Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Malachi 2:13 - 2:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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 זֹאת; and בְּכִי וַאֲנָקָה is a supplementary apposition to דִּמְעָה ot , added to give greater force to the meaning. מֵאֵין עוֹד, 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 וְלָקַחַת is also dependent upon מֵאֵין, but on account of the words which intervene it is attached with לְ . רָצוֹן , 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. עַל־כִּי = עַל־אֲשֶׁר, 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 הֵעִיד would necessarily be construed with בְ, 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 berı̄th '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 וּשְׁאָר רוּחַ לֹו, 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 לֹא אֶחָד (not any one = no one, not one man) is the subject of the sentence, whilst the object to עָשָׂה 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 וּמָה הָאֶחָד are elliptical, the verb עָשָׂה, which may easily be supplied from the previous clause, being omitted (cf. Ecc 2:12). הָאֶחָד, 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). נִשְׁמַר בְּרוּחוֹ is synonymous with נִשְׁמַר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ in Jer 17:21, and this is equivalent to נִשְׁמַר לְנַפְשׁוֹ in Deu 4:15 and Jos 23:11. The instrumental view of בְ (“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 יִבְגֹּד) 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 יִבְגֹּד into תִּבְגֹּד, since the ancient versions and the readings of certain codices do not furnish sufficient critical authority for such a change. The subject in יִבְגֹּד 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. שַׁלַּח is the inf. constr. piel and the object to שָׂנֵא: “the sending away (of a wife), divorce.” שָׂנֵא 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: אָמַר 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 וְכִסָּה חָמָס עַל ל, which do not depend upon כִּי שָׂנֵא, 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.