifices. Just as
the excrement of the Old Testament sacrifices was carried outside the camp
and disposed of, so the priests, in 70 AD, would be carried outside of the
nation of Israel and disposed of. Quite plainly, God is saying this: 'You
unbelieving priests are as spiritual as dung. Therefore I will dispose
of you as I would dung.'
The disposal of the feces of the sacrifices is cited in the following passages:
Exodus 29:14; Leviticus 8:17; 16:27; Number 19:5; and Leviticus 4:11, 12,
which says, "But the hide of the bull and all its flesh, as well as
the head and legs, the inner parts and offal -- that is, all the rest of
the bull -- he must be taken outside the camp to a place ceremonially clean,
where the ashes are thrown, and burn it in a wood fire on the ash heap."
And the 'one' "that will carry them (the priests) off with it (the
dung)" was Senatus Populusque Romanus, Rome, in 70 AD. For Titus Flavius
Sabinus Vespasianus, eldest son and general of the Emperor Vespasian, crushed
the Jewish Revolt by capturing Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Malachi 2:4
"'And you will know that I have sent you this admonition so that
my covenant with Levi may continue,' says the Lord Almighty."
Verse 4 introduces the "covenant with Levi," and the concept of
"covenant" demands our attention.
Levi
Levi, whose name means "joined or attached," was the third son
of Jacob and his wife Leah. Levi and his older brother, Simeon, perfidiously
butchered prince Hamor, his son Shechem, and the Hivites, who were a Canaanite
people, for the rape of their sister Dinah.
And for this act, Levi did not inherit the land. Instead, Levi was cursed
by Jacob as Jacob lay dying, according to Genesis 49:7, which states, "Cursed
be their anger, so fierce, and their fury so cruel! I will scatter them
in Jacob and disperse them in Israel."
The operative word in Genesis 49:7 is PUTS, which means "to scatter
what was before united." [39] In other words, the tribe of Levi would
be "scattered" throughout Israel and would not occupy a tract
of land as the other tribes.
However, the grace of God is dynamic, i.e., grace never languishes and becomes
static, nor is grace rigid; in fact grace pursues and desires to bless an
object. And thus "cursing was turned to blessing" [40] by God
for the tribe of Levi. For the Levites remained faithful to God and to
Moses during the iconoclastic apostasy of Exodus 32:25-29, of which verse
26 says, "So he (Moses) stood at the entrance to the camp and said,
'Whoever is for the Lord, come to me.' And all the Levites rallied to him."
This faithfulness to the Lord resulted in the tribe of Levi becoming the
priestly tribe.
The word for priest is COHEN, which eventually became the surname of the
tribe of Aaron. And the term was bestowed with the sense of "one who
attends upon God, to administer in things pertaining to the service of God."
[41]
Numbers 25:10-13 relates the faithfulness of Phinehas, a priest, with whom
God renewed His covenant, and Phinehas became high priest. And Numbers
3:5-13, 8:14-19 and Deuteronomy 33:8-11 relate the provisions of the covenant
or contract with the tribe of Levi. [42]
In summary, the covenant depended upon the following four clauses:
1. The priesthood was limited to the tribe of Levi, the family
of Aaron (the Cohens). This clause speaks of 'mediation,' and will be covered
in detail later on.
2. The priests must be physically perfect, i.e., no physical blemishes
or deformities. This speaks of the Impeccability of Christ, the Great High
Priest.
3. The priests must be 'faithful' to God, and this implies belief in Christ
Jesus for salvation. This clause speaks of reconciliation.
4. The priests must fulfill the functions of the priesthood: sacrificial
functions, teaching functions, judicial functions, etc. This clause speaks
of 'shadow Christology,' which is the teaching of Christ to come through
the sacrifices.
It is apparent that the priests of Malachi's day were in 'breach of contract.'
For they had broken the third clause, i.e., they were not believers in
Christ, nor were they faithful to God.
Contracts
In law, a contract is a formal agreement that creates an obligation on both
parties of the contract, and binds both parties to the contract. Contracts
are generally of two types: by specialty or simple. A special contract
or contract by specialty only has validity based upon the formal execution
of the contract. In other words, the contract is not valid unless all the
conditions of the contract are executed and fulfilled. And, generally,
the specialty contract takes the form of a covenant. It is interesting
to note that contracts by specialty do not enjoin consideration for the
exchanged promise. In other words, equal consideration is not necessary
in this type of contract. Consideration is given after the execution of
the contract. And in context, in Malachi, the consideration would be salvation
after the execution of the contract, i.e., faith in Christ. And taking
the analogy one step further, it may be noted that Christ Himself had a
specialty contract with God the Father, and that consideration, i.e, the
salvation of mankind, was not accomplished until the actual execution of
the contract took place, i.e., spiritual death on the Cross.
Once the contract has been breached, litigation may take place for specific
performance, which is the right of one party (in this instance, God) to
have the other party (the priests) execute the contract according to the
explicit conditions of the contract. And if the contract is not fulfilled
exactly, breach exists, and suit for a temporary or permanent injunction
may take place.
In is apparent, then, that the priests of Malachi's day had broken the contract,
they had failed to provide specific performance. And God is seeking a temporary
injunction against them for lack of specific performance.
The delimitation of the priesthood to the tribe of Levi and the family of
Aaron speaks of 'mediation.' This concept deserves detailed discussion.
Mediation
The concept of 'mediation' is related in Job 9:2,32,33, which say, "Most
surely do I know that this is so; but how can mortal man be just with God?
For He is not a man like me, that I should say, 'Let us together, come,
and plead!' Oh! that there were an Arbiter with us, One who could put His
hand upon us both!" [43] Thus, in this passage Job is seeking someone
who is equal to both man and God to act as his mediator.
In theology, mediation results in the reconciliation of God and mankind.
A mediator intercedes between two parties that are at variance and reconciles
them. And a mediator equally represents both parties in the variance.
I Timothy 2:5,6 state that mediation between God and mankind depends upon
the redemptive work of Christ: "For there is one God and one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom
for all men -- the testimony given in its proper time." It may be
deduced from this passage, then, that Christ is equal to both parties in
the variance, God and mankind; thus, Christ is the God-Man.
Galatians 3:19,20 assert the consanguinity (connection) of the Mosaic Law
and mediation. And the connnection is this: the Mosaic Law could not provide
salvation, i.e., the law did not save, it only condemned. So without the
Mediator, there could be no salvation. Thus, mediation had to occur. "What,
then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of trangressions
until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into
effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent
just one party; but God is one."
Hebrews 9:15 confirms the identity of the Mediator, "For this reason
Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may
receive the promised eternal inheritance -- now that he has died as a ransom
to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant."
Hebrews 12:24 relates the blood of the animal sacrifices (the Levitical
offerings) to the Mediator. The blood of the animals depicted in shadow
form the real blood of the real sacrifice that was to take place: Christ
upon the Cross. "To Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the
sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel."
In other words, the "sprinkled blood" of the spiritual death of
Christ "speaks a better word," i.e., provides real salvation.
Whereas the blood of Abel's animal sacrifices couldn't save anybody from
anything -- they only taught of Christ to come.
Finally, Hebrews 8:6 compares the shadow theology of the animal sacrifices
with the real sacrifice of Christ on the Cross: "But the ministry
Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he
is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises."
[44]
The Etymology of 'Covenant'
The Hebrew term for 'covenant' is BERITH. And the term appears to be related
to the Akkadian BIRITU, "to clasp," "to fetter." "This
is supported by the Akkadian and Hittite terms for treaty: Akk. RIKSU,
Hitt. ISHIUL, both meaning 'bond.' The concept of a binding settlement
also stands behind Ara. 'aqd, Lat. vinculum fidei, 'bond of faith,' contractus,
'contract,' and is likewise reflected in German Bund. The original meaning
of the Heb. BERITH is not 'agreement or settlement between two parties,'
as is commonly argued. BERITH implies first and foremost the notion of
'imposition,' 'liability,' or 'obligation.'" [45]
And the most significant passage in the New Testament relating to the concept
of 'covenant' is Hebrews 9:16 and 17. "The real point which the passage
brings out is that the victim represents the makers of the covenant, i.e.
the contracting parties, and they could only be united representatively
in the victim by means of its death. So in the death of Christ man and
God are made one. It is a covenant, not a last will and testament, which
is in the writer's mind." [46]
Hebrews 9:16 and 17
"In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one
who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it
never takes effect while the one who made it is living."
Immediate summary: the blood of the Old Testament, the animal sacrifices,
teaches of the blood of the New Testament, the Blood of Christ. But without
the actual, real, and literal spiritual death of Christ on the Cross, none
of this blood does anybody any good.
Verses 16 and 17 of Hebrews state that the blood of the animal sacrifices
illustrated that physical death could not save mankind. Only the Blood
of Christ, i.e., His spiritual death, was efficacious. Thus the Blood of
Christ fulfills the shadow blood of the Levitical offerings. The covenant
with Levi was based on the future spiritual death of Christ on the Cross
-- and this was part of the function of the priesthood of the Levites, to
teach through the blood of the animal sacrifices that the covenant was not
in effect, nor fulfilled, until the real sacrifice took place. And in Malachi's
day, the priesthood had failed to do this, and not only this, they had also
failed to believe in Christ themselves.
Robert Thieme translates verse 17 of Hebrews 9 as follows: "For a
covenant is valid upon deaths because it is not ever valid as long as the
one having made the covenant lives." In other words, the specific
performance that must take place before any of the covenants of the Old
Testament or New Testament are valid, or before any of the promises concerning
the covenants are valid, is that reconciliation between God and mankind
must take place. And this only happens through the deaths, physical and
spiritual, of Christ on the Cross.
E.W. Bullinger translates Hebrews 9:16-18 as follows: "For where a
covenant is, here must also of necessity be the death of him (or that) which
makes [the sacrifice]. For a covenant is of force over dead [victims or
sacrifices]; otherwise it is never held to be of force while he who is the
appointed [sacrifice] is alive. Whereupon neither the first [covenant]
was dedicated without blood," etc.
In other words, the covenant is no good while the sacrifice still lives.
So salvation is no good and cannot take place until Christ dies spiritually
on the Cross. If Christ did not go to the Cross, then none of the covenants,
none of God's promises to mankind, none of God's Words are in effect. And
that means that there is no salvation -- unless Christ goes to the Cross.
This means that all the saved Old Testament believers would have had their
salvation recalled from the factory, if the real blood of Christ did not
replace the shadow blood of the animal sacrifices.
And also note that the word for "testator" in Heb. 9:16,17 is
masculine in gender; but that its antecedent is feminine; yet the masculine
is used throughout the verse for the one who provides the covenant. Why?
Because the sacrifice is Christ Himself. Thus, the Greek word for sacrifice
is feminine, HE THUSIA; the Hebrew word for sacrifice is ZAVACH, and it
is masculine; and the Greek word for 'covenantmaker' is HO DIATHEMENOS,
which again is masculine; thus the masculine gender is used because HO DIATHEMENOS
agrees with the Hebrew thought, rather than with the Greek word. And all
this points to Christ as being the only real sacrifice. There are no covenants
without Christ on the Cross. [47]
Thus, in verse 4, God is warning the priests of Malachi's day that they
have breached the contract. If the covenant is to continue, the priests
must change their minds about Christ.
Notes:
[33] Wilson, William. Old Testament Word Studies; page 383.
[34] Botterweck, Ringgren, Eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament;
vol. i., page 409,410.
[35] Ibid; vol. ii., page 303.
[36] Robert Thieme so translates in his exegesis of Malachi, from notes,
1968. And A. Caquot agrees in vol. iii., page 49, Theological Dictionary
of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren.
[37] Thieme, Robert. Malachi; from notes, 1968. Revised, altered and
appended by R.E. Radic.
[38] Wilson, William. Word Studies in the Old Testament; page 137.
[39] Wilson, William. Old Testament Word Studies; page 371.
[40] Thieme, Robert. Malachi; from notes, 1968.
[41] Wilson, William. Ibid.; page 327.
[42] Thieme, Robert. Malachi; 1968. The above exposition on the 'Contract
with Levi' was first and originally compiled by Robert Thieme; appended,
altered and revised by R.E. Radic.
[43] Bullinger, E.W. The Book of Job; page 84,87. The above translation
from Job 9 is by E.W. Bullinger.
[44] Thieme, Robert. Doctrine of Mediatorship; orginally compiled by Robert
Thieme; revised, altered and appended by R.E. Radic. From notes on Hebrews,
by Robert Thieme, 1975.
[45] Botterweck, Ringgren, Editors. Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament; vol. ii. page 254, 255.
[46] Girdlestone, Robert. Synonyms of the Old Testament; page 214.
[47] Bullinger, E.W. Figures Of Speech Used in the Bible; page 533.
There is no charge for Grace Notes Materials. You can help further
this work by your prayer and by sending a contribution to:
Grace Notes
1705 Aggie Lane
Austin, Texas 78757