Malachi 2:16 is often quoted as a definitive divine statement: “God hates divorce.” But is that what the text really says? This interpretation, often drawn from certain translations, oversimplifies one of the most linguistically obscure passages in the Old Testament. In this post, I examine the textual uncertainties of Malachi 2:15–16, the contradictions in broader biblical context, and the dangers of using this passage as a universal moral rule. This post focuses strictly on the textual and contextual interpretation of Malachi 2:15–16. Pastoral guidance in situations of divorce must consider broader Scriptural ethics and compassionate engagement with real human suffering.
The text and interpretation of Mal 2:15
The variety in rendering the verse is illustrated below (and further variations exist!):
| Version | KJV | NET | NRSV |
| Translation | “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” | No one who has even a small portion of the Spirit in him does this. What did our ancestor do when seeking a child from God? Be attentive, then, to your own spirit, for one should not be disloyal to the wife he took in his youth | Did not one God make her? Both flesh and spirit are his. And what does the one God desire? Godly offspring. So look to yourselves, and do not let anyone be faithless to the wife of his youth |
| Sense | God made one (woman) but still had residual power | The one is the divorcing husband who has no remaining spirit/goodness | The first wife should be honoured as God’s creation |
| Similar | ERV, NIV | Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, NASB | Lexham English Septuagint, ESV (partly) |
There are three very distinct senses in the versions. The generally conservative New American Commentary says the following on Mal 2:15
Many would concur with J. M. P. Smith’s assessment that the beginning of this verse in the Hebrew text “is hopelessly obscure.” Kruse-Blinkenberg considers the best solution is “to put some dots instead of a translation and to make a note: Unintelligible.”121 Although these may be overstatements of the difficulties, the situation is such that any interpretation and translation must be understood to be tentative[1]
The NET notes observe that the literal Hebrew of the first phrase is:
“and not one has done, and a remnant of the spirit to him.”[2]
This, however, is just the beginning of the difficulties as the Word Commentary says this is
one of the most difficult verses in the OT…“One” could be the subject or the object of the verb “make.”[3]
The same sentiments are echoed in major commentaries like the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, NICOT, ICC, NIVAC. The UBS commentary (which serves as a guide to those making new translations) makes the following comment:
The first half of this verse is one of the most obscure places in the Old Testament, and is extremely difficult to make sense of. The problems are very old ones, and none of the ancient versions seems to have followed a Hebrew text exactly the same as the one printed in BHS.
The problems arise at many levels. First, there are several places where the actual consonants of the Hebrew text are uncertain. In addition, there are some places where modern scholars have suggested that the vowel points of the traditional Hebrew text should be changed. Second, there are problems of grammar and sentence structure. It is not clear, for instance, whether the word translated one in RSV is the subject or the object of the verb translated made. Nor is it clear how many sentences should be recognized. Third, at the level of meaning, it is not always clear who is referred to; for instance, who is the one? Fourth, in terms of the way the thoughts are connected, it is not clear whether the sentences are statements or questions, or a mixture of the two. Fifth, in terms of the discourse structure of the paragraph consisting of verses 13–16, it is not certain how this section fits in to the flow of the argument….
From the point of view of the translator, it is important to put something in the text that makes reasonable sense in the context of the whole paragraph, and especially of the second half of this verse. It will also be essential to add a footnote giving one or more alternatives (niv), or simply stating that the meaning is uncertain[4]
Does Mal 2:16 say God hates divorce
There are two main options for translating v16.
| Version | KJV | NIV |
| Translation | 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… | The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect |
| Sense | God hates divorce and violence | The man who hates and divorces is doing violence |
| Similar | NET, NRSV, NASB | ESV, Lexham English Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, Vulgate, NEB |
As the UBS handbook states:
the Hebrew text has “he hates.” A large majority of versions and commentaries change the vowels of the traditional Hebrew to make it read I hate[5]
It also goes on to state that the expression around covering with violence is uncertain in meaning!
Notably, the Septuagint (LXX) and key early Christian manuscripts—including א, B, A, and Q—render the phrase as a conditional statement: ‘If you hate and divorce, you do violence. [6],[7]’ This strongly supports the view Malachi is condemning the abuse of divorce, not establishing a universal divine opposition to all divorce.
Some other Biblical context
The broader context of Scripture should suggest caution in how we interpret Mal 2.
In the same epoch as Malachi, Ezra is mandating blanket divorce of foreign women in Ezra 9 and 10. Ezra’s concern is driven by maintaining the distinctiveness and faithfulness of the nation. Yet Ezra imposes a universal divorce policy—despite the fact that some foreign women in Scripture, such as Rahab and Ruth, are portrayed as faithful and righteous.
God himself says he divorced the nation of Israel in Jer 3:8. While this is obviously symbolic language, it still stands against a blanket statement as some translations would have in Malachi.
Conclusion
We cannot in all good conscience take these few verses as a once-and-for-all condemnation of divorce as a universal principle. In truth, the text is far too linguistically and contextually complex to serve as the basis for a blanket theological principle.
Malachi does not endorse divorce, far from it. Divorce is, in most cases, a tragedy: the dashing of hopes for a lasting covenant and a shared future. But to say it is wrong or against God’s desire plainly contradicts Ezra and the typical language God uses of his own actions. Rather than offering a flat rule about divorce, Malachi 2 critiques treachery in covenant relationships, particularly the exploitation of vulnerable wives. Its deepest concern is not legalism but loyalty and justice. The challenge for readers today is to move beyond proof-texting and attend instead to the full weight of Scripture’s ethical vision – justice, covenant faithfulness, and care for the vulnerable.
by Daniel Edgecombe
[1] Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai, Malachi, vol. 21A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004), 349.
[2] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).
[3] Ralph L. Smith, Micah–Malachi, vol. 32, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1984), 324.
[4] David J. Clark and Howard A. Hatton, A Handbook on Malachi, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 2002), 420.
[5] David J. Clark and Howard A. Hatton, A Handbook on Malachi, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 2002), 423.
[6] James Pohlig, An Exegetical Summary of Malachi (Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1998), 123–124.
[7] David Clyde Jones, “A Note on the LXX of Malachi 2:16: David Clyde Jones,” Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 684–685.
Living Faith 