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
"FOR I, 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 commitment to the preservation of Israel. Virtually all commentators agree
that this statement declares God's constancy, the deity's not "changing."
1
But,
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 of YPJttf, which is presumed to be from the root
TiW. It is my contention that translating this verb as "I have not changed" is prob-
lematic, even incorrect, and that there is in fact a much 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.
1
E.g., Andrew E. Hill, Malachi: A new translation with introduction and commentary (AB
25D; New York: Doubleday, 1998) 295-96; David L. Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi (OTL;
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995) 212-13; Paul L. Redditi, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi
(NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 178; Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi (WBC; Waco: Word,
1984)330-31.
264
I, YHWH, HAVE NOT CHANGED? 265
I. The Problem with 7\W in Malachi 3:6
The first problem with the traditional understanding of TTW in Mai 3:6 is
that the qal stem of 7\W, meaning "to change," is rare in the Hebrew Bible. The root
7\W occurs in the qal stem thirteen times outside of Mai 3:6 in the biblical corpus.
In eight of these instances, it means "to do again."
2
In two passages, the participle
of this word along with the preposition p means "different from."
3
In only one
instance is there contextual support for the translation "to be changed": "How the
gold has grown dim, how the pure gold is changed" (Lam 4:1 NRSV).
4
Given that
the qal of # in the sense of "to change" occurs so rarely in the Hebrew Bible, it
is interesting that most commentators seem simply to assume that this is its gen-
eral meaning in Mai 3:6. Granted, this translation is not without basis, since other
stems of n3$, namely, the piel, puai, and hithpael, denote some sort of change.
Furthermore, the LXX translates this statement , "I have not
changed." What is probably the deciding factor for translators, however, is that, of
the attested definitions for the qal of ruttf, "to change" is the only one that makes
any sense in Mai 3:6. Nevertheless, this definition is approximated in only one
other instance in the biblical corpus. Moreover, that the verb should be translated
thus in even this one instance outside of Mai 3:6 is itself highly questionable.
5
Passing over this problem for the time being, let us assume that Mai 3:6
speaks of Yhwh's not "changing." This raises a second problem. What exactly
does "change" mean when the deity, or any person for that matter, is the subject?
Commentators are generally in agreement that Malachi is declaring that Yhwh has
never changed with regard to his policy of preserving Israel.
6
Some scholars also
detect in this passage the concept of a covenant with the children of Jacob and
read the sentence as a declaration of God's unwavering faithfulness to that
2
These passages are 1 Sam 26:8; 2 Sam 20:10; 1 Kgs 18:34 (2x); Neh 13:21; Job 29:22; Prov
17:9; 26:11. It is possible that the root nJttf meaning "to do again" is to be distinguished from the
root $ in the sense of "to be different," "to change." See Josua Blau, "ber homonyme und ange-
blich homonyme Wurzeln II," VT1 (1957) 98-102, here 101-2. Since these forms are identical in
Biblical Hebrew, however, I treat them together in this paragraph. Whether the two roots are dis-
tinguished is not of great import for the present discussion.
3
These are both in the Book of Esther (1:7; 3:8). The peal of the Aramaic cognate is used in
a similar fashion in Dan 7:3,19,23.
4
The two remaining (supposed) occurrences of in the qal are Ps 77:11(10) and Prov 24:21.
The word is sometimes translated "to change" in these passages, but that the word denotes change
in these verses is far from certain. The translation of these two verses will be discussed below.
5
As will be demonstrated, Delbert R. Hillers {Lamentations: A new translation with intro-
duction and commentary [AB 7A; 2nd, rev. ed.; New York: Doubleday, 1992] 137-38) makes a
strong case that )? in this verse be repointed to read *OT\ The clause would then read, "Pure gold
is hated."
6
See, e.g., the works cited in n. 1.
266 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 70,2008
covenant.
7
But can the qal of be used in this way? Nowhere else does it have
the specific meaning of a person, let alone the deity, changing behavior. Should one
merely assume that the same word that is used of a precious metal losing its value
would be used to describe God waffling on a matter of policy?
Although ultimately it may be impossible to determine whether HJttf was as
semantically versatile as the English word "change," a look at how it is used in
other stems may provide a clue to how the qal might function. As in the qal, when
rttttf is in the piel or pual, the item undergoing change is not, or at least not typi-
cally, the person him- or herself, but some property of that person.
8
One might
"change" one's garments, with "change" meaning to remove one's present gar-
ments and put on others (2 Kgs 25:29//Jer 52:33). One might "change" one's sense,
with "change" meaning to become (or pretend to be) crazy (1 Sam 21:14 [13];
Ps 34:1). And, apposite of this discussion, one might "change" what one says,
meaning to go back on one's word: "I will not violate my covenant, or alter [3$]
the word that went forth from my lips" (Ps 89:35 [34] NRSV). But if this thought
were to be conveyed with a corresponding intransitive qal, as commentators allege
to be the case in Mai 3:6, it would probably not speak of God changing, but of
God's covenant changing or the like. We would expect something like "
nruttf X
1
?.
9
The closest likely parallel to the usage of TIN? supposed in Mai 3:6, in
which a person her- or himself undergoes the "change," is the occurrence of the
hithpael in 1 Kgs 14:2: "Jeroboam said to his wife, 'Go, disguise yourself (mnttfn),
7
E.g., Hill, Malachi, 322.
8
What is possibly the sole exception to this rule is in Esth 2:9. "The girl pleased him and won
his favor, and he quickly provided her with her cosmetic treatments and her portion of food, and with
seven chosen maids from the king's palace, and advanced her and her maids to the best place in the
harem (O'tfan 3 \& nviramKI rutf*!)" (NRSV). But D. Winton Thomas ("The Root 7\2W = sny
in Hebrew," ZAW52 [1934] 236-38) proposed that this word be associated with the Arabic saniya,
"to be high, exalted in rank." This meaning fits well the context of the king's promotion of Esther
and does not require that one understand this verb as an otherwise unattested usage of 3 meaning
"to change." The latter reading would differ from all other uses of # in the sense of "to change,"
both in that it would have a person as its direct object and also in that it would have any sort of indi-
rect object at all.
9
Theoretically one could repoint 7PJ# as a piel and assume a direct object, such as 3, to
be elided, but it would be odd for a direct object to be elided with no clue as to what it is from the
context. The text of Ps 77:11(10) is relevant here: \\+> * T\Mti ten ^ 1. The translation of
this verse is very difficult. The NRSV renders it, "And I say, 'It is my grief that the right hand of the
Most High has changed.'" Cf. the NIV, which translates JTutf as "years," and Mitchell Dahood
(Psalms II: 51-100: Introduction, translation, and notes [AB 17; New York: Doubleday, 1968] 229),
who emends IVUtf to njtjf from "|W\ "to be withered." It is not clear from the context that TV)W denotes
change. But, even if one were to accept this translation of the word, it is still the case that God is
not the item undergoing change, but God's right hand. The use of the G stem of 7\W appears more
frequently in Biblical Aramaic; that it is never the person, but some property of the person, that is
changed still holds true (e.g., Dan 5:6; 7:28).
I, YHWH, HAVE NOT CHANGED? 267
so that it will not be known that you are the wife of Jeroboam'" (NRSV).
10
Clearly,
the specific meaning "to disguise oneself" would not make sense in Mai 3:6. But
it is difficult to know whether the more general conception of "change" underly-
ing 1 Kgs 14:2 would be appropriate for Mai 3:6, and, in the end, we cannot be cer-
tain that the qal of 7\1 would never have been used to speak of a person changing
with regard to his or her policy.
For Malachi to use the word in the way hitherto supposed by scholars, how-
ever, would be at least unusual and (from our perspective) unexpected, if not alto-
gether out of step with how it is used elsewhere in biblical literature. Moreover,
there were other ways by which the prophet could have communicated this idea,
for example, with \1 or with the specific property of God that changes as the
direct object of 312? in the piel. Targum Jonathan of Mai 3:6 may be telling in this
regard. This Aramaic rendering of the verse deals with the difficult TPJttf by put-
ting the verb in the causative aphel stem and supplying it with a direct object: "I
have not changed my eternal statute." In order for 711V to make any sense in Mai
3:6, one must not only suppose it to be an unusual finite qal form of this particu-
lar verb, but must also suppose that this verb is used in what seems to be an atyp-
ical manner.
11
10
Perhaps the 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 one-
self in a state, sometimes without regard to the question of truthfulness." Jeroboam instructs his
wife to pretend to be different in some way from how she really is. Cf. the similar use of "Dtfin to
describe her actions a few verses later (1 Kgs 14:5,6). This form, the hithpael of 33, is used in Gen
42:7 where Joseph "pretended to be a stranger" to his brothers.
"NahumM. Waldman ("Some Notes on Malachi 3:6; 3:13; and Psalm 42:11,"JBL 93 [1974]
543-49, here 543-45) argues that the qal of n3ttf can mean "to renege" on the basis of a supposed
Akkadian parallel en. The G stem of this Akkadian word, according to Waldman, can mean "to
change" 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 3:6
is 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: Scholars
Press, 1987] 179-80) is persuaded by Waldman's argument. This reading, however, is quite tenuous.
En is not a cognate of n^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 of 7\W likely
means "to change" (only one possible instance that I have found), unlike en, it never means "to
change" in a transitive sense but only intransitively. Second, Hill (Malachi, 295-96) criticizes Wald-
man's argument for not taking into account the context of en in the Akkadian documents. The
examples that Waldman cites, according to Hill, are all taken from Akkadian legal texts and refer to
written contracts and documents. Furthermore, says Hill, the sense of en in these texts is clear
because it is always accompanied by a verb of speaking or a noun like "word." The same cannot be
said of 7\W in Mai 3:6, so one should not use this legal idiom to interpret the prophetic text. Finally,
Waldman's claim that "[t]he context of Mai 3:6 is quite consistent with an interpretation in terms of
keeping, rather than breaking, one's word," is unsubstantiated, as will be demonstrated below.
268 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 70,2008
Furthermore, perhaps what is most problematic is that, even if one grants that
this translation of # is acceptable, it is still an awkward fit in the broader con-
text of Malachi's argument. It is understandable that the prophet would comment
on Yhwh's preservation of the nation Israel, an issue raised in the book's opening
verses. But one is left wondering why Malachi would preface this comment with
the declaration that God has not changed. Malachi accuses his audience of think-
ing wrongly in several regards (e.g., supposing that God does not love them or
will not punish evildoers). But not once does he portray his audience as thinking
that Yhwh has changed policy or reneged on a promise. Such a statement in Mai
3:6 is neither prepared for by what precedes it nor revisited in what follows. It is
true that the Book of Malachi opens with a defense of the assertion that God loves
Jacob (1:2-5). But the idea that God loved Jacob at one time but does no longer is
nowhere to be found. Abetter case can be made that Malachi's audience perceived
a lapse in Yhwh's policy of meting out justice to evildoers (2:17; 3:13-15,18). But
apart from 3:6 as it is usually translated, whether God had reneged on God's com-
mitment to preserve the children of Jacob does not seem to be a point of contention
in the oracles of Malachi. To be sure, it is not the case that a declaration of God's
constancy in 3:6 would be incompatible with the rest of the book. One can imag-
ine a subtext for Malachi in which Yhwh's continuing commitment to the preser-
vation of Israel is up for debate. But this speculative attempt to read between the
lines of Malachi's oracles is the only way that God's changing can be made to fit
the prophet's argument. If a plausible translation of this verse that lines up with the
explicit concerns of Malachi is available, it is to be preferred.
II. A New Translation of Malachi 3:6
In view of the highly tenuous nature of the consensus understanding of TPJltf
in Mai 3:6,1 propose a different reading. Without altering the consonantal text, if
one merely reads the W in TPlttf as a sin rather than as a shin, the word becomes
the qal perfect of NJtP, "to hate." First, in defense of this reading, it is important to
note one peculiar feature of III-K and - verbs. That is, the morphological dis-
tinction between these two forms is at times blurred in Biblical Hebrew, especially
in the later writings and in poetry.
12
One manifestation of this blurring is that III-N
verbs will often take - type endings.
13
The /-vowel followed by the quiescent X
in many of the III-X forms likely contributed to the intermingling of III-N and -
patterns, since their pronunciation would have been so similar. So the possibility
12
See GKC 75nn-rr; Paul Joon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2 vols.; trans, and rev.
T. Muraoka; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991) 1. 201-2.
13
Examples of first- and second-person perfect verbs include {P33fln (1 Sam 10:6; cf. lCUfln),
nm (Ruth 2:9; cf. J1K?), wtyl (Ps 139:14; cf. '{ltf??}), and {pa? (Jer 26:9; cf. X33).
I, YHWH, HAVE NOT CHANGED? 269
of such an appropriation of a - ending by fcGttf in Mai 3:6 is not difficult to
maintain. As for its probability in this particular instance, it must be admitted that
there are no other examples of the qal perfect of XJttf taking a - ending. But, as
I will suggest below, there is reason to suspect that this has happened in the case
of the masculine plural participle in Prov 24:21-22. In addition, the distinction
between 7\W and Otf is blurred in one occurrence of the qal infinitive construct of
the latter. The form ntty, as opposed to the more common ity (e.g., Gen 37:5),
appears in Prov 8:13 with a final analogous to that of - infinitive constructs.
14
The morphological intermingling of the two words can be seen also in two
instances in the MT in which 7\W is spelled with an X rather than a .
15
Finally, that
in two instances the LXX translators mistakenly read 3# as XW reveals their
expectation that the latter might occasionally appear with - endings (Prov 17:9;
Qoh8:l).
The occurrence of GJ with a - ending in Jer 26:9 is particularly signifi-
cant for the purposes of this article for two reasons. (1) That some manuscripts
spell this word in Jer 26:9 according to the usual III-K paradigm no doubt reveals
the attempt of later scribes to "correct" its spelling. There would have been no rea-
son for a scribe to change the more common spelling to the less common. This
attempt to correct the text seems to indicate that at least some later readers were
not always entirely comfortable with this alternative spelling of III-K verbs.
16
This
may explain why both the MT and the LXX would assume YPJttf to be a - verb.
(2) The use of the - ending in Jer 26:9 is also significant, since the more com-
mon spelling of the very same verb (3?) is found nearby in Jer 28:6. Evidently,
it was possible for both spellings to appear within the same work. This is exactly
what one finds to be the case in Malachi (1:3; 3:6).
Now that our reading of YPJttf as the qal perfect of XJttf has been established
as morphologically plausible, all that is left is to place the concept of Yhwh's "hat-
ing" into Malachi's argument. There could not be a more perfect fit. Malachi opens
his book with a declaration that God loves Jacob (1:2). Despite the disbelief of his
dialogue partners, the prophet defends this assertion by comparing the condition
of Jacob to that of Esau. Esau, whom I have hated (YINJtP), says Yhwh, is left des-
olate. The sons of Esau have been shattered and will not be able to rebuild (1:3-4).
Although the word rf?D does not occur in this opening discourse as it does in 3:6,
the destruction of Edom is certainly described. Jacob's children, on the other hand,
14
This type of - analogue is not uncommon in III-X infinitive constructs. See GKC 74h.
15
N3t2h in Lam 4:1 and Qoh 8:1. The verb is qal in the former and pual in the latter. See also
the piel with an X in Sir 13:24 (Greek 25). I agree with Delbert Hillers, however, in arguing that the
word in Lam 4:1 is likely from the root NJttf and has been mispointed by the MT as a form of rutf.
16
Whether this spelling was an accepted alternative or was written in error is of no great import
for the present discussion. What matters is that this spelling, for whatever reason, could and did
occur.
270 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 70,2008
since they are loved, have not suffered the same fate. What could be more appro-
priate to Malachi's argument than the statement "I, Yhwh, have not hated [you];
and you, children of Jacob, have not been destroyed" (3:6)?
17
In fact, the similar-
ity of 3:6 to 1:2-5 has been previously noted by commentators, even without trans-
lating TPIlttf in the manner proposed here.
18
In sum, the traditional understanding of $ as the qal perfect of ruttf is prob-
lematic on both lexical and contextual grounds. Although the first person singular
qal perfect of N3W is otherwise unattested with a - ending, that such a form
would occur is quite plausible and would make perfect sense in Mai 3:6. When
17
It is possible for 3 to occur without a direct object (e.g., Qoh 3:8). But in Mai 3:6 it is per-
haps likely that the direct object has simply been elided. Either way, Yhwh would not be making a
general declaration of not hating but only of not hating the children of Jacob. Such an elision is no
problem for my argument here. The object would have been clear from 1:2-5, and the implicit object
of the verb appears as the subject and very first word of the next clause. It is also relevant to note
that the second person pronominal object is likewise elided in 2:17 ("But you say, 'How have we
wearied [you]?'"). But, perhaps most important, the lack of an explicit direct object preserves the
parallelism between the two clauses of 3:6.
on^D * aproan
This is also an appropriate point to issue the disclaimer that it is possible to construe the syntax of
this verse differently from the manner above. See Petersen (Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi, 212-13),
who translates the passage "Truly, I am Yahweh; I have not changed. Moreover, you are the chil-
dren of Jacob; you have not been destroyed." The present discussion is limited to the translation of
3# and follows the traditional translation of the verse otherwise. The adoption of the traditional
translation here is merely for the sake of convenience and is not intended to endorse any particular
construal of the verse's syntax.
18
E.g., Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi, 214; Redditi, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,
178. Apart from 1:2-5 and 3:6, ato occurs one other time in the prophetic book. Malachi 2:13-16,
a passage full of textual difficulties, denounces divorce as it was being practiced among the men of
Judah. The final verse of this section reads mn? "i$ rhu XJfr"':?. This line is traditionally translated,
"For I hate divorce, says Yhwh." But in order to arrive at this translation, in which God speaks in
the first person, one must emend the text. Further, when K3W appears elsewhere in the context of
divorce, 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 is
likely that the one who "hates" in Mai 2:16 is the husband who initiates the divorce proceedings,
not Yhwh. If this understanding 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 hated
the sons of Jacob. For various analyses of this verse, see the relevant portions of the commentaries
listed in n. 1. See also the discussion in John J. Collins, "Marriage, Divorce, and Family in Second
Temple Judaism," in Families in Ancient Israel (ed. Leo G. Purdue, Joseph Blenkinsopp, John J.
Collins, and Carol Meyers; Family, Religion and Culture; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997)
104-62, here 122-27. See also E. Lipinski ("lofe," TDOT, 14.164-74, here 168-73) for a discussion
of 7\W in the fifth-century Aramaic papyri from Elephantine. In these documents, 7\W in the con-
text of divorce has developed into a technical legal term, the precise meaning of which is disputed.
I,YHWH,HAVENOTCffi4iVG^D? 271
one takes all of these factors into consideration, "I have not hated" becomes the
more likely meaning of WW in this verse rather than "I have not changed." A nat-
ural question to ask after considering the argument above is, Is there evidence that
the masoretes have mistakenly pointed XJttf as ittttf anywhere else in the Hebrew
Bible? Although such a mistake would be difficult to prove, there is good reason
to suspect that this very error has indeed been committed in two other passages.
III. Lamentations 4:1
I noted above Delbert R. Hillers 's repointing of }? as WW? in Lam 4:1a.
19
The passage in question reads 310 DriDH KJT 3 WV ^, "How the gold has
grown dim, / how the pure gold is changed!" The passage continues,
The sacred stones lie scattered
at the head of every street.
The precious children of Zion,
worth their weight in fine gold
how they are reckoned as earthen pots,
the work of a potter's hands!" (Lam 4:lb-2 NRSV)
In addition to the fact that the word under consideration is spelled with an X rather
than a , Hillers observes several problems with 4: la as it stands in the MT. First,
gold does not tarnish or dim significantly. In fact, it is known for maintaining its
brightness. Second, the OT nowhere else mentions the color of gold, but speaks of
its value. Third, what happens to the gold in this passage is compared with what
happens to the people. Verse 2 suggests that a precious people is being treated as
something cheap. It is not the intrinsic quality of the people that has changed, but
how they are regarded. For these reasons, Hillers simply repoints NJtf^ as and
emends UVV to 2VV.
20
"How gold is despised! Good gold is hated!" The result is
two statements that both make sense and fit their context. Hillers 's arguments are
persuasive. Admittedly, in order to accept his repointing of Otf\ one is required
also to buy his emendation of SV. And perhaps this additional conjecture slightly
diminishes any confidence that KNi** has indeed been mispointed in the MT of Lam
4:1. But, at the very least, Hillers makes a strong case, and his case and the one pre-
sented above with regard to Mai 3:6 reinforce each other. Since these are the only
two instances in which one can plausibly read a finite qal of in the sense of
"change," these arguments strengthen each other on lexical grounds. Likewise, the
probability of such an error on the part of the MT and the LXX in one of these
instances also increases the likelihood that this same error might have occurred
19
Hillers, Lamentations, 137-38.
2 0
Hillers (Lamentations, 138) in this latter correction assumes the relatively common scribal
confusion of and 3.
272 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 70,2008
elsewhere. Finally, these arguments are further supported by yet another passage
in which the two roots seem to have been confused.
IV. Proverbs 24:21-22
A third instance in which KJttf appears to have been mistaken for 711V? occurs
in a verse that has long puzzled translators, Prov 24:21: "1*701 " '
^^ ETTIttf'Dy, "Fear Yhwh, my son, and the king; / with those who change
do not associate." Verse 22 continues, "For their disaster will rise suddenly, / and
who knows the ruin of both of them?" 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 this
problem by emending the text. "Fear God, son, and the king; and do not disobey
either of them."
21
Modern translators, too, have had problems translating this text.
The KJV translates the clause in question, "meddle not with them that are given to
change." The NASB 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 the WIVU must be in
some sense antithetical to fearing Yhwh and the king. It must also relate to the ruin
mentioned in the next verse. Based on these contextual clues, some translators,
including those of the NAB and the NIV, very freely render tPlVU as "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 Berend Gemser, along with the RSVma AfftFtranslators, opts to fol-
low the LXX.
23
D. Winton Thomas, recognizing the problems with reading 7\1V in this verse,
proposes that the word here is actually a cognate of the Arabic saniya, meaning "to
become high, exalted in rank."
24
The student is instructed, according to this inter-
21
That this is an emendation of the tradition found in the MT is likely, since one can imagine
how the MT might have given rise to the LXX reading. D'Tltf has been emended to , and T)VT)T)
possibly to 57. The first of these alterations might have been an intentional "correction" of the
difficult D^lttf, or it may have arisen under the influence of UTViti in the next verse. The more dif-
ficult MT is less easily accounted for if one supposes the LXX to be earlier. But even if the LXX
reading is the more original, there remains the need to understand how the MT would have been
understood. This argument for the time being assumes that the Greek of the LXX correctly trans-
lates . Another explanation for the LXX rendering will be suggested below.
22
For a list of the various ideas on the translation of &1W and of their respective proponents
at the turn of the nineteenth century, see Crawford H. Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Book of Proverbs (ICC; New York: Scribner, 1899) 449-50. For a helpful summary of the cur-
rent state of the question, see Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, vol. 2, Chapters 15-31
(NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) 279-80.
23
Berend Gemser, Sprche Salomos (HAT 16; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1937) 68.
24
Thomas, "Root 7\VU,
n
236-38; see also idem, "The Root 71W = sny in Hebrew II," ZAW
I, YHWH, HAVE NOT CHANGED? 273
pretation, to fear the king but to "meddle not with those of high rank." The advan-
tage of this translation is that it renders DMIttf in a way that is meaningful in the con-
text of instruction on proper conduct toward the powerful. But this explanation
suffers a significant weakness as well, since the translation "those who are of high
rank" does not make much sense as an antithesis to God and the king. Why should
one fear Yhwh and the king but avoid involvement with the nobility? This prob-
lem leads Bruce K. Waltke to supplement the text as follows: "Fear the LORD, my
son, and the king; with [intriguing] officials do not get involved."
25
The translation
of D'Tlttf as "those of high rank" requires one to create a backstory for the proverb
in which these officials are up to no good. This reading cannot stand on its own,
and, as in Mai 3:6, a translation that requires no such speculative supplementation
is to be preferred.
We arrive at this preferable translation if taking W1W as the qal participle of
Xttf.
26
The qal participle of this root is used throughout the Hebrew Bible for "one
who hates" or "enemy." And it often occurs with reference to the enemies of Yhwh
or the king.
27
Interestingly, this reading is exactly that offered by the Greek Codex
Venetus, . Although one might expect the participle to be qualified by
the third person masculine plural pronominal suffix, "their [i.e., Yhwh's and the
king's] enemies," it need not include a suffix to be readily intelligible.
28
As a matter of fact, the expectation that this participle would have a pronom-
inal suffix leads to two further observations. First, it is possible that LXX of 24:21
is the result of a misreading of UWNi as "either of them," when the word may have
actually been the participle of K^ with the third person masculine plural pronom-
inal suffix.
29
Second, and more important, there is warrant for understanding the
seemingly awkward DTW of 24:22 likewise as DPJttf ("their enemies") rather than
as ("both of them"). "For their disaster comes suddenly, and who knows the
(1937) 174-76. In addition to Prov 24:21 and Esth 2:9 (mentioned above), Thomas finds this root
in Prov 5:9 and Isa 11:1. A handful of scholars have been persuaded by Thomas's reading of the
Proverbs passage, including G. R. Driver ("Problems in the Hebrew Text of Proverbs," Bib 32 [1951]
173-97, here 189); Lothar Kopf ("Arabische Etymologien und Parallelen zum Bibelwrterbuch,"
VT9 [1959] 247-84, here 281-82); J. A. Emerton ("The Meaning of sen
3
in Psalm CXXVII2," VT
24 [1974] 15-31, here 25-30); Waltke (Book of Proverbs, 2. 279-80).
25
Waltke, Book of Proverbs, 2. 279-80.
26
See GKC 75qq, for examples of III-X qal participles whose is elided according to the -
pattern.
27
For Yhwh, see, e.g., Deut 5:9; 7:10; 2 Chr 19:2; Ps 21:9(8); for the king, see, e.g., 2 Sam
22:18; 2 Chr 1:11.
28
The substantive qal participle of 3 more often occurs either with a pronominal suffix (e.g.,
"our enemies" [] in Exod 1:10) or in a construct relationship with another noun (e.g., "ene-
mies of the righteous" [pHX "WW] in Ps 34:22[21]), but occasionally the singular participle will
occur in the absolute state without a suffix (Ps 106:10; Prov 26:24; 27:6).
29
If this is the case, one need not determine for our purposes which reading, "enemies" or
"their enemies," is the more original.
274 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 70,2008
ruin of arrjff?" This Dmw, as does the WIW of v. 21, has a long history of giv-
ing translators pause. The Peshitta reads 7V1W as "their years." Both Thomas and
G. R. Driver emend 03# to D^ntf(n).
30
Though the MT of v. 22 is certainly not
unintelligible as pointed by the masoretes, once one allows that the participle of
KJto may be formed according to the - pattern, a better interpretation of the
consonantal text becomes possible.
31
Thus, Prov 24:21-22 should correctly be
translated,
Fear Yhwh, my son, and the king;
with enemies do not associate.
For their disaster will rise suddenly,
and who knows the ruin of their enemies?
V. Conclusions
It appears quite likely, then, that the masoretes and the LXX translators have
in more than one instance mistaken the root NJtP for another. There is good reason
to suspect that this has happened in four instancesin three of these (Mai 3:6;
Prov 24:21,22) owing to the root's appropriation of endings according to the -
paradigm. In Lam 4:1 the mistake may be due in part to the inverse assumption that
7\Nf might take III-N endings. If this misidentification has in fact happened in Mai
3:6; Lam 4:1; and Prov 24:21, then the only remaining verse in which TllVl in the
qal might possibly mean "to change" is Ps 77:11, where the word occurs in the
infinitive construct. But as I noted above, this verse is incredibly difficult to trans-
late as well. Thus, outside of Esth 1:7 and 3:8, where the participle of 3 means
"different from," there is no occurrence of the root in the qal denoting any sort of
"change" in which one may have any confidence.
32
Even were one to render the
30
Thomas, "Root ruw," 237; Driver, "Problems in the Hebrew Text of Proverbs," 189.
31
Besides its appropriateness following 24:21 as translated above, the translation "their ene-
mies" is further supported by an analysis of another word in v. 22. TS ("calamity") is in a construct
relationship with DmiW, and, according to the common interpretation, the latter is the source of the
former ("calamity from both of them"). TS appears only four times in the Bible, the other three
instances all in the Book of Job. In one of these places (Job 12:5), it occurs in the absolute state. In
another (Job 30:24), it occurs with a pronominal suffix, this suffix standing in for the recipient, not
the source, of the calamity. In the third (Job 31:29), TD is in construct with a noun that is likewise
the object, not the subject, of the calamity. Since TS occurs only a few times, it would be unwise to
make too much of the factthough it is worth notingthat when TS is found with a suffix or in
construct with another noun outside of Prov 24:22, the suffix or noun represents the recipient of the
calamity, never the source of it, as the common interpretation of Prov 24:22 requires. What may be
more significant, however, is that the word with which it happens to be in a construct relationship
in Job 31:29 is the piel participle of NJtP: "If I have rejoiced at the ruin of my enemies..." ('
Wfc TS3).
32
Cf. the high frequency of the peal in the Aramaic portions of Daniel (3:27; 5:6, 9; 6:18). It
is used in Daniel, as in Esther, to mean "different from" (7:3, 19, 23). This disparate frequency,
however, may be merely coincidental. The peal does not occur in the Aramaic portions of Ezra.
I, YHWH, HAVE NOT CHANGED? 275
word as "to change" in Ps 77:11, there remains no occurrence of the verb with this
meaning in any finite qal form.
Shifting gears a bit, from philology to theology, I offer some remarks on the
implications of the preceding study for our understanding of Mai 3:6. In this verse,
one finds an especially poignant anthropopathic depiction of Yhwh, associating
the deity with hatred. Of course, this is the same anthropopathism with which
Malachi opens his work, arguing that Yhwh loved Jacob but hated Esauand the
connection of God with hatred is not at all unique to Malachi. Several OT pas-
sages express God's hatred for certain types of behavior, for example, the use of
cultic pillars (Deut 12:31), wickedness (Ps 45:8[7]), the worship of other gods (Jer
44:4), and the swearing of false oaths (Zech 8:17). Other passages speak of God's
hatred of evildoers in general (e.g., Ps 5:6[5]; 11:5). Relatedly, some passages
speak more specifically of Yhwh hating the people of Israel in response to their
wicked behavior, for example, Jer 12:8; Hos 9:17; Amos 6:8.
It is the Book of Deuteronomy, however, that most closely resembles Malachi
in its depiction of Yhwh's affection for Israel. Deuteronomy explains that Yhwh's
election and deliverance of the people were motivated by love.
It was not because you were more numerous than any other people that the LORD set
his heart on you and chose youfor you were the fewest of all peoples. It was because
the LORD loved you and kept the oath that he swore to your ancestors, that the LORD
has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of slav-
ery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. (Deut 7:7-8 NRSV)
33
Yet in Deut 1:26-27 Moses reminds the people of a time when the wilderness gen-
eration suspected just the opposite. Recounting the events recorded in Numbers
13-14, where the people of Israel refused to enter the promised land out of fear
from the spies' report, he says,
But you were unwilling to go up. You rebelled against the command of the LORD your
God; you grumbled in your tents and said, "It is because the LORD hates us [1 riiOta
unx] that he has brought us out of the land of Egypt, to hand us over to the Amontes
to destroy us." (NRSV)
34
Although Deuteronomy uses the noun 3 rather than the verb N3tP, the people's
suspicion of hatred on the part of the deity is the same. Whereas divine love moti-
vated Yhwh to bring the people out of Egypt, the people of that generation sus-
pected that it was in fact divine hatred and intent to destroy that lay behind it.
33
In Deut 4:37 and 10:15, Yhwh's choosing of the people is attributed to the deity's love for
their ancestors. See also Deut 23:6[5], where Yhwh is said to have turned Balaam's curse into a bless-
ing "because Yhwh your God loved you." In 7:13, Yhwh's love 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
Israel in the first place.
34
Moses reasons with God also in 9:28 that if God destroys the people, their enemies will
claim that Yhwh brought them out of Egypt to let them die Dmx VlUtPO ("because he hated them").
276 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 70,2008
In Mai 1:2-5, the prophet declares that Yhwh loves Jacob, but the prophet's
interlocutors 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 loves
the 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 cannot
begin 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 not know. But to these people he
offered a message from their God: "I, Yhwh, have not hated; and you, children of
Jacob, have not been destroyed."
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according 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 permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically 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 specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright 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 previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection 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 American
Theological Library Association.