Original Meaning
MALACHI NOW ADDRESSES the issue of sacrifice, which should be a loving response to love received (cf. 1:2–3) but instead has degenerated into something else. Malachi 1:6–2:9 opens with another disputation dialog but continues with different literary genres, including accusation and command. This section as a whole has been identified as a “prophetic exhortation”1 directed to the priests (see 1:6; 2:1). The temple was rebuilt under Ezra, but Israel and its religious leaders soon fell again into their misguided ways. These were precipitating factors in the earlier disruption of the nation and the destruction of the Solomonic temple in 587/586 B.C., but human nature forgets previous lessons learned, necessitating reteaching.
God expected sacrifices and offerings to be taken from his good gifts and returned to him. They represented one’s love, loyalty, honor, and, at times, sorrow for sin and wrongdoing (see Lev. 1–7). They showed an inner commitment to the covenant relationship between God and people, not arising from duty but from devotion. When duty replaces devotion, however, human nature is such that it seeks minimum steps, barely enough to meet an obligation. This contrasts with a true love relationship, seeking to do the maximum for the beloved. Israel, and in particular her priests, are seen here having lost their first love.
Malachi 1:6–14 begins with statement of the problem. Two propositions, undoubtedly well-known truisms to the audience, draw the audience in by starting where they are and then moving to someplace new (v. 6). The first concerns family relationships: children honoring their parents. The particular verbal form used for “honor” (kbd) indicates an ongoing practice, not a one-time event. Expectation of filial honor was inbred in Israel, for it was one of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16), their national charter document. Honoring involves treating someone with respect, lifting them up, and showing that they have worth. In a family situation, this includes obedience and support. Its opposite is disobedience (Deut. 21:18), neglect, or mistreatment, whether physical or verbal (e.g., Ex. 20:17; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 27:16). Though mentioning sons and fathers explicitly, daughters and mothers are not exempt from these same relational expectations.
The second proposition involves relations between servants/slaves and masters. The verb “honor” of the previous clause does double duty as the implied verb here. In the economic relationship of master-slave, well known in Israel even if not an aspect of the life for everyone, there must also be honor and respect. Obedience to authority is expected, since it defines the relationship.
Building on the foundation of these two well-known and acknowledged relationships, God makes the next step in his syllogism, again using statements against which his hearers have no quarrel: God is their “father” (e.g., Deut. 32:6; Job 29:16; Isa. 63:16[2x]; 64:8) and “master” (Ex. 23:17; 34:23; Deut. 10:17; Mic. 4:13). These are in the form of hypotheticals, indicating a real condition (“now if I am father/master [and you know that I am], then …”). The hearers can follow the argument and so await its conclusion: “A son honors his father, as you well know. I am your Father, a relationship you know to be true. Therefore, you should honor me.”
God then demands to know, in the second part of the conditional clause in verse 6, where his expected honor is to be found. This implies that the third stage of the syllogism is reversed from the expected and that there is none of the expected honor. The rhetorical snare into which the hearers have naively entered has snapped shut.
The first verb in verse 6 (kbd), as noted above, applied to the two clauses. Its cognate noun, “honor” (kābôd), is something that Malachi sees as lacking in the personal relationship between father and son. A new noun, “respect,” is lacking in the master-slave relationship in the second clause. “Respect” is from the root “to fear, be in awe” and refers to the terror-inspiring mighty acts of God (e.g., Deut. 4:34; 26:8) or, as here, to the emotional response of reverence and awe engendered by such actions (e.g., Ps. 76:12; Isa. 8:13; Mal. 2:5)—an even more powerful reaction than what derives from the NIV’s “respect.” God expects an appropriate response from his people to their Father who is the very Creator and Sustainer of the universe, but this is not forthcoming. Noting again that God is the One who is speaking (“says the LORD Almighty”; cf. v. 2) emphasizes the truth and solemnity of these words.
Instead of respect, God receives “contempt” (cf. Mal. 1:7, 12; 2:9); he is despised and treated lightly, not even worthy of notice (cf. 1 Sam. 10:27; 17:42). “Contempt” elsewhere indicates disobedience to covenantal authority (e.g., Num. 15:31; 2 Sam. 12:9; Ezek. 16:59), as is the case here. Ironically, those exhibiting this contempt are the “priests,” whom Yahweh addresses. In this literary context, which has placed Jacob and Esau in opposition (Mal. 1:2–3), despising most likely recalls to the episode of Esau’s despising his birthright (Gen. 29:29–34). As Esau considered his family position not worth keeping, the priests, charged with representing the people before God as ministers of sacrifice, and God before the people as teachers of the law (e.g., Hag. 2:11–13), treat him as unworthy of adequate representation in sacrifice (Mal. 1:7–8) or teaching (cf. 2:8).
Their contempt is for God’s “name,” that is, his reputation, as in the English phrase, “He has a good name” (cf., e.g., Gen. 12:2; 2 Sam. 7:9; Isa. 63:12, 14; Jer. 32:20). Rather than maintaining the reputation of the holy God, his own ministers besmirch it. They in turn respond to the charge as they did previously, disputing the statement and denying such wrongdoing by demanding examples.
In verse 7, God duly provides the demanded answer. Priests, charged with bringing right sacrifices, are instead bringing “defiled” sacrifices. The verbs describing both the priestly actions and the nature of the food are participles, indicating a continuing state of unacceptability rather than a single action. This is a habitual practice of the priests. For the third time (cf. 1:2, 6) the accused reply in astonishment at a statement. God substantiates his claim, calling the altar “the LORD’s [Yahweh’s] table,” a phrase unique to Malachi (cf. 1:12). It, like Yahweh’s name (1:6), is treated lightly, as something not due serious consideration.
This uncaring attitude is shown in sacrifice (v. 8), a fundamental priestly function (see Lev. 1–7). Their role is to be “boundary setters,” establishing for and teaching the people about clean and unclean, acceptable and unacceptable (Lev. 10:10–11).2 God gave them specific instruction regarding acceptable sacrificial animals, those “without defect” (see Ex. 12:5; 29:1; Lev. 1:3), further defined as those “without … blemish” (Lev. 22:21; Num. 19:2). But rather than obeying these injunctions, they have been accepting inferior animals: the blind, lame, or sick. The first two are specifically forbidden for sacrifice (Deut. 15:21; cf. 17:1; Lev. 22:22).
The priests are then challenged through rhetorical questions. They know that what they are doing is “wrong.” This word can indicate things that are contemptible, of little worth (cf. Num. 13:19; Jer. 24:2), which would fit the context of these useless animals. The context of defilement (see Mal. 1:7), however, supports a stronger reading of the word, which can denote moral depravity and wickedness (e.g., Gen. 6:5; 13:13; Isa. 32:7). These priests are not simply “cheap,” they are being wicked. With irony, Malachi asks if such “gifts” are suitable for their secular state governor. Let them try to get away with such a disrespectful act toward one who is placed in authority over them by a foreign overlord (e.g., Isa. 36:9; Ezek. 23:23; Hag. 1:1; Esth. 3:12); here they are trying to do this with the Creator and Ruler of the universe!
Malachi asks two rhetorical questions about the governor’s acceptance of such inferior gifts. The desire to please those important to us, especially those with authority or the ability to benefit us (e.g., Gen. 33:10; Ezek. 43:27; Mic. 6:6), often motivates actions. The second clause uses a Hebrew idiom “raise the face,” which indicates acceptance and a positive response. These positive reactions are desired, but these inadequate gifts will not bring that about.
In verse 9, the discussion moves up a notch (“now”), from the lesser (the governor) to the greater (God). Yahweh suggests that the priests should just try this presumption on him! Sacrifice should solicit God’s pleasure (cf. Jer. 14:12), imploring his graciousness (lit., “appease/flatter the face”; cf. Ex. 32:11; 1 Sam. 13:12; Zech. 7:2; 8:21, 22)3 and acceptance (using the idiom of Mal. 1:8). The rhetorical question in 1:9 strongly challenges the acceptability of this behavior, emphasized further through the double use of the strong name “the LORD Almighty” (“Yahweh of Hosts”) in both this and the preceding verses (see comment on 1:4).
The rhetoric ratchets up even further in verse 10 when Yahweh desires that the entire temple complex be closed. The verse begins with an interrogative pronoun in a question (cf. KJV: “Who is there even among you?”), which can be well rendered in English as a desired action (NIV, “Oh, that one …”). God wishes that one of the priests (the “you” of the context) might stop the cultic activity that is their calling. Temple personnel were charged with opening the temple doors so people could worship (1 Sam. 3:13; cf. 2 Chron. 29:3). The word “temple” does not occur in the actual Hebrew text (it is supplied by NIV; cf. Mal. 3:1, where it does occurs), but is implied by the context. Note that the form of “door” here is a dual, indicating the large, double-wide temple doors (1 Kings 6:34; Ezek. 41:23, 24). Only those who did evil willingly shut them (e.g., Ahaz, 2 Chron. 28:24, so people would worship at his pagan shrines).
It is ironic that the only other request in the Bible to close these doors was to preclude unauthorized killing by an enemy (Neh. 6:10). In Malachi, they are closed to prevent the unauthorized killing of unacceptable animals for sacrifice by those whose duty it is to see this is not done. In one way, God is calling for the doors to close to protect the priests themselves from doing further unacceptable acts. Any such offerings are “useless,” having no effect. Israel’s own King David was aware that sacrifices costing nothing (an oxymoron) avail for nothing (2 Sam. 24:24). This is what the priests, who should know better, have forgotten.
As no governor accepts second-rate gifts (v. 8), neither does God, even if the priests brings them personally (“from your hands”). The Hebrew term for these gifts (NIV, “offering”) is both secular (e.g., the gifts of homage one brings to a potentate like a ruler, 1 Sam. 10:27) and religious (e.g., offerings to God, Gen. 4:3–5; particularly the grain offerings of Lev. 2). God takes pleasure, even delight (cf. Mal. 2:17; 3:1, 12), in accepting good gifts from his people, but as Samuel reminded them generations previously, God desires obedience more than sacrifice (1 Sam. 15:22). This implies that if he can’t have the former, forget about the latter. As in Samuel’s time, obedience is not accompanying the sacrifice. Yahweh does not voice his displeasure so much against the sacrifices themselves as against the priests.
In verse 11, God does not hesitate to declare his universally acknowledged character, his “name” that, when magnified, indicates that his fame and reputation are held in high regard (see comments on v. 6). The “name” unifies this verse, occurring at its opening, middle, and closing. This exaltation of God’s name is not localized among his people but extends “among the nations,” a term often used in direct contrast with Israel among whom God’s exaltation is expected but is not forthcoming (Ex. 34:24; Lev. 18:24; Ezek. 5:6–8).
Repetition emphasizes the unexpected location of God’s recognition. His reputation is known from east to west, shown by the idiom of the rising and setting sun (Ps. 50:1; 113:3; cf. Isa. 45:6; 59:19), throughout the entire perceived world. “Incense and pure [ceremonially acceptable] offerings” are to be brought in honor of God (“to my name”), in contrast to what Judah itself is bringing. These come “from every place,” or (in a universal but unspecified sense) “from any place.” This is likely an intentional irony on the part of the author. The “place” par excellence is the holy city, Jerusalem, with its temple (Deut. 12:5; 1 Kings 8:30; 2 Kings 22:16; Isa. 60:13), which has lost its exalted place because of the wicked priestly actions. As the Lord’s glory left its rightful place in Ezekiel’s temple (Ezek. 9:3; 10:4, 18–19; 11:23), so true worship of the Lord departs from there in Malachi, ending up with the rest of the world instead of with the people for whom the temple had been provided (cf. Jer. 7:2–12).
In verse 12, many of the terms and concepts of verses 6–11 are presented again with some variation. In emphatic contrast with the rest of the world who worship God correctly, the author returns to the priests (lit., “now, as for you”), who do not do so. While foreigners magnify God’s name (v. 11), Israel’s own priests “profane” it just as surely as if they offered child sacrifices (Lev. 18:21; 20:3). This is not through a one-time event but through a long-enduring state, as is shown by another participle (see comment on 1:7). The priests profane God’s name not only by action (v. 8) but also by attitude, casting aspersions on the integrity of the sacrificial system. They claim the altar is “defiled” and its food “contemptible,” reversing the noun-modifier combinations of verse 7.
Another variation is in the designation of God, here “my Lord” (ʾ adōnāy; cf. “LORD” [yhwh] in v. 7). This may be simply a literary variation, or, as Hill suggests,4 a claim that Yahweh is in fact Lord of all altars, whether domestic or foreign (cf. v. 11). “Lord” is an honorific title used of someone to whom one shows deference in some way, whether because of age, power, or social position. It is a common form of polite greeting, much like English “mister,” which derives from “master.”5 It is also used in sociopolitical contexts by the vassal addressing his overlord.6 This variation here seems to diminish God; he is only addressed as if he were a human, not a divine ruler.
The last clause of the verse is problematic. The Hebrew reads literally, “and as for its fruit, its food is contemptible.” Some handle the problem text-critically, taking the first word (“fruit”) as a variant repetition of the second and so deleting it as a secondary addition (e.g., NIV, NEB, NRSV).7 This word is only used once elsewhere in the Old Testament, in an idiom “fruit of the lips,” metaphorically indicating commendatory speech (Isa. 57:19), a metaphor not fitting here. If the noun is to be kept, it appears to make the second noun, “food,” redundant, so several interpreters delete that word.8 Others take the approach, however—more sound on text-critical grounds—of trying to understand the text as it stands, with the second noun as an explanation of the rarer first noun (KJV, ESV, ASV, NJPS).9
In verse 13, the priests continue to respond to God’s challenges in what appears to be a manner indicating ennui. The introductory exclamatory word indicates immediacy, allowing it to be contemporized as “Hey, what a drag!” The second word (NIV “burden”) is a composite pronoun + noun.10 This noun occurs only five times in the Old Testament, indicating that the flippant priestly response equates their temple service to the hardships endured by their ancestors during the desert wanderings (Ex. 18:8; Num. 20:14) and under their Assyrian and Babylonian overlords (Neh. 9:32; Lam. 3:5). They complain because they consider themselves so put upon.
The attitude is also expressed nonverbally, with the people sniffing contemptuously (NASB; NIV; NJB)11 or snorting (ESV)12 at the very idea of having to bring acceptable sacrifices. Their inner contempt is exemplified and continued by their outward actions: bringing unacceptable animal sacrifices instead.
Two of the categories of infirm animals (“crippled” and “diseased”) echo those of verse 8, but the third (“injured”) derives from a verb meaning “to steal, pilfer, take by clandestine means” (Lev. 19:3; Judg. 9:25; Job 24:2).13 This may be the intention here, that the priests are bringing sacrifices that are valueless, either because of their physical deformity or their acquisition by perfidy rather than by purchase, thus costing the priests or those who bring them nothing. They are thus a sacrifice that is no sacrifice. Others suggest that this third term indicates some physical deformity observable by the priests but ignored by them, in line with the other two descriptors (NIV; NCV; NEB; NLT combines suggestions, “stolen and mutilated”).
Ironically, the nation called to administer justice to those who are robbed (cf. Jer. 21:12; 22:3) is represented before God by offerings taken by robbery. This representation is the last link in the litany of wrongdoing (“you said … and then you sniffed … and then you brought … and then you [even] offered [them as] the sacrifices”). The boredom and lifelessness of the empty ritual is matched by the plodding grammatical construction.
In the final verse of this section (v. 14), Yahweh evaluates the entire shoddy situation, beginning with a coordinating conjunction (we), tying it to the preceding context. This can be left untranslated (NIV, NLT, NRSV) or be seen as giving emphasis (i.e., “now”).14 Yahweh states that the miscreant is “cursed,” a passive participle (cf. 2:2, where “curse” occurs three times; 3:9). The participial form indicates an enduring circumstance rather than a particular action, while this passive form concentrates attention on the commencement of the new state, that is, “now, from this point onward, X will be cursed.”
This passive form occurs forty times in the Old Testament, the largest concentration of which is in two chapters each in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah.15 In Deuteronomy and Jeremiah 48 the context is punishment following a breach of obligations to God, specifically the covenant in Deuteronomy. This is also the context in Malachi, where failure of required sacrifices results in those responsible being outside the protection and community of the covenant.
The wrongdoer is a “cheat,” someone acting in cunning deception with harmful intent (cf. Gen. 37:18; Num. 25:18). Once again, the participle here, as in two of the three following clauses, indicates a consistent pattern of action rather than a singular instance.
The next three clauses explain the nature of the deceptions.16 Each clause describes subsequent steps in a process. The situation concerns one who has an acceptable sacrificial animal in his possession. The animal is in his ʿēder (NIV “flock”), a general term for a collection of domesticated animals, cattle as well as sheep and goats. The sacrifice results from having made a “vow” (another participle). In the handbook of sacrifices in Leviticus 1–7, a vow is mentioned only in conjunction with the fellowship or peace offering (7:16), which can be from either the herd (3:1–5) or the flock (3:6–16). In Malachi, only a male is offered, while the levitical legislation does not specify its gender. This may indicate that this offerer is especially prideful of his more prestigious gift.
What this person “sacrifices” (another participial form), however, is not quality but something completely unsatisfactory, described by an adjective (“blemished”) used elsewhere for a polluted spring (Prov. 25:26) or a mutilated animal brought as a sacrifice (Lev. 22:24–25). Neither of these is efficacious for their purposes of drinkable water or a sin offering. The present sacrifice isn’t efficacious either; in fact, it is not even a “sacrifice” with the English connotation of the term as something that costs the giver.
The “sacrifice” is directed toward “the Lord” (ʾ adōnāy). The attempted deception denies the lordship of the recipient, which is not acceptable, as the following sentence states. Here the difficulty of customarily translating the personal name of God, Yahweh, as “LORD” becomes apparent since many English readers miss the distinction between “the Lord” to whom offerings are brought and Yahweh Almighty who is speaking. In contrast to the governor of verse 8, who is a “lord” with only delegated authority and derived power, Yahweh is a “great king,” wielding his own supreme authority and personal power.
Foreign overlords such as the Assyrian kings called themselves by the title “great king” (2 Kings 18:19, 28//Isa. 36:4, 13; Jer. 25:14), but they were feeble compared to this great King. His “name” (see comments on Mal. 1:6), which is also said to be “great” (1:11[2x]), is now described as awesome, something dreadful and “to be feared” (cf. 3:17; see the discussion of Joel 2:11) among the nations. Once again these pagan foreigners show the correct attitude toward God in implied contrast to God’s own people, who show themselves unworthy of this description, since they do not reverence him appropriately.
The section closes, in other words, in response to the rhetorical question regarding lordship in verse 6. Yahweh is in fact the only true “Lord” and should be treated as such. Also, his reverence, which is questioned there, is proclaimed here.
Bridging Contexts
DISPUTING WITH GOD. Two other Old Testament books contain what may seem to be a similar literary genre to that in Malachi, namely, disputations. Both Job and Habakkuk portray individuals in heated discussion with God, with no ill results. Why then does God get upset with the disputants in Malachi?
A major difference lies in the personnel involved. In Habakkuk it is the prophet alone who raises his own questions and concerns, and in Job, he alone is in dialogue with God. Both raise questions based on their own personal experience, trying to understand rather than to attack. In Malachi, it is a group, a large portion of the population, apparently representing a sizable portion of Judean society, who are attacking the very concept of God’s authority. Moreover, Job and Habakkuk discuss their own personal theological understandings, parts of their worldview challenged by the realities of their actual life. Job was concerned about God’s justice in letting the innocent suffer (Job 3), while Habakkuk had the opposite problem—God’s not punishing the wicked (Hab. 1:2–4, 12–17).
Malachi faces a problem of pettiness rather than profundity. Like small children, his contemporaries challenge whatever an authority figure says. God has no problems with the former two disputants because they are majoring on important issues, struggling with doubts and concerns.17 He has less time for Malachi’s crowd who manufacture ephemeral issues from the air.
Feeding versus worshiping God. In the ancient Near East, particularly Mesopotamia, humanity was created to serve the gods.18 Among their tasks was providing them nourishment, both food and drink. This was done through sacrifices. In this way, the people understood the altar as being literally the table of the gods, where they came to eat (cf. the starving gods crowding around Utnapishtim’s post-deluvial sacrifices “like flies”).19
This is different from the Old Testament concept of sacrifices and altars. There, God is in no way reliant on humanity for sustenance. Sacrifices serve a completely different purpose, and generally altars are not called “table,” or more specifically a “table of God” (cf. Ezek. 41:22; 1 Cor. 10:21). In the tabernacle, “table” refers to the golden table in the Holy Place with its special bread (e.g., Ex. 25:23–30; 37:10–16) or other tables for sacrifice preparation (Ezek. 40:38–43), but these are consistently distinguished from the altar. One reason for the Israelites avoiding the term in their worship is probably to avoid mixing the pagan concept that God is dependent on his creation for food into Yahwism.
God demanding and refusing sacrifice. Malachi is not alone in rejecting sacrifices. Amos had a statement from God who said: “I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them” (Amos 5:21–22). This appears puzzling, since God himself established the feasts and assemblies (Lev. 23; Num. 28–29), the burnt, grain, and fellowship offerings (Lev. 1–3). Is he changing his mind, now saying that he demands a different way of worship?
That is not what God demanded through Amos, since he went on to say in Amos 5:24: “But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!” Through Amos, God was saying that he indeed wants the vertical relationship of worship directed toward him, but it is of no avail without the horizontal relationship, namely, justice and righteousness in dealing with fellow Israelites. When vertical religion becomes meaningless rote that has no impact on interpersonal ethics, it is only religion and not worship, so get rid of it. Jesus demonstrated the same priorities, desiring mercy more than sacrifice (Matt. 9:13; 12:7, quoting Hos. 6:6).
Malachi shows the same approach to religious observance. Worship shows an appreciation of the value of the one being worshiped in the eyes of the worshiper. Part of worship is bringing gifts of love, as a token of thanksgiving, but one must also mend the relationship if it has been damaged in any way. Based on the value of the sacrifices that Judah brings, God knows that the people do not value him or his relationship with them more than just as a token. It is not that God does not want sacrificial gifts of love; those are exactly what he does want. What he does not want is perfunctory, meaningless ritual, bringing offerings that are neither sacrificial, since they cost little to those who bring them, nor loving (also Isa. 29:13, cited in Matt. 15:8–9).
Israel denigrates other aspects of worship as well, including the temple. In Jeremiah 7:4, the prophet condemns the people for treating the temple like a good-luck charm or a rabbit’s foot. They think that simply because they control the temple, they also control the God of the temple. While God is not condemning the temple as being bad in its own right, he says that it has no efficacy if the people are living as if the temple and its inhabitant are not even there. He calls them to get their ethics right before they can hope to be able to get their worship right (7:3–11).
Contemporary Significance
AUTHORITY. Many of us who were working toward maturity in the 1960s remember “authority” as a dirty word, showing it much the same disdain as Malachi’s contemporaries. Anyone or anything that smacked of telling us what we could or could not do was repressive and to be overthrown. Proponents of free love and free drugs attempted overthrow authority through relatively peaceful means, while proponents of “free hate,” if you will, used violent means—the bombs of the Students for a Democratic Society and the guns of the Baader-Meinhof group.
Activists from that era have now exchanged tie-dyed t-shirts for business clothes and peace rallies for boardrooms, but a suspicion of authority remains, perhaps mutating to a postmodern view that there is personal liberty at every level, even regarding how we read a text or understand a conversation. How should a freedom seeker understand and appropriate descriptions of God as Father and Master (v. 6), words sounding with authority? Should we not argue against it, just as Malachi’s audience did in his day?
To a large extent, we gain our understanding of God first of all through our experiences on the human level of the everyday. Our appreciation of God is most strongly shaped by our experience of our parents, most specifically the father. In a childhood where paternal authority is actualized through abuse, whether sexual, physical, or emotional, our view of God is skewed to seeing him as harsh and nonresponsive. We build a metaphor, taking our experience as the vehicle that carries the applied meaning to the object I am trying to describe by comparison (technically the “tenor”), in this case, God. God, whom I am trying to understand and define, is like my father, and since I know my father to be mean, so must God be.
When we do this, we build the metaphor in the opposite way than it should be built. The vehicle, the provider of meaning, is in the divine realm, not the human, since the former is perfect and untainted by the sin found in the latter. We should say that instead of understanding God by looking at my earthly father, in order to see a true understanding of fatherhood, we must look to God. His fatherly love, which is the model we need to understand as ideal, is not a “love” that demands sexual satisfaction of his children or power through their intimidation, seeking his own self-gratification. Rather, it is a love exhibited in self-sacrifice of that which he most cherishes for the complete good of the beloved (1 John 4:9; John 3:16; Eph. 1:3–10).
Authority should also be understood in the same way, from the top down rather than from the bottom up. Human authority can be oppressive and self-seeking, while divine authority is liberating (Matt. 11:28–30) and other-seeking (Heb. 12:5–11). Malachi’s peers seem not to understand the difference. His instruction and discipline are for the good of their recipients and not for the good of their Giver (Ps. 1; Prov. 8:33). His instructions are not to limit human freedom but rather to allow the freedom to be truly human, living to the fullest benefit of ourselves and our fellow human beings. The Ten Commandments are not restrictions but rather the foundations of what it is to be human.
Turning the metaphor in this direction, from God to us, should also affect how we wield authority, whether like a sword or like a rein. Parents are charged to not exasperate their children but instead to use godly discipline (Eph. 6:4). Modeling a lack of self-interest and true love shows we understand the metaphor rightly. It also shows the truth of the saying: Authority is like soap: “The more you use, the less you have!”
Mixed religion. Israel’s prophets repeatedly remind Israel that they are a peculiar people, unlike their pagan neighbors in both belief and practice. Distinctions seem to be harder to maintain in today’s church, which operates in a pluralistic society. Israel contended with Canaanite enclaves among a predominately Israelite society, but the church faces the opposite situation, being solitary bastions amid either a secular society or one where many religious voices compete for a hearing. Without a biblically based and clearly articulated theology and worldview, with an inadequate understanding of what difference being a follower of Christ means in the way one lives daily life, the edges between church and society have become porous.
One way, among many, where this is evident is in the secularization of the church. While the church is called to be salt and light (Matt. 5:13–16), it too often becomes diluted and dim, advocating conformity to society rather than confrontation. Comfortable accommodationism often finds writers who address these issues uncomfortable for us to read since they challenge our complacency and call us back to accountability.20 Ignoring these voices, however, can lead to stagnation and the loss of theological vitality. God can become so secularized in our view that he needs us to provide for him just as Mesopotamian gods needed humans to provide their sustenance. The church then, in a real way, becomes pagan.
Second best is good enough. From our own perspective, none of us has enough time or money. There are so many demands in so many areas that we have to do what we can just to get by. We are not the first to take this approach, and unfortunately, we will probably not be the last. Judah also tried to get by with “good enough” in their worship. They brought the required animals, but they were only second-rate (vv. 8, 13), because anything more might cost too much; God’s people might have to change their standard of living. If they can cheat on their taxes, surely they can do the same in their tithes!
The same approach is not unknown today. Our worship demands so much time in technical preparation, with its Powerpoint presentations and multimedia, that it is all we can do to get it done between services. Worship leaders seem to have no time for anything else! There is nothing wrong with technology; God is not a Luddite. However, where is God amidst the technology? What is the benefit of Powerpoint without the presence of the Spirit? If we have not taken time to “be still and know that I am God” (Ps. 46:10), who is being exalted with our multimedia?
The same holds true in education, even, unfortunately, in ministerial training. “In light of my full-time job, pastoral responsibility at the church, and a full-time seminary load, I do not have time to get my papers done on time or with the academic excellence that I should.” We offer God our second best, thinking what we are able to do is good enough. Try offering that to the boss (cf. “the governor,” v. 8), suggesting that he pay for forty hours of work a week, but we will really only do thirty, because course work requires too much time. That is not good enough for him, so why should we think it is good enough for God? Should we expect him to accept our second-best offerings? “Good enough” seldom is.