Re: POLITICS -- Malachi commentary (Bible, Marriage, and Reproduction)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/23/04 11:16:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,

readnwrite@... writes:

> >> " Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And

> >>why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. " (Malachi 2:15, NIV)

Fern,

I took a look at the Septuagint, to find that you are not simply divorcing

this text from its context, but simply emasculating it.

First, the context: " The Lord " in this passage is talking to a nation, not a

person. The pronoun of address is the plural of " you, " not the singular, and

in all non-pronoun nouns of direct address, plurals and general words are

used. In fact, Malachi begins with the words:

" The burden of the word of the Lord TO ISRAEL by the hand of his messenger. "

What follows is a long list of the sins of Israel and Juda, clearly speaking

to a nation, and not a person. For example:

" A son honours his father, and a servant his master: if then I am a father,

where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the Lord

Almighty. You the priests are they that despise my name, " and then it proceeds

to

give ways in which his name has been despised.

Numerous other paragraphs are addressed as such:

" And now, O priests... "

" Have you not all one father? Did not one God create you? Why have you

forsaken every man his brother, to profane the covenant of your fathers? "

The paragraph directly proceeding the one we are concerned with addresses

Juda, meaning the NATION of Juda, not the person. I will put both paragraph in

succession, so it can be apparent to anyone reading that I'm not leaving out

text essential to the understanding of the passage:

" Juda has been forsaken, and an abomination has been committed in Israel and

in Jerusalem; for Juda has profaned the holy things of the Lord, which he

delighted in and has gone after other gods. The Lord will utterly destroy the

man

that does these things, until he be even cast down from out of the

tabernacles of , and from among them that offer sacrifice to the Lord

Almighty.

And these things which I hated, ye did: ye covered with tears the altar of the

Lord, and with weeping and groaning because of troubles: is it meet for me to

have respect to your sacrifice or to receive anything from your hands as

welcome?

" Yet ye said, Wherefore? Becasue the Lord has borne witness between you and

the wife of your youth, whom you have forsaken, and yet she was your partner,

and the wife of your covenant. And did he not do well? And there was the

residue of his spirit. But you said, What does God seek but a seed? But take

ye

heed to your spirit and forsake not the wife of your youth. But if you

should hate your wife and put her away, says the Lord God of Israel, then

ungodliness shall cover your thoughts, says the Lord Almighty: therefore take ye

heed

to your spirit, and forsake them not, ye that have provoked God with your

words. " (Mal 2:11-16)

It seems highly likely that this is meant metaphorically. The Lord likens

his relationship to a familial relationship in the opening passages of this

text, and continually refers to Juda's covenant with the Lord in the text

preceeding this probable metaphor of a spousal covenant (which is used

constantly in

the Old Testament to represent God's relationship with Israel).

But let's leave that aside. There are more important and less ambiguous

things to say about the passage.

You offered the following quote completely divorced from its context:

>> " Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And

>>why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. " (Malachi 2:15, NIV)

In fact, the sentences meaning is changed fundamentally when the whole

sentence is included, and it is translated properly:

" And *YE* said, What does God seek but a seed? "

This is the proper translation of the last sentence from the Greek of the

Septuagint. It begins " kai eipate " which could either be " but you said " or " and

you said. " The you here is second person PLURAL. It continues, " ti allo ee

sperma zeetei o Theos " which is, what else does God seek but a seed.

Now note, before we continue that the YOU being addressed is the same YOU

being addressed throughout Malachi. Putting aside whether this refers

metaphorically to a nation or to the individuals of the nation literally

breaking their

individual marital covenants, the point is that this sentence is addressed to

the transgressor being addressed, and the YOU who says " What does God seek but

a seed " is that transgressor!

Then, the passage proceeds:

" Kai feelaxasthe en to pnevmati eemon "

Now " kai " could mean " and, " but from context here we can gather it means

" but. " It would be less ambiguous of " alla " was used; however, since there is a

thematic use of " kai eipate " (and you said " .... " ) and then CONTRASTED with an

OPPOSING moral injunction, or explanation of The Lord's perspective. So it is

clear that " Kai feelaxasthe en to pnevmati eemon, " means " But take heed to

your spirit, " and is a moral injunction CONTRASTED to the statement of the

transgressor, " What does God seek but a seed? "

This theme is repeated throughout Malachi.

In the first paragraph: " I have loved you, says the Lord. And you said (kai

eipate), " Wherein have you loved us? " After which the Lord, in contrast to

that statement, explains his love.

In the second: the Lord says the priests have despised his name. " Yet ye

said (kai eipate), Wherein have we despised your name? " (The Lord then answers):

" In that ye bring to mine altar polluted bread... " etc, etc.

This pattern is repeated many times, until we arrive at the one under

dispute, in which it is repeated again. The transgressor being addressed says

(kai

eipate) " What does God seek but a seed? " And the prophet replies to this: " But

take heed to your spirit, and forsake not the wife of your youth. "

The only conclusion that can be drawn from an honest reading of this passage,

is that you fundamentally reversed the intent of the passage. You claim that

" What does God seek but a seed (offspring)? " is the moral injunction of the

passage. But in fact, the moral injunction of the passage runs directly

contrary to this question that the transgressor asks. The transgressor implies

that

faithfulness is not an issue, but that God seeks offspring. The prophet

replies that it is faithfulness and morality that is important, not the

spreading

of one's seed.

Whether this is taken literally to mean making an abundance of offspring by

taking more than one woman, or taken metaphorically to mean the abundance and

prosperity of a nation without morality and faithfulness to God, either way the

moral injunction of the passage runs contrary to the statement.

And you are using the statement itself to prove your point that the Bible

requires procreation of marriage. If you consistently apply this reading of

Malachi, you would come to the conclusion that the statments

--But you said, " Wherein have you loved us? "

--Yet you said, " Wherein have we despised your name? "

--But ye said, " Wherein shall we return? "

--But ye say, " Wherein have we insulted you? "

--Ye said, " He that serves God labors in vain "

all indicate that the Bible teaches us that

--God does not love us

--Israel had not despised the name of God

--Israel cannot return to God

--Israel had not insulted God

--To serve God is to labor in vain.

But a consistent and clear-headed reading of a decent translation shows that

all of these are statements of Juda/Israel, the transgressor being addressed

in the passage, and all are contradicted by the moral injunctions of the

passages, including the statement we have been disputing.

Thus, Malachi 2:15 cannot possibly be read to support the idea that the Bible

requires procreation as a rmoral requisite to marriage.

Chris

[Guest guest]

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> Thus, Malachi 2:15 cannot possibly be read to support the idea that the

Bible

> requires procreation as a rmoral requisite to marriage.

Of course not, and I never said that it did Chris.

Please go back and re-read my original posts on this if you want to know

what I was saying. I don't have time to type everything over and over, nor

do I have time to discuss tangents that have nothing to do with my original

point.

I'm not trying to be mean at all, but I am a bit exasperated, as you do

seem to have the ability to twist one's words and start arguing about

something they never said in the first place!

~ Fern

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/04 5:26:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,

readnwrite@... writes:

> I'm not trying to be mean at all, but I am a bit exasperated, as you do

> seem to have the ability to twist one's words and start arguing about

> something they never said in the first place!

While I may have reformulated your words incorrectly, you certainly said that

the Malachi passage indicated God expected offspring to come from marriage.

The passage you quote is a statement from Israel in an oppositional dialogue

with God, and the moral injunction of the passage runs contrary to it. So

whatever lesson you wished to draw from it, it has to be incorrect, because you

are using a statement that God is *opposing*, not *making*, to draw it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

From: ChrisMasterjohn << " What does God seek but a seed? " >>

If you could read the text in the original Hebrew you'll find that it reads --

What does one asks [for], god's seed... "

Dedy

[Guest guest]

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> > I'm not trying to be mean at all, but I am a bit exasperated, as you do

> > seem to have the ability to twist one's words and start arguing about

> > something they never said in the first place!

>

> While I may have reformulated your words incorrectly, you certainly said

that

> the Malachi passage indicated God expected offspring to come from

marriage.

I said that the passage showed that one of God's purposes for making them

" one " (referring back to the Genesis account of man and woman becoming one

in marriage) was to have " godly seed " (offspring).

> The passage you quote is a statement from Israel in an oppositional

dialogue

> with God,

Well, actually, yes it is God writing through the prophet Malachi, of

course, but Malachi's style is to make a statement and then follow it with

an imaginary sarcastic response from his readers, and then answer that

response with more proof supporting his original statement.

While this style differed from the other prophets, evidently it was at that

time a popular style of argumentation or rhetoric in Judaism.

So in 2:15, Malachi is imagining his readers responding sarcastically to

the assertion that their divorcing was contrary to God's creating a oneness

between them and the " wife of thy covenant. " He has the readers respond

with the question, " And wherefore one? " And Malachi answers, " That he might

seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal

treacherously against the wife of his youth. "

In other words, God had a reason for making the two one, " that he might

seek a godly seed. "

Now some think that seed meant the Messiah and that the two he referred to

were Adam and Eve. But nevertheless it took the two's oneness in " cleaving "

in marriage to create the offspring that eventually birthed the Messiah.

> and the moral injunction of the passage runs contrary to it. So

> whatever lesson you wished to draw from it, it has to be incorrect,

because you

> are using a statement that God is *opposing*, not *making*, to draw it.

I think you're mixing up what God said (actually it was Malachi making the

statements referring to God in the third person), and the imaginary

responses of Malachi's readers.

~ Fern

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/04 7:00:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,

readnwrite@... writes:

> I said that the passage showed that one of God's purposes for making them

> " one " (referring back to the Genesis account of man and woman becoming one

> in marriage) was to have " godly seed " (offspring).

And I showed that you needed to emasculate the text in order to take this

meaning from it, to which you haven't responded.

The main problem with your argument, is that you are using a quote from

Israel, who is portrayed as debating with God. Clearly, the statements that

" Israel " makes are meant to be construed as incorrect, not correct, statements.

>

> >The passage you quote is a statement from Israel in an oppositional

> dialogue

> >with God,

>

> Well, actually, yes it is God writing through the prophet Malachi, of

> course, but Malachi's style is to make a statement and then follow it with

> an imaginary sarcastic response from his readers, and then answer that

> response with more proof supporting his original statement.

>

> While this style differed from the other prophets, evidently it was at that

> time a popular style of argumentation or rhetoric in Judaism.

>

> So in 2:15, Malachi is imagining his readers responding sarcastically to

> the assertion that their divorcing was contrary to God's creating a oneness

> between them and the " wife of thy covenant. " He has the readers respond

> with the question, " And wherefore one? " And Malachi answers, " That he might

> seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal

> treacherously against the wife of his youth. "

>

> In other words, God had a reason for making the two one, " that he might

> seek a godly seed. "

This is NOT what it says. The " wherefore " exists several sentences before

the one in question, and is in response to God's statement in the previous

paragraph.

The most important thing here is that the question, " What does God seek but

posterity (a seed)? " is preceeded by " kai eipate " which means " And YOU said. "

So, you are relying on a thoroughly incorrect translation that fails to

render the proper sequence of dialogue to make your point.

>

> Now some think that seed meant the Messiah and that the two he referred to

> were Adam and Eve. But nevertheless it took the two's oneness in " cleaving "

> in marriage to create the offspring that eventually birthed the Messiah.

But the more important point is that the " What does God seek but a seed " is

being said by Israel in the passage, not Malachi. This is unambiguous in the

Greek of the Septuagint.

> >and the moral injunction of the passage runs contrary to it. So

> >whatever lesson you wished to draw from it, it has to be incorrect,

> because you

> >are using a statement that God is *opposing*, not *making*, to draw it.

>

> I think you're mixing up what God said (actually it was Malachi making the

> statements referring to God in the third person), and the imaginary

> responses of Malachi's readers.

I can't read Hebrew, so I'm relying on the Greek-- but the Septuagint is

generally considered reliable and authoritative (and might be moreso than the

Hebrew for various reasons). Either you are misreading it, or the translation

you

have is wrong.

In Greek, the statement is unambiguously that of Israel.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I see several problems here that we would need to resolve before we got

anywhere with the who said what of this passage:

1. You are evidently relying on an English translation from the (Greek)

Septuagint, while I am referencing the King Version which is

translated from the (Hebrew) Masoretic Text. Evidently there's a wide

enough difference not only in the English translations we are each

referring to, but also in the original texts (not to mention they are two

different languages), that we're not going to get anywhere without agreeing

to referencing English translations from the same original text.

2. I do not have the free time on my hands you've said you had, and

therefore do not find it profitable to work through whatever it would take

to agree on an original text to work from, not to mention continuing the

discussion after THAT agreement.

Just for the record, EVERY commentary and resource I consulted (which was

approximately 10 or so) made the same conclusion I did, but then each one

of them was also referencing translations from the Masoretic Text, not the

Septuagint.

I'll let you have the last say on the subject, if you want, as I'm now

excusing myself from this debate.

~ Fern

Re: POLITICS -- Malachi commentary (Bible, Marriage, and

Reproduction)

> In a message dated 2/25/04 7:00:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> readnwrite@... writes:

>

> > I said that the passage showed that one of God's purposes for making

them

> > " one " (referring back to the Genesis account of man and woman becoming

one

> > in marriage) was to have " godly seed " (offspring).

>

> And I showed that you needed to emasculate the text in order to take this

> meaning from it, to which you haven't responded.

>

> The main problem with your argument, is that you are using a quote from

> Israel, who is portrayed as debating with God. Clearly, the statements

that

> " Israel " makes are meant to be construed as incorrect, not correct,

statements.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/04 10:58:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,

readnwrite@... writes:

> 1. You are evidently relying on an English translation from the (Greek)

> Septuagint,

No, I'm using the Greek directly. I used transcription of the Greek (I don't

think my AOL Greek font would pass on to the list as anything but

giberish) to make my points, not direct English. I used the English translation

already provided where the words weren't operative.

while I am referencing the King Version which is

> translated from the (Hebrew) Masoretic Text. Evidently there's a wide

> enough difference not only in the English translations we are each

> referring to, but also in the original texts (not to mention they are two

> different languages), that we're not going to get anywhere without agreeing

> to referencing English translations from the same original text.

That's possible, but I don't know how to read Hebrew, so I couldn't tell you.

But from the GREEK, that is, the original Greek of the Septuagint, which is

considerably older than the Masoretic text and may well be more reliable, the

statement is unambiguously Israel's, not Malachi's.

>

> 2. I do not have the free time on my hands you've said you had, and

> therefore do not find it profitable to work through whatever it would take

> to agree on an original text to work from, not to mention continuing the

> discussion after THAT agreement.

I respect this, but it wouldn't take very long. If you know Hebrew but not

Greek, we're in trouble though, because I know Greek and not Hebrew. I don't

see why it would take you more than 30 seconds to look at one second and

determine what pronoun is used to indicate the speaker.

> Just for the record, EVERY commentary and resource I consulted (which was

> approximately 10 or so) made the same conclusion I did, but then each one

> of them was also referencing translations from the Masoretic Text, not the

> Septuagint.

Worst of all, they were referencing translations, and not the Masoretic Text.

It could be well established that translators are often incompetent, or take

large amounts of poetic license, or at least are inconsistent between

themselves due to an inherent subjectivity in the process of translating. So I

wouldn't consider ANY commentary based on an English version of the Bible to

carry

any sort of authority as to its meaning.

> I'll let you have the last say on the subject, if you want, as I'm now

> excusing myself from this debate.

I guess I've had it. I don't think it's reasonable for me to press you into

a deeper debate on this than we've reached.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/26/04 5:22:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Dpdg@... writes:

> The Septuagint was a translation of the Pentateuch by [72 or 75] priests

> from Jerusalem brought to the Egypt in the 3rd c. BCE. The rest of the Old

> Testament was translated about a century later with varying degrees of

> accuracy... In some cases, texts were composed afresh in Greek, yet were

included in

> the final collection of scriptures [the books of Esther, Psalms AND the

> prophets are considered as such]. This seems to have been anecdotally

confirmed by

> comparing your translation with the original text as quoted on in this thread.

Dedy,

I didn't mean to claim that-- I'm not making a claim one way or another,

because I don't know enough about it.

So, since you can read Hebrew, please tell me who is speaking the disputed

sentence in the Hebrew text. The sentence in question is unambiguously that of

Israel, speaking to God, in the text, and not God speaking to Israel through

Malachi. Does the Hebrew rendering disagree with this?

Chris

[Guest guest]

From ChrisMasterjohn -- <<I can't read Hebrew, so I'm relying on the Greek--

but the Septuagint is generally considered reliable and authoritative (and might

be moreso than the Hebrew for various reasons). Either you are misreading it,

or the translation you have is wrong.

Claiming a translation is more reliable and authoritative than the original text

in the source language is quite absurd..!

The Septuagint was a translation of the Pentateuch by [72 or 75] priests from

Jerusalem brought to the Egypt in the 3rd c. BCE. The rest of the Old Testament

was translated about a century later with varying degrees of accuracy... In some

cases, texts were composed afresh in Greek, yet were included in the final

collection of scriptures [the books of Esther, Psalms AND the prophets are

considered as such]. This seems to have been anecdotally confirmed by comparing

your translation with the original text as quoted on in this thread.

The textual differences between the Hebrew and the Greek text were noted as

early as 240 CE.

Dedy

[who can and does read Hebrew]

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/1/04 6:19:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Dpdg@... writes:

> My reading is that the whole book is Malachi speaking on behalf of God

> telling his listeners off for doing wrong. This very short book is introduced

as

> god's word at the 'hand' of 'Mal'a'chi' [my angel]... [Most other prophets'

> names are a 'construction' in a similar manner].

>

> What we have is, Malachi saying 'God said... etc.'

> Then Malachi saying 'and you [the people] replied... etc'.

>

> It's a narrator's rendition of an alleged 'dialogue'.

>

I agree. My question was whether " What does God seek but a seed (or godly

offspring or whatever) " was one of the former statements or the latter. The

Greek renders it unambiguously as the latter (that is, " then malachi saying 'and

you[the people] replied...etc' " ), and Fern was disagreeing based on her

reading of the NIV and King . If you don't have the time to look it up, I

respect that :-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

From: ChrisMasterjohn <<So, since you can read Hebrew, please tell me who is

speaking the disputed sentence in the Hebrew text. The sentence in question is

unambiguously that of Israel, speaking to God, in the text, and not God speaking

to Israel through Malachi. Does the Hebrew rendering disagree with this?>>

My reading is that the whole book is Malachi speaking on behalf of God telling

his listeners off for doing wrong. This very short book is introduced as god's

word at the 'hand' of 'Mal'a'chi' [my angel]... [Most other prophets' names are

a 'construction' in a similar manner].

What we have is, Malachi saying 'God said... etc.'

Then Malachi saying 'and you [the people] replied... etc'.

It's a narrator's rendition of an alleged 'dialogue'.

I found an interesting discrepancy between the Hebrew version of Malachi which

consists of 3 chapters and the King 's version which creates a 4th chapter

from Malachi 3 verses 19-24

Dedy