Deeper Commentary
Malachi Chapter 2
Malachi 2:1 Now, you priests, this commandment is for you- The
idea would be that the following is specifically for the priests, although
Mal. 1 is largely directed at them also. I suggested on Mal. 1:1 that the
priesthood was to specifically be the messenger of the new covenant
heralding the potential arising of a Messiah figure. But Judah refused,
and so the potential was rescheduled and reapplied to John the Baptist,
and then to the latter day Elijah prophet.
Malachi 2:2 If you will not listen- Heb. "hear". This was the
epitome of God's covenant: "Hear, O Israel". To not even hear meant that
all the rest of the covenant principles were lost on them. To hear God, to
respect His word, is essential. This is why the Bible must have paramount
place in all our thinking about God.
And if you will not lay it to heart- Judah had gone into captivity because they did not "lay it to heart" (Jer. 12:11 s.w.). The restoration from captivity was to involve setting or laying to heart the new covenant (Jer. 31:21). They had returned from captivity, but were still not laying to heart their relationship with God. This lack of mental focus is one of the most common diseases of the soul, and affects many who would otherwise consider themselves religious Christians. They covered the altar with tears (:13) but didn't lay God's word to their heart. For all time we see demonstrated that mere religion and emotionalism isn't the same as a heart response to God.
To give glory to My name, says Yahweh of Armies- The exiles developed such an obsession with the Name that they even forbad the pronunciation of it. But this was typical mere religiosity, seeing that their root problem was a refusal to glorify the characteristics of God's Name.
Then will I send the curse on you- The curse with the article suggests the specific curse for disobedience to the covenant (Dt. 27:15-26; Dt. 28).
And I will curse your blessings. Indeed, I have cursed them
already, because you do not lay it to heart- This may refer to how as
recorded in Hag. 1, there was famine and none of the covenant blessings
which they had been promised for obedience. Or the idea may be that what
apparent blessings they had were already cursed from God's viewpoint, but
there was a gap between the curse and its fulfilment; note the future
sense of :3. This explains the apparent contradiction: "I will
curse... I have already cursed". In that gap, they could have repented and changed God's
intention. We too live within that gap, and it should impart an intensity
to our living, repentance and self-examination. God had already cursed the
priests, He had made that statement. But the whole point of Malachi’s
appeal was that the priests would repent, and thus the curse that had
“already” been pronounced would not come into operation. Note that God
isn’t saying: ‘If you don’t repent, beware, I will curse you’. He had
already cursed them, but at that late stage, even then, He was willing to
change His word- if they repented. It was exactly the same with Nineveh.
Indeed, many of the OT appeals to repentance and outlines of judgment to
come are of this nature. That judgment had already been decreed. But the
power of the repentance appeals is that even so, God is so sensitive to
genuine repentance that He is willing to go back on His own word. It’s a
great encouragement not only to personal penitence, but to perceiving the
deep significance of the repentance of others, and accordingly framing our
personal attitudes and judgments concerning them.
Malachi 2:3 Behold, I will rebuke your seed- The reference could
be to literal seed, but more likely to their children. The most common
excuse for lack of devotion to God is that resources are needed for our
children. This was the reason given by faithless Israel for not entering
Canaan. But it was their children who would suffer. GNB "I will
punish your children". The priests married Gentile women and divorced
their Jewish wives, and as such decided themselves that their seed would
not be a "Godly seed" (:14,15). So they worked out this curse by their own
decisions and actions, just as Jeremiah had said of them: "Your ways and
your doings have brought this upon you. This is your doom" (Jer. 4:18).
Their descendants would cease from being Levites if their mothers were
pagan Gentiles. They would be taken away from the altar just like dung was
taken away from it, and dumped outside the camp (Ex. 29:14; Lev. 4:11;
16:27). But this was their own choice. God didn't want this to happen-
"I have sent this commandment to you, that my covenant may continue with
Levi" (2:4, NASB).
And will spread dung on your faces, even the dung of your feasts; and you will be taken away with it- This is one of the harshest, crudest condemnations of the priesthood in the whole Bible. And yet it is prefaced by the statement of God's amazing love for all Israel in Mal. 1. It is the wrath of love. The allusion is to the taking of the dung of the sacrifices "without the camp" to an unclean place of destruction (Ex. 29:14; Lev. 8:17 etc.). Judah were being told that without repentance, they would again be cast out from God's holy space. "Spread" is the same word used for God's scattering of His people into exile (Lev. 26:33). They didn't repent, but this didn't happen for centuries, until AD70. Such was God's amazing patience, setting us a powerful challenge whenever we think we have been patient enough with lack of human response to His word. But finally, God did end their feasts by destroying the temple and ending the Mosaic law, and expelling Israel. The language is crude and shocking, purposefully so, in order to get over to these religious people who wept tears over God's altar in apparent devotion (:13)... that they were so deeply unclean and their devotions and blemished animal sacrifices so abominable.
Malachi 2:4 You will know that I have sent this commandment to you-
This continues the theme discussed on Mal. 1:5 and Mal. 3:18, that
all too late when resurrected to judgment, that generation would know the
truth of all these things. This explains why condemnation is described as
the mental anguish which leads to gnashing of teeth. Or we
can read this as NASB, as a continued begging for the priests to return to
the covenant: "I have sent this commandment to you, that my covenant may
continue with Levi" (2:4, NASB). And yet God had offered His people a
new covenant, indeed the old covenant was broken. But they wanted to still
stick with the old covenant and so He goes along with that desire. The
Lord likewise spoke of how He appealed to Israel by all means, offering to
play weddings, then funerals- but the just didn't want to play ball.
That My covenant may be with Levi, says Yahweh of Armies- God wanted to make a new covenant with the priests who are here addressed (:1) as "Levi". I will suggested on :5 that this was not the same as the Mosaic law, and was a separate although similar covenant to that made with Phinehas in Num. 25:12,13.
On a general level, all those in true covenant relationship with God will realize the fullness of commitment to us which He has entered into, and will likewise make a whole-hearted response and sacrifice (Mal. 2:4,5). Ps. 103:18 parallels "such as keep his covenant" with "those that remember His commandments to do them". Covenant relationship brings a natural desire to live within the atmosphere of God's spirituality. For Israel in covenant with God, absolutely nothing- not sex, menstruation, the content of clothing fabric, diet- could fall outside the scope of their covenant relationship. And so in principle it is with us under the new covenant.
Malachi 2:5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave
them to him that he might be reverent toward Me; and he was reverent
toward Me, and stood in awe of My name- The old covenant could not
give life (Gal. 3:21), nor peace with God because there was a remembrance
made of personal sins each year because of the inadequacy of the animal
sacrifices alone to deal with personal sin (Heb. 10:3). As noted
throughout Zechariah, God in Jeremiah and Ezekiel had offered the
returning exiles a new covenant, which did offer life and peace: "I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting
covenant" (Ez. 37:26; Is. 54:10). But they had refused it. This
surely is the covenant in view rather than the old covenant. But the
statement here is that this covenant had already been given and accepted.
The priest who first accepted it was I suggest not the historical Levi,
but Joshua the high priest who could have become a Messianic ruler. He
initially accepted it but didn't continue in that covenant, neither did
the priesthood after him; see on Hag. 1:1; 2:4; Zech. 3:1,3,6,8,9; 6:11.
Malachi 2:6 The law of truth was in his mouth, and unrighteousness was
not found in his lips. He walked with Me in peace and uprightness-
The man in view was "Levi" but this means surely an individual, specific
priest, rather than Levi personally. As suggested on :5, it may not so
much be Phinehas in view, but rather Joshua the intended high priest who
began well but then fell away. God's law was to be taught in truth,
whereas as explained on :8, the priesthood in Malachi's time had begun to
twist the law in an untruthful way. Is. 59:3 uses the same words in
condemning Judah after the restoration for having unrighteous lips. They
influenced the priesthood, and the priesthood influenced them. And thus
the entire community was guilty. The particular unrighteousness on the
lips of the priesthood would have been in teaching unrighteousness as
righteousness, thereby making their audience "stumble at the law" (:8).
"Uprightness" is the word translated "straight" in explaining how the
priestly messenger of the covenant would make the way "straight" for
Messiah's coming (Is. 40:4; 42:16). This was what was required of the
priesthood and high priest in order to prepare the way for Messiah's
coming. But the priest [Joshua?] failed in this, and so did the priesthood
subsequently.
And turned many away from iniquity- "Many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God" (Lk. 1:16) was alluding back to Malachi's message and prophecies of Messiah's forerunner; and it also referred to this definition of the ideal priest as one who "did turn many away from iniquity". The high priest Joshua and the priesthood at Malachi's time failed to prepare the way for Messiah's coming; and so it was reapplied to John the Baptist, and again to the Elijah prophet of the last days. "Turned away" is the usual word used for Judah's "return" from exile. They had been intended to return to God as well as literally to the land. They had failed to do so, and so they were given by grace the messenger of the covenant to prepare them. This appears to have been a priest, maybe Joshua, or the figure presented as 'Malachi', but the priesthood generally were not fulfilling this role as intended. And so it was rescheduled for fulfilment in John the Baptist and the Elijah prophet of the last days.
There is clearly a connection with Dan. 12:3 promising blessing for
those who turn many away from iniquity. Daniel’s prophecy that there would
be a time of trouble for Israel, followed by a resurrection and judgment,
may have had a potential fulfilment in Haman’s persecution. The LXX of
Esther 5 includes her prayer, in which she says that Haman was seeking to
hinder the work of the temple. This would explain why initially the
Samaritans persuaded the Persians to make the work cease, but then
(humanly inexplicably) another edict is given for it to resume. The people
were delivered (Dan. 12:1), as they were by Michael the Angel manipulating
Esther. But the resurrection, judgment and Kingdom didn’t follow, because
Israel weren’t ready for it. Then those who turned many to righteousness-
i.e. the priesthood, in the primary context- would be rewarded (Dan.
12:3). But Malachi and Haggai repeatedly criticized the priesthood at the
time of the restoration for being selfish and not teaching Israel. Daniel
and Jeremiah were heartbroken that there had to be such a delay to the
full fulfilment of the Messianic restoration of the Kingdom.
As noted on :7, all Israel were to be priests in spirit. The priests were to ‘turn’ [s.w. ‘convert’] believers away from the life of sin and behind the way of God (Mal. 2:6 LXX), but this is applied to all of us in James 5:19.
Malachi 2:7 For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they
should seek the law at his mouth-
Dt. 33:10 had stated that Levi "shall teach judgments to Jacob" i.e. the rest of Israel. But this was command more than prediction, because Mal. 2:7 says that therefore the priest's lips should keep knowledge. They didn't, but they ought to have done. Again we see how "shall" is so often command rather than prediction of how things shall be in the future.
For he is the messenger of Yahweh of Armies- As suggested on Mal. 1:1, Malachi [s.w. "messenger"] was himself a priest who was modelling what a priest should be like by giving his prophecy. The messenger of the covenant (Mal. 3:1) was therefore a priest or priesthood which would prepare the people to accept the new covenant in Messiah. The implication is that Malachi and the priesthood of his time could and should have been doing this; but the priests refused. So we have here a priest rebuking priests; and this is always the most powerful way to preach, teach and pastor, when the teacher or pastor has commonality with the audience. It was and is why the Lord Jesus fully had our human nature. The prophecy was reapplied to John the Baptist, who was also a priest; and seeing Israel generally failed to respond, again to the latter day Elijah prophet.
Malachi 2:8 But you have turned aside out of the way- I suggested
on :5 that initially at the return from Babylon, the priest did teach
God's ways. Certainly Nehemiah and Ezra did. But the subsequent priesthood
didn't.
You have caused many to stumble in the law- This was the effect of their not rejecting the law, but finding all manner of ways of twisting it to allow female animals to be offered instead of the males stipulated (Mal. 1:14), and crippled animals to be accepted instead of unblemished ones. Finding ways around God's requirements only makes others stumble; again, a timeless warning.
You have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says Yahweh of Armies- As explained on :5, that covenant was not the old covenant, but a new covenant offered to the returning exiles, as detailed in Jer. 31 and Ez. 37, which they initially accepted, but now the next generation had corrupted it. There is clearly also an allusion to the covenant with Phinehas. The priests "corrupted the covenant of Levi", in that they married out of the Faith (Neh. 13:29), thus violating the Spirit of the Phinehas covenant- which was given in recognition of zealous action against relationships with Gentile women (Num. 25:12,13).
Malachi 2:9 Therefore I have also made you contemptible and base
before all the people, according to the way you have not kept My ways, but
have had respect for persons in the law- By letting the
people 'get away with' things like offering sick animals, the priests
became despised by the people. As will be explained on :11,
the people came to despise the priests just as they had done at the time
of the young Samuel. But because of this, the people were driven to
idolatry. This is what happens when the leadership of God's communities
drive people away and make them simply not want to have anything to do
with the community any more; those driven away rarely keep the faith, but
rather drift off to various forms of idolatry. By respecting persons,
showing favouritism to some, the priesthood became despised before all the
people. They were unable to have a platform of respect from which to teach
the people, and what they taught anyway was a corruption of the law.
Malachi 2:10 Don’t we all have one father? Hasn’t one God created us?
Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother-
It could be argued that Malachi is quoting their words of justification for marrying Gentiles: "Don’t we all have one father? Hasn’t one God created us?". They reasoned that seeing all men are created by God and descend from Adam, we are a brotherhood of man and so we can intermarry. This was totally different to God's insistence in Mal. 1 that He has a unique and special love and purpose for Israel, which He doesn't have with any other nation. But the returned exiles considered themselves rejected by Yahweh, and used this as an excuse to divorce their Jewish wives and marry Gentiles.
The treachery in :14 was against their wives. But here it is against their own brethren, and often elsewhere the word is used of treachery / unfaithfulness to the covenant with God. Unfaithfulness in personal relationships inevitably leads to breakdown in relationships with ones' brethren. And tearing up your covenant with your wife was related to tearing up your covenant with God/ You won't be unfaithful in one aspect of your life without it affecting other aspects; spirituality is "the whole man". On Mal. 4:6 we will see how reconcilliation with God is related to reconcilliation within human relationships.
The covenant in view is that explained on :5. Remember that Malachi is addressing the priests (:1), and he himself was a priest (:7), probably a family relative of the priests he was addressing. Therefore the reference to brothers and having one father is to be understood in that context; the "one father" Malachi shared with his audience would then have been Levi. But the wider principle remains; the unity of God and our common relationship with Him should mean that we do not at treacherously against our brother, who also has God as Father.
Profaning the covenant of our fathers?- The purpose of building the temple system was so that Yahweh’s Name and covenant would no longer be 'profaned' by His people (Ez. 36:23; 44:7); but they had profaned it (also Mal. 1:12), in that they saw it all as mere religion, and the fire of a true relationship with the Almighty was smothered.
Breaking covenant with God was related to breaking covenant with their wives and marrying Gentiles. Thus those who 'married out' in Ezra's time admitted: "We have broken covenant with our God ("have broken faith with our God" , RSV) and have taken strange (i.e. Gentile) wives of the people of the land... now let us make a covenant with our God, to put away all these wives" (Ezra 10:2 LXX). Ezra confirms the truth of what they said: "You have broken covenant and taken strange wives" (Ezra 10:10 LXX). Some years later, Nehemiah stridently criticized Israel for yet again marrying Gentiles. He described their action as "breaking covenant with our God and marrying strange wives" (Neh. 13:27 LXX); the Levites likewise "defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood" (Neh. 13:29) by their marriages. Notice how the repentant Jews in Ezra's time realized that they had broken the covenant, and sought to rectify things by re-entering the covenant, through serious repentance. Marriage with unbelievers needs to be assessed in the light of these words. In nearly every reference to marriage to Gentiles, there is the comment that this would surely lead to adopting the religious views of the Gentile partner; views which inevitably take a man away from the one and only Divine Truth, as revealed in the covenants of the Gospel. Turn through the following passages, which all make the connection between marriage out of the covenant, and adopting idolatry: Ex. 34:12-16; Dt. 7:2-9; Jud. 3:6,7; 1 Kings 11:2,3; Mal. 2:11; 2 Cor. 6:14.
Malachi 2:11 Judah has dealt treacherously, and an abomination is
committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the holiness
of Yahweh which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god-
The context is of the priests being criticized, that is the theme throughout this chapter. We enquire why they are addressed here as "Judah". Perhaps because the original Judah married the daughter of a Canaanite (Gen. 38:2) and his first two sons by this marriage were slain by God (Gen. 38:7,10). Just as God would curse the seed of the priests who married Gentiles (:2,3). "Judah has profaned the sanctuary of Yahweh" (Heb.) was something which the priests specifically are made guilty of doing in Malachi's criticisms of them. The priests were not to marry a "profane" woman (Lev. 21:7), and here the same word is used of becoming profane by marrying a pagan, who was "profane".
The treachery was therefore marital unfaithfulness. This is the great burden of Hosea; that Judah were in covenant relationship with God but were unfaithful. And yet there was never a time when Judah stated in so many words that they were through with Yahweh and were remarrying idols. The prophets so often perceive the true implication of human actions and attitudes. They had effectively divorced God and remarried. We recall that Malachi was speaking at the time of the restoration. The common impression that they left their idols in Babylon when they returned to Judah is incorrect. It's true that under the Maccabees they did reject idolatry, but not for a few generations. All the rebuilding of the temple and the walls of Jerusalem was therefore done against this background of idolatry. Remember that it is the priests being addressed here (:1). They had made Judah stumble (:8); they are being blamed for Judah effectively divorcing Yahweh. They had effectively taught idolatry, although they would have strongly denied this. But by driving people away from Yahweh worship by their corruption and theft from the people, which led to the people despising them (:9), they had driven the people to idolatry. There is a religious need and instinct within people; if we or our church leadership make others stumble away from serving God, putting them in a position where they feel they can't come to meetings or remain within the believing community... then they will stumble off to other faiths. And it will be our fault.
The people were warned that the temple had been destroyed because of
their previous “abominations”, and that the rebuilt temple was not to
feature any such abominations (Ez. 43:8; 44:6,7,13). “Let it suffice you
of your abominations” they were told- and were commanded not to allow the
uncircumcised into the temple, as they had been doing (Ez. 44:6,9). This
sounds as if the prophecy of Ezekiel was more command than prediction- to
those of his own day. But they returned, and committed the abominations
[s.w.] of the Gentiles (Ezra 9:1,11,14) and married their daughters. Judah did not ‘separate’ themselves from the surrounding tribes but
instead married them and worshipped their idols (s.w. Ezra 9:1 “The people
of Israel... have not separated themselves from the people of the land,
doing according to their
abominations... for they have
taken of their daughters for themselves”). The same word for
“abominations” occurs here; they had "dealt
treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel". Yet it had been
emphasized that
the temple system Ezekiel described was to be free of all the
“abominations” [s.w.] previously committed by Israel (Ez. 43:8;
44:6,7,13).
Malachi 2:12 May Yahweh cut off out of the tents of Jacob the man who
does this, and his descendant; may he not offer an offering to Yahweh of
Armies- As explained on :11, God is furious with those who cause
others to stumble by effectively driving them away from the community of
His children. Those who uphold disfellowship, excommunication, a closed
table etc. must take this challenge very seriously. "May he not offer..."
confirms that we are reading specifically about the priests, who offered
the scarifies. But by divorcing their Jewish wives and
marrying into the families of idolatrous Gentiles, the Levites were
themselves bringing this curse about- for their children would not be able
to serve in the temple.
The AV has "The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar". Yahweh cut off the “master” [‘the stirred up one’, s.w. about how their spirit was ‘stirred up’ to achieve the work of the Kingdom at the restoration (Ezra 1:5)] because they divorced their wives and married Gentiles (Mal. 2:12). The potential work of God on men’s hearts was frustrated by their hardness of heart. "The scholar" would refer to those taught by the "master" priest; perhaps Joshua the potential high priest is in view.
Malachi 2:13 This again you do: you cover the altar of Yahweh with
tears, with weeping, and with sighing, because He doesn’t regard the
offering any more, neither receives it with good will at your hand-
"This again..." begs the question as to what is the force of "again". It may well just mean 'And further...'. Although it's tempting to make a connection with Ez. 8:14, where Judah went into captivity because Jewish women entered the temple of Yahweh and wept for Tammuz [perhaps ritual weeping, a form of worship]. But the context requires that those who wept at the altar because their offerings weren't accepted are those of :14-16, who are given as a reason that they had divorced their wives. Access to the altar suggests that this is addressed to the priests, who have in the previous verses been convicted of making the people stumble into idolatry. Covering an altar with tears and emotional behaviour recalls the priests of Baal on Carmel (1 Kings 18:28). They professed such loyalty to Yahweh when effectively they had divorced Him. This is all proof enough that emotionalism in religious worship is not necessarily reflective of true spirituality. Their semblance of Yahweh worship was no better than Baal worship. Going through the motions and emotions of worship may in fact be no more than idolatry. This is an incisive challenge. They covered the altar with tears of apparent devotion whilst in their hearts doubting God loved them (Mal. 1:2) and robbing and attempting to deceive God.
Malachi 2:14 Yet you say, ‘Why?’- They were somehow aware that
God didn't accept their offerings. Perhaps it was simply because Malachi
was telling them so. Or maybe the absence of the shekinah glory in the
temple was the evidence of this; for the restored temple scenario of Ez.
40-48 featured the glory and visible presence of God returning to the
temple.
Because Yahweh has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion, and the wife of your covenant- see on Jer. 31:32; Mal. 1:8. The priests married Gentile women (Mal. 2:11,14-16), even though Ez. 44 commanded they should not do this: "they shall take virgins of the seed of the house of Israel" (Ez. 44:22). They thereby precluded the possibility of the prophecies of Ez. 40-48 being fulfilled. I suggested on :5 that the covenant in view is that which the priests entered on returning from captivity. This is why that generation are being charged with departing from a covenant which they personally entered. Their broken covenant relationship with God and their breaking of the covenant with Levi was reflected in their breaking covenant with their wives. As they had divorced God and married Gentile gods (:11), so they had divorced their Jewish wives to marry Gentiles. That is the implication of the parallels. Yet their Jewish wives remained their "companion", some kind of concubine. This again reflects how Judah had effectively divorced Yahweh and married Gentile idolatry, and yet they still professed devotion and commitment to Him. The Hosea - Gomer situation expresses just the same.
We naturally enquire why the priests were divorcing their Jewish wives and marrying Gentile women. We must remember the extreme poverty of the times, caused by the plagues and bad harvests brought by Yahweh. The Jews were even selling their children into slavery for bread (Neh. 5:1-5). It seems that these Gentile women were from wealthy local land owning families who had been moved into Judea during the exile. Land was needed in order to grow food, and the landless Levites were tempted to do anything in order to get access to land- seeing they weren't being paid tithes, as Malachi later laments. Neh. 13:10 confirms that: "the portions of the Levites had not been given to them; so that the Levites and the singers, who did the work, had fled each to his field". There was therefore financial advantage in such marriage as it gave access to land; and that was why they divorced their Jewish wives. They didn't have to financially support them after divorce, and the families they married into likely demanded this too. To simply take another wife would have been economically difficult for them- polygamy was only for the wealthy. And the priests particularly did this because they had no land inheritance, tithes weren't being paid to them and therefore they were desperate. And so they were tempted to marry into pagan families that owned land. But they were guilty of not being faithful to the covenant with Levi; for in return for the tribe of Levi focusing on teaching God's word and arranging His worship, He had promised to always take care of them: "Yahweh, bless his substance [s.w. "wealth"]. Accept the work of his hands" (Dt. 33:11). This promised blessing was not being experienced by them because they didn't trust it (see on :2). Somehow everything will work out if we go God's way. But they didn't trust that, and divorced their wives and married Gentile pagans to try to ensure their own wealth. And yet they covered Yahweh's altar with tears, as if trying to demonstrate that they actually were still close to Yahweh despite their unconscionable actions. Such demonstrations of zeal for God, when the heart and body are far from Him, are psychologically credible and seen amongst us today.
Malachi 2:15 Did He not make you one, although He had the residue of
the Spirit? Why one? He sought a godly seed- Possibly
"Although He had the residue of the Spirit" might mean that God made one
man and one woman- although He could have used His Spirit to create more
than one wife for Adam. But He didn't. Because He saw that one man : one
woman was the best basis for them raising "A Godly seed". Or perhaps God
'made you one' in allusion to how He would make man and woman "one flesh"
in marriage (Gen. 2:24). He cements the relationship over the years, and
divorce for the reasons they were divorcing was breaking apart what He had
tried to joint together. This was the Lord's perspective on divorce (Mt.
19:4-6) and Paul's perspective on extramarital sex (1 Cor. 6:15-17).
Certainly a father divorcing his wife and taking a Gentile unbelieving
wife was not going to easily raise a Godly seed. And how many divorces and
second relationships have simply not taken into account the negative
spiritual effect upon the children...
The wife of youth whom they had divorced was primarily Yahweh (:11). But as so often happened, a man's relationship with God is reflected in his relationship with others. Their divorce with God was connected to their literal divorcing of their wives and taking others, from pagan backgrounds. Just as they had divorced Yahweh and married the daughters of strange gods (:11). The Levites were not to marry divorcees or Gentiles (Ez. 44:22), so they precluded the fulfilment of that potential scenario of Ez. 40-48.
The Hebrew is difficult and the GNB is of some help: "Didn't God make you one body and spirit with her? What was his purpose in this? It was that you should have children who are truly God's people". The basic point is clear; their remarriages to Gentiles were not going to produce "a Godly seed", and that is one of the reasons why marriage with unbelievers is wrong.
If husband and wife are one spirit, psychologically joined by the marriage bonding which God applies to married couples not just at the wedding but throughout their relationship, then breaking that apart is undoing His work. Our spirit is thereby working against God's Spirit. The Lord's teaching about marriage and divorce in Mt. 19:6 seems based on His reflections upon this verse. If we have the Spirit of God we will not act in marriage as they were acting- hence we could translate "No one has acted like that if he has a remnant of the spirit".
Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of his youth- Typical of the prophets, the appeal to repentance is on the most personal level- an appeal to watch their mind and thinking, "your spirit". And this appeal to the spirit is repeated in :17. This appeal for repentance had been made in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, and there had been response, to the point of those who had married Gentile wives divorcing them. And yet very quickly, the very same failure was committed again. No matter how intense the repentance of a moment, this is not guarantee that we can drift on acceptably to God. That is the lesson.
Malachi 2:16 For I hate divorce, says Yahweh, the God of Israel-
Malachi began by speaking of God 'hating' Esau in the sense of loving him
less. Perhaps this idea is present here too; for God and Israel divorced.
God is perhaps saying that He 'loves less' divorce, it is the least
preferred option. But in the next sentence, He will state that He equally
hates the use of the institution of marriage to cover violence. It could
be that we are to conclude that in such a case, then the open separation
of divorce is preferable, although God 'loves it less' or 'hates' it.
But the LXX and ESV offer a translation to the effect "But if thou
shouldest hate thy wife and put her away, saith the Lord God of Israel,
then ungodliness shall cover thy thoughts...". This makes better sense of
the connection between the words "hate" and "putting / sending away"
['divorce'] which is to be found in Gen. 26:27 and Dt. 24:3.
"Divorce is hatred" is a fair interpretation- for in their context, they
were hating their wives and divorcing them for no good reason. Without
changing any of the consonants,
the Hebrew can be read with different vowels to give as LXX "if anyone
hates, let him divorce". Or we may consider the NIV: "The man who hates
and divorces his wife… does violence to the one he should protect".
And him who covers his garment with violence! says Yahweh of Armies- The garment refers to the metaphor of a man casting his garment over his wife as a sign of protection and acceptance in marriage (Dt. 22:30; Ruth 3:9; Ez. 16:8). The idea could be that the man was using the garment of marriage to cover violence. On one hand God hates divorce, but He balances this by saying that He equally hates those who do not formally divorce but use the institution of marriage to conceal violence. Or we can understand this as meaning "divorce is like a garment that covers wrongdoing / violence". As if the divorce and remarriage somehow obviated them from moral responsibility for how they had behaved to their first wives. "I hate divorce" can be understood as God saying He considers divorce, in this case, as hateful. Rashi renders "For injustice shall cover his garment". Instead of covering their wife with a garment, they were being 'violent' to her. Possibly they were being literally violent to their Jewish wives to make them leave them and return to their parents, in which case the husband was free from financial responsibility towards her.
Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you don’t deal treacherously- For all their gross immorality, the appeal was to take heed to how they thought, their spirit. For this is the root of our behaviour. This is twice repeated (:15). Divorce and all marital failure begins in the mind, in the spirit. The LXX makes the connection clearer: "But if thou shouldest hate thy wife and put her away, saith the Lord God of Israel, then ungodliness shall cover thy thoughts, saith the Lord Almighty: therefore take ye heed to your spirit".
Malachi 2:17 You have wearied Yahweh with your words-
Several times we read of God being wearied by Israel's sins (Is. 7:13;
Jer. 15:6; Ez. 24:12; Mal. 2:17). Even though God does not "grow weary"
(Is. 40:28) by nature, it seems to me that in His full entering into His
people's situation, He does allow Himself to grow weary with the sins of
those with whom He is in covenant relationship. He as it were limits
Himself, in order to enter into meaningful relationship with us. It was
this kind of capacity which God has which was supremely revealed in His
'sharing in' the crucifixion of His Son.
Yet you say, ‘How have we wearied Him?’ In that you say, ‘Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of Yahweh, and He delights in them;’ or ‘Where is the God of judgment?’- Again, it is doubtful if their lips framed these actual words. But the prophets perceive the real implication of positions. And God does the same with us today. The priests are being addressed here (:1), and perhaps their false teaching was to the effect that judgment was now past and whatever the people did would not come into judgment; and that God delighted in sinners. God had given them the land because He "delighted" in them (Num. 14:8 s.w.). Perhaps the priests were wrongly teaching that the mere fact they were physically within the land showed that God delighted in them, even though they were doing evil.
Evidence of God's judgment was all around them. Not least the drought, leading to them even selling their children for food (Neh. 5:1-5). But they acted as if all this was either bad luck or God being unreasonable and unjust to them- remembering that the Hebrew for "judgment" also has the idea of justice. Like many today, they had blanked out in their minds the possibility that they needed to deeply repent- and then things would be so different.
Or we can read this with GNB "Where is the God who is supposed
to be just?". They expected a materially blessed life from God despite
their selfishness and lack of devotion to Him. And they ended up saying He
was unjust, because He didn't come through for them materially. Just as
many do today. The Judeans were living in a world of broken dreams [the
restoration prophecies hadn't come true, and they were impoverished not
wealthy], lost hopes, sadness, religious and political cynicism. Exactly
as so many do today. Isaiah gives more background: "‘(Why) do we humble
ourselves, if you do not take note of it? (Is.
58:3) ... We await justice, but there is none, salvation, but it is far
away from us" (Is. 59:11). Malachi elsewhere reports their claim that God
didn't love them (Mal. 1:2), and that "It is useless to serve God. What
have we gained by keeping his charge and walking in abject awe of the Lord
of Hosts?" (Mal. 3:14). But they refused to accept the reason for all this
which Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi gave them- they had not repented, were
disobedient to the commands for the restored Kingdom, and were looking
solely for their own immediate material benefit rather than God's glory.
Previous Chapter
