THE USE OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE IN MALACHI 2.10-16

[job 1:21]

GRAHAM S. OGDEN THE USE OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE IN MALACHI 2.10-16
 
The Rev. Dr Graham Ogden is a UBS Translation Consultant in Taiwan
 
Unfaithfulness is the central issue against which Malachi speaks in 2.10-16. On no less than five occasions does the verb bagad "be faithless, deceitful" occur, with a supporting role played by the verb halal "defile, profane" in verses 10-11. A second feature of this passage is its use of liturgical or religious vocabulary with particular relevance to the priestly class in Judah—"abomination", "sanctuary of YHWH", "bring offerings", "altar of YHWH". Even a superficial reading of the passage, therefore, will convince us that the prophet's concern is with the priests who have not only abandoned their calling, but who, in doing so, have led their people astray. Against the background of 2.1-9, which sets out the Levitical ideals so clearly, this failure on the part of the priests is portrayed as extremely serious. However, a question must be raised concerning the language of this passage. In particular, does Malachi address the question of priestly marriage and divorce—this view is based on a literal reading of the passage—or is he using these concepts in a figurative manner to deal with the question of the priests' failure to live up to the Levi-model? In this article I will argue that Malachi uses the vocabulary of human relationships in a figurative way. Thus, the issue being treated by Malachi is not marriage and divorce practices among the priests, but the failure of the present generation of priests to live by the demands of the priestly code.
The Problem Interpreting a writer's language, determining whether an expression is intended to carry a figurative or a literal meaning, is at times problematic. In the biblical material, additional difficulties arise from the lack of obvious signals in the surrounding text. For the most part, the interpreter can only test an understanding of a given text by asking whether a literal meaning actually makes good sense. If it appears that there are problems in such an interpretation, then he can test for a figurative interpretation, eventually making a determination in favor of one on the basis of an evaluation of the interpretations so produced. In the case of Malachi 2.10-16, which in all the secondary material available to me is understood in a literal manner, close attention to the implications of a literal interpretation alerts us to the possibility that the author's real intention is misunderstood unless the figurative meaning is followed. Let us assume for the moment that Malachi's language here requires literal reading for its meaning to be conveyed. We then ask, what is the problem with which the passage deals? Is it that the priests are unfaithful towards their brothers and sisters? Verse 10 levels this complaint against the Levites—"each is faithless towards his brother". Or is it priestly marriage to foreign women? Verse 11 appears to state as much—"he has married the daughter of a foreign god". Is it that the priests were formerly married to Israelite girls, then were unfaithful to them? This is what verse 14 seems to protest—"the wife . . . to whom you have been faithless". Is it that the priests have divorced the girls they married when they were young, whether foreign or local? It is this last question which cannot be answered, despite the comments in the secondary literature. The only possible reference to divorce comes in verse 16, and the statement is simply sane' shallah "I hate divorce". This statement would then run contrary to the view of Ezra who was an advocate of divorce if a marriage had been contracted with a foreigner. Further, if the words do actually mean "I hate divorce", then this all-inclusive attitude would forbid the priests from divorcing their wives, either foreign or local. Priests must remain married to whoever they have a marriage contract with. A literal reading of the passage produces these, and perhaps other, difficulties. The only certainty is that the main concern of the passage is not divorce, for as the keywords bagad and halal remind us, Malachi's over-riding concern is with priestly unfaithfulness. Thus, our basic question is, to whom are they unfaithful? Is it their brothers or sisters or wives in the literal sense? Malachi calls upon several kinship words in 2.10-16—father, brother, daughter, wife. In view of the anomalies produced by a literal reading, we must now explore whether Malachi's intention in their use is a figurative one. Unraveling the text Malachi 2.10 opens with two parallel questions: these then form the basis of a challenge to the priests being addressed— "why then do you . . ." The rhetorical questions assume the understanding that "we" have only one earthly father, just as "we" have only one divine Creator. Unless the spokesperson is a member of a family addressing his brothers and sisters, then "father" is a figurative usage, denoting a common ancestor, rather than the one who is male parent to them all. In the specific context of Malachi addressing the priests, identifying himself with them for the moment, we assume that "father" speaks of one who is the priestly ancestor, namely Levi. In another context it would be legitimate to suggest that "father" pointed to Abraham as the ancestor of the nation, but the limitations placed on us by the priestly context justify us in taking "father" in the more restricted sense of Levi here (2.4,8). The second question, "Has not one God created us all?" could also be taken literally, but once again the specific audience to which Malachi is speaking points rather to God's creative act in calling the priestly caste into being. Thus "creation" here approximates "calling" or "election" to priestly office. That the human and divine points of origin are brought together in these questions is no doubt due to the view that the Levitical ministry came about as the result of divine initiative (Dt 18.1-5). It is this common bond with "father" Levi which makes "brothers" of all Levitical priests, not simply of the present generation but also past and future. Only in this light can we make adequate sense of the charge that the priests are unfaithful to their brothers. Surely Malachi does not mean that the priests are dishonoring their own brothers! Of course, here the term "brother" is metaphorical, he is speaking of those who share a common ancestor, Levi. By their unfaithfulness to their common "father", this generation of priests is dishonoring its priestly brothers, whether they be past or present. This interpretation reflects the parallelism in the second half of verse 10—faithlessness towards our "brothers" and "profaning the covenant of our fathers", are referring to the same thing. In fact there is a degree of overlap between the term "brother" and "father" here as "our fathers" describes all those who have preceded them in the priestly ministry, those who at the same time are their brothers in the family of "father" Levi. A figurative reading of verse 10 indicates that Malachi is putting a challenge to the priests of his day to examine their commitment to father Levi, and to the covenant which has bound every generation to him and thus to the Lord whom they serve. We note that the two verbs bagad and halal, from the parallel clauses in verse 10, are the key event words of verse 11. This feature alerts us to the fact that verse 11 is a fuller explanation of verse 10; it will make more explicit the manner in which the priests have demonstrated faithlessness. The charge is levelled against "Judah". Who is "Judah" in this setting? From chapter 1 it is apparent that although the people of Judah and Jerusalem are failing in their duty by offering blemished and inappropriate sacrifices, their failure is directly attributable to the priests' neglect of their own sacred obligations. The foreground subject is the priests; the background subject is the people. This understanding may be applied in verse 11. "Judah" primarily refers to those priests in Jerusalem who perform in the Yahweh sanctuary. Such an interpretation does not require the removal of the phrase "in Israel and" before "Jerusalem", for this second name, as the specific place of the priests' unfaithful conduct, indicates that the two terms are really a single item. Thus, the priests of Judah have done abominable things, that is, they have profaned Yahweh's sanctuary, the sanctuary he loves (see Ps 76.68; 87.2). Furthermore, this conduct is described as ba'al "marrying" the daughter of a foreign god. The verb ba'at is a very carefully chosen term, because it is a pun on the name of the Canaanite god Baal. The subject of the verb is (the priests of) Judah. Our basic question once again is whether we are dealing with literal or figurative speech. A second question here has to do with the nature of the relationship of priests to the "girl" mentioned. Are they accused of actually "marrying" the girl concerned? To take the second question first, the verb ba'al can mean to marry, or be husband to, as in Dt 21.13 and so on. However, the root meaning is actually closer to that of being master of the person concerned, and that does not necessarily mean a marriage arrangement. Thus, it is possible that priestly marriage is not at all in Malachi's mind; rather, he is describing a different relationship, one in which one person has power over another. We shall see that this view best fits the needs of the verse when we deal with the first question about figurative language. If Malachi's language is taken literally, then the use of singular noun and verb forms in verse 11 would imply collective guilt. Most, if not all, priests would lie under the accusation Malachi makes. If "Judah" is taken literally to include all the people of Judah, then the problem is increased—virtually no male in the land was married to a local girl. Clearly, this latter charge is ludicrous. On the other hand, if we accept the possibility that Malachi's language is figurative, then the priests are accused of having a relationship described as ba'al with "the daughter of a foreign god". The question is, do the Hebrew words mean "a girl who belongs to a foreign god"? Figurative uses of the term bath "daughter" are quite frequent in OT—in Is 62.11, bath-zion describes the people who live in Zion/Jerusalem (see also Ps 9.15; 137.8; Jer 4.11; Zech 2.14). It may also be used to denote the relationship between one large city and its smaller satellite towns (see Num 21.25,32). Thus, the term bath may speak of a community of people, who are generally dependent upon or, under the authority of, another. "Daughter of a foreign god" then identifies a group of people who are subject to an alien religion, in which case bath has a figurative meaning, rather than a literal one. On this reading, the priests of Israel are spoken of as (spiritual) masters of an idolatrous people, people who under their priestly direction have gone astray from the truth. Here we can observe the use of "brother" to portray the priests' co-workers in the ministry, and "daughter" to speak of their (spiritual) children in the congregation of Israel. In verse 12 the prophet pronounces the divine response to such an iniquitous situation. God will sever "all who witness" and all who "answer". Who these witnessing and responding persons are we shall consider momentarily, but first let us note that they will be cut off from persons described simply as "man". In verse 10 the word "man" indicated the priests. Thus, among the present generation of priests a pruning activity will be undertaken by way of judgment, in which witnesses will be weeded out from the "tents", that is to say, from among the inhabitants, of Israel. This general statement could embrace the entire population of Israel, but the thrust of the threat is that the people of Israel will refuse to participate in worship. It could also mean that the priestly caste will itself cease to exist, as those who would become priests and offer the sacrifices are severed from the priestly ranks. God would bring to an end the Levitical or priestly system. The sentiments are similar to those of verse 9 above. A second charge against the priests is levelled in verse 13. They are accused of "covering the Lord's altar with tears". This of itself can hardly be cause for judgment, so we must consider the following clause and its relationship with this one, in order to establish what the priestly failure was. RSV renders the conjunction as "because", indicating that clause two presents the reason for the priests' tears. This would suggest that, on discovering that their actions have not met with divine approval, the priests weep, presumably out of sorrow. However, the general presentation of the priestly attitude in Malachi hardly fits with this interpretation. Another interpretation is more likely. This would understand the conjunctive me'en as "without", and give a translation "you weep all over the Lord's altar, without him accepting your offering." Thus, despite an outward show of devotion, there still is no divine response, no acceptance of what they offer. This situation would arise because the priests are so unfaithful to their priestly heritage. After such an attack from the prophet, naturally the priests feel constrained to respond with their own self-justifying query (verse 14). It is in this dialogue form that we meet in verses 14-15 the three references to the priests' wives—"wife of your youth", used twice, and "your covenant wife". The first phrase has two possible meanings: it denotes the girl a person married when he was still a young man; it can also describe a wife as youthful, in which case the noun "youth" takes on adjectival meaning. The second phrase refers to the wife with whom a person has a marriage covenant. In seeking the meaning of these phrases, we keep in mind the priestly context, recognizing that the phrases themselves could have a literal meaning. However, the wider context has alerted us to the difficulty of maintaining the literal interpretation throughout. Thus we ask about a figurative meaning for the term "wife". Evidence exists for the figurative application of the term (see for instance Is 54.5; Jer 3.3). Thus "wife" can indicate one with whom a person has a particularly close or covenant relationship. In the present context, the term "wife" can indicate the priestly community with which the priest is identified, or the tradition to which he is "wedded". The two attached nouns with adjectival function can both be explained in this setting. The term na'ar in Hos 11.1 describes Israel in its early days in Egypt and the desert. Thus the phrase "wife of your youth" can portray the priestly or Levitical community which was founded in those opening days of Israel's life, its youth, and to which the present generation of priests is bound by covenant. As for the second phrase "wife of your covenant", we are dealing with a specific reference to the fact that the priest is a member of a community under Levitical covenant to its Lord (Dt 18.1-5; Num 18.21-25). A figurative interpretation tells us that the charge against the priests is that they have abandoned their original commitment, and failed to keep their Levitical vows. This understanding is also consistent with the root meaning of the other noun also descriptive of the priests' "wife", which speaks of being united with, or in association with, some other person. In other words, Malachi is using the terms in such a way as to emphasize the individual priest's relationship to the wider body. Approaching these terms as figurative in intention makes perfectly good sense. Verse 15 is one of the most difficult of OT texts, but as those textual problems do not bear direct relevance to the issue of figurative language being tested here, it is not necessary to first solve some of the issues it raises. It is only the concluding command not to be unfaithful to your wife that touches on our argument, and fortunately our text at that point is not problematic. The interpretation of the phrase "wife of your youth" mentioned above in verse 14 is perfectly acceptable in this present setting. Thus, "wife" here can refer to the priestly tradition of which the priest is part. There is one other phrase in verse 15 which requires comment—which RSV renders as "godly offspring". In view of the lack of clear contextual guidelines for determining its meaning, we can only offer tentative suggestions. However, if Malachi uses "man" and "woman/ wife" to speak of the priest-covenant relationship, it follows that it is possible to speak of their producing heirs or "seed" zera, to continue the priestly line. If this possibility is allowed, then zera elohim describes not "godly offspring" in the sense of children who will follow the precepts and model of godly parents, but more narrowly, male descendants who will continue the Levitical line and live faithfully within its covenant obligations. As was pointed out above, divorce is not the central issue in this section of Malachi. In fact, there must remain some doubt about whether the prophet mentions the matter at all. The reference in verse 16 which gives rise to the theory that Malachi is concerned with this issue is simply ki sane' shallah, which RSV suggests means "I hate divorce". The subject of the participle is not present, but this is a minor problem since it is YHWH who is speaking. Thus the unnamed subject is certainly God. What he hates is simply conveyed by the term shallah, from the root shlh "to send (away), dismiss". In view of the fact that there is no object specified, we must supply one, or at least have one in mind to which our interpretation applies. It would seem that to presume that shallah means "divorce" depends upon the view that the priests' marriages are in trouble and that many of them have abandoned their wives for foreign women. We have already seen that there is little basis for this approach, and so we are free to explore other possibilities for the meaning of shallah. One of the first to spring to mind is that if dismissal is intended, then Yahweh could well be saying to the priests, "I hate the thought of having to dismiss you from priestly service." This has the advantage of being consistent with another threat against the priests in 2.2, where they face divine wrath and curse for their failure. The second clause of verse 16 is not without difficulties. However, we presume that the unnamed agent or subject of the verb is the "one" mentioned in verse 15. This "one" is most likely a representative priest. The charge against this person is that he wears not the priestly robe but "violence". Violence then would be descriptive of all the evils perpetrated by the present generation of priests. This charge in turn leads to the repetition of the call for renewed faithfulness as in verse 15, the only means by which they might avoid being dismissed from office.
Conclusion A literal interpretation of Malachi 2.10-16 produces a series of anomalies such that it is virtually impossible to identify the specific charge against the priests of Judah. However, if we adopt the view that Malachi's language is figurative, and that terms such as "brother", "father", "wife", are metaphors for relationships within the priestly family, or that "daughter" is a collective term for the people under the care of the priests, then we can solve most of the problems created by a literal interpretation. We can then identify the charge against the priests as their unfaithfulness to the Levitical ideal as set out in 2.1-9. Malachi does not concern himself with priestly marriage and divorce, but with the priests' departure from the standards set for the Levitical community through the ages. It was this failure on their part which eroded the nation's religious commitment. This was a serious charge indeed.
The following offers a translation model based on a figurative reading of the text:
 
(10) Don't we all have the same father Levi? Did not the same God create us all priests? Why then do we all break our promises and profane the covenant of our priestly forefathers?
(11) The priests and people of Judah have broken their promise; they have done evil in Israel and in Jerusalem. They have shown contempt for the Lord's sanctuary, the place he loves; the priests are masters of a people who serve other gods.
(12) No family in the nation will join in worship or bring offerings to the Lord, the Almighty One. (OR The Lord will cut off from the families of Jacob every person who would join in worship, who would bring offerings to the Lord, the Almighty.)
(13) That is not all you priests have done wrong. You weep all over the Lord's altar, but the Lord rejects your offering, the gifts you present.
(14) You wonder why he refuses your offerings? It is because the Lord was witness to the covenant between you and the priestly community founded in the early days of Israel's history. You have broken those covenant promises that you solemnly made.
(15) Has not God made you one in spirit with our priestly forefathers? And what is this unity but to produce heirs who will please God? Guard that spirit! Do not be untrue to your priestly calling. (Some footnote may be needed to indicate that the meaning of the Hebrew text is uncertain.)
(16) For I would hate to dismiss you as priests, says the Lord God of Israel, but you have covered yourselves with corruption (violence) as a person wears a cloak, says the Lord of Hosts. Again I say, Guard that spirit (of your calling) and do not be unfaithful to it.




From: https://archive.translation.bible/tbt/1988/02/TBT198802.html?seq=25