To God be the Glory FOREVER, AMEN AND AMEN! ! !

The section opens with a double question that amounts to a double premise: (1) all Israel has one Father--God, and (2) God created that nation (Mal 2:10). Sadly, however, the population was dealing treacherously with each other and thereby profaning the covenant God had made with their fathers. Malachi 2:10-16 discusses Israel's disloyalty to their national family (Mal 2:10), spiritual family (Mal 2:11-12) and marriage partners (Mal 2:13-16), evidenced by spiritual harlotry, mixed marriages with unbelieving partners, adultery and, finally, divorce.

In Malachi 2:11-12, Israelites are charged with unashamedly marrying women who worshiped other gods. Such religiously mixed marriages flew right in the face of warnings to the contrary (Ex 34:12-16; Num 25:1-3; Deut 7:3-4; 1 Kings 11:1-13). But there were more accusations: "Another thing you do" (Mal 2:13). They had caused the Lord's altar to be flooded with such tears and mourning that the Lord refused to accept further sacrifices. The tears resulted from broken marriage vows to which the Lord was a party, being a witness at every wedding. Put very simply, God said, "I hate divorce" (Mal 2:16).

Two key words dominate this text: the word one (which occurs four times in Mal 2:10, 15) and the word breaking/broken faith (which appears five times in Mal 2:10, 11, 14, 15, 16).

The identity of the "one" in Malachi 2:10 is not "Abraham, your father" (Is 51:2), as Jerome and Calvin thought, or the patriarch Jacob, whom Malachi did mention elsewhere very frequently (Mal 1:2; 2:12; 3:6). Instead, it is God, who created Israel (Is 43:1). Thus those who have the same Father should not be dealing so treacherously with each other.

But who is the "one" in Malachi 2:15? Again it is not Abraham (as if the sentence read: "Did not one, that is to say, Abraham, do so [take a pagan Egyptian named Hagar to wife]?" with the prophet conceding the point and replying, "Yes, he did!" But Abraham is never called the "one," nor could his conduct in "putting away" Hagar be the issue here, since the divorced wives in Malachi's context were covenant wives, not pagan wives.

The subject of Malachi 2:15 must be God, and "the one" must be the object of the sentence, not its subject. As such, the "one" would parallel the "one flesh" of Genesis 2:24, for returning to God's original instructions would be a natural way to dispute covenant-breaking divorces. In a similar manner, our Lord referred to Genesis in Matthew 19:4-6: " `Haven't you read,' he replied, `that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"?' " (see also Mk 10:7-9).

Even though the Hebrew does not explicitly indicate that the first clause of Malachi 2:15 is an interrogative or that he refers to God, both possibilities fit the context, previous Scripture and normative Hebrew grammar and syntax observed in other passages.

The resulting thought would be as follows: Why did God make Adam and Eve only one flesh when he could have given to Adam many wives or to Eve many husbands? Certainly God had more than enough creative power to furnish multiple sex partners! So why only "one"? Because God was seeking a godly offspring, a process incompatible with multiple partners.

The two examples of faithlessness this passage raises are divorce and being unequally married to unbelievers. Both violate God's holy law. Marriage's covenant status is seen in other Old Testament passages, such as Genesis 31:50, Proverbs 2:17, Ezekiel 16:8 and Hosea 1--2. Genesis 2:24 most clearly defines marriage: It consists of "leaving" one's parents and "cleaving" to one's wife. The leaving and cleaving go together and in that order. Marriage, then, is a public act (leaving), in order to establish a permanent relationship (cleaving), and is sexually consummated (becoming one flesh). Any violation of this covenant is a breach of promise made in the presence of God and each other.

So fundamental and inviolable is the union created by this marriage covenant that nothing less than a rupture in sexual fidelity can begin to affect its durability (note Mt 5:31-32; 19:3-12). That such a rift may lead to one of the two grounds for breaking the marriage covenant (1 Cor 7 treats the other one) is hinted at in Jeremiah 3:8, where God "gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries." In effect, God divorced Israel. But note the grounds!

Accordingly, the Bible is not silent, either on divorce or on the reasons it may be granted. But when God still says that he hates divorce, we gather how strongly he desires to see marriage covenants succeed.

The Mosaic legislation never encouraged, enjoined or approved of divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Instead, it merely prescribed certain procedures if and when divorce tragically took place. The main teaching of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 forbids a man to remarry his first wife after he had divorced her and either he or she had remarried in the meantime. Unfortunately, the AV (King James), the ERV, the ASV and some others have adopted a translation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 that adds to the confusion. On their incorrect rendering, divorce is not just permitted or tolerated, it is commanded when some "uncleanness" is present! But in fact the conditional if which begins in Deuteronomy 24:1 continues through verse 3 with the consequence of the conditional sentence coming in verse 4 (contrary to all the incorrect renderings noted above). No Old Testament law instituted divorce; Hebrew law simply tolerated the practice while condemning it theologically.

Those objecting that the absolute statement of Malachi 2:16 precludes all arguments for a biblically permissible divorce do not take Scripture holistically. God is certainly able to qualify his own teaching with further revelation in other contexts. For instance, in Romans 13:1-7 God states that citizens must obey the civil powers that be, yet he qualifies that absolute in Acts 5:29: Citizens should obey God rather than any sinful civil law.

God's hatred of divorce is further expressed in the statement "one who covers his garment with violence." The "garment" refers to the ancient custom of spreading a garment over a woman, as Ruth asked Boaz to do to claim her as his wife (Ruth 3:9; see also Deut 22:30; Ezek 16:8). Thus to cover one's bed with violence was to be unfaithful to the marital bed and one's nuptial obligations. The symbol of wedded trust, much like our wedding ring, became the agent of violence toward these wives.