Malachi 2:1-4To: Malachi Main MenuTo: Grace Notes Home Page Malachi 2:1"And now this admonition is for you, O priests."The term for "admonition" is the Pual future of TSAWAH, and is more properly a threat of discipline than an admonition. And it refers back to "cursed" in Malachi 1:14. Thus, God is providing a warning before He administers punishment, and this is ever God's way. And the term for "priests" is COHEN, and it is interesting to note that in Job 12:19 the term is translated "princes." And this word, prince, implies a relationship with royalty. This is precisely what the priests of Malachi's day do not have: they are unbelievers and have no relationship with Christ, the royal One, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Malachi 2:2"'If you do not listen, and if you do not set your heart to honor my name,' says the Lord Almighty, 'I will send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not set your heart to honor me.'"Verse 2 begins with the hypothetical particle which suggests that 'maybe they will and maybe they will not' listen to God's warning and God's word; the particle allows the freewill of the priests total predominance. The Hebrew SUM, means "to set, to apply the heart to an object;" [33] and the "heart" is the soul. So the priests are to place God's word in their souls as spiritual information. The term for "curse" is 'ARUR, and is referred to as the 'ARUR FORMULA; for first the act of cursing takes place, then the curse is described in the text. "In this case, the curse formula is the most severe means of separating the community from the evildoer. It is significant that the only ones who pronounce such a curse in the OT are God, the king, those in positions of authority, or the whole assembly of the people. This sort of curse is always conditional, and thus takes effect only when the situation it is intended to prevent exists." [34] Thus, by their arrogance and self-sufficiency the priests, in effect, 'curse' themselves. The verse states that God will send the 'curse' upon them; thus God Himself will administer and apportion the curse to the Levitical priests. Furthermore, the verse adds that God will curse their "blessings." The term for "blessings" is BARUKH, and the 'blessings' of the Levitical priests were many and varied, but the two in view here are: 1. The blessing to the tribe of Levi and the line of Aaron to be priests, i.e., "to approach God." And the final sentence in verse 2 asserts that the curse is in effect and will take place. Why? "Because you have not set your heart to honor me." This pronouncement echoes that made in Deuteronomy 28:45, which states, "All these curses will come upon you. They will pursue you and overtake you Until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the Lord your God and observe the commands and decrees he gave you." Malachi 2:3"Because of you I will rebuke your descendants; I will spread on your faces the offal from your festival sacrifices, and you will be carried off with it."Verse 3 is the description of the curse just stated in verse 2. The curse is said to be upon the "descendants" of the priesthood. The Hebrew term for "rebuke" is GA'AR, "to rebuke." And Mal. 2:3 is acknowledged as a crux interpretum, which is a passage that is difficult to interpret. However, comparing Deuteronomy 28:20, I Samuel 2:31, and Malachi 2:3, clarifies the matter. Yahweh is cursing the descendants of the Levitical priests with eradication. And both Robert Thieme and A. Caquot sustain this translation. [36] In other words, the Levitical priesthood, specifically, is at risk in this particular instance. And the fulfillment of this prophetical statement in Malachi 2:3 arrived in Jerusalem in 70 AD, approximately 500 years after it was documented. The Eradication of the Levitical PriesthoodRecall that the Levitical priesthood was restricted to the tribe of Levi, the line of Aaron. Thus Aaron and his progeny comprised the Levitical priesthood. In Malachi 2:3, God states that one of the components of the 'curse' to the priests will be the eradication of their genealogical rolls. In other words, the Rabbinical system of present day Judaism is apostate in the sense that it is not traditional, nor is it founded on an accepted register of ancestry, i.e., it is not from the tribe of Levi, the line of Aaron. The Jews observe the feasts, but they do not satisfy the rituals of the feasts. Why? Because satisfaction depends upon the function of a Levitical priest. And because of the destruction of the records in the Temple in 70 AD, they cannot dogmatically assert who is and who is not from the tribe of Levi, the line of Aaron. Thus, the Levitical priesthood was "confused" and replaced by the Rabbinical system. [37] The priests have "offal" or dung on their faces. And God has "spread" it there by corrupting their "seed." And the term for "offal" or dung is "excrement, dung", so called as being separated and thrown off; dung of sacrifices." [38] The connection is obvious; God has 'thrown off' the unbelieving priests just as the priests threw off the excrement of the sacrifices. Just as the excrement of the Old Testament sacrifices was carried outside the camp and disposed of, so the priests, in 70 AD, would be carried outside of the nation of Israel and disposed of. Quite plainly, God is saying this: 'You unbelieving priests are as spiritual as dung. Therefore I will dispose of you as I would dung.' The disposal of the feces of the sacrifices is cited in the following passages: Exodus 29:14; Leviticus 8:17; 16:27; Number 19:5; and Leviticus 4:11, 12, which says, "But the hide of the bull and all its flesh, as well as the head and legs, the inner parts and offal -- that is, all the rest of the bull -- he must be taken outside the camp to a place ceremonially clean, where the ashes are thrown, and burn it in a wood fire on the ash heap." And the 'one' "that will carry them (the priests) off with it (the dung)" was Senatus Populusque Romanus, Rome, in 70 AD. For Titus Flavius Sabinus Vespasianus, eldest son and general of the Emperor Vespasian, crushed the Jewish Revolt by capturing Jerusalem in 70 AD. Malachi 2:4"'And you will know that I have sent you this admonition so that my covenant with Levi may continue,' says the Lord Almighty."Verse 4 introduces the "covenant with Levi," and the concept of "covenant" demands our attention. LeviLevi, whose name means "joined or attached," was the third son of Jacob and his wife Leah. Levi and his older brother, Simeon, perfidiously butchered prince Hamor, his son Shechem, and the Hivites, who were a Canaanite people, for the rape of their sister Dinah. And for this act, Levi did not inherit the land. Instead, Levi was cursed by Jacob as Jacob lay dying, according to Genesis 49:7, which states, "Cursed be their anger, so fierce, and their fury so cruel! I will scatter them in Jacob and disperse them in Israel." The operative word in Genesis 49:7 is PUTS, which means "to scatter what was before united." [39] In other words, the tribe of Levi would be "scattered" throughout Israel and would not occupy a tract of land as the other tribes. However, the grace of God is dynamic, i.e., grace never languishes and becomes static, nor is grace rigid; in fact grace pursues and desires to bless an object. And thus "cursing was turned to blessing" [40] by God for the tribe of Levi. For the Levites remained faithful to God and to Moses during the iconoclastic apostasy of Exodus 32:25-29, of which verse 26 says, "So he (Moses) stood at the entrance to the camp and said, 'Whoever is for the Lord, come to me.' And all the Levites rallied to him." This faithfulness to the Lord resulted in the tribe of Levi becoming the priestly tribe. The word for priest is COHEN, which eventually became the surname of the tribe of Aaron. And the term was bestowed with the sense of "one who attends upon God, to administer in things pertaining to the service of God." [41] Numbers 25:10-13 relates the faithfulness of Phinehas, a priest, with whom God renewed His covenant, and Phinehas became high priest. And Numbers 3:5-13, 8:14-19 and Deuteronomy 33:8-11 relate the provisions of the covenant or contract with the tribe of Levi. [42] In summary, the covenant depended upon the following four clauses: 1. The priesthood was limited to the tribe of Levi, the family of Aaron (the Cohens). This clause speaks of 'mediation,' and will be covered in detail later on. It is apparent that the priests of Malachi's day were in 'breach of contract.' For they had broken the third clause, i.e., they were not believers in Christ, nor were they faithful to God. Contracts In law, a contract is a formal agreement that creates an obligation on both parties of the contract, and binds both parties to the contract. Contracts are generally of two types: by specialty or simple. A special contract or contract by specialty only has validity based upon the formal execution of the contract. In other words, the contract is not valid unless all the conditions of the contract are executed and fulfilled. And, generally, the specialty contract takes the form of a covenant. It is interesting to note that contracts by specialty do not enjoin consideration for the exchanged promise. In other words, equal consideration is not necessary in this type of contract. Consideration is given after the execution of the contract. And in context, in Malachi, the consideration would be salvation after the execution of the contract, i.e., faith in Christ. And taking the analogy one step further, it may be noted that Christ Himself had a specialty contract with God the Father, and that consideration, i.e, the salvation of mankind, was not accomplished until the actual execution of the contract took place, i.e., spiritual death on the Cross. Once the contract has been breached, litigation may take place for specific performance, which is the right of one party (in this instance, God) to have the other party (the priests) execute the contract according to the explicit conditions of the contract. And if the contract is not fulfilled exactly, breach exists, and suit for a temporary or permanent injunction may take place. In is apparent, then, that the priests of Malachi's day had broken the contract, they had failed to provide specific performance. And God is seeking a temporary injunction against them for lack of specific performance. The delimitation of the priesthood to the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron speaks of 'mediation.' This concept deserves detailed discussion. MediationThe concept of 'mediation' is related in Job 9:2,32,33, which say, "Most surely do I know that this is so; but how can mortal man be just with God? For He is not a man like me, that I should say, 'Let us together, come, and plead!' Oh! that there were an Arbiter with us, One who could put His hand upon us both!" [43] Thus, in this passage Job is seeking someone who is equal to both man and God to act as his mediator. In theology, mediation results in the reconciliation of God and mankind. A mediator intercedes between two parties that are at variance and reconciles them. And a mediator equally represents both parties in the variance. I Timothy 2:5,6 state that mediation between God and mankind depends upon the redemptive work of Christ: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men -- the testimony given in its proper time." It may be deduced from this passage, then, that Christ is equal to both parties in the variance, God and mankind; thus, Christ is the God-Man. Galatians 3:19,20 assert the consanguinity (connection) of the Mosaic Law and mediation. And the connnection is this: the Mosaic Law could not provide salvation, i.e., the law did not save, it only condemned. So without the Mediator, there could be no salvation. Thus, mediation had to occur. "What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of trangressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one." Hebrews 9:15 confirms the identity of the Mediator, "For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance -- now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant." Hebrews 12:24 relates the blood of the animal sacrifices (the Levitical offerings) to the Mediator. The blood of the animals depicted in shadow form the real blood of the real sacrifice that was to take place: Christ upon the Cross. "To Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." In other words, the "sprinkled blood" of the spiritual death of Christ "speaks a better word," i.e., provides real salvation. Whereas the blood of Abel's animal sacrifices couldn't save anybody from anything -- they only taught of Christ to come. Finally, Hebrews 8:6 compares the shadow theology of the animal sacrifices with the real sacrifice of Christ on the Cross: "But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises." [44] The Etymology of 'Covenant'The Hebrew term for 'covenant' is BERITH. And the term appears to be related to the Akkadian BIRITU, "to clasp," "to fetter." "This is supported by the Akkadian and Hittite terms for treaty: Akk. RIKSU, Hitt. ISHIUL, both meaning 'bond.' The concept of a binding settlement also stands behind Ara. 'aqd, Lat. vinculum fidei, 'bond of faith,' contractus, 'contract,' and is likewise reflected in German Bund. The original meaning of the Heb. BERITH is not 'agreement or settlement between two parties,' as is commonly argued. BERITH implies first and foremost the notion of 'imposition,' 'liability,' or 'obligation.'" [45] And the most significant passage in the New Testament relating to the concept of 'covenant' is Hebrews 9:16 and 17. "The real point which the passage brings out is that the victim represents the makers of the covenant, i.e. the contracting parties, and they could only be united representatively in the victim by means of its death. So in the death of Christ man and God are made one. It is a covenant, not a last will and testament, which is in the writer's mind." [46] Hebrews 9:16 and 17 "In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living." Immediate summary: the blood of the Old Testament, the animal sacrifices, teaches of the blood of the New Testament, the Blood of Christ. But without the actual, real, and literal spiritual death of Christ on the Cross, none of this blood does anybody any good. Verses 16 and 17 of Hebrews state that the blood of the animal sacrifices illustrated that physical death could not save mankind. Only the Blood of Christ, i.e., His spiritual death, was efficacious. Thus the Blood of Christ fulfills the shadow blood of the Levitical offerings. The covenant with Levi was based on the future spiritual death of Christ on the Cross -- and this was part of the function of the priesthood of the Levites, to teach through the blood of the animal sacrifices that the covenant was not in effect, nor fulfilled, until the real sacrifice took place. And in Malachi's day, the priesthood had failed to do this, and not only this, they had also failed to believe in Christ themselves. Robert Thieme translates verse 17 of Hebrews 9 as follows: "For a covenant is valid upon deaths because it is not ever valid as long as the one having made the covenant lives." In other words, the specific performance that must take place before any of the covenants of the Old Testament or New Testament are valid, or before any of the promises concerning the covenants are valid, is that reconciliation between God and mankind must take place. And this only happens through the deaths, physical and spiritual, of Christ on the Cross. E.W. Bullinger translates Hebrews 9:16-18 as follows: "For where a covenant is, here must also of necessity be the death of him (or that) which makes [the sacrifice]. For a covenant is of force over dead [victims or sacrifices]; otherwise it is never held to be of force while he who is the appointed [sacrifice] is alive. Whereupon neither the first [covenant] was dedicated without blood," etc. In other words, the covenant is no good while the sacrifice still lives. So salvation is no good and cannot take place until Christ dies spiritually on the Cross. If Christ did not go to the Cross, then none of the covenants, none of God's promises to mankind, none of God's Words are in effect. And that means that there is no salvation -- unless Christ goes to the Cross. This means that all the saved Old Testament believers would have had their salvation recalled from the factory, if the real blood of Christ did not replace the shadow blood of the animal sacrifices. And also note that the word for "testator" in Heb. 9:16,17 is masculine in gender; but that its antecedent is feminine; yet the masculine is used throughout the verse for the one who provides the covenant. Why? Because the sacrifice is Christ Himself. Thus, the Greek word for sacrifice is feminine, HE THUSIA; the Hebrew word for sacrifice is ZAVACH, and it is masculine; and the Greek word for 'covenantmaker' is HO DIATHEMENOS, which again is masculine; thus the masculine gender is used because HO DIATHEMENOS agrees with the Hebrew thought, rather than with the Greek word. And all this points to Christ as being the only real sacrifice. There are no covenants without Christ on the Cross. [47] Thus, in verse 4, God is warning the priests of Malachi's day that they have breached the contract. If the covenant is to continue, the priests must change their minds about Christ. Notes: [33] Wilson, William. Old Testament Word Studies; page 383. [34] Botterweck, Ringgren, Eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament; vol. i., page 409,410. [35] Ibid; vol. ii., page 303. [36] Robert Thieme so translates in his exegesis of Malachi, from notes, 1968. And A. Caquot agrees in vol. iii., page 49, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. [37] Thieme, Robert. Malachi; from notes, 1968. Revised, altered and appended by R.E. Radic. [38] Wilson, William. Word Studies in the Old Testament; page 137. [39] Wilson, William. Old Testament Word Studies; page 371. [40] Thieme, Robert. Malachi; from notes, 1968. [41] Wilson, William. Ibid.; page 327. [42] Thieme, Robert. Malachi; 1968. The above exposition on the 'Contract with Levi' was first and originally compiled by Robert Thieme; appended, altered and revised by R.E. Radic. [43] Bullinger, E.W. The Book of Job; page 84,87. The above translation from Job 9 is by E.W. Bullinger. [44] Thieme, Robert. Doctrine of Mediatorship; orginally compiled by Robert Thieme; revised, altered and appended by R.E. Radic. From notes on Hebrews, by Robert Thieme, 1975. [45] Botterweck, Ringgren, Editors. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament; vol. ii. page 254, 255. [46] Girdlestone, Robert. Synonyms of the Old Testament; page 214. [47] Bullinger, E.W. Figures Of Speech Used in the Bible; page 533. There is no charge for Grace Notes Materials. You can help further this work by your prayer and by sending a contribution to: Grace Notes 1705 Aggie Lane Austin, Texas 78757 wdoud@bga.com Grace Notes Web site: http://www.realtime.net/~wdoud/ Anonymous FTP site: ftp://ftp.bga.com/vendors/wdoud/ Grace Notes is a ministry of Village Missions International. |
|
|