11. kî mimmizraḥ-šemeš wĕʿad-mĕbôʾô. The
particle kî is understood alternately
as a logical conjunction (“for,” e.g., JPSV, NAB, NRSV; cf. WO’C § 39.3.1d), an
adversative conjunction (“but,” e.g., NJB, R. L. Smith [1984: 307]), a causal
conjunction (“because,” e.g., Deissler [p. 322]), or as an emphatic adverb
(“verily,” e.g., Calvin [1979: 662]; Verhoef [1987: 209]). Petersen (1995: 176
n. f) discounts Malachi’s consistent use of the particle kî as a clausal marker (e.g., 1:4, 8; 2:7, 11; etc.) and reads kĕmimmizraḥ (“Just as the rising and setting sun”) for the MT kî mimmizraḥ (thus creating a “cosmic
analogy” expressing the significance of Yahweh’s name). The disputational tone
and style of the speech suggest that kî
is better understood as an emphatic adverb (“indeed”), but this may be another
case in which the logical sense of the conjunction and the emphatic sense of
the adverb should not be too strictly separated (cf. WO’C 39.3.4e).
Likewise, the
second clausal kî (-gādôl šĕmî baggôyîm) is rendered
variously as a logical conjunction (“for,” e.g., JPSV, NAB, NRSV), a causal
conjunction (“because,” e.g., NIV), or a resultative conjunction (“since,”
e.g., NJB). Although contested, the integrity of verse 11 is assured by the
repetition of language (e.g., šĕmî
[“my name”]; cf. Rudolph [1976: 262–63]) and theme (e.g., the “universal”
worship of Yahweh; cf. Mason [1977: 145]).
The phrase
(“from the rising of the sun even
[understanding the conjunctive waw emphatically] to its setting”) is a merismus, “indicating totality of place”
(Glazier-McDonald [1987a: 55]). This literary figure of “distribution” specifies
the territorial extent of the nations paying homage to Yahweh: everyplace from
the east to the west (NEB, “from furthest east to furthest west”; cf. Verhoef
[1987: 223]). The expression has parallels in Pss 50:1; 113:3; Isa 45:6; 59:19.
The context of Ps 50:1 is especially significant in relation to Malachi’s
disputation, because in recalling Israel’s covenant with Yahweh (v 5), the
psalmist denounces animal sacrifice (vv 12–15) and implores the people of God
to bring the sacrifices of “thanksgiving” and “right living” (v 23; cf. Mason
[1977: 144]). If the Battle of Marathon (490 b.c./e.)
is indeed the event prompting the disputations of Malachi, then the reference
to “east” and “west” may have special connotations for the prophet’s audience
(see further I. D. 1. Historical Considerations: The Persian Period above).
gādôl šĕmî baggôyîm. The adjective gādôl (“great”) functions as the predicate in the verbless clause
and when used in connection with the name of God, the term gādôl “forms the nucleus of the statement” (TDOT 2:398; cf. WO’C § 14.3.2). The repetition of the expression is
emphatic, designed to remind the people of Yehud of a truth they somehow had
forgotten—“Great is Yahweh” (cf. Baldwin [1972a: 228]). The epithet echoes the
sentiments of Jer 10:6 (gādôl ʾattâ
wĕgādôl šimkā, “you are great, and your name is great”) and may constitute
a liturgical refrain of sorts (cf. Ps 76:2, bĕyiśrāʾēl
gādôl šĕmî [“in Israel Great is my name”]; on the phrase as a vestige of
theophany in ancient Israel, see Weiser [1962: 42]).
Despite
Baldwin’s (1972a: 228, 230) protest to the contrary, the tense of the assumed
verb “to be” in the nominal clause is present or durative (“great is my name” or “my name continues to be great”; cf. WO’C §
14.3.2). The goal of creation is to praise God; and by virtue of his role as
creator, Yahweh is “great” universally in his creation—including the nations of
humanity (cf. Westermann [1982: 90–102]).
The repetition
of the key words “great” (gādôl) and
“name” (šēm) in the second dispute
suggests a carefully crafted structure for the first half of the oracle
(1:6–14). The form šĕmî is found at
the end of verses 6 and 14, while the refrain gādôl šĕmî (“great is my name”) marks verse 11 as a transitional
link bridging the literary panels of 1:6–10 and 1:12–14. In addition, the word
“great” connects 1:6–14 with 1:5, and the word “name” joins 1:6–14 and 2:1–9
(cf. 2:2, 5). See further the discussion of gādôl
YHWH in the Notes for 1:5, and
šĕmî in the Notes on v 6 above.
The
preposition bêt (baggôyîm) has the spatial meaning, “amid a domain” (“among the nations,” WO’C § 11.2.5b; cf. Petersen
[1995: 174]). Given the reference to Yahweh as “king” (melek) in v 14, the noun gôy
(“nation”) should be understood in a political and territorial sense, since the
nations were “destined to become a part of Yahweh’s inheritance” (TDOT 2:432). Ironically, Yahweh’s
dealings with his people Israel were orchestrated so that the “nations” might
know that he is truly God (Ezek 37:28; 38:16; 39:7, 23), because the tribes of
Jacob were ordained to be the light of Yahweh’s salvation to all “nations” (Isa
49:6, 22). Tragically, the nations now instruct postexilic Yehud in the
“greatness” of God. See further the discussion of haggôyîm in the Notes
for 3:12 below.
ûbĕkol-māqôm muqṭār muggāš lišmî. The conjunctive waw joins two
overlapping situations, the rising of the sun and the burning of an incense
offering (WO’C § 39.2.5).
The spatial sense of the preposition bêt marks location (“in,” WO’C §
11.2.5b), while the general quantifier kōl
is a genitive of measure and has a
universal distributive meaning (“every,” WO’C § 9.5.3f, 15.6c). The common noun
māqôm designates an unspecified
“place” or “location” (CHAL: 212) and
in combination with bĕkol- is an
idiom for “everywhere” or “anyplace” (Exod 20:24; Num 18:31; Josh 1:3; Prov
15:3; etc.; cf. BDB: 880). Like his earlier contemporaries Haggai (2:7) and
Zechariah (8:22), Malachi calls upon his audience to recognize that the worship
of Yahweh extends universally to the nations. How much more should the “elect”
of God, Israel, offer Yahweh true worship?
The sequence
of two Hophal participles, muqṭār and
muggāš, is both awkward and rare. The
construction has prompted a remarkable array of emendations by biblical
commentators over the years, including reading muqṭār as a verb (“smoke is made to rise”) and omitting muggāš as the work of a glossator (so
Wellhausen [1963: 205]; J.M.P. Smith [1912: 43]), deleting muqṭār as extraneous to the context (so von Bulmerincq [1932:
118]), inserting a conjunctive waw between the participles and rendering the forms as
verbs (“incense is burned and … is
offered,” so Keil [2:438]; Müller [1896: 536]), repointing muqṭār as a noun (miqṭār,
“incense”; so Chary [1969: 241]), changing the word order of the MT (muqṭār lišmî ûmuggāš …, “incense burned to my name and …”; so Sellin [1930:
596]), or simply excising the entire verse as an intrusion from a later source
(so Elliger [1950: 187–88]; Horst [1954: 265–67]).
The MT may be
read as it stands if muqṭār is
understood as a substantive (“incense”), even as the Hophal participle mošḥāt functions as a noun in v 14 (“a blemished animal”; cf. WO’C § 37.2).
Rehm’s (p. 194 n. 6) example of a similar combination of participles forming a
subject-predicate relationship is compromised by the definiteness of the
construction (habbōgēd bōgēd wĕhaššôdēd
šôdēd, Isa 21:2; but cited as supporting evidence for the MT of Mal 1:11 by
Glazier-McDonald [1987a: 57]). More instructive is the LXX thumiáma proságetai (“incense is offered”), suggesting the
interpolation of muqṭār as a noun
(cf. Calvin [1979: 662]). This analysis has the endorsement of a majority of
the English versions (JPSV, NIV, NJB, NRSV) and several recent treatises on
Malachi (e.g., Baldwin [1972a: 228–29]; Rudolph [1976: 259]; R. L. Smith [1984:
309] “oblation”; Verhoef [1987: 225]; Glazier-McDonald [1987a: 44], “burnt
sacrifice”; Petersen [1995: 174]; cf. NAB, “sacrifice”; NEB, “fragrant
sacrifice”).
The unique
Hophal participle muggāš is an
intransitive passive of ngš (“is
being offered”; cf. WO’C § 28.2). The form should be retained as original to
the MT, because the prophet uses the verb ngš
six times as a synopsis of the priestly ministry, “offering” sacrifices to
Yahweh (1:7, 8 [2x], 11, 2:12; 3:3). The striking juxtaposition of the Hophal
participles muqṭār and muggāš at the very midpoint of verse 11
dramatically heightens the contrast between “the nations” (where Yahweh “is” or
“will be” great) and the province of Yehud (where Yahweh’s own priests
“despise” his name, v 6). There is some debate as to whether the participle
refers to present time (so Mason [1977: 144]) or imminent (eschatological)
future time (“is about to be
offered,” so Baldwin [1972a: 230]; cf. WO’C § 37.6). Despite the difficulties
theologically, the participle is best understood as a reference to the present
situation (or even a durative circumstance[?], cf. WO’C § 37.6b, d).
Understanding the participle in the future tense not only diminishes the ironic
force of Malachi’s rebuke in the disputational format, but also indicates
“immanency,” when the prophet uses the so-called futurum instans participle with hinnēh
(3:1, 19 [4:1]; cf. WO’C § 37.6f).
The
preposition lamed (“to my name”) is datival, marking the indirect object of the verb of “giving” (WO’C
§ 11.2.10d). According to Cashdan (p. 339), “The name and the personality were
so closely associated in Hebrew thought as to be almost identical” (cf. Isa
42:8, ʾănî YHWH hûʾ šĕmî, “I am
Yahweh, that is my name”). According to an ancient pentateuchal tradition,
Yahweh expected worship from Israel “everyplace” he caused “his name to be
remembered” (through theophany, Exod 20:24; cf. Durham [1987: 320]). Because
Yahweh is Creator, it is only natural that all creation should extol his
universal glory (cf. Ps 148:5, 11–12).
ûminḥâ ṭĕhôrâ. The attributive adjective ṭāhôr means “pure” or “clean” in a cultic sense (CHAL: 121–22; cf. WO’C § 14.3.1).
Elsewhere in the Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi corpus, the word occurs only in Zech
3:5, in the description of the high priest Joshua’s turban “where ritual purity
and not hygienic cleanliness is involved” (Meyers and Meyers [1987: 191]). The
Levitical priests of Malachi’s day were guilty of the same indiscretion
censured by Ezekiel, the failure to discern between the spheres of the holy and
profane, the clean and the unclean (22:23–31). The Temple vision of Ezekiel
forecasts a coming age when the priests will no longer manipulate the purity
laws arbitrarily for their own benefit, but “these distinctions will be set up
fresh and guaranteed” (Zimmerli [1979: 468]). The “pure offering” Malachi
envisions anticipates this cultic rejuvenation and stands in stark contrast to
the defiled and unacceptable sacrifices offered by the priests of postexilic
Yehud (vv 7–8), although Ringgren rightly observes that “here there are echoes
of the notion of proper intention” as well (TDOT
5:293; cf. Rehm [1961: 195–96]). (Andrew E. Hill, Malachi:
A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 25D; New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2008], 186-89)
