ebscohost_ i, yhwh, have not changed_ reconsidering the translation of malachi 3_6; la

8/11/2019 EBSCOhost_ I, Yhwh, Have Not Changed_ Reconsidering the Translation of Malachi 3_6; La..

1/14

I, Yhwh, Have Not Changed?

Reconsidering the Translation of

Malachi 3:6; Lamentations 4:1;

and Proverbs 24:21-22

RYAN E. STOKES

Yale University

New Haven, CT 06520

"FORI,YHWH,have not changed; and you, children of Jacob, have not been

destroyed." Malachi 3:6, perhaps the most memorable verse in the book, expresses

Yhwh's commitmenttothe preservation of Israel. Virtually all commentators agree

that this statement declares God's constancy, the deity's not "changing."1But,

despite this overwhelming consensus, the meaning of this statement is much more

difficult to discern than has previously been acknowledged. The overlooked diffi

culty pertains to the translation ofYPJttf,which is presumed to be from the root

TiW.It is my contention that translating this verb as"Ihave notchanged"is problematic, even incorrect,andthat there is in factamuch better alternative available

to translators. Furthermore, I suggest that the solution to the difficulty in Mai 3:6

sheds light on the interpretation of two other perplexing biblical texts, Lam 4:1

and Prov 24:21-22.

I would like to express my gratitude to Professors John J. Collins and Robert R. Wilson for

their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.1E.g., Andrew E. Hill,Malachi:A new translation with introduction and commentary (AB25D; New York: Doubleday, 1998) 295-96; David L. Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 andMalachi (OTL;


2/14

I,YHWH, HAVENOTCHANGED? 265

I.The Problemwith7\Win Malachi 3:6

The firstproblem withthe traditional understanding of TTW in Mai 3:6 isthat theqal stem of7\W,meaning"tochange," is rare intheHebrewBible.The root7\Woccurs in the qal stem thirteen times outside ofMai3:6 in thebiblicalcorpus.In eight ofthese instances,it means "to do again."2In twopassages,the participleof thiswordalongwiththe preposition p means "different from."3 In only oneinstance is there contextual support for the translation"tobe changed": "How thegold has grown dim, how thepuregold is changed" (Lam4:1NRSV).4Given thatthe qal of#in the sense of"tochange" occurs so rarely in the Hebrew Bible, itisinteresting that most commentators seem simply to assume that this is its gen-

eral meaning inMai3:6.Granted, this translation is not withoutbasis,since otherstemsofn3$,namely, the piel,puai,and hithpael, denote some sort of change.Furthermore, the LXX translates this statement , "I have notchanged."Whatisprobablythe deciding factor fortranslators,however, isthat,ofthe attested definitions for the qal ofruttf,"to change" is the only one that makesany sense in Mai 3:6. Nevertheless, this definition is approximated in only oneother instance in thebiblicalcorpus. Moreover, that theverbshould be translatedthus in even this one instance outside ofMai3:6 is itself highly questionable.5

Passingover thisproblemfor the time being, let us assume that Mai 3:6speaks ofYhwh'snot "changing." This raises a second problem. Whatexactlydoes"change" mean when the deity, or any person for that matter, is the subject?Commentators are generally in agreement thatMalachiis declaringthatYhwhhasnever changedwithregard to his policy of preserving Israel.6Some scholars alsodetectin this passage the concept of a covenantwith the children ofJacobandread the sentence as a declaration of God's unwavering faithfulness to that

2Thesepassagesare1 Sam26:8;2Sam20:10;1Kgs18:34(2x);Neh 13:21;Job29:22;Prov17:9;26:11.It is possible that the root nJttf meaning "to do again" is to be distinguished from theroot$inthesenseof"tobe different," "tochange."SeeJosuaBlau,"ber homonyme undangeblich homonyme WurzelnII,"VT1(1957)98-102,here 101-2.Since these formsareidenticalinBiblical Hebrew, however,Itreat them togetherinthis paragraph. Whetherthe tworootsaredistinguishedis not ofgreat import for the present discussion.

3These are bothinthe BookofEsther(1:7; 3:8).The peal of the Aramaic cognateisusedina similar fashioninDan7:3,19,23.

4The two remaining (supposed) occurrences ofintheqal arePs 77:11(10)and Prov24:21.The word is sometimes translated "to change" inthese passages,but that the worddenoteschangeintheseverses is far fromcertain.The translationofthesetwo verseswillbe discussed below.

5Aswillbe demonstrated, Delbert R. Hillers{Lamentations:A new translation with intro-duction and commentary [AB 7A; 2nd, rev. ed.; NewYork:Doubleday, 1992] 13738)makes a


3/14

266 THECATHOLICBIBLICALQUARTERLY I 70,2008

covenant.7Butcan theqalofbe usedinthisway?Nowhereelsedoes ithave

thespecificmeaningofaperson,letalonethedeity,changingbehavior.Shouldonemerelyassumethatthesamewordthatisusedofapreciousmetallosingitsvalue

would be usedtodescribeGodwafflingonamatterofpolicy?Although ultimatelyitmaybe impossibletodeterminewhetherHJttfwas as

semanticallyversatileastheEnglishword"change,"alookathowit isusedinotherstems mayprovideacluetohowtheqal mightfunction.Asin theqal, whenrttttfisinthepielorpual,theitemundergoingchangeisnot,oratleastnottypi-cally,thepersonhimorherself,butsomepropertyofthatperson.

8Onemight"change" one'sgarments,with"change"meaningtoremoveone'spresentgar-mentsand putonothers (2Kgs25:29//Jer52:33).Onemight"change"one'ssense,

with"change"meaningtobecome(orpretendtobe) crazy(1Sam21:14[13];Ps34:1).And,appositeofthisdiscussion,onemight"change"whatonesays,meaningtogobackonone'sword:"Iwillnotviolatemycovenant,oralter[3$]thewordthatwentforthfrom mylips"(Ps89:35 [34]NRSV).Butifthisthought

weretobe conveyedwithacorresponding intransitive qal,ascommentatorsallegetobethecaseinMai3:6, itwouldprobablynotspeakofGodchanging,butofGod'scovenantchangingor thelike.Wewouldexpect somethinglike"nruttf X

1?.

9TheclosestlikelyparalleltotheusageofTIN? supposedin Mai3:6, in

whichapersonherorhimselfundergoesthe"change,"istheoccurrenceofthe

hithpaelin1Kgs14:2:"Jeroboamsaidtohiswife,'Go,disguise yourself(mnttfn),

7E.g.,Hill,Malachi, 322.8Whatis possibly the soleexceptiontothis rule is in Esth2:9."Thegirlpleased him and won

his favor, and he quicklyprovidedher with hercosmetictreatments and her portion of food, and withseven chosen maids from the king's palace, and advanced her and her maids to the best place in theharem (O'tfan 3\&nviramKI rutf*!)" (NRSV).ButD.Winton Thomas ("The Root7\2W=snyin Hebrew,"ZAW52 [1934]23638)proposed that thiswordbeassociatedwith theArabicsaniya,"tobe high, exalted inrank."This meaning fits well the context of the king's promotion of Estherand does not require that one understand thisverbas an otherwise unattested usageof3meaning"tochange." The latter readingwould differfrom all other uses of#in the senseof"tochange,"

both in that itwouldhaveapersonasits direct object and also in that itwouldhave any sort ofindi-rectobject at all.

9Theoretically one could repoint7PJ#as a piel and assume a direct object, such as3,tobe elided, but itwouldbe odd for a direct object to be elided with no clue as to what it is from thecontext.ThetextofPs77:11(10)is relevant here:\\+>*T\Mtiten 1.The translation ofthis verse is very difficult. TheNRSV rendersit, "And Isay,'It is my grief that the right hand of theMostHigh has changed.'" Cf. theNIV,which translates JTutf as "years," and Mitchell Dahood(PsalmsII:51100:Introduction, translation, andnotes[AB17;NewYork:Doubleday,1968]229),

who emends IVUtf tonjtjffrom "|W\"tobe withered."Itis not clear from thecontextthatTV)Wdenoteschange. But, even if one were to accept this translation of the word,it is still the case that God is


4/14


sothatitwillnot beknownthatyou are thewifeofJeroboam'"(NRSV).10Clearly,thespecificmeaning"todisguise oneself"wouldnotmakesense in Mai 3:6. Butit isdifficult toknowwhetherthemoregeneralconceptionof"change"underly-

ing 1Kgs 14:2wouldbeappropriateforMai3:6,and, in the end, wecannotbe cer-tainthatthe qal of7\1wouldnever havebeen usedtospeakofapersonchangingwithregardto his or herpolicy.

For Malachi to use thewordin the way hithertosupposedby scholars,how-ever,wouldbe at leastunusualand(fromourperspective)unexpected,if not alto-getherout of stepwithhow it isused elsewhereinbiblical literature.Moreover,therewereotherwaysby whichtheprophetcouldhavecommunicatedthisidea,for example,with\1 orwiththe specificpropertyof God thatchangesas thedirect objectof312?in thepiel.TargumJonathanof Mai 3:6 may betellinginthis

regard.ThisAramaic renderingof theversedealswiththedifficult TPJttf byput-tingtheverbin thecausativeaphelstemand supplyingitwithadirect object:"Ihavenotchangedmy eternalstatute." Inorderfor 711Vto make any sense in Mai3:6, one must not only suppose it to be an unusual finite qal form of this particularverb,but must also suppose that this verb is used in what seems to be an atypical manner.11

10Perhapsthe hithpael in this verse should be understood as what Bruce K. Waltke and M.O'Connor(An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax[Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990] 430-31) refer to as the "estimative-declarative reflexive," which denotes "esteeming or presenting oneself in a state, sometimes without regard to the question of truthfulness." Jeroboam instructs hiswife to pretend to be different in some way from how she really is. Cf. the similar use of "Dtfin todescribe her actions a few verses later(1Kgs 14:5,6). This form, the hithpael of33,isusedin Gen42:7whereJoseph"pretendedto be astranger"to hisbrothers.

"NahumM. Waldman("SomeNoteson Malachi 3:6;3:13;and Psalm 42:11,"JBL 93[1974]54349,here54345)argues that the qal ofn3ttfcanmean"torenege"on thebasisof asupposed

Akkadianparallelen.TheGstem of this Akkadian word, according to Waldman, can mean "tochange" either transitively or intransitively. In some instances, the intransitive use of this word can

have the sense "to go back on one's word, change, renege." He concludes, "The context of Mai 3:6is quite consistent with an interpretation in terms of keeping, rather than breaking, one's word"(p.543). Beth Glazier-McDonald(Malachi: The Divine Messenger [SBLDS 98; Atlanta: ScholarsPress, 1987] 179-80) is persuaded by Waldman's argument. This reading, however, is quite tenuous.

Enis not a cognate ofn ttf,so any claim that they are semantically parallel must bear the onus,which Waldman's argument fails to do. First, in the rare instance in which the qal of7\W likelymeans "to change" (only one possible instance that I have found), unlikeen,it never means "tochange" in a transitive sense but only intransitively. Second, Hill(Malachi,295-96) criticizes Waldman's argument for not taking into account the context ofenin the Akkadian documents. Theexamples that Waldman cites, according to Hill, are all takenfromAkkadian legal texts and refer to

written contracts and documents. Furthermore, says Hill, the sense ofenin these texts is clearbecause it is always accompanied by a verb of speaking or a noun like "word." The same cannot besaid of 7\W in Mai 3:6 so one should not use this legal idiom to interpret the prophetic text Finally


5/14


6/14


of such an appropriation ofaending byfcGttfin Mai 3:6 is not difficult tomaintain. As foritsprobability in this particularinstance,it must be admitted thatthere are no otherexamples of theqal perfectofXJttf takingaending.But,as

Iwillsuggest below, there is reason to suspect that this has happened in thecaseof themasculinepluralparticiple in Prov24:2122.In addition, the distinction

between7\WandOtf is blurred in one occurrence of the qal infinitive constructofthelatter.Theformntty,asopposedto themore commonity(e.g.,Gen37:5),appears in Prov8:13with afinal analogoustothat ofinfinitiveconstructs.14

The morphological intermingling of the two words can be seen also in twoinstancesintheMTin which7\Wis spelled with anXrather thana.15Finally, thatin two instances the LXX translators mistakenly read3#asXWreveals their

expectationthat the lattermightoccasionallyappear withendings(Prov17:9;Qoh8:l).The occurrence ofGJwith aending in Jer26:9is particularly signifi-

cantfor the purposes ofthisarticle for two reasons. (1) That some manuscriptsspell thiswordinJer26:9according to the usualIIIKparadigm no doubt revealstheattemptoflaterscribesto"correct"its spelling. There would have been norea-sonfor a scribe to change the more common spelling to the lesscommon. Thisattempt to correct thetextseems to indicate that at least some later readers werenotalways entirely comfortable with this alternative spellingofIIIKverbs.16This

may explain why boththeMTandtheLXX would assume YPJttftobeaverb.(2)The useof theending inJer26:9is also significant, since the more com-mon spellingof thevery sameverb(3?)is found nearby inJer28:6.Evidently,itwas possible for both spellings to appear within the same work.This is exactly

what one finds to be thecaseinMalachi(1:3;3:6).Nowthat our reading of YPJttf as the qal perfect ofXJttfhas been established

asmorphologically plausible, allthatis left istoplace theconceptofYhwh's"hat-ing" intoMalachi'sargument. There couldnotbeamore perfect fit.Malachiopens

his book withadeclarationthatGod lovesJacob(1:2).Despitethe disbeliefofhisdialogue partners, the prophet defends this assertion by comparing the conditionofJacobto thatofEsau. Esau,whomIhave hated(YINJtP),saysYhwh,is leftdes-olate.The sonsof Esauhave been shattered andwillnotbe abletorebuild(1:34).

Although thewordrf?Ddoes not occur in this opening discourse as it does in 3:6,thedestructionofEdom is certainly described.Jacob'schildren,onthe otherhand,

14This type ofanalogue is not uncommon in IIIXinfinitiveconstructs.SeeGKC74h.15N3t2hin Lam 4:1 and Qoh8:1.Theverb is qal in the former andpualin the latter.Seealso

the pielwithanXin Sir13:24(Greek25).I agreewithDelbertHillers,however, inarguingthat thewordin Lam 4:1 is likelyfromthe root NJttf and has been mispointed by the MT as aformofrutf.


7/14

270 THECATHOLIC BIBLICALQUARTERLY | 70,2008

sincetheyareloved, havenot suffered the samefate.Whatcouldbemore appro-priatetoMalachi'sargument thanthe statement"I,Yhwh,havenothated[you];and you, childrenofJacob,havenotbeen destroyed"(3:6)?17Infact,thesimilar-

ity of 3:6 to 1:25 hasbeenpreviouslynotedby commentators,evenwithouttrans-latingTPIlttfin themanner proposedhere.18

In sum, thetraditionalunderstandingof $ as the qalperfectofruttfisprob-lematiconbothlexicaland contextualgrounds.Althoughthefirstpersonsingularqal perfectof N3W is otherwiseunattestedwitha ending,that suchaform

wouldoccurisquiteplausibleand wouldmakeperfect sense in Mai 3:6.When

17

Itispossiblefor 3to occurwithoutadirectobject(e.g.,Qoh 3:8). But in Mai 3:6 it isper-hapslikelythat thedirect objecthassimplybeenelided.Eitherway,Yhwhwouldnot bemakingageneral declarationof nothatingbut onlyof nothatingthechildrenof Jacob. Such an elision is noproblemfor myargumenthere. Theobjectwouldhavebeenclearfrom1:25, and theimplicitobjectof theverbappearsas thesubjectand veryfirstwordof the next clause. It is alsorelevantto notethat the second personpronominalobject islikewiseelided in 2:17 ("But you say, 'How have we

wearied[you]?'"). But,perhapsmost important,the lackof an explicitdirect object preservestheparallelismbetweenthe two clauses of 3:6.

on^D * aproan

Thisis also anappropriate pointto issue thedisclaimerthat it ispossible to construe the syntax ofthisversedifferentlyfromthemannerabove.See Petersen(Zechariah 914 and Malachi,21213),

who translates the passage "Truly,I amYahweh;Ihavenotchanged.Moreover, you are thechil-drenof Jacob; youhavenotbeen destroyed."Thepresentdiscussion islimitedto thetranslationof3# andfollows thetraditionaltranslationof theverse otherwise. The adoptionof thetraditionaltranslation hereismerelyfor the sake of convenience and is notintendedtoendorseanyparticularconstrualof the verse's syntax.

18E.g., Petersen,Zechariah 914 and Malachi,214; Redditi,Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,178.Apartfrom1:25 and 3:6, ato occurs one other timein theprophetic book.Malachi 2:1316,

apassage fullof textualdifficulties,denounces divorceas it wasbeingpracticedamongthe men ofJudah.Thefinalverseof this sectionreadsmn?"i$rhuXJfr"':?.This line is traditionally translated,"For I hate divorce, saysYhwh."But in order to arrive at this translation, in which God speaks inthe first person, one must emend the text. Further, whenK3Wappears elsewhere in the context ofdivorce, it refers to the husband's hatred of his wife, which constitutes the grounds for the divorce(Deut 22:13, 16; 24:3). Thus, although the precise meaning of this passage remains elusive, it islikely that the one who "hates" in Mai 2:16 is the husband who initiates the divorce proceedings,not Yhwh. Ifthisunderstanding of 2:16 is correct, then Mai 3:6, when read along with this verse,takes on a touch of irony. The sons of Jacob may have hated their wives, but Yhwh has not hatedthe sons ofJacob.For various analyses of this verse, see the relevant portions of the commentarieslisted in n. 1. See also the discussion in John J. Collins, "Marriage, Divorce, and Family in SecondTemple Judaism," inFamilies in Ancient Israel(ed. Leo G. Purdue, Joseph Blenkinsopp, John J.Collins, and Carol Meyers; Family, Religion and Culture; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997)


8/14

I,YHWH,HAVENOTCffi4iVG^D? 271

one takes all ofthesefactors into consideration, "I have not hated" becomes themore likely meaning ofWW in this verse rather than"Ihave not changed." A nat-uralquestiontoask after considering the argument aboveis,Isthere evidence that

the masoretes have mistakenly pointed XJttf as ittttf anywhere else in the HebrewBible? Although such a mistakewouldbe difficult toprove, there is good reasontosuspect that this very error has indeed been committed in two otherpassages.

III.Lamentations 4:1

Inoted above Delbert R.Hillers's repointing of}?as WW? in Lam 4:1a.19

The passage in question reads310DriDHKJT 3WV ^, "How the gold hasgrown dim,/how thepuregold is changed!" The passage continues,

The sacredstonesliescatteredatthe head of everystreet.

Theprecious children ofZion,worth their weight infinegold

how theyarereckonedasearthenpots,theworkofapotter's hands!" (Lam 4:lb2NRSV)

Inadditiontothe fact that thewordunder consideration is spelled with anXratherthan a,Hillers observes several problems with4:la as it stands in theMT.First,gold does not tarnish or dim significantly. In fact, it is known for maintaining its

brightness.Second,theOTnowhereelsementions the color of gold, but speaks ofitsvalue.Third,what happens to the gold in this passage is compared with whathappens to the people. Verse 2 suggests that a precious people is being treated assomethingcheap.It is not the intrinsic quality of the people that has changed, buthow theyareregarded. Forthese reasons,Hillers simply repoints NJtf asandemendsUVVto2VV.20"How gold is despised! Good gold is hated!" The result istwo statements that both make sense and fit theircontext.Hillers'sarguments are

persuasive. Admittedly, in order to accept his repointing of Otf\ one is requiredalsotobuy his emendation ofSV.And perhaps this additional conjecture slightlydiminishes any confidence thatKNi**has indeed been mispointed in the MT of Lam4:1.But, at the very least, Hillers makes a strongcase,and his case and the onepresented above with regard to Mai3:6reinforce eachother.Since these are theonlytwo instancesinwhichone canplausiblyread afiniteqal ofin the sense of"change,"thesearguments strengtheneachother on lexical grounds. Likewise, theprobability of such an error on the part of the MT and the LXX in one oftheseinstancesalso increases the likelihood that this same error might have occurred


9/14

272 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 70,2008

elsewhere. Finally, these arguments are further supported by yet another passage

inwhich the two roots seem to have been confused.

IV. Proverbs 24:2122

A third instance in which KJttf appears to have been mistaken for 711V?occurs

in averse that has long puzzled translators, Prov 24:21: "1*701 "'

ETTIttf'Dy,"Fear Yhwh, my son, and the king; /with those who change

donot associate."Verse22 continues, "For their disasterwillrise suddenly,/and

who knows the ruin ofbothofthem?"The problem with this passage, of course,

concerns the translation of DTlttf. Who are these "changers," and what do they

have to do with fearing Yhwh and the king? The LXX seemingly deals with thisproblem by emending the text. "FearGod, son, and the king; and do not disobey

eitherofthem."21

Modern translators,too,have had problems translating this text.

TheKJV translates the clause in question, "meddlenotwith them that are given to

change."TheNASB translates similarly, "Do not associate with those who are

given to change." To render D^lltf in this way, however, makes little sense of the

verse. Commentators have recognized that to associate with theWIVUmust be in

some sense antithetical to fearing Yhwh and the king.Itmust also relate to the ruin

mentioned in the next verse. Based on these contextual clues, some translators,

including those oftheNAB and theNIV,veryfreely rendertPlVUas "rebels," "polit-ical agitators," and the like.

22 These translations, however, have no lexical basis.

It is perhaps for this reasonthe difficulty of making sense of W1W in Prov

24:21that BerendGemser,along withtheRSVma AfftFtranslators, opts to fol-

low the LXX.23

D. Winton Thomas, recognizing the problems with reading 7\1Vin this verse,

proposes that the word here is actually a cognate of the Arabicsaniya, meaning "to

become high, exalted inrank."24The student is instructed, according to thisinter-

21That thisis anemendationof thetradition foundin the MT islikely, sinceone canimaginehow the MTmight have given riseto the LXXreading.D'Tltfhasbeen emendedto,andT)VT)T)possiblyto57.Thefirstof these alterations mighthavebeen an intentional "correction" ofthedifficult D lttf,or it mayhavearisen under the influence ofUTVitiin the nextverse.The moredif-ficult MTis lesseasilyaccountedforif onesupposestheLXXto beearlier.ButeveniftheLXXreading isthe more original, there remains the need to understand how theMTwould havebeenunderstood. This argumentforthe timebeing assumesthat the Greek oftheLXXcorrectly trans-lates.Another explanation fortheLXXrenderingwillbesuggestedbelow.

22Foralistofthevariousideasonthetranslation of&1Wand of theirrespectiveproponents

at the turn ofthenineteenth century, seeCrawfordH.Toy,A CriticalandExegetical Commentaryon theBookofProverbs(ICC;NewYork:Scribner, 1899)44950.Fora helpful summary ofthecur-rent state of the question see Bruce K Waltke The Book of Proverbs vol 2 Chapters 1531


10/14

I, YHWH, HAVENOTCHANGED? 273

pretation, to fearthe kingbutto"meddle notwiththose of highrank." Theadvantage ofthistranslationisthatit rendersDMIttfin a waythatismeaningfulin thecontext of instruction on proper conduct toward the powerful. But this explanation

suffers a significantweakness aswell, sincethetranslation "thosewhoare of highrank"doesnotmakemuch sense as an antithesisto God and theking. Why shouldone fear Yhwh and the king but avoid involvement with the nobility? This problem leads BruceK.Waltke to supplementthetextasfollows: "FeartheLORD,myson,and theking; with [intriguing] officialsdonot get involved."25Thetranslationof D'Tlttf as "those of high rank" requires one to createabackstory fortheproverbin which these officials are up to no good. This reading cannot stand on its own,and, as inMai3:6,atranslation that requiresnosuch speculative supplementation

is to be preferred.Wearrive at this preferable translation if takingW1Was the qal participle ofXttf.26The qalparticiple of this rootisused throughouttheHebrew Bible for "onewhohates"or "enemy." Andit oftenoccurs withreferenceto theenemies of Yhwhortheking.27Interestingly, this reading is exactly that offeredby theGreek CodexVenetus,.Althoughonemightexpecttheparticipletobequalified bythethirdperson masculine pluralpronominalsuffix, "their [i.e.,Yhwh's andtheking's]enemies,"itneednotincludea suffix tobe readily intelligible.

28

Asamatteroffact,theexpectationthatthisparticiplewouldhaveapronom-

inalsuffix leadstotwofurtherobservations.First,itispossiblethatLXX of24:21istheresultofamisreadingofUWNias"eitherofthem,"whenthewordmayhaveactuallybeentheparticipleof K^withthethirdperson masculine pluralpronom-inalsuffix.

29 Second,andmoreimportant,thereiswarrantforunderstandingthe

seeminglyawkwardDTWof 24:22 likewiseasDPJttf ("theirenemies")rather thanas ("bothofthem")."Fortheirdisastercomessuddenly,andwhoknowsthe

(1937) 17476. InadditiontoProv24:21 and Esth 2:9 (mentionedabove),Thomasfindsthisrootin

Prov 5:9 and Isa 11:1.Ahandful of scholars havebeenpersuadedby Thomas'sreadingof the

Proverbspassage,includingG. R.Driver("Problemsin theHebrewText ofProverbs,"Bib32[1951]17397,here 189);LotharKopf("ArabischeEtymologien und Parallelen zum Bibelwrterbuch,"VT9[1959] 247-84, here 281-82);J.A. Emerton ("The Meaning ofsen3in Psalm CXXVII2,"VT24 [1974] 15-31, here 25-30); Waltke(Book of Proverbs,2. 279-80).

25Waltke,Book of Proverbs, 2. 279-80.26See GKC 75qq, for examples of III-X qal participles whoseiselidedaccordingto the

pattern.27ForYhwh,see, e.g., Deut 5:9; 7:10; 2 Chr 19:2; Ps21:9(8); for theking,see, e.g., 2 Sam

22:18;2 Chr 1:11.28Thesubstantiveqalparticipleof3moreoften occurseitherwithapronominalsuffix(e.g.,

"our enemies" []in Exod 1:10) or in a construct relationshipwithanothernoun(e.g.,"ene-mies of the righteous" [pHX "WW] in Ps 34:22[21]),but occasionally thesingular participlewill


11/14


ruinofarrjff?"This Dmw, as does theWIWofv.21, has a longhistoryofgiving translatorspause.The Peshitta reads7V1Was"theiryears."Both ThomasandG. R.Driver emend03#to D^ntf(n).30Though theMTof v. 22 is certainly notunintelligible as pointed by themasoretes,once one allows that the participle ofKJtomay be formed according to thepattern, a better interpretation of theconsonantal text becomes possible.31Thus, Prov24:2122 should correctly betranslated,

FearYhwh,my son, and the king;

with enemies do not associate.

For their disasterwill rise suddenly,

and who knows theruinof their enemies?

V. Conclusions

Itappears quite likely, then, that the masoretes and the LXX translators havein more than one instance mistaken the rootNJtPforanother.There is good reasontosuspect that this has happened in fourinstancesin three ofthese(Mai 3:6;Prov24:21,22)owingtotheroot'sappropriation of endings accordingtotheparadigm.InLam4:1the mistake may be due inparttothe inverse assumption that7\Nfmight takeIIINendings.Ifthis misidentification has in fact happened inMai

3:6;Lam4:1;and Prov24:21,then the only remaining verse in whichTllVlin theqal might possibly mean "to change" is Ps77:11,where thewordoccurs in theinfinitiveconstruct.ButasInoted above, this verse isincrediblydifficulttotrans-lateas well. Thus, outside ofEsth1:7 and3:8,where the participle of3means"different from," there is no occurrence of the root in the qal denoting any sort of"change" in which one may have any confidence.32Even were one to render the

30Thomas, "Root ruw," 237;Driver, "Problems in the Hebrew Text of Proverbs," 189.31Besidesits appropriateness following 24:21as translated above, the translation "their ene-

mies" is further supported by an analysis of anotherwordin v.22.TS ("calamity") is in a constructrelationship with DmiW, and, according to the common interpretation, the latter is the source of theformer ("calamity from both of them"). TS appears only four times in the Bible, the other threeinstances all in the Book ofJob.In one oftheseplaces(Job12:5),it occurs in the absolutestate.Inanother(Job30:24),it occurs withapronominal suffix, this suffix standing in for the recipient, notthe source, of the calamity. In thethird(Job31:29),TDis in construct with a noun that is likewisetheobject, not the subject,of thecalamity.SinceTS occurs only a few times,itwouldbe unwise tomake too much of the factthough it is worth notingthat when TS is foundwith a suffix or inconstruct with another noun outside of Prov24:22,the suffix or noun represents the recipient of thecalamity, never the sourceofit,as the common interpretationofProv24:22requires.Whatmay be

more significant, however, is that thewordwith which it happens to be in a construct relationshipin Job31:29is the piel participle ofNJtP:"If Ihave rejoicedattheruinof myenemies..."('


12/14

I,YHWH, HAVENOT CHANGED? 275

wordas "to change" inPs 77:11,there remains no occurrence of theverbwiththismeaning in any finite qal form.

Shifting gears a bit,fromphilology to theology, I offer some remarks on the

implications of the preceding study for our understanding ofMai 3:6. Inthis verse,onefinds an especially poignant anthropopathic depiction ofYhwh,associatingthe deitywithhatred. Ofcourse,this is the same anthropopathism with whichMalachiopens hiswork,arguingthatYhwhloved Jacob but hated Esauand theconnection of Godwithhatred is not at alluniqueto Malachi. Several OT pas-sagesexpress God's hatred for certain types of behavior, for example, the use ofcultic pillars(Deut 12:31),wickedness (Ps 45:8[7]),the worship of other gods (Jer44:4),and the swearing of false oaths(Zech8:17).Otherpassagesspeak of God's

hatred of evildoers in general (e.g.,Ps5:6[5]; 11:5).Relatedly, some passagesspeak more specifically ofYhwhhating the people of Israel in response to theirwicked behavior, for example, Jer12:8; Hos 9:17; Amos 6:8.

Itis the Book of Deuteronomy, however,thatmost closely resembles Malachiin its depiction ofYhwh'saffection for Israel. Deuteronomy explainsthatYhwh'selectionand deliverance of the people were motivated by love.

Itwasnot because you were more numerous than anyotherpeoplethatthe LORDsethis hearton you andchoseyouforyou werethe fewest ofall peoples.It was becausetheLORDloved you and keptthe oath that he sworetoyourancestors,thatthe LORDhasbroughtyou outwithamighty hand, and redeemed youfromthe house of slav-ery,fromthe handofPharaohkingof Egypt.(Deut7:78NRSV)33

Yet inDeut 1:2627Mosesreminds the people ofatime when the wilderness gen-eration suspectedjust the opposite. Recounting the events recorded in Numbers1314,where the people of Israel refused to enter the promised landout of fearfrom the spies' report, he says,

But you wereunwilling to go up. You rebelledagainstthe command ofthe LORDyourGod; you grumbledinyourtentsand said, "It isbecausethe LORDhatesus [1riiOtaunx] thathe has broughtus out of thelandofEgypt,tohandus overto the Amontestodestroyus."(NRSV)34

Although Deuteronomyusesthe noun3rather than theverbN3tP,the people'ssuspicion of hatred on the part of the deity is the same. Whereasdivinelove moti-

vatedYhwhtobringthe people out ofEgypt,the people ofthatgeneration sus-pected that it was in factdivinehatred and intentto destroy that laybehindit.

33 In Deut4:37 and 10:15,Yhwh'schoosingof the people is attributed to the deity's love for

theirancestors.Seealso Deut23:6[5],whereYhwhis saidtohave turnedBalaam'scurse intoabless-ing "becauseYhwhyour God loved you." In7:13, Yhwh'slove is a response to the people's obe-dience but typically in Deuteronomy the divine love serves as the basis for Yhwh's election of


13/14


In Mai 1:2-5,the prophet declares that Yhwh loves Jacob, but the prophet'sinterlocutors suspect otherwise. That Yhwh loves Jacob, Malachi argues, can be

proved by a simple comparison with Esau. Jacob and Esau are very closely

relatedbrothers, in fact. What distinguishes them, however, is that Yhwh lovesthe one and hates the other. Edom's destruction demonstrates God's hatred,

whereas Jacob's preservation demonstrates God's love. In 3:6, the prophet re

phrases the point negatively, and in so doing says explicitly what is only implied

elsewhere in the Bible, that God does not hate Israel

For many twenty-first-century readers, the Bible's often anthropomorphic/

anthropopathic descriptions of the deity pose significant theological problems. For

many, it is more than a little troubling to read of Yhwh's hatred, especially in a text

ironically intended to assure its audience of Yhwh's love. In this article I cannotbegin to address these vast and complex issues. But, so as better to understand the

passage under consideration in its literary context, the reader should keep in mind

that the world of today's professional theologian, in which God's universal love is

often assumed, was not the world of Malachi's interlocutors. For Malachi and his

audience, God's love was not something to be taken for granted. What is more,

the prophet's interlocutors had despaired to the point of suspecting that perhaps

even they were among those hated by the God they worshiped. Whether Malachi's

arguments to the contrary convinced them, we do notknow.But to these people he

offered a message from their God: "I, Yhwh, have not hated; and you, children ofJacob, have not been destroyed."


14/14

^ s

Copyright and Use:

Asan ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

ebscohost_ i, yhwh, have not changed_ reconsidering the translation of malachi 3_6; la

Documents