Malachi 2:9-12
To: Malachi
Main Menu
To: Grace Notes Home
Page
Malachi 2:9
"'So I have caused you to be despised and humiliated before all
the people, because you have not followed my ways but have shown partiality
in matters of the law."
The Hebrew term for "despise" is BAZAH; and the word for "humiliated"
is SHAPAL, and it refers to "God's threat or promise to bring low and
abase those who are haughty and proud." [66] And this concept, the
power of God to abase the arrogant, is stated by Jehovah in His second address
in Job 40:11, "Send far and wide thy overflowing wrath: and on each
proud one look, and bring him low." [67]
And Malachi's use of BAZAH, here, directs the priests back to Malachi 1:6,
where God first accused the priests of constantly despising Him. They have
despised God; now God will 'cause' the people to despise the priests; and
more, God will 'bring them low,' or debase them.
And why will God bring them low and cause the people to despise them? Because
they have not followed "my ways," i.e., they have not believed
in Christ, nor have they taught the people concerning Christ and salvation.
And the phrase "have shown partiality" is from the Hebrew NASA',
which herein has two definite connotations: the first is the fact that
the priests have "lifted up their faces as an indication of favor,"
[68] that is, partiality; and the second connotation is that NASA' also
means "the taking away, forgiveness, or pardon of sin, iniquity, and
transgression. Sin can be forgiven and forgotten, because it is taken up
and carried away." [69] In other words, the priests should have been
teaching the forgiveness of sins, or salvation, because of the future work
of Christ on the Cross; they should have been teaching concerning the real
sacrifice, the Lamb of God. Instead the priests were playing favorites,
and indulging the personal whims of the people; and all for pay, of course.
The priests, then, were not teaching God's word; rather they were being
suborned by wealth and money. Thus, they became the 'hired help' of anyone
with money. In other words, they were religious prostitutes, and people
exploit prostitutes, but they do not respect or honor them. And the Jews
of Malachi's day had no respect for the priests. So the chain is sequential:
the priests had no respect for God and His word, the people had no respect
for the priests, and the priests respected money, while the people exploited
the avarice of the priests.
Malachi 2:10
"Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us? Why do
we profane the covenant of our fathers by breaking faith with one another?"
Regarding the first phrase, "have we not all one Father," a great
deal of controversy exists. The debate revolves around the term "Father."
To whom does this refer? To Abraham as the progenitor of the Jewish race,
or to God the Father? The great scholars align themselves on both sides:
Paul Redditt and Robert Thieme maintain that God the Father is cited; H.A.
Ironside and E.W. Bullinger assert that Abraham is cited.
First, it should be noted that whichever analysis is supported, the underlying
idea is that of relationship. And this 'associative aspect' seems to support
the 'God the Father of all believers' reading. As does the previous relational
"father-son" depiction in Malachi 1:6. However, the converse
is true if the adjective of totality, "all," refers to both believers
and unbelievers. With this reading, then, Father would be rendered "Abraham."
The decisive factor, then, would appear to be the rendering of "all."
The author, with reservations, prefers to read "all" as "all
the descendants of Abraham," who it is to be noted, was spiritually
regenerate and thus represents 'true Israel.' And this latter endorsement
is brought out in the masculine, singular adjective 'ECHAD, which refers
to "one, unique Father," which could only be Abraham, the regenerate
progenitor of the Jewish race. Therefore, the author supports the following
reading: "Have we (believers residing in Judah) not all one Father
(a relationship with one God, as did Abraham, who was regenerate)?"
[70]
"Did not one God create us?" Again, the adjective 'echad defines
the unique Person of the Godhead: Jesus Christ, God the Son. The component
in the Hebrew is EL ECHAD, "the unique God." This, then, is God
the Son; for John 1:3 says, "Through him all things were made; without
him nothing was made that has been made." And Colossians 1:16 says,
"For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;
all things were created by him and for him."
And the word "create," BARA', introduces a remarkable concept,
that of sustenance from the point of creation, or birth into the world,
up till the point of salvation. For the word bara' means "to put in
a new or happier condition. The effectuation of something new, rare, and
wonderful. The act of reconstituting something already in existence."
[71] Thus, "create," here in verse 10, refers to the regeneration
of salvation. And to attain the point of salvation, God must provide, by
means of grace, the necessary subsistence to go from 'coming into the world'
to 'salvation.' [72] And other than 'grace,' how does God provide for this
livelihood? Through the freedom wrought by the 'divine institutions,' which
institutions are delineated in the Law, in Codices I, II and III. And these
Codices were not being taught to the Jews of Malachi's day by the priests.
As a result, the Jews of Judah have "profaned," the piel of CHALAL
"stained the covenant;" that is, the Jews have broken the first
commandment and, forsaking the 'unique God,' have entered the idolatry of
the phallic cult. Furthermore, they have not only begun worshipping idols,
they are "hypocrites," or "deal treacherously" with
each other.
In other words, they are deceiving themselves religiously, they are deceiving
their own wives, they are deceiving the concept of family and love, and
they are destroying, through self-deception, the social machinery necessary
to maintain freedom. Judah, circa 420-400 BC, was a nation of hypocrites;
the inhabitants were "false, doctrinaire, artificial, shrill, shallow,
uncertain, eclectic, jejune and insincere." [73]
Malachi 2:11
"Judah has broken faith. A detestable thing has been committed
in Israel and in Jerusalem: Judah has desecrated the sanctuary the Lord
loves, by marrying the daughter of a foreign god."
Ostensibly, verse 11 is another crux interpretum. For "scholars have
held two basic opinions about this verse: the offence was either idolatry
or divorce." [74] However, the author discerns no room for interpretative
ambivalence as the lexical evidence is clear.
The first lexical clue is "has broken faith," which, in the Hebrew,
is once again BAGAD. And the word is defined as "hypocritical dealers
towards God, the ungodly, wicked." [75] So Judah has "broken
faith" with God, primarily, and with the concept of marriage as a consequence,
secondarily.
The next lexical clue is found in TA'AB which is "an abomination; abominable
deed or practice; chiefly in things connected with idolatry." [76]
Here, then, is idolatry, which is unfaithfulness to God. And the third
lexical clue is wd,qo, qodesh, "a place consecrated," i.e., the
sanctuary of the Temple. By examining these three traces, and then analyzing
the utilization of the words "foreign god," which is EL NEKAR,
we conclude that Judah has abandoned God, the el echad, "the one, unique
God." For EL NEKAR is "used of a 'foreign god' (Deut. 32:12;
Ps 81:9; Mal 2:11 et al.)." [77] Thus, inaccuracy and uncertainty
are avoided; the verse refers to spiritual adultery against God and, as
will be seen, physical adultery as a consequence.
Idolatry and the Phallic Cult
Scripture recounts the idolatry of the ancient world: Ezekiel 16:36; Leviticus
20:1-5; Deuteronomy 12:31 and Leviticus 20:14-21, being some of the more
prominent passages. In the ancient world, idolatry included human sacrifice,
demonism, homosexuality, lesbianism, and incest. However, old-fashioned
orgies and sexual promiscuity were the foundation of the phallic cults.
Indeed, "the phallic cult permeated ancient religions and cultures.
The phallus was symbolic of fertility, a vital economic concern in agrarian
societies." [78]
"The regular cult of the gods took place partly in the open, partly
in regular temples. In the former case the Old Testament speaks of worship
'on high places and under every green tree'. This alludes in part to the
fact that trees and groves were regarded as holy and came to mark cultic
places -- in areas such as Palestine and large parts of Syria which were
poor in trees this was natural, since places where trees grew were bound
to acquire a reputation for having a special life force. In part it points
to the cult places which were to be found on hills and mountains, so called
'high-places' (bama). On these cultic high places there was either a stone
pillar (masseba), which was a symbol for the male divinity -- in most cases
no doubt Baal -- or a wooden pole ('ashera) which was though of as representing
the female divinity, and finally also an altar for the offering of the
sacrifices.
"A special problem concerns human, or rather child, sacrifice. The
Old Testament tells repeatedly of how the Israelites at times of apostasy
'made their children go through fire' to Moloch following a Canaanite example.
For a long time the word Moloch was taken to be a disparaging distortion
of the divine title Melek, 'king', and it was assumed that the reference
was to child sacrifice to a god with this epithet. This was then connected
with a piece of information in Diodorus Siculus, according to which in Carthage
there was a statue of a god made of bronze on the outstretched hands of
which children were placed, so that they fell into a fir which burned behind
or under the statue of the god." [79]
And the priests of the phallic cults performed their functions naked. And
this exposure was prevalent throughout the ancient cults. Additionally,
eunuchs and hierodules (temple prostitutes) were part and parcel of the
cultic religions.
The Jews of this ancient period were constantly tempted by Baal, whose name
means 'lord' or 'owner.' One of the prominent local Baals was Belphegor
or Balfagor or Baal-Peor ('lord of opening'), who is described as the Moabite
god of licentiousness who was in times past, one of the angelic beings described
in Scripture as 'principalities.' And the manifestation of Baal-Peor is
sometimes that of a young woman. Both Rufinus and Jerome equate Belphgor
and Priapus; they cite Numbers 25:1-3. And De Plancy in his Dictionnaire
Infernal asserts that Belphgor was Satan's demonic minister to France.
Moreover, Milton, in his Paradise Lost VI, 447, declares that Belphegor
and Nisroc are synonymous. And in Eros and Evil, Masters equates Belphegor
as the Hindu Rutrem, whose icon is a standing phallus. [80]
Other ancient religious systems with strong associations to the phallic
cult were Ashtoreth of Sidon, Milcom of Ammon, Chemosh of Moab, and Molech
of Edom. And Scripture reports that phallic icons were commonly erected
by the apostate in Israel: Saul set up one at Carmel, Absalom erected one
on the outskirts of Jerusalem, and the term yadd, for a stone phallus, is
found in Isaiah 57:8, where the phrase "YADD CHAZZIT" means "you
see a phallus." [81]
In the New International Version, Isaiah 57:8 reads, "Behind your doors
and your doorposts you have put your pagan symbols. Forsaking me, you uncovered
your bed, you climbed into it and opened it wide; you made a pact with those
whose beds you love, and you looked on their nakedness."
Child-sacrifice was more widespread in ancient Palestine than many scholars
like to admit. For the Moabite King Mesha sacrificed his son to Chemosh,
II Kings 3:26-27; the Ammonites, who according to Leviticus 18:21 and 20:2ff,
sacrificed their children to Molech; the Aramaeans of the Sepharvaim, who
also sacrificed their children to Molech; and King Ahaz in II Kings 16:3,
Manasseh in II Kings 21:6, and Saul ben Kish's intent to sacrifice Jonathan
in I Samuel 14:43-46. [82]
This sort of pagan religious function, at once disgusting and suggestive,
cannot be imagined in today's modern world. Yet the irony is, that though
the icons are different and the rituals do not involve fire and human sacrifice,
it is still extant. For "God's supremacy over Baal is constantly affirmed.
However, man's preoccupation from then and until this day is rather with
sex and technology, than with devotion to the almighty God of history, who
is also the covenant God." [83]
The present and modern world, the 'aesthetic age,' seeks satisfaction through
the senses, physical beauty, erotic excitement, through success and celebrity
in any of its guises. [84] The new idol is 'fame,' not greatness, but
simple 'celebrity.' These new icons, celebrity, sex and technology, have
become modern man's graven image, before which he readily genuflects himself,
and whose embrace he receives as the new covenant. Indeed, the old idols
have come to life.
Malachi 2:12
"As for the man who does this, whoever he may be, may the Lord
cut him off from the tents of Jacob -- even though he brings offerings to
the Lord Almighty."
This verse presents corrigenda ('things which are to be corrected,' L.),
or 'a problem reading.' The dilemma revolves around two words, literally
rendered "being called and answering," or "being aroused
and answering." [85] The question is this: to what do they refer?
The answer is discovered in the Hebrew of Nehemiah 13:23,27, which read,
"Moreover in those days I saw men of Judah who had married women from
Ashdod, Ammon and Moab." "Must we hear now that you too are doing
all this terrible wickedness and are being unfaithful to our God by marrying
foreign women?" And at first glance, these two verses in Nehemiah
appear to be discussing marriage with foreigners. However, the term utilized
for "marry" is YASHAB, which means "to cohabit." [86]
Thus, the term refers to "coition," or sexual intercourse between
those who are not legally married, i.e., fornication.
The passage in Nehemiah 13, then, is a "call" [87] or 'invitation
to fornication' within the phallic cult, circa 420-400 BC. And "the
ones answering the call" are the Jewish males of Malachi's day who
are ensconced in the phallic cult. These males, according to the final
phrase in Mal. 2:12, are at the same time still bringing sacrifices to the
Temple. In other words, they are 'double-dipping," i.e., they are
participating in the phallic cult and fornicating with 'foreign women,'
while at the same time they are maintaining a facade of worshipping Jehovah
Elohim by bringing animal sacrifices to the Temple. In fact, these men
are camouflaging their idolatrous fornications by sacrificing at the altar
in the Temple.
And these men will, according to Malachi, "be cut off by the Lord."
And the Hebrew word for "cut off is KARAT, and this term means "to
strike, to smite; to punish with death." This, then, is the "sin
unto death" [88] portrayed by the Apostle John in I John 5:16, which
reads, "If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead
to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose
sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not
saying that he should pray about that." And in Revelation 3:16, the
same Apostle describes the 'sin unto death' very picturesque language:
"So, because you are lukewarm -- neither hot nor cold -- I am about
to spit you out of my mouth." The 'sin unto death,' therefore, is
God's ultima ratio [89] ('final argument') toward the apostate believer,
and toward the apostate unbeliever. Both forms of apostasy are removed
by God, the only difference lies in the final destination: heaven or hell.
A revised translation of Malachi 2:12, accordingly, is offered: "As
for the man who does this (engages in idolatry), the one who answers the
call to fornication, the Lord will cut him off ('sin unto death') from the
tents of Jacob (from the homes of the living) -- even though he also brings
offerings to the Lord Almighty."
Notes:
[66] Harris, Archer, Waltke, Editors. Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament; volume ii, page 950.
[67] Bullinger, E.W. The Book of Job; translation by Bullinger, page 196.
[68] Harris, Archer, Waltke, Editors. Ibid.; page 600,601.
[69] Ibid.
[70] That this reading is tenuous, is admitted.
[71] Wilson, William. Old Testament Word Studies; page 101.
[72] Thieme, Robert. Malachi; from notes, undated.
[73] Paraphrase from Jack Vance, from notes, source unknown.
[74] Redditt, Paul. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi; page 171.
[75] Wilson, William. Old Testament Word Studies; page 451.
[76] Ibid., page 3.
[77] Harris, Archer, Waltke, Editors. Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament; volume ii, page 1368.
[78] Thieme, Robert. Satan and Demonism; page 40.
[79] Ringgren, Helmer. Religions of the Ancient Near East; page 159-162.
[80] Davidson, Gustav. A Dictionary of Angels; page 74.
[81] Edwardes, Allen. Erotica Judaica; page 61-62.
[82] Graves, Robert and Patai, Raphael. Hebrew Myths; page 175.
[83] Harris, Archer, Waltke, Editors. Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament; volume i, page 120.
[84] Paraphrase of Malcolm Muggeridge; from notes, undated, source unknown.
[85] Thieme, Robert. Malachi; from notes, undated.
[86] Wilson, William. Old Testament Word Studies; page 269
[87] Thieme, Robert. Malachi; from notes, undated.
[88] Ibid.
[89] Louis the 14th, King of France, utilized this Latin phrase on his
artillery cannon: ultima ratio regum: 'the final argument of kings,' which
is 'war.'
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