But you have profaned it, in that you say, The table of the LORD is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.
ye have.
Malachi 1:6,8 A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name? …
Malachi 2:8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.
2 Samuel 12:14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
The table.
Malachi 1:7,13 Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the LORD is contemptible…
Numbers 11:4-8 And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat? …
Daniel 5:3,4 Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them…
when you say,
The phrase indicates that the profanation is not only in actions but also in words. The speech of the priests and people reveals their heart attitude towards God and His commands. This aligns with the biblical principle that words reflect the heart (Matthew 12:34).
‘The table of the Lord is defiled,
The "table of the Lord" refers to the altar where sacrifices were made. By calling it defiled, the priests were expressing disdain for the sacrificial system established by God. This reflects a lack of faith and reverence, similar to the attitude of Eli's sons in 1 Samuel 2:12-17, who treated the Lord's offerings with contempt.
and as for its fruit,
The "fruit" here refers to the offerings and sacrifices brought to the altar. In the Old Testament, offerings were meant to be the best of what people had (Exodus 23:19). The term "fruit" can also symbolize the results or outcomes of one's actions, indicating that the priests were not valuing the spiritual significance of the sacrifices.
its food is contemptible.’
The priests considered the food of the sacrifices, which was meant to be holy and pleasing to God, as contemptible or worthless. This attitude shows a deep spiritual decline and a failure to honor God with their best. This mirrors the warning in Isaiah 1:11-14, where God expresses His displeasure with empty rituals and sacrifices that are not accompanied by genuine devotion and obedience.
Malachi exposes a heart problem: the priests are treating God’s holy things as common.
• “It” points back to the Lord’s name (Malachi 1:11) and to the altar that represents Him (Leviticus 22:2).
• Profaning is the opposite of hallowing (Matthew 6:9); it drags God’s reputation through the mud (Ezekiel 36:20–23).
• The charge reminds us of Nadab and Abihu, whose careless worship cost their lives (Leviticus 10:1–3). God still expects reverence when we come near (Hebrews 12:28–29).
Their words reveal their hearts.
• Jesus taught that “the mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart” (Matthew 12:34).
• The priests’ casual talk tips off a settled attitude of disregard (James 3:6–10).
• God listens to our private conversations about worship just as closely as our public prayers (Psalm 139:4).
They are labeling what God calls holy as tainted.
• “The table” refers to the altar of sacrifices (Ezekiel 44:16) and, by extension, all temple service (1 Corinthians 10:18).
• Calling it “defiled” blames God for the blemished offerings they themselves bring (Malachi 1:7–8).
• Their attitude foreshadows those who treat the Lord’s Supper carelessly (1 Corinthians 11:27–30).
The priests complain about what they receive from serving.
• “Fruit” means the meat portions allotted to them (Numbers 18:8–12).
• Instead of gratitude, they grumble like Israel over manna (Numbers 11:4–6).
• Paul models the opposite spirit: “If we have food and clothing, we will be content” (1 Timothy 6:8).
They regard God’s provision as worthless.
• Contempt for God’s gifts insults the Giver (Deuteronomy 32:15).
• Such disdain mirrors Esau trading his birthright for stew (Genesis 25:34; Hebrews 12:16).
• The Lord warns that treating holy things as trash invites judgment (Malachi 2:1–2; Hebrews 10:29).
Malachi 1:12 exposes priests who with careless words and jaded hearts belittle God’s altar, His provision, and ultimately His name. Their example cautions every believer: honor what God calls holy, speak of His worship with reverence, and receive His gifts with grateful awe.
(12) But ye have.--Better, but ye profane it--viz., "my name" (Malachi 1:11). The word "it" is said by Jewish tradition to be an euphemism for "me." The present contemptuous conduct of God's priests is contrasted with the prophesied reverence of heathen nations.Fruit . . . meat, denote the same as "bread" of Malachi 1:7. They show that they think it contemptible by not taking the trouble to offer such things as are prescribed by the Law.
Verse 12. - But ye have profaned it; ye profane God's Name. The prophet contrasts the negligence and profanity of the priests with the piety of the Gentile nations, which he foresees. The table of the Lord (see note on ver. 7). The fruit thereof, even his meat. The food and meat of the altar are the victims offered thereon. By their conduct the priests made both altar and offerings contemptible. Septuagint, Τὰ ἐπιτιθέμενα ἐξουδένωται βρώματα αὐτοῦ, "Its meats that are laid thereon are set at naught;" Vulgate, Quod superponitur contemptibile est, cum igne qui illud devorat. This is either a free paraphrase, or for "meat" Jerome must have read a participle, "eating," and taken "that which eats" the offering to be the fire which consumes it, as "lick up" (1 Kings 18:38). Others explain the Vulgate to mean that the priests complain of the scantiness and inferiority of the victims, the flesh of which formed their support. But as this was owing to their own neglect, they were not likely to make it a subject of complaint