Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Malachi 2:10
Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
10. one father ] i.e. God, as the parallelism suggests. Comp. Joh 8:41. The reference to Abraham, though of course admissible (Mat 3:9; Joh 8:39), is less satisfactory.
his brother ] Out of the common Fatherhood springs a common brotherhood which intensifies the wrong. So St Paul writes, with reference to a similar subject, 1Th 4:6. It may however only mean “one against another.”
the covenant of our fathers ] Exo 34:10-16; Deu 7:1-4.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Ch. Mal 2:10-16. Rebuke of the People for Heathen Marriages and Divorce
The transition from the former section is less abrupt than at first sight it seems to be. The people at large are now addressed directly, and not merely incidentally as before (Mal 1:14); but the priests are still clearly in view, both as probably themselves guilty of the sin denounced (comp. Ezr 10:18; Neh 13:28), and as conniving at it by withholding or wresting the sentence of the Law against it (Mal 2:8-9). From the Covenant too with Levi ( Mal 2:8) the transition is natural to the wider Covenant with the fathers ( Mal 2:10). The prophet lays down ( Mal 2:10) the principle on which the whole rebuke rests; and then deals with their transgression of it, first by heathen marriages ( Mal 2:11-12), and secondly, as a consequence of this, by the divorce of their lawful wives ( Mal 2:13-16).
The word deal-treacherously is a key-word to the section. See Mal 2:10-11 ; Mal 2:14-16.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Have we not all one Father? – o
Hath not one God created us? – Malachi turns abruptly to another offence, in which also the priests set an evil example, the capricious dismissal of their Hebrew wives and taking other women in their stead. Here, as before, he lays down, at the outset, a general moral principle, which he applies. The one Father (it appears from the parallel), is manifestly Almighty God, as the Jews said to our Lord Joh 8:41, We have one Father, even God. He created them, not only as He did all mankind, but by the spiritual relationship with Himself, into which He brought them. So Isaiah speaks (Isa 43:1, Isa 43:7, Isa 43:21, add Isa 44:2, Isa 44:21, Isa 44:24), Thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and He that formed thee, O Israel. Every one that is called by My Name; I have created Him for My glory; I have formed him; yea I have made him. This people have I formed for Myself; they shall show forth My praise.
And from the first in Moses song Deu 32:6, Is not He thy Father that created thee? Hath He not made thee and established thee? This creation of them by God, as His people, gave them a new existence, a new relation to each other; so that every offence against each other was a violation of their relation to God, who had given them this unity, and was, in a nearer sense than of any other, the common Father of all. Why then, the prophet adds, do we deal treacherously, a man against his brother, to profane the covenant of our fathers? He does not yet say, wherein this treacherous dealing consisted; but awakens them to the thought, that sin against a brother is sin against God, Who made him a brother; as, and much more under the Gospel, in which we are all members of one mystical body 1Co 8:12, when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. He speaks of the sin, as affecting those who did not commit it.
Why do we deal treacherously? So Isaiah, before his lips were cleansed by the mystical coal, said Isa 6:5, I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips, and the high priest Joshua was shown in the vision, clothed with defiled garments; (Zec 3:3-4. See ab. pp. 354, 355) and the sin of Achan became the sin of the children of Israel Jos 7:1, Jos 7:11, and Davids sinful pride in numbering the people was visited upon all. 2 Sam. 24. He teaches beforehand, that 1Co 12:26, whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it, or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it. They profaned also the covenant of their fathers, by marrying those whom God forbade, and who would seduce, as pagan wives had Solomon, from His worship. Paul in sanctioning the remarriage of widows, adds, only 1Co 7:39. in the Lord, i. e., Christian husbands. He who treated as null the difference between the Israelites and a pagan woman, showed that the difference between the God of Israel and the God of the pagan had before become null to him, whence it follows.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Mal 2:10-12
Have we not all one Father?
One Father
I. God is not only the Creator, but the common Father of mankind. This relationship implies two things: a resemblance in nature; and the existence of parental sympathy; and also the obligation of filial devotion.
II. This relationship is an argument why man should do no wrong either against his fellow-creature or his God. The wrong with which the Israelites were charged was–
1. A wrong committed against mankind; and–
2. Against God Himself.
III. The perpetration of wrong exposes the doer to the most lamentable results. This is only a shadowy picture of the evils that ever flow from wrong. It is sin that kindles and feeds the flames of retribution. Then haste the time when men shall realise the fact that they are all children of one Father, so that all wrongs against one another shall cease, and the spirit of universal brotherhood prevail! (Homilist.)
God our Father
I once said to a young person, Well, Elizabeth, do you love God? And what do you think her answer was? Ah, Ive been trying, sir; but its hard, its hard. That was how she answered. Then I said to her, Im afraid you dont know who and what God is. Try and find that out, I continued, and then I think youll love Him and have no difficulty in doing so. And it was just as I said it would be. Elizabeth went home, and before she slept that night she made one of the grandest discoveries any one ever made. What do you think it was? Why, she discovered that there was One up in heaven who felt for her all a fathers love. She found out by reading her New Testament that God was her Father. (A. Scott.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 10. Have we not all one Father?] From this to Mal 2:16 the prophet censures the marriages of Israelites with strange women, which the law had forbidden, De 7:3. And also divorces, which seem to have been multiplied for the purpose of contracting these prohibited marriages.-Newcome.
Why do we deal treacherously] Gain the affections of the daughter of a brother Jew, and then profane the covenant of marriage, held sacred among our fathers, by putting away this same wife and daughter! How wicked, cruel, and inhuman!
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Have we, we Jews,
not all one father? either Abraham, or Jacob, (not Adam here intended,) with whom God made the covenant by which the posterity was made a peculiar people, separated from other nations, and on very weighty reasons forbid to join and intermix with strange nations. Hath not one God created us? the prophet speaks of that great and gracious work of God, creating them to be a chosen people, a nation formed to show forth his praise, Deu 32:6,18; Isa 43:1,7; and so we Christians are created in Christ Jesus, Eph 2:10, and are in him new creatures, 2Co 5:17.
Why do we? the prophet was not guilty of the fault, yet speaks as one of the community, partly to take off the envy of the Jews, and to cut off all occasion of quarrelling against his word, and partly to insinuate the sense he had of this thing, and the affection he had for them, though he reproved them.
Deal treacherously; despise, so some, break our faith in the marriage contract engaged, so carry it disloyally, against the duty we owe to Gods law, which equally binds us as our wives to mutual love, honour, and faithfulness; and why then do we take heathen wives, (it is bad if a Jew unmarried do it, but here now the case is worse,) Jewish wives being disliked, rejected, and so greatly despised? Why do we this against the bond of consanguinity? And do we sons of Abraham abuse thus the daughters of Abraham? Why do we so little regard the bond of religion? We are people, sons and daughters, of one God, who hath called us, separated us from the heathen to keep religion pure and unmixed; why then do we transgress thus?
Every man; the fault was very common, among the people and priests too, and since their return out of Babylon.
Against his brother: this wrong was done immediately against the wife, but the father, brothers, or kinsmen of the wronged wife are mediately, and by consequence, wronged; the whole family of the wife thus used is perfidiously abused, but brothers, as principal of the family, are named.
By profaning the covenant; violating the covenant of God, the law, which approves no polygamy, and forbids marrying of idolaters.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
10-16. Reproof of those whocontracted marriages with foreigners and repudiated their Jewishwives.
10. Have we not all onefather?Why, seeing we all have one common origin, “do wedeal treacherously against one another” (“Hisbrother” being a general expression implying that all are”brethren” and sisters as children of the same Father above(1Th 4:3-6), and soincluding the wives so injured)? namely, by putting away ourJewish wives, and taking foreign women to wife (compare Mal 2:14;Mal 2:11; Ezr 9:1-9),and so violating “the covenant” made by Jehovah with “ourfathers,” by which it was ordained that we should be a peopleseparated from the other peoples of the world (Exo 19:5;Lev 20:24; Lev 20:26;Deu 7:3). To intermarry with theheathen would defeat this purpose of Jehovah, who was the commonFather of the Israelites in a peculiar sense in which He was notFather of the heathen. The “one Father” is Jehovah (Job 31:15;1Co 8:6; Eph 4:6).”Created us”: not merely physical creation, but “createdus” to be His peculiar and chosen people (Psa 102:18;Isa 43:1; Isa 45:8;Isa 60:21; Eph 2:10),[CALVIN]. How marked thecontrast between the honor here done to the female sex, and thedegradation to which Oriental women are generally subjected!
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Have we not all one father?…. Whether this is understood of Adam the first man, of whose blood all nations of the earth are made, and who in the same sense is the father of all living, as Eve was the mother of all living; or of Abraham the father of the Jewish people, of whom, as their father, they used to glory; or of Jacob, as Kimchi and Aben Ezra interpret it, whom the Jews used to call our father Jacob; or of God, who is the Father of all men by creation, and of the Jews by national adoption of them; and who may the rather be thought to be meant, since it follows,
hath not one God created us? either as men, or formed us as a body politic; which may serve to explain what is meant by their having one father: whichever is the sense of these words, the argument from hence is strong; that there ought to be no partiality used in the law, or any respect had to persons, in that the rich and the poor have all one Father and one Creator; see Jas 2:1:
why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother; by perverting justice, having respect to persons, favouring one to the prejudice of another, as it follows:
by profaning the covenant of your fathers? the covenant made with them at Sinai, as Jarchi explains it; the law that was then enjoined them, particularly such as forbid respect of persons, Le 19:15 some think, as Aben Ezra, that a new section here begins, and that the prophet proceeds to a new reproof, and for another sin these people were guilty of, in marrying wives of another nation, contrary to the law in
Ex 34:15 which was dealing treacherously with one another, and profaning the covenant of their fathers.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Mal 2:10. “ Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? wherefore are we treacherous one towards another, to desecrate the covenant of our fathers? Mal 2:11. Judah acts treacherously, and abomination has taken place in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has desecrated the sanctuary of Jehovah, which He loves, and marries the daughter of a strange god. Mal 2:12. Jehovah will cut off, to the man that doeth this, wakers and answerers out of the tents of Jacob, and him that offereth sacrifices to Jehovah of hosts.” Malachi adopts the same course here as in the previous rebuke, and commences with a general clause, from which the wrongfulness of marriages with heathen women and of frivolous divorces necessarily followed. The one father, whom all have, is neither Adam, the progenitor of all men, nor Abraham, the father of the Israelitish nation, but Jehovah, who calls Himself the Father of the nation in Mal 1:6. God is the Father of Israel as its Creator; not, however, in the general sense, according to which He made Israel the people of His possession. By the two clauses placed at the head, Malachi intends not so much to lay emphasis upon the common descent of all the Israelites, by virtue of which they form one united family in contrast with the heathen, as to say that all the Israelites are children of God, and as such spiritual brethren and sisters. Consequently every violation of the fraternal relation, such as that of which the Israelite was guilty who married a heathen woman, or put away an Israelitish wife, was also an offence against God, a desecration of His covenant. The idea that the expression “one father” refers to Abraham as the ancestor of the nation (Jerome, Calvin, and others), is precluded by the fact, that not only the Israelites, but also the Ishmaelites and Edomites were descended from Abraham; and there is no ground whatever for thinking of Jacob, because, although he had indeed given his name to Israel, he is never singled out as its ancestor. Nibhgad is the first pers. plur. imperf. kal, notwithstanding the fact that in other cases bagad has cholem in the imperfect; for the niphal of this verb is never met with. The Israelite acted faithlessly towards his brother, both when he contracted a marriage with a heathen woman, and when he put away his Israelitish wife, and thereby desecrated the covenant of the fathers, i.e., the covenant which Jehovah made with the fathers, when He chose them from among the heathen, and adopted them as His covenant nation (Exo 19:5-6; Exo 24:8).
The reason for this rebuke is given in Mal 2:11, in a statement of what has taken place. In order the more emphatically to describe this as reprehensible, bag e dah (hath dealt treacherously) is repeated and applied to the whole nation. Y e hudah (Judah), construed as a feminine, is the land acting in its inhabitants. Then what has taken place is described as , abomination, like idolatry, witchcraft, and other grievous sins (cf. Deu 13:15; Deu 18:9.), in which the name Israel is intentionally chosen as the holy name of the nation, to indicate the contrast between the holy vocation of Israel and its unholy conduct. In addition to Israel as the national name (= Judah) Jerusalem is also mentioned, as is frequently the case, as the capital and centre of the nation. What has occurred is an abomination, because Judah desecrates , i.e., neither the holiness of Jehovah as a divine attribute, nor the temple as the sanctuary, still less the holy state of marriage, which is never so designated in the Old Testament, but Israel as the nation which Jehovah loved. Israel is called qodesh , a sanctuary or holy thing, as , which Jehovah has chosen out of all nations to be His peculiar possession (Deu 7:6; Deu 14:2; Jer 2:3; Psa 114:2; Ezr 9:2: see Targ., Rashi, Ab. Ezra, etc.). Through the sin which it had committed, Judah, i.e., the community which had returned from exile, had profaned itself as the sanctuary of God, or neutralized itself as a holy community chosen and beloved of Jehovah (Koehler). To this there is appended, though not till the last clause, the statement of the abomination: Judah, in its individual members, has married the daughter of a strange god (cf. Ezr 9:2.; Neh 13:23.). By the expression the person married is described as an idolatress ( bath , daughter = dependent). This involved the desecration of the holy calling of the nation. It is true that in the law it is only marriages with Canaanites that are expressly forbidden (Exo 34:16; Deu 7:3), but the reason assigned for this prohibition shows, that all marriages with heathen women, who did not give up their idolatry, were thereby denounced as irreconcilable with the calling of Israel (see at 1Ki 11:1-2). This sin may God punish by cutting off every one who commits it. This threat of punishment (Mal 2:12) is indeed only expressed in the form of a wish, but the wish has been created by the impulse of the Holy Spirit. Very different and by no means satisfactory explanations have been given of the expression , the waking one ( the participle of ) and the answering one, a proverbial description of the wicked man formed by the combination of opposites (on the custom of expressing totality by opposites, see Dietrich, Abhandlung zur hebr. Gramm. p. 201ff.), in which, however, the meaning of the word still continues a matter of dispute. The rabbinical explanation, which is followed by Luther, viz., teacher and scholar, is founded upon the meaning excitare given to the verb , and the excitans is supposed to be the teacher who stimulates by questioning and admonishing. But apart from all other reasons which tell against this explanation, it does not suit the context; for there is not a single word to indicate that the prophet is speaking only of priests who have taken foreign wives; on the contrary, the prophet accuses Judah and Jerusalem, and therefore the people generally, of being guilty of this sin. Moreover, it was no punishment to an Israelite to have no rabbi or teacher of the law among his sons. The words are at any rate to be taken more generally than this. The best established meaning is vigil et respondens , in which is taken transitively, as in Job 41:2 in the chethib , and in the Chaldee , watcher (Dan 4:10-13 and Dan 4:14-17), in the sense of vivus quisque . In this case the proverbial phrase would be taken from the night-watchman (J. D. Mich., Ros., Ges. Thes. p. 1004). It is no conclusive objection to this, that the words which follow, , evidently stand upon the same line as and must form part of the same whole, and therefore that cannot of itself embrace the whole. For this conclusion is by no means a necessary one. If the two expressions referred to portions of the same whole, they could not well be separated from one another by . Moreover, the limitation of to the age of childhood founders upon the artificial interpretation which it is necessary to give to the two words. According to Koehler denotes the child in the first stage of its growth, in which it only manifests its life by occasionally waking up from its ordinary state of deep, death-like slumber, and the more advanced child, which is able to speak and answer questions. But who would ever think of calling a child in the first weeks of its life, when it sleeps more than it wakes, a waker? Moreover, the sleep of an infant is not a “deep, death-like slumber.” The words “out of the tents of Jacob,” i.e., the houses of Israel, belong to . The last clause adds the further announcement, that whoever commits such abominations shall have no one to offer a sacrificial gift to the Lord. These words are not to be taken as referring to the priestly caste, as Hitzig supposes; but Jerome has given the correct meaning: “and whoever is willing to offer a gift upon the altar for men of this description.” The meaning of the whole verse is the following: “May God not only cut off every descendant of such a sinner out of the houses of Israel, but any one who might offer a sacrifice for him in expiation of his sin.”
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Unlawful Marriages; Breach of the Marriage-covenant; Charge of Corrupt Principles. | B. C. 400. |
10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? 11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. 12 The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts. 13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. 14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. 16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. 17 Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?
Corrupt practices are the genuine fruit and product of corrupt principles; and the badness of men’s hearts and lives is owing to some loose atheistical notions which they have got and which they govern themselves by. Now, in these verses, we have an instance of this; we here find men dealing falsely with one another, and it is because they think falsely of their God. Observe,
I. How corrupt their practices were. In general, they dealt treacherously every man against his brother, v. 10. It cannot be expected that he who is false to his God should be true to his friend. They had dealt treacherously with God in his tithes and offerings, and had defrauded him, and thus conscience was debauched, its bonds and cords were broken, a door was opened to all manner of injustice and dishonesty, and the bonds of relation and natural affection are broken through likewise and no difficulty made of it. Some think that the treacherous dealings here reproved are the same with those instances of oppression and extortion which we find complained of to Nehemiah about this time, Neh. v. 3-7. Therein they forgot the God of their fathers, and the covenant of their fathers, and rendered their offerings unacceptable, Isa. i. 11. But it seems rather to refer to what was amiss in their marriages, which was likewise complained of, Neh. xiii. 23. Two things they are here charged with, as very provoking to God in this matter–taking strange wives of heathen nations, and abusing and putting away the wives they had of their own nation; in both these they dealt treacherously and violated a sacred covenant; the former was in contempt of the covenant of peculiarity, the latter of the marriage-covenant.
1. In contempt of the covenant God made with Israel, as a peculiar people to himself, they married strange wives, which was expressly prohibited, and provided against, in that covenant, Deut. vii. 3. Observe here,
(1.) What good reason they had to deal faithfully with God and one another in this covenant, and not to make marriages with the heathen. [1.] They were expressly bound out from such marriages by covenant. God engaged to do them good upon this condition, that they should not mingle with the heathen; this was the covenant of their fathers, the covenant made with their fathers, denoting the antiquity and the authority of it, and its being the great charter by which that nation was incorporated. They lay under all possible obligations to observe it strictly, yet they profaned it, as if they were not bound by it. Those profane the covenant of their fathers who live in disobedience to the command of the God of their fathers. [2.] They were a peculiar people, united in one body, and therefore ought to have united for the preserving of the honour of their peculiarity: Have we not all one Father? Yes, we have, for has not one God created us? Are we not all his offspring? And are we not made of one blood? Yes, certainly we are. God is a common Father to all mankind, and, upon that account, all we are brethren, members one of another, and therefore ought to put away lying (Eph. iv. 25), and not to deal treacherously, no, not any man against his brother. But here it seems to refer to the Jewish nation: Have we not all one father, Abraham, or Jacob? This they prided themselves in, We have Abraham to our father; but here it is turned upon them as an aggravation of their sin in betraying the honour of their nation by intermarrying with heathens: “Has not one God created us, that is, formed us into a people, made us a nation by ourselves, and put a life into us, distinct from that of other nations? And should not this oblige us to maintain the dignity of our character?” Note, The consideration of the unity of the church in Christ, its founder and Father, should engage us carefully to preserve the purity of the church and to guard against all corruptions. [3.] They were dedicated to God, as well as distinguished from the neighbouring nations. Israel was holiness to the Lord (Jer. ii. 3), taken into covenant with him, set apart by him for himself, to be to him for a name and a praise, and upon this account he loved them and delighted in them; the sanctuary set up among them was the holiness of the Lord, which he loved, of which he said, It is my rest for ever, here will I dwell, for I have desired it; but by marrying strange wives they profaned this holiness, and laid the honour of it in the dust. Note, Those who are devoted to God, and beloved of him, are concerned to preserve their integrity, that they may not throw themselves out of his love, nor lose the honour, or defeat the end, of their dedication to him.
(2.) How treacherously they dealt, notwithstanding, They profaned themselves in that very thing which was prescribed to them for the preserving of the honour of their singularity: Judah has married the daughter of a strange god. The harm was not so much that she was the daughter of a strange nation (God has made all nations of men, and is himself King of nations), but that she was the daughter of a strange god, trained up in the service and worship of false gods, at their disposal, as a daughter at her father’s disposal, and having a dependence upon them; hence some of the rabbin (quoted by Dr. Pocock) say, He that marries a heathen woman is as if he made himself son-in-law to an idol. The corruption of the old world began with the intermarriages of the sons of God with the daughters of men, Gen. vi. 2. It is the same thing that is here complained of, but as it is expressed it sounds worse: The sons of God married the daughters of a strange god. Herein Judah is said to have dealt treacherously, for they basely betrayed their own honour and profaned that holiness of the Lord which they should have loved (so some read it); and it is said to be an abomination committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; it was hateful to God, and very unbecoming those that were called by his name. Note, it is an abominable thing for those who profess the holiness of the Lord to profane it, particularly by yoking themselves unequally with unbelievers.
(3.) How severely God would reckon with them for it (v. 12): The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, that marries the daughter of a strange god. He has, in effect, cut himself off from the holy nation, and joined in with foreigners and aliens to the commonwealth of Israel, and so shall his doom be; God will cut him off, him and all that belongs to him; so the original intimates. He shall be cut off from Israel and from Jerusalem, and not be written among the living there. The Lord will cut off both the master and the scholar, that are guilty of this sin, both the teachers and the taught. The blind leaders and the blind followers shall fall together into the ditch, both him that wakeneth and him that answereth (so it is in the margin), for the master calls up his scholar to his business, and stirs him up in it. They shall be cut off together out of the tabernacles of Jacob. God will no more own them as belonging to his nation; nay, and the priest that offers an offering to the Lord, if he marry a strange wife (as we find many of the priests did, Ezra x. 18), shall not escape; the offering he offers shall not atone for him, but he shall be cut off from the temple of the Lord, as others from the tabernacles of Jacob. Nehemiah chased away from him, and from the priesthood, one of the sons of the high priest, whom he found guilty of this sin, Neh. xiii. 28.
2. In contempt of the marriage-covenant, which God instituted for the common benefit of mankind, they abused and put away the wives they had of their own nation, probably to make room for those strange wives, when it was all the fashion to marry such (v. 13): This also have you done; this is the second article of the charge. For the way of sin is down-hill, and one violation of the covenant is an inlet to another.
(1.) Let us see what it is that is here complained of. they did not behave as they ought to have done towards their wives. [1.] They were cross with them, froward and peevish, and made their lives bitter to them, so that when they came with their wives and families to worship God at the solemn feasts, which they should have done with rejoicing, they were all out of humour; the poor wives were ready to break their hearts, and, not daring to make their case known to any other, they complained to God, and covered the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying. This is illustrated by the instance of Hannah, who, upon the account of her husband’s having another wife (though otherwise a kind husband), and the discontent thence arising, whenever they went up to the house of the Lord to worship fretted and wept, and was in bitterness of soul, and would not eat,1Sa 1:6; 1Sa 1:7; 1Sa 1:10. So it was with these wives here; and this was so contrary to the cheerfulness which God requires in his worshippers that it spoiled the acceptableness of their devotions: God regards not their offering any more. See here what a good Master we serve, who will not have his altar covered with tears, but compassed with songs. This condemns those who left his worship for that of idols, among the rites of which we find women weeping for Tammuz (Ezek. viii. 14), and the blood of the worshippers gushing out upon the altar, 1 Kings xviii. 28. See also what a wicked thing it is to put others out of frame for the cheerful worship of God; though it is their fault by their fretfulness to indispose themselves for their duty, yet it is much more the fault of those who provoked them to make them to fret. It is a reason given why yoke-fellows should live in holy love and joy–that their prayers may not be hindered, 1 Pet. iii. 7. [2.] They dealt treacherously with them, v. 14-16. They did not perform their promises to them, but defrauded them of their maintenance or dower, or took in concubines, to share in the affection that was due to their wives only. [3.] They put them away, gave them a bill of divorce, and turned them off, nay, perhaps they did it without the ceremony that the law of Moses prescribed, v. 16. [4.] In all this they covered violence with their garment; they abused their wives, and were vexatious to them, and yet, in the sight of others, they pretended to be very loving to them and tender of them, and to cast a skirt over them. It is common for those who do violence to advance some specious pretence or other wherewith to cover it as with a garment.
(2.) Let us see the proof and aggravations of the charge. [1.] It is sufficiently proved by the testimony of God himself: “The Lord has been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth (v. 14), has been witness to the marriage-covenant between thee and her, for to him you appealed concerning your sincerity in it and fidelity to it; he has been a witness to all the violations of it, and all thy treacherous dealings in contempt of it, and is ready to judge between thee and her.” Note, This should engage us to be faithful both to God and to all with whom we have to do, that God himself is a witness both to all our covenants and to all our covenant-breaches; and he is a witness against whom there lies no exception. [2.] It is highly aggravated by the consideration of the person wronged and abused. First, “She is thy wife; thy own, bone of thy bone and flesh of thy flesh, the nearest to thee of all the relations thou hast in the world, and to cleave to whom thou must quit the rest.” Secondly, “She is the wife of thy youth, who had thy affections when they were at the strongest, was thy first choice, and with whom thou hast lived long. Let not the darling of thy youth be the scorn and loathing of thy age.” Thirdly, “She is thy companion; she has long been an equal sharer with thee in thy cares, and griefs, and joys.” The wife is to be looked upon, not as a servant, but as a companion to the husband, with whom he should freely converse and take sweet counsel, as with a friend, and in whose company he should take delight more than in any other’s; for is she not appointed to be thy companion? Fourthly, “She is the wife of thy covenant, to whom thou art so firmly bound that, while she continues faithful, thou canst not be loosed from her, for it was a covenant for life. It is the wife with whom thou hast covenanted, and who has covenanted with thee; there is an oath of God between you, which is not to be trifled with, is not to be played fast and loose with.” Married people should often call to mind their marriage-vows, and review them with all seriousness, as those that make conscience of performing what they promised.
(3.) Let us see the reasons given why man and wife should continue together, to their lives’ end, in holy love and peace, and neither quarrel with each other nor separate from each other. [1.] Because god has joined them together (v. 15): Did not he make one, one Eve for one Adam, that Adam might never take another to her to vex her (Lev. xviii. 18), nor put her away to make room for another? It is great wickedness to complain of the law of marriage as a confinement, when Adam in innocency, in honour, in Eden, in the garden of pleasure, was confined to one. Yet God had the residue of the Spirit; he could have made another Eve, as amiable as that he did make, but, designing Adam a help meet for him, he made him one wife; had he made him more, he would not have had a meet help. And wherefore did he make but one woman for one man? It was that he might seek a godly seed—a seed of God (so the word is), a seed that should bear the image of God, be employed in the service of God, and be devoted to his glory and honour,–that every man having his own wife, and but one, according to the law, (1 Cor. vii. 2), they might live in chaste and holy love, under the directions and restraints of the divine law, and not, as brute beasts, under the dominion of lust, and thus might propagate the nature of man in such a way as might make it most likely to participate of a divine nature,–that the children, being born in holy matrimony, which is an ordinance of God, and by which the inclinations of nature are kept under the regulations of God’s command, might thus be made a seed to serve him, and be bred, as they are born, under his direction and dominion. Note, The raising up of a godly seed, which shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation, is one great end of the institution of marriage; but that is a good reason why the marriage-bed should be kept undefiled and the marriage bond inviolable. Husbands and wives must therefore live in the fear of God, that their seed may be a godly seed, else were they unclean, but now they are holy, as children of the covenant, the marriage-covenant, which was a type of the covenant of grace, and the conjugal union, when thus preserved entire, of the mystical union between Christ and his church, in which he seeks and secures to himself a godly seed; see Eph 5:25; Eph 5:32. [2.] Because he is much displeased with those who go about to put asunder what he has joined together (v. 16): The God of Israel saith that he hateth putting away. He hath indeed permitted it to the Jews, for the hardness of their hearts, or, rather, limited and clogged it (Matt. xix. 8); but he hated it, especially as those practised it who put away their wives for every cause, Matt. xix. 3. Let those wives that elope from their husbands and put themselves away, those husbands that are cruel to their wives and turn them away, or take their affections off from their wives and place them upon others, yea, and those husbands and wives that live asunder by consent, for want of love to each other, let such as these know that the God of Israel hates such practices, however vain men may make a jest of them.
(4.) Let us see the caution inferred from all this. We have it twice (v. 15): Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth; and again, v. 16. Note, Those that would be kept from sin must take heed to their spirits, for there all sin begins; they must keep their hearts with all diligence, must keep a jealous eye upon them and a strict hand, and must watch against the first risings of sin there. We shall act as we are spirited; and therefore, that we may regulate our actions, we must consider what manner of spirit we are of; we must take heed to our spirits with reference to our particular relations, and see that we stand rightly affected to them and be of a good temper, for otherwise we shall be in danger of dealing treacherously. If our own hearts deal treacherously with us, whom will they not deal treacherously with?
II. Observe how corrupt their principles were, to which were owing all these corrupt practices. Let us trace up the streams to the fountain (v. 17): You have wearied the Lord with your words. They thought to evade the convictions of the word, and to justify themselves by cavilling with God’s proceedings; but their defence was their offence, and their vindication of themselves was the aggravation of their crime; they affronted the Lord with their words, and repeated them so often, and persisted so long in their contradictions, that they even wearied him; see Isa. vii. 13. They made him weary of doing them good as he had done, and stopped the current of his favours; or they represented him as weary of governing the world, and willing to quit it and lay aside the care of it. Note, It is a wearisome thing, even to God himself, to hear people insist upon their own justification in their corrupt and wicked practices, and plead their atheistical principles in vindication of them. But, as if God by his prophet had done them wrong, see how impudently they ask, Wherein have we wearied him? What are those vexatious words whereby we have wearied him? Note, Sinful words are more offensive to the God of heaven than they are commonly thought to be. But God has his proofs ready; two things they had said, at least in their hearts (and thoughts are words to God), with which they had wearied him:– 1. They had denied him to be a holy God, and had asserted that concerning him which is directly contrary to the doctrine of his holiness. As he is a holy God, he hates sin, is of purer eyes than to behold it, and cannot endure to look upon it, Hab. i. 13. He is not a God that has pleasure in wickedness, Ps. v. 4. And yet they had the impudence to say, in direct contradiction to this, Every one that does evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delights in them. This wicked inference they drew, without any reason, from the prosperity of sinners in their sinful courses (see ch. iii. 15), as if God’s love or hatred were to be known by that which is before us, and those must be concluded good in the sight of the Lord who are rich in the world. Or this they said because they wished it might be so; they were resolved to do evil, and yet to think themselves good in the sight of the Lord, and to believe that he delighted in them, notwithstanding; and therefore, under pretence of making God not so severe as he was commonly represented, they said as they would have it, and thought he was altogether such a one as themselves. Note, Those who think God a friend to sin affront him and deceive themselves. 2. They had denied him to be the righteous governor of the world. If he did not delight in sin and sinners, yet it would serve their turn to believe that he would never punish it or them. They said, “Where is the God of judgment? That God who, we have been so often told, would call us to an account, and reckon with us for what we have said and done–where is he? He has forsaken the earth, and takes no notice of what is said and done there; he has said that he will come to judgment; but where is the promise of his coming? We may do what we please; he sees us not, nor will regard us.” It is such a challenge to the Judge of the whole earth as bids defiance to his justice, and, in effect, dares him to do his worst. Such scoffers as these there were in the latter days of the Jewish church, and such there shall be in the latter days of the Christian church; but their unbelief shall not make the promise of God of no effect; for the day of the Lord will come. Behold, the Judge stands before the door; the God of judgment is at hand.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Treachery Of Every Man
Verse 10:
Sins Of Brother Against Brother
Verse 10 raises to rhetoric question, “Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?” to which the answer to both is “yes,” God is the Father of all, in the sense that He is or (exists as) the one creator of all men. He is not the father (spiritual father) of those who are lost, Eph 2:3; Joh 8:44. Malachi then inquires why the masses of the returned remnant is profaning the covenant of their fathers? The particular treachery He introduces, in covenant breaking toward God and their forefathers, was that of putting aside their Jewish wives, buying and living with strangers, Gentiles, or heathen, as their first tent wives, an abomination to God. Integration of the races, in marriage, from the days of Noah, seems to be a sin against God and His will for men, until today. The greatest degree of peace and service to God, and one’s fellowman, may be achieved and rendered in single marriages, and that within ones own race, v. 11, 14; Ezr 9:1-9. See also Lev 20:24-26; Deu 7:3. Though no direct command came from Jesus on this matter, He sanctioned its principle.
The making of marriages with the nations, heathens, or Gentiles, was specifically and definitely forbidden of the Lord to all Israel, under the Law, and blessed when it was obeyed and followed. It brought heartache, trouble, and sorrow to all Israel when it was disregarded, as recounted in the lives of Samson, David, Solomon, and the pre-exile era of both the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. See also Jos 23:11-13; 1Ki 11:1-11; Even the Philistines became more righteous than Samson, who had married another Philistine, an heathen, woman in Timnath of the Philistines, who betrayed him to her own people; She was burned alive; both she and her father by her own people, Jdg 14:15; Jdg 15:6. Samson then married another Philistine, a heathen, forbidden in the law. This led to his loss of power with God, his being blinded, and his eventual suicide, Jdg 16:1-31. Marriage with other races led Israel into idolatry and many other sins of compromise with the devil. It appears that such is true today. The greatest degree of honor and service to God and tranquillity in family and domestic life may yet be found in marriage within ones’ own race. See also Exo 19:5-6; Exo 24:8; Deu 14:2.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
The Prophet accuses the Jews here of another crime — that they were perfidious towards God and their own brethren, and departed from that pre-eminence into which God had raised them, when they were chosen in preference to other nations to be a holy and peculiar people. This ingratitude the Prophet now condemns by saying, that they all had one father, and that they had been all created by one God
The word Father may be applied to God as well as to Abraham, and some interpreters will have it repeated, which is no uncommon thing in Hebrew: they say then that all had God as their Father, because he created them all; so that the latter clause is taken as an explanation. But it is better, as I think, to apply the word to Abraham, and the passage requires this; for it follows at the end of the verse, that the covenant which the Lord had made with their fathers had been violated; and this will appear still more certain, when we bear in mind the design of the Prophet. (225) Presently a reproof follows, because they had taken many wives; but the Prophet seems not as yet to mention this vice, but speaks generally, that they did not preserve that purity to which they had been called, for they indiscriminately married heathen wives. As then they mingled without distinction with unbelievers and the despisers of God, the Prophet complains that they were unmindful of that dignity to which they had been elevated, when God deigned to adopt them as his holy people. For thus it happened, that the pre-eminence which Moses celebrates in Deu 4:8, disappeared, “What nation is so renowned, to whom God draws nigh, as thou seest that he is nigh to thee?” When therefore the Jews rendered themselves vile, the Prophet condemns them for ingratitude. He, at the same time, shows that they were become inhuman towards their brethren, with whom they had been united by a most sacred bond. It then seems probable to me, that God and Abraham are mentioned here, because God had chosen the race of Abraham and adopted them as his people, and also, because he had deposited his covenant with Abraham and the fathers: thus Abraham became, as it were, the mediator of the covenant which God made with his whole race. By thus understanding the subject of the Prophet, it is easier for us to see why he mentions Abraham as well as God.
Is there not one father, he says, to us all? that is, “Did not God select us from the rest of the world, when he promised to our father Abraham to be a God to him and to his seed? Since then God’s favor has flowed to us from that fountain, what sottishness it is to break that sacred bond by which God has joined us to himself in the person of Abraham?” For when the Jews did not consider that they derived their origin from the holy patriarch, the consequence was, that the covenant of God with them became void and of no effect. This then is the reason why he says, that one God was to them all a Father. And as other nations might have claimed the same privilege, he adds, Has not one God created us? He shows that the Jews had descended in no common or ordinary way from their holy father Abraham, but that God was the maker of his race, that he created them. Did not he also create the rest of the world? Not in the same manner; for this creation ought to be confined especially to the Church. God has created the whole human race; but he created also the race of Abraham: and hence the Church is often called in Isaiah the work and the formation of God, (Isa 66:21,) and Paul also adopts the same mode of speaking, (Eph 2:10.) Our Prophet then does not mean that the Jews had been created by God when born into this world, but that they had become his holy and peculiar people. As then God had thus created the Jews, and had given to them one father, that being mindful of their origin they might remain united in true religion, the Prophet here reprobates their sottishness in casting away from themselves this invaluable favor of God.
Every one dealt falsely with his brother; and thus they violated the covenant of the fathers. As to the verb, נכגד, nubegad, it has been variously explained by grammarians; but as to what is meant it is agreed, that the Jews are here condemned, because they were not only perfidious to God, but also fraudulent as to their neighbors: and thus they doubled their perfidy, the proof which was manifest, because they did not act with sincerity towards their brethren. (226) Why then, he says, do we deal falsely with man, that is, every one with his own brother, so that we pollute the covenant of our fathers? Here the covenant of the fathers is to be taken for that separation or laying apart which we have mentioned, by which God had adopted Abraham and his posterity, that they might be separated from all the nations of the world. Hence under this covenant of the fathers is God himself included; and as this has not been perceived, it is no wonder that this passage has been so frigidly explained, and that Malachi has been as it were wholly buried in darkness; though interpreters have tried to bring light, yet the effect has been to pervert the real meaning of the Prophet. But it appears now plain, I think, that the Jews are here said to be guilty of a twofold perfidy — because they rejected the honor offered to them by God’s gratuitous election, and also because they acted fraudulently towards their own brethren. It hence followed that the covenant of the fathers, that is, what God had deposited with the patriarchs, that it might come from hand to hand to their posterity, had been violated and made void by their wickedness.
We must yet notice what I have already referred to — that the priests are so reproved that the whole people are also included; and this we shall again presently see, and I add also, that the Prophet connects God with Abraham, in order to show that we shall fail to seek God effectually, if we seek him apart from his covenant, and also that our minds ought not to be fixed on men. There are indeed two vices against which we ought carefully to guard. Some, passing by all means, seek to fly upward to God; and so they entertain many vain thoughts and devise for themselves many labyrinths, from which they never emerge. We see how many fanatics there are at this day, who proudly speak against God’s word, and yet touch neither heaven nor earth; and why? because they would be superior to angels, and do not acknowledge that they need any helps by which they might by degrees, according to their weakness, ascend up to God himself. Now this is to seek God without the covenant or without the word. This is the reason why the Prophet here unites father Abraham to God himself; it was done that the Jews might know that they were confined by certain limits, in order that they might in humility make progress in God’s school, and be carried by degrees into heaven: for God, as it has been said, had deposited his covenant with Abraham. But yet as they might have depended on a mortal man, the Prophet adds a corrective — that they had been created by God; for they were not to separate their father Abraham from the very author of the covenant.
This passage then is worthy of special notice; for men from the beginning and in all ages have been inclined to the two vices which I have mentioned; and at this day we see that some indulge their dreams and despise the outward preaching of the word; for many fanatics say, that there is no need of rudiments or of the first elements, since God has promised that the sons of the Church would be spiritual. Hence Satan by such delusions strives to draw us away from pure simplicity of doctrine. It is therefore necessary to set up this shield — that God is not exhibited to us without Abraham, that is, without a Prophet and an interpreter. The Papists are also sunk in the same mud; for they have always the fathers in their mouths, but make no account of God. This is also very preposterous. Let us then remember that God is not to be separated from his word, and that the authority of men is of no account, when they depart from it. And the Prophet confirms the same thing at the end of the verse, when he speaks of the covenant of the fathers; for he does not here simply commend the covenant of the fathers, as the Turks might do, or as it is done by Papists and Jews; but he means the covenant which God had given, and which the holy patriarchs faithfully handed down to their posterity, according to what Paul says in the twenty-second chapter of the Acts, when speaking of his father’s religion; he did not speak of it as heathens might do of their religion, but he took it as granted that the law promulgated by Moses was not his invention, but had God as its author. It now follows-
(225) This is the view taken by most— Jerome, Theodoret, Drusius, Grotius, Marckius, and Henry. Henderson has been led astray by a supposed parallelism between this and the next sentence; and he regards God to be meant. Scott has taken it in both views, but this is not to explain the passage. Indeed the very argument here used renders it necessary that Abraham, or Isaac, or Jacob, should be intended. Taking God to be meant by “father,” some have been led to think that it is the language of the Jews who married strange wives, in their own defense, “Have we not all, Gentiles as well as Jews, one Father? and has not the same God created me?” This might do well until we come to the conclusion of the verse, where the violation of the covenant of the fathers is mentioned. — Ed.
(226) The word בגד, as a noun, which is its root, means a robe, a cloak, or a covering; when used as a verb, it signifies to cover or cloak things over, and so to act falsely, hypocritically, or treacherously. Drusius ’ definition is, to act perfidiously, to prevaricate, to deceive. It is rendered here improperly by the Septuagint “ εγκατελίπετε — ye have forsaken.” It is here in the future tense, and may be rendered as though it were in the subjunctive mood, —
Why should we act perfidiously, each one with his brother, By violating the covenant of our fathers?
“
Violating” is חלל, which means to perforate, to pierce, and to break in, so as to violate a holy place, and hence to profane; and so it is rendered by the Septuagint — του βεβηλωσαι. To profane one’s word in Num 30:2, is to break it; and to profane a covenant in Psa 55:20, is to break it; and so it is rendered in both these places in our version. To break a covenant is a metaphor not very unlike that of piercing or perforating it. Newcome says that it refers to the ancient mode of cancelling bonds, which was done by striking a nail through them. See Col 2:14. “Hence the word,” he adds, “signifies to make void. ” — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.
Mal. 2:10.] A fresh section, the condemnation of marriages with heathen women (Mal. 2:10-12), and of the frivolous dissolution of marriages with Israelitish women, which was the natural consequence of the former (Mal. 2:13-16) [Keil]. The same course as in previous rebukes adopted (cf. Neh. 12:23-31 with this section). One] Common origin, which gave them a new relation to each other. Treacherous] A violation of duty to God was an offence against each other, on account of this common relationship. Covenant] (Exo. 19:6; Exo. 19:6; Exo. 24:8; Deu. 14:2.)
Mal. 2:11. Holiness] Profaned or desecrated by marriages expressly forbidden. Judah] i.e. the whole nation, commits this abomination in Israel] a holy nation!and in Jerusalem] the capital of the nation.
Mal. 2:12. Cut] Punish. Master and scholar] Lit. him that watcheth, and him that answereth. The watcher goes his rounds by night to keep guard, the other answers, i.e. responds to his cry (cf. Illus. end of ch.).
Mal. 2:13. This] A second sin performed. Tears] By ill treatment their wives were driven to weep at the altar. Hence God will not accept the offering] nor bless the offerer.
Mal. 2:14. Say] Why does he not accept? Witness] The people are not ashamed, and wickedly ask why? Jehovah declares himself (an avenging witness, some) of the marriage which took place (cf. Pro. 2:17), which should have been sacred. The divorced wife tenderly called a wife and companion of joys and sorrows of youth, and a wife of the covenant for life made between them.
Mal. 2:15.] Most difficult verse of all prophecy. Taken by many as recalling the institution of marriage, of Divine sanction from the beginning. Did Jehovah not make one flesh (Gen. 1:27), why only one pair? Had he not the residue of the Spirit? His creative power was not exhausted; he might have created many women for one man. That he might seek to perpetuate a godly seed], a design counteracted by frequent divorce [Lange]. Others say, that the Jews defended their conduct by the precedent of Abraham, who took Hagar to the injury of Sarah, his lawful wife. To this the prophet replies: No one (ever) did so in whom there was a residue of intelligence (discriminating between good and evil): and what did the one] (Abraham, to whom you appeal for support) do, seeking a goodly seed? His object (viz. not to gratify passion, but to obtain the seed promised by God) makes the case inapplicable to defend your position [Hengs.]. Many explain it according to Mal. 2:10. He made (us Israelites) one. Our isolation from other nations was not because there was no residue of the Spirit left for the world. Why, then, did he thus isolate us? One] (Heb. the one) people? That he might have a goodly seed, i.e. have a nation, the repository of his will, and a witness for him among idolatrous peoples.
Mal. 2:16. Putting away] Divorce. Covereth] They wrap up or cover their sins as with a garment.
Mal. 2:17.] This verse really belongs to the following chapter. A class of murmurers addressed (Jewish sceptics, or wicked heathens), who enjoyed prosperity, excused themselves (wherein?) declared, that God delighted in evil doers, and sneer, Where is the God of judgment?
UNLAWFUL MARRIAGES.Mal. 2:10-12
Reproof is now administered to the people, especially the priests, for flagrant violation of law in marrying foreigners, and divorcing their wives when married. This was
I. A violation of Gods law. Marriage with the Canaanites and with all idolaters was forbidden (Exo. 34:16; Deu. 7:3; 1Ki. 11:1-2). The high priest was to take a virgin of his own people (Lev. 21:14-15); and the priests who married strange wives defiled the covenant of the priesthood (Neh. 13:29). Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.
II. A desecration of the community. Israel was a holy people, but this was an abomination committed in Israel. If they allied themselves with those from whom God had set them apart, they broke the national league, and profaned the covenant of their fathers. Hence
1. They polluted the temple. The very seat and centre of Gods presence. In Jerusalem.
2. They polluted the people. They fell from their lofty dignity, and tainted others by their influence. Why do we treacherously every man against his brother?
III. A condition of hopeless calamity. The imprecation or menace is severe.
1. Posterity will not escape the punishment. In whatever sense these words be taken, the master and the scholar, or (as marg.) him that waketh and him that answereththe camp would be silent. The posterity of him that violated the marriage law would be cut off, and not one left in the tabernacles of Jacob.
2. Sacrifice will not atone for the sins. There will be none to offer a sacrifice for the sinner, or if there were, they could not shield from the penalty. Insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more.
A COMMON FATHERHOOD.Mal. 2:10
God was the Father, the Creator of Israel in a special sense (Isa. 63:16). But all men have a common relation to God, who is our common Father and Creator. God is looked upon as Judge and Ruler of men, but the Fatherhood of God is forgotten. Hence the evils which afflict society.
I. In the Fatherhood of God we have an argument for personal piety. As dependent creatures, we should acknowledge him. Hath not one God created us? We are not simply Gods creatures, but his offspring, children in paternal likeness (Act. 17:28). Hence
1. A motive to obedience. As children, we should seek to know and practise Gods will.
2. A protest against idolatry. Material, intellectual, and spiritual idolatry should be forsaken. Our filial relation should teach us the spirituality of the Godhead, and the folly of atheism. Be ye, therefore, followers (imitators) of God, as dear children (Eph. 5:1).
II. In the Fatherhood of God we have a bond of human brotherhood. He hath made of one blood all nations of men. In the common origin we have the unity of the human racea natural tie to cement them together in their migrations and settlements. But nations have broken asunder, set up divinities, and forgotten Gods purpose in organizing them. Science and philosophy, treaties and commerce, have failed to unite them again. Wars, selfishness, and lusts still prevail. Only when men are taught that a Father in heaven rules their interests, and settles their rights and wrongs, will they cease to hate. O foolish people and unwise, is he not thy Father that hath bought thee?hath he not made thee and established thee?
III. In the Fatherhood of God we have a motive to philanthropy. In our creation we have a natural, in Christ a spiritual, relation to God; every offence is a violation of these relationships to God, and an injury to our fellow-men. Sin against the brethren is sin against Christ (1Co. 8:12). Why deal treacherously every man against his brother? Social sins are treachery against the community, violations of faith and confidence. Did not he that made me in the womb make him?and did not one fashion us in the womb? Love one another.
UNHOLY MARRIAGES.Mal. 2:11
The Jews commanded to keep themselves separated from nations around themto maintain their position as custodians of revelations, and abiding witnesses of Gods existence. But they often disobeyed, and formed idolatrous connections. Thus, the holiness of Jehovah was profaned, and Judah became an abomination. Nehemiah and Ezra sought to remove the evil which Malachi condemns.
I. This evil may now be committed literally. Strange gods are worshipped in every community. Names and shapes of idols have changed, but in essential characters remain the same. Every woman not truly devoted to Jehovah is a daughter of a strange god, under the influence of the god of this world. Christian men, for the sake of sensual and worldly considerations, sometimes marry such. 1. They marry women who sacrifice their noblest feelings for wealth.
2. Women who have bound themselves upon the altar of fashion.
3. Women who sacrifice their holiest impulses for pleasure.
4. Women who are devoted to the triumphs of ambition. Christians should never violate their union with Jehovah to unite themselves with idolaters. This, under even the most plausible circumstances, is
(1) to disobey a Divine command;
(2) to lose the Divine blesssing;
(3) to incur the Divine displeasure.
II. This evil may be committed spiritually. Union to God often represented in Scripture as marriagethe closest of bonds. God has right to our devotion, service, and love. From this celestial marriage spring all virtues and graces. But the worship of strange gods has been most prolific in pernicious customs, degrading vices, and dangerous errors. These evils abound, captivate, and allure, as heathen women did the Jews. Men marry the daughters of a strange god spiritually:
1. When they join themselves with popular customs which have emanated from the spirit of idolatry.
2. When they embrace false and erroneous systems of religion.
3. When they associate themselves freely with unholy religionists. God requires his people to separate themselves from all fascinating forms of evil, and to be wholly his. He has no agreement with idols, nor must his people with evils arising out of idolatry. All unholy unions are breaches of a marriage covenanta voluntary preference of evil to God.
III. This evil, whether committed literally or spiritually, will produce disastrous results.
1. Literally. It results in
(1) domestic unhappiness;
(2) a divided household;
(3) ill-trained childrenprobably generations of evildoers;
(4) neglect of true religion on the part of both. If David marry Maacah, says Adams, their issue proves an Absalom. If Solomon love idolatrous women, here is enough to overthrow him, with all his wisdom; by joining his heart to theirs, he shall disjoin it from God. One religion matching with another not seldom breeds an atheistone of no religion at all.
2. Spiritually. It results in
(1) blindness in spiritual things;
(2) loss of Divine favour;
(3) wandering in deceptive errors;
(4) loss of religious influence;
(5) being given up by God. Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone. Learn to guard against uniting with anything which separates us from God. An evil association has often been a devils chain, binding the soul to everlasting wretchedness (The Study and The Pulpit).
UNLAWFUL DIVORCE.Mal. 2:13-16
This have ye done again; a second accusation is brought against them. To marry strange women, they divorced their lawful wives, drove them in tears to the sanctuary, and brought contempt upon their worship. Men add one sin to another, until the wrath of God is poured out upon them.
I. Divorce shamefully cruel. They afflicted their own wives so cruelly that they fled to the altar, and covered it with weeping and loud cries. Those who are wronged and insulted may obtain redress before Gods throne. He hears the cries of the helpless. The tears of the innocent rise above the incense and worship of their persecutors.
II. Divorce strangely aggravating. The offence was committed against constant warning, was most aggravating in its nature and results.
1. They broke the tenderest ties of humanity. The wife of thy youth, who plighted her troth to thee in the freshness of life. Thy companion, sharing thy joys and sorrows, hopes and interests, thy associate and help-meet in all the circumstances of life. Above all, the wife of thy covenant, given and taken with most solemn pledges, yet now cast away in scorn and lust! Even the heathen believed marriage to be a sacred act, and guarded it by solemn sanctions: what, then, must be the guilt of divorce under such circumstances!
2. They defied the witness of God. The Lord hath been witness to the solemn engagement between them. To him the appeal was made. To violate this covenant is to deal treacherously, and God will avenge the transgressors. Which forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the covenant of her God.
III. Divoroe boldly defended. Some take Mal. 2:15 as alluding to the example of Abraham, who sinned against Sarah the wife of his youth, by taking Hagar. This seemed to sanction their sin, and the prophet meets the objection or defence, What did that one? God promised Abraham seed, a child who should be the hope of the chosen people, and the blessing of the world. He mistakenly followed the counsel of his wife, instead of the counsel of God, and sought that seed by marrying the Egyptian. But you have not the promise of Abraham, nor are you actuated by the same motives. If you were pure in motive, you are sinful in act; for God hates divorce, and acts of cruelty which you commit. Therefore, take heed to your spirit; have no light thought of this offence; for you cannot excuse yourselves by the errors of great men.
IV. Divorce which frustrated the design of lawful marriage. Others take Mal. 2:15 as referring to the first pair, between whom and between all others born after them, God willed that there should be one indivisible union. This law should not therefore be broken. But wherefore one? That he might see a godly seed. From lawful marriage, religious offspring may be secured by Gods blessing. Divorce and polygamy counteract the interests of piety, and have even been unfavourable to the education and godly training of children.
V. Divorce which ended in serious consequences. The unity of marriage faithfully kept is in harmony with Gods will, but violated is pernicious to society.
1. It is treachery to society. Deal not treacherously (Mal. 2:16).
2. It is insulting to God. The Lord God of Israel saith, that he hateth putting away. God permitted Israel, on account of hardness of heart, to divorce (Mat. 19:8; Mar. 10:5). But the legislation of Moses was in advance of the common morality of the time, and taught that marriage was not a mere natural tie and temporary alliance, but a solemn covenant to be dissolved only in cases of adultery (1Co. 7:15) and flagrant infidelity, and by a legal bill given into the hands of the offender (Deu. 24:1).
3. It is detrimental to Christian worship. Insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more (Mal. 2:13). God rejects the gift when the heart of the giver is wrong. He does not receive it with good will at his hand. Family discords and family quarrels hinder worship, and prevent access to God. Let parents and children take heed, and dwell in peace, that your prayers be not hindered.
PRACTICAL INFIDELITY.Mal. 2:17
The prophets words are directed against the spirit of discontent and murmuring which prevailed among the people, who lost faith in all the promises of God, because the expected manifestation of the glory of the Lord for the good of his people did not take place at once, and in their despair called even the holiness and justice of God in question, and began to deny the coming of the Lord to judge the world [Keil].
I. They had perverted views of Gods character. Men, impatient under affliction, murmur. Because God prospers the wicked, and does not help them, they think that he approves of sin, and delights in the sinner. Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them.
II. They had perverted views of Gods providence. God had no concern for men at all, or, if he had, he was not just and impartial. Where is the God of judgment? Men carve out a providence of their own reason, as they would like things to be. They do not see Divine justice; sentence is not executed upon wicked men, therefore they say God will not punish. They see the prosperity of the wicked, and conclude that God delights in them. First, men quarrel with Gods dispensations, and then deny his providence. Thus are they proud under the rod, and tempted to atheism. When they cherish this evil disposition, and break out into blasphemous expressions, God is offended, and will make them feel that he is of purer eyes than to behold sin, and cannot endure to look upon it with pleasure (cf. Hab. 1:13; Psa. 5:4). Ye have wearied the Lord with your words.
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Mal. 2:11. Scandalous sin in the Church. 1. Belies Christian profession.
2. Violates sacred obligation.
3. Profanes distinguished privileges.
Mal. 2:12. Master and scholar. Unfit for their place, sent out of the school, and Divinely punished. The Lord cuts off, and sends them out of the tabernacles of Jacob, where he deals impartially with sin, and without respect of persons with men.
Mal. 2:14-15. The sanctity of marriage.
1. Undertaken in solemn covenant. Both parties mutually bound to love and help each other. So sacred the obligation, that it is termed the covenant of God (Pro. 1:7).
2. Witnessed by a Holy God. If undertaken in his fear, the knot is tied by his hand. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Speak it not lightly! Oh! beware, beware;
Tis no vain promise, no unmeaning word;
Lo! men and angels list the faith ye awear,
And by the High and Holy One tis heard.
O, then, kneel humbly at his altar now,
And pray for strength to keep the marriage vow. [Anon.]
Mal. 2:16. Garment. Violence, like an outer garment, as in Psa. 73:6.A garment hiding sin, and exposing to shame and punishment. The livery of the devilopposed
(1) to the garment of the meek, by which the godly cover themselves (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10);
(2) to the white robes of the redeemed saints in heaven (Rev. 7:14). The figurative expression may be explained from the idea that the dress reflects the inward part of a man, and therefore a soiled garment is a symbol of uncleanness of heart (cf. Zec. 3:4; Isa. 64:5; Rev. 3:4) [Keil].
The soul of this man is in his clothes [Shaks.]
The apparel oft proclaims the man [Shaks.].
Mal. 2:17. Wearying God. Spoken after the manner of men. God is said to be tired, fatigued
1. With their formal worship.
2. With their blasphemous words; and
3. with the justification of themselves in sin. God is infinitely patient with our infirmities and prayers, but wearied with our sins and impenitent hearts. Thou hast made me to serve (burdened, overcome by labour) with thy sins, thou hast wearied (disgusted) me with thine iniquities (Isa. 43:23-24).
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 2
Mal. 2:10. Father. Man is thy brother, and thy father is God [Lamartine]. The universe is but one great city, full of beloved ones, Divine and human, by nature endeared to each other [Seneca].
Mal. 2:12. Master. To a single teacher, the hope of an entire city is often entrusted [Scriver]. Scholar. The greatest scholars are not the wisest men [Regnier]. Men must be taught, as though you taught them not [Pope].
Mal. 2:13-16. Marriages are styled matches, yet amongst those many that are married, how few there are that are matched! Husbands and wives are like locks and keys, that rather break than open, except the wards be answerable [W. Secker].
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
GOD DESPISES INFIDELITY . . . Mal. 2:10-16
RV . . . Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, profaning the covenant of our fathers? Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of Jehovah which he loveth, and hath married the daughter of a foreign god. Jehovah will cut off, to the man that doeth this, him that waketh and him that answereth, out of the tents of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto Jehovah of hosts. And this again ye do: ye cover the altar of Jehovah with tears, with weeping, and with sighing, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more neither receiveth it with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because Jehovah hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously, though she is thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did he not make one, although he had the residue of the Spirit? And wherefore one? He sought a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For I hate putting away, saith Jehovah the God of Israel, and him that covereth his garment with violence, saith Jehovah of hosts; therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
LXX . . . Have ye not all one father? Did not one God create you? why have ye forsaken every man his brother, to profane the covenant of your fathers? Juda has been forsaken, and an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Juda has profaned the holy things of the Lord, which he delighted in, and has gone after other gods, The Lord will utterly destroy the man that does these things, until he be even cast down from out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and from among them that offer sacrifice to the Lord Almighty. And these things which I hated, ye did: ye covered with tears the altar of the Lord, and with weeping and groaning because of troubles: is it meet for me to have respect to your sacrifice, or to receive anything from your hands as welcome? Yet ye said, Wherefore? Because the Lord has borne witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, whom thou hast forsaken, and yet she was thy partner, and the wife of thy covenant. And did he not do well? and there was the residue of his spirit. But ye said, What does God seek but a seed? But take ye heed to your spirit, and forsake not the wife of thy youth. But if thou shouldest hate thy wife and put her away, saith the Lord God of Israel, then ungodliness shall cover thy thoughts, saith the Lord Almighty: therefore take ye heed to your spirit, and forsake them not.
COMMENTS
(Mal. 2:10-12) The special covenant which made priests of the tribe of Levi was not unrelated to the everlasting covenant which is the prophets primary concern. The common father here (Mal. 2:10) is not God as some have said, but Jacob. The Levites as well as the people were the children of Israel (i.e. Jacob)
Of all the nations on earth, they alone worshipped but one God In any other nation the people professed varied loyalties to various household deities.
Because all Israel, priests and people alike, stood under one covenant before one God, unfaithfulness to one another constituted unfaithfulness to the covenant. And such abominable practices were present, the prophet assures his readers, in all Judah and even in the holy city in the shadow of the temple. The holy relationship of the covenant was being violated in loving and marrying pagan women.
(Mal. 2:12) The words of verse twelve are not idle threat. The practice of inter-marriage with foreign women had brought Baal worship among the people and it was this which brought about the destruction of the northern tribes as well as the captivity of the southern tribes. If it again gained ascendance among the returned remnant, Gods covenant purpose would indeed be in jeopardy.
To avoid this, God here threatens to cut off to the man, i.e. on an individual basis, all who indulge in such practice. Out of the tents of Jacob signifies separation from the people of the covenant.
(Mal. 2:13 -a) This sin had once, since the return, been checked by Ezra (Ezr. 9:10). Malachi here addresses a relapse. This again ye do.
(Mal. 2:13(b) – Mal. 2:14) The covering of the altar with tears is symbolic of the weeping of wives who were being deserted for foreign women. These were Israelite women who were of the covenant people. Their abuse covered the altar i.e. the covenant with tears.
It was customary for such marriages, i.e. the wife of thy youth, to be contracted when the parties were very young. Many were only thirteen or fourteen and their wives even younger. (cf. Pro. 5:8, Isa. 54:6) The couple was bound not only by the covenant of marriage, but by the even deeper relationship they shared as children of Gods covenant. Those who, at later age, abandoned the wives of their youth to marry foreign women were not only breaking their own marriage vows, they were violating Gods everlasting covenant with Israel.
(Mal. 2:15) Did He not make one . . . Malachis argument here in reference to this abandonment is similar to that of Jesus concerning divorce. (cp. Mat. 19:3 -ff) God, in the beginning, made one male and one female, although He had unlimited spiritual resources and could have made more of either. These two, male and female, are called one man (humankind). (cf. Gen. 1:27) Malachi, as Jesus, understands this to indicate Gods intent that there be one wife for each man.
The prophet says the reason God established this unity is that He sought a godly seed. The modern concern of the sociologist for the effect of broken marriages upon the children (seed) of those marriages is well-founded. Eternity alone will reveal the number of children who have turned from God because their fathers abandoned their mothers to marry pagan women!
Every Christian father stands in covenant relationship to God, as did those in Israel who were addressed by Malachi. Such a father always jeopardizes his childrens relationship to God when he leaves the wife of his youth for another woman.
Therefore, says Malachi, take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
(Mal. 2:16) I hate putting away . . . Whatever doubt may linger concerning Gods attitude toward divorce is certainly dispelled by this verse, The statement of His hatred of the practice is accompanied by His name Jehovah as God of the covenant people. It could not be more emphatic.
Him that covereth his garments with violence. A better translation would be Him that covereth his violence with a garment. One commentator has suggested their violence is the putting away of their wives; the garment with which they try to cover it is the plea of Moses permission.
The terminology of Gen. 20:16, Deu. 22:30, Rth. 3:9, and Eze. 16:8 in which husbands and wives are each described as a covering for the eyes of the other would tend to indicate that the garment here is the wife and the violence with which the garment is covered is the divorce. The thought in these passages is that ones love for and marriage to ones wife should cover his eyes against the attraction of other women.
Whatever the meaning of this idiomatic expression, it is obvious that Malachi is denouncing, in Gods name, the practice of leaving a wife who is of the faith for another who is not of the faith, and denouncing divorce in general.
Chapter XLIVQuestions
Denunciation of Unfaithfulness
1.
The prophet ______________ is considered by Jewish tradition as the seal of prophecy.
2.
The traditional Christian view is that Malachi is the bridge between the
_____________ and the _______________.
3.
Malachi probably wrote about _______________.B.C.
4.
Malachi means _______________.
5.
Malachis prophecy coincides with the _______________ period of Daniels seventy weeks.
6.
Malachis central concern is _______________.
7.
Discuss the corruption of the priesthood as addressed by Malachi and show its effect upon the people.
8.
Why does Malachi immediately precede the New Testament in our English versions of the Bible?
9.
Outline the book of Malachi.
10.
The next word from Jehovah to His people after Malachi would be spoken by _______________.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(10) One fatheri.e., not Adam, Abraham, or Jacob (as various commentators have held), but God Himself (Mal. 1:6; Deu. 32:6; Deu. 32:18), who is the spiritual Father of the nation, and in whom they are all brothers and sisters; so that when an Israelite married a heathen woman, or divorced an Israelitish wife, it was an offence against God, a profaning the covenant of the fathers, and a violation of the fraternal relation. Moreover, one God created them for His glory (Isa. 43:7), for the special purpose of being a witness to His unity. The admission of idolatresses into their families would be fatal to this object.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
(10-17) The prophet now rebukes the two great sins of the nation at this time: (1) marriage with idolatresses; (2) divorce of the first (Israelitish) wife. He introduces this rebuke by a general statement, similar to that of Mal. 1:2.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
CONDEMNATION OF MIXED MARRIAGES AND OF DIVORCE, Mal 2:10-16.
With Mal 2:10, begins a new section, which, until quite recently, has been universally interpreted as dealing with marriage alliances between Jews and heathen women (Mal 2:10-12), and the putting away of Jewish wives by their husbands (Mal 2:13-16). Torrey ( Journal of Biblical Literature, 1898, pp.
1ff.) declares this interpretation to be untenable: “To treat these expressions literally, as referring to an actual marriage and divorce, involves one in insuperable difficulties.” And again: “There is one, and only one, admissible interpretation of the passage; namely, that which recognizes the fact that the prophet is using figurative language. Judah, the faithless husband, has betrayed the wife of his youth, the covenant religion, by espousing the daughter of a strange god, that is, a foreign cult. The whole passage from beginning to end is a telling rebuke of unfaithfulness to Jehovah, which would prove the suicide of the nation.” Adopting this interpretation, he gives the following summary of contents: “The unfaithfulness of part of the people threatens to forfeit for all the covenant of the fathers (Mal 2:10). Judah has dealt falsely with the wife of his youth, the covenant religion, and is wedding a strange cult. The sanctuary of Jehovah is profaned (11, 12). The worshipers (who, of course, insist that they are still worshiping Jehovah) lament, because their offerings fail to bring a blessing, and are strangely unable to see why ill fortune has come upon them (13, 14a). Such sin merits the severest punishment, and Israel may well be warned (12, 15, 16).” Winckler agrees with Torrey in interpreting the passage figuratively, but he differs from him in dating it. Arguing along different lines, he attempts to show that the verses are directed against the innovations introduced in the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes during the early part of the second century B.C. This position he can establish only by means of unwarranted emendations of the text, a fact which in itself makes the view improbable. Torrey’s view is not open to the same objection, and the example of Hosea (see p. 21f) shows that the marriage relation did serve to some of the prophets as a symbol of spiritual relations.
The chief argument of Torrey against the literal translation is expressed in these words: “To assume, in the first place [there seems to be no second], that divorce of Israelitish wives stood in any necessary or even probable connection with the wedding of women from other nations is ridiculous.” The reply may be made: (1) Is it really improbable to suppose that in many cases there did exist a close connection between the two abuses? (2) There is nothing to prevent us from understanding the verses as a condemnation of two distinct crimes, practiced during the same general period, though by different individuals. The objection raised against the literal interpretation can hardly be regarded as conclusive.
All scholars admit that the passage is one of the most difficult in the entire book, and it is quite certain that the text has suffered in the course of transmission. As a result many emendations have been attempted (see comments); even entire verses have been omitted as later additions. G.A. Smith, for example, omits 11-13a, not because he considers the condemnation of heathen alliances unsuitable in the days of Malachi, but “because they disturb the argument,” which, he thinks, deals exclusively with the divorce question. “To him [the prophet] the fatherhood of God is not merely a relation of power and authority, requiring reverence from the nation. It constitutes the members of the nation one close brotherhood, and against this divorce is a crime and unnatural cruelty.” Marti agrees with him; on the other hand, Nowack and Wellhausen among recent commentators retain the whole section, interpreting it literally of marriages with heathen women and divorces of Jewish wives. Whether or not this interpretation will involve us in “insuperable difficulties” will be seen as we proceed.
Mal 2:10 stands at the head of the entire discussion. The prophet adheres to his custom (see on Mal 1:2) of commencing with a general statement, which he applies to the individual cases as he proceeds. In Mal 2:10 he emphasizes the generally accepted truth that Jehovah is the father of all Israelites and the related truth that all Jews are brothers and sisters. Every crime against this fraternal relation, be it the marrying of foreign women or the putting away of Jewish wives, is an offense against Jehovah and against the covenant which binds Israel to Jehovah as son to father.
Have we not all one father? That is, Jehovah. He was the father of Israel in a sense in which he was not the father of other nations, and this the people would readily admit (see on Mal 1:6, and references there, especially Hos 11:1).
Hath not one God created us? The prophet is not concerned here with the creation of all mankind it also he would have ascribed to Jehovah but only with that of the Jews. One and the same God has created all of them. This again no one would deny. But if the two propositions stated are correct, then the individual Israelites are bound to one another in a close bond of brotherhood. In Mal 1:6, the prophet inquires why they do not meet the obligations toward Jehovah which this peculiar relation imposes upon them; here, why they disregard the obligations toward one another which grow out of this same relation.
Deal treacherously every man against his brother Better, one against another, since offenses against women receive chief condemnation.
They are dealing with one another in a manner contrary to the spirit of brotherhood. Wherein the treacherous dealings consisted is stated in the succeeding verses (11, 14, 15, 16).
By profaning the covenant of our fathers The covenant meant is that made by Jehovah with the ancestors of the Jews, when he chose them to be his own peculiar people (compare, for example, Exo 19:5-6; Lev 20:24; Lev 20:26). They desecrated this covenant when they entered into foreign marriage alliances and when they treated one another in an unfair spirit.
Mal 2:11-12 give the first specification under the general indictment in Mal 2:10. They have desecrated the covenant by marrying “the daughter of a strange god.”
Judah The postexilic community, which settled chiefly in the territory formerly occupied by Judah.
Hath dealt treacherously Repeated from Mal 2:10, to emphasize the accusation about to be uttered.
An abomination is committed Everything contrary to the spirit of his covenant with Israel is an abomination to Jehovah.
In Israel If original, Israel is identical with Judah in the preceding clause. After the exile the distinction between north and south disappeared, hence the two names might be used interchangeably. Some commentators, however, consider Israel an interpolation; its omission would produce a more satisfactory parallelism: “Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Jerusalem.” The latter is named as a poetic variation; it is practically equivalent to Judah and denotes the entire postexilic community; perhaps it is meant to emphasize the idea that the abomination has been committed in the very dwelling place of Jehovah.
Profaned the holiness Better, margin R.V., “sanctuary,” meaning the chosen people itself, which is holy because it is set apart for the service of Jehovah (see on Zec 14:20). Judah has become desecrated through the conduct of its own individual members, hence it is no longer a fit dwelling place for Jehovah.
Which he loved The contrast between the loving attitude of Jehovah toward the people and the rebellion of the people toward their God brings out more forcibly the baseness of their conduct (compare Isa 1:2-4; Hos 11:1 ff.; Amo 2:6 ff.). How they have profaned the sanctuary of Jehovah is stated in the last clause.
Hath married the daughter of a strange god The Jews, the sons of Jehovah, marry women who are worshipers of other deities; in doing this they introduce into their own nation impure blood and impure religious ideas, the holy seed is mingled with the seed of the land (Ezr 9:2), and thus they desecrate it in the sight of their God. For the prevalence of mixed marriages in the days of Malachi see Ezr 9:1 ff; Ezr 10:1 ff.; Neh 13:23 ff.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
YHWH’s Cause Against His People As A Whole Because They Have Married Foreign Syncretistic Wives ( Mal 2:10-12 ).
It should be noted here that Malachi now once again brings not only the priests, but all of Judah, within the condemnation that he has described. He has already stressed that they too had betrayed their Father and Master (Mal 1:6) and dealt treacherously (Mal 1:14). They too had broken the covenant of their fathers. Thus they were to recognise in what Malachi has been saying an indictment against them also.
Malachi’s indictment against them is that they have not only profaned the holiness, the untainted purity and ‘otherness’, of YHWH, as the priests had done, by their blemished offerings, but that they have also done so by marrying those who worship other gods and are not wholly devoted to YHWH. And the result is that they will, as a result, be cut off from the benefits of the covenant.
The people of Judah are, however, then portrayed as not happy with the suggestion that they are profaning the covenant, and are not treating each other rightly. They feel rather that they have a strong bond with each other. They declare:
Mal 2:10
‘Have we not all one father?
Has not one God created us?
Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother,
Profaning the covenant of our fathers?’
By this they are portrayed as taking up the description of YHWH in Mal 1:6. They affirm that they all together have one Father, because one God has created them. Thus they feel that they are united as one by that fact. They have a common faith and are fellow-believers.
They speak in terms of creation, but implied within their question is the fact that He is especially the Father of Israel, and that that especially makes them a united nation. He has created them as Israel. In the words of Isaiah, ‘Thus says YHWH Who created you, O Jacob, and formed you, O Israel, fear not for I have redeemed you. I have called you by My Name, you are Mine’ (Isa 43:1). Thus they saw themselves as firmly one as His people.
Indeed had He not said, ‘Israel is My son, My firstborn?’ (Exo 4:22). And they cannot see why they should therefore be being portrayed as dealing treacherously every man with his brother, when they felt that they showed each other a good deal of neighbourliness. Nor could they understand the suggestion that they were profaning the covenant of their fathers by the way they lived.
However, as we have already seen, they have been clearly represented by Malachi in Mal 1:14 as having been brought into the indictment against the priests, for they equally shared in the responsibility for the unsatisfactory offerings and sacrifices that were being offered to YHWH. But seemingly their consciences have not been moved and they are not happy about it. They try to turn the blame on the messenger. They feel rather that it is YHWH Who is failing them (Mal 2:13).
It is always strange how easily people think that, in spite of how badly they behave towards Him, He should be all sweetness and light towards them, and that really everything is His fault.
Malachi now replies by listing some of their faults. And the first of these lies in the fact that many of them are marrying local women who believed in and worshipped another god, with the result that these are introducing false worship into the community of God’s people, and even into Jerusalem.
Mal 2:11
‘Judah has dealt treacherously,
And an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem,
for Judah has profaned the holiness of YHWH which he loves,
And has married the daughter of a foreign god.
This is YHWH’s reply. How have they dealt treacherously against Him? How have they besmirched and profaned the holiness of YHWH? They have done it by committing an ‘abomination’ (a word regularly connected with idolatry) in Israel and in Jerusalem. They have profaned the very holiness of YHWH which is so precious to Him. And they have done it by marrying ‘the daughters of a foreign god’. (This phrase is in contrast with the fact that Israel is ‘God’s son, God’s firstborn’ – Exo 4:22).
The point here is not that they have married ‘foreigners’ as such. Some of the Jews had once been ‘foreigners’ before they had become proselytes. (In fact a good proportion of Israel were not direct descendants of Jacob). It was that they had married women who worshipped other gods, and had brought their worship with them. They had introduced idolatry into Israel and Jerusalem. Thus the community of God’s holy people was being infiltrated by what was ‘unholy’, and this was jeopardising the total commitment of the community to YHWH (compare Deu 7:4).
It is a warning to us lest we introduce what is ‘foreign’ among the people of God. The pathway from true holiness and dedication to having a church in which God comes second, is an easy one to follow, and one not quickly remedied. It is important that even ‘secular’ activities are kept ‘holy’.
Mal 2:12
‘YHWH will cut off,
To the man who does this,
Him who wakes and him who answers,
Out of the tents of Jacob,
And him who offers an offering,
To YHWH of hosts.
So, Malachi says, let them be in no doubt. YHWH will cut off from His covenant every man who does this, no matter who they are. They will be cut off from their fellow Israelites. They will be cut off from the sentries who wake and receive a response from the sentries from whom they take over, in other words, from the security of the community (at some stage each male would probably act as a sentry as they had no army). They will be cut off from those who worship YHWH and make their offerings to Him.
An alternative possible translation is, ‘as for the man who does this, whether it be him who wakes or him who answers, may YHWH cut him off from the tents of Jacob, even though he brings offerings to YHWH of hosts’. Here ‘him who wakes and him who answers’ simply means ‘everyone’. And the idea is that he will be cut off from Israel in God’s eyes, even though he continues to offer sacrifices to YHWH. Thus men’s sacrifices will be seen as unwelcome, not only when they are blemished, but also when they are offered by those whose heart are not right towards God. There is nothing automatic about the effectiveness of sacrifices, as the prophets had constantly made clear (e.g. Isa 1:11-15; 1Sa 15:22; Mic 6:6-8)
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Against Divorces and Marriages With Heathen Wives
v. 10. Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us? v. 11. Judah hath dealt treacherously, v. 12. The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, v. 13. And this have ye done again, v. 14. Yet ye say, v. 15. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit, v. 16. For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that He hateth putting away, v. 17. Ye have wearied the Lord with your words,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mal 2:10. Have we not all one Father? &c. Here a new section begins, wherein the prophet severely reproves the people for marrying strange wives, which was much practised in Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s time, who expressed great detestation of it. Ezr 9:1-2. Neh 13:23. The prophet begins his expostulation with putting them in mind that they owned one God and Father, in opposition to the idols of the heathen, and therefore should dwell with one another as brethren, being nearly allied by spiritual, as well as fleshly relation. See Mal 2:14 and Lowth.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
SECTION III
Against unlawful Divorce, and Marriages with Heathen Wives
Mal 2:10-16
10Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? 11Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the1 [holy people] of the Lord, which he loves, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. 12The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar2 [the waker and the answerer], out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of Hosts. 13And this have ye done again3 [as a second thing], covering the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. 14Yet ye say, Wherefore4 [doth he not accept]? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously; yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15And did not he make one [flesh]? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. 16For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth [I hate divorce] putting away; for one covereth violence with his garment [covers his garment with cruelty], saith the Lord of Hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
We have here a new subject without any connection with what precedes. The Prophet, in the name of Jehovah, rebukes their marriages with foreigners, and their divorce of their lawful wives. As his manner is, he first lays down an indisputable axiom as the basis of his reproofs.
Mal 2:10. Have we not all one Father? Jerome, Calvin, and others understand by one father here, Abraham: Pocock, Scott, and Henry, Jacob. The obvious objection to this view is that Abraham was the father not of the Jews only, but of the Ishmaelites and Edomites. The best recent Commentators understand by it Jehovah. This makes it parallel with Mal 1:6, where Jehovah styles himself the Father of Israel.
Divorce is a violation of the relation sustained to Jehovah, as a common father, and it is dealing treacherously with our fellow creature, one against another (literally, a man against his brother); it is further a profanation of the covenant which Jehovah made with his chosen people, out of which there grew specific duties and obligations not to marry idolatresses, or the daughters of a strange God. The Prophet classes himself with the offenders, as it was a national sin. The Septuagint has changed the suffixes here, Has not one God created you? Why have ye forsaken, etc.
The law of Moses prohibited all marriages with the heathen, lest the Israelites should be led into idolatry (Exo 34:11; Deu 7:1-4).
Mal 2:11. Judah hath dealt treacherously. He now proceeds to specify their sins. Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem are here only different designations of the same persons. Jerusalem is probably mentioned, to show that the sin was aggravated by being committed in the holy city.
The Prophet stigmatizes their unlawful divorce as an abomination, and as such to be classed with idolatry, witchcraft, and adultery. In the last clause he characterizes their intermarriages with the daughters of a strange god (or worshippers, by a well-known Hebrew idiom), as a profanation of the holy seed (Ezr 9:2), for Israel was holiness to the Lord (Jer 2:3).
Mal 2:12. Jehovah will cut off, etc. The Prophet denounces the judgment of Jehovah upon every one out of the tents of Jacob, who commits this sin. We must connect out of the tents of Jacob with cut off.
The apocopated form of the future expresses a wish that such may be the case. To express the universality of this judgment that no one should escape, not even in their posterity, we have a proverbial phrase, which has been variously interpreted. Our version has translated it, the master and the scholar, as the Vulgate, magistrum et discipulum. This too is the Rabbinical explanation followed by Luther, Pocock, Henry, Scott. Gesenius, Rosenmller, Maurer, Reinke, Keil, Noyes, Henderson, De Wette, J. D. Michaelis, translate it, the watcher and the answerer. Calvin understands it of the master and servant: Every one who was in power, and could command others, and by the answerer, the servant, who received and obeyed orders. The Targum, Syriac, Ewald, son and grandson. Frst, Munster, Hitzig, Dietrich, the caller and the answerer.
Mal 2:13. And this ye do as a second thing. Henderson understands this of time, that the people had relapsed into their old sins in the time of Ezra, but it is better to understand it of a second sin, in addition to marrying heathen wives, of divorcing their Jewish wives. The Septuagint reads it, I hated, and mistook the word.
The greatness of their sin is enlarged upon Their divorced wives repair to the altar of Jehovah, there to pour out their hearts before Him, and to complain of their cruel treatment, and to seek his help. The last clause of Mal 2:13 shows that Jehovah will not accept the sacrifice, nor bless the worshipper.
Mal 2:14. Yet ye say, wherefore? That is, wherefore doth He not accept?
The people addressed refusing to be ashamed, and to confess their guilt, shamelessly ask the reason of their rejection. The Prophet now addresses each one personally. Jehovah has been a witness. Khler understands this, as in Mal 3:5, of an avenging witness, but as we have in Gen 31:48 a similar expression. This heap is a witness between me and thee, where the same words occur in Hebrew, we must regard it with Keil, Henderson, and others, as meaning that God was a witness to the marriage, or to the covenant made between the parties. The divorced wife is now tenderly called the wife of thy youth, who has been the choice of thy youth, the partner of thy joys and sorrows, and the wife of thy covenant, with whom thou didst make a covenant for life.
Mal 2:15. But did not he make one only. And yet had he a residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? He sought a godly race. We come now to the most difficult verse of all others in the prophecy. There has been an extraordinary difference of opinion as to its construction and sense. Khler styles it most justly a crux interpretum. The Septuagint translator seems to have given his understanding a holiday, and made his pen supply its place. Not a spark of light can be struck from the words, and nothing but words. The subject under discussion is divorce. In the preceding verse, to add sanctity to the marriage tie, Jehovah is said to have been a witness of it, and the wife is to be regarded as bound by a solemn covenant to the husband. What more natural now than that the prophet should recall the institution of marriage in the beginning, as of divine sanction? This would be a conclusive argument, and is the very one our Saviour made use of, when speaking of divorce, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, wherefore, they are no more twain, but one flesh. The argument is introduced abruptly. Did not Jehovah make one? The word , to a Jew, perfectly familiar with in Genesis, would immediately suggest the one flesh, the one pair, of Gen 2:24.
And wherefore one? In the Hebrew, one has the article, , and must be understood of the same subject with the preceding, . And wherefore did he make one pair? Yet had he the residue of the Spirit? This applies most naturally to the life-giving spirit of Godhis creative power, not exhausted, for He might have made many women for one man.
That he might seek a godly seed. The design of God was to perpetuate a godly seed. This is counteracted by frequent divorce.
Most English commentators adopt this interpretation. Another view has been advocated by Jerome, Ewald, Reinke, Bttcher, and others, which makes Jehovah the subject, instead of the object. They are led to this view by Mal 2:10, Hath not one God created us? They therefore translate it, And did not one (the same God) create them, And what did the one seek?
Another class of commentators refer the one to Abraham, and translate the clause, But did not the single one do it? And yet a divine Spirit remained to him. But what did the single one do? They regard the one as a designation of Abraham, and found their opinion on Isa 51:2, I called him alone, and Eze 33:24, where Abraham is spoken of as one in opposition to the many of the people. In both these passages there is an express mention of Abraham, which is not the case here. They consequently understand, Yet had he the residue of the Spirit as meaning, that he remained a good man.
Still another interpretation is adopted by a considerable number of commentators, that there is no question but a simple affirmation: is to be translated no one, that the object of made is to be supplied from the previous sentence, that by the residue of the spirit is meant, any portion of reason, any sense of right and wrong. The one of the second clause they refer to Abraham. The whole verse would then be translated, No one, who has a sense of right and wrong, has done what you are doing. And what did the one do? They suppose that the guilty parties were wont to appeal to the case of Abraham to justify their conduct, and that the answer shows that his case was no precedent. There are very serious objections to this view. We have to supply the object of , made, and the predicate of in the second clause. The position of , and the question in the second clause, render it probable that it is a question. Had the Prophet meant to say, that no one ever did so, he would have used , as Gen 39:11, or simply .
Further, to understand the residue of the spirit of any reason, or moral sense, is strained, and lastly, refers to two different subjects, according to this view, first, to no one, and, secondly, to Abraham, though the article is used, referring it back to the former.
There is an interpretation adopted by Fairbairn and Moore, which refers the one to the one chosen seed, the holy nation, but this strikes us as by no means so consistent and forcible as the one which refers it to the one flesh.
Mal 2:15. Therefore take heed. Then follows a warning against the sin rebuked. The perfect with vav must be translated as imperative, as is often the case. To take heed to your spirit is to take heed to yourself (Deu 4:15; Jos 23:11).
Let no one deal treacherously. The third person is here used for the second in the previous clause. This is often the case where there is no change of subject. There is no advantage in following the LXX. and retaining the second person.
Mal 2:16. For I hate divorce. The Prophet here gives the reason of the warning. Jehovah says, I hate divorce. The LXX., Vulgate, and Luther, construe this very differently as a permission of divorce; If thou hate her put her away. But this is inconsistent with the context, which condemns divorce; it is in opposition to the law which permits divorce only for some great misconduct, some unclean thing, and which (Deu 21:15) requires the husband to maintain a hated wife. In favor of the translation, adopted by Khler, Keil, Henderson, I hate divorce, may be urged, that the form may be considered as a participle, that the first person is often understood before participles, that, saith Jehovah, God of Israel, which follows in the Hebrew, implies that Jehovah is speaking directly in his own person.
Mal 2:16. And him who covers with violence his garment. The design of this clause, parallel to and cordinate with, I hate divorce, is to express more emphatically the consequences and enormity of the sin, that it is exceedingly heinous, and the height of cruelty. We read in Psa 109:18; Psa 109:29, of being clothed with cursing as with a garment, of being clothed with shame. We find the same construction of with in Num 16:33; Psa 106:15; Hab 2:14, where the object covered is preceded by as here. The earth covered them, And covered the company of Abiram, As the waters cover the sea. We therefore understand the relative, which is frequently omitted, and regard this clause as the continuation of the preceding, I hate divorce, only with a more emphatic statement. Most of the recent commentators understand by his garment, his wife. This, says Khler, is a very uncertain and rare Arabic idiom, and contrary to all Hebrew usage. Nor is it at all necessary, as the interpretation we have given does not introduce a different idea, and is confirmed by the following, saith the Lord of Hosts.
DOCTRINAL AND PRACTICAL
The frequency of divorce in the United States, so that in one of the States divorce is allowed for misconduct, reveals the same state of things existing now, as was here condemned by Jehovah, and must bring with it the same evils, and the same punishment. What tongue can adequately tell, what heart conceive, the untold misery from this cause, especially to the deserted wives, and the children left without a mothers care! How little is the indissoluble nature of the marriage relation regarded! and the fact, that the Lord was the witness of it, and will be a swift witness against those who violate it! The Saviour only allows of one cause of divorce, and regards divorce for any other as adultery.
Matthew Henry: The poor wives were ready to break their hearts, and not daring to make their case known to any other, they complained to God, and covered the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying. This is illustrated by the case of Hannah, who, upon the account of her husbands having another wife (though otherwise a kind husband) and the discontent thence arising, fretted and wept, was in bitterness of soul, and would not eat. It is a reason given why husbands and wives should live in holy love, that their prayers be not hindered. The Lord has been witness to the marriage covenant between thee and her, for to Him you appealed concerning your sincerity in it and fidelity to it; He has been a witness to all the violations of it, and is ready to judge between thee and her. It is highly aggravated by the consideration of the persons wronged and abused. First, she is thy wife, thy own, bone of thy bone, and flesh of thy flesh; the nearest to thee of all the relations thou hast in the world, and to cleave to whom thou must quit the rest, Secondly. She is the wife of thy youth, who had thy affections when they were at the strongest, was thy first choice, and with whom thou hast lived long. Let not the darling of thy youth be the scorn and loathing of thy age. Thirdly. She is thy companion; she has long been an equal sharer with thee in thy cares and griefs and joys. Fourthly, she is the wife of thy covenant, to whom thou art so firmly bound, that, while she continues faithful, thou canst not be loosed from her, for it was a covenant for life. Married people should often call to mind their marriage vows, and review them with all seriousness, as those that make conscience of performing what they promised.
Moore: The phrases, wife of thy youth, and companion are thrown in to show the aggravated nature of this offense. She whom you thus wronged was the companion of those earlier and brighter days, when in the bloom of her young beauty she left her fathers house, and shared your early struggles, and rejoiced in your later success; who walked arm-in-arm with you along the pilgrimage of life, cheering you in its trials by her gentle ministry; and now, when the bloom of her youth is faded, and the friends of her youth have gone, when father and mother whom she left for you are in the grave, then you cruelly cast her off as a worn-out, worthless thing, and insult her holiest affections by putting another in her place. There is something very touching in these allusions to the aggravations of this wrong, arising from the tender associations and memories of youth.
Pressel, on Mal 2:10 : Have we not all one Father? No faith without love, arid no love without faith. He who keeps the Father and Creator of all men before his eyes must love all men as his brethren, and he who recognizes in other men his brethren must in the Creator of all men love the Father. The prophets mode of reasoning is not unlike that of the Apostle John in his First Epistle, Joh 3:17; Joh 4:11; Joh 4:20-21. The reference of the prophet to the Heavenly Father is a glimpse in the Old Testament of a doctrine which was not fully brought to light till the time of the New Testament.
On Mal 2:14. Jehovah is witness between thee and the wife of thy youth. This might be made use of as a solemn warning by a minister against divorce, whether intended or accomplished, as it represents to us the sanctity of marriage, and at the same time awakens in the hearts of the married all lovely and sweet recollections.
On Mal 2:15. He who regards the divine Spirit within us will be proof against the lusts of the flesh. He who indulges these lusts drives away from his heart more and more the residue of the divine Spirit.
Footnotes:
[1]Mal 2:10. to deal treacherously, to be unfaithful, is used in Mal 2:11; Mal 2:14-16.
[2]Mal 2:11. is used here, as often, in the sense of worshipper, or servant. means here, holy seed, not holiness, as Henry, Scott.
[3]Mal 2:12. jussive form. The master and the scholar. So Vulgate. A proverb like: none shut up or left (Deu 32:36); the deceicer and deceived (Job 12:16; Job 18:19); son nor nephew, to express totality by opposites. Out of the tents, is to be connected with cut off.
[4]Mal 2:16.The perfect with vav con. must here be translated as imperative, as in 1Ki 2:6.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
XXXII
THE BOOK OF MALACHI (CONTINUED) PART II
Mal 2:10-4:6
We continue in this chapter the exposition of the prophecy of Malachi. In the first chapter we examined three of the prophet’s sermons directed against the people; the first one corrected their false and skeptical ideas regarding the love of God toward the nation, the second one attacked their attitude toward his majesty, or holiness, in the matter of their offering blemished sacrifices, and the third one was directed against the priests because of their external delinquencies, their perversion of the truth that they were given to teach, and their general wickedness.
The next evil which the prophet charged against them was the cruel evil of divorce (Mal 2:10-16 ). This evil of divorce arose, as we have already seen, from the growing custom on the part of some of the people who wished to belong to the high and rich families, of marrying into families of mixed and foreign bloods. In order to do this they were compelled to put away the wives that they had already. This charge gives the prophet’s view regarding that evil.
The key words in this section are “dealing treacherously.” He is addressing the people now, for they, as well as the priests, have indulged in this cruel and wicked custom. In this case he begins with a broad and fundamental principle of a common fatherhood. “Have we not all one father? hath not God created us?” He has in mind Israel as a descendant of Abraham the father of the Jewish nation, and God the common creator of all. “Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?” In other words, why do the Israelites sustain such a relation to one another? Why do they “deal treacherously one with another”? For in speaking of brothers here he included men and women, for it was the wrong against the women that he spoke of specifically. In doing this he says that they profane the covenant of their fathers, for a covenant was made between God and Israel at Sinai asserting this one thing, that all the people of Israel were God’s and there should be no dealing treacherously one with another. In dealing thus, they were breaking the fundamental law of the covenant between God and Israel.
In Mal 2:11-12 he specifies the charges; he says that Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel, and in Jerusalem. Then he explains what that is: “For Judah hath profaned the holiness of Jehovah which he loveth and hath married the daughter of a foreign god.” To marry the daughter of a foreign god meant to an Oriental, to marry a woman who belonged to another race and to another religious cult; in marrying into that other nation or religious cult, he was practically marrying a daughter of the foreign god, for every nation conceived itself as the offspring of its own particular god. They were thus marrying the daughter of the foreign deity.
As the result of this evil (Mal 2:12 ), “Jehovah will cut off, to a man,” that is, every man without an exception, “that doeth this, him that waketh and him that answereth,” a proverbial expression, to include everyone. That was partly fulfilled in the time of Nehemiah. The divorce court was then set up, and nearly all the men that had married foreign wives were compelled to put them away, and those who would not, were excommunicated, and thus cut off from the congregation and life of Israel. In Mal 2:13 he says, “And this again,” or literally, “this a second time ye do.” And, in order to make it very vivid, he draws a picture of the divorced wives, weeping and wailing because of the wrongs that have been done to them. He says (Mal 2:13 ), “Ye cover the altar of Jehovah with tears, with weeping, and with sighing, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, neither receiveth it with good will at your hand.” The weeping wives and punctilious offerings and sacrifices would not to together.
And now to show the carelessness and grossness of the people, he represents them as saying, “Wherefore? Why is it that he hath not received them with good will?” as if they were innocent. Then the prophet answers, “Because Jehovah hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth.” In marriage vows Jehovah was witness between the two. These vows were taken for life, and now they had dealt treacherously. The prophet recognized the wife as still the wife and companion, although thus divorced.
Mal 2:15 represents some difficulties. There are many translations of it. The translation given here is, “And did he not make one, although he had a residue of the Spirit? And wherefore one? He sought a godly seed.” Now the margin of the American Revised gives a different translation: “And no one hath done so who had a residue of the Spirit. Or what? Is there one that seeketh a godly seed?” which is almost unintelligible. The general meaning seems to be this: Did not God, when he first made man, make one man and one woman, although he had the residue of the spirit of life and might have made a thousand women for one man, if he had chosen to do so. He had all the power, yet he made one man and one woman. And why one? Because he sought a godly seed; because he sought a pure offspring. Therefore he made one man for one woman and one woman for one man, in order that the best results might thereby come.
It enunciates a great and fundamental principle, which is the same as that enunciated by our Lord Jesus Christ himself. When the Pharisees came and asked him the question about divorce, he said, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” God made one man and one woman and put them together in Eden. That is also Paul’s teaching, that God intended that one man and one woman enter into a union for life.
Now an admonition arises out of that. “Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For I hate putting away.” The prophet closes with this admonition: “Therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.”
In Mal 2:17 he brings his charge without enunciating his general fundamental principles: “Ye have wearied Jehovah with your words.” They returned the question to him. “Wherein have we wearied him?” And the prophet gives his answer, “In that ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of Jehovah, and he delighteth in them.” Or, “Where is the God of justice?” It is a very dangerous kind of skepticism; they are saying, “Jehovah delights in the wicked more than in the righteous. He is blessing the unrighteous more than the righteous. His pleasure is with the man who is of the world. Where is the God of justice?” The application is that God is not just in the administration of the affairs of this world; it is not according to the principles of righteousness. Many a man, in adversity, has asked the question, “Where is the God of justice?”
In Mal 3:1-6 , the prophet gives his answer to that question, and it is complete: “Men may think that the evil doer is God’s delight, and that God is not a God of justice, but the time will come, when they will see that he is a God of justice, for, “Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me.” Justice is coming, God is going to manifest himself, he is going to discriminate between the righteous and the wicked. He will come in a day of judgment; he will send a messenger before him, who shall prepare the way, that he may carry on his work of judgment and of righteousness in the world, and not only will the messenger come to prepare his way, but when he has prepared the way before him, then “the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to his temple.”
As in the days of Amos, they sought the day of Jehovah, now in the days of Malachi they look for the day of Jehovah. Then he raises the question, “Who can abide the day of his coming? . . . for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fuller’s Soap; and he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi,” their priests and leaders, and when he has done that, they shall offer unto Jehovah offerings in righteousness. Then when the priests are made pure and are refined, there will be a revival of religion in Israel. Then will the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant to Jehovah.
The fulfilment of this we are told by Jesus, occurred when John the Baptist came preparing the way for him. He himself was the Lord; he was the messenger of the covenant; he came to refine and purify the people. His first public act was to cleanse the Temple, drive out the sellers of oxen and sheep, and the money changers, and every word he said, every sermon he preached, every truth he taught, every act he did, tended to refine and purify the world, and all his life was as a winnowing fan separating the chaff from the wheat, dividing mankind into two great classes.
“Ye are cursed with a curse; for ye rob me, even this whole nation.” Here is a reference to the law of tithes, or the custom of giving one tenth, which appears first in the Bible in the days of Abraham, long before it was given by Moses on Mount Sinai. Really it is coincident with the religious practice and customs of the human race. It appeared in religious observances from the very beginning, long before Moses honored it by embodying it in the law received on Mount Sinai. As the law of the sabbath is a fundamental requirement in the physical and moral constitution of mankind, so the law of tithes is also a fundamental requirement of religion.
Now we come to a great text: “Bring ye the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord.” People who are giving their tenth prove God, and those who faithfully give the tenth find that God blesses them for doing so. Spurgeon used that same text and applied it to the sinner: Prove me now, come and test my gospel and salvation. Find out for yourself if what I say is true. Prove me and see if I will not bring abundant blessings to you, if I will not open the windows of heaven and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. “Windows of heaven” is an Oriental expression for great blessings from heaven, which of course refers to the source of all blessings.
Then he goes on to say, “I will rebuke the devourer,” the locusts that had been eating up their crops, “for your sakes,’ that is, “I will bring to pass certain things in the administration of physical elements of this world, and will so take care of the order of nature that the devourers shall not destroy the fruits of your vineyards; neither shall your vine cast forth its fruit before the time. Then all nations shall call you happy, for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith Jehovah of hosts,” and that has been literally fulfilled many a time as God’s people have met the conditions herein prescribed.
Mal 3:13-4:3 . In Mal 3:13 we have set forth another dangerous phase of their skepticism. The charge is this: “Your words have been stout against me, saith Jehovah.” Again the people say, “Wherein have we spoken against thee? What have we said? Ye have said it is vain to serve God. What profit is it that we have kept his charge and walked mournfully before Jehovah of hosts? What good is it to serve God? It doesn’t pay; there is no profit in it.” That is a different phase of the problem from what we find in the book of Job. Satan said, “Job is a good man because he finds that it pays to be good.” Then God brought Job through that suffering and trouble, in order to prove that a man might serve him for his own sake and not for the profit of this life. Now, because these people received no profit, they therefore said, “It is no use; if God is not going to make us rich, we will not serve him; we don’t make any money by it.” That is the modern commercial idea which underlies this skepticism.
And now they begin to say some rather strange things, depicting the anomalies that are to be found in the religious life: “Now we call the proud happy.” When they saw these proud and yet happy people, they said, “The happy ones are they that work wickedness; they that do unrighteousness, they are the ones that eacape.” Many people now envy the rich and think that the wicked are the ones that are being built up; that the people that tempt God escape, whereas they are loaded down with troubles and difficulties. It is the old problem discussed in the book of Job and in Psa 73 . In answer to this complaint, the prophet says, “There is going to be a separation between you and the others when the time comes for the great judgment.” When that day comes, they that fear Jehovah, that speak one with another are heard: “And Jehovah hearkened, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before him, for them that feared Jehovah, and thought upon his name.”
The picture is taken perhaps, from a custom observed by the Persian Empire with great scrupulousness. Whenever a man did a deed or conferred a favor upon the empire worthy of remembrance, the Persian emperor always had that fact recorded in a book kept for that purpose. Mordecai, when he saved the life of the king, had his name and deed written in the book, officially recorded) and afterward he received his reward. Every man who did something worthy of reward had his name recorded in that book. The Persian dominion was over Israel at that time, and this custom was seized upon by the prophet Malachi, and made use of by way of an illustration. Jehovah is going to have a book of remembrance, and in that is recorded the names of all those that remember him and speak to one another. The time is coming when he is going to reward them.
This thought we find wrought out more in detail in the book of Revelation, where the Book of Life is mentioned more than once. (See author’s sermon on “The Library of Heaven”). “And they shall be mine in that day,” when this judgment comes, when the separation takes place, they shall be “mine own possession,” my peculiar possession, my own dear ones not my jewels), “in the day that I do this thing; when I bring this judgment and create this separation. I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.” They will be spared as a man spares his own beloved boy. When that time comes they shall also have moral discernment and shall be able to discern distinctly between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.
Now we have one of the finest descriptions of the judgment day, of the coming of Jehovah in Mal 4:1-3 : “For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be a stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith Jehovah of hosts, and shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear his name, ye righteous ones, you true Israelites, you that speak often one with another, you that are yet faithful, for you shall see the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings.” As the great sun suddenly springs up above the Plains of Moab, spread his rays of light over all the country, and flashes them over Judah and Jerusalem, giving life and light, so the Sun of Righteousness, the messenger of the covenant shall come and shall send his rays of divine righteousness which shall burn up the wicked and bring its blessings to his own. “Ye shall go forth, and gambol as calves of the stall,” i.e., be happy and prosperous and blessed. “And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I do this thing, saith Jehovah of hosts.” This passage is paralleled in Mat 3:11-12 .
In Mal 4:4-6 we have God’s last great effort to have the people do right and to save them; he promises to send his greatest and best prophet in order that he might, if possible, bring all back to himself. In the meantime, “Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb.” Keep my statutes and ordinances, observe those carefully and I will send Elijah the prophet before that great and terrible day of Jehovah, and Elijah shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers. If that is not done, I will come and smite the earth with a curse. How was it fulfilled? We know that Elijah came, not the real Elijah, the former prophet, the most powerful personality of all the prophets, but John the Baptist with the spirit and power of Elijah, the most powerful personality of all those centuries, except Jesus Christ. We know the story of how he came, how he preached and how there was a great turning of hearts and when Jesus came a great separation, refining and purifying process was begun and now goes on through the centuries, and Jesus Christ will finally separate the evil from the good forever.
QUESTIONS
1. What charges against the people in Mal 2:10-16 , how introduced, and what the judgments denounced?
2. What was his charge in Mal 2:17 , what was their reply, and what was the point of their question?
3. What was the annunciation of Mal 3:1 and what was the fulfilment?
4. What was the process of the Messiah’s administration as described in Mal 3:2-6 and what attribute of God is here declared to be the basis of his mercy to Israel?
5. What appeal to the nation in Mal 3:7 , what charge following this appeal and what great lessons of God’s providence in this passage?
6. What was the charge in Mal 3:13 and how does the prophet here show their skepticism?
7. What optimistic note in Mal 3:16 and what picture here presented?
8. What is the “Book of Remembrance” here spoken of and what other references to such books in the Scriptures?
9. What was the blessed relation between God and his people pictured in Mal 3:17 and what was the result?
10. What day is here spoken of and what great revelation shall be made on that day?
11. What was the picture presented in Mal 4:1-3 and what is the correspondent New Testament teaching?
12. What of the beauty and force of “Sun of Righteousness,” etc., what is meant by treading down the wicked?
13. In closing this book what reminder is given and what special fitness of it here?
14. What promise in this connection and what is the New Testament proof of its fulfilment?
15. What was to be the great work of this Elijah and what was the significance of it?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
Ver. 10. Have we not all one father? ] Here begins a second contestation, viz. with the people (as the former was with the priests), for their unrighteous dealing; where we have so many words, so many arguments. In brevitate verborum est luxuries rerum. If shortness of words is the heart of the matter. How many ones are here, and all to persuade to unity. See the like Eph 4:3-5 . Let those that take upon them to persuade others to equity and unanimity learn to marshal their matter handsomely, and to fill their mouths with arguments, such as may fall thick, and prevail, being seconded and set on with intimation of heartiest affection, Job 21:4 . Oh that I could somewhere meet with you both together, said Austin to Jerome and Ruffinus (hearing of their differences), I would fall down at your feet with much love and many tears, I would beseech you, for God’s sake, for your own sakes, for weak Christians’ sakes, &c., not to suffer these dissensions to spread further, Hei mihi qui vos alicubi invenire non possum, &c. So Mr Bradford, in a letter to a distressed gentlewoman that was in a despairing condition, I beseech you, saith he, I pray you, I desire you, I crave at your hands with all my very heart; I ask of you with hand, pen, tongue, and mind, in Christ, through Christ, for Christ, for his name, blood, mercy, power, and truth’s sake, that you admit no doubting of God’s final mercy toward you, howsoever you feel yourself. Oh that I could get words, said another holy man to his hearers, to gore your very hearts with smarting pain, that this doctrine might be written in your flesh! By this “one father” in the text is meant Adam, say the most interpreters, who was the common parent of us all, and the very stock and root from whence all mankind did spring. It is, therefore, a sin against nature itself and common humanity to deal treacherously against another, or to hide thyself from thine own flesh, Isa 58:7 . This is to be more unreasonable than beasts, birds, and fishes, which love their own kind; and those that feed on flesh will not eat the flesh of their own kind. But our age overly aboundeth with unnatural man eaters, that (not only like a pickerel in a pond, or shark in the sea, devour the lesser fishes of another alloy, but also) eat up God’s people as they eat bread, Psa 14:5 , make no more conscience, nay, take as much content in undoing a poor brother as in eating a meal’s meat when they are hungry; they make but a breakfast of a whole representative nation; as those gunpowder papists designed to do. How often are wicked oppressors compared to hunters, for their cruelty, and fowlers, for their craft! to show that they spare none that fall into their nets; young, old, male, female, all go together into the bag, Psa 10:9 . This raised a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brethren, those usurious Jews, that had both robbed and ravished them, Neh 5:1 . And what could they say for themselves, but the same in effect with this in the text, “Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children?” &c.
Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?
Why do we deal treacherously
By profaning the covenant of our fathers
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mal 2:10-16
10Do we not all have one father? Has not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously each against his brother so as to profane the covenant of our fathers? 11Judah has dealt treacherously, and an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the LORD which He loves and has married the daughter of a foreign god. 12As for the man who does this, may the LORD cut off from the tents of Jacob everyone who awakes and answers, or who presents an offering to the LORD of hosts. 13This is another thing you do: you cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping and with groaning, because He no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14Yet you say, ‘For what reason?’ Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. 16For I hate divorce, says the LORD, the God of Israel, and him who covers his garment with wrong, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.’
Mal 2:10 Do we not all have one Father In context this refers to (1) the fatherhood of God; (2) the Jewish nation (cf. Mal. 1;6; Exo 4:22; Deu 1:31; Deu 8:5; Deu 32:6; Isa 1:2; Isa 63:16; Isa 64:8; Jer 3:19; Hos 11:10), or (3) possibly Abraham (the beginning of the Israelite family/nation, cf. Genesis 12; also note Isa 51:2) and not to God. See Special Topic: Fatherhood of God .
Has not one God created us The we of the previous phrase and the us of this phrase refer to the descendants of the Patriarchs.
Joyce G. Baldwin, in the Tyndale OT Commentary Series by IVP, notes that this same VERB, create (BDB 135, KB 153) is also mentioned in Deu 32:6, as is the concept of fatherhood (p. 237). I really enjoy the comments of this commentator!
Malachi (like all the prophets) is a covenant mediator (cf. Fee and Stuart, How To Read the Bible For All Its Worth, pp. 181-204). They all go back to the Mosaic covenant and demand obedience and heart-felt fidelity. See Introductory Article on Prophecy.
Why do we deal treacherously each against his brother This is a strong VERB (BDB 93, KB 108, Qal IMPERFECT, cf. 1Sa 14:33; Psa 78:57; Isaiah 24 [esp. Mal 2:16]). Our love for God is seen in the treatment of our brothers (cf. Exo 20:17 ff.; Deuteronomy 5). In this context, they are polluting the national faith by marrying pagan women.
Mal 2:11 Judah. . .Israel This reflects the splitting of the tribes in 922 B.C. (cf. 1 Kings 12).
a foreign god Surprisingly in the post-exilic community, there was still this old temptation (cf. Mal 3:5).
abomination This is a term (BDB 1072) which is used in connection with idolatry (cf. Deu 27:15; Deu 32:16; 2Ki 23:13).
SPECIAL TOPIC: ABOMINATIONS
NASB, NRSVthe sanctuary of the LORD which He loves
NKJVthe LORD’s holy institution
TEVthe Temple which the LORDloves
NJBYahweh’s loved sanctuary
REBthe sacred place loved by the LORD
The MT has has profaned the holy of YHWH. This could refer to:
1. the temple (Peshitta, cf. Psa 108:7)
2. the people (cf. Deu 7:6; Ezr 9:2; Isa 6:13)
3. the holy things (LXX, JPSOA)
4. the covenant
5. marriage (NKJV)
Whatever the holy (BDB 871) refers to, it is loved by YHWH. The post-exilic community has profaned (BDB 320 III, KB 319, Piel PARTICIPLE, Mal 1:12; Neh 13:17; cf. Eze 24:21) it. This strong VERB can be translated
1. pollute
2. defile
3. profane
This term is often used in Leviticus in warning about not profaning the name of the Lord (cf. Lev 18:21; Lev 19:12; Lev 20:3; Lev 21:6; Lev 22:2; Lev 22:32), but it is Ezekiel that used the term most often (32 times). This is serious rebellion (cf. Neh 13:23-29).
has married the daughter of a foreign god This is not so much an inter-racial marriage as an inter-faith marriage (cf. Exo 34:15-16; Deu 7:3-4). Joseph and Solomon married Egyptian women and Moses seems married a black Cushite woman (cf. Num 12:1). Neither were condemned, nor was Boaz’s marriage to the Moabitess, Ruth.
The issue of inter-religious marriage is addressed in this same period by Ezra (cf. Ezr 9:1-15) and Nehemiah (cf. Neh 13:23-29).
Mal 2:12 to cut off This VERB (BDB 503, KB 500, Hiphil JUSSIVE) usually refers to death (i.e., Psa 37:9; Isa 29:20; Oba 1:9; Zep 1:11), but here it possibly means banishment from the Promised Land (i.e., Edom).
the tents of Jacob This is an ancient idiom for the people of God (cf. Jer 30:18).
Mal 2:12
NASBeveryone who awakes and answers
NKJVbeing awake and aware
NRSVany to witness of answer
TEV ———-
JBwhoever he be
JPSOAno descendants
LXXuntil he be humbled
TARGUMson and grandson
Peshitta——–
NIV (footnote)anyone who gives testimony in behalf of the man who does this
This is obviously a difficult text. The MT has the one awaking (BDB 734 I, KB 802, Qal PARTICIPLE, possibly BDB 729, witness) and one responding (BDB 772 I, KB 851, Qal PARTICIPLE). Here are some of the guesses:
1. teacher and student (Talmud and Vulgate, KJV)
2. nomads or settlers (NEB, REB, based on Arabic roots)
3. priests and laymen (LB)
4. witness and advocate (NRSV, NJB)
5. all without exception (JB, Translators’ Handbook, p. 415)
6. humbled (LXX)
7. no descendants left
In context, this phrase is connected to who presents an offering, so it must refer to some group in Israeli society, but which group must remain conjecture. As with so many of this kind of unsure texts, the context gives us the gist of the meaning. Number 7 seems to fit the context best.
Mal 2:13 you cover the altar of the LORD with tears There are several possibilities here: (l) the divorced Jewish wives cry out to YHWH; (2) the rejected offender who married a foreign wife; (3) insincere worship rites; or (4) pagan worship rites for the dying fertility god.
The term altar (BDB 258) could refer to
1. the temple (Mal 2:11)
2. the place of sacrifice (Mal 2:12)
He no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand This phrase has two balanced Qal INFINITIVE CONSTRUCTS:
1. turn, BDB 815, KB 937
2. take, BDB 542, KB 534
YHWH, the faithful covenant God, refuses to acknowledge and receive the Mosaic sacrifices of the unfaithful covenant people (cf. Psa 66:18; Isa 1:15; Jer 11:11; Jer 11:14; Jer 14:12). The NT clearly shows the qualifications for effective prayer and worship. See Special Topic below.
SPECIAL TOPIC: EFFECTIVE PRAYER
Mal 2:14 the LORD has been a witness between you and your wife, the wife of your youth Biblical marriage is a religious covenant (YHWH Himself was a witness), not just a civil document (cf. Pro 2:17). We must remember that promises we make in God’s name are binding. Marriage among believers is possibly the best human analogy of covenant faithfulness.
youth In Hebrew culture a boy became marriageable at age 13 (bar mitzvah), which was also the time of his personal commitment to YHWH and His covenant. One could be called a youth up to age 40 (cf. BDB 655).
Marriages were arranged by the parents and the wife came to live in the husband’s family home. The husband’s covenant requirements were part of his bar mitzvah education and commitment to YHWH.
As a university colleague from India once told me, Americans fall in love before they marry, Indians (and many Near Eastern cultures) learn to love the wife chosen for them. It is not how one finds a wife, but how one allows the spiritual and physical aspects of life, and time, to bind them together!
you have dealt treacherously This VERB (BDB 93, KB 108, Qal PERFECT) describes their faithlessness to their covenant marriage vows, not just by divorcing, but by remarrying a pagan unbeliever (cf. Deu 7:3)! This inter-marriage ban was for religious reasons (cf. Exo 34:15-16; Ezra 9-10; Nehemiah 13), not racial!
companion This term (BDB 289) means wife (KB 289 I) and is found only here in the OT.
Mal 2:15 This text is extremely difficult in Hebrew. The three major theories are:
1. it reflects the concept of one flesh (cf. Gen 2:23) or monogamy as in the example of Adam and Eve who were meant to have children and fulfill God’s command to be fruitful and multiply (Peshitta, NRSV, REB)
2. it relates to Abraham marrying Hagar instead of waiting for Sarah to become pregnant (LXX, Net Bible, NIV Study Bible [footnote])
3. it refers to the oneness of the covenant people
Some rabbis say it is the most difficult verse in the entire Old Testament.
The text is difficult because the key terms are ambiguous:
1. the one
a. YHWH
b. Abraham
2. she has made
a. Adam
b. then from him, Eve
3. spirit
a. agency of the Spirit
b. breath of God in mankind (cf. Gen 2:7)
4. seed
a. humans are to be fruitful and multiply (cf. Gen 1:28)
b. a Messiah will come (cf. Gen 3:15)
c. a covenant people and from them a Messiah (cf. Gen 49:8-12; 2 Samuel 7)
d. this term is also found in Mal 2:3 and refers to children
A good summary article on the difficulties and possibilities of this text can be found in Hard Sayings of the Bible, pp. 349-351.
Mal 2:16 I hate divorce In context this refers to Israelites of the post-exilic community divorcing their covenant wives to marry pagan women. Divorce (cf. Deu 24:1-4) is not the issue, but inter-religious marriage!
This statement was understood in the Dead Sea Scrolls (cf. 4 Q 12a), the Targums, and the rabbis (cf. b. Git. 80b) to mean if one hates his wife, divorce her. This is followed by the Vulgate. The text in the MT has, he, which could be understood as an Israelite husband or YHWH.
Jesus clarifies this point in Mat 5:31-32; Mat 19:4-9 (see notes in my other commentaries online at www.freebiblecommentary.org.
the God of Israel This title is found only here. For Elohim, see Special Topic: Names for Deity . It has strong creator (Elohim) and covenant (Israel) implications.
who covers his garment with wrong This seems to refer to a metaphor of marriage used in the OT (cf. Deu 22:30; Rth 3:9; Eze 16:8). In this case instead of a faithful marriage (i.e., covering garment) there is cruel and hurtful action (cf. TEV). The NJB takes the phrase as concealing their cruelty under a cloak. This implies that divorce was legal (cf. Deu 24:1-4), but not for the purpose of marrying a pagan woman!
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
This is a study guide commentary which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.
These discussion questions are provided to help you think through the major issues of this section of the book. They are meant to be thought provoking, not definitive.
1. What is Malachi’s major complaint against the priests in Mal 2:1-9?
2. In your translation is Mal 2:4 positive or negative? Why?
3. Does the Bible teach that inter-racial marriage is wrong?
4. Why is Mal 2:14 so helpful in a day when divorce is the norm?
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Have we not all. created us? = [Ye say] Have we not, &c. as in Mal 2:14 Figure of speech Paroemia. See Joh 8:33 Joh 39:41 &c.
GOD. Hebrew. El.
treacherously: or, faithlessly. Used of faithlessness to the marriage bond.
every man. Hebrew. ish. App-14.
holiness = Holy Place, or Sanctuary.
which: i.e. the Sanctuary.
strange = foreign: i.e. a woman temple-worshipper of a foreign god.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Mal 2:10-16
GOD DESPISES INFIDELITY . . . Mal 2:10-16
(Mal 2:10-12) The special covenant which made priests of the tribe of Levi was not unrelated to the everlasting covenant which is the prophets primary concern. The common father here (Mal 2:10) is not God as some have said, but Jacob. The Levites as well as the people were the children of Israel (i.e. Jacob) Of all the nations on earth, they alone worshipped but one God In any other nation the people professed varied loyalties to various household deities.
Zerr: Mal 2:10-11. The common brotherhood of the Jews under one Father should have induced the leaders to treat the others respectfully. They did not do so but used their office to take advantage of’ the poor and common people. The tribe of Judah had nothing to do officially with the altar services, but those men became guilty with the priests by offering these inferior articles to be used as sacrifices. They also showed their greed for gain in all of theIr conduct as was seen in verse 10 of the preceding chapter. Married the daughter of a strange god. The last word is defined in the lexicon as meanIng “any deity.” The Jews never worshiped idols as that word is used after the captivity, but there are other kinds of gods whom one might worship. Paul says that covetousness is idolatry (Col 3:5), and the Jews were cer- tainly covetous. And Jesus compared mammon (a word meaning riches) to a god (Mat 6:24). Hence the god these Jews had married was doubtless the god of mammon or riches as we have seen by their attachment to their wealth.
Because all Israel, priests and people alike, stood under one covenant before one God, unfaithfulness to one another constituted unfaithfulness to the covenant. And such abominable practices were present, the prophet assures his readers, in all Judah and even in the holy city in the shadow of the temple. The holy relationship of the covenant was being violated in loving and marrying pagan women.
(Mal 2:12) The words of verse twelve are not idle threat. The practice of inter-marriage with foreign women had brought Baal worship among the people and it was this which brought about the destruction of the northern tribes as well as the captivity of the southern tribes. If it again gained ascendance among the returned remnant, Gods covenant purpose would indeed be in jeopardy. To avoid this, God here threatens to cut off to the man, i.e. on an individual basis, all who indulge in such practice. Out of the tents of Jacob signifies separation from the people of the covenant.
Zerr: In Mal 2:12 Master means the man who originates these unlawful practices and scholar means the one who cooperates by using them and both classes were to be condemned.
(Mal 2:13 -a) This sin had once, since the return, been checked by Ezra (Ezr 9:10). Malachi here addresses a relapse. This again ye do.
(Mal 2:13(b) – Mal 2:14) The covering of the altar with tears is symbolic of the weeping of wives who were being deserted for foreign women. These were Israelite women who were of the covenant people. Their abuse covered the altar i.e. the covenant with tears. It was customary for such marriages, i.e. the wife of thy youth, to be contracted when the parties were very young. Many were only thirteen or fourteen and their wives even younger. (cf. Pro 5:8, Isa 54:6) The couple was bound not only by the covenant of marriage, but by the even deeper relationship they shared as children of Gods covenant. Those who, at later age, abandoned the wives of their youth to marry foreign women were not only breaking their own marriage vows, they were violating Gods everlasting covenant with Israel.
Zerr: Mal 2:13 describes the hypocritical performances of the covetous Priests about the altar. All their tears and weeping were for the purpose of making a show. Because of their insincere devotions the Lord refused to accept their offerings. In Mal 2:14 –They said Wherefore? meaning to ask why God was rejecting their service. The answer was in the form of an accusation of their un faithfulness to their marriage relation. The priests had behaved treacherously against the women whom they had taken into covenant relation to be their life companions.
(Mal 2:15) Did He not make one . . . Malachis argument here in reference to this abandonment is similar to that of Jesus concerning divorce. (cp. Mat 19:3 -ff) God, in the beginning, made one male and one female, although He had unlimited spiritual resources and could have made more of either. These two, male and female, are called one man (humankind). (cf. Gen 1:27) Malachi, as Jesus, understands this to indicate Gods intent that there be one wife for each man.
The prophet says the reason God established this unity is that He sought a godly seed. The modern concern of the sociologist for the effect of broken marriages upon the children (seed) of those marriages is well-founded. Eternity alone will reveal the number of children who have turned from God because their fathers abandoned their mothers to marry pagan women! Every Christian father stands in covenant relationship to God, as did those in Israel who were addressed by Malachi. Such a father always jeopardizes his childrens relationship to God when he leaves the wife of his youth for another woman. Therefore, says Malachi, take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
Zerr: Mal 2:15. Did not he make one? This refers to the original plan of the Lord that one man and one woman should constitute the number composing the marriage unit. These corrupt priests had disregarded that law and were paying attention to other women besides their lawful wives to whom they had promised their exclusive love.
(Mal 2:16) I hate putting away . . . Whatever doubt may linger concerning Gods attitude toward divorce is certainly dispelled by this verse, The statement of His hatred of the practice is accompanied by His name Jehovah as God of the covenant people. It could not be more emphatic.
Him that covereth his garments with violence. A better translation would be Him that covereth his violence with a garment. One commentator has suggested their violence is the putting away of their wives; the garment with which they try to cover it is the plea of Moses permission.
The terminology of Gen 20:16, Deu 22:30, Rth 3:9, and Eze 16:8 in which husbands and wives are each described as a covering for the eyes of the other would tend to indicate that the garment here is the wife and the violence with which the garment is covered is the divorce. The thought in these passages is that ones love for and marriage to ones wife should cover his eyes against the attraction of other women. Whatever the meaning of this idiomatic expression, it is obvious that Malachi is denouncing, in Gods name, the practice of leaving a wife who is of the faith for another who is not of the faith, and denouncing divorce in general.
Zerr: Mal 2:16. Garment is used figuratively and means something for a covering over another person or object. These priests were guilty of violence (unfaithfulness) against their wives, but were hiding behind the leniency of Moses on the subject of tolerating plurality in marriage. (See Mat 19:8.)
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
The Rebuke of the Social Conditions
CHAPTER 2:10-17
The priests were corrupt, and with their bad example the people were likewise corrupt. It is the prophet who speaks in verse 10. The One Father was Jehovah, with whom the nation was in covenant relation. They had one Father, and they were one as a nation. By profaning that covenant they dealt treacherously every man against his brother. The abomination in social life, by which the covenant was profaned, and the holiness of the Lord outraged, was the marriage with the daughters of the heathen. They had put away their own Israelitish wives in order to enter into these unholy alliances. The Jew acted faithlessly toward his brother, both when he contracted a marriage with a heathen woman, and when he put away his legitimate wife, and thereby desecrated the covenant of the fathers, i.e., the covenant that Jehovah made with their fathers when He chose them to be a separated people. Those who have done this will surely be cut off. Mal 2:13 describes the weeping and the tears of the abandoned Jewish wives; it is the same condition, only worse, which is recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah. All was an abomination unto the Lord. Over fifty years ago a writer called attention to the divorce evil in the United States. He wrote then:
The frequency of divorce in the United States, so that in one of the States divorce is allowed for misconduct, reveals the same state of things existing now, as was here condemned by Jehovah, and must bring with it the same evils, and the same punishment. What tongue can adequately tell, what heart conceive, the untold misery from this cause, especially to the deserted wives, and the children left without a mothers care! How little is the indissoluble nature of the marriage relation regarded! and the fact, that the Lord was the witness of it, and will be a swift witness against those who violate it! The Saviour only allows of one cause of divorce, and regards divorce for any other as adultery.
Since then this evil has increased a hundredfold or more among professing Christians, so that it threatens to undermine the home and all family life. It is the sign of the rapid disintegration of our nation.
And yet rebuked for these social conditions and wicked deeds, they could ask another, Wherefore? They were so hardened that they could not see why they were to blame. The difficult fifteenth verse refers to the marriage relation, in which God makes of twain one. He made the woman for man, though He had the residue of the Spirit, the creative power by which He might have made many women for one man. And wherefore one? that is, one woman for the man–that He might seek a godly seed, to perpetuate those who are godly, which is counteracted by divorce, such as they had practiced. It seemed as if the remnant who feared Him were being influenced by these corrupt practices, hence the warning. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Have we not all one
Cf. Act 17:24-29. In both instances the reference is to creation, not the new birth.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
all: Mal 1:6, Jos 24:3, Isa 51:2, Isa 63:16, Isa 64:8, Eze 33:24, Mat 3:9, Luk 1:73, Luk 3:8, Joh 8:39, Joh 8:53, Joh 8:56, Act 7:2, Rom 4:1, Rom 9:10, 1Co 8:6, Eph 4:6, Heb 12:9
hath: Job 31:15, Psa 100:3, Isa 43:1, Isa 43:7, Isa 43:15, Isa 44:2, Joh 8:41, Act 17:25
why: Mal 2:11, Mal 2:14, Mal 2:15, Jer 9:4, Jer 9:5, Mic 7:2-6, Mat 10:21, Mat 22:16, Act 7:26, 1Co 6:6-8, Eph 4:25, 1Th 4:6
by: Mal 2:8, Mal 2:11, Exo 34:10-16, Jos 23:12-16, Ezr 9:11-14, Ezr 10:2, Ezr 10:3, Neh 13:29
Reciprocal: Gen 27:35 – General Mal 2:12 – and him Act 17:26 – hath made
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Mal 2:10. The common brotherhood of the Jews under one Father should have induced the leaders to treat the others respectfully. They did not do so but used their office to take advantage of’ the poor and common people.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mal 2:10. Have we not all one father? Here a new section begins, wherein the prophet severely censures the intermarriages of Israelites with women of another country, which Moses had forbidden, Deu 7:3; and also divorces, which seem to have been multiplied for the purpose of contracting these prohibited marriages. The former of these evils was much practised in Ezras and Nehemiahs time, who expressed great detestation of it: Ezr 9:1; Neh 13:23. The prophet begins his expostulation with putting them in mind that they were not only descended from one progenitor, Abraham, or Jacob, with whom God made the covenant by which their posterity were constituted a peculiar people; but they owned one God and Father, in opposition to the idols of the heathen, and therefore should deal with one another as brethren, being nearly allied by a spiritual as well as fleshly relation. Why do we deal treacherously, &c., profaning the covenant of our fathers? By these marriages with strangers, we deal falsely and injuriously with our countrymen and brethren, by the ill treatment of their daughters or sisters, whom we took to marriage, (see Mal 2:14,) and we violate that covenant which God made with our fathers, whereby he separated us from the rest of the world, and, in order to preserve that distinction, forbade us to intermarry with idolaters.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Mal 2:10-16. Israel further repudiates Yahwehs love by the common practice of the divorce of native wives (Mal 2:10, Mal 2:13-16) in order to marry foreign women (Mal 2:11, cf. Ezra 9 f., Neh 13:23 ff.). Such conduct violates the bond existing between the children of the All-Father, and profanes the covenant by which Yahweh separated Israel to Himself from other peoples. The words in Israel and in Jerusalem are glosses. The treachery is towards Yahweh; strange, i.e. foreign, marriages imply foreign cults, and Yahwehs holiness, or holy thing (i.e. Israel itself) or Yahwehs sanctuary (mg.) is profaned by such sins. May such offenders (the Heb. of Mal 2:12 has an optative force) be stripped of all friends and supporters; him that waketh (i.e. a watchman or sentry) and him that answereth is a proverbial expression (cf. 1Ki 21:21) meaning everyone. Or we may with a slight vowel change follow LXX and read, witness and answerer (cf. Job 13:22)may hebe legally outcast. This suits the next clausemay he be spiritually outcast, with no one to offer a sacrifice for him. The tears of Mal 2:13 will be those of the divorced wives, though some authorities instead of insomuch read, because, in which case the tears are those of the people who have been visited by some token of Divine displeasure. They ask Wherefore (Mal 2:14) does not Yahweh accept our offerings?thy companion, i.e., a fellow-member of thy tribe.thy covenant may mean either the marriage contract or the covenant between Israel and Yahweh.
Mal 2:15 a is difficult and probably corrupt. We may omit the interpretation which makes the one refer to Abraham. RV means that though God could have made as many men as He liked, He made one only because the godly seed which He sought could only be secured by the union of a single human pair: mg. means that no man who had a particle of the spirit of God (or of reason, moral sense) has ever faithlessly put away his wife. A man who seeks godly children is thereby stayed divorcing his partner. With slight emendations (Wellhausen, Nowack) read, Hath not one God made and preserved to us the spirit (of life)? And what doth the One seek? A seed of God (i.e. children; cf. Psa 127:3). This means that when our wives bear us children we have fulfilled Yahwehs purpose and our own: we may not discard our wives because they are no longer fresh and fair. The Hebrews married early.to your spirit (Mal 2:15 b and Mal 2:16 b) is rather in your mind.that covereth his garment with violence: there seems some allusion here to the primitive custom by which to throw ones garment over a woman was to claim her as a wife (Eze 16:8, Rth 3:9). The Koran speaks of a wife as a husbands garment and vice versa. The whole passage (Mal 2:10-16) is the most outspoken condemnation of divorce in OT; it is intermediate between Deu 24:1-4 and the teaching of Jesus (Mar 10:2-12).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
2:10 Have we not all one {n} father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of {o} our fathers?
(n) The Prophet accuses the ingratitude of the Jews toward God and man: for seeing they were all born of one father Abraham, as God had elected them to be his holy people, they ought neither to offend God nor their brethren.
(o) By which they had bound themselves to God to be a holy people.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
B. Situation: faithlessness against a covenant member 2:10b-15a
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
A. Positive motivation: spiritual kinship among Israel 2:10a
This message deals with the same social evils that Ezra and Nehemiah faced: intermarriage with unbelievers (Mal 2:10-12), and divorce (Mal 2:14-16; cf. Ezr 9:2; Neh 13:23-28), plus pagan-style worship (Mal 2:12-13).
Malachi said, by asking rhetorical questions, that God was the father of all the Israelites (cf. Mal 1:2; Mal 1:6; Exo 4:22; Hos 11:1). Another view is that Malachi was referring to Abraham or Jacob as the father of the Israelites. [Note: Baldwin, p. 237.] He was not saying that God is the father of all human beings in the modern "universal fatherhood of God" sense. One true God had created all of them. Israel belonged to God because He had created the nation and had adopted it as His son. Therefore the Israelites needed to honor the Lord. Since God is the creator and redeemer of His people, we have an obligation to honor, love, fear, worship, and obey Him.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
In view of their common brotherhood in the family of God, it was inappropriate for the Israelites to treat each other as enemies and deal treacherously with each other. They should have treated each other as brothers and supported one another (Lev 19:18). By dealing treacherously with each other they had made the covenant that God had made with their ancestors virtually worthless; they could not enjoy the blessings of the Mosaic Covenant.
". . . the Mosaic covenant was by Malachi’s time understood as a quaint, archaic document too restrictive to be taken seriously and inapplicable to a ’modern’ age-virtually the same way that most people in modern Western societies view the Bible today." [Note: Stuart, p. 1332.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
III. JUDAH EXHORTED TO FAITHFULNESS (THE SOCIAL ANGLE) 2:10-3:6
The Lord addressed the entire nation of Israel in this address, not specifically the priests as in the former one. His concern, as expressed through His messenger Malachi, was the peoples’ indifference toward His will. They were blaming their social and economic troubles on the Lord’s supposed injustice and indifference to them (Mal 2:17). Furthermore they were being unfaithful to one another, especially their wives whom the husbands were apparently abandoning for foreign women. These conditions profaned the temple and the Mosaic Covenant (Mal 2:10-15 a). The Lord’s command, which lies in the center of the section (as in the first and third exhortations), was for the people to stop their treachery toward one another (Mal 2:15-16). Thus the major emphasis of this second main section of Malachi is social responsibility (love for and relationship with people), whereas the major emphasis of the first major section was theological (love for and relationship with God). First positive and, later, negative motivations act as bookends surrounding the Lord’s command (cf. Mal 1:2-5; Mal 2:1-9; and Mal 3:10-12; Mal 3:16 to Mal 4:3).
"The style of the third oracle [according to the "disputation speeches" division of Malachi] differs from the others. Instead of an initial statement or charge followed by a question of feigned innocence, this oracle begins with three questions asked by the prophet. However, as at the beginning of each of the other oracles, the point is presented at the outset." [Note: Blaising, p. 1580.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
4. THE CRUELTY OF DIVORCE
Mal 2:10-17
In his fourth section, upon his countrymens frequent divorce of their native wives in order to marry into the influential families of their half-heathen neighbors, “Malachi” makes another of those wide and spiritual utterances which so distinguish his prophecy and redeem his age from the charge of legalism that is so often brought against it. To him the Fatherhood of God is not merely a relation of power and authority, requiring reverence from the nation. It constitutes the members of the nation one close brotherhood, and against this divorce is a crime and unnatural cruelty. Jehovah makes the “wife of a mans youth his mate” for life “and his wife by covenant.” He “hates divorce,” and His altar is so wetted by the tears of the wronged women of Israel that the gifts upon it are no more acceptable in His sight. No higher word on marriage was spoken except by Christ Himself. It breathes the spirit of our Lords utterance: if we were sure of the text of Mal 2:15, we might almost say that it anticipated the letter. Certain verses, Mal 2:11-13 a, which disturb the argument by bringing in the marriages with heathen wives, are omitted in the following translation, and will be given separately.
“Hate we not all One Father? Hath not One God created us? Why then are we unfaithful to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers? Ye cover with tears the altar of Jehovah, with weeping and with groaning, because respect is no longer had to the offering, and acceptable gifts are not taken from your hands. And ye say, Why? Because Jehovah has been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, with whom thou hast broken faith, though she is thy mate and thy wife by covenant. And what is the one seeking? A Divine Seed. Take heed, then, to your spirit, and be not unfaithful to the wife of thy youth. For I hate divorce, saith Jehovah, God of Israel, and that a man cover his clothing with cruelty, saith Jehovah of Hosts. So take heed to your spirit, and deal not faithlessly.”
The verses omitted in the above translation treat of the foreign marriages, which led to this frequent divorce by the Jews of their native wives. So far, of course, they are relevant to the subject of the passage. But they obviously disturb its argument, as already pointed out. They have nothing to do with the principle from which it starts that Jehovah is the Father of the whole of Israel. Remove them and the awkward clause in Mal 2:13 a, by which some editor has tried to connect them with the rest of the paragraph, and the latter runs smoothly. The motive of their later addition is apparent, if not justifiable. Here they are by themselves:-
“Judah was fruitless, and abomination was practiced in Israel and in Jerusalem, for Judah hath defiled the sanctuary of Jehovah, which was dear to Him, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. May Jehovah cut off from the man who doeth this witness and champion from the tents of Jacob, and offerer of sacrifices to Jehovah of Hosts.”