John Calvin Commentary Malachi 1

Those who explain משא, mesha, burden, as meaning prophecy, without exception, are mistaken, as I have elsewhere reminded you; for prophecy is not everywhere called a burden. Whenever this word is expressed, some judgment of God is always to be understood. It appears evident from Jeremiah 23:38 that this word was regarded as ominous, so that the ungodly, when they wished to brand the Prophets with some mark of reproach, used this as a common proverb, “It is a burden,” thereby intimating that the Prophets brought nothing else but threatenings and terrors, in order that they might have some excuse for closing their ears and for evading all prophecies by giving them an unhappy and ominous name.

As we proceed, it will become evident that the doctrine of Malachi is not without reason called a Burden. For, as I have stated in part and as will be more fully seen later, it was necessary that the people should be summoned before God’s tribunal, since many sins had again begun to prevail among them, sins of a kind that could not be endured; and for this reason, he says that God’s judgment was near.

But under the name of Israel, he refers only to those who had returned to their own country, whether they were of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin, or of the tribe of Levi. It is nevertheless probable that some from the other tribes were also mixed with them.

However, the people of Judah and their neighbors, the half tribe of Benjamin, had almost exclusively returned to their country, with the exception of the Levites, who had been their guides on the journey and encouraged the rest of the people. They were still called Israel indiscriminately, since pure religion continued only among them.

In contrast, those who remained dispersed among foreign and heathen nations had, as it were, lost their name, even though they had not wholly departed from the pure worship of God and true religion. Hence, by way of preeminence, those who had reassembled in the holy land were called Israel, so that they might there enjoy the inheritance promised to them from above.

The word hand, as we have observed elsewhere, means ministration. The meaning then is that this doctrine proceeded from God, but that a minister, even Malachi, was employed as an instrument; so that he brought nothing of his own but only faithfully related what had been committed to him by God, from whom it came.

I am compelled by the context to read all these verses, for the sense cannot be otherwise completed. God expostulates here with a perverse and ungrateful people because they doubly deprived Him of His right: He was neither loved nor feared, though He had a just claim to the name and honor of a master as well as that of a father.

Since the Jews paid Him no reverence, He complains that He was defrauded of His right as a father. And as they had no fear for Him, He condemns them for not acknowledging Him as their Lord and Master by submitting to His authority. But before He comes to this, He shows that He was both their Lord and Father, and He declares that He was especially their Father because He loved them.

So now we understand the Prophet’s intention, for God designed to show here how debased the Jews were, as they acknowledged Him neither as their Father nor as their Lord; they neither reverenced Him as their Lord, nor regarded Him as their Father. But He brings forward, as I have already said, His benefits, by which He proves that He deserved the honor due to a father and to a master.

Hence He says, I loved you. God might indeed have made an appeal to the Jews on another ground, for even if He had not manifested His love to them, they were still bound to submit to His authority. He is not speaking here of God’s love generally, such as He shows to the whole human race. Instead, He condemns the Jews because, having been freely adopted by God as His holy and special people, they still forgot this honor, despised the Giver, and regarded what He taught them as nothing.

When therefore God says that He loved the Jews, we see that His object was to convict them of ingratitude for having despised the unique favor bestowed on them alone, rather than to press the authority which He possesses over all mankind generally. God then might have addressed them this way: “I have created you and have been a kind Father to you; by My favor the sun shines on you daily, and the earth produces its fruit. In a word, I hold you bound to Me by innumerable benefits.”

God might have spoken to them like this, but as I have said, His object was to bring forward the gratuitous adoption with which He had favored the seed of Abraham. For it was an even more intolerable impiety that they had despised so incomparable a favor, since God had preferred them to all other nations, not on the ground of merit or any worthiness, but because it pleased Him to do so. This then is the reason why the Prophet begins by saying that the Jews had been loved by God: for they had made the worst return for this gratuitous favor when they despised His doctrine. This is the first point.

Furthermore, there is no doubt that He indirectly condemns their ingratitude when He says, In what have you loved us? The words indeed may be explained this way: “If you say, or if you ask, ‘In what have I loved you?’ Even in this: I preferred your father Jacob to Esau, even though they were twin brothers.” But we shall see in other places that the Jews by evasions malignantly obscured God’s favor, and that this wickedness is condemned in similar words. Hence the Prophet, seeing that he had to do with debased men, who would not easily yield to God nor acknowledge His kindness by a free and sincere confession, introduces them here as speaking thus clamorously, “Indeed! When have You loved us? In what way? The tokens of Your love do not appear.” He answers in God’s name, Esau was Jacob’s brother; and yet I loved Jacob, and Esau I hated.

We now see what I have just referred to: that the Jews are reminded of God’s gratuitous covenant, that they might cease to excuse their wickedness in having misused this unique favor. He does not then upbraid them here because they had been, like other men, created by God, because God caused His sun to shine on them, or because they were supplied with food from the earth. Rather, He says that they had been preferred to other people, not on account of their own merit, but because it had pleased God to choose their father Jacob.

He might have cited Abraham here as an example. But since Jacob and Esau descended from Abraham, with whom God had made the covenant, His favor was the more remarkable because, although Abraham alone had been chosen by God and other nations were passed by, yet from the very family which the Lord had adopted, one was chosen while the other was rejected.

When comparing Esau and Jacob, we must remember that they were brothers. But there are other circumstances to be noted, which, though not expressed here by the Prophet, are still well known. For all the Jews knew that Esau was the first-born, and that Jacob had therefore obtained the right of primogeniture contrary to the order of nature. Since this was commonly known, the Prophet was content to use only this one sentence: Esau was Jacob’s brother.

But he says that Jacob was chosen by God, and that his brother, the first-born, was rejected. If the reason is asked, it is not to be found in their descent, for they were twin brothers; and they had not yet emerged from the womb when the Lord by an oracle testified that Jacob would be the greater. Hence we see that the origin of all the excellence that belonged to the descendants of Abraham is here ascribed to the gratuitous love of God, according to what Moses often said: “Not because you excelled other nations, or were more in number, has God honored you with so many benefits; but because he loved your fathers.”

The Jews then had always been reminded that they were not to seek for the cause of their adoption anywhere but in the gratuitous favor of God; He had been pleased to choose them—this was the source of their salvation. We now understand the Prophet’s design when he says that Esau was Jacob’s brother, and yet was not loved by God.

We must at the same time bear in mind what I have already said: that this unique favor of God towards the children of Jacob is referred to in order to make them ashamed of their ingratitude, since God had set His love on such unworthy objects. For if they had been deserving, they might have boasted that a reward was given to them; but as the Lord had gratuitously and of His own good pleasure conferred this benefit on them, their impiety was even less excusable. This baseness then is what our Prophet now reprobates.

Then follows a proof of hatred towards Esau: the Lord made his mountain a desolation, and his inheritance a desert where serpents dwelt. Esau, we know, when driven away by his own shame, or by his father’s displeasure, came to Mount Seir; and the whole region where his descendants dwelt was rough and enclosed by many mountains.

But if anyone were to object and say that this was no remarkable sign of hatred, as it might on the other hand be said that the love of God towards Jacob was not much shown because he dwelt in the land of Canaan (since the Chaldeans inhabited a country more pleasant and more fruitful, and the Egyptians also were very wealthy), to this the answer is that the land of Canaan was a symbol of God’s love, not only on account of its fruitfulness, but because the Lord had consecrated it to Himself and to His chosen people.

So Jerusalem was not superior to other cities of the land—either to Samaria or Bethlehem, or other towns—on account of its situation, for it stood, as is well known, in a hilly country, and it had only the spring of Siloam, from which flowed a small stream; and the view was not so beautiful, nor its fertility great. At the same time, it excelled in other things, for God had chosen it as His sanctuary; and the same must be said of the whole land.

Since then the land of Canaan was, as it were, a pledge of an eternal inheritance to the children of Abraham, the Scripture on this account greatly extols it and speaks of it in magnificent terms. If Mount Seir was very wealthy and filled with everything delightful, it must still have been a sad exile to the Idumeans, because it was a sign of their reprobation. For Esau, when he left his father’s house, went there; and he became, as it were, an alien, having deprived himself of the heavenly inheritance, as he had sold his birthright to his brother Jacob. This is the reason why God declares here that Esau was sent away, as it were, to the mountains, and deprived of the Holy Land which God had destined for His chosen people.

But the Prophet also adds another thing: that God’s hatred was manifested when the descendants of Esau became extinct. For though the Assyrians and Chaldeans had raged no less cruelly against the Jews than against the Edomites, yet the outcome was very different. After seventy years the Jews returned to their own country, as Jeremiah had promised; yet Idumea was not to be restored, but the signs of God’s dreadful wrath had always appeared there in its sad desolations.

Since then there had been no restoration for Idumea, the Prophet shows that by this fact the love of God towards Jacob and His hatred towards Esau had been proved. For it had not been through human contrivance that the Jews were given liberty and allowed to build the temple, but because God had chosen them in the person of Jacob and destined them to be a special and holy people to Himself.

But as to the Edomites, it then became all the more evident that they had been rejected in the person of Esau, since, once laid waste, they saw that they were doomed to perpetual destruction. This then is the meaning of the Prophet’s words when he says that the possession of Esau had been given to serpents.

For, as I have already said, though for a time the condition of Judea and Idumea had not been dissimilar, yet when Jerusalem began to rise and be repaired, God then clearly showed that that land had not been given in vain to His chosen people. But when the neighboring country was not restored—while the descendants of Esau might, with less suspicion, have repaired their houses—it therefore became sufficiently evident that the curse of God was upon them.

And to the same purpose he adds, If Edom says, We have been diminished, but we will return and build houses; but if they build, I will pull down, says God. He confirms what I have stated: that the descendants of Edom had no hope of restoration, for however much courage they might gather and diligently labor in rebuilding their cities, they were still not to succeed, for God would pull down all their buildings.

This difference then was like a vivid illustration by which the Jews might see the love of God towards Jacob and His hatred towards Esau. For since both people were overthrown by the same enemy, why was it that liberty was given to the Jews and no permission was given to the Idumeans to return to their own country?

There was, as has been said, greater ill-will towards the Jews, and yet the Chaldeans dealt with them more kindly. It then follows that all this was due to the wonderful purpose of God, and that hence it also appeared that the adoption, which seemed to have been abolished when the Jews were driven into exile, was not in vain.

Thus then says Jehovah of hosts, They will build—that is, though they may build—I will overthrow; and it will be said to them, Border of ungodliness, and a people with whom Jehovah is angry forever. By ‘the border of ungodliness’ he means an accursed border, as if he had said, “It will openly appear that you are reprobate, so that the whole world can form a judgment by the event itself.”

By adding, A people with whom Jehovah is angry, or displeased, he again confirms what I have said of love and hatred. God might indeed have been equally angry with the Jews as with the Edomites; but when God became reconciled with the Jews, while He continued inexorable towards the descendants of Esau, the difference between the two people was therefore quite clear.

Also to be noted are the words עד-עולם, od-oulam, forever. For God seemed for a time to have rejected the Jews, and the Prophets adopt the same word זעם, som, angry, when they deplore the condition of the people, who found in various ways that God was angry with them. But the wrath of God towards the Jews was only for a time, for He did not wholly forget His covenant. However, He became angry with the Edomites forever, because their father had been rejected.

And we know that this difference between the elect and the reprobate is always pointed out: that when God visits sins in general, He always moderates His wrath towards His elect and sets limits to His severity, according to what He says: “If his descendants do not keep my covenant, but profane my law, I will chastise them with the rod of man; but my mercy I will not take away from him” (Psalms 89:31–33; 2 Samuel 7:14). But with regard to the reprobate, God’s vengeance always pursues them, is always suspended over their heads, and always fixed, as it were, in their bones and marrow. For this reason our Prophet says that God would be angry with the descendants of Esau.

He adds, Your eyes will see. The Jews had already begun in part to witness this spectacle, but the Prophet speaks here of what was to continue. See then your eyes will see; that is, “As it has already appeared of what benefit gratuitous election has been to you, by which I have chosen you as My people, and as you have also seen on the other hand how it has been with your relations the Edomites, because they had been rejected in the person of their father Esau, so also this same difference will always be evident to you in their descendants: see then your eyes will see.”

And you will say, Let Jehovah be magnified over the border of Israel. That is, “The event itself will extort this confession: that I greatly enhance My goodness towards you.” For though signs of God’s grace shone forth everywhere, and the earth, as the Psalmist says, is full of His goodness (Psalms 104:24), yet there was in Judea something special. Thus our Prophet does not say in vain that there would always be reasons for the Jews to celebrate God’s praises on account of His bounty to them more than to the rest of the world.

And the Prophet no doubt indirectly reproves here the wickedness of the people, as if he had said: “You indeed, as far as you can, bury God’s benefits, or at least diminish them. But facts themselves must draw from you this confession: that God deals bountifully with the border of Israel, that He exercises His favor there more remarkably than among any of the nations.”

After briefly referring to those benefits which ought to have filled the Jews with shame, he comes at last to the subject he had in view. For his main object, as I have already stated, was to show that it was God’s complaint that He was deprived of His own right in a double sense: for the Jews did not reverence Him as their Father, nor fear Him as their Lord.

He might indeed have called Himself Lord and Father by the right of creation, but He preferred, as I have already explained, to appeal to their adoption. For it was a remarkable favor when the Lord chose some out of all the human race; and we cannot say that the cause of this was to be found in men. Those whom He designs to choose, He binds to Himself by a holier bond. But if they disappoint Him, their treachery is wholly inexcusable.

As we now understand the Prophet’s meaning and the object of this expostulation, it remains for us to learn how to apply what is taught to ourselves. We are not indeed descended from Abraham or from Jacob according to the flesh; but as God has engraved on us certain marks of His adoption, by which He has distinguished us from other nations, while we were still no better, we therefore see that we are justly exposed to the same reproof as the Jews if we do not respond to the calling of God.

I wished thus briefly to touch on this point, so that we may know that this doctrine is no less useful to us today than it was to the Jews. For though the adoption is not exactly the same, as it then belonged to one seed and to one family, yet we are not superior to others through our own worthiness, but because God has gratuitously chosen us as a people for Himself.

Since this has been the case, we are His; for He has redeemed us by the blood of His own Son, and by making us partakers, through the gospel, of a favor so ineffably great, He has made us His sons and His servants. Unless then we love and reverence Him as our Father, and unless we fear Him as our Lord, there is found in us today an ingratitude no less base than in that ancient people.

But as I wished now only to refer to the main point, I shall speak tomorrow, as the passage requires, on the subject of election. However, it was necessary first briefly to show the Prophet’s design, as I have done, and then to treat particular points in more detail, as the case may require.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, that as You have not only designed to give us a common life in this world but have also separated us from other heathen nations, and illuminated us by the Sun of Righteousness, Your only begotten Son, in order to lead us into the inheritance of eternal salvation—O grant that, having been rescued from the darkness of death, we may always attend to that heavenly light by which You guide and invite us to Yourself. May we so walk as children of light as never to wander from the course of our holy calling, but to advance in it continually, until we at last reach the goal which You have set before us. So, having put off all the filth of the flesh, may we be transformed into that ineffable glory, of which we now have the image in Your only-begotten Son. Amen.

[Exposition continues from previous day's lecture]

We saw yesterday what Malachi’s object was in reminding the Jews that they were loved and chosen by God. It was so that he might more fully magnify their ingratitude for having given such an unworthy reward for so great a favor from God. As He had preferred them to all other nations, He had justly bound them to perpetual obedience; but they had shaken off the yoke and, having despised God, had given themselves up again to many corruptions, as we stated yesterday. But I reminded you at the same time that the Prophet does not refer here to those benefits with which God favors all mankind indiscriminately, but brings forward the adoption by which He had set apart the seed of Abraham as His special people.

But that it may appear more fully how just this expostulation was, let us first observe that it is one kind of obligation that God has created us men in His image and after His likeness; for He might have created us dogs and asses, and not men. Adam, we know, was taken from the earth, as other animals were; so, as to the body, there is no difference between men and other creatures.

When it is said that God breathed into man the breath of life, we ought not to dream as the Manicheans do, that man’s soul is by traduction (for so they say, affirming that man’s soul is from the substance of the Deity); but Moses, on the contrary, understands that man’s soul was created from nothing.

We are born by generation, and yet our origin is clay; and the chief thing in us, the soul, is created from nothing. We therefore see that we differ from animals because it pleased God to create us men. He therefore will justly charge us with ingratitude if we do not serve Him, for He created us in His own image for this end.

But a special favor is mentioned here: that the Lord took to Himself the seed of Abraham, as it is said in the song of Moses, that all nations are God’s, but that He had cast His line to set apart Israel for Himself (Deuteronomy 32:9). Though the whole world then was under God’s government, it was still His will to choose one family. If one inquires into the cause, it is not to be found in men; for all were created from the earth, and souls, created from nothing, were implanted in their bodies.

Since this was so, we see that the difference arose from the fountain of gratuitous favor—that God preferred one race to the rest. And as we stated yesterday, Moses often repeats this: that the Jews were not chosen because they were more excellent than other nations, but because God gratuitously loved their fathers (Deuteronomy 7:7). By love, he means gratuitous favor.

Malachi then does not consider here that the Jews had been chosen before other nations on the ground of their own merit. For if he granted this, they might have objected and said, “Why do you remind us that God has favored us more than other nations, since He deemed us worthy and rewarded our merit?” But the Prophet takes it as admitted, according to what I have already said, that the Jews were by nature like other nations, so that their different condition did not proceed from themselves, or from their own worthiness, but from the gratuitous love of God.

A third step is also to be noticed here: for God selected only a part from the very race of Abraham, as Esau and Jacob were brothers, and Esau was first according to the order of nature, for he was the first-born. And yet God rejected him and appointed the favor of election to be in the descendants of Jacob. This third step then was election.

These things ought to be carefully considered. Men are specially bound to God, because He might have created them asses and dogs, and not men; but it has pleased Him to form them in His own image. The second step is that He chose the race of Abraham, when His empire extended over all nations without exception. For how was it that God chose to be the Father and Savior of one people only, when the whole world was under His authority?

Here shines forth, as I have already said, His gratuitous favor. And in addition to the testimonies of Moses, it is often said in the Psalms that God loved the fathers, that He did to them what He had not done to other nations, that He made known His judgments to them (Psalms 147:19).

There are many passages in which God commemorates His favor to the Jews, because it pleased Him to distinguish them from other nations, while yet the condition of all by nature was wholly the same. Now the third step which Malachi mentions ought to be carefully noticed: that God not only promised to be a God to Abraham and to His seed, but also made a difference between the very sons of Abraham, so as to reject some and to choose others. And it is on this point that Paul dwells in Romans chapter 9 (Romans 9:1–33), for he says that not all who are of Israel—that is, who derive their origin from him—are true and legitimate Israelites, but those who are called.

For it was Paul’s object to refute the Jews, because they boasted that they were a holy people, though they willfully rejected Christ and His gospel. For when the apostles proved that the promised Redeemer had been sent, the proud answer in the mouth of the Jews was this: “Are we not the Church of God? But we do not acknowledge this Christ whom you would thrust upon us.”

Since then the Jews, through this false pretense, despised the favor of God and sought to trample Christ, as it were, under foot, Paul repels this arrogance and shows that they did not excel the nations, except by virtue of a gratuitous adoption, and that this adoption was to be so extended to the whole race of Abraham while still being confined to a certain number.

In the same manner do the Papists act today. As they estimate faith by external signs, they haughtily object to us and say that they are the Church, as if a general promise were sufficient without the Spirit, who is justly called the Spirit of adoption, by whom God seals it within, even in our hearts.

Now Paul adds evidence of the fact and brings forward the instance of Jacob and Esau. Of the twin brothers, he says, one was chosen, and the other passed by; and yet both were the sons of Abraham. It then follows that there is a third step in election, as I have already stated.

Now from this third proceeds a fourth: that God takes some of the sons of Jacob, whom He has chosen before the foundation of the world, and others He rejects. And of this fact Paul adduces a sure proof, or assigns an evident reason: God preferred Jacob to his brother, the first-born, but not on account of any merit. If then the free mercy of God availed so much in the election of Jacob, it follows that the same still prevails with regard to his descendants.

If it is asked again, why is it that some are faithful and others are reprobate, the answer is, because it pleases God. Hence Paul ascends higher and says that before they were born, and had done neither good nor evil, it was said, the elder will serve the younger; and then he brings forward this prophecy: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.

If then we wisely consider the whole passage, we will find what I have stated: that from the third step we may proceed to a fourth, which is that from the sons of Jacob God chose whomever He pleased and rejected others. For when He chose Jacob, God was not bound to him any more than He was before. The same promise was indeed repeated to Jacob which had been given to Abraham.

But from Abraham proceeded Ishmael, who, we know, was rejected from God’s Church; and the same was the case with the other sons of Abraham. Isaac alone was chosen. But Isaac, the father of Esau and Jacob, was not able at his own pleasure to retain them both. Instead, the free and hidden election of God appeared here, so that Esau was rejected, and Jacob remained as the legitimate heir to the Divine favor.

So now we more fully understand what the Prophet means: he does not charge the Jews with having shaken off every fear of that God in whose image they had been created; but he heightens their ingratitude because they gave no response to the free adoption of God, for they had been chosen from all other nations. And not only this, but they had been separated again from the very race of Abraham, and this was their second election.

Another thing must also be added respecting their gratuitous election. The Prophet’s reproof would not have been received unless God, in His adoption, had regard only to His own favor. For if we grant that either Jacob or Abraham had merited anything, what the Prophet says, Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? would not have been effective. An answer might have been readily given: “He was indeed his brother, but his meritorious virtue set him before his brother.”

But the Prophet here presses this point on the Jews: that though bound by so many benefits, they still had become, as it were, illegitimate, for they had degenerated from the favor which God had conferred on them. We therefore see that by these words of the Prophet it is sufficiently proved that Abraham had been chosen by God in preference to all other nations, Isaac in preference to his brother Ishmael, and Jacob in preference to Esau.

And Scripture is full of proofs on the subject, and experience also sufficiently demonstrates the truth. Moses says that it was not by their own virtue that they excelled other nations, for they were a rebellious and a stiff-necked people. Though God knew then the perverse character of that nation, it still pleased Him to make them an example of His wonderful goodness.

There is therefore no reason for us to seek any other cause for adoption except the will of God. And since the election of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was gratuitous, it follows that each one whom God separates from the whole body is freely chosen. And thus we come to the fourth step; for what is said here, that Jacob was chosen, ought not to be confined to his person, but to what he had in common with his descendants.

Jacob then was chosen—for what purpose? That his children might be God’s holy and special people. Now if we consider his whole offspring, we will find that all who descended from Jacob were not legitimate Israelites, for the greatest part of them were rejected. As then many who derived their origin from Jacob were no less reprobate than Esau, it follows that God’s free favor and gratuitous mercy prevail as to individuals: and this is the subject which Paul discusses in Romans chapter 9.

It seems hard to many that God should choose some and not all, and that He should regard no worthiness, but of His own free will choose whomever He pleases, and reject others. But from where does this objection come, except that they wish to restrain God and subject Him to their own judgment?

But we must come to the principle to which I have referred. If it seems unreasonable to them that one of two should be chosen and the other rejected, how can they defend the justice of God (if their apology is needed) with regard to an ass and a man? For as I have said, both asses and men proceeded from the same lump as to their bodies. All vigor and strength in the ass has been created by the hidden power of God.

And as to the soul of man, though its essence is immortal, it has still been created from nothing. Now, then, let these wise censors answer for God in this case—God whom they think is exposed to many slanders when we say that men’s salvation depends on His will, so that He rejects some and chooses others.

But as to general election, there is the same difficulty in satisfying the judgment of men: for as we have already said, there is no difference between men but what arises from hidden election. They indeed imagine in this case a foreknowledge as the mother of election, but the notion is extremely foolish and childish.

They then say that some are elected by God and some are rejected because God, to whom nothing is hidden, foresees what everyone will be. But I now ask, why is it that one is virtuous, while another is vicious? If they say, from free will, doubtless creation is prior to free will: this is one thing.

Then we know that in Adam all men were created alike. For how is it that we are all exposed to eternal death, and that the vengeance of God extends over us all, and today prevails through the whole world? How is this, except that the condition of us all originally is one and the same?

It follows then, that if Adam had stood upright, all men would be alike in their integrity. I do not now speak of special gifts, for there would have been, I allow, a difference of endowments had nature remained perfect; but as to eternal life, the condition of all would have been the same. Now after the fall of Adam, we are all lost.

What then can be more foolish and absurd than to imagine that there is some virtue in man by which he excels others, since we are all equally accursed in the person of Adam? For who has made you to excel? says Paul. He proves that there is no excellence in man, except what proceeds from the bounty of God only; and as I have stated, the reason is quite clear.

For either original sin does not belong to all men, or God cannot foresee that this man will be just and that man unjust. Why? All are naturally reprobate in Adam and liable to eternal death, and the reason is evident, for nothing is found in men but sin. The foreknowledge of God then cannot be the cause of our election, for by looking on the whole race of man, He finds them all under a curse, from the least to the greatest.

We see then how foolishly they talk and prattle who ascribe to mere and naked prescience what ought to be ascribed to the good pleasure of God. That God made Himself known to the race of Abraham, that He designed to deposit His law with the Israelites—all this was His unique favor, and no other reason can be assigned for it except gratuitous adoption.

God then favored the children of Abraham with this privilege because it so pleased Him. For if we say that they were worthy, and by their virtue made themselves deserving, the Holy Spirit, in the first place, everywhere speaks against us; and in the second place, so do experience and facts, for the obstinacy of that people was extraordinary.

But we ought to be satisfied with the authority of Scripture, since God makes known and illustrates His favor by this instance: that He loved Abraham and his children—that is, He was favorable to the Jews through His own goodness only, and this is what we will see later still more clearly. Let this then remain as a fixed principle: that the cause of our election is nothing else but the mere favor of God. If we seek a cause apart from God when we inquire about our election, we will wander in a labyrinth.

That the same principle holds for individuals, I have already proved. It ought indeed to be sufficient for us that Paul passes from the person of Jacob to individuals among his descendants. For he adduces, as it were, an instance in the two brothers, in order to convince us that no one is chosen on account of his own virtue, but according to the good pleasure of God. Nor was it necessary to state these circumstances—that one was chosen when the brothers were not yet born, and when they had not done either good or evil, that it was not through works but through Him who called—unless he meant to prove this: that it is in God’s power to choose whomever He wills and to reject whomever He wills.

But as Augustine reminds us, nothing can be imagined more absurd than that notion, with which many are pleased, that God has foreknown what men will be. For Paul excludes such foreknowledge as the cause when he infers that it was not due to works but to Him who called that God preferred the one to the other, for neither of them, while in their mother’s womb, had done either good or evil.

Paul also brings a confirmation from another declaration of Moses: “I will pity whom I will pity, and mercy I will show to whom I will be merciful.” By these words God clearly declares that it was in His power to reject whomever He pleased of the seed of Jacob, and to choose whomever He pleased.

What then He had before said respecting one man, God now applies to the whole seed, for He does not speak there of foreign nations, but of that holy and chosen people. When God threatened all the children of Abraham with ruin, Moses humbly deprecated this, lest He should annul His own covenant. God answered him, “I will pity whom I will pity.” What does this mean? That there is no other cause why God retains some for Himself and rejects others than His own will.

The repetition may seem superfluous and frigid, “I will pity whom I will pity,” but it is very emphatic, as if God had said: “I might have chosen for Myself another from the world and not Abraham, but I have, according to My own good pleasure, adopted him. Ishmael might have been as dear to Me as Isaac, but it has been My will that the blessing should rest on Isaac. When he also had begotten two children, I repudiated the first-born and chose Jacob. And now from the descendants of Jacob I will choose for Myself whomever I please, for no other cause is to be found but My will: ‘I will then pity whom I will pity, and mercy I will show to whom I will be merciful.’”

If then, in this case, men will contend with God and want to know why He chooses this man rather than that one, the answer He gives is that the cause is to be found in His mercy alone, for He is bound to no one.

We now see how the folly of those vanishes who would have foreknowledge be the cause of election; and also that those who murmur against God are sufficiently refuted by this reason: that it is in His power either to choose or to reject, since He is under no obligations to anyone.

As to reprobation, the cause of it is sufficiently manifest in the fall of Adam, for, as we have said, we all fell with him. It must still be observed that the election of God is prior to Adam’s fall; and that therefore all of us who are rescued from the common ruin have been chosen in Christ before the creation of the world. But others justly perish, though they had not been lost in Adam, because God appointed Christ the head of His Church, so that we might be saved in Him—not all, but those who have been chosen.

And with regard to the proof, it is not necessary here to bring together the multitude of passages found in Scripture, for this would be endless. There are, however, some remarkable passages by which it is sufficiently evident that some are chosen from the whole world, as well as from the race of Abraham, according to God’s good pleasure only, and that others are rejected, and that no other cause is to be found but His will.

For our election is hidden in the eternal and secret counsel of God and founded on Christ; and reprobation is also hidden in the judgment of God. Now if we wish to penetrate this mystery, we must know that it is a great and unfathomable abyss: here all our ideas vanish. In the meantime, however, God does not lose His liberty to choose and reject whomever He pleases.

With regard to election, Romans chapter 9 (Romans 9:1) ought to be sufficient, or rather the three chapters (for Paul pursues the same argument to the end of Romans 11), and then exclaims that the riches of God’s wisdom and goodness are incomprehensible, and that His judgments are untraceable. He also speaks of the elect in Ephesians chapter 1 (Ephesians 1:1); and the sum of what he says is that all the faithful had been chosen in Christ before the creation of the world, and through the good pleasure of God only, so that He might show in them the glory of His goodness.

By no refinements can they escape who attempt to obscure this truth; for Paul very clearly and briefly declares that the whole world has not been chosen, but the faithful, who are afterwards favored with the Spirit of adoption. And thus that fancy is sufficiently refuted: that the election of God ought to be connected with His promises.

I wonder that men of learning, endowed with judgment and versed in Scripture, so coldly pass over the subject, and that they are not at least moved when they see that they give many the occasion to go foolishly astray, and that some therefore take the opportunity to slander.

We must, however, declare what this passage requires: that those are very unwise who seek to subvert or overthrow the eternal election of God by this contrivance—that God addresses all men generally, “Come to me”—“I am your Father.” Since God then offers His grace to all by the external preaching of His word, they will have it that all are elected. But Paul says that we are believers because we have been elected.

If then it is asked why some obstinately reject the grace of God, and others embrace it in a spirit of meekness, Paul assigns the reason, and it is this: because God illuminates those who believe, since He has chosen them before the creation of the world. It then follows that God speaks generally in such a way that the efficacy of the doctrine still depends on His secret good pleasure.

For from where does faith come, but from His unique favor? And why does He not communicate His grace to all? Simply because He has not chosen all. We see that Paul thus proceeds step by step, that he might teach us that faith emanates from the fountain of free election; and he raises election to the highest eminence to show that it is not right to inquire into its cause. So much for election.

As to reprobation, I know that many greatly dislike this doctrine—that some are rejected, and yet no cause can be found in themselves why they thus remain disapproved by God. But there is here need of docility and of a meek spirit, to which Paul also exhorts us when he says:

O man, who are you who answers against God? (Romans 9:20).

For if it were lawful to investigate the cause, surely Paul, who had been taken up to the third heaven, might have shown us the way. But he is silent here and drives us away from indulging a bold and overly curious spirit. Since the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of Paul, restrains human presumption, so that people may not dare to go beyond this step—that God hardens whomever He wills and rejects whomever He wills—why do men leap beyond this, unless they willfully seek to carry on war with God?

And yet they pretend modesty, and under this pretext they seek to bury the doctrine of election. We ought, they say, to speak soberly of mysteries. This last sentence I fully allow. But what is our sobriety but our docility? That is, when we embrace what God declares in His word and never allow ourselves to investigate more than what He teaches us.

But they would extinguish God’s word; indeed, they dare openly to pronounce blasphemies against God and to find fault with the Spirit, who has spoken by the prophets and the apostles.

We indeed see that there are many devils who preach modesty, when their object is to suppress the light and this main doctrine, the chief basis of our salvation. And they extort wicked edicts from the ignorant and the slumbering, as if it were in the power of men, by babbling about things unknown and by barbarously mixing all things together, to thrust God, as it were, from His heavenly throne.

This is horribly monstrous and ought to be detested by all; for it would be better that all the empires of the world should be swallowed up in the lowest depths than that mortal creatures should raise themselves up, as it were, into heaven and attempt to penetrate into the secret things of God.

But, however, when the whole world either assails this doctrine by barking, or seeks to subvert it by threats and terrors, or when all in various ways manifest their rage, and when those who seem to themselves to be very powerful roll thunders, it behooves us to hold fast to this doctrine: that God alone is the author of our salvation, because He has been pleased freely to elect us.

Also, that He possesses power over all the human race, so that some, according to His will, are elected and some are rejected; and that He always acts justly and keeps secret the cause both of election and of reprobation.

But it is no wonder that we are so blind, for we are stupid by nature, indeed, blind altogether. And if we were angels, it would still be our duty reverently to regard the manifold wisdom of God, which no human minds, no, not even angelic minds, can fully comprehend. Other matters must be deferred.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, that as You have been pleased to adopt us as Your people for this end, that we may be grafted in, as it were, into the body of Your Son, and be made conformed to our Head—O grant, that through our whole life we may strive to seal in our hearts the faith of our election, that we may be the more stimulated to render You true obedience, and that Your glory may also be made known through us. And those whom You have chosen together with us, may we labor to bring together, that we may unanimously celebrate You as the Author of our salvation, and so ascribe to You the glory of Your goodness, that having cast away and renounced all confidence in our own virtue, we may be led to Christ only as the fountain of Your election, in whom also is set before us the certainty of our salvation through Your gospel, until we will at last be gathered into that eternal glory which He has procured for us by His own blood. Amen.

God had already proved that He had, through many favors, 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 concludes His address to them, as if to say that He had badly bestowed all the blessings He had given them. He adopts two comparisons: 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 about the Jews; for He had been a Father to them, but they, in turn, did not conduct themselves as children—in a submissive and obedient manner, as they should have done. Furthermore, He became their Master, but they shook off the yoke and did not allow themselves to be ruled by His authority.

Regarding the word "Father," we have already shown that the Jews were not only children of God in common with others, but had also been chosen as His own special people. Their adoption, then, made them God’s children above all other nations; for when they were no different 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 Maker of the whole world; but He also, as is well known, acquired this right by redemption. To emphasize their crime further, He not only reasons earnestly with them for having abused His favors, but He also charges them with obstinacy, because they disobeyed His authority, even though He was their Lord.

He says that a son is one who honors his father, and a servant his master. He applies the same verb to both clauses, but He afterwards makes a distinction, ascribing honor to a father and fear to a master. Regarding the first clause, we know that wherever there is authority, honor is due; and when masters are over servants, they should be honored.

But in a subsequent clause, He speaks more distinctly and says that a master should be feared by a servant, while honor is due to a father from a son. For servants do not love their masters; unable to escape from their power, they fear them. But the reverence sons have for their fathers is more generous and more voluntary. God shows here, however, that the Jews could by no means be kept to their duty, though so many favors should have made it their sweet delight. God had indeed conciliated them as much as possible to Himself, but all was to no avail. The majesty of God also should have struck them with fear. It was then as if He were saying that they were of such a perverse 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 was deprived by the Jews of the honor sons owe to their fathers, as well as of the fear servants should have for their masters. Thus, He shows that they were like untamable wild beasts, which cannot be tamed by any kind treatment, nor subdued by scourges or by any kind of punishment.

He then adds, To you, O priests. It is certain that this complaint should not 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 priestly honor while the other brothers were passed by; He had also said that Jacob was chosen when Esau was rejected, and this belonged in common to the twelve tribes. Now, the truth that God was their Father or their Master should not, and could not, be confined to the tribe of Levi.

Why then does He now expressly address the priests? They indeed should have been leaders and teachers to the rest of the people. However, He does not on this account exempt the whole people from blame or guilt, even though He directs His address to the priests. His object was to show that all things had become so corrupt among the people that the priests had become, as it were, the foremost in contempt of religion, in sacrileges, and in every kind of pollution. Hence it follows that there was nothing sound or right in the community. For when the eyes themselves are without light, they cannot discharge their duty to the body—and what will eventually follow?

God then undoubtedly shows that great corruptions prevailed and had spread so much among the people that those who should 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 is evident from the context.

We must at the same time bear in mind what we have said elsewhere: 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, since 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 soon 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. Since they allowed others so much liberty, it appeared quite evident that the name of God was little esteemed by them. For had they possessed true zeal, they would not have allowed the worship of God to be trodden under foot or profaned, as we shall soon 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 undoubtedly repeats the same thing by using similar language. For how was it that the priests, as well as the people, asked a question on a plain matter, as if it were obscure, except that they were blind to their own vices?

Now, the cause of blindness is hypocrisy, and then, as it usually does, it brings perverseness with it. For all who deceive themselves dare even to raise their horns against God and petulantly protest that He treats them too severely. For the Prophet undoubtedly does not relate their words here, 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 the same foolishness in the world today. For though the crimes reproved are sufficiently known, yet even the most wicked immediately object and say that wrong is done to them. They will not acknowledge a fault unless they are convicted a hundred times, and even then they will make some excuse.

And truly, if there were not daily proofs to teach us how refractory people are towards God, the thing would be incredible. The Prophet then undoubtedly, by this cutting expression, goaded and also wounded the people as well as the priests, intimating that their hypocrisy was so gross that they dared to resort to evasions, even when their crimes were openly known to all.

Ye have said then, "In what have we despised thy name?" They inquired as if they had rubbed their foreheads and then gained boldness, saying, “What does this mean? For You accuse 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 asked here: “Should this 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 of the priests; and had fine grain been brought, it would have been advantageous to the priests.” But it seems probable to me that the priests are condemned because, like hungry and starving men, they indiscriminately seized 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, lame, or mutilated. But this view does not seem to me suitable to the passage.

Let us then consider the meaning to be what I have stated: that God here contends with the whole people, but He directs His reproofs to the priests because they were guilty in two ways. They formed a part of the people, and they also allowed God to be dishonored. For what could have been more disgraceful than to offer polluted victims and polluted bread?

If it is now asked whether this should have been ascribed as a fault to the priests, the answer is this: the people at that time were not very wealthy. They had only recently returned from exile, had not brought much wealth with them, and the land was desolate and uncultivated. Since, then, there was so much want among the people, and they were each intent on their own advantage—according to what we have seen in the Prophet Haggai (Haggai 1:4)—and neglected the temple of God and their sacrifices, there is no doubt that they wished to discharge their duty towards God somehow.

Therefore, they brought beasts that were either lame or blind. Consequently, the whole worship of God was vitiated, their sacrifices being polluted.

The priests should have rejected all these offerings and closed God’s temple rather than indiscriminately receive what God had prohibited. Since this indifference of the people was nothing but a profanation of divine worship, the priests should have firmly opposed it.

But as they themselves were hungry, they thought it better to take hold of everything around them. “What,” they said, “will become of us? For if we reject these sacrifices, however flawed they may be, the people will offer nothing. Thus we shall starve, there will be no advantage, and we shall be forced in this case to open and close the temple and offer sacrifices at our own expense—and we cannot bear 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 from where could bread be obtained unless some were offered? Now, nothing was lost to the priests when they daily set bread before God, for they immediately received it. Thus, they would have preferred, as it was more to their advantage, to offer approved bread made of fine flour.

But as I have said, their own convenience interfered, for they thought that they could not prevail with the people. “If we irritate these men,” they reasoned, “they will deny that they have anything to offer. 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.”

Thus we see how the fault belonged to the priests when the people offered polluted bread and unapproved victims.

Until now, I have explained the Prophet’s words with chief reference to the showbread. This is not because they should be taken as strictly as many interpreters have considered them, for under the name "bread," we know, every kind of food is included. So it seems probable to me that the word should be extended to all the sacrifices. One kind is mentioned here as an example, and it also seems that what immediately follows is added as an explanation: Ye offer the lame and the blind and the mutilated.

Since these things are connected, I have no doubt that God here means by "bread" every kind of offering. We know that the showbread was not offered on the altar; rather, there was a separate table appointed for this purpose near the altar. Why God designates all the sacrifices by the term "bread" can be easily explained: God would have sacrifices offered to Him as though He had His dwelling and table among the Jews.

It was not indeed His purpose to fill their minds with gross imaginations, as if He ate or drank, as we know heathens have been deluded with such notions. His design was only to remind the Jews of that domestic dwelling He had chosen for Himself among them. But more on this subject will be said shortly; I shall now proceed to consider the words.

You offer polluted bread on My altar; and you have said, "In what have we polluted thee?" The priests again answer as if God unjustly accused them, for they allege their innocence, 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, since they had duly served God.

But from this we may conclude, according to what has been stated before, that the people were under the influence of gross hypocrisy and had become hardened in their obstinacy. It is the same today: though there is such a mass of crimes, which prevails everywhere in the world and even overflows the earth, yet no one will bear to be condemned. For everyone looks at others, and thus when no less grievous sins appear in others, everyone absolves himself. This then is the foolishness which the Prophet again goads, by recalling their question: Ye have said, "In what have we polluted thee?" He and other Prophets undoubtedly charged the Jews with this sacrilege—that they polluted the name of God.

But it deserves to be known that few think they pollute God and His name when they worship Him superstitiously or formally, as if they were dealing 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 people thus trifle with Him.

He answers, When ye said (literally, "in your saying"), The table of Jehovah, it is contemptible. Here the Prophet reveals the source of their sin, and He shows, as it were by pointing with His 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 Hebrew interrogative particle) is not here. We may easily gather from the context that the Prophet is still relating 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 are offered, if the blind are offered, if the maimed are offered; there is nothing evil in all this.” We now 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 here shows, as I have stated before, why He was so displeased with the Jews. Nothing is indeed so precious as His worship, and He had instituted under the Law sacrifices and other rites so that the children of Abraham might exercise themselves in worshipping Him spiritually.

It was then as if He had said that He cared nothing for sheep and calves, or for anything of that kind, but that their impiety was sufficiently manifested, since 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 the attention of the Jews back from mere animals to Himself, as if He had said: “You 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 you say that these are small things and of no importance, I answer that you should have regarded the purpose 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 should have known that I live in your midst, that whatever you eat or drink is sacred to Me, and that all you possess comes to you through My bounty. Since, then, this purpose for which sacrifices were appointed has been neglected by you, it is quite evident that you have no care or concern for true religion.”

We now 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 as almost nothing to pervert and corrupt the whole of divine worship according to the Law, which was an evidence of religion, if there was any.

Now it may seem strange that God at one time so strictly requires pure sacrifices and urges their observance, yet at another time He says that He does not seek sacrifices: Sacrifice I desire not, but mercy (Hosea 6:6). And again, He asks, "Did I command your fathers when I delivered them from Egypt to offer victims to Me? With this alone I was content, that they should obey My voice." He says later in Micah:

"Shall I be propitious to you if you offer Me all your flocks?
But rather, O man, humble yourself before your God"
(Micah 6:6).

The same is said in Psalm 50, in the first and last chapters of Isaiah, and in many other places. Since 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 reveal the impiety of the people. Had all their victims been fat or well-fed, our Prophet would have spoken as we find 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. Hence He says, Ye offer to me polluted bread.

It is as if He had said: “I supply you with food; it was your duty to offer to Me the first-fruits, the tenths, and the showbread. The design of these external performances is that you may regard yourselves as fed by Me daily, and also that you may feed moderately and temperately on the bread, flesh, and other things given you, as if you were sitting at My table.”

“For when you see that bread made from the same grain is before the presence of God, this should come to your minds: ‘It is God’s will, as if He lived with us, that a portion of the same bread should always be set on the holy table.’ And then when you offer victims, you are not only to be thus stirred up to repentance and faith, but you should also acknowledge that all these things are sacred to God.”

“For when you set before the altar a calf, 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, you should think this within yourselves: ‘Behold, we have all these things in common with God, as if, clothed in human form, He dwelt with us and took the same food and the same drink.’ You should then have performed your outward rites in this manner.”

God now justly complains that His table was contemptible, as if He had said that His favor was rejected because the people, as it were in contempt, brought coarse bread, as if they wished to feed some swineherd. This conduct is similar to that mentioned in Zechariah, when God said that a reward was offered for Him as if He were some worthless hireling (Zechariah 2:12): “I have carefully fed you,” He says, “and I now demand My reward. You give for Me thirty pieces of silver, 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 you should thus despise My table? I have consecrated it so that you might have near access to Me, as if I dwelt in the visible sanctuary; but you 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 honor is given to Him than to mortals. For He adduces this comparison: “When anyone owes a tribute or tax to a governor and brings anything maimed or defective, the governor 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 lesser to the greater, that this was not a sacrilege that could be borne, as the Jews had so presumptuously abused His kindness.

He wounds the priests here more grievously—because they had so degenerated as to be wholly unworthy of their honorable 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 you and entreat, he says, the face of God.

This duty, we know, was enjoined on the priests. They were to draw near 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 they were in this respect the types of Christ, it was their duty to strive to be holy. Though the people abandoned themselves to all kinds of wickedness, it was still the duty of the priests to devote themselves with all reverence to the duties of their calling. 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 their piety and holiness ought to have been.

Justly then does the Prophet here inveigh so severely against them, because they did not consider that they were honored with the priesthood so that they might entreat God, and thus pacify His wrath and reconcile miserable men to Him. Go, he says, and entreat the face of God; Indeed! 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. Indeed! he says, he will have mercy on us. But this is done by your hand, that is, by you. “Do you raise up your hands to God? And will he, on seeing you, be pacified towards you? Since then you are polluted, you are unworthy of the honor and office in which you so proudly glory.”

He does not, however, as we have already said, extenuate the fault of the people, and much less does he exempt from guilt those 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 victim, merely so 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 yet appeared, when the priest presented himself before the altar, it was as though God looked on the face of one and thus became 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 adds—

He continues with the same subject: that the priests behaved very shamefully in their office, and that the people had become hardened by their example, so that all religion was disregarded. Therefore, he says, that the doors were not closed by them.

Some interpreters connect the two things: that they did not close the doors of the temple, nor kindle the altar for no payment. Thus they apply the adverb, חנם, chenam, to both clauses, as if he had said that they were hirelings who did not freely dedicate themselves to serve God, but sought profit and gain in everything. This is the commonly accepted explanation.

But it seems better to me to take them separately and to say, "Who even shuts the doors?" Not, however, for no payment. The conjunction ו, vau, as in many other places, may be rendered even. "And yet you do not kindle My altar for no payment." It is as if God had said, “I have assigned your tasks; you are then like hired servants to Me. And now, since I have ordered a reward to be given to you whenever you stand at My altar, why do you not close My door?”

Some render חנם, chenam, as "in vain," and offer this explanation: “Who closes the doors? Then do not afterwards kindle My altar in vain.” This is as if God rejected the entire 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, חנם, chenam, may be confined to the latter phrase. But there may still, as I have said, be a twofold meaning. If we render חנם, chenam, as "in vain," the meaning is that the Prophet declares that they labored to no purpose while they thus sacrificed to God contrary to His law, for they should have attended especially to the rule prescribed to them. Since they despised this, he justly says, “Do not offer to Me in vain.” And thus the future tense is to be understood as the imperative, as we know is sometimes the case 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 some of the Levites were doorkeepers, and others stood at the entrance; in short, all had their assigned 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 as the law of God required.

Since, 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 accepted what was faulty and profane. Therefore, he rightly declares (for this seems to me to be the true interpretation), “Do not offer in vain.”

He then draws the conclusion that the priests lost all their labor in thus sacrificing, because God would not have His name profaned, and justly preferred obedience to all sacrifices. He therefore denies that they accomplished any good by 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 proceed further now.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, that as You have been pleased in Your infinite mercy not only to choose from among us some to be priests to You, but also to consecrate us all to Yourself in Your only begotten Son—O grant, that we today may purely and sincerely serve You, and so strive to devote ourselves wholly to You, that we may be pure and chaste in mind, soul, and body, and that Your glory may so shine forth in all our deeds, that Your worship among us may be holy, and pure, and approved by You, until we at last enjoy that glory to which You invite us by Your gospel, and which has been obtained for us by the blood of Your only-begotten Son. Amen.

[Exposition continues from previous day's lecture]

Yesterday, I could not finish the complaint God made against the priests: that no one of them closed the doors of the temple, so that it might remain pure from all defilements. For as their avarice was insatiable, they indiscriminately admitted all sorts of profanations. Therefore, He comes to this conclusion: “Do not offer hereafter in vain.” For by saying, Do not kindle My altar, He means that they spent their labor in vain in offering sacrifices, because God required His worship to be performed according to the prescription of His law. I will now omit the two other interpretations I mentioned yesterday, for it seems to me that the Prophet meant that the priests wearied themselves in vain while daily offering victims, because the Lord repudiated their service as impure and corrupt.

He now adds, I am not pleased with you, and an offering I will not accept from your hand. In the first clause, He says that they were not approved by God, or did not please Him; and then He adds, that their offerings were rejected. For where there is no pure heart, there we know all works are impure. For we must remember what Moses says: that Abel pleased God, along with his sacrifices (Genesis 4:4). And we have seen in another prophet, Haggai, that what is highly esteemed by men is an abomination to God when He is not worshipped in sincerity and truth (Haggai 2:15). Our Prophet now means the same thing: I am not pleased with you, and I will not regard the victims from your hand as acceptable. It now follows