This verse opens the Assertion element of the dispute (verses 10-13). It contains three questions. The first two are rhetorical questions and clearly expect a positive answer, “Yes.” The third question is a real question, and is asked as a result of the positive answer to the two previous questions.
Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us?: These two questions need to be considered together because they are clearly parallel, and together make a single point. In this way they help to interpret each other. The mention of God in the second question shows that the one father in the first question is probably best understood as also referring to God, rather than to one of the patriarchs, such as Abraham, Jacob, or Levi. The words we and us are inclusive: the prophet links himself with his people, and reminds them that as a nation they all owe their status to the activity of God, that is to say in choosing them. In some languages it may make the expected answer clearer to turn these questions into positive statements, such as “We all have the same father. The same God created us all.” Sometimes it may be possible to do this and still keep the question form by adding tag questions: “We all have the same father, don’t we? The same God created us all, didn’t he?” In Contemporary English Version the positive answer is suggested in a different way with “Don’t you know that we all have God as our Father? Didn’t the one God create each of us?” Contemporary English Version has made it clear in the first question that the father refers to God. Another way to do this would be to put the two clauses in the opposite order, as the Septuagint did. If the question that mentions God is given first, the interpretation of father in the second question is already hinted at. Translators may take any of these options. Another possibility is to combine the two questions into one, as Biblen: Det Gamle og Det Nye Testamente does: “Don’t we all have the same father, the one God who created us?”
Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?: Then indicates the logical relationship between this third question and the previous ones. It is because the people all have the same relationship with God that they ought to be honest and reliable in their dealings with each other. But in fact they fail to do this, and “break our promises to one another,” as Good News Translation puts it. The Hebrew root b-g-d, which Revised Standard Version translates faithless, is a keyword in this section, and occurs again in verses 11, 14, 15, and 16. The Hebrew word that Revised Standard Version translates profaning is a strong term, and is well represented by “violate” in English (as in New American Bible, New English Bible/Revised English Bible, Beck). The covenant of our fathers is generally understood to be the covenant that the LORD made with his people at Sinai (compare 4.4).
The relationship between the two clauses in this question may need to be made clearer. By breaking their promises to each other, the people were in effect disobeying the terms of the covenant that God had made with the nation, in which he commanded them to preserve one another’s rights (Exo 20.12-17). This is well expressed by New International Version, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, and translators may wish to follow their example in saying, “Why do we cheat one another, and in this way violate the covenant that God made with our ancestors?” (Contemporary English Version “why do you cheat each other by breaking the agreement…” actually expresses an incorrect relationship between the clauses, and should not be followed here.)
An alternative translation model for this verse is:
• We all have the same father, the one God who created us. So why do we cheat one another, and in this way violate the agreement that God made with our ancestors?
Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. & Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Malachi. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2002. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .