Calvin's Commentary on Malachi
(... continued from file 7)
Lecture One Hundred and Seventy-sixth.
13. And this have ye done again, covering the altar of
the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying out,
insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or
receiveth it with good will at your hand.
13. Et hoc secundo fecistis, operiendo lachrymis altare
Iehovae fletu et ploratu, eo quod amplius non respicitur
ad oblationem, et non suscipitur beneplacitum e manu
vestra.
The Prophet amplifies again the fault of the
priests, because the people, when they perceived that God
was adverse to them, found no means of pacifying him. And
when men have an idea that God is inexorable to them,
every zeal for religion must necessarily decay; and hence
it is said in Psalm1 130:4 - "With thee is propitiation,
that thou mayest be feared." As the people then gained
nothing by sacrificing, they had now nearly fallen off
from divine worship. This evil, a most grievous one, the
Prophet says, was to be justly ascribed to the priests;
for as they were become polluted, how could their persons
have been accepted by God, that they might be mediators
to expiate sins and to pacify God?
This is the real meaning of the Prophet, which none
of the interpreters have perceived. The Rabbins think
that the priests are here reproved, because their wives
filled the altar in the sanctuary with weeping, because
they saw that their husbands did not faithfully treat
them, according to the law of marriage; and almost all
have agreed with them. Thus then they explain the verse -
Ye have in the second place done this; that is, "That sin
was of itself sufficiently grievous, when ye suffered
lean victims to be sacrificed to me, as it were in
mockery; but in addition to this comes your sin against
your wives, who continually complain and deplore their
condition before the altar of God, even because they are
not loved by you, as the right of marriage requires."
They thus refer the tears, the weeping, and lamentation,
to the wives of the priests, which were so cruelly
treated by their husbands: they were not able to do
anything else than to fill God's sanctuary with their
constant complaints. Hence they render , main oud penut,
"I will not therefore regard," or, "no one regards;" but
both versions are not only obscure, but wholly pervert
the sense of the Prophet.
But what I have already stated is the most suitable
- that it was to be ascribed to the priests that no one
could from the heart worship God, at least with a
cheerful and willing mind; for God was implacable to the
people, because the only way of obtaining favour under
the law was when the priests, who represented the
Mediator, humbly entreated pardon in the name of the
whole people. But how could God attend to the prayers of
the priests when they had polluted his altar by the filth
of wickedness? We then see the object of this
amplification - Ye cover the altar of Jehovah with tears,
with weeping and wailing. The praises of God ought to
have resounded in the temple, according to what is said -
"Praise, O God, waits for thee in Zion." (Psalm 65:1.)
And the principal sacrifice was, that the people
exercised themselves in contemplating the blessings of
God, and in thanksgiving. But he says that none went
forth before the altar with a cheerful mind, but all were
sad and sorrowful, because they found that God was severe
and rigid.
And the reason is added - , main oud penut,
literally, "Is it not any more by regarding," &c.? It is
easy to see how far they depart from the meaning of the
Prophet who read - "They shall therefore offer no more;"
for is this to be applied to God? Others also, who give
this rendering - "I shall not therefore accept," pervert
also the very letter of the text. But the most
appropriate meaning is this - that all wept and groaned
before the altar, because they saw that they came there
without any advantage, that their sacrifices did not
please God, and that the whole worship was in vain,
inasmuch as God did not answer their prayers. The Prophet
ascribes the fault to the priests, that God did not turn
to mercy, so as to forgive the people when they
sacrificed. With weeping, then, he says, was the altar
filled or covered, because God received not what pleased
him from their hand; that is, because no victims pleased
him which were offered by polluted and impure hands. He
afterwards joins
14. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been
witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against
whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy
companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
14. Et dixistis, In quo (vel, super quo)? Quoniam Iehova
testificatus est inter te et inter uxorem adolescentiae
tuae, quam tu fraudasti, (vel, erga quam tu praevaricatus
es,) cum tamen ipsa esset consors tua, et uxor foederis
tui.
The Prophet tells us here as before how prone the priests
were to make a clamour, and it is a very common thing
with hypocrites immediately to set up a shield to cover
their vices whenever they are reproved; and hence it
appears, that men are in a manner fascinated by Satan,
when they attain such hardness as to dare to answer God,
and with obstreperous words to repel all warnings.
Malachi has several times already used this mode of
speaking; we may hence conclude, that the people had
become then so hardened that warnings were of no account
with them. But he mentions one particular, by which it
seems evident that they had lapsed into vices which were
not to be borne. There is indeed no doubt but that he
points out one of the many vices which prevailed. There
is then in this verse an instance of stating one thing
for the whole, as though he had said, "Your hypocrisy is
extremely gross; but, to omit other things, by what
pretext can you excuse this perfidy - that there is no
conjugal fidelity among you? Were there any integrity and
a sense of religion in men, they would surely appear in
their conjugal connexion; but ye have cast away all
shame, and have taken to yourselves many wives. There is
then no ground for you to think that you can escape by
evasions, because this one glaring vice sufficiently
proves your guilt." This is the import of the Prophet's
answer.
We have indeed seen that the priests were implicated
in other vices; the Prophet then does not now charge them
with perfidy as though they were free from other sins,
but he meant to show, as I have aready said, by one
thing, how wickedly and shamelessly they sought to evade
God's judgment, though they had violated the marriage
pledge, which was wholly to destroy the very order of
nature; for there can be, as it has been already said, no
chastity in social life except the bond of marriage be
preserved, for marriage, so to speak, is the fountain of
mankind.
But in order to press the matter more on the
priests, he calls their attention to the fact that God is
the founder of marriage. Testified has Jehovah, he says,
between thee and thy wife. He intimates in these words,
that when a marriage takes place between a man and a
woman, God presides and requires a mutual pledge from
both. Hence Solomon, in Prov. 2:17, calls marriage the
covenant of God, for it is superior to all human
contracts. So also Malachi declares, that God is as it
were the stipulator, who by his authority joins the man
to the woman, and sanctions the alliance: God then has
testifed between thee and thy wife, as though he had
said, "Thou hast violated not only all human laws, but
also the compact which God himself has consecrated, and
which ought justly to be deemed more sacred than all
other compacts: as then God has testified between thee
and thy wife, and thou now deceivest her, how darest thou
to come to the altar? and how canst thou think that God
will be pleased with thy sacrifices or regard thy
oblations?"
He calls her the wife of his youth, because the more
filthy is the lust when husbands cast away conjugal love
as to those wives whom they have married in their youth.
The bond of marriage is indeed in all cases inviolable,
even between the old, but it is a circumstance which
increases the turpitude of the deed, when any one
alienates himself from a wife whom he married when a girl
and in the flower of her age: for youth conciliates love;
and we also see that when a husband and his wife have
lived together for many years, mutual love prevails
between them to extreme old age, because their hearts
were united together in their youth. It is not then
without reason that this circumstance is mentioned, for
the lust of the priests was the more filthy and as it
were the more monstrous, because they forsook wives whom
they ought to have regarded with the tenderest love, as
they had married them when they were young: Thou hast
dealt unfaithfully with her, he says, though she was thy
consort and the wife of thy covenant.
He calls her a consort, or companion, or associate,
because marriage, we know, is contracted on this
condition - that the wife is to become as it were the
half part of the man. As then the bond of marriage is
inseparable, the Prophet here goads the priests, yea,
touches them to the quick, when he reproves them for
being unmindful of what was natural, inasmuch as they had
blotted out of their minds the memory of a most sacred
covenant. The wife of thy covenant is to be taken for a
covenanted wife, that is, "The wife who has been united
to thee by God's authority, that there might be no
separation; but all integrity is violated, and as it were
abolished." He then adds
15. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of
the Spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly
seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none
deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
15. Et non unum fecit? et exuperantia spiritus illi? et
quorsum unum? quaerens semen Dei: ergo custodiamini in
spiritu vestro; et in uxorem adolescentiae tuae ne
transgrediatur (vel, ne fraudes; est mutatio personoe,
ponitur enim tertia persona loco secundoe.) There is
in this verse some obscurity, and hence it has been that
no interpreter has come to the meaning of the Prophet.
The Rabbins almost all agree that Abraham is spoken of
here. Were we to receive this view a two-fold meaning
might be given. It may be an objection, - "Has not one
done this?" that is, has not Abraham, who is the one
father of the nations, given us an example? for he
married many wives: and thus many explain the passage, as
though the priests raised an objection and defended the
corruption just condemned by the example of Abraham, -
"Has not one done this while yet an excellency of spirit
was in him?" We indeed know how prone men are to pretend
the authority of fathers when they wish to cover their
own vices.
Others prefer regarding the words as spoken by the
Prophet himself, and at the same time say that there is
here an anticipation of an objection, and think that an
occasion for an excuse is here cut off, as though the
Prophet had said, "Did not Abraham, when he was one
alone, do this?" For as the Jews might have adduced the
example of Abraham, the interpreters, whose opinion I now
refer to, think that a difference is here stated, as
though he had said, "Ye reason badly, for every one of
you is led to polygamy by the lust of your flesh; but it
was far otherwise with Abraham, for he was one, that is,
alone;" and in Isaiah Abraham is called one on account of
his having no children. The meaning then they think is
this, "Was not Abraham forced by necessity to take
another wife? even because he had no child and no hope of
the promised seed. Lust then did not stimulate your
father Abraham, as it does you, but a desire of having an
offspring." And they think, that this view is confirmed
by what follows, "And why alone seeking the seed of God?"
that is, the object of holy Abraham was far otherwise
than to indulge his lust; for he sought that holy seed,
the hope of which was taken away from him on account of
the barrenness of his wife, and of her great age. When
therefore Abraham saw that his wife was barren, and that
she could no more conceive on account of her old age, he
had recourse to the last remedy: hence the mistake of
Abraham might have been excused, since his object was
right; for he sought the seed of God, the seed in which
all nations were to be blessed. Thus far have I told you
what others think.
I thought twelve years ago that this passage ought
to have been otherwise rendered in the French Bibles, and
that , ached, ought to be read in the objective case;
"Has he not made one?" Jerome seems to me to have had a
better notion of what the Prophet means than what others
have taught; but he could not attain the real meaning,
and therefore stopped as it were in the middle of his
course. He read the word in the nominative case, "Has not
one," that is, God, "made them? "and then he added, "And
in him alone," that is, Abraham, "was an exuberant
spirit." We see how he dared not to assert anything, nor
did he explain what was necessary. The sense is indeed
suspended, and is even frigid, if we say, "Has not one
made them?" but if we read, "Has he not made one?" there
is no ambiguity. It is a common thing in Hebrew, we know,
that the name of God is often not expressed, when he is
referred to; for so great is He, that his name may be
easily underderstood, though not expressed. It ought not
therefore to confuse us, that the Prophet withholds the
name of God, and mentions a verb without its subject, for
such is the usage, as I have said, of the Hebrew
language.
I proceed now to explain the meaning of the Prophet.
Has he not made one? that is, Was not God content with
one man, when he instituted marriage? and yet the residue
of the Spirit was in him. The Rabbins take , shar, as
meaning excellence; but I know not what reason have
induced them, except that they ventured to change the
sense of the word, because they could not otherwise
extricate themselves; for the mistake, that Abraham is
spoken of here, had wholly possessed their minds. What
then is , shar ruch? Excellence of Spirit, say they; but
, shar, we know, is residue or remnant: what then remains
of anything is called , shar; for the verb means to
remain and to lean. Here then the Prophet takes the
residue of the Spirit, so to speak, for overflowing
power; for God could have given to one man two or three
wives; inasmuch as the Spirit failed him not in forming
one woman: as he inspired Eve with life, so also he might
have created other women and imparted to them his Spirit.
He might then have given two or four or ten women to one
man; for there was a spirit remaining in him. We now then
understand what the Prophet means at the beginning of
this verse.
But before we proceed farther, we must bear in mind
his object, which was, to break down all those frivolous
pretences by which the Jews sought to cover their
perfidy. He says, that in marriage we ought to recognize
an ordinance divinely appointed, or, to speak more
distinctly, that the institution of marriage is a
perpetual law, which it is not right to violate: there is
therefore no cause for men to devise for themselves
various laws, for God's authority is here to be regarded
alone; and this is more clearly explained in Matt. 19:8;
where Christ, refuting the objection of the Jews as to
divorce, says, "From the beginning it was not so." Though
the law allowed a bill of divorce to be given to wives,
yet Christ denies this to be right, - by what argument?
even because the institution was not of that kind; for it
was, as it has been said, an inviolable bond. So now our
Prophet reasons, Has not God made one? that is, "consider
within yourselves whether God, when he created man and
instituted marriage, gave many wives to one man? By no
means. Ye see then that spurious and contrary to the
character of a true and pure marriage is everything, that
does not harmonize with its first institution."
But some one may ask here, why the Prophet says that
God made one? for this seems to refer to the man and not
to the woman: to this I answer, that man with the woman
is called one, according to what Moses says, "God created
man; male and female created he them," (Gen. 1:17.) After
having said that man was created, he adds by way of
explanation, that man, both male and female, was created.
Hence when he speaks of man, the male makes as it were
one-half, and the female the other; for when we speak of
the whole human race, one-half doubtless consists of men,
and the other half of women. So also when we come to
individuals, the husband is as it were the half of the
man, and the woman is the other half. I speak of the
ordinary state of things; for if any one objects and
says, that bachelors are not then complete or perfect
men, the objection is frivolous: but as men were created,
that every one should have his own wife, I say, that
husband and wife make but one whole man. This then is the
reason why the Prophet says, that one man was made by
God; for he united the man to the woman, and intended
that they should be partners, so to speak, under one
yoke. And in this explanation there is nothing strained;
for it is evident that the Prophet here calls the
attention of the Jews to the true character of marriage;
and this could not have been otherwise known than from
the very institution of God, which is, as we have said, a
perpetual and inviolable law; for God created man, even
male and female: and Christ also has repeated this
sentence, and carefully explained it in the passage which
we have quoted.
And here the Prophet sharply goads the Jews, as
though they wished to overcome God, or to be more wise
than he; Had he not, he says, an exuberance of spirit? He
takes spirit not for wisdom, but for that hidden
influence by which God vivifies men. Could not God, he
says, have put forth his spirit to create many wives for
one man? but his purpose was to create one pair; to make
man a husband and a wife: as God then was not without a
remaining Spirit, and yet did not exceed this measure; it
hence follows, that the law of marriage is violated, when
man seeks for himself many wives. The meaning of the
Prophet is now, I think, sufficiently clear.
It follows, And wherefore one, , vame, eached? The
interrogatory particle , me, refers to the cause, end,
form, or manner; we may therefore properly render it, For
what, or wherefore, has God made one? even to seek the
seed of God. The seed of God is to be taken for what is
legitimate; for what is excellent is often called God in
Hebrew, and also what is free from all vice and blemish.
He sought then the seed of God, that is, he instituted
marriage, that legitimate and pure offspring might be
brought forth. Hence then the Prophet indirectly shows,
that all are spurious who proceed from polygamy, because
they cannot be deemed legitimate children; nor ought any
to be so counted but those who are born according to
God's institution. When a husband violates his pledged
faith to his wife, and takes another; as he subverts the
ordinance of marriage, so he cannot be a legitimate
father. We now perceive why the Prophet says, that it was
God's purpose to unite only one wife to one man, in order
that they might beget legitimate offspring, for he shows
by the effect how frivolous were the evasions which the
Jews had recourse to; for however they might contend,
their very offspring would prove them liars, as it would
be spurious.
He then draws this conclusion, Therefore, watch ye
over your spirit; that is, " Take heed lest any should
deceive the wife of his covenant." After having shown how
perversely they violated the marriage vow who rushed into
polygamy, he here counsels and exhorts them; and this is
the best mode of teaching, to show first what is right
and lawful, and then to add exhortations. The Prophet
then endeavoured first to convince the Jews that they
were guilty of a nefarious crime: for otherwise his
exhortation would not have been received, as they would
have always a ready objection, "It is lawful for us to do
so, for we follow the example of our father Abraham; and
further, this has been permitted for a long time, and God
would have never suffered it, were it wrong, to prevail
for so many ages among the people: it hence follows, that
thou condemnest what is lawful." It was necessary, in the
first place, to remove all these false pretences: then
follows the exhortation in its proper order, Watch over
your spirit; for he speaks of what has been, as it were,
sufficiently proved. It now follows
16 For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth
putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment,
saith the Lord of hosts; therefore take heed to your
spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
16 Si odio habeas (quisque odio habet,) dimittat (i.e.,
uxorem) dicit Iehovah Deus Israel; et operit, (vel,
texit) violentiam sub vestimento suo, dicit Iehovah
exercituum: ergo custodiamini in spiritu vestro et ne
fraudetis.
Here again the Prophet exaggerates the crime which
the priests regarded as nothing; for he says, that they
sinned more grievously than if they had repudiated their
wives. We indeed know that repudiation, properly
speaking, had never been allowed by God; for though it
was not punished under the law, yet it was not permitted.
It was the same as with a magistrate, who is constrained
to bear many things which he does not approve; for we
cannot so deal with mankind as to restrain all vices. It
is indeed desirable, that no vice should be tolerated;
but we must have a regard to what is possible. Hence
Moses has specified no punishment, according to the
heinousness of the crime, if one repudiated his wife; and
yet it was never permitted.
But if a comparison be made, Malachi says, that it
is a lighter crime to dismiss a wife than to marry many
wives. We hence learn how abominable polygamy is in the
sight of God. I do not consider polygamy to be what the
foolish Papists have made it, who call not those
polygamists who have many wives at the same time, but
those who marry another when the former one is dead. This
is gross ignorance. Polygamy, properly so called, is when
a person takes many wives, as it was commonly done in the
East: and those nations, we know, have always been
libidinous, and never observe the marriage vow. As then
their lasciviousness was so great that they were like
brute beasts, every one married several wives; and this
abuse continues at this day among the Turks and the
Persian and other nations. Here, however, where God
compares polygamy with divorce, he says that polygamy is
the worse and more detestable crime; for the husband
impurely connects himself with another woman, and then,
not only deals unfaithfully with his wife to whom he is
bound, but also forcibly detains her: thus his crime is
doubled. For if he replies and says that he keeps the
wife to whom he is bound, he is yet an adulterer as to
the second wife: thus he blends, as they say, holy with
profane things; and then to adultery and lasciviousness
he adds cruelty, for he holds under his authority a
miserable woman, who would prefer death to such a
condition; for we know what power jealousy has over
women. And when any one introduces a harlot, how can a
lawful wife bear such an indignity without being
miserably tormented?
This then is the reason why the Prophet now says, If
thou hatest, dismiss; not that he grants indulgence to
divorce, as we have said, but that he might by this
circumstance enhance the crime; and hence he adds, For he
covers by a cloak his violence. Some interpreters take
violence here for spoil or prey, and think that the wife
is thus called who is tyrannically compelled to remain
with an adulterer, when yet she sees a harlot in her
house, by whom she is driven from her conjugal bed: but
this is too strained and too remote from the letter of
the text. The Prophet here, I doubt not, shakes off from
the Jews their false mask, because they thought that they
could cover over their vice by retaining their first
wives. "What else is this," he says, "but to cover by a
cloak your violence, or at least to excuse it? for ye do
not openly manifest it: but God is not deceived, nor can
his eye be dazzled by such a disguise: though then your
iniquity is covered by a cloak, it is not yet hid from
God; nay, it is thus doubled, because ye exercise your
cruelty at home; for it would be better for robbers to
remain in the wood and there to kill strangers, than to
entice guests to their houses and to kill them there and
to plunder them under the pretext of hospitality. This is
the way in which you act; for ye destroy the bond of
marriage, and ye afterwards deceive your miserable wives,
and yet ye force them by your tyranny to continue at your
houses, and thus ye torment your miserable wives, who
might have enjoyed their freedom, if divorce had been
granted them."
He concludes again with these words, Watch over your
spirit; that is, "Take heed; for this is an intolerable
wickedness before God, however you may endeavour to
extenuate its heinousness."
PRAYER.
Grant, Almighty God, that though we daily in various ways
violate the covenant which thou hast been pleased to make
with us in thine only-begotten Son, we may not yet be
dealt with according to what our defection, yea, the many
defections by which we daily provoke thy wrath against
us, do fully deserve; but suffer and bear with us kindly,
and at the same time strengthen us that we may persevere
in the truth and perform to the end the pledge we have
given to thee, and which thou midst require from us in
our baptism, and that we may each of us so conduct
ourselves towards our brethren, and husbands towards
their wives, that we may cherish that unity of spirit
which thou hast consecrated between us by the blood of
thine own Son. - Amen.
Calvin's Commentary on Malachi
(continued in file 9...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-09: cvmal-08.txt
.