John Calvin Commentary Malachi 1:6-8

"A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master: if then I am a father, where is mine honor? and if I am a master, where is my fear? saith Jehovah of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name? Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar. And ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of Jehovah is contemptible. And when ye offer the blind for sacrifice, it is no evil! and when ye offer the lame and sick, it is no evil! Present it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee? or will he accept thy person? saith Jehovah of hosts." — Malachi 1:6-8 (ASV)

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.