Malachi 2:13-17To: Malachi Main MenuTo: Grace Notes Home Page Malachi 2:13"Another thing you do: You flood the Lord's altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands."Four Hebrew words tell the story in verse 13: 1. hSAKA, which is "to flood or cover;" however, the term more precisely means "man covers sin, either when he cloaks and extenuates it, or when he buries it in oblivion." [90] Thus, these Jewish idolaters are attempting to 'cover up' their cuckolding of God. Here, then, is the picture: the idolaters return from their fornications and idol worship, go to the Temple, weep and groan dramatically, offer their sacrifices, and leave confident that they have deluded God, and that He has forgiven them. And then, that very same evening they hurry back to embrace and copulate with the hierodules (the Baalim priestesses, the prostitutes). Malachi 2:14"You ask, 'Why?' It is because the Lord is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant."In verse 14, the idolatrous males of Judah ask the Eternal, Omniscient God 'why' He is not fooled by their 'double-dipping?' Why He does not accept their hypocritical offerings and their false tears as they feign repentance? Answer: because He has called Himself as a "witness," which in the hiphil stem means "to testify, to bear witness, hence to call as a witness." [92] In other words, God Himself has testified that they are liars, hypocrites, and adulterers; and not only to their human wives but, more importantly, to Him. And the question that the idolaters ask is presented as an ellipsis, which is a grammatical figure of speech where words are omitted, and the omission is to be furnished by repeating words from the preceding clause. Such an omission emphasizes the interrogative 'why,' in this instance, and not the omission. Which means that the idolaters are not only totally arrogant and hypocritical, but also totally befuddled by the fact that God has not been hoodwinked by their lies. These apostate idolaters have no comprehension of God, His Essence, or grace. The Hebrew term for "wife" is'ISHAH, and it appears twice in verse 14, and both times refers to a legal wife, which is brought out in the latter usage: "the wife of your marriage covenant." And the term for "covenant" is tyrB, which is a direct reference to the law of marriage as defined by God in the Decalogue. And the marriage covenant was designed, by God, to be a perpetual covenant. The term in the Hebrew for "youth" is NA'AR, and refers to a young person of about 20 or 21 years of age. In contrast, though, to these bona fide terms of love and fidelity, the Hebrew word CHABERET, is a hapax legomenon (used only in this passage). The word means "consort," within which "the root idea of the term 'to bind' also appears, especially in the concept 'charm.' Only in Deut. 18:11 does this term appear in a verbal form to express the idea of charming, i.e. casting a spell or tying up a person by magic. The act of charming is set forth as an idolatrous act and diametrically opposed to receiving revelation from God through his appointed prophets (Deut. 18:15)." [93] Most scholars assert that "consort" and "wife" are synonymous terms in verse 14. However, at risk of embarrassment, based upon the above definitions of the words themselves, and the semantical, syntactical and grammatical arrangement of the passage under consideration, the author disagreees, and submits that "consort" refers to those hierodules (priestess/whores), or Baalim, of the phallic cult. The "consorts," then, are those females with whom the men of Judah have been committing physical adultery, and the "wives" are their legal, wedded wives. Perhaps the verse should read: "Yet you ask, 'Why?' Because Yahweh has borne witness between you and between the wife of your youth, whom you have betrayed sexually: her, your legal wife (covenant-wife), and she your consort (prostitute)." Malachi 2:15"Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.""The first half of v. 15 is extremely choppy. Most translators also assume that the opening phrase should be treated as a question, implicitly or explicitly reading a he interrogative for the opening waw." [94] These words, then, of Dr. Redditt define the complexities surrounding the Hebrew of Malachi 2:15. An attempt will now be made to wade through these complexities. First, it should be noted that the verse insinuates Genesis 2:24, which reads, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Next, it is necessary, under the context of Malachi chapter 2, and under the idolatrous situation being delineated, to render the word for "spirit," RUACH, as "breath." And this rendering is sustained by the lexical evidence: "the basic idea of RUACH (Gr. PNEUMA) us 'air in motion,' from air which cannot come between a crocodile's scales (Job 41:16 [H 8]) to the blast of a storm (Isa 25:4; Hab 1:11 ASV, RSV). In living beings the RUACH is their breath, whether of animals (Gen. 7:15; Ps 104:25,29), men (Isa 42:5; Ezk 37:5), or both (Gen. 7:22-23)." [95] The next phrase to be understood is "in flesh and spirit they are his." Dr. Beth Glazier McDonald interprets this phrase as referring to sexual strength or ability. And she is on the right track. The precise rendering is exposed by Robert Thieme: "Did not he (God) make them (Adam and Eve) one [breath], yet he (God) had the residue of breath (God could have created a harem for Adam). And why only one (woman)? So that he (Adam) might develop a godly seed (children raised in the context of the family); therefore, guard the breath (the woman-wife) of your life and do not deal treacherously with her." [96] To speak quite plainly, this is the only tenable and lucid treatment of the passage. Every other venture demands an overabundance of guesswork and interpolation. This translation is supported by The Darby Bible (1884) and The Webster Bible (1833), the latter of which reads, "And did he not make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And why one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth." [97] Thus, as the Levitical priests would lose track of their lineage in Malachi 2:3 ("I will rebuke your descendants [seed]), the children of one husband and one wife would know their lineage, and their parents, i.e., the concept of family. In other words, the idolaters of Malachi's day were not just being unfaithful to God and unfaithful to their wives -- they were also destroying the concept of family, by means of which they were impoverishing their nation's social machinery. Moreover, Matthew 22:24-25 describe children, and thus the concept of family, as "seed." "'Teacher,' they said, 'Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brothers." The husband and wife are described as "one breath" because just as the air you breathe conforms to the ventilation system (lungs), and subsequently fulfills the physical demands for oxygen, so also the huband or wife fulfills the soul and body (in sex) of the counterpart. So the husband and wife, in effect, "breathe each other," and thus complete and fulfill each other. And fornicating with the Baalim prostitutes constitutes holding one's breath -- with fainting to follow. Interestingly enough, the phrase "residue/remnant of breath" implies that God, being omnipotent, could have and would have supplied Adam with more than one wife, if it was necessary and to Adam's benefit. But He did not. [98] The inevitable product of all this deceit is related in Malachi 2:16. The result of apostasy toward God, the result of idolatry, the result of sexual dissoluteness, the result of the betrayal of marriage fidelity and the familial concept is "strife and discord." Finally, then, marriages are subverted by unlawful divorce. Malachi 2:16"'I hate divorce,' says the Lord God of Israel, 'and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,' says the Lord Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith."The Hebrew term for "divorce" is SHALACH, and is defined as "a sending away." [99] And it is a double-entendre, for the husbands of Malachi's day were divorcing their wives without sufficient reason, and the Lord is about to divorce Judah with sufficient reason. The term "violence" is CHAMAS, and herein should be construed to mean 'a violation or hatred.' Indeed, because of hatred for God they hated their wives, and thus they perverted the Law, which in this passage is referred to as "his garment," which is LEBUSH, or, more properly, "clothing." [100] And in verse 16 the term is utilized metaphorically. The apostate idolaters wrap themselves in the protective covering of the Law, like clothing; however, inside they are full of hatred for everything, including God and themselves. Yet in their arrogance, they abuse the Law to write certificates of divorce for their wives. For remember, that under the Law only the man could write a certificate of divorce. The husbands would assert that their wives were 'unclean.' Thus they wrapped themselves in the righteousness of the Law to fulfill their sexual whims. H.A. Ironside eloquently describes this distortion of the law as "hidden violence. Divorces were granted on most trifling and absurd pretences, and meantime all their lawlessness was covered with a cloak of extreme punctiliousness in outward religious observances." [101] And Zephaniah 1:8-9 state, "On the day of the Lord's sacrifice I will punish the princes and the king's sons and all those clad in foreign clothes. On that day I will punish all who avoid stepping on the threshold, who fill the temple of their gods with violence and deceit." Finally, rather than covering themselves in the Law, in false righteousness, and acting deceitfully, they should "guard," SHAMAR, in the niphal stem, "their breath (the woman that completes them or fits them both soulishly and sexually)." And the implication is that by "guarding their wives," they will be guarding their own souls and happiness. Malachi 2:17"You have wearied the Lord with your words. 'How have we wearied him?' you ask. By saying, 'All who do evil are good in the eyes of the Lord, and he is pleased with them' or 'Where is the God of justice?'"The idolaters have "wearied" God, and the term in the Hebrew is YAGA', and it is in the hiphil stem; the word means, "to toil, especially with painful effort; it seems to imply dislike or disgust." [102] And it is indubitably an example of an anthropopathism, for God does not wear down, nor does he hate or dislike; however, "disgust" defines the divine policy [103] in terms that anyone can understand. And Robert Thieme defines the word as "bored," that is, they have begun to "bore" God. [104] They ask, "how?" They are arrogant and do not realize that the situation is harrowing, to say the least. For God no longer regards them; indeed, they have surpassed any normal standard of arrogance and are incoherent, for they find their question engaging, intellectual, and suggestive of some deeper wisdom, as 'Let us reason with God; He will see that we are correct.' God replies, that they believe that "all who do evil are pleasing in the eyes of the Lord." Here, then, is evidence that the idolaters believe that the sacrifice of trivial animals absolves them of responsibilty for their actions. In other words, the idolaters have deluded even themselves, to the point that they believe untruth to be truth; this is pure sophistry and irrationality. The effect, then, is that through sophistry "the sceptics are accusing God of calling evil good." [105] The prophet Isaiah bespoke their fate when he said, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." [Isa. 5:20] In addition, their pomposity exceeds all frontiers, for they ask, "Where is the God of justice?" And the question is hollow, for it looks as though there is no justice. They have confounded gracious restraint with justice. The word for "justice" is MISHPATH, and the term denotes justice as the counterpart of God's righteousness. The two attributes cannot be separated. And the term "signifies the due administration of judgment." [106] God will, then, as His perfect righteousness directs, impose judgment at the appropriate moment; until that moment, though, grace and mercy permit human free will the extravagances of conceit. It is absorbing to note that Robert Thieme assigns the first sophistry, where evil is called good, to the Jewish males; and the second sophistry is assigned to the wives of the sophists. For the wives perceive no justice, and thus seek to administer judgment for themselves through revenge. [107] Thus, both parties are guilty of deprecating and minimizing God. The Misapplication of DivorceMalachi 2:16 engenders the exposition of this subject. For the verse states that 'the Lord hates divorce' or 'putting away.' Throughout their history the Jewish males had been guilty of abusing this concept. And Malachi 2:16 is alluding to Deuteronomy 24:1, which says, "If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house." And this verse in Deuteronomy appears to be in direct disagreement with Deut. 22:22, which stated that adultery was a criminal act and was punishable by death: "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel." The contradiction, however, lies with mankind and not with God. This was the Law as spoken by God, i.e., adultery was considered to be a criminal act and the punishment was death. Nevertheless, verse 1 of Deut. 24 seems to mitigate the sin of adultery to a civil action. Why the alleged disparity? The answer is found in Matthew 5:27,31 and 32. In these passages our Lord was commenting on the Law, marriage, adultery, and the abuse of divorce. These verses will now be examined. Matthew 5:27,You have heard, that is has been said by those of old time, You will not commit adultery. Here, our Lord is not quoting the Law, or its amendment by Moses, but its disfigurement by those who abused it, called herein "those of old time," i.e., those of Malachi's day. These reprobates distorted this verse to pertain only to the act of adultery, and that only with a married woman. In other words, according to the distortion, if a married man copulated with an unmarried female, this was not adultery. In fact, there existed, six hundred and thirteen 'precepts' or distortions of this one particular law. [108] And our Lord continued with his quote of the distortion in verse 31: "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'" This distortion stated that if a man divorced his wife for any of the 613 precepts associated with the Law, it was not a legal divorce unless it was accompanied by a certificate. And it is a direct reference to Deut. 24:1 and the myriad distortions that accompanied it. Then, in verse 32 of Matthew 5, our Lord clarifies this distortion and rescinds it as it existed in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. In other words, our Lord says that these distortions are not valid. And the revocation of these abuses is introduced by the particle de., used here intensively, which "whispers a silent objection" [109] to these distortions. And it is more than silent, it is intensive; thus, the particle should be rendered "but in fact." Matthew 5:32 reads, "But (in fact) I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery, and anyone who marries a woman so divorced commits adultery." Thus, our Lord is stating clearly that these distortions are unacceptable and do not allow for legitimate divorce, nor for re-marriage. Now how does one reconcile Deut. 20:20-24, where it is stated that adultery is a criminal act and punishable by death, and Deut. 24:1, which appears to mitigate criminality to a civil action? Answer: Deut. 24:1-4 was, in its original form, a mitigation of the Law as amended by Moses because of "the hardness their hearts." And this latter phrase is a quote from our Lord in Matt. 19:8, which reads, "Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." In other words, Moses amended the Law to allow for civil divorce because the men were so amoral and vile, that "lusting after other women, and loathing their own wives," [110] they would falsely accuse their wives of adultery, thus misusing the Law to have their wives executed according to that Law. Moses' amendment, however, pertained only to adultery. And this was to prevent contrived murders. But they distorted even this mitigation which provided protection to the wives. The pertinent phrase in Deut. 24:1 is 'ERWAH DABHAR, which should be translated "filthy nakedness," [111] specifically, adultery. However, this phrase was also distorted and was translated "something of shame." This mistranslation, then, opened wide the door to divorce for any reason, including: a fly in one's tea, for hate, for over-salting or over-cooking food, for debilitating illness, and for a prettier woman. Indeed, the phrase in Malachi 2:16, "I hate divorce, says the Lord God of Israel," was interpreted by one Talmudist (R. Judah) to read: "If he hate her, let him put her away." Which then led to the further perversion of R. Solomon: "It is commanded to put away one's wife, if she obtain not favour in the eyes of her husband." [112] Thus, Moses' amendment, which was designed to prevent 'planned murders' utilizing a perversion of the Law, was itself perverted, and became nothing more than a divorce artifice. Thus Deut. 24:1-4 is a delineation of this divorce subterfuge, and the fact that the woman, as the innocent party, had the privilege of re-marriage. Chapter three of Malachi provides the answer to the question posed by the people: "Where is the God of justice?" Notes: [90] William, Wilson. Old Testament Word Studies; page 100. [91] Ibid.. page 477. [92] Ibid., page 486. [93] Harris, Archer, Waltke, Editors. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament; volume i, page 598. [94] Redditt, Paul. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi; page 172. [95] Harris, Archer, Waltke, Editors. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament; volume ii, page 836. [96] Theime, Robert. Malachi; from notes, undated. [97] Taken from BibleWorks CD 95, by Hermeneutika; donated to the author by Hermeneutika. [98] Thieme, Robert. Malachi; from notes, undated. [99] Wilson, William. Old Testament Word Studies. [100] Ibid. [101] Ironside, H.A. Notes on the Minor Prophets; page 448,449. [102] Wilson, William. Old Testament Word Studies; page 477. [103] This term has been borrowed from Robert Thieme. [104] Thieme, Robert. Malachi; from notes, undated. [105] Redditt, Paul. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; page 175. [106] Girdlestone, Robert B. Synonyms of the Old Testament; page 101. [107] Thieme, Robert. Malachi; from notes, undated. [108] Lightfoot, John. A Commentary on the New Testament From the Talmud and Hebraica. [109] Lightfoot, John. A Commentary on the New Testament From the Talmud and Hebraica; volume ii, page 119. [110] Ibid., page 120. [111] Ibid. [112] Ibid.; page 122. The above dissertation on the Misapplication of Divorce is based upon the scholarship of John Lightfoot and Robert Thieme. There is no charge for Grace Notes Materials. You can help further this work by your prayer and by sending a contribution to: Grace Notes 1705 Aggie Lane Austin, Texas 78757 wdoud@bga.com Grace Notes Web site: http://www.realtime.net/~wdoud/ Anonymous FTP site: ftp://ftp.bga.com/vendors/wdoud/ Grace Notes is a ministry of Village Missions International. |
|
|