10<\/strong>. Who<\/em> is there even<\/em> &c. Rather, with the majority of modern commentators and with R.V. Oh, that there were one among you that would shut the doors, that ye might not kindle [fire on] my altar in vain<\/strong>!<\/p>\n Better no sacrifices at all than such sacrifices as these. Better a Temple closed than a Temple profaned. Comp. Isa 1:12-13<\/span>.<\/p>\n the doors<\/em> ] not of the Sanctuary or Temple proper ( ), but either of the inner court in which the altar stood, or perhaps of the whole sacred inclosure ( ). Comp. 2Ch 28:24<\/span>; 2Ch 29:3<\/span>; Act 21:30<\/span>.<\/p>\n an offering<\/em> ] The Hebrew word ( minchah<\/em>) is that commonly used for vegetable, as distinguished from animal sacrifices (Psa 40:7<\/span>; Jer 17:26<\/span>; Dan 9:27<\/span>). Here however, as elsewhere (Gen 4:4-5<\/span>; 1Sa 2:17<\/span>; Zep 3:10<\/span>), it has the more general sense of offerings of any kind. The proper meaning of the word, with which this general sense most nearly accords, is a gift<\/em>. See Gen 32:14<\/span>; Gen 32:19<\/span>; Gen 32:21<\/span>; Gen 43:11<\/span>.<\/p>\n Who is there even among you? – <\/B>This stinginess in Gods service was not confined to those offices which cost something, as the sacrifices. Not even services absolutely costless, which required only a little trouble, as that of closing the folding-doors of the temple or the outer court, or bringing the fire to consume the sacrifices, would they do without some special hire. All was mercenary and hireling service. Others have rendered it as a wish, who is there among you! i. e., would that there were one among you, who would close the doors altogether; so shall ye not kindle fire on Mine altar for nought, i. e., fruitlessly! But apart from the difficulty of the construction, it is not Gods way to quench the smouldering flax. He who bids, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost, accepts any imperfect service rather than none. He does not break off the last link, which binds man to Himself. Then, if or when God willed His service to surcease, He would do it Himself, as He did by the destruction of the temple before the captivity, or finally by the Romans. It would have been an ungodly act (such as was only done by Ahaz, perhaps the most ungodly king of Israel) 2Ch 28:24<\/span>, and one which especially called down His wrath 2Ch 29:8<\/span>, to close the doors, and therewith to break off all sacrifice. Manasseh carried the worship of false gods into the temple itself; Ahaz, as far as in him lay, abolished the service of God. A prophet of God could not express a wish, that pious Israelites (for it is presupposed that they would do this out of zeal for Gods honor) should bring the service of God to an end.<\/P> He sums up with an entire rejection of them, present and future. I have no pleasure in you; it is a term of repudiation , sometimes of disgust neither will I accept an offering at your hands. He says not simply Jer 6:20<\/span>, your burnt-offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto Me, but, I will not accept it. Such as they were, such they would be hereafter. God would not accept their sacrifices, but would replace them.<\/P> <\/p>\n Mal 1:10-14<\/span><\/p>\n Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Wrong worship<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>Wrong worship is worse than no worship at all.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Wrong worship will one day be practically repudiated.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Wrong worship is sometimes rendered even by the religious teachers of mankind. These priests made worship appear contemptible and burdensome.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>Wrong worship evermore incurs the just displeasure of heaven. (Homilist.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n A sordid religion<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Because it is repugnant to love. Something like this a noble father would say to his son who paid him attention only for what he could get, a true husband would say to the wife who did the same. Genuine love sickens at such service, disdains and refutes it. Pure love in man is the same as pure love in God. It is displeasing to Him–<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Because it is opposed to happiness. It is an eternal law of mind, that it can never be happy in self-seeking. He who searches for happiness as an end will never find it. It will always be to him a mirage; as he thinks i.e.<\/em> approaches it, it will vanish into thin air. Gods great law in His spiritual universe is this–that souls shall only get happiness as they pursue goodness. When goodness is pursued as an end, full happiness gushes up at every step in the march. (Homilist.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 10<\/span>. Who<\/B><\/I> is – <\/B>among you<\/B><\/I>] From this we learn that there was not one sincere or honest priest among them. They were selfish and worldly; and so basely so, that not one of them would even kindle a fire on the hearth of the altar unless he were paid for it.<\/P> <\/p>\n Some make this verse to be a kind of wish that there were some among them that would shut up the doors of the temple, and keep out such sacrifices and sacrificers; it would be less displeasing to God, it were better not done at all that so ill done, and so long as it is so ill done God can have no pleasure in it or them. Others make it a reproof of the priests upbraided for their profane contempt of God, and for their inexcusable negligence, while they are so well paid for all their service, be it ever so little and inconsiderable, as the lighting a fire on the altar, or shutting the doors of the temple: Inexcusable dishonesty, to receive large wages, and neglect your work! <\/P> I have no pleasure in you; <\/B>I cannot be pleased with such servants and services: or it is a meiosis, I am very greatly displeased with you. <\/P> Neither will I accept an offering at your hand; <\/B>whilst you are thus profane and contemptuous, I will never accept your gifts, but reject you and them. <\/P> <\/p>\n 10. Who . . . for naught<\/B>Notone even of the least priestly functions (as shutting the doors, orkindling a fire on the altar) would ye exercise without pay,therefore ye ought to fulfil them faithfully (1Co9:13<\/span>). DRUSIUS andMAURER translate, “Wouldthat there were absolutely some one of you who would shut the doorsof the temple (that is, of the inner court, in which was the altar ofburnt offerings), and that ye would not kindle fire on My altar invain!” Better no sacrifices than vain ones (Isa1:11-15<\/span>). It was the duty of some of the priests to stand at thedoors of the court of the altar of burnt offerings, and to haveexcluded blemished victims [CALVIN].<\/P><\/p>\n Who [is there] even among you that would shut the doors [for nought]<\/strong>?…. Either of the temple, as the Targum and Jarchi; for at each of the gates of the temple there were porters appointed in David’s time, 1Ch 26:1<\/span> and who were paid for their service: or of the court, as Kimchi; the court of the priests where the offerings were brought. The words “for nought” are not, in the original text, at the end of this clause, but at the end of the next; and are by some referred to both; and by others restrained to the latter; and who give this as the sense of the words, “who is there”, or “would there were any among you?” f any good man that would shut the doors of the temple, that so a man might not bring an abominable offering; intimating, that the priests or Levites however, who were porters, ought to shut the doors against such persons; and this way go Jarchi, Kimchi, and Abarbinel; to which the Chaldee paraphrase inclines; which is,<\/p>\n “who is there among you that will shut the door of the house of my sanctuary, that ye may not offer on mine altar an abominable sacrifice?”<\/p>\n but the same writers, out of an ancient book called Torath Cohanim, observe a sense that agrees with ours,<\/p>\n “a man says to his friend, shut this door for me, he desires nothing for it; light me this candle, he asks no reward for it; but as for you, who is there among you that will shut my doors for nought? or kindle a fire on mine altar for nought? and how much less will ye do freely those things which used to be done for reward? therefore I have no pleasure in you.”<\/p>\n There were four and twenty porters to open and shut the doors of the mountain of the house, or the temple, and the court of women in the daytime; six on the east side; four on the north; four on the south; at Asuppim two and two, four in all; four on the west, and two at Parbar g: here they attended in the daytime, to keep the place pure and peaceable; and there seems to have been one over all the rest, whose business was to see that the doors at evening were shut by them: in the Misnah h we are told that Ben Geber was appointed over the shutting of the gates, i.e. of the temple; and at night there were four and twenty guards also that kept watch; the priests kept guard in three places; in the room “abtines”, in the room “nitsots”, and in the fire room; and one and twenty Levites; five at the five gates of the mountain of the house, or the compass of the temple; four at the four corners within; five at the five gates of the court; and four at its four corners without; one at the chamber “Corban”; one at the chamber over against the vail; and another behind the most holy place; and there was one that was called the man of the mountain of the house, who every night went through every ward with torches burning before him; and he had power to beat those he found asleep in their watch, and to burn their garments i, to which the allusion is, Re 16:15<\/span>, and these guards, as Bartenora k observes, were not on account of thieves and robbers, but for the honour of the house; and these, neither the one by day, nor the other by night, did their work for nought, but had a maintenance allowed them for it:<\/p>\n neither do ye kindle fire upon mine altar for nought<\/strong>: and this was done every morning, for though, as one of the Jewish writers says l, fire came down, from heaven, it was ordered that they should bring of common fire; and there were three piles or rows of fire made every day upon the altar; the first was a large one, on which they offered the daily sacrifice, with the rest of the offerings; the second was on the side of it, a little one, from whence they took fire in the censer to burn incense every day; the third had no other use for it but to confirm the command concerning fire; as it is said, “the fire shall ever be burning”, Le 6:13<\/span> m and this fire was kindled to burn the sacrifices, the daily sacrifice, and other burnt offerings, for which they were paid out of the tithes, and other oblations; see 1Co 9:13<\/span> this was an aggravation of their negligence and carelessness about what offerings were brought and sacrificed; seeing they were so well taken care of, and such a sufficient maintenance provided for them; so that they did not the least piece of service in the temple but they were fully rewarded for it; even not so much as to shut a door, or kindle a fire; and therefore it is no wonder their conduct should be resented, as follows:<\/p>\n I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts<\/strong>; neither in your persons, nor in your offerings:<\/p>\n neither will I accept an offering at your hand<\/strong>: the “minchah” or meat offering, any meat offering, particularly that which was offered morning and evening with the daily sacrifice, Ex 29:40<\/span> and it is sometimes used particularly for the evening meat offering,<\/p>\n 2Ki 16:15<\/span> or rather, “a wheat” or “bread offering”; since this offering was made of fine flour, with oil poured upon it, and frankincense put upon that, Le 2:1<\/span> hence mention is made of “incense” in the next verse Mal 1:11<\/span>; and it was either baked in an oven, or fried in a pan; and either way, when it was brought to the priest, it was burnt on the altar, and was an offering by fire to the Lord, and of a sweet savour to him, when rightly performed; and was a figure of the sacrifice of Christ, which is of a sweet smelling savour to God; and this passage respects Gospel times, as appears from the following verse Mal 1:11<\/span>, when Christ’s sacrifice would be offered up, and so the oblation or meat offering made to cease, Da 9:27<\/span> hence God would not accept of it any more; or else because not rightly offered, as it was not when any leaven was mixed with it, or that and honey were burnt with it; signifying it should be offered with sincerity, and without hypocrisy, and other carnal lusts; and indeed no legal sacrifices were acceptable to God but such as were offered up in the faith of Christ, and with a view to his sacrifice, without trusting to, and depending upon, the outward offering, as hypocrites and carnal persons did: wherefore to this is opposed a pure “minchah” or meat offering in the next verse Mal 1:11<\/span>; which designs spiritual sacrifices, such as are now offered up under the Gospel dispensation; when offering and sacrifice of a ceremonial kind God desires not; he will have no more offered up; he takes no pleasure in them; they are not acceptable to him, being superseded by the sacrifice of his Son, they were types of; see Ps 40:6<\/span> and agreeably to which passages the words may be understood, as expressing the Lord’s rejection of legal sacrifices in general among the Jews, which he would have no longer continued than till the Messiah came; by whose sufferings and death the daily sacrifice was caused to cease, Da 9:27<\/span> when sacrifices of another kind should be offered up in the Gentile world, through every part of it, as in the following verse Mal 1:11<\/span>.<\/p>\n f “utinam vestrum aliquis”, Gataker, Drusius. g Kimchi in 1 Chron. xxvi. 1. h Shekalim, c. 5. sect. 1. i Misn. Middot, c. 1. sect. 1, 2. k In Misn. ib. l Baal Hatturim in Lev. vi. 13. m Maimon. Hilchot Tamidin, c. 2. sect. 4.<\/p>\n Mal 1:10<\/span>. “O that there were one among you, who would shut the doors, that ye might not light mine altar to no purpose! I have no pleasure in you, saith Jehovah of hosts, and sacrificial offering does not please me from your hand.<\/em> Mal 1:11<\/span>. For from the rising of the sun to the setting thereof my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is burned and sacrifice offered, and indeed a pure sacrifice to my name; for my name is great among the nations, saith Jehovah of hosts.<\/em> Mal 1:12<\/span>. And ye desecrate it with your saying: the table of Jehovah, it is defiled, and its fruit – contemptible is its food.<\/em> Mal 1:13<\/span>. And ye say: behold what a plague! and ye blow upon it, saith Jehovah of hosts, and ye bring hither what is robbed and the lame and the sick, and thus ye bring the sacrificial gift; shall I take pleasure in this from your hand? saith Jehovah.” <\/em> The construction is to be explained in accordance with Job 19:23<\/span>: “Who is among you and he would shut,” for “who is there who would shut?” and the question is to be taken as the expression of a wish, as in 2Sa 15:4<\/span>; Psa 4:7<\/span>, etc.: “would that some one among you would shut!” The thought is sharpened by gam <\/em>, which not only belongs to , but to the whole of the clause: “O that some one would shut,” etc. The doors, the shutting of which is to be desired, are the folding doors of the inner court, in which the altar of burnt-offering stood; and the object of the wish is that the altar might no more be lighted up, not “by lights which burned by the side of the altar” (Ewald), but by the shining of the sacrificial fire which burned upon the altar. , in vain, i.e., without any object or use, for Jehovah had no pleasure in such priests or such worthless sacrifices. Minchah <\/em> here is not the meat-offering as distinguished from the slain-offering, but sacrifice generally, as in 1Sa 2:17<\/span>; Isa 1:13<\/span>; Zep 3:10<\/span>, etc. Such sacrifices God does not desire, for His name proves itself to be great among all the nations of the earth, so that pure sacrifices are offered to Him in every place. This is the simple connection between Mal 1:10<\/span>, Mal 1:11<\/span>, and one in perfect harmony with the words. Koehler’s objection, that such a line of argument apparently presupposes that God needs sacrifices on the part of man for His own sake, and is only in a condition to despise the sacrifices of His nation when another nation offers Him better ones, has no force, because the expression “for His own sake,” in the sense of “for His sustenance or to render the perpetuation of His being possible,” with the conclusion drawn from it, is neither to be found in the words of the text, nor in the explanation referred to. God does indeed need no sacrifices for the maintenance of His existence, and He does not demand them for this purpose, but He demands them as signs of the dependence of men upon Him, or of the recognition on the part of men that they are indebted to God for life and every other blessing, and owe Him honour, praise, and thanksgiving in return. In this sense God needs sacrifices, because otherwise He would not be God to men on earth; and from this point of view the argument that God did not want to receive the reprehensible sacrifices of the Israelitish priests, because sacrifices were offered to Him by the nations of the earth in all places, and therefore His name was and remained great notwithstanding the desecration of it on the part of Israel, was a very proper one for attacking the delusion, that God needs sacrifices for His own sustenance; a delusion which the Israelitish priests, against whom Malachi was contending, really cherished, if not in thesi<\/em>, at all events in praxi<\/em>, when they thought any sacrificial animal good enough for God. Koehler’s assumption, that Mal 1:11<\/span> contains a subordinate parenthetical thought, and that the reason for the assertion in Mal 1:10<\/span><\/em> is not given till Mal 1:12<\/span>, Mal 1:13<\/span>, is opposed to the structure of the sentences, since it necessitates the insertion of “although” after in Mal 1:11<\/span>.<\/p>\n It is must more difficult to decide the question whether Mal 1:11<\/span> treats of what was already occurring at the time of the prophet himself, as Hitzig, Maurer, and Koehler suppose (after the lxx, Ephr., Theod. Mops., etc.), or of that which would take place in the future through the reception of the heathen into the kingdom of God in the place of Israel, which would be rejected for a time (Cyr., Theod., Jerome, Luther, Calvin, and others, down to Hengstenberg and Schmieder). Both of these explanations are admissible on grammatical grounds; for such passages as Gen 15:14<\/span> and Joe 3:4<\/span> show very clearly that the participle is also used for the future. If we take the words as referring to the present, they can only mean that the heathen, with the worship and sacrifices which they offer to the gods, do worship, though ignorantly yet in the deepest sense, the true and living God (Koehler). But this thought is not even expressed by the Apostle Paul in so definite or general a form, either in Rom 1:19-20<\/span>, where he teaches that the heathen can discern the invisible being of God from His works, or in Act 17:23<\/span>. in his address at Athens, where he infers from the inscription upon an altar, “to the unknown God,” that the unknown God, whom the Athenians worshipped, is the true God who made heaven and earth. Still less is this thought contained in our verse. Malachi does not speak of an “unknown God,” whom all nations from the rising to the setting of the sun, i.e., over all the earth, worshipped, but says that Jehovah’s name is great among the nations of the whole earth. And the name of God is only great among the Gentiles, when Jehovah has proved Himself to them to be a great God, so that they have discerned the greatness of the living God from His marvellous works and thus have learned to fear Him (cf. Zep 2:11<\/span>; Psa 46:9-11<\/span>; Exo 15:11<\/span>, Exo 15:14-16<\/span>). This experience of the greatness of God forms the substratum for the offering of sacrifices in every place, since this offering is not mentioned merely as the consequence of the fact that the name of Jehovah is great among the nations; but in the clause before the last, “the latter is also expressly placed towards the former in the relation of cause to effect” (Koehler). The idea, therefore, that the statement, that incense is burned and sacrifice offered to the name of Jehovah in every place, refers to the sacrifices which the heathen offered to their gods, is quite inadmissible. At the time of Malachi the name of Jehovah was not great from the rising to the setting of the sun, nor were incense and sacrifice offered to Him in every place, and therefore even Hitzig looks upon the expression as “saying too much.” Consequently we must understand the words prophetically as relating to that spread of the kingdom of God among all nations, with which the worship of the true God would commence “in every place.” forms an antithesis to the one<\/em> place, in the temple at Jerusalem, to which the worship of God was limited during the time of the old covenant (Deu 12:5-6<\/span>). is not a partic. nominasc.<\/em>, incense, suffimentum <\/em>, for this could not signify the burnt-offering or slain-offering as distinguished from the meat-offering ( minchah <\/em>), but it is a partic. verbale<\/em>, and denotes not the kindling of the sacrificial flesh upon the altar, but the kindling of the incense ( suffitur <\/em>); for otherwise would necessarily stand before , since the presentation preceded the burning upon the altar. The two participles are connected together asyndetos<\/em> and without any definite subject (see Ewald, 295, a<\/em>). It is true that minchah t e horah <\/em> does actually belong to muggash <\/em> as the subject, but it is attached by Vav explic.<\/em> in the form of an explanatory apposition: offering is presented to my name, and indeed a sacrificial gift ( minchah <\/em> covering every sacrifice, as in Mal 1:10<\/span>). The emphasis rests upon t e horah <\/em>, pure, i.e., according to the requirements of the law, in contrast to sacrifices polluted by faulty animals, such as the priests of that day were accustomed to offer.<\/p>\n (Note: In Mal 1:11<\/span> the Romish Church finds a biblical foundation for its doctrine of the bloodless sacrifice of the New Testament, i.e., the holy sacrifice of the mass (see Canones et decreta concil. Trident.<\/em> sess. 22), understanding by minchah <\/em> the meat-offering as distinguished from the bloody sacrifices. But even if there were any ground for this explanation of the word, which there is not, it would furnish no support to the sacrifice of the mass, since apart from the fact that the sacrifice of the mass has a totally different meaning from the meat-offering of the Old Testament, the literal interpretation of the word is precluded by the parallel “burning incense” or “frankincense.” If burning incense was a symbol of prayer, as even Reincke admits, the “sacrificial offering” can only have denoted the spiritual surrender of a man to God (Rom 12:1<\/span>).)<\/p>\n In the allusion to the worship, which would be paid by all nations to the name of the Lord, there is an intimation that the kingdom of God will be taken from the Jews who despise the Lord, and given to the heathen who seek God. This intimation forms the basis for the curse pronounced in Mal 1:14<\/span> upon the despisers of God, and shows “that the kingdom of God will not perish, when the Lord comes and smites the land with the curse (Mal 4:6<\/span>), but that this apparent death is the way to true life” (Hengstenberg).<\/p>\n To this allusion to the attitude which the heathen will assume towards Jehovah when He reveals His name to them, the prophet appends as an antithesis in Mal 1:12<\/span>, Mal 1:13<\/span> a repetition of the reproof, that the priests of Israel desecrate the name of the Lord by that contempt of His name, which they display by offering faulty animals in sacrifice. Mal 1:12<\/span> is only a repetition of the rebuke in v.7. is really equivalent to and in Mal 1:6<\/span> and Mal 1:7<\/span>, and to in Mal 1:7<\/span>, which occurs in the last clause of Mal 1:12<\/span> as synonymous with it. The additional words serve to strengthen the opinion expressed by the priests concerning the table of the Lord. is placed at the head absolutely, and is substantially resumed in . , proventus<\/em>, produce, income; the suffix refers to shulchan Y e hovah <\/em> (the table of the Lord). The revenue of the table of the Lord, i.e., of the altar, consisted of the sacrifices offered upon it, which are also called its food. The assumption is an erroneous one, that the sentence contains any such thought as the following: “The revenue drawn by the priests from the altar, i.e., the sacrificial flesh which fell to their share, was contemptible;” according to which the priests would be represented as declaring, that they themselves could not eat the flesh of the sacrifices offered without disgust; for they could not possibly speak in this way, since it was they themselves who admitted the faulty animals. If the flesh of blind, lame, or diseased animals had been too bad for food in their estimation, they would not have admitted such animals or offered them in sacrifice (Koehler). Even in Mal 1:13<\/span> this thought is not implied. is a contraction of (cf. Ges. 20, 2, a<\/em>): What a weariness it is! The object, which the priests declare to be a burdensome and troublesome affair, can only be inferred from the following expression, v e hippachtem ‘otho<\/em>. Hippeach <\/em> signifies here to blow away, like in Psa 10:5<\/span>, which is radically connected with it, i.e., to treat contemptuously. The suffix does not refer to , but to . The table of Jehovah (i.e., the altar) they treat contemptuously. Consequently the service at the altar is a burden or a trouble to them, whereas this service ought to be regarded as an honour and a privilege. Jerome thinks that instead of , we might read , which is found in a good number of codices; and according to the Masora, has found its way into the text as Tikkune Sopherim <\/em> (compare the remarks at Hab 1:12<\/span> on the Tikkune Sopherim). But in this case also the reading in the text is evidently original and correct. They manifest their contempt of the altar by offering in sacrifice that which has been stolen, etc. (cf. Mal 1:8<\/span>). The first is to be understood as referring to the bringing of the animals upon the altar; and is to be interpreted thus: “And having brought such worthless animals to the slaughter, ye then offer the sacrificial gift.” There is indeed no express prohibition in the law against offering gazul <\/em>, or that which has been stolen; but it was shut out from the class of admissible sacrifices by the simple fact, that robbery was to be visited with punishment as a crime. The reproof closes with the question, which is repeated from Mal 1:8<\/span> (cf. Mal 1:10<\/span>), whether God can accept such sacrifices with pleasure. The prophet then utters the curse in the name of God upon all who offer bad and unsuitable sacrifices.<\/p>\n He goes on with the same subject, — that the priests conducted themselves very shamefully in their office, and that the people had become hardened through their example, so that the whole of religion was disregarded. Hence he says, that the doors were not closed by them. Some interpreters connect the two things together — that they closed not the doors of the temple, nor kindled the altar for nothing; and thus they apply the adverb, חנם, chenam, to both clauses; as though he had said, that they were hirelings, who did not freely devote themselves to serve God, but looked for profit and gain in everything: and this is the commonly received explanation. (206) But it seems better to me to take them separately and to say, Who does even shut the doors? not however for nothing, and the copulative, ו, vau, as in many other places, may be rendered even: and yet ye kindle not for nothing my altar; as though God had said, “I have fixed your works; ye are then to me as hired servants; and now since I have ordered a reward to be given to you whenever ye stand at my altar, why do ye not close my door?” Some render חנם, chenam, in vain, and give this explanation “Who closes the doors? then kindle not afterwards in vain my altar;” as though God rejected the whole service, which had been corrupted by the avarice or the sloth of the priests, and by the presumption of the people. <\/p>\n It is indeed certain that it is better to separate the two clauses so that the adverb, חנם, chenam, may be confined to the letter; but there may yet, as I have said, be a two-fold meaning. If we render, חנם, chenam, in vain the import is that the Prophet declares that they labored to no purpose while they thus sacrificed to God contrary to his law for they ought to have attended especially to the rule prescribed to them: as then they despised this, he justly says, “Offer not to me in vain;” and thus the future tense is to be taken for the imperative, as we know is the case sometimes in Hebrew. <\/p>\n But no interpreter seems to have sufficiently considered the reason why the Prophet speaks of not closing the doors of the temple. The priests, we know were set over the temple for this reason — that nothing polluted might be admitted; for there were of the Levites some doorkeepers, and others stood at the entrance; in short, all had their stations: and then when they had brought in the victim it was the office of the priests to examine it and to see that it was such as the law of God required. As then it was their special office to see that nothing polluted should be received into the temple of God, he justly complains here that they indiscriminately received what was faulty and profane: hence he rightly declares (for this seems to me to be the true exposition) “Offer not in vain.” He then draws the conclusion, that the priests lost all their labor in thus sacrificing, because God would not have his name profaned, and justly preferred obedience to all sacrifices. He therefore denies that they did any good in slaying victims, because they ought in the first place to have attended to this — not to change anything in God’s word and not to deviate from it in the least. But I cannot now proceed farther. <\/p>\n (206) Adopted by Jerome, Cyril, and in our version, and by Henry, Scott, Adam Clarke, and Henderson. But Marckius takes another view, previously taken by Drusius, Gataker, and Cocceius, according to the following version — <\/p>\n Who is there moreover among you? let him even close the doors, That ye may not kindle my altar in vain. <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n What he seems to say is this,” observes Drusius, “I wish there were some one so inflamed by a pious zeal, as to close the doors, and thus to exclude all unlawful sacrifices.” To kindle or light the altar was to light the fire under it to consume the sacrifice. The Targum favors “in vain,” or to no purpose, “Offer ye not on my altar an execrable oblation.” The word הכם is used in both senses — “for nothing” or without gain, Gen 29:15<\/span>; Exo 21:2<\/span>,—and “in vain” or uselessly, Pro 1:27<\/span>; Eze 6:10<\/span> <\/p>\n It is difficult to know which of these views is the right one. What seems against our version is the negative לא in the second line. The sense given would be better brought out without it; and so Jerome leaves it out in his explanation. The form also of the sentence being changed renders it improbable that חנם belongs to the former clause. The version of Drusius comes nearest to the original, and is countenanced by the Septuagint and the Targum. — Ed. <\/p>\n (10) The prophet is now supposed by many commentators to say that the Temple might as well be closed, as far as concerns any pleasure the Lord takes in their offerings.<\/p>\n Who is there even among you . . . doors . . . altar for nought<\/strong>.Those that take the above-mentioned view of the passage would render, O that there were one among even you who would shut the doors, that ye might not light mine altar to no purpose. <\/em>To no purpose, like (Gal. 2:21<\/span>). The rebuke contained in this verse is, according to this interpretation, very similar to that of Isa. 1:11-15<\/span>. But the word even, which can only refer to you (Keil thinks differently), seems to us almost fatal to this interpretation. For we could only explain its use in the forced sense of: Would that some one, among even you (who ought to be the promoters of Gods service), would (since His service has now become a mockery) shut, &c. We are therefore inclined to retain the simple rendering of our venerable English Version. In that case, even among you (perhaps better, among even you<\/em>) would mean: even among you whose duty it is, and chief pleasure it ought to be, to minister unto Me, which, in that context, so far from being forced, would be most natural.<\/p>\n For nought.<\/strong>Comp. the attitude of the priests in 1Sa. 2:13-16<\/span>.<\/p>\n 10<\/strong>. <\/strong> The translators of A.V. misunderstood the force of 10a. R.V. expresses the thought much more clearly, though in some respects it is less literal than A.V.: “Oh that there were one among you that would shut the doors, that ye might not kindle fire on mine altar in vain!” The sense of the passage is: It were better that the doors of the temple be closed, and that sacrifices would cease entirely, than that the present condition be continued. Oh that there were one <\/strong> (R.V.) Literally, Who is there even among you? <\/em> This question has the force of a wish (compare 2Sa 15:4<\/span>; Psa 4:6<\/span>): Is there not even one among you? Would that some one were among you (G.-K., 151a)! <\/p>\n Shut the doors <\/strong> Of the temple, so that all worshipers will be excluded, and in consequence all sacrifices will cease. <\/p>\n Kindle fire on mine altar <\/strong> Literally, light my altar, <\/em> with sacrificial fires (Isa 27:11<\/span>; Isa 50:11<\/span>). In vain <\/strong> (R.V.) To no purpose, for it does not secure for them the divine favor (Mal 1:9<\/span>). <\/p>\n I have no pleasure in you <\/strong> Primarily the priests, but also the worshipers in general, because they leave undone the things pleasing to him, and for the things which they do he does not care (compare Isa 1:10-17<\/span>; Amo 5:21-24<\/span>). <\/p>\n An offering <\/strong> The word is ordinarily used to denote the meal offering (see on Joe 1:9<\/span>); here it stands for sacrifice or offering of every sort (compare Zep 3:10<\/span>).<\/p>\n Mal 1:10<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Who is there even among you, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> Yea, truly the doors will be shut because of you, that you may not kindle fire, <\/em>&c. The similitude is continued which was taken from a prince <\/em>or governor, <\/em>Mal 1:8<\/span> who would reject a blind or sick animal brought to him for tribute, and shut his doors against the offerer and his gift. Houbigant. <\/p>\n Here again, the Lord showeth the unworthiness and ungraciousness of man, and his unprofitableness to God. All which, if I mistake not, is introduced with a view to heighten the abundant grace and goodness of God. It is as if the Lord had said, though none of you will so much as open the doors of my house without a reward, yet my love, and the blessings I give are all free, and without restraint, yea, against all undeservings.<\/p>\n Mal 1:10 Who [is there] even among you that would shut the doors [for nought]? neither do ye kindle [fire] on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the LORD of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand.<\/p>\n Ver. 10. Who is there among you that would shut the doors<\/strong> ] To be a doorkeeper in God’s house, to have any the lowest employment about him, David (though destined to a diadem) looked upon as a high preferment. Those Nethinims, mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah, were none other but the Gibeonites, who were made drawers of water to the temple, as a kind of punishment. God, who is a liberal paymaster, made this cross a mercy. Their employment, so near the house of God, gave them fit occasion to be partakers of the things of God. The Lord did wonderfully both reward and honour them. So he did all others, though but porters, that had any office about his house. “Know ye not,” saith Paul, “that they which minister about holy things live with the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar” (though but to kindle a fire upon it) “are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live by the gospel,” 1Co 9:18<\/span> ; 1Co 9:14<\/span> ; should have, if not tithes, as they had, yet honorary stipends, double honour, 1Ti 5:17<\/span> , duplex, id est, multiplex<\/em> (Calvin), as Isa 40:1-2 Jer 17:18<\/span> . Or, double, comparatively, to that of widows indeed, 1Ti 5:3<\/span> , which yet was honourable maintenance, Et ex publico alebantur.<\/em> The priests of the Old Testament were plentifully provided for by tithes and other revenues appointed them by God. True it is, that in the captivity little commodity was made of the priesthood; whereupon some priests, who had married themselves into the noble family of Barzillai, took scorn to be in the priest’s register, but called themselves after the family of their wives. Now after the return to Babylon the priesthood grew into some gain and grace again; and then those degenerate priests would fain have thrust in among the priests of the Lord; but the Tirshatha would not suffer them, Ezr 2:62<\/span> . Howbeit, those priests that had stuck to their offices, and been faithful in them, did not serve God on freecost; neither was he behindhand or in arrears with any of them, as appears by this text; but as they did their work, so they had their wages. God put into the heart of good Nehemiah to take order that these tithes were duly paid in to the treasurers for that purpose appointed, Neh 13:10-11<\/span> . What reason had these priests, therefore, to be so gripple and greedy of filthy lucre, as to take such lame and lean sacrifices of the people, for if fat and good, to change them for the worse ones among their own, as holding anything good enough for God? which, because they did, <\/p>\n <\/p>\n I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hands<\/strong> ] I care not for your persons, I respect not your performances. The Lord had respect, first to Abel, and then to his offering, Gen 4:4 Psa 4:3<\/span> “But know” (saith David, to those that abused him) “that the Lord hath set apart him that is godly for himself”; and this he makes the ground why his prayer should be heard. The blood of a swine may look better and brighter than the blood of a sheep; yet might it not be offered unto the Lord, because it was of a swine. Sordet in conspectu iudicis, quod fulget in conspectu operantis.<\/em> A piece of wood may shine in the night from its rottenness; and that be fair in the sight of men that is abomination before God, Luk 16:15<\/span> . The swan was rejected for sacrifice because of his black skin, notwithstanding his fair feather, Lev 11:18<\/span> . The wicked man’s incense stinks of the hand that offereth it; and all his devotion is but a beautiful abomination. There is in Lombard this sentence quoted out of Augustine, Omnis vita infidelium peccatum est: et nihil bonum sine summo bono<\/em> The whole life of unbelievers is sin, neither is there any good without the chiefest good. Ambrose Spiera, the expositor, saith, Crudelis est illa sententia,<\/em> This is a cruel sentence. But saith not the holy Scripture the very same in effect? Pro 15:8<\/span> Heb 11:6 Joh 15:5<\/span> . What though Papists talk much of Opus operatum?<\/em> and teach that good works, by whomsoever performed, are accepted of the Lord, as justice in an atheist is a good and acceptable work to him? St James assures us that it is “the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man” only, and of one reconciled to God, that “availeth much,” Jas 5:16<\/span> . And, “for this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee,” saith David, Psa 32:6<\/span> . The leper’s lips should be covered, according to the law. And to the wicked God saith, “What hast thou to do?” &c., Psa 50:16<\/span> . It is said of witches and their good prayers (as they call them), Si magicae, Deus non vult tales: si piae, non per tales,<\/em> If those prayers be abused to witchcraft, God will have none of them; and if they be never so good, God will not have them from such kind of people. Before they pray men should see whether they are persons fit to pray; for God accepts not a good motion from an ill mouth, Jer 11:10-11 Joh 9:31 1Jn 3:22 Psa 66:16<\/span> . A wicked man lacks contrition, humility, faith, hope, feeling, fervency; he hath not a spirit of grace and supplication to indite his prayers; he hath not an intercessor in heaven to present and perfume his prayers. The breath wherein our prayers ascend should be like pillars of smoke perfumed with Christ’s myrrh and incense. Otherwise our words will be like the Egyptian pots, reeking out the strong smelling onions and garlic of our own corruption, such as God can take no pleasure in, neither will he accept such an offering at our hands.<\/p>\nFuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>It is common. Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought?<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>It is God-displeasing. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. It is displeasing to Him–<\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n