Commentary on Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah and Malachi John Calvin
MINOR PROPHETS
most suitable rendering then is, Its provision, that is, of the altar, is the contemptible food of God. 363 I take then the words to mean this, that a speech of this kind was often in the mouth of the people as well as of the priests, --- ``Oh! the provision for the altar is any kind of meat; be not so anxious in your choice, so as to offer the best animals; for God is satisfied even with the lean and the maimed.''
And here again God reproves the impiety and contempt of the people; and at the same time he condemns their avarice, because they took the worst of their animals to offer in the temple, as though they lost everything they consecrated to God.
Why he calls the sacrifices the meat or food of God, we now sufficiently understand. Only this ought to be observed, that the impiety of the people was evident, as they were so unconcerned in their duties; for God had not in vain instituted sacrifices and other rites. The contempt then of the signs openly showed not only the negligence of the people, but also their contempt of all religion. Were any one at this day to regard as nothing outward teaching and the sacraments, would he not prove himself to be an impious despiser of God? Yet religion, I allow, does not consist in these things; for though hypocrites pretend the most ardent zeal, they yet profane the name of God, whenever the truth sounds in their ears and the heart is not touched, and when they come to the Lord's table and are at the same time alienated from Christ. These things I allow; but as no true servant of God can despise these ordinances, which on account of our common infirmity are useful to us, and without which we cannot be as long as we sojourn in this world, whosoever derides our simplicity in frequenting God's house, or if silent abstains from doing so, and regards such a practice as nothing or as unimportant, he is thus, as I have said, proved guilty of impiety. This is the reason why the Prophet so sharply reproves the Jews, because they said that the provision for the altar was God's contemptible food. It follows ---
Malachi 1:13
13. Ye said also, Behold, what a weariness is it! and ye have snuffed at it, saith the LORD of hosts: and ye brought that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick; thus ye brought an offering: should I accept this of your hand? saith the LORD.
13. Et dixistis, Ecce fatigatio (alii vertunt, Ecce ex fatigatione,) et sufflastis in illud, dicit Iehova exercituum; et obtulistis raptum et claudum et debile; et obtulistis
Minchah (hoc est, oblationem;) an gratam hanc habebo e manu vestra, dicit Iehova.
He pursues the same subject --- that the worship of God was despised by them and regarded as almost worthless. We must bear in mind what I have before stated
--- that the Jews are not reprehended here as though they had openly and avowedly spoken reproachfully of God's worship; but that this was sufficiently evident from their conduct; for they allowed themselves so much licentiousness, that it was quite manifest that they were trifling with God, inasmuch as they had cast off every fear of him and all reverence towards him.
Ye have said, Behold, labor. This may apply to the whole people, or to the priests
363And what is offered thereon, even its food, is despicable.—Newcome. This is nearly the version of the Septuagint. And its fruit, even his food, is contemptible.—Henderson The table of Jehovah, polluted it is and his (or, its) fruit; contemptible is his (or, its) food.—Marckius The last comes nearest to the original, and is the most obvious construction. The verse may be thus rendered: But ye profane it by saying, "The table of Jehovah, Polluted is it and its fruit, Contemptible is its food." — Ed.
JOHN CALVIN
alone. It is commonly explained of the priests --- that they complained that they had a hard office, because they were continually in the temple and constantly watched there, and were much occupied in cleaning the vessels.
The monks at this day under the Papacy, and the priests, boasting of themselves, say, ``While all others sleep, we are watching; for we are constant in prayers.'' Forsooth! they howl at midnight in their temples; and then by massing and by doing other strange things they imagine that they are seriously engaged in pacifying God.
In this sense do some understand this passage, as though the priests, in order to commend their work, alleged that they labored much in God's service, and as though
God had enjoined on them many and difficult things. But I prefer applying this to the whole people, and yet I do not exclude the priests; for the Prophet here condemns both, and shows that it was wearisome to them to spend labor in worshipping God, that they considered it weariness, as we commonly say, Tu le fais par courvee. 364
And the import of what follows is the same, Ye have snuffed at it, that is, through disdain. Some give this rendering, ``With sorrow have ye moved him;'' and the verb is in Hiphil, and is often taken in this sense. The verb, {,}נפחnephech, is properly to snuff; and it is here in another conjugation; but even in Hiphil it has this meaning, and cannot be taken otherwise. Now they who render it, to move or touch with sorrow, are under the necessity of turning the words of the Prophet to a sense the most foreign and remote, even that the priests, extremely greedy of gain, compelled the common people to bring sacrifices, and thus extorted sacrifices, but not without sorrow and lamentation. We see how forced this is: I therefore wholly reject it. Some have hammered out a very refined sense, which is by no means suitable, ``Ye have snuffed at it,'' that is, Ye have said indeed that the victims are good and sufficiently fat; and yet ye may by breath blow them into the air. Others render it, to cast down, because they threw the sacrifices on the ground. But what need there is of departing from the common meaning of the word, since it is easy to conclude that both the priests and the people are here condemned, because the worship of God was a weariness to them, as we snuff at a thing when it displeases us. The behavior then of the fastidious is what the Prophet meant here to express. The passage will thus be very appropriate, Ye have said, Behold weariness! Ye have snuffed at it: then he adds, ---
Ye have offered the torn, and the lame, and the weak. These words prove the same thing --- that they performed their duty towards God in a trifling manner by 364Variety of meanings has been given to the word {{מתלאהCalvin takes it as one word with two letters added to ,{}לאהto be weary or tired. But Drusius, Marckius, Parkhurst, Henderson, and others, regard it as a contraction for {}מהand ,{}תלאהaccording to some other instances in Hebrew, and render it ``What weariness!'' and this corresponds with the context more than any other view. The Septuagint and the Targum considered the {}מas a preposition, and this mistake has been followed by Jerome and the fathers, and also by Grotius and Newcome. ``Behold, from weariness,'' or from labor, or from affliction: and it has been regarded as an excuse made by the priests on account of their poor and depressed condition. But there is nothing to countenance this notion in the context. Calvin adopted the past tense in this and the preceding verse, and so has Henderson; but Marckius and Newcome, with more correctness, render the verbs in the present tense, for they are all in this verse preceded by a conversive ,{}וvau; and the last line shows that the present time is intended, --- 13. And ye say, ``What weariness!'' And ye snuff at it, saith Jehovah of hosts; And ye bring the torn, and the lame, and the sick, When ye bring an offering: Shall I accept it from your hand, saith Jehovah? There are two evils ascribed to the priests---they were discontented with their office and performed it as a drudgery --- and they allowed forbidden victims to be offered. ``Offering,'' ,{}מנחהsignifies a gift or a present, whether a victim or meat-offering. See Genesis 4:2-5. Here evidently it comprehends ``the torn,'' ``the lame,'' etc., as it is clear from the words, ``Shall I accept it?'' that is, the offering, including those specified; for if it meant a meat-offering, as some suppose, non-acceptance would be confined to it alone. --- Ed.