Malachi

Since the priests failed to guard the purity of the temple, the Lord threatens to punish them in a manner that fits their crime. Because they “despised” (1:6) and failed to give honor to the Lord’s name, they will be despised and abased before all the people. Because they “polluted” God (1:7), he will figuratively pollute and disqualify them for service at the altar by spreading on their faces the dung taken from their rejected sacrifices (2:3). Since that dung was to be taken away from the sanctuary and burned (e.g., Ex. 29:14; Lev. 4:11ff.), so they too will be taken away. Because they presumed to bless the people of God, as if Israel’s sacrifices had been accepted and atonement made, God will now curse their blessings. As Matthew Henry put it, “Nothing profanes the name of God more than the misconduct of those whose business it is to do honor to it.” On the phrase guard knowledge, see note on Prov. 5:2–3.

What Malachi taught about divorce must be understood in its historical context. The challenge facing the Judean community after the return from exile was the reestablishment of its religious institutions (see note on Hg 1:5-8). But Judean men were marrying women from other ethnic groups in the region who worshiped pagan gods (Mal 2:11-12)—in some cases, at least, divorcing their Judean wives (“the wife of your youth,” v. 14) to do so. Marriage to unbelievers diluted their commitment to the faith of Israel and resulted in children who were not the “godly offspring” the Lord desired (v. 15). The prophet’s overriding concern was not marriage, as such, but the effect of an unwise mixed marriage on a man’s relationship to the Lord and the impact of many such unions on the solidarity and stability of the covenant community.

Malachi admonished the men of Judah to honor the commitment they had made to the wife they married under the Lord’s covenant and not to “act treacherously” (v. 16) against her. To divorce her to marry a pagan woman would be to break faith with the Lord, as well as with her. The Lord finds such an action detestable. Malachi appealed not only to the covenant but also to the Lord’s creation of man and woman with “a portion of spirit” (v. 15) to become one flesh (Gn 2:7,21-23). As Creator, God is the Father of his people and desires covenantal loyalty within his family (Mal 2:10). (Apparently polygamy was not an option in Judah at this time, although earlier figures in OT history such as the Hebrew patriarchs, David, and Solomon had more than one wife. Either monogamous marriage had become the norm or, under the rigorous conditions of the earlier return from exile, men of ordinary means could not afford to practice polygamy.)

Third Disputation: Marriage to an Idolater—and Divorce Based on Aversion—Condemned by the Lord, Who Is Witness to the Covenant of Marriage. Malachi introduces his third disputation in v. 10 with a general description of Israel’s infidelity against one another, which profanes their covenant with God, the Father (see 1:6) and Creator of Israel (Deut. 32:6). Malachi condemns two parallel (though not necessarily related) marital offenses: intermarriage with pagans (Mal. 2:11; cf. Neh. 13:29) and divorce based merely on aversion or incompatibility (Mal. 2:13–16). Some have suggested that the divorces were for the purpose of intermarriage (see note on v. 16).

Malachi’s contemporaries were distressed because God refused to accept their offerings, as evidenced by his withheld blessing. Malachi explains that God was acting as a witness against husbands who were unfaithful to their wives. Marriage is not just a contract, a two-way relationship between husband and wife, but a covenant, a three-way relationship in which the couple is accountable to God, for the LORD was witness to that covenant (see chart). For this reason, spousal fidelity is inextricably linked to spiritual well-being: a marriage must be in good repair, or else the couple’s prayers will be hindered (see 1 Pet. 3:7; cf. Matt. 5:23–25). Malachi’s view of marriage is as radical in conception (identifying marriage as a covenant between the spouses) and in the demands placed on the husband as that put forth in the NT. Other OT passages that support Malachi’s identification of marriage as a covenant include Prov. 2:17; Ezek. 16:8–14; and especially Genesis 2, where covenantal vocabulary (“leave” and “hold fast” in Gen. 2:24) is employed to describe a husband’s duty (cf. the covenantal use of “leave” and “hold fast” in, e.g., Deut. 4:4; 10:20; Josh. 1:5), and where Adam commits himself to Eve before God by employing a formula which is attested elsewhere in covenant-ratifying contexts: “this at last is bone of my bones” (Gen. 2:23; cf., e.g., 2 Sam. 5:1).

Make them one may be a reference to Gen. 2:24; if so, then perhaps Malachi derived his understanding of marriage as a covenant and the primacy of the husband’s obligation from the exemplary marriage of Adam and Eve. The translation and meaning of this verse are obscure, and various translations have rendered the verse differently, but the approach taken by the esv does account for the dire warnings in Mal. 2:15b and 16b. There is, then, a remarkable similarity between the logic of v. 15 and the teaching of Jesus in Matt. 19:5–9, namely, that it is God who joins a couple together; Malachi says there was a portion of the Spirit in their union. Furthermore, this verse asserts that the Lord intends marriage to produce godly offspring (lit., “a seed of God”). In Malachi’s view, divorce may frustrate this purpose in a manner analogous to marriage to an idolater (Ezra 10:3, 44; Neh. 13:23–27). The expression “a seed of God” reflects the imagery established in Mal. 2:10 (and 1:6) of God as a “Father” to his people, in virtue of his redemptive acts and covenant, and it offers an intentional contrast to the phrase in 2:11, “the daughter of a foreign god.”

The Hebrew text of this verse is one of the most difficult passages in the OT to translate, with the result that the two main alternative translations proposed for this verse are strongly disputed. The esv translation team has included in a footnote the other most common translation. Given the complexity of the linguistic issues involved, both alternatives are simply summarized briefly as follows, rather than presenting comprehensive arguments for each.

1. The esv text reads, the man who does not love his wife but divorces her. This rendering understands the Hebrew (and the Gk. of the Septuagint) in the sense of, “For he hates (or “does not love”) [and] he divorces.” The action of “hating” and thus “divorcing” is seen also in Deut. 24:3; further, the idea of a man “hating” his wife appears in Gen. 29:31; Deut. 21:15–17; 22:13; each case in the sense of “loving less” or “ceasing to love.” The expression covers his garment with violence is probably a figure of speech referring to the defiling of one’s character with violent wrongdoing (see the similar image in Ps. 73:6; 109:18; Rev. 3:4; and see the opposite in Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 59:17; 61:10). Although divorce based on loss of affection was recognized under the OT civic law, it is nowhere morally approved (unlike divorce based on a spouse’s sexual infidelity or desertion). This is so, as Malachi stresses, because divorce based merely on the loss of affection breaks the marriage covenant and defiles one’s character, since it is untrue to the creation ideal of faithfulness (Gen. 2:24; see note on Deut. 24:1–4).

2. The esv footnote reads, “The LORD, the God of Israel, says that he hates divorce, and him who covers [his garment with violence].” This is similar to the rendering that originally appeared in English in the King James Version of 1611. If this alternative rendering is followed, the focus is on God’s hatred of the practice of divorce, rather than on the hatred of the divorcing man toward his wife. Also following this alternative rendering, the phrase “covers his garment with violence” is understood either: (a) with reference to a second thing that God hates in addition to divorce, namely, the person “who covers his garment with violence”; or, as some hold, (b) that God hates divorce because the act of divorce itself “covers [one’s] garment with violence.”

In either case, this passage is clear in its recognition that the biblical standard for marriage derives from the creation account (see notes on Gen. 2:23–24), which establishes the covenantal nature of marriage. (Jesus, when discussing a question about divorce, began with creation; Matt. 19:3–9.) Malachi starts from this creational base: he refers to creation (Mal. 2:10), calls marriage a covenant (v. 14), refers to the oneness of Gen. 2:24 (“union,” Mal. 2:15), and reminds the community of the purpose of marriage (“godly offspring,” v. 15). The man who would divorce the Israelite wife of his youth (perhaps even for the purpose of taking a pagan girl as his wife) thus commits a grievous offense: he violates the creation order, he breaks his covenantal relationship with his wife—and, in so doing, he deeply damages his character (“covers his garment with violence”). But the impact of divorce reaches far beyond the individual, for divorce has a ruinous effect on the vitality of the whole community (vv. 13–15) and on its ability to fulfill its calling as God’s holy people.

Again, in either case, God is opposed to the kind of divorce that is in view because of the destructiveness and pain that inevitably results when “faithless” husbands send away their wives, as mentioned in Mal. 2:13, 15. (See also the notes on Matt. 5:31–32; 19:3–9; Mark 10:10–12; 1 Cor. 7:15; and Divorce and Remarriage.)