The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the caves around Qumran on the northwest shores of the Dead Sea in 1945.¹ In all there were over 400 manuscripts from eleven caves.

From archaeology we know that there were three occupations of the community. A few coins and sherds from the early era show that the community began to flourish in the reign of Hyrcanus (134-104 B.C.).² While there may have been an earlier and continual dwelling on the site, the first major community was built around 110 and flourished until an earthquake in 31 B.C. ripped through it and cracked the cisterns. A few people continued living there among the ruins, but there was an interval in the occupation because of the absence of coins of Herod and the infrequent number of manuscripts. The reign of Archelaus gave them reason to rebuild for the second occupation was from 4 B.C. until 68 A.D. The third occupation was Roman.

So the evidence of archaeology and the scrolls points to the same time that Josephus describes the Essenes; and the location is the same as that given in Pliny.

The Scrolls

The Rule of the Congregation, also known as The Manual of Discipline, first states the aim of the community: to leave the evil way and serve God in accordance with the Law of Moses, seeking the pure life and hating the sons of disobedience. Then the scroll describes the ceremony of admission, the annual census, and the common life.

Instruction concerning the two spirits forms a major part of the scroll. God the creator allotted two spirits to man, which constantly struggle. One is truth, whose origin is the fountain of life, and this has dominion over all the princes of light. The other is perversity from the power of darkness, and it is in the hand of the Angel of darkness. For those in the right path there is bliss, perpetual life and joy, and everlasting light. The reward for evil is the blow of the Angel of destruction in the everlasting pit by God's wrath. God has set an end for all perversity--he will at that time destroy it forever.³

After this instruction in theology the Rule spells out the discipline of the community. Those converted from evil became a community of law under the authority of the sons of Zadok, priests who kept covenant. In the oath the newcomer promised to obey all that was revealed to the Zadokites about the Law of Moses, and to be separated from men who walk in wickedness. For the first year the newcomer could not touch the purification of the Many; after that all his wages and property would be mingled with the community's, but he would spend another year of testing before coming to the meal.

Reproof for misconduct was with humility and love and not with anger, disrespect, or a spirit of wickedness. The scroll lists different errors with their punishments; for example, saying the holy name, death, but if accidental, dismissal; falling asleep during instruction, ten days' separation; malice, revenge, and foolish words, three months; going naked before another, six months; or murmuring, final dismissal.

In sum, the community was a Jewish sect that went into the wilderness to prepare the way. The members were priests, Levites, common people, women and children included; but the priests were prominent. They looked for two messiahs, a priestly messiah and a messiah of Israel, probably a ruler.⁴ The Law was supreme; nevertheless there was no reference to animal sacrifice. There was a strong emphasis on election, but with human responsibility.⁵

In the additional Rule of Annexe and the Benedictions, there is recorded the procedure when Adonai shall have begotten the Messiah among them. The priest enters at the head of the congregation, then the heads of the sons of Aaron, and then the Messiah, followed by the chiefs of the tribes, the wise men and the holy. When they gather for the community table, no one may reach for food before the priest stretches out his hand over the food, and then the Messiah will do the same.⁶

The Habakkuk Commentary offers interpretations on the biblical text. The members of the community believed that these interpretations (called pesher) of mysteries (called raz) were revealed to the chosen interpreter, the Teacher of Righteousness.⁷ But in addition the community thought it stood in the prophetic line of Daniel;⁸ Daniel wrote, "None of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise (maskilim) shall understand" (Dan. 12:10). They believed they were in the end times and that they were the maskilim, for secrets and their interpretations were revealed to them.

The scroll refers to the Kittim as the enemies of Israel. Although the term in the Old Testament refers to Cyprus, it receives a wider use in the scrolls, namely, ruthless pagan warriors trampling over the land and its inhabitants, sacrificing to military standards, using weapons of war as objects of worship. Since the commentary was written around 63 B.C., the immediate reference was to the Romans.⁹

But the scroll also mentions the "Teacher of Righteousness," who arose in opposition to the teacher of falsehood, and founded the community.¹⁰ Such a title could be used of many different individuals at different times;¹¹ but this individual was the founder, a priest who received divine revelation, an interpreter whose interpretations were binding, and a strict ascetic. The references show how high this holy person stood in their memory.

The source of all the troubles was the "Wicked Priest." This individual began well, but soon forsook God and the Law, amassing wealth by violence and becoming famous for wickedness.¹² It may be that he slew the Teacher, for the commentary refers to the iniquity he did to him, for which God humbled him with a devastating blow.

The task is to fit all these titles and events together to identify the persons and therefore the founding of the community. It is a sad commentary that there is no lack of candidates for the role of the wicked priest. One view is that the events are pre-Maccabean, that the wicked priest was Menelaus who desecrated the Temple, and caused Onias III, the High Priest, to flee, leaving the priesthood without a Zadokite. A second view is that the wicked priest was Hyrcanus (134-104), who broke with the Pharisees. A man named Judas who demanded that Hyrcanus lay aside the priesthood would then be the founder of the Essenes. Another view is that the wicked priest was Aristobulus I in view of the infliction of diseases he experienced before his death. A fourth view is that the wicked priest was Alexander Jannaeus, who was delivered into the hands of his enemies, but escaped; because the people hated him so much he massacred the Pharisees.

Another view with more connecting links puts it in the time of Aristobulus and Hyrcanus II. The comments on Habakkuk 2:7-8 refer to the "last priests of Jerusalem" who amassed wealth by plundering (which could be the tribute of 63 B.C.). Hyrcanus II would then be the wicked priest. The comment on Habakkuk 1:13b says that the "House of Absalom" was silent when the charges were made against the Teacher. This might refer to Absalom, the uncle and father-in-law of Aristobulus II.¹³

While this view is appealing, Milik makes a stronger case with his description of the earlier period:¹⁴ The Hasidim of the Maccabean period was a group drawn from the priesthood and laity; they broke with the Maccabeans and supported Alcimus, the ungodly but Aaronite nominee for priest by the Seleucid king.¹⁵ But when Alcimus turned on them and slaughtered sixty people, part of the faithful abandoned Jerusalem for the wilderness commune. They disapproved of Hellenism; they disapproved of ruling priests, they disagreed over the calendar, and they were stunned by the unworthy conduct of the new priests, especially since many of them were priests themselves.

Milik focuses on two important facts about the wicked priest: 1) he rebuilt Jerusalem, and 2) he died in torment in captivity. Jonathan (160-142) rebuilt the city; and Balas gave him the priesthood in 152. His involvement in Syrian politics brought in a process of secularization. The Kittim of Assyria (usually read Syria) would then be the major enemies referred to when the Jews abandoned Jerusalem for their desert home. And finally, the Essenes are first mentioned during the reign of Jonathan.¹⁶

Although one cannot be dogmatic, this last view makes the best sense. But one must not miss the point--the controversy was basically over the priesthood, its power and its degeneration.

The War Scroll offers a description of the final war, real or unreal, between the righteous and the wicked, drawing on eschatological passages from the Old Testament. The righteous are called "sons of light," for they were led by the spirit of truth; they were the Jews of Levi, Judah, and Benjamin, those that were true to David, the true line of Israel. The "children of darkness" refers to Edom, Moab, and Amon, the immediate enemies, as well as the Kittim of Syria and Egypt, Greek powers ultimately.

The Temple Scroll has a large section of instructions for the rebuilding of the Temple. The community viewed it as the missing law of 1 Chronicles 28:19, the plans given to Solomon. But the plans do not fit Solomon's, or Zerubbabel's, or Herod's temples--the author had in mind a future temple.

Concluding Observations

Millar Burrows summarizes the comparison between the Essenes described by the historians and the material from the scrolls with a cautionary note: "The current tendency to use the term 'Essene' in a broad way to include the Qumran sect along with others of the same general character is not seriously objectionable … we may consider it possible, though by no means certain, that Josephus was thinking of the Qumran community when he wrote of the `other order' of Essenes, which practiced marriage. It is thoroughly possible, even probable, that Pliny's Essenes were the men of Qumran. One must still, however, protest … the assumption that both bodies of data apply to one and the same group."¹⁷

What are the difficulties in equating the Qumran community with the Essenes? First, the name "Essene" is not used in the scrolls; second, there is a greater sectarianism at Qumran than among other Essenes who lived in towns; third, at Qumran the oath was central for admission, but else where it came at different times; fourth, the group at Qumran was under a hierarchical order of priests, something not mentioned of the Essenes; fifth, the Essenes sent gifts to the Temple (but did not go to sacrifice), but Qumran repudiated the Temple; and sixth, the later works of the scrolls are more militant than some think the Essenes were.

To explain these inconsistencies we must remember that the community concealed things from outsiders; the scrolls, then, being the product of the community, should provide additional and sometimes different information. We must also recall that Josephus and Philo were coloring things for the Greek readers.

The similarities make it clear that this was an order of Essenes: first, the location fits the reference in Pliny; second, the description fits well--purity, asceticism, a common life, care for the sick and aged, but division over marriage and children; third, both groups have washings and lustrations; fourth, admission was by graded examination periods; fifth, both have a common meal, with Qumran giving more details; sixth, the Qumran community was in the prophetic line, interpreting mysteries and seeing visions of the end times, and the Essenes were known to interpret dreams and predict events; seventh, both groups had a hierarchical system with strict rules and rigid discipline; eighth, the Essenes believed in fate (as Josephus saw it), and predestination was strongly held at Qumran; ninth, both groups refused to sacrifice in the Temple, strictly observed the Sabbath, and loved to study the ancient books.

The Bible does not refer to the Essenes or to the community at Qumran directly. Yet there are indications that John the Baptist might have had contact with such a group in his early years. John was born into a priestly family in a nation that was divided over the priesthood; his father expressed great expectations with his birth.¹⁸ He apparently seceded from that role. Luke 1:80 says that John was in the wilderness until the day of his manifestation. There is no indication of when he left home; but it is reasonable to conclude from this that he spent most of his youthful years there, a belief that has led to the speculation that his parents died and the Essenes cared for him and trained him.¹⁹ His parents were old at his birth.

Not only did he live in the wilderness, he was an ascetic, clothed with camel's hair and eating locusts and wild honey (Mk. 1:6). The Damascus Document mentions locusts as an active diet (XII, 14). Nothing is said of honey; but many Essenes were bee-keepers and knew how to handle such liquids. John came preaching as a voice in the wilderness (Isa. 40:3); this phrase was used in the Rule of the Congregation (VIII, 14andIX,19) for the purpose of the community (with a little different meaning). And of course John's ministry included baptism, within ten miles of Qumran. Finally, John's denunciation of the Pharisees and the Sadducees would have been perfectly acceptable to the Essenes. The fact that Essenes are not mentioned in Matthew 3:17 may be significant.

But John was no Essene. His baptism was unto repentance, but the community's was a repeated lustration to maintain purity. John was called to evangelistic efforts, but they were cloistered, refusing to give secrets to the wicked. And, of course, John saw Jesus as the Messiah, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. As far as we know, the people in Qumran did not--they remained a Jewish sect until the end of the Roman wars.

With Jesus there are even more differences with the Essenes: He was no ascetic, He was not a legalist, He was not bothered by oil, He did not separate Himself from the Temple, and He was not secretive about His message. He did, of course, withdraw from the crowds and the cities for prayer and renewal. But this is not the same as living in a community. The differences between the Essenes and Jesus will be developed in subsequent chapters.

Down through the history of the Church there have been groups of Christians who separated themselves from the unholy cities and formed such communities, calling them by a variety of names to reflect the nature of their orders. Their purposes and functions were not unlike those of the Essene communities; and on occasion their theology has been similarly preoccupied with the events of the end of the age. Even today Christian communities exist; they may be part of an historical order known for monastic life, or they may be independent communes. Living in a community that shares all things, has an ordered devotional life and a rigid code of discipline does not appeal to the rank and file of Christians. And neither should it, for such communities do not facilitate the whole mission of the Church in the world. Moreover, such communities can easily fall under the control of individuals who may abuse their power.

But there is also something of the spirit of the Essenes in many Christians who prefer that their communities, their schools, and their workplaces if possible, be thoroughly Christian and separated from the evil society. I am not saying that this is necessarily the wrong thing to do, for that would have to be determined in the different situations. But this interest in developing and safeguarding an isolated environment goes far beyond the usual conviction of biblical separation.

¹ A young Bedouin throwing stones into the caves hit one of the clay pots that held them. After two years they were acquired by the Metropolitan at St. Mark's Monastery in Jerusalem. Eventually they were obtained by those able to study them (Milik, pp. 12,13).

² Ibid., pp. 51,52.

³ This theology has more than a hint of dualism; for a discussion, see the literature on this aspect of Qumran.

⁴ This may still reflect an earlier bitter opposition to the political leaders holding the priestly office as well.

⁵ See Eugene Merrill, Qumran and Predestination.

⁶ Dupont-Sommer concludes that this must be the Messiah of Israel, and the Priest the Messiah of Aaron (p. 108).

⁷ F. F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (London: The Tyndale Press, 1960), p. 9.

⁸ Compare the scroll of the Hymns of Thanksgiving (1QH) to see examples of this, notably I, 21; II, 13; and IV, 27-29.

⁹ Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969),

p. 68. This is the most widely held view.

¹⁰ The clear reference to his founding the community is in the Damascus Document.

¹¹ See J. Weingreen, "The Title Moreh Sedek," Journal of Semitic Studies 6 (1961):162-174.

¹² Pfeiffer, p. 71; see also a summary of the Damascus Document in Milik, pp. 56-58.

¹³ It might also refer to the actual son of David, and therefore be a figurative description of the Great Sanhedrin as traitors. If this is so, the Teacher would have been tried before the Sanhedrin, accused by Hyrcanus II, and condemned (Dupont-Sommer, p. 261, n. 4).

¹⁴ Milik, pp. 80-84.

¹⁵ Recall that the name "Essene" is a Greek translation of the Aramaic equivalent of this Hebrew name.

¹⁶ Josephus, Antiquities, 13.5.171.

¹⁷ Millar Burrows, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Secker and Warburg, 1958), p. 273. He adds, "To some it may seem pedantic to maintain this distinction, but for the purpose of accurate historical knowledge it is essential."

¹⁸ It is interesting to compare Luke 1:68-79 with the material from Qumran; while both draw heavily from the Old Testament, there is the same expectancy of a new age and the end of darkness.

¹⁹ Burrows, p. 57.

The scribes make up another group of individuals who enjoyed the authority of leadership in Israel. In the New Testament they are associated with the Pharisees and the High Priests as opponents of Jesus. In the Mishnah they are presented as pre-rabbinic teachers with authority, as well as copyists and teachers.¹ Josephus does not list them as a distinct group.

The scribes have a notable history. All ancient peoples had large numbers of scribes for the transmission of religious texts and other legal and historical documents. In the Old Testament the best-known scribe is Ezra; because he was both a scribe and a priest, he was a very powerful religious leader (Ez. 7:6).

If there had not been copyists and interpreters, there would have been no transmission of the biblical text. Those who did the work very quickly became authorities on the text. Most of them were probably priests, or linked with priestly groups. With so many complicated materials involved with the transmission of the holy writings, professional, well-trained scribes were absolutely essential.²

Under the influence of the Greek world, non-priests were added to the scribal class in greater numbers. Moreover, more specialized activities were included; the scribes were also philosophers, sophists, councilors, and teachers.³ In the Book of Deuteronomy we are told that the Levites were the teachers of the Law; but from the Hellenistic period on this task was shared by scribes who may or may not have been connected to the priestly or Levitical heritage--they took their place beside the priests.⁴

In the Maccabean period the scribes were prominent leaders of society; they were now an institution. "Scribe" became a title for a learned guardian of the Law. According to Ben Sira a scribe was also a wise man who had comprehensive knowledge.⁵ And Ben Sirais an important witness; his primary calling was as a biblical scholar, a teacher of the Law, and a representative of the class of soferim.⁶

According to Josephus, scribes were officials at all levels of government. Saldarini concludes that in the New Testament they could be mid-level officials serving the king (p. 261). But there were also Temple scribes who occupied themselves recording, teaching, and ruling on points of law.

The scribes do not seem to be a coherent social group with membership. They were basically bureaucrats, experts on Jewish life and law. They might be lower level scribes who served the villages as village scribes, making contracts, documents, and serving as government officials. But they mostly lived in Jerusalem and associated with the priests: they were expert in judicial procedures, helpful in the enforcement of Jewish law and custom, and even joined the governing class and served on the Sanhedrin. Because they depended on the wealthy for their training and their positions, they were loyal to the chief priests and leaders.⁷

In Rabbinic literature they are the early authoritative teachers to whom a large number of rulings and legal interpretations are attributed.⁸ They were influential in Judaism, to be sure; the Mishnah circumscribes but does not condemn their authority.⁹ At this period they were credited with less authority than they seem to have in the Bible. In the Talmudic period the roles of the scribe and the wise were assimilated into the title Rabbi.¹⁰

In the New Testament period the scribes were learned teachers and authoritative leaders, who were drawn from the priests and Levites, as well as the common people. Mark portrays them as high officials, advisors to the chief priests, and teachers of the Law. As such they were part of many types of officials opposed to Jesus. Matthew presents them as the learned of Judaism, leaders of the community. Luke portrays them as an appendage of the Pharisees, learned men who were protecting Judaism, and leaders who were associated with the Chief Priests. It is clear from the many witnesses that the scribes had authority because they had knowledge. And whatever level of government they served, they sought to preserve Judaism against opponents like Jesus.

In Christianity the "learned" have always been influential; and with that influence comes authority. This can be very good. The Church desperately needs spiritual leaders who are biblical scholars. Unfortunately, such learning can be more of a hindrance than a help. Biblical scholarship can be weak and ineffectual; it can also be dishonest and destructive. And it is not uncommon to see scholars, buoyed by popularity, seize the authority and set themselves over generations of biblical authorities. And if they have little or no faith, or if they follow faulty presuppositions, their learning will not contribute to the spiritual growth of the believing community. More often than not the learned work to impress their peers, and in such academic arenas modern criticism and political correctness are the ways to acceptance and advancement. Traditional beliefs, especially the supernatural, are all too often considered to be obscurantist. And it is not merely because a good deal of conservative scholarship has been shoddy. Much of the Christian faith is simply an embarrassment to many. The world of biblical scholarship is filled with theological cowards. One can only wonder how the modern scholars would compare to the ancient scribes' opposition to Jesus and His claims.

¹ Saldarini, p. 241.

² Ibid., p. 249.

³ Saldarini, p. 249.

⁴ Moore, I:41, 42.

⁵ Ibid., p. 254.

⁶ Moore, I, 39.

⁷ Saldarini, pp. 266,267.

⁸ In the tannaitic literature the scholars are not called "scribes"; they are the "sages" (hakamim).

⁹ Ibid., p. 268.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 273.

Introduction

Worship is supposed to be a celebration of being in covenant fellowship with the living God. It is a time set aside for the members of the covenant, the believers, to demonstrate their faith with genuine praise and thanksgiving. And God arranged the worship of Israel in a way that praise and thanksgiving would be most natural for the people--he arranged it for the three great harvest festivals ion the land, barley in the spring, wheat in the summer, and summer fruits in the fall. Because the harvests were a gift from God, the people were by duty bound to bring tokens of their thanksgiving to offer to God at the feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. And because these were harvest celebrations, they were natural times for the farmers to rejoice--the work was over for the season. Only those who grew up on a farm would know how hard the work is, and how much joy there is when the harvest was finally in.

When the Israelites came up to Jerusalem top worship, they were to bring animals from their flocks, wheat and fruit from their fields, and whatever other gifts of gratitude they wanted to give to God. God did not need the food to survive (see Ps. 50); Israel was to bring the offerings to God not because he needed them, but as an expression of the Israelite’s need of God. To refuse to offer the gifts to God was to say that God was not necessary to the success of the people, when in fact without him they could not survive.

When the people came to worship, God did not require a great deal of them in the way of offerings--tokens, really, of their herds and their crops--a handful of grain, or an animal for the family. But what they brought had to pass two important tests, and in many cases only they and God would know if they passed them. What they brought had to be the first and the best. Nothing else mattered. It had to be the first-born animal, or the first fruit of the crops or the orchards. God gets his share first, because he is the most important. But it had to be the best--the best firstborn or first fruit offering. To bring God an inferior gift would say that one did not think much of God, for the quality of the gift indicates the value the giver places on the one receiving the gift. That is true in any human relationship, and it certainly is true in the spiritual relationship we have with the Lord.

But people are always falling short of pure worship, or at least pure worship on a sustained level. And so the prophets came on the scene in Israel to rebuke, reprove, correct, and exhort the people. In the earlier periods the prophets had to deal with idolatry and pagan corruptions in Israel’s worship. After the exile that was no longer a major problem. But instead, worship was being corrupted by the indifference and selfishness of people. And so Malachi had to address a whole different set of problems in the nation. His first sermon, directed at the priests but certainly speaking to the worship of the people, deals with their making a mockery out of worship by bringing inferior offerings. God was not pleased with that kind of worship.

I. Those who offer God worthless gifts despise the name of the Lord (1:6-8)

A. The Charge of Despising the Name

Malachi begins his message with a couple of affirmations that the people would probably agree with wholeheartedly, but that he would use to lead into his rebuke. He declares, “A son honors a father, and a servant his master.” They would respond, “Yes, this is what the Law said, and this is how things ought to be.” The word “honors” indicates that the son would give his father, and the servant his master, the proper weight of authority (the verb is from kabed, to be heavy”).

But Malachi follows this with two rhetorical questions from God: “If I am a father, where is my honor; if I am Lord, where is my fear?” says Yahweh of armies to you, O priests, who despise my name.” This would have overwhelmed the people; they thought the message was going to be on the human relationships he introduced, but he turned it to their spiritual relationship with God. The accusation is clear: they were not honoring nor fearing the Lord, and so they did not really consider him their father or their master. He still has not stated what the problem is, but whatever it is it can be summarized that they do not honor the Lord and they do not fear him--and yet they are priests and worshipers! It is possible to be in attendance in a worship service, go through all the ritual and sing all the hymns, and yet despise the Lord.

This is the point the prophet makes by saying that they despise his name. The message is addressed to the priests directly, but as we shall see, because of their failures, the nation was also guilty of not honoring and fearing the Lord. They are also the ones “who despise my name.” The word “despise” means to look down on something as if it is worthless, to despise or treat with contempt. The Lord says the priests are “despisers of my name,” the participle form emphasizing the nature of the word as their nature. And the “name” in the Old Testament refers to the Lord himself, his person and his works.

The priests thought they were doing everything right, saying the prayers and the blessings, and making all the right sacrifices; so they responded (at least Malachi knows how they would respond), “Wherein have we despised your name?” Even if they made a mistake here or there in the service, it did not mean that they despised the name of the Lord, did it?--so they would reason. But Malachi said the Lord said otherwise.

This is a very serious charge even as it stands; the seriousness is signaled by the title of God, “Yahweh of armies” [hosts], a judgment title meaning that God has all the heavenly and earthly armies at his disposal to judge the people. And so now that Malachi had their attention, he could explain what was happening.

B. The Charge Explained

The Lord said through the prophet that they were offering on the high altar defiled food. The altar was the place of sacrifice, of course; and the charge was that what they were offering to God did not measure up to the standards. The “food” that they brought was defiled or polluted. That the sacrifices were called food was both symbolic and practical, symbolic because when they were burned on the altar it was as if God “consumed” them, and practical because some of the sacrifices were to be eaten by the priests and the people as communal meals.

This was a serious charge because of the requirements in the Law. They were supposed to bring sacrifices that were perfect--healthy animals, without any blemish at all. There were two very important reasons for this. First, the sacrifice was a gift that was to be offered to God. As noted above, the kind of gift that someone gives indicates what they think of the person they are giving it to. For example, if a husband gave his wife a gift for Valentines Day, say a new mop, the gift would certainly not be well-received because it would not be special and because it would speak volumes of what he thought of her. Or if someone gave another person a gift that was old, used, worn out, and of no use any more, it would be an insult. They would just be pawning off some junk on the person. So to bring a gift to God that was defiled was a real insult--no matter how much the priests protested the charge.

Second, theologically the animal sacrifice was for atonement, signifying that the perfect animal would be offered in place of the sinner. Since the animal represented God’s provision for the sins of the worshiper, it had to be without blemish itself. This principle came to fulfillment in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross: he was the sinless Lamb of God who gave his life for the sins of the world. If Christ had been defiled, a sinner, his death would have been no better than our own deaths. The only one who could redeem us from sin was the only one who was sinless.

So to bring defiled offerings was serious. And they knew it. But they challenged this as well: “Wherein have we defiled you?” Note, in anticipating what their response is, Malachi changes the object--they were not just bringing defiled offerings, they were defiling God.” If the sanctuary were holy, if the altar was holy, if the sacrifices were to be holy, then to bring in defiled gifts would be to defile everything about worship. How so? Because, as Malachi answers this charge, he says that in effect they are saying that the table of the Lord is contemptible! Here is the word “despise” again--not only do they despise the name of the Lord, they think the table, that is the altar, is worthless. Because the people brought defiled gifts they did not think the altar and the ritual was worthwhile.

How exactly did they despise the altar and offer defiled things? Here then are the specifics. In verse 8 the prophet says, "When you offer the blind for a sacrifice, is that not evil? And when you offer the lame, and the sick, is that not evil?” He is talking about animals. The people knew they had to bring animal sacrifices to the sanctuary for their worship--an animal for a sin offering, another animal for the burnt offering, a third animal for the peace offering--three animals for the family group every time they came to the sanctuary! That could get expensive, of course. And so they brought the animals that were diseased, crippled, blind, and worthless, animals they could not sell or use, but they could offer them to God. After all, God was only going to burn them up anyway. So this was a very practical thing to do--so they thought--fulfill the ritual, and get rid of the crummy livestock at the same time.

But Malachi challenges them: “Offer them to your governor; see if he will be pleased with you, or respect you”--says the Lord of armies. Try paying your taxes to the government by giving it worthless things. No, the government gets its hand into the paycheck first and takes its share right off the top. Always. But God is more important than the government; so why do people think they can get away with giving him inferior gifts?

And the people in Malachi’s day are not the only ones guilty of this. When I was growing up people used to collect things for missionaries or disaster relief, and they often found that people had given junk, things that they could not use any more. What happened to sacrificial giving? This was cleaning out the attic. And, when people give to the Lord in worship, it is often what is left over after they plan everything else that they want to do with their money. The standard in worship from the beginning is that God gets the first and the best. The first-born animal, the first fruit from the trees and the field, go to God; and whatever is given to God has to be perfect, it has to be the best. This is true of physical gifts as well as spiritual service. Our money, our time, our service--God’s people must give the best they have to him; and in all things he must have the pre-eminence (Col. 1:18).

II. Those who are guilty of worthless worship must seek God’s favor to continue to be his people (1:9-11)

A. The Instruction to Find Favor

In the next section the prophet instructs the people what they should do. They have a choice. If they feel that they have violated the holy things, then all they can do, and do quickly, is pray to the Lord for forgiveness (v. 9). “Now, entreat the face of God that he may be gracious to us.” The expression is bold, but simple--they have to pray for divine favor (the face of God usually represents his favor). The motivation is that God may be gracious. The word “gracious” implies that they do not deserve God’s favor, but rather his judgment, for “grace” is undeserved favor.

The reason for the urgent prayer is that the people are guilty: “this is from your hands” is an idiom in the book that means, “this is what you have produced.” Will God be pleased or will he respect those who do this? The implied answer to the rhetorical question is that God has no pleasure in or respect for the worshiper who offers to God something that is ruined or worthless.

B. The Need to Prevent Vain Worship

But on the other hand, if they are going to keep worshiping like this, the prophet declares, “O that someone would shut the doors so that you might not kindle fire on my altar gratuitously.” Malachi thinks it is better to lock the doors of the temple and keep the people out. If they continue to worship this way, then the fire they light on the altar will be worthless. In stating this the prophet uses the word “gratuitously, without a cause”; it forms a word play on their seeking God’s grace, for it is from the same root (khanan). “Grace” is undeserved merit; “gratuitous” is for no reason, without a cause. In this passage, the latter meaning applies, for their worship would be worthless, pointless, for no reason, a waste of time. God takes no pleasure in worthless worship; in fact, he rejects it! If people do not do it with love and devotion, but only out of compulsion to follow a ritual, their gift will be worthless, and they will be rejected.

C. The Prophecy of Gentile Worship

What would be the outcome of shutting down the temple and keeping false worship out? Turning to the Gentiles. In verse 11 we have one of the early predictions of Gentile faith: if the Israelites reject the Lord, the nations will not. So, from the rising of the sun to its setting, the Gentiles will worship him. This is a figure of speech called merism, two opposites are stated for the meaning of the totality. Rising of the sun is in the morning, setting is in the evening-all day; the rising is in the east, the setting in the west-everywhere. All day long and everywhere the nations will worship and magnify the Lord. Moreover, they will burn incense and offer pure sacrifices to the Lord. The burning of incense goes with offering prayers, and offering pure sacrifices goes with the obedience of faith, for to do that they would have to prepare for the worship. In time this is what happened, God turned to the Gentiles. And when the Gospel went to all nations, people celebrated the pure offering, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Righteous.

III. Those who would worship the Lord must change their attitude or they may be cursed (1:12-14).

A. The Danger of Letting Worship be a Drudgery

Malachi, in contrast to the prospect of others worshiping correctly, turns back to his audience to reiterate their sin and explain it further. “But you are profaning it.” The word “profane” in Hebrew means to treat or make as common (English “profane” means outside the temple), ordinary; the word is the antonym of “holy.” Their holy meal in the sanctuary was not holy; it was a profane or common meal because they brought ordinary animals. They said, or thought, that the table was defiled, and its food contemptible. Of course, they would not say this--they were priests, after all, and they had to say the right things in the services; but in the way that they worshiped they were saying this.

And even worse, Malachi says they are not even trying to hide their true feelings. In verse 13 he adds, “And you say, ‘What a drudgery!’ and you snort at it, says the Lord of armies.” The snorting must be some kind of gesture or expression of disgust; to them it was a drudgery to do it, a pain in the neck. There was no joy in worship, no delight in serving God.

This attitude prevails today in so many circles of worship where the ritual has become a routine, then a drudgery. People go through the service, but it is something to endure. And sometimes ministers, for one reason or another, might become bored, or indifferent, perhaps burned out. They need to turn the service over to someone else until they can get their spiritual perspective restored. Genuine praise and thanksgiving will go a long way to bringing life back into the service; but a large part of the problem is going to be concerned with how the Word of God is used--and that will be Malachi’s next sermon.

B. The Warning of Deceiving the Lord

The Lord asks through the prophet, “When you bring injured, crippled and diseased animals to offer them as sacrifices, should I accept them from your hands?” What an insult! The message concludes with a curse: “Cursed is the deceiver who has in his flock an acceptable male [sacrifice], and offers to God a blemished thing”--literally, a ruined or corrupt thing (the word is used for things like spoiled milk). The Hebrew word “curse” basically means removed from blessing, or loss of the blessing. This will be the way the next sermon of Malachi begins--how God curses their blessing because they do not obey Scripture. But if people keep the best for themselves, and offer God the junk, God may take away even the best they have (see Deut. 8), or even their lives, as he did in Acts 5 when Ananias and Sapphira lied to God about what they were giving. So God will not long tolerate false worship; he will get rid of it, or as John warns in Revelation 2 and 3, he will remove the candlestick”

And then, if this curse lands, if the deceivers are removed from the place of blessing, the Lord’s name will be reverenced among the Gentiles. Even among the Gentiles it was known what the Lord could do, and so they feared him.

Conclusion

The Lord Jesus Christ told the woman at the well that the Father was seeking worshipers who would worship in spirit and truth. Worship must be honest and spiritual; the worshipers must put their heart into it and offer to God the best that they have, and the best that they can do. To get to this point they have to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord so that they will appreciate more who he is and what he has done. The greater the knowledge of the object of worship, the greater the worship. But if people do not venture there in their faith, but live selfish and self-indulgence lives, then the worship will be a drudgery and their gifts perfunctory and worthless.

Introduction

Marriage is an institution of God. It accords with the dictates of nature and the laws of divine inspiration. It was an integral ingredient in the happiness of Eden, and so is an integral part of society. It heightened, it perfected, the pure, fresh, and serene joys of that Garden, the scene of every beauty and the temple of God; and so it has been perpetuated to this present hour as asocial blessing to soothe and sustain us amidst the depressing and difficulty circumstances of our fallen condition.

Jesus threw a distinct holiness and grandeur around this particular relationship of a man and a woman. To him it was a blessed estate, and so he clothed it with honor and sublimity. He ratified its contract; he guarded its obligations; he expounded its laws; and he graced its celebration with his presence. In fact, the first sign that his hands performed was at a bridal festival where he turned the water into wine for the joyous celebrations to continue.

The apostles caught the idea of their master, and invested it with mystic solemnity by presenting it as a type of the substantial, invisible and everlasting union existing between Christ and his bride, the church. Accordingly, it involves the most tender, close, and lasting ties that can unite human beings together in this life. It combines the earthly interest, fortunes, and happiness of two people, a man and a woman, and it influences the destiny of many others. The interests of the couple united, the triumph of truth in their union, and the upward progress of humanity in their arena are all dependent on the preservation of God’s institution of marriage.

Unfortunately, things have not turned out very well. If we are to look to the institution of marriage for progress in truth, stability, and progress in society, then we will be disappointed. From the very beginning of Genesis people have attempted to change God’s institution of marriage to suit their desires. That plan was simple and clear: one man and one woman becoming one flesh throughout their earthly lives, to produce a godly seed.

But the human race embraced every form of profane and vile activity; and within the marriage relationship the laws of God were broken at every turn. Formally or informally, marriages were dissolved, because all these sins in one way or another affected the family. And when the family serenity and unity is destroyed, the spiritual life and worship falls as well. In the modern world the dissolution of a marriage is rarely considered a sin; rather, it is an option that may be taken to avoid difficulties or tensions. Oh, it is regarded as a tragedy, certainly a stressful experience, and a failure on some level. But a sin, or even an embarrassment? Only in the strictest of religious settings. To God, however, divorce is a sin, no matter what the causes or circumstances, or who is the guilty party or who is the innocent party. A divorce, according to his word, is the breaking of a covenant, a falling short of the standard of God, and a serious and painful complication of life that seems never to go away.

And we find no better description of this violation and its pain than in the Bible than in Malachi 2. No passage in the Bible deals with all the details of marriage and divorce. Rather, each passage comes from a particular set of circumstances or a particular question. Malachi was dealing with a situation where a good number of men got rid of their Hebrew wives and married pagan women. The prophet gave no details, only a description of this as a treachery--to God and the covenant as well as to the wives. Modern counselors would look into what went wrong with their original marriages, or what in their personality needed to be addressed, which is certainly helpful. But the prophets wanted everyone to realize that the failure was a sin, and that to go ahead in life with God they first had to acknowledge that, or as we say, own it, at least own their part in something that fell short of the will of God. If reconciliation was possible, it was to be pursued; if not, then the people had to accept responsibility for their acts, find forgiveness and healing from God, and get on with their lives--like any other person forgiven and restored.

Malachi delivered his burden to the people of Israel well after the time of the return and revivals of Ezra and Nehemiah, somewhere between 440 and 400 B.C. What we have in the book is a number of his messages; we have them because they are part of the divine revelation of God and timeless in their relevance. But what this prophet faced was an antagonistic audience, much like today in these matters. In the earlier days when people heard the Word of the LORD they trembled and listened; but in Malachi’s day when they heard the Word they challenged it. This should not surprise us. For people to sin, say, for them to get rid of their spouses in order to marry pagans, biblical Law would have to be challenged, qualified, or set aside in some way. It cannot be ignored, because it stands there as a witness. And in the days of the prophets, a Malachi was there to declare the standard. After the captivity many folks got carried away with their freedom. When they divorced and married women who worshiped false gods, Malachi presented their actions as a defilement of the holiness of the LORD. Malachi’s message was similar to that of Ezra and Nehemiah; but he alone focused on the pain all this caused and on the fact that God hates it. His message follows two major sins, first the divorces, and then the marriages to foreign women.

I. Those who wilfully violate the covenant of marriageface the punishment of God (2:10-12).

A. Divorce is the sin of treachery (2:10).

Malachi begins by laying down a principle: although Israel was created by one Father, they were guilty of treachery against the covenant. The first verse affirms the principle by rhetorical question that they had one father who created them; and the second half expresses the prophet’s amazement over their violation of the covenant. The prophet at this starting point speaks in general terms to get the people’s attention; when he has it, he narrows the focus to the actual sins involved. As we shall see in these first three verses Malachi was actually condemning intermarriage with pagans; and these intermarriages gave the occasion for the divorces. And since the message begins with the affirmation of the sovereignty of God, then the message is that unfaithfulness to the marriage in this way is disloyalty to God. But the principle as it will be related to marriage is well summarized by Hengstenberg: The one who annulled the distinction between an Israelite and a heathen woman proved by this very action that he had already annihilated the distinction between the God of Israel and the idols of the heathen, that he no longer had the theocratic consciousness of God (Christologie, III:381).

Malachi’s reference to their creator as “father” recalls the language of Malachi 1:6, “Is not God our father?” And the use of “father” recalls the covenant relationship that God established in Egypt and confirmed by covenant at Sinai (“let my son go”; see Exod. 4:22; Deut. 32:18; Isa. 1:2; and Jer. 3:9). Spiritual unity should have existed because they had a close relationship with God and with one another by means of the covenant. But more to the point, because loyalty to the covenant was paramount, the Law strictly prohibited intermarriage with the pagans (see Exod. 34:11 and Deut. 7:1-4). Such marriages would destroy worship and undermine the entire covenant. To do this, then, was to dishonor God and act faithlessly against fellow members of the covenant. It was all unfaithfulness to God, for sin against another person was sin against God. And it still is.

The sin is introduced as a “treachery” before the sin is defined. “A treachery had been committed”--that would get the attention of the audience. The word for “treachery” here means a willful betrayal of confidence, trust or truth. One who is treacherous is a traitor, unreliable and disloyal; and a traitor is dangerous. The term is bagad (bah-gad), related to beged (“garment”). In the Jewish writings the verb came to mean “act violently, faithlessly, and rebel.” So the people had been unfaithful to God, traitors to the covenant. This was very harsh language; the sin must have had greater implications than, say, a couple not getting along and divorcing.

B. Marrying idol worshipers profanes God’s holiness (11).

Moving from the general description, the prophet now identified the exact problem. Malachi’s style is first to give the theological principle (against which there was no argument), then the general rebuke (over which people would be concerned), and then the actual sin (which would hit home). Even here it is not until the second half of the verse that it is clear what he is talking about.

The first thing we note is the identity of the guilty. He mentioned Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem in order. These are figures of speech (metonymies of subject, meaning the people in these areas). Israel was mentioned because it was the name of the covenant people; Judah and Jerusalem emphasized the center of the theocratic kingdom, the religious center of the nation. These heightened the boldness of the sin--it was no marginal problem of people who had no biblical training; it was in the very center of the political and religious community.

The force of the verse lies in the idea of the treachery, which was paralleled with the word “abomination.” This makes it something that God loathes, something that is repugnant to God, and therefore tabu. It is clear that the intermarriage of Israelites with pagans was repugnant to God; and it should have then been a matter of reverential dread to the people as well. We are talking about bringing idolatry into the family of Israel! Did they not learn from their history and their exile?

The reason that God loathed it was that it “defiled the holiness” of God that he loves. The words “defile, profane” and “holiness” are cleverly put together--they are antonyms. “Holiness” means “distinct, set apart, separate” to God. “Defile” means “common, profane, separated from the sanctuary” or from God. These people made common that which was to be distinct.

What did Malachi mean by “the holiness” of the Lord? It could refer to the temple. The idea would be that some Israelites were bringing pagan idolaters into the Lord’s house and therefore profaning it. Support for this view comes from the fact that the Lord loves Zion (Ps. 78:68; 87:2) and prohibits idolatry from the sanctuary.

But the word “holiness” may refer to the nation itself. The support for this view is a little more convincing. First, Israel is called a holy nation (Deut. 7:6) and his sanctuary (Ps. 114:2). Second, the immediate context is based on the fact that God made them one nation. Third, Malachi begins his book on the fact that God loves Israel. And fourth, intermarriage with pagans profaned the holy seed (Ezra 9:2; Jer. 2:3; Deut. 14:2). God established the marriage laws (Lev. 21:14, 15 and Neh. 13:29) for the people he loved (=chose) in order that they might be distinct to him. Now, however, Israel had profaned that holiness and made themselves common. The last clause explains how they did this: “by marrying the daughter (worshiper) of a foreign god.” This expression, we know from Jeremiah 2:27, refers to a worshiper of a strange or foreign deity. It would destroy Israelite worship, and therefore the covenant. The text uses the singular “daughter,” but it means the practice was typical of a widespread sin in the land.

C. Introducing idolatry into the family of God warrants the threat of a curse from God (12).

The message brought a clear rebuke from the prophet because a violation of the covenant has been committed. Malachi says, “May the LORD cut off … .” This is not an announcement of doom; it is an imprecation of the prophet as if to say the people deserve this judgment. But a curse from the prophet was warning enough that if such sin was persisted in it would bring the penalty.

The idea of being “cut off” needs some explanation. In its uses for divine punishment, the verb “cut off” can be used for the death penalty at the hands of the people, for premature death at the hand of God, or excommunication from the religious community. One of the latter two is probably in the mind of the prophet--God would deal with this matter if the righteous in the land did not.

Who stood to be so “cut off” by God? The answer, through some poetic expressions, indicates that none are excluded. The general statement is given first: “the man who does this.” Then the specifics: “him that wakes and him that answers.” There are many suggested interpretations for this difficult phrase. One thing is clear, the two different ideas in it are opposites, and so the expression forms a figure of speech (a merism)--everyone from the waker to the answerer. One very possible interpretation would be to say the waker and answerer refer to watchmen in the city. Perhaps with the reference to the “tents” we can get the idea of watchmen at either end of the camp, one calling out and the other answering. Thus, it would mean everyone, from one end of the settlement to the other. Judgment for this kind of sin applied to everyone, rich or poor, leader or follower. No one would be exempt.

The last expression is set off by itself in the poetry: “him that offers a offering (a gift, minkhah) to Yahweh of armies.” The point is that judgment would fall on such covenant violators, even if they appeared to be faithful and generous worshipers of God (albeit hypocritically). This kind of gift was not usually a blood sacrifice, but a gift of foods and produce. To give this gift along with the blood sacrifice would be the way to indicate gratitude for God’s provision and dedication of life to his service. Here is real treachery. The outward sign of dedication to the LORD was betrayed by the treachery of uniting with paganism in marriage. Such dedication is a delusion. It is an attempt to gloss over the sin, to salve the conscience, and to appear faithful to the community.

II. The LORD rejects worshipful acts from thosewho violate the covenant and bring pain to their spouses (13, 14).

A. The pain caused by sin overshadows any attempts to worship (13).

Now a second thing that they did is mentioned by the prophet. This second sin grew out of the first, for in finding and marrying pagan women they put away their primary wives by divorce. The two sins here are inseparably bound together, but the prophet turns his attention now to the treachery on the personal level. Marrying an idolatrous woman was one thing; but dumping a legitimate wife for her is another. Both violate the covenant and bring pain to God, but the latter causes great pain to the women who were put away.

The picture is painted dramatically. The wives who had been put away were in great mourning and anguish. The women came to the altar to pray, but their tears intermingled with their prayers. Their woe rose to God with such intensity that God no longer could regard (give attention to) the offerings brought by the men. So, in effect the men covered the altar with tears and sighing--not their tears, for they were cavalier about it all and thought God was pleased with their gifts, but with their wives’ tears, because by causing the pain the men were actually presenting their wives’ grief to God and not a sacrifice. That is what their hand produced, as Malachi put it. And all such hypocritical worship was completely rejected by God.

Here were men, calloused and less than loyal to the historic faith, coming to the sanctuary with their impressive gifts of dedication and thanksgiving. But over here were their unfortunate wives, now abandoned, praying and crying to God for help. Their tears were what God saw, not the offerings of their husbands. There is scarcely a thought more solemn and searching than the thought that few, if any, of our prayers go up to God unqualified and unchecked. We pray for something, but our sins cry out for something else, and the prayer is hindered. After all, Peter reminded all Christian men to treat their wives with respect as joint heirs of the covenant “so that nothing will hinder [their] prayers” (1 Pet. 3:7).

B. Self-righteous protesting of God’s word will not work for God witnessed the marriage and the treachery (14).

The response of the men was again to challenge the word of the prophet: “Wherein have we dealt treacherously?” There is a cold defiance in the words of the people, a defiance that comes from a rationalized sin. They had been told by the prophet that God was rejecting their worship; but their response was not fear and repentance. It was a proud challenge to “his view.” They thought that if they did the worship routine well enough and gave to the sanctuary, they would be highly favored in the courts of heaven. Well God not only did not need their gifts--he did not want them. But this is what we are seeing today, people entering all kinds of religious service with new marriages, never having admitted, let alone confessed, that there has been sin.

The answer to the peoples’ question was a stinging answer from the prophet. He takes them back to the marriage of their youth, a marriage covenant that God himself witnessed, and so one signed and sealed in heaven. Here is the rebuke of a prophet most forceful and precise; here is pastoral counseling at its best. The fact that God was witness tells us that marriage is a covenant, whether there was a ceremony or not. To agree to live together as man and wife is a covenant, and God is the witness. To dissolve the marriage is to break the covenant, to break an oath. Several passages use covenant language for marriage: Proverbs 2:17; Ezekiel 16:7 (applying it to God and the nation); Ruth 4:11 (witnessed by the community) and Genesis 24:60 (based on love and faithfulness). The covenant agreement of a marriage is to be based on loyal love, characterized by the protection and care of the partners, and dedicated to producing righteous, believing children that God may provide.

The expression “wife of your youth” should be understood as “youthful wife,” the wife the man married when he was young and full of love and devotion and ambition and plans. Pastoral counseling tries to get the parties of a marriage to go back and recall what they had and what they wanted together. She was the wife of his youth, the one who had his first affections when they were the strongest, the one who probably gave him children, the one who had lived through it all with him. Now she had become the scorn and loathing of his later years.

Malachi also says that the wife is “your companion.” This adds to the treachery. The word comes from a verb “to unite,” or in our language we would say things like “tie the knot” or “be united” in marriage. She was not only the wife of his youth, but his comrade, his partner. She was not a servant or a slave; she was a partner. They were bound together as one in the eyes of God. They shared everything together, grief and joys, successes and failures, hard times and good times. But now, these women were being cast aside as an old garment for something new and fresh and exciting, but thoroughly pagan. Whatever was there that fit the description of “holy matrimony” had now become nothing more than a “common coupling” or “profane fornication.”

All of these qualifications of marriage were piled up by the prophet to enforce how treacherous this all was. The word “treachery” now appears for the third time in the oracle--it was against women like this that the treachery was committed. The word has a use in Job that illustrates the meaning. Job’s friends are described as treacherous as a brook. The brook provided water, as the text explains, so that people became dependent on it. But when Job went to his friends for help, the brook had dried up--when that happens with literal brooks, caravans in the desert die. One cannot depend on a traitor, and that is the case of a treacherous husband--or wife as the case might be.

The main idea of the passage is clear: God planned that a man and a woman would become one, be partners, share everything, build a life together, and please God. Their personal blessing depended on preserving this covenant; and the well-being of the nation depended on the marriages doing what they were supposed to do.

III. Believers must be on guard against treachery in marriagebecause that thwarts God’s plans for a godly seed (15, 16).

A. Because God desires a godly seed, people must take heed in their marriages (15).

Malachi was not yet through. The final section is clearly set off as a warning for those who are in a marriage. They must understand its purpose if they are going to preserve it.

Verse 15 is the most difficult verse in the book. The two thoughts center on the meaning of “one” and the “residue of the Spirit”: “Did he not make one, even though he had the residue of the spirit? What then is the one? Producing a godly seed.” One view takes the “one” back to the creation of Eve with Adam. It would be normal to think of Genesis 2 because Adam and Eve were to be “one flesh.” God could have done it differently--he had the residue of the Spirit, that is, he had all the resources and options available. But he chose one wife for one man. The difficulty of this view is that monogamy does not guarantee godly children would be produced. The two would have to be committed to the faith and to the training of children in it.

Perhaps a better view is that the “one” refers to the nation of Israel, the covenant people. This view has the support of the book that presents the nation as the creation of God. Why did he choose one nation, Israel? --to produce a godly seed in the earth. Pagan intermarriage and the dissolution of good marriages would ruin the chance to do this. God wanted a nation; he could have chosen and formed others, or more. But by focusing on one as the means of bringing blessing to the world, he would form a righteous people on earth.

Therefore Malachi warned them to take heed not to deal treacherously, against the wife and therefore against the covenant plan of God. The verb “take heed” means “to watch carefully.” It calls for constant vigilance and concern, like a night watchman watching the city. The husband must be careful and alert to protect the marriage covenant from any treachery, by himself or from outside.

B. Because God hates divorce, people must take heed in their marriages (16).

The line is powerful: “I hate putting away.” Some of the ancient versions actually misinterpreted the line to say, “if a man hates his wife he should put her away.” But the context is against divorce, and an exception as wide as this would not fit. What Malachi is doing is offering the quintessential reason for trying to keep a marriage together come what may--God hates divorce.

What does it mean when it says God hates it? When “hate” is used in contrast to “love” in passages, as it is in Malachi 1, it has the sense of “reject” and love would have the sense of “choose.” But when the word is used separately, as it is in this particular passage, it adds the idea of “to detest, abhor” to the rejection. We can see from this that God is emotionally involved in the lives of his people. He hates it when they destroy their marriages, because he knows the pain that will cause, and the effect that will have on the faith for the future.

But God adds something else as the object of his hatred--when people cover their garments with violence. This word for violence is a word for social injustice. Their replacing the garment of marriage, their vows of love and devotion to their wives, with acts of social abuse and emotional and even physical violence, God hated as well. The final step in this violence against their wives is putting them away, divorcing them. It creates havoc with the society, violates the family, and spoils the covenant God loves.

Conclusion

The prophet closes with the same warning: Take heed. Be on your guard against such treachery. To do this involves two very important considerations: knowing and agreeing with the plan of the covenant God has made for the people of God, and knowing and agreeing with what God has planned for the marriage. To fulfill the first one must be committed to worshiping and serving God in holiness and righteousness. To fulfill the second one must know that the marriage is a covenant confirmed by God and the wife is a lifelong partner.

To motivate diligence and care for the marriage, Malachi has included three warnings: 1) divorce and remarriage (especially to a pagan) destroys worship; 2) divorce and remarriage (especially to a pagan) hinders producing godly children; and 3) God hates divorce. So the message to the household of faith is clear: if you truly see how the marriage covenant fits the covenant God has made with his people, then you will marry within the faith and you will give all diligence to preserve that marriage come what may. No marriage is perfect. In marriages there will be fallings from the ideal for sure; the marriage may be strained and thinned by friction, or marred and spoiled by a gross contempt for its moral meaning; but the failures and abuse do not destroy or degrade the ideal. We are always called back to the ideal, to the standard of God. For marriage to be “holy” matrimony, it must be pleasing to God; and to develop this there must be a real giving of soul to soul in the Lord, so that the husband and wife truly belong to one another, and truly see their marriage as service to God. Malachi says to take heed that this is preserved--do everything in your power to do it. And it will take such diligence because the way of the world is so different.

Some may find that it is too late, because they have lived through a failed marriage and there is no going back. For them, the message of God’s Word is clear: they must be sure their lives are now right with God, and that means acknowledging their share in the dissolution of a covenant and resolving to serve God now with all devotion and obedience, and that certainly means that in any new relationship they might have they will see to it that it counts for God.