Original Meaning
THIS SECTION CONTINUES the covenantal idea of the previous sections, highlighting in particular the concept of faithfulness illustrated through the covenant of marriage. God condemns the priests on two counts: unfaithfulness and crocodile tears when God reprimands them for it. They are not alone in receiving condemnation, however, since Malachi includes not only himself, but the entire nation, and even all of humanity, in the sweep of his charges. Lack of covenant faithfulness spreads through many aspects of the life of the covenant people.
Structurally, Wendland suggests a chiasm for this section.1 A modification of it shows the arrangement of the passage:
A A fatherly God, who is one, created us, his people (v. 10a)
B Why break faith with our covenant brothers? (v. 10b)
C Breaking faith by pagan marriage, damaging the sanctuary (v. 11)2
D Result: cut off even if he brings offerings (v. 12)
D′ Result: tears because of unaccepted offerings (v. 13)
C′ Breaking faith through divorce (v. 14a)
B′ Damaging marriage covenant and marriage partner (v. 14b)
A′ The One made the family one (v. 15a)
B″ Don’t break faith with your wife (v. 15b)
B″′ Summary: Don’t break faith through divorce and violence (v. 16)
The desired state of covenant relationship (the A elements) bracket the result of breaking this relationship: tears and separation (the D elements).
In verse 10, God, through the prophet, returns to a dialogic disputation with Judah through a series of three questions. The first two are rhetorical, drawing the hearers in by demanding an affirmative response. The initial Hebrew interrogative (“Is it not so that …”) renders the questions even more emphatic than those previously encountered, where God delivers a declarative statement that is challenged.3 Here the challenge is hurled directly in the face of the hearers. In each of the three questions, the author joins himself with the rest of the people by the use of first person plural (“we,” “us”). He does not just point his finger at others, but acknowledges his own complicity in their wrongdoing.
The first question concerns a common kinship—“one father.” The referent is ambiguous. This word often refers to Abraham, the father of the Israelite people (Isa. 51:2; cf. Matt. 3:9), though most likely it here refers to God as Father (cf. Isa. 63:16), especially with the parallel location of “father” and God” in these first two questions.4 God is “Father” elsewhere in Malachi (Mal. 1:6), and his fatherhood is associated elsewhere with his creative activity.5 Whichever interpretation is adopted, the hearers agree that they are united, both ethnically and religiously. The unity is even more elemental in the second question concerning the Creator God. Here not only Israel, but all humanity finds unification. These two questions are formally united in Hebrew by their parallel rhythmic and content structure.6 They combine to indicate that Israel’s unity and very national existence are only attributable to a single source, God himself.
In light of these undeniable truths, the prophet asks the third question: If we are so clearly united, why does Israel belie this unity by their actions? This is done by “breaking faith, being unfaithful,” a strong verb (bgd) that indicates treachery toward one who should expect fidelity (e.g., spouse, Ex. 21:8; Jer. 3:20; kin, Jer. 12:6; allies, Judg. 9:23; God, Jer. 5:11; Hos. 5:7; 6:7). This is a key theme of this passage, occurring here five times (Mal. 2:10, 11, 14, 15, 16), with its particular application to the marriage bonds. The breach is between “one another” (lit., “a man against his brother”; cf. 3:16), a reciprocal disruption of relationships.
This breach has a serious result for God’s people: Their covenant with God is “profaned” or desecrated through breaking its provisions. The verb (ḥll) describes what happens when polluting objects or acts affect holy things dedicated to God (Sabbath, Ex. 31:14; Ezek. 20:13; God’s name, Amos 2:7; God’s table, Mal. 1:12), making them unsuitable for further sacred service. In this case, it is the ancestral covenant (cf. Deut. 4:31) that is breached through severing a foundational family bond. Some suggest this refers to some universal understanding of covenant agreements among all peoples (e.g., Amos 1:9)7 or to the patriarchal covenants of Genesis (Gen. 9; 14:13; 15:18, etc.).8 But most likely it refers to the Sinai covenant, in anticipation of which the Fatherhood of God is first encountered (Ex. 4:22–23; cf. Isa. 63:16).9 That foundational document for Israelite national unity is voided if interpersonal relationships are not considered worthy of being fostered.
In verses 11–12 Judah is held up as an example of this polluting perfidy. Her actions affect not only her capital, Jerusalem, but also its religious center, God’s sanctuary, the holy temple (Ps. 20:2).10 Here Judah is designated as “Israel,” since she is the sole remaining element of God’s chosen people after the exile and disappearance of the ten northern tribes of Israel (cf. Mal. 1:1; also 2 Chron. 11:3). Her acts are as an abomination (“a detestable thing”), a term common in Ezekiel (43x), Deuteronomy (17x), and Jeremiah (8x). Rendering the sanctuary an abhorrence starkly contrasts with God’s natural reaction toward his temple, which is love (Mal. 1:3; see NIV, GNB, NKJV, NLT). This is the sole reference in the Old Testament to God’s loving the sanctuary, though humans do in one case (Ps. 26:8), and God does love Zion (78:68; 87:2),
The context, however, better argues for Judah being the lover, with the next verb, “marry” (Deut. 21:13; 24:1), following naturally—love and marriage.11 God already claimed to love Jacob at the beginning of the book (Mal. 1:2). The sanctuary, where God meets with his covenant beloved, is also viewed affectionately by God as the symbol of his covenant “love” (see comment on 1:2). It contains his covenant “love letter” to Israel in the form of the Ten Commandments, the foundation of the covenant document (Deut. 10:5). But God’s beloved has spurned all of this and turned instead to someone else. If Judah is the lover, the covenant force of “love” still plays a role, since it, and therefore her covenant loyalty, is diverted to another, breaking the first commandment against other divine “lovers” (Ex. 20:3).
Regardless of who is doing the loving, the abomination concerns marriage, specifically with “the daughter of a foreign god.” “Daughter” is usually understood as referring to pagan women whose deity is other than Yahweh (LXX, GNB, NLT). Such religious syncretism was a prevalent problem in the pre-and postexilic periods (cf., e.g., Ezra 10:18–44; Neh. 13:23–29). This interpretation fits well with the discussion of literal divorce that follows.
Another, less likely possibility is that “daughter” is metaphorical, referring to the worship of foreign goddesses.12 This interpretation receives some support since the verb for “marry” here is bʾl, which shares its root with the Canaanite Baal, rather than other verbs that could have been used.13 Deities or semidivine beings are “sons/daughters of [a] god” elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g., Gen. 6:2, 4; Job 1:6) as well as in other literature from the period.14 Whichever interpretation is best, the wrong mentioned involves breach of the exclusive covenant between God and Israel, a covenant founded on unadulterated loyalty between Israel and her God (Ex. 20:3; Deut. 5:7).
Whoever commits the sin is “cut off,”15 completely wiped out with his line and exterminated (v. 12; cf. Ezek. 25:7; Mic. 5:9). If this passage is referring to forbidden marriage, the noun “man” refers to males, since, according to contemporary divorce regulations, divorce was restricted to men (Deut. 24:1–4; Jer. 3:1). If the passage is referring to pagan worship, “man” can be gender neutral (NASB; NRSV, “everyone/anyone”). The separation is “from the tents of Jacob,” another term for the Israelite community (Num. 24:5; Jer. 30:18). Israel’s breach of her primary and foundational promise to worship God alone excludes her from the covenant, even if she continues to bring the prescribed offerings. Israel had been previously warned that empty ritual without a proper devotion of heart is worthless (e.g., Amos 5:22).
Two enigmatic verb forms occur just prior to “the tents of Jacob.” These forms are both participles of verbs meaning “to awake, arouse” (ʿwr) and “to answer” (ʿnh) respectively, joined by “and.” The combination is difficult to understand in this context. The legal context, as noted by Hill,16 supports the suggestion that the phrase gives further definition to those engaging in forbidden religious practices, those who “witness and respond,” that is, those who aid and abet the wrong by putting their name to its legal recognition as witnesses (see NIV text note here). This spreads culpability throughout the Judean community, since most would know of these forbidden marriages but are not speaking out against them.
These wrongdoers attempt to cover their continuing sin by surface religiosity, that is, by bringing offerings (cf. the contrast in Mal. 3:3). These, as well as the priests, the actual presenters of the offerings before God, are all complicit in God’s sight. Formal ritual activity is not sufficient to atone for willing and flagrant covenant disregard.
While the NIV indicates a change of topic in verse 13 through a paragraph break, the beginning phrase (lit., “and a second thing”) indicates that this section continues the theme of verses 11–12: intermarriage and divorce. For the third time in the book, humans are “doing” something (ʿśh; cf. 2:11, 12). Each time that this verb has a human subject, the action is evil (see also 2:17; 3:15, 19). Since Yahweh ignores the offerings, the offerer “weeps,” covering the “altar with tears.” The use of three terms of emotional distress (“tears,” “weep,” “wail”) denotes extreme agitation. All three arise from a break in the relationship between Israel and her covenant God, which is supposed to be maintained by ritual purity. As long as Yahweh no longer acknowledges the efficacy of ritual, the relationship is severed.
Yahweh’s distance is described in two ways in verse 13: inattention and displeasure. The phrase “no longer” implies that until this turn of events, Yahweh did look approvingly on Israel’s ritual. The word “pleasure” elsewhere describes acceptable sacrifice (Lev. 1:3; 19:5; 22:19, 21, 29), as here. The “hands” bringing the sacrifice are those presenting it in verse 12 (note the change to the second person, “your hands”).
In verse 14, Malachi’s audience again disputes his allegations (cf. 1:2, etc.), asking the basis for his claims (“Why?”). Whereas earlier it was illicit marriages, Yahweh now proceeds to present yet another issue: abandoning their current, rightful marriages. Yahweh observes this pattern as a “witness,” a legal term concerning providing evidence of which one has knowledge (Deut. 4:26; Isa. 8:2). The situation is made even more serious by the use of God’s covenant name (“Yahweh”) in the emphatic, preverbal position in this context of covenant breach.17 It is God, not a mere mortal, who takes an active role in this lawsuit between two parties: “you” (the Israelite covenant breaker) and “the wife/woman.”
God is not only witness to this lawsuit but also a witness to the marriage. Marriage is a covenant (Prov. 2:17; Ezek. 16:8), and although we do not have any actual marriage contracts from the period of the Old Testament, we do know that other covenants or treaties included witnesses.18 This may well be the case also for personal covenantal arrangements such as a marriage, part of which even today is to make promises “before God and this company.”
The woman involved is not just any wife, a possibility in a society where polygyny was possible, but one “of your youth” (cf. Prov. 5:18; Isa. 54:6), most likely the first and primary wife who had special legal rights but is now abandoned. The wife is also described as Israel’s “partner” and “wife of [the] marriage covenant.” Both phrases are unique to this verse. “Partner” comes from a root denoting an alliance (ḥbr), a close and indissoluble bond (Gen. 2:24; cf. Ex. 26:6, 9, 11). “Covenant” (berît) likewise connotes inviolability. This may refer to the Mosaic “covenant of our fathers” (Mal. 2:10), with the point being marriage restricted to the covenant group (Deut. 7:3), or it could highlight the solemn nature of marriage, of which God is a witness (see comments above on Mal. 2:12).19 The word “marriage” is supplied by the NIV; while it is not explicit in the text, it certainly can be implied.
In spite of the fixed nature of the marriage relationship, Israel has “broken faith” (bgd), the third time in this section that this verb has been used. It unites the discussion of divorce (vv. 13–16) with that of mixed marriages (vv. 10–12). Here the finger points even more emphatically, with the use of the independent personal pronoun “you” preceding the verb, and is in stark contrast to the injured party, “she,” also indicated by an independent personal pronoun.
Verses 15 and 16 form a single subunit through an inclusion, a conceptual repetition at the boundaries of a section, continuing the discussion of “the wife of your youth.” In verse 15 broken faith is prohibited through the use of a negative imperative form. The MT here reads the verbal form as an impersonal third masculine singular: “Don’t let anyone break faith” (see KJV, NASB, NRSV). There is textual evidence for a second person (“Don’t you break faith”; LXX, Vulgate, NIV, NLT), which also makes good sense in the context, especially in light of the preceding verb “guard yourself,” which is second person. The plural verb indicates a distributive action where each individual responds individually rather than as a collective (“each of you guard yourself”). The locus of that care is in the “spirit,” the mind or one’s sense of self, though some take it as simply reiterating the reflexive nature of the verb (“yourselves,” NLT, NRSV).
The exhortation to faithfulness in the second half of verse 15 is relatively clear, but the preceding elements in verse 15 are much more obscure. The first clause concerns unity (lit., “and not one he made”). It continues the previous verse through the use of the conjunction we, which can be simply coordinative (“and not”; KJV) or adversative (“but not”; NASB), though most English translations take it as an interrogative construction (“is/has not?”; Vulgate, Peshitta, KJV, NIV, NEB, NRSV). The word “one” itself is also unclear. Some interpreters see it as the subject of the following verb (e.g., “and no one has done,” NASB; but see also NIV text note, “But the one who is our father did not do this”), while more take “one” as the verb’s object (“and has not he made one”; KJV, NIV, NJB, NLT, NRSV). The second option refers to human unity, which fits the present context of covenant unfaithfulness and marriage/divorce. This could refer to the marriage unity of the first couple (Gen. 2:24) or to the fact that man and woman are united in creation, sharing in God’s image (Gen. 1:26–27, though “one” does not occur there).
The next clause does not get any easier, and its interpretation depends to a large measure on that adopted for the previous clause. The least ambiguous word is the word “spirit.” The word preceding “spirit” (šeʾār) may mean “remnant, remainder” (cf. LXX, KJV, NASB) or, by emending the vowel, “flesh” (šeʾēr; NIV, NLT, NRSV). This second option would make a neat word pair “flesh/spirit,” while “remnant of spirit” is obscure, though it may denote “an enlivened body,” which “belongs to him.” The referent for the pronoun “him” depends on the interpretation of the previous clauses. If “one” is the subject of the verb “made,” it could be described more fully in this next clause with the resumptive pronoun picking it up (“to him[self]”; e.g., NASB, “But not one has done so who …”) or, if Yahweh is seen as the implied subject of “made,” the text would read as in the NIV: “Has not the LORD made them … they are his.”
The next section of verse 15 contains a question and answer, though where the division between the two lies is unclear. The question being asked is either, “And what is the One [i.e., God; ESV, NRSV] doing?” or “And why unity” (cf. KJV, NIV). Regardless of which option is chosen, the object of the search is identical—“the seed of God” (a phrase found only here in the Old Testament that probably denotes “godly offspring”). These “godly offspring” likely denote those who display his character, following his covenant will;20 this interpretation provides identification between these offspring and the vivified flesh earlier in the verse and links to the importance of the topic of faithfulness/unfaithfulness in this prophecy.
When the unity yearned for in verse 15 is breached by divorce, there is a strong reaction (2:16). This and the previous verse are related through vocabulary and theme, but they also share semantic and syntactic ambiguity. A literal translation, showing various options with their ambiguities, is: “‘For/Indeed/If—he hates/one hates/I hate—divorce!/divorcing,’ said Yahweh, the God of Israel, ‘then violence will cover/then he will cover with violence—his clothing,’ said Yahweh of hosts.” This indicates that there is hardly a word that is not fraught with controversy.
The opening word (kî, not translated by the NIV) may indicate purpose (“for, because”; KJV, NASB, NLT, NRSV) or emphasis (“indeed, surely”). A problem with either of these options is that these functions are subordinate, with the main clause generally preceding the subordinate clause, rather than following it as it does here.21 Some, with more justification, see it functioning conditionally (“if”; LXX, NEB), which is more common when the main clause follows, as it does here.
There follows in the MT a verb literally translated as “he hated” (śnʾ ). The preceding context suggests Yahweh is the subject of the verb, but it appears unnatural for Yahweh to speak of himself impersonally in his own direct speech, the genre of the present verse.22 Another approach, taking into consideration the problem just mentioned, emends the form to a first person masculine singular (“I hated/hate”; NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV, NJPS, BHS). Most English versions take this approach, though without support from any of the older versions. Such a severe emendation should be undertaken only as a last resort, if the current text is clearly corrupt and not understandable.
Another textual option is to reread the verb as a masculine singular participle, “one (is) hating/hates,” necessitating a change of a single vowel from the MT,23 which is the subject of the following verbs. Some read the form as a verbal adjective (i.e., “Divorce is hateful”), which does fit the context. An option preferred here is that the subject is not Yahweh but is impersonal, “one,” who in this case is the husband in the marriage under discussion. It is his hating that is condemned, using a root that occurs elsewhere in the context of marriage (Gen. 29:31, 33; Deut. 21:15–17; 22:13, 16; 24:3; Judg. 14:16; 15:2; Prov. 30:23; Isa. 60:15).24
The term following this aversion is “divorce” (lit., “sending away”—either a masculine singular imperative or an infinitive). Some earlier versions, adopting the former option, view this as a mandate for divorce, “if one hates, send away!”25 This supports the apparent tolerance toward divorce in the Mosaic law (Deut. 24:1–4), and has the merit of reading an unemended Hebrew text. However, this reading runs counter to the tenor of the context. Israel has just been chastised for unfaithfulness to its covenant commitments, and this very verse concludes with the same warning. It therefore appears incongruous to now completely reverse this condemnation.
The second option shows two sequential actions: a husband feeling aversion for a wife and consequently “sending [her] away/divorcing [her]” (cf. ESV). In this case, the divorce is not prompted by any identified fault on the part of the wife of his youth (the covenant wife [v. 14]), but lies completely at the initiation of the husband, who leaves her for someone else (v. 11).26
The importance of this message concerning covenant fidelity is accentuated through the speaker’s self-designation in two divine messenger formulae in this verse. Both times he is named as Yahweh (yhwh; “LORD”), using the intimate, covenant name of relationship. The first time, the other party of the divine covenant is also identified, with Yahweh described as Israel’s God, the only time he is so identified in the prophecy (cf. Zeph. 2:9). This is in contrast to his second identification with power (“Almighty”), which is a frequent description (Mal. 1:4 plus 23 other times in the book). The warnings here must be taken seriously indeed. The double identification in a single verse also emphasizes a new, less tolerant attitude toward divorce than that expressed in the Mosaic law, where it is permitted (Deut. 24:1–4; cf. Acts 10:9–23, where God’s revelation of a new twist on an old law needs a threefold repetition).
The next clause (lit., “and he covers [with] violence on his garment”) begins with a conjunction (we) whose function varies depending on the interpretation of the previous clauses. It can simply join two clauses (i.e., X and Y; NASB, NIV, NRSV); it can function causally, indicating that the next clause is a result of what precedes (“so [that]”); or, if it is preceded by a conditional indicator (“if”), it can introduce the result (“then/as a result of this”; cf. NEB). Hill suggests that it functions epexegetically, explaining the nature of what comes just before (“for he covers”).27
The verb with the attached conjunction indicates an incomplete action rather than something that is a one-time event (“he covers, is covering … with violence”). Again, no subject is explicit. It can no longer be Yahweh, if that is how the previous verses are to be interpreted, since he does not perpetrate violence. The subject must now change to the implied husband (KJV, NASB, NIV). If so, there is no compelling reason why he is not the implied subject throughout the verse, as suggested above. Another possibility is that violence is the subject as it covers his (the husband’s) clothing (LXX, Vulgate; cf. Prov. 10:6, 11; Hab. 2:17).28
Violence (ḥamas) is a strong word used of brutal, deplorable acts that violate God’s order.29 It is unacceptable to God and hateful, whichever interpretation of the preceding clauses might have been accepted. Violence covers over “his garment,” with the pronoun necessarily referring to the husband (and so providing support for seeing him as the implicit subject of earlier verbs in the verse as well). This particular expression is unique to Malachi, and there are no clear parallels to aid in understanding it, so options are almost as numerous as interpreters, ranging from literal to metaphoric. The two best options are the NLT, which moves toward the former in its reading that divorce “is as cruel as putting on a victim’s bloodstained coat,” a possible allusion to literal blood shed during incidents of domestic violence, and the NIV, which understands the garment figuratively to represent the offending husband, with clothes representing, if not making, the character of a man (cf. Isa. 64:6; Zech. 3:4). His violence through divorce is equivalent to wearing a bloody butcher’s apron.
Two final admonitions in verse 16 conclude the section. The first harks back strongly to verse 15, where three of the Hebrew terms used are repeated (“so [1] guard yourself [2] in your spirit and do not [3] break faith). The resulting “envelope” surrounding the discussion of divorce highlights it by making it stand out from its immediate context, while still being part of it. The second person plural forms in both verses emphasize that this is not just a societal problem, as if unfaithfulness happens “out there.” Rather, it is a problem facing each one of “you” collectively and individually. This is not just a problem of the priests and Levites (1:6–2:9) or of Judah generally (2:10–11), but of every one of the people.30 The passage ends with a human picture of breach of relationship (in marriage) that exemplifies the breach in divine-human relationship (in cultic service).
Bridging Contexts
DIVORCE IN THE BIBLE. There are several discussions of divorce in the Bible, some of which can be seen as contradictory to each other. Deuteronomy 24:1–4 says that if a man marries a woman and later finds her unsuitable for some reason, he is allowed to divorce her. This verse presupposes that divorce is allowable under certain circumstances (cf. also 22:19, 29) and does not condemn the practice. The focus of the legislation in Deuteronomy is only secondarily on divorce, however. The major emphasis is on the unacceptability or the remarriage of a previously divorced couple to each other (24:4; cf. Jer. 3:1).
The existence of divorce is presupposed elsewhere as well, including a proscription against a priest marrying a divorced woman (Lev. 21:7, 14; Ezek. 44:22) and the ability of a widow or divorcée to take a binding oath (Num. 30:9). In the case of the mixed marriages between Israelites and non-Israelites after the return from the Exile, both Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 13:23–28 find the practice unacceptable, a sign of unfaithfulness to God. The people who heard Ezra’s condemnation of mixed marriages proposed to send their pagan wives away, though the specific term for “divorce” found in Malachi 2:16 is not used there. No steps are prescribed for the current problem in Nehemiah, but simply a vow to avoid the practice in the future (Neh. 13:25). A specific priest is singled out for condemnation, and the wrong is described as a defilement of priestly obligations (vv. 28–29), so perhaps the problem there is really a breach of Leviticus 21:7. In any case, Ezra and Nehemiah both face the same situation as found in Malachi 2:11: intermarriage with a pagan.
The relationship between God and Israel is pictured as a marriage, and on several occasions the prophets speak in terms of God’s divorcing Israel, his “wife” (Isa. 50:1; Jer. 3:8). From an Old Testament perspective, therefore, divorce does not seem to be absolutely banned, and in Ezra it is seen even to be encouraged. The problem arises with Malachi 2:16, which can be read as a blanket condemnation of all divorce—and this coming from the mouth of God himself. If so, this is the end of the matter, but it still leaves the historical difficulties of various other views in the same Old Testament.
A universal prohibition seems unknown to Joseph in the New Testament. In the same verse he is described as being “righteous” and also considering divorcing his pregnant fiancée, Mary (Matt. 1:19). If the ban on divorce is absolute and from God, then the author would be hard-pressed to describe Joseph in this way. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus picks up the law from Deuteronomy 24, not making a statement about divorce per se, which he seems to accept (Matt. 5:31–32; 19:1–9; Mark 10:1–12; Luke 16:18), but he tightens the restriction on remarriage.31 Paul bans divorce for both husbands and wives (1 Cor. 7:11), and when a marriage was entered into prior to one of the spouses becoming a Christian, he urges the new Christian to stay in the relationship if the unconverted spouse so desires (vv. 12–13). The implication is that if the unconverted spouse does not wish to maintain the relationship, it can be dissolved through divorce without condemnation. This therefore differs from the Ezra–Nehemiah situation, since the latter involved what were mixed marriages from the outset.
Some try to ascertain the relative order of books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi based on their respective views of divorce.32 This is fraught with difficulty, not least being the subjectivity of what might be argued. Is a dogmatic condemnation the starting point, which is slowly eroded by accommodation to real-life, or does a growing crisis finally lead to a complete ban as the final answer? Either view is arguable from the textual evidence, though neither view is compelling based on the textual evidence.
There is a major contrast spelled out between Malachi on the one hand, and Ezra–Nehemiah on the other. The latter regulate marriages crossing boundaries of nationality and religion, leading to breaching the first of the Ten Commandments (i.e., the command against foreign gods, Ex. 20:3; Deut. 5:7), as it did in the case of Solomon (1 Kings 11:1–13). This type of marriage Malachi condemns in Malachi 2:11–12. He also condemns divorce within the boundary of Israel, however. Merrill suggests that the Israelites are divorcing their Israelite wives in order to marry outside of their people, a possibility that cannot be proven from the text.33 This makes the prohibition contextual rather than universal.
Yet another possibility reads the divorce prohibition against its immediately following context: God’s hatred of violence. Violence, mistreatment, and exploitation are not to be inflicted on one’s neighbors or slaves (e.g., Ex. 21:18–27), and in some cases such actions result in freedom for the slave (21:26–27). The two actions, divorce and domestic violence, can be viewed as complementary, the latter leading to the wife’s release from the marital covenant in compensation for the physical, emotional, economic, verbal, or spiritual suffering she undergoes. In this case, God’s disfavor of divorce is not absolute, but he absolutely opposes domestic violence in any form, since such violence can be experienced in a variety of equally harmful ways. The only difference between them is that not all are visible.
Contemporary Significance
DIVORCE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. One area in which the church should hang its head in shame is its acknowledgement of, and approach to, domestic violence and abuse among its members. The Catholic Church has been tarnished of late with evidence of sexual abuse of minors by some among its clergy, with the hierarchy turning a blind eye, or even abetting the misdeeds through a lack of biblical response. Evangelicalism cannot take this as an opportunity for self-congratulation, however, since Jesus himself allows only the sinless to cast the first stone (John 8:7). The statistics are sobering: As many as one out of three to four girls and one out of five to seven boys will be sexually abused by the time they reach age eighteen.34
Demographically, in general the more conservative the religious leanings of the population group, the higher the rates of incest. This follows from a patriarchal view of family power dynamics since, if the father is the ultimate and final authority, whatever he says or desires cannot be questioned. On one extreme are Jewish families, where the mother plays an active role in family guidance; and on the other extreme are the Amish, where the father is the authoritative person.35 As regards physical violence, “domestic violence is considered one of the foremost causes of serious injury to women ages 15 to 44,” according to the U.S. Surgeon General.36 Today in the West the most common contact we have in our daily lives with those who are being oppressed and exploited are with victims of abuse and violence, and we do not even know who they are.
One reason for the lack of knowledge is really a lack of acknowledgment. Rarely do churches, especially among conservative denominations, acknowledge that a problem exists in this area of domestic violence among its parishioners, even though statistics indicate that it does exist.37 Living in denial is different from living in ignorance, a distinction Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 5. There it was not a matter of immorality unknown to the church, but a situation where they were well aware and even seemed to revel in (5:2). This lack of acknowledgement, coupled with a position that divorce is unacceptable at all times and under any circumstance, does a serious disservice to the gospel of Christ and also places innocent lives in jeopardy. Many an abused woman has finally gathered enough courage to approach her pastor about an ongoing pattern of physical abuse, only to be reabused emotionally. On what I feel to be an incorrect reading of Malachi 2:16, women are sent back into this abuse, “encouraged” by the misunderstanding of another passage about wives submitting to their husband (Eph. 5:22).
How should we address this problem in the light of both Malachi and Paul? First, we must remember that Malachi addresses only the husband, the wife having no opportunity to initiate divorce in Israelite society. This is also clear from the immediate context, which speaks of marrying “daughters,” not sons, and wives, not husbands. Grammar also indicates that a male is the concern in verse 16. A valid reading is to see domestic violence in itself as being a divorce; if the man has done this, he has de facto broken the covenant relationship, initiating a divorce in a hateful way.
If a husband uses Ephesians 5 as a justification for his wife to submit in all things, even abuse of any form, that needs to be done in full cognizance of what 5:25 says. If husbands are able to act in this way toward their wives, that is saying that Christ raped, abused, and exploited his church. Our shock at this claim needs to be at least matched by an outrage at using Ephesians as justification for domestic violence. What a civil society recognizes as abhorrent and unacceptable, as evidenced through its laws, how can the church accept as permitted? Note also Paul’s words from Colossians 3:19: “Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.”
The direct victims are not the only ones harmed by domestic violence, however. The cycle of abuse is such that those raised in households of domestic violence are more likely to be abusers themselves. There are also serious consequences for the abuser. Making abuse part of one’s character results in a person who is far from exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, which includes “patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” (Gal. 5:22–23). None of these traits find realization in an abuser, who also by his abuse disqualifies himself from a position in church leadership, since leaders also are called away from violence and toward gentleness (1 Tim. 3:3). Theologically significant are verses that indicate that the prayers and worship of a violent abuser are unacceptable, since God will not hear when human relationships are damaged (see Isa. 58:4; 1 Peter 3:7).38