And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers: The task of Elijah will be one of reconciliation, and this is expressed in parallel, reciprocal phrases. The Hebrew speaks literally of “fathers” and “sons” (Moffatt, New English Bible Bible de Jérusalem, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente), but it is likely that both terms here carry a more general meaning. Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation are inconsistent in keeping fathers as a male term, but making “sons” general by rendering children. It is better in terms of both style and meaning to translate them as “parents” and “children,” as do New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Contemporary English Version, and New Living Translation.

The expression turn the hearts is a figure of speech which may be used in some languages with the right meaning. If the figure would be obscure, translators may say “reconcile,” or they may use some other figure from their language, provided that it does not introduce anything historically or culturally inappropriate. There is a reference to this ministry of reconciliation in the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist in Luke 1.17.

In a number of languages, the repetition of turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers may be stylistically clumsy. In such cases translators may follow the structure of Good News Translation and say simply “bring parents and children together again” (similarly Contemporary English Version). For the social condition of division and enmity within families, compare Micah 7.5-6. In the context of the book of Malachi, such family problems may have arisen from the divorces criticized in 2.10-16 (Cashdan), though of course, differences of opinion between one generation and another are a commonplace of human experience!

Lest I come and smite the land with a curse: In terms of the sentence structure, the conjunction translated lest governs both the verb come and the verb smite. But in terms of the meaning, come and smite is a single idea. The ministry of Elijah will not hinder “the … day of the LORD” from coming, but will hinder it from bringing a curse (compare Sirach 48.9-10). In some languages it may be necessary to restructure here to make this clearer. Translators could say “lest, when I come, I will smite…” (similarly Contemporary English Version, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch) or “Otherwise, on my arrival I would destroy the land.”

The land probably refers to Judah (Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, Moffatt, Good News Translation, New International Version, and many others) rather than to the whole earth (King James Version, Revised Version, New King James Version , Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). It is also possible that the land stands for the people, and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch states this plainly with “lest I destroy the whole people when I come.” In the light of the agricultural problems in view in 3.10-12, however, it seems more likely that the fertility of the land is in focus here.

In many languages it will be necessary to translate smite … with a curse as a single word. Thus for example Good News Translation simply renders “destroy.” The word here translated curse is a technical term in the Old Testament, and is not the same word as those used in 1.14; 2.2 and 3.9. It refers to promising to destroy something for religious reasons. This is what the Israelites did to Jericho (Revised Standard Version “devoted … for destruction” in Josh 6.17 and “utterly destroyed” in Josh 6.21; compare 1 Sam 15.3). Some English versions try to catch this element of the meaning. Thus New English Bible and Revised English Bible have “put the land under a ban to destroy it.” This is not very successful because there is no equivalent concept in English culture to destroying something for a religious reason. The meaning of “put … under a ban” is therefore not clear. It would be better to explain the Hebrew concept in a footnote, as Traduction œcuménique de la Bible does (referring the reader to a more detailed footnote at Deut 2.34).

The last word in the Hebrew text is the word translated curse. Because of this, in Jewish tradition verse 5 is repeated after verse 6 in public reading to avoid ending on a note of doom. This custom may well be related to the different verse order in the Septuagint (verses 3, 5, 6, 4). The same practice is also followed in the books of Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, and Lamentations. In New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh the verse before the last one in each of these books is printed again in smaller type at the end. The only translation from a Christian background that does this is New American Bible, but for some unexplained reason, it does so only in Malachi, and not in the other three books. In other languages translators need to consider following the custom of repeating the verse before the last one only if there is likely to be a significant number of Jews using the version.

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 .