13<\/strong>. again<\/em> ] Lit. second<\/strong>. The first evil of marrying heathen women was accompanied by a second, the cruel treatment and divorce (“putting-away,” Mal 2:16<\/em><\/span>) of their lawful wives, which is now dealt with, Mal 2:13-16<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n covering the altar<\/em> ] The weeping crowd of insulted and divorced wives turn to God, as their only refuge, so that the courts of His Temple resound with their sad complaints, and His very altar, round which they gather, is bathed, as it were, with their tears.<\/p>\n crying out<\/em> ] Rather, sighing<\/strong>, R.V., as the same word is rendered in Psa 79:11<\/span>; or groaning<\/strong>, Psa 102:20<\/span>.<\/p>\n And this ye have done again – <\/B>, adding the second sin of cruelty to their wives to the taking foreign women; they covered the altar of God with tears, in that they by ill-treatment occasioned their wives to weep there to God; and God regarded this, as though they had stained the altar with their tears.<\/P> Insomuch that He regardeth not the offering anymore – <\/B>God regarded the tears of the oppressed, not the sacrifices of the oppressors. He would not accept what was thus offered Him as a thing well-pleasing to Him, acceptable to win His good pleasure.<\/P><\/p>\n Mal 2:13-15<\/span><\/p>\n Between thee and the wife of thy youth.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Marriage<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>In its formation.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>In its design.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>In its connection with the altar.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>In its responsibilities.<\/p>\n 5. <\/strong>In its duties.<\/p>\n 6. <\/strong>In the typical use made of it. (W. B. Collyer, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Divine institution of marriage<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>It implies a loving union of two, and only two souls, until death.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>It has been sadly outraged in all ages. Polygamy, cruelty, and mutual unfaithfulness are outrages on it.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>The outrage of this institution is fraught with calamitous results. It is abhorrent to God. It involves violence. (Homilist.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 13<\/span>. Covering the altar of the Lord with tears<\/B><\/I>] Of the poor women who, being divorced<\/I> by cruel husbands, come to the priests, and make an appeal to God at the altar; and ye do not speak against this glaring injustice.<\/P> <\/p>\n This have ye done again; <\/B>beside that first fault, you have committed another, you slight, misuse, and afflict your Jewish wives, whom alone you should have loved and cherished, but you make them drudges and slaves to idolatresses, your new and illegal wives. <\/P> Covering the altar of the Lord with tears; <\/B>your despised and misused wives flee to the temple, weep, and cry out unto God for redress of their injuries. <\/P> With weeping:<\/B> this is added to show the abundance of their tears. <\/P> With crying out; <\/B>with vehemency crying to God against such husbands. <\/P> Insomuch that he, <\/B>the Lord, who seeth their tears and heareth their cries, <\/P> regardeth not the offering any more; <\/B>valueth not such offerings made to him by such people and such priests; or receiveth it with good will at your hand; is not at all pleased with such offerings, whether expiatory or peace-offerings, none of them from such people shall ever avail them. <\/P> <\/p>\n 13. done again<\/B>“a secondtime”: an aggravation of your offense (Ne13:23-31<\/span>), in that it is a relapse into the sin already checkedonce under Ezra (Ezr 9:10<\/span>)[HENDERSON]. Or, “thesecond time” means this: Your first sin was your blemishedofferings to the Lord: now “again” is added your sintowards your wives [CALVIN].<\/P> covering . . . altar . . .with tears<\/B>shed by your unoffending wives, repudiated by youthat ye might take foreign wives. CALVINmakes the “tears” to be those of all the people onperceiving their sacrifices to be sternly rejected by God.<\/P><\/p>\n And this have ye done again<\/strong>,…. Or “in the second” b place; to their rejection and ill treatment of Christ they added their hypocritical prayers and tears, as follows:<\/p>\n covering the altar of the Lord with tears and weeping, and with crying out<\/strong>; for the Messiah they vainly expect, pretending great humiliation for their sins: though some, as Kimchi and Aben Ezra, make the first evil to be their offering illegal sacrifices on the altar, complained of in the former chapter Mal 1:1<\/span>; and this second, their marrying strange wives, on account of which their lawful wives came into the house of God, and wept over the altar before the Lord, complaining of the injury that was done them:<\/p>\n insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand<\/strong>; which expresses an utter rejection and abrogation of legal sacrifices; and which some make to be the reason of their covering the altar with tears and weeping: or the altar is represented as weeping, because sacrifice is no more offered upon it; see Da 9:27<\/span>.<\/p>\n b “secundo”, Pagninus, Vatablus, Calvin, Cocceius, Burkius.<\/p>\n Mal 2:13<\/span>. “And this ye do a second time: cover the altar of Jehovah with tears, with weeping and signs, so that He does not turn any more to the sacrifice, and accept the well-pleasing thing at your hand.<\/em> Mal 2:14<\/span>. And ye say, Wherefore? Because Jehovah has been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, towards whom thou hast acted treacherously; whereas she is nevertheless thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.<\/em> Mal 2:15<\/span>. And not one did so who had still a remnant of spirit. And what (did) the one? He sought seed of God. Therefore shall ye take heed for your spirit, and deal not faithlessly to the wife of thy youth.<\/em> Mal 2:16<\/span>. For I hate divorce, saith Jehovah, the God of Israel; and he will cover wickedness over his garment, saith Jehovah of hosts. Thus shall ye take heed to your spirit, and not deal treacherously.” <\/em> In these verses the prophet condemns a second moral transgression on the part of the people, viz., the putting away of their wives. By shenth <\/em> (as a second thing, i.e., for the second time) this sin is placed in the same category as the sin condemned in the previous verses. Here again the moral reprehensibility of the sin is described in Mal 2:11<\/span>, before the sin itself is named. They cover the altar of Jehovah with tears, namely, by compelling the wives who have been put away to lay their trouble before God in the sanctuary. The inf. constr. introduces the more minute definition of ; and is a supplementary apposition to ot , added to give greater force to the meaning. , so that there is no more a turning (of Jehovah) to the sacrifice, i.e., so that God does not graciously accept your sacrifice any more (cf. Num 16:15<\/span>). The following infinitive is also dependent upon , but on account of the words which intervene it is attached with . , the good pleasure or satisfaction, used as abstractum pro concreto <\/em> for the well-pleasing sacrifice. Mal 2:14<\/span>. This sin also the persons addressed will not recognise. They inquire the reason why God will no more graciously accept their sacrifices, whereupon the prophet discloses their sin in the plainest terms. = , as in Deu 31:17<\/span>; Jdg 3:12<\/span>, etc. The words, “because Jehovah was a witness between thee and the wife of thy youth,” cannot be understood as Ges., Umbreit, and Koehler assume, in accordance with Mal 3:5<\/span>, as signifying that Jehovah had interposed between them as an avenging witness; for in that case would necessarily be construed with , but they refer to the fact that the marriage took place before the face of God, or with looking up to God; and the objection that nothing is known of any religious benediction at the marriage, or any mutual vow of fidelity, is merely an argumentum a silentio<\/em>, which proves nothing. If the marriage was a b e rth ‘Elohm <\/em> (a covenant of God), as described in Pro 2:17<\/span>, it was also concluded before the face of God, and God was a witness to the marriage. With the expression “wife of thy youth” the prophet appeals to the heart of the husband, pointing to the love of his youth with which the marriage had been entered into; and so also in the circumstantial clause, through which he brings to the light the faithless treatment of the wife in putting her away: “Yet she was thy companion, who shared thy joy and sorrow, and the wife of thy covenant, with whom thou didst made a covenant for life.”<\/p>\n In Mal 2:15<\/span><\/em> the prophet shows still further the reprehensible character of the divorce, by rebutting the appeal to Abraham’s conduct towards Hagar as inapplicable. The true interpretation of this hemistich, which has been explained in very different, and to some extent in very marvellous ways, is obvious enough if we only bear in mind that the subordinate clause , from its very position and from the words themselves, can only contain a more precise definition of the subject of the principal clause. The affirmation “a remnant of spirit is (was) to him” does not apply to God, but only to man, as L. de Dieu has correctly observed. Ruach <\/em> denote here, as in Num 27:18<\/span>; Jos 5:1<\/span>; 1Ki 10:5<\/span>, not so much intelligence and consideration, as the higher power breathed into man by God, which determines that moral and religious life to which we are accustomed to give the name of virtue. By ‘echad <\/em> (one), therefore, we cannot understand God, but only a man; and (not any one = no one, not one man) is the subject of the sentence, whilst the object to must be supplied from the previous sentence: “No man, who has even a remnant of reason, or of sense for right and wrong, has done,” sc. what ye are doing, namely, faithlessly put away the wife of his youth. To this there is appended the objection: “And what did the one do?” which the prophet adduces as a possible exception that may be taken to his statement, for the purpose of refuting it. The words are elliptical, the verb , which may easily be supplied from the previous clause, being omitted (cf. Ecc 2:12<\/span>). , not unus aliquis <\/em>, but the well-known one, whom it was most natural to think of when the question in hand was that of putting away a wife, viz., Abraham, who put away Hagar, by whom he had begotten Ishmael, and who was therefore also his wife (Genesis 21). The prophet therefore replies, that Abraham sought to obtain the seed promised him by God, i.e., he dismissed Hagar, because God promised to give him the desired posterity, not in Ishmael through the maid Hagar, but through Sarah in Isaac, so that in doing this he was simply acting in obedience to the word of God (Gen 21:12<\/span>). After meeting this possible objection, Malachi warns his contemporaries to beware of faithlessly putting away their wives. The Vav<\/em> before nishmartem <\/em> is the Vav rel.<\/em>, through which the perfect acquires the force of a cohortative as a deduction from the facts before them, as in in 1Ki 2:6<\/span> (see Ewald, 342, c<\/em>). is synonymous with in Jer 17:21<\/span>, and this is equivalent to in Deu 4:15<\/span> and Jos 23:11<\/span>. The instrumental view of (“by means of the Spirit:” Koehler) is thus proved to be inadmissible. “Take heed to your spirit,” i.e., beware of losing your spirit. We need not take ruach <\/em> in a different sense here from that in which it is used in the clause immediately preceding; for with the loss of the spiritual and moral vis vitae<\/em>, which has been received from God, the life itself perishes. What it is that they are to beware of is stated in the last clause, which is attached by the simple copula ( Vav<\/em>), and in which the address passes from the second person into the third, to express what is affirmed as applying to every man. This interchange of thou<\/em> (in wife of thy youth) and he<\/em> (in ) in the same clause appears very strange to our mode of thought and speech; but it is not without analogy in Hebrew (e.g., in Isa 1:29<\/span>; cf. Ewald, 319, a<\/em>), so that we have no right to alter into , since the ancient versions and the readings of certain codices do not furnish sufficient critical authority for such a change. The subject in is naturally thought of as indefinite: any one, men. This warning is accounted for in Mal 2:16<\/span>, first of all in the statement that God hates putting away. is the inf. constr. piel<\/em> and the object to : “the sending away (of a wife), divorce.” is a participle, the pronominal subject being omitted, as in maggd <\/em> in Zec 9:12<\/span>, because it may easily be inferred from the following words: (saith the Lord of hosts). The thought is not at variance with Deu 24:1<\/span>., where the putting away of a wife is allowed; for this was allowed because of the hardness of their hearts, whereas God desires that a marriage should be kept sacred (cf. Mat 19:3<\/span>. and the comm. on Deu 24:1-5<\/span>). A second reason for condemning the divorce is given in the words , which do not depend upon , but form a sentence co-ordinate to this. We may either render these words, “he (who puts away his wife) covers his garment with sin,” or “sin covers his garment.” The meaning is the same in either case, namely, that wickedness will adhere irremoveably to such a man. 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<\/span>; Isa 64:5<\/span>; Rev 3:4<\/span>; Rev 7:14<\/span>). With a repetition of the warning to beware of this faithlessness, the subject is brought to a close.<\/p>\n The Prophet amplifies again the fault of the priests, because the people, when they perceived that God was adverse to them, found no means of pacifying him. And when men have an idea that God is inexorable to them, every zeal for religion must necessarily decay; and hence it is said in Psa 130:4<\/span> — “With thee is propitiation, that thou mayest be feared.” As the people then gained nothing by sacrificing, they had now nearly fallen off from divine worship. This evil, a most grievous one, the Prophet says, was to be justly ascribed to the priests; for as they were become polluted, how could their persons have been accepted by God, that they might be mediators to expiate sins and to pacify God? <\/p>\n This is the real meaning of the Prophet, which none of the interpreters have perceived. The Rabbins think that the priests are here reproved, because their wives filled the altar in the sanctuary with weeping, because they saw that their husbands did not faithfully treat them, according to the law of marriage; and almost all have agreed with them. Thus then they explain the verse — Ye have in the second place done this; that is, “That sin was of itself sufficiently grievous, when ye suffered lean victims to be sacrificed to me, as it were in mockery; but in addition to this comes your sin against your wives, who continually complain and deplore their condition before the altar of God, even because they are not loved by you, as the right of marriage requires.” They thus refer the tears, the weeping, and lamentation, to the wives of the priests, which were so cruelly treated by their husbands: they were not able to do anything else than to fill God’s sanctuary with their constant complaints. Hence they render, מאין עוד פנות, main oud penut, “I will not therefore regard,” or, “no one regards;” but both versions are not only obscure, but wholly pervert the sense of the Prophet. <\/p>\n But what I have already stated is the most suitable — that it was to be ascribed to the priests that no one could from the heart worship God, at least with a cheerful and willing mind; for God was implacable to the people, because the only way of obtaining favor under the law was when the priests, who represented the Mediator, humbly entreated pardon in the name of the whole people. But how could God attend to the prayers of the priests when they had polluted his altar by the filth of wickedness? We then see the object of this amplification — Ye cover the altar of Jehovah with tears, with weeping and wailing. The praises of God ought to have resounded in the temple, according to what is said — <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Praise, O God, waits for thee in Zion.” (Psa 65:1<\/span>.) <\/p>\n And the principal sacrifice was, that the people exercised themselves in contemplating the blessings of God, and in thanksgiving. But he says that none went forth before the altar with a cheerful mind, but all were sad and sorrowful, because they found that God was severe and rigid. <\/p>\n And the reason is added — מאין עוד פנות, main oud penut, literally, “Is it not any more by regarding,” etc.? It is easy to see how far they depart from the meaning of the Prophet who read — “They shall therefore offer no more;” for is this to be applied to God? Others also, who give this rendering — “I shall not therefore accept,” pervert also the very letter of the text. But the most appropriate meaning is this — that all wept and groaned before the altar, because they saw that they came there without any advantage, that their sacrifices did not please God, and that the whole worship was in vain, inasmuch as God did not answer their prayers. The Prophet ascribes the fault to the priests, that God did not turn to mercy, so as to forgive the people when they sacrificed. With weeping, then, he says, was the altar filled or covered, because God received not what pleased him from their hand; that is, because no victims pleased him which were offered by polluted and impure hands. (231) He afterwards joins <\/p>\n (231) It is not easy to give a version of this verse. Henderson renders the first line thus — <\/p>\n And this ye have done the second time. <\/p>\n The reference is, he says, to the repetition of the evil which had been corrected under Ezr 9:0<\/span> and 10. This seems probable; but we may view this “second,” or again, with regard to the previous denunciations. What are regarded as verbs in the infinitive mood are in my view participial nouns; the last, לקחת, is evidently so. Then the literal rendering would be this— <\/p>\n And this again ye do — Covering with tears the altar, Weeping and groaning, Because there is no more turning to the offering, Or the receiving of what is acceptable from your hand. <\/p>\n That מאין is to be rendered “because not,” or, “inasmuch as not,” is evident from other places. See Jer 10:6<\/span>. “Turning” signifies having a regard to. “What is acceptable,” רצון, is rendered “ δεκτον — acceptable,” in the Septuagint; “ ἑυδοκίαν —good-will,” by Aq.; “ τὸ ευδοκημένον — what is approved,” by Sym. ; “ τέλαιον — perfect,” by Theodoret <\/p>\n The difference between Calvin and most expositors after him, as well as before him, is, that he regarded the lamentation to have been by the priests and people, and they by the repudiated wives. The cause of the weeping, as stated here, was the rejection of the offerings, as declared by the Prophet; and this seems enough to confirm Calvin’s view. <\/p>\n The priests and people had been denounced for their wickedness, especially for marrying strange wives. After this denunciation they “again” went to the altar and wept because God would not receive their sacrifices; and they did this without amending their ways. Then in the next verse the Prophet explains why God would not receive their offerings. — Ed. <\/p>\n (13) The prophet now rebukes the people for their frivolous divorces of their first wives, which was a natural result of their marriage with heathen women.<\/p>\n And this . . . again.<\/strong>Or perhaps, And this a second thing ye do<\/em>viz., infidelity to the wife of their youth (Mal. 2:14<\/span>). But the rendering of the English Version is in accordance with the Hebrew accentuation. That rendering is not improbably the right one. It would mean: And this you do again (Nehemiah 13<\/span>), even after Ezra has reformed the abuse, and you have solemnly undertaken not to act so again (Neh. 9:10<\/span><\/em>).<\/p>\n Covering the altar . . . with tears . . . and with crying out<\/strong>i.e.,<\/em> with the plaints of the Israelitish women who were divorced against their will.<\/p>\n Insomuch that<\/strong>.Or rather, so that. YHWH’s Cause against The People Because They Accuse Him Of Not Heeding Their Prayers And Because They Have Divorced Their First Wives ( Mal 2:13-16<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ).<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n He also points out that while the people profess to weep and be concerned because YHWH is not responding to them, the truth is revealed to be that it is they who are not responding to Him, and this is especially brought out in regard to divorcing the wives of their youth.<\/p>\n If anything brings out the importance of faithfulness in marriage to God, it is the fact that He sees marriage as connected with two of the crowning sins of Judah\/Israel, amidst all the other sins that they were committing. The priests had been unfaithful to YHWH as His messengers, as revealed by their totally unacceptable attitudes and behaviour, but Judah are being faithless to YHWH as His witnesses because of their casual attitude towards the sacredness and purity of marriage. We can compare how Jesus would lay the same emphasis on the need for faithfulness in marriage in Mat 19:3-12<\/span> when preparing for the establishment of the new Kingly Rule of God.<\/p>\n Mal 2:13<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘And this again you do, you cover the altar of YHWH,<\/p>\n With tears, with weeping, and with sighing,<\/p>\n In as much as he does not regard the offering any more,<\/p>\n Nor receives it with good will at your hand.<\/p>\n Another thing that they do is that they come before YHWH at His altar and cover it with weeping and with tears, because they cannot understand why He is not accepting their offerings and responding by doing all the good things that He has promised. They assume that it is all YHWH’s fault that He does not respond to them. And they are basically asking, ‘why does God not answer their prayers?’<\/p>\n ‘You cover the altar of YHWH with tears.’ The priests could do it actually, the people could do it by submitting tearstained offerings, probably deliberately, feeling that by offering tear-stained offerings they were also offering their tears to God.<\/p>\n Mal 2:14<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘Yet you say, Why?<\/p>\n Because YHWH has been witness between you and the wife of your youth,<\/p>\n Against whom you have dealt treacherously,<\/p>\n Though she is your companion, and the wife of your covenant.’<\/p>\n So there questions are, ‘why is there no answer?’ and ‘how can you say that we are not one in the covenant’. And Malachi simply replies by listing a second grievance that God has against them. It is because they have been treacherously divorcing their original wives, even though these wives have been their companions and are their wives within the covenant. Here then is one way in which they are dealing treacherously with each other.<\/p>\n Thus he has now answered both their questions about how they deal treacherously with each other and how they profane the covenant, in terms firstly of marrying women whom they marry who introduce other gods, and secondly in terms of their treacherous behaviour towards their own wives who have grown old and are therefore no longer quite so attractive. They are certainly not behaving well towards them<\/em> or demonstrating neighbourliness.<\/p>\n This not only brings out how important the binding nature of marriage is to God, but also gives us a picture of how those who called themselves God’s people felt that they could manipulate marriage for their own benefit in spite of God’s original statement that by marriage they became as one flesh (Gen 2:24<\/span>). One of the reasons for marrying local women was probably in order to obtain rights over land, and they were clearly quite willing to sacrifice their own wives in order to achieve it, once these wives were past their main usefulness.<\/p>\n Mal 2:15<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘And did he not make one,<\/p>\n And he had the residue of the spirit?<\/p>\n And wherefore one?<\/p>\n He sought a godly seed (literally ‘seed of God’).<\/p>\n Therefore take heed to your spirit,<\/p>\n And let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.’<\/p>\n Malachi now explains the situation in terms of Genesis 2<\/span>. In Genesis 2<\/span> God had originally breathed into the man alone the breath of life and he had become ‘a living soul’ (Gen 2:7<\/span>; compare Gen 6:17<\/span> where this is described as ‘the spirit (ruach) of life’). So in terms used elsewhere he had received ‘spirit’. And then God had brought the woman out of man, thus sharing both his flesh and his spirit, and He had then brought them together through sexual union in order that through ‘marriage’ they might once again become one flesh, each enjoying part of the same spirit. They who were originally one, had been made two by the Creator in order that they might become one again. ‘And shall cleave to His wife and they will be one flesh’ (Gen 2:24<\/span>). It is against this background that any Jew would see the question of marriage.<\/p>\n And it is what Malachi is saying here:<\/p>\n God made man as one, and, after dividing woman from man, again made them one – ‘ did He not make one?<\/em> ’.<\/p>\n God put the spirit within man, but then imparted some of that spirit to the woman – the result was that ‘ he had the residue of the spirit<\/em> ’. And that was because he had shared his spirit with the woman, so that between them they shared one spirit.<\/p>\n And why did God make them one in flesh and spirit? – ‘ and wherefore one?<\/em> ’<\/p>\n It was so that they might have godly descendants coming from one united pair – ‘ He sought a godly seed<\/em> ’. (This aspect would be especially poignant in cases where the divorce took place so that the man could marry ‘the daughter of a foreign god’ (Mal 2:11<\/span>) who would not produce a godly seed)<\/p>\n So now they needed to consider the fact that God had given them one spirit, which had been shared between them, a spirit which in marriage was in a sense united the one with the other by the blending of their spirits, thus making them again ‘one spirit’, a situation which divorce destroyed – ‘ therefore take heed to your spirit<\/em> ’.<\/p>\n By divorce they were breaking up that one spirit and marring the unity that God had created through marriage, and thus irreparably damaging their wives quite unfairly – ‘ and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth<\/em> ’.<\/p>\n The result was that they were breaking the God-given unity achieved in marriage, which was marred by divorce and a second marriage. And this was grieving to God, and seen by Him as nothing short of treachery.<\/p>\n Mal 2:16<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘For I hate putting away,<\/p>\n Says YHWH, the God of Israel,<\/p>\n And him who covers his garment with violence,<\/p>\n Says YHWH of hosts,<\/p>\n Therefore take heed to your spirit,<\/p>\n That you deal not treacherously.’<\/p>\n YHWH now indicates two things that He hates, ‘divorce’ and ‘covering the garment with violence’. Thus the first thing that God hated was ‘putting away’. He hated divorce. That is unequivocal.<\/p>\n Secondly He hates all violence, especially within marriage. In view of the context the thought may be that divorce is seen as an act of violence in that it rends apart what God has made one. Compare Mat 19:6<\/span>, ‘what God has joined let no man put asunder’. The idea of ‘covering the garment’ has in mind that the garment is the outward means by which a man is known to the world. Thus divorce is an outward show of violence against the God-given unity of marriage.<\/p>\n Alternately the words may have been spoken against violence both within marriage, and outside of marriage. It may be seen as an indication that God hates all violence.<\/p>\n The final exhortation is for them to take heed to their spirit, jointly shared between man and wife, and to maintain its oneness. For not to do is to ‘deal treacherously’ against the covenant, the very charge that they are trying to refute (Mal 2:10<\/span>).<\/p>\n Brief note on Mal 2:15-16<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> .<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n In the above comments we have taken the view which in context appears to us to bring out the significance of the words, and which appears to fit best with the Scriptural background to marriage. Mal 2:15<\/span> is, however, seen by most as ‘a difficult verse’. Two other interpretations put on the words (out of many), and necessarily presented briefly, are:<\/p>\n 1). We could repoint ‘residue’ as ‘flesh, and then read ‘did He not make them one, even having flesh and spirit?’ The final meaning is not significantly different from what we have suggested above. The problem here is that flesh does not occur anywhere else in the passage. Why then should it be introduced it here? In the context it is the oneness of the spirit which would seem to be seen as important<\/p>\n 2). ‘Did not One make them, and a residue of the spirit to him? And why did One make them? He sought a seed of God.’ This ties in the One with the ‘one God’ of Mal 2:10<\/span>. Here the unity arises at least partly out of their having been made by One Father, with the view of producing seed for God.<\/p>\n It must be stressed that variations on all these ideas can be found, together with many variations of interpretations. Some even try to introduce Abraham. But in view of the total silence about Abraham that appears to us to be very unlikely. However, as we do not see the verse as crucial to the main argument, except in so far as it strengthens the idea of the oneness between a man and his first wife, we hope we may be forgiven for leaving the matter to rest here.<\/p>\n End of note.<\/p>\n Mal 2:13<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>And this have ye done again<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> This also you have done; you have covered the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with groanings; so that no respect is now had to your offering, nor is any thing accepted from your hand. <\/em>The priests not only had married strange wives, but also divorced those of their own country whom they had married; with whose tears the altar was imbrued, when these wives offered up their sacrifices to God, entreating him to give their husbands a better mind; whom God heard so effectually, that he would not accept the sacrifices of their husbands, on account of the tears and just complaints of their wives. Houbigant. <\/p>\n Mal 2:13 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.<\/p>\n Ver. 13. And this have ye done again<\/strong> ] Or, in the second place: q.d.<\/em> Not content to have married strange wives, ye have brought them in to your lawful wives, to their intolerable vexation; so adding this sin to the former, as a greater to the less. This is still the guise of graceless men, to add drunkenness to thirst, rebellion to sin, to amass and heap up one evil upon another, till wrath come upon them to the utmost. “For three transgressions, and for four, I will not turn away their punishment,” Amo 1:3<\/span> ; that is, so long as the wicked commit one or two iniquities, I forbear them; but when it comes once to threes and fours (how much more to so many scores, hundreds, thousands, as one cipher added to a figure makes it so many tens, two so many hundreds, three so many thousands, &c.), God will bear with them no longer. Of those old Israelites it is demanded, not without great indignation on God’s part, “How often did they provoke him in the wilderness, and grieve him in the desert? Yea, they turned back and tempted God,” &c. Psa 78:40-41<\/span> . Good men, if they fall once into foul practices, they fall not often. Of Judah it is expressly recorded that he knew Tamar no more. Lot indeed committed incest two nights together; but the orifice of his lust was not yet stopped by repentance. Think the same of Solomon, Samson, Jonah, &c., their acts were, as it were, continued acts; and, in the interim, little or no remorse or regret. Let us that have received mercy be admonished to sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto us, Joh 5:14<\/span> . There is a woe to such as draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart rope, Isa 5:18<\/span> . Babylon’s sins in the Revelation reached up to heaven, or they were thwacked together thick and threefold one upon another, Rev 18:5<\/span> , there was a concatenation or a continued series of them; therefore she fell surely and suddenly. When wickedness is once ripe in the field God will not let it shed to grow again; but cuts it up by a just and seasonable vengeance. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Covering the altar of the Lord with tears<\/strong> ] That is, You caused your poor wives, when they should have been cheerful in God’s service, as 1Sa 1:10<\/span> , and in many other places it was required of the Israelites to rejoice whensoever they appeared before the Lord. Earthly princes love not the company of mourners, Est 4:4<\/span> , to cover the Lord’s altar with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, to throw themselves, blubbered and swollen with tears, upon the altar, which was a profanation of it; so that God regarded not the offering any more. It were happy if we could be so affected with our unkindness to Christ, our Husband, that we could cover his table, when we come to it, with our tears. How should the Lord regard our service so much the more! how should it be unto him as music upon the waters, far more harmonious! What a gracious respect had he to the weeping women that followed him to the cross! and what an honour was that to one of them (Mary Magdalene, I mean) that she had the first sight of the revived Phoenix, whom she held fast by those feet that she had once washed with her tears, and that had now lately trod upon the lion and adder Psa 91:13<\/span> . It was appointed by Moses’ law that the bondwoman should bewail her father and mother a full month before she might become an Israelite’s wife, Deu 21:13<\/span> . We, that are strangers to the commonwealth of Israel, as we cannot be presented a chaste virgin to Christ, but as weeping over him that bled over us, so we never please him better than when we weep over our tears ( Ipsae lachrymae sunt lachrymabiles<\/em> ), sigh over our sobs, mourn over our griefs, as not proportionable to our miscarriages. But to return to the text; the Jews, as they are noted for a nation overmuch effeminate, and given to women, as they say, so, when they have satisfied their lust, and served their own turns, they are as willing to be rid of them as Amnon was of Tamar. Hence those many cautions in the law to put bounds to their petulance; and that political permission of a divorce, for the relief of the poor despised woman, lest she should come to a mischief, by the hatred of the churl her husband, Deu 22:18<\/span> ; Deu 22:14<\/span> ; Deu 24:3<\/span> . At this day they look upon women as not having so divine a soul as men, but are of a lower creation, made only for the propagation and pleasure of man. They use them as their drudges, lay upon them with their unmanly fists, are ready to cut out their tongues (as the Welshmen dealt by their French wives, lest they should corrupt the language of their children), put them away upon every slight occasion, covering that violence with the garment of the law, as Mal 2:16<\/span> . Or if they kept them, they took other wives to them, to vex them, and to make them to fret, 1Sa 1:6<\/span> , or (as the word there signifies) to thunder; not only tabering upon their breasts, with the voice of doves (as Nahum’s expression is, Nah 2:7 ), but filling the air, yea, covering the altar (as it is here) with their laments and lowings, flectu et mugitu<\/em> (so the Vulgate rendereth), for their husbands’ harshness, and their concubines’ insolencies and indignities: Lamentis gemituque et foemineo ululatu Tecta fremunt<\/em> (Virg. Aeneid). Jerome tells us that these returned captives slighted their old wives brought with them from Babylon (as being by that tedious journey become infirm and deformed), and matched with strangers, who were fresh, fair, rich, &c.; this he gathers out of Ezr 9:1-15<\/span> ; Ezr 10:1-44<\/span> , whereas they should rather have nourished and cherished them as their own flesh, Eph 5:29<\/span> , they should have handled them gently, because of their weakness, as so many crystal glasses. They should have given them all lawful content, as Abraham did Sarah, his faithful fellow traveller. They should have given all honour unto them, saith St Peter, 1Pe 3:7<\/span> ; and why? Mark his many reasons. 1. They are the weaker vessels, and are, therefore, to be handled with all tenderness. Some translate it the weaker instrument; and (as Luther speaks of it) as a knife with a tender edge men will not cut stones, brass, or iron with, so here. 2. They are heirs together of the grace of life, that is, of the life of grace, and of glory too; for souls have no sexes, and as every one is in Christ, all are equal, so that the husband is bound, in this respect, to make his wife’s yoke as easy as may be, since she draws even with him, though on the left side. 3. That your prayers be not hindered, as they will be, where there is not so much coniugium<\/em> wedlock as coniurgium.<\/em> quarrelling. How can they pray together comfortably that live so discontentedly? How can they bring their gift to that altar that is covered with the tears and moans of their justly aggrieved and abused wives? Or, if they do, will God regard their offering any more, or receive it with good will at their hands? Will not the tears and groans of their distressed wives (who yet hold out their devotion, and will not be hindered by their just grief from praying to God and pouring out their souls before him) move God more than their sacrifices can do? Especially if they bring them with a wicked mind, as Solomon hath it, Pro 21:27<\/span> ; and as Lyra maketh it to be the sense of this text; Ye have covered the altar of the Lord with tears, &c., but he regardeth not the offering any more, &c., that is (saith Lyra, and he hath it from Chrysostom), you are resolved to retain your idolatrous wives, though God have declared against it; and that ye may expiate this wickedness, and make amends by your good deeds for your bad, you run to the temple, and there, with many tears and groans, you beg pardon. But all in vain, because you have no purpose at all to break off your sins, but will needs persist in your unlawful marriages. See Trapp on “<\/em> Mal 3:16 “<\/em> <\/p>\n tears . . . weeping . . . crying out: i.e. of the wronged wives and children. <\/p>\n covering: Deu 15:9, 1Sa 1:9, 1Sa 1:10, 2Sa 13:19, 2Sa 13:20, Psa 78:34-37, Ecc 4:1 <\/p>\n insomuch: Deu 26:14, Neh 8:9-12, Pro 15:8, Pro 21:27, Isa 1:11-15, Jer 6:20 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Lev 10:19 – should Deu 12:7 – ye shall 1Sa 2:17 – abhorred Isa 43:24 – filled me Hos 9:4 – as Mal 1:13 – should I accept Mat 19:8 – because Heb 8:9 – regarded<\/p>\n Mal 2:13. This verse describes the hypocritical performances ot 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.<\/p>\n 2:13 And this have ye done again, {r} 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.<\/p>\n (r) Yet cause the people to lament, because God does not regard their sacrifices, so that they seem to sacrifice in vain.<\/p>\n The people evidently could not figure out why God was withholding blessing from them, so Malachi gave them the reasons. Another sin involved weeping profusely over the Lord’s altar because He did not answer their prayers while at the same time dealing treacherously with their wives (cf. 1Pe 3:7). Weeping over the altar must be a figurative way of describing weeping as they worshipped Yahweh. The marriage relationship is a covenant relationship (cf. Pro 2:17; Eze 16:8; Eze 16:59-62; Hos 2:16-20), and those who break their vows should not expect God to bless them. God Himself acted as a witness when the couple made their covenant of marriage in their youth. This sin may have in view particularly the Israelite men who were divorcing their Jewish wives to marry pagan women (cf. Mal 2:12), or divorce in general may be all that is in view.<\/p>\n "Although the designation of a wife as a ’partner’ [NIV] does not negate the subjection of her marital role to that of her husband, it certainly counters the concept that she was to be viewed as a mere possession to be disposed of at will. Though more than a friend or companion, she was not to be regarded as less than that." [Note: Clendenen, p. 347.] <\/span><\/p>\n 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. 13. again ] Lit. second. The first evil of marrying heathen women was accompanied by a second, … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Malachi 2:13”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23127","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23127","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23127"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23127\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23127"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23127"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23127"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I. <\/strong>As a social compact. She is thy wife, here is the peculiarity of the relation. It is the fountain of humanity in its perpetuation, and the source of its purest affections, its dearest charities, and its richest enjoyments. It is a relation of choice, not of blood. Here is the mutual compact, with which, in the first instance, the two parties themselves have alone to do. It is a social compact, involving civil responsibilities. It is not enough that the individuals agree in the formation of this union; the magistracy of every state, watching over the weal of the whole, has a right to require a guarantee for the public, as well as for the parties. So far as society is concerned, and the public interest involved, marriage is exclusively a civil contract. All other relations arise out of this first alliance. This, being voluntary, and the root of all social ramifications, it becomes necessary that it should be formed with the greatest care, watched with the greatest circumspection, and secured by the most indestructible bond. She is thy companion. Here is the propriety and solace of the relation. One crime alone dissolves the marriage tie, but many offences may occur to render it sore bondage. Incompatibility of temper and of habits will not fail, first or last, in a greater or less degree, to introduce estrangement into the heart, and disorder into the family. As thy companion, let her be treated as an equal. She is so in moral, intellectual, and immortal constitution–a partaker of the <\/strong>same nature, a possessor of the same qualities, a recipient of the same salvation. Society depends upon the participation of a common nature and a community of interests.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>As a religious institution. In view of the closeness of the union, the duties involved in it reciprocally, the inseparable connection of it with human happiness, such an alliance can acquire stability only from motives of a religious character, and from strength derived from spiritual aid. But God has laid down express laws for the regulation of the state thus entered upon, and watches over it to enforce those laws and to punish their violation. Consider the religious character of marriage–<\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
<\/em><\/p>\nFuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"