Nisly Paradise

• I think most of this passage might still actually be future.  For me, that makes the passage a lot more complicated.
• The context is the again the perceived injustice, that is, that the wicked are not being punished nor the righteous blessed.  This concept really starts in the last verse of Chapter 2, and continues through the rest of the book. Chapter 3:16-18 is definitely part of this section…
• Maybe start by paraphrasing this whole chapter:
  • In the day that God makes up his treasured possession, you will again see the difference in how God treats the righteous and wicked (3:16-18)
  • This will be because the day of judgment is coming. This day of the Lord will make the wicked like stubble in an the oven.  But for the righteous, it will be blessing like the warm rays of the sun. (or you could argue that Jesus is the Sun here.)
  • The righteous will finally rejoice and trample the wicked.
  • Don’t forget the mosaic law–it still applies
  • Elijah: God will send him again before the great and awesome day [of judgment] comes.  His job is to turn the fathers to their children and children to their fathers. But if not, God will curse the land.
• Now to explain… This day of wrath/blessing must still be future because so far we have not seen the fulfillment of this kind of a day.
  • IMO, this is different from Malachi 3:1, where the messenger comes to prepare the way before the Lord who will suddenly come to his temple. Malachi 3:2 and following must then be referring again to this same great and awful day of the Lord.
• Why this admonition to remember the mosaic law? (Malachi 4:4)
  • Much of this prophecy is still centuries in the future.  God was reminding the present day Jews to stay faithful to the things they knew.
  • This is a good reminder to us who have a really good revelation (Scripture), but we tend to neglect it’s instruction.
  • Rabbit trail: I think this verse is a really interesting window into how God worked with men to reveal his word (Moses’ law, but the statutes that God commanded him).
• Now, how to explain this section about Elijah…
  • One possible explanation is that John could have been the Elijah spoken of here, but he was not accepted, so the primary Elijah in view here will come when Jesus comes prior to the Millennial reign. Following is Constable’s exact quote explaining this view:

  • The Lord promised to send His people Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord arrived. An angel later told John the Baptist’s parents that their son would minister in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17). Yet John denied that he was Elijah (John 1:21-23). Jesus said that John would have been the Elijah who was to come if the people of his day had accepted Jesus as their Messiah (Matt. 11:14). Since they did not, John did not fulfill this prophecy about Elijah coming, though he did fulfill the prophecy about Messiah’s forerunner (3:1).

  • This interpretation has in its favor Jesus’ words following the Transfiguration, which occurred after John the Baptist’s death. Jesus said that Elijah would come and restore all things (Matt. 17:11). Whether the original Elijah will appear before the day of the Lord or whether an Elijah-like figure, similar to John the Baptist, will appear remains to be seen. Since Jesus went on to say that Elijah had come and the Jews failed to recognize him, speaking of John (Matt. 17:12-13), I prefer the view that an Elijah-like person will come.

  • What John did for Jesus at His first coming, preparing the hearts of people to receive Him, this latter-day Elijah will do for Him at His second coming.  Evidently the two witnesses in the Tribulation will carry out this ministry (Rev. 11:1-13). Who the witnesses will be is a mystery. Evidently one of them will be an Elijah-like person. These men will do miracles as Elijah and Elisha did.

• At any rate, the primary Elijah must not be John the Baptist because we haven’t seen this great and awesome day of the Lord (judgment day).
• Turning the hearts of the fathers… possibly meaning literally that fathers and children throughout the land would have their hearts turned to each other.?? (seems unlikely). One commentator thinks it is meant turning the hearts of the children to the father’s mentioned throughout Malachi (Levi, Moses, Elijah), but I’m not sure how that works with turning the father’s hearts to their children?? Or you could take the interpretation of the NET Bible interpreters: He will encourage fathers and their children to return to me.
• Curse/decree of utter destruction.
  • This is the idea of something “devoted to destruction” (KJV often uses that wording for H2764). Definition and occurrences.  Examples:
    • Leviticus 27:24
    • Joshua 6:17
    • 1 Samuel 15:21
    • Malachi 4 uses remarkably similar language to 2 Peter 3.  This helps me think this is still future.  At any rate, it brings out some key lessons for us.
    • Here a couple takeaways I see:
      • This idea of doing what we know already (e.g. the Mosaic law for OT believers). God has revealed his will to us in Scripture…we are also waiting to see our redemption. We must faithfully continue in what we know to do until He arrives to settle right and wrong forever.
      • The power of that day of judgment will either burn us like stubble or make us grow like the sun’s rays.
      • 2 Peter 3 says two things (at least). That we should not forget that judgment will surely come (even when it looks like everything is continuing as in the past).  Then, in view of this coming judgment, we should be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. (2 Peter 3:14)

Just FYI, Amos Mast taught this chapter…

Part 1 (2:1-9): These verses finish Chapter 1’s rebuke to the priests 

• A command is referred to twice in this section (2:1, 2:4). What command is he referring to?
• What was the offence of the priests that would cause them to be cursed?
• What was the curse? What is offal/dung, and what is the significance of using it in this curse?
• Who was Levi and what did God commend him for?
• The behaviors of the current priests were contrasted with “Levi” in what ways?
• The church today has a similar responsibility–we are to teach the nations about God.  I think this passage begs the question–how are we at Weavertown doing with the same criteria the priests were held to here in this passage? What do you think God would have Malachi say about us?

Author’s note: how do you manage to get a handle on the context of a book like Malachi and cover the whole first chapter in one Sunday?  At the current rate, I’m going to sit down on the job on one or both sections….

The oracle of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi.

Background to Malachi

Who, What, Where, Why questions are critical to sincere exegesis of any book of the Bible.

Author:

• 1:1 and 3:1 imply that Malachi was the author. But Malachi literally means “my messenger”, so you could alternately read 1:1 as “The oracle of the word of the Lord to Israel by my messenger” (this is how 3:1 is translated). Some scholars make a case that the author was anonymous (seems unlikely since this would be only prophetic book like that). The reference to my messenger (Malachi) in 1:1 is probably a play on the author’s name.
• In any case, we know nothing about the author with the possible exception of his name.

Date and Geopolitical Context:

• “Haggai and Zechariah . . . 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 [situation in life] sufficient to account for its peculiar themes and emphases.” (as cited by Constable)
• Need to rely on content of book to approximate the date. It speaks of worship at the second temple, so after 515 BC, which was when the temple was completed.  Most think it was between 515 and 400 BC.  Mostly likely corresponding most closely with events recorded in 2nd half of the book of Nehemiah. Also, it would be near the time of Esther.
• Reference is also made to the governor, so must  be referring to the satrapy’s Persian-appointed governor.  The newly reformed nation of Israel was struggling for survival with competing satrapies at this time.  You can see some of this with the accusations of the Israelites to God (e.g. 1:2 “how have you loved us?”).   Haggai and Zechariah were the most recent prophets and they spoke a lot about Zion–which didn’t seem to be coming about.
• “. . . Malachi and his contemporaries were living in an uneventful waiting period, when God seemed to have forgotten His people enduring poverty and foreign domination in the little province of Judah. . . . True the Temple had been completed, but nothing momentous had occurred to indicate that God’s presence had returned to fill it with glory, as Ezekiel had indicated would happen (Ezk. 43:4). . . . Generations were dying without receiving the promises (cf. Heb. 11:13) and many were losing their faith.”[14] (as cited by Constable)
• Probably the best context is to try to imagine what you must have felt like to be a Jew in Jerusalem in Nehemiah’s day.  This is the environment where the story of Esther and the Maccabees occured, and 400 years of repeated foreign invasions and repression without divine encouragment.

Genre and Theme:

• Burden/Oracle. Hebrew Massa (Strongs 4853) . Literally “burden”.  But also means the message of the Lord.  Here are the 65 ways it is used in the OT: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_4853.htm

  Update: Here is the summary from the NET Bible Translators Notes which is much better than what I can say: The Hebrew term III מַשָּׂא (massa’), usually translated “oracle” or “utterance” (BDB 672 s.v. מַשָּׂא), is a technical term in prophetic literature introducing a message from the Lord (see Zech 9:1; 12:1). Since it derives from a verb meaning “to carry,” its original nuance was that of a burdensome message, that is, one with ominous content. (NET notes)

• Malachi is “[…]formally classified as belonging to the genre of oracular prose. The messages are oracular in nature because they represent authoritative prophetic speech motivated or inspired by God himself. By prose, we mean that the literary texture of Malachi s a blend of prosaic and rhetorical features, approaching poetic discourse, but distinctive of prophetic style. …The discourse units in Malachi may be broadly categorized as judgment speeches, since they accuse, indict and pronounce judgment on the audience.” (Hill p. 280).
• Some call this genre of prophecy “covenant lawsuit”.  The Israelites were breaking their portion of the covenant and God was taking them to court over their infractions.

Lesson

Outline (Constable)

1. Introduction 1:1
2. The priests exhorted not to dishonor the Lord (the theological angle) 1:2—2:9
   1. Positive motivation: the Lord’s love 1:2-5
   2. Situation: the priests’ failure to honor the Lord 1:6-9
   3. Command: stop the pointless offerings 1:10
   4. Situation: the priests’ worship profaning the Lord’s name 1:11-14
   5. Negative motivation: the results of disobedience 2:1-9

So chapter 1 really covers 1 1/2 sections if you use this outline.

• Following the above outline, 1:2-5 is part 1 of the discourse against the priests. This section explains how God loves them.
• 1:2 I have loved you seems to be a thesis statement for the book.  This undergirds basically everything God is arguing for in the whole book. What a powerful assertion to the disillusioned Jews living in a hostile environment!
• How does this same idea of God’s enduring love for his people apply to his church 2 millennia after Christ promised to return for us? (we also have the promise of a new Jerusalem)
• Rhetorical response to God’s love: How have you loved us?
  • First of all, what a dumb response?! How could you say this to God? In reality, isn’t this human tendency?
  • God replies with the example of how he chose Israel over Edom. Edom was also destroyed when the Babylonians destroyed Judah.
  • God promised their own eyes would see the fulfillment of this
  • Side note: The epithet Lord who rules over all occurs frequently as a divine title throughout Malachi (24 times total). This name (יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, yÿhvah tsÿva’ot), traditionally translated “Lord of hosts” (so KJV, NAB, NASB; cf. NIV NLT “Lord Almighty”; NCV, CEV “Lord All-Powerful”), emphasizes the majestic sovereignty of the Lord, an especially important concept in the postexilic world of great human empires and rulers (NET Notes)

Situation: The failure of the priests to honor the Lord (v 6-9)

• Accusations:
  • Evidenced by: polluted offerings > Despised = offering inferior gifts. Deut 15:21 If they have any kind of blemish – lameness, blindness, or anything else – you may not offer them as a sacrifice to the Lord your God.
    • Were these inferior animals the exchange racket that was occurring during Jesus’ day, or was it simply not caring what animals were presented?
    • Pollution = by saying the Lord’s table may be despised. Note: table here refers to the altar, but is probably used to show the symbolism of the meal served after two parties “sign” a covenant, and of eating with the governor (Persian satrapy).
  • You are not honoring or respecting (fearing) me
  • Despising my name
• God was rejecting their offerings–just like their civil ruler would.  God uses his name, The Lord of Hosts, to emphasize that he was greater than any civil governor or Persian king.
• Why did they need to entreat the favor the Lord?
  • Because they were bringing down wrath on themselves, not favor.
  • BTW, many point out that Malachi was using the phrases from the priests’ blessing here (Numbers 6:22-27) to emphasize how they were receiving cursing not blessing from the priests.
• Summary: Does the church despise Jesus by offering polluted offerings?  I.e. what is the equivalent to offering blind and sick animals at Weavertown?

Command: stop the pointless offerings (v. 10)

• God begs that someone would just close the doors, and shut down all the vain (pointless) offerings. Why does he call the offerings vain?
• This BEGS the question–does God wish some churches would close their doors due to their pointless worship?

Situation: The Priests’ Worship Profaning the Lord’s Name (11-14)

• This seems like a recap of the previous argument, but this time with a curse.
• First, although God begs to have someone close the temple doors, he states that his name will be honored in all the nations, and that pure (acceptable) offerings would be offered.
  • First of all, what a slap to the Jews!
  • This seems to be a prophecy of the spread of the New Testament Gospel.  At any rate, God would saying it was more important to be offering pure offerings then temple offerings.  Definitely not typical Jewish thought.
  • What does from the rising of the sun to its setting mean?
• In the same way this must have insulted the Jews/priests, I think the church has an obligation to take this critique to heart. If we are not offering pure offerings here at Weavertown, God will get his pleasure and honor from the nations instead!!
  • Desecrated offerings: Again, do we (Weavertown/Beachy/American) offer any of these polluted offerings: the sick, lame, taken by violence, blemished, or break our vows? What is the equivalent in Lancaster County?
• The passage closes by again emphasizing that the Lord Almighty will be receive his due respect among the nations (if not among his own people!!).

Sources:

NET Bible Translators Notes. Available at lumina.bible.org

Constable’s Notes. Available at lumina.bible.org. https://lumina.bible.org/bible/Malachi+1

Andrew E Hill. Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Volume 28. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries.