Original Meaning

ISRAEL IS BEING belligerent, disputing with God. The book’s structure shows this through their repeating God’s statements or questions and countering with their own questions. This section recalls the strained relationship between Jacob, Israel’s forefather, and his brother, Esau. What irony that the first statement God makes, and which they dispute, is that he loves them.

Yahweh frequently speaks in this book, with most uses of the verb “to say” (ʾmr) referring to him. The literary form used here is a dialog between God and an unidentified “you.” Grammatically straightforward, the statement is theologically profound: Yahweh loves Israel. Opening the prophecy in this way indicates that love is a key theme of the book. The verb form commonly indicates completed action, but with a verb indicating a state of being rather than an action, it indicates “an ongoing emotional response.”1

The usual English rendition “I have loved you” (e.g., KJV, NIV, NRSV, NLT) is adequate as long as one sees the love as continuing (e.g., “I have loved you and still do”; cf. GNB, “I have always loved you”) rather than indicating a past action that continues no longer (i.e., “I have loved you, but don’t any more”). In spite of the cantankerous nature of those to whom God is speaking and the natural human reaction of wanting to sever the relationship with people who are so contentious, Yahweh states his continuing commitment to covenant relationship. He previously established this covenant with his people at Mount Sinai, even though they repeatedly broke it and suffered punishment by exile as a result. Like a parent for a rebellious child (Hos. 11:1–4), Yahweh still loves them.

Israel in turn speaks to Yahweh, using the same verb for speaking, here preceded by the adversative conjunction “but,” indicating that they take exception to what he just said. The confrontational nature of the dialog is clear from its very start. The addressee is an unidentified “you,” though the rest of the verse indicates who this is. The speaker questions Yahweh, asking about how Yahweh shows his love in an exclamation of surprise or incredulity. The disputation form of a charge and countercharge is clear from the beginning. In other words, the speaker disputes God’s love based on the sad situation in which they find themselves, having returned from exile to a ruined and as yet unrestored land (see Haggai and Zechariah, where divine promises are as yet unfulfilled visibly).

Addressing his dialog partner’s immediate concern, God recalls an aspect of Israelite prehistory. He asks a rhetorical question to which the hearers are sure to know the answer: What was the relationship between Jacob and Esau (cf. Gen. 25:19–26)? This question is an authoritative declaration of Yahweh (“says the LORD”), functioning rhetorically by continuing to draw the hearers into dialog. Hill suggests that its placement here emphasizes the next clause, which can thus serve as the central thesis statement of the prophecy.2 God reminds the hearers of the special relationship of covenant affection he has had with Jacob. The final verb of Malachi 1:2 is of the same root (“love”) as the first, but the form differs, indicating a continuity with what precedes, translated as “yet” (cf. Gen. 32:31; Judg. 1:35).

The logic of the verse indicates that the unidentified “you” who is loved at its start is the same as “Jacob” loved at its end. God through his prophet addresses his people, the descendants of twelve sons of Jacob, whose changed name “Israel” (Gen. 32:28) became that of the nation as a whole.

An emphatic contrast opens verse 3, which was unhelpfully separated off when the Hebrew scribes divided this text into verses. The word order (in the form of a small chiasm in Hebrew: verb-object-object-verb) shows emphasis: “now as for Esau.” The contrast culminates in the second verb, “I have hated” (śānēʾtî), the exact same verbal form as the first verb in the sentence, but polar opposite in meaning. Its meaning derives from context, which in this text does not concern a strong emotional aversion, a major meaning element of the English term “hate.” In the covenant context, one loved is a covenant ally, while one hated is outside this covenant relationship, an enemy (cf. Ex. 1:10).

This statement pair (love-hate) concerns election rather than emotions (cf. Mal. 2:16): Jacob (and his line) is chosen by God while Esau (and his line) is peripheral to the story of God’s continued activity in the Bible. The contrast also brings to bear the friction between the two brothers prophesied to their mother Rebekah (Gen. 25:23). This terminology is also used in the context of marriage, where one wife might be loved and the other “hated” (e.g., Gen. 29:31, 33; Deut. 21:15–17)—a theme picked up, though without this terminology, later in the prophecy (Mal. 2:14–16).

God’s “hate” for Esau is expressed in geographic terms. Esau is the progenitor of the Edomites (Gen. 36), settlers in the mountain fastness of the Transjordan. It is proud in its secure location, strategically impregnable, so they thought, to enemy attack (see comments on Obad. 3). Rather than a place of refuge, it will be a “wasteland,” ruined by warfare (cf. Lev. 26:33: Josh. 8:28; Isa. 1:7), where wild animals roam instead of its original human inhabitants (Ex. 23:39). Its “inheritance,” like that of its Israelite cousins, is described in terms of land (e.g., Gen. 12:1; Num. 26:53–56), which also will experience animal incursions. Jackals are found in deserted ruins (Jer. 9:11; 49:33), not in watered, habitable spots. “Hatred,” lack of a covenant relationship, results in a lack of habitation.

There is a possibility that Edom “may” respond in defiance (v. 4), claiming that even God cannot keep them down. Judah is still being addressed, receiving this possible scenario from the prophet. Though Edom has been devastated and destroyed (cf. Jer. 5:17), they claim ability to rebuild under their own power from any destruction God might cause.

Yahweh responds in the words of a complete messenger formula (“this is what the LORD Almighty says”), since the prophet acknowledges that he is simply the conduit for the words of God (v. 1). This complete citation form, unique here in the book, indicates a significant new section of this dialog. Yahweh now speaks with an accompanying epithet “Almighty” (ṣ^ebā’ôt; KJV, NRSV, “of hosts”). This is a military term (e.g., 1 Sam. 17:45; Jer. 51:3), accentuating Yahweh’s ability to bring the promised destruction; if he has the will, he also has means.

Yahweh does not deny Edom’s attempt to take things into her own hands. He rather denies its effectiveness through the use of an antithesis between what they will do (“rebuild”) and what he will do (“demolish”). The latter is used of cities and strongholds (2 Sam. 11:25; Ezek. 26:12; Mic. 5:10). Nothing Edom might attempt can be proof against God. As a result of divine destruction, Edom will no longer be known for pride (Obad. 3), but its “land” (lit., its “border”) will be renowned for moral wickedness (cf. Mal. 3:15, 19; Ezek. 18:27).

A second unfortunate designation is somewhat hidden by the NIV, since the Hebrew starts the next clause of verse 4 by talking of “the people,” those recognized as being under God’s wrath, his judgment or curse (cf. Num. 23:7–8; Ps. 7:12). The seriousness of this state is emphasized since it is endless (Gen. 13:15; Isa. 30:8; Zeph. 2:9; cf. Mal. 3:4).

In verse 5, Yahweh makes another declaration to Judah (see v. 2). Malachi emphasizes that it is Judah’s own eyes that will see God’s love by starting this verse with “with your own eyes”; that is, you and no one else will see, and you will not have to take the word of anyone else. It is possible to interpret what is seen (“it”) as God’s “hatred” for Edom (cf. “the destruction,” NLT), but that does not seem to be a proper lead-in to the following doxology. It is not Edom’s power but rather God’s love that is questioned and needs demonstration. This love for Judah is shown by God’s dealing severely with Edom, Judah’s enemies. The structure of the contrast (i.e., love-Jacob-Esau-hate) emphasizes its first element over the last.3

Because of their seeing, “you [Judah, emphasized again by the front placement of the pronoun in the clause] will say.” Now the tone completely reverses the skepticism of verse 2. There Judah questioned, now Judah praises. This doxology, or hymn of praise to the Lord, is an inversion of the first words of the question Judah directed toward him. Some scholars see this doxology as extolling God’s greatness (cf. the same wording in Ps. 35:27; 40:17) not only over nations such as Edom (and Judah) but also over circumstances, because (cf. NIV) it is evident even “beyond the borders” of his people. God’s fame is spreading abroad (NASB, NLT, NRSV). God will be universally known.

This wide-spreading fame of God does not fit the context, however, since it does not address the point of Judah, who is questioning whether God loves them. Another interpretation fits the context better, therefore, addressing the challenge raised in verse 2. “Border” can denote a country’s territory (see comment on v. 4), and this sense fits here as well: God’s power is over the territory of Judah/Israel.4 The term “Israel,” once designating the combined nation of twelve tribes and later the northern kingdom, here means the much smaller remnant of Judah after their return from exile. Judah, who questions God’s love, will experience it through his greatness wherever in their land they might live. They are loved, even if they do not respond in kind.

Bridging Contexts

ESAU AND JACOB. Paul, like Malachi, also engages in a disputation, only his is on the subject of God’s sovereignty (Rom. 9:14–23). The question he counters is, “Isn’t God being unfair in saving some and not others?” He uses this disputation passage concerning God’s love for Jacob and hatred of Esau (Mal. 1:2–3) in his own dispute over God’s election (Rom. 9:13). Paul looks at the passage from both sides. God’s love for Jacob indicates God’s great mercy and compassion (9:15, citing Ex. 33:19), not any merit on Jacob’s part. From the negative side, Paul doesn’t follow through on Esau but on Pharaoh, whose heart he “hardened” in order to display his power (Rom. 9:17, citing Ex. 9:6).

This passage in Romans weighs heavy in the discussion between Calvinists and Arminians on the subject of sovereignty and free will. The topic is beyond the scope of adequate address here, but it should be noted how Paul ends this dispute section. He comes out on the side of God’s grace, noting that if it were not for this grace, forgiveness, and love, we would all be “hated” (Rom. 9:29). He is probably using the words “love” and “hate” in the same covenantal way that Malachi did.

Covenant love. “Love” has a range of meanings, from the physical/sexual (Gen. 24:67; 2 Sam. 1:26; Song 1:1, 3, 7) through the relational with family (Gen. 22:2; 25:28) and friends (Lev. 19:18; Jer. 20:4) as well as one’s God (Ex. 20:6; Deut. 6:5). This close emotional tie also leads to commitments at various levels, including marriage, but also more broadly in the context of a covenant. It is this progression from emotion to formal commitment that takes place in the relationship between David and Jonathan. They had the emotional bond of love (1 Sam. 18:1, 3; 20:17), which deepened to a sociopolitical commitment when Jonathan willingly gave up his princely robe, tunic, and weapons, symbolically handing his future rule over to David in what is specifically termed a “covenant” (1 Sam. 18:3–4). “Love” is a technical term used in covenant documents, indicating the expected relationship between covenant parties (cf. Deut. 7:8).5

“Hate” has the same range of meanings, though at the opposite end of the spectrum. It denotes strong emotional dislike to such an extent that one even goes as far as turning one’s back on the expected bonds of family (e.g., Gen. 37:4, 5, 8; Luke 14:26) or clan (Lev. 19:17). It is also used of a covenant relationship. This is most clearly seen in divorce documents where the divorced party, the one deemed outside any continuing covenant, is designated the “hated one” (see also Hos. 9:15).6

In the light of this technical terminology, how should one understand God’s “love” of Jacob and “hatred” of Esau. They are both statements of election, or lack of it, in relation to God’s covenant with Israel and should not be viewed in an absolute way. Esau does not have part of the Mosaic covenant at Sinai, of which Jacob (Israel) is a partner. Esau is punished, driven from her inheritance (v. 3) because of her wickedness (v. 4). That Esau is not “hated” in a universal sense is seen by her inclusion, along with all of humanity, in an even earlier, and more foundational, covenant between God and Noah and all of his descendants (Gen. 9:9–10).

The inclusion of the Edomite/Esau genealogy in Genesis 36 shows the same thing. Jacob is the main recipient in his generation of the covenantal promises, and so is “loved” in relationship to the promises spelled out first to his grandfather, Abram, in Genesis 12:1–3 (cf. 15:1–21, esp. v. 17, where the promises are first called a “covenant”). Esau is not ignored, however. Amos speaks of some Edomites being included in greater Israel, a theme that Acts 15:13–18 picks up.7 Obadiah pictures Esau’s descendents, the Edomites, as unfaithful parties of a covenant in their national history (Obad. 7). Another indication that God’s “hatred” of Esau is not permanent and absolute is that the same term also applies to Israel (e.g., Jer. 12:8; Hos. 9:15).

Contemporary Significance

THE LOVE OF GOD. It is significant that the relationship between God and his people, Israel, and between God and others of his creatures is expressed in terms of “love.”8 There are other models that could be chosen to express this relationship, even within the conceptual model of a covenant. Since, for example, the covenant form God uses to describe his relationship with Israel is that of vassal (Israel) and great King (Yahweh), the terminology of choice could equally be one of power or coercion. Instead, it is expressed in terms of love, with all of the risk that such a basis for a relationship entails.

When one opens up to a love relationship, one also opens up to the possibility of hurt. This is poignantly expressed by one who writes: “God is love. That is why he suffers.… The tears of God are the meaning of history.”9 God maintains that covenant love with his chosen people even though they regularly “unchose” him, “hating” him by entering into a covenant relationship with others.

This love is not exclusive to Israel, however, because God loves the entirety of his creation (e.g., John 3:16; 2 Cor. 13:11, 14; Eph. 2:4). This love is covenantal and certain because of the nature of the divine lover, who does not waver in his commitments (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Hos. 11:8–9; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18). Even though his lovers abandon and “hate” him and “love” another (John 3:19; cf. 15:18–25), he cannot do so to them.

This kind of covenantal, committed love must serve as a model to the church, since we are to love each other as God, in the person of Jesus his Son, loves us (John 13:34; 1 John 4:7–12). This will be actualized not in a vapid, fickle sentimentality, since that is fleeting and self-centered at its foundation. Rather, it is based on a realization of mutual need for the other for the benefit of both parties.

This kind of love must also be open to discipline, which is incompatible with love seen only as emotion. True covenant love must be willing to show itself, if necessary, as “hate,” that is, expelling the other from the relationship (Matt. 18:15–17). This is not absolute abandonment but is done so that the person expelled might experience the loss of the compelling love of the covenant relationship, with the goal that he or she seeks reconciliation and restoration. After all, Jesus commands love toward those who “hate” us, no matter how this is shown (5:43–44).