MALACHI 2:10-16

This is the passage which contains the famous statement by God in v. 16: “For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel.” Jacobs enumerates a number of issues which arise in attempting to interpret these verses. These along with questions mentioned by other scholars are given below with attached comments:

Who is the speaker in 2:10 – the prophet, the community, or whose who were involved in such relationships?

“In accordance with his characteristic style (cf. vv. 1:2,6; etc.), the prophet addresses himself mainly to the people ...” (Verhoef)

And Jacobs says, “Regarding the prophet as speaker, one can argue that he speaks representing the sentiment of the people in much the same way as in Mal 1:6-14. Regarding the people as speaker, some argue that the people are questioning the nature of the malpractice. Finally, the speaker might be a group of men who, having married foreign wives, seek to justify these marriages on the basis of having a common human heritage...however, I interpret the speaker as the prophet addressing the community.”

To whom does “father” in 2:10 refer – God or Abraham?

Redditt states, “While some scholars suggest that the word 'father' refers to Abraham or Jacob, the use of the word in reference to God in 1:6 and the parallel term 'creator' in the next question make it clear that the father in question was God. Even so, the 'we' in the verse was the nation Israel; there was no reference here to humanity as a whole.”

Verhoef mentions several opinions on this subject before concluding, “But we share the opinion of Van der Woude that the one father is indeed a reference to God. This interpretation is determined by the synthetic parallelism of the first two sentences, and by the antithetical reference to the daughter of a foreign god (v. 11).”

Are the marriage and divorce mentioned here literal or symbolic?

This is perhaps the key question to consider. As Mobley says, “On a literal level, this section concerns exogamous marriage (i.e., with outsiders) and divorce. It has been read figuratively, that Judah has been faithless in its covenant with the LORD.”

Redditt combines both of these concepts in his explanation: “It would seem...that divorce was really the issue here...The divorce in question was for the purpose of marrying a foreign woman. Such women would have worshiped foreign gods, so marriage to her would have amounted to rejecting God's exclusive claim on Judah....Bossman argues that God is conceived here as 'a particular extended family deity whose household is with the family of Israel.'”

Torrey firmly denies a literal meaning to the words, “The rebuke is rather directed against the encroachment of some foreign cult in Israel. The unfaithfulness of a part of the people threatens to forfeit for all the covenant of the fathers (v 10). Judah has dealt falsely with the wife of his youth, the covenant religion, in wedding a strange cult....There is one, and only one, admissible interpretation of the passage; namely that which recognizes the fact that the prophet is using figurative language. Judah, the faithless husband, has betrayed the wife of his youth, the covenant religion, by espousing the daughter of a strange god.”

But despite R.L. Smith quoting the above, and similar comments from scholars, he nevertheless concludes, “The literal view has a preponderance of evidence on its side. Malachi is speaking about the disastrous effects of mixed marriages and divorce.”
As another argument in favor of the literal view, Adamson explains the difficult phrase “covering one's garment with violence” as reference to the custom during a divorce for the man to cast his garment over his wife (see Ruth 3:9).

How do we deal with the translation issues involved in vv. 15-16?

Mobley notes that “the text of 15a is difficult and the translation uncertain.” Thus, while the NRSV translates it as “Did not one God make her? Both flesh and spirit are his,” it also offers the alternative rendering of “Has he not made one? And a remnant of spirit was his.”

“The MT [Hebrew wording] reads literally at the beginning 'and not one he has made and a remainder of spirit to him'. This conveys no sense. The 'one' might mean God as the RSV concludes in its rendering 'the one God'. On the other hand, since the negation 'not' seems to be closely linked with the word 'one', the translation could be 'nobody.' A question surrounds the meaning of ruah here which might signify 'Spirit' or 'life' or 'passion.'..The meaning is not clear. Word for word rendering here is probably the best policy in order to avoid expressing in translation a biased exegesis. In the final clause the MT has 'woman of your youth'. The suff[ix] does not fit into this context and can easily be explained as influenced by v. 14 'wife of your covenant'. Thus, in v. 15 read 'wife of his youth.” (Hulst)

In a similar vein, R.L. Smith states, “It is generally admitted that this passage contains many textual problems. R.C. Dentan wrote about v 15, 'In Hebrew this is one of the most obscure verses in the entire Old Testament. Almost every word raises a question.'”

What is the relationship between verses 10-12 and 13-16?

The first issue to address in this category is whether there really is any close relationship between these adjacent verses since most modern English translations delineate them as separate paragraphs. In favor of seeing a unity between the two are the following factors:

The word Yahweh, generally rendered as “the LORD,” appears exactly seven times (the symbolic number for perfection) in the overall passage.

“Covenant” appears in both halves of the passage (vv. 10,14).

Both halves end with the phrase “LORD of hosts.”

In addition, R.L. Smith points out that the same Hebrew word translated variously as “faithless,” “deceitful,” or “treacherous” appears as a verb in Malachi 2:10, 11, 14, 15, and 16.

Verhoef notes, “Since the time of Jerome interpreters have conceded that this pericope, in its present form, is concerned with two interrelated malpractices: mixed marriages (vv. 10-12) and divorce (vv. 13-16). It is important to note that the typical dialogue style of Malachi presupposes the unity of this pericope: the initial question in v. 10 is not repeated in v. 13, but it has a bearing on the whole passage.”

But it should be pointed out that even if the two passages are interrelated, that does not necessarily indicate that both deal with the exact same subject. Thus, for example, one could easily refer to literal marriage and divorce, and the other with the relationship between Israel and God.

In conclusion, this is a passage which will probably continue to exercise the creativity of generations of Bible scholars to come