Original Meaning
ISRAEL’S PATTERN OF arguing with God returns with a vengeance. Now they impugn God’s personal character. This pushes God even further than in the previous disputations, since now he responds with judgment. The current chapter division appears misplaced, since it divides a section that is united by theme.
This prophetic dispute, directed to the Judean people in general (“you,” including the Levites, Mal. 3:3), continues the series started at 1:2. This series was interrupted by a dialogue with the priests and Levites in 1:6–2:9 and was picked up again in 2:10–13.1 The initial assertion is that the people have verbally “wearied” (ygʿ ) Yahweh. This verbal stem occurs only four times, twice here and in Isaiah 43:23–24. It indicates physical exhaustion resulting from strenuous labor (cf. the same verb in another Heb. stem, 2 Sam. 23:10; Isa. 40:30; 49:4; Hab. 2:13). Here this is applied metaphorically to Yahweh, who does not literally experience such weariness (Isa. 40:28). In this case, it is the psychological tedium of artificial worship in word but not in action (cf. Jer. 7:4–10) that has become so debilitating to him.
The people dispute this yet again by asking: “How?” (lit., “in what [way]?”; Mal. 1:2; cf. 1:6, 7; 3:7, 7). The verb in their response is literally “we have wearied,” with no explicit direct object, though clearly Yahweh is to be understood. As the MT stands, the emphasis of the respondents is on the action, and their puzzlement is over how their ritual acts could be wearisome. Many translations add “him” after the verb as its direct object. This unnecessary addition seems to shift the attention more toward the object of the action and away from the action itself.
The rebuttal to Israel’s question has two elements, statements the people have made that are turned around as evidence against them. The first is a claim that Yahweh has no standards of good and evil (Mal. 2:17b). They make a hyperbolic claim concerning everyone (“all,” NIV) who practices evil.2 “Evil” in its previous use in Malachi refers to unacceptable sacrifices (1:8; cf. different terms for evil in 3:15; 4:1), so this statement may refer to those practicing this particular evil or to anyone who goes against the wishes of God.
The disturbing claim is that this evil is in fact “good” or “favorable” (NLT) in God’s estimation. This turns the moral spectrum completely on its head. In Deuteronomy, the clause “do evil in the eyes of the LORD” (Deut. 4:25; 9:18; 17:2; 31:29), or its opposite, doing good (6:18; 12:25, 28; 13:18; 21:9), are common ways of expressing commendation or condemnation of actions, including keeping the divine covenant. This Mosaic law is foundational for prophetic messages, being the standard to which the people and their leaders are repeatedly called back. The people’s claim here reverses the very polarity of the covenant, going as far as claiming that these miscreants are favorable, even “pleasing” to Yahweh, in spite of the prophet’s having already denied this in the second dispute (Mal. 1:10).
The second statement begins with the interrogative adverb “where” (ʾayyēh), used twice before in the prophecy (1:6), both times of God asking what happened to the respect and honor due someone of his character. Now the question is turned on its head, with the people asking God about a characteristic they perceive as lacking, namely, his “justice” (NIV, NASB, NLT, NRSV) or “judgment” (KJV).3 Yahweh demands justice of others (Zech. 7:9; 8:16), and Job bases his entire argument on God’s being just (Job 8:3; 40:8), but the speakers here claim that it is lacking in God. The same phrase “God of justice” is used of Yahweh in Isaiah 30:18, where he shows grace and compassion; has his character now changed?
These two statements can be read in two different ways: as a complaint question directed against God4 or as a statement concerning the worldview espoused by the people. In the former, the speakers are upset that God is not acting according to their expectations by providing a sign that he has not changed in the new, postexilic context in which they now find themselves. This attitude parallels that of Habakkuk, who also was upset at God’s apparent inactivity (Hab. 1:2–4, 12–2:1). The second possibility reflects a blasé, complacent attitude on the part of the people (cf. Mal. 1:13), a perspective suggesting that God does not care and does not act, so why should his people do so (Deut. 32:15; Zeph. 1:12). This can be seen as a variation of what Hugenberger aptly calls “religious relativism,”5 which is now termed a postmodern view that there are no such things as absolute standards and values and no objective good or evil.
But in 3:1 Yahweh strongly rebuts this notion, indicating his action is imminent. His speech begins with an exclamatory interjection (hinenî) that indicates immediacy, especially when coupled with a participle, as here (cf. Mal. 1:13; 4:1).6 Yahweh is on the verge of sending a messenger with an implication of “just wait!” This probably picks up the same clause in Exodus 23:20, where preparation for care and safety is provided, along with an admonition to heed what Yahweh directs as regards the covenant. The messenger is Yahweh’s, as shown by the word “my” (malʾākî, a play on the name of the prophet himself; cf. 1:1). This ambiguity suggests that the present prophecy itself is fulfilling God’s promise of this verse; this coming is not a future event but one that is happening now in the presence of the hearers themselves.7
The messenger’s task is to “prepare the way” (lit., “a way”) before Yahweh. This same verb and direct object combination is used only in Isaiah 40:3; 57:14; 62:10, each passage describing the restoration of fallen fortunes by clearing out the hindering obstacles. Here it is the Israelites and their leaders who are the obstacle (cf. Mal. 3:3, 5). Similar wording occurs in Exodus 23:20; 33:2, where God promised an assisting forerunner after the Exodus.8 There it was the people coming to their Promised Land, while here it is Israel’s God coming to his chosen people. His passage will open before him, just like a contemporary head of state finds no traffic or traffic signals to slow his entourage’s progress.9 It is not in this instance the entrance of a new, conquering king, but rather the return by one already crowned to his rightful place.
The goal of the journey, the “throne room” of the returning King and the place where he belongs, is “his temple.” While this term is not used elsewhere in Malachi (cf. Mal. 3:10, “my house”), cultic rituals illegally performed there were previously noted (1:7–14). The priests have misused it as if it were their own, but now its rightful owner reclaims possession. The arriving one is “the Lord” (ʾādôn). This term for a master or lord is used on a human level (e.g., of a human king in Isa. 26:13; Jer. 22:18), but much more frequently of God, especially when used with the definite article (Zech. 4:14; 6:5), as well as of the Messiah (Ps. 110:1). In the previous uses of ʾādôn in Malachi (Mal. 1:6),10 it vacillates between the human and divine, but here “the Lord” is indeed “the LORD.”
The Lord’s arrival is described by a form of the verb (“will come”) that signifies “a situation [that] is conceived of as beginning and continuing,” translated almost uniformly into English as a future.11 His arrival is unexpected, happening “suddenly” and by surprise (Josh. 10:9; 11:7). Every other occurrence of this word in the Old Testament is in the context of calamity, which the next verses will show is also the case here, at least for those who live as if the rightful King were gone for good.
The people are said to be “seeking” this Lord, but whether this is to be taken literally or, more likely, ironically depends on which of the two interpretations is espoused for the two questions closing Mal. 2:17. The verb “seeking” is another participle, an ironic echo of the same form in 2:15. There God truly seeks offspring, while here the people only nominally seek God or, if they are seriously questioning him in 2:17, the one whom they seek will turn out to be their judge. That which they look for is not what they really want.12
The next clause elucidates the identity of this “Lord,” beginning with a conjunction (we) that is either simply coordinative (“and”) or explicative (“even”). Identifying “the messenger of the covenant” (an expression occurring only here in the Old Testament) with Yahweh is difficult, since then Yahweh speaks in the first person apparently about someone else in the third person.13 Also, messengers/angels regularly reveal Yahweh, but he is rarely called one of them himself.14 Yahweh is indeed coming (3:5), but he seems here to be represented by a semi-divine/angelic15 or human (Mal. 4:5; NIV, NRSV) messenger who prepares the way for the holy God. This may be a messianic reference,16 being at once human and divine (cf. Heb. 8:8–13; 12:24).
Like the Lord whom they seek, this messenger is anticipated by the audience, who “desires” him—in contrast to Yahweh, who does not desire them (cf. “not pleased” in Mal. 1:10) until they are purified (cf. 3:3, 12). This also counters the invalid claim (2:17) that God desires (“is pleased with”) those who change good for ill. The prophet seems almost to be taking his audience to task for inexact exegesis, not fully understanding either the meaning of the term “desire” or the nature of God.
Whether the sought-after coming ones are human or divine, single or multiple, the coming is imminent, as shown by the same combination of exclamatory interjection (hinnēh, untranslated in the NIV) plus participle that opens the verse. The messenger being sent is on the verge of arriving, and with a result not anticipated by the people, since he comes in the multifaceted Day of the Lord. This subsection ends with a common messenger formula (“says the LORD Almighty,” Mal. 1:4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14; 2:2, 4, 8, 16; 3:5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 17; 4:1, 3), reminding the hearers of the identity and power of the speaker.
Malachi opens the next subsection (Mal. 3:2–4) with two parallel rhetorical questions designed to draw the hearers into dialogue. Each begins with a conjunction we (“and, but”), tying these questions back to verse 1: As a result of the coming one, who will be able to withstand? Each question uses the interrogative pronoun “who,” likely referring to those seeking and anticipating the coming one in 3:1 and doubting him in 2:17. The second verb (ʿmd) indicates the ability to withstand opposition (Est. 8:11; Ps. 147:17; Dan. 11:16; Nah. 1:6), to “survive” (NCV, GNB). Most translations give the participle used here a modal thrust (“[Who] is able to withstand …”). The meaning of the first verb (kwl) derives from the context of the second. The root means “to contain, hold” (cf. Isa. 40:12; 1 Kings 8:27), with the understanding of enduring (NJPS, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV) or holding out.
What the people are facing is “the day of his coming,” referred to in other prophecies as the eschatological “day of the LORD,” discussed more fully below (see Mal. 4:1, 3). God’s coming is a momentous occasion, whether for salvation (Isa. 40:10; 59:20; Zech. 2:10; 9:9) or judgment (Isa. 3:14; 13:5; 66:15; Mal. 4:6; cf. Ps. 96:13; 98:9, where both aspects appear). The context of this passage suggests the latter, a coming for purification that will benefit the people, though not to their liking. The second question refers to this as the time of “his appearing,” when the one whose existence is questioned by the people (Mal. 2:17) will be seen by them in a divine epiphany (Ps. 102:16).
Both rhetorical questions expect a negative response, in the light of the understanding that the unrighteous are unable to stand in God’s presence (Jer. 7:10; cf. Ps. 24:4). Therefore, “who is (able to) …?,” when addressing these people in this setting, can only be answered, “No one!”
The final clause in verse 2 supplies the reason for the inability to stand, using two metaphors that depict the coming of the covenant messenger for cleansing the unclean. He comes first as a “refiner’s fire.” Fire regularly accompanies divine theophanies (e.g., Gen. 15:17; Ex. 3:2; 19:18), including those in eschatological contexts (Isa. 4:5; Joel 3:3). The destructive nature of fire made it a natural accompaniment to divine judgment (Isa. 10:16–17; 66:16; Amos 5:6). Since judgment, especially for God’s people, is disciplinary and purgative (cf. 3:3), it is here designated as being through fire that refines, a function also mentioned in the New Testament (e.g., 1 Cor. 3:11–15). Elsewhere the verb refers to the metallurgical tasks of smelting and refining (Judg. 17:4; Isa. 40:19; Jer. 10:9), where the metal is heated to melting so the impurities within it separate and can thus be removed, leaving a purer metal.17 The prophets use this process metaphorically to signify eliminating sinful behavior through the hot fire of God’s judgment and wrath (Isa. 1:25; Zech. 13:9).
The second metaphor derives from the realm of cloth manufacturing. The fuller (one who cleans and thickens cloth by beating and working it) uses a special lye soap to clean it.18 The Old Testament only refers to this soap metaphorically, indicating cleansing from sin (Jer. 2:22), while the verb (kbs), which can indicate literal purification (Ex. 19:10, 14; Isa. 7:3), also functions in the metaphorical, spiritual realm (Ps. 51:2, 7). Though the coming messenger is not eagerly anticipated by the people, his coming is not for the purpose of destruction but rather for restoration.
The purification process continues in verse 3 with the divine representative sitting down to begin his task—a task that takes a certain amount of time (an interpretation favored by the use of the following two participles).19 The task is twofold: refining (cf. v. 2) and purifying. While the two terms are similar, ritual cleansing is commonly associated with the second (ṭhr; e.g., Lev. 13; Ezek. 36:25), appropriate to this context of necessary purification, since the contamination involves cultic ritual (1:7–14). Silver is the object purified, though here it is metaphorical, referring to impure people (cf. Ps. 66:1; Zech. 13:9).
The metaphor is explained in the following sentence. It is the Levites (lit., “the sons of Levi”) who are purified. Levi has been mentioned twice earlier in Malachi in relation to a covenant of religious obligation with him (Mal. 2:4, 8). His descendants, the Levitical priests (the terms “Levite” and “priests” are equivalent in Malachi),20 have reached a state of ritual impurity that disallows them from performing their expected duties. They therefore need to be made ritually pure.
The messenger will also “refine” them (zqq), a rarer verb than ṣrp (used in v. 2 and previously in this verse) for removing impurities from metal such as silver and gold (1 Chron. 28:18; 29:4; Ps. 12:6) or wine (“strain, filter,” Isa. 25:6, NRSV). Malachi’s is the only metaphorical usage of this verb in the Bible.21 These Levitical priests, whose role was to purify the people through sacrifice, have so polluted the ritual practice and themselves that they now need purification before they can offer sacrifice on behalf of others. Those who raise themselves above the ordinances of God (Mal. 1:7–8) now need the cleansing only achieved through their own abasement (2:9).22
When purification is complete, the Levites will be restored to their role as those who can effectively officiate in the sacrificial cult. The verbal form continues that of the previous verbs, with the conjunction we playing a consequential role here (“so that” KJV, NASB, NJB, NLT; “then,” NIV; “until” NRSV). Some of the narrative impact of the result clause is lost because of the differences between Hebrew and English word order.23 The ones contemptuously challenging God (1:7) are now his possession. The syntactical priority of this may also indicate the relative importance of this relationship over the function that they can again perform, bringing (ngš) sacrifice; relationship (belonging to God) has priority over role (serving God).
The verb ngš is an important word here and earlier in the book. Those repeatedly bringing defiled sacrifices (1:7, 8[2x]) and who are unacceptable even though bringing them (2:12) are now be able to do so, starting the fulfillment of God’s prediction that this will happen throughout the world (1:11). The offering previously unacceptable from the hands of the priests (1:10; 2:13) is now no longer so because of the righteousness in which it is brought.
“Righteousness” (cf. Mal. 4:2) can act as an adjective describing the offerings themselves (“right/acceptable/proper offerings,” NLT, RSV),24 though the presence of the preposition be (“in righteousness”) leads more toward an adverbial understanding, describing the manner in which they are brought, corresponding to the way mandated by God and reflecting more on the offerer than the offering (Deut. 33:21).25 This indicates that Yahweh did not previously condemn the Levitical priesthood as an institution, but rather the manner in which they had been performing their role. When the manner is rectified, the role can and must be resumed—not only for the sake of the priests but also for the people.
The word “sacrifice” links verse 4 to the previous verse, now speaking specifically of the sacrifices of Judah and its capital, Jerusalem. Priestly sacrifices (v. 3) represent those of the people, but they must also precede them in time, since a defiled priest cannot perform acceptable rituals for a defiled people, but must purify himself first.26 The sacrifice of the people will then be “acceptable to the LORD” (NIV; “welcomed” JB; “pleasing/pleasant,” KJV, NASB, NEB, NRSV), a term used elsewhere of sacrifice (cf. those which are unacceptable, Jer. 6:20). This contrasts the previously unacceptable offerings (Mal. 1:9–10). Yahweh now accepts these offerings.
The acceptable offering is a return to their original intent, what they were in “the old days” (“in days gone by,” NIV), a phrase that probably refers here to the patriarchal period (cf. Mal. 3:7; 1:2).27 The second nostalgic phrase (“as in former years”) is unique, but the adjective elsewhere refers to events preceding the prophecy of Ezekiel 38:14, the time of the judges (1 Sam. 24:13), or an indeterminate time long ago (Isa. 43:18), which leaves the referent quite open. Whenever these good old days may have been, they are missed but will now be restored.
Not only will the earlier ritual situation be restored, but Yahweh himself will come near again as he had in the past (3:5), this time “for judgment.” This latter term forms an inclusio with Mal. 2:17, closing this fourth dispute with its emphatic rebuttal to the claim that there is no just God. Rather than a simple consequential conjunction (“and, then, so”) beginning 3:5, we should probably read it as an emphatic we (“indeed, be sure that I will come near”).28
Rather than being distant or even nonexistent, God “comes near” (qrb), a possible play on the other use of the term in the book when God challenges his hearers to “offer” (qrb) unacceptable things to their civil leaders (1:8). They were attempting to defraud their leaders, and now the judge approaches for the purpose of holding them accountable. Judgment is definite, reiterating something already identified, most probably the actions in 3:2–3, with the vocabulary of judgment both opening and closing the dispute, with the action of judgment as its center.
Judicial vocabulary continues in the next clause, where Yahweh serves as a witness to “testify” against an array of evildoers, as he does in the case of the unfaithful Israelite and his wife (Mal. 2:14). The vocabulary here is reminiscent of a covenant lawsuit (rîb). This is a serious situation since in such lawsuits between covenant parties God fulfills the multiple roles of prosecuting attorney, witness, judge, and executioner.29 There is an immediacy to this dispute, since God “will be quick” (mhr), a participle serving as an adjective describing the witness. An additional nuance of mhr is skill as well as alacrity (“ready,” JB, NLT; Ps. 45:1; Ezra 7:6); that is, God is not only able to bear witness soon but will do so with expert authority, since he both knows the ritual expectations and knows how they have been degraded in more recent times.
Yahweh’s witness is for the prosecution, being “against” (be) five types of miscreants, each, except the last, preceded by that same preposition. This drives home fact that God is “against” four times, hammering at the term with relentless force. The first type is “sorcerers,” professional practitioners of the black arts. Strongly condemned in Israelite law (Ex. 22:18), they often appear in conjunction with diviners (Deut. 18:10; cf. Dan. 2:3). The latter determine the future by consulting with the gods, while the former manipulate the divine, people, and events by occult means to make the future aid their own ends.
The Decalogue soundly condemns “adulterers” (Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5:18), a sin punishable by death (Lev. 20:10) since it attacks the foundational element of society, the family. It was common enough in Israel that the prophets had to repeatedly stand against it (Jer. 23:10; 29:23; Hos. 4:13–14). The sin of “perjurers” (lit., “those who habitually lie under oath”; cf. Lev. 6:5; 19:12; Jer. 7:9; Zech. 5:4) also reiterates something condemned in the Decalogue (Ex. 20:16). This is another threat to the bonds of trust and civility that unite a society and need to be reestablished if the society hopes to survive.
The Israelite covenant protected the powerless, those unable to look after themselves. Malachi highlights four groups (laborers, widows, orphans, and aliens) in this category who are not receiving fair and just treatment. Members of the first three social categories were particularly open to exploitation (ʿšq, “defraud,” NIV; “oppress,” KJV, NASB, NRSV; “cheat,” NJPS, NLT). The verb indicates willful misuse of power by the strong over the weak, whether physically, economically, or socially (Deut. 24:14; Isa. 52:4; Jer. 7:6; 21:12), even being used of rape (Isa. 23:12).
To summarize all these ills, Yahweh claims that the wrongdoers exhibit a lack of “fear” (KJV, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV), or better “respect” (NJB), for him, something ironically evidenced by the foreign nations even if not by God’s own people (Mal. 1:14; cf. 2:5; 3:16). This fear of the Lord is where life’s wisdom starts (Prov. 9:10; 10:27) and is associated with the law (tôrâ, 2 Chron. 17:9–10; 19:7–10; cf. Mal. 2:6, 7), which is being broken by these wrongdoers. By doing these things, they are being unwise, unfaithful, and in danger of death, not because of their mistreatment of others but because of their opposition to God. Yahweh reminds them of this through the concluding messenger formula indicating his power (see comments on 1:4; 3:1), thus demonstrating how the claim of the disputants that God does not know good from evil, nor is he just (2:17), is a lie.
Bridging Contexts
THE LEAST OF THESE. In Israel, as within most societies, those with power were able to fend for themselves. They did not need the protection of an advocate apart from their own resources. But there was a subsection of society that did not enjoy this protection. For various reasons they were deprived of power and were at the mercy of others. The wage-laborer (lit., “wages of the hired [day]laborer,” Lev. 19:13; Deut. 24:15) was in an economically precarious position, since he did not hold land from which to derive a living. Nor was he a slave or servant of a master of whose household he is a part, receiving care and support (Deut. 24:14; Job 7:1–2). It is ironic that even slaves, who are often viewed as being at the bottom of a nation’s social structure, had a more adequate support framework than did others in the society. After all, from the point of view of their owners, slaves were an economic asset in the same way as were land and cattle, since they produced economic gain for the owner. But the same did not hold true for the itinerant day laborer, who was viewed by an employer as just one of numerous readily interchangeable pieces.
Two others of this endangered category were the widow and the orphan, often listed together in contexts concerning social responsibility (e.g., Ex. 22:22–24; Job 24:3). Their lack of support structure arose because of the loss of either husband or father. Since to a large extent deprived of land ownership and hard pressed on their own to adequately farm the land if even able to hold it, their very daily provision of food was problematic. This was particularly the case for women, who left the care and support of their birth home to join the family of the husband. If he died, their support was not as forthcoming as it was at home. Elements of this necessary support network can be seen behind the stories of Tamar and Naomi (Gen. 38:11; Ruth 1:6–10).
A fourth class of marginalized people in the Israelite society was the alien (NASB, NIV; “sojourner,” KJV). This was also a landless class of people residing in Israel because they had left their own country for some reason (e.g., famine, Ruth 1:1; cf. Gen. 15:13; Deut. 23:8; war, Isa. 16:4). Though poor (Lev. 19:10), they were due legal protection under Israelite law (Ex. 20:10; 22:21). Their particular source of exploitation was deprivation of justice (Mal. 3:5). The alien was to receive adequate provision and protection under the law, but this is being denied in Malachi’s day—which is ironic since Israel itself was once in this situation (Deut. 10:18–9).
In order to provide for these unfortunates, if family and neighbor were unable or unwilling to do so, Yahweh himself championed their cause. He became provider, husband, and father, in a way establishing a theological system of unemployment assistance and social security protection (Deut. 10:18; 14:28–29; 24:19–21; 26:12–15). By doing so, God mandated through legislation the kind of compassion for the unfortunate that Israel should show on their own, but apparently seldom did.
Impure priests. Since we as Christians in the main view ourselves as a “kingdom of priests” (1 Peter 2:9–10; cf. Ex. 19:6), practicing autonomy in worship and service of God, we do not have the same understanding of the importance of priesthood as those in the time of Malachi. In the prehistory of the nation of Israel, an individual had the opportunity to approach God directly in worship and even in sacrifice, without the need of an intermediary (e.g., the first man and woman, Gen. 2–3; Cain and Abel, 4:3–4; Noah, 8:20; Abra[ha]m, 12:7, 8; 13:4; 15:9–10; 22:9–10; Isaac, 26:25; Jacob, 28:18; 31:54; 33:20; 35:14). The idea of needing an intermediary seems only to have arisen at Mount Sinai, when the people were afraid of approaching a holy God directly themselves. For protection, they requested that Moses represent them (Ex. 20:18–21). It was also there that God established a place for worship (Ex. 25–26) and the priesthood to serve there (28:1–5; Lev. 8–9).
The priests had several roles within the life of Israel, not all of them limited to what we ordinarily think of as “religious.” One of their roles foundational for Israelite society was to serve as “boundary setters,” establishing and discerning between sacred and common, ceremonially clean and unclean (Lev. 10:10; Ezek. 44:23). Failure to maintain these boundaries had serious theological ramifications (e.g., Ezek. 22:26), as well as sociological outcomes—for example, when there was not adequate distinction in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah regarding who were suitable marriage partners (see the discussion of “Divorce in the Bible,” 142).
The priests were also to maintain these boundaries in several ways. First, their decisions and determinations about acceptable and unacceptable were not to be kept as esoteric information for their own use but were to be taught to the people (Lev. 10:11; Deut. 17:10–11; 2 Kings 12:2; 17:26–28; Jer. 18:18; Mal. 2:7). The law was not incumbent on the priests only, but on all of the people, so they needed instruction as to what was required of them. When disputes arose about the interpretation of boundaries, the priests functioned as judges and arbiters (Ezek. 44:24; Hag. 2:11–13). This brought their teaching function in touch with practical reality.
A final role was to restore the boundaries, or at least those who transgressed them. This was done through their function as ritual performers. They took an active and central role in the sacrificial and offering system of Israel, one of whose functions was to atone for breaches of covenantal expectations and purification and restoration of those who crossed the boundaries (e.g., Lev. 1–7). In this way they ministered to every level of society, since everyone, from commoner to king, was bound by the law and was expected, through ritual means, to address wrongs they committed (e.g., Lev. 4:3, 13, 22, 27). The priests’ whole role here can be summed up by the concept of “restoration.” The aim was not to exclude people from the community because of their deeds or their condition, but rather to allow the means for restoration.30
An example of what can happen when priests are unprepared is seen in the description of Hezekiah’s attempts to restore faithful worship of Yahweh to a nation who abandoned it under the reign of his father, Ahaz (2 Chron. 29:22–25). He set out to purify the defiled temple, but in order to do so, he first had to call the Levites and priests to sanctify themselves, since they had become lax in their own personal relationship with the holy (29:5). Even though a number of the priests responded, insufficient numbers did so to handle the volume of sacrifices, so the Levites stepped in and helped in a role that was not theirs under the law (29:34; cf. Lev. 1:6). When word spread to the entire nation that revival had broken out, they responded in such numbers that again the limited number of sanctified priests caused a slowdown in the celebration (2 Chron. 30:3), shaming them so they finally responded (30:15). In a situation where a vision of what worship should be came to the leader and ignited also among the people, it was the “middle management,” the priests and Levites, who neglected their God-given functions and who could have derailed the whole process, were it not for God’s grace.
Dereliction of duty in any of these areas had profound consequences for the people as a whole. There were no set standards for what was acceptable and what was not; no one knew what standards there might be; there was no evaluation as to whether standards were being followed, and there was no restoration to a covenant relationship with God once the relationship was breached. This was a serious state of affairs when the nation was a theocracy, operating under the rule of God. A separation on the religious level also led to dissolution on the civil level, and the very existence of the Israelite state and nation was imperiled (see 2 Kings 17:7–20). This is why Malachi needs to take the matter of nonfunctional priests seriously.
Contemporary Significance
RELIGIOUS WRONGS. Too many Christians today live as if they have a spiritual form of what is now called “dissociative identity disorder,” previously known as “split personality disorder.” They take Jesus’ words in Matt. 22:21 (“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”) completely out of context by saying that life is bifurcated; part of what I do is religious, and the rest is secular, and never the twain shall meet. This works out in practice by saying that for two hours on a Sunday morning (and maybe for an hour every now and then on a Wednesday evening) I attend to spiritual things, but the rest of the time is mine. Unfortunately, there is often no discernable impact of those two to three “God” hours on any element of the remaining hours of the week; religion has nothing to do with life in practical terms.
This understanding is foreign to Israel. Even within its foundational document, the Ten Commandments, there are only possibly two of the laws that we consider to be religious: the ban on pagan gods and their images (Ex. 20:3–6). While these had religious implications, they also had a strong sociopolitical element, since each of the surrounding nations also had its own deities. The ban on turning to other gods was also a ban on turning to foreign alliances for protection or benefit instead of relying on the power of Yahweh, Israel’s God.31
The next two commandments, against misuse of God’s name and concerning the Sabbath, also are strongly “secular,” dealing with the taking of oaths and resting from work. While some of the laws in Exodus dealt with religious matters (e.g., idols and altars, 20:22–26), many more dealt with nonreligious aspects of life. It is not that religion or belief was unimportant in Israel, but rather that, in their eyes, there was only religion; under the theocracy of God in the life of Israel, nothing was secular. With this kind of unified view of reality, they did not have to be taught by supernatural signs that “the earth is the LORD’s,” as the Egyptians had to be taught (Ex. 9:29). They sang it as part of their creed (Ps. 24:1; cf. 1 Cor. 10:26) and were aware of him in everything they encountered in it.
Israel was not consistent in their understanding, however, any more than we are in the church. They thought that minimal attempts at religiosity would satisfy God (Mal. 1:8, 13), but forgot that the “secular” needed attention as well; their own fellows had to be treated with justice and righteousness (3:5).
Conservatives within the church, especially in North America, have made this same false bifurcation between “sacred” and “secular.” This is due to a large part to elements of the “fundamentalist-modernist” controversy from the beginning of the twentieth century, most particularly the “social gospel” as espoused by W. Rauschenbusch.32 Because of a perceived tie between social concern and a more liberal theology, conservatives (mostly finding their home in the middle and upper classes) turned their back on social issues (apart from temperance). In some instances, and also for other theological reasons, some also turned their back on the entire political process, with several unfortunate results. The gospel became divided, separating a concern for someone’s eternal destiny from a concern for their temporal well-being. It also made the only Christian message that some of the poor and oppressed heard one of liberal theology.
A healing from our “dissociative identity disorder” is much needed, and we can learn from some of our number, especially those from non-American contexts who have never been strongly affected by the split.33 It will affect our understanding and outworking of what it is to be the body of Christ. It will also affect our understanding of missions, that they are not only an interest in real needs that exist overseas, but equally real, and at times identical, needs that exist next door, but which we have not seen. Since such needs have not been encouraged or at times even allowed to enter our church doors, they have not been noticed by our religious radar, since they are “secular” problems. We need to open our eyes, or possibly a better metaphor, we need to tear down our church walls, thus eliminating this artificial and unbiblical separation and acknowledging that this is all God’s world.