Calvin's Commentary on Malachi
(... continued from file 2)
Lecture One Hundred and Seventy-first.
6. A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master:
if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be
a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts unto
you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein
have we despised thy name?
7. Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say,
Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table
of the Lord is contemptible.
8. And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not
evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil?
offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with
thee, or accept thy person? saith the Lord of hosts.
6. Filius honorat patrem, et servus dominum suum: si
pater ego, ubi honor meus? et si dominus ego, ubi timor
mei? dicit Iehova exercituum ad vos, 0 sacerdotes, qui
contemnitis nomen meum: et dixistis, In quo contempsimus
nomen tuum? 7. Qui of offertis super altare meum panem
pollutum; et dixistis, In quo polluimus te? Quum dicitis,
Mensa Iehovae ipsa est contemptibilis (vel, despecta.) 8.
Si obtuleritis caecum ad immolandum, non malum est? et si
claudum vel mutilum obtuleritis, non malum est? Offer hoc
nonc (vel, agedum, vel, quaeso; dubioe est
significationis, offer ergo, obsecro, hoc) praefecto tuo,
an complacebit ei in te, vel suscipiet faciem tuam, dicit
Iehova exercituum.
God as already proved that he had by many favours
been a Father to the Jews. They must have felt that he
had indeed bound them to himself, provided they possessed
any religion or gratitude. He now then concludes his
address to them, as though he had said, that he had very
ill bestowed all the blessings he had given them; and he
adopts two similitudes; he first compares himself to a
father, and then to a master. He says, that in these two
respects he had a just cause to complain of the Jews; for
he had been a father to them, but they did not in their
turn conduct themselves as children, in a submissive and
obedient manner, as they ought to have done. And farther,
he became their master, but they shook off the yoke, and
allowed not themselves to be ruled by his authority.
As to the word, Father, we have already shown that
the Jews were not only in common with others the children
of God, but had been also chosen as his peculiar people.
Their adoption then made them God's children above all
other nations; for when they differed nothing from the
rest of the world, God adopted them. With regard to the
right and power of a master, God, in the first place,
held them bound to him as the Creator and former of the
whole world; but he also, as it is well known, attained
the right by redemption. That he might then enhance their
crime, he not only expostulates with them for having
abused his favours, but he charges them also with
obstinacy, because they disobeyed his authority, while
yet he was their Lord.
He says, that a son who honours his father, and a
servant his master. He applies the same verb to both
clauses; but he afterwards makes a difference, ascribing
honour to a father and fear to a master. As to the first
clause, we know that whenever there is authority, there
ought to be honour; and when masters are over servants,
they ought to be honoured. But in a subsequent clause he
speaks more distinctly, and says, that a master ought to
be feared by a servant, while honour is due to a father
from a son. For servants do not love their masters; not
being able to escape from their power, they fear them:
but the reverence which sons have for their fathers, is
more generous and more voluntary. But God shows here,
that the Jews could by no means be kept to their duty,
though so many favours ought to have made it their sweet
delight. God had indeed conciliated them as much as
possible to himself, but all was without any benefit. The
majesty also of God ought to have struck them with fear.
It was then the same, as though he had said, that they
were of so perverse a nature, that they could not be led
to obedience either by a kind and gracious invitation, or
by an authoritative command.
The Lord then complains that he ass deprived by the
Jews of the honour which sons owe to their fathers, as
well as of the fear which servants ought to have for
their masters; and thus he shows that they were like
untameable wild beasts, which cannot be tamed by any kind
treatment, nor subdued by scourges, or by any kind of
castigation.
He then adds, To you, 0 priests. It is certain that
this complaint ought not to be confined to the priests
alone, since God, as we have seen, speaks generally of
the whole race of Abraham: for he had said that Levi was
advanced to the sacerdotal honour, while the other
brethren were passed by; but he had said also, that Jacob
was chosen when Esau was rejected; and this belonged in
common to the twelve tribes. Now it ought not, and it
could not, be confined to the tribe of Levi, that God was
their father or their master. Why then does he now
expressly address the priests? They ought indeed to have
been leaders and teachers to the rest of the people, but
he does not on this account exempt the whole people from
blame or guilt, though he directs his discourse to the
priests; for his object was to show that all things had
become so corrupt among the people, that the priests were
become as it were the chief in contempt of religion and
in sacrileges, and in every kind of pollution. It hence
follows that there was nothing sound and right in the
community; for when the eyes themselves are without
light, they cannot discharge their duty to the body, and
what at length will follow?
God then no doubt shows that great corruptions
prevailed and had spread so much among the people, that
they who ought to have been examples to others, had
especially shaken off the yoke and given way to unbridled
licentiousness. This then is the reason why the Prophet
condemns the priests, though at the beginning he included
the whole people, as it is evident from the context.
We must at the same time bear in mind what we have
elsewhere said - that the fault of the people was not
lessened because the sin of the priest was the most
grievous; but that all were involved in the same ruin;
for God in this case did not absolve the common people,
inasmuch as they were guilty of the same sins; but he
shows that the most grievous fault belonged to the
teachers, who had not reproved the people, but on the
contrary increased licentiousness by their dissimulation,
as we shall presently find again.
He says that they despised his name; not that the
fear of God prevailed in others, but that it was the duty
of the priests to reprove the impiety of the whole
people. As then they allowed to others so much liberty,
it appeared quite evident that the name of God was but
little esteemed by them; for had they possessed true
zeal, they would not have suffered the worship of God to
be trodden under foot or profaned, as we shall presently
find to have been the case.
It then follows, Ye have said, In what have we
despised thy name? As the Prophet at the beginning
indirectly touched on the hypocrisy and perverseness of
the people, so he now no doubt repeats the same thing by
using a similar language: for how was it that the priests
as well as the people asked a question on a plain matter,
as though it were obscure, except that they were blind to
their own vices? Now the cause of blindness is hypocrisy,
and then, as it is wont to do, it brings with it
perverseness; for all who deceive themselves, dare even
to raise their horns against God, and petulantly to
clamour that he too severely treats them; for the Prophet
doubtless does not here relate their words, except for
the purpose of showing that they had such a brazen front
and so hard a neck, that they boldly repelled all
reproofs. We see at this day in the world the same
sottishness; for though the crimes reproved are
sufficiently known, yet they, even the most wicked,
immediately object and say that wrong is done to them;
and they will not acknowledge a fault except they be a
hundred times convicted, and even then they will make
some pretence. And truly were there not daily proofs to
teach us how refractory men are towards God, the thing
would be incredible. The Prophet then did no doubt by
this cutting expression goad and also wound the people as
well as the priests, intimating that so gross was their
hypocrisy, that they dared to make shifts, when their
crimes were openly known to all.
Ye have said then, by what have we despised thy
name? They inquired as though they had rubbed their
forehead, and then gained boldness, "What does this mean?
for thou accuses us here of being wicked and
sacrilegious, but we are not conscious of any wrong."
Then the answer is given in God's name, Ye offer on mine
altar polluted bread. A question may be here asked,
"Ought this to have been imputed to the priests as a
crime; for had victims been offered, such as God in his
law commanded, it would have been to the advantage and
benefit of the priests; and had fine corn been brought,
it would have been advantageous to the priests?" But it
seems to me probable, that the priests are condemned
because like hungry and famished men they seized
indiscriminately on all things around them. Some think
that the priests grossly and fraudulently violated the
law by changing the victims - that when a fat ram was
offered, the priests, as they suppose, took it away, and
put in its place a ram that was lean, or lame, or
mutilated. But this view appears not to me suitable to
the passage. Let us then regard the meaning to be what I
have stated - that God here contends with the whole
people, but that he directs his reproofs to the priests,
because they were in two ways guilty, for they formed a
part of the people, and they also suffered God to be
dishonoured; for what could have been more disgraceful
than to offer polluted victims and polluted bread?
If it be now asked, whether this ought to have been
ascribed as a fault to the priests, the answer is this -
that the people then were not very wealthy; for they had
but lately returned from exile, and they had not brought
with them much wealth, and the land was desolate and
uncultivated: as, then, there was so much want among the
people, and they were intent, each on his advantage,
according to what we have seen in the Prophet Haggai,
(ch. i. 4,) and neglected the temple of God and their
sacrifices, there is no doubt but that they wished anyhow
to discharge their duty towards God, and therefore
brought beasts which were either lame or blind; and hence
the whole worship of God was vitiated, their sacrifices
being polluted. The priests ought to have rejected all
these, and to have closed up God's temple, rather than to
have received indiscriminately what God had prohibited.
As then this indifference of the people was nothing but a
profanation of divine worship, the priests ought to have
firmly opposed it. But as they themselves were hungry,
they thought it better to lay hold on everything around
them - "What," they said, "will become of us? for if we
reject these sacrifices, however vicious they may be,
they will offer nothing; and thus we shall starve, and
there will be no advantage; and we shall be forced in
this case to open and to close the temple, and to offer
sacrifices at our own expense, and we are not equal to
this burden." Since then the priests spared the people
for private gain, our Prophet justly reproves them, and
says, ye offer polluted bread.
It was indeed the office of the priests to place
bread daily on the table; but whence could bread be
obtained except some were offered? Now nothing was lost
to the priests, when they daily set bread before God, for
they presently received it; and thus they preferred, as
it was more to their advantage, to offer bread well
approved, made of fine flour: but as I have said, their
own convenience interposed, for they thought that they
could not prevail with the people - "If we irritate these
men, they will deny that they have anything to offer; and
thus the temple will be empty, and our own houses will be
empty; it is then better to take coarse bread from them
than nothing; we shall at least feed our families and
servants with this bread, after having offered it to the
Lord." We hence see how the fault belonged to the
priests, when the people offered polluted bread, and
unapproved victims.
I have hitherto explained the Prophet's words with
reference chiefly to the shew-bread; not that they ought
to be so strictly taken as many interpreters have
considered them; for under the name of bread is included,
we know, every kind of eatables; so it seems probable to
me that the word ought to be extended to all the
sacrifices; but one kind is here mentioned as an example;
and it seems also that what immediately follows is added
as an explanation - ye offer the lame and the blind and
the mutilated. Since these things are connected together,
I have no doubt but that God means by bread here every
kind of offering, and we know that the shew-bread was not
offered on the altar; but there was a table by itself
appointed for this purpose near the altar. And why God
designates by bread all the sacrifices may be easily
explained; for God would have sacrifices offered to him
as though he had his habitation and table among the Jews;
it was not indeed his purpose to fill their minds with
gross imaginations, as though he did eat or drink, as we
know that heathens have been deluded with such notions;
but his design was only to remind the Jews of that
domestic habitation which he had chosen for himself among
them. But more on this subject shall presently be said; I
shall now proceed to consider the words.
Ye offer on my altar polluted bread; and ye have
said, In what have we polluted thee? The priests again
answer as though God unjustly accused them; for they
allege their innocency, as the question is to be regarded
here as a denial: In what then have we polluted thee?
They deny that they were rightly condemned, inasmuch as
they had duly served God. But we may hence conclude,
according to what has been before stated, that the people
were under the influence of gross hypocrisy, and had
become hardened in their obstinacy. It is the same at
this day; though there be such a mass of crimes, which
everywhere prevails in the world, and even overflows the
earth, yet no one will bear to be condemned; for every
one looks on others, and thus when no less grievous sins
appear in others, every one absolves himself. This is
then the sottishness which the Prophet again goads - Ye
have said, In what have we polluted thee? He and other
Prophets no doubt charged the Jews with this sacrilege -
that they polluted the name of God.
But it deserves to be known, that few think that
they pollute God and his name when they worship him
superstitiously or formally, as though they had to do
with a child: but we see that God himself declares, that
the whole of religion is profaned, and that his name is
shamefully polluted when men thus trifle with him.
He answers, when ye said, literally, in your saying,
The table of Jehovah, it is contemptible. Here the
Prophet discovers the fountain of their sin; and he shows
as it were by the finger, that they had despised those
rites which belonged to the worship of God. The reason
follows, If ye offer the blind, he says, for sacrifice,
it is no evil. Some read the last clause as a question,
"is it not evil?" but he, the mark of a question, is not
here; and we may easily gather from the context that the
Prophet as yet relates how presumptuously both the
priests and the whole people thought they could be
acquitted and obtain pardon for themselves, "It is no
evil thing if the lame be offered, if the blind be
offered, if the maimed be offered; there is nothing evil
in all this." We now then understand what the Prophet
means.
But the subject would have been obscure had not a
fuller explanation been given in these words, The table
of Jehovah, it is contemptible. God does here show, as I
have before stated, why he was so much displeased with
the Jews. Nothing is indeed so precious as his worship;
and he had instituted under the law sacrifices and other
rites, that the children of Abraham might exercise
themselves in worshipping him spiritually. It was then
the same as though he had said, that he cared nothing for
sheep and calves, and for any thing of that kind, but
that their impiety was sufficiently manifested, inasmuch
as they did not think that the whole of religion was
despised when they despised the external acts of worship
according to the law. God then brings back the attention
of the Jews from brute animals to himself, as though he
had said, "Ye offer to me lame and blind animals, which I
have forbidden to be offered; that you act unfaithfully
towards me is sufficiently apparent; and if ye say that
these are small things and of no moment, I answer, that
you ought to have regarded the end for which I designed
that sacrifices should be offered to me, and ordered
bread to be laid on my table in the sanctuary; for by
these tokens you ought to have known that I live in the
midst of you, and that whatever ye eat or drink is sacred
to me, and that all you possess comes to you through my
bounty. As then this end for which sacrifices have been
appointed has been neglected by you, it is quite evident
that ye have no care nor concern for true religion.
We now then perceive why the Prophet objects to the
priests, that they had called the table of Jehovah
contemptible; not that they had spoken thus expressly,
but because they had regarded it almost as nothing to
pervert and adulterate the whole of divine worship
according to the law, which was an evidence of religion
when there was any.
Now it may seem strange, that God one while so
strictly requires pure sacrifices and urges the
observance of them, when yet at another time he says that
he does not seek sacrifices, "Sacrifice I desire not, but
mercy," (Hos. 6: 6;) and again, " Have I commanded your
fathers when I delivered them from Egypt, to offer
victims to me? With this alone was I content, that they
should obey my voice." He says afterwards in Micah,
"Shall I be propitious to you if ye offer me all your
flocks? but rather, O man, humble thyself before thy
God." (Mic. 6: 6.) The same is said in the fiftieth
Psalm, in the first and the last chapters of Isaiah, and
in many other places. Since then God elsewhere
depreciates sacrifices, and shows that they are not so
highly esteemed by him, why does he now so rigidly
expostulate with the Jews, because they offered lame and
maimed animals? I answer, that there was a reason why God
should by this reproof discover the impiety of the
people. Had all their victims been fat or well fed, our
Prophet would have spoken as we find that others have
done; but since their faithlessness had gone so far that
they showed even to children that they had no regard for
the worship of God - since they had advanced so far in
shamelessness, it was necessary that they should be thus
convicted of impiety; and hence he says, ye offer to me
polluted bread, as though he had said, " I supply you
with food, it was your duty to offer to me the
first-fruits, the tenths, and the shew-bread; and the
design of these external performances is, that they may
regard themselves as fed by me daily, and also that they
may feed moderately and temperately on the bread and
flesh and other things given them, as though they were
sitting at my table: for when they see that bread made
from the same corn is before the presence of God, this
ought to come to their minds, 'it is God's will, as
though he lived with us, that a portion of the same bread
should ever be set on the holy table:' and then when they
offer victims, they are not only to be thus stirred up to
repentance and faith, but they ought also to acknowledge
that all these are sacred to God, for when they set
before the altar either a calf, or an ox, or a lamb, and
then see the animal sacrificed, (a part of which remains
for the priests,) and the altar sprinkled with blood,
they ought to think thus within themselves, 'Behold, we
have all these things in common with God, as though
clothed in a human form he dwelt with us and took the
same food and the same drink.' They ought then to have
performed in this manner their outward rites."
God now justly complains, that his table was
contemptible, as though he had said, that his favour was
rejected, because the people, as it were in contempt,
brought coarse bread, as though they wished to feed some
swineherd, - a conduct similar to that mentioned in
Zechariah, when God said, that a reward was offered for
him as though he were some worthless hireling, (Zech. 2:
12) - "I have carefully fed you," he says," and I now
demand my reward: ye give for me thirty silverings, a
mean and disgraceful price." So also in this place, Ye
have said, the table of Jehovah, it is polluted. There is
an emphasis in the pronoun; for God shows that he by no
means deserved such a reproach: " Who am I, that ye
should thus despise my table? I have consecrated it, that
ye might have a near access to me, as though I dwelt in
the visible sanctuary; but ye have despised my table as
though I were nothing."
He afterwards adds, Offer this now to thy governor;
will he be pleased with thee? God here complains that
less honour is given to him than to mortals; for he
adduces this comparison, "When any one owes a tribute or
tax to a governor, and brings any thing maimed or
defective, he will not receive it." Hence he draws this
inference, that he was extremely insulted, for the Jews
dared to offer him what every mortal would reject. He
thus reasons from the less to the greater, that this was
not a sacrilege that could be borne, as the Jews had so
presumptuously abused his kindness; and hence he subjoins
9. And now, I pray you, beseech God that he will be
gracious unto us: this hath been by your means: will he
regard your persons? saith the Lord of hosts.
9. Et nunc deprecamini quaeso faciem Dei, et miserabitur
nostri; (e manu vestra factum est hoc;) an suscipict ex
vobis faciem, dicit Iehova exercituum.
He wounds here the priests more grievously, -
because they had so degenerated as to be wholly unworthy
of their honourable office and title; "Go," he says, "and
entreat the face of God." All this is ironical; for
interpreters are much mistaken who think that the Prophet
here exhorts the priests humbly to ask pardon from God,
both for themselves and for the people. On the contrary,
he addresses them, as I have said, ironically, while
telling them to be intercessors and mediators between God
and the people; and yet they were profane men, who on
their part polluted the whole worship of God, and thus
subverted the whole of religion: go thou and entreat, he
says, the face of God. This duty, we know, was enjoined
on the priests; they were to draw nigh to the sanctuary
and present themselves before God as though they were
advocates pleading the cause of the people, or at least
intercessors to pacify God. Since then they were in this
respect the types of Christ, it behoved them to strive
themselves to be holy; and though the people abandoned
themselves to all kinds of wickedness, it yet became the
priests to devote themselves with all reverence to the
duties of their calling; and as God had preferred them to
their brethren, they ought especially to have consecrated
themselves to him with all fear; for the more excellent
their condition was, the more eminent ought to have been
their piety and holiness. Justly then does the Prophet
here inveigh so severely against them, because they did
not consider that they were honoured with the priesthood,
that they might entreat God, and thus pacify his wrath,
and reconcile to him miserable men: Go, he says, and
entreat the face of God; forsooth! he will accept your
face. We now understand the real meaning of the Prophet.
And now, he says, he will have mercy on us. Here
also the Prophet derides them, because they boasted that
they could prevail through their own high dignity to
render God propitious; forsooth! he says, he will have
mercy on us. But this is done by your hand, [i.e., by
you.] "Do ye raise up your hands to God? and will he on
seeing you be pacified towards you? As then ye are
polluted, ye are unworthy of the honour and office, in
which ye so proudly glory."
He does not however, as we have already said,
extenuate the fault of the people, and much less does he
exempt them from guilt who were implicated in the same
crimes; but he shows that the state of things was wholly
desperate; for the common people disregarded God, and the
priests, neglecting to make any distinctions, received
every sort of victims, only that they might not be in
want: he shows them that the state of the people was
extremely bad, as there was no one who could, according
to what his office required, pacify God. Will he then
receive your face? The Prophet seems to allude to the
person of the Mediator; for as Christ had not as yet
appeared, when the priest presented himself before the
altar, it was the same as though God looked on the face
of one, and became thus propitious to all. On this
account he says, that the priests were not worthy that
God should look on them, since they had polluted his
sanctuary and corrupted his whole service. For the same
purpose he subjoins -
10. Who is there even among you that would shut the doors
for naught? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for
nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of
hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand.
10. Quis etiam in vobis qui claudat ostia, et non
incenditis altare meum gratis? non mihi placet in vobis,
dicit Iehova exercituum; et oblationem non habebo gratam
e manu vestry.
He goes on with the same subject, - that the priests
conducted themselves very shamefully in their office, and
that the people had become hardened through their
example, so that the whole of religion was disregarded.
Hence he says, that the doors were not closed by them.
Some interpreters connect the two things together - that
they closed not the doors of the temple, nor kindled the
altar for nothing; and thus they apply the adverb ,
chenam, to both clauses; as though he had said, that they
were hirelings, who did not freely devote themselves to
serve God, but looked for profit and gain in everything:
and this is the commonly received explanation. But it
seems better to me to take them separately and to say,
Who does even shut the doors? not however for nothing,
and the copulative , vau, as in many other places, may be
rendered even: and yet ye kindle not for nothing my
altar; as though God had said, "I have fixed your works;
ye are then to me as hired servants; and now since I have
ordered a reward to be given to you whenever ye stand at
my altar, why do ye not close my door?" Some render
chinam, in vain, and give this explanation "Who closes
the doors? then kindle not afterwards in vain my altar;"
as though God rejected the whole service, which had been
corrupted by the avarice or the sloth of the priests, and
by the presumption of the people.
It is indeed certain that it is better to separate
the two clauses so that the adverb , chinam, may be
confined to the letter; but there may yet, as I have
said, be a two-fold meaning. If we render , chinam, in
vain the import is that the Prophet declares that they
laboured to no purpose while they thus sacrificed to God
contrary to his law for they ought to have attended
especially to the rule prescribed to them: as then they
despised this, he justly says, "Offer not to me in vain;"
and thus the future tense is to be taken for the
imperative, as we know is the case sometimes in Hebrew.
But no interpreter seems to have sufficiently
considered the reason why the Prophet speaks of not
closing the doors of the temple. The priests, we know
were set over the temple for this reason - that nothing
polluted might be admitted; for there were of the Levites
some doorkeepers, and others stood at the entrance; in
short, all had their stations: and then when they had
brought in the victim it was the office of the priests to
examine it and to see that it was such as the law of God
required. As then it was their special office to see that
nothing polluted should be received into the temple of
God, he justly complains here that they indiscriminately
received what was faulty and profane: hence he rightly
declares (for this seems to me to be the true exposition)
"Offer not in vain." He then draws the conclusion, that
the priests lost all their labour in thus sacrificing,
because God would not have his name profaned, and justly
preferred obedience to all sacrifices. He therefore
denies that they did any good in slaying victims, because
they ought in the first place to have attended to this -
not to change anything in God's word and not to deviate
from it in the least. But I cannot now proceed farther.
PRAYER.
Grant, Almighty God, that as thou best been pleased
in thine infinite mercy not only to choose from among us
some to be priests to thee, but also to consecrate us all
to thyself in thine only begotten Son, - O grant, that we
at this day may purely and sincerely serve thee, and so
strive to devote ourselves wholly to thee, that we may be
pure and chaste in mind, soul, and body, and that thy
glory may so shine forth in all our performances, that
thy worship among us may be holy, and pure, and approved
by thee, until we shall at length enjoy that glory to
which thou invites us by thy gospel, and which has been
obtained for us by the blood of thine only-begotten Son -
Amen.
Calvin's Commentary on Malachi
(continued in file 4...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-09: cvmal-03.txt
.