15<\/strong>. did not he make one<\/em>?] The interpretation of this very difficult verse follows in the main, though with some variety of detail, one or other of two lines.<\/p>\n (1) By “one” here Abraham is held to be intended, who is called “one” in Isa 51:2<\/span> (lit. “for one I called him”; “I called him alone”, A.V.; “when he was but one I called him”, R.V.), and in Eze 33:24<\/span> (“Abraham was one”). The words are thus regarded as spoken by the Jews, who seek to shelter themselves from the prophet’s censure under the example of Abraham. “Did not one (Abraham)”, say they, “do it (that of which you complain in us, when he took to wife Hagar, the Egyptian)? And yet he had the residue of the spirit” (comp. Num 27:18<\/span>: “Joshua, the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit”). “And wherefore”, the prophet replies, “(did) the one (do it)? He was seeking (not as you are the gratification of his lust, but) a seed of God” (the son whom God had promised him. Gen 16:2<\/span>). “Therefore”, seeing that Abraham’s example avails you nothing, “take head.” If this, however, were the argument, we might have expected the prophet to reply, that so far from divorcing (as they were doing) his proper wife, it was Hagar and not Sarah whom Abraham sent away, so soon as disagreement arose.<\/p>\n (2) The other line of interpretation is that adopted in A.V. and retained in R.V. According to it the prophet recalls them (as our Lord does in His argument with the Jews on the same subject, Mar 10:2-9<\/span>) to the original institution of marriage and relation of the sexes. “Did not He (God) make one (one man, and out of him one woman, and the twain ‘one flesh’)? And (yet) the residue of the spirit (of life, comp. Gen 7:22<\/span>: ‘the breath of the spirit of life’) was His (so that He could, had it pleased Him, have created, for example, one man and many women). And why (did He make) the one? He sought (what only by the purity and integrity of the marriage bond can be secured) a godly seed.”<\/p>\n And did not He – <\/B>, God, of whom he had spoken as the witness between man and his wife, make one, namely, Adam first, to mark the oneness of marriage and make it a law of nature, appointing that out of man (created in His own image and similitude), woman should take her beginning, and, knitting them together, did teach that it should never be lawful to put asunder those, whom He by matrimony had made one? Between those two, and consequently between all other married, to be born from them, He willed that there should be one indivisible union, for Adam could be married to no other save Eve, since no other had been created by God, nor could Eve turn to any other man than Adam, since there was no other in the world. Infringe not then this sanction of God, and unity of marriage, and degenerate not from your first parents, Adam and Eve. If divorce had been good, Jesus says, God would not have made one man and one woman, but, having made one Adam, would have made two women, had He meant that he should cast out the one, bring in the other; but now by the mode of creation, He brought in this law, that each should have, throughout, the wife which he had from the beginning. This law is older than that about divorce, as much as Adam is older than Moses.<\/P> Yet had he the residue of the spirit – <\/B>Gen 2:7<\/B><\/span>, the breath of life, which He breathed into Adam, and man became a living soul. All the souls, which God would ever create, are His, and He could have called them into being at once. Yet in order to designate the unity of marriage, He willed to create but one. So our Lord argues against divorce Mat 19:4-6<\/span>, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female? They both together are called one man Gen 1:27<\/span>, and, therefore, should be of one mind and spirit also, the unity of which they ought faithfully to preserve.<\/P> And wherefore one? – <\/B>Seeking a seed of God, i. e., worthy of God, for from religious marriage, religious offspring may most be hoped from God; and by violating that law, those before the flood brought in a spurious, unsanctified generation, so that God in His displeasure destroyed them all. And take heed to your spirit, which ye too had from God, which was His, and which He willed in time to create. He closes, as he began, with an appeal to mans natural feeling, let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 15<\/span>. And did not he make one?<\/B><\/I>] ONE of each kind<\/I>, Adam and Eve. Yet had he the residue of the Spirit<\/I>; he could have made millions of pairs, and inspired them all with living souls<\/I>. Then wherefore one<\/I>? He made one pair from whom all the rest might proceed, that he might have a holy offspring<\/I>; that children being a marked property of one man<\/I> and one woman<\/I>, proper care might be taken that they should be brought up in the discipline of the Lord. Perhaps the holy<\/I> or godly seed<\/I>, zera Elohim, a seed of God<\/I>, may refer to the MESSIAH. God would have the whole<\/I> human race<\/I> to spring from one pair<\/I>, that Christ, springing from the same family<\/I>, might in his sufferings taste death for every man<\/I>; because he had that nature that was common to the whole<\/I> human race<\/I>. Had there been several heads of families<\/I> in the beginning, Jesus must have been incarnated from each of those<\/I> heads<\/I>, else his death could have availed for those only who belonged to the family<\/I> of which he was incarnated.<\/P> <\/P> Take heed to your spirit<\/B><\/I>] Scrutinize the motives which induce you to put away your wives.<\/P> <\/p>\n And did he, <\/B>God our Creator, not make one, but one man and one woman? <\/P> Yet had he the residue of the spirit; <\/B>yet he could have made more men and women; and if it had been good, and well-pleasing to him, he could have made many women for one man; but though by his power he could, yet in his wisdom, goodness, and holiness he would not make more; from the beginning marriage was ordained to be between one man and one woman alone at once. So Christ argued Mat 19:4-6<\/span>. <\/P> And wherefore one, <\/B>one couple, and no more? <\/P> That he might seek a godly seed; <\/B>or, a seed of God; either an excellent seed, as the Hebrew expresses the excellency of a thing by the addition of the name God to it; or rather a holy seed, born to God in chaste wedlock, and brought up under the instructions and virtuous examples of parents living in the fear of God, and love of each other, which in polygamy cannot be expected. <\/P> Take heed to your spirit; <\/B>keep your heart from wandering after strange wives, as you tender your life and souls. <\/P> Let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth; <\/B>though many have done so, let none now do it any more. <\/P> <\/p>\n 15.<\/B> MAURERand HENGSTENBERG explainthe verse thus: The Jews had defended their conduct by the precedentof Abraham, who had taken Hagar to the injury of Sarah, his lawfulwife; to this Malachi says now, “No one (ever) did so in whomthere was a residue of intelligence (discriminating between good andevil); and what did the one (Abraham, to whom you appeal for support)do, seeking a godly seed?” His object (namely, not to gratifypassion, but to obtain the seed promised by God) makes the casewholly inapplicable to defend your position. MOORE(from FAIRBAIRN) betterexplains, in accordance with Mal2:10<\/span>, “Did not He make (us Israelites) one? Yet He had theresidue of the Spirit (that is, His isolating us from other nationswas not because there was no residue of the Spirit left for the restof the world). And wherefore (that is, why then<\/I> did He thusisolate us as) the one (people; the Hebrew<\/I> is ‘the<\/I>one’)? In order that He might seek a godly seed”; that is, thatHe might have “a seed of God,” a nation the repository ofthe covenant, and the stock of the Messiah, and the witness for theone God amidst the surrounding polytheisms. Marriage with foreignwomen, and repudiation of the wives wedded in the Jewish covenant,utterly set aside this divine purpose. CALVINthinks “the one” to refer to the conjugal one body formedby the original pair (Ge 2:24<\/span>).God might have joined many wives as one with the one husband, for Hehad no lack of spiritual being to impart to others besides Eve; thedesign of the restriction was to secure a pious offspring: butcompare Note,<\/I> see on Mal2:10<\/span>. One object of the marriage relation is to raise a seed forGod and for eternity.<\/P><\/p>\n And did not he make one<\/strong>?…. That is, did not God make one man, and out of his rib one woman? did he not make man, male and female? did he not make one pair, one couple, only Adam and Eve, whom he joined together in marriage? or rather, did he not make one woman only, and brought her to Adam to be his wife? which shows that his intention and will were, that one man should have but one wife at a time; the contrary to which was the then present practice of the Jews:<\/p>\n Yet had he the residue of the spirit<\/strong>; it was not for want of power that he made but one woman of Adam’s rib, and breathed into her the breath of life, or infused into her a human soul or spirit; he could have made many women at the same time; and as the Father of spirits, having the residue of them with him, or a power left to make as many as he pleased, he could have imparted spirits unto them, and given Adam more wives than one:<\/p>\n And wherefore one<\/strong>? what is the reason why he made but one woman, when he could have made ten thousand, or as many as he pleased? the answer is,<\/p>\n That he might seek a godly seed<\/strong>; or “a seed of God” d; a noble excellent seed; a legitimate offspring, born in true and lawful wedlock; see 1Co 7:14<\/span> a seed suitable to the dignity of human nature, made after the image of God, and not like that of brute beasts, promiscuous and uncertain:<\/p>\n Therefore take heed to your spirit<\/strong>; to your affections, that they do not go after other women, and be led thereby to take them in marriage, and to despise and divorce the lawful wife, as it follows:<\/p>\n and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth<\/strong>; by marrying another, or divorcing her: these words are differently rendered and interpreted by some; but the sense given seems to be the true one, and most agreeable to the scope of the place. Some render the first clause, “hath not one made?” e that is, did not the one God, who is the only living and true God, make one man or one woman? and then the sense is the same as before; or did not that one God make, constitute, and appoint, that the woman should be the man’s companion, and the wife of his covenant, as in the latter part of the preceding verse Mal 2:13<\/span>? or, “did not one do?” f that is, so as we have done, take another wife besides the wife of his youth? and so they are the words of the people to the prophets, justifying their practice by example; by the example of Abraham, whom some of the Jewish writers think is intended by the “one”, as in Isa 51:2<\/span>. The Targum is,<\/p>\n “was not one Abraham alone, from whom the world was created?”<\/p>\n or propagated. Kimchi gives it as his own sense, in these words;<\/p>\n “Abraham, who was one, and the father of all that follow him in his faith, did not do as ye have done; for he did not follow his lust, nor even marry Sarah, but so that he might cause the seed of God to remain;”<\/p>\n yet he mentions it as his father’s sense, that they are the words of the people to the prophet, expressed in a way of interrogation, saying, did not our father Abraham, who was one, do as we have done? who left his wife, and married Hagar his maid, though he had the residue or excellency of the spirit, and was a prophet; to whom the prophet replies, and what did that one seek? a godly seed; which is, as if it was said, when he married Hagar, it was to seek a seed, because he had no seed of Sarah his wife. A seed was promised him, in which all nations of the earth were to be blessed; he sought not to gratify his lust, but to obtain this seed, the Messiah, to whom the promises were made, as the apostle argues, Ga 3:16<\/span> “he saith not, and to seeds as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ”; called here the “godly seed”, or the “seed God” g, as some choose to render the words; that is, that seed which is God, who is a divine Person, God and man in one person; or which is of God, of his immediate production, without the help of a man; which the Jews call the seed that comes from another place, and which they use as a periphrasis of the Messiah. So on those words in Ge 4:25<\/span>, “she called his name Seth, for God hath appointed me another seed”,<\/p>\n “says R. Tanchuma, in the name of R. Samuel, she has respect to that seed which comes from another place; and what is this? this is the King Messiah h.”<\/p>\n And the same Rabbi elsewhere i observes, on those words in<\/p>\n Ge 19:32<\/span>, “that we may preserve seed of our father”,<\/p>\n “it is not written, that we may preserve a son of our father, but that we may preserve seed of our father; that seed which is he that comes from another place; and what is this? this is the King Messiah.”<\/p>\n Now as Abraham had the promise of a son, and his wife was barren, he took the method he did that he might have one, the son of the promise, a type of the Messiah, and from whom he should spring; and this is sufficient to justify him in it: besides, he did not deal treacherously with Sarah his wife, for it was with her good will and by her authority he did this thing; but do you take heed to your spirit, that no one of you deal treacherously with the wife of his youth, to leave her, and marry the daughter of a strange God: and much the same sense Jarchi takes notice of as the Agadah, or the interpretation of their ancient Rabbins. Some render the words, “and not one does this”; that is, deals treacherously with the wife of his youth, that has the residue of the spirit, or the least spark of the Spirit of God in him; and how should anyone do it, seeking a godly seed? therefore take heed to your spirit, c. so De Dieu. But according to others the sense is,<\/p>\n “there is not one of you that does according to the law, whose spirit remains with him that is not mixed with the daughter of a strange god;”<\/p>\n which is Aben Ezra’s note. But according to Abarbinel the sense is, not one only has done this, committed this evil, in marrying more and strange women; not some only, and the rest have the spirit with them, and keep it pure from this sin; so that a godly seed cannot be procreated from you; therefore take heed to your spirit.<\/p>\n d “semen Dei”, Pagninus, Montanus, Calvin, Junius Tremellius, Piscator, Cocceius, Burkius. e “nonue unus fecit?” V. L. Menochius, Tirinus. f “Et ne unus fecit?” Pagninus, Montanus “et unus ille (Abramus) ita egit?” Grotius; “annon unus hoc fecit?” Tigurine version; so Joseph Kimchi. g “semen Deus”, Galatin. de Arcan. Cathol. Ver. l. 8. c. 2. p. 550. h Bereshit Rabba, sect. 23. fol. 20. 4. Midrash Ruth, fol. 36. 1. i Bereshit Rabba, sect. 51. fol. 46. 1. Midrash Ruth, fol. 35. 4.<\/p>\n There is in this verse some obscurity, and hence it has been that no interpreter has come to the meaning of the Prophet. The Rabbins almost all agree that Abraham is spoken of here. Were we to receive this view a two-fold meaning might be given. It may be an objection, — “Has not one done this?” that is, has not Abraham, who is the one father of the nations, given us an example? for he married many wives: and thus many explain the passage, as though the priests raised an objection and defended the corruption just condemned by the example of Abraham, — “Has not one done this while yet an excellency of spirit was in him?” We indeed know how prone men are to pretend the authority of fathers when they wish to cover their own vices. <\/p>\n Others prefer regarding the words as spoken by the Prophet himself, and at the same time say that there is here an anticipation of an objection, and think that an occasion for an excuse is here cut off, as though the Prophet had said, “Did not Abraham, when he was one alone, do this?” For as the Jews might have adduced the example of Abraham, the interpreters, whose opinion I now refer to, think that a difference is here stated, as though he had said, “Ye reason badly, for every one of you is led to polygamy by the lust of your flesh; but it was far otherwise with Abraham, for he was one, that is, alone;” and in Isaiah Abraham is called one on account of his having no children. The meaning then they think is this, “Was not Abraham forced by necessity to take another wife? even because he had no child and no hope of the promised seed. Lust then did not stimulate your father Abraham, as it does you, but a desire of having an offspring.” And they think, that this view is confirmed by what follows, “And why alone seeking the seed of God?” that is, the object of holy Abraham was far otherwise than to indulge his lust; for he sought that holy seed, the hope of which was taken away from him on account of the barrenness of his wife, and of her great age. When therefore Abraham saw that his wife was barren, and that she could no more conceive on account of her old age, he had recourse to the last remedy: hence the mistake of Abraham might have been excused, since his object was right; for he sought the seed of God, the seed in which all nations were to be blessed. Thus far have I told you what others think. <\/p>\n I thought twelve years ago that this passage ought to have been otherwise rendered in the French Bibles, and that, אחד, ached, ought to be read in the objective case; “Has he not made one?” Jerome seems to me to have had a better notion of what the Prophet means than what others have taught; but he could not attain the real meaning, and therefore stopped as it were in the middle of his course. He read the word in the nominative case, “Has not one,” that is, God, “made them? “and then he added, “And in him alone,” that is, Abraham, “was an exuberant spirit.” We see how he dared not to assert anything, nor did he explain what was necessary. The sense is indeed suspended, and is even frigid, if we say, “Has not one made them?” but if we read, “Has he not made one?” (234) there is no ambiguity. It is a common thing in Hebrew, we know, that the name of God is often not expressed, when he is referred to; for so great is He, that his name may be easily understood, though not expressed. It ought not therefore to confuse us, that the Prophet withholds the name of God, and mentions a verb without its subject, for such is the usage, as I have said, of the Hebrew language. <\/p>\n I proceed now to explain the meaning of the Prophet. Has he not made one? that is, Was not God content with one man, when he instituted marriage? and yet the residue of the Spirit was in him. The Rabbins take, שאר, shar, as meaning excellence; but I know not what reason have induced them, except that they ventured to change the sense of the word, because they could not otherwise extricate themselves; for the mistake, that Abraham is spoken of here, had wholly possessed their minds. What then is, שאר רוח, shar ruch ? Excellence of Spirit, say they; but, שאר, shar, we know, is residue or remnant: what then remains of anything is called, שאר, shar; for the verb means to remain and to lean. Here then the Prophet takes the residue of the Spirit, so to speak, for overflowing power; for God could have given to one man two or three wives; inasmuch as the Spirit failed him not in forming one woman: as he inspired Eve with life, so also he might have created other women and imparted to them his Spirit. He might then have given two or four or ten women to one man; for there was a spirit remaining in him. We now then understand what the Prophet means at the beginning of this verse. <\/p>\n But before we proceed farther, we must bear in mind his object, which was, to break down all those frivolous pretences by which the Jews sought to cover their perfidy. He says, that in marriage we ought to recognize an ordinance divinely appointed, or, to speak more distinctly, that the institution of marriage is a perpetual law, which it is not right to violate: there is therefore no cause for men to devise for themselves various laws, for God’s authority is here to be regarded alone; and this is more clearly explained in Mat 19:8<\/span>; where Christ, refuting the objection of the Jews as to divorce, says, “From the beginning it was not so.” Though the law allowed a bill of divorce to be given to wives, yet Christ denies this to be right, — by what argument? even because the institution was not of that kind; for it was, as it has been said, an inviolable bond. So now our Prophet reasons, Has not God made one? that is, “consider within yourselves whether God, when he created man and instituted marriage, gave many wives to one man? By no means. Ye see then that spurious and contrary to the character of a true and pure marriage is everything, that does not harmonize with its first institution.” <\/p>\n But some one may ask here, why the Prophet says that God made one? for this seems to refer to the man and not to the woman: to this I answer, that man with the woman is called one, according to what Moses says, <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n God created man; male and female created he them,” (Gen 1:17<\/span>.) <\/p>\n After having said that man was created, he adds by way of explanation, that man, both male and female, was created. Hence when he speaks of man, the male makes as it were one-half, and the female the other; for when we speak of the whole human race, one-half doubtless consists of men, and the other half of women. So also when we come to individuals, the husband is as it were the half of the man, and the woman is the other half. I speak of the ordinary state of things; for if any one objects and says, that bachelors are not then complete or perfect men, the objection is frivolous: but as men were created, that every one should have his own wife, I say, that husband and wife make but one whole man. This then is the reason why the Prophet says, that one man was made by God; for he united the man to the woman, and intended that they should be partners, so to speak, under one yoke. And in this explanation there is nothing strained; for it is evident that the Prophet here calls the attention of the Jews to the true character of marriage; and this could not have been otherwise known than from the very institution of God, which is, as we have said, a perpetual and inviolable law; for God created man, even male and female: and Christ also has repeated this sentence, and carefully explained it in the passage which we have quoted. <\/p>\n And here the Prophet sharply goads the Jews, as though they wished to overcome God, or to be more wise than he; Had he not, he says, an exuberance of spirit? He takes spirit not for wisdom, but for that hidden influence by which God vivifies men. Could not God, he says, have put forth his spirit to create many wives for one man? but his purpose was to create one pair; to make man a husband and a wife: as God then was not without a remaining Spirit, and yet did not exceed this measure; it hence follows, that the law of marriage is violated, when man seeks for himself many wives. The meaning of the Prophet is now, I think, sufficiently clear. <\/p>\n It follows, And wherefore one, ומה האחד, vame, eached ? The interrogatory particle, מה, me, refers to the cause, end, form, or manner; we may therefore properly render it, For what, or wherefore, has God made one ? even to seek the seed of God. The seed of God is to be taken for what is legitimate; for what is excellent is often called God in Hebrew, and also what is free from all vice and blemish. He sought then the seed of God, that is, he instituted marriage, that legitimate and pure offspring might be brought forth. Hence then the Prophet indirectly shows, that all are spurious who proceed from polygamy, because they cannot be deemed legitimate children; nor ought any to be so counted but those who are born according to God’s institution. When a husband violates his pledged faith to his wife, and takes another; as he subverts the ordinance of marriage, so he cannot be a legitimate father. We now perceive why the Prophet says, that it was God’s purpose to unite only one wife to one man, in order that they might beget legitimate offspring, for he shows by the effect how frivolous were the evasions which the Jews had recourse to; for however they might contend, their very offspring would prove them liars, as it would be spurious. <\/p>\n He then draws this conclusion, Therefore, watch ye over your spirit; that is, “Take heed lest any should deceive the wife of his covenant.” After having shown how perversely they violated the marriage vow who rushed into polygamy, he here counsels and exhorts them; and this is the best mode of teaching, to show first what is right and lawful, and then to add exhortations. The Prophet then endeavored first to convince the Jews that they were guilty of a nefarious crime: for otherwise his exhortation would not have been received, as they would have always a ready objection, “It is lawful for us to do so, for we follow the example of our father Abraham; and further, this has been permitted for a long time, and God would have never suffered it, were it wrong, to prevail for so many ages among the people: it hence follows, that thou condemnest what is lawful.” It was necessary, in the first place, to remove all these false pretences: then follows the exhortation in its proper order, Watch over your spirit; for he speaks of what has been, as it were, sufficiently proved. (235) It now follows <\/p>\n (234) The position of the words shows that it is a question, for there is no interrogative particle. So it is in our language, “Has he not made one?” And that it is a question, is evident from what follows, “and by one?” — Ed. <\/p>\n (235) This is the most lucid and satisfactory explanation of a text which has been deemed, and is still deemed by some, difficult. Some moderns have gone back to the track of the ancients, but needlessly. Newcome ’s attempt at a revision of the text is wholly useless, and renders the passage more abstruse. — Ed. <\/p>\n (15, 16) These are two very difficult verses, which should perhaps, be rendered as follows:<\/p>\n For did He not make<\/em> [man and his wife, Gen. 2:24<\/span>] one? and has he<\/em> [the husband] any superiority of spirit<\/em> [that he should divorce at will]? And what is this<\/em> [pair which is become] one?<\/em> [Answer.] It seeketh a godly seed. Therefore take heed to yourselves<\/em> [literally, your spirit<\/em>], and with respect to the wife of thy youth<\/em>Let none be faithless. Mal 2:15<\/strong><\/span> b is an exhortation to discontinue the practices condemned in Mal 2:14<\/span>. <\/p>\n Take heed to your spirit <\/strong> Identical in meaning with “lay to heart” (Mal 2:2<\/span>) and “take heed to yourselves” (Jer 17:21<\/span>; Deu 4:15<\/span>). The Hebrew reads in the last clause “the wife of thy <\/em> youth,” which should be changed so the English translations into “his <\/em> youth,” or, following some of the ancient versions, the whole sentence should read, “and deal not treacherously with the wife of thy youth.”<\/p>\n Mal 2:16<\/span> <\/strong> supports the exhortation of 15b. <\/p>\n That he hateth <\/strong> Better, R.V., “I hate” (see on Amo 5:21<\/span>). He hates and must hate abominations of every sort. <\/p>\n Putting away <\/strong> A common expression for divorcing a wife. In Deu 24:1-5<\/span>, provision is made for divorce under certain conditions; Malachi seems nearer the spirit of Mat 5:32<\/span>; Mat 19:3<\/span> ff., than Deuteronomy. The condemnation of the custom by Malachi implies that in his day the law was wantonly abused. <\/p>\n For one covereth violence with his garment <\/strong> R.V., “and him that covereth his garment with violence” do I hate; literally, and one covers with violence his garment. <\/em> If the literal translation is accepted Mal 2:16<\/span> presents two reasons why the hearers should discontinue their practices: (1) Jehovah hates their conduct; (2) by it they cover themselves with violence or sin. R.V. co-ordinates these words with the preceding clause and renders, “and him that covereth his garment with violence” (by putting away his wife); such a one also Jehovah hates. If his garment <\/em> could be understood as equivalent to his wife <\/em> so after Arabic analogies, Hitzig, Ewald, and others, but Hebrew usage does not favor it this would give good sense; but the general thought that God hates the sinner, appears out of place in the midst of the specific denunciations of this section. One can hardly suppress a suspicion that here also the text has suffered. The section closes with a repetition of the exhortation to desist from the reprehensible conduct.<\/p>\n Mal 2:15-16<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>And did not he make one?<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> Houbigant renders the passage, And hath he made thee one flesh and one spirit with her? And what does he require but a godly seed, and that you may mutually keep your spirit, and not deal treacherously? <\/em>&c. Mal 2:16<\/span>. For whoever putteth away his wife through hatred, saith the Lord, hideth iniquity in his garment: therefore,<\/em> &c. Among the various interpretations of these words, this seems the most probable, says Lowth, that the prophet puts the Jews in mind of the first institution of marriage in paradise, as Christ did afterwards upon a like occasion, Mat 19:3-5<\/span> and tells them, that God made but one man at first, and made the woman out of him, when he could have created more women if he had pleased; to instruct men that this was the true pattern of marriage, ordained for sincere love and undivided affection, and best served the chief end of it; namely, the religious education of children. (Dr. Pocock tells us, that the Easterns frequently call a wife <\/em>by the name of a garment. <\/em>See Deu 22:30<\/span>.) According to the interpretation given above, the meaning of the 16th verse will be, that God hates divorcing a former wife to take in one of a strange nation, or that any should bring into his family an illegitimate wife, over and above that whom he had legally married. <\/p>\n Mal 2:15 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.<\/p>\n Ver. 15. And did not he make one<\/strong> ] Another forcible argument against polygamy and adultery. See our Saviour’s explanation of it, Mat 19:4-6<\/span> . See Trapp on “<\/em> Mat 19:4 “<\/em> See Trapp on “<\/em> Mat 19:5 “<\/em> See Trapp on “<\/em> Mat 19:6 “<\/em> The only wise God made but one woman for one man at the first creation; and ordained that those two should be one flesh, two in one flesh, not three or four, or as many wives as a man is able to maintain, as among the Turks, who, as a just hand of God upon them, are grievously vexed with jealousy, not suffering their women to go to church, nor so much as look out at their own windows; or, if they go abroad upon any occasion, they must go muffled, all but the eyes. Sardus tells us, that the old Britons would ten or twelve of them take one woman to wife. Likely, women were rare commodities, with them. As likewise men were in Judaea, when “seven women took hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach,” Isa 4:1<\/span> : that is, we will maintain ourselves and thee; only be thou a husband to us, and let us have children by thee. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Yet had he the residue of the spirit<\/strong> ] Or, breath; so that he could as easily have made more, and breathed into their faces the breath of life. And although it is not said of the woman, that God breathed into her the breath of life, as of Adam (whence Tertullian concludes, that she had both body and soul too from Adam), yet Austin rightly gathereth, that their souls were both alike imbreathed by God; otherwise, the Scripture would not have been silent in it, no more than it is in the new manner of the creation of her body. Thence also it is that Adam saith not, This is soul of my soul, but “bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh,” Gen 2:23<\/span> . Souls are not propagated by the parents, but created of God, and joined to the body, by a hidden or secret operation. Augustine, following Origen, held the contrary for a long time. At length he began to doubt, and after a while changed his opinion; Jerome stoutly defending the contrary against him. Aristotle also understood the truth hereof, and concluded, that the soul was divine, and came from above; and though of nothing, yet is it made a matter more excellent than the matter of the heavens, in nature not inferior to the angels. L . Lib. 2, c. 9. An abridgment it is of the invisible world, as the body is of the visible. And why may we not say, that the soul, as it came from God, being divinae particula aurm,<\/em> so it is like him? One immaterial, immortal, understanding spirit, distinguished into three powers, which all make up one spirit. In this respect it is said, Gen 9:6<\/span> , that in the image of God made he man. There is a double image of God in the soul. One, in the substance of it; this is never lost, and of this that text is to be understood. The other is the supernatural grace, which is an image of the knowledge, holiness, and righteousness of God, and this is utterly lost, and must be recovered. This the ancient heathens hammered at when they feigned that the soul once had wings; but, those being broken, it fell headlong into the body; where when it hath recovered its wings, it flies up to heaven again. That was very good counsel given by a godly man to his friend, not to busy his brains so much in inquiring how the soul entered into the body as how it may depart comfortably out of the body. And seeing the soul is more excellent than the body (saith another grave divine), like as Jacob laid his right hand upon the younger, but his left upon the elder, so our best care, and the strength of our thoughts, should be for the soul, younger as much as it is than the body; they should be but left hand thoughts for the body. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n And wherefore one? that he might seek a godly seed<\/strong> ] Heb. a seed of God; not a bastardly brood, a spurious issue, a mamzer,<\/em> as the Hebrews call such, that is, labes aliens,<\/em> a strange blot, a “seed of the adulterer and the whore,” Isa 57:3<\/span> ; but such as God appointeth and approveth, such as may be holy, with a federal holiness at least, if not sanctified from the womb, as some have been, and are, 1Co 7:14<\/span> ; lastly, such as in and by whom the Church and religion may be propagated, and not idolatry spread and increased. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Therefore take heed to your spirit<\/strong> ] That is, to your wife, which is the residue of your spirit; keep and cherish her; so Remigius and Lyra interpret it. But they do better that expound it by that of Solomon, “Keep thy heart with all diligence,” Pro 4:23<\/span> , and by that of the apostle, “Mortify therefore your members which are upon earth, fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence,” &c., Col 3:5<\/span> . These are those that defile the man, Mat 15:19-20<\/span> . These make his heart a filthy dunghill of all abominable lusts, and his life a long chain of sinful actions, a very continued web of wickedness; “therefore take heed to your spirits,” that is, to your affections, keep those pure and chaste; abstain from fleshly lusts that fight against the soul. Take heed where you set gunpowder, since fire is in your heart. Austin thanks God that the heart and temptation did not meet together. Look well to the affections; for by those maids Satan woos the mistress. Look to the cinque ports,<\/em> the five senses, shut those windows, that death enter not in thereby. Take heed to thy fancy: we allow a horse to prance and skip in a pasture; which if he doth when backed by the rider, we count him an unruly and unbroken jade. So, howsoever in other creatures we deny them not liberty of fancy, yet we may not allow it in ourselves, to frisk and rove at pleasure, but by reason bridle them, and set them their bounds that they shall not pass. The Lord quieteth the sea, and turns the storm into a calm, Psa 107:29<\/span> . If then the voluptuous humours in our body (which is but as a cup made of the husk of an acorn in respect of the sea) will not be pacified when the Lord saith unto them, Be still, every drop of water in the sea will witness our rebellion and disobedience. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n And let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth<\/strong> ] He had convinced them of this sin before, Mal 2:14<\/span> . Now he admonisheth them to abrenounce and abandon it. Lo, this is the true method and manner of proceeding in administering admonitions. The judgment must be convinced ere the affections can be wrought to anything; like as in the law, the lamps were first lighted before the incense was burned. First know thine iniquity, and then turn from it, Jer 3:13-14<\/span> . Exhortation is the end of doctrine, science of conscience, reformation of information, conversion of conviction; and woe be to those that being convinced, or reproved, for their faults, get the bit between the teeth, as it were, and run away with their rider. When I would have healed Ephraim, then his iniquity brake out (as if it were to cross me) like the leprosy in his forehead, Hos 7:1<\/span> . What can such sturdy rebels expect better than that God should resolve, as Eze 24:13<\/span> , as if he should say, Thou shalt have thy will, but then I will have mine too; I shall take another course with thee, since thou refusest to be reformed, hatest to be healed; thou shalt pine away in thine iniquities, Lev 26:39<\/span> . Oh fearful!<\/p>\n Modern critics pronounce this as being “a difficult and certainly corrupt passage”; but it is only elliptical. <\/p>\n make one? = make [of twain] one flesh? Ref to Pentateuch (Gen 2:24). App-92. <\/p>\n Yet had He, &c. And therefore could have made more than one wife for Adam. <\/p>\n spirit. Hebrew. ruach. App-9. <\/p>\n And wherefore one? And what [did] that one [Abraham] who [was] seeking a seed of (or from) God? Hebrew. zera’ (as in Gen 21:12; see note there). The logical Ellipsis’ must be further supplied: “Was Abraham faithless to Sarah and did he ill-treat her when he took an additional wife? How mach more ought ye to be faithful to your wives? “<\/p>\n one. Refers to Abraham. See Isa 51:2. Eze 33:24. Supply the verb “do”, as in Ecc 2:12, and as in Jdg 18:8, from Mal 2:18. <\/p>\n take heed = be watchful over. <\/p>\n your = your own. <\/p>\n spirit <\/p>\n Summary of the O.T. doctrine of the Holy Spirit: <\/p>\n (1) The personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit appear from the attributes ascribed to Him, and from His works. <\/p>\n (2) He is revealed as sharing the work of creation and therefore omnipotent Gen 1:2; Job 26:13; Job 33:4; Psa 104:30 as omnipresent Psa 139:7 as striving with men Gen 6:3 as enlightening Job 32:8 enduing with constructive skill; Exo 28:3; Exo 31:3 giving physical strength Jdg 14:6; Jdg 14:19 executive ability and wisdom; Jdg 3:10; Jdg 6:34; Jdg 11:29; Jdg 13:25 enabling men to receive and utter divine revelations; Num 11:25; 2Sa 23:2 and, generally, as empowering the servants of God; Psa 51:12; Joe 2:28; Mic 3:8; Zec 4:6 <\/p>\n (3) He is called holy Psa 51:11 good Psa 143:10 the Spirit of judgment and burning Isa 4:4 of Jehovah, of wisdom, understanding, counsel, might, good, knowledge, the fear of the Lord Isa 11:2 and of grace and supplications Zec 12:10. <\/p>\n (4) In the O.T. the Spirit acts in free sovereignty, coming upon men and even upon a dumb beast as He will, nor are the conditions set forth (as in the N.T.) by complying with which any one may receive the Spirit. The indwelling of every believer by the abiding Spirit is a N.T. blessing consequent upon the death and resurrection of Christ Joh 7:39; Joh 16:7; Act 2:33; Gal 3:1-6. <\/p>\n (5) The O.T. contains prediction of a future pouring out of the Spirit upon Israel Exo 37:14; Exo 39:29 and upon “all flesh” Joe 2:28; Joe 2:29. The expectation of Israel, therefore, was twofold–of the coming of Messiah-Immanuel, and of such an effusion of the Spirit as the prophets described. See Mat 1:18. <\/p>\n did: Gen 1:27, Gen 2:20-24, Mat 19:4-6, Mar 10:6-8, 1Co 7:2 <\/p>\n residue: or, excellency <\/p>\n the spirit: Gen 2:7, Job 27:3, Ecc 12:7, Joh 20:22 <\/p>\n That he: Gen 24:3-7, Gen 24:44, Gen 26:34, Gen 26:35, Gen 27:46, Gen 28:2-4, Deu 7:4, Ezr 9:4, Neh 13:24, Jer 2:21, 1Co 7:14, Eph 6:4, 1Ti 3:4, 1Ti 3:5, 1Ti 3:11, 1Ti 3:12, Tit 1:6 <\/p>\n godly seed: Heb. seed of God, Gen 6:2, Hos 1:10, Act 3:25, 2Co 6:18 <\/p>\n take: Mal 2:14, Pro 4:23, Pro 6:25, Pro 7:25, Mat 5:28, Mat 5:29, Mat 15:19, Jam 1:14, Jam 1:15 <\/p>\n treacherously: or, unfaithfully <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Gen 5:2 – Male Gen 29:27 – week Lev 18:18 – to vex her Lev 21:15 – profane Deu 4:15 – Take ye Deu 17:17 – multiply wives Jdg 8:30 – many wives Jdg 19:1 – a concubine 2Ch 22:3 – his mother Ezr 9:2 – the holy seed Pro 5:18 – rejoice Ecc 9:9 – with the wife Isa 6:13 – so the holy Joe 1:8 – the husband Mal 2:10 – why 2Co 6:14 – unequally<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 2:15 And did not {x} he make one? Yet had he the {y} residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly {z} seed. Therefore take heed to your {a} spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.<\/p>\n (x) Did not God make man and woman as one flesh and not many?<\/p>\n (y) By his power and strength he could have made many women for one man.<\/p>\n (z) Those who should be born in lawful and moderate marriage, in which is no excess of lusts.<\/p>\n (a) Contain yourselves within your bounds, and be sober in mind, and bridle your affections.<\/p>\n C. Command: stop acting faithlessly 2:15b-16<\/span><\/p>\n This "command" section begins and ends with commands not to break faith. Instruction to "take heed to your spirit" immediately precedes each of these commands. Two quotations from Yahweh lie within this envelope structure. These commands from Yahweh constitute the turning point in this second chiastic hortatory discourse (cf. Mal 1:10).<\/p>\n No individual Israelite who benefited from even a small amount of the Holy Spirit’s influence would break such a covenant as the marriage contract. God Himself would not break His covenant with Israel. In both cases godly offspring were a major reason for not breaking the respective covenants. The welfare of the children is still a common and legitimate reason for keeping a marriage intact.<\/p>\n "Too often do contemporary married couples think of children as an option; they regard their own personal happiness or fulfillment as the primary goal in marriage. This was never to be the case according to the biblical revelation. The first divine command given to the first human couple [and later repeated to Noah; Gen 9:7] was to ’be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it’ (Gen 1:28). God intended that a man’s purpose in departing from his father and mother and in joining himself to a wife by covenant, thus becoming one with her in flesh (Gen 2:24), should be fruitfulness. By that means were God’s people to spread his rule throughout the whole earth, producing and discipling children who would manifest the divine glory in their obedient lives and continue the process until the earth was full of his glory (Gen 22:17). Although sin interfered with the process, the purpose has not been superseded. Although couples can no longer be assured of bearing children (as the theme of barrenness in Genesis makes clear), they are still to ’seek’ them and can reproduce themselves in other ways if necessary, through adoption and\/or spiritual discipleship." [Note: Ibid., p. 356.] <\/span><\/p>\n The Israelites needed to be careful, therefore, that no one of them dealt treacherously with the wife he married in his youth by breaking his marriage covenant and divorcing her. The man is the responsible party in the text because in Israel husbands could divorce their wives. Wives divorcing their husbands was less common in Jewish patriarchal society.<\/p>\n 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. 15. did not he make one?] The interpretation of this very difficult verse follows … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Malachi 2:15”<\/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-23129","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23129","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=23129"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23129\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23129"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23129"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23129"}],"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
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: 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: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/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: Scofield Reference Bible Notes<\/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
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"