Text -- Malachi 2:10-16 (NET)

The Rebellion of the People

2:10 Do we not all have one father? Did not one God create us? Why do we betray one another, in this way making light of the covenant of our ancestors? 2:11 Judah has become disloyal, and unspeakable sins have been committed in Israel and Jerusalem. For Judah has profaned the holy things that the Lord loves and has turned to a foreign god! 2:12 May the Lord cut off from the community of Jacob every last person who does this, as well as the person who presents improper offerings to the Lord who rules over all! 2:13 You also do this: You cover the altar of the Lord with tears as you weep and groan, because he no longer pays any attention to the offering nor accepts it favorably from you. 2:14 Yet you ask, “Why?” The Lord is testifying against you on behalf of the wife you married when you were young, to whom you have become unfaithful even though she is your companion and wife by law. 2:15 No one who has even a small portion of the Spirit in him does this. What did our ancestor do when seeking a child from God? Be attentive, then, to your own spirit, for one should not be disloyal to the wife he took in his youth. 2:16 “I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel, “and the one who is guilty of violence,” says the Lord who rules over all. “Pay attention to your conscience, and do not be unfaithful.”

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: Mal 2:10

Abraham, or Jacob, with whom God made the covenant by which their posterity were made a peculiar people.

Wesley: Mal 2:10

The prophet speaks of that great and gracious work of God, creating them to be a chosen people. And so we Christians are created in Christ Jesus.

Wesley: Mal 2:11

Profanely violated the law, confining Israel to marry within themselves, and not to endanger themselves, by contracting affinity with idolaters.

Wesley: Mal 2:11

Which he, Judah, once loved.

Wesley: Mal 2:11

Idolatresses. Even tho' they had wives before, whom they now cast off.

Wesley: Mal 2:12

There shall be left neither any to teach nor any to learn.

Wesley: Mal 2:12

The priests.

Wesley: Mal 2:13

Beside that first fault, you have committed another, you misuse, and afflict your Jewish wives, whom alone you should have cherished.

Wesley: Mal 2:13

Your despised wives fly to the temple, weep and cry to God for redress.

Wesley: Mal 2:13

This is added to shew the abundance of their tears.

Wesley: Mal 2:13

The Lord.

Wesley: Mal 2:14

To whom thou art so firmly bound, that while she continues faithful, thou canst not be loosed.

Wesley: Mal 2:15

But one man, and one woman.

Wesley: Mal 2:15

Yet he could have made more.

Wesley: Mal 2:15

One couple, and no more.

Wesley: Mal 2:15

A holy seed born to God in chaste wedlock, and bred as they were born, in the fear of God.

Wesley: Mal 2:15

Keep your heart from wandering after strange wives.

Wesley: Mal 2:16

Divorce, such as these petulant Jews used to make way for some new wives, which God hates as much as putting away.

JFB: Mal 2:10-16

Reproof of those who contracted marriages with foreigners and repudiated their Jewish wives.

JFB: Mal 2:10-16

Why, seeing we all have one common origin, "do we deal treacherously against one another" ("His brother" being a general expression implying that all are "brethren" and sisters as children of the same Father above, 1Th 4:3-6 and so including the wives so injured)? namely, by putting away our Jewish wives, and taking foreign women to wife (compare Mal 2:14 and Mal 2:11; Ezr 9:1-9), and so violating "the covenant" made by Jehovah with "our fathers," by which it was ordained that we should be a people separated from the other peoples of the world (Exo 19:5; Lev 20:24, Lev 20:26; Deu 7:3). To intermarry with the heathen would defeat this purpose of Jehovah, who was the common Father of the Israelites in a peculiar sense in which He was not Father of the heathen. The "one Father" is Jehovah (Job 31:15; 1Co 8:6; Eph 4:6). "Created us": not merely physical creation, but "created us" to be His peculiar and chosen people (Psa 102:18; Isa 43:1; Isa 45:8; Isa 60:21; Eph 2:10), [CALVIN]. How marked the contrast between the honor here done to the female sex, and the degradation to which Oriental women are generally subjected!

JFB: Mal 2:11

Namely, in respect to the Jewish wives who were put away (Mal 2:14; also Mal 2:10, Mal 2:15-16).

JFB: Mal 2:11

By ill-treating the Israelites (namely, the wives), who were set apart as a people holy unto the Lord: "the holy seed" (Ezr 9:2; compare Jer 2:3). Or, "the holiness of the Lord" means His holy ordinance and covenant (Deu 7:3). But "which He loved," seems to refer to the holy people, Israel, whom God so gratuitously loved (Mal 1:2), without merit on their part (Psa 47:4).

JFB: Mal 2:11

(Ezr 9:1-2; Ezr 10:2; Neh 13:23, &c.).

JFB: Mal 2:11

Women worshipping idols: as the worshipper in Scripture is regarded in the relation of a child to a father (Jer 2:27).

JFB: Mal 2:12

Literally, "him that watcheth and him that answereth." So "wakeneth" is used of the teacher or "master" (Isa 50:4); masters are watchful in guarding their scholars. The reference is to the priests, who ought to have taught the people piety, but who led them into evil. "Him that answereth" is the scholar who has to answer the questions of his teacher (Luk 2:47) [GROTIUS]. The Arabs have a proverb, "None calling and none answering," that is, there being not one alive. So GESENIUS explains it of the Levite watches in the temple (Psa 134:1), one watchman calling and another answering. But the scholar is rather the people, the pupils of the priests "in doing this," namely, forming unions with foreign wives. "Out of the tabernacles of Jacob" proves it is not the priests alone. God will spare neither priests nor people who act so.

JFB: Mal 2:12

His offerings will not avail to shield him from the penalty of his sin in repudiating his Jewish wife and taking a foreign one.

JFB: Mal 2:13

"a second time": an aggravation of your offense (Neh 13:23-31), in that it is a relapse into the sin already checked once under Ezra (Ezr 9:10) [HENDERSON]. Or, "the second time" means this: Your first sin was your blemished offerings to the Lord: now "again" is added your sin towards your wives [CALVIN].

JFB: Mal 2:13

Shed by your unoffending wives, repudiated by you that ye might take foreign wives. CALVIN makes the "tears" to be those of all the people on perceiving their sacrifices to be sternly rejected by God.

JFB: Mal 2:14

Why does God reject our offerings?

JFB: Mal 2:14

(so Gen 31:49-50).

JFB: Mal 2:14

The Jews still marry very young, the husband often being but thirteen years of age, the wife younger (Pro 5:18; Isa 54:6).

JFB: Mal 2:14

Not merely joined to thee by the marriage covenant generally, but by the covenant between God and Israel, the covenant-people, whereby a sin against a wife, a daughter of Israel, is a sin against God [MOORE]. Marriage also is called "the covenant of God" (Pro 2:17), and to it the reference may be (Gen 2:24; Mat 19:6; 1Co 7:10).

JFB: Mal 2:15

MAURER and HENGSTENBERG explain the verse thus: The Jews had defended their conduct by the precedent of Abraham, who had taken Hagar to the injury of Sarah, his lawful wife; to this Malachi says now, "No one (ever) did so in whom there was a residue of intelligence (discriminating between good and evil); and what did the one (Abraham, to whom you appeal for support) do, seeking a godly seed?" His object (namely, not to gratify passion, but to obtain the seed promised by God) makes the case wholly inapplicable to defend your position. MOORE (from FAIRBAIRN) better explains, in accordance with Mal 2:10, "Did not He make (us Israelites) one? Yet He had the residue of the Spirit (that is, His isolating us from other nations was not because there was no residue of the Spirit left for the rest of the world). And wherefore (that is, why then did He thus isolate us as) the one (people; the Hebrew is 'the one')? In order that He might seek a godly seed"; that is, that He might have "a seed of God," a nation the repository of the covenant, and the stock of the Messiah, and the witness for the one God amidst the surrounding polytheisms. Marriage with foreign women, and repudiation of the wives wedded in the Jewish covenant, utterly set aside this divine purpose. CALVIN thinks "the one" to refer to the conjugal one body formed by the original pair (Gen 2:24). God might have joined many wives as one with the one husband, for He had no lack of spiritual being to impart to others besides Eve; the design of the restriction was to secure a pious offspring: but compare Note, see on Mal 2:10. One object of the marriage relation is to raise a seed for God and for eternity.

JFB: Mal 2:16

That is, divorce.

JFB: Mal 2:16

MAURER translates, "And (Jehovah hateth him who) covereth his garment (that is, his wife, in Arabic idiom; compare Gen 20:16, 'He is to thee a covering of thy eyes'; the husband was so to the wife, and the wife to the husband; also Deu 22:30; Rth 3:9; Eze 16:8) with injury." The Hebrew favors "garment," being accusative of the thing covered. Compare with English Version, Psa 73:6, "violence covereth them as a garment." Their "violence" is the putting away of their wives; the "garment" with which they try to cover it is the plea of Moses' permission (Deu 24:1; compare Mat 19:6-9).

Clarke: Mal 2:10

Have we not all one Father? - From this to Mal 2:16 the prophet censures the marriages of Israelites with strange women, which the law had forbidden, Deu 7:3. And also divorces, which seem to have been multiplied for the purpose of contracting these prohibited marriages. - Newcome

Clarke: Mal 2:10

Why do we deal treacherously - Gain the affections of the daughter of a brother Jew, and then profane the covenant of marriage, held sacred among our fathers, by putting away this same wife and daughter! How wicked, cruel, and inhuman!

Clarke: Mal 2:11

Daughter of a strange god - Of a man who worships an idol.

Clarke: Mal 2:12

The master and the scholar - He who teachers such doctrine, and he who follows this teaching, the Lord will cut off both the one and the other.

Clarke: Mal 2:13

Covering the altar of the Lord with tears - Of the poor women who, being divorced 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.

Clarke: Mal 2:14

Ye say, Wherefore? - Is the Lord angry with us? Because ye have been witness of the contract made between the parties; and when the lawless husband divorced his wife, the wife of his youth, his companion, and the unite of his covenant, ye did not execute on him the discipline of the law. They kept their wives till they had passed their youth, and then put them away, that they might get young ones in their place.

Clarke: Mal 2:15

And did not he make one? - One of each kind, Adam and Eve. Yet had he the residue of the Spirit, he could have made millions of pairs, and inspired them all with living souls. Then wherefore one? He made one pair from whom all the rest might proceed, that he might have a holy offspring; that children being a marked property of one man and one woman, proper care might be taken that they should be brought up in the discipline of the Lord. Perhaps the holy or godly seed, זרע אלהים zera Elohim , a seed of God, may refer to the Messiah. God would have the whole human race to spring from one pair, that Christ, springing from the same family, might in his sufferings taste death for every man; because he had that nature that was common to the whole human race. Had there been several heads of families in the beginning, Jesus must have been incarnated from each of those heads, else his death could have availed for those only who belonged to the family of which he was incarnated

Clarke: Mal 2:15

Take heed to your spirit - Scrutinize the motives which induce you to put away your wives.

Clarke: Mal 2:16

For the Lord - hateth putting away - He abominates all such divorces, and him that makes them

Clarke: Mal 2:16

Covereth violence with his garment - And he also notes those who frame idle excuses to cover the violence they have done to the wives of their youth, by putting them away, and taking others in their place, whom they now happen to like better, when their own wives have been worn down in domestic services.

Calvin: Mal 2:10

The Prophet accuses the Jews here of another crime — that they were perfidious towards God and their own brethren, and departed from that pre-eminence into which God had raised them, when they were chosen in preference to other nations to be a holy and peculiar people. This ingratitude the Prophet now condemns by saying, that they all had one father, and that they had been all created by one God

The word Father may be applied to God as well as to Abraham, and some interpreters will have it repeated, which is no uncommon thing in Hebrew: they say then that all had God as their Father, because he created them all; so that the latter clause is taken as an explanation. But it is better, as I think, to apply the word to Abraham, and the passage requires this; for it follows at the end of the verse, that the covenant which the Lord had made with their fathers had been violated; and this will appear still more certain, when we bear in mind the design of the Prophet. ²²⁵ Presently a reproof follows, because they had taken many wives; but the Prophet seems not as yet to mention this vice, but speaks generally, that they did not preserve that purity to which they had been called, for they indiscriminately married heathen wives. As then they mingled without distinction with unbelievers and the despisers of God, the Prophet complains that they were unmindful of that dignity to which they had been elevated, when God deigned to adopt them as his holy people. For thus it happened, that the pre-eminence which Moses celebrates in Deu 4:8, disappeared, “What nation is so renowned, to whom God draws nigh, as thou seest that he is nigh to thee?” When therefore the Jews rendered themselves vile, the Prophet condemns them for ingratitude. He, at the same time, shows that they were become inhuman towards their brethren, with whom they had been united by a most sacred bond. It then seems probable to me, that God and Abraham are mentioned here, because God had chosen the race of Abraham and adopted them as his people, and also, because he had deposited his covenant with Abraham and the fathers: thus Abraham became, as it were, the mediator of the covenant which God made with his whole race. By thus understanding the subject of the Prophet, it is easier for us to see why he mentions Abraham as well as God.

Is there not one father, he says, to us all? that is, “Did not God select us from the rest of the world, when he promised to our father Abraham to be a God to him and to his seed? Since then God’s favor has flowed to us from that fountain, what sottishness it is to break that sacred bond by which God has joined us to himself in the person of Abraham?” For when the Jews did not consider that they derived their origin from the holy patriarch, the consequence was, that the covenant of God with them became void and of no effect. This then is the reason why he says, that one God was to them all a Father. And as other nations might have claimed the same privilege, he adds, Has not one God created us? He shows that the Jews had descended in no common or ordinary way from their holy father Abraham, but that God was the maker of his race, that he created them. Did not he also create the rest of the world? Not in the same manner; for this creation ought to be confined especially to the Church. God has created the whole human race; but he created also the race of Abraham: and hence the Church is often called in Isaiah the work and the formation of God, (Isa 66:21,) and Paul also adopts the same mode of speaking, (Eph 2:10.) Our Prophet then does not mean that the Jews had been created by God when born into this world, but that they had become his holy and peculiar people. As then God had thus created the Jews, and had given to them one father, that being mindful of their origin they might remain united in true religion, the Prophet here reprobates their sottishness in casting away from themselves this invaluable favor of God.

Every one dealt falsely with his brother; and thus they violated the covenant of the fathers. As to the verb, נכגד , nubegad, it has been variously explained by grammarians; but as to what is meant it is agreed, that the Jews are here condemned, because they were not only perfidious to God, but also fraudulent as to their neighbors: and thus they doubled their perfidy, the proof which was manifest, because they did not act with sincerity towards their brethren. ²²⁶ Why then, he says, do we deal falsely with man, that is, every one with his own brother, so that we pollute the covenant of our fathers? Here the covenant of the fathers is to be taken for that separation or laying apart which we have mentioned, by which God had adopted Abraham and his posterity, that they might be separated from all the nations of the world. Hence under this covenant of the fathers is God himself included; and as this has not been perceived, it is no wonder that this passage has been so frigidly explained, and that Malachi has been as it were wholly buried in darkness; though interpreters have tried to bring light, yet the effect has been to pervert the real meaning of the Prophet. But it appears now plain, I think, that the Jews are here said to be guilty of a twofold perfidy — because they rejected the honor offered to them by God’s gratuitous election, and also because they acted fraudulently towards their own brethren. It hence followed that the covenant of the fathers, that is, what God had deposited with the patriarchs, that it might come from hand to hand to their posterity, had been violated and made void by their wickedness.

We must yet notice what I have already referred to — that the priests are so reproved that the whole people are also included; and this we shall again presently see, and I add also, that the Prophet connects God with Abraham, in order to show that we shall fail to seek God effectually, if we seek him apart from his covenant, and also that our minds ought not to be fixed on men. There are indeed two vices against which we ought carefully to guard. Some, passing by all means, seek to fly upward to God; and so they entertain many vain thoughts and devise for themselves many labyrinths, from which they never emerge. We see how many fanatics there are at this day, who proudly speak against God’s word, and yet touch neither heaven nor earth; and why? because they would be superior to angels, and do not acknowledge that they need any helps by which they might by degrees, according to their weakness, ascend up to God himself. Now this is to seek God without the covenant or without the word. This is the reason why the Prophet here unites father Abraham to God himself; it was done that the Jews might know that they were confined by certain limits, in order that they might in humility make progress in God’s school, and be carried by degrees into heaven: for God, as it has been said, had deposited his covenant with Abraham. But yet as they might have depended on a mortal man, the Prophet adds a corrective — that they had been created by God; for they were not to separate their father Abraham from the very author of the covenant.

This passage then is worthy of special notice; for men from the beginning and in all ages have been inclined to the two vices which I have mentioned; and at this day we see that some indulge their dreams and despise the outward preaching of the word; for many fanatics say, that there is no need of rudiments or of the first elements, since God has promised that the sons of the Church would be spiritual. Hence Satan by such delusions strives to draw us away from pure simplicity of doctrine. It is therefore necessary to set up this shield — that God is not exhibited to us without Abraham, that is, without a Prophet and an interpreter. The Papists are also sunk in the same mud; for they have always the fathers in their mouths, but make no account of God. This is also very preposterous. Let us then remember that God is not to be separated from his word, and that the authority of men is of no account, when they depart from it. And the Prophet confirms the same thing at the end of the verse, when he speaks of the covenant of the fathers; for he does not here simply commend the covenant of the fathers, as the Turks might do, or as it is done by Papists and Jews; but he means the covenant which God had given, and which the holy patriarchs faithfully handed down to their posterity, according to what Paul says in the twenty-second chapter of the Acts, when speaking of his father’s religion; he did not speak of it as heathens might do of their religion, but he took it as granted that the law promulgated by Moses was not his invention, but had God as its author. It now follows-

Calvin: Mal 2:11

The Prophet now explains how the Jews departed from the covenant of their fathers, and he exaggerates their sin and says, that abomination was done in Israel; as though he had said, that this perfidy was abominable. Some render the verb, בגד , begad, ²²⁷ transgressed, and so it is often taken in Hebrew: but as in the last verse the Prophet had said, נבגד , nubegad, “Why do we deal perfidiously every one with his brother?” I doubt not but that it is repeated here in the same sense. But as I have already stated, he shows the crime to be detestable, and says that it existed in Judah and in Jerusalem. God had indeed, as it is well known, preferred that tribe to others; and it was not a common favor that the Jews almost alone returned to their own country, while others nearly all remained in their dispersions. He adds Jerusalem, not for honor’s sake, but for greater reproach, as though he had said, that not only some of the race of Abraham were subject to this condemnation, but that even the Jews were so, who had been allowed to return to their own country, and that even the holy city rendered itself subject to this reproof, in which the temple was, the sanctuary of God, which was then alone the true one in the whole world. By these circumstances then does the Prophet enhance their crime.

But he immediately comes to particulars: Polluted, he says, has Judah the holiness of Jehovah, which he loved; ²²⁸ that is, because they individually indulged their lusts, and procured for themselves wives from heathen nations.

Some take, קדש , kodash, for the sanctuary or the temple; others for the keeping of the law; but I prefer to apply it to the covenant itself; and we might suitably take it in a collective sense, except the simpler meaning be more approved — that Judah polluted his separation. As to the Prophet’s object and the subject itself, he charges them here, I have no doubt, with profanation, because the Jews rendered themselves vile, though God had consecrated them to himself. They had then polluted holiness, even when they had been separated from the world; for they had disregarded so great an honor, by which they might have been pre-eminent, had they continued in their integrity. It may be also taken collectively, they have polluted holiness, that is, they have polluted that nation which has been separated from other nations: but as this exposition may seem hard and somewhat strained, I am inclined to think that what is here meant is that separation by which the Jews were known from other nations. But yet what I have stated may serve to remove whatever obscurity there may be. And that this holiness ought to be referred to that gratuitous election by which God had adopted the Jews as his peculiar people, is evident from what the Prophet says, that they married foreign wives. ²²⁹

We then see the purpose of this passage, which is to show, — that the Jews were ungrateful to God, because they mingled with heathen nations, and knowingly and wilfully cast aside that glory by which God had adorned them by choosing them, as Moses says, to be to him a royal priesthood. (Exo 19:6.) Holiness, we know, was much recommended to the Jews, in order that they might not abandon themselves to any of the pollutions of the heathens. Hence God had forbidden them under the law to take foreign wives, except they were first purified, as we find in Deu 21:11; if any one wished to marry a captive, she was to have her head shaven and her nails pared; by which it was intimated, that such women were impure, and that their husbands would be contaminated, except they were first purified. And, yet it was not wholly a blameless thing, when one observed the law as to a captive: but it was a lust abominable to God, when they were not content with their own nation, and burnt in love with strange women. As however the Jews, like all mortals without exception, were inclined to corruptions, God purposed to keep them together as one people, lest the wife by her flatteries should draw the husband away from the pure and legitimate worship of God. And Moses tells us, that there was a crafty counsel given by Balsam when he saw that the people could not be conquered in open war; he at length invented this artifice, that the heathens should offer to them their wives and their daughters. It hence happened that the people provoked God’s wrath, as we find it recorded in Num 25:4.

As then the Jews after their return had again lapsed into this corruption, it is not without reason that the Prophet so severely reproves them, and that he says, that by marrying strange women they had polluted holiness, or that separation, which was their great honor, as God had adopted them alone as his people; and he calls it a holiness which God loved. Thus their crime was doubled, because God had not only bound them to himself, but he had also embraced them gratuitously. For if the cause of the separation be enquired, whether they excelled other nations, or whether they had any worthiness or merit? the answer is, No; but God loved them freely. For by the word love, the Prophet means the mere kindness and bounty of God, with which he favored Abraham and his race, without regard to any worthiness or excellency. He therefore condemns them for this ingratitude, because they had not only departed from the covenant which the Lord had made with their fathers, but had also neglected and despised that gratuitous love, which ought to have softened even their iron hearts. For if God had found anything in them as a reason why he preferred them to other nations, they might have been more excusable, at least they might have extenuated their fault; but since God had adopted them as his peculiar people, though they were unworthy and wholly undeserving, they must surely have been extremely brutish, to have thus despised the gratuitous favor of God. Their baseness then is increased, as I have said, by this circumstance, — that so great a kindness of God did not turn their hearts to obedience.

At the end of the verse the Prophet makes known, as I have already stated, their profanation; they had married the daughters of another god. By way of reproach he calls them the daughters of a strange god. He might have simply said foreign daughters; but he intended here to imply a comparison between the God of Israel and idols: as though he had said, “Whence have these wives come to you? from idols. Ye ought then to have hated them as monsters: had you any religion in your heart, what but detestable to you must have been everything which may have come from idols? but your hearts have become attached to the daughters of false gods.”

And we find that this vice had been condemned by Moses, and branded with reproach, before the giving of the Law, when he said, that the human race had been corrupted, because the sons of God married the daughters of men, (Gen 6:2,) even because the posterity of Seth, who were born of the holy family, degraded themselves and polluted that small portion, which was holy and consecrated to God, by mixing with the world; for the whole world had at that time departed from God, except the descendants of Seth. The Lord then had before the Law marked this lust with perpetual disgrace; but when the Law itself which ought to have been like a rampart, again condemned it, was it not a perverseness wholly inexcusable, when the wantonness of the people broke through all restraints? He then adds —

Calvin: Mal 2:12

The Prophet here teaches us, that neither the priests nor the people would go unpunished, because they had mingled with the pollutions of the heathens, and profaned and violated the covenant of God. God then says, Cut off (the word means to scrape off or to blot out) shall God the man who has done this, the mover, or prompter, as well as the respondent ²³⁰ Jerome renders the last words, the master and the disciple; and interpreters vary. Some indeed explain the terms allegorically, and apply them to the dead; but by the mover, I have no doubt, he understands every one who was in power, and could command others, and by the respondent the man who was subject to the authority of his master. The masters then prompted or roused, for it belonged to them to command; and the servants responded, for it was their duty to receive orders and to obey them. It is the same as though the Prophet had said, that God would punish this perfidy, without passing by any, so that he would spare neither the common people nor the chief men: and he also adds the priests, intimating, that the priests themselves would not be excepted.

In short, he denounces punishment on the Jews universally, and shows that however prevalent had this impiety become everywhere, and that though every one thought that whatever was commonly practiced was lawful, yet God would become an avenger, and would include in the same punishment both the masters and the servants, and would not exempt the priests, who considered themselves safe by peculiar privilege. The rest tomorrow.

Calvin: Mal 2:13

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 — “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?

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.

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 —

“Praise, O God, waits for thee in Zion.” (Psa 65:1.)

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.

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

Calvin: Mal 2:14

The Prophet tells us here as before how prone the priests were to make a clamor, and it is a very common thing with hypocrites immediately to set up a shield to cover their vices whenever they are reproved; and hence it appears, that men are in a manner fascinated by Satan, when they attain such hardness as to dare to answer God, and with obstreperous words to repel all warnings. Malachi has several times already used this mode of speaking; we may hence conclude, that the people had become then so hardened that warnings were of no account with them. But he mentions one particular, by which it seems evident that they had lapsed into vices which were not to be borne. There is indeed no doubt but that he points out one of the many vices which prevailed. There is then in this verse an instance of stating one thing for the whole, as though he had said, “Your hypocrisy is extremely gross; but, to omit other things, by what pretext can you excuse this perfidy — that there is no conjugal fidelity among you? Were there any integrity and a sense of religion in men, they would surely appear in their conjugal connection; but ye have cast away all shame, and have taken to yourselves many wives. There is then no ground for you to think that you can escape by evasions, because this one glaring vice sufficiently proves your guilt.” This is the import of the Prophet’s answer.

We have indeed seen that the priests were implicated in other vices; the Prophet then does not now charge them with perfidy as though they were free from other sins, but he meant to show, as I have already said, by one thing, how wickedly and shamelessly they sought to evade God’s judgment, though they had violated the marriage pledge, which was wholly to destroy the very order of nature; for there can be, as it has been already said, no chastity in social life except the bond of marriage be preserved, for marriage, so to speak, is the fountain of mankind.

But in order to press the matter more on the priests, he calls their attention to the fact that God is the founder of marriage. Testified has Jehovah, he says, between thee and thy wife ²³² He intimates in these words, that when a marriage takes place between a man and a woman, God presides and requires a mutual pledge from both. Hence Solomon, in Pro 2:17, calls marriage the covenant of God, for it is superior to all human contracts. So also Malachi declares, that God is as it were the stipulator, who by his authority joins the man to the woman, and sanctions the alliance: God then has testified between thee and thy wife, as though he had said, “Thou hast violated not only all human laws, but also the compact which God himself has consecrated, and which ought justly to be deemed more sacred than all other compacts: as then God has testified between thee and thy wife, and thou now deceivest her, how darest thou to come to the altar? and how canst thou think that God will be pleased with thy sacrifices or regard thy oblations?”

He calls her the wife of his youth, because the more filthy is the lust when husbands cast away conjugal love as to those wives whom they have married in their youth. The bond of marriage is indeed in all cases inviolable, even between the old, but it is a circumstance which increases the turpitude of the deed, when any one alienates himself from a wife whom he married when a girl and in the flower of her age: for youth conciliates love; and we also see that when a husband and his wife have lived together for many years, mutual love prevails between them to extreme old age, because their hearts were united together in their youth. It is not then without reason that this circumstance is mentioned, for the lust of the priests was the more filthy and as it were the more monstrous, because they forsook wives whom they ought to have regarded with the tenderest love, as they had married them when they were young: Thou hast dealt unfaithfully with her, he says, though she was thy consort and the wife of thy covenant

He calls her a consort, or companion, or associate, ²³³ because marriage, we know, is contracted on this condition — that the wife is to become as it were the half part of the man. As then the bond of marriage is inseparable, the Prophet here goads the priests, yea, touches them to the quick, when he reproves them for being unmindful of what was natural, inasmuch as they had blotted out of their minds the memory of a most sacred covenant. The wife of thy covenant is to be taken for a covenanted wife, that is, “The wife who has been united to thee by God’s authority, that there might be no separation; but all integrity is violated, and as it were abolished.” He then adds

Calvin: Mal 2:15

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.

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.

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.

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.

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; 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.”

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,

“God created man; male and female created he them,”
(Gen 1:17.)

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.

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.

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.

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

Calvin: Mal 2:16

Here again the Prophet exaggerates the crime which the priests regarded as nothing; for he says, that they sinned more grievously than if they had repudiated their wives. We indeed know that repudiation, properly speaking, had never been allowed by God; for though it was not punished under the law, yet it was not permitted. ²³⁶ It was the same as with a magistrate, who is constrained to bear many things which he does not approve; for we cannot so deal with mankind as to restrain all vices. It is indeed desirable, that no vice should be tolerated; but we must have a regard to what is possible. Hence Moses has specified no punishment, according to the heinousness of the crime, if one repudiated his wife; and yet it was never permitted.

But if a comparison be made, Malachi says, that it is a lighter crime to dismiss a wife than to marry many wives. We hence learn how abominable polygamy is in the sight of God. I do not consider polygamy to be what the foolish Papists have made it, who call not those polygamists who have many wives at the same time, but those who marry another when the former one is dead. This is gross ignorance. Polygamy, properly so called, is when a person takes many wives, as it was commonly done in the East: and those nations, we know, have always been libidinous, and never observe the marriage vow. As then their lasciviousness was so great that they were like brute beasts, every one married several wives; and this abuse continues at this day among the Turks and the Persian and other nations. Here, however, where God compares polygamy with divorce, he says that polygamy is the worse and more detestable crime; for the husband impurely connects himself with another woman, and then, not only deals unfaithfully with his wife to whom he is bound, but also forcibly detains her: thus his crime is doubled. For if he replies and says that he keeps the wife to whom he is bound, he is yet an adulterer as to the second wife: thus he blends, as they say, holy with profane things; and then to adultery and lasciviousness he adds cruelty, for he holds under his authority a miserable woman, who would prefer death to such a condition; for we know what power jealousy has over women. And when any one introduces a harlot, how can a lawful wife bear such an indignity without being miserably tormented?

This then is the reason why the Prophet now says, If thou hatest, dismiss; not that he grants indulgence to divorce, as we have said, but that he might by this circumstance enhance the crime; and hence he adds, For he covers by a cloak his violence. Some interpreters take violence here for spoil or prey, and think that the wife is thus called who is tyrannically compelled to remain with an adulterer, when yet she sees a harlot in her house, by whom she is driven from her conjugal bed: but this is too strained and too remote from the letter of the text. The Prophet here, I doubt not, shakes off from the Jews their false mask, because they thought that they could cover over their vice by retaining their first wives. “What else is this,” he says, “but to cover by a cloak your violence, or at least to excuse it? for ye do not openly manifest it: but God is not deceived, nor can his eye be dazzled by such a disguise: though then your iniquity is covered by a cloak, it is not yet hid from God; nay, it is thus doubled, because ye exercise your cruelty at home; for it would be better for robbers to remain in the wood and there to kill strangers, than to entice guests to their houses and to kill them there and to plunder them under the pretext of hospitality. This is the way in which you act; for ye destroy the bond of marriage, and ye afterwards deceive your miserable wives, and yet ye force them by your tyranny to continue at your houses, and thus ye torment your miserable wives, who might have enjoyed their freedom, if divorce had been granted them.” ²³⁷

He concludes again with these words, Watch over your spirit; that is, “Take heed; for this is an intolerable wickedness before God, however you may endeavor to extenuate its heinousness.”

Defender: Mal 2:10

All men are natural children of God by the fact of creation (Act 17:24-29) but become spiritual children of God only by regeneration (Joh 1:12, Joh 1:13; Joh 3:3-8). However, the primary thrust of this verse is the unity of the children of Israel, all of whom have the same father, Jacob. In fact, Israel also is said to have been "created" by God as a special people (Isa 43:1, Isa 43:7)."

Defender: Mal 2:15

Malachi here refers to the original creation of man and woman when God made them "one flesh" (Gen 2:24). Even though God had allowed divorce among His people under certain circumstances (Deu 24:1-4), the Lord Jesus made it clear that this was only "because of the hardness of your hearts," but it was not God's will (Mat 19:8). In fact, Malachi says the Lord "hateth putting away" of one's wife (Mal 2:16). Some of the Jews had been abandoning their own wives and taking foreign wives, thus risking the same lapse into paganism that had happened long ago when Solomon married strange wives. By God's direction, Nehemiah had sharply rebuked this practice and required them to separate themselves again (Neh 13:23-30)."

TSK: Mal 2:10

all : Mal 1:6; Jos 24:3; Isa 51:2, Isa 63:16, Isa 64:8; Eze 33:24; Mat 3:9; Luk 1:73, Luk 3:8; Joh 8:39, Joh 8:53, Joh 8:56; Act 7:2; Rom 4:1, Rom 9:10; 1Co 8:6; Eph 4:6; Heb 12:9

hath : Job 31:15; Psa 100:3; Isa 43:1, Isa 43:7, Isa 43:15, Isa 44:2; Joh 8:41; Act 17:25

why : Mal 2:11, Mal 2:14, Mal 2:15; Jer 9:4, Jer 9:5; Mic 7:2-6; Mat 10:21, Mat 22:16; Act 7:26; 1Co 6:6-8; Eph 4:25; 1Th 4:6

by : Mal 2:8, Mal 2:11; Exo 34:10-16; Jos 23:12-16; Ezr 9:11-14, Ezr 10:2, Ezr 10:3; Neh 13:29

TSK: Mal 2:11

and an : Lev 18:24-30; Jer 7:10; Eze 18:13, Eze 22:11; Rev 21:8

profaned : Exo 19:5, Exo 19:6; Lev 20:26; Deu 7:3-6, Deu 14:2, Deu 33:26-29; Psa 106:28, Psa 106:34-39; Jer 2:3, Jer 2:7, Jer 2:8, Jer 2:21, Jer 2:22

loved : or, ought to love

and hath : Gen 6:1, Gen 6:2; Jdg 3:6; 1Ki 11:1-8; Ezr 9:1, Ezr 9:2, Ezr 9:12, Ezr 10:2; Neh 13:23-29; Hos 6:7; 2Co 6:14-18

TSK: Mal 2:12

cut : Lev 18:29, Lev 20:3; Num 15:30,Num 15:31; Jos 23:12, Jos 23:13; 1Sa 2:31-34

the master and the scholar : or, him that waketh, and him that answereth, 1Ch 25:8; Ezr 10:18, Ezr 10:19; Neh 13:28, Neh 13:29; Isa 9:14-16, Isa 24:1, Isa 24:2; Eze 14:10; Hos 4:4, Hos 4:5; Mat 15:14; 2Ti 3:13; Rev 19:20

out : Num 24:5; Zec 12:7

and him : Mal 2:10; Gen 4:3-5; 1Sa 3:14, 1Sa 15:22, 1Sa 15:23; Isa 61:8, Isa 66:3; Amo 5:22

TSK: Mal 2:13

covering : Deu 15:9; 1Sa 1:9, 1Sa 1:10; 2Sa 13:19, 2Sa 13:20; Psa 78:34-37; Ecc 4:1

insomuch : Deu 26:14; Neh 8:9-12; Pro 15:8, Pro 21:27; Isa 1:11-15; Jer 6:20

TSK: Mal 2:14

Wherefore : Mal 1:6, Mal 1:7, Mal 3:8; Pro 30:20; Isa 58:3; Jer 8:12

the Lord : Mal 3:5; Gen 31:50; Jdg 11:10; 1Sa 12:5; Jer 42:5; Mic 1:2

the wife : Mal 2:15; Pro 5:18, Pro 5:19; Ecc 9:9; Isa 54:6

thy companion : Gen 2:18; Pro 2:17; Son 1:15 *marg. Eze 16:8

TSK: Mal 2:15

did : Gen 1:27, Gen 2:20-24; Mat 19:4-6; Mar 10:6-8; 1Co 7:2

residue : or, excellency

the spirit : Gen 2:7; Job 27:3; Ecc 12:7; Joh 20:22

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

godly seed : Heb. seed of God, Gen 6:2; Hos 1:10; Act 3:25; 2Co 6:18

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

treacherously : or, unfaithfully

TSK: Mal 2:16

the Lord : Deu 24:1-4; Isa 50:1; Mat 5:31, Mat 5:32, Mat 19:3-9; Mar 10:2-12; Luk 16:18

that he hateth putting away : or, if he hate her, put her away, Heb. to put away

covereth : Pro 28:13; Isa 28:20, Isa 59:6; Mic 7:2, Mic 7:3

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Mal 2:10

Have we not all one Father? - o

Hath not one God created us? - Malachi turns abruptly to another offence, in which also the priests set an evil example, the capricious dismissal of their Hebrew wives and taking other women in their stead. Here, as before, he lays down, at the outset, a general moral principle, which he applies. "The one Father"(it appears from the parallel), is manifestly Almighty God, as the Jews said to our Lord Joh 8:41, "We have one Father, even God."He created them, not only as He did all mankind, but by the spiritual relationship with Himself, into which He brought them. So Isaiah speaks (Isa 43:1, Isa 43:7, Isa 43:21, add Isa 44:2, Isa 44:21, Isa 44:24), "Thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and He that formed thee, O Israel. Every one that is called by My Name; I have created Him for My glory; I have formed him; yea I have made him. This people have I formed for Myself; they shall show forth My praise."

And from the first in Moses’ song Deu 32:6, "Is not He thy Father that created thee? Hath He not made thee and established thee?"This creation of them by God, as His people, gave them a new existence, a new relation to each other; so that every offence against each other was a violation of their relation to God, who had given them this unity, and was, in a nearer sense than of any other, the common Father of all. "Why then,"the prophet adds, "do we deal treacherously, a man against his brother, to profane the covenant of our fathers?"He does not yet say, wherein this treacherous dealing consisted; but awakens them to the thought, that sin against a brother is sin against God, Who made him a brother; as, and much more under the Gospel, in which we are all members of one mystical body 1Co 8:12, "when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ."He speaks of the sin, as affecting those who did not commit it.

Why do we deal treacherously? So Isaiah, before his lips were cleansed by the mystical coal, said Isa 6:5, "I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips,"and the high priest Joshua was shown in the vision, clothed with defiled garments; (Zec 3:3-4. See ab. pp. 354, 355) and the sin of Achan became the "sin of the children of Israel"Jos 7:1, Jos 7:11, and David’ s sinful pride in numbering the people was visited upon all. 2 Sam. 24. He teaches beforehand, that 1Co 12:26, "whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it, or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it."They "profaned"also "the covenant of their fathers,"by marrying those whom God forbade, and who would seduce, as pagan wives had Solomon, from His worship. Paul in sanctioning the remarriage of widows, adds, "only 1Co 7:39. in the Lord,"i. e., Christian husbands. "He who treated as null the difference between the Israelites and a pagan woman, showed that the difference between the God of Israel and the God of the pagan had before become null to him, whence it follows."

Barnes: Mal 2:11

Treacherously has Judah dealt; an abomination is committed in Israel - The prophet, by the order of the words, emphasizes the "treachery"and the "abomination."This have they done; the very contrary to what was required of them as the people of God. He calls the remnant of Judah by the sacred name of the whole people, of whom they were the surviving representatives. The word "abomination"is a word belonging to the Hebrew, and is used especially of things offensive to, or separating from, Almighty God; idolatry, as the central dereliction of God, and involving offences against the laws of nature, but also all other sins, as adultery, which violate His most sacred laws and alienate from Him.

Hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which He loved - , in themselves, who had been separated and set apart by God to Himself as a Exo 19:6. "holy nation. Jer 2:3. Israel was holiness to the Lord.""The Lord is holy, perfect holiness; His name, holy; all things relating to Him, holy; His law, covenant and all His ordinances and institutions holy; Israel, His special people, an holy people; the temple and all things therein consecrated to Him, holy; Jerusalem, the city of the great God, holy; yea, the whole and of His inheritance, holy; so that whosoever doth not observe those due respects which to any of these belong, may be said to have profaned the holiness which He loved."

Unlawful marriages and unlawful lusts were in themselves a special profanation of that holiness. The high priest was to Lev 21:14-15, "take a virgin of his own people to wife, and not to profane his seed among the people."The priests who "married stranqe wives, defiled the priesthood and the covenant of the priesthood"Neh 13:29. The marriage with idolatresses brought, as one consequence, the profanation by their idolatries. The prohibition is an anticipation of the fuller revelation in the Gospel, that 1Co 6:15-20 the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and so, that "sins against the body"are profanations of the temple of God. "As those who acknowledge, worship and serve the true God are called His Deu 32:19; 2Co 6:18 sons and daughters, so they that worshiped any strange god are, by like reason, here called the daughters of that god. Hence, the Jews say, ‘ He that marrieth a pagan woman is, as if he made himself son-in-law to an idol. ‘ "

Hath married the daughter of a strange god - And so he came into closest relation with idols and with devils.

Barnes: Mal 2:12

The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar - , literally "The Lord cut off from the man that doeth this, watcher and answerer."A proverbial saying apparently, in which the two corresponding classes comprise the whole. Yet so, probably, that the one is the active agent; the other, the passive. The one as a "watcher"goes his rounds, to see that nothing stirreth against that which he is to guard; the other "answereth,"when roused. Together, they express the two opposite classes, active and passive sin; those who originate the sin, and those who adopt or retain it at the instigation of the inventor or active propagator of it. It will not exempt from punishment, that he was led into the sin.

From the tabernacles of Jacob - Perhaps "he chose the word, to remind them of their unsettled condition,"out of which God had brought them.

And him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts - i. e., him, who, doing these things, offereth an offering to God, to bribe Him, as it were, to connivance at his sin. In the same meaning, Isaiah says, that God hateth Isa 1:13. "iniquity and the solemn meeting,"and Isa 61:8, "I hate robbery with burnt-offering;"or Solomon Pro 15:8, "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord Pro 28:9; he that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, his prayer shall be an abomination."And God by Amos says , "I hate, I despise, your feast-days, and will not accept your solemn assemblies."In one sense the sacrifice was an aggravation, in that the worship of God made the offence either a sin against light, or implied that God might be bribed into connivance in the breaking of His laws. The ancient discipline of removing from communion those guilty of grievous sin was founded on this principle.

Barnes: Mal 2:13

And this ye have done again - , 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.

Insomuch that He regardeth not the offering anymore - 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.

Barnes: Mal 2:14

And ye say, Wherefore? - They again act the innocent, or half-ignorant. What had they to do with their wives’ womanly tears? He who knows the hearts of all was Himself the witness between them and the wife of youth of each; her to whom, in the first freshness of life and their young hearts, each had plighted his troth having been entrusted by her with her earthy all. Gen 31:49-50. "The Lord,"said even Laban, when parting from his daughters, "watch between me and thee, when we are absent, the one from the other; if thou shalt afflict my daughters, or if thou shalt take wives beside my daughters, no man is with us; see, God is witness between me and thee."

And he dealt treacherously against her - , violating his own faith and her trusting love, which she had given once for all, and could not now retract. "And she is thy companion;"she has been another self, the companion of thy life, sharing thy sorrows, joys, hopes, fears, interests; different in strength, yet in all, good and ill, sickness and health, thy associate and companion; the help meet for the husband and provided for him by God in Paradise; and above all, "the wife of thy covenant,"to whom thou didst pledge thyself before God. These are so many aggravations of their sin. She was the wife of their youth, of their covenant, their companion; and God was the Witness and Sanctifier of their union. Marriage was instituted and consecrated by God in Paradise. Man was to leave father and mother (if so be), but to cleave to his wife indissolubly. For they were to be Mat 19:6, "no more twain, but one flesh."Hence, as a remnant of Paradise, even the pagan knew of marriage, as a religious act, guarded by religious sanctions. Among God’ s people, marriage was a Pro 2:17 "covenant of their God."To that original institution of marriage he seems to refer in the following:

Barnes: Mal 2:15

And did not He - , 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."

Yet had he the residue of the spirit - Gen 2:7, "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, "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, and, therefore, should be of one mind and spirit also, the unity of which they ought faithfully to preserve.

And wherefore one? - " 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 man’ s natural feeling, "let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth."

Barnes: Mal 2:16

He hateth putting away - o He had allowed it "for the hardness of their hearts,"yet only in the one case of some extreme bodily foulness discovered upon marriage, and which the woman, knowing the law, concealed at her own peril. Not subsequent illness or any consequences of it, however loathsome (as leprosy), were a ground of divorce, but only this concealed foulness, which the husband "found"upon marriage. The capricious tyrannical divorce, God saith, "He hateth:"a word Naturally used only as to sin, and so stamping such divorce as sin.

One covereth violence with his garment - o or, "and violence covereth his garment,"or, it might be, in the same sense, "he covereth his garment with violence", so that it cannot be hid, nor washed away, nor removed, but envelopes him and his garment; and that, to his shame and punishment.

It was, as it were, an outer garment of violence, as Asaph says Psa 73:6, "violence covereth them as a garment;"or David Psa 109:18, "he clothed himself with cursing as with a garment."It was like a garment with "fretting leprosy,"unclean and making unclean, to be burned with fire. Lev 13:47-58. Contrariwise, the redeemed saints had Rev 7:14 "washed their robes and made them white in the Blood of the Lamb."Having declared God’ s hatred of this their doing, he sums up in the same words, but more briefly; "and this being so, ye shall take heed to your spirit, and not deal treacherously."

Poole: Mal 2:10

Ver. 10 Have we we Jews,

not all one father? either Abraham, or Jacob, (not Adam here intended,) with whom God made the covenant by which the posterity was made a peculiar people, separated from other nations, and on very weighty reasons forbid to join and intermix with strange nations. Hath not one God created us? the prophet speaks of that great and gracious work of God, creating them to be a chosen people, a nation formed to show forth his praise, Deu 32:6,18 Isa 43:1,7 ; and so we Christians are created in Christ Jesus, Eph 2:10 , and are in him new creatures, 2Co 5:17 .

Why do we? the prophet was not guilty of the fault, yet speaks as one of the community, partly to take off the envy of the Jews, and to cut off all occasion of quarrelling against his word, and partly to insinuate the sense he had of this thing, and the affection he had for them, though he reproved them.

Deal treacherously despise, so some, break our faith in the marriage contract engaged, so carry it disloyally, against the duty we owe to God’ s law, which equally binds us as our wives to mutual love, honour, and faithfulness; and why then do we take heathen wives, (it is bad if a Jew unmarried do it, but here now the case is worse,) Jewish wives being disliked, rejected, and so greatly despised? Why do we this against the bond of consanguinity? And do we sons of Abraham abuse thus the daughters of Abraham? Why do we so little regard the bond of religion? We are people, sons and daughters, of one God, who hath called us, separated us from the heathen to keep religion pure and unmixed; why then do we transgress thus?

Every man the fault was very common, among the people and priests too, and since their return out of Babylon.

Against his brother: this wrong was done immediately against the wife, but the father, brothers, or kinsmen of the wronged wife are mediately, and by consequence, wronged; the whole family of the wife thus used is perfidiously abused, but brothers, as principal of the family, are named.

By profaning the covenant violating the covenant of God, the law, which approves no polygamy, and forbids marrying of idolaters.

Poole: Mal 2:11

Judah: though Judah only is named, yet the rest of the returned captives are included.

Dealt treacherously: see Mal 2:10 .

An abomination such treachery is a very abominable thing, God and all good men abhor it, and yet here it is committed in Israel, who are God’ s peculiar people, and above others should have been holy.

And in Jerusalem under the eye of the governors, the high priest and sanhedrim, nay, under the eye of God, who dwelt at Jerusalem; this could not but greatly provoke God.

Profaned the holiness of the Lord: profanely violated the necessary cautionary law of marriage, confining Israel to marry within themselves, and not to endanger themselves and religion by joining affinity with idolaters, who would draw them and their children from the holy law, worship, and temple of God, which are the holiness that he loved.

Which he loved which he, i.e. Judah, once loved; so it was apostacy in Judah. Or which he , i.e. the Lord, loved above all; so it is a neglect of a main duty, it is slighting what God so greatly loved.

And hath married the daughter of a strange god: Ezr 9:1 10:2, mentions what nations they were whose daughters were by these Jews taken for wives, they were idolatrous nations, and the women were idolatresses when the Jews did marry them. This was bad; but these Jews had wives before, and they cast them off, or else took in these strangers and despised their former wives: this is the treachery and abomination that is here committed.

Poole: Mal 2:12

The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this the family of those who do this shall be destroyed utterly by the hand of God, he will punish this crime.

The master and the scholar him that calleth and him that answereth; there shall be left neither any to teach nor any to learn, none to call nor any to answer, all the living cut off.

Out of the tabernacles of Jacob: this points to the people, or laity, who dwelt in the cities of Jacob, they shall be rooted out of the land.

And him that offereth an offering the priests that are guilty of this fault shall be put out of the office of priest, and minister no more before the Lord.

Poole: Mal 2:13

This have ye done again 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.

Covering the altar of the Lord with tears your despised and misused wives flee to the temple, weep, and cry out unto God for redress of their injuries.

With weeping: this is added to show the abundance of their tears.

With crying out with vehemency crying to God against such husbands.

Insomuch that he the Lord, who seeth their tears and heareth their cries,

regardeth not the offering any more 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.

This have ye done again 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.

Covering the altar of the Lord with tears your despised and misused wives flee to the temple, weep, and cry out unto God for redress of their injuries.

With weeping: this is added to show the abundance of their tears.

With crying out with vehemency crying to God against such husbands.

Insomuch that he the Lord, who seeth their tears and heareth their cries,

regardeth not the offering any more 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.

Poole: Mal 2:14

Yet ye say, Wherefore? though the fault was so great in the nature of it, and so notorious in the evidence of it, these impudent sinners will not see, but dispute what just cause God hath to reject their offerings.

Because the Lord hath been witness: the prophet answers them God was witness both of the matrimonial contract, when you promised other deportment and affections, and he is witness also of your violating this contract, and hath seen how false and perfidious you have been, what inhumanity you have showed against your wives.

Between thee and the wife of thy youth whom in thy youth thou marriedst, and hast had the best of her time and strength, and in age shouldst love and deal kindly with.

Dealt treacherously: see Mal 2:10 .

Yet is she thy companion yet she is, what she was by the sacred institution of God made, thy companion, not thy drudge, or slave; thou art most unjust to her, thus to change thy affection and deportment when there is no change in her state and relation.

And the wife of thy covenant: covenants ought to be very exactly kept, and those especially which are of our own freest and most voluntary making, our covenants; such was this between the unnatural husband and his despised wife: all which, as they should have been arguments to his duty, so they are aggravations of his neglect of duty, and provocations to God. And now judge, ye disputing, quarrelling hypocrites, whether God hath not justest cause to reject your offerings.

Poole: Mal 2:15

And did he God our Creator, not make one, but one man and one woman?

Yet had he the residue of the spirit 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 .

And wherefore one one couple, and no more?

That he might seek a godly seed 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.

Take heed to your spirit keep your heart from wandering after strange wives, as you tender your life and souls.

Let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth though many have done so, let none now do it any more.

Poole: Mal 2:16

The prophet enforceth his former exhortation, Mal 2:15 , with the arguments laid here close together from the odiousness of the thing he exhorts them to forbear. It is odious to the Lord, who changeth not, but resents this evil practice as much as ever. God, Judge of wrongs and the wronged, hates such wrong.

God of Israel by covenant, and in peculiar relation, and so much more engaged to punish it; and he now declares his hatred of these things.

Putting away divorce, such putting away of wives as these petulant Jews used to make way for some new wives.

For one covereth violence with his garment rather, and covering violence, &c., which God hates as much as divorcing or putting away. This superinducing of violence by a second wife taken in upon, or with, or over the first wife, called here a garment , God hateth. In sum, neither your divorces nor your polygamy may with safety be practised, for God hateth both.

Therefore take heed to your spirit and therefore be advised, take heed, as you love your life, your souls, your peace, and welfare, that ye deal not treacherously; neither on dislike divorce, nor yet, with unbridled lust, take another wife in to the former; both are perfidious treachery against her, thy covenant, and thy God; and what canst thou expect from such courses that God hateth, but to be cut off.

The prophet enforceth his former exhortation, Mal 2:15 , with the arguments laid here close together from the odiousness of the thing he exhorts them to forbear. It is odious to the Lord, who changeth not, but resents this evil practice as much as ever. God, Judge of wrongs and the wronged, hates such wrong.

God of Israel by covenant, and in peculiar relation, and so much more engaged to punish it; and he now declares his hatred of these things.

Putting away divorce, such putting away of wives as these petulant Jews used to make way for some new wives.

For one covereth violence with his garment rather, and covering violence, &c., which God hates as much as divorcing or putting away. This superinducing of violence by a second wife taken in upon, or with, or over the first wife, called here a garment , God hateth. In sum, neither your divorces nor your polygamy may with safety be practised, for God hateth both.

Therefore take heed to your spirit and therefore be advised, take heed, as you love your life, your souls, your peace, and welfare, that ye deal not treacherously; neither on dislike divorce, nor yet, with unbridled lust, take another wife in to the former; both are perfidious treachery against her, thy covenant, and thy God; and what canst thou expect from such courses that God hateth, but to be cut off.

The prophet enforceth his former exhortation, Mal 2:15 , with the arguments laid here close together from the odiousness of the thing he exhorts them to forbear. It is odious to the Lord, who changeth not, but resents this evil practice as much as ever. God, Judge of wrongs and the wronged, hates such wrong.

God of Israel by covenant, and in peculiar relation, and so much more engaged to punish it; and he now declares his hatred of these things.

Putting away divorce, such putting away of wives as these petulant Jews used to make way for some new wives.

For one covereth violence with his garment rather, and covering violence, &c., which God hates as much as divorcing or putting away. This superinducing of violence by a second wife taken in upon, or with, or over the first wife, called here a garment , God hateth. In sum, neither your divorces nor your polygamy may with safety be practised, for God hateth both.

Therefore take heed to your spirit and therefore be advised, take heed, as you love your life, your souls, your peace, and welfare, that ye deal not treacherously; neither on dislike divorce, nor yet, with unbridled lust, take another wife in to the former; both are perfidious treachery against her, thy covenant, and thy God; and what canst thou expect from such courses that God hateth, but to be cut off.

Haydock: Mal 2:10

Brother, in distress, 2 Esdras v. 1. St. Jerome mentions the tradition of the Jews, which supposed that the captives at their return dismissed their wives, and married young ones, though strangers, ver. 11. But this is not probable. Such women were ordered to be dismissed, 1 Esdras ix. 1., and 2 Esdras xiii. 23. (Calmet)

Haydock: Mal 2:11

God, or one addicted to idol-worship, (Haydock) which was contrary to the law, Deuteronomy vii. 3. (Calmet) ---

Septuagint, "the holy things of the Lord, by what he has loved and done for strange gods." (Haydock)

Haydock: Mal 2:12

Master. Hebrew, "the watcher, and him who answers," on guard. (Calmet) ---

Septuagint, "doth such things, till he be tumbled out," &c. ---

Him. Septuagint, "and out of those who offer a sacrifice to," &c. Such people shall be excluded from the society of God's servants. (Haydock)

Haydock: Mal 2:13

With tears; viz., by occasion of your wives, whom you have put away, and who came to weep and lament before the altar. (Challoner) ---

Though divorces were tolerated, (Matthew xix. 6.) the more virtuous did not approve of them, particularly when a wife is put away who had been married in youth. See ver. 10. Perhaps this corruption had crept in, like others, (Calmet) owing to the people's commerce with strangers. (Diodorus in Photius.)

Haydock: Mal 2:15

His spirit. Eve received a soul from God, like Adam. Hebrew, "One ( Abraham, Chaldean styled one, Ezechiel xxxiii. 24.) did it not, and he had the," &c. Septuagint vary. The text is very obscure. (Calmet) See Cap. Crit. iv. p. 317.; Grabe prologue. ---

A strange god did not make women. The human race is best propagated, where polygamy and divorces are rejected. (Haydock)

Haydock: Mal 2:16

Garment; viz., of every man that putteth away his wife without just cause; notwithstanding that God permitted it in the law, to prevent the evil of murder. (Challoner) ---

Septuagint, "iniquity shall cover your thoughts." (Haydock) ---

It should be "garments," Greek: endumata, though St. Jerome and the printed edition read Greek: enthumemata, (Calmet) "thoughts." The first part contains the objection, and the second God's reply. (St. Jerome) (Haydock)

Gill: Mal 2:10

Have we not all one father?.... Whether this is understood of Adam the first man, of whose blood all nations of the earth are made, and who in the same sense is the father of all living, as Eve was the mother of all living; or of Abraham the father of the Jewish people, of whom, as their father, they used to glory; or of Jacob, as Kimchi and Aben Ezra interpret it, whom the Jews used to call our father Jacob; or of God, who is the Father of all men by creation, and of the Jews by national adoption of them; and who may the rather be thought to be meant, since it follows,

hath not one God created us? either as men, or formed us as a body politic; which may serve to explain what is meant by their having one father: whichever is the sense of these words, the argument from hence is strong; that there ought to be no partiality used in the law, or any respect had to persons, in that the rich and the poor have all one Father and one Creator; see Jam 2:1,

why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother; by perverting justice, having respect to persons, favouring one to the prejudice of another, as it follows:

by profaning the covenant of your fathers? the covenant made with them at Sinai, as Jarchi explains it; the law that was then enjoined them, particularly such as forbid respect of persons, Lev 19:15 some think, as Aben Ezra, that a new section here begins, and that the prophet proceeds to a new reproof, and for another sin these people were guilty of, in marrying wives of another nation, contrary to the law in Exo 34:15 which was dealing treacherously with one another, and profaning the covenant of their fathers.

Gill: Mal 2:11

Judah hath dealt treacherously,.... Not only every man against his brother, by being partial in the law; or against the women of their nation, by marrying others; or against their wives, by putting them away; but against Christ the Son of God by betraying and delivering him up into the hands of the Gentiles, to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified:

and an abomination is committed in Israel, and in Jerusalem; which was the taking of the true Messiah with wicked hands, condemning him and putting him to death, even the shameful and accursed death of the cross; which was done in the land of Israel, and in and near the city of Jerusalem:

for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord, which he loved; Christ, who is the Lord's Holy One, holiness itself, the most holy, and holiness to the Lord for his people; and who is his dear Son, the Son of his love, whom he loved from everlasting, continued to love in time amidst all his meanness, sorrows, and sufferings, and will love for evermore; him the Jews profaned by blaspheming him, falsely accusing him, and condemning him; by spitting upon him, buffeting, scourging, and crucifying him: some interpret this "holiness" of the soul of Judah, which was holy before the Lord, and loved, as the Targum; so Jarchi of Judah himself, or Israel, who was holiness to the Lord; and others of the holy place, the sanctuary, and all holy things belonging thereto; and others of the holy state of marriage, since it follows:

and hath married the daughter of a strange god; which the Targum paraphrases thus,

"and they were pleased to take to them wives, the daughters of the people;''

the Gentiles, such as Moabites, Ammonites, and the like: and this sense is followed by most interpreters, though the phrase seems rather to be expressive of idolatry; and so the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic versions interpret it of their being intent upon, and serving, strange gods; and as the Jews rejected the Son of God, and his word, ordinances, and worship, they had not the true God, nor did they worship him, but became guilty of idolatry; and besides, as they rejected the King Messiah from being their King, so they declared they had no king but Caesar, an idolatrous emperor, and joined with the idolatrous Gentiles in putting Christ to death, Joh 19:12.

Gill: Mal 2:12

The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this,.... That is guilty of such treachery, wickedness, and idolatry: or "to the man that doeth this" ^y; all that belong to him, his children and substance: it denotes the utter destruction, not of a single man and his family only, but of the whole Jewish nation and its polity, civil and ecclesiastical, as follows:

the master and the scholar out of the tabernacles of Jacob; the Targum paraphrases it,

"the son, and son's son, out of the cities of Jacob;''

agreeable to which is Kimchi's note,

"it is as if it was said, there shall not be left in his house one alive; that there shall not be in his house one that answers him, that calls by name.''

In the Hebrew text it is, "him that is awake, and him that answers" ^z; which the Talmudists ^a explain, the former of the wise men or masters, and the latter of the disciples of the wise men; to which sense our version agrees: but by "him that waketh or watcheth", according to Cocceius, is meant the civil magistrate, who watches for the good of the commonwealth, and so may design the elders and rulers of the people; and by him that "answereth", the prophet, who returns answers when he is consulted in things belonging to the law of God, and such were the scribes and lawyers.

And him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts; the priests, that offered sacrifice for the people; so that hereby is threatened an entire destruction, both of the civil and ecclesiastical polity of the Jews, that there should be no prince, prophet, and priest among them; all should be removed out of the tents of Jacob, or cities of Israel; see Hos 3:4.

Gill: Mal 2:13

And this have ye done again,.... Or "in the second" ^b place; to their rejection and ill treatment of Christ they added their hypocritical prayers and tears, as follows:

covering the altar of the Lord with tears and weeping, and with crying out; 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; 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:

insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand; 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 Dan 9:27.

Gill: Mal 2:14

Yet ye say, Wherefore?.... What is the meaning of the women covering the altar with tears? as if they knew not what was the reason of it, when they were so notoriously guilty of breach of covenant with them; which is an instance of their impudence, as Abarbinel observes: or, "if ye say, wherefore?" as the Targum and Kimchi interpret the words; should you say, what is the reason why the Lord will not regard nor receive our offerings? the answer is ready,

Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth: when espoused together in their youthful days, the Lord was present at that solemn contract, and saw the obligations they were laid under to each other, and he was called upon by both parties to be a witness of the same; and at the present time he was a witness how agreeably the wives of the Israelites had behaved towards their husbands, and how treacherously they had acted towards them; he saw and knew, that, whatever pretensions they made, they did not love them, nor behave as they should towards them; and therefore had just cause of complaint against them, and must be a witness for the one, and against the other: this sin of hating and divorcing their wives, or of marrying others besides them, which prevailed much in our Lord's time, is particularly mentioned, though they were guilty of many other sins, as a reason of the Lord's not accepting their offerings: the aggravations of it are, that they had broken a contract God was witness to, and dealt injuriously with wives they had espoused in the days of their youth; see Pro 2:17,

against whom thou hast dealt treacherously; by divorce or polygamy: the Vulgate Latin version renders it, "whom thou hast despised": and the Septuagint and Arabic versions, "whom thou hast left"; divorced and took others, which arose from hatred and contempt of their former: other aggravations follow:

yet is she thy companion; or, "and she is", or "though she is thy companion" ^c: has been so in time past, and ought to be so still, and so accounted: the wife is a part of a man's self, is one flesh with him; a partaker of what he has; a partner with him in prosperity and adversity; a companion in life, civil and religious, and ought to remain so till death part them; for, whom God has put together, let no man put asunder:

and the wife of thy covenant; wherefore either to divorce her, or marry another, was a breach of covenant; for by "covenant" is not meant the covenant of God made with the people of Israel, in which they both were; but the covenant of marriage made between them, and which was broken by such practices.

Gill: Mal 2:15

And did not he make one?.... 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:

Yet had he the residue of the spirit; 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:

And wherefore one? 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,

That he might seek a godly seed; or "a seed of God" ^d; a noble excellent seed; a legitimate offspring, born in true and lawful wedlock; see 1Co 7:14 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:

Therefore take heed to your spirit; 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:

and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth; 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? 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. The Targum is,

"was not one Abraham alone, from whom the world was created?''

or propagated. Kimchi gives it as his own sense, in these words;

"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;''

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, Gal 3:16 "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 Gen 4:25, "she called his name Seth, for God hath appointed me another seed",

"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.''

And the same Rabbi elsewhere ⁱ observes, on those words in Gen 19:32, "that we may preserve seed of our father",

"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.''

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,

"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;''

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.

Gill: Mal 2:16

For the Lord the God of Israel saith, that he hateth putting away,.... The divorcing of wives; for though this was suffered because of the hardness of their hearts, it was not approved of by the Lord; nor was it from the beginning; and it was disagreeable, and even hateful to him, Mat 19:8 in the margin of some Bibles the words are rendered, "if he hate her, put her away"; and so the Targum,

"but if thou hatest her, put her away;''

to which agree the Vulgate Latin, Septuagint, and Arabic versions; and this sense made mention of in both Talmuds, and is thought to be agreeable to the law in Deu 24:3 though the law there speaks of a fact that might be, and not of what ought to be; wherefore the former sense is best; and this other seems to have been at first calculated to favour the practice of the Jews, who put away their wives through hatred to them. The Jews were very much inclined to divorce their wives upon very trivial occasions; if they did not dress their food well, were not of good behaviour, or not so modest as became the daughters of Israel; if they did not find favour with their husbands; and, especially, if they had entertained a hatred of them: so says R. Judah ^k,

"if he hate her, let him put her away:''

but this is by some of them restrained to a second wife; for of the first they say,

"it is not proper to be hasty to put away a first wife; but a second, if he hates her, let him put her away ^l''

and R. Eleazer says ^m, whoever divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears for him, referring to the words in Mal 2:13 and divorces of this kind they only reckon lawful among the Israelites, and found it upon this passage; for so they make God to speak after this manner ⁿ,

"in Israel I have granted divorces; among the nations of the world I have not granted divorces. R. Chananiah, in the name of R. Phinehas, observes, that in every other section it is written, "the Lord of hosts"; but here it is written, "the God of Israel", to teach thee that the holy blessed God does not put his name to divorces (or allow them) but in Israel only. R. Chayah Rabba says, the Gentiles have no divorces.''

But some of them have better understanding of these words, and more truly give the sense of them thus, as R. Jochanan does, who interprets them,

"the putting away of the wife is hateful ^o;''

it is so to God, and ought not to be done by men but in case of adultery, as our Lord has taught, Mat 5:32 and which was the doctrine of the school of Shammai in Christ's time, who taught,

"that no man should divorce his wife, unless he found in her filthiness;''

i.e. that she was guilty of adultery; though this Maimonides restrains to the first wife, as before: but the house of Hillell, who lived in the same time, was of a different mind, and taught that

"if she burnt his food;''

either over dressed or over salted it, according to Deu 24:1. R. Akiba says, if he found another more beautiful than her, according to Deu 24:1, he might divorce her ^p; of the form of a divorce; see Gill on Mat 5:31. Those interpreters among Christians that go this way do not look upon this as an approbation of divorce, on account of hatred; but that so to do is better than to retain them with hatred of them, seeing it was connived at, or than to take other wives with them.

For one covereth violence with his garment, or "on his garment",

saith the Lord of hosts; as he that puts away his wife does her an open injury, which though he may cover, pretending the law, which connives at divorces; yet the violence done to his wife is as manifest as the garment upon his back: though those who think the former words are an instruction to put away wives, when hated, consider this as a reason why they should do so; because, by retaining them, and yet hating them, and taking other wives to them, is doing them a real injury, whatever cover or pretence may be used; because, if dismissed, they might be loved by, and married to, other men. Aben Ezra seems to have hit the sense of these words, when he makes this to be the object of God's hatred, as well as the former; his note is,

"the Lord hateth him that putteth away his wife that is pure, and he hates him that covereth; or God sees his violence which is done in secret.''

Mr. Pocock proposes a conjecture, which is very ingenious and probable, that as the words will bear the construction Aben Ezra gives, that God hates putting away, and hates that one should put violence upon or over his garment; by "garment" he thinks may be meant a man's lawful wife, which is as a garment to him; and by "violence" a second wife, or other wives, taken to the injury, hurt, and vexation of the former; and the covering, or superinducing violence over the garment, is marrying an unlawful wife, over or with, or above his lawful one: and the sense is, that as God hates divorce, so he hates polygamy:

therefore take heed to your spirit, that you deal not treacherously; See Gill on Mal 2:15.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Mal 2:10

¹ sn The rhetorical question Do we not all have one father? by no means teaches the “universal fatherhood of God,” that is, that all people equally are children of God. The reference to the covenant in v. 10 as well as to Israel and Judah (v. 11) makes it clear that the referent of “we” is God’s elect people.

NET Notes: Mal 2:11

¹ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

² tn Or perhaps “secularized”; cf. NIV “desecrated”; TEV, NLT “defiled”; CEV “disgraced.”

³ tn Heb “has married the daughter of a foreign god.” Marriage is used here as a metaphor to describe Judah’s idolatry, that is, her unfaithfulness to the Lord and “remarriage” to pagan gods. But spiritual intermarriage found expression in literal, physical marriage as well, as vv. 14-16 indicate.

NET Notes: Mal 2:12

¹ tn Heb “tents,” used figuratively for the community here (cf. NCV, TEV); NLT “the nation of Israel.”

² tc Heb “every man who does this, him who is awake and him who answers.” For “answers” the LXX suggests an underlying Hebrew text of עָנָה (’anah, “to be humbled”), and then the whole phrase is modified slightly: “until he is humbled.” This requires also that the MT עֵר (’er, “awake”) be read as עֵד (’ed, “until”; here the LXX reads ἕως, Jews). The reading of the LXX is most likely an alteration to correct what is arguably a difficult text.

tn Heb “every man who does this, him who is awake and him who answers.” The idea seems to be a merism expressing totality, that is, everybody from the awakener to the awakened, thus “every last person who does this” (NLT similar); NIV “whoever he may be.”

NET Notes: Mal 2:13

¹ sn You cover the altar of the Lord with tears. These tears are the false tears of hypocrisy, not genuine tears of repentance. The people weep because the Lord will not hear them, not because of their sin.

NET Notes: Mal 2:14

¹ tn Heb “the Lord is a witness between you and [between] the wife of your youth.”

² sn Though there is no explicit reference to marriage vows in the OT (but see Job 7:13; Prov 2:17; Ezek 16:8), the term law (Heb “covenant”) here asserts that such vows or agreements must have existed. References to divorce documents (e.g., Deut 24:1-3; Jer 3:8) also presuppose the existence of marriage documents.

NET Notes: Mal 2:15

¹ tn Heb “and not one has done, and a remnant of the spirit to him.” The very elliptical nature of the statement suggests it is proverbial. The present translation represents an attempt to clarify the meaning of the statement (cf. NASB).

² tn Heb “the one.” This is an oblique reference to Abraham who sought to obtain God’s blessing by circumventing God’s own plan for him by taking Hagar as wife (Gen 16:1-6). The result of this kind of intermarriage was, of course, disastrous (Gen 16:11-12).

³ sn The wife he took in his youth probably refers to the first wife one married (cf. NCV “the wife you married when you were young”).

NET Notes: Mal 2:16

¹ tc The verb שָׂנֵא (sane’) appears to be a third person form, “he hates,” which makes little sense in the context, unless one emends the following word to a third person verb as well. Then one might translate, “he [who] hates [his wife] [and] divorces her…is guilty of violence.” A similar translation is advocated by M. A. Shields, “Syncretism and Divorce in Malachi 2,10-16,” ZAW 111 (1999): 81-85. However, it is possible that the first person pronoun אָנֹכִי (’anokhi, “I”) has accidentally dropped from the text after כִּי (ki). If one restores the pronoun, the form שָׂנֵא can be taken as a participle and the text translated, “for I hate” (so NAB, NASB, NRSV, NLT).

sn Though the statement “I hate divorce” may (and should) be understood as a comprehensive biblical principle, the immediate context suggests that the divorce in view is that of one Jewish person by another in order to undertake subsequent marriages. The injunction here by no means contradicts Ezra’s commands to Jewish men to divorce their heathen wives (Ezra 9–10).

² tn Heb “him who covers his garment with violence” (similar ASV, NRSV). Here “garment” is a metaphor for appearance and “violence” a metonymy of effect for cause. God views divorce as an act of violence against the victim.

Geneva Bible: Mal 2:10

Have we not all one ^{( n )} father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of ^{( o )} our fathers?

^{( n )} The Prophet accuses the ingratitude of the Jews toward God and man: for seeing they were all born of one father Abraham, as God had elected them to be his holy people, they ought neither to offend God nor their brethren.

^{( o )} By which they had bound themselves to God to be a holy people.

Geneva Bible: Mal 2:11

Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the ^{( p )} daughter of a strange god.

^{( p )} They have united themselves in marriage with those that are of another religion.

Geneva Bible: Mal 2:12

The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that ^{( q )} offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.

^{( q )} That is, the priest.

Geneva Bible: Mal 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.

^{( r )} Yet cause the people to lament, because God does not regard their sacrifices, so that they seem to sacrifice in vain.

Geneva Bible: Mal 2:14

Yet ye say, ^{( s )} Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet [is] she thy ^{( t )} companion, and the wife of thy ^{( u )} covenant.

^{( s )} This is another fault, of which he accuses them, that is, that they broke the laws of marriage.

^{( t )} As the one half of yourself.

^{( u )} She that was united to you by a solemn covenant, and by the invocation of God's name.

Geneva Bible: Mal 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.

^{( x )} Did not God make man and woman as one flesh and not many?

^{( y )} By his power and strength he could have made many women for one man.

^{( z )} Those who should be born in lawful and moderate marriage, in which is no excess of lusts.

^{( a )} Contain yourselves within your bounds, and be sober in mind, and bridle your affections.

Geneva Bible: Mal 2:16

For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he ^{( b )} hateth putting away: for [one] covereth ^{( c )} violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

^{( b )} Not that he allows divorce, but of two faults he shows which is the less.

^{( c )} He thinks it sufficient to keep his wife still, even though he takes others, and so as it were covers his fault.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Mal 2:1-17

1 He sharply reproves the priests for neglecting their covenant;

10 and the people for marrying strange wives;

13 and for putting away their former ones,

17 and for infidelity.

Maclaren: Mal 2:12-14

A Dialogue With God

The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, out of the tents of Jacob, 14. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth,'--Malachi 2:12-14. (R.V.).

IT is obvious from the whole context that divorce and foreign inter- marriage were becoming increasingly prevalent in Malachi's time. The conditions in these respects were nearly similar to that prevailing in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah. It is these sins which the Prophet is here vehemently condemning, and for which he threatens to cut off the transgressors out of the tents of Jacob, and to regard no more their offerings and simulated worship. They might cover the altar of the Lord with tears,' but the sacrifice which they laid upon it was polluted by the sins of their daily domestic life, and therefore was not regarded by Him any more.' Malachi is true to the prophetic spirit when he denounces a religion which has the form of godliness without its power over the practical life. But his sharp accusations have their edge turned by the question, Wherefore?' which again calls out from the Prophet's lips a more sharply-pointed accusation, and a solemner warning that none should deal treacherously against the wife of his youth,' for I hate putting away, saith the Lord.' We may dismiss any further reference to the circumstances of the text, and regard it as but one instance of man's way of treating the voice of God when it warns of the consequences of the sin of man. Looked at from such a point of view the words of our text bring before us God's merciful threatenings and man's incredulous rejection of them.

I. God's Merciful Threatenings.

The fact of sin affects God's relation to and dealings with the sinner. It does not prevent the flowing forth of His love, which is not drawn out by anything in us, but wells up from the depths of His being, like the Jordan from its source at Dan, a broad stream gushing forth from the rock. But that love which is the outgoing of perfect moral purity must necessarily become perfect opposition to its own opposite in the sinfulness of man. The divine character is many-sided, and whilst to the pure' it' shows itself pure,' it cannot but be that to the froward' it will show itself froward.' Man's sin has for its most certain and dreadful consequence that, if we may so say, it forces God to present the stern side of His nature which hates evil. But not merely does sin thus modify the fact of the divine relation to men, but it throws men into opposition in which they can see only the darkness which dwells in the light of God. To the eye looking through a red tinted medium all things are red, and even the crystal sea before the throne is a sea of glass mingled with fire.'

No sin can stay our reception of a multitude of good gifts appealing to our hearts and revealing the patient love of our Father in heaven, but every sin draws after it as certainly as the shadow follows the substance, evil consequences which work themselves out on the large scale in nations and communities, and in the smaller spheres of individual life. And surely it is the voice of love and not of anger that comes to warn us of the death which is the wages of sin. It is not God who has ordained that the soul that sinneth it shall die,' but it is God who tells us so. The train is rushing full steam ahead to the broken bridge, and will crash down the gulph and be huddled, a hideous ruin, on the rocks; surely it is care for life that holds out the red flag of danger, and surely God is not to be blamed if in spite of the flag full speed is kept up and the crash comes.

The miseries and sufferings which follow our sins are self-inflicted, and for the most part automatic. Whatsoever a man soweth, that'--and not some other crop' will he also reap.' The wages of sin are paid in ready money; and it is as just to lay them at God's door as it would be to charge Him with inflicting the disease which the dissolute man brings upon himself. It is no arbitrary appointment of God's that he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption'; nor is it His will acting as that of a jealous despot which makes it inevitably true that here and hereafter, Every transgression and disobedience shall receive its just recompense of reward,' and that to be parted from Him is death.

If then we rightly understand the connection between sin and suffering, and the fact that the sorrows which are but the echoes of preceding sins have all a distinctly moral and restorative purpose, we are prepared rightly to estimate how tenderly the God who warns us against our sins by what men call threatenings loves us while He speaks.

II. Man's Rejection Of God's Merciful Threatenings.

It is the great mystery and tragedy of life that men oppose themselves to God's merciful warnings that all sin is a bitter, because it is an evil, thing. He has to lament,' I have smitten your children, and they have received no correction.' The question' Wherefore?' is asked in very various tones, but none of them has in it the accent of true conviction; and there is a whole world of difference between the lowly petition, Show me wherefore Thou contendest with me,' and the curt, self-complacent brushing aside of God's merciful threatenings in the text. The last thing which most of us think of as the cause of our misfortunes is ourselves; and we resent as almost an insult the word, which if we were wise, we should welcome as the crowning proof of the seeking love of our Father in heaven. We are more obstinate and foolish than Balaam, who persisted in his purpose when the angel with the drawn sword in his hand would have barred his way, not to the tree of life, but to death. The awful mystery that a human will can, and the yet sadder mystery that it does, set itself against the divine, is never more unintelligible, never so stupid, and never so tragic as when God says, Turn ye, turn ye, why will ye die?' and we say, Why need I die? I will not turn.'

The Wherefore?' of our text is widely asked in the present day as an expression of utter bewilderment at the miseries of humanity, both in the wide area of this disordered world and in the narrower field of individual lives. There are whole schools of so-called political and social thinkers who have yet to learn that the one thing which the world and the individual need is not a change of conditions or environment, but redemption from sin. Man's sorrows are but a symptom of his disease, and he is no more to be healed by tinkering with these than a fever-stricken patient can be restored to health by treating the blotches on his skin which tell of the disease that courses through his veins.

But sometimes the question is more than an expression of bewilderment; it conceals an arraignment of God's justice, or even a denial that there is a God at all. There are men among us who hesitate not to avow that the miseries of the world have rooted out of their minds a belief in Him; and who point to all the ills under which humanity staggers as conclusive against the ancient faith of a God of love. They, too, forget that that love is righteousness, and that if there be sin in the world and God above it, He must necessarily war against it and hate it.

Our right response to God's merciful threatenings is to ask this question in the right spirit. We are not wise if we turn a deaf ear to His warnings, or go on in a headlong course which He by His providences declared to be dangerous and fatal. We use them as wise men should, only if our Wherefore?' is asked in order to learn our evil, and having learned it, to purge our bosoms of the perilous stuff by confession and to seek pardon and victory in Christ. Then we shall know the secret of the Lord' which is with them that fear Him'; and the mysteries that still hang over our own histories and the world's destiny will have shining down upon them the steadfast light of that love which seeks to make men blessed by making them good.

MHCC: Mal 2:10-17

Corrupt practices are the fruit of corrupt principles; and he who is false to his God, will not be true to his fellow mortals. In contempt of the marriage covenant, which God instituted, the Jews put away the wives they had of their own nation, probably to make room for strange wives. They made their lives bitter to them; yet, in the sight of others, they pretend to be tender of them. Consider she is thy wife; thy own; the nearest relation thou hast in the world. The wife is to be looked on, not as a servant, but as a companion to the husband. There is an oath of God between them, which is not to be trifled with. Man and wife should continue to their lives' end, in holy love and peace. Did not God make one, one Eve for one Adam? Yet God could have made another Eve. Wherefore did he make but one woman for one man? It was that the children might be made a seed to serve him. Husbands and wives must live in the fear of God, that their seed may be a godly seed. The God of Israel saith that he hateth putting away. Those who would be kept from sin, must take heed to their spirits, for there all sin begins. Men will find that their wrong conduct in their families springs from selfishness, which disregards the welfare and happiness of others, when opposed to their own passions and fancies. It is wearisome to God to hear people justify themselves in wicked practices. Those who think God can be a friend to sin, affront him, and deceive themselves. The scoffers said, Where is the God of judgement? but the day of the Lord will come.

Matthew Henry: Mal 2:10-17

Corrupt practices are the genuine fruit and product of corrupt principles; and the badness of men's hearts and lives is owing to some loose atheistical notions which they have got and which they govern themselves by. Now, in these verses, we have an instance of this; we here find men dealing falsely with one another, and it is because they think falsely of their God. Observe,

I. How corrupt their practices were. In general, they dealt treacherously every man against his brother, Mal 2:10. It cannot be expected that he who is false to his God should be true to his friend. They had dealt treacherously with God in his tithes and offerings, and had defrauded him, and thus conscience was debauched, its bonds and cords were broken, a door was opened to all manner of injustice and dishonesty, and the bonds of relation and natural affection are broken through likewise and no difficulty made of it. Some think that the treacherous dealings here reproved are the same with those instances of oppression and extortion which we find complained of to Nehemiah about this time, Neh 5:3-7. Therein they forgot the God of their fathers, and the covenant of their fathers, and rendered their offerings unacceptable, Isa 1:11. But it seems rather to refer to what was amiss in their marriages, which was likewise complained of, Neh 13:23. Two things they are here charged with, as very provoking to God in this matter - taking strange wives of heathen nations, and abusing and putting away the wives they had of their own nation; in both these they dealt treacherously and violated a sacred covenant; the former was in contempt of the covenant of peculiarity, the latter of the marriage-covenant.

1. In contempt of the covenant God made with Israel, as a peculiar people to himself, they married strange wives, which was expressly prohibited, and provided against, in that covenant, Deu 7:3. Observe here,

(1.) What good reason they had to deal faithfully with God and one another in this covenant, and not to make marriages with the heathen. [1.] They were expressly bound out from such marriages by covenant. God engaged to do them good upon this condition, that they should not mingle with the heathen; this was the covenant of their fathers, the covenant made with their fathers, denoting the antiquity and the authority of it, and its being the great charter by which that nation was incorporated. They lay under all possible obligations to observe it strictly, yet they profaned it, as if they were not bound by it. Those profane the covenant of their fathers who live in disobedience to the command of the God of their fathers. [2.] They were a peculiar people, united in one body, and therefore ought to have united for the preserving of the honour of their peculiarity: Have we not all one Father? Yes, we have, for has not one God created us? Are we not all his offspring? And are we not made of one blood? Yes, certainly we are. God is a common Father to all mankind, and, upon that account, all we are brethren, members one of another, and therefore ought to put away lying (Eph 4:25), and not to deal treacherously, no, not any man against his brother. But here it seems to refer to the Jewish nation: Have we not all one father, Abraham, or Jacob? This they prided themselves in, We have Abraham to our father; but here it is turned upon them as an aggravation of their sin in betraying the honour of their nation by intermarrying with heathens: " Has not one God created us, that is, formed us into a people, made us a nation by ourselves, and put a life into us, distinct from that of other nations? And should not this oblige us to maintain the dignity of our character?"Note, The consideration of the unity of the church in Christ, its founder and Father, should engage us carefully to preserve the purity of the church and to guard against all corruptions. [3.] They were dedicated to God, as well as distinguished from the neighbouring nations. Israel was holiness to the Lord (Jer 2:3), taken into covenant with him, set apart by him for himself, to be to him for a name and a praise, and upon this account he loved them and delighted in them; the sanctuary set up among them was the holiness of the Lord, which he loved, of which he said, It is my rest for ever, here will I dwell, for I have desired it; but by marrying strange wives they profaned this holiness, and laid the honour of it in the dust. Note, Those who are devoted to God, and beloved of him, are concerned to preserve their integrity, that they may not throw themselves out of his love, nor lose the honour, or defeat the end, of their dedication to him.

(2.) How treacherously they dealt, notwithstanding, They profaned themselves in that very thing which was prescribed to them for the preserving of the honour of their singularity: Judah has married the daughter of a strange god. The harm was not so much that she was the daughter of a strange nation (God has made all nations of men, and is himself King of nations ), but that she was the daughter of a strange god, trained up in the service and worship of false gods, at their disposal, as a daughter at her father's disposal, and having a dependence upon them; hence some of the rabbin (quoted by Dr. Pocock) say, He that marries a heathen woman is as if he made himself son-in-law to an idol. The corruption of the old world began with the intermarriages of the sons of God with the daughters of men, Gen 6:2. It is the same thing that is here complained of, but as it is expressed it sounds worse: The sons of God married the daughters of a strange god. Herein Judah is said to have dealt treacherously, for they basely betrayed their own honour and profaned that holiness of the Lord which they should have loved (so some read it); and it is said to be an abomination committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; it was hateful to God, and very unbecoming those that were called by his name. Note, it is an abominable thing for those who profess the holiness of the Lord to profane it, particularly by yoking themselves unequally with unbelievers.

(3.) How severely God would reckon with them for it (Mal 2:12): The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, that marries the daughter of a strange god. He has, in effect, cut himself off from the holy nation, and joined in with foreigners and aliens to the commonwealth of Israel, and so shall his doom be; God will cut him off, him and all that belongs to him; so the original intimates. He shall be cut off from Israel and from Jerusalem, and not be written among the living there. The Lord will cut off both the master and the scholar, that are guilty of this sin, both the teachers and the taught. The blind leaders and the blind followers shall fall together into the ditch, both him that wakeneth and him that answereth (so it is in the margin), for the master calls up his scholar to his business, and stirs him up in it. They shall be cut off together out of the tabernacles of Jacob. God will no more own them as belonging to his nation; nay, and the priest that offers an offering to the Lord, if he marry a strange wife (as we find many of the priests did, Ezr 10:18), shall not escape; the offering he offers shall not atone for him, but he shall be cut off from the temple of the Lord, as others from the tabernacles of Jacob. Nehemiah chased away from him, and from the priesthood, one of the sons of the high priest, whom he found guilty of this sin, Neh 13:28.

2. In contempt of the marriage-covenant, which God instituted for the common benefit of mankind, they abused and put away the wives they had of their own nation, probably to make room for those strange wives, when it was all the fashion to marry such (Mal 2:13): This also have you done; this is the second article of the charge. For the way of sin is down-hill, and one violation of the covenant is an inlet to another.

(1.) Let us see what it is that is here complained of. they did not behave as they ought to have done towards their wives. [1.] They were cross with them, froward and peevish, and made their lives bitter to them, so that when they came with their wives and families to worship God at the solemn feasts, which they should have done with rejoicing, they were all out of humour; the poor wives were ready to break their hearts, and, not daring to make their case known to any other, they complained to God, and covered the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying. This is illustrated by the instance of Hannah, who, upon the account of her husband's having another wife (though otherwise a kind husband), and the discontent thence arising, whenever they went up to the house of the Lord to worship fretted and wept, and was in bitterness of soul, and would not eat, 1Sa 1:6, 1Sa 1:7, 1Sa 1:10. So it was with these wives here; and this was so contrary to the cheerfulness which God requires in his worshippers that it spoiled the acceptableness of their devotions: God regards not their offering any more. See here what a good Master we serve, who will not have his altar covered with tears, but compassed with songs. This condemns those who left his worship for that of idols, among the rites of which we find women weeping for Tammuz (Eze 8:14), and the blood of the worshippers gushing out upon the altar, 1Ki 18:28. See also what a wicked thing it is to put others out of frame for the cheerful worship of God; though it is their fault by their fretfulness to indispose themselves for their duty, yet it is much more the fault of those who provoked them to make them to fret. It is a reason given why yoke-fellows should live in holy love and joy - that their prayers may not be hindered, 1Pe 3:7. [2.] They dealt treacherously with them, Mal 2:14-16. They did not perform their promises to them, but defrauded them of their maintenance or dower, or took in concubines, to share in the affection that was due to their wives only. [3.] They put them away, gave them a bill of divorce, and turned them off, nay, perhaps they did it without the ceremony that the law of Moses prescribed, Mal 2:16. [4.] In all this they covered violence with their garment; they abused their wives, and were vexatious to them, and yet, in the sight of others, they pretended to be very loving to them and tender of them, and to cast a skirt over them. It is common for those who do violence to advance some specious pretence or other wherewith to cover it as with a garment.

(2.) Let us see the proof and aggravations of the charge. [1.] It is sufficiently proved by the testimony of God himself: " The Lord has been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth (Mal 2:14), has been witness to the marriage-covenant between thee and her, for to him you appealed concerning your sincerity in it and fidelity to it; he has been a witness to all the violations of it, and all thy treacherous dealings in contempt of it, and is ready to judge between thee and her."Note, This should engage us to be faithful both to God and to all with whom we have to do, that God himself is a witness both to all our covenants and to all our covenant-breaches; and he is a witness against whom there lies no exception. [2.] It is highly aggravated by the consideration of the person wronged and abused. First, "She is thy wife; thy own, bone of thy bone and flesh of thy flesh, the nearest to thee of all the relations thou hast in the world, and to cleave to whom thou must quit the rest." Secondly, "She is the wife of thy youth, who had thy affections when they were at the strongest, was thy first choice, and with whom thou hast lived long. Let not the darling of thy youth be the scorn and loathing of thy age." Thirdly, "She is thy companion; she has long been an equal sharer with thee in thy cares, and griefs, and joys."The wife is to be looked upon, not as a servant, but as a companion to the husband, with whom he should freely converse and take sweet counsel, as with a friend, and in whose company he should take delight more than in any other's; for is she not appointed to be thy companion? Fourthly, "She is the wife of thy covenant, to whom thou art so firmly bound that, while she continues faithful, thou canst not be loosed from her, for it was a covenant for life. It is the wife with whom thou hast covenanted, and who has covenanted with thee; there is an oath of God between you, which is not to be trifled with, is not to be played fast and loose with."Married people should often call to mind their marriage-vows, and review them with all seriousness, as those that make conscience of performing what they promised.

(3.) Let us see the reasons given why man and wife should continue together, to their lives' end, in holy love and peace, and neither quarrel with each other nor separate from each other. [1.] Because god has joined them together (Mal 2:15): Did not he make one, one Eve for one Adam, that Adam might never take another to her to vex her (Lev 18:18), nor put her away to make room for another? It is great wickedness to complain of the law of marriage as a confinement, when Adam in innocency, in honour, in Eden, in the garden of pleasure, was confined to one. Yet God had the residue of the Spirit; he could have made another Eve, as amiable as that he did make, but, designing Adam a help meet for him, he made him one wife; had he made him more, he would not have had a meet help. And wherefore did he make but one woman for one man? It was that he might seek a godly seed - a seed of God (so the word is), a seed that should bear the image of God, be employed in the service of God, and be devoted to his glory and honour, - that every man having his own wife, and but one, according to the law, (1Co 7:2), they might live in chaste and holy love, under the directions and restraints of the divine law, and not, as brute beasts, under the dominion of lust, and thus might propagate the nature of man in such a way as might make it most likely to participate of a divine nature, - that the children, being born in holy matrimony, which is an ordinance of God, and by which the inclinations of nature are kept under the regulations of God's command, might thus be made a seed to serve him, and be bred, as they are born, under his direction and dominion. Note, The raising up of a godly seed, which shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation, is one great end of the institution of marriage; but that is a good reason why the marriage-bed should be kept undefiled and the marriage bond inviolable. Husbands and wives must therefore live in the fear of God, that their seed may be a godly seed, else were they unclean, but now they are holy, as children of the covenant, the marriage-covenant, which was a type of the covenant of grace, and the conjugal union, when thus preserved entire, of the mystical union between Christ and his church, in which he seeks and secures to himself a godly seed; see Eph 5:25, Eph 5:32. [2.] Because he is much displeased with those who go about to put asunder what he has joined together (Mal 2:16): The God of Israel saith that he hateth putting away. He hath indeed permitted it to the Jews, for the hardness of their hearts, or, rather, limited and clogged it (Mat 19:8); but he hated it, especially as those practised it who put away their wives for every cause, Mat 19:3. Let those wives that elope from their husbands and put themselves away, those husbands that are cruel to their wives and turn them away, or take their affections off from their wives and place them upon others, yea, and those husbands and wives that live asunder by consent, for want of love to each other, let such as these know that the God of Israel hates such practices, however vain men may make a jest of them.

(4.) Let us see the caution inferred from all this. We have it twice (Mal 2:15): Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth; and again, Mal 2:16. Note, Those that would be kept from sin must take heed to their spirits, for there all sin begins; they must keep their hearts with all diligence, must keep a jealous eye upon them and a strict hand, and must watch against the first risings of sin there. We shall act as we are spirited; and therefore, that we may regulate our actions, we must consider what manner of spirit we are of; we must take heed to our spirits with reference to our particular relations, and see that we stand rightly affected to them and be of a good temper, for otherwise we shall be in danger of dealing treacherously. If our own hearts deal treacherously with us, whom will they not deal treacherously with?

II. Observe how corrupt their principles were, to which were owing all these corrupt practices. Let us trace up the streams to the fountain (Mal 2:17): You have wearied the Lord with your words. They thought to evade the convictions of the word, and to justify themselves by cavilling with God's proceedings; but their defence was their offence, and their vindication of themselves was the aggravation of their crime; they affronted the Lord with their words, and repeated them so often, and persisted so long in their contradictions, that they even wearied him; see Isa 7:13. They made him weary of doing them good as he had done, and stopped the current of his favours; or they represented him as weary of governing the world, and willing to quit it and lay aside the care of it. Note, It is a wearisome thing, even to God himself, to hear people insist upon their own justification in their corrupt and wicked practices, and plead their atheistical principles in vindication of them. But, as if God by his prophet had done them wrong, see how impudently they ask, Wherein have we wearied him? What are those vexatious words whereby we have wearied him? Note, Sinful words are more offensive to the God of heaven than they are commonly thought to be. But God has his proofs ready; two things they had said, at least in their hearts (and thoughts are words to God), with which they had wearied him: - 1. They had denied him to be a holy God, and had asserted that concerning him which is directly contrary to the doctrine of his holiness. As he is a holy God, he hates sin, is of purer eyes than to behold it, and cannot endure to look upon it, Hab 1:13. He is not a God that has pleasure in wickedness, Psa 5:4. And yet they had the impudence to say, in direct contradiction to this, Every one that does evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delights in them. This wicked inference they drew, without any reason, from the prosperity of sinners in their sinful courses (see Mal 3:15), as if God's love or hatred were to be known by that which is before us, and those must be concluded good in the sight of the Lord who are rich in the world. Or this they said because they wished it might be so; they were resolved to do evil, and yet to think themselves good in the sight of the Lord, and to believe that he delighted in them, notwithstanding; and therefore, under pretence of making God not so severe as he was commonly represented, they said as they would have it, and thought he was altogether such a one as themselves. Note, Those who think God a friend to sin affront him and deceive themselves. 2. They had denied him to be the righteous governor of the world. If he did not delight in sin and sinners, yet it would serve their turn to believe that he would never punish it or them. They said, " Where is the God of judgment? That God who, we have been so often told, would call us to an account, and reckon with us for what we have said and done - where is he? He has forsaken the earth, and takes no notice of what is said and done there; he has said that he will come to judgment; but where is the promise of his coming? We may do what we please; he sees us not, nor will regard us."It is such a challenge to the Judge of the whole earth as bids defiance to his justice, and, in effect, dares him to do his worst. Such scoffers as these there were in the latter days of the Jewish church, and such there shall be in the latter days of the Christian church; but their unbelief shall not make the promise of God of no effect; for the day of the Lord will come. Behold, the Judge stands before the door; the God of judgment is at hand.

Keil-Delitzsch: Mal 2:10-12

Mal 2:10. " Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? wherefore are we treacherous one towards another, to desecrate the covenant of our fathers? Mal 2:11. Judah acts treacherously, and abomination has taken place in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has desecrated the sanctuary of Jehovah, which He loves, and marries the daughter of a strange god. Mal 2:12. Jehovah will cut off, to the man that doeth this, wakers and answerers out of the tents of Jacob, and him that offereth sacrifices to Jehovah of hosts." Malachi adopts the same course here as in the previous rebuke, and commences with a general clause, from which the wrongfulness of marriages with heathen women and of frivolous divorces necessarily followed. The one father, whom all have, is neither Adam, the progenitor of all men, nor Abraham, the father of the Israelitish nation, but Jehovah, who calls Himself the Father of the nation in Mal 1:6. God is the Father of Israel as its Creator; not, however, in the general sense, according to which He made Israel the people of His possession. By the two clauses placed at the head, Malachi intends not so much to lay emphasis upon the common descent of all the Israelites, by virtue of which they form one united family in contrast with the heathen, as to say that all the Israelites are children of God, and as such spiritual brethren and sisters. Consequently every violation of the fraternal relation, such as that of which the Israelite was guilty who married a heathen woman, or put away an Israelitish wife, was also an offence against God, a desecration of His covenant. The idea that the expression "one father"refers to Abraham as the ancestor of the nation (Jerome, Calvin, and others), is precluded by the fact, that not only the Israelites, but also the Ishmaelites and Edomites were descended from Abraham; and there is no ground whatever for thinking of Jacob, because, although he had indeed given his name to Israel , he is never singled out as its ancestor. Nibhgad is the first pers. plur. imperf. kal , notwithstanding the fact that in other cases bâgad has cholem in the imperfect; for the niphal of this verb is never met with. The Israelite acted faithlessly towards his brother, both when he contracted a marriage with a heathen woman, and when he put away his Israelitish wife, and thereby desecrated the covenant of the fathers, i.e., the covenant which Jehovah made with the fathers, when He chose them from among the heathen, and adopted them as His covenant nation (Exo 19:5-6; Exo 24:8).

The reason for this rebuke is given in Mal 2:11, in a statement of what has taken place. In order the more emphatically to describe this as reprehensible, bâg^e dâh (hath dealt treacherously) is repeated and applied to the whole nation. Y^e hūdâh (Judah), construed as a feminine, is the land acting in its inhabitants. Then what has taken place is described as תּועבה , abomination, like idolatry, witchcraft, and other grievous sins (cf. Deu 13:15; Deu 18:9.), in which the name Israel is intentionally chosen as the holy name of the nation, to indicate the contrast between the holy vocation of Israel and its unholy conduct. In addition to Israel as the national name (= Judah) Jerusalem is also mentioned, as is frequently the case, as the capital and centre of the nation. What has occurred is an abomination, because Judah desecrates קדשׁ יי , i.e., neither the holiness of Jehovah as a divine attribute, nor the temple as the sanctuary, still less the holy state of marriage, which is never so designated in the Old Testament, but Israel as the nation which Jehovah loved. Israel is called qōdesh , a sanctuary or holy thing, as עם קדושׁ , which Jehovah has chosen out of all nations to be His peculiar possession (Deu 7:6; Deu 14:2; Jer 2:3; Psa 114:2; Ezr 9:2 : see Targ., Rashi, Ab. Ezra, etc.). Through the sin which it had committed, Judah, i.e., the community which had returned from exile, had profaned itself as the sanctuary of God, or neutralized itself as a holy community chosen and beloved of Jehovah (Koehler). To this there is appended, though not till the last clause, the statement of the abomination: Judah, in its individual members, has married the daughter of a strange god (cf. Ezr 9:2.; Neh 13:23.). By the expression בּת אל נכר the person married is described as an idolatress ( bath , daughter = dependent). This involved the desecration of the holy calling of the nation. It is true that in the law it is only marriages with Canaanites that are expressly forbidden (Exo 34:16; Deu 7:3), but the reason assigned for this prohibition shows, that all marriages with heathen women, who did not give up their idolatry, were thereby denounced as irreconcilable with the calling of Israel (see at 1Ki 11:1-2). This sin may God punish by cutting off every one who commits it. This threat of punishment (Mal 2:12) is indeed only expressed in the form of a wish, but the wish has been created by the impulse of the Holy Spirit. Very different and by no means satisfactory explanations have been given of the expression ער וענה , the waking one ( ער the participle of עוּר ) and the answering one, a proverbial description of the wicked man formed by the combination of opposites (on the custom of expressing totality by opposites, see Dietrich, Abhandlung zur hebr. Gramm. p. 201ff.), in which, however, the meaning of the word ער still continues a matter of dispute. The rabbinical explanation, which is followed by Luther, viz., teacher and scholar, is founded upon the meaning excitare given to the verb עוּר , and the excitans is supposed to be the teacher who stimulates by questioning and admonishing. But apart from all other reasons which tell against this explanation, it does not suit the context; for there is not a single word to indicate that the prophet is speaking only of priests who have taken foreign wives; on the contrary, the prophet accuses Judah and Jerusalem, and therefore the people generally, of being guilty of this sin. Moreover, it was no punishment to an Israelite to have no rabbi or teacher of the law among his sons. The words are at any rate to be taken more generally than this. The best established meaning is vigil et respondens , in which ער is taken transitively, as in Job 41:2 in the chethib , and in the Chaldee ער , watcher (Dan 4:10-13 and Dan 4:14-17), in the sense of vivus quisque . In this case the proverbial phrase would be taken from the night-watchman (J. D. Mich., Ros., Ges. Thes. p. 1004). It is no conclusive objection to this, that the words which follow, וּמגּישׁ מנחה , evidently stand upon the same line as ער וענה and must form part of the same whole, and therefore that ער וענה cannot of itself embrace the whole. For this conclusion is by no means a necessary one. If the two expressions referred to portions of the same whole, they could not well be separated from one another by מאהלי יעקב . Moreover, the limitation of ער וענה to the age of childhood founders upon the artificial interpretation which it is necessary to give to the two words. According to Koehler ער denotes the child in the first stage of its growth, in which it only manifests its life by occasionally waking up from its ordinary state of deep, death-like slumber, and ענה the more advanced child, which is able to speak and answer questions. But who would ever think of calling a child in the first weeks of its life, when it sleeps more than it wakes, a waker? Moreover, the sleep of an infant is not a "deep, death-like slumber."The words "out of the tents of Jacob,"i.e., the houses of Israel, belong to יכרת . The last clause adds the further announcement, that whoever commits such abominations shall have no one to offer a sacrificial gift to the Lord. These words are not to be taken as referring to the priestly caste, as Hitzig supposes; but Jerome has given the correct meaning: "and whoever is willing to offer a gift upon the altar for men of this description."The meaning of the whole verse is the following: "May God not only cut off every descendant of such a sinner out of the houses of Israel, but any one who might offer a sacrifice for him in expiation of his sin."

Keil-Delitzsch: Mal 2:13-16

Mal 2:13. "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. Mal 2:14. 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. Mal 2:15. 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. Mal 2:16. 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." In these verses the prophet condemns a second moral transgression on the part of the people, viz., the putting away of their wives. By shēnı̄th (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, 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 זאת ; and בּכי ואנקה is a supplementary apposition to דּמעה ot , added to give greater force to the meaning. מאין עוד , 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). The following infinitive ולקחת is also dependent upon מאין , but on account of the words which intervene it is attached with ל . רצון , the good pleasure or satisfaction, used as abstractum pro concreto for the well-pleasing sacrifice. Mal 2:14. 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. על־כּי = על־אשׁר , as in Deu 31:17; Jdg 3:12, 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, as signifying that Jehovah had interposed between them as an avenging witness; for in that case העיד would necessarily be construed with ב , 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 , which proves nothing. If the marriage was a b^e rı̄th 'Elōhı̄m (a covenant of God), as described in Pro 2:17, 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."

In Mal 2:15 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 וּשׁאר רוּח לו , 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. Rūăch denote here, as in Num 27:18; Jos 5:1; 1Ki 10:5, 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 'echâd (one), therefore, we cannot understand God, but only a man; and לא אחד (not any one = no one, not one man) is the subject of the sentence, whilst the object to עשׂה 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 וּמה האחד are elliptical, the verb עשׂה , which may easily be supplied from the previous clause, being omitted (cf. Ecc 2:12). האחד , not unus aliquis , 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). After meeting this possible objection, Malachi warns his contemporaries to beware of faithlessly putting away their wives. The Vav before nishmartem is the Vav rel. , through which the perfect acquires the force of a cohortative as a deduction from the facts before them, as in ועשׂית in 1Ki 2:6 (see Ewald, §342, c ). נשׁמר בּרוּחו is synonymous with נשׁמר בּנפשׁו in Jer 17:21, and this is equivalent to נשׁמר לנפשׁו in Deu 4:15 and Jos 23:11. The instrumental view of ב ("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 rūăch 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 , 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 ), 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 (in wife of thy youth) and he (in יבגּד ) 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; cf. Ewald, §319, a ), so that we have no right to alter יבגּד into תּבגּד , since the ancient versions and the readings of certain codices do not furnish sufficient critical authority for such a change. The subject in יבגּד is naturally thought of as indefinite: any one, men. This warning is accounted for in Mal 2:16, first of all in the statement that God hates putting away. שׁלּח is the inf. constr. piel and the object to שׂנא : "the sending away (of a wife), divorce." שׂנא is a participle, the pronominal subject being omitted, as in maggı̄d in Zec 9:12, because it may easily be inferred from the following words: אמר יי (saith the Lord of hosts). The thought is not at variance with Deu 24:1., 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. and the comm. on Deu 24:1-5). A second reason for condemning the divorce is given in the words וכסּה חמס על ל , which do not depend upon כּי שׂנא , 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; Isa 64:5; Rev 3:4; Rev 7:14). With a repetition of the warning to beware of this faithlessness, the subject is brought to a close.

Constable: Mal 1:6--2:10

III. Oracle two: the priests' Illicit practices and indifferent attitudes 1:6--2:9

The first oracle ended with a statement of Yahweh's greatness. The second one opens with a question about why Israel's priests did not honor Him.

Constable: Mal 2:10-16

IV. Oracle three: the people's mixed marriages and divorces 2:10-16

"The style of the third oracle differs from the others. Instead of an initial statement or charge followed by a question of feigned innocence, this oracle begins with three questions asked by the prophet. However, as at the beginning of each of the other oracles, the point is presented at the outset."²⁶

This message deals with the same social evils that Ezra and Nehemiah faced: intermarriage with unbelievers, and divorce (cf. Ezra 9:2; Neh. 14:23-28).

2:10 Malachi said, by asking rhetorical questions, that God was the father of all the Israelites (cf. Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1).²⁷ That one true God had created all of them. Israel belonged to God because He had created the nation and had adopted it as His son. Therefore it was inappropriate for the Israelites to treat each other as enemies and deal treacherously with each other; they should have treated each other as brothers and supported one another (Lev. 19:18). By dealing treacherously with each other they had made the covenant that God had made with their ancestors virtually worthless; they could not enjoy the blessings of the Mosaic Covenant.

2:11 The evidence of Judah's treachery was that the Israelites were profaning (making common) Yahweh's beloved sanctuary. This sanctuary may refer to the temple or His people. They did this by practicing idolatry. They had married pagan women who worshipped other gods (cf. 2 Cor. 6:14-16). Yahweh's son (v. 10) had married foreign women that worshipped other gods and, like Solomon, had become unfaithful to Yahweh (cf. Exod. 34:11-16; Deut. 7:3-4; Josh. 23:12-13; Ezra 9:1-2, 10-12; Neh. 13:23-27).

2:12 In a curse formula, Malachi pronounced judgment on any Israelite who married such a woman. The judgment would be that he would die or that his line would die out ("cut off"). The difficult idiom "who awakes and answers" (NASB) evidently means "whoever he may be" (NIV). This curse would befall him even though he brought offerings to almighty Yahweh at the temple. Worshipping God did not insulate covenant violators from divine punishment then, and it does not now.

2:13-14 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. 1 Pet. 3:7).²⁸ The marriage relationship is a covenant relationship, 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 and then marrying pagan women (cf. v. 12), or divorce in general may be all that is in view.

2:15 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. 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.²⁹

2:16 The Israelites were not to break their marriage covenants because Yahweh, Israel's God (sovereign Law-giver and Judge), hates (Heb. sane', detests) divorce (cf. Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9).³⁰ He hates it because it constitutes covenant unfaithfulness, breaking a covenant entered into that God Himself witnessed (v. 14). Furthermore, He hates it because He is a covenant-keeping God; He keeps his promises. To break a covenant (a formal promise) is to do something that God Himself does not do; it is ungodly.

God also hates someone who covers himself with wrong. This is a play on a Hebrew euphemism for marriage, namely, covering oneself with a garment (cf. Ruth 3:9; Ezek. 16:8). One covers himself with wrong when he divorces his wife whom he has previously married (i.e., covered with his garment). For these Jews divorce was similar to wearing soiled garments; it was a disgrace. For emphasis, the Lord repeated His warning to take heed to one's spirit so one would not deal treacherously with his covenant partner (cf. v. 15).

The fact that Ezra commanded divorce (Ezra 10) may appear to contradict God's prohibition of divorce here. (Nehemiah neither advocated divorce nor spoke out against it; Neh. 13:23-29.) The solution seems to be that Malachi addressed the situation of Jewish men divorcing their Jewish wives, perhaps to marry pagan women. Ezra faced Jewish men who had already married pagan women. Does this mean that it is all right to divorce an unbelieving spouse but not a believer? Paul made it clear that the Christian is to divorce neither (1 Cor. 7:10-20). Evidently it was the illegitimacy of a Jew marrying a pagan that led Ezra to advocate divorce in that type of case.

Even though God hates divorce He permitted it (Deut. 24) to achieve the larger goals of maintaining Israel's distinctiveness so she could fulfill His purposes for her in the world (Exod. 19). His purposes for the church are not the same as His purposes for Israel. Furthermore the church is not subject to the Mosaic Law. Therefore it is inappropriate to appeal to the Jews' action in Ezra as a precedent that Christians who are married to unbelievers should follow (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12-13).

Guzik: Mal 2:1-17

Malachi 2 - Unfaithful Priests and Broken Marriages

A. God exposes and condemns the unfaithful priesthood of Israel.

1. (1-4) God threatens to severely rebuke a wicked priesthood.

"And now, O priests, this commandment is for you. If you will not hear, and if you will not take it to heart, to give glory to My name," says the LORD of hosts, "I will send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have cursed them already, because you do not take it to heart. Behold, I will rebuke your descendants and spread refuse on your faces, the refuse of your solemn feasts; and one will take you away with it. Then you shall know that I have sent this commandment to you, that My covenant with Levi may continue," says the LORD of hosts.

a. If you will not hear: If the priests will not hear and repent God promises to curse their blessings. This is either a reference to the "blessings" brought to the priests by the people, or the priestly blessings they gave to the people.

b. Because you do not take it to heart: Their sin all goes back to a hollow formalism. It is a religion of surface emotions and outward signs, but not of the heart.

c. Spread refuse on your faces: Sacrificed animals still had excrement in their systems, and God said this should be burned outside the sanctuary (Exodus 29:14). Here, God says He will "rub their noses in it," so that they will have to be taken outside the sanctuary.

d. That My covenant with Levi may continue: This shows the motive for God's discipline against these ungodly priests. The LORD hoped that this would warn the priests back to a proper respect of His covenant.

2. (5-7) What a priest should be - the example of Levi.

"My covenant was with him, one of life and peace, and I gave them to him that he might fear Me; so he feared Me and was reverent before My name. The law of truth was in his mouth, and injustice was not found on his lips. He walked with Me in peace and equity, and turned many away from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge, and people should seek the law from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts."

a. My covenant was with him: God promised Levi that his descendants would be scattered in Israel. This was turned into a wonderful blessing when Levi was designated as the priestly tribe and the priests were sprinkled throughout Israel.

b. So he feared Me: God uses Levi as an example for the priests in the days of Malachi. Levi is shown to be an example of:

· Reverence: He feared Me and was reverent before My name

· Knowing God's Word: The law of truth was in his mouth

· Godly character: He walked with Me in peace and equity

· Preserving and promoting God's Word: Should keep knowledge, and people should seek the law from his mouth

c. The law of truth was in his mouth: The priests had a special responsibility to hold and spread the word of God (2 Chronicles 31:4, Nehemiah 8:7-9). God's word was given to the priests for life and peace, and so they would be reverent before the LORD.

d. The lips of a priest should keep knowledge: Because the priests had to hold and spread God's word they had to do it with knowledge, so the people could seek the law from his mouth. Leaders should be knowledgeable messengers of God's word.

3. (8-9) Contrast between the ideal and the real.

But you have departed from the way; you have caused many to stumble at the law. You have corrupted the covenant of Levi," says the LORD of hosts. "Therefore I also have made you contemptible and base before all the people, because you have not kept My ways but have shown partiality in the law."

a. You have departed from the way: The priests should have held the word of God in knowledge, reverence, and obedience. Instead, they departed from the way and therefore caused many to stumble at the law.

b. Therefore I also have made you contemptible and base before all the people: Because the priests of Malachi's day fell so far short of God's ideal for them, the people held them in contempt.

B. God exposes and condemns their treachery, especially in their marriages.

1. (10) God rebukes the priests of Israel for their treacherous dealing.

Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously with one another by profaning the covenant of the fathers?

a. Have we not all one Father? This does not teach the idea of the universal fatherhood of God, the doctrine that all are saved or that God is everyone's father in the same way. This is a simple assertion that because we are all made in the image of God, we must respect and deal honorably with all.

b. Why do we deal treacherously with one another: Malachi will apply this specifically to marriage, but their sin of treachery went beyond their unfaithfulness in marriage.

i. "All betrayals, from the slightest unkindness to the grossest injustice, merit God's disapproval." (Alden)

2. (11-12) The first offense of the priests: marrying foreign wives.

Judah has dealt treacherously, and an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem, for Judah has profaned the LORD's holy institution which He loves: he has married the daughter of a foreign god. May the LORD cut off from the tents of Jacob the man who does this, being awake and aware, yet who brings an offering to the LORD of hosts!

a. The LORD's holy institution which He loves: This tells us exactly how God feels about marriage. It is holy to Him; it is an institution to Him; and God loves marriage.

i. When we sin against our marriage or our marriage vows, we sin against something holy to God. He has set apart marriage for a special meaning, a special purpose in the life of His people.

ii. When we sin against our marriage or our marriage vows, we sin against an institution that God has established. Marriage is God's idea, not man's; He formed and established the first marriage as a pattern for every one afterwards (Genesis 2:20-25). Because it is an institution, we are not allowed to define marriage any way that pleases us; God has established it and we must conform to what He has established.

iii. When we sin against our marriage or our marriage vows, we sin against something that God loves.

· God loves marriage for what it displays about His relationship with us

· God loves marriage for the good it does in society

· God loves marriage for the way it meets the needs of men, women, and children

· Most of all, God loves marriage as a tool for conforming us into the image of His Son

b. He has married the daughter of a foreign god: The first treachery and abomination God addresses is the intermarriage between the people of God and their ungodly neighbors. The dangers of an ungodly intermarriage are well documented in the Old and New Testaments.

i. Israel married women from Moab and brought the curse of God upon the people (Numbers 25).

ii. Solomon married foreign women who took his heart away from God (1 Kings 11:1-10).

iii. Ahab married Jezebel - a foreign woman - who led Israel into new depths of depravity (1 Kings 16:29-33).

iv. Paul says that believers and unbelievers should not be joined together (2 Corinthians 6:11-18).

c. May the LORD cut off from the tents of Jacob the man who does this, being awake and aware, yet who brings an offering: God promised to punish the priests who married foreign, pagan wives and thought that it would not affect their service of the LORD.

i. Awake and aware is a tough phrase to translate. Other translations have "master and scholar," "tempter and tempted," "witness and advocate," "kilth and kin," or even "nomads and settlers." "Obviously, the Hebrew idiom is just another way of saying 'everyone.'" (Alden)

ii. God's command against mixed marriages in Israel had nothing to do with race, but with faith. There is even a foreign wife in the genealogy of Jesus - Ruth was a Moabite who married a Jewish man named Boaz; but she forsook Moab's gods for the LORD (Ruth 1:16).

3. (13-16) The second offense of the priests: a low regard of marriage.

And this is the second thing you do: you cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping and crying; so He does not regard the offering anymore, nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. Yet you say, "For what reason?" Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. "For the LORD God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one's garment with violence," says the LORD of hosts. "Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously."

a. You cover the altar of the LORD with tears . . . so He does not regard the offering anymore: The neglected and divorced wives of the priests came and wept at God's altar. When their priestly husbands then offered sacrifice to God at the same altar it offended God.

i. "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." (Keil)

ii. Pastor, has your harsh, neglectful, or unkind treatment of your wife caused her to cry out before God? "You caused your poor wives, when they should have been cheerful in God's service . . . to cover the Lord's altar with tears, with weeping, and with crying out." (Trapp)

b. Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously: The priests sinned by forsaking the wife they married in their youth, breaking the goal of marriage (she is your companion) and the bond of marriage (your wife by covenant).

i. "They kept their wives till they had passed their youth, and then put them away, that they might get young ones in their place." (Clarke)

c. Did He not make them one: The Bible continually comes back to God's goal and plan for marriage as revealed in Genesis 2:18-25. Essential to God's plan for marriage is the essential oneness between husband and wife. One important reason for this oneness is to establish a proper environment for raising godly offspring.

d. He hates divorce: There is no doubt that God hates divorce because it destroys what He loves - marriage is the LORD's holy institution which He loves (Malachi 2:11). Specifically, we can say that God hates divorce for at least three reasons:

· God hates divorce because it breaks a solemn vow

· God hates divorce because it is harmful

· God hates divorce because it illustrates apostasy and damnation

i. There is no doubt that God allows divorce in particular circumstances, though divorce is never commanded. God's heart is always for repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation in marriage. We have sinned against God far worse than any spouse could sin against us, and God does not divorce us - though He has every right to!

ii. Yet because we are fallen and suffer from hardness of heart, God gives permission for divorce in two circumstances. Sexual immorality is valid grounds (Matthew 19:1-9), and so is desertion by an unbelieving spouse (1 Corinthians 7:10-16).

iii. Significantly, misery, unhappiness, poverty, or incompatibilities are never given as grounds for divorce. Where there is danger or abuse separation may be in order in accordance with 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, but the separated couple must live in complete faithfulness to their marriage vows, though they live as separate.

iv. If someone does not have Biblical grounds for divorce, God regards them as still married and any subsequent relationship is considered adultery (Matthew 19:8-9). It isn't that you shouldn't divorce for unbiblical grounds; you can't divorce for unbiblical grounds. Nevertheless, if someone divorces with proper grounds, then they are free to remarry (1 Corinthians 7:15).

e. It covers one's garment with violence: Part of the marriage ceremony in Bible times involved the husband covering his wife with his garment as a symbol of the protection he brought her. But now, their garments were covered with violence. When a wife is forsaken or mistreated the man covers his own garment with violence. This is because the husband and wife are one, and he cannot mistreat his wife without bringing misery and destruction to himself.

i. This is Paul's point in Ephesians 5:28: So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. Simply said, when you love your wife, you benefit yourself. Perhaps it is better to put it in the negative: when you neglect your wife, you neglect yourself, and it will come back to hurt you.

ii. We all know what it is like to neglect something - like a noise or a maintenance issue on an automobile - and it comes back to hurt you. Husbands, it is even more true regarding your wife, because she is part of you.

f. Therefore take heed to your spirit: This phrase is repeated twice because it is so important. The reason why the priests dealt treacherously against their wife is that they did not take heed to their spirit. They allowed their hearts to become hard, critical, and embittered against the woman they were supposed to regard as their special, God-given companion in oneness.

i. It is important to realize that we can change our feelings towards our spouse. If we do not feel loving or connected or caring about them, that can be changed if we will take heed to our spirit.

4. (17) The fourth question: Where is the God of justice in this unjust world?

You have wearied the LORD with your words; yet you say, "In what way have we wearied Him?" In that you say, "Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and He delights in them," or, "Where is the God of justice?"

a. Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD: The people of God in Malachi's day were depressed and discouraged because it seemed like the wicked prospered and had it better than the godly. This filled them with doubt and unbelief, and they grumbled that everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD.

b. Where is the God of justice? When they compared themselves with others, they thought it was unjust of God to bless others and not them. Nevertheless, their question shows that they don't understand what the God of justice would give to them.

c. You have wearied the LORD with your words: This kind of ignorant, unbelieving talk from God's people is wearisome to God. It shows how much His people resist His truth and His work.

i. "God is offended when people accuse Him of injustice." (Boice)

© 2001 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Introduction / Outline

JFB: Malachi (Book Introduction)

MALACHI forms the transition link between the two dispensations, the Old and the New, "the skirt and boundary of Christianity" [TERTULLIAN], to which perhaps is due the abrupt earnestness which characterizes his prophecies. His very name is somewhat uncertain. Malachi is the name of an office, rather than a person, "My messenger," and as such is found in Mal 3:1. The Septuagint favors this view in Mal 1:1; translate, not "by Malachi," but "by the hand of His messenger" (compare Hag 1:13). Malachi is the last inspired messenger of the Old Testament, announcing the advent of the Great Messenger of the New Testament. The Chaldee paraphrase identifies him with Ezra wrongly, as Ezra is never called a prophet but a scribe, and Malachi never a scribe but a prophet. Still it hence appears that Malachi was by some old authorities not regarded as a proper name. The analogy of the headings of other prophets, however, favors the common view that Malachi is a proper name. As Haggai and Zechariah, the contemporary prophets, supported Joshua and Zerubbabel in the building of the temple, so he at a subsequent period supported the priest Ezra and the governor Nehemiah. Like that ruler, he presupposes the temple to have been already built (Mal 1:10; Mal 3:1-10). Both alike censure the abuses still unreformed (Neh 13:5, Neh. 13:15-30, the profane and mercenary character of the priests, the people's marriages contracted with foreigners, the non-payment of the tithes, and want of sympathy towards the poor on the part of the rich (Neh 6:7) implies that Nehemiah was supported by prophets in his work of reformation. The date thus will be about 420 B.C., or later. Both the periods after the captivity (that of Haggai and Zechariah, and that of Malachi) were marked by royal, priestly, and prophetic men at the head of God's people. The former period was that of the building of the temple; the latter, that of the restoration of the people and rebuilding of the city. It is characteristic of the people of God that the first period after the restoration was exclusively devoted to the rebuilding of the temple; the political restoration came secondarily. Only a colony of fifty thousand settled with Joshua and Zerubbabel in Palestine (Ezr 2:64). Even these became intermingled with the heathen around during the sixty years passed over by Ezra in silence (Ezr 9:6-15; Neh 1:3). Hence a second restoration was needed which should mould the national life into a Jewish form, re-establishing the holy law and the holy city--a work effected by Ezra and Nehemiah, with the aid of Malachi, in a period of about half a century, ending with the deaths of Malachi and Nehemiah in the last ten years of the fifth century B.C.; that is, the "seven weeks" (Dan 9:25) put in the beginning of the "seventy" by themselves, to mark the fundamental difference between them, the last period of Old Testament revelation, and the period which followed without any revelation (the sixty-two weeks), preceding the final week standing out in unrivalled dignity by itself as the time of Messiah's appearing. The seventy weeks thus begin with the seventh year of Artaxerxes who allowed Ezra to go to Jerusalem, 457 B.C., in accordance with the commandment which then went forth from God. Ezra the priest performed the inner work of purifying the nation from heathenish elements and reintroducing the law; while Nehemiah did the outer work of rebuilding the city and restoring the national polity [AUBERLEN]. VITRINGA makes the date of Malachi's prophecies to be about the second return of Nehemiah from Persia, not later than 424 B.C., the date of Artaxerxes' death (Neh 13:6). About this time Socrates was teaching the only approach to a pure morality which corrupt Athens ever knew. MOORE distinguishes six portions: (1) Charge against Israel for insensibility to God's love, which so distinguished Israel above Edom (Mal 1:1-5). (2) The priests are reproved for neglect and profanation (Mal. 1:6-2:9). (3) Mixed marriages, and the wrongs done to Jewish wives, are reproved (Mal 2:10-16). (4) Coming of Messiah and His forerunners (Mal. 2:17-3:6). (5) Reproof for tithes withheld (Mal 3:7-12). (6) Contrast between the godly and the ungodly at the present time, and in the future judgment; exhortation, therefore, to return to the law (Mal. 3:13-4:6).

The style is animated, but less grand, and the rhythm less marked, than in some of the older prophets.

The canonicity of the book is established by the references to it in the New Testament (Mat 11:10; Mat 17:12; Mar 1:2; Mar 9:11-12; Luk 1:17; Rom 9:13).

JFB: Malachi (Outline)

• GOD'S LOVE: ISRAEL'S INGRATITUDE: THE PRIESTS' MERCENARY SPIRIT: A GENTILE SPIRITUAL PRIESTHOOD SHALL SUPERSEDE THEM. (Mal 1:1-14)
• REPROOF OF THE PRIESTS FOR VIOLATING THE COVENANT; AND THE PEOPLE ALSO FOR MIXED MARRIAGES AND UNFAITHFULNESS. (Mal. 2:1-17)
• MESSIAH'S COMING, PRECEDED BY HIS FORERUNNER, TO PUNISH THE GUILTY FOR VARIOUS SINS, AND TO REWARD THOSE WHO FEAR GOD. (Mal. 3:1-18)
• GOD'S COMING JUDGMENT: TRIUMPH OF THE GODLY: RETURN TO THE LAW THE BEST PREPARATION FOR JEHOVAH'S COMING: ELIJAH'S PREPARATORY MISSION OF REFORMATION. (Mal 4:1-6)

TSK: Malachi 2 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Mal 2:1, He sharply reproves the priests for neglecting their covenant; Mal 2:10, and the people for marrying strange wives; Mal 2:13, and for putting away their former ones, Mal 2:17. and for infidelity.

Poole: Malachi (Book Introduction)

THE ARGUMENT

Concerning this prophet, some have thought (but without good and sufficient ground) that he was an angel in the form of a man; others think him to be Ezra; but as it is the plainer, so the surer, opinion that he was a prophet of that name, and a man distinct from Ezra, and sent the last of all the prophets. His time of appearing among the Jews cannot be determined precisely, but it is best guessed to have been about the times of Nehemiah’ s reforming the strange marriages, Neh 13:23,28 , with Mal 2:11 , and when he reformed the sacrilegious detaining of tithes, Neh 13:10,11 , with Mal 3:8 , as Doctor Lightfoot observeth. Now this reformation of Nehemiah was about A.M. 3519, as Doctor Lightfoot, or 3545, as Helvicus, or 3589, as Archbishop Usher’ s Annals. Whatever was his time of appearing, it is certain he lived in a very vicious age, in which priests as well as people were leavened with either perverse thoughts of the Divine Providence, or brutish atheism, denying the Deity and Providence, contemptuous thoughts of the worship of God, sacrilegious practices, robbing God of tithes and offerings, shameless justifying these their practices, boundless or monstrous unfaithfulness to their wives, casting off Jewish to marry Gentile wives, or else superinducing the Gentile women, and enslaving the Jewish to them; casting off the law of God, or, which is equally bad, if not worse, wresting it to their own sinful sentiments. All which he doth severely reprove, and requires them to reform, and foretells the day of the Messiah’ s coming to sit as a refiner and purifier; whose appearing such sinners and sins would not be able to bear; and tells them of his forerunner, who in the spirit and power of Elias should come, and prepare a people for the Messiah: till then, (as their duty was,) he commands them in the name and by authority from God, that they remember the law of Moses, which God commanded in Horeb; hereby intimating some great change in the law at the coming of the Messiah; and intimating also, that they should expect no more prophet till the Great Prophet himself should come unto them.

Poole: Malachi 2 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 2

The priests are sharply reproved for profaning the covenant which was given them, Mal 2:1-9 ; and the people for marrying strange wives, Mal 2:10-12 , and treacherously putting away their former ones, Mal 2:13-16 ; and for impiety, Mal 2:17 .

MHCC: Malachi (Book Introduction)

Malachi was the last of the prophets, and is supposed to have prophesied B.C. 420. He reproves the priests and the people for the evil practices into which they had fallen, and invites them to repentance and reformation, with promises of the blessings to be bestowed at the coming of the Messiah. And now that prophecy was to cease, he speaks clearly of the Messiah, as nigh at hand, and directs the people of God to keep in remembrance the law of Moses, while they were in expectation of the gospel of Christ.

MHCC: Malachi 2 (Chapter Introduction)

(Mal 2:1-9) The priests reproved for neglecting their covenant.

(Mal 2:10-17) The people reproved for their evil practices.

Matthew Henry: Malachi (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Prophecy of Malachi

God's prophets were his witnesses to his church, each in his day, for several ages, witnesses for him and his authority, witnesses against sin and sinners, attesting the true intents of God's providences in his dealings with his people then and the kind intentions of his grace concerning his church in the days of the Messiah, to whom all the prophets bore witness, for they all agreed in their testimony; and now we have only one witness more to call, and we have done with our evidence; and though he be the last, and in him prophecy ceased, yet the Spirit of prophecy shines as clearly, as strongly, as brightly in him as in any that went before, and his testimony challenges an equal regard. The Jews say, Prophecy continued forty years under the second temple, and this prophet they call the seal of prophecy, because in him the series or succession of prophets broke off and came to a period. God wisely ordered it so that divine inspiration should cease for some ages before the coming of the Messiah, that that great prophet might appear the more conspicuous and distinguishable and be the more welcome. Let us consider, I. The person of the prophet. We have only his name, Malachi, and no account of his country or parentage. Malachi signifies my angel, which has given occasion for a conjecture that this prophet was indeed an angel from heaven and not a man, as that Jdg 2:1. But there is no just ground for the conjecture. Prophets were messengers, God's messengers; this prophet was so; his name is the very same with that which we find in the original (Mal 3:1) for my messenger; and perhaps from that word he might (though, probably, he had another name) be called Malachi. The Chaldee paraphrase, and some of the Jews, suggest that Malachi was the same with Ezra; but that also is groundless. Ezra was a scribe, but we never read that he was a prophet. Others, yet further from probability, make him to be Mordecai. But we have reason to conclude he was a person whose proper name was that by which he is here called; the tradition of some of the ancients is that he was of the tribe of Zebulun, and that he died young. II. The scope of the prophecy. Haggai and Zechariah were sent to reprove the people for delaying to build the temple; Malachi was sent to reprove them for the neglect of it when it was built, and for their profanation of the temple-service (for from idolatry and superstition they ran into the other extreme of impiety and irreligion), and the sins he witnesses against are the same that we find complained of in Nehemiah's time, with whom, it is probable, he was contemporary. And now that prophecy was to cease he speaks more clearly of the Messiah, as nigh at hand, than any other of the prophets had done, and concludes with a direction to the people of God to keep in remembrance the law of Moses, while they were in expectation of the gospel of Christ.

Matthew Henry: Malachi 2 (Chapter Introduction)

There are two great ordinances which divine wisdom has instituted, the wretched profanation of both of which is complained of and sharply reproved in this chapter. I. The ordinance of the ministry, which is peculiar to the church, and is designed for the maintaining and keeping up of that; this was profaned by those who were themselves dignified with the honour of it and entrusted with the business of it. The priests profaned the holy things of God; this they are here charged with; their sin is aggravated, and they are severely threatened for it (Mal 2:1-9). II. The ordinance of marriage, which is common to the world of mankind, and was instituted for the maintaining and keeping up of that; this was profaned both by the priests and by the people, in marrying strangers (Mal 2:11, Mal 2:12), treating their wives unkindly (Mal 2:13), putting them away (Mal 2:16), and herein dealing treacherously (Mal 2:10, Mal 2:14, Mal 2:15). And that which was at the bottom of this and other instances of profaneness and downright atheism, thinking God altogether such a one as themselves, which was, in effect, to say, There is no God (Mal 2:17). And these reproofs to them are warnings to us.

Constable: Malachi (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Title and Writer

The name of the writer is the title of this book.

"Malachi" means "my messenger." We know nothing of the prophet's parentage, ancestral or tribal roots, geographical origin, or other vocation. All we know is that he received and communicated the word of Yahweh to the Jews of his day.

Some scholars have tried to prove that "Malachi" was not the name of a prophet but the title of an anonymous prophet. None of the references to this book in the New Testament mention Malachi by name (cf. Matt. 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27). The arguments for anonymity rest on four points.¹ First, "Malachi" is a title rather than a name in its form. The Septuagint translators rendered it "my messenger" in 1:1. However, it could be a short form of a name such as Malachiyyah, "messenger of Yahweh." There are several other shortened forms of names similar to this in the Old Testament (e.g., abi in 2 Kings 18:2, cf. abiyyah in 2 Chron. 29:1; and uri in 1 Kings 4:19, cf. uriyyah in 1 Chron. 11:41).

Second, the Targum did not consider Malachi the writer but ascribed this book to Ezra.² The Talmud credited Mordecai with writing it.³ But there is little other support for Ezra or Mordecai's authorship of this book. Third, Malachi appears in 3:1 as an anonymous designation meaning "my messenger," so it may mean the same thing in 1:1. However, the Malachi in 3:1 seems clearly to be a wordplay on the name of the prophet in 1:1. Fourth, this book was the third of three oracles (Heb. massa', 1:1) the other two being in Zechariah 9-11 and 12-14 (cf. Zech. 9:1; 11:1). Yet Malachi introduced his oracle differently from the way Zechariah introduced his.⁴ Furthermore, other prophets introduced their books by calling them oracles (cf. Nah. 1:1; Hab. 1:1).

If Malachi is not the prophet's name, this would be the only prophetical book in the Old Testament that is anonymous, which seems very unlikely.

Date

"Haggai and Zechariah . . . are noteworthy for the chronological precision with which they related their lives and ministries to their historical milieu. This is not the case at all with Malachi. In fact, one of the major problems in a study of this book is that of locating it within a narrow enough chronological framework to provide a Sitz im Leben [situation in life] sufficient to account for its peculiar themes and emphases."⁵

Malachi referred to no datable persons or events in his prophecy, so we must draw our conclusions from implications in the text and traditional understandings of it. Malachi's place at the end of the twelve minor prophets in the Hebrew Bible and modern translations argues for a late date. The Talmud grouped Malachi with Haggai and Zechariah as postexilic prophets.⁶

Malachi's reference to "your governor" (1:8) indicates that he wrote after 538 B.C. when Cyrus the Persian allowed the Jews to return to their land, which was under Persian control. The word translated "governor" is pehah, a Persian title (cf. Ezra 5:3, 6, 14; 6:6-7, 13; Dan. 3:2-3, 27; 6:7). Zerubbabel had this title (Hab. 1:1, 14; 2:2, 21) as did Nehemiah (Neh. 5:14; 12:26). Malachi must have written after the temple had been rebuilt since he referred to worship there (1:6-14; 2:7-9, 13; 3:7-10). This would force a date after 515 B.C. when temple restoration was complete.

Since Malachi addressed many of the same matters that Nehemiah tried to reform, it is tempting to date Malachi during Nehemiah's governorship. Both Malachi and Nehemiah dealt with priestly laxity (Mal. 1:6; Neh. 13:4-9), neglect of tithes (Mal. 3:7-12; Neh. 13:10-13), and intermarriage between Israelites and foreigners (Mal. 2:10-16; Neh. 13:23-28). Some have conjectured that Malachi ministered while Nehemiah was away from Jerusalem.⁷ In the twelfth year of his governorship, Nehemiah returned to Persia for an unknown period of time (Neh. 5:14; 13:6). Malachi probably wrote during the years Nehemiah ministered (445-420 B.C), and perhaps between 432 and 431 B.C., the years when Nehemiah was away from Jerusalem.⁸

Historical Background

Malachi was one of the three post-exilic writing prophets along with Haggai and Zechariah, and he was quite certainly the last one chronologically, even though we cannot be dogmatic about a date for his writing.

The first group of almost 50,000 Jewish exiles returned from Babylonian captivity under Zerubbabel's leadership in 537 B.C. Ezra 1-6 records their experiences. Haggai and Zechariah ministered to these returnees in 520 B.C. and urged them to rebuild the temple. Zechariah's ministry may have continued beyond that year. The events recorded in the Book of Esther took place in Persia between 482 and 473 B.C. A second group of about 5,000 Jews returned in 458 B.C. under Ezra's leadership. Ezra sought to beautify the temple and institute reforms that would purify Israel's worship (Ezra 7-10). Nehemiah led a third group back of about 42, 000 back in 444 B.C, and the events recorded in his book describe what happened between 445 and 420 B.C. including the rebuilding of Jerusalem's wall. Malachi evidently ministered in Jerusalem during that period.

". . . Malachi's concerns are much different from those of either Ezra or Nehemiah, for he was almost wholly transfixed by concerns about the cult [formal worship].⁹

Life was not easy for the returnees during the ministry of the fifth-century restoration prophets. The people continued to live under Gentile (Persian) sovereignty even though they were back in their own land. Harvests were poor, and locust plagues were a problem (3:11). Even after Ezra's reforms and Nehemiah's amazing success in motivating the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem's wall, most of the people remained cold-hearted toward Yahweh. Priests and people were still not observing the Mosaic Law as commanded, as is clear from references in the book to sacrifices, tithes, and offerings (e.g., 1:6; 3:5). Foreign cultures had made deep inroads into the values and practices of God's people. The Israelites still intermarried with Gentiles (2:11), and divorces were quite common (2:16). The spiritual, ethical, and moral tone of the nation was low.

Place of Composition

Malachi ministered in Jerusalem, as is clear from his numerous references to practices that were current in that city and throughout Judah.

Audience and Purpose

The prophet addressed the restoration community of Israelites who had returned to the land not many years earlier from Babylonian captivity. His purpose was to confront them with their sins and to encourage them to pursue holiness.

Theological emphases

Like all the writing prophets, Malachi's chief revelation was the person and work of Yahweh. He presented Israel's God as sovereign over Israel and the whole world and as very patient with His wayward people.

Malachi also used the Mosaic Covenant as the ruler by which he measured Israel's conduct. He pointed out instances of covenant unfaithfulness and urged return to the covenant. He also reminded the Israelites of Yahweh's faithfulness to His covenant promises including promises of future blessing. Thus he sought to motivate his hearers to return to the Lord by convicting them of their sins and converting them to love for their Savior.

His notable messianic prophecy deals with His forerunner (3:1; 4:5). He would be like Elijah and would call the Israelites to repentance (cf. Matt. 11:14; 17:12-13; Mark 9:11-13; Luke 1:17).

Literary form and characteristics

Malachi's style is quite different from that of any other writing prophet. Instead of delivering messages to his audience, he charged them with various sins, six times in all. His was a very confrontational style of address. After each charge, he proceeded to back it up with evidence.

"Even a casual reading shows Malachi's use of rhetorical questions. Seven times he put them into the mouths of his audience (1:2, 6, 7; 2:17; 3:7, 8, 13, and perhaps 2:14). In addition he asked the people several rhetorical questions (e.g., 1:6, 8, 9; 2:10, 15; 3:2).

"The format of 1:2 is typical of Malachi's style. First there is God's statement: I have loved you.' Then follows the popular objection that questions the truth of God's statement--viz., How have you loved us?' Finally there is the justification for God's statement."¹⁰

Malachi used the question and answer method extensively. This method became increasingly popular, and in the time of Christ the rabbis and scribes used it frequently, as did the Lord Jesus. They also used rhetorical questions as a teaching device (cf. Matt. 3:7; 11:7-9; 12:26-27; Luke 14:5; John 18:38; Rom. 3:1-4; 4:1-3; 6:21; 7:7; 1 Cor. 9:7-13; Gal. 3:21; Heb. 1:14).

This book consists of several short paragraphs on various themes. There are no oracles against foreign nations nor any extended burden against Israel. There are no personal experiences to which the prophet referred, yet his style is straightforward, easy to understand, and beautifully designed.

Unity, canonicity, and text

Most scholars view the book as the product of one writer, and there is no textual support for viewing some verses as later additions. The dialog pattern that appears throughout the book argues for its unity. Its canonicity has never been challenged because it appears in all the authoritative lists of canonical books and is quoted in the New Testament. The text is well preserved.

Message¹¹

Malachi prophesied during the times of Nehemiah. The dates of Nehemiah's ministry were about 445-420 B.C. Possibly Malachi ministered during the time when Nehemiah returned to Babylon following the completion of Jerusalem's walls and Nehemiah's term as Governor of Judah (432-431 B.C.). This is only a guess, but it seems likely that God might have moved this prophet to minister when their godly leader was absent from them.

The conditions described in this last prophetical book are the same as those described in the last historical book of the Old Testament. Nehemiah deplored the defiled and corrupted priesthood, and Malachi's central charge was that the priesthood had corrupted the covenant (cf. Neh. 13:29 and Mal. 2:8). Nehemiah dealt with the mixed marriages and the evil that resulted from this condition, and Malachi spoke against the same evil (cf. Neh. 13:23-25 and Mal. 2:11-12). Nehemiah charged the people with neglecting the support of the priests so the priests had to become farmers to support themselves, and Malachi addressed the same condition and its underlying spiritual cause (cf. Neh. 13:10-11 and Mal. 3:8-10).

Ezra and Nehemiah had sought to correct certain external conditions as well as certain internal conditions that characterized the Jews who returned from Babylonian captivity. The external conditions that needed correcting were the rebuilding of the altar of sacrifice, the temple, and the walls of Jerusalem. They were successful in changing these external conditions, but they were less successful in changing the internal conditions of the people. It is these conditions that Malachi addressed.

Malachi charged the Jews with seven specific sins. In each case his contemporaries responded by challenging his criticism. They said, "How have we done that?" (cf. 1:2, 6; 2:14, 17; 3:7, 8, 13). Their response indicated a hardness of heart, a resistance to deal with the internal conditions in their hearts that needed correcting. Malachi revealed the sensitivity of Yahweh to their condition and the insensitivity of the people to it. They believed that since they were serving God as He had directed He was pleased with them. Malachi said that their hearts were not right with God, and that He was not pleased with them. The people had a form of godliness, but they were devoid of the power of godliness.

Malachi is different from Haggai and Zechariah, the other two postexilic prophets. Haggai's mission was to stimulate the returnees to finish the temple reconstruction. Zechariah's mission was the same but also to reveal the future as a hope that would inspire them to work. Malachi's mission was to move the returnees to get back into fellowship with their God. Haggai focused on the material, Zechariah on the material and the spiritual, and Malachi on the spiritual.

Specifically, Malachi revealed three things to the physically restored Jews to move them to spiritual restoration: the unfailing love of Yahweh, their failures, and the secrets of strength in an age of failure. Let me explain each of these major revelations.

First, Malachi revealed the unfailing love of Yahweh for His people. This is the master theme that recurs throughout the book. It is like the main melody that keeps coming back in a great piece of music. We find this theme introduced at the very beginning of the book (1:1-2a). We could render it, "I have loved you in the past, I love you in the present, and I will love you in the future." In other words, this is a revelation of the continual, unfailing love of Yahweh for His people. His love for His chosen people was constant. This is a wonderful declaration especially when we remember that it came to the Jews when they had no king, no high priest, and no spiritual power--only an outward form of worship in which the people trusted. Bear in mind, too, that this is the last prophetic message that came to the Jews before 400 years of silence from heaven and the provision of their Messiah.

It is a message that God still loved His people as He always had and as He always would. The dominant theme in this book is God's "I love you." As we hear the sub-themes of Israel's sevenfold spiritual failures, this major theme constantly keeps coming back and reminding us of God's love in spite of His people's many sins. The mixing of these themes reveals that God was conscious of His people's sins and loved them anyway. So the book is not only a revelation of the constancy of God's love but also a revelation of the constancy of His love in view of His consciousness of their sins. The chief sinfulness of form without reality is that it hurts the heart of God because it expresses a heartless response to God's love.

Second, Malachi reveals human failure. It clarifies that no motive other than love for God can sustain a proper spiritual relationship with God (cf. John 21:15-17). It is possible to attend the place of worship, to go through the motions of worship, and even to make sacrifices of worship, and still not worship God--to have no fellowship with God. When these Jews lost their love for Yahweh, all their religious observances became as a noisy gong and as a clanging cymbal, noise but not music.

When true love departs, a certain callousness sets in. We see this in the people's response to the Lord's reminder of His love for them. They replied, "How have you loved us?" (1:2). That attitude is the root of all sin (cf. Gen. 3). Since this is how these Jews felt, it is no wonder that, as Malachi pointed out, they failed God in so many other specific ways. The hour in which we begin to cease to love God is the hour in which we begin to wonder whether God really loves us. Then our worship of God, if we continue it, becomes only formal, not real. Then there is no real power in our lives, only a form of godliness.

Third, Malachi reveals the secrets of strength in an age of failure. We hear this theme in 3:16. There was a smaller remnant among the remnant who returned from Babylon. This faithful remnant listened to and heeded the prophet's words. Notice what they did that led God to take note of them and to honor them in a special way.

They feared the Lord. "Fear" is the term that throughout the Old Testament refers to someone's reverence for the Lord that arises from an awareness of His love, on the one hand, and His wrath, on the other. Some of Malachi's hearers, reminded of His constant love for them, feared Him. And they esteemed His name. That is, they gave some thought to the wealth of goodness that had flowed, was flowing, and would flow from Himself. God's names reveal aspects of His character, for instance, Yahweh Jirah, Yahweh Nissi, Yahweh Shalom, Yahweh Tsidkenu, Yahweh Shammah, etc. As these people meditated on their God, as He had revealed Himself, they remembered how rich they were. Proverbs 18:10 says, "The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous runs into it and is safe." These Jews had nowhere else to run. Their nation was no longer grand and glorious, their priests had corrupted the covenant, and the kings had passed away. All they had left was the name of their God, so some of them thought about that and found wealth in their spiritual poverty.

Notice that these remnant Jews who feared the Lord "spoke to one another" (3:16). Not only did they think on the name of the Lord individually, but they also shared their common thoughts with one another. That is the essence of fellowship. So a second resource for times when people fail to have fellowship with God because of lack of love for Him is fellowship with like-minded believers who do appreciate His name.

The result of this activity, fearing the Lord and having fellowship with the faithful, was that "the Lord gave attention and heard" (3:16). The word translated "gave attention" means "hearkened," as when a dog picks up its ears when it hears its master's voice. What these people did caught the Lord's attention. He hearkened to them, and He "heard" or listened attentively to what they said. God always listens carefully to the conversation of those who bind themselves together with other believers who genuinely fear Him and who reflect on His great name.

The fourth secret of strength is hope (4:1-2). Malachi revealed that the sun of righteousness will appear. That is, righteousness will dawn on the earth like the rising sun. This will happen when Jesus Christ appears bringing righteousness to the earth. Then two things will happen. He will burn up, like the sun, what is dead and dry, those whose relationship with God is only a formal one. But He will also provide healing for those whose relationship with Him is real, those who love to meditate on God and fear Him. Thus the same sun will burn some and heal others. This happened initially when Jesus came the first time, but it will happen finally when He comes the second time.

The last word of the Old Testament is a reminder of the coming of this day of the Lord. So is the last word of the New Testament, the Book of Revelation. Therefore it must be very important that all people remember that this day is coming and live in the light of it. Let us, too, live by meditating on God and fearing Him, maintaining fellowship with others who do the same, with our eyes on the horizon of history waiting for "the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13).

I would summarize the message of this book this way. Appreciating God's constant love is the key to revitalizing present spiritual life and assuring future divine blessing.

Constable: Malachi (Outline)

Outline

I. Heading 1:1

II. Oracle one: Yahweh's love for Israel 1:2-5

III. Oracle two: The priests' illicit practices and indifferent attitudes 1:6-2:9

A. The priests' sins 1:6-14

1. Disrespectful service 1:6-7

2. Disqualified sacrifices 1:8-10

3. Disdainful attitudes 1:11-14

B. The priests' warning 2:1-9

IV. Oracle three: The people's mixed marriages and divorces 2:10-16

V. Oracle four: The problem of God's justice 2:17-3:6

VI. Oracle five: The people's sin of robbing God 3:7-12

VII. Oracle six: The arrogant and the humble 3:13-4:3

A. The people's arrogance 3:13-15

B. The remnant's humility 3:16

C. The coming judgment of Israel 3:17-4:3

VIII. A concluding promise and warning 4:4-6

Constable: Malachi

Malachi

Bibliography

Alden, Robert L. "Malachi." In Daniel-Minor Prophets. Vol. 7 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. 1964; revised ed., Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Blaising, Craig A. "Malachi." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 1573-89. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

Bright, John A. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Childs, Brevard. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. "Does God Change His Mind'?" Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):387-99.

_____. "A Theology of the Minor Prophets." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 397-433. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Constable, Thomas L. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

_____. "What Prayer Will and Will Not Change." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 99-113. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Dyer, Charles H., and Eugene H. Merrill. The Old Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 2001.

Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. London: SCM, 1967.

Freeman, Hobart E. An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophets. Chicago: Moody Press, 1968.

Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969.

Kalluveettil, Paul. Declaration and Covenant. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982.

McCarthy, Dennis J. Treaty and Covenant. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.

Merrill, Eugene H. An Exegetical Commentary: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Moran, William L. "The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1963):77-87.

Wood, Leon J. The Prophets of Israel. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Malachi (Book Introduction)

THE PROPHECY OF MALACHIAS.

INTRODUCTION.

Malachias, whose name signifies "the angel of the Lord," was contemporary with Nehemias, and by some is believed to have been the same person with Esdras. He was the last of the prophets, in the order of time, and flourished about four hundred years before Christ. He foretells the coming of Christ; the reprobation of the Jews and their sacrifices; and the calling of the Gentiles, who shall offer up to God in every place an acceptable sacrifice. (Challoner) --- He also clearly speaks of the twofold coming of Christ, preceded by [John] the Baptist and by Elias. Nothing is known for certain respecting this prophet. He inveighs against the same crimes as Nehemias, to whose covenant he alludes, chap. ii. 4. None was afterwards recognized for a prophet till the Baptist appeared. (Calmet) --- Both priests and people are here reproved, and the Jewish law yields to that of Christ. (Worthington) --- No date is prefixed no more than to the works of Jonas, Nahum, &c. St. Jerome seems to fix on the seventh year of Artaxerxes, when Esrdras came to Jerusalem. Liber ejus pro titulo sit. (Haydock)

Gill: Malachi (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO MALACHI

This book, in the Hebrew copies, is called "Sepher Malachi", the Book of Malachi; in the Vulgate Latin version, "the Prophecy of Malachi"; in the Syriac and Arabic versions, "the Prophecy of the Prophet Malachi"; According to Lactantius ^a, Zechariah was the last of the prophets; but the more commonly received opinion, and the truest, is, that Malachi was the last; hence Aben Ezra calls him Myaybnh Pwo, "the end of the prophets"; and by Kimchi he is said to be, Mbv Nwrxa "the last of them"; and sometimes, by the Rabbins, Myaybnh Mtwx, "the seal of the prophets" ^b; by whom they are all sealed up, concluded, and finished. His name signifies "my angel", as is commonly said; though Hillerus ^c makes it to signify "the angel of the Lord"; hence some have thought that he was not a man, but an angel; and so the Septuagint render ykalm dyb, in the first verse Mal 1:1, "by the hand of his angel"; and others have thought that the book takes its name, not from the author of it, but from the mention that is made of the messenger or angel of the Lord, John the Baptist, in Mal 3:1 but the more prevailing opinion is, that Malachi is the name of a man, the writer of the book, about whom the Jews have been divided. Rab Nachman says Malachi was Mordecai; and that he was so called because he was second to the king. R. Joshua ben Korcha contradicts him, and affirms Malachi is Ezra; and to him agrees the Chaldee paraphrase on Mal 1:1 which says, that Malachi, his name is called Ezra the scribe; but, as Kimchi observes, Ezra is never called a prophet, as Malachi is, only a scribe; wherefore in the Talmud ^d, where this matter is debated, it is concluded thus; but the wise men say, Malachi is his name; that is, it is the proper name of a man; there was a man of this name, that wrote this prophecy; not Mordecai, nor Ezra, nor Zerubbabel, nor Nehemiah, as some have thought; but Malachi: and if the accounts of Epiphanius ^e and Isidore ^f are to be credited, this prophet was born at Sapho, in the tribe of Zebulun; and had his name from his beautiful form, and unblemished life; and that he died very young, and was buried in his own field. The time of his prophesying is not agreed on: the Jews commonly make him contemporary with Haggai and Zechariah; they say ^g that Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, all of them prophesied in the second year of Darius; and Ganz, their chronologer ^h, places the death of these prophets together in one year; but he seems to be later than they: Haggai prophesied before the building of the temple; Zechariah about the time of it; and Malachi after it, when the temple was rebuilt, and the worship of God restored and settled; and when both priests and people were become very corrupt and degenerate, of which he complains; so that it is possible that he might live a century after the other prophets, and about four centuries before the coming of Christ, during which time prophecy ceased; though some think he lived not long before the times of Christ, which is not probable. Bishop Usher ⁱ makes him contemporary with Nehemiah, and places him in the year 416 B.C.; and Mr. Whiston ^k in the year 400 B.C.; Mr. Bedford ^l in the year 424 B.C.: however, this book has been always accounted authentic, and a part of the canon of the Scripture; and is confirmed by the passages cited out of it, and the references made unto it, in the New Testament, Mat 11:10. The general design of it is to reprove the Jews for their ingratitude to the Lord, their neglect and contempt of his worship, and breach of his laws; and to raise in the minds of the truly godly an expectation of the Messiah, and his forerunner, John the Baptist.

Gill: Malachi 2 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO MALACHI 2

This chapter contains a reproof both of priests and people for their sins. It begins with the priests, Mal 2:1 and threatens, in case they attend not to glorify the name of the Lord, they and their blessings should be cursed, their seed corrupted, dung spread upon them, and they took away with it, Mal 2:2 and the end of this commandment being sent them, of giving glory to the name of God, was that the covenant might appear to be with Levi, or him that was typified by him, Mal 2:4 of which covenant some account is given, with the reason why the blessings of it were given to him, with whom it was, Mal 2:5 who is described by the true doctrine he preached; by the purity of his lips; by the peaceableness and righteousness of his walk and conversation; and by his usefulness and success in turning many from sin, Mal 2:6 and it being part of the priest's office to preserve true knowledge, and communicate it, it is the duty of the people to seek to him for it; since he is the messenger of the Lord, Mal 2:7 but as for the priests of those times the prophet respects, they were apostates from the way of the Lord; made others to stumble at the law, and corrupted the covenant; and therefore became contemptible, base, and mean, in the sight of the people, Mal 2:8 who are next reproved for their marrying with those of other nations, idolatrous persons; and using polygamy and divorces, which were a profanation of the covenant of their fathers; a piece of perfidy and treachery among themselves; an abomination to the Lord; a profanation of his holiness; and led to idolatry, Mal 2:10 wherefore they are threatened to be cut off from the tabernacles of Jacob, and their sacrifices to be rejected; insomuch that the altar is represented as covered with weeping and tears, because disregarded, Mal 2:12. The reason of which was, because marrying more wives than one, and these strange women, was dealing treacherously with their lawful wives; was contrary to the first creation of man, and the end of it; and therefore such practices ought to be avoided; and the rather, since putting away was hateful to the Lord, Mal 2:14 and the chapter is concluded with a charge against them, that they wearied the Lord with their wicked words; affirming that the Lord took delight in the men that did evil; and that there were no judgment, truth, nor righteousness, in him, Mal 2:17.