This verse refers back to the opening statement in verse 1 and rounds off the arguments of verses 2-3 by drawing from them a conclusion that reinforces the opening statement.

So shall you know: Revised Standard Version is alone among modern English versions in translating the conjunction as So. The vast majority say “Then.” The relationship with the previous verse is one of cause and effect: because of the punishment described in verse 3, the priests will realize that the LORD’s command (verse 1) was indeed meant for them. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and New Revised Standard Version translate the verb know as an imperative, but in the context of this paragraph that does not seem likely.

That I have sent this command to you: The repetition of the word command from verse 1 helps to bind the paragraph together. If possible, translators should use the same term in both places. Here this command refers back to the content of verses 2-3, especially the requirement to honor the LORD. In Hebrew the word here translated I have sent is the same verb form as that translated “I will send” in verse 2. This repetition also helps to bind the paragraph together, though in most languages it will not be possible to have identical verb forms in both places.

That my covenant with Levi may hold: Scholars have different views about what the phrase my covenant with Levi refers to. There is no direct mention in the Pentateuch (the books of Genesis – Deuteronomy) of any covenant with Levi. Here Levi stands for the priests who were his descendants, as Good News Translation makes clear. It seems most likely that the word covenant is used here somewhat loosely, and relates to such passages as Num 25.11-13 and Deut 33.8-11 (compare also Neh 13.29; Jer 33.20-21). Translators do not need to resolve the problem of reference before translating the phrase. Covenant here may be rendered by a more general term such as “agreement,” though translators should remember that this was not an agreement between equal partners (see Zech 9.11).

The problems surrounding the Hebrew verb that Revised Standard Version translates may hold are more serious. It is the verb “to be” and the sense is that the covenant (or, agreement) may continue in existence. May hold is an idiomatic way of saying this in English. The logic of this statement is not entirely clear, but it seems most likely that the punishments of verses 2-3 were intended to make the priests take their privileges and responsibilities more seriously, so that their position as priests would cease to be threatened. The lack of clarity has led some scholars to propose changing one letter of the traditional Hebrew text to give the opposite meaning. Jerusalem Bible has “to abolish my covenant with Levi” (similarly New English Bible/Revised English Bible), but New Jerusalem Bible has returned to the traditional Hebrew with “to maintain my covenant with Levi.” There is no evidence among the ancient versions to support any change, and the question is not even mentioned in Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. We recommend that translators follow the traditional text. Other ways of expressing its meaning include “so that my covenant … will not be broken” (Good News Translation), “… may continue” (New International Version, New Living Translation), and “… may endure” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

The quotation formula says the LORD of hosts serves to mark the conclusion of the first subsection of the paragraph 2.1-9.

An alternative translation model for the whole verse is:

• Then you will recognize that I gave to you this command so that my covenant with the priests, the descendants of Levi, would continue to exist [or, would not lose its force]. This is what the LORD Almighty says.

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 .