20. Our Father (Matthew 6:9a)
Related MediaSo pray this way: Our Father in heaven
Matthew 6:9a (NET)
How should believers pray?
In Matthew 6:5-8, Christ began to teach his followers how to pray: He commanded them to not pray like thez hypocrites, who pray long prayers with vain repetitions to be seen by others. If the prayers of the Pharisees and scribes were to be seen by others, our prayers must be to interact with God alone. If their prayers were thoughtless and heartless repetition, our prayers must involve both our heart and mind—for only these types of prayers will be rewarded by the Father.
The Lord’s Prayer
In Matthew 6:9-13, Christ continues to teach his disciples about praying by giving them what has historically been called the “Lord’s Prayer.” However, it is probably better called the “Disciples’ Prayer” or “Our Prayer.” This was not the Lord’s prayer for it has aspects our Lord could never pray. Since our Lord was sinless, he could never pray “forgive us our debts.”
It should be noted that Christ was not telling us the exact words to pray, but a pattern to pray. It is fine to repeat the Lord’s Prayer verbatim, as long as our hearts and minds are engaged. If not, it simply becomes another form of “vain repetitions” which Christ previously forbade (6:7). An early Christian writing called the Didache, written around 96 AD, recommended that the Lord’s Prayer be prayed three times a day1, and in many traditions, the prayer is still repetitiously prayed. However, the Lord’s Prayer is meant to be a pattern and a primer. As we follow the six petitions given, we should add our own thoughts and concerns.
It has been duly noted that the first three petitions are God-ward—may your name be honored, your kingdom come, and your will be done. And the last three petitions are us-ward—give us our daily bread, forgive us our debts, and lead us not into temptation. The order gives clear insight on the purpose of prayer. For many, prayer is often an attempt to selfishly seek their glory and get their will done. However, prayer is primarily about God’s glory and his will. In John 14:13, Jesus said: “And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.”
Therefore, true prayer should commonly conform our will to his, as we reflect on the Lord’s glory and will. It should make us see our circumstances and our world from God’s view. It is after spending time glorifying God and praying for his plan, that we should offer our petitions.
As we begin our study of the Lord’s Prayer, we will start off by focusing on “Our Father in heaven,” since this was revolutionary to the Jewish mind, and it should be to ours as well.
Big Question: Why was the invocation of the Lord’s Prayer— “our Father in heaven”—so revolutionary? What applications can we take from God being our Father in heaven?
Our Father in Heaven
Interpretation Question: What made Christ praying “our Father in heaven” so unique in that day?
As we study the invocation of the Lord’s Prayer, we must see it with Jewish eyes. In the Old Testament, God was called Father only fourteen times and never in a personal way.2 God’s fatherhood always was in reference to the nation of Israel. For example, Isaiah 64:8 says, “Yet, Lord, you are our father. We are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the product of your labor.” When God delivered Israel out of Egypt, he adopted them as his “firstborn son” (Ex 4:22). Therefore, occasionally, Jewish prayers would reference this. But no Israelites personally called God, “Father”—ever. In fact, out of respect for God, they even stopped using his covenant name, Yahweh, and instead, would simply say Adonai or some other name of God.3 For a Jew to call God, “Father,” would have been considered irreverent and even blasphemous.4 When Christ called God, “Father,” it aroused hatred in the Jews and made them seek to kill him. By calling God, “Father,” he was calling himself God’s Son and making himself equal with God. John 5:17-18 describes one such interaction between the Jews and Christ over this issue:
So he told them, “My Father is working until now, and I too am working.” For this reason the Jewish leaders were trying even harder to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God.
Just as the Jews were shocked at Christ calling God, “Father,” his disciples were probably shocked at his encouragement for them to call God, “Father.” By calling God, “Father,” it could have gotten them stoned as blasphemers.
However, this was exactly how Christ prayed throughout the Gospels. In fact, all his prayers (over sixty) used the title Father, except for one—when he prayed on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46).5 It was then that the only begotten Son was separated from the Father, as he bore our sins and judgment on the cross. When Christ encouraged his disciples to call God, “Father,” he was granting them his status as sons.6 In fact, Christ referred to all who obey God as family members. In Matthew 12:50, Christ said: “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Christ’s teaching on God being our Father was such a radical departure from OT law and Jewish tradition that many theologians call this the major difference between the Old Testament and New Testament.7
Father in a Redemptive Sense
Now as we consider God being our Father, it must be noted that Christ’s words are not referring to God being the Father of all people. God is indeed the Father of all people in the sense of creation. In Acts 17:28, Paul declared to the Athenians that all people are God’s “offspring.” However, most times Scripture refers to God being Father in a redemptive sense instead of a universal one. Christ said to Nicodemus that in order to enter the kingdom of God, one must be born again (John 3:3). This is the very thing Christ has been teaching about in his Sermon on the Mount. Throughout, he has been distinguishing those who are part of his kingdom and therefore are born again. He said that they are peacemakers who will be called sons of God (Matt 5:9). They are the ones who have a greater righteousness than the Pharisees and scribes and therefore enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:20). They are the ones who love and bless their enemies and therefore are children of their Father in heaven (Matt 5:43-45). And finally, they are the ones who obey God’s will instead of practicing iniquity (Matt 7:21-23).
When each of us was born, we were born as children of the devil (1 John 3:10, Matt 13:38, John 8:44). Christ even called the Pharisees children of the devil (John 8:44)—they bore his likeness and had his character. That is how Scripture describes every person before salvation (1 John 3:10). We are born into the kingdom of this world—the kingdom of darkness. It doesn’t matter if we have Christian families, we are born into the devil’s kingdom and have the nature of our father, Adam—prone to sin against God and hide from him. However, when people recognize that they are sinners and therefore separated from God and under his wrath, repent of their sins, believe in Christ’s death and resurrection, and follow him as Lord, they are born again (cf. Rom 10:9-10). God gives us his Spirit and draws us into an intimate relationship with the Father. John 1:12-13 says it this way:
But to all who have received him—those who believe in his name—he has given the right to become God’s children—children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God.
First John 3:10 says: “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are revealed: Everyone who does not practice righteousness—the one who does not love his fellow Christian—is not of God.” Galatians 4:6 says, “And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, who calls ‘Abba! Father!’”
When a person is truly born again, there is not only a change of position, as they are translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light, the fatherhood of Satan to the fatherhood of God, but there will be a lifestyle change. They begin to have an intimate relationship with their Father through the Spirit. They obey God and love other believers. Again, this is primarily what the Sermon on the Mount is about. If our righteousness does not surpass that of the Pharisees and scribes, we are not part of the kingdom of heaven.
Has there been a change in our lives—a change of allegiance? Are we still living for self or living for God? Are we consumed with gaining this world or expanding the kingdom of God? Have you been born of God? Do you bear his likeness? Has he changed your life?
Application Question: What is your experience with praying the Lord’s Prayer? In what ways have you found it helpful or not helpful?
Applications from God’s Fatherhood
The fact that Jesus authorized his disciples to call God, “Father,” was radical. As mentioned, this concept distinguishes the Old Covenant from the New. J. I. Packer considers the grasp of God’s fatherhood as essential to one’s spiritual life. He said:
If you want to judge how well a person understands Christianity, find out how much he makes of the thought of being God’s child, and having God as his Father. If this is not the thought that prompts and controls his worship and prayers and his whole outlook on life, it means that he does not understand Christianity very well at all. For everything that Christ taught, everything that makes the New Testament new, and better than the Old, everything that is distinctively Christian as opposed to merely Jewish, is summed up in the knowledge of the Fatherhood of God. “Father” is the Christian name for God.8
Kent Hughes called the doctrine of the fatherhood of God “one of the most healing doctrines in all of Scripture.”9 Therefore, this doctrine is critical for one’s spiritual health and a good way to test our spiritual maturity and growth. We must continually cultivate our awareness, understanding, and practice of this essential doctrine.
Application Question: What should the reality of God being our personal Father teach or remind us of? Why is the understanding of God’s fatherhood essential to one’s spiritual health?
God’s Fatherhood Reminds Us of His Love
In Matthew 6:7-8, Christ warned the disciples to not pray like the pagans because God was their Father, and he knew their needs before they asked. Christ’s warning reflects the common belief system of pagans in that day, who worshipped many gods, and those who still worship them today. Pagans typically live in fear of the gods. Behind every rock, tree, stream, or star is a god that needs to be appeased. Out of fear, pagans would offer the gods their food, wealth, bodies, and even children. William Barclay shares a Greek legend that pictures the antagonism between the gods and humanity:
The most significant Greek legend of the gods is the legend of Prometheus. Prometheus was a god. It was in the days before people possessed fire; and life without fire was a cheerless and a comfortless thing. In pity, Prometheus took fire from heaven and gave it as a gift to human beings. Zeus, the king of the gods, was mightily angry that they should receive this gift. So he took Prometheus and chained him to a rock in the middle of the Adriatic Sea, where he was tortured with the heat and the thirst of the day and with the cold of the night. Even more, Zeus prepared a vulture to tear out Prometheus’ liver, which always grew again, only to be torn out again.
That is what happened to the god who tried to help men and women. The whole conception is that the gods are jealous, vengeful and grudging; and the last thing the gods wish to do is to help the human race.10
Clearly, the God of the Bible is not like pagan deities. He loves his people (John 3:16). He adopts them into his family (Rom 8:15). He is just and, therefore, died for his people so that they may have a relationship with him. Christ, the Son of God, daily prays for his children in order to save them to the uttermost (Heb 7:25). God is our Father, and he loves us. We don’t have to live in fear of him like the pagans feared their gods. We must respect and reverence him, but we shouldn’t live in a negative fear of him or even a fear of our circumstances. In fact, 1 John 4:18 says perfect love drives out fear. Realizing that our God loves us should remove fear about the past, present, and future.
For pagans who have come to Christ through the service of missionaries, the fatherhood of God has been one of the most attractive aspects about Christianity. There is one God and not thousands of warring deities that people need to fear. And this one God is a father who loves us.
Application Question: What types of fears do you struggle with? How does God’s fatherhood help you deal with your fears? Why is understanding God’s love so important for us?
God’s Fatherhood Reminds Us of Our Immediate Access to Him
Naturally, the concept of fatherhood makes one think of immediate access, which wasn’t wholly true of believers under the Old Covenant. Hebrews 10:19-20 says: “Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the fresh and living way that he inaugurated for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh.”
In the Old Testament, only the high priest could enter the Most Holy Place—where God’s presence was—and only once a year with the blood of a lamb. However, because of Christ, every believer has full access at any time—a privilege Old Testament saints didn’t have. We can enter his presence while walking, talking, eating, driving, or working. We should always confidently enter his presence, because our perfect lamb—Christ—was slain for our sins.
Are you enjoying access? One of the things Satan commonly does to believers is condemn them for their sins and failures. First, he tempts believers to sin, and then he says, “Feel bad! Feel really bad! Now, don’t read your Bible. Don’t pray! Don’t go to church!” He condemns the believer, so he won’t access God’s presence. There is a difference between conviction and condemnation. The Holy Spirit convicts of sin, so we will turn from it and run to God. Satan condemns us, so we will turn away from God’s presence and continue in sin. However, we must remember that Christ died for all our sins—past, present, and future—and we could never earn the right to enter his presence. Even our righteousness is as filthy rags before God (Is 64:6). We cannot relate to God based on our sins or apparent righteousness—we’ll never be worthy. We can only enter because of the perfect righteousness of the Lamb. Enter! Repent, receive forgiveness of sins, and enjoy God’s mercy, peace, and grace!
William Barclay shares a Roman story which is a good picture of our access to God. He says:
There is an old Roman story which tells how a Roman emperor was enjoying a triumph. He had the privilege, which Rome gave to her great victors, of marching his troops through the streets of Rome, with all his captured trophies and his prisoners in his train. So the emperor was on the march with his troops. The streets were lined with cheering people. The tall legionaries lined the streets’ edges to keep the people in their places. At one point on the triumphal route, there was a little platform where the empress and her family were sitting to watch the emperor go by in all the pride of his triumph. On the platform with his mother, there was the emperor’s youngest son, a little boy. As the emperor came near, the little boy jumped off the platform, burrowed through the crowd and tried to dodge between the legs of a legionary and to run out on to the road to meet his father’s chariot. The legionary stooped down and stopped him. He swung him up in his arms: ‘You can’t do that, boy,’ he said. ‘Don’t you know who that is in the chariot? That’s the emperor. You can’t run out to his chariot.’ And the little boy laughed down. ‘He may be your emperor,’ he said, ‘but he’s my father.’ That is exactly the way the Christian feels towards God. The might, and the majesty, and the power are the might, and the majesty, and the power of one whom Jesus taught us to call Our Father.11
This is true of us. Let us continually come into our Father’s presence.
Application Question: What’s the difference between condemnation and conviction? In what ways have you experienced both? In what ways do you feel God is calling you to more often take advantage of your immediate access to him?
God’s Fatherhood Reminds Us of Our Security
With my four-year-old daughter, there are many things she will not do unless I am by her side. Sometimes, she won’t even go to her friends’ house to ask if they can play unless I am with her. But when I am by her side, many times she is fearless. Similarly, our Father is always with us. Christ told his followers to go and make disciples throughout the earth and then said, “And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matt 28:20). We can evangelize and teach God’s Word because he is with us. In Philippians 4:5-6a, Paul said, “Let everyone see your gentleness. The Lord is near! Do not be anxious about anything …” He told the Philippians to be gentle to their enemies because God was near them. He would empower them to love, serve, and respond gently to others. In addition, they didn’t have to be afraid, anxious, or worried about anything. Why? Because God was near, and that is true for us. The fatherhood of God gives us security and confidence in an evil world full of uncertainty.
This is also true when it comes to the believers’ eternal security. In John 10:29, Christ said that believers are in the Father’s hand, and nobody will be able to snatch them out. In Romans 8:38-39, Paul argues similarly that nothing will be able to separate believers from God’s love—not life death, angels, demons, or anything else. This is a normal, healthy relationship between a child and a father. It is not normal for a child to think that a father will ultimately reject them because of some sin or failure. Their relationship is eternal—nothing can change their relationship. A son will always be a son and a daughter a daughter, even when they lack intimacy and love. This is true with our Father as well. He will always love and care for us, even when we, his children, are in rebellion. Therefore, we should have a tremendous security in our relationship with God.
What are your worries? Do you know that God is near you? He will never leave nor forsake you. There is no valley too dark for the Lord and no mountaintop too high. For his sheep, his rod and staff comfort them. He guides them. He prepares a table before them in the presence of their enemies (cf. Ps 23). God’s fatherhood reminds us that we can have confidence and security on this windy and curvy road called life.
Application Question: In what ways have you experienced confidence and security because of your relationship with your heavenly Father? In what ways have you lacked this when distant from him?
God’s Fatherhood Reminds Us of Our Resources
When the disciples were worried about their futures—what they would eat, drink, and wear—Christ reminded them of their Father in heaven (Matt 6:25-33). He said that God provides for the lilies of the field and the birds of the air—there is no reason to worry. God knows of our needs. Paul said it this way: “And my God will supply your every need according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus” (Phil 4:19). He also said that we have every spiritual blessing in heavenly places (Eph 1:3) and that we are co-heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17). Every resource of God’s is ours. One day we will rule with him. And until then, he will supply all our needs, as we seek him and his kingdom first (Matt 6:33).
Do you know that God will supply all your needs? Do you need wisdom? God will give it if you ask in faith (Jam 1:5). Do you need peace? God gives it to those who choose to reject worry, pray, give thanks, and make their requests known to him in everything (Phil 4:6-7). Do you need finances? Seek first God and his kingdom, and it will be provided (Matt 6:33). God is your Father, and he will supply all your needs according to his riches in glory.
Application Question: In what ways have you experienced God the Father’s faithfulness to meet your needs? Share a story about his faithfulness.
God’s Fatherhood Reminds Us of Our Worth
God’s fatherhood not only reminds us of who God is but also who we are. We are his beloved and the apple of his eye (Zech 2:8). In Ephesians 1:18, Paul prays for the believers’ hearts to be awakened to know that we are his glorious inheritance. In Ephesians 3:14-19, he prays that believers would have power to comprehend the depth, height, and width of God’s love for them. We have great worth to the Lord—no matter what others think about us, nor what we think about ourselves. When we understand our worth, it will transform us. It will deliver us from the depths of discouragement and depression over our failures. In Psalm 139:13-15, David said:
Certainly you made my mind and heart; you wove me together in my mother’s womb. I will give you thanks because your deeds are awesome and amazing. You knew me thoroughly; my bones were not hidden from you, when I was made in secret and sewed together in the depths of the earth.
Satan tries to make us think that we are an accident of evolution instead of the Father’s purposeful and wonderful creation. Every part of our frame was fashioned by him, even the parts that we are insecure about. They are not accidents—they were crafted for his glory. About the blind man, Christ said he was made that way so the works of God might be displayed in him (John 9:3), and this is true of each of us.
The devil speaks lies in our ears about who we are and our worth by using the world’s standards instead of God’s. He seeks to discourage us and pull us away from God’s plan and purpose for our lives. However, our Father speaks destiny over us (Jer 1:5). He quiets us with his love and rejoices over us with singing (Zeph 3:17).
Do you know that God is your Father and you have a purpose? You are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works (Eph 2:10). Like every parent who expectantly plans for their child’s future, God has good plans for you. Even your failures and the evil done to you by others, he will redeem (Rom 8:28, Gen 50:20). Do you know your worth as a child of God?
Application Question: In what ways does Satan continually assault the self-worth of people, including believers? How can we know our worth in Christ in order to battle negative self-images or negative comments from others?
God’s Fatherhood Reminds Us of Our Need to Obey
We are not the father, as though we could tell God what to do. Sometimes this is unwittingly emphasized in popular Christian theology: “Speak it! Declare it! God will do whatever you say as long as you believe!” No, he is the potter, and we are the clay. Our job is to obey and trust him. His will is always good for us. Therefore, we must constantly study his Word and sit at his feet, so we can know and do his will. Matthew 12:50 says, “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Doing the Father’s will proves that we are part of the family and not illegitimate.
Are you obeying the Father’s will? In the last days, many will say, “Lord, Lord,” but Christ will say, “I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!” (Matt 7:23). Only those who obey are God’s children. God’s fatherhood reminds us of our need to obey him.
Application Question: How can believers daily discern God’s will, so they can obey it? In what way(s) has God been recently calling you to obedience?
God’s Fatherhood Reminds Us of His Discipline
Every good father disciplines his children, and this is true of God as well. Discipline does not just include correction for committed sin, but also training in righteousness. Hebrews 12:5-11 says:
And have you forgotten the exhortation addressed to you as sons? “My son, do not scorn the Lord’s discipline or give up when he corrects you. “For the Lord disciplines the one he loves and chastises every son he accepts.” Endure your suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is there that a father does not discipline? But if you do not experience discipline, something all sons have shared in, then you are illegitimate and are not sons. Besides, we have experienced discipline from our earthly fathers and we respected them; shall we not submit ourselves all the more to the Father of spirits and receive life? For they disciplined us for a little while as seemed good to them, but he does so for our benefit, that we may share his holiness. Now all discipline seems painful at the time, not joyful. But later it produces the fruit of peace and righteousness for those trained by it.
Four aspects of God’s discipline and our response to it should jump out from this text:
(1) First, we must remember all true children receive discipline. If we don’t receive discipline, then we are not children of God—we are illegitimate (v. 6-8). A person who can continue in sin without receiving the correction and chastening of God may not be a child of God at all. Every child of God receives fatherly discipline.
(2) We must have the right attitude when experiencing God’s discipline. We must not “scorn” it or “give up” when he corrects us (v. 5). Essentially, we must not complain or grumble in seasons of discipline, and we must persevere through them because of their purpose. God is using them to make us holy.
(3) All hardship should be viewed as God’s discipline. The author says, “Endure your suffering as discipline” (v. 6). Since our Father is in control of everything: random circumstances, temptations from the devil, and various trials, we should view all hardship as God’s training. In the context, this includes persecution, as these Hebrew Christians had experienced public insult, imprisonment, and even the confiscation of their property for proclaiming Christ’s name (Heb 10:32-34). In Hebrews 12:4, he reminds them that their struggle against sin had not yet led to the shedding of blood. Even these trials, which were clearly evil, were being used by God to discipline or train them. We should remember this, as we consider that the God of the universe is our Father. He uses everything for our good (Rom 8:28-29).
(4) Discipline is ultimately meant to increase our righteousness and give us more peace. Hebrews 12:11 says, “Now all discipline seems painful at the time, not joyful. But later it produces the fruit of peace and righteousness for those trained by it.” It’s not pleasant, but as we’re trained by it, it makes us more like God.
Do you realize that our Father doesn’t waste anything—trials at work, with family and friends, or even with our bodies? It’s all for the purpose of training us and making us holy. Therefore, we must guard our attitudes in the trial (don’t scorn them), and we should not faint in them. Let them train us. James 1:2-4 says,
My brothers and sisters, consider it nothing but joy when you fall into all sorts of trials, because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect effect, so that you will be perfect and complete, not deficient in anything.
Every father disciplines his children for their good and so does our heavenly Father.
Application Question: Why is it so important to see God as controlling all trials, including ones seemingly caused by evil people or the devil? What happens if we don’t recognize his sovereignty over hardships?
God’s Fatherhood Reminds Us of Our Christian Familial Relationships
Christ doesn’t say, “My Father”—though it is certainly OK to pray that way. He says, “Our Father.” The Lord’s Prayer makes us not only look vertically towards God but also horizontally towards others. It doesn’t just ask for God’s glory and our personal benefit, but also seeks the benefit of others. Throughout the Lord’s Prayer, Christ continually uses the plural instead of the singular: “our Father,” “our daily bread,” “our debts,” “deliver us from temptation.”
This reality should deliver us from selfishness in prayer. We should constantly bring before God what’s best for others and not just ourselves. In addition, we should also continually pursue opportunities to pray corporately. Christ not only went to the mountain by himself but also at times asked others to come and pray with him. We must do the same. We are part of the family of God and, therefore, must continually pursue their benefit, even before ours. Philippians 2:3-5 says:
Instead of being motivated by selfish ambition or vanity, each of you should, in humility, be moved to treat one another as more important than yourself. Each of you should be concerned not only about your own interests, but about the interests of others as well. You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had,
Are you continually bringing petitions for others before God? Or are your prayers mostly self-centered—offered for yourself, by yourself, and apart from others?
Application Question: How can we practice the reality of being a family within the church? Give practical examples. How is God calling you to better practice the family-hood of all believers?
God’s Fatherhood Reminds Us of God’s Power and Sovereignty
God is not only our Father, he is our Father “in heaven.” “In heaven” focuses not only on God’s geography but also his power and sovereignty. Psalm 103:19 say, “The Lord has established his throne in heaven; his kingdom extends over everything.” He is God of the heavens and everything under it. Theologically, “our Father” represents God’s immanence—he is near us and wants to be intimate with us. “In heaven” represents God’s transcendence—he is above us, and there is nothing like him in this world. The Jews focused on God’s transcendence and lost his immanency. However, many contemporary Christians have swung in the other direction. They focus on God’s immanency to the exclusion of God’s transcendency. God is their friend and big buddy in the sky, and therefore, they lack reverence. We must hold both of these in tandem. We must be both intimate and reverent. Proverbs 9:10 says, “The beginning of wisdom is to fear the Lord.” Psalm 147:11 (ESV) says, “but the Lord takes pleasure in those who fear him, in those who hope in his steadfast love.” Hebrews 12:28-29 says, “So since we are receiving an unshakable kingdom, let us give thanks, and through this let us offer worship pleasing to God in devotion and awe. For our God is indeed a devouring fire” (emphasis mine).
Are you cultivating a healthy fear and reverence of God?
Application Question: In what ways have you seen or experienced how the contemporary church has focused on God’s immanency and lost his transcendency? Why has this happened? How can the church (and us individually) practice both God’s immanency and transcendency? What is the difference between a healthy fear of God, which God commands, and an unhealthy one?
Brief Thoughts on Parenting
As we consider the fatherhood of God, we must remember that our experiences with our earthly parents can negatively or positively affect our relationship with our heavenly Father. None of us had perfect parents, though many of us had great ones. Our relationship with them, or lack of one, often affects how we relate to God. If our earthly parents were emotionally distant or not around, we tend to think of our heavenly Father in that same way. If our earthly parents were friends but not disciplinarians, again, we often approach or think of God in the same way. For many (if not all of us, in some sense), their concept of God the Father has been corrupted because of experiences with their earthly parents. We need to develop the theological concept of the fatherhood of God wholly from Scripture, and hopefully our experiences with our earthly parents will enhance that understanding and not detract from it.
With that said, as we rightly understand God as Father, we must try to mimic him in our parenting. As mentioned, God’s fatherhood reminds us of our immediate access to him. Therefore, parents must not be unapproachable or so focused on work and hobbies that children can’t, as often as possible, benefit from their presence. Parents must also seek to emulate the immanency of God the Father and his transcendence. Many cultures tip one way over the other in this regard. Some parents are just friends with their children and fail at cultivating discipline and respect. Others are disciplinarians who are not approachable. In one sense, we must be friends with our children—approachable and always willing to lend a listening and empathetic ear. At the same time, we must cultivate respect and discipline in our children. In addition, we must aim to be totally just and at the same time merciful—just like our heavenly Father is with us.
None of us will perfectly model God the Father, but we must always aim to do so. And where we have failed with our children, we must trust and pray that our, and their, heavenly Father will fill in the gaps.
Application Question: How is/was your relationship with your earthly father? Can/could you approach him at any time and talk to him about anything? How does/did your relationship with your earthly father affect your relationship with your heavenly Father? How should those with negative earthly father experiences overcome those memories so they don’t negatively affect their relationship with their heavenly Father? What are some other ways that parents can mimic the heavenly Father in their parenting?
Conclusion
Understanding the fatherhood of God is crucial to our spiritual health and spiritual growth. It should change our relationship not only to God, but also to others, ourselves, our circumstances, and our future. Our view of everything should be radically changed by understanding and growing in our relationship with our heavenly Father.
Are you growing in your understanding, appreciation, and practice of the fatherhood of God? He is ‘your’ Father and ‘our’ Father. Thank you, Lord! Amen!
Application Question: When you think of God as a Father, what aspect of his fatherhood stands out to you most? What aspect of God’s fatherhood do you most want to grow in your understanding of?
Copyright © 2019 Gregory Brown
Unless otherwise noted, the primary Scriptures used are taken from the NET Bible ® copyright © 1996-2016 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
Holy Bible, New International Version ®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®) Copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, Copyright © 1996, 2004, 2007 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked (NASB) are taken from the New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, and 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.
Scripture quotations marked (KJV) are from the King James Version of the Bible.
All emphases in Scripture quotations have been added.
BTG Publishing all rights reserved.
1 Hughes, R. K. (2001). The sermon on the mount: the message of the kingdom (p. 199). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
2 Hughes, R. K. (2001). The sermon on the mount: the message of the kingdom (pp. 154–155). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
3 Hughes, R. K. (2001). The sermon on the mount: the message of the kingdom (pp. 154–155). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
4 Boice, J. M. (2002). The Sermon on the Mount: an expositional commentary (pp. 167–168). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
5 MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1985). Matthew (p. 376). Chicago: Moody Press.
6 The New International Version. (2011). (Mt 12:50). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
7 Hughes, R. K. (2001). The sermon on the mount: the message of the kingdom (p. 155). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
8 Hughes, R. K. (2001). The sermon on the mount: the message of the kingdom (p. 156). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
9 Hughes, R. K. (2001). The sermon on the mount: the message of the kingdom (p. 158). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
10 Barclay, W. (2001). The Gospel of Matthew (Third Ed., pp. 230–231). Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press.
11 Barclay, W. (2001). The Gospel of Matthew (Third Ed., pp. 233–234). Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press.
Related Topics: Christian Life, Kingdom
7. Malachi
The burden of this, the last of the Old Testament prophets, was the glaring inconsistency between the identity of the Jewish community as the people of God and the living out of all that this required of them. Theirs was not the problem of rebuilding the Temple and holy city, for that had long been done by Malachi’s day; rather, it was the issue of holy living and holy service in the aftermath of all the external accomplishments. Malachi, though dead, yet speaks to the modern world about the need to bring performance into line with profession. His message, therefore, is current, especially in light of the coming of the One of whom the prophet so eloquently spoke.
Introduction to Malachi
Haggai and Zechariah, as we have seen, are noteworthy for the chronological precision with which they related their lives and ministries to their historical milieu. This is not the case at all with Malachi. In fact, one of the major problems in a study of this book is that of locating it within a narrow enough chronological framework to provide a Sitz im Leben sufficient to account for its peculiar themes and emphases. It is this problem that must first be addressed before matters of authorship, unity, purpose, and the like can be undertaken.
Estimates of the date of Malachi have ranged between the extremes of the early exilic period810 and a mid-second-century Maccabean provenence.811 Arguments for and against these suggestions will be offered presently, but for now it is sufficient to note that the vast majority of scholars maintain a middle position—sometime in the fifth century B.C. It will not be necessary therefore to deal with the historical background beyond 400 B.C. Because the introduction to Haggai and Zechariah surveyed the scene down to 520, the beginning of the reign of the Persian King Darius I Hystaspes, the present account of the larger international scene will begin there, to be followed by a brief overview of the life and times of fifth-century Judah.
Darius, whose fiercely contested accession to the Persian throne took place in 522, reigned until 486.812 Once the early turbulence had settled down and he had brought the satrapies of Egypt and Abar Nahara (that is, everything west of the Euphrates, including Palestine, and known to the Assyrians as eber nari, “across the river”) under his own control once more, Darius launched a campaign of empire building. By 516 he had annexed parts of India to his domains and then set his sights on the north and west. After he failed to dislodge the Scythians in the Black Sea region he focused on the independent states of the Aegean islands. Before he could accomplish his objective of bringing them under control, he had to deal with the Ionian provinces which, though under Persian hegemony, decided to assist their island kinfolk. Having at last prevailed, Darius determined to press on to the west and conquer mainland Greece as well. Athens and her fellow city-states organized a united front, however, and in the battle of Marathon in 490 B.C. defeated the Persians and forced their withdrawal.
Shortly thereafter Darius died and was succeeded by his son Xerxes (486-465), the Ahasuerus of the Bible (Ezra 4:6; Esther 1:1).813 Xerxes was well prepared for his new role, having served as vice-regent of the Babylonian satrapy for a number of years. Of a more domestic and cultural bent than his father, the new king turned first to the completion of palaces and public works that Darius had begun at Susa and Persepolis. But he could not preoccupy himself with these projects for long, for upon the death of his father various components of the empire began to assert their independence. After he first resecured Egypt, Xerxes raised an enormous military force and struck out for Greece in 481. Though he achieved initial success, he soon lost most of his navy at Salamis. Thereupon he returned to Persia, leaving affairs in the hands of his commander Mardonius. This accomplished little, for within two years the Persians were defeated decisively at Platea and Mycale and were forced to withdraw to Anatolia.
This setback so discouraged and deflated Xerxes that he spent the last decade of his life in wanton self-indulgence and dissipation, a condition no doubt reflected in the book of Esther. At last he was assassinated by a courtier and replaced by Artaxerxes I (465-424), brother of the heir apparent Darius whom he had arranged to be murdered. Artaxerxes tried to suppress unrest in his empire by tax reforms and satrapal reorganization but to little avail. Egypt refused tribute payment by 460 B.C., and the Aegean states, under Athenian leadership, broke away once more. From 450 to 431 Persia and Athens struggled over the disputed territories until at last Athens became engaged in the Peloponnesian Wars and had to desist from engagement with Persia. This allowed Artaxerxes to pay attention to matters closer to home, including those in Yehud (Judea) about which the biblical narratives concern themselves. His death in 424 postdates any recorded biblical event and therefore can mark the end of this brief survey of Persian history.
It is against this broad background that the setting of Malachi must be understood. To define it further requires some attention to the affairs of the Jewish restoration community of which Malachi was a part and whose problems he addressed.814 The biblical record unfortunately is silent about matters in Palestine between the sixth year of Darius (515 B.C.; cf. Ezra 6:15) and the seventh year of Artaxerxes (458; cf. Ezra 7:7) except for a passing reference to Xerxes (Ezra 4:6) and one to Artaxerxes just prior to the journey of Ezra to Jerusalem (c. 460; cf. Ezra 4:7-23). After that the account is comparatively complete until the end of the governorship of Nehemiah (c. 430 B.C.? cf. Neh 13:6-7), thanks primarily to the treatise of Ezra-Nehemiah.
The “passing reference” to Xerxes concerns a letter of accusation written to him by certain antagonists of the Jews who wished to stifle the Jewish work of reconstruction and renewal. Ezra says this took place at the beginning of Xerxes’s reign (4:6), that is, c. 486. Many scholars associate this effort with the Egyptian rebellion that accompanied Xerxes’s accession to the throne, a reasonable but wholly unprovable suggestion.815 This interpretation turns on the supposition that the suppression of Egyptian religion, especially the priesthood, that resulted from the abortive rebellion, may have caused the Jews’ enemies to feel that Xerxes’s policy toward Egyptian religion might be applicable to that of the Jews as well. Thus, they felt free to interfere with the continuation of Jewish efforts to restore their community.816
In any event, nothing more is known until the second recorded attempt at scuttling the rebuilding, which occurred “in the days of Artaxerxes” (Ezra 4:7). This apparently preceded the return of Ezra in 458, for it was clearly the decree of Artaxerxes to forbid further work on the walls of Jerusalem (4:21) that prompted Ezra to persuade the king to issue an overriding decree (7:6, 11-26) and to allow him to return to Jerusalem to bring it to pass. It is helpful to view this series of events against the larger political scene already outlined. Egypt had rebelled against Persia in 460-450 B.C., a rebellion put down after five years by Megabyzus the satrap of Abar Nahara (Eber nari). It is entirely likely that Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and their allies took advantage of this unrest to appeal to Artaxerxes to put an end to Jewish rebuilding, especially in light of their allegation that the Jews had tendencies to independence, a set of problems Artaxerxes did not need at that particular moment (Ezra 4:7, 12, 15-16). Ezra, in that case, had to convince the king that the Jews were loyal citizens, something he evidently succeeded in doing.817
Apart from these fragmentary episodes, nothing else can be learned from the period from Zechariah to the return of Ezra, particularly in terms of community and religious life.818 The Temple had been completed by 515, as we noted, and one must assume that the cultus was carried out according to Mosaic prescription and that the state as a whole functioned in an orderly manner, at least for a few years. With the arrival of Ezra in 458,819 however, it becomes possible to see that all was not well and that reformatory measures were already necessary. Politically, there was unrest because of the rebellion of the western satrapies and one can, with good reason as we have already noted, conclude that Artaxerxes allowed Ezra to return to do what he could to stabilize things. At least the king’s letter conveyed by Ezra gives that impression in places (Ezra 7:21, 23-26).
In other respects things were hardly more promising. Upon his return Ezra was made aware most dramatically of the spiritual and moral malaise that had begun to paralyze the life of the restoration community. This was epitomized in the matter of mixed marriage, a clear violation of the Mosaic laws of separation and purification (Ezra 9:1-4). Though serious in and of itself, this breach of covenant appears to have been but symptomatic of a more widespread spirit of compromise (9:1, 14).
The situation did not improve between the year of Ezra’s reformation (9:5-10:44) in 458 and the beginning of Nehemiah’s governorship 13 years later. To make matters worse, Megabyzus declared his jurisdiction independent of Persia in 449 B.C.. Though he came back into the fold two years later, the situation in Palestine had become so destabilized that one can well understand why Artaxerxes allowed his beloved cupbearer Nehemiah to go to Jerusalem in 445. The king must have been convinced that Nehemiah could straighten things out politically as well as accomplish the social and spiritual objectives for whose undertaking he had sought permission.
When Nehemiah arrived, he found the Jewish state in even worse shambles than he had anticipated. The walls of Jerusalem lay in ruins, the perennial foes of his people continued their unremitting harassment, and the spiritual and moral condition of the people was lamentable. After some religious and political appointments (Neh. 7:1-2) Nehemiah turned to the pressing economic concerns. Food and other staples had become scarce, inflation was rampant, and the rich were exploiting the poor by demanding exorbitant prices for goods (Neh. 5:1-5). In order to address these and other problems, Nehemiah assembled the people for a great ceremony of covenant renewal (7:73-9:38). In his prayer of public confession he alludes to the sins of the people that were sapping the spiritual vitality of the community (9:36-37). These are more clearly spelled out in the response of the people (10:28-39) who pledged to avoid intermarriage with pagans, to observe the sabbaths, to pay temple taxes, to follow the regulations concerning tithing and the offering of the firstborn, and to be faithful to the ministry of the Temple.
Upon his return to Susa some 12 years later, things began to unravel once more, and when Nehemiah came back to Jerusalem (in 433 B.C.) after a brief stay in Susa, he had to face the same issues all over again. Tobiah the Ammonite, his adamant foe, had been granted living quarters in the sacred Temple and that by the high priest Eliashib (13:4-5). The son of Joiada, another priest, had married a daughter of Sanballat, the current satrap of Abar Nahara (13:28). Moreover, Nehemiah found that the Levites were being neglected, the sabbath was violated routinely, and illegal intermarriage was once more commonplace. By force of personal leadership and clearly recognized authority, Nehemiah responded to these issues and put the house of Judah in order. Though not demanding divorce as Ezra before him had done (Ezra 10:1-4), Nehemiah showed his intense displeasure over the matter and threatened dire consequences if such marriages should be contracted in the future (Neh. 13:23-27). The biblical account ends at this point, but there is no reason to doubt that Nehemiah’s reforms remained intact for some time to come.
With this rsum of Persian and biblical history of the fifth century in view, it is appropriate now to consider the setting of Malachi. As suggested above, this is one of the major problems in the study of the book. The author nowhere identifies himself except by name, and apart from one or two oblique references, never links his work to a precise historical situation. Therefore, one must look to a whole milieu or climate against which the teachings and topics of the book can be highlighted, a most subjective procedure to say the least.
A single historical datum, Malachi’s reference to the overthrow of Edom, has provided a benchmark for many scholars (Mal. 1:2-5). Bruce Dahlberg argued that the conquest in mind must be that under the Babylonians in connection with the assassination of Gedaliah, the Jewish governor appointed by Nebuchadnezzar. In reprisal, the Babylonians attacked the responsible parties and presumably included their Edomite allies in the process (Jer. 41:1-18).820 Dahlberg is correct in asserting that Edom was antagonistic to both Judah and Babylon in Judah’s last years (cf. Jer. 25:21; 27:1-11) and that she would fall to Babylon (cf. 9:25-26). However, it is gratuitous to assume that the destruction of Edom in Malachi 1:2-5 is the one in view in Jeremiah and, even if it is, to conclude that Malachi must be describing it as a contemporary event. Even Dahlberg’s argument that Edom suffered two Babylonian campaigns—one in 587 and the other in 582-581—cannot help his case. Even though Dahlberg takes the former as having happened and the latter as still to come to pass (thus requiring a date of composition between the two dates), he cannot prove that the anticipated overthrow of Edom is precisely that of 582. All that is known is that it is still future to Malachi. The fact that the Edomites are not included in Jeremiah’s account of the Babylonian second conquest of 582 (Jer. 52:30) certainly does not help Dahlberg’s hypothesis.
Inasmuch as a future destruction of Edom is anticipated in Mal. 1:4, when did it occur? The only time known in the extant historical literature is that of the Nabataean expulsion of the Edomites in 312 B.C., which resulted in their replacement by the Nabataeans and the subsequent development of a mixed people called Idumaeans.821 Even if this is the case, all that it reveals is that the collapse of Edom is somewhere in Malachi’s future. One could, of course, argue on dogmatic grounds that the “prediction” of Edom’s fall was a vaticinium ex eventu, in which case the book (or at least 1:4) would have to be dated after 312 if that is the fall in question. Dogma has no place in determining historical reality, however.
A similar but more extreme position held by earlier scholars such as Spoer is that the predicted downfall must have occurred under Judas Maccabeus who administered a crushing defeat to the Idumaeans between 165 and 161 B.C.822 Again, this is possible inasmuch as the event was future to Malachi, but if it be argued that the prophet is describing a past occurrence, Spoer’s position suffers great difficulty, for Malachi is attested as early as the early second century in the apocryphal literature.823 It must have been written some decades before that to be accorded any kind of status as Scripture by then.
A position more in line with the evidence of Malachi itself requires the book to have originated sometime in the fifth century, more likely in the first half. The prophet refers to the cultus as though it were in regular operation (1:6-14; 2:7-9, 13; 3:7-10), thus presupposing the rebuilding of the Temple and the re-establishment of its services. One might object that this could refer to a time prior to the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, but Malachi’s reference to Judah’s “governor” (hj*p#, peha) in 1:8 does not favor this. The term peha does indeed occur before the Exile but always in reference to foreign officials (Isa. 36:9; Jer. 51:23) or as a nontechnical term for an Israelite overseer (1 Kings 10:15).824 One should note that Gedaliah himself is never designated by this term but simply by the locution “the one appointed over” (dyq!p=h!, hipqd). It is only in postexilic times that peha becomes a technical term to refer to a Judean official such as governor (cf. Neh. 2:9, Hag. 1:1, 14; 2:2, 21; et passim). Malachi’s use is clearly at home in a postexilic context.
How early in that context is the matter now in question. Because the cultus is well established in the Temple, a date earlier than 500 B.C. seems unrealistic. Moreover, the issues that concern Malachi—religious irregularities, priestly corruption, hypocrisy, and divorce—are not at all raised in Haggai and Zechariah, a fact that tends to place Malachi considerably later in order for these aberrations to have arisen and to have become characteristic.
On the other hand, Ezra, who arrived in Jerusalem in 458 B.C., addresses none of these problems specifically, and except for intermarriage, which is the focus of Mal. 2:11, seems unconcerned about such matters. In other words, Malachi’s concerns are not Ezra’s. One can only conclude that Malachi was later than Ezra, or that his ministry of rebuke and correction had been effective. The latter seems preferable, for in order for Malachi to postdate Ezra his ministry would have had to coincide with the governorship of Nehemiah or even to have come later. This dating, in fact, is widely accepted.825 Against this is the fact that Ezra and Nehemiah were contemporaries, and that both were concerned with the same issues, particularly intermarriage with pagans.826 Moreover, their reforms appear to have been successful, at least by the end of Nehemiah’s tenure in 430 B.C. It is inconceivable that Malachi’s message could reflect conditions in the latter part of that period (458-430) or, indeed, for many years thereafter.
But could not Malachi have composed his work early in the days of Ezra, before the Ezra-Nehemiah reforms took effect, and could not his preaching have provoked the reforms in the first place or at least have encouraged them?827 This is possible, but once more it must be pointed out that Malachi’s concerns are much different from those of either Ezra or Nehemiah, for he was almost wholly transfixed by concerns about the cult. It is much more likely that he spoke to and remedied conditions that prevailed before Ezra ever came on the scene, conditions that in fact Ezra faced (if at all) in a totally different form (Ezra 7:1-10). In short, a date between 500 and 460 seems best, 480-470 being a reasonable guess.828
According to every canonical tradition Malachi is the last of the prophets in the “scroll of the Twelve,” that is, the 12 minor prophets. This suggests, among other things, that his book was written last and provided a fitting climax to the whole prophetic collection by its collocation of the old and the new—the prophet Moses with the law and the prophet Elijah with the promise. Its location at the very end of the Christian canon enhances this climactic element all the more.829
The literary context of the book cannot be fully elaborated without some understanding of its authorship, date, and other matters. The date has just been reviewed, and the matter of authorship will be examined in the exposition of Malachi 1:1. Clearly, as the previous discussion has pointed out, Malachi is later than Haggai and Zechariah and, as the commentary will show, is dependent on them and on the rest of the antecedent revelation of the OT for its inspiration and major themes.830 But the relationship is organic and self-conscious and cannot be the result of the attachment of an originally anonymous work to the composition of Proto-Zechariah simply because, as some scholars argue, it, like Zechariah 9:1 and 12:1, commences with the word aC*m^ (massa), “burden” or “oracle.”831
As Childs has demonstrated, no case can be made for the attachment of Zechariah 9-11 and 12-14 to Zechariah 1-8 on the basis of the term massa—to say nothing of seeing Malachi as a third addition because it shares that heading with them.832 In fact, the resemblances are quite ambiguous and superficial. In Malachi massa appears to be in the absolute form and should be simply rendered “Oracle,” not “oracle of.” In Zechariah 9:1, however, it seems not to be a true heading at all but part of a poetic oracle that continues through v. 8. As for Zechariah 12:1, the entire first half of the verse functions as a superscription. Both 9:1 and 12:1 should be taken as constructs, “the oracle (burden) of,” etc. Thus, Malachi is a case by itself and cannot have been placed where it is canonically only because of its being perceived as a homeless orphan in need of parental attachment. It appears where it does for clearly perceivable literary and theological reasons.
Scholarship is divided as to whether Malachi was composed as poetry or as prose. This is reflected in the two major modern editions of the Hebrew text in that BHK apparently sees little or no poetry at all in Malachi whereas BHS understands at least 1:6-8a to be such. If, as Alden suggests, parallelism is the sine qua non of Hebrew poetry, there indeed appears to be little poetry in the book.833 Yet, it does not lack poetical quality, as the many examples of rhythmical pattern (1:11; 3:1; 3:6; 3:7), figures of speech (1:6, 9; 2:3, 6, 7; 3:2; 3:19-20) [EB 4:1-2]), and chiasmus (1:2-3; 2:7a-b; 2:17 a-b; 3:1c-d; 3:11; 3:24a [EB 4:6a]) make clear.834 In addition there are such devices as antithesis 1:6-11), emphatic utterances (47 occurrences of YHWH in the first person out of 55 verses in all), graphic diction (2:3), verbal shifts (3:9; 4:4), and closure (1:6).835
Most characteristic of Malachi’s style, however, is the rhetorical question, the essential element in what Wendland calls a “dialectic style which serves a didactic-admonitory purpose.”836 Though Malachi did not introduce this technique to the biblical literature (cf. Deut 29:23-24; 1 Kings 9:8-9; Isa. 49:11; 50:1-2; Jer. 12:12-13; 15:1-2; 22:8-9; Ezek. 11:2-3; 18:19; Amos 5:18; Hag. 1:9-10; 2:10-11), it occurs nowhere else with such frequency and as a fundamental part of the patterning of the material. At least seven times the prophet attributes the rhetorical question to his audience (1:2, 6, 7; 2:17; 3:7, 8, 13) and in turn asks such questions of them (1:6, 8, 9; 2:10, 15; 3:2).837 How these questions provide organization and cohesion to the overall composition will be described in the following section.
In conclusion, careful analysis of specific literary devices and consideration of the overall form and structure of the work make it clear that Malachi, far from being, in the words of J. M. P. Smith, a work in which “the element of beauty is almost wholly lacking, there being but slight attempt at ornamentation of any kind,”838 is rather one of exquisite artistry. The fact that it is not as a whole to be described as poetry does not mean that it lacks a poetic impact in its craftsmanship as well as in its message.
The dialogic pattern of the book of Malachi has been recognized by scholars from earliest times as a self-evident indication of its unity. The major exceptions adduced by critical scholars are 2:11-12 (or 2:11b-13a) and 4:4-6, both of which are construed as later interpolations.839 Some also assert that 1:11-14; 2:2, 7; and 3:16 may not be original.840 These latter examples rest on extremely slender evidence of a most subjective nature, as the exposition later will show. As for 2:11-12, the passage dealing with mixed marriage and idolatry, one objection is that it “fits badly from a structural point of view … in the context of ii, 10-16 [so] it is probable that we have here a later addition.”841 The second major “addition,” 4:4-6 (HB 3:22-24), is said to consist of an appendix (4:4) equating the message of Malachi with the Mosaic Law and a clarification of the identity of the anonymous messenger (4:5-6) referred to earlier (3:1).842
The charge that 2:11-12 does not fit the context betrays a lack of understanding of how the offending passage is integral to not only its immediate context but also the patterning of the book as a whole. This will become clear presently. The argument that the “appendix” (4:4) is an addition depends on the assumption that neither D nor P, which the appendix presupposes, was likely available at the time of the original composition of the book.843 This approach obviously rests on a prior commitment to the existence and dating of only hypothetical sources and cannot therefore be taken seriously. Finally, to insist that 4:5-6 is a clarification of 3:1, and to offer no hard evidence to support such a claim, is clearly a flagrant example of begging the question. There is not the slightest reason why Malachi himself could not have penned these words of admonition (4:4) and hope (4:5-6), forming, as they do, a most appropriate epilogue to the entire OT prophetic witness.
In recent years form-critical research has identified the “catechetical format”844 of Malachi as employing speech known as Disputationsworte, Streitsgesprache, “casuistic-dialectic,” and the like.845 Regardless of the terminology used, it is clear that the book is organized around a series of six interrogations and responses, usually delimited as follows: 1:2-5; 1:6-2:9; 2:10-16; 2:17-3:5; 3:6-12; 3:13--4:3.846 Malachi 1:1 is the introduction and 4:4-6 the conclusion. Thus, the entire corpus falls within this structure. It is impossible (and unnecessary) here to review all the approaches that proceed from this fundamental form-critical analysis, so only two will be adduced as representative.
In 1972, James A. Fischer847 proposed to define the units in terms of “questionings,” the first four of which embrace all of Malachi 1:2-3:5, viz., 1:2-5; 1:6-2:9; 2:10-16; and 2:17-3:5. The first three questionings consist of one set of questions and answers, whereas the fourth has two sets. The fifth and sixth questionings have two and one sets of questions and answers respectively. But Fischer is not so much concerned with form as with the teaching underscored by the form, teaching embodied in the introductory statements in which each questioning is proposed to YHWH. To Fischer these statements are as follows: (1) YHWH loves Jacob (1:2a), (2) He is Israel’s father (1:6a), (3) He is father of all the Israelites (2:10a), (4) He wants honesty, not words (2:17a), (5) He is faithful to His Word (3:6), and (6) a repetition of His desire for honesty, not mere words (3:13a). The responses to the questions reveal the following: (1) I loved Jacob, (2) I want honest worship, (3) I want real faithfulness, (4) I want you to believe that I am just, (5) I want real worship, and (6) I want honesty. Thus, the essential message of Malachi, according to Fischer, may be found in the statements that prompt the questions and their corresponding answers.
A more disciplined and consistent case for patternism is that of Ernst Wendland in his 1985 article, “Linear and Concentric Patterns in Malachi.”848 By “linear” Wendland means diachronic, a plan which divides Malachi up into the six traditional units that he calls “disputes.” Each of these has three elements—assertion, objection, and response—the first two of which define the problem while the third provides the divine instruction. The linear pattern is thus A-O-R, though there may be subdivisions in the pattern of the different disputes. By way of example of both a simple linear versus a complex linear pattern, one can look at 1:2-5 and 3:6-12. The former has A (2a), O (2b), R (2c-5) whereas the latter is A (6-7a), O (7b), R (8a-12) subdivided into a further A (8a), O (8b), R (8c-12). The resulting message by this approach is, “The merciful yet Mighty Lord of Hosts calls his faithless people to repentance” (p. 114). Wendland summarizes this part of his discussion by affirming that “the criticism that there is no order in the presentation of the prophecy’s thematic idea is quite unfounded,” a statement that he has ably defended.
As for concentric patterning, Wendland sees not only a diachronic scheme in each of the literary units but a cohesion among them that is clearly manifested in chiasm or ring patterns, either A-B-A, A-B-C-B-A or some other variation. Again, only two examples can be given, and since 1:2-5 and 3:6-12 were used before to illustrate the linear approach, it will be interesting to see how they yield to this other. It will be best to set them out approximately as Wend land does.
First, Dispute One (1:2-5)
A HWH refers to Jacob in blessing (2)
B YHWH’s judgment upon Esau (3)
C Edom’s lack of repentance (4a)
B YHWH’s judgment upon Esau (4b)
A YHWH refers to Jacob in blessing (5)
Dispute Five (3:6-12)
A Introduction: a divine premise (6)
B Appeal—repent (7)
C Indictment: “you have robbed me” (8)
D Verdict: curse (9a)
C Indictment: “you are robbing me” (9b)
B Promise—blessings on those who repent (10-11)
A Conclusion: a messianic vision (12)
Wendland strengthens his case by pointing out such devices as parallelism, rhyme, alliteration, anaphora, and the like, all of which tie the individual pericopes together and each with the others. Although one must use utmost discretion in contending for such kinds of patternism, lest it result in imposition of a structure upon a text and not description of such structure within the text, Wendland’s work on Malachi most assuredly is sober in its method and persuasive in its conclusions. The result is an appreciation for the composition as it stands: a piece demonstrating great creative unity as well as profound theological instruction. The task of those who maintain that certain portions of the book, such as 2:11-12 and the others already mentioned, were late interpolations has undeniably been made more daunting by this fresh, wholistic approach.
In dealing with matters of the integrity of the book of Malachi, it has been necessary already to treat its structure as a response to certain prevailing critical positions that advocated either the likelihood of redactionary additions to or rearrangement of the original composition. There is no need to repeat that here or to elaborate. What follows then is an outline of the book that recognizes its literary structure on the one hand and yet provides a practical way of proceeding in the exposition on the other.
Introduction (1:1)
I. God’s Election of Israel (1:2-5)
II. The Sacrilege of the Priests (1:6-2:9)
A. The Sacrilege of Priestly Service (1:6-14)
1. The Inferior Sacrifices (1:6-10)
2. Their Insolent Spirit (1:11-14)
B. The Sacrilege of the Priestly Message (2:1-9)
1. The Corrupted Vocation of the Priests (2:1-7)
2. The Covenant Violation of the Priests (2:8-9)
III. The Rebellion of the People (2:10-16)
A. The Disruption of the Covenant (2:10-13)
B. The Illustration of the Covenant (2:14-16)
IV. Resistance to YHWH (2:17-3:21 [EB 4:3])
A. Resistance through Self-deceit (2:17-3:5)
1. The Problem (2:17)
2. The Promise (3:1-5)
B. Resistance through Selfishness (3:6-12)
1. The Problem (3:6-9)
2. The Promise (3:10-12)
C. Resistance through Self-sufficiency (3:13-21 [EB 4:3])
1. The Problem (3:13-15)
2. The Promise (3:16-21 [4:3])
V. Restoration through YHWH (3:22-24 [EB 4:4-6])
Distinctive Teaching849
Malachi appeared on the scene at a time when the euphoria of the postexilic Jewish community following the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of social and political life was beginning to give way to cynicism in both the sacred and secular arenas. The priests had begun to become corrupt in their official capacities as well as their private lives; the people had mingled themselves with the pagans around them by undertaking illicit marriages and pandering to false religious systems; and the nation as a whole had lost the ardor of messianic, eschatological hope, focusing its attention on the mundane necessities and pleasures of the here and now.
Malachi’s message, as the prophetic word of YHWH, was one of rebuke and indictment of each of these ills and across the social spectrum, a message that ended, however, with a note of ultimate hope. In a series of disputations the man of God called to account all the guilty, challenging them to face up to and confess their sins to the Lord of the covenant before whom, in fact, they stood in arraignment. His word is strong, impassioned, and unrelenting, for he lived in critical times. Unless he could get his message across, there was real and imminent danger that all the gains of postexilic renewal would be irretrievably lost. As the last of Israel’s kerygmatic heralds, Malachi reached back to the beginning of her covenant election and forward to the promise of covenant fulfillment, bridging the two with his urgent insistence that the theocratic people be worthy of their calling, for the King of all the earth was at hand.
A glance at the critical apparatus of both BHK and BHS reveals that the majority of comment pertains to suggested improvement on difficult or anomalous Hebrew forms and phrases and not to variations preserved in the ancient non-Masoretic MSS or major versions. This is not surprising given the generally well-transmitted and perspicuous nature of the present received text. Those divergences from MT by the LXX, Syr., Targum, Vg, and other witnesses that are attested to are generally not of a substantial nature but are the kind inherent in any attempt to translate one language into another. An exception appears to be that of the LXX arrangement of 3:22-24 (EB 4:4-6). The Greek has 23, 24, 22, the change due no doubt, as Verhoef suggests,850 to the desire for the book to end on a less threatening note and not because of a different vorlage.
Despite Ralph L. Smith’s judgment that “there are some serious textual problems in the book of Malachi,”851 his own examples show anything but (1:3, “jackals” or “pastures”?; 1:11, two hophal participles; 1:12, the problematic obyn] [nbo, “fruit”]; 2:4, the uncertain twyhl [lhyt]; 2:12, the difficult hnuw ru [`r w`nh]; 2:15, “one” as either the subject or object of “make”). The exposition will deal with these and others (e.g., 1:5; 2:10, 17a) and will show that Verhoef’s assessment that “the Hebrew text (MT) makes good sense and appears to be well preserved” (p. 168) is no exaggeration.
1
Introduction and God’s Election of Israel
(1:1-5)
1 Oracle: The word of YHWH to Israel through *Malachi.
The book of Malachi, like Zech. 9-11 and 12-14, is introduced by the word aC*m^ (massa), “oracle.” Its meaning as a technical prophetic term has already been addressed (see pp. 66ff.). As noted in the Introduction, many scholars view Malachi as an anonymous work that freely floated at one time until, like the equally anonymous Zech. 9-11 and 12-14, it was joined to Proto-Zechariah (chaps. 1-8), thus finding its present place in the canon. Besides its common anonymity with the “Deutero-Zechariah” materials, it shared with them the massa heading.
We observed, however, that the word massa in Zechariah need not be a heading at all because it may well be in the construct-genitive form in both cases, introducing in typical oracular style an entire pericope. Here in Malachi, on the other hand, it seems clear that the word is in the absolute state, that is, it stands independently as a heading. Evidence for this, despite the similarity of wording in the initial clauses of both Zech. 9:1 and 12:1, on the one hand, and Mal. 1:1, on the other, lies in the remainder of the formula of Mal. 1:1, which militates against viewing massa as anything but absolute.852 The stylized “the word of YHWH unto (la#, el) X through (dy~B=, beyad) Y” occurs elsewhere without massa and (as here) without a verb (e.g., 2 Chron. 35:6). Also, the addressee is preceded by el (not lu^ [`al] as, for example, in Jer. 14:1; 46:1; Zech. 12:1), and the word is said to come literally “by the hand of” (dy~B=, [beyad]), an idiom missing in Zech. 9:1 and 12:1 (but attested in Jer. 50:1; Hag. 1:1, 3; 2:1; cf. 1 Chron. 11:3; 2 Chron. 29:25; 35:6). Though only two other passages (Prov. 30:1; 31:1) suggest an absolute usage for massa, its function here in Malachi 1:1 as such seems beyond question. In short, the oracular formula embracing la#…dy~B= (beyad … el) and without the massa, attested elsewhere; the redundancy inherent in taking massa as construct; and the existence of absolute massaelsewhere as a heading distance Malachi’s use of the term from Zechariah’s and favor its grammatical independence here.
Syntactically, the oracle is defined as “the word of YHWH to Israel through Malachi.” That it is to Israel and not Judah, given the postexilic setting of the message, must be explained as reflecting at least a tinge of eschatological hope, for in the day of YHWH there will be only one people, Israel, as the eschatological promise elsewhere makes clear (Joel 2:27; 3:2, 16; Amos 9:9, 14; Zech. 9:1; 12:1). It also bears witness to the unity of all the covenant people.853 More in line with the immediate context, however, is the likelihood that Israel is another term for Jacob, whose election is described in vv. 2-5. There is thus a reflection back on YHWH’s covenant dealings with the nation, going back as far as the of Jacob over Esau. That nation was, of course, Israel, not just Judah, in those pristine days at Sinai.
The word to Israel is mediated through (dy~B= [beyad], “by the hand of”; cf. Hag. 1:1) Malachi. Even though Malachi is not further identified by an adjective or apposition such as “the prophet” or by a statement of kinship or other introductory device as is usually the case (cf. Isa. 1:1; Ezek. 1:3; Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1; etc.), one would not ordinarily question the appellation as a personal name (cf. Obad. 1). However, this is not the case at all as the vast literature on the matter clearly shows.
The principal objection to taking the appellation as the name of the author is that the same word appears in 3:1 where it must mean “my messenger.” It is then assumed that there was no name in the original heading and to fill that void “my messenger” of 3:1 became the “Malachi” of 1:1.854 If one were to object that there is no analogy to this lack of original citation of author in any of the canonical prophetic works, the response typically is that Zech. 9:1 and 12:1 provide such analogies, for Zech. 9-11 and 12-14, like Malachi, allegedly were originally anonymous.855 The petitio princeps here is obvious. The critic assumes Zech. 9-11 and 12-14 to be independent of Zechariah, leaving the two compositions without attribution, and then concludes that they are anonymous. If this is the case, the anonymity of Malachi has its requisite analogies.
A secondary objection to Malachi as a personal name meaning “my messenger” is that it appears to be only hypocoristic of an anonymous epithet from malakyahu or the like.856 This is buttressed by the observation that the appellation is otherwise unknown as a personal name.857 By way of reply to the last point, the uniqueness of a personal name is no hindrance to its authenticity, for there are many biblical examples (cf. Abraham, Moses, and David out of scores that could be cited) whose authenticity cannot be challenged and which, incidentally, are neither theophoric nor clearly hypocoristic.
As for the first point—the lack of normal naming elements—some scholars suggest, as indicated above, that Malachi is a shortened form of Malachijah, “YHWH is my messenger” or the like. Parallels are found in such names as Abi/Abijah (2 Kings 18:2; 2 Chron. 29:1) and Uri/Urijah (1 Kings 4:19; 1 Chron. 11:41).858 But even lacking such evidence, names of the form Malachi occur such as Ethni (1 Chron. 6:41) and Beeri (Gen. 26:34).859 Appeals to orthographic irregularity carry little weight, therefore, in determining whether Malachi is a name.
Finally, the fact that yk!a*l=m^ (malak) occurs in 3:1 may be turned on its head to show that the prophet Malachi, far from deriving his name from that passage, is making a play on his own name to get across a point. Thus the man of God, “my messenger,” looks to the day when YHWH, in His own words, says, “I send ‘My messenger.’” This is no less possible than the constant use of the word group uv^y` / hu*Wvy= (yasa/ yesua), “he saves/salvation,” by Isaiah (25:9; 33:2, 22; 35:4; 43:12; 49:25; 52:7, 10; 59:11; 60:18; 63:9) whose name means “salvation (is) of YHWH” or “YHWH saves.” The objection that a parent would be unlikely to name a son “(YHWH is) my messenger”860 is gratuitous in light of such bold names as Isaiah, Hosea (u^v@oh [hosea`],”salvation”), and Joshua (u^Wvohy+ [yehosua`], “YHWH saves”). Besides, it is possible that the yodh afformative is not the first-person pronominal suffix “my” but a yodh compaginis, the original genitive ending (GKC, 90k), resulting in “messenger of (YHWH)” and not “(YHWH is) my messenger.”861 This relieves the problem of an overly-bold concept of YHWH serving as messenger to a prophet rather than vice-versa.
B. God’s Election of Israel (1:2-5)
2 “I have loved you,” says YHWH, but you say, “How have You loved us?” “Was Esau not Jacob’s brother,” says YHWH, “yet I loved Jacob. 3 As for Esau, I hated him; I made his mountains desolate and gave his inheritance over to the *jackals of the desert.” 4 Yet Edom said, “We are devastated, but we will once again build the ruined places.” Thus says YHWH of hosts, “They indeed may build, but I will overthrow. They will be known as the wicked territory, the people against whom YHWH has eternal indignation. 5 Your eyes will see (it), and then you will say, ‘May YHWH be magnified *beyond the border of Israel!’”
The covenant relationship initiated by YHWH with Israel, hinted at in v. 1, is fully developed in this introductory section of the book. This is clear from the election motif implied in the Jacob-Esau antithesis and in the technical language of covenant in vv. 2-3 especially. The scene shifts back to the patriarchal era when YHWH first made promise to Abraham of a seed and land through and in which he would bring blessing to all the earth (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:1-5, 18-21; 17:1-8). This was subsequently reaffirmed to Isaac (Gen. 26:1-4) and, most emphatically, to Jacob (Gen. 27:27-29; 28:13-15; 35:9-15; 46:2-4).
Of particular importance is the narrative of Gen. 27. There, by ruse and deceit, Jacob, though the younger son of Isaac, received both the birthright of the major share of the inheritance and the blessing to be transmitted forward in association with the seed and land promises. Members of Malachi’s own generation of Jews were in direct succession to Jacob and were the recipients of the covenant blessing, as the equation of the “you” in the first clause of v. 2 with the “Jacob” in the last clause makes clear. YHWH loved them because he had first loved their patronymic ancestor Jacob.
Modern studies of covenant language have shown that the word “love” (bh@a*, aheb, or any of its forms) is a technical term in both the biblical and ancient Near Eastern treaty and covenant texts to speak of choice or election to covenant relationship, especially in the so-called suzerainty documents.862 There may well be emotional overtones to the term, but fundamentally it is one of a legal or social nature. What YHWH is saying here, then, is that in ancient times He chose Jacob to be the special recipient of His grace, the channel through whom He would mediate His salvific purposes.
In answer to the question of Malachi’s audience— “How have you loved us?” —the answer was plain. He loved them by choosing their father, a choice that was never annulled and whose benefits extended to them.863 Evidence of that love was the fact that Israel survived through the ages up to their own day. Even Babylonian destruction of state and temple and the exile of the flower of the community had not canceled the promise, for here they were, a century after the deportation, still alive and flourishing in their restored nation and renewed religious and social life.
Esau, on the other hand, had not only been “hated” (that is, rejected, as an}c*, sane, means in covenant terms)864 in the original story, but his nation Edom had known nothing but YHWH’s disfavor ever since. In fact, v. 3 seems to suggest that disfavor had finally found recent expression in a devastation of Edom that left her desolate and abandoned.
As noted in the Introduction scholars have suggested many occasions to which the passage may be alluding. The history of Edom is so sparsely documented that it is impossible to be certain, but most likely the circumstance in mind is the series of Babylonian incursions into Palestine and the Transjordan from 605-540 B.C.865 The justification for this view is that the sparing of Judah from annihilation and her subsequent return and restoration are a mark or YHWH’s love that would be particularly apparent to a post-exilic audience. The contrast to that—the decimation and virtual non-recovery of Esau/Edom, the “hated” —would most likely be associated with the same event. Jacob survived despite the Babylonian conquest whereas Esau did not.
It is true that Edom at least partially recovered, a fact that v. 4 makes clear, but not for long, for by the end of the fourth century what was left of the nation was overrun by the Nabataeans who went on to bring indigenous Edomite existence to an end by either physical annihilation or intermarriage. In the end there was (and is) no Edom, but Israel continued (and continues) on. In no clearer terms could YHWH communicate to His people what it meant for Him to love them.
So decisive would Edom’s destruction be that it would be known thenceforth as “wicked territory” (hu*v=r] lWbG+, gebul ris`a). When God’s own people see it come to pass, they will say, “May YHWH be magnified beyond the border (gebul) of Israel” (v. 5). This primary meaning of the word makes an interesting repetitive device in connection with the secondary meaning in v. 4.
The severity of YHWH’s judgment on Edom is not only because of Edom’s own specific national sinfulness (cf., e.g., Num. 20:14-21; Deut. 2:8; Jer. 49:7-22; Ezek. 25:12-14; Amos 1:11-12; Obad. 10-12) but more particularly because Edom is almost a paradigm in the Old Testament of antitheocratic sentiment, a feeling especially to be condemned because Edom was a “brother people.”866 Just as Esau had despised his birthright (Gen. 25:34), so the Edomites typify those who despise the overtures of divine grace. The overthrow of Edom, then, both past and future, speaks of the judgment of all wicked nations that arrogantly rise up against YHWH and His elect people.
The result of Edom’s downfall is the exaltation of YHWH “beyond the border of Israel” (v. 5). The reason for this recognition of YHWH by the nations surrounding Israel and even afar off is quite evident: YHWH has shown Himself faithful to the covenant. He had promised to the patriarchs that He would bless those who blessed them, but those who cursed them (like Edom) would be cursed. This marked the course of Old Testament history and has never been abrogated. Thus there is an eschatological note here as well, for the exaltation of YHWH is a hallmark of the end times (Mic. 5:4).
The subject of the exclamation of v. 5 is somewhat ambiguous, perhaps deliberately. The oracle as a whole is addressed to Israel (v. 1), but v. 4 consists of a response to arrogant Edom. The eyes that see this humiliation of Edom may be those of Israel or of Edom or both.867 In any event, YHWH is exalted when he demonstrates His sovereignty, an exaltation in which all men ultimately will share.
1:1 For yk!a*l=m^, lit. “my messenger,” the LXX has ajggevlou aujtou', “his messenger,” possibly suggesting already an early tradition about the anonymous authorship of the book. On the other hand, this reading may reflect a deliberate glossing by the LXX to soften the impact of the prophet being named “(YHWH is) my messenger.” The result would be, perhaps, “(he is) his (i.e., YHWH’s) messenger.” The Targum offers: “By Malachi whose name is called Ezra the scribe.” Hence the notion that Malachi is not a personal name receives support from that quarter as well. As a whole, however, the reasons favoring it as a proper name outweigh the objections.
1:3 BHS suggests yT!t^n`, “I gave over” or the like, for toNt^l=, “to the jackals.” This would provide a better parallelism to <yc!a*w` of the previous colon, but it suffers from lack of major versional support.
1:5 With BHK and BHS it appears advisable to read lWbg+l! as a dittograph and so to drop the prefixed l.
2
The Sacrilege of the Priests
(1:6-2:9)
The insensitive response by His people to YHWH’s assertion that He loved them— “How have You loved us?” (v. 2)—begins to take on meaning in this section. Here the cold-hearted indifference of the priests in their service (1:6-14) and in their teaching (2:1-9) becomes most apparent, and it is this lack of love (that is, covenant commitment) on their part that prompts YHWH to remind them of His own faithfulness. How could the priests, who ought to epitomize the spirit of grateful compliance to the will of YHWH, reciprocate by being so professional and routine? So jaded had they become that they could no longer recognize the elective grace of their God even when it stared them in the face.
6 “‘A son honors his father and a slave his master; if then I am a father, where is My honor, and if a master, where is My respect?, asks YHWH of hosts of you, O priests who despise My name. But you say, ‘How have we despised Your name?’ 7 You are offering defiled food upon My altar, yet you say, ‘How have we defiled You?’ By saying (that) the table of YHWH is despised. 8 For when you offer the blind as a sacrifice, is that not evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, is that not evil (as well)? Indeed, offer it to your governor. Will he be pleased with *you or receive you with favor?,” asks YHWH of hosts. 9 “But now petition God’s favor that He might be gracious to us. With this kind of thing in your hands, how can He receive you with favor?” asks YHWH of hosts. 10 “Would that one of you might close the doors, so that you no longer would kindle useless fires on My altar. I am not pleased with you,” says YHWH of hosts, “and I will no longer accept an offering from you.”
By a series of comparisons and a fortiori arguments YHWH draws attention to the present backslidden condition of the cultus. In the everyday world, He points out, children honor their parents and slaves respect their masters. How can the priests of God, who give at least nominal assent to His sovereignty, treat Him with such utter disdain? Again, the language here is the stock vocabulary of covenant. Both “son” and “slave” are terms characteristic of suzerainty treaties, suggestive of subordination and yet mutual affection.868
Evidence of their disdain is the fact that the priests despise the name of YHWH. The verb used (zWB, buz) here fundamentally means “to hold in contempt,” that is, to view as unimportant. How unimportant may be seen in the application of the same verb to the “table” of YHWH (v. 7). The word here (/j^l=v%, sulhan) refers, in fact, to the altar, as the parallelism to j^B@z+m! (mizbeah), “altar,” makes plain. The reason for referring to the altar here as a table is, first, to continue the human analogies already begun. The implied reference to the governor’s table in v. 8 supports this. Moreover, covenant relationships also presuppose the use of tables, inasmuch as these transactions were usually cemented in ceremonies involving common meals shared by the king and his vassals with whom he had entered into covenant fellowship.869 To despise the table of YHWH is to write off the importance of the covenant and to insult the sovereign who initiated it in His grace.
Further indication of the metaphor employed to describe the relationship between YHWH and the priests (and, by extension, the people) is the use of the word “food” (<j#l#, lehem, lit. “bread”) in v. 7, rather than “sacrifice,” “offering,” or some other technical term. The point is not that the sacrifices offered to YHWH were construed as food for Him to consume, a conception at home in ancient Near Eastern religions,870 but only that the prophet is again anticipating the gifts made to the governor, gifts that consisted of food supplies for his table.
Having charged the priests with despising His altar, YHWH specifies how they have done so in response to their hypocritical query about it (v. 7). It is by presenting blind, lame, and sick sacrificial victims, animals that were ritually excluded according to the clear dictates of Torah law (Deut. 15:21). The reason for the law in the first place and for its rigid application here is most obvious. YHWH required offerings from one’s labor and resources and as sovereign desired and deserved the best. It would be easy to part with livestock that was already of little value to the owner and sanctimoniously offer it up to YHWH as a pretense of devotion. As David said of the free offer of Araunah’s threshing-floor and oxen, however, “I will not offer to YHWH my God burnt offerings which cost me nothing” (2 Sam. 24:24).
This was the spirit of sacrifice lacking in the priests of Malachi’s day. Going through the pro forma of religious activity, they missed the real point: YHWH deserves the best. In fact, He says, would even a human governor accept such miserable fare? Surely not! And if that is the case, how presumptuous to think that the God of heaven and earth can suffer such indignity. Who the particular governor may have been cannot be known because the date of the utterance is uncertain, but for the point to be made it matters not at all.
The only remedy for this lamentable state of affairs is for the guilty priests to seek the face of YHWH in repentance. Only then can His favor extend once more to them and to all the community whom they represent (v. 9). But it seems unlikely that such repentance is forthcoming. The text is difficult here, reading literally “from your hands was this” (v. 9b).871 The idea seems to be that as long as the hands of the priests continue to offer such inappropriate gifts, all overtures toward repentance will be hollow and meaningless. True repentance must be accompanied by a radically different behavior. The forgiveness of YHWH may not require the offering of proper sacrifice as a prerequisite, but it certainly demands it as a consequence.
Until and unless that comes to pass, the priests might as well desist from the charade and close the Temple doors altogether (v. 10).872 If that were done, at least the hypocritical service of the priests—an exercise worse than nothing at all—would come to an end. Altar fires that burn spurious sacrifices are not worth kindling. The smoke and ashes they produce are an offense to a holy God, a stench in His nostrils rather than a sweet savor (Isa. 65:1-5).
The rebuke here is reminiscent of that of earlier prophets who castigated their hypocritical contemporaries for confusing ritual with true worship. In a classic statement Micah asked, “How shall I come before YHWH and worship before the high God?” He then answered by a series of rhetorical questions. “Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with yearling calves? Will YHWH be pleased with thousands of rams or ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” The answer is NO. “He has showed you, O man, what is good. What does YHWH demand of you but to do justly, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Mic. 6:6-8; cf. Ps. 40:6-8 [HB 40:7-9]).
This is precisely the message of Malachi to the postexilic priests who had perverted their calling to such an extent that they no longer practiced biblical religion and no longer could distinguish between a sterile, hypocritical professionalism and a sense of genuine servanthood before God and on behalf of the community.
1:8 The LXX, Vg suggest a reading based, perhaps, on Whx@r+y]h& rather than the MT ;x=r+y]h&. This makes the referent to the suffix the offering rather than the offerer, thus: “will he be pleased with it?” The more difficult MT is clearly original here. Moreover, it sustains the parallel with ;ynP*.
11 “For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name will be great among the nations, and *incense will be offered in My name as well as a pure offering everywhere; for My name will be great among the nations,” says YHWH of hosts. 12 “But you are profaning it by saying that the table of the Lord is polluted and its *fruit, that is, its food, is despicable. 13 “You also say, ‘How tiresome (it is).’ You sniff at it,” says YHWH of hosts, “and instead bring what is stolen, lame, or sick—these you bring for an offering. Should I accept this from you?” asks YHWH? 14 “Cursed be the hypocrite who has a male in his flock but vows and sacrifices something blemished to the Lord, for I am a great king,” says YHWH of hosts, “and My name is awesome among the nations.”
The reason for the sacrilegious behavior of the priests of YHWH, described so graphically in vv. 6-10, becomes clear in this section—their spirit itself is sacrilegious. They betray most lucidly the principle that good works must originate in pure hearts. It is no wonder then that these priests, by their works of hypocrisy and self-centeredness, reveal an attitude commensurate with their deeds, an attitude that at best can be described as haughty and contemptuous. This is all the more deplorable in that these priests and people belong to YHWH by covenant election. They of all nations on earth ought to manifest a spirit of true piety and obedience. To the contrary, they, by comparison to the worship of God by the nations to come, give every evidence of paganism.
The reference to the worship of the nations (v. 11) is one of the most difficult concepts in the prophecy. Taken without reference to general canonical context and a cohesive biblical theology, the verse appears to teach that in the prophet’s own time there was universal recognition of YHWH or at least some high God by the nations and a corresponding purity of the worship they offered him.873 The matter is not clarified, to say the least, by the fact that there are no finite verbs in the passage to lend some kind of chronological orientation. Does the prophet indeed speak of his own generation, or is he looking to an age to come?
From all that is known in terms of salvation history and the actual facts of ancient comparative religion, there were no large elements of people outside the Jewish community who even knew of YHWH, to say nothing of worshiping Him in the manner described by Malachi.874 Even were one to maintain that proselytes from Egyptian, Mosaic times onward had joined themselves to Israel and to covenant faith, the language of our text far surpasses, both in numbers and extent, the aggregate of any such conversions. And to say that pagan nations could or did come to YHWH apart from the mediation of Israel is to say something flatly contradicting the express purpose for Israel’s very election, namely, to be a conduit through which saving grace could be transmitted and in identification with which the nations would become reconciled with God. As for the notion of some scholars that the passage teaches the possibility of true worship without reference to biblical revelation,875 nothing could be more inimical to the full witness of biblical soteriology.
This means, therefore, that the prophecy is looking to a future day when the God of Israel will be the God of the nations.876 Once more Malachi, whose overall message is grounded in the problems of his own times, moves forward to an eschatological day of salvation and, in league with his prophetic forebears (cf. Isa. 66:18-21; Jer. 3:17; 4:2; 12:14-17; and esp. Zech. 14:16-21), envisions a time of universal worship of YHWH. In a sense, then, this verse is interruptive of the flow of the passage inasmuch as the prophet is fundamentally concerned with matters immediately at hand.877 But what more arresting and motivating resort could he employ than to contrast the pagan behavior of the covenant people of the present with the devout behavior of the covenant people of the future? In another a fortiori syllogism Malachi asks, in effect, “If the pagan nations in ages to come will magnify the name of YHWH (cf. v. 5) and worship with offerings of incense and oblations, how can His own priests and people, the immediate beneficiaries of all His covenant grace, fail to do so?”878
Their failure is real, however, and in stark contrast to the ideal anticipated in the future. The nations one day will magnify and make offerings to His “name,” that is, to YHWH himself.879 The word “name” (<v@, sem) occurs three times in v. 11. Its triple use here links the passage with the double use in v. 6, suggesting a parallelism between vv. 6-8 and 11-14, with vv. 9-10 serving as a fulcrum of hope (v. 9) and frustrated hope (v. 10). As in v. 6, therefore, the people of YHWH despise and profane that name (v. 12) and declare the “table” of YHWH to be polluted (cf. v. 7). They offer up ritually disqualified animals (v. 13; cf. v. 8a), an affront to YHWH the Great King (v. 14) for, as already stated in the parallel text, they would not dare do such a thing to a mere human governor (v. 8b).880
The reference to the “name” of YHWH, though common enough as a substitute for the person of YHWH in earlier times (cf. Ex. 23:21; Deut. 12:5, 11, 21; 16:2, 6; etc.), became a virtual epithet for YHWH (<V@h^, hassem) by the end of the biblical period and increasingly so later on.881 Malachi appears to give evidence of this trend, at least in these passages and in 3:16 and 4:2 [HB 3:20]. It is a trend toward a developing emphasis on the divine transcendence, one reflected also in the avoidance by the LXX of the common anthropomorphisms of the Hebrew text.
The name of YHWH is profaned, says the Lord, by the disdain shown His table (i.e., the altar) and its “fruit” (v. 12). That is, one cannot claim to revere God while at the same time fail to worship Him in a proper manner. The cultus is not the means of achieving a saving relationship with Him, but one cannot maintain that relationship and at the same time count the cultus as of no importance. That is clearly the import of this entire oracle.
The translation “fruit” for byn] (nb) is problematic, inasmuch as the vocable occurs only here and in the Qere of Isa. 57:19 in this form. The verb bWn (nub), “to bear fruit,” is attested to in Pss. 62:11 [EB 62:10] and 92:15 [EB 92:14] as well as in Proverbs 10:31; Zech. 9:17. The noun bon (nob) occurs in the Kethib of Isa. 57:19 where it refers to the “fruit of the lips,” that is, to praise.
In our passage it must be understood as a synonym of lk#a) (okel), “food,” for it appears that okel, is an explanatory gloss of byn] to render the rare word intelligible.882 The “food” is a reference to the sacrificial offerings, just as <j#l#, (lehem), “bread,” was in v. 7. Very likely, therefore, nb is fruit in the sense of “produce,” the fruits of one’s labor as it were. In this usage it would be comparable to the common word yr]P= (per) which often has this nuance (cf. Gen. 4:3); Num. 13:20, 26,27; Deut. 7:13). All that YHWH is saying is that the wicked priests regard His altar and everything on it as of no account, as despicable.
Their utter contempt is most picturesquely portrayed by their dismissal of the whole thing—altars, incense, sacrifices, and all—as so much needless bother (v. 13). In their own words they say, “What weariness!”883 The joy has left their worship, and it has become an onerous burden. The loss of a true understanding of worship leads easily to a total disregard or even repudiation of its requirements, and so these calloused ministers of the Temple sniff at their responsibilities, considering them as beneath their dignity, and go about establishing the cult on their own terms. This is summarized by their willingness to receive and to offer in sacrifice stolen, lame, and sick animals (cf. v. 8), a gesture that elicits the strongest abhorrence from YHWH who says (literally), “Can I be pleased with it from your hands?” The same verb hx*r` (rasa) occurs in v. 8 where YHWH asks whether the governor would be pleased with an insulting gift. The argument is clear. If a mere human authority can be offended by a gift and an attitude that betrays indifference or even hostility, how can one expect the King of kings to feel other than the most abject revulsion?
Continuing with another example of ritual impropriety, YHWH singles out the individual who pretends that he will offer the male of his flock but presents instead a blemished animal (v. 14). The “male” (rk*z`, zakar) refers to the choicest animal, physically whole and well and in its prime (Ex. 12:5; 34:19; Lev. 1:3, 10; 4:23; 22:19). The hypocrite (lit., “deceiver,” ptc. of lk^n`, nakal, “to be crafty”) goes so far as to select such an animal from his flock, to make a public vow to offer it to YHWH, and then secretly to substitute for it an inferior animal. But what he does secretly among men is wide open before God. Such blasphemous duplicity brings down upon its perpetrator the divine curse, for YHWH is a Great King.
This reference to “curse” (rr^a*, arar) in juxtaposition to the epithet “Great King,” carries strong overtones of covenant language.884 In ancient Near Eastern treaties, especially in Hittite exemplars, the sovereign who imposed the treaty was called the “Great King.” Failure on the part of the vassal partner to live up to its stipulations inevitably brought the possibility of punishment, of a curse. Such a concept is pervasive in Malachi; indeed, no other prophet proportionately refers more to covenant curse (cf. 2:2; 3:9; 4:6 [HB 3:24]). To offer a blemished sacrifice is to manifest egregious insubordination to the Great King and to invite the harshest punitive stipulations of the covenant agreement.
As the completion of an inclusio to vv. 11-14,885 YHWH says that the evidence that He is a Great King lies in the fact that He is feared among the nations of the earth. This need not (as v. 11 does) suggest that the nations know Him redemptively, but only that His name or reputation has become known by His mighty deeds on behalf of His people. Examples of this are abundant in the later literature, especially in Ezekiel (25:5, 11, 14, 17; 26:6; 28:22), Daniel (2:47; 3:28-29; 4:37), and Ezra (1:1-4; 6:9-12; 7:12-16). Surely a God whose name is revered by the pagans deserves and has a right to demand that His servant people render Him appropriate homage.
1:11 The presence of asyndetic hophal participles rf*q=m% and vG`m% has led most critical scholars to question the text at this point and to emend it in various ways. This is unnecessary, however, since rf*q=m% can be taken as a substantive, just as the hophal ptc. tj*v=m* is in v. 14. Therefore, the verb rf^q*, “to make sacrifices smoke” (BDB, p. 882), has, in the hophal, the idea “that which is made to smoke,” namely, incense (Lev. 6:15; 1 Chron. 6:34). As for vG`m%, it functions here as a finite verb, “to be offered.” Cf. James Swetnam, “Malachi 1:11: An Interpretation,” CBQ 31(1969): 200-201. Swetnam takes rf*q=m% in a broader sense, however, as “an oblation.” For “incense” as a correct translation see Baldwin, “Malachi 1:11 and the Worship of the Nations in the Old Testament,” p. 123.
1:12 The LXX and perhaps Tg. Neb. take obyn] as a dittograph for hz#b=n] and so eliminate it. This results in “and its food is despicable,” bringing it more in line with the parallel “the table of the Lord is polluted.” The very difficulty of MT is, however, presumptively in its favor.
1 “Now, O priests, is this commandment for you. 2 If you do not listen and take it to heart to give glory to My name,” says YHWH of hosts, “I will send the curse and will curse your blessings; indeed, I have already done so because you are not taking it to heart. 3 I am about to rebuke your offspring and will spread offal upon your faces, the (very) offal of your festivals, and *you will be taken away with it. 4 Then you will know that I have sent this commandment to you, (that) my covenant (might continue) to be with Levi,” says YHWH of hosts. 5 “My covenant with him was one of life and wholeness. I gave them to him to fill him with awe, and he indeed revered Me and stood in awe before My name. 6 True teaching was in his mouth, unrighteousness was not to be found on his lips. He walked with Me in wholeness and uprightness and turned many from iniquity. 7 For the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of YHWH of hosts.
Though much of 1:6-14 is repeated here in 2:1-9 (2:2, cf. 1:6, 14; 2:5, cf. 1:14; 2:9, cf. 1:12),886 the emphasis is completely different in that whereas the former passage concerns the cultic activity of the priests, 2:1-9 pertains to their message or teaching ministry.887 This twofold responsibility of the priest existed from the very beginning (Lev 10:11; Deut 31:9-13; 33:10), but with the gradual demise of OT prophetism the role of the priest as teacher became more and more prominent (cf. Hag. 2:11; Zech. 7:3). Ezra, of course, is the example par excellence (Ezra 7:10, 25; Neh. 8:9). Eventually, however, the priest as teacher became eclipsed by professional scribes and scholars who undertook this work.888
But in Malachi’s day the priests became indifferent to and indeed scornful of not only their duties as officiants in the cultus; they also became slack in teaching and preaching the Word of God. The prophet therefore addresses this side of their vocation as well as the other. The commandment (hw`x=m!, miswa) of which he speaks (2:1) must be the adumbration of all that follows in this section, namely, instruction about the teaching ministry of the priests. This is especially for them, because the adjurations of the previous section (1:6-14) included some comments applicable not only to the priests but also to the general population (vv. 8, 13, 14).889
The term hw`x=m!, (miswa, “commandment”) is another technical covenant word, most appropriate here, as the explicit references to the priestly covenant that follow make clear (vv. 4, 5, 8).890 Therefore, its violation in terms of not being seriously considered and of consequently denying YHWH the glory that comes in perfect obedience must elicit appropriate covenant sanction. Thus another technical term— “curse” (hr`a@m=, meera)—is introduced. The inevitable result of covenant unfaithfulness was the imposition of the curses that were always spelled out in covenant texts (cf. Lev. 26:14-39; Deut. 27:11-26; 28:15-57).891 Disobedience of the priestly covenant is no different. That, too, will be met by a curse, one so severe that it will in effect cancel out any potential blessings. The language could not be stronger: “I will curse your blessings” (v. 2b). In fact, YHWH says, He has already done so, because it is a foregone conclusion that the priests will not take to heart His miswa.892
The curse takes specific form in two ways:893 YHWH will rebuke the priestly offspring and (using a most bold and graphic metaphor) will spread offal on the priests’ faces. Just as such refuse would ordinarily be carried away for disposal, so the priests will be carried away and, as it were, cast on the rubbish heap (v. 5).
The first of these judgments depends for its meaning on the determination of two disputed words, that translated “offspring” and that rendered “rebuke.”894 In place of “offspring” (ur^z#, zera`, lit. “seed”) some ancient versions, including the LXX and Vulg. suggest “arm,” reflecting the Hebrew u^orz+ (zeroa`). Admittedly this provides good balance to “face” in the next line, but hardly makes sense with “rebuke.” This leads to a further expedient of reading u^d@)G{ (goer), “cutting off,” for MT ru@G{ (godea`), “rebuking.” One could then understand the line as follows: “I am about to cut off your arm and will spread offal on your faces.” Even if “offspring” be retained, the verb “cut off” would make excellent sense here.
Not a single ancient MSS or version attests godea` here, however. This ipso facto virtually rules it out of consideration. The LXX has ajforivzw (aphorizo), “take away,” perhaps reflecting a vorlage ur^G` (gara`). This verb, however, is inappropriate for either arm or seed, for the normal idiom is “cut off” in either case. As for “arm,” the LXX has ton wmon (ton omon), “shoulder,” which, though not a normal translation of zeroa` (“arm”), may be close enough.
The solution is to let the context determine the matter. The previous verse (v. 2) had said that YHWH would “send the curse” and “curse the blessings.” This double threat most likely finds its double fulfillment in v. 3, so that the sending (i.e., uttering) of the curse is tantamount to the word of rebuke and the cursing of the blessings is expressed in the offal upon the faces.
A perusal of the curse sections of biblical covenant texts provides plenty of examples of the curse finding expression in the judgment of the offspring of covenant violators (Deut. 28:18, 32, 41, 53, 55, 57). It is not doing violence to these passages to suggest that the rebuke of offspring is an appropriate way to describe this kind of a curse and its effects.895 They are rebuked even though they may be innocent of collaboration with the infidelity of their parents, a point made in the Decalogue itself (Ex. 20:5).
The “cursing of the blessings” as “covering the face with offal” is not to be found in biblical curse texts because the setting here in Malachi is the cult and ministry in the cult by the priests. The principle of blessing being supplanted by curse is well established in such passages apart from specific references to priests (Deut. 28:12-15, 63). The blessing of the priest was the sheer privilege of handling the holy things as the mediator between God and His people. The curse, then, would be disqualification from these ministries. In the coarsest language possible YHWH, clearly in metaphorical imagery, epitomizes the state of disqualification as the smearing of the priests’ faces with offal. The matter described here (vrP#, peres) is the undigested contents of the stomach and intestines, something so loathsome and impure it must be carried outside the camp to be burned (Ex. 29:14; Lev. 4:11-12; 8:17; Num. 19:5). For this to be spread over the face of the priest rather than to be carried away from the holy precincts and consumed by fire was to constitute the most serious breach of ritual purity imaginable.896 The blessing of offering sacrifice would thereby be turned into an indescribable curse.
One thinks of Joshua the high priest who, in a night vision of Zechariah, appeared in “filthy” garments, that is, garments covered with excrement (Zech. 3:3-4). Though the word there (ha^x)), soa) is different from the one in Malachi, the imagery is exactly the same. Joshua was ritually defiled and needed to have his garments changed before he could continue his priestly ministry. The priests to whom Malachi is speaking will also need to be purified. Otherwise they, like the refuse, will be taken away and disposed of “outside the camp” (v. 3).
Appealing once more to the “commandment” (v. 4; cf. v. 1), YHWH informs the priests that the curse they can expect for its violation will testify that YHWH Himself has brought about its dire consequences, but that He has done so for a redemptive purpose—that the priestly covenant may continue. That covenant he describes as the covenant with Levi. Though the expression “covenant with Levi” occurs nowhere else in the Bible, Jeremiah refers to a covenant with the Levites (Jer. 33:21-22), and there is a reference in Num. 25:10-13 to a “covenant of peace” and the “covenant of an everlasting priesthood” made with Phinehas, grandson of Aaron and eventual high priest of Israel. Since Aaron and all his descent were offspring of Levi (Ex. 6:16-20), it is not inappropriate that the covenant with Phinehas could also be called the covenant with Levi.897
In addition, of course, Levi was set apart from the beginning to serve as a priestly tribe. This is clear from the blessing of Moses on the tribe (Deut. 33:8-11) in which Moses refers to Levi’s exploits in the wilderness on behalf of YHWH’s honor. The first of these followed the apostasy of the golden calf (Ex. 32:25-29). When Moses asked who was any longer on the side of YHWH, the Levites stepped forward, wielded their swords of divine vengeance against their rebel brothers, and proved their fidelity. Another example is that alluded to above when Phinehas the priest slew a man of Israel who was engaged in sexual and spiritual immorality with a woman of Midian at Peor. “He was zealous for His God,” says Moses, “and made atonement for the children of Israel” (Num. 25:13).
It seems evident that Mal. 2:4-6 is referring to these incidents, especially the latter, when it speaks of the covenant with Levi. That it includes the priests and is not, therefore, limited to the Levites as a sub-priestly class, is clear from vv. 7-8 where the priests are explicitly included within that covenant. In order, therefore, to understand the full thrust of the message here in Malachi, it is necessary to look at least briefly at the account in Numbers.
When Phinehas became aware of the pagan festivities into which some of the people had entered, he intervened in the manner described with the result that the plague that YHWH had already launched against the people was suspended (Num. 25:9). For this bold initiative, YHWH commended the priest, attributing to him the interdiction of divine wrath and, consequently, the salvation of the nation. For this, YHWH said, he would make with Phinehas a “covenant of peace” (v. 12; cf. Isa. 54:10; Ezek. 34:25; 37:2b), that is, “the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (v. 13).
It is the word “peace” (<olv*, salom) that links the narrative in Numbers directly with our Malachi text (Mal. 2:5). Phinehas, representative of all the Levites, became the recipient of YHWH’s life and peace because of his zeal for YHWH’s name. But there was the expectation of reciprocation, not only on the part of Phinehas but by his priestly descendants after him. That would take form in the fear and awe of the priests who stood before YHWH in service. This is precisely what the priests whom Malachi addressed were lacking (cf. 1:6; 2:2), and its absence explained the curse that had already begun to fall upon them.
Evidence of Phinehas’s loyal compliance to the covenant was the fact that “true teaching was in his mouth, unrighteousness was not to be found on his lips,” and “he walked with [YHWH] in wholeness and uprightness and turned many from iniquity” (v. 7). Though little is known of Phinehas after the Baal of Peor incident (cf. Num. 31:6; Josh. 22:13-34), he is celebrated in the epic poetry of Israel as the one who “stood up and executed judgment; and so the plague was stayed. And that was reckoned to him for righteousness, to all generations forever” (Ps. 106:30-31).
Phinehas thus provided a paradigm of priestly character and behavior. He demonstrated in his own life a model of what it meant to be a faithful man of God. From such a sterling example a standard for all priests has been set and, in almost proverbial language, YHWH outlines His expectation for all those successors of Levi and Phinehas who serve Him with such exalted privilege. They should guard knowledge and impart the instruction of YHWH, for the priest is nothing less than the very messenger (Ea*l=m^, malak; cf. the name of Malachi) of YHWH (v. 7).898 This is the ideal, indeed, the expectation that accompanies the covenant with Levi. Unfortunately Malachi’s own priestly contemporaries had fallen very much short of the ideal and therefore were subject to the curse that inevitably follows any kind of covenant disloyalty.
Additional Notes
2:3 The MT reads lit. “he will carry you unto it,” referring no doubt to the pile of refuse outside the camp that would be destroyed by fire. The LXX and Syr. appear to favor a reading “I will carry you away from beside me.” This may clarify the elliptical MT but at the expense of robbing it of the strong impact that is clearly intended.
8 “You, however, have turned from the way. You have caused many to stumble in the law; you have corrupted the covenant with Levi,” says YHWH of hosts. 9 “Therefore, I have made you despised and abased before all people to the degree that you are not keeping My ways and are showing partiality in (your) instruction.”
Having outlined the characteristics of righteous and faithful priests by recounting the exploits of the Levites and Phinehas, YHWH contrasts them with the present generation of priests. They have turned aside from the way, that is, the path to which the priest must adhere by virtue of his holy vocation. Moreover, far from imparting true instruction (cf. v. 6), indeed, from serving as a resource to whom men could appeal for such instruction (v. 7), these priests, by their teachings, erected roadblocks in the way of those seeking truth.
The definite article on hr`oT (tora), “instruction,” suggests that here it is not just any teaching in general but indeed the instruction, namely, the Torah, the Law of Moses. The defection of the priests is all the more serious, then, for they are actually creating obstacles to the people’s access to the Word of God itself. To cause the people to “stumble in the Torah” is to so mislead them in its meaning that they fail to understand and keep its requirements. There can be no more serious indictment against the man of God. By this act of dereliction (and, no doubt, others unnamed) the priests have corrupted the Levitical covenant. This being the case, they must be prepared to accept the consequences, the imposition of the sanctions of the covenant. This, in fact, had already begun to transpire as vv. 2-3 make clear. But even these attitudes and acts of impiety and gross miscarriage of priestly responsibility had not annulled the priestly covenant itself. Guilty individuals in the office of priest might drift so far as to be disqualified and even put to death (Lev. 10:1-3), but the institution of priesthood itself would stand, because God had established it as an everlasting ministry. This has already been seen in the promise to Phinehas (Num. 25:13), and Jeremiah affirms the same when he says, “David will never lack for a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel, nor shall the priests the Levites lack for a man before Me to offer burnt-offerings, to burn grain-offerings, and to make sacrifice continually” (Jer. 33:17-18).899
Ezekiel, who preceded Malachi by a century or more, confronted a disobedient priesthood in his own day, and though he intimates that such evil ministers may expect divine discipline (Ezek. 44:10), they nevertheless will continue to have a role in the Temple cultus of the millennial kingdom (v. 11). In language that may have inspired Malachi, Ezekiel says that these priests “became a stumbling-block of iniquity” and so must bear their iniquity, that is, its penalty (v. 12). Furthermore, they would play a subservient role to the Zadokite priests who had proved through the years their steadfastness and godliness (vv. 13-15).900 The point to be stressed here, however, is that the Levitical covenant still stood, for it is one that God himself inaugurated and to which He committed Himself.
To support the word of Ezekiel about the coming judgment of the faithless priests, Malachi says that already YHWH has made them to be despised and abased before the people. In a measure-to-measure application of justice he says that the priests have suffered these humiliations in proportion to the extent to which they strayed from the pathway and according to how much they created impediments to the people who sought instruction at their mouths (v. 9). The office of priest or Levite was a high and holy calling, one that should have instilled a feeling of awe and respect on the part of the people who enjoyed its intercessory benefits. For the holders of those offices, then, to disgrace themselves to the degree that they were depreciated in the eyes of the community was scandalous, for with the disgrace of the man there was an inevitable disdain for the office as well. There is little wonder that Malachi was sent to the priests with such a harsh word of condemnation.
3
The Rebellion of the People (2:10-16)
Having dealt with the issue of a corrupt priesthood, Malachi turns next to the general population. Even though their spiritual leaders may have failed them, the people must shoulder the responsibility for their own sinfulness as a nation and as individuals.
10 Do we not all have one father? Did not one God create us? Why do we act treacherously to one another, thus profaning the covenant of our fathers? 11 Judah has acted treacherously, and abomination has been committed in Israel and Jerusalem. For Judah has profaned the holy (thing) of YHWH that He loves and has married the daughter of a foreign god. 12 May YHWH cut off to the (last) man anyone who does this, him who is *awake and him who answers, from the tents of Jacob, as well as him who presents an offering to YHWH of hosts. 13 For this again you do: You cover the altar of YHWH with tears, with weeping and groaning, because He no longer pays heed to the offering nor accepts it favorably from your hands.
In strongly covenant terms Malachi urges the people to recognize their oneness, their solidarity as a chosen nation. This is evident, first of all, in the fact that they all have a common father, God himself (v. 10).901 Though “father” (ba*, ab) is not inherently a covenant term, it is so used here, as the reference to covenant at the end of v. 10 makes clear. This precludes any possibility that the prophet is advocating the modern notion of the universal fatherhood of God. The idea of covenant fatherhood first originates in the Exodus narrative where YHWH commands Moses to return to Pharaoh with the message, “Israel is My son, My first born … let My son go that he may serve Me” (Ex. 4:22-23). Isaiah explicitly refers to YHWH as the father of Israel: “You, O YHWH, are our father, our redeemer from of old is Your name” (Isa. 63:16). Here there is an obvious connection between YHWH as father and His redemption of Israel.
Malachi goes on, however, to describe YHWH as the Creator of His people in common. Again Isaiah provides the same image and, in fact, juxtaposes the notions of father and Creator exactly as does Malachi.902 “O YHWH,” he says, “You are our father; we are the clay, and You our potter. We all are the work of Your hand” (Isa. 64:8). Both prophets agree, then, that the people of YHWH are His uniquely in that He both created and redeemed them, making them His chosen son. Jeremiah adds his word, for the prophet records YHWH’s asseveration, “I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn” (Jer. 31:9). It is well known, of course, that the Jeremiah passage is embedded in an undisputed covenant context.
Against that background Malachi’s denunciatory query takes on heightened poignancy. If the people of Judah were one, elected and redeemed by one God who deigned to be their common Father, how could they abuse one another as they did? Such abuse, he says, constituted a most serious breach of the “covenant of the fathers,” an obvious reference in context to the Sinaitic covenant.903 One should recall that the quintessence of that covenant was to love YHWH with all the heart, soul, and mind (Deut. 6:4-5) and to love one’s fellow as himself (Lev. 19:18; cf. Luke 10:27). The covenant could become profaned as much by violating the second part as by violating the first.
The prophet is not dealing in generalities here, as the continuation of his accusation shows. Judah—and, indeed, Israel and Jerusalem as well—has dealt treacherously as a sacred community by undertaking action whose net result would lead to the disintegration of the people as an elect nation more quickly and surely than anything else she could do, namely, by intermarriage with the pagans.904
The reference to Israel and Jerusalem as well as Judah is to underscore the pervasiveness of this abhorrent practice.905 Zechariah used the same formula to describe the completeness of the persecution and scattering of the chosen nation by the four horns in his second vision (Zech. 1:19). As a clich, then, the statement has nothing to say one way or the other about the historical existence of Israel in Malachi’s own day. The point is that the whole nation has been treacherous in marrying outside the strict parameters of the covenant stipulations.
The Torah texts are replete with prohibitions against this practice (Ex. 34:15-16; Deut. 7:3; cf. Josh. 23:12), and these same passages point out the dire consequences that follow such compromise. Nevertheless, intermarriage with pagans was persistently undertaken even at the highest levels of Israelite society, as the sordid record of Solomon in this respect attests (1 Kings 11:1-8). The reason for enjoining against it was not any sense of ethnic or racial superiority but because by elective design YHWH had chosen one man, Abraham, through whom He would mediate His saving work to the world. The channel thus must be limited to the offspring of Abraham, a limitation that was synonymous with Israel. The issue, then, was theological and not biological, for whenever illicit marriage was condoned there was an accompanying moral and spiritual defection, a predictable drift toward idolatry. A glance at the passages cited above will make crystal clear this connection between physical, illicit intermarriage and spiritual declension.
As we pointed out in the Introduction, Malachi was not alone among postexilic spokesmen in dealing with this problem. It was the single biggest social and religious concern of the great priestly scribe Ezra. He no sooner arrived in Jerusalem in 458 B.C., possibly a decade or so after Malachi’s provenience, than he was met by a delegation of leaders who complained that the people, including the priests and Levites, had not separated themselves from surrounding neighbors but had, to the contrary, entered into marriage with them. As they put it, “The holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands” (Ezra 9:2). Ezra was so distraught with this information that he fell upon his face in a prayer of confession and asked whether the nation was about to repeat the sins of their preexilic fathers by joining in affinity with “the people that do these abominations” (9:14).906
His intercession provoked a spirit of repentance among the guilty. They put themselves at Ezra’s disposal to do what he thought best (10:1-4). His counsel, after much deliberation and soul-searching, was that they must divorce these foreigners whom they had married (10:11-12), something they complied with at once (v. 17). There is no clear biblical precedent for Ezra’s edict, so one must assume either that he used his own best judgment, perhaps even wrongly, or that he ruled as a “second Moses,” one who enjoyed divine revelation and sanction for his policy.907
Before this is pursued, it is necessary to see how the same problem was handled by Nehemiah. He arrived in Judah thirteen years after Ezra to find that whatever reforms Ezra had achieved had failed to find solid anchorage, for intermarriage once more became a leading issue, especially in the latter part of his governorship. At the conclusion of his prayer of covenant renewal, Nehemiah and the people resolved to adhere faithfully to YHWH’s covenant expectations, including the injunction against mixed marriage (Neh. 10:30). This took place early in his tenure (2:1; cf. 6:15; 9:1), and the pledge to refrain from such marriage seems to suggest that it had not been resumed since the Ezra reforms. The occasion for its resumption may have been Nehemiah’s return to Susa in 432, for when he came back from there later on, he found a wholesale abandonment of the covenant pledge and the renewal of mixed marriages (Neh. 13:23-24).
The remedy this time was not as severe as that of Ezra. Nehemiah did not command divorce but issued a stern warning about what would happen were the practice to continue (v. 13). It was this very sin, he reminded them, that brought about Solomon’s downfall (v. 14). Whether Nehemiah refrained from following Ezra’s policy because he considered it nonauthoritative or unworkable or neither cannot be known. It may be that he was more persuaded by the message of Malachi than the practice of Ezra, a message that appears to forbid divorce at all (Mal. 2:16). This will be considered presently.
It is necessary first to return to Malachi 2:11 where the prophet makes clear that the abomination he has in mind is that of mixed marriage. His use of the word “abomination” (hb*u@oT, to`eba) is deliberate, for this frequently is the term used to describe such covenant breach (1 Kings 11:5, 7), especially by Ezra (9:1, 11, 14). The marriage itself, Malachi says, is to the “daughter of a foreign god.” This metonymy does not imply something like sacred prostitution but only that Jewish men were marrying women who themselves worshiped pagan deities. In putting it this way, however, the prophet graphically and cleverly unites these prohibited marriages with one of the principal reasons for their impropriety, namely, that they tend to idolatry.908 Marriage to a pagan spouse is tantamount to the embracing of a pagan god.
In v. 11 is the difficult phrase literally to be rendered “for Judah (has) profaned the holiness of YHWH which He loved,” must be considered. The word “holiness” (vd#q), qodes) is an abstract masculine noun with the base meaning “apartness” or the like. Here it functions as an adjective and clearly refers to someone or something that is holy to YHWH, an object of His love. That it is YHWH who is the subject of “loved” is apparent from the proximity of the divine name to the relative clause containing the verb.
As for the thing loved, its identity must be determined by its relationship to the rest of the line in which it is mentioned.909 Though the language is not poetic, v. 11 can be viewed as containing essentially synonymous ideas in a more or less parallel arrangement:
Judah has profaned the holy thing of YHWH that He loves,
and has married the daughter of a foreign god.
Here Judah is viewed as the collective of individuals who are guilty of the profanation. Whatever they have done must be set opposite the second line, that is, the marriage to a devotee of a pagan god. Since such marriage is a violation of the Mosaic covenant, it follows that the holy thing that has been profaned is the covenant itself or at least that statute that forbids such illicit relationships. Confirmation of this interpretation may be found in a close look now at all of v. 11, which consists of four ideas in what might be called “alternating parallelism,” viz:
A Judah has acted treacherously
B Abomination has been committed in Israel
A Judah has profaned the holy thing of YHWH
B (Judah) has married the daughter of a foreign god.
Verse 10 has already shown conclusively that to act treacherously (dG~b=n], nibgad)910 is to profane (lL@j^, hallel) the covenant. Now v. 11 says that Judah has acted treacherously (hd*g+B*, bageda) and has profaned (lL@j!, hillel) the holy thing of YHWH. It is reasonable to conclude that to act treacherously here means to profane or “secularize” the covenant so that it is eviscerated of its authority.
Having contemplated the sins of his people, especially their blatant disregard of the covenant prohibitions against mixed marriage, Malachi utters an imprecative urging YHWH to cut off from the covenant community any who are guilty of the charges he has leveled. Excommunication from covenant faith and fellowship is clearly in mind as the expression “from the tents of Jacob” implies (v. 12). This harks back to Israel’s nomadic days in the wilderness, for it was then and there that such a penalty was first promulgated and invoked (cf. Ex. 12:15, 19, 31:14; Lev. 7:20, 21, 25, 27; 19:8; 20:18; 22:3; Num. 9:13; 15:31; 19:13, 20; etc.).
The cryptic phrase “him who is awake and him who answers” is patently an idiom, but one whose original meaning is uncertain. It appears to be a merism expressing totality. That is, every last man will be cut off, from him who is already awake to him who responds to the wakeup call. It may mean something like the awake and the asleep, who together make up all of mankind (cf. a similar kind of figure, “the quick and the dead”).911 The totality in mind includes even those who present offerings to YHWH (v. 12b), but they are specifically defined as hypocritical worshipers in v. 13. That is, even though covenant breakers make their pious pilgrimages to the sacrificial altar, they will be cut off, for their very behavior betrays the insincerity of their religious exercises.
The prophet describes this show of devotion in the cynical and grandiose terms of covering the altar with tears and of loud weeping and groaning. Coming in vain to present their offerings, these infidels, in their frustration at having their shallow pretenses exposed, exhibit the strongest emotion. They fail to see that YHWH’s displeasure and lack of positive response are not because offerings are not being made but because they are offered by people who have broken covenant with Him and who refuse to do anything about it. Just as YHWH had not “received with favor” (hx#r+a# aO, loerse) the offerings of the priests (1:10), so now He will not “receive with favor” (/oxr` tj^q^l*, laqahat rason) the offerings of the people.
2:12 For ru@, “awake,” the LXX reads e{w" (= du^), “unto,” “until.” The resulting idea is “until he is humbled,” taking hn`u*^ as “to be humble” rather than “to answer.” Syr. and Tg. Neb. take the phrase as “his son and his son’s son” whereas Vg. understands it as referring to teacher and pupil. BHS proposes du@, “witness,” to be rendered here perhaps as “he who witnesses and he who answers,” a reading that, as Richard D. Patterson (by private communication) notes, ties in with dyu!h@ in v. 14. The MT, by its very difficulty, appears to be correct and to suggest a merism of totality.
B. The Illustration of the Covenant (2:14-16)
14 Yet you ask, “Why?” Because YHWH has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth against whom you have acted treacherously, though she is your companion and wife by covenant. 15 No one does (this) who has (even) a remnant of the Spirit in him. What (did) that one (do) when seeking offspring of God? Be attentive then to your (own) spirit, for one should not be *treacherous to the wife of your youth. 16 *”I hate divorce,” says YHWH, God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with violence,” says YHWH of hosts. “Take heed therefore to your spirit, and do not be treacherous.”
The reason for YHWH’s rejection of the offerings mentioned in v. 13 is the reverse side of the coin introduced in vv. 10-11—the divorce of their wives by the men of Judah. We call this the reverse side of the coin, for the obverse was their marriage to the daughters of foreign gods. The impression one gets is that many had divorced their Jewish wives precisely in order to marry pagans. This, Malachi says, is to act treacherously (v. 14). The same verb (dg~B*, bagad) has been used several times now by the prophet, and a careful analysis of its use clarifies the whole issue that concerned the prophet here. In v. 10, as already noted, treachery was synonymous with breaking the covenant, in this case the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant prohibiting intermarriage with the heathen nations. Verse 11 cements this connection by associating treachery with the profanation of the holy (covenant) that YHWH loves. Treachery in v. 14, therefore, must also relate to covenant violation, and indeed it does as v. 16 puts beyond doubt. This time, however, the covenant is not that of Moses but the marriage covenant that bound husband and wife together.
Such a covenant, though not attested formally in the OT,912 is a legally binding arrangement as YHWH’s role as witness intimates. For the Jew to desert his wife and to marry another, particularly a foreigner, is not only morally odious but legally prohibitive. It is because YHWH witnessed the pledges of mutual loyalty between husband and wife that He is able now to speak of its violation and to explain it as the cause for His rejection of hypocritical gestures of worship. The wife of one’s youth, the prophet goes on to say, is not someone lightly to be put aside but is indeed a “companion,” a “consort” (tr#j&, haberet) inextricably linked to her husband by a covenant pledge.913
The monstrous evil of such a course of action is illustrated in v. 15, a difficult passage. The first clause (lit., “and not one has done, and a remnant of the Spirit to him”) appears to introduce a proverbial truth to the effect that the behavior of these wicked men who reject their wives of a lifetime would never be true of one who has even a little part of God’s Spirit within him.914 Pre-Christian theology may not allow this to refer to a personal Holy Spirit in a full Trinitarian sense, but this is not necessary anyway. All that is being affirmed is that a godly man would never do what these men have done
As an example the prophet turns obliquely to Abraham, for “the one” who was “seeking offspring of God” quite clearly refers to the patriarch.915 What he did in his original efforts to secure offspring is not at all commendable, as the Genesis narrative reveals. Rather than wait for the promise of YHWH to come to pass in a monogamous relationship with Sarah, Abraham instead took Hagar as surrogate and by her bore Ishmael (Gen. 16:1-6). The result, of course, was disastrous.
Though the analogy is not perfect, inasmuch as Abraham did not in fact divorce Sarah and the matter of idolatry was not at issue, it is close enough for Malachi to make the point that such an approach by even a godly patriarch was an act of covenant unfaithfulness. Sarah deserved better even though she was party to the illicit arrangement and, in fact, first entertained the idea. And Abraham’s treachery vis vis Sarah did not end there, for on two other occasions he had at least partially lied about her, alleging her to be his sister rather than his wife (Gen. 12:11-20; 20:2-18).
No wonder Malachi sees in Abraham a fit model of the principle he is trying to establish. Do not emulate the great ancestor, he says, but instead “be attentive to your own spirit” lest you commit a similar sin against your wife. Then, in the event there be any lingering doubt as to the sin in question, YHWH Himself speaks forth: “I hate divorce” (v. 16). And with the divorce He hates the one who covers his garments with the violence that attends the breakup of the marriage. The seriousness with which YHWH views the matter is reinforced by a repetition of the exhortation already given in v. 15b: “take heed therefore to your spirit and do not be treacherous” (v. 16b).916
Two aspects of v. 16 must be addressed separately, that of the prohibition of divorce in light of the policies of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the enigmatic reference to covering the garment with violence. As noted earlier Ezra, when confronted with the issue of mixed marriages, unequivocally called upon his fellow Jews who had entered such relationships to sever them at once. This they did without recorded protest (Ezra 9-10). Nehemiah, dealing with a recurrence of the problem, advised only that such practice be avoided in the future. There is no hint that he commended divorce at all.
These varying attitudes toward divorce (Malachi anti; Ezra pro; Nehemiah non-committal?) have figured in the whole problem of the chronological order of the figures who espoused these various viewpoints. It is impossible here to reopen that entire conundrum, especially as regards the Ezra-Nehemiah priority, but a few comments at least may be helpful. First, it is frequently asserted that because Ezra was a figure of such towering prominence and influence, a reputation sustained by both Scripture and tradition, his rulings must be seen as authoritative for the community. If this is the case, the only way to account for the positions taken by both Malachi and Nehemiah is to postulate that Ezra was last in succession. Having seen the failure of the accommodating policies of Malachi and Nehemiah, he adopted a hardline approach which would forever end the problem by divorce.917
Malachi’s attitude seems most adamant of all against divorce, even compared to Nehemiah, so Malachi, it appears, preceded Nehemiah. The prophet had stated flatly that YHWH hates divorce. Encouraged by this and perverting it to their own benefit, those who had undertaken mixed marriages would have an excuse not to break them off, for if YHWH hates divorce, there is little they can do to disentangle themselves from their admittedly illicit relationships. Nehemiah, seeing this cynical reaction to the prophet, dared not countermand his oracular word, but he would at least command that the people cease and desist from such behavior in the future. Ezra, by virtue of his priestly authority and prestige, could, especially after enough time had elapsed, issue a mandate that divorce was not only possible under such circumstances but must be actively prosecuted, Malachi’s word to the contrary notwithstanding.918
This scenario makes very good sense provided one is willing to make a concession or two, primarily in the area of Malachi’s prophetic authority and the possibility of its contravention by the priestly authority of Ezra.919 But this is an enormous concession, for it pits two men of God in direct conflict and supposes that the one can overturn the teaching of the other without jeopardizing the credibility of either or, worse still, of YHWH who presumably inspired each to his own course of action. Such a possibility exists, of course, if one can tolerate an evolutionary understanding of the history of Israel’s religion. But the scholar who is persuaded that both Malachi and Ezra reflect the mind and will of God cannot dispose of the problem that easily.
The answer appears not to lie in the direction of rearranging the order of the canonical witnesses. The tradition of the Ezra-Nehemiah sequence is too well established to be easily overthrown and the priority of Malachi to both, as has been argued (pp. 377-78), most defensible. Thus Malachi abjures divorce, Ezra is its champion, and Nehemiah neither advocates it nor speaks out against it. What is to be made of this?
What critical scholars especially appear to have overlooked is that Malachi and Ezra are addressing two totally different kinds of marriage and divorce. Malachi, in the course of chastising his brethren for the mixed marriages, implies that these marriages have come about at the cost of divorcing their own Jewish wives. It is this divorce that prompts YHWH to say, “I hate divorce.” One cannot deduce from this statement that a universal principle is being articulated. To the contrary, the word of YHWH here is limited to the horrible travesty of covenant-breaking expressed by the breakup of Jewish marriages. YHWH has no word here beyond that. Ezra, on the other hand, speaks not specifically to the problem of Jewish divorce that made illicit intermarriage possible, but to that mixed marriage itself. His thrust is exclusively that those who have entered those kinds of marriages must terminate them. There is thus no real contradiction at all. YHWH hates divorce between His covenant people but, in Ezra’s situation at least, demands it when it involves a bonding between His people and the pagan world.920
One cannot extrapolate from Ezra’s edict a principle for Christian or even general behavior regarding marriage and divorce.921 The OT offers no legislation about the matter where believer and unbeliever are linked in marriage, and the NT, if anything, commends the notion that though such marriages are not to be undertaken in the first place (2 Cor. 6:14-18), once effected they should not be ended by divorce (1 Cor. 7:12-17). “From the beginning,” Jesus said, “[divorce] was not so” (Matt. 19:3-9). Ezra’s action was to meet a peculiar exigency in a crucial era in the life of the postexilic community. To argue normative policy from it is to go far beyond the evidence of a comprehensive biblical theology.
As for “him who covers his garment with violence” (v. 16a ), its connection to the condemnation of divorce locates its meaning within that framework. The language is clearly figurative, probably a metonymy of effect for cause, built in turn on a metaphor. The metaphor “garment” pertains to the outside appearance for, to quote the modern aphorism, “the clothes make the man.” It is true that externals often betray internals either by giving unwarranted credibility to situations that do not deserve it or, conversely, by exposing innate corruption for what it is. The divorce of God’s people is tantamount to their wearing garments that expose their perfidy for all to see.
The metonymy speaks of the condition brought about by the violence of divorce. They do not wear garments covered by violence but, as it were, violence has clothed them with garments that advertise to society that they have broken covenant with the wives of their youth. Divorce is always violent and always leaves its emotional and spiritual scars.922 The existence of divorce and the presence of those responsible for it are abhorrent in the eyes of YHWH—thus He says in His own words.
2:15 For the MT dG{b=y], “one should (not) be treacherous,” most ancient versions read dG{b=T!, “you should (not) be treacherous.” This seems to be a reasonable effort at grammatical harmony but an unnecessary resort given the penchant of Hebrew not to insist on such leveling, especially where suffixes are concerned.
2:16 One might expect, with the majority of scholars, to find yt!an}c*, “I hate,” for MT “he hates,” and thus my translation renders it. However, again one must allow for fluidity in such grammatical forms, especially in the absence of MSS and versions to the contrary. Moreover, the phrase in question could be taken as an indirect, and not direct, quotation. Malachi would then be the speaker: “YHWH the God of Israel says that He hates divorce,” etc. See David Clyde Jones, “A Note on the LXX of Malachi 2:16,” JBL 109 (1990):683-85.
4
Resistance to YHWH
(2:17-3:21 [EB 4:3])
To this point the thrust of Malachi’s message has been twofold. He has condemned the priests of Judah for trivializing the cult both by their illicit practice and their indifferent attitude. And he has scolded the population at large for their failure to adhere to YHWH’s covenant, particularly in the realm of mixed marriage and illegal divorce. Now his focus becomes more expanded as he addresses a number of seemingly miscellaneous matters that may fall under the general umbrella of resistance to YHWH. There is clearly a pattern of presentation consisting of three causes of the people’s resistance—self-deceit (2:17-3:5), selfishness (3:6-12), and self-sufficiency (3:13-21 [EB 4:3])—each of which embraces a statement of the problem and a concomitant promise of either weal or woe.923
17 You have wearied YHWH with your words. But you say, “How have we wearied Him?” Inasmuch as you say, “Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of YHWH, and He delights in them,” or, “Where is the God of justice?”
Exegesis and Exposition
In the present section, which deals with self-deceit, the problem occurs in 2:17 and the promise in 3:1-5. In anthropomorphic language Malachi says that YHWH is worn out from the words of the people, words that betray an abysmal self-deception. To carry out his disputation schema the prophet contrives a series of interrogations and responses in which YHWH’s accusation is invariably met with a questioning response, “How have we done thus and so?” This in turn elicits a specification of the charges in such unambiguous speech that the accused themselves are rendered speechless.
Following the charge that the people have wearied YHWH and their predictable but hypocritical “How?”, the prophet lists two specifications: (1) the people claim that those who do evil are good in YHWH’s opinion, and (2) they allege that the God of justice is nowhere to be found. The first indictment shows a topsy-turvy sense of morals and ethics in which criteria of right and wrong are so perverted as to be absolutely in reverse: they call good evil and evil good. Isaiah knew of such distorted perspective in his own day and railed against it. “Woe to them who call evil good, and good evil,” he said, and “who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. Woe to them who are wise in their own opinion, and prudent in their own sight” (Isa. 5:20-21). Such a view of God as an indulgent, nondiscriminating being who winks at iniquity is, of course, a totally sub-biblical concept.
The second indictment—that Judah has lost sight of a God of justice—is an outgrowth of the first. The people had obviously been sinning against God, as Malachi’s message has consistently affirmed. The fact that they had done so with a minimum of negative reaction had lulled them into a spirit of serene self-deception about the principle of sin and punishment. If they have lived as they had and had been essentially none the worse for it, can there be a God of justice? This attitude and these words have made Him weary, so YHWH replies with a promise (3:1-5).
1 “Behold, I am about to send My messenger, who will make the way clear before Me. Indeed, the Lord whom you are seeking will suddenly come to His Temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight is coming,” says YHWH of hosts. 2 “Who can bear up under the day of His coming? Who can keep standing when He appears? For He will be like a refiner’s fire, like a washerman’s soap. 3 He will act like a refiner and purifier of silver and will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then they will offer YHWH a righteous offering. 4 And the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to YHWH as in former days, as in years of old. 5 I will come to you in judgment and will be a speedy witness against the sorcerers, the adulterers, those who swear falsely, those who cheat the wage-earner of wages, (who oppress) the widow and orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me,” says YHWH of hosts.
In wake of the problem expressed in 2:17 there now follows a promise that addresses both aspects of the people’s grand self-delusion. That promise is that YHWH is about to send (so the futur instans924 use of the participle j^l@v) [soleah]) His messenger. This one will prepare the way for the coming of YHWH Himself.
The construction of v. 1 is of interest both as a literary device and as a clue to its meaning. The word “messenger” (Ea*l=m^, malak) occurs twice, once at the beginning of the verse and again near the end. Although the word is not exegetically significant, perhaps one should note in passing that the noun in its first occurrence is with the pronomial suffix “my,” yk!a*l=m^, that is, malak or Malachi. As suggested in the Introduction, this may be a play on the name of the prophet himself, or it may be purely coincidental. More to the point, the double use of the term suggests that the same messenger is in view throughout the passage. Enveloped within the double occurrence is the reference to YHWH, here described with the epithet /oda*h* (haadon), “the Lord.” Thus the messenger of YHWH comes to prepare the way for Adon, a messenger further identified as the “messenger of the covenant.”925
One immediately thinks of a similar promise in Isaiah 40:3-5. There a voice proclaims, “Prepare in the wilderness the way of YHWH.” The verb translated “prepare” there (hn`P*, pana) is the very one we translate “make (the way) clear” here in Malachi. As the parallel in Isaiah 40:3b makes evident, to “make clear” is to “make smooth” or “level.” In both Isaiah and Malachi this is to be taken metaphorically to speak of the removal of obstacles to His coming.926
Whereas Isaiah refers to the Lord as YHWH, Malachi speaks of him as Adon. Even though one ought not to exaggerate the difference in name choice, it may well be that Isaiah is focusing on the covenant name inasmuch as the historical and eschatological thrust of this entire section of the book (esp. chaps. 40-55) is on covenant restoration. Malachi, on the other hand, is addressing a people who have despised the covenant and who therefore have no real right to its claims or blessings.927 This prophet may, then, be employing irony in proposing that the people are indeed not looking for their covenant Lord but, as they have already phrased it, “Where is the God of justice (2:17)?” If they want the God of justice, He will come as Adon, the Lord and Master.928
The NT identifies the messenger of Malachi 3:1 as John the Baptist (Matt. 11:10; Mark 1:2), making it clear that the messenger, in their view, is not deity. Indeed, he is not even an angel, but a man, a prophet, perhaps like Malachi himself. Malachi later elaborates on the identity of the messenger by referring to him as “Elijah the prophet” (4:5).929 Whether, as in later Jewish tradition, Malachi looked forward to the literal Elijah cannot be known,930 but Jesus himself, in the same context in which Mal. 3:1 is cited, says that Elijah to come is none other than John the Baptist (Matt. 11:14; cf. 17:10-13; Mark 9:11-13; Luke 1:17). The Christological significance of Mal. 3:1 thus becomes immediately evident, for if John the Baptist came to prepare the way for Jesus, then the Adon of Malachi can be none other than the Messiah.931 This may also explain why Adon is used rather than YHWH, for in the passage YHWH, speaks, thus distinguishing Himself, at least functionally, from Adon.
Though not totally without distant eschatological import (cf. Mal. 4:5, “the great and terrible day of YHWH”), the passage at hand is fundamentally to be connected to the first advent. The promise is that the way having been prepared, the Lord will come to His Temple (cf. Matt. 3:1-3; 21:12-17; Luke 2:41-51). The messenger who prepares the way does so as a covenant spokesman, one who reminds his hearers that the long-awaited (“whom you are seeking”) one has come to establish the kingdom of God as the ultimate expression of the ancient covenant promises (Matt. 11:11-13).932
The description of the messenger of the covenant as the “one in whom you delight” is somewhat problematic. In fact, most scholars identify this messenger with the Adon because it seems difficult to conceive of the messenger himself as the object of delight. Moreover, the parallel phrases, “the Adon whom you are seeking” and “the messenger in whom you delight” appear to make this equation conclusive. Nevertheless, for the following reasons it seems best to see the two messengers mentioned in this verse as one and the same and distinct from the Lord.
First, the uses of the technical term Ea*l=m^ in such close juxtaposition would lead one immediately to suppose that they refer to the same individual.933
Second, YHWH (or Adon) is never described elsewhere as a messenger, though the phrase “Angel of YHWH” does serve as a synonym for YHWH and frequently so (cf. Judg. 6:19-24; 13:2-14; etc.). Here, however, “Angel of YHWH” does not occur but “messenger (or angel) of the covenant.” The missing “of YHWH” certainly militates against this being YHWH.
Third, “messenger of the covenant” is a phrase occurring only here. This compounds the problem of its meaning, but the context in general would indicate that this is not a messenger of whom the covenant speaks but one who comes bearing the covenant message. That is, it is a subjective genitive. In this case the messenger is not the Adon, but one who comes to proclaim the covenant message of the Adon.934
Fourth, on the basis of the whole passage (vv. 1-5) and its NT fulfillment, it seems beyond question that the messenger here is human, not divine, and that his ministry can (and did) embrace all the elements of the passage. The objection that one cannot interpret an OT passage on the basis of NT fulfillment, citation, allusion, or otherwise fails to appreciate the wholistic nature of biblical revelation and the part that a comprehensive biblical theology and canonical witness must play in proper hermeneutical method. For the Christian, in fact, this appreciation is not an option but a sine qua non.
Having established on the basis of the witness of the gospels that John the Baptist was the predicted messenger of Mal. 3:1a, it is necessary now to see if he qualifies as the messenger of 3:1c.935 That one is “desired” by the people, the prophet says, but surely the prophet is speaking irony here, for their question of 2:17 betrays their cynicism. They no more desire the messenger than they seek the Lord.
John’s message was certainly attractive to those who came to hear him, but he understood full well that their “desire” for him was superficial. In fact, he called the curious religious leaders “offspring of vipers” who were in need of repentance (Matt. 3:7-8). He then announced the coming of the Lord, who would thoroughly sweep His threshing floor, gather the wheat for storage, and burn the chaff with unquenchable fire (Matt. 3:12). John therefore brought an unpopular message, one that crushed his hearers with its convicting power and knocked out from under their feet the hypocritical religiosity on which they depended (Mal. 3:2). He was a veritable “refiner’s fire” and “washerman’s soap” among his own generation, for his message drove a wedge between those who believed and repented and those who closed up their hearts to the overtures of covenant grace (Matt. 3:6; cf. vv. 7-8; 11:7-11).
Most specifically, John’s message and ministry were directed to the religious leadership of Judaism, an element that could easily be accommodated under the loosely defined rubric of “Levite.”936 Malachi’s messenger, the prophet says, will refine and purify the Levites in particular until those who are purged of their dross meet the standards for ministry to YHWH (3:3). Obviously the cleansing and refining are not done by the messenger as such but by the message he proclaims. In the NT frame of reference this is the gospel message that accomplishes this work of sifting and separating (Matt. 3:12).
The effects of John’s personal ministry in terms of these specific results are not easy to determine. That the message he proclaimed produced these results in the ministry of Jesus and the apostles cannot be denied. Many of the priests and other religious leaders believed (cf. John 3:1; 19:39; Acts 6:7) and in that important sense became purified and qualified to serve as priests of a new order. Then and only then could they offer up to YHWH a “righteous offering” (Mal. 3:3), one that is reminiscent of those of old which, when offered by men of faith, were pleasing to him (v. 4).937
As for the question, “Where is the God of justice?” (2:17), the answer is “I will come to you in judgment” (3:5). The agent of purification who announced the coming of the Lord now gives way to the Lord, to YHWH, who will come as Judge.938 The shift from the “he” of the first phase of the messianic coming (eight occurrences of “he” or “his” in vv. 1-4) to the “I” of the second phase lends support to the thesis that the work of the messenger is distinct from that of the Lord.939 The refining and purification, moreover, appear to have special relevance to the priests and Levites, whereas the judgment breaks those narrow bounds to encompass all of society. Finally, although it is difficult to establish within the passage itself, it seems clear from a full (NT) analysis that the setting of vv. 1-4 is primarily First Advent while that of v. 5 is more distant.940 The message of John the Baptist was one of purging and perfecting within the covenant fellowship so as to isolate a godly remnant therein (Matt. 3:10-11a). The message of YHWH is one of judgment with no hopeful note of repentance or salvation (Matt. 3:11b-12).
The catalogue of religious and social wrongs enumerated by the prophet (v. 5) does not necessarily correspond to specific items already mentioned by him (though compare sorcery941 to “foreign god,” 2:11, and adultery to mixed marriage, also 2:11) but is a rather formulaic list descriptive of apostate people of any time and place.942 This is clear from the summary statement, “and do not fear me.” Those who wonder if there is justice will discover ruefully in the day of God’s wrath that indeed there is. Self-deceit will then be exposed, and those who find comfort in it will be judged accordingly.
6 “Since, I, YHWH, do not change, you, O sons of Jacob, have not perished. 7 From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you,” says YHWH of hosts. “But you say, ‘How should we return?’ 8 Can a man *rob God? You indeed are *robbing Me, but you say, ‘How are we *robbing You?’ *In tithes and contributions. 9 You are cursed with the curse because you are *robbing Me—this entire nation.”
Just as the people were resisting YHWH and His covenant claims on them through a perverse self-deception and inverted sense of righteousness, so they express resistance in flagrant self-centeredness and acquisitiveness. Though this may be demonstrated in any number of ways, their withholding of tribute to YHWH their sovereign Lord is the case in point in the present pericope.
Malachi continues his rhetorical pattern of disputation by leveling an accusation against the people (v. 7a), by recording their supercilious question as to how to rectify the problem (v. 7b), and then by specifying once more what it is (v. 8). The form is more complicated this time943 because there is a double accusation: “you have turned aside from my statutes” and “you are robbing me.” There is also a double question: “how should we return?” and “How are we robbing You?” but only a single specification— “in tithes and contributions.” The first specification is, however, implicit in the first allegation— “you have turned aside from My statutes and have not kept them.” This is so specific as not to warrant the naive questions that are otherwise raised. Also added to the pattern is a self-standing introductory statement of principle (v. 6) and a concluding word as to the results of the present problem (v. 9).
The introductory particle yK! (k) in v. 6 may be understood in a variety of ways. If it is taken in a causal sense (“because, since”), it can refer either to the previous paragraph,944 thereby granting the guilty of that section some figment of hope inasmuch as YHWH’s covenant pledge is inalterable, or it can introduce the next paragraph, providing the same basis for His dealings with them as with the fathers in the past. The latter is by far to be preferred because the final verb (hl*K*, kala) is in the perfect, “have not perished,” the only translation the verb sequence allows. Therefore, the verse provides a general theological affirmation that the nation has not perished because YHWH Himself never changes. He always remains true to His covenant commitments.945 The perfect tenses in v. 7a, followed by participles (v. 8) to bring the action to the present, favors the connection of v. 6 to vv. 7 ff. as well. The causal sense of yK! is quite suitable to this.946
A second possibility is that yK! is asseverative, to be rendered “indeed,” “surely,” or the like.947 This is in line with the overall thrust of the passage, but the conjunction prefixed to <T#a^ (attem), “you,” weakens this likelihood unless the asseverative also carries a causal nuance such as, “Indeed, I, YHWH, do not change, so you,” etc. Any other rendering of the waw conjunctive would be extremely problematic.948 It is better on the whole to take the w+…yK! (k … we, “since … therefore”) as a cause-result construction, as the translation proposes.
The changelessness of YHWH here has to do with covenant fidelity, as the “statutes (v. 7) and “the curse” (v. 9) suggest. These two terms give His immutability a framework, for it is the very fickleness and faithlessness of the covenant people vis vis the covenant that are at issue here, a changeableness on their part that must be contrasted with the steadfastness of YHWH. They have “turned aside” (rWs, sur) from His statutes from the time of the early ancestors, refusing to keep them. To keep (rm^v*, samar) the statutes (<yQ!j%, huqqm) is a fundamental duty of the vassal in the covenant contract (cf. Deut. 11:32; 26:17; etc.).
The utter dependability of YHWH, however, means that those who have turned aside have someone to whom they can come back. “Return (WbWv, subu) to Me,” He says, “and I will return (hb*Wva*, asuba) to you.” This appeal for and expression of genuine repentance will inevitably be met by YHWH’s willingness to forgive, for His covenant word is as firmly established as He is. But Malachi’s generation has hardened itself to such a gracious invitation because they see no need to return in the first place. “How should we return?” is not an earnest entreaty for information but a self-serving declaration of innocence.949 The people, in effect, are saying, “What need do we have to return since we never turned away to begin with?”
At this point the specific charge is made: A return is absolutely essential because you, the people, have robbed God! With this allegation flung in their faces their hollow pretenses to innocence are ripped away, and their query as to how or why they must return is answered. For a man to rob God seems preposterous, and this is the effect of the rhetorical question of v. 8a. But it is not preposterous, for Israel has done it (and was doing it, as the participle emphasizes). Even the feeble rejoinder “How are we robbing you?” is nothing but a last gasp effort to maintain a facade of nonculpability. This facade, too, is demolished by the unambiguous response of YHWH: “Tithes and contributions!” There are not even verbs or other qualifiers to soften the impact of the words (v. 8b ).
“Tithes” (rc@u&m^, ma`aser)950 refers primarily to the presentation of a tenth of one’s goods to YHWH as a tribute of thanks for His blessing (Gen. 14:20; 28:22). It was used in the tabernacle and Temple administration to provide for the material welfare of the priests and Levites (Num. 18:21, 26) and, if enjoyed at all by the donor, it must be shared within the holy precincts (Deut. 12:17-18) with the Levites and others in need (Deut. 14:26-27; 26:12). The tithe, then, had a social dimension in that it provided for those who had no other means of support.
The “contributions” are the gifts “offered up” (hm*WrT=, teruma, from <Wr, rum, “to be high”).951 These are the same in material as the tithes and serve the same function, namely, to meet the needs of the disadvantaged and otherwise dependent (cf. Lev. 22:12; Num. 5:9), particularly the priests and Levites. The major differences between the two kinds of gifts are: (1) that the tithe was a mandatory tenth, whereas the “contribution” was voluntary, and (2) the “contribution” seems to have been used exclusively to meet the needs of the clergy, whereas the tithes served a broader social function.
Because the people have robbed God by withholding these gifts, they have already suffered “the curse” (v. 9). The article on “curse” (hr`a@M=B^, bammeera) reveals it to be a specific judgment applicable to this kind of covenant violation. What form it took cannot be determined with certainty.952 The use of the same word in Mal. 2:2 shows it to be most serious indeed, for there the curse comes if God’s glory is not sought, a curse that results in the overturning of all blessing. Whatever it is, it is already having its deleterious effect across the board and nationwide (v. 9).
Additional Notes
3:8 For the four occurrences in vv. 8, 9 of ub^q*, “to rob” (BDB, p. 867), the LXX presupposes the metathesized form bq^u*, “to deceive” (KBL, 820). Admittedly ubq is a rare word, occurring elsewhere only in Prov. 23:23. There, however, it clearly is a synonym of lz~G` in v. 22, as the parallel, chiastic structure of the passage indicates. Moreover, in speaking of the matter of tithes and contributions one would hardly use the verb “deceive.” Theft or robbery seems to be required in the nature of the case.
The absolute state of hm*WrT=h^w+ rc@u&M^h^ has led BHS, with Syr., Tg. Neb. and Vg to prefix each noun with B=, thus “in” or “by tithes and contributions.” However, the impact of YHWH’s indictment is heightened by the present form of the text, and the MT, for that reason alone, is superior.
10 Bring the entire tithe into the storehouse so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this,” says YHWH of hosts, “if I will not open to you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until there is no room for it. 11 Then I will rebuke the devourer for you so that it will no longer corrupt the produce of the ground, nor will the vine in the field lose its fruit (before harvest),” says YHWH of hosts. 12 “All nations will call you happy, for you indeed will be a delightful land,” says YHWH of hosts.
The proper response to the problem of selfishness, is, of course, generosity and altruism. This is no less the case when one robs God, as Malachi’s fellow countrymen were doing. Therefore, the instruction is straightforward and unambiguous— “bring the whole tithe.” This must be placed in the Temple storehouse (rx*oah* tyB@, bet haosar), which was like a warehouse for the collection of commodities presented by the people in accordance with the tithing laws referred to above (cf. v. 8). From here the goods presumably were distributed to the priests and Levites as a part of their remuneration and, separately, to the indigent elements of the society.
Nehemiah refers to these facilities as a hl*odg+ hK*v=l! (liska gedola), “a great chamber” (Neh. 13:5), a place whose function was to house offertory grains, frankincense, Temple vessels, and the tithes of grain, wine, and oil. These were to be allocated to the Levites, singers, porters, and priests (v. 6). Nehemiah relates that the system had broken down, however, with the result that the Levites and singers had had to go to the fields to collect their own food supplies (v. 10). He then brought about measures to enforce the proper payment of the tithes (v. 12). The concern for tithing articulated by Malachi remained unaddressed until the force of Nehemiah’s leadership gave it embodiment decades later.
The blessing in the tithe was not just in the sense of obedience to the divine mandate, but it took tangible form in YHWH’s reciprocation. “Give to Me, and I will give to you,” He said in effect. In fact, the comparatively miserly giving of a tenth would result in a blessing in kind so immense that it would overflow the capacity of the people to receive it (Mal. 3:10). It is not inappropriate to apply this to spiritual and other immaterial blessings, but the prophet speaks of the bounties of harvest. YHWH will rebuke the “devourer,” a term so general (lk@a), okel, lit. “the eater”) that it can apply to any scourge of the harvest whether it be an animal, pest, or adverse climate. As a result the produce of the field and the fruit of the vine will come to full maturity in their proper time (v. 11).
When such evidence of blessing comes to pass, all the nations will call Judah happy (v. 12). It will be clear to them that everything is in balance, that Judah’s God has returned favor for obedience, that those who honor their God are in turn honored by Him. Judah will be a delightful land. The ambiguous nature of the genitive construction in this last line (Jp#j@ Jra#, eres hepes, lit. “land of delight”) makes it possible for it to be understood either as a land that causes delight, that is, to its inhabitants and others, or as a land in which one finds delight, that is, by YHWH as the focus of His blessing.953 The parallelism with the previous line favors the latter interpretation.
13 “Your words against Me have been hard,” says YHWH, “but you ask, ‘What have we spoken against You?’ 14 You have said, ‘It is useless serving God. What profit is there that we have kept His charge and have walked like mourners before YHWH of hosts? 15 Now, therefore, we consider the arrogant to be happy; indeed, those who practice evil are built up. In fact, those who test God escape.’”
The third attitude of resistance to YHWH on the part of the postexilic Jewish community was expressed in its assertion of self-sufficiency. This is most surprising in that historical context, for if anything should have been obvious, it was that the very existence of that community depended on the prevenient grace and power of YHWH alone. All the self-effort in the world could not accomplish their release and return from Babylonia. Nor could they view the remarkable rebuilding of the Temple and the renewal of the state as anything but a supernatural work of their God.
Malachi’s contemporaries soon forgot all that, however, and began to entertain the notion that the success and prosperity that had attended their efforts were of their own making. Indeed, it seemed that serving God had nothing to do with it. In fact, those among them who repudiated the sovereign claims of YHWH appeared to be happiest and most successful. This spirit, then, leads to the final exchange of accusation and response in the book. This time, however, the question by the accused is not “How?” (hM*B^, bamma) as in 1:2, 6, 7; 2:17; 3:7, 8. Rather, it is “what?” (hm*, ma). The reason, of course, is that the accusation does not concern response to an affirmation by YHWH (cf. 1:2) or a question that He has posed (1:6) or even a complaint He has made in which He registers personal grievance (2:17). In this case YHWH merely refers to words spoken to Him without immediately elaborating on their effect. The people’s response, then, can only be, “What are the words?”954
The words are “hard” (qz~j*, hazaq), that is, perverse or cynical (BDB, p. 304), words “against” YHWH.955 The accusation has now been reversed, for it is the people who lay charge against Him. Pretending to be oblivious of this massive hubris, they ask YHWH to specify the words in question. What have they said that has been so offensive (v. 13)? The very fact that words have been spoken against Him points to the heart of the problem—God has appeared to become unnecessary and, indeed, the object of contempt and scorn.
This is evident in their conclusion that it is useless (aw+v*, saw, lit. “emptiness, vanity”) to serve God. All their devotion to covenant requirement, which is clearly implicit in their prideful statement “we have kept His charge” (oTr+m^v=m! Wnr+m^v*, samarnu mismarto), has gained them no profit. Even their displays of public devotion and self-effacing piety, manifested in their “walking about like mourners,” has yielded no dividends.956 It has not really paid to serve YHWH (v. 14). So much for the benefits to be gained by the godly who seek to impress their evil compatriots with the rewarding life of covenant commitment.
To make matters worse, they say, those very evil ones whose lives are an antithesis to everything YHWH desires enjoy life at its best. By observing how it goes with the arrogant, the impartial observer can only conclude that they are happy, that is, prosperous and satisfied (v. 15). The doers of evil (thus the participle hc@uo, `ose), those who make it their everyday pursuit, are built up. They seem to know nothing of the disintegrating tragedies of human experience where everything falls apart. Instead, they are affirmed and vindicated in all their ways. They even go so far as to put God to the test957 and come away scot-free, escaping both His censure and His punishment.
All these, then, are the words spoken against YHWH. They are words of complaint that the evil of this world seem to be as well off or more so than the righteous, a common complaint in the wisdom tradition especially (Job 9:22-24; 21:7-20; cf. Ps. 73:1-14; Jer. 5:26-27; 12:1; Hab. 1:4). But in making this complaint, those who do so have only a short-range view of God’s ways among men. The self-sufficiency of the sinner will turn out to be hollow in the day when YHWH comes to establish true equity. That day is the theme of the promise in 3:16-4:3.
16 *Then those who revered YHWH spoke to each other, and YHWH heard and heeded. (Now a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who revere YHWH and esteem His name.) 17 “They will be mine,” says YHWH of hosts, “in the day when I prepare (My own) possession. I will spare them as one spares his son who serves him. 18 Then once more you will discern between the righteous and the wicked, between the one who serves God and the one who does not. 19 For indeed the day is coming, burning like a furnace, and all the arrogant and evildoers will be chaff. The coming day will burn them, says YHWH of hosts, “so that it will not leave them root or branch. 20 But for you who revere My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings, and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall. 21 You will tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing,” says YHWH of hosts.
The words of rebuke by YHWH (v. 13) and those of the people in support of their spirit of self-sufficiency (vv. 14-15) are followed now by a positive response by some who repent (v. 16) and a promise by YHWH of blessing (vv. 17-18, 20-21 [EB 4:2-3]) and of judgment (v. 19 [EB 4:1]).
The present passage serves as a conclusion not only to vv. 13-15, however, but to the entire section 2:17-3:15. It explains what happens to those who resist the saving overtures of YHWH and, happily, to those who do not but who turn to Him in faith and repentance. This appears to have come about in Malachi’s own time, but the principle of divine response to human behavior is not limited to that era. The tone of the passage suggests that it summarizes the dynamics of the divine-human relationship for all time. Those who turn to Him God blesses, but those who do not will face inevitable judgment.
The words of the prophet did not fall altogether on stony ground, for he reports that certain ones, “fearing YHWH,” spoke to one another in such a way that YHWH heard, forgave, and remembered (v. 16). To fear God is to revere Him, to recognize and confess His awesome sovereignty. Malachi uses the verb “to fear” frequently, both as an appeal (1:6; 2:5; 3:20 [EB 4:2]) and as a description of human response (2:5; 3:5). It is not overstating the case to say that the term in his lexicon is a synonym for covenant stance.958 When he calls his congregation to covenant fidelity, he does so in terms of their fearing YHWH. When he chides them for covenant disloyalty, he says they no longer fear Him.
Thus, those fearing gave evidence of their renewed commitment by talking to one another, presumably in the sense of a mutual confession and corporate repentance. They discussed with one another the meaning of Malachi’s message and together agreed that it correctly pinpointed their sinful condition and called for their radical reformation.959 Whatever they said among themselves was favorably received by YHWH. He “gave attention” (bv@q=Y~w^, wayyaqseb) and “heard” (um^v=Y]w, wayyisma`). This hendiadys construction means that YHWH paid the closest heed to what was said. So moved was He by the sincerity of the repentance He heard that He recorded their names in His “book of remembrance.”
The use of participles in v. 16b and the whole tenor of the passage suggest that this sentence should be constructed parenthetically as a word of explanation. That is, YHWH did not just then originate a book of remembrance specifically in response to the repentance of Malachi’s converts. Such a book had always existed, one that listed the “fearers of YHWH” (hw`hy+ ya@r+y], yire YHWH) and “the thinkers of His name” (omv= yb@V=j), hosebe semo). Though the book (more correctly, scroll) is obviously metaphorical of YHWH’s omniscient recall, it appears elsewhere in the OT in a similar capacity. Moses, pleading on behalf of his people, begged YHWH to expunge his name from “the book you have written” if his people were condemned to extinction (Ex. 32:32). Isaiah spoke of those “written unto life” (4:3), and Daniel referred to the ultimate deliverance of God’s people, “everyone found written in the book” (12:1). The NT also speaks of a “book of life,” a record of names of those destined to eternal bliss (Rev. 20:12-15).
Malachi’s term “book of remembrance” (/orK*z] rp#s@, seper zikkaron) is unique to him. It conveys, in highly anthropomorphic language, the idea of a divine ledger in which the names of God’s covenant children are recorded for posterity.960 There is not a chance that even one name can ever be forgotten in such a system. Therefore, when the day comes for YHWH to prepare His “possession,” all those whose names appear in the record will be called forth to make up this happy host.
The “possession” (hL*g%s=, segulla) is a technical expression of the people of YHWH as His treasure or property, one rightly His by virtue of redemption. The word first occurs in Ex. 19:5 in the context of the offer of a covenant relationship by YHWH to Israel.961 YHWH says, “If you will obey My voice and keep My covenant, you will become My own possession (segulla) among all people, though all the earth is mine.” Israel thus is God’s special property, for He chose her and she in turn acceded (Ex. 19:8). The same concept occurs in Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2; 26:18.
Malachi is clearly looking to an eschatological day of new covenant, as both the term “possession” and the phrase “in the day” (3:17) or “the day comes” (3:19 [EB 4:1]) attest. Just as YHWH had prepared a possession through exodus and covenant in days of old, He will do the same in the day to come. The parallels between the two times of redemption are further strengthened in v. 17b, where YHWH says He will spare His people as one who spares the son who serves him. YHWH had referred to Israel in Egyptian bondage as His son (Ex. 4:22-23) and had instructed Moses to command Pharaoh to let the people go that they might serve Him (cf. Ex. 7:16; 8:1, 20; 9:1, 13; 10:3, 11, 24).962 When Pharaoh refused to the end, his land and family suffered the death of the first-born sons. Only the sons of Israel, covered by the Passover blood, were “spared” (Ex. 12:23-27). Though the verb employed by Malachi (lm^j*, hamal) is not used in the Passover account, the effect is the same. So also in the future Day of YHWH He will spare His own choice possession just as one spares his own son who serves him; indeed, just as He Himself spared Israel His son who was redeemed to serve Him.
The covenant perspective continues in v. 18 with the sharp distinction between those who serve God and those who do not. The servants are the liege vassals of the Great king, made such by the election and redemption of YHWH already described in v. 17. Those who do not serve Him are those who stand outside the pale of the covenant relationship. Or, to put it in other terms as Malachi himself does, those who serve God are the righteous and those who do not are the wicked. The distinction between the two may have become blurred to the point of no essential difference at all in the day of the prophet, but the day will come when such lines of demarcation will be crystal clear. Then the prevailing opinion that the arrogant are happy, the evil-doers are built up, and the ones who test God go unscathed (3:15) will be exposed for the grand self-deception that it truly is.963
The means by which the differences between the righteous and wicked will be clarified will be fearful indeed, and herein lies the promise of judgment in response to the problem of self-sufficiency outlined in vv. 13-15. The same day that will bring about the reconstitution of God’s son, the covenant nation (v. 17), will bring also the burning of a furnace,964 a fire that will consume the wicked as so much chaff (v. 19 [EB 4:1]). The words used here to describe these, the “arrogant” (<yd!z}, zedm) and “evildoers” (hu*v=r] hc@u), `ose ris`a), are the very ones (in reverse order) the prophet employed in v. 15 to speak of those who appeared to prosper despite their sinfulness. The point is thus most apparent. Because the evil seem to enjoy the favor of YHWH in this world and in this age, it may be difficult to distinguish between them and the righteous or, in any event, to consider such distinctions meaningful (v. 14). However, in “that day” the fire will clarify these matters and as it refines and purifies precious metals, allowing the dross to be exposed (cf. Mal. 3:2-3), so it will burn away the false and the hypocritical, leaving the righteous to stand vindicated.
Again, the righteous are described as “you who fear My name” (v. 20 [EB 4:2]; cf. 3:16). To them (that is, on their behalf, hence “for you”) “the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings.” This complex metaphor serves as a radical contrast to the violent destruction of the previous verse.965 In keeping with the notion of”day” as a time of YHWH’s eschatological intervention, that day of wrath and judgment for the wicked will be for the godly a cloudless day heralded by the rising of the sun as an instrument of blessing (cf. 2 Sam. 23:4). Isaiah speaks of it as a day when the sun will be seven times more brilliant than usual, a time when YHWH will “bind up the hurt of his people and heal the blow of their wound” (Isa. 30:26). In that day, the same prophet says, “the glory of YHWH will rise upon you” (60:1) so that “nations will come to your light and kings to the brightness of your rising” (60:3). What is burning fire to the godless will be glowing warmth and healing to the righteous.
The healing brought by the rejuvenating “wings”966 of the sun (perhaps its rays or effects) certainly includes recovery from literal and physical ailments, but it should not be limited to these. The human condition is one of pervasive sickness as was that of biblical Israel, a sickness traceable to and inextricably linked to sin. Thus the suffering of the servant, for example, was to produce a healing and one synonymous with victory over transgression and iniquity (Isa. 53:5). The demonstration of that healing in Malachi’s message is the renewal of strength and spirit that will energize the healed to “skip about like calves from the stall.” It takes little imagination to envision these frisky young animals gamboling about in absolute freedom after confinement in a narrow stall. Filled with the fervor of youth and wholeness, they kick their heels high in the sheer exhilaration of their happy state. So it will be in the day of YHWH`s healing grace.
The closing bracket of the unit draws attention once more to the wicked (v. 21 [EB 4:3]). The remnant of YHWH, having been delivered and renewed, will take up their covenant privilege of dominion and as the agents of the sovereign will tread down the wicked. The verb ss^u*, (`asas, “tread down”) occurs only here, but its cognate noun (sys!u*, `ass), which means “sweet wine” (BDB, 779), puts its meaning beyond question. The normal verb for treading down in conquest or dominion is Er^D* (darak). This is not used here perhaps because the figure of a calf dancing about (v. 20 [EB 4:2]) has influenced the choice of a synonym. One can imagine the calf crushing the grapes much more readily than standing with its foot on the neck or back of a defeated foe.967
In any case, the picture is still one of dominion. The wicked, who have already been incinerated by the furnace of divine wrath (v. 19 [EB 4:1]), will be but mounds of ashes beneath the triumphant feet of God’s saints. This will come to pass, He repeats, on the day He is preparing, that is, the day of perfecting His own possession (cf. 3:17).
Though it is tempting to see something of the full-blown NT doctrine of hell in this passage, to do so is to step outside the imagery here and to be theologically premature. Nevertheless, the idea of a day of judgment in which the wicked will be consumed is clearly in view. Isaiah had, in fact, preceded Malachi in looking to such a day when he says in YHWH’s words, “They will go forth and look on the dead bodies of those who have transgressed against Me, for their worm shall not die, nor shall their fire be quenched. They shall be an abhorrence to everyone” (Isa. 66:24; cf. Matt 3:12; Mark. 9:48). One cannot, therefore, take “ashes” (rp#a@, eper) exclusively figuratively either, as some scholars do.968 It is indeed used that way in other places (cf. Job 13:12; Isa. 44:20; Ezek. 28:18), but here the burning of the wicked (3:19 [EB 4:1]) that leaves “neither root nor branch” can hardly tolerate metaphorical speech. The fire and ashes no doubt speak only of death, but it is real death, nonetheless, and not just some kind of subjugation or humiliation.969
On this somber note Malachi’s record of conflict between YHWH and His people of the postexilic community comes to an end. Priest and people alike had sinned in sacrilege and rebellion. They had resisted the pleadings of divine love through the prophet, choosing to continue in their selfish and independent ways. But as was true throughout biblical history, all was not lost, for there was a remnant that heard and heeded. With them there could always be a new beginning and a promise of ultimate success in the redeeming purposes of God. In the day of His restitution the godly who responded positively to Malachi, as well as those of all ages, will stand vindicated and triumphant upon the ashes of the unrepentant.
3:16 Since the MT does not indicate what the people said to one another, the LXX and Syr. have presupposed taz) or the like and render, “Thus the fearers of YHWH spoke,” etc. It is hardly likely, however, that God-fearers said what is recorded in vv. 13-15 (or in 16b ff.). Moreover, the gist of what they said may be inferred from YHWH’s response: He entered the names of the God-fearers into His book of remembrance. They must have spoken words of exhortation to repentance.
5
Restoration through YHWH
(3:22-24 [EB 4:4-6])
Many scholars, following the Greek version, place v. 22 after vv. 23-24, presumably to allow the book to end on a more positive note (see Introduction, pp. 385-86). Others argue that vv. 23-24 are an addition to the original composition, the uncomfortable juxtaposition between vv. 22 and 23 and the unexpected reintroduction of the “Day of YHWH” theme being principal reasons. The MT tradition knows nothing but the present arrangement, however. As for the work ending on the bleak notion of curse, conditions in Malachi’s day, only exacerbated in the accounts of Ezra and Nehemiah, give real justification for the prophet’s handling of the material. A grand and glorious day is indeed coming, but it will be a day of blessing only for those who are ready for it. For those who are not—and there must have been many such in Malachi’s hearing—it is a day of unmitigated tragedy. To fail to repent and to make peace with God is to leave oneself open to the curse with which the book ends.970
22 “Remember the law of My servant Moses, which I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel—statutes and ordinances. 23 Behold, I am about to send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of YHWH comes. 24 He will turn the hearts of the fathers toward their children and the hearts of the children toward their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”
The reference to Elijah is very much at home here, for it and Mal. 3:1 provide an enveloping structure to all of chapter 3 (+ 4 in the EB). The messenger who prepares the way for YHWH is none other than Elijah, as both Jewish and Christian exegetical tradition affirm. How he fulfills that role will be addressed presently.
I have argued throughout this commentary on Malachi that the prophet is inordinately preoccupied with the motif of covenant. It is most appropriate, then, that the concluding promise of eschatological restoration should be rooted in and conditioned upon the covenant.971 The appeals Malachi has made to his generation repeatedly can be boiled down to the injunction of v. 22 (EB 4:4): “Remember the law of My servant Moses.” This is all YHWH requires of His redeemed people, but nothing less will do.
To remember is to do.972 There is no abstract reflection here but a command to bear in mind and to put into effect. This is the very exhortation Moses himself made, especially in the great pareneses of Deuteronomy. “Remember YHWH your God,” he said, “that He may establish His covenant which He swore to your fathers” (Deut. 8:18). They must remember, too, that they had been slaves in Egypt and inasmuch as YHWH had redeemed them, they were to obey His commands (15:15). Then, as though to preclude their thinking of Torah as an overgeneralized statement of vague principle, YHWH specifies the requirements of covenant fealty—the statutes (<yQ!j%, huqqm) and ordinances (<yf!P*v=m!, mispatm). So the remembering must be grounded in identifiable, discrete propositions, the stipulation texts of the covenant codes. Only when God’s people meet these conditions of covenant compliance can they expect the long-anticipated restoration.
Lest the whole process appear to be merely quid pro quo, restoration for blind obedience, YHWH promises to send the prophet Elijah to prepare for the Day of YHWH (vv. 23-24 [EB 5:4-6]). It will be his task to preach a message of reconciliation that will draw father to children and children to father (cf. Luke 1:17). To “turn the heart” (bl@ byv!h@, hesb leb) is an expression in Hebrew that shows, grammatically, divine initiative at work.973 It is YHWH who causes hearts to turn and change (cf. 1 Sam. 10:6, 9). It is true, of course, that leb in Hebrew psychology means fundamentally the mind, the rational power of man. But this does not at all undercut the need for divine prevenience in effecting change in human relationships.
The fact that only fathers and children are named does not limit the scope of the passage. Clearly these are just examples of the whole network of human relationships. Sin has so effectively disrupted the wholeness and happiness of societal life that no amount of good intentions or merely mechanical adherence to even the gracious provisions of Torah can patch things up again. What is needed is a redeeming word from YHWH mediated through a prophet like Elijah. That word, faithfully proclaimed, will accomplish a healing, reconciling result.974 When that occurs covenant is kept, at least on the horizontal axis, and if on that axis certainly on the vertical as well, because it is one integrated whole. Without that contravening message there would be no hope, for it would be impossible to keep the covenant without the divine energy that that word imparts. Instead Israel, and indeed the whole earth, would be consigned to the ban like a heathen nation.
The ban (<rj@, herem) was the judgment of God on places, things, and hopelessly unrepentant people that resulted in the extermination of living beings and the destruction or appropriation by YHWH of the rest.975 Were God’s people at last to remain in unbelief and rebellion, they must suffer the fate of those placed under herem, for they, too, would be under His everlasting curse. The whole earth would suffer similarly, for without the mediatorial ministry of Israel, the kingdom of priests, the program of YHWH for universal redemption would collapse and the design for a universal kingdom come to an end.
In what sense should one understand the coming of Elijah? The answers to this question are varied. The OT record reveals that he did not die but was translated bodily into heaven (2 Kings 2:11). His coming thus could be more easily explained and made possible without the impediment of death. His very ascension perhaps was for the purpose of his later eschatological appearance as forerunner of the coming of YHWH. Jewish tradition from earliest times viewed it in this way,976 as even the NT suggests. When the Jewish masses learned of the ministry of John the Baptist in the wilderness, they went out to him and inquired as to his identity. Was he the Messiah, they wondered, or Elijah, or the prophet, that is, the prophet of Deuteronomy 18? To each of these his answer was no. But the very question reflects anticipation of a coming Elijah.
Jesus, in an apparent contradiction of John’s own testimony, clearly identified John as Elijah (Matt. 11:14), but in a highly nuanced way. John’s inquisitors had wondered if he was not actually Elijah in the flesh returned to earth. This he was not, as he made clear in his reply. But he was, however, an Elijah figure, one who came in the spirit and power of Elijah. This is why Jesus qualified His assessment of the Elijah-John identification by saying, “If you are willing to receive him, this is Elijah who is to come.” That is, John stands in fulfillment of the promise of Malachi concerning the coming of Elijah but only in the sense that he announced the coming of Christ, just as the messenger would come to announce the coming of Adon (Mal. 3:1).
Jesus touched on this point again in the transfiguration narrative (Matt. 17:1-13; cf. Mark 9:2-13; Luke 9:28-36). When Jesus appeared on the mountain in glory, He was accompanied by Moses and Elijah, the same two figures mentioned by Malachi. In later discussion with His disciples about His resurrection, they reminded Him that before the messianic manifestation could come to pass Elijah must first appear. Jesus agreed that Elijah must restore all things, but then announced that Elijah had already come, only to be rejected. They then understood that Jesus once more was connecting Elijah with John the Baptist.
As argued previously, however, in connection with Mal. 3:1, the messenger of the covenant there and John the Baptist are one and the same. Jesus established this linkage (Matt. 11:10-11) and went on to make the further linkage between John and Elijah in the same passage (Matt. 11:14). But Mal. 3:1-6, as we saw, has eschatological as well as messianic overtones. This suggests that the messenger (and thus also Elijah) has an eschatological identification and role as well. There is still a sense, then, in which Elijah is yet to come.977 This is put beyond question by Mal. 3:23 (EB 4:5), which locates Elijah’s coming in the setting of “the great and terrible day of YHWH,” a description freighted with eschatological language.
It is likely, then, that the historical Elijah is not in view but instead an antitype Elijah who, like John, will announce the coming of YHWH in a day yet future.978 But the fact that he may not be the historical Elijah cannot mitigate against the literalness of the figure himself any more than it could against the literalness of the historical John the Baptist.
Why Elijah is mentioned and not someone else may have to do with his place as a prophet non pareil.979 Moses appears in Mal. 3:21 (EB 4:4) in connection with the Law; Elijah appears in the next verse, perhaps in connection with the prophets. Thus the whole canon of Malachi’s day is represented, attesting univocally to the certainty of YHWH’s coming salvation. This sublime act of final redemption is confirmed by the word of two witnesses (Deut. 19:15), just as its anticipatory revelation in the Transfiguration of our Lord was accompanied by the same two witnesses, Moses and Elijah (Matt. 17:3). The great and terrible day of YHWH is a certainty, as both law and prophecy declare. But it will be a day of salvation for those of Israel, who, by the message of grace preached by Elijah, are thereby made capable of adhering to the covenant of Moses to which YHWH likewise elected them by grace.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations supplement the list adopted by the Journal of Biblical Literature:
Akk. |
Akkadian |
Arab. |
Arabic |
BWAT |
Beitrage zur Wissenschaft von Alten Testament |
CTR |
Criswell Theological Review |
EB |
English Bible |
EBC |
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary |
GTJ |
Grace Theological Journal |
HB |
Hebrew Bible |
IndTS |
Indian Theological Studies |
ITC |
International Theological Commentary |
JTh |
The Journal of Theology |
KHAT |
Kurzer Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament |
NKJV |
New King James Version |
OTWSA |
Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap van Suid-Afrika |
RTR |
Reformed Theological Review |
SMA |
Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology |
SoJT |
Southwestern Journal of Theology |
SP |
Samaritan Pentateuch |
Syr |
Syriac |
TAPS |
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society |
THAT |
Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten Testament |
ThEv |
Theologia Evangelica |
TOTC |
Tyndale Old Testament Commentary |
WEC |
Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary |
Selected Bibliography
General Works
Ackroyd, Peter R. Exile and Restoration. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968.
________. Israel Under Babylon and Persia. Oxford: Oxford Univ., 1970.
Archer, Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Rev. ed. Chicago: Moody, 1985.
Bright, John. A History of Israel. 3d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981.
Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament As Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.
Cathcart, Kevin J., and Robert P. Gordon. The Targum of the Minor Prophets. Vol. 14. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989.
Davies, W. D., and Louis Finkelstein, eds. The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 1, Introduction: The Persian Period. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1984.
De Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961.
Driver, S. R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913.
Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament, An Introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965.
Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985.
Fohrer, Georg. Introduction to the Old Testament. London: SPCK, 1970.
France, R. T. Jesus and the Old Testament. London: Tyndale, 1971.
Hanson, Paul. The Dawn of Apocalyptic. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.
Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.
Kaiser, Otto. Introduction to the Old Testament. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975.
Kirkpatrick, A. F. The Doctrine of the Prophets. London: Macmillan, 1901.
Koch, Klaus. The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic. SBT 22. London: SCM, 1972.
Merrill, Eugene H. Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.
Olmstead, A. T. History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 1948.
Parker, Richard A., and Waldo H. Dubberstein. Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75. Providence, R.I.: Brown Univ., 1956.
Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton, Princeton, N.J.: Univ., 1950.
Russell, D. S. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic. London: SCM, 1964.
Soggin, J. Alberto. Introduction to the Old Testament. London: SCM, 1989.
Weiser, Artur. Introduction to the Old Testament. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961.
Westermann, Claus. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967.
Wiseman, D. J. Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (625-556 B.C.) in the British Museum. London: British Museum, 1956.
Yamauchi, Edwin M. Persia and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.
Haggai
Amsler, Samuel. Agge, Zacharie 1-8, Zacharie 9-14. CAT. Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestl, 1981.
Baldwin, Joyce G. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. London: Tyndale, 1972.
Beuken, W. A. M. Haggai—Sacharja 1-8. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967.
Coggins, R. J. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Sheffield: JSOT, 1987.
Elliger, Karl. Das Buch der zwlf kleinen Profeten. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.
Horst, F. Die zwlf kleinen Propheten Nahum bis Maleachi. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1964.
Mason, Rex. The Books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1977.
Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah 1-8. AB. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987.
Mitchell, H. G. A Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.
Petersen, David L. Haggai and Zechariah 1-8. London: SCM, 1985.
Rudolph, Wilhelm. Haggai—Sacharja 1-8—Sacharja 9-14—Maleachi. KAT. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1976.
Sellin, D. Ernst. Das Zwlfprophetenbuch. KAT. Leipzig: Deichert, 1922.
Smith, Ralph L. Micah—Malachi. WBC. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984.
Stuhlmueller, Carroll. Haggai & Zechariah. ITC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Verhoef, Pieter A. The Books of Haggai and Malachi. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Wolff, Hans Walter. Dodekapropheten 6. Haggai. BKAT. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1986.
Ackroyd, Peter R. “The Book of Haggai and Zechariah 1-8,” JJS 3 (1952): 151-56.
________. “Studies in the Book of Haggai,” JJS 2 (1951): 163-76; JJS 3 (1952): 1-13.
________. “Two Old Testament Historical Problems of the Early Persian Period,” JNES 17 (1958): 13-27.
Carroll, Robert P. “Eschatological Delay in the Prophetic Tradition,” ZAW 94 (1982): 47-58.
Christensen, Duane L. “Impulse and Design in the Book of Haggai,” JETS 35 (1992): 445-56.
Clark, David J. “Problems in Haggai 2:15-19,” BT 34 (1983):432-39.
Dumbrell, W. J. “Kingship and Temple in the Post-Exilic Period,” RTR 37 (1978): 33-42.
Eybers, I. H. “The Rebuilding of the Temple According to Haggai and Zechariah,” OTWSA 13-14 (1970-71): 15-26.
Hamerton-Kelly, R. G. “The Temple and the Origins of Jewish Apocalyptic,” VT 20 (1976): 1-15.
Japhet, Sara. “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah,” ZAW 94 (1982): 66-98.
Kessler, John A. “The Shaking of the Nations: An Eschatological View,” JETS 30 (1987): 159-66.
Koch, Klaus. “Haggai’s unreines Volk,” ZAW 79 (1967): 52-66.
Lust, J. “The Identification of Zerubbabel with Sheshbassar,” ETL 63 (1987): 90-95.
McCarthy, Dennis J. “An Installation Genre?” JBL 90 (1971): 31-41.
Mason, R. A. “The Purpose of the ‘Editorial Framework’ of the Book of Haggai, “ VT 27 (1977): 413-21.
May, Herbert G. “‘This People’ and ‘This Nation’ in Haggai,” VT 18 (1968): 190-97.
North, Francis S. “Critical Analysis of the Book of Haggai,” ZAW 68 (1956): 25-46.
Petersen, David L. “Zerubbabel and Jerusalem Temple Reconstruction,” CBQ 36 (1974): 366-72.
Pierce, Ronald W. “Literary Connectors and a Haggai/Zechariah/Malachi Corpus,” JETS 27 (1984): 277-89.
________. “A Thematic Development of the Haggai/Zechariah/ Malachi Corpus,” JETS 27 (1984): 401-11.
Radday, Yehuda T., and Moshe A. Pollatschek. “Vocabulary Richness in Post-exilic Prophetic Books,” ZAW 92 (1980): 333-46.
Rainey, Anson. “The Satrapy ‘Beyond the River,’” AJBA 1/2 (1969): 51-78.
Siebeneck, Robert T. “The Messianism of Aggeus and Proto-Zacharias,” CBQ 19 (1957): 312-28.
Steck, Odil H. “Zu Haggai 1:2-11,” ZAW 83 (1971): 355-79.
Van Rooy, H. F. “Eschatology and Audience: The Eschatology of Haggai,” Old Testament Essays 1/1 (1988): 49-63.
Wessels, W. J. “Haggai from a Historian’s Point of View,” Old Testament Essays 1/2 (1988): 47-61.
Wolf, Herbert. “‘The Desire of all Nations’ in Haggai 2:7: Messianic or Not?” JETS 19 (1976): 97-102.
Zechariah
Amsler, Samuel. Agge, Zacharie 1-8, Zacharie 9-14. CAT. Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestl, 1981.
Baldwin, Joyce G. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. London: Tyndale, 1972.
Barker, Kenneth L. “Zechariab.” In EBC, vol. 7. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985.
Chary, Theophane. Agge-Zacharie-Malachie. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1969.
Deissler, A. Zwlf Propheten III. Zefanja, Haggai, Sacharia, Maleachi. Würzburg: Echter, 1988.
Elliger, Karl. Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi. ATD. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.
Horst, F. Die zwlf kleinen Propheten, Nahum bis Maleachi. HAT 14. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1964.
Jansma, Taeke. Inquiry into the Hebrew Text and the Ancient Versions of Zechariah IX-XIV. Leiden: Brill, 1949.
Jeremias, Christian. Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977.
Keil, C. F. The Twelve Minor Prophets. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871.
Lacocque, Andr. Zacharie 9-14. CAT. Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestl, 1981.
Lamarche, Paul. Zacharie IX-XIV. Structure Littraire et Messianisme. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1961.
Leupold, H. C. Exposition of Zechariah. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971.
Mason, Rex. The Books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1977.
Meyers, Carol, and Eric M. Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah 1-8. AB. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1987.
Mitchell, H. G. A Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.
Nowack, W. Die kleinen Propheten. HAT. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903.
Otzen, Benedikt. Studien über Deuterosacharja. ATD 6. Copenhagen: Prostand Apud Munksgaard, 1964.
Petersen, David L. Haggai and Zechariah 1-8. London: SCM, 1985.
Petitjean, Albert. Les Oracles du Proto-Zacharie. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1969.
Rignell, L. G. Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharia. Lund: Gleerup, 1950.
Rothstein, J. W. Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja. BWAT 8. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1910.
Rudolph, Wilhelm. Haggai-Sacharja 1-8—Sacharia 9-14—Maleachi. KAT. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1976.
Saeb, Magne. Sacharja 9-14. Untersuchungen von Text und Form. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969.
Sellin, D. Ernst. Das Zwlfprophetenbuch. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1922.
Seybold, Klaus. Bilder zum Tempelbau. Die Visionen des Propheten Sacharja. Stuttgart: KBW, 1974.
Stuhlmueller, Carroll. Haggai and Zechariah. ITC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Unger, Merrill F. Zechariah. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963.
Van Hoonacker, A. Les douze petits Prophtes. Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre, 1908.
Allan, Nigel. “The Identity of the Jerusalem Priesthood During the Exile,” HeyJ 23 (1982): 259-69.
Barker, Margaret. “The Evil in Zechariah,” HeyJ 19 (1978): 12-27.
________ “The Two Figures in Zechariah,” HeyJ 18 (1977): 38-46.
Bartnicki, Roman. “Das Zitat van Zack IX, 9-10 und die Tiere im Bericht van Matthus über dem Einzug Jesu in Jerusalem (Mt XXI, I-II),” NovT 18 (1976): 161-66.
Carroll, Robert P. “Twilight of Prophecy or Dawn of Apocalyptic?” ISOT 14 (1979): 3-35.
Chernus, Ira. “‘A Wall of Fire Round About’: The Development of a Theme in Rabbinic Midrash,” JJS 30 (1979): 18-84.
Clark, David J. “The Case of the Vanishing Angel,” BT 33 (1982): 213-18.
________ “Discourse Structure in Zechariah 7:1-8:23 (Comparison with Haggai; Appendix: Structural Layout),” BT 36 (1985): 328-35.
Crossan, John Dominic. “Redaction and Citation in Mark 11:9-10 and 11:17,” BR 17 (1972): 33-50.
Dahood, Mitchell. “Zachariah 9:1 ‘n ‘dm,” CBQ 25 (1963): 123-24.
Delcor, Matthias. “Les Allusions Alexandre le Grand dans Zach 9:1-8,” VT 1 (1951): 110-24.
________ “Deux Passages Difficiles: Zach 12:11 et 11:13,” VT 3 (1953): 67-77.
________ “Hinweise auf das Samaritanische Schisma in Alten Testament,” ZAW 74 (1962): 281-91.
________ “Un Probleme de Critique Textuelle et d’Exegese: Zach 12:10,” RB 58 (1951): 189-99.
________ “Les Sources du Deutero-Zacharie et Ses Procedes d’Emprunt,” RB 59 (1952): 385-411.
Draper, J. A. “The Heavenly Feast of Tabernacles: Revelation 7:1-17,” JSNT 19 (1983): 133-47.
Driver, G. R. “Old Problems Re-examined,” ZAW 80 (1968): 174-83.
Duff, Paul Brooks. “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco-Roman King: Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem,” JBL 111 (1992): 55-71.
Eichrodt, Walther. “Vom Symbol zum Typos: Ein Beitrag zur Sacharja-Exegese Zech 1:7—6:9,” TLZ 13 (1957): 509-22.
Feigin, Samuel. “Some Notes on Zechariah 11:4-17,” JBL 44 (1925): 203- 13.
Finley, Thomas J. “The Sheep Merchants of Zechariah 11,” GTJ 3 (1982): 31-65.
Galling, Kurt. “Die Exilswende in der Sicht des Propheten Sacharja,” VT 2 (1952): 18-36.
Good, Robert M. “Zechariah’s Second Night Vision,” Bib 63 (1982): 56-59.
Gordon, R. P. “The Targum to the Minor Prophets and the Dead Sea Texts: Textual and Exegetical Notes,” RQum 8 (1974): 425-29.
________ “Targum Variant Agrees with Welihausen!” ZAW 87 (1975): 218-19.
Greenfield, Jonas C. “The Aramean God Rammn/Rimmn,” IEJ 26 (1976): 195-98.
Halpern, Baruch. “The Ritual Background of Zechariah’s Temple Song,” CBQ 40 (1978): 167-90.
Hamerton-Kelly, R. B. “The Temple and the Origins of Jewish Apocalyptic,” VT 20 (1970): 1-15.
Hanson, Paul D. “Zechariah 9 and the Recapitulation of an Ancient Ritual Pattern,” JBL 92 (1973): 37-59.
Harrelson, Walter. “The Trial of the High Priest Joshua: Zechariah 3,” Erlsr 16 (1982): 116*-24*.
Hartle, James A. “The Literary Unity of Zechariah,” JETS 35 (1992): 145-57.
Hill, Andrew E. “Dating Second Zechariah: A Linguistic Reexamination,” HAR 6 (1982): 105-34.
Japhet, Sara. “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel,” ZAW 95 (1983): 218-29.
Jones, Douglas R. “A Fresh Interpretation of Zechariah IX-XI,” VT 12 (1962): 241-59.
Joubert, W. H. “The Determination of the Contents of Zechariah 1:7—2:17 Through a Structural Analysis,” OTWSA 20-21 (1977-78): 66-82.
Kline, Meredith G. “The Structure of the Book of Zechariah,” JETS 34 (1991): 179-93.
Kloos, Carola J. L. “Zech. II 12: Really a Crux Interpretum?” VT 25 (1975): 729-36.
Le Bas, Edwin E. “Zechariah’s Climax to the Career of the Corner-Stone,” PEQ 83 (1951): 139-55.
________ “Zechariah’s Enigmatical Contribution to the Corner-Stone,” PEQ 82 (1950): 102-22.
Lipiski, E. “Recherches sur le livre de Zacharie,” VT 20 (1970): 25-55.
Luke, K. “The Thirty Pieces of Silver (Zch. 11:12f.),” Indian Theological Studies 19 (1982): 15-32.
Malamat, A. “The Historical Settings of Two Biblical Prophecies of the Nations,” IEJ 1 (1950-51): 149-59.
Mason, Rex A. “The Relation of Zech 9-14 to Proto-Zechariah,” ZAW 88 (1976): 227-39.
________ “Some Echoes of the Preaching in the Second Temple?: Tradition Elements in Zechariah 1-8,” ZAW 96 (1984): 221-35.
May, Herbert G. “A Key to the Interpretation of Zechariah’s Visions,” JBL 57 (1938): 173-84.
North, Robert. “Zechariah’s Seven-spout Lampstand,” Bib 51 (1970): 183-206.
Oswalt, John N. “Recent Studies in Old Testament Eschatology and Apocalyptic,” JETS 24 (1981): 289-301.
Patsch, H. “Der Einzug Jesu in Jerusalem,” ZTK 68 (1971): 1-26.
Petersen, David L. “Zerubbabel and Jerusalem Temple Reconstruction,” CBQ 36 (1974): 366-72.
________ “Zechariah’s Visions: A Theological Perspective,” VT 34 (1984): 195-206.
Portnoy, Stephen L., and David L. Petersen. “Biblical Texts and Statistical Analysis: Zechariah and Beyond,” JBL 103 (1984): 11-21.
Radday, Yehuda T., and Dieter Wickmann. “The Unity of Zechariah Examined in the Light of Statistical Linguistics,” ZAW 87 (1975): 30-55.
Richter, Hans-Friedemann. “Die Pferde in Den Nachtgesichten des Sacharja,” ZAW 98 (1986): 96-100.
Ringgren, Helmer. “Behold Your King Comes,” VT 24 (1974): 207-11.
Robinson, Donald F. “Suggested Analysis of Zechariah 1-8,” ATR 33 (1951): 65-70.
Ruethy, Albert E. “‘Sieben Augen auf Einem Stein,’ Sach 3:9,” TLZ 13 (1957): 522-29.
Saeb, Magne. “Die deuterosacharjanische Frage,” ST 23 (1969): 115-40.
Sinclair, Lawrence A. “Redaction of Zechariah 1-8,” BR 20 (1975): 36-47.
Strand, Kenneth A. “An Overlooked Old Testament Background to Revelation 11:1,” AUSS 22 (1984): 317-25.
________ “The Two Olive Trees of Zechariah 4 and Revelation 11,” AUSS 20 (1982): 257-61.
Thomas, D. Winton. “Zechariah 10:11a,” ExpTim 66 (1955): 272-73.
Tidwell, N. L. A. “W ‘mar (Zech 3:5) and the Genre of Zechariah’s Fourth Vision,” JBL 94 (1975): 343-55.
Torrey, C. C. “The Foundry of the Second Temple at Jerusalem,” JBL 55 (1936): 247-60.
________ “The Messiah Son of Ephraim,” JBL 66 (1947): 253-77.
Tournay, R. “Zacharie XII-XIV et l’histoire d’Isral,” RB 81 (1974): 355-94.
Treves, Marco. “Conjecture Concerning the Date and Authorship of Zechariah IX-XIV,” VT 13 (1963): 196-207.
Tuell, Steven S. “The Southern and Eastern Borders of Abar-Nahara,” BASOR 284 (1991): 51-57.
VanderKam, James C. “Joshua the High Priest and the Interpretation of Zechariah 3,” CBQ 53 (1991): 553-70.
van Zijl, P. J. “A Possible Interpretation of Zech. 9:1 and the function of ‘the eye’ (ayin) in Zechariah,” JNSL 1 (1971): 59-67.
Villaln, Jos R. “Sources Vetero-Testamentaires de la Doctrine Qumranienne des Deux Messies,” RevQ 8 (1972): 53-63.
Zolli, Eugenio.” Eyn Adam,” VT 5 (1955): 90-92.
Malachi
Alden, Robert L. “Malachi.” In EBC, vol. 7. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985.
Baldwin, Joyce G. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. London: Tyndale, 1972.
Chary, Theophane. Agge-Zacharie-Malachie. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1969.
Deissler, A. Zwlf Propheten III. Zefanja, Haggai, Sacharia, Maleachi. Wurzburg: Echter, 1988.
Deutsch, Richard R. Calling God’s People to Obedience. A Commentary on the Book of Malachi. ITC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Elliger, Karl. Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi. ATD 25. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.
Glazier-McDonald, Beth. Malachi, The Divine Messenger. SBL Diss. Series 98. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.
Hitzig, F. Die zwlf kleinen Propheten. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1881.
Horst, F. Die zwlf kleinen Propheten, Nahum bis Maleachi. HAT 14. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1964.
Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. Malachi. God’s Unchanging Love. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.
Laetsch, Theodore. Minor Prophets. St. Louis: Concordia, 1956.
Marti, Karl. Das Dodekapropheten. KHAT XIII. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1904.
Mason, Rex. The Books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1977.
Nowack, W. Die kleinen Propheten. HAT. Gttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1903.
Orelli, C. von. The Twelve Minor Prophets. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1893.
Rudolph, Wilhelm. Haggai-Sacharja 1-8—Sacharja 9-14—Maleachi. KAT. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1976.
Smith, John M. P. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Malachi. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.
Smith, Ralph L. Micah-Malachi. WBC. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984.
Van Hoonacker, A. Les Douze Petits Prophtes. Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre, 1908.
Verhoef, Pieter A. The Books of Haggai and Malachi. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Vuilleumier, Ren. Malachie. CAT. Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestl, 1981.
Baldwin, J. G. “Malachi 1:11 and the Worship of the Nations in the Old Testament,” TynBul 23 (1972): 117-24.
Braun, Roddy. “Malachi—A Catechism for Times of Disappointment,” CurTM 4 (1977): 297-303.
Clendenen, E. Ray. “The Structure of Malachi: A Textlinguistic Study,” CTR 2 (1987): 3-17.
Drinkard, Joel F., Jr. “The Socio-Historical Setting of Malachi,” RevEx 84 (1987): 383-90.
Dumbrell, William J. “Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms,” RTR 35 (1976): 42-52.
Fischer, James A. “Notes on the Literary Form and Message of Malachi,” CBQ 34 (1972): 315-20.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “More About Elijah Coming First,” JBL 104 (1985): 295-96.
Freedman, David B. “An Unnoted Support for a Variant to the MT of Mal 3:5,” JBL 98 (1979): 405-06.
Fuller, Russell. “Text-Critical Problems in Malachi 2:10-16,” JBL 110 (1991): 47-57.
Harrison, George W. “Covenant Unfaithfulness in Malachi 2:1-16,” CTR 2 (1987): 63-72.
Jones, David Clyde. “A Note on the LXX of Malachi 2:16,” JBL 109 (1990): 683-85.
Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. “Divorce in Malachi 2:10-16,” CTR 2 (1987): 73-84.
________ “The Promise of the Arrival of Elijah in Malachi and the Gospels,” GTJ 3 (1982): 221-33.
Keown, Gerald L. “Messianism in the Book of Malachi,” RevEx 84 (1987): 443-51.
Klein, George L. “An Introduction to Malachi,” CTR 2 (1987): 19-37.
McKenzie, Steven L., and Howard N. Wallace, “Covenant Themes in Malachi,” CBQ 45 (1983): 549-63.
Ogden, Graham S. “The Use of Figurative Language in Malachi 2:10-16,” BT 39 (1988): 223-30.
Robinson, Alan. “God, the Refiner of Silver,” CBQ 11 (1949): 188-90.
Rudolph, W. “Zu Mal 2:10-16,” ZAW 93 (1981): 85-90.
Scalise, Pamela. “To Fear or not to Fear: Questions of Reward and Punishment in Malachi 2:17—4:2,” RevEx 84 (1987): 409-18.
Schreiner, Stefan. “Mischehen-Ehebruch-Ehescheidung,” ZAW 91 (1979): 207-28.
Smith, Ralph. “The Shape of Theology in the Book of Malachi,” SWJT 30 (1987): 22-27.
Snyman, S. D. “Antitheses in the Book of Malachi,” JNSL 10 (1990): 173-78.
Swetnam, James. “Malachi 1:11: An Interpretation,” CBQ 31 (1969): 200-209.
Tate, Marvin E. “Questions for Priests and People in Malachi 1:2—2:16,” RevEx 84 (1987): 391-407.
Thomas, D. Winton. “The Root SN’ in Hebrew, and the Meaning of QDRNYT in Malachi 3:14,” JJS 1 (1948-49): 182-88.
Van Selms, A. “The Inner Cohesion of the Book of Malachi,” QTWSA 13-14 (1970-71): 27-40.
Verhoef, P. A. “Some Notes on Malachi 1:1 1,” OTWSA 9 (1966): 163-72.
Watts, J. D. W. “Introduction to the Book of Malachi,” RevEx 84 (1987): 373-81.
Wendland, Ernst. “Linear and Concentric Patterns in Malachi,” BT 36 (1985): 108-21.
810 Bruce Dahlberg, “Studies in the Book of Malachi” (Ph.D. Diss., Columbia Univ., 1963), 180-222. I owe this reference to my colleague, Mark Rooker.
811 Hans H. Spoer, “Some New Considerations Towards the Dating of the Book of Malachi,” JQR 30(1908):167-86.
812 For overall surveys of the history of Persia from the reign of Darius through that of Artaxerxes I, see A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 1948), 107-354; G. B. Gray and M. Cary, “The Reign of Darius,” CAH, 4:173-228; J. A. R. Munro, “Xerxes’ Invasion of Greece,” CAH, 4:268-316; and “The Deliverance of Greece,” CAH, 4:317-46; Ephraim Stern, “The Persian Empire and the Political and Social History of Palestine in the Persian Period,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism. Introduction: The Persian Period, ed. W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1984), 70-87; Peter R. Ackroyd, Israel Under Babylon and Persia (Oxford: Oxford Univ., 1970); Edwin M. Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 129-278.
813 This identification was put beyond doubt many years ago by Robert D. Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament (London: Marshall Brothers, 1926), 79-80.
814 For this, see Peter R. Ackroyd, “The Jewish Community in Palestine in the Persian Period,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, 130-61.
815 Stern, “The Persian Empire and the Political and Social History of Palestine in the Persian Period,” 73.
816 Julian Morgenstern postulates a Jewish rebellion in 485 led by a king Menahem and suggests that the Ezra 4:6 reference is in regard to the putting down of this rebellion with the collaboration of the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, and Philistines. See his series of studies entitled “Jerusalem—485 B.C.” in HUCA 27(1956):101-79; HUCA 28(1957):15-47; HUCA 31 (1960):1-29; and “Further Light from the Book of Isaiah upon the Catastrophe of 485 B.C.,” HUCA 37 (1966):1-28, esp. 3-4.
817 Anson Rainey, “The Satrapy ‘Beyond the River,’“ AJBA 1(1969):58, 62-63.
818 For archaeological and inscriptional information, see Morton Smith, “Jewish Religious Life in the Persian Period,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, esp. 233-50.
819 If, as I argue below, Malachi dates from 470 or so, then the problems adduced in Ezra were already flagrant many years earlier. See B. Dahlberg, “Studies in the Book of Malachi,” 202.
820 B. Dahlberg, “Studies in the Book of Malachi,” 202.
821 Philip C. Hammond, The Nabataeans—Their History, Culture and Archaeology, SMA 37 (Gothenburg: Paul Astrms, 1973), 13.
822 Spoer, “Some New Considerations Towards the Dating of the Book of Malachi,” 182-83.
823 Cf. Ben Sirach 48:10, which quotes Malachi 3:23-24. Ben Sirach was thought to have been written c. 180 B.C. Patrick W. Skehan, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 10, 534.
824 Ackroyd, “The Jewish Community in Palestine in the Persian Period,” 155-58.
825 So, for example, Otto Kaiser, Introduction to the Old Testament (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975), 285-86.
826 For a brilliant study arguing for an even longer overlap and closer connection between Ezra and Nehemiah, see Leslie McFall, “Was Nehemiah Contemporary with Ezra in 458 B.C.?” WTJ 53(1991):263-93.
827 W. J. Dumbrell makes a strong case for Malachi’s role as a stimulus for the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah in “Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms,” RTR 35 (1976):42-52.
828 For linguistic evidence leading to this conclusion see Andrew E. Hill, “Dating the Book of Malachi: A Linguistic Re-examination,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth, ed. Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 77-89.
829 For a helpful statement concerning the strategic canonical location of Malachi, see J. D. W. Watts, “Introduction to the Book of Malachi,” Rev Ex 84 (1987):373-74.
830 Ronald W. Pierce has drawn attention to the literary and thematic linkages between Haggai-Zechariah, on the one hand, and Malachi, on the other, thus supporting the canonical shape as a deliberate strategy (“Literary Connectors and a Haggai/Zechariah/Malachi Corpus,” JETS 27 [1984]: 277-89).
831 Thus Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, An Introduction (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), 440-41.
832 Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament As Scripture (London: SCM, 1979), 491-92.
833 Robert L. Alden, “Malachi,” The EBC, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 7:704-5.
834 Pieter A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi. NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 166-68.
835 Ernst Wendland, “Linear and Concentric Patterns in Malachi,” BT 36 (1985):108-21; S. D. Snyman, “Antitheses in the Book of Malachi,” JNSL 16 (1990): 173-78.
836 Wendland, “Linear and Concentric Patterns in Malachi,” 112.
837 Alden, “Malachi,” 7:704.
838 John M. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Malachi. ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 4.
839 Georg Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament, (London: SPCK, 1970), 470.
840 Friedrich Horst, Die Zwlf kleinen Propheten, Nahum bis Maleachi. HAT 14 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1964,) 261.
841 Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, An Introduction, 442.
842 Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament, 470.
843 Smith, A Commentary on Malachi, 81.
844 Roddy Braun thus speaks of Malachi’s approach as “the catechetical device of the question and answer format” (Malachi—A Catechism for Times of Disappointment,” CurTM 4 [1977]:299).
845 For a brief overview of form-critical analyses of Malachi, see Hans Jochen Boecker,” Bemerkungen zur formgeschichtlichen Terminologie des Buches Maleachi,” ZAW 78 (1966):78-79; see also Beth Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, The Divine Messenger, SBL Diss. Series 98 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 19; Gerhard Wallis, “Wesen und Structur der Botschaft Maleachis,” in Das Ferne und nahe Wort, ed. F. Maass (Berlin: A. Tpelmann, 1967), 229-37. Watts analyzes the book according to some sixteen units that he calls “speech acts.” In line with modern “reader-centered” criticism he suggests that these “speech acts” contain gapping designed to draw the reader into the act by making him part of the process of achieving meaning. The subjectivity of such a method makes it risky, but Watts does provide some stimulating reaction to the text (“Introduction to the Book of Malachi,” 376-79). Van Selms (arbitrarily he admits) divides the book into eight units, viz., 1:1-5, 6-14; 2:1-9, 10-16; 2:17-3:5, 6-12, 13-18, 19-24; A. (“The Inner Cohesion of the Book of Malachi,” Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap van Suid-Afrika 13-14 [1970-71]:29.
846 Wendland, “Linear and Concentric Patterns in Malachi,” 113.
847 James A. Fischer, “Notes on the Literary Form and Message of Malachi,” CBQ 34 (1972):315-20.
848 See n. 26.
849 For an excellent analysis of the theology of Malachi, see Ralph L. Smith, “The Shape of Theology in the Book of Malachi,” SoJT 30 (1987):22-27. Smith suggests four major themes: (1) concern about covenant; (2) concern about the cult; (3) concern about ethical conduct; and (4) concern about the future.
850 Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 169.
851 Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, WBC (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984), 300.
852 Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament As Scripture (London: SCM, 1979), 491-92.
853 Richard R. Deutsch, Calling God’s People to Obedience. A Commentary on the Book of Malachi, ITC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 75-76. Dumbrell notes that Deuteronomy, like Malachi, is addressed to Israel and thus the prophet betrays his Deuteronomic orientation. He also sees “Israel” as a term of “prophetic ideal” to underline the oneness of the people of God; W. J. Dumbrell, “Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms,” RTR 35(1976):44-45.
854 Georg Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament (London: SPCK, 1970), 469.
855 Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, An Introduction (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), 441.
856 Dumbrell, “Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms,” 43; cf. John M. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Malachi, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 9: “As the name stands, it can only mean ‘my messenger.’ This is a very unlikely appellation for a parent to bestow upon a child.”
857 Ren Vuilleumier, Malachie, CAT (Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestl, 1981), 224 n. 7.
858 Wilhelm Rudolph, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8-Sacharja 9-14-Maleachi, KAT (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1976), 247.
859 Theophane Chary, Agge-Zacharie-Malachie (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1969), 233.
860 Thus J. M. P. Smith, A Commentary on Malachi, 9.
861 Rudolph, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8-Sacharja 9-14-Maleachi, 247-48.
862 William L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963):77-87.
863 For the connection between covenant love and election or “choice” (rj^B*, bahar), see Pieter A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 196-97.
864 E. Jenni, THAT, 2:835 s.v. anc; Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, TOTC (London: Tyndale, 1972), 223.
865 This would include the campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 B.C.) and his successors, especially Nabonidus, who is thought to have ravaged Edom from time to time from his Arabian base at Teima; J. R. Bartlett, “The Moabites and Edomites,” in Peoples of Old Testament Times, ed. D. J. Wiseman (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973), 243-44. Cf. John Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 377-78.
866 Rex Mason, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1977), 141.
867 For the former (Israel) see, e.g., Vuilleumier, Malachie, 226. Most scholars attribute the doxology here to Israel.
868 Theophane Chary, Agge-Zacharie-Malachie (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1969), 238. Cf. Paul Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, AnBib 88 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982), 133; Steven L. McKenzie and Howard N. Wallace, “Covenant Themes in Malachi,” CBQ 45 (1983):557-58.
869 Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 10-15, 120-21; Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, AnBib 21 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), 163-64.
870 DeVaux shows that there is no connection between sacrifice as “food” for YHWH in the OT and prevailing understanding in the ancient Near East (Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions [London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961], 433-35.
871 Glazier-McDonald suggests the phrase means, “since all this was your doing,” that is, “from your hands” is tracing the fault to the wicked priests (Malachi: The Divine Messenger, SBL Series 98 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987], 54). The line seems better understood, however, as a protasis to an asyndetic apodosis: “Since you have made such offerings, how can He receive you with favor?” So Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, TOTC (London: Tyndale, 1972), 226.
872 At Qumran, in fact, a “door-closer” came to be viewed as a pious worshiper who refused to offer vain sacrifice. So Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “The Translation of Damascus Document VI, 11-14.” RevQ 7(1971):553-56.
873 This view, in fact, was held by many older scholars. See, e.g., W. Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten, HAT III/4 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1903), 430; Karl Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, KHAT XIII (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1904), 464. For a modern expression of that opinion, see Robert C. Dentan, “The Book of Malachi,” IB 6 (New York: Abingdon, 1956), 1128-29.
874 So John M. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Malachi, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 30. James Swetnam, in fact, holds that Malachi is referring to the Jewish diaspora community whose prayers and other expressions of worship were tantamount to sacrifice (“Malachi 1. 11: An Interpretation,” CBQ [1969]:206-7). The phrase “among the nations” seems to preclude this, however.
875 Friedrich Horst, Die Zwlf kleinen Propheten. Nahum bis Maleachi, HAT 14 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1964), 267.
876 Th. C. Vriezen, “How to Understand Malachi 1:11,” in Grace Upon Grace, ed. James I. Cook (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 132; Th. Chary, Agge-Zacharie, Malachie, 245. Baldwin points to a number of future, indeed, eschatological terms such as “from the rising of the sun to its setting”; (Malachi 1:11 and the Worship of the Nations in the Old Testament,” TynBul 23 [1972]:122-23.
877 Indeed, this very fact has led many scholars to see v. 11 as a poorly joined interpolation. See, e.g., Elliger, who views 1:11 (as well as 1:13-14; 2:2, 7) as secondary (Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi, ATD 25 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982], 195, 198.
878 Vriezen, “How to Understand Malachi 1:11,” 134-35.
879 Dumbrell draws attention to the Deuteronomic concept of the divine name as an indication of ownership and sovereignty and to Malachi’s use of this “name theology”; (“Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms,” RTR 35 [1976]:45-46.
880 For another analysis suggesting parallels along other lines, see E. Ray Clendenen, “The Structure of Malachi: A Textlinguistic Study,” CTR 2 (1987):8-9.
881 Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (London: SCM, 1967), 2:40-45.
882 A. Van Hoonacker, Les Douze Petits Prophtes (Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre, 1908), 714.
883 For the rare form ha*l*T=m^ cf. GKC, 37c.
884 Klaus Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary (Oxford; Basil Blackwell, 1971), 66-68.
885 Clendenen, “The Structure of Malachi: A Textlinguistic Study,” 9.
886 Ernst Wendland, “Linear and Concentric Patterns in Malachi,” BT 36 (1985):117.
887 Steven L. McKenzie and Howard N. Wallace separate 1:6-14 from 2:1-9 entirely, taking 2:1 as a new heading. The latter unit itself they divide between 2:1-4, a command threatening the priests with a curse for disobedience, and 2:5-9, YHWH’s covenant with Levi. They take v. 4 as the hinge, one that allows vv. 5-9 to be the grounds for vv. 1-3. See their “Covenant Themes in Malachi,” CBQ 45 (1983):550.
888 R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 353-55.
889 One cannot overlook the close connection between 2:2 and 1:6, however, for both speak of honoring the name of YHWH, the latter passage with reference to the fifth commandment. Thus the hw`x=m! of 2:1 may be explicit to that extent. See George W. Harrison, “Covenant Unfaithfulness in Malachi 2:1-16,” CTR 2 (1987):65-66.
890 As Verhoef says, “God’s ‘command’ for the priests is synonymous with his covenant with Levi, his institution of the priestly office”; (The Books of Haggai and Malachi, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987], 238). This is why hw`x=m! should be translated in its technical sense and not as “decree,” “announcement,” and the like.
891 Delbert R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, Bib Or 16 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964).
892 As Chary points out, the use of the verb jl^v* in the piel (“I will send”) and the irreversible nature of the pronouncement of blessings and curses guarantee the effect. It is as good as done (T. Chary, Agge-Zacharie, Malachie, 249.
893 Herbert C. Brichto, The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible, JBL Mon. Series 13 (Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1963), 133.
894 For a good discussion of the text here see Glazier-McDonald, Malachi: The Divine Messenger, 65-68.
895 A. A. Macintosh, “A Consideration of Hebrew rug,” VT 19 (1969):476-77.
896 Verhoef, The Books of Haggai, Malachi, 242.
897 Many scholars maintain that because Malachi makes no distinction between priests and Levites, he must be dependent on Deuteronomic rather than Priestly (P) sources, for the latter argue for a superiority of the (Zadokite) priests over the Levites who are “a subordinate order who merely assisted the priests”; So Roddy Braun, “Malachi—A Catechism for Times of Disappointment,” CurTM 4 (1977):298. Besides permitting a dating of Malachi between Dtr (c. 550) and P (c. 450), this interpretation of the prophet seems to put him on the side of the “visionary idealists” (to use Hanson’s terms) against the “hierocratic realists.” The former champion the ancient Aaronic priesthood, whereas the latter endorse the later (originally non-Levitical) Zadokite priesthood. This is very wide of the mark, however, for as Hanson admits, the biblical traditions themselves link Zadok with Phinehas and, hence, with Aaron (The Dawn of Apocalyptic [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976], 220-28). Malachi is not taking sides in some hypothetical struggle among priestly contenders but is roundly condemning both priests and Levites for their perfidy. For a good review of the issue, see Glazier-McDonald, Malachi: The Divine Messenger, 73-80.
898 Baldwin points out that this is the first reference to a priest as a messenger of God. Perhaps the epithet derives from a play on the prophet’s own name because of his preoccupation with the messenger concept (cf. 3:1) (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 236).
899 As Verhoef puts it, “In its essence and according to its intent, the covenant relationship is unbreakable. But when one party does not live up to his obligations, the other party may take disciplinary steps” (The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 253).
900 Again, there is no real evidence for the view that Ezekiel was promoting a Zadokite priesthood as opposed to the Levites. He is simply judging between righteous and unrighteous ministers no matter their linkage to Levi and Aaron. The fact that Ezekiel calls the Zadokites “the priests the Levites” (44:15) makes this clear. De Vaux is no doubt correct when he takes the Levites of Ezek. 44:10 to be those of local shrines who had collaborated in syncretistic worship, whereas those of 44:15 were the clergy of Jerusalem who had by and large remained faithful to YHWH. He also notes that both groups of Levites are called priests in Ezek. 40:45-46; so the priest-Levite dichotomy simply does not exist in Ezekiel in the antithetical manner advocated by many scholars. See R. deVaux, Ancient Israel, 364-65; so also Nigel Allan, “The Identity of the Jerusalem Priesthood During the Exile,” HeyJ 23 (1982):260-61.
901 Thus Pieter A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 265-66, contra Baldwin who, with many others, understands the father to be Abraham; Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, TOTC (London: Tyndale, 1972), 237. This is ruled out by the parallel, “Did not one God create us?” Cf. George W. Harrison, “Covenant Unfaithfulness in Malachi 2:1-16,” CTR 2 (1987):69. Ogden takes the father to be Levi and the covenant violation of vv. 10-16 to be the rupture of the covenant of Levi of the previous passage. To support this he must take the divorce motif figuratively and must interpret Judah as the priests of Judah, the “wife of your youth” as Israel in her early days, and “godly offspring” (v. 15) as the Levitical descent; (“The Use of Figurative Language in Malachi 2:10-16,” BT 39 [1988]:223-30. Although there is indeed a great deal of figurative language, especially double entendre, throughout, the fact that the passage on the whole reflects a broader perspective than the cultic alone and that Ezra and Nehemiah had to deal with the issue of literal divorce just a few years after Malachi leads one to conclude that literal divorce is in view here.
902 Theodore Laetsch, Minor Prophets (St. Louis: Concordia, 1956), 524-25.
903 McKenzie and Wallace lean to the view that this is the patriarchal covenant but concede that the reference is ambiguous (“Covenant Themes in Malachi,” CBQ 45 [1983]:552).
904 See Stefan Schreiner, “Mischehen-Ehebruch-Ehescheidung. Betrachtungen zu Mal 2:10-16,” ZAW 91 (1979):207-28; Clemens Locher, “Altes und Neues zu Maleachi 2:10-16,” in Melanges Dominique Barthelemy, ed. P. Casetti et al. (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 241-71.
905 Keil correctly points out that Jerusalem is singled out because it was the capital of the whole nation. Syntactically one could make a case for the inclusion of Jerusalem as an epexegetical element, that is, “abomination has been committed in Israel, specifically in Jerusalem (the cultic center)” (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. The Twelve Minor Prophets, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871], 2:449.
906 One should note that Malachi, like Ezra, describes such intermarriage as an “abomination” (hb*u@oT).
907 Williamson says regarding Ezra’s approach: “He taught, and the community accepted, an interpretation of the law according to its ‘spirit,’ as he understood it. We may not agree with certain aspects of Ezra’s interpretation, but his motivation and method here remain ones we would still acknowledge as valid today”; (Ezra, Nehemiah, WBC, [Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985), 16:160.
908 Baldwin’s comment is cogent: “Since a married couple must come to a common understanding in order to live happily together, one or other partner had to compromise on the matter of religion” (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 238).
909 The prevailing views are that the “holy thing” is (1) the sanctuary, that is, the Temple, or (2) the people of YHWH. See respectively, Theophane Chary, Agge-Zacharie, Malachie, (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1969), 257; Laetsch, Minor Prophets, 525.
910 This verb, not common to begin with (43 times), occurs five times in Malachi, all in this passage (2:10, 11, 14, 15, 16). It means “to act treacherously” (BDB, 93), in the Malachi context to undertake divorce of one’s wife in order to marry the “daughter of a foreign god” (v. 11). Thus, to act treacherously is tantamount to violating the marriage covenant and, by extension, the covenant between YHWH and Israel. See S. Erlandsson, TDOT, 1:470-73, s.v. dgB
911 Keil, The Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:449-50; John M. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Malachi, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 58. For a host of other suggestions, see Beth Glazier-McDonald, Malachi: The Divine Messenger, SBL Series 98 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 94-99.
912 See, however, Job 7:13; Prov. 2:17; Ezek. 16:8. De Vaux draws attention to the marriage contracts of the Jewish community of Elephantine in the fifth century B.C. (Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions [London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961], 33. It is not unreasonable that such contracts (or “covenants”) were already in vogue in Palestine as early as Malachi’s time. In fact, the existence of divorce documents (Deut. 24:1-3; Jer. 3:8) almost certainly demands marriage documents.
913 The parallelism between ;T=r+b#h& (“your companion”) and ;t#yr]B= tv#a@ (“the wife of your covenant”) makes it clear that this is no ordinary companion but one inextricably bound by formal covenant, a fact supported by the cognate verb rb^j* (habar), “to unite, be joined” (BDB, 287). As for “wife of your youth,” Morgenstern plausibly argues that this refers to the first and only wife (“Jerusalem—485 B.C.,” HUCA 28 [1957]:33-34).
914 Other interpretations are: (1) those with spiritual insight will not violate marriage because they seek to procreate citizens for the kingdom of God (Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 277); (2) God made a single being with both flesh (revocalizing ra*v=, “remnant,” to ra@v=, “flesh”) and spirit for the purpose of giving them godly offspring (Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 240); (3) the subject is God and “the one” is the object and equal to the “one flesh” of Gen. 2:24, a view that attributes the Spirit to God as His creative power (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Malachi. God’s Unchanging Love [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984], 71-72).
915 This is the view of most Jewish and earlier Christian scholars. See Keil, The Twelve Minor Prophets, 2:452-55; C. Von Orelli, The Twelve Minor Prophets (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1893), 395-96; F. Hitzig, Die Zwlf kleinen Propheten (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1881), 424. For other passages where Abraham is called “the one,” see Isa. 51:2; Ezek. 33:24.
916 The phrase “take heed to your spirit” is common in covenant contexts (Ex. 23:13, 21; 34:12; Deut. 4:15, 23; 6:12; 8:11; 11:16; 12:13; 15:9; etc.). Its use with dg~B* in v. 16 clearly puts the passage in the realm of covenant violation. See McKenzie and Wallace, “Covenant Themes in Malachi,” 552.
917 Jacob M. Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, AB 14 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965), xlv, 85.
918 Cf. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi: The Divine Messenger, 15-16; Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, 217-18; H. H. Rowley, “The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah,” in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (London: Lutterworth, 1952), 155-54. The reconstruction I have developed is not that of any of these scholars alone but derives from a consensus held by them and others to a greater or lesser extent.
919 Thus Joel F. Drinkard, Jr., says, “After Ezra’s legislation was enacted, it would have been very difficult for Malachi’s position to be held” (“The Socio-Historical Setting of Malachi,” RevExp 84 [1987]:388).
920 Williamson says, “It is thus evident that in the circumstances [of Ezra] the divorce of foreign wives was considered the lesser of the two evils” (Ezra Nehemiah, 160-61). It is difficult to believe, however, that Ezra was advocating an evil of any degree. Dumbrell correctly notes that Malachi is condemning the divorce of Jewish wives that was required in order to undertake pagan marriages; (“Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms,” RTR 35 [1976]:48).
921 William A. Heth and Gordon J. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce. The Problem with the Evangelical Consensus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 162-64.
922 Cf. Pss. 73:6; 109:18; Lam. 4:14; Th. Chary, Agge-Zacharie, Malachie, 262-63.
923 Coming at it from the angle of concentricity, Wendland describes the unit as “Dispute Four” in which A-B = B-A:
(A) Warning—the day of judgment is coming (2:17-3:2a)
(B) Means—purification of the people (3:2b-3a)
(B) Result—pleasing offerings (3:3b-4)
(A) Warning—the day of judgment is coming (3:5)
Ernst Wendland, “Linear and Concentric Patterns in Malachi,” BT 36 (1985):117. This structural way of looking at the passage is not at all in conflict with the pseudo-dialogical, disputational form I am suggesting.
924 GKC 116p.
925 This interpretation goes against the vast majority of commentators and is therefore offered with great tentativeness. Even so, it does seem to fit the context of the whole passage better. Its major weakness is that it departs from the nearly unanimous Christian tradition that views the second messenger as identical to the Lord. For an approach that is cognizant of the ambiguities present in the text, see Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, (London: Tyndale, 1972), 242-43. Dumbrell says that a case can be made for this identification on the assumption that the prophecy is anonymous. What authorship of the book has to do with the matter is not plain (“Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms,” RTR 35 [1976]:48.
926 P.-E. Bonnard, Le Second Isae, Etudes Bibliques (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1972), 87-88.
927 J. R. Villaln understands this covenant to be the one with Levi mentioned in 2:4, 5, 8 and the messenger of the covenant to be Elijah (“Sources Vtro-Testamentaires de la Doctrine Qumranienne des Deux Messies,” RevQ 8 [1972]:60). While Elijah no doubt is the messenger, the covenant, in light of the Isaiah parallels, would seem to be the Sinaitic, prefiguring the New.
928 O. Eissfeldt, TDOT 1:62, s.v. /oda*: “It is used to emphasize Yahweh’s rule over all the world.” One should note that whereas the coming of YHWH in Isa. 40:3 is to bring salvation, the coming of Adon in Mal. 3:1 is for judgment. See Steven L. McKenzie and Howard N. Wallace, “Covenant Themes in Malachi,” CBQ 45 (1983):554.
929 That the messenger of 3:1 and Elijah of 4:5 are one and the same is accepted by most scholars. See Pieter A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 340.
930 For the Jewish (and other ancient) traditions on Elijah redivivus and messianic forerunner, see Joseph Coppens, Le Messianisme et sa Relve Prophtique (Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1974), 129-32; Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “The Promise of the Arrival of Elijah in Malachi and the Gospels,” GTJ 3 (1982):222-23. For an objection to this “early Jewish evidence” see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “More About Elijah Coming First,” JBL 104 (1985):295-96.
931 R. T. France argues that Adon here is not a divine epithet but that it is synonymous with both “my messenger” and the “messenger of the covenant.” He therefore distinguishes between Adon and YHWH (and Jesus); Jesus and the Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1971), 91-92. This seems difficult to sustain in light of the NT understanding of the messenger as a forerunner of Jesus the Lord, but his argument that the messengers themselves do the refining and purifying of vv. 2-3 seems most compatible with our own position. For a rebuttal of France and affirmation of the Adon-Messiah equation, see D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” EBC, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:264.
932 In the immediate setting the one they are seeking could be “the God of justice” in 2:17. In this case the viewpoint is not messianic at all but merely time-bound to the question concerning God’s whereabouts as judge. Thus Robert C. Dentan, “The Book of Malachi,” IB 6 (New York: Abingdon, 1956), 1137. However, the passage as it stands, without the additions alleged by Dentan and other scholars, is clearly messianic and eschatological in its overall import.
933 France, Jesus and the Old Testament, 91.
934 “Messenger of” never occurs elsewhere in the objective genitive sense, that is, in the sense in which the messenger himself is the content of or subordinate to the message. Cf. Prov. 16:14; Mal. 2:7. The latter passage is particularly instructive because it occurs in Malachi and provides an apt parallel to 3:1. The priest is the messenger of YHWH in that he proclaims the instruction of YHWH (2:7a), and the messenger of the covenant is such because he proclaims the covenant. Van Selms, in fact, argues that Elijah himself is the messenger of the covenant, a role he ties to 2:7 inasmuch as Elijah functioned as a priest on occasion. He also connects Elijah to the “book of remembrance” (3:16) by suggesting that Elijah was the scribe (or recorder, mazkir) whose task is to keep notes for YHWH the king. The messenger of the covenant, then, will come to make his report to the king, one inscribed in the book of remembrance; (“The Inner Cohesion of the Book of Malachi,” OTWSA 13-14 [1970-71]:36-38). Even though his identification of the messenger of the covenant with Elijah (and hence with “my messenger”) is in line with my own thesis, it seems that the suggestion of Elijah as mazkir, particularly with reference to the “book of remembrance,” has little to commend it.
935 Dumbrell states, “The actions of the messenger of Mal. 3:1-5 very much foreshadow the ministry of John”; (“Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms,” 48).
936 John M. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Malachi, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 64. In the context of Mal. 1:6-2:9, “Levites” appears to be a general term for priests here. See McKenzie and Wallace, “Covenant Themes in Malachi,” 554.
937 In the NT sense of sacrifice this would refer to the offering of oneself (Rom. 12:1; 1 Cor. 6:20) or of one’s praises (Heb. 13:15) or other “spiritual” sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5). Cf. Theodore Laetsch, Minor Prophets (St. Louis: Concordia, 1956), 536.
938 This shift from purification to judgment is noted by Dennis E. Johnson, who links the fire imagery implicit in 3:5 to that of 4:1 (“Fire in God’s House: Imagery from Malachi 3 in Peter’s Theology of Suffering [1 Pet. 4:12-19],” JETS 29 [1986]:288-89).
939 At the very least, if vv. 2-4 speak of the work of Adon, he cannot be the same as YHWH, for YHWH, as speaker in both vv. 1 and 5, sets Himself off in v. 5 from the preceding agent. While one could argue from a Christian theological perspective that Adon is the Son and YHWH the Father, it is unlikely that Malachi understood it that way. He would be more apt to see Adon as an epithet of YHWH and therefore to distinguish Him from the messenger of the covenant, who as actor in vv. 2-4, is himself distinguished from YHWH. Moreover, Adon is not a messianic epithet but one reserved for use in combination with YHWH or one of the other divine names. See Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (London: SCM, 1961), 1:203-4. Cf. Zech. 4:14; 6:5 where YHWH is described as “the Adon of the whole earth,” suggestive of His capacity as sovereign.
940 The distinction “messianic” and “eschatological” is, in any event, artificial, for messianic hope in the OT always lies within the eschatological realm. Thus, even in our passage phrases such as “suddenly come to His Temple” (v. 1) and “the day of His coming” (v. 2) are eschatological terms. However, from the vantage point of fulfillment vv. 1-4 took place already in the coming of Christ, whereas v. 5 still awaits the Parousia. Alden argues that only v. 1 pertains to the First Advent (“Malachi,” in EBC, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985] 7:719) and that vv. 2-5 are yet to be fulfilled. This is valid if Adon and the messenger of the covenant are one and the same but if, as I propose, the messenger of the covenant is the same as “my messenger,” vv. 1-4 are all first advent inasmuch as they would all be fulfilled in John the Baptist.
941 The term here, the piel ptc. of [V@K!, means “practicers of sorcery,” that is, of divination. Cf. G. Andr, TWAT 4:3/4: cols. 375-81, s.v. [v^K*.
942 There does appear to be a “descending” order in the list: (1) outright paganism (sorcery); (2) syncretism (adultery); (3) sin against YHWH and a brother (swear falsely; cf. Lev. 19:12; Ex. 20:16); (4) sin against the helpless of Israel (wage earner, widow, orphan); and (5) sin against the alien. Cf. Beth Glazier-McDonald, Malachi: The Divine Messenger, SBL Series 98 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), 159-68.
943 Wendland’s structural analysis—though approaching the passage in a rhetorical-critical rather than form-critical fashion—is very helpful. He perceives a concentric pattern for vv. 6-12 as follows:
(A) Introduction: a divine promise (6)
(B) Appeal—repent (7)
(C) Indictment (8)
(D) Verdict: Curse (9a)
(C) Indictment (9b)
(B) Promise—blessings on those who repent (10-11)
(A) Conclusion: a messianic vision (12)
E. Wendland, “Linear and Concentric Patterns in Malachi,” 118; cf. E. Ray Clendenen, “The Structure of Malachi: A Textlinguistic Study,” CTR 2 (1987):14.
944 Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, EBC (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984), 332.
945 Or, “For I, the Lord, have not gone back on My word.” For support of this nuance of yt!yn]v* see Nahum M. Waldman, “Some Notes on Malachi 3:6; 3:13; and Psalm 42:11,” JBL 93 (1974):544.
946 For this causal force of yK!, see GKC 158b.
947 Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 299.
948 Many scholars obviate this problem with the waw by construing the verb hl*K* as “cease,” “stop,” or the like. This allows it to be synonymous to hn`v* (“change”) and for the line to be rendered, “I, YHWH, have not changed, but you, O sons of Jacob, have not stood firm.” Thus Wilhelm Rudolph, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8-Sacharja 9-14-Maleachi, KAT (Gütersloh: Verlaghaus Gerd Mohn, 1976), 281. This takes waw as the coordinate rather than subordinate conjunction. In its favor additionally is the inconstancy of Israel revealed in v. 7. But hl*K* with this meaning is difficult to establish. Cf. BDB, 477-78; KBL, 437-38. Another suggestion is that hl*K* here means “come to an end” —a well-attested meaning—and that the comparison is thus made between the immutability of YHWH as covenant-maker and His people as covenant partners: “I, YHWH, do not change and you, sons of Jacob, do not come to an end.” See Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 245. If, as we argue, v. 6 goes with 7 ff. and not vv. 1-5, this interpretation seems unlikely since it immediately seems to be contradicted by v. 7.
949 Laetsch, Minor Prophets, 539.
950 E. E. Carpenter, ISBE, 4:861-64, s.v. “tithe.”
951 Jacob Milgrom, “The Soq Hatteruma: A Chapter in Cultic History,” in Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology (Leiden: Brill, 1983), 159-70; and “Akkadian Confirmation of the Meaning of the Term Teruma, 171-72.
952 Van Hoonacker, in line with the Vg, takes the curse to be poverty. Because the people have defrauded YHWH, he has reduced them to penury (Les Douze Petits Prophtes, [Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre, 1908], 734-35). This cannot be wide of the mark, as vv. 10-12 make clear.
953 Dentan, “The Book of Malachi,” 1140.
954 Wendland appears to sense this difference without articulating it in so many words. Once more his concentric patterning is helpful in delimiting the boundaries of the whole passage.
(A) Objection—YHWH is unjust: “serve God” + “doers of wickedness” (13-15)
(B) Justice: YHWH “hears” those who “fear” Him (16)
(B) Blessing: YHWH will spare His “treasure” (17)
(A) Refutation—YHWH is just: “serve God” + “the wicked” (18)
plus
(X) Fate of the wicked: “day” + “wicked” + “ablaze” + “YHWH of Hosts” (1)
(Y) Future of the God-fearing (2)
(X’) Fate of the wicked: “wicked” + “ashes” + “day” + “YHWH of Hosts” (3)
Wendland, “Linear and Concentric Patterns in Malachi,” 119.
955 Waldman, on the basis of Akkadian parallels, offers the bold but quite convincing translation, “your words have been too much for me,” that is, more than YHWH will tolerate (“Some Notes on Malachi 3:6; 3:13; and Psalm 42:11,” 546).
956 This is clearly an expression of hypocritical deference to YHWH. So C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. The Twelve Minor Prophets (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871), 2:465.
957 There is an interesting contrast of the use of the verb /j^B* here and in v. 10. In the earlier passage YHWH urges the people to test Him in regard to His willingness and ability to pour out His blessings in response to their devotion. Now, He says, His interrogators are upset that He will do nothing to those who test Him. The difference clearly is one of attitude. In v. 10 the idea is to put God to the test in light of His promise to bless (cf. Ex. 4:1-9; Judg. 6:36-40; 1 Kings 18:22-23; Isa. 7:10-11). In v. 15 it is to put God to the test in an act of defiant testing of His patience (Ps. 95:9). Cf. M. Tsevat, TDOT, 2:69-72, s.v. /jb; J. M. P. Smith, A Commentary on Malachi, 77.
958 The verb ar@y` and its cognates are very much at home in OT covenant contexts. Cf. Deut. 6:2, 13, 24; 10:12-11:17; 31:12-13; Jer. 32:39, 40; H. F. Fuhs, TWAT 3:6/7; cols. 869-93, esp. 886-88, s.v. ar@y`.
959 Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 249: “They begin to encourage each other to renewed faith.”
960 Chary rightly connects this record to Isa. 65:6 and Neh. 13:14 and suggests that the book contains not only names but deeds as well; (Agge-Zacharie, Malachie, [Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1969], 273).
961 H. Wildberger, THAT, 2:cols. 142-44, s.v. hL*g%s=; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 226; Moshe Greenberg, “Hebrew Segull: Akkadian Sikiltu,” JAOS 71 (1951):172-74.
962 A. Deissler, Zwlf Propheten III. Zefanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi (Wurzburg: Echter, 1988), 335.
963 Van Hoonacker, Les Douze Petits Prophtes, 739.
964 Though the word rWNT^ frequently means “pottery kiln” (cf. James L. Kelso, The Ceramic Vocabulary of the Old Testament, BASOR Supp. Studies 5-6 [New Haven, Conn.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1948], 8-9, 10, 31-32), it must mean “furnace” or “incinerator” here, as the burning of the vq^ (qas, “stubble”) makes clear. As Elliger says, “Restlose Vernichtung ist des Sinn”; (“the sense is that of complete annihilation” (Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi, ATD [Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982], 215).
965 For a full discussion of the imagery here, see Glazier-McDonald, Malachi: The Divine Messenger, 233-40. Though “sun” is nowhere else a messianic epithet, Zecharias the priest (and father of John the Baptist) appears to appropriate the imagery of Malachi as a part of his blessing on his son, the forerunner of Jesus (Luke 1:76-79). For a helpful discussion of the NT use of this text in Malachi, see Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Malachi. God’s Unchanging Love (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 105-6.
966 Chary draws attention to similar imagery from the ancient Near East, including the Egyptian disk of the sun from which “hands” extend to the divine protege, the ideogram for which is the ankh sign meaning “life.” The winged sun is also common in Assyrian art, examples of which are the disk of Shalmaneser III (ANEP, #351) and a figure of the god Assur (ANEP, #536); Th. Chary, Agge-Zacharie, Malachie, 275. While there no doubt was a common fund of such imagery in the ancient Near East, a deposit from which the authors of the OT occasionally drew, there is enough inner-biblical support for the winged sun of Malachi as an apt metaphor for blessing as not to require any cross-cultural borrowing. Moreover, the “wing” here, in common with the usual use of [n`K* in figurative speech in the OT (Num. 15:38; 1 Sam. 15:27; 24:5, 6, 12; Jer. 2:34; Hag. 2:12; Zech. 8:23), may refer to a pocket or fold in the garment. Perhaps, then, the sun rises with healing in its “pouch” or “bag.” Cf. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 331.
967 The Apocalypse of John describes the day of God’s triumphant wrath in identical imagery. An angel will cast the fruit of the vineyard into the winepress where it will be trodden under foot, producing not juice but blood (Rev. 14:19-20). Then when the King of kings comes to assert His dominion, He will “rule [the nations] with a rod of iron” and “tread the winepress” of the wrath of God (Rev. 19:15). Clearly, to tread the winepress is synonymous with the imposition and exercise of dominion. The same Greek verb is used in both places (patevw).
968 Thus, e.g. C. von Orelli, The Twelve Minor Prophets (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897), 403.
969 Dentan weakens the imagery by referring to the scene only as “the defeat of the wicked” (“The Book of Malachi,” 1143).
970 Laetsch compares Malachi’s ending with that of Isaiah and Acts and suggests that it shares with them a final appeal to the people to forsake their wickedness and in true repentance to turn to the Lord (The Minor Prophets, [St. Louis: Concordia, 1956], 547). As Pierce notes, “The situation has worsened to the point of extreme pessimism” (“A Thematic Development of the Haggai/Zechariah/Malachi Corpus,” JETS 27 [1984]:410.
971 Pieter A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 338-39.
972 H. Eising, TDOT, 4:66, s.v. rk^z`.
973 Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 343.
974 Robert L. Alden, “Malachi,” EBC, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1955), 7:724.
975 N. Lohfink, TDOT, 5:180-99 (esp. p. 198), s.v. <r^j*.
976 For various traditions to this effect, see Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1968), 6:316-42 passim.
977 As Kaiser notes, the day of YHWH here “embraces both advents” (“The Promise of the Arrival of Elijah in Malachi and the Gospels,” GTJ 3 [1982]:229).
978 Kaiser, “The Promise of the Arrival of Elijah in Malachi and the Gospels,” 230.
979 Moreover, as Baldwin points out, the reference to Horeb ties the two together, for Moses received the Law there and Elijah received a new sense of prophetic vocation on the same mountain (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, [London: Tyndale, 1972], 252). Gerald L. Keown suggests that Elijah, as a powerful defender of Yahwistic faith, is frequently associated with the purifying qualities of fire and for that reason appears in the Malachi judgment passages (“Messianism in the Book of Malachi,” RevExp 84 [1987]:445-46).
Related Topics: Dispensational / Covenantal Theology, Introductions, Arguments, Outlines, Temple, Tithing
4. The Church In Heaven
Article contributed by www.walvoord.com
The Invitation from Heaven (4:1)
4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
Beginning with chapter 4, the third major section of the book of Revelation is introduced following the divinely inspired outline of 1:19 and fulfilling the promise of revelation of “the things which shall be hereafter.” Bleek, almost a century ago, stated the futurist view of Revelation beginning in 4:1 much in the fashion of contemporary futurists.119 This section is in contrast to what John saw in chapter 1, his vision of the glorified Christ described in the clause, “the things which thou hast seen,” and in contrast to the revelation of chapters 2 and 3, messages to the seven churches designated as “the things which are.” Beginning in chapter 4, things to come are unfolded which have to do with the consummation of the age.
The concept that the book of Revelation beginning with 4:1 is future, from the standpoint of the twentieth century, is a broad conclusion growing out of the lack of correspondence of these prophecies to anything that has been fulfilled. A normal interpretation of this section which understands these prophecies as literal events would require that they be viewed as future. The futuristic concept is supported by the similarity of the expression in 1:19, “the things which shall be hereafter” (Gr., ha mellei genesthai meta tauta) to the clause in 4:1, “things which must be hereafter” (Gr., ha dei genesthai meta tauta).
Chapters 4 and 5 are the introduction and background of the tremendous sweep of prophetic events predicted in the rest of the book. If chapter 4 and succeeding chapters relate to the future, they provide an important clue concerning the interpretation of the vision and the prophetic events which unfold in those chapters. One of the principal reasons for confusion in the study of the book of Revelation has been the failure to grasp this point. If Revelation has no chronological structure and is merely a symbolic presentation of moral truth, its prophetic significance is reduced to a minimum. If, as others hold, the predictions of this section of Revelation are already fulfilled in the early persecution of the church, it also robs the book of any prophecy of the future.120 (For discussion of the various systems of interpretation of the book of Revelation, see the Introduction.)
A literal interpretation of the prophecies beginning in chapter 4 is not fulfilled in any historic event and must therefore be regarded from the futuristic viewpoint if it is indeed valid prophecy. The events anticipated in the angel’s promise to “shew thee things which must be hereafter” (4:1), should be regarded as a prediction of events which shall occur at the end of the age.
C. A. Blanchard summarized the futuristic position in these words:
What will follow the church age? Evidently in some form or other the time of the tribulation. Why must the time of tribulation follow the church age? Because when the church has been withdrawn, while Satan, godless governments and Christless religions remain in the world there must be tribulation, and such a time of tribulation as the world has never known in the mixed state which has been from the beginning until now. From the fourth chapter through the nineteenth, speaking generally, there seems to be an account of this time of trouble.121
The expression “after this” (Gr., meta tauta), with which verse one begins, identifies the revelation as subsequent to that of chapters 2 and 3. John, having been the channel of revelation to the seven churches existing in the first century, now is being introduced to a new field of prophecy. As he beheld, he saw a door opened into the very presence of God in heaven. The reference to heaven is not to the atmospheric heavens nor to the starry heavens but to that which is beyond the natural eye which the best of telescopes cannot reveal. This is the third heaven, the immediate presence of God.
John also hears a voice described as “the first voice which I heard,” that is, a reference to the same voice he heard in Revelation 1:10 and following. It is described as the voice of a trumpet (cf. 1:10), and he understands it to say, “Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.” The command does not anticipate any self-effort on the part of John to enter heaven but is rather an announcement of the purpose of God to show him that which will “be hereafter” or, better translated, that which will “be after these things.” The implication is that the prophecies now to be unfolded will occur after the events of the present age.
The invitation to John to “come up hither” is so similar to that which the church anticipates at the rapture that many have connected the two expressions. It is clear from the context that this is not an explicit reference to the rapture of the church, as John was not actually translated; in fact he was still in his natural body on the island of Patmos. He was translated into scenes of heaven only temporarily. Though there is no authority for connecting the rapture with this expression, there does seem to be a typical representation of the order of events, namely, the church age first, then the rapture, then the church in heaven. Though the rapture is mentioned in letters to two of the churches (cf. 2:25; 3:11), the rapture as a doctrine is not a part of the prophetic foreview of the book of Revelation. This is in keeping with the fact that the book as a whole is not occupied primarily with God’s program for the church. Instead the primary objective is to portray the events leading up to and climaxing in the second coming of Christ and the prophetic kingdom and the eternal state which ultimately will follow.
From a practical standpoint, however, the rapture may be viewed as having already occurred in the scheme of God before the events of chapter 4 and following chapters of Revelation unfold. The word church, so prominent in chapters 2 and 3, does not occur again until 22:16, though the church is undoubtedly in view as the wife of the Lamb in Revelation 19:7. She is not a participant in the scenes of the tribulation which form the major content of the book of Revelation. The familiar phrase “what the Spirit saith unto the churches” found in 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22 is significantly absent in 13:9.
It seems that the church as the Body of Christ is out of the picture, and saints who come to know the Lord in this period are described as saved Israelites or saved Gentiles, never by terms which are characteristic of the church, the Body of Christ. Saints mentioned from this point on do not lose their racial background as is commonly done in referring to the church where Jew and Gentile are one in Christ. At the beginning of chapter 4, then, the church may be considered as in heaven and not related to events which will take place on the earth in preparation for Christ’s return in power and glory.
The Viewing of God’s Throne (4:2-3)
4:2-3 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. And he that sat was to lock upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.
From the beginning of verse 2 John finds himself in heaven “in the spirit” in much the same way as he indicated in 1:10, only this time his location is changed. Though actually on the Isle of Patmos, he is experiencing being in the presence of God and seeing these glorious visions. The first object which appears to his startled eyes is a throne in heaven with one sitting upon it. The primary impression received by John is that of color, and he describes the presence of the One on the throne as “like a jasper and a sardine stone.” The sight of a rainbow around the throne like an emerald further enriches the color scheme.
Without reference to other portions of Scripture, this verse would be more or less meaningless except as a general expression of the glory of God. The details furnished, however, though not explained by John, undoubtedly have a deep significance. It is first of all important to note that this is a throne in heaven, a reminder of the sovereignty of God who is far removed from the petty struggles of earthly government. Here is the true picture of the universe as being subject to the dominion of an omnipotent God.
The precious stones mentioned also seem to have meaning. The jasper stone is described in chapter 21 as a precious stone which is clear like crystal, which would seem to indicate that it may be what we would today call a diamond. The sardine stone, or the sardius, is a familiar stone in color like a ruby, a beautiful red.
The significance, however, goes far beyond the color. Though the clear jasper might refer to the purity of God and the sardine stone to His redemptive purpose, according to the Old Testament these stones had a relationship to the tribes of Israel. Each tribe of Israel had a representative stone, and the high priest had stones representing each of the twelve tribes of Israel on his breast when he functioned in his priestly office before the altar. This symbolized the fact that he as the high priest was representing all twelve tribes before the throne of God.
Significantly, the jasper and the sardine stone are the first and last of these twelve stones (cf. Exodus 28:17-21). The jasper represented Reuben, the first of the tribes, since Reuben was the firstborn of Jacob. The sardine stone represented Benjamin, the youngest of the twelve sons of Jacob. In other words the two stones represented the first and the last and therefore may be regarded as including all the other stones in between, that is, the whole of the covenanted people.
Furthermore, the names Reuben and Benjamin have significance. The word Reuben means “behold, a son.” The word Benjamin means “son of my right hand.” In both cases these terms seem to have a double meaning: first, the fact that though Christ is the representative of Israel, He is also the Son of God. Like Reuben, Christ is the first begotten son. Second, like Benjamin, Christ is also the “son of my right hand” in relation to God the Father. The person whom John sees on the throne looking like a jasper and sardine stone is, therefore, God in relation to the nation Israel.
It is of interest that these same stones are used to describe the majesty of the king of Tyrus (Ezek. 28:13) where, in a list of nine precious stones, the sardius (sardine) is mentioned first and the jasper is sixth in the list. In the description of the foundation of the new Jerusalem in Revelation 21:19-20, the jasper is first and the sardius is sixth. The emerald is listed as eighth in Ezekiel and fourth in Revelation 21:19. It is evident that these stones have a peculiar significance of glory and majesty which are characteristic of God on His throne. Coupled with the brilliant reflections of the jasper and the deep red of the sardine stone, the rainbow described as all of green like an emerald forms a rich background for the glorious scene which John beheld.
The question has been raised as to the identity of the One who was on the throne. In chapter 4 it appears that He is to be identified as God the Father because Christ is represented separately as the Lamb. Alford states that the One seated is “The Eternal Father … for He that sitteth on the throne is distinguished in ch. 6:16; 7:10 from the Son, and in [ch. 4] ver. 5 from the Holy Spirit.”122
The difficult problem of identification has been solved in various ways. Actually both the Father and the Son are properly on the throne as Christ Himself mentioned in Revelation 3:21. One explanation would have Christ on the throne in chapter 4 and the Father on the throne in chapter 5. Another point of view is that both chapters picture God the Father on the throne in the special character of the God of Israel. The seeming contradiction may also be resolved in the doctrine of the Trinity as Christ expressed it in John 14:9: “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” It is significant that God is not given an anthropomorphic figure in this revelation and does not appear as a man. Apart from the fact that He is said to sit on the throne, no description is given except the colors which impressed John. It is evident that the glory of God was the intent of the vision rather than an anthropomorphic representation.
The Twenty-four Elders (4:4)
4:4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.
In addition to the glory of the throne and the One who sat upon it John’s attention is next directed to twenty-four thrones upon which the twenty-four elders are seated. The term “seats” is properly “thrones.” The elders are represented as in a situation of repose, sitting on their thrones, clothed in white raiment and having on their heads crowns of gold. Considerable discussion has arisen concerning the identity of these twenty-four elders, and three principal views have been advanced. Some regard them as a representative body of all the saints of all ages. Others regard them as representative only of the church, the Body of Christ. Still a third view is that they represent an order of angels.
The fact that they are a representative group, however, seems to be clear from the parallel of the Old Testament where the priesthood was represented by twenty-four orders of priests. There were actually thousands of priests in Israel’s day of ascendancy under David and Solomon, but they all could not minister at the same time. Accordingly, they were divided into twenty-four orders, each of which was represented by a priest. When these priests met together, even though there were only twenty-four, they represented the whole priesthood and at the same time the whole of the nation of Israel. In a similar way the twenty-four elders mentioned in the book of Revelation may be regarded as a representative body.
The text itself does not give a specific statement concerning the identity of these elders. In chapter 5 additional information is given, and our later study of this chapter will throw further light on the problem. Some help, however, is afforded in the description given here.
The elders are described as being clothed in white raiment and having on their heads crowns of gold. There are two kinds of crowns in the book of Revelation, involving two different Greek words. One is the crown of a ruler or a sovereign (Gr., diadem), which is a crown of governmental authority. The other is the crown of a victor (Gr., Stephanos), such as was awarded in the Greek games when a person won a race or some contest. This crown was usually made of leaves.
The word here is the crown of a victor rather than that of a sovereign. It was made of gold, indicating that the elders had been rewarded for victory accomplished. It is significant that the passage states the twenty-four elders already have their crowns of gold as victors. If this passage is regarded as chronologically before the time of the tribulation which succeeding chapters unfold, it would seem to eliminate the angels, as at this point they have not been judged and rewarded since their judgment seems to come later. For the same reason the elders do not seem to be a proper representation of Israel, for Israel’s judgment also seems to come at the end of the tribulation, not before. Only the church which is raptured before chapter 4 is properly complete in heaven and eligible for reward at the judgment seat of Christ. In that case, the crowns of gold on the heads of the twenty-four elders would be fitting at this point and would seem to confirm the idea that these may be representative of the church in glory.
Alford states,
These 24 elders are not angels, as maintained by Rinck and Hofmann (Weiss u. Erfull. p. 325 f.), as is shown (not by ch. 5:9, as generally argued,—even by Elliott, vol. I, p. 81 f.: see text there: but) by their white robes and crowns, the rewards of endurance, ch. 3:5; 2:10,— but representatives of the Church, as generally understood.123
Alford continues with a long discussion designed to prove that the church includes the saints of the Old Testament.124 This, of course, is not taught here but rests on other grounds.
Recent New Testament scholarship has tended to abandon the traditional interpretation in favor of identification of the twenty-four elders as angels. Typical is the discussion of N. B. Stonehouse who dedicates a whole chapter to this in his work Paul Before the Areopagus. He offers several important arguments in favor of interpreting the elders as angels. Stonehouse holds that the revised text is definitely to be preferred and that the tendency to cling to the interpretation that the elders are redeemed and translated saints is largely because this view has been considered the traditional orthodox interpretation. Stonehouse concludes,
The late expositors do not appear to do justice to the implications of the current critical text which records a song celebrating the redemption of a diverse multitude, but which evidently ascribes the song to beings who are distinguished from the redeemed.125
Stonehouse supports his conclusion by endeavoring to prove that Revelation 5:11 does not necessarily distinguish “many angels” from the elders, which would imply that they are not elders, and holds that unless it is clearly otherwise stated celestial spirits should be classified as some kind of angel. While Stonehouse does as well as anyone could to support the identification of the elders as angels, it is evident that he does not have any final or conclusive proof, and the controversy cannot be resolved. Identification of the twenty-four elders should not be dogmatically held, but such evidence as there is seems to point to the conclusion that they may represent the church as the Body of Christ. See chapter 5 for further discussion.
The Seven Spirits of God (4:5)
4:5 And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.
The all-inspiring scene described by John in this verse is in keeping with the majesty of the throne and the dignity of the twenty-four elders. The lightnings, thunderings, and voices which proceed from the throne are prophetic of the righteous judgment of God upon a sinful world. They are similar to the thunders, lightnings, and voice of the trumpet which mark the giving of the law in Exodus 19:16 and are a fitting preliminary to the awful judgments which are to follow in the great tribulation as God deals with the earth in righteousness.
John’s attention is also directed to seven lamps of fire which are seen burning before the throne. These are identified as “the seven Spirits of God” mentioned earlier in 1:4 and 3:1. These are best understood as a representation of the Holy Spirit in a sevenfold way rather than seven individual spirits which would require that they be understood as seven angels. Ordinarily the Holy Spirit is not humanly visible unless embodied in some way. When the Holy Spirit descended on Christ on the occasion of His baptism, the people saw a dove descending. If it had not been for the dove, they could not have seen the Holy Spirit. In a similar way on the day of Pentecost, the coming of the Spirit would not have been visible if it had not been for the “cloven tongues like as of fire” (Acts 2:3). The seven lamps of fire therefore are the means by which John is informed of the presence of the Holy Spirit. The number seven is characteristic of the perfection of the Spirit and is in keeping with the revelation of Isaiah 11:2-3. In the heavenly scene it may be concluded on the basis of both chapters 4 and 5 that all three Persons of the Trinity are in evidence, each in His particular form of revelation.
The Four Living Creatures (4:6-8)
4:6-8 And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind. And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle. And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
Occupying an important part of the scene before John is a sea of glass described as “like unto crystal,” and in the background are four living creatures. Apart from indicating that the sea of glass is like crystal, John gives us no explanation of the meaning of this sea. As in other portions of the book of Revelation, however, John expects the reader to draw conclusions from similar scenes elsewhere in the Bible. There seems here to be an analogy or comparison to the sea of brass in the Tabernacle in the Old Testament or the molten sea in the Temple. Both were lavers, or washstands, designed for the cleansing of the priests, and contained water used for various ceremonial rites. This may represent typically the sanctifying power of the Word of God.
No sure interpretation of the sea of glass may be advanced. As Alford states, “All kinds of symbolic interpretations, more or less fanciful, have been given.”126 Alford supports this by citing a long number of complicated and conflicting interpretations. He prefers the following view:
The primary reference will be to the clear ether in which the throne of God is upborne and the intent of setting this space in front of the throne will be, to betoken its separation and insulation from the place where the Seer stood, and indeed from all else about it.127
The fact is that no explanation is given in the text.
John, however, is not occupied at this point with the sea of glass, but rather with the four living creatures described as in the midst of the throne and round about the throne. He records that they are full of eyes, before and behind, and each of them has six wings. Further, each of the four beasts is to be distinguished according to verse 7. They are described respectively as like a lion, a calf, a man, and a flying eagle. Their ministry before the throne of God is that of ceaselessly ascribing holiness to the Lord.
The translation “beasts” is quite inaccurate and should be changed to “riving ones.” In the Greek the word used is zoon, which means “living ones.” An entirely different word, therion, meaning “a beast,” such as a wild animal, is used in Revelation 13 to speak of the beast coming out of the sea. The emphasis here is on the quality of life and the attributes that relate to it.
There has been much speculation concerning the identity of these living ones and the significance of their presence and ministry in this heavenly scene. As Alford states, “In enquiring after their symbolic import, we are met by the most remarkable diversity of interpretation.”128 Four important explanations are among the possibilities. Some interpret the four living creatures as representative of the attributes or qualities of God presented to John here as living entities. This is probably the best interpretation. Just as the Holy Spirit is represented by seven lamps, so the attributes of God in general are represented by the four riving ones. The fact that the creatures are full of eyes is taken as significant of the omniscience and omnipresence of God who sees all and knows all.
In a similar way the four beasts as respectively a lion, a calf, a man, and an eagle are considered different aspects of divine majesty. All of these are supreme in their respective categories. The lion is the king of beasts and represents majesty and omnipotence. The calf or ox, representing the most important of domestic animals, signifies patience and continuous labor. Man is the greatest of all God’s creatures, especially in intelligence and rational power; whereas the eagle is greatest among birds and is symbolic of sovereignty and supremacy.
Comparison has also been made of the four living creatures to the four Gospels which present Christ in four major aspects of His person. As the lion, He is the Lion of the tribe of Judah, represented as the king of Matthew. As the calf or ox, He is the Servant of Jehovah, the faithful one of Mark. As man, He is the human Jesus, presented in the Gospel of Luke, and as the eagle, He is the divine Son of God presented in the Gospel of John. Alford thinks that this has the least to commend itself of all of the many diverse interpretations. He states, after quoting at length Victorinus who championed this view,
I have cited this comment at length, to show on what fanciful and untenable ground it rests. For with perhaps the one exception of the last of the four, not one of the Evangelists has any inner or substantial accordance with the character thus assigned.129
In support of his objection he points out how many commentators disagree as to what Gospel is represented by each of the living ones.
Scott observes that ancient rabbinical writers declared that the tribes of Israel pitched their tents and standards on the four sides of the Tabernacle in this same order; namely, the tribe of Judah, a lion; the tribe of Ephraim, an ox; the tribe of Reuben, a man; the tribe of Dan, an eagle130 (cf. Num. 2:2). The fact that there are four living creatures is also noteworthy. It seems to be indicative of the relationship of God to the material universe or the world in general.131 Taken in general, the four living creatures are representative of God; they are, as in the case of the seven lamps, a physical embodiment of that which would be otherwise invisible to the natural eye.132 To John the scene was unmistakably one of majestic revelation.
An alternative explanation is that the four living creatures are angels whose function it is to bring honor and glory to God. Angels as seen in the Scriptures vary widely in their appearance, and this explanation is a plausible one. Angels are frequently seen in the Bible especially in apocalyptic books of the Bible such as Ezekiel and Revelation. The fact that the living creatures have six wings as do the seraphim of Isaiah 6:2-3 adds weight to the interpretation that they are angels. The living creatures in Revelation 4 and the seraphim of Isaiah 6 have a similar function in that both ascribe holiness to the Lord of hosts (cf. Isa. 6:3). The ministry of the living creatures is designed to emphasize the holiness of God and His eternity, in that according to the Scripture, “they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.” Their presence in the heavenly scene contributed much to the overall impression of the majesty, holiness, sovereignty, and eternity of God.
The Worship of the Living Creatures and the Elders (4:9-11)
4:9-11 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
Though it is stated earlier that the living creatures do not rest in their ascription of holiness to God, according to verse 9, periodically they give special glory and honor and praise to God sitting on His throne. On such occasions, according to verse 10, the twenty-four elders join with them in worship and fall down before God on His throne. In their worship, they cast their victors’ crowns before the throne declaring that God is worthy of glory and honor and power because all things have been created by Him and for His pleasure.
The closing scene of chapter 4 brings out several important truths. It is evident that the living ones are designed to give glory, honor, and thanks to God sitting upon His throne. The emphasis of their praise is on the divine attributes and worthiness of God.
The worship of the twenty-four elders has a more particular note. They not only worship and recognize these attributes of God but support their worship by recognition of the fact that God is the sovereign Creator of the universe and, as such, is sovereign over it. In other words they recognize not only the attributes but the works of God which reveal the attributes. Further, in casting their crowns before the throne they testify that if it had not been for God’s grace, salvation, and goodness, they could not have had victory over sin and death. Here the creature honors His Maker and accepts the dictum that man necessarily must be subject to his Creator.
The world today does not give such honor to the Lord God. Though men benefit from His goodness and live in a universe of His creation, they tend to neglect the worship of God. One of the important aims of the book of Revelation is to trace the divine movement of history toward the goal of universal recognition of God. This purpose of God, especially as related to the Son of God, is also spelled out in Philippians 2:9-11:
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth: And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
As if anticipating the ultimate consummation where all will recognize the exalted name of Jesus whether in heaven or hell, Revelation 4 reveals this intimate glimpse of heaven where all created beings join in a symphony of praise and give their honor and worship to the Almighty God. The worthiness of God to receive such praise is related to His sovereign right to rule as the One who sits upon the throne. The twenty-four elders bear witness to His majesty and glory, His holiness and power, and the eternity of the One “which was, and is, and is to come.” All creatures owe their very existence to Him as their Creator, “for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” Chapter 4 is a fitting introduction to that which follows in the next chapter, where the glory of Christ as Redeemer, as the “Lamb that was slain,” is an added reason for praise. Wise is the soul who finds in the Scriptures the revelation of such a God and who bows now in this day of grace in faith and worship before the God whom he will serve in eternity.
119 Friedrich Bleek, Lectures on the Apocalypse, pp. 6 ff.
120 Edward H. Home, for instance, although a premillenarian, interprets Revelation 4:1—16:17 as belonging to the present age, with the millennial age a literal period beginning with Revelation 19:11, and the eternal age introduced at Revelation 21:2. Though a follower of the historical school, Home recognizes dispensations, namely the Mosaic in the Old Testament, the dispensation of the Spirit in the present age, the future millennial kingdom, and the eternal age (The Meaning of the Apocalypse, p. 23).
121 Light on the Last Days, pp. 25-26.
122 Henry Alford, The Greek New Testament, IV, 594.
123 Alford, IV, 596.
124 Ibid., 596-97.
125 Paul Before the Areopagus, p. 92.
126 Alford, IV, 598.
127 Ibid.
128 Ibid., IV, 599.
129 Ibid., IV, 600.
130 Walter Scott, Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 126, note, quoting F. Brodie, Notes on the Revelation.
131 Ibid.
132 J. L. Martin offers the somewhat fantastic explanation that the four beasts represent the four quarters of the earth; the first, Asia; the second, Africa; the third, Europe; the fourth, America. He bases this on the fact that John is invited by these four beasts to come and see but not invited to behold the contents of the fifth, sixth, and seventh seals. This is another product of the historical interpretation (The Voice of the Seven Thunders, pp. 81-82).
18. A Man Without a Country (1 Samuel 21:1-22:4)
Introduction
Before I began attending college, I had two summer jobs. I had been working at an automotive parts house for a couple years, but since business had been a little slow, I took another job to supplement my income working for the Dairy Queen right across the street from the parts house. My job was not to work at the Dairy Queen but to work for this business by driving a little Cushman scooter, the kind that was built like a miniature pickup truck. In the “bed” of this vehicle was a freezer loaded with “Dilly Bars.” The front of the scooter had a little cab, without doors. My job was to drive around my hometown of Shelton, Washington, selling Dilly Bars to all the children who heard me coming and ran out to buy ice cream. Climbing and descending the hills of Shelton was a challenge, but the biggest danger was avoiding the dogs. Some chased me, while the meaner ones seemed to want to join me in the cab, or, even worse, tried to extract me from the cab. The job did not have high social status, as I sought to attract youthful customers while trying to discourage the dogs.
On one particular occasion, I found myself in a difficult dilemma. I was needed at the parts house and by the Dairy Queen to drive the scooter. When I presented the problem to my dad, he volunteered to stand (or sit) in for me on the Dairy Queen scooter. All went reasonably well. My dad negotiated the scooter over the hills, and the neighborhood dogs behaved themselves somewhat. Then an adult customer approached the scooter to buy ice cream for her children. When this woman looked into the scooter, both she and the driver were taken by surprise. She was the wife of one of the school board members, and my father was the principle of the school. Trying to see the humor in the situation, she responded, “Buy a dilly bar and help a kid through college?” They both had to laugh.
Life does have its embarrassing moments, does it not? I remember one Sunday in church when Mrs. Drebick fainted, and help was summoned to carry her out. As two men tried to discreetly remove her from her seat, her leg suddenly jerked straight, kicking the hat of the woman sitting directly in front of her, and causing it to cascade down over this woman’s face. I know I should not have laughed. . . .
One of my most embarrassing moments was when I was selected to stand up before the whole church and give my testimony about the summer camp I had just attended. All went reasonably well on the way up to the platform and even during my brief talk. But the pastor played an electric guitar to accompany our singing, so when I attempted to leave the pulpit and step down from the platform, my feet got tangled up in the cord leading to his guitar. I tripped and stumbled, barely avoiding sprawling on the platform before the church, but I did manage to rip the cord out of his guitar.
We all have had embarrassing moments, and I wish I could hear your most embarrassing moment. Even King David had his embarrassing moments. In our text, David has several humiliating experiences, all due to Saul’s jealousy of David and his attempts to kill him. As bad as they are at the moment, these painful episodes prove beneficial to David. As we look at the things that happened to David, we begin to see how God uses similar situations to benefit us. Let us look carefully for what God has to teach us from our text.
A Brief Review
Things have not always been bad between Saul and David. At one time, Saul felt very warmly toward David (16:21), and there was a time when he rejoiced in David’s victory over Goliath and the Philistines (19:5). David’s anointing as Saul’s replacement was not due to David’s ambition, but the result of Saul’s own folly. In a moment of panic, Saul disobeyed Samuel’s instructions to wait for him (10:8) and offered sacrifices himself (chapter 13). Samuel rebuked Saul for this, but Saul never really repented of this sin. Later, Saul failed to totally annihilate the Amalekites as God had instructed him in chapter 15. All of this spelled the end of Saul’s dynasty, and this Samuel told to Saul.
We know the Spirit of God departed from Saul and was replaced by an “evil spirit from the Lord.” We know too that the Spirit of God then descended with power upon David (16:13-14). This opened the door for David’s employment by Saul to soothe his troubled spirit by playing his harp (16:14-23). Although Saul loved David in the beginning, he soon became intensely jealous of him. He could even hear it in the songs the women sang about David (18:7), in the deep love and affection shown David by his own family (18:1-5, 20), and the respect and admiration he gained from those in Saul’s army (18:13-16, 30). Saul became suspicious of David’s every deed. The song the women sang, comparing and contrasting David’s victory with Saul’s, finally put Saul over the edge.
Saul made numerous attempts on David’s life. Some were concealed, such as offering David one of his daughters in marriage (which required David to act valiantly in war to prove his worthiness as a husband – 18:17-29). Other efforts were more open, such as Saul seeking to run David through with his spear (18:10-12). Finally, Saul gave orders for David to be killed (19:1). As a result of his son Jonathan’s appeal, this order was rescinded for a time (19:1-7), but before long Saul once again actively sought to kill David (19:8ff.). Jonathan and David met and devised a plan which would make it very clear that Saul indeed was intent on killing David. This resulted in David fleeing from Saul, and sadly parting from Jonathan (chapter 20).
Now in chapter 21, we find David a political refugee, a man without a country. We have come to a new chapter in David’s life. It is a painful time of separation from his wife, from his position in Saul’s employ, and from his beloved friend Jonathan. It is also a dangerous time, but one in which God’s anointed cannot be killed, no matter how great the danger might appear. It is a time of growth and preparation for David, a time that prepares him for the day he will rule over Israel as God’s anointed king.
Borrowed Bread
(21:1-9)
1 Then David came to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came trembling to meet David, and said to him, “Why are you alone and no one with you?” 2 And David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has commissioned me with a matter, and has said to me, 'Let no one know anything about the matter on which I am sending you and with which I have commissioned you; and I have directed the young men to a certain place.' 3 “Now therefore, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever can be found.” 4 And the priest answered David and said, “There is no ordinary bread on hand, but there is consecrated bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women.” 5 And David answered the priest and said to him, “Surely women have been kept from us as previously when I set out and the vessels of the young men were holy, though it was an ordinary journey; how much more then today will their vessels be holy?” 6 So the priest gave him consecrated bread; for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence which was removed from before the LORD, in order to put hot bread in its place when it was taken away. 7 Now one of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the LORD; and his name was Doeg the Edomite, the chief of Saul's shepherds. 8 And David said to Ahimelech, “Now is there not a spear or a sword on hand? For I brought neither my sword nor my weapons with me, because the king's matter was urgent.” 9 Then the priest said, “The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom you killed in the valley of Elah, behold, it is wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod; if you would take it for yourself, take it. For there is no other except it here.” And David said, “There is none like it; give it to me.”
Where could David possibly go for refuge or even help? Surely Ahimelech the high priest can be trusted. And so David flees to Nob, the city of the priests, a few miles to the north and east of Jerusalem (a few miles south of Gibeah, Saul’s hometown). David is well aware of Saul’s influence and his potential for violence. So he keeps his true purpose for coming a secret, perhaps thinking he is doing the priest a favor. It does not turn out that way, as we shall see.
Ahimelech is no one’s fool either. When he sees David, he comes trembling to meet him (compare 16:1-5). He is especially troubled to see David coming alone and questions him about this. David has been made the commander of a thousand by Saul. If he is coming in an official capacity (as he has a number of times in the past – see 22:15), then he should be with his men. “Where are they?” the priest wonders. He asks David about his coming alone.
David has a ready-made story for the priest. I do not know whether or not the priest believes it, but he does know better than to press David on this point. He takes David’s words at face value. David believes that if he keeps Ahimelech ignorant, Saul will surely not harm him. David is wrong. David tells the priest he is on special assignment for King Saul, that the king has sent him on a top-secret mission, one he cannot even describe to Ahimelech. David tells Ahimelech he is not alone; his men are secretly hidden a short distance away. All of this cloak and dagger stuff adds importance to the mission, or at least David hopes it does.
David now comes to the reason for his visit: he needs some provisions. Carrying on with his deception, he tells Ahimelech that he needs some bread. The only bread the priest has on hand is sacred bread, the showbread, which is normally eaten only by the priests. If David and his men have not been rendered ceremonially unclean by sexual relations with women,92 the priest will give five loaves of the consecrated bread to David. David assures him that this is the case. If, in normal circumstances this was always the case, how much more so in this instance. The priest gives David the sacred bread, but as he does so, Doeg the Edomite looks on with great interest. Doeg is the “chief of Saul’s shepherds,” a job David could handle very well. It will not be long before Doeg reports what he has seen to Saul, bringing death to almost every soul in the city of Nob (see 22:6-23).
David now asks Ahimelech for a sword. Few swords could be found in the entire kingdom, much less in the camp of the priests. What need had they for weapons? There was but one sword on the premises, the sword of Goliath, the sword David had obtained by his victory over this Philistine giant. The sword was a kind of trophy, a memorial of the victory God gave Israel through David. In truth, it belongs to David anyway, so the priest willingly gives it to him, no doubt wondering why David came so ill prepared for battle. David gives the excuse that he was in such a hurry he didn’t have time to get his sword or other weapons. This must have produced a puzzled look on the priest’s face, as David’s story becomes harder and harder to believe. Nevertheless, he gives David Goliath’s sword, and it appears David promptly leaves for Gath.
So It’s Come to This
or
Seeking to Make an Ally of Achish
(21:10-15)
10 Then David arose and fled that day from Saul, and went to Achish king of Gath. 11 But the servants of Achish said to him, “Is this not David the king of the land? Did they not sing of this one as they danced, saying, ' Saul has slain his thousands, And David his ten thousands'?” 12 And David took these words to heart, and greatly feared Achish king of Gath. 13 So he disguised his sanity before them, and acted insanely in their hands, and scribbled on the doors of the gate, and let his saliva run down into his beard. 14 Then Achish said to his servants, “Behold, you see the man behaving as a madman. Why do you bring him to me? 15 “Do I lack madmen, that you have brought this one to act the madman in my presence? Shall this one come into my house?”
As a teacher of the Scriptures, I have conducted a good many seminars inside prison walls. There is always the possibility of trouble. Occasionally, I pondered the question of what I would do if some kind of riot broke out while I was inside the prison walls. In a number of cases, I would have chosen to be on the inside of those bars, with believing inmates, rather than on the outside with unbelieving guards. My prison seminars help me understand these incredible closing verses in 1 Samuel 21.
It is truly amazing what David does here. David flees from Israel to the land of the Philistines. He leaves the people of God for the enemies of God. He seeks refuge from King Achish with whom he has done battle before. David has been to Gath before – well, almost. After he killed Goliath, the Philistine champion, David and the Israelites pursued the Philistines, killing them right up to the cities of Gath and Ekron (1 Samuel 17:51-52). Now, David approaches Gath again, but this time as a political refugee seeking asylum from Achish.
David comes to Gath seeking protection and sanctuary, but this is the hometown of Goliath (17:23) whom he killed. To make matters worse, David is carrying Goliath’s sword (verses 8-9). I would think David must be crazy to come to Gath, even more so than his conduct at Gath (verse 13). If these verses tell us anything, it is how intent Saul is on killing David. If David is forced to seek sanctuary among his enemies, what does this tell us about his “friend,” Saul? This is but another confirmation of the hostility (even insanity) of Saul. Things are desperate indeed!
The author of this account is not nearly as interested in telling us about David’s arrival at Gath as in describing his departure. Whatever David’s reasons for going to Gath, it is quite obvious that God does not want him there. God uses the servants of Achish to pressure this Philistine king to take David as a serious threat to Philistine security. Both here and in chapters 27-29, Achish is presented as less than astute and gullible. Somehow, he takes a liking to David. He seems overly confident of David’s submission to him and of his value as an ally. He does not willingly entertain thoughts that David may still be a loyal Israelite, soon to take the throne over Israel.
It was not unusual for kings to take in political refugees from nearby nations (see, for example, 1 Kings 11:40; 2 Kings 25:27-30). If they were given sanctuary, they might become grateful allies, if not loyal subjects. These refugees are a kind of trophy, a living testimony to the military dominance and power of the host nation. Achish is brought back to reality by his servants. Does the king not remember that David was designated as Israel’s next king? Does he not remember Goliath’s death and their defeat by Israel under David’s leadership? Has he forgotten the song sung about David, proclaiming him to be greater than Saul:
“Saul has slain his thousands, And David his ten thousands”
Achish is forced to think through his offer to give David sanctuary in Gath. While he is thinking about this, David is thinking too. He has heard of the counsel the king’s servants gave to Achish. He knows that if their advice is taken, he might be put to death. He is in trouble, a lot of trouble. How can David get out of this predicament with his life?
It turns out there is a way. David does escape with his life, but not with his dignity. If he arrives as a dreaded warrior, greater even than Goliath, he leaves as a lunatic. David somehow lands on the idea of acting insane. If he can convince the king that he has lost his sanity, he will no longer be taken seriously, and he might even be allowed to live. So David begins to carry out his plan. He scribbles on the doors of the city gate and lets the saliva run down his face and in his beard. He is disgusting and pathetic.
If his act convinces no one else, it convinces the king. Achish really does not want to kill David anyway. He seems to genuinely like him. This is his way out. The king needs not take a madman seriously! There is no glory in killing David. There is no benefit to keeping him in Gath. Gath is not a mental asylum! They have enough crazy Philistines in town; they do not need an Israelite madman as well. And so Achish has David run out of town. David’s life is spared, and the concerns of the advisors of the king are dealt with. This, so it seems, is a win-win situation.
David Becomes a Cave Dweller and a Captain
(22:1-2)
1 So David departed from there and escaped to the cave of Adullam; and when his brothers and all his father's household heard of it, they went down there to him. 2 And everyone who was in distress, and everyone who was in debt, and everyone who was discontented, gathered to him; and he became captain over them. Now there were about four hundred men with him.
David makes his way back into the territory of Judah, but not too far from Israel’s border with Philistia. He hides away in the cave of Adullam. The location of Adullam is not certain, but it seems to have been located several miles or so east of Gath toward Bethlehem and Jerusalem. It appears David has found a safe, secluded hideout just far enough away from Gath and not too close to Saul.
Up until now, David seems to be alone. But when he hides out at the cave of Adullam, a number of people begin to arrive hoping to associate with David. The first to hear of David’s whereabouts seem to be his family, who join him at the cave. They must sense that once David is regarded as Saul’s enemy, they are not safe either. This seems to be a safe assumption, based upon the fate of the priests (see chapter 22). Others follow, those in distress, in debt, or out of favor with Saul. They come to David as their new leader. One wonders, do these men, like our Lord’s disciples, hope for a new king and a new kingdom which will overthrow the old? During his stay at the cave, those joining with David come to number around 400.
To Moab and Back
(22:3-5)
3 And David went from there to Mizpah of Moab; and he said to the king of Moab, “Please let my father and my mother come and stay with you until I know what God will do for me.” 4 Then he left them with the king of Moab; and they stayed with him all the time that David was in the stronghold. 5 And the prophet Gad said to David, “Do not stay in the stronghold; depart, and go into the land of Judah.” So David departed and went into the forest of Hereth.
The cave outgrown, or David’s whereabouts too well known, David moves on to Mizpah of Moab to seek a place of refuge for his elderly parents (see 1 Samuel 17:12). They are not safe in Bethlehem, because Saul can too easily get to them and thus to David through them. Neither are they able to keep up the pace David and the others have to maintain, quickly moving from one deserted, remote place to another. They are not cut out for the life of a fugitive. So David seeks a place of refuge for them in Moab. You may remember that Ruth, David’s great-grandmother, was a Moabite woman (see Ruth 1:4; 4:13-17). This may incline the King of Moab to grant David’s request. This seems to put David’s parents out of harm’s way during the years he flees from Saul.
While David is hiding in the stronghold in Moab, prophet Gad comes to David with a word from God. David is not to continue to hide out in the stronghold. He must leave there and return to the land of Judah.93 David obeys the command of the prophet, although he may wonder why he is told to return to Judah rather than remain in Moab. By the time we reach chapter 26, David will know why and will tell us (and Saul). David returns to Judah, hiding out in the forest of Hareth, a kind of ancient Robin Hood.
Conclusion
One thing that is quite apparent in this passage of Scripture is the truth of the words written by the apostle James in the New Testament:
17 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain; and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months (James 5:17).
Many like to think of David as a real man. I believe our text portrays him as a real man. He does not always think or do the spiritual thing. He has a heart for God, but he also has feet of clay. David seeks refuge from Ahimelech, yet admits that he knows better. He admits that he is to blame for the deaths of the priests and their families (22:22). He flees to Philistia, looking to his enemies for sanctuary, rather than to God. He then flees to Moab, where a prophet must tell him to go home. David does not do everything right. He is a real man, not a caricature, and not a mythical creation of some author’s mind. It is often because of David’s failures that we are encouraged and given hope, for he was a man “with a nature like ours.” God deals graciously with us as He did with David.
One could quite easily pass over the events of our text without taking a second look. To the untrained eye, it looks like David has very good luck, at least twice in our text. First, David manages to escape to Nob where there is no bread except that reserved for the priests. Ahimelech makes an exception and gives David some of this bread. Second, David “escapes” to the land of the Philistines, bearing Goliath’s sword, and finding himself at this giant’s hometown. He seems marked for death, but his feigned insanity gets him an escort out of town. How lucky can a guy get?
David’s Deliverance and David’s Psalms
Other texts of Scripture make it very clear that this is not “good luck,” nor is David’s deliverance the result of his cunning. This is a divine deliverance. In fact, we shall soon see (chapter 22) that while David escapes from Nob to Gath, the priests and their families are not so fortunate. The veil is lifted for us in the Psalms. The historical backdrop of Psalm 52 is Doeg’s report to Saul that he has seen David at Nob. Psalms 34 and 56 are written during David’s time at Gath. Psalms 57 and 142 are written while David hides out in the cave. These psalms are David’s reflections and considered conclusions about what really happened in our text. Let us pause to briefly reflect on some of the lessons the Psalms point out to us.
(1) Deliverance is Divine. God is the One who saves. Consequently, He is the One to whom we must cry for deliverance (34:4-7; 57:1-3; 142). He is also the One whom we must praise for delivering us. It may not always look as though God is the one doing the delivering, but all deliverance is from Him. On the surface, one would not see God as David’s Deliverer when He spares him at Gath, but Psalm 34 makes it very clear that David’s deliverance is from the Lord.
(2) God is our Deliverer from those who seek our destruction (56:1-7; 57:4-6). David sees his destruction as purposed by wicked men and God as the One who delivers men from the hands of the wicked.
(3) Divine deliverance is given to those who love and trust God, and who call upon Him for salvation (56:3-4, 9-11; 57:1-3; 142:1-2). God cares for, and thus protects, His loved ones, those who seek refuge in Him. He delivers those who fear Him and who call upon Him for salvation.
(4) God’s deliverance is undeserved; it is a gift of His grace (57:1). Divine deliverance is not granted because men merit it, but because God is gracious and merciful. He is moved with compassion by our afflictions (34:17-18; 56:8). His deliverance often comes from the consequences of our own foolishness and sin.
(5) God delivers men in order to bring about thanksgiving, praise, and glory to Himself (Psalm 56:12; 57:5, 8, 9, 11; 142:7). When God delivers men from their afflictions, they are expected to publicly thank and praise Him for His goodness, and thus to publicly glorify Him. In this way, our divinely-wrought deliverance is not just for our good, but for God’s glory.
(6) God also delivers men so they may learn more of Him, and then instruct others from what they have learned (34:8-14). I believe David writes about the fear of the Lord in Psalm 34 because he has learned a great deal about fear. David is first afraid of men. This appears to be his reason for fleeing to Gath. He fears Saul. Then, he seems to fear the Philistines. David learns that God casts our fears aside, and in the process, we learn to fear God rather than men. This fear of God teaches us to “keep our tongue from evil, and our lips from speaking guile” (34:13). I believe David recognizes the importance of telling the truth, and when he comes to fear God more than men, he speaks the truth and urges others to do likewise. David’s deliverance enables him to instruct others from what he has learned.
(7) God delivers, even when it appears the deliverance is wrought by other means (34). Who would even think that David’s acting insane and his expulsion from Gath is from the hand of God? Is it not good luck, or skillful acting, on David’s part? Not in David’s mind! It is God who delivers David from Gath, even if the means He employs is David’s feigned insanity. (Was it not God who first planted the idea of feigning insanity in David’s mind?)
(8) God works through means that appear normal and, perhaps, even disgustingly human (34). Have you ever watched a movie that sought to portray some spiritual or religious theme? Even when I am away from the television, listening only to the sound, I can tell when a “spiritual” scene is taking place. There is almost always a background of “heavenly music.” I don’t know how to describe it, but it is music with an auditory halo. It is music we have come to associate as spiritual or heavenly (usually violins or harps are employed for the desired effect).
Do you remember seeing the sign placed along the highway before you come to a road repair or construction site? It reads, “Slow, Men Working.” I think this is the way many Christians expect God to act. When God is delivering someone in the Bible, we expect to see a sign which reads, in effect: “Slow, God Working.” We want to hear some form of “heavenly music” playing in the background, or something which tells us that God is present. But such trappings are not evident at the time that Joseph’s brothers sell him into slavery. They are not evident, to Job at least, when Satan makes his life miserable. Neither are they evident when David is drooling and doodling in Gath. But God is at work, even when it is not apparent to our eyes. Later on in the Book of 2 Samuel, we will see that Solomon becomes the heir to his father’s (David’s) throne, even though he is born to Bathsheba, the woman who is Uriah’s wife. The temple will be built on ground that David purchased because he willfully numbered the people of Israel, knowing it was wrong. It was at the threshing floor of Arunah, the Jebusite, that David offered a sacrifice to God when the plague was halted by God (2 Samuel 24). God is at work where we would never expect to see His hand.
(9) God’s deliverance is often brought about in the midst of circumstances which make escape seem impossible (142:4). God delights to let us get into impossible situations, so that when He saves us, it is very clear that it was entirely of Him. In his psalms, David paints a very bleak picture of his condition, and then goes on to describe the way God rescues him.
(10) God delivers us in ways that are not flattering, but humbling. Occasionally film footage on the television news shows the rescue of someone in a most unflattering way. It may be a woman, whose hair is a mess, whose face is dirty, and whose clothing is deplorable. No one likes to be rescued in this way, or in this condition, but when given the choice of being rescued in a humbling way or not being rescued at all, the decision is rather obvious. God rescues David in a way that humbles him greatly. God is not out to bolster David’s ego; He is out to save David in a way that humbles him and causes him to turn to Him for deliverance. It is strange but true that God often has to humble us first, so that we will see how desperate our circumstances are, so that we will humbly cry out to Him for deliverance.
As I think through the Bible, I realize how often God “saves” or delivers His own from destruction, but in very humbling ways. I think of Abram, who fled to Egypt for “deliverance” during a time of famine. In doing so, he put not only his own life at risk, but the promise of God that he and Sarai would have a child, through whom blessings would come on Abram and the whole world (see Genesis 12:1-3 ff.). Abram lied about Sarai, representing her as his sister rather than his wife, and as a result, she was taken into Pharaoh’s harem. God delivered Abram and Sarai, but in a way that was humbling. Pharaoh ran them out of his land, giving them what appears to be an armed escort out of town (see Genesis 12:17-20).
One of the most humbling deliverances (other than David’s, in our text) is that of Naaman. You may remember that Naaman, the commander of the Syrian army, was also a leper. Through his Israelite slave girl, Naaman learns there is a prophet in Israel who can heal him. But when he arrives at the prophet’s door, the prophet does not greet him personally, but sends his servant who instructs Naaman to bathe himself seven times in the Jordan river. Naaman is furious, because he is not treated as a dignitary. Finally, after receiving wise counsel from his servant, the Syrian commander obeys and is delivered from his malady. God saves him, but in a way that humbles him (see 2 Kings 5).
(11) God’s deliverance is more than temporal, more than just physical; God’s deliverance includes His deliverance from eternal condemnation (34:21-22; 56:13). It is interesting that in the New Testament the word that is very often rendered “saved” is used more broadly than just of spiritual salvation. It is used of physical healing and other acts of deliverance. In our text, God saves David’s life, but in his psalms David informs the reader that this temporal salvation is a prototype of the eternal salvation which God also accomplishes. The God who saves us from our afflictions and from our enemies, is the same God who saves us from His eternal wrath.
David’s Deliverance and Our Lord Jesus Christ
David’s deliverance has very direct ties to the New Testament, and particularly to our Lord Jesus Christ. Consider our Lord’s use of our text in Matthew 12:
1 At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath through the grainfields, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, “Behold, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.” 3 But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did, when he became hungry, he and his companions; 4 how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? 5 “Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are innocent? 6 “But I say to you, that something greater than the temple is here. 7 “But if you had known what this means, 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 “For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:1-8).
The Pharisees are especially distressed by what they consider violations of the Sabbath by our Lord and His disciples. When the disciples (not Jesus, you will note) pluck a few heads of grain and eat them on the Sabbath, the Pharisees see this as a flagrant violation of the law regarding the Sabbath. After all, this is work, they reason. And so they make a point of confronting Jesus with this example of His disregard for the Sabbath.
Jesus turns the tables on the Pharisees. In effect, they persist to ask Him, “Just who do you think you are?” “How dare Jesus break the Sabbath by healing some and allowing His disciples to “harvest” grain on this sacred day!” Jesus responds to this Sabbath challenge several different ways. He shows His opponents to be hypocrites, because they do not keep the Sabbath as they require of Him (they will work to get one of their oxen out of the ditch). Neither is it wrong to do good on the Sabbath. They fail to grasp that the Sabbath was created for man’s benefit, not man for the Sabbath’s. Another answer is that Jesus works on the Sabbath to imitate His Father, who is also at work, saving men.
But here Jesus takes a very different approach. Jesus turns back to our text, reminding His opponents that David ate of the sacred bread, and yet he was not one of the priests. How is it they are not upset over this? The answer, Jesus suggests, is that who you are makes all the difference in the world. They do not protest David’s eating of the sacred bread because he is David. He is soon to become the King of Israel. This put the whole matter in an entirely different light. The same is true for the temple priests. They “work” on the Sabbath, but are not condemned for it, and rightly so, for they are priests.
One reason Jesus does not feel obliged to follow the Pharisees rules regarding the Sabbath is that He is the Son of God. He is God’s Messiah, the One whom God has appointed to rule over the entire earth as King. If David can eat the sacred bread because of who he is, and if the priests can break the Sabbath because of who they are, then surely our Lord should not be challenged in the manner in which the Pharisees are doing. Who you are makes all the difference in the world. This principle is illustrated in our text, as our Lord indicates.
Who you are does make all the difference in the world. Without Christ, we are aliens and strangers to the kingdom of God. We are God’s enemies. We are sinners, rightly condemned to death and eternal condemnation. In Christ, we are forgiven, cleansed, righteous, and destined to eternal life. David is delivered many times in his life. David’s deliverance in our text is most humbling indeed. It is not the way he would have preferred to be rescued, but he is delivered from death and from his enemies. It is a humbling deliverance, but it is divine. For this, David gives God the glory.
Like David, we are those condemned to death. Apart from divine grace, we are as good as dead. Our problem is our own sin, which makes us unacceptable in God’s sight. It brings us under divine condemnation and eternal damnation. God in His mercy and grace has provided a way of escape. God’s means of deliverance is not flattering to us, but it is ever so glorifying to Him. He sent His only Son, to come to the earth as a man (a perfect God-man), to live a perfect life, and to die an innocent death as the payment for our sins. The cross was not an ego-inflating event. It was an ugly death our Lord died on behalf of guilty sinners. But God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, glorifying Him and those who, by faith, are in Him. It is by faith in Jesus Christ that unworthy sinners are delivered from eternal death, to the glory of God. Have you received this forgiveness of sins, this gift of God’s righteousness in Jesus Christ? All you must do is to acknowledge your sin and trust in Jesus Christ as God’s only means for your deliverance. I urge you to do so today.
92 In 2 Samuel, Uriah was an illustration of the devout soldier, who would not indulge himself in the pleasures of sexual intimacy with his own wife because he was living like a soldier at war, which he was (see verses 6-13).
93 It is my understanding that David hid out at several “strongholds” during the time he fled from Saul. Not all of them were inside the land of Israel. This “stronghold” I understand to have been in Moab, and that is why the prophet Gad instructs David to go back to Judah.
NET Bible Synthetic Harmony of the Gospels
Related MediaTo View the Full Version of the Synthetic Harmony of the Four Gospels by Jerry Peyton, Click Here (PDF)
For a Synopsis of the Four Gospels by Gregory White, Click Here
For a Chronological Journey through the Gospels In His Footsteps by Hon Stuart Robert, Click Here
Preface
I began compiling the four Gospels into one narrative when I taught the Gospels at a Christian high school. While I understood the unique value of each Gospel, I wanted students to see the flow of Christ’s life. And they appreciated not having to read every verse in all four Gospels, some of which are repeated almost verbatim.
I also read a one-year chronological Bible and was amazed at how much I learned. After reading, studying and teaching the Bible for fifty years I saw things I hadn’t seen before because I saw them in their historical context. The Bible flowed more like a story or movie than a collection of books. But I was frustrated at having to read the exact same accounts in different books—especially the historical books of Kings and Chronicles. It was then I decided to compile my own chronological harmony of the Gospels—not because other harmonies do not exist or that I can produce a better harmony, but because doing it would force me to deal with the text myself.
Editor’s Qualifications
I have an MA in biblical studies from Dallas Theological Seminary and an MA in faith and culture, with an emphasis in international human rights, from Trinity International University. I gave my first sermon when I was fifteen, over fifty years ago, and have been a pastor or bible teacher ever since, including teaching Bible at a Christian college and high school.
I did not formally study Greek or Hebrew and am not qualified to do Bible translation work, which is why I use the NET Bible for this harmony.
Types of Harmonies
In his article, “Is Harmonization Honest?” Dale Ellenburg describes four types of harmonies:
Radical harmonizing suppresses variant details in one text by replacing them with preferred wording drawn from another version. Radical harmonizing tends to produce a uniform official version of a saying or story in separate Gospels. A synthetic harmony expands a text by adding details from one account to another to produce a conflated version that is not identical with any one source. Sequential harmonizing preserves two or more versions of the same material as separate incidents in the same narrative. This produces repetitions of sayings and stories that literary critics call “doublets.” . . . a parallel harmony presents two or more versions of the same account side by side in a synopsis for easy comparison.1
For more information see Appendix II. “Issues & Strategies in Harmonizing the Gospels.”
Sources Used
While I sought to harmonize the four Gospels by evaluating every verse myself, I also used other harmonies for comparison and for the chronological framework:
- Cheney, Johnston M. The Life of Christ in Stereo, Portland: Multnomah, 1969. (Sequential)
- Cheney, Johnston M. & Ellisen, Stanley. The Greatest Story. Portland: Multnomah, 1994. (Sequential)
- The One Year Chronological Bible (NLT). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 1996, 2004. (Parallel)
- Cox, Steven & Easley, Kendall. HCSB Harmony of the Gospels. Nashville: Holman Bible, 2007. (Parallel)
- Robertson, A T. A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ: Based on the Broadus Harmony. San Francisco: Citizens Bank, 1950. (Parallel)
- Jackson, Jeffrey Glen. Synopsis of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009. (Parallel)
This is a Synthetic Harmony of the Gospels
- No details have been omitted. For example, when different words are used in different Gospels referring to Jesus in the same event, the alternative words are put in parenthesis.
Nothing is repeated that is not repeated within the same Gospel, including some things that sequential harmonies repeat because the details are different in different Gospels.
- A four-year ministry of Jesus is adopted rather than the traditional three-year. I found the arguments for a four-year ministry by Johnston Cheney in his The Life of Christ in Stereo to be compelling. See Appendix IV (pp. 226-236) of his book for a detailed explanation.
*The chronology of much of the Gospels is not known. I have relied heavily on Cheney’s chronology, while differing significantly from him in some instances.
*This harmony flows like a movie script, where movement from one place or topic to another is geographically and topically logical. Chronology or sequence clearly stated in the text, such as “the next day,” are maintained.
- For specific events or teachings, the Gospel with the most detail is used primarily, adding in details from other Gospels.
This is Not a “Perfect Harmony”2
- No attempt is made to produce a “perfect harmony” that claims to resolve all the differences in the gospel accounts. My conclusion is that a perfect harmony of the four Gospels where there are no differences3 in details (numbers, time, sequence, pronouns used, etc.) is an illusionary goal. There is evidence of differences in the most reliable New Testament manuscripts available, but this does not need to lessen the belief in and commitment to the supernatural origin and infallibility of the New Testament, including the inerrancy of the original autographs. But even those originals, which we do not have, most likely contain many of the same differences in details we encounter in the earliest manuscripts available today.
- Difficulties in harmonizing details in the Gospels must be examined in light of the claims of the New Testament writers and Jesus himself.
*“Every scripture is inspired by God” (2Tm 3:14-16).
*Peter’s reference to Paul’s letters as “scripture” and “truth” (2Pt 3:15-17).
*“No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2Pt 1:15-21).
*Jesus’ prayer to the Father: “Set them apart in the truth; your word is truth” (Jn 17:17).
*Jesus: “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place” (Mt 5:18).
- “What is at stake here is whether we have the ipsissima verba (the actual words of Jesus) or the ipsissima vox (the essential voice). There is no question that historians often record the voice of a character without due diligence to his very words at some points.”4
*The differences regarding exact words, including those of Jesus or God, are numerous. "This is my one dear Son; in him I take great delight" (Mt 3:17) vs. "You are my one dear Son; in you I take great delight” (Lk 3:22). Which was it? We don’t know and it doesn’t make any difference. And it doesn’t seem to matter to God.
*All the differences in the Gospels put together do not effect in the slightest any theological or historical fact/truth. Let’s not strain at gnats and miss the camels.
- The sequence of events in the four Gospels are very different, leading to the conclusion that neither the Gospel writers nor God who inspired them were always concerned about recording exact chronology.
The Gospels are four concise biographies that have condensed and rearranged several years of events and teaching into a few pages without changing the truth of anything that was said or happened—because the writers were “carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
No Gospel harmony can be produced without significantly rearranging the sequence of events in each Gospel. No chronology can be determined with certitude. That is not the goal. Chronologically arranging Scripture provides a flowing narrative presenting a clearer historical perspective.
- Admitting to the existence in the earliest/best manuscripts available of variations in details does not automatically open the door to dismissing the accuracy of the Gospels. “Are There Contradictions in the Gospels?” by James Arlandson (https://bible.org/seriespage/12-are-there-contradictions-gospels) is an excellent explanation of how to view these differences. His references for further study are extremely valuable in addressing specific difficult issues of biblical accuracy.
*Coming to grips with the differences/variations in biblical accounts of the exact same event may challenge our understanding of what it means for the Bible to be the inspired word of God. But it is better for us to work that out for ourselves than blindly accept someone else’s conclusions. And it is far better to ask questions and diligently seek answers than remain a child who depends on his parents’ convictions. Wolves love going after such innocent, gullible children.
- Appendices are included showing how some of the more difficult passages were harmonized.
Textual Explanations
- Text in parentheses ( ) are either in the NET Bible as parentheses or they are alternate words used in the various Gospels, i.e. “Lord”, “Master”, “Teacher”, or “Rabbi” all referring to the same incident.
- Text in brackets [ ] are not in the NET Bible but are inserted by the editor as connectives for enhancing the flow of the narrative or words for clarification.
- Study Edition: For quick reference checks and explanations
*Footnotes (a) on the bottom of pages and explanatory notes (1) at the end of the book
*Scripture references placed in topical headings and within the body of the text
- Reader’s Edition: For a book-like format
*Notes (1) at the end of the document (footnotes having been changed into endnotes)
*Scripture references placed only in topical headings, not within the body of the text
My hope is that this Gospel harmony will both fill a need and stimulate a thirst to know Jesus Christ better.
Why not get to know Jesus Christ better by reading his life, ministry and teaching as one magnificent, unbelievable but true adventure? The greatest adventure story of all time.
Jerry Peyton
Tucson, AZ - 2015
1 Steven Cox & Kendall Easley, HCSB Harmony of the Gospels (Nashville: Holman Bible Pub., 2007) 3.
2 See Appendix II. “Issues & Strategies in Harmonizing the Gospels” for a more detailed explanation.
3 Differences not simply where one account adds or leaves out details in other accounts but where the details given differ from Gospel to Gospel.
4 Dale Ellenburg, “Is Harmonization Honest?” in Cox & Easley, 4.
Related Topics: Gospels
Sinners in the Hands of a Gracious God
Related MediaEditor’s note: When I heard this message at Dallas Seminary’s Chafer Chapel in October 2003, I asked Dr. Kreider if we could post it on the Biblical Studies Foundation website. I was delighted when he agreed.
--Daniel B. Wallace, January 1, 2004
The name “Jonathan Edwards” triggers in the minds of many Americans, if there is any recognition at all, the memory of a high school or college literature course.1 Most likely, the sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” was part of the body of material studied from the American colonial period. “Sinners” is probably the most famous sermon ever preached in America and most anthologies of American literature include at least an excerpt from this work. 2 For many people, this sermon is all that they know about the eighteenth century New England pastor Jonathan Edwards.
Critics of Edwards and the Puritans find this sermon an appalling example of all that is wrong with Calvinism and Puritan theology.3 After all, what could be more offensive than a God who takes pleasure in the destruction of the wicked? Most anthologies of American literature perpetuate this stereotype by quoting the most graphic and striking imagery of the sermon, often without much context.4 One writer comments that this sermon begins “as an attempt to awaken the unconverted” but “quickly subverts the intention of its author and becomes a sermon about self-pity and despair.”5 He concludes, “In this sermon Edwards leads us to the heart of Calvinism, yet in leading us there he (unwittingly?) subverts his own intentions. By choosing the spider as an image for Calvinism, Edwards allows the spider to ‘deconstruct’ it. The spider becomes our guide not only to the intentions of Calvinism but to its problems as well. ‘Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God’ becomes a sermon about helplessness and hopelessness in which we find ourselves pitying the spider and hating God.”6
Even those who are sympathetic towards Edwards and his theology sometimes appear to be embarrassed by this sermon. Some of Edwards’s supporters rationalize that “Sinners” is not typical of Edwards’s sermons, that although he did preach on hell and judgment, this was not a major theme of his preaching, and the language of most of his sermons was less explicit, graphic, and harsh.7 A more accurate assessment comes from the editors of a recent volume of Edwards’s sermons. “If Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God distorts the larger issue when taken alone, it clearly belongs in any representation of Edwards’s work for the sheer power of its imagery. Who can resist trembling before the frightening image of sinners dangled by a vengeful God like loathsome spiders over flames, or of treading on a paper-thin, rotting canvas, not knowing at what moment you might plunge into the abyss and face a just and judging God? The words echo through time in their haunting description of the plight of the damned.”8 The language of the sermon is intentionally graphic, functioning as “a homiletical slap in the face to get the attention of those who have no sense of their investment in religion or have otherwise shown themselves ‘sermon proof.’ ”9
In his excellent recent biography of Jonathan Edwards, George Marsden writes: “In its subject, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God was not unusual either for Edwards or for New England preaching. Preaching on hell was a routine part of covering the full range of Gospel topics, and other sermons were more lurid in depicting hell’s agonies.”10 Similarly, Wilson Kimnach concludes that “comparison with other examples of that genre [hellfire sermons] among Edwards’ sermons reveals that Sinners is not even a proper ‘hellfire’ sermon, let alone the best.”11
Marsden’s evaluation of Edwards’s sermon includes a pointed application to modern-day Christianity. “In Sinners Edwards took hell and its agonies for granted as realities proven by Scripture and confirmed by reason. To be sure, some eighteenth-century people did doubt traditional views of hell, even in New England. Yet Edwards spoke to his audience as though such a denial were not an intellectual option. That he would do so is itself revealing. It suggests how immense the gulf of assumptions is that separates most modern readers from the world of the original auditors. Few today, including many who affirm traditional Christian doctrines, have the sympathies to take seriously some of these deepest sensibilities of ordinary eighteenth-century colonials.”12
Although this sermon was delivered to Edwards’s congregation in Northampton in June 1741, it is forever remembered for its effect on the congregation in the frontier town of Enfield, Connecticut, on Wednesday, 8 July 1741.13 An eyewitness described an audience so moved by the sermon that people moaned, shrieked, and cried out for salvation while the preacher was speaking.14 Apparently the reaction was so strong that Edwards was unable to finish the sermon, “possibly the only time such an interruption had happened to him except for the day several years earlier when the gallery of the old Northampton meetinghouse fell.”15
This paper is one more reexamination of Jonathan Edwards’s sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” I have two major goals. First, studying this sermon should lead us to a clearer understanding of the character of Edwards’s God. Although the sermon does describe God as angry and his anger is particularly directed toward sinners, we must not ignore the other major category of divine attributes Edwards emphasizes.16 In fact, the characteristics of God most in view in this sermon are his grace, mercy, compassion, patience, and love. Rather than a God who takes pleasure in the destruction of sinners, we will see that Edwards believed that it was because of God’s grace, what he calls “mere pleasure,” that sinners were not yet destroyed, and he pleaded with his audience to respond to God’s grace in faith and repentance.17 Edwards’s God is an angry God, he justly detests sin and sinners. But Edwards’s God is a loving and gracious God, and that he has not destroyed the sinners under his wrath is, for Edwards, compelling evidence of God’s gracious character. Marsden says it well: “Being in the hands of God means for the moment you are being kept from burning in hell as you deserve. God in his amazing long-suffering is still giving you a chance; his hand is keeping you from falling.”18
Second, that Edwards believed in a place of eternal punishment for the wicked is plain, from this sermon and other writings. Less clear is Edwards’s understanding of the nature of the place of eternal destruction. He is often used, positively and negatively, as an historical example of one who believed in hell as a place of fire. 19 Since he uses a number of other imagery to describe this place, we should be cautious about linking him to one view of the nature of hell. Perhaps his use of multiple images of hell’s horror emphasizes the horror of the destruction awaiting the wicked, in a way no single metaphor could.20
“Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”
The Biblical Text for the Sermon
Jonathan Edwards’s sermons generally follow the typical Puritan three part structure, and this one is no exception.21 “Sinners” begins with a biblical text which the preacher interprets and explains within its context. In the second section of the sermon, Edwards articulates a statement of doctrine developed from the biblical text, followed by rationale and reasons to support it. Third, the preacher then applies the sermon to his audience.22 In “Sinners,” the bulk of the sermon is devoted to the application or use of the sermon.23
The biblical text for this sermon is Deuteronomy 32:35: “Their foot shall slide in due time.”24 Edwards’s exposition of the text is very brief. He does not explain the context of this verse. In fact, he does not even indicate that he has selected only one phrase from the verse, which is part of a song of Moses (cf. Deut 31:30). He perhaps knows his audience well enough to know that they are so familiar with the biblical text that he can select this one phrase about impending judgment and develop a theological sermon around that concept. He does, however, remind the congregation that this text threatens God’s vengeance on unbelieving Israelites.
He then enumerates several implications of this text: that the Israelites “were always exposed to destruction,” that they “were always exposed to sudden unexpected destruction,” that they “are liable to fall of themselves,” and “that the reason why they are not fallen already, and don’t fall now, is only that God’s appointed time is not come.”25 When their appointed time for destruction comes, “Then they shall be left to fall as they are inclined by their own weight. God won’t hold them up in these slippery places any longer, but will let them go; and then, at that very instant, they shall fall into destruction; as he that stands in such slippery declining ground on the edge of a pit that he can’t stand alone, when he is let go he immediately falls and is lost.”26
Thus, the current role of God in the punishment of the wicked, according to Edwards, is to protect them, to keep them safe, to prevent their destruction, until some later, as yet undefined, point. At that time, God will release the wicked so that they will experience that which is justly deserved, eternal destruction.
The Doctrine of the Sermon
From the text, read with the implications listed above, Edwards articulates this doctrine: “There is nothing that keeps wicked men, at any one moment, out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God.”27 By “mere pleasure,” Edwards explains, he means God’s “sovereign pleasure, his arbitrary will, restrained by no obligation, hindered by no manner of difficulty, any more than if nothing else but God’s mere will had in the least degree, or in any respect whatsoever, any hand in the preservation of wicked men one moment.”28 In other words, the doctrine emphasizes that God is active not in sending the wicked into the place of punishment or in bringing judgment upon them. Rather, God’s active role in the judgment of the wicked is to keep them from experiencing this punishment and this is due not to anything in the wicked but only the grace of a merciful and sovereign God.
Edwards provides a list of theological reasons to support the claim that it is God’s mere pleasure that keeps the wicked out of hell. God’s power is not limited. If he wanted to cast the wicked into hell he has sufficient power to accomplish his will. The wicked deserve hell, so God’s justice is not the reason for withholding their destruction. The wicked are already condemned, the righteous judge has already pronounced them guilty. The wicked are now under God’s anger. He will not become angrier with them in hell than he is already now angry with them. Thus, their being kept out of hell is not a sign that God’s anger toward them is not yet sufficient or complete. Edwards explains, “The very reason why they don’t go down to hell at each moment, is not because God, in whose power they are, is not then very angry with them; as angry as he is with many of those miserable creatures that he is now tormenting in hell, and do there feel and bear the fierceness of his wrath. Yea, God is a great deal more angry with great numbers that are now on earth, yea, doubtless with many that are now in this congregation, that it may be are at ease and quiet, than he is with many of those that are now in the flames of hell.”29 Further, the devil is prepared to receive the wicked, as soon as God will permit him. The fires of hell are already burning in the souls of the wicked. It is only the restraint of God which keeps those “hellish principles” from kindling and flaming into hellfire.30
The wicked should not presume to be safe because “there are no visible means of death at hand.”31 There is nothing that provides security, not even the natural human desire for self-preservation. All the contriving and scheming of the wicked to escape hell, apart from Christ, are doomed to failure. God is under no obligation to prolong the life of any wicked person for one instant.
In summary, Edwards concludes:
So that thus it is, that natural men are held in the hand of God over the pit of hell; they have deserved the fiery pit, and are already sentenced to it; and God is dreadfully provoked, his anger is as great towards them as to those that are actually suffering the executions of the fierceness of his wrath in hell, and they have done nothing in the least to appease or abate that anger, neither is God in the least bound by any promise to hold ’em up one moment; the devil is waiting for them, hell is gaping for them, the flames gather and flash about them, and would fain lay hold on them, and swallow them up; the fire pent up in their own hearts is struggling to break out; and they have no interest in any mediator, there are no means within reach that can be any security to them. In short, they have no refuge, nothing to take hold of, all that preserves them every moment is the mere arbitrary will, and uncovenanted unobliged forbearance of an incensed God.32
The Application of the Sermon
Edwards quickly moves to the application or use of this sermon. It is almost startling to see how brief his exposition of Scripture and defense of the doctrine is. It is apparent that he wants to devote sufficient time and space to making application for his congregation. If it is merely the grace of a sovereign God which keeps the wicked from their just punishment in hell, how ought they to respond?
Another of the atypical characteristics of this sermon is that Edwards’s application is generally directed to two groups in his audience.33 He usually devotes significant attention to the implications of the sermon for the righteous or godly hearers as well as the implications for the unrighteous or the wicked. This sermon contains no explicit application for the righteous. Edwards lists an extended series of exhortations directed to the unregenerate. But this sermon only has one application: “The use may be of awakening to unconverted persons in this congregation. This that you have heard is the case of every one of you that are out of Christ.”34
Lest there be any chance of missing his point, Edwards begins the application with a graphic description of the state of all those who are not in Christ. “That world of misery, that lake of burning brimstone is extended under you. There is the dreadful pit of the glowing flames of the wrath of God; there is hell’s wide gaping mouth open; and you have nothing to stand upon, nor anything to take hold of: there is nothing between you and hell but the air; ’tis only the power and mere pleasure of God that holds you up.”35 For Edwards, God’s providential care of his creatures is comprehensive, even for the unregenerate, all of whom are largely unaware of God’s mercy and grace. “You probably are not sensible of this; you find you are kept out of hell, but don’t see the hand of God in it, but look at other things, as the good state of your bodily constitution, your care of your own life, and the means you use for your own preservation. But indeed these things are nothing; if God should withdraw his hand, they would avail no more to keep you from falling, than the thin air to hold up a person that is suspended in it.”36
Throughout the application section of the sermon, Edwards describes the terrible wrath of God in powerful pictures. He portrays the horrors of hell and the impending doom of the wicked in graphic terms, using several different metaphors. What must not be overlooked, however, is the consistent prominence of God’s grace in these descriptions.37 The metaphors vary; the emphasis on God’s grace remains constant.
Your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead, and to tend downwards with great weight and pressure towards hell; and if God should let you go, you would immediately sink and swiftly descend and plunge into the bottomless gulf, and your healthy constitution, and your own care and prudence, and best contrivance, and all your righteousness, would have no more influence to uphold you and keep you out of hell, than a spider’s web would have to stop a falling rock. Were it not that so is the sovereign pleasure of God, the earth would not bear you one moment; for you are a burden to it; the creation groans with you; the creature is made subject to the bondage of your corruption, not willingly; the sun don’t willingly shine upon you to give you light to serve sin and Satan; the earth don’t willingly yield her increase to satisfy your lusts; nor is it willingly a stage for your wickedness to be acted upon; the air don’t willingly serve you for breath to maintain the flame of life in your vitals, while you spend your life in the service of God’s enemies. God’s creatures are good, and were made for man to serve God with, and don’t willingly subserve to any other purpose, and groan when they are abused to purposes so directly contrary to their nature and end. And the world would spew you out, were it not for the sovereign hand of him who had subjected it in hope. These are the black clouds of God’s wrath now hanging directly over your heads, full of the dreadful storm, and big with thunder; and were it not for the restraining hand of God it would immediately burst forth upon you. The sovereign pleasure of God for the present stays his rough wind; otherwise it would come with fury, and your destruction would come like a whirlwind, and you would be like the chaff of the summer threshing floor.38
One might, perhaps, argue that the picture of a violent storm as the destruction of the wicked is not inconsistent with a lake of fire as their eternal destiny. Perhaps what precedes the fire is a terrible storm, or perhaps there is both a raging thunderstorm and burning lake of fire, or perhaps the fire is a result of a lightening strike, but it seems more likely that Edwards is using two different metaphors for destruction. Further, he describes hell as a bottomless pit, which seems to be a different analogy than either fire or storm. The interpreter need not find some way to make the metaphors fit together. Rather, it seems better to recognize that the preacher is stressing the horror of the destruction which is, apart from the sovereign pleasure of God, imminently threatening the wicked.
Edwards continues with another metaphor for divine destruction, one which is even more difficult to reconcile with the description of hell as a bottomless pit of fire.
The wrath of God is like great waters that are dammed for the present; they increase more and more, and rise higher and higher, till an outlet is given, and the longer the stream is stopped, the more rapid and mighty is its course, when once it is let loose. ’Tis true, that judgment against your evil works has not been executed hitherto; the floods of God’s vengeance have been withheld; but your guilt in the meantime is constantly increasing, and you are every day treasuring up more wrath; the waters are continually rising and waxing more and more mighty; and there is nothing but the mere pleasure of God that holds the waters back that are unwilling to be stopped, and press hard to go forward; if God should only withdraw his hand from the floodgate, it would immediately fly open, and the fiery floods of the fierceness and wrath of God would rush forth with inconceivable fury, and would come upon you with omnipotent power; and if your strength were ten thousand times greater than it is, yea ten thousand times greater than the strength of the stoutest, sturdiest devil in hell, it would be nothing to withstand or endure it.39
To the imagery of a lake of fire, a bottomless pit, a violent wind storm, and a tidal wave of destruction, Edwards adds another graphic picture of the impending destruction of the wicked. “The bow of God’s wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow at one moment from being drunk with your blood.”40
Again, it seems unnecessary, and perhaps not even possible, to treat these images of destruction as synonyms or as overlapping pictures of the reality of divine judgment. Rather, this master communicator clearly appears to be using a variety of metaphors to stress the horrors of the destiny of the wicked, not intending to describe the actual nature of that destruction. One might even surmise from the multiple metaphors that Edwards finds the language itself limiting, that hell is much worse than any of the analogies he can find in the natural world. That it is horrible and perhaps even too horrible for words seems to be his penultimate point. Ultimately, however, the sermon stresses the grace of God who, for reasons known only to him, has to this point kept the wicked from experiencing this horrible destruction which they deserve.
Without question, the most famous section of the sermon is the comparison Edwards makes between God’s treatment of the sinner and a schoolboy dangling a spider over a fire. This passage is often read by critics of Edwards as if God is pictured as a cruel and sadistic child taking perverse pleasure in the torture of a helpless insect. That is certainly to push the analogy too far, to fail to understand the literary use of the figure, to launch the interpretation past the edge of propriety. But, more significantly, it is to miss the clear declaration of divine grace even here. That the sinner has not yet fallen into the fire of hell, which he justly deserves, is due only to the mere pleasure of a sovereign and gracious God.
Here is the passage:
The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times so abominable in his eyes as the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince: and yet ’tis nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment: ’tis to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep: there is no other reason to be given why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God’s hand has held you up: there is no other reason to be given why you han’t gone to hell since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship: yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you don’t this very moment drop down into hell.41
In this description of the fate of the wicked, Edwards again mixes two metaphors, a bottomless pit and a fiery furnace, when he continues,
O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: ’tis a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you as against any of the damned in hell: you hang by a slender thread, with the flames of divine wrath flashing around it, and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any mediator, and nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done, nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment.42
Here again, God’s role is graciously to preserve life. The sinner is justly under God’s wrath and it is only due to his mercy, not because of anything in the sinner, that the life of the wicked person is preserved.
The critics of Edwards are correct in noting that he stresses the fierceness and fury of the wrath of God. Without hesitation or apology, he argues from the lesser to the greater. If the wrath of earthly kings is to be dreaded, how much more the wrath of an infinite God, “the great and almighty Creator and King of heaven and earth?”43 The wrath of God is a terrible and terrifying thing, because it is the anger of an infinite Being. When God will pour out this wrath on the unregenerate, he will do so “without any pity,” with “no compassion, . . . he will not forbear the executions of his wrath, or in the least lighten his hand; there shall be no moderation or mercy, nor will God then at all stay his rough wind; he will have no regard to your welfare, nor be at all careful lest you should suffer too much, in any other sense than only that you shall not suffer beyond what strict justice requires: nothing shall be withheld, because it’s so hard for you to bear.”44 But even here, the description of the outpouring of God’s wrath in the future is used to emphasize his graciousness now. There is a limit to God’s compassion and mercy. The time is coming when it will be withheld and only his wrath will be poured out on the unregenerate. At the present time, however, God’s mercy is available and Edwards pleads for his congregation to respond to it. “Now God stands ready to pity you; this is a day of mercy: but when once the day of mercy is past, your most lamentable and dolorous cries and shrieks will be in vain; you will be wholly lost and thrown away of God as to any regard to your welfare; God will have no other use to put you to but only to suffer misery; you shall be continued in being to no other end; for you will be a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction; and there will be no other use of this vessel but only to be filled full of wrath: God will be so far from pitying you when you cry out to him, that ’tis said he will only laugh and mock.”45
The punishment awaiting the wicked is not simply the terrible wrath of an infinite God, but it is also an everlasting wrath. Edwards explains,
It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity: there will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery: when you look forward, you shall see a long forever, a boundless duration before you, which shall swallow up your thoughts and amaze your soul; and you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, any end, any mitigation, any rest at all; you will know certainly that you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and conflicting with this almighty merciless vengeance; and then when you have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but a point to what remains. So that your punishment will indeed be infinite.46
Edwards then shifts the emphasis of the sermon to a series of pleas for the audience to respond to God in faith and thus avoid the wrath of God which awaits them as long as they remain in their current unregenerate state. In this extended passage, the compassionate heart of the pastor is clearly heard. There is no hint of glee in speaking of hell. There is no flippancy in describing the punishment that awaits the wicked. There is no cold-hearted cruelty in his words. There is, rather, a tone of godly sorrow and compassion as he speaks what he knows to be the truth. When delivered originally to his church in Northampton, Edwards is addressing a congregation he knows very well and his pastoral heart is grieved as he looks over the audience.
How dreadful is the state of those that are daily and hourly in danger of this great wrath, and infinite misery! But this is the dismal case of every soul in this congregation; that has not been born again, however moral and strict, sober and religious they may otherwise be. Oh that you would consider it, whether you be young or old. There is reason to think, that there are many in this congregation now hearing this discourse, that will actually be the subjects of this very misery to all eternity. We know not who they are, or in what seats they sit, or what thoughts they now have: it may be they are now at ease, and hear all these things without much disturbance, and are now flattering themselves that they are not the persons, promising themselves that they shall escape. If we knew that there was one person, and but one, in the whole congregation that was to be the subject of this misery, what an awful thing would it be to think of! If we knew who it was, what an awful sight would it be to see such a person! How might all the rest of the congregation lift up a lamentable and bitter cry over him! But alas! Instead of one, how many is it likely will remember this discourse in hell? And it be a wonder if some that are now present, should not be in hell in a very short time, before this year is out. And it would be no wonder if some person that now sits here in some seat of this meetinghouse in health, and quiet and secure, should be there before tomorrow morning. Those of you that finally continue in a natural condition, that shall keep out of hell the longest, will be there in a little time! Your damnation don’t slumber; it will come swiftly, and in all probability very suddenly upon many of you. You have reason to wonder, that you are not already in hell. ’Tis doubtless the case of some that heretofore you have seen and known, that never deserved hell more than you, and that heretofore appeared as likely to have been now alive as you: their case is past all hope; they are crying in extreme misery and perfect despair; but here you are in the land of the living, and in the house of God, and have an opportunity to obtain salvation. What would not those poor damned, hopeless souls give for one day’s such opportunity as you now enjoy!47
The appeal continues with an emphasis on the provision God has made for mercy and a reminder of the blessings which are available.
And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has flung the door of mercy wide open, and stands in the door calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God; many are daily coming for the east, west, north and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are in now an happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him that has loved them and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful is it to be left behind at such a day! To see so many others feasting, while you are pining and perishing! To see so many rejoicing and singing for joy of heart, while you have cause to mourn for sorrow of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit! How can you rest one moment in such a condition?48
The evangelist appeals to those “that have lived long in the world,” to the “young men, and young women,” and even to “children that are unconverted.”49 His appeal to children is as strong and compassionate as to those who are older. “Don’t you know that you are going down to hell, to bear the dreadful wrath of that God that is now angry with you every day, and every night? Will you be content to be the children of the devil, when so many other children in the land are converted, and are become the holy and happy children of the King of Kings?”50
The sermon concludes with one final appeal to the audience.
And let everyone that is yet out of Christ, and hanging over the pit of hell, whether they be old men and women, or middle aged, or young people, or little children, now hearken to the loud call of God’s Word and providence. This acceptable year of the Lord, that is a day of such great favor to some, will doubtless be a day of as remarkable vengeance to others. Men’s hearts will harden, and their guilt increases apace at such a day as this, if they neglect their souls: and never was there so great danger as such persons being given up to hardness of heart, and blindness of mind. God seems now to be hastily gathering in his elect in all parts of the land; and probably the bigger part of adult persons that ever shall be saved, will be brought in now in a little time, and that it will be as it was on that great outpouring of the Spirit upon the Jews in the apostles’ days, the election will obtain, and the rest will be blinded. If this should be the case with you, you will eternally curse this day, and will curse the day that ever you was born, to see such a season of the pouring out of God’s Spirit; and will wish that you had died and gone to hell before you had seen it. Now undoubtedly it is, as it was in the days of John the Baptist: the ax is in an extraordinary manner laid at the root of the trees, that every tree that brings not forth good fruit, may be hewn down, and cast into the fire. Therefore, let everyone that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come. The wrath of almighty God is now undoubtedly hanging over great part of this congregation: let everyone fly out of Sodom: “Haste and escape for your lives, look not behind you, escape to the mountain, lest you be consumed” [Gen. 19:17].51
Conclusion
Perhaps what makes this sermon most offensive to the ears of contemporary interpreters is not the language of impending destruction and not even that God is angry. But rather, it seems what is most distasteful in Edwards’s theology is the doctrine of original sin, that he would believe that human beings are born guilty of sin and deserving of divine wrath. Perhaps implicitly, the view of the universal goodness of humanity which permeates the world view of our day has also penetrated into evangelical theology as well. That all humans, including children, would be guilty of sin and therefore deserving of the wrath of God seems harsh and unfair to modern ears. To those ears, the constant refrain in Edwards’s sermon that God’s good pleasure and grace have been poured out on the wicked is not heard. Edwards’s God is angry but he has not yet acted upon that anger. He has instead withheld the judgment from sinners which their sin deserves. But, even more amazing, he has graciously provided a gift of substitutionary atonement and has graciously afforded one more opportunity to permanently avoid the judgment that sinners deserve. To those of us who believe in the doctrine of original sin, as mysterious and difficult as it is to understand and accept, the doctrine of God’s good pleasure and grace is sweet music to our ears. That God withholds his wrath from any creature is good for all creatures. That God has graciously blessed us, in spite of our sin and rebellion, should cause us to erupt into a chorus of praise for God’s amazing grace.
1 An earlier version of this paper was delivered 1 October 2003 in the chapel at Dallas Theological Seminary, as part of a series honoring the tricentennial of the birth of Jonathan Edwards.
2 Most references to this sermon describe its fame. For one example, R. C. Sproul, “God in the Hands of Angry Sinners,” http://www.gracesermons.com/robbeee/angry.html (Internet) accessed 25 August 2003, 1, describes Edwards’s sermon as “perhaps the most famous sermon ever preached in America.” Wilson H. Kimnach, Kenneth P. Minkema, and Douglas A. Sweeney call it “possibly one of the most affecting sermons ever preached in the English language” (“Editors’ Introduction,” in The Sermons of Jonathan Edwards: A Reader [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999], xxx).
One rival to this sermon’s stature as the most famous American sermon is Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream,” delivered at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D. C., on 28 August 1963. King’s sermon is widely available both in anthologies and on the internet. One easily accessible source is http://www.extension.umn.edu/units/diversity/mlk/mlk.html (Internet) accessed 25 September 2003.
3 Stephen J. Nichols, Jonathan Edwards: A Guided Tour of His Life and Thought (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2001), 193-94, observes: “One has to look fairly hard to find an anthology of American literature that does not include this sermon. Typically, however, it gets marked as an easy target for those wishing to depict the Puritans as hell-bent prophets of gloom and doom.” Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), 72, writes: “The ‘postmillennialist’ Jonathan Edwards, for example, while sometimes writing hopefully of Christianity’s advance on all fronts, could also—as in his sermon ‘Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God’—picture the terrors of divine wrath in terms worthy of any premillennialist.”
4 Sproul’s comment is more pointed: “So scandalous is this vivid portrayal of unconverted man’s precarious state under the threat of hell that some modern analysts have called it utterly sadistic” (“God in the Hands of Angry Sinners,” 1).
5 E. Michael Jones, “Metaphysics as Tarbaby: Intention, Deconstruction, and Absolutes,” Center Journal 1 (Spring 1982): 15-16.
6 Jones, “Metaphysics,” 16.
7 For one example, see the review by Jason Foster, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0875522335/ref%3Dpd%5Fsl%5Faw%5Falx-jeb-8-1%5Fbook%5F3446002%5F1/103-3525515-1325461 (Internet), accessed 10 December 2003. David Levin, “Jonathan Edwards,” in Encyclopedia of American Biography, ed. John A. Garraty (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), 323, concludes that “Edwards’s powerful influence during the Great Awakening owed at least as much to his philosophical thought as to the few hellfire sermons with which his name has been traditionally associated.” Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 3d ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), 568, cites Edwards’s “Sinners” as a clear statement of the “static medieval view of hell.”
8 John E. Smith, Harry S. Stout, and Kenneth P. Minkema, “Editors’ Introduction,” A Jonathan Edwards Reader, edited by John E. Smith, Harry S. Stout, and Kenneth P. Minkema (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), xvii. It should be noted, however, that these editors also observe that “Even in Sinners, the reader discovers that all is not lost. The pessimism of sin and an angry God is overcome by the comforting hope of salvation through a triumphant, loving Savior. Whenever Edwards preached terror, it was part of a larger campaign to turn sinners from their disastrous path and to the rightful object of their affections, Jesus Christ.” (xviii).
George Marsden explains the lack of Gospel emphasis in this sermon this way: “Edwards could take for granted, however, that a New England audience knew well that Gospel remedy. The problem was to get them to seek it” (Jonathan Edwards: A Life [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003], 224).
9 Wilson H. Kimnach, Kenneth P. Minkema, and Douglas A. Sweeney, “Editors’ Introduction,” in The Sermons of Jonathan Edwards: A Reader, edited by Wilson H. Kimnach, Kenneth P. Minkema, and Douglas A. Sweeney (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), xvii. See also Kenneth P. Minkema, “Jonathan Edwards,” in The Oxford Companion to United States History, ed. Paul S. Boyer (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 217. Minkema calls “Sinners” Edwards’s “most famous sermon . . . a rhetorical masterpiece illustrating the uncertainty of earthly existence.”
10 Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, 221.
11 Wilson H. Kimnach, “General Introduction to the Sermons: Jonathan Edwards’ Art of Prophesying,” in Jonathan Edwards, Sermons and Discourses 1720-1723, ed. Wilson H. Kimnach, vol. 10 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 168. Kimnach cites “The Eternity of Hell’s Torments” and “The Future Punishment of the Wicked Unavoidable and Intolerable” as examples which “mark the distinction between a true hellfire sermon and the proto-eschatological formulation of Sinners, focused as it is upon the here and now.”
12 Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, 221.
13 Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, 219-24. In addition to these two occasions, Edwards also preached the sermon on 1 August 1741 at Hadley, and probably other times in addition to these three. See the editors’ comments in Harry S. Stout, Nathan O. Hatch, and Kyle P. Farley, “Appendix: Dated Sermons,” in Jonathan Edwards, Sermons and Discourses 1739-1742, ed. Harry S. Stout, Nathan O. Hatch, and Kyle P. Farley, vol. 22 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 546.
14 See the description in Harry S. Stout, Nathan O. Hatch, and Kyle P. Farley, “Preface to the Period,” in Jonathan Edwards, Sermons and Discourses 1739-1742, 34.
15 Stout, Hatch, and Farley, “Preface to the Period,” 34.
16 John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954), 362, accurately concludes of Edwards’s preaching: “Even his lurid warnings were uttered in compassion, and his object in all preaching was to lead sinners to grace.”
17 George Marsden describes “Sinners” as an “awakening sermon.” In Edwards’s view, “The seemingly inescapable biblical teaching of eternal punishment . . . could be a wonderful gift if people could be brought to stare into the fire. Only then could they begin to feel its meaning for them. Ironically, that terrifying vision would be the means God used to bring the joys of salvation” (Jonathan Edwards, 221).
18 Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, 222.
19 For an example of an interpretation of Edwards’s sermon as indicating belief in hell as a “raging furnace of fire,” see William V. Crockett, “The Metaphorical View,” in Four Views on Hell, ed. William Crockett, Counterpoints (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 48. Since Crockett does not discuss the other metaphors Edwards uses, it seems that his point is that Edwards believed in a “literal” view of hell. Ironically, Crockett’s “Metaphorical View” would perhaps be strengthened by the variety of metaphors Edwards uses.
Not surprisingly, in the same volume, Clark H. Pinnock finds Edwards’s view of hell offensive. He explains, “So it is not only God’s pleasure to torture the wicked everlastingly, but it will be the happiness of the saints to see and know that this is being faithfully done. Reading Edwards gives one the impression of people watching a cat trapped in a microwave squirm in agony, while taking delight in it. Thus will the saints in heaven, according to Edwards, consider the torments of the damned with pleasure and satisfaction.” (“The Conditional View,” in Four Views on Hell, 140). Pinnock’s reading of Edwards is indefensible.
20 Again, Marsden notes that what makes this sermon so remarkable is that “Edwards employed so many images and addressed them so immediately to his hearers that they were left with no escape” (Jonathan Edwards, 222.)
21 On Edwards’s sermonizing see Kimnach, “Jonathan Edwards’ Art of Prophesying,” 1-258.
22 For a brief explanation of this sermon structure, see Kimnach, Minkema, and Sweeney, “Editors’ Introduction,” xiii.
23 That so much of the sermon is devoted to application is unusual for an Edwards’s sermon, but “Sinners” is not unique even in this way. For another example, see Edwards, “None Are Saved by Their Own Righteousness,” in Sermons and Discourses1723-1729, ed. Kenneth P. Minkema, vol. 14 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 332-56.
24 King James Version, the version of the Scriptures Edwards used.
25 Jonathan Edwards, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” in A Jonathan Edwards Reader, edited by John E. Smith, Harry S. Stout, and Kenneth P. Minkema (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 89-90. A testimony to the significance of the sermon is that it is also published in The Sermons of Jonathan Edwards: A Reader, 49-65, and in Sermons and Discourses 1739-1742, 400-35. In this paper, the page numbers refer to the Jonathan Edwards Reader.
26 Edwards, “Sinners,” 90.
27 Edwards, “Sinners,” 90
28 Edwards, “Sinners,” 90
29 Edwards, “Sinners,” 91.
30 Edwards, “Sinners,” 92.
31 Edwards, “Sinners,” 93
32 Edwards, “Sinners,” 95.
33 For an example of another Edwards sermon where the application is “unbalanced,” see Jonathan Edwards, “Peaceable and Faithful Amid Division and Strife,” in Edwards, Sermons and Discourses 1734-1738, ed. M. X. Lesser, vol. 19 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 658-79. In “Peaceable and Faithful,” Edwards’s application is limited to the godly auditors. See also my “Living Peaceably One with Another: An Exhortation from Jonathan Edwards to Live at Peace Amid Division and Strife,” The Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth (forthcoming).
34 Edwards, “Sinners,” 95.
35 Edwards, “Sinners,” 95.
36 Edwards, “Sinners,” 95-96.
37 Stephen Nichols observes correctly: “For Edwards, the horrors of sin serve to magnify the grace of God; the condition of the wicked only serves to point the need for Christ’s mercy” (Jonathan Edwards, 204).
38 Edwards, “Sinners,” 96.
39 Edwards, “Sinners,” 96-97.
40 Edwards, “Sinners,” 97.
41 Edwards, “Sinners,” 97-98. It should not need to be noted that the comparison of God holding the wicked over the fire to someone holding a spider implicitly includes a significant contrast. God is not cruel and sadistic, tormenting the sinner by holding her feet to the fire. He has rather intervened to preserve the sinner from experiencing the punishment which she deserves.
42 Edwards, “Sinners,” 98.
43 Edwards, “Sinners,” 98-99.
44 Edwards, “Sinners,” 99-100.
45 Edwards, “Sinners,” 100. Edwards cites Prov 1:25-32 as biblical support for this claim.
46 Edwards, “Sinners,” 102.
47 Edwards, “Sinners,” 102-3.
48 Edwards, “Sinners,” 103.
49 Edwards, “Sinners,” 104.
50 Edwards, “Sinners,” 104.
51 Edwards, “Sinners,” 104-5.
Related Topics: Soteriology (Salvation)
Thinking Biblically About the COVID-19 Pandemic
Related Topics: Christian Life, Cultural Issues, Suffering, Trials, Persecution, Wisdom
2. What Paul Can Teach Us About Social Distancing
Related MediaIn 2020 during the pandemic associated with the coronavirus, Covid-19, there has been much talk about social distancing. One might not immediately conclude that Paul was an example of “social distancing.” But the truth is, Paul spent a good deal of his time separated and isolated from others. Some of this was imposed on him by others, and some was self-imposed. Let’s think about that for just a moment.
There were those who sought to rid Paul from his existence on earth (not unlike he once sought to rid the world of Christians – Acts 22:1-5; 1 Timothy 1:12-15). They ran Paul out of town on various occasions (see Acts 14:50; 17:13-14). They nearly tore him apart in Jerusalem (Acts 22:22-23), plotted to kill him (Acts 23:12-15), and thought they had done so in Lystra (Acts 14:19). False accusations and governmental appeasement ultimately led to Paul’s imprisonment in Rome (Acts 28:17ff.) This is not to overlook his imprisonment in Philippi (Acts 16:16ff.) and Caesarea (Acts 23:29ff.). Legal action was taken against Paul in an effort to deprive him of his rights and protections as a Roman citizen (Acts 18:12-17). To this we could add a list of other adversities which Paul suffered (2 Corinthians 11:23-29). It should also be noted that Satan, too, hindered Paul from visiting the churches (1 Thessalonians 2:17-18).
Beyond these hindrances to social interaction, there was also what we might call Paul’s “self-imposed” separation. Paul did not usually (the exceptions would be Ephesus and Corinth) spend long in any one place because he desired to preach the gospel elsewhere, particularly where it had not yet been preached (Romans 15:18-21). He kept moving on, even when encouraged to stay (Acts 18:19-21).
Paul’s ministry was international, and because of his concern for the churches (some of which he had founded, and others which others founded) he would press on so that he could minister his gifts to many face-to-face (Colossians 2:1-3; 1 Thessalonians 2:17; 3:10). Part of Paul’s “separation” from believers was out of his concern that he might not become overly dominant, and that the gifts and ministries of others might be encouraged. Thus, Paul sent out team members like Timothy and Titus, to minister on his behalf.
With all this in mind, let us agree that Paul experienced his own version of “social distancing,” and this for much of his life – far more than you and I will endure during this pandemic. But the important thing for us to notice is that this did not hinder his ministry to others; indeed it enhanced it:
12 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that my situation has actually turned out to advance the gospel: 13 The whole imperial guard and everyone else knows that I am in prison for the sake of Christ, 14 and most of the brothers and sisters, having confidence in the Lord because of my imprisonment, now more than ever dare to speak the word fearlessly (Philippians 1:12-14, NET).
With all the restrictions on Paul’s social interaction, no one has had a greater impact on the saints for the last 2,000 years than he. The explanation, put simply, is this: Paul’s priorities were those of his fellow apostles:
3 But carefully select from among you, brothers, seven men who are well-attested, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this necessary task. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:3-4, emphasis mine).
These priorities – prayer and the ministry of the Word – have not changed over time.
The means and mechanisms by which they are carried out will, and should, change. When confined to a prison cell, Paul’s priorities were prayer and the ministry of the Word. Evangelism took place wherever Paul was, including prison (Acts 16:23-40; Philippians 4:21-23; Philemon 1:10-11). And to these new believers and fledgling churches Paul was constantly writing (at least three letters to the Corinthians – see 1 Corinthians 5:9), expounding correct doctrine (Romans), exposing false doctrine (Galatians) and ungodly living (1 Corinthians). Paul’s prayer life puts most of ours to shame. Paul knew what was going on in the churches, he knew their struggles, trials, and temptations. He knew the saints and their small group gatherings, even in churches he had never yet visited (see Romans 16). He asked for prayers for himself (Romans 15:30-33; Ephesians 6:19-20). And beyond this, Paul sent others to learn how the saints were doing (2 Corinthians 7:4-16; 8:6-24).
Paul’s ministry was not limited by his “social distancing,” it was greatly enhanced by it, for we now hold his teaching, exhortation, warnings, and prayer in our hands, as has the church for 2,000 years. And this Paul accomplished by his commitment to “prayer and the ministry of the Word.” Yet he did not have Christian publishers and bookstores, newspapers, radio, television, the internet, or Facebook and Twitter. Mail took days, at best, and months at worst. Communication was not easy in Paul’s day.
With all the “social media” we have at our disposal, how much greater are our opportunities and responsibilities. Like Paul, let us make use of our “social distancing” to the glory of God and the good of His people. We are, in Paul’s words (somewhat ill-used) “without excuse.”
Related Topics: Christian Life, Cultural Issues, Suffering, Trials, Persecution
1. The Christian’s Perspective And The COVID-19 Pandemic
Related MediaAt the end of World War II Langdon Gilkey wrote a book entitled Shantung Compound. Gilkey, along with 2,000 other “Westerners” was interned by their Japanese captors at a Presbyterian encampment in the Chinese province of Shantung. The camp was not designed to handle this many internees, but it was Gilkey’s assignment to allocate living accommodations for all of the internees. This presented a monumental challenge. It also afforded Gilkey the opportunity to observe his fellow-internees behavior under pressure. His book describes how people changed (sometimes for the good; often otherwise) when under duress.
As I recall, Gilkey described a situation where there were two identical rooms. One of the rooms had 11 occupants, the other 13. Sounds like a “no-brainer” does it not? But the arguments given by the residents in the 11-person room (for not adding one more person) were incredible. In another instance, there was one accommodation which had two bedrooms. A pastor insisted that he and his wife should have this accommodation so that he could have a study, instead of allowing a family with several children to live there.
It is beginning to look and feel like Shantung Compound in the United States and elsewhere, thanks to the COVID-19 Pandemic. There are a good number of people who are insisting on exercising freedoms they formerly enjoyed, even though doing so might be detrimental to others. Even some Christians are voicing this “Don’t hinder me from exercising my rights” point of view. The Bible challenges such thinking.
A Christian’s Right to His Rights (1 Corinthians 8-10)
It is a good time to review a couple of biblical passages and review the Christian mindset, and how it should impact our lives in this “Shantung” moment. Let’s begin by considering Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, focusing particularly on chapters 8-10.
The issue at hand is “meats offered to idols.” As I understand the text, the issue really isn’t over the meat itself (see 1 Corinthians 10:27), as much as it is over participating in the idol-worship ceremony where this meat is sacrificed, and the meal is shared with the “worshippers” (see 1 Corinthians 10:18-22). There were those who had come up with a seemingly scholarly argument which allowed them to eat idol-meats. In chapter 8, verses 4-6, some reasoned in this way: “There really is only one true God (our God), and thus idols are meaningless, since they represent ‘gods’ who do not even exist. And since idol-worship is really not the worship of any god, it is of no consequence. Thus, attending idol-sacrifice meals is permissible, including the eating of the animal sacrifices offered there.”
Paul does not immediately reject this argument (which he will do later, in chapter 10, and which has already been decided at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:20, 29). He first argues that even if this were a legitimate option, there are those for whom doing so would be sin. And if one’s eating meats offered to idols encouraged one who thought this wrong to do so anyway (because others did so), then causing that brother to sin would be sin on our part as well (1 Corinthians 8:7-13).
Paul sets out to demonstrate the proper Christian attitude toward the exercise of one’s liberties by using himself and Barnabas as examples. He and Barnabas, as apostles, had the legitimate and biblical right to be supported in their ministry – which assumed income enough to lead about a wife (1 Corinthians 9:1ff.). This was a right exercised by the other apostles (9:4-5). It was a right that had both the Old and New Testaments support (9:7-12). There was no question as to whether being supported was a right that Paul and Barnabas could legitimately exercise.
And yet they chose not to accept (or ask for) financial support, for the sake of the gospel, and those who might embrace it for salvation.
15 But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing these things so that something will be done for me. In fact, it would be better for me to die than– no one will deprive me of my reason for boasting! 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have no reason for boasting, because I am compelled to do this. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward. But if I do it unwillingly, I am entrusted with a responsibility. 18 What then is my reward? That when I preach the gospel I may offer the gospel free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights in the gospel. 19 For since I am free from all I can make myself a slave to all, in order to gain even more people. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew to gain the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) to gain those under the law. 21 To those free from the law I became like one free from the law (though I am not free from God’s law but under the law of Christ) to gain those free from the law. 22 To the weak I became weak in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I may save some. 23 I do all these things because of the gospel, so that I can be a participant in it (1 Corinthians 9:15-23).
Paul’s reasoning is simple and easy to follow. There are a good number of folks who preach for the sake of selfish gain (see Acts 8:9-23; 2 Peter 2:15; Jude 1:11). Unbelievers observe them (as some might observe some televangelists today) and conclude that all Christian ministers must only be in it for the money. Thus, being supported financially can be a hindrance to the gospel. And so, to remove this hindrance (or at least minimize it) Paul supported himself. Indeed, Paul worked with his own hands to support himself and others (Acts 18:1-4; 20:34*; 1 Corinthians 4:12; 1 Thessalonians 2:9), for the sake of the gospel. How could anyone accuse Paul of being motivated by financial gain, when his ministry was a financial sacrifice?
This right to be financially supported was legitimate and consistent with the practice of Old Testament ministers and New Testament apostles. Nevertheless, Paul set this right aside for the sake of the gospel and the sake of those who would be saved through it. Did it make life and ministry more difficult for Paul? Yes, but Paul was convinced that it was worth the sacrifice. I believe that this statement by Paul sums it up,
“All things are lawful for me”– but not everything is beneficial. “All things are lawful for me”– but I will not be controlled by anything (1 Corinthians 6:12; see also 10:23).
The Christian life necessitates giving up certain rights and liberties for the benefit of others, albeit at our expense. Jesus would call this, “taking up our cross.”
The Philippians’ Rights, and the Good of Others (Philippians 2:4-11)
4 Each of you should be concerned not only about your own interests, but about the interests of others as well. 5 You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had, 6 who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature. 8 He humbled himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death– even death on a cross! 9 As a result God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow– in heaven and on earth and under the earth– 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:4-11, emphasis mine).
Things were not going “smoothly” for Paul, or for the Philippians:
29 For it has been granted to you not only to believe in Christ but also to suffer for him, 30 since you are encountering the same conflict that you saw me face and now hear that I am facing (Philippians 1:29-30, emphasis mine).
Some of the Philippian saints were at odds with their fellow-believers (see Philippians 4:2-3). Paul’s call to unity is based upon the practice of humility – putting the interests of others above our own desires. The supreme example is that of our Lord Jesus, His incarnation, and sacrificial death for sinners.
At Shantung Compound, and in many parts of the world today, people are seeking their own interests and demanding their “rights,” in spite of what the impact it may have on others. In Philippians chapter 2 Paul will go on to show how humility works itself out in terms of ministry to others. Timothy, unlike many others, put the interests of the Philippian saints above his own, and thus Paul will send him, with the commendation that he is a man who in genuinely concerned about their welfare (2:19-20). Epaphroditus, too, was a man who modeled humility. He put his own life at risk by going to minister to Paul’s needs (2:25-30). And then there is Paul, who out of concern for the saints, sent away the two men who would most have benefitted him, if he had kept them with him to minister to his needs.
In these days when personal sacrifice is desperately needed, let us carefully consider what rights we can and should set aside for the good of others, and for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).
Related Topics: Christian Life, Cultural Issues, Suffering, Trials, Persecution
14. The Victory of the Lamb and His Followers
Article contributed by www.walvoord.com
Chapter 14 brings to a conclusion the material found in the section of chapters 12 through 14. Chapter 12 deals with the important characters of the period, chapter 13 with the wicked rulers of the period, and chapter 14 with the ultimate triumph of Christ. All of this material is not chronological but prepares the way for the climax which begins in chapter 15. Chapter 14 consists of a series of pronouncements and visions assuring the reader of the ultimate triumph of Christ and the judgment of the wicked. Much of the chapter is prophetic of events that have not yet taken place, but which are now impending. The chapter begins with the assurance that the Lamb will ultimately stand in triumph on Mount Zion with his followers, and it concludes with a series of pronouncements of judgments upon the wicked.
The Lamb and the 144,000 on Mount Zion (14:1-5)
14:1-5 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.
The chapter begins with the unusual phrase used several previous times: “And I looked, and, lo.” This expression, which could also be translated “And I saw, and, behold,” introduces the vision of the Lamb standing on Mount Zion accompanied by 144,000. The expositors are faced with a number of important decisions in the understanding of this passage among which is the meaning of Mount Zion. J. B. Smith joins with Bengel and Hengstenberg in interpreting Mount Zion as the figurative expression referring to heaven, finding a similar usage in Hebrews 12:22.252 Smith holds that the expression “mount Sion” always refers to the heavenly Jerusalem whereas “Sion” without “mount” always refers to the earthly city, a rather arbitrary conclusion.
To interpret this as a heavenly city, however, involves numerous problems which Smith and others do not take into consideration. If this group is the same as the 144,000 of chapter 7, they are specifically said to be sealed and kept safely through the tribulation. In this case, they move on into the millennial earth without going to the third heaven, since this is the meaning of the seal (cf. 7:3).
Further, the argument that the 144,000 must be in heaven as they hear the song before the throne may be disputed. There is no statement to the effect that they hear the song, only the declaration that they alone can learn it. The reasons for making Mount Zion a heavenly city in this passage are therefore lacking a sure foundation. Preferable is the view that this is a prophetic vision of the ultimate triumph of the Lamb following His second coming, when He joins the 144,000 on Mount Zion at the beginning of His millennial reign.
The determination of the place of this action is also correlated with the question whether the 144,000 in chapter 14 are the same group as in chapter 7. Walter Scott expresses the opinion without giving any substantiation that the 144,000 of chapter 14 are of the tribe of Judah and therefore to be distinguished from the 144,000 in chapter 7.253 There is no evidence whatever in the passage that this group is limited to Judah, and it would be most strange to have two groups of exactly 144,000 in the end time, especially when 12,000 of those in chapter 7 are also of the tribe of Judah. The preferable view, therefore, seems to be that the 144,000 in this chapter are the same as in chapter 7. In their first mention they are seen at the beginning of the great tribulation. In their second mention in chapter 14, they are seen still intact, preserved by God through the fearful days of persecution and standing triumphantly with the Lamb on Mount Zion at the beginning of the millennial reign.
The best manuscripts indicate that the expression “having his Father’s name written in their foreheads” should be “having his name, and the name of his Father, written on their foreheads.” By this expression they are clearly identified as belonging to both the Father and the Son. In chapter 7, the seal is mentioned as simply being the seal of God, whereas here we have more detail. There is no good ground for imagining that the seal here is a later development and dissimilar to the earlier seal. J. B. Smith offers this view on the theory that in chapter 7 the 144,000 are not Christians and do not become Christians until chapter 14.254 There is little to support this conclusion. The difference in the two descriptions is that one is general and the other specific. As Seiss points out, their identification with the Father is their mark of being saved Jews; their identification with the Lamb reveals their salvation through faith in Christ; their position on Mount Zion a place of security, blessing, and glory in the earthly Jerusalem in the millennial kingdom.255
In verse 2, a new facet of the vision is given to John and he records hearing a voice from heaven. The voice is described in most majestic terms as being similar to the sound (Gr., pho„ne„) of many waters and comparable to the sound of a great thunder. John also hears the voice of harpers harping with their harps (lyres). In verse 3 they are described as singing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. This scene seems reminiscent of chapters 4 and 5 though the expression “from heaven” is not in some manuscripts. The preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that this is indeed a heavenly scene which John is seeing “in the Spirit” while his body is on earth. If the 144,000 are on earth in Zion, who then are the company in heaven? Though the natural questions concerning their identity are not clearly answered in the text, the heavenly group are probably the martyred saints of the tribulation, in contrast to the 144,000 who are on earth and do not suffer martyrdom. Both groups, however, experience the trials of the great tribulation and therefore are alone worthy to enter into the song of redemption recounting their victory over their enemies and praising God for His grace which has numbered them among the redeemed.
Chronologically, the song John hears is their hymn of praise in heaven during the time of the great tribulation, but the same song is echoed by the 144,000 who stand triumphantly on Mount Zion after the tribulation. As is true of the rest of the vision in this chapter, the chronological order is not maintained, but rather different subjects are brought into view pertaining to the general theme of the ultimate triumph of God. There seems to be a definite connection between the new song that is sung and the ascription of praise (7:10) in which the martyred dead cry out to God, “Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.” Different in character but also a new song is that of the twenty-four elders in 5:9-10. In chapter 14, the song is sung before the four living creatures and the elders; in chapter 5 the elders themselves sing the song. In the reference to the 144,000 as redeemed from the earth, the thought seems to be that both those in heaven and on earth have been redeemed, that is, purchased by the blood of Christ and delivered from their enemies, one group through martyrdom, the other group by divine preservation through the tribulation.
Returning to the subject of the 144,000 in verse 4, John describes them as “not defiled with women, for they are virgins.” This description is not explained in the context but has been taken variously as referring to necessary abstinence from marriage in the critical days of the tribulation when a normal marital life for a person true to God is impossible, or as referring to spiritual purity, that is, they are not defiled by love of the world or compromise with evil, but keep themselves pure in a world situation which is morally filthy. In like manner Israel is referred to frequently in the Bible as “the virgin the daughter of Zion” (2 Kings 19:21; Isa. 37:22), as the “virgin daughter of Zion” (Lam. 2:13), and as the “virgin of Israel” (Jer. 18:13; 31:4, 21; Amos 5:2). In the New Testament also, the term “virgin” is used of both men and women as in 2 Corinthians 11:2 in reference to the church as a bride.
The possibility that their virgin character signifies their spiritual purity primarily is indicated in the next statement describing them as those “which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.” Here again it is obviously in the earthly scene, as the 144,000 of Israel do not ever go to heaven during their natural lifetime. The third statement also introduced by “these,” as the two previous affirmations, repeats the thought that these are redeemed from among men as the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb. Again the word for redeemed is a form of agorazo„, as in verse 3, meaning “to purchase.” In what sense is this company “firstfruits” (Gr., aparche„)? The term “firstfruits” seems to refer to the beginning of a great harvest, here to the beginning of the millennial kingdom. The 144,000 are the godly nucleus of Israel which is the token of the redemption of the nation and the glory of Israel which is to unfold in the kingdom.
The description of the 144,000 closes with the statement that they are without guile and without fault. In saying that they have no guile (Gr., pseudos), the thought is that there is no falsehood or especially no false religion in them (cf. use of the word pseudos in Rom. 1:25; Rev. 21:27; 22:15). This large number have been kept utterly clean from the false religion of the great tribulation. They are also described as without fault, that is, blameless and without stain, in contrast to those who are apostates, described as “faults” or “blemishes” using the same root (Gr., amo„sos) as in 2 Peter 2:13. How important this makes the life and testimony of any believer who seeks to emulate these who in this most trying time are found in no compromise with error and no defilement of their purity. Christians in the present age are exhorted to be “without blame before him” (Eph. 1:4), “without blemish” (Eph. 5:27; 1 Peter 1:19), “unblameable” (Col. 1:22), “without spot” (Heb. 9:14), and “faultless” (Jude 24). All of this is in the sight of God, though the expression in verse 5 “before the throne of God” is not in the best manuscripts.
The Angel with the Everlasting Gospel (14:6-7)
14:6-7 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
The next phase of the vision given to John in this chapter introduces “another angel” flying in the midst of heaven, literally “in mid-heaven,” having the everlasting gospel to preach to the entire world. The reference to “another” seems to be to an angel in addition to the seven angels introduced in 8:2 and also in contrast to “another angel” in 8:3 and 10:1. J. B. Smith notes that the remaining portion of the chapter “presents a sevenfold division consisting of the appearance of six angels including a vision of the Son of man between two groups of three angels each.”256
The expression “the everlasting gospel,” actually without the article (“everlasting gospel”) is an arresting phrase. It is everlasting in the sense that it is ageless, not for any specific period. Ordinarily, one would expect this to refer to the gospel of salvation. In verse 7, however, the content of the message is quite otherwise, for it is an announcement of the hour of judgment of God and the command to worship Him.
Some expositors use the term “gospel” to include all the revelation God has given in Christ and hence conclude that there is only one gospel with various phases of truth belonging to this gospel. There are others who prefer to distinguish various messages in the Bible as gospel or “good news” even though they contain only one aspect of divine revelation, hence, the expression “gospel of grace,” referring to the goodness of grace, or to the gospel of the kingdom, dealing with the good news of the kingdom of God. The everlasting gospel seems to be neither the gospel of grace nor the gospel of the kingdom, but rather the good news that God at last is about to deal with the world in righteousness and establish His sovereignty over the world. This is an ageless gospel in the sense that God’s righteousness is ageless. Throughout eternity God will continue to manifest Himself in grace toward the saints and in punishment toward the wicked. To refer to the gospel of grace as an everlasting gospel is to ignore the context and usage of the term.
Prophecy of the Coming Fall of Babylon
14:8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
The pronouncement of verse 8 is by another angel, apparently also flying in mid-heaven, saying the great city of Babylon has fallen. The repetition of the phrase “is fallen” is for emphasis. Prophetically, “Babylon” sometimes refers to a literal city, sometimes to a religious system, sometimes to a political system, all stemming from the evil character of historic Babylon. The announcement here is prophetic as the actual fall of Babylon probably comes later if the reference is to the physical city. There is some evidence, however, that the woman referred to as “MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT” in chapter 17, referring to the apostate church which will hold sway in the first half of the seventieth week of Daniel, is actually destroyed at the beginning of the great tribulation in preparation for the worship of the beast. The destruction of the city of Babylon itself, whether a reference to Rome, as is commonly held, or to a rebuilt city of Babylon on the ancient site of historic Babylon, does not take place until the end of the great tribulation. Inasmuch as the context here seems to deal primarily with the end of the great tribulation and the beginning of the millennial kingdom, the reference seems to be to the literal city.
The fall of Babylon is occasioned by her iniquity, which in the best manuscripts is described in these words: “…made all the nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.” Some expositors feel the text originally read “have drunk” instead of “made…to drink.” In either reading the peculiar expression “the wine of the wrath of her fornication” has been variously interpreted but seems to be a shortened expression of the two phrases “the wine of the wrath of God” (14:10) and “the wine of her fornication” (17:2). The resultant meaning is that the nations who participate in the spiritual corruption induced by Babylon ultimately share her divine condemnation and judgment. Like the pronouncement of the previous angel and the other prophecies of this chapter, the promise of judgment upon the iniquitous Babylonian system is designed to bring comfort to those in trial in that period.
The Doom of the Worshipers of the Beast (14:9-11)
14:9-11 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
The third angel adds immediately to the pronouncement of the previous angel by proclaiming with a great voice the sad doom of those who worship the beast. Anyone who receives the mark of the beast as required in 13:17 shall also partake of the judgment of God. As he drinks of the wine of spiritual fornication, so he also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God. It is described in most dramatic terms as wine that is unmixed, that is, untempered by the mercy and grace of God; and these worshipers are declared to be “tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.” The same Scripture which assures all Christians of the love of God and the grace of God as extended to those who trust in Christ is unequivocal in its absolute statements of judgment upon the wicked.
Concerning the destiny of the wicked, J. B. Smith writes,
Anyone disposed to discredit the Biblical teaching on the eternal destiny of the wicked should be reminded that Jesus and His beloved disciple said more in regard to this doctrine than all the remaining contributors to the New Testament record.
This is supported by the fact that Jesus referred to hell (gehenna) eleven out of the twelve occurrences, made twelve out of nineteen references to hell fire, and used other similar expressions more than any other person in the New Testament.257
The righteousness of God is as inexorable as the love of God is infinite. The love of God is not free to express itself to those who have spurned Jesus Christ. Their torment is not a momentary one, for it is described in verse 11 as continuing forever, literally “into the ages of ages,” the strongest expression of eternity of which the Greek is capable. To emphasize the idea of continued suffering, they are declared to have no rest day or night. In describing the worshipers of the beast, the word worship as well as the word receive in verse 11 is in the present tense emphasizing continued worship of the beast over a long period of time, the worshipers spurning the testimony of the godly remnant and plunging blindly to their doom. The same present tense is used in describing their torment. As the worship of the beast is not interrupted by repentance, so their torment is not interrupted when repentance is too late. How dangerous it is for men to trifle with false religions, which dishonor the incarnate Word and contradict the written Word.
The Blessing of the Saints (14:12-13)
14:12-13 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.
The stern warning addressed to all worshipers of the beast is also an encouragement to those who put their trust in Christ in the time of great tribulation. Though some of them will face martyrdom and others will need to go into hiding, they are assured that their lot is far preferable to those who accept the easy way out and worship the beast. The saints are described in verse 12 as those who “keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Here is the proper link between works and faith so necessary in all ages but especially in the great tribulation.
In verse 13, John hears a voice from heaven pronouncing a blessing on those who die in the Lord. Four times previously there is a record of a voice from heaven (10:4, 8; 11:12; 14:2). Again in 18:4 and 21:3 a voice is heard, a direct communication from God as contrasted with communication through an angel. The implication is that this is unusually important and a direct divine pronouncement. The reference to the blessing of those who die in the Lord from this time on is not a general reference to all saints who die, but specifically to those who die in this period, that is, as martyrs of the faith. It is far better to be dead at the hand of the beast than to have favor as his worshiper. This is followed by the expression “Yea, saith the Spirit.” The implication is that the voice from heaven is none other than the voice of the Holy Spirit. Those who die in the Lord are described as resting from their labors with the rewards of their work following them. This verse is the second beatitude in Revelation (cf. 1:3; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7, 14).
The Judgment of the Son of Man (14:14-16)
14:14-16 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.
Following the reassurance of the saints’ ultimate reward, a further revelation is given graphically in the closing portion of this chapter. John in his vision beholds One like the Son of man sitting on a white cloud wearing a golden crown and having in his hand a sharp sickle. The revelation is introduced by the familiar phrase “And I looked, and behold,” indicating another major advance in the revelation. Though the one described is said to be like the Son of man, it is probable that this is none other than Christ Himself participating in the divine judgments of God upon a wicked world. This probability is reinforced by the golden crown speaking of His glorified state and His royal dignity. Alford says, “This clearly is our Lord Himself.”258 The sharp sickle indicates this is the time of harvest, referring to the climactic judgments relating to the second coming.
As John beholds the vision of the Son of man having a sharp sickle, he sees another angel come out of the Temple crying to the Son of man to thrust in His sickle and reap, declaring that the harvest of the earth is ripe. It is remarkable that an angel should thus address the Son of man, but it should be regarded as an entreaty of a holy angel to Christ as the Son of man in His position as judge of men (cf. John 5:22, 27). The fact that the angel comes from the Temple seems to allude to this judgment as proceeding from the righteousness of God. Further, the angel urges judgment at this time because, in God’s sovereign plan as made known to the angel, it is the time for judgment. The expression “the harvest of the earth is ripe” seems to imply that judgment is overdue. The verb form “is ripe” (Gr., exe„ranthe„), meaning “to become dry or withered,” has a bad connotation (cf. Matt. 21:19-20; Mark 3:1, 3; 11:20; Luke 8:6; Rev. 16:12). The picture here is of a fruit or vegetable that has become so ripe that it has begun to dry up and wither. The rotten moral condition of the world is dealt with now with a sharp sickle. Verse 16 indicates that the Son of man does as the angel requests, possibly using angelic means to accomplish this end as in Matthew 13:30, 39-42.
Some commentators like Alford distinguish between the figure of reaping in verses 14-16 and the vision of reaping which follows, holding that the first harvest is that of the saints in contrast to the second harvest which is obviously of the wicked. As Alford states,
The verdict of Commentators is very much divided. There are circumstances in the context which tell both ways. The parallelism with the vintage which follows, seems to favour a harvest of the wicked: but then on the other hand, if so, what is the distinction between the two ingatherings? And why do we read of the casting into the wine-press of God’s wrath in the second case, and of no corresponding feature in the other? Again, why is the agency so different—the Son of man on the white cloud with a golden crown in the one case, the mere angel in the other? Besides, the two gatherings seem quite distinct. The former is over before the other begins. On the whole then, though I would not pronounce decidedly, I must incline to think that the harvest is the ingathering of the saints, God’s harvest, reaped from the earth: described here thus generally, before the vintage of wrath which follows.259
As Alford himself notes, the passage itself does not tell us what the first harvest is. There is no distinct event in this sequence of prophecies which clearly presents a harvest of saints, and it is probably preferable to consider the first harvest as the judgments in general which characterize the period and the second harvest as the final climactic one.
The Angel with the Sharp Sickle (14:17-20)
14:17-20 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.
The use of angels to assist in the harvest of the earth is now stated explicitly in verse 17. Though not enumerated, the angel of verse 17 is the fifth to appear in this chapter and, like the angel of verse 15, comes from the Temple in heaven. Like the Son of man he has a sharp sickle indicating the severity of the judgment. This angel is exhorted in verse 18 by another angel, the sixth in the chapter, to thrust in his sharp sickle. The angel making this request is described as coming from the altar and having power over fire. These allusions seem to indicate that the angel is acting in response to the prayers of the saints for divine judgment on wickedness in the earthly scene, and the fact that he has power over fire indicates the purging judgment of which he is capable.
The figure of divine judgment as a harvest is here enlarged. Twice the sharp sickle is mentioned in this verse and the clusters of the vine of the earth are described as grapes fully ripe. The expression “fully ripe” (Gr., e„kmasan) is a different expression from the verb (Gr., exe„ranthe„) used in the description of the harvest in verse 15. Here it pictures grapes fully grown in their prime almost bursting with juice. Though the figure is somewhat different, the spiritual meaning is the same. The time has come for the final harvest. The use of the vine in a figurative way, frequently found in the Bible in relation to Israel (Ps. 80:8,14-15; Isa. 5:2-7; Jer. 2:21; Ezek. 17:5-8; Hosea 10:1), is also used of the church in John 15:1-6. Just as Israel and the church were to bear fruit of righteousness to the Lord, so here we have the vine producing the fruit of wickedness and corruption.
In verse 19 the angel, in response to the entreaty, thrusts or “casts” (Gr., ebalen) his sickle into the earth and harvests its vintage casting it into what is described as “the great winepress of the wrath of God.” This action is actually fulfilled in Revelation 19:15, where the same figure of speech is used. In verse 20, the winepress is described as trodden without the city, and blood is said to come even to the bridles of the horses as far as 1,600 furlongs. This is obviously a picture of ultimate judgment of the wickedness of men at the time of the second coming of Christ. Alford interprets it: “A tremendous final act of vengeance is denoted.”260 This passage speaks prophetically of that which will chronologically follow the return of Christ to the earth.
The spurting of the grape juice from under the bare feet of those treading the grapes in the winepress is compared to the spurting of blood and speaks of the awful human carnage of Revelation 19:17-19, 21. The unusual expression that the blood spatters to “the horse bridles” for “a thousand six hundred furlongs” has intrigued expositors. The scene of this event is apparently the city of Jerusalem outside which the judgment takes place. It seems quite impossible that the blood will flow in depth as high as the horses’ bridles, and it is better to understand this simply as a liberal spattering of blood.
As Alford states, “It is exceedingly difficult to say what the meaning is, further than that the idea of a tremendous final act of vengeance is denoted.”261 This interpretation is confirmed by the parallel in Isaiah 63:3. The area covered, 1,600 furlongs, is approximately 200 miles, and specifies that the area within a 200-mile radius from Jerusalem will be the center of the final carnage where the armies of the world will be gathered at the time of the second coming of Christ. The land of Israel covers about 200 miles from the north to the south, and the reference to distance may mean that this area is in view rather than the more extensive territory of 200 miles in all directions from Jerusalem.
Alford objects to a literal distance, as the holy land is actually only 160 miles north and south, and prefers a symbolic meaning of the distance. He concludes, however, “This is one of the riddles of the Apocalypse to which not even an approximate solution has ever yet been given.”262 There is no reason, however, for limiting the battle to the precise boundary of the holy land, and there is really no serious problem here in taking the distance literally. The terrible picture here given of the bloodletting which will mark the end of the age may include various phases of the battle taking place in the great tribulation and the climax of Christ’s victory when He judges the nations at its end.
William Kelly regards this chapter as the outline of the end of the age:
In this chapter, then, we have the full outline of the dealings of God in the latter-day crisis. There are seven divisions of it. First, there is the full remnant of godly Jews associated with the Lamb on mount Sion, in sympathy with His sufferings and waiting for the kingdom. Secondly, a testimony to the Gentile nations scattered all over the world as well as to those seated on the prophetic earth. Thirdly, the fall of Babylon. Fourthly, the fearful doom, both in this world and in the next, of such as should worship the beast and his image, or receive the mark of his name. Fifthly, the blessedness from that time of those that die in the Lord. Sixthly, the discriminating process of the harvest. And seventhly, the awful infliction of vengeance on religious apostasy; the first, at least, of these two last acts of judgment being executed by the Son of man, which necessarily supposes the very close of the age; the wrath, not of God only, but of the Lamb.263
Taken as a whole, chapter 14 of Revelation emphasizes first that the 144,000 of Israel seen at the beginning of the great tribulation will be preserved triumphantly through it. Second, the rest of the chapter is devoted to various pronouncements of divine judgment upon a wicked world, reassuring the saints of that day that, though they may suffer and even be martyred, God’s ultimate justice will triumph, the wicked will be judged, and the saints will be rewarded. This chapter reassures the saints after the two preceding chapters speak of the gigantic conflict that will have its consummation in the great tribulation. The implications of the message for today are only too plain. Today is a day of grace; but what is true of the tribulation is also true today, namely, that God will ultimately judge all men. Today, however, the invitation is still open to those who will trust in Christ and who thereby can avail themselves of the grace of God and be saved from entering this awful period which may be impending for this present generation.
252 A Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 208.
253 Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 293.
254 Smith, pp. 208-9.
255 Joseph A. Seiss, The Apocalypse, pp. 353-54.
256 Smith, p. 211.
257 Ibid., p. 216.
258 Henry Alford, The Greek New Testament, IV, 690.
259 Ibid., p. 691.
260 Ibid., p. 693.
261 Ibid.
262 Ibid.
263 Lectures on the Book of Revelation, p. 330.