CHAPTER THREE

MALACHI 2: 16 AND DIVORCE

Traditionally Mal. 2: 16 has been understood to be a condemnation of divorce per se. This interpretation coheres with the view that the covenant in 2: 14 refers to marriage. Many scholars, however, hold that 2: 16 does not refer to literal divorce and therefore 2:14 need not refer to literal marriage. This viewpoint will now be evaluated. " ... It must be sincerely doubted whether in times even a would have denounced divorce as a crime. Deuteronomy 24 tells against this interpretation." So writes A.S. van der Woude, as he rejects an interpretation of Mal. 2:16 which would construe this verse as a repudiation of literal divorce when based on aversion, an interpretation which on other grounds Van der Woude would be prepared to accept) A. Isaksson echoes this same sentiment when he concludes: "Interpreting the text as a condemnation of divorce means that we are reading into it a view of divorce which was first expounded about 500 years after .... "2 Accordingly, Isaksson argues that the impossibility of such a reference to literal divorce in Mal. 2: 16 offers significant support to the view that Mal. 2: 10-16 as a whole is concerned with an attack against apostasy to an alien cult and has nothing to do with literal marriage and divorce. In support of Van der Woude and Isaksson, there is a wide scholarly consensus that Malachi is heavily indebted to the Deuteronomic perspective.3 The following points of comparison have been noted: 1) Of all the Old Testament books, only Malachi and Deuteronomy commence with an address to all "."4

1 "Malachi's Struggle For a Pure Community" (1986) 71. 2 Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple (1965) 34. At another point Isaksson asserts: "He [Malachi] goes far beyond Dt. 24:1-4, and indeed seems to set himself in downright opposition to what is written there about divorce" (p. 30). 3 So, e.g., J. Swetnam, ":11 An Interpretation" (1969) 203; W.J. Dumbrell, "Malachi and the - Reforms," 42; and R.J. Coggins, , Zechariah, Malachi, 75-76. L.H. Brockington lists five conceptual parallels between Malachi and Deuteronomy: Mal. 1:2,fDeut. 7:8 - God's love for ; Mal. 1:9,fDeut. 10:17 - God does not show favour; Mal. 2:1, 4; 3:3,fDeut. 18:1 - priest and synonymous, may offer sacrifice; Mal. 2:6,fDeut. 33:10 - the law of truth in 's mouth; Mal. 3:22 [ET 4:4],f Deut. 4:10 - revelation to on Horeb ("Malachi," 656). C. Stuhlmueller adds two further examples: Cf. Mal. 1:12 with Deut. 7:8 and Mal. 3:22 with Deut. 4:10 ("Malachi," 399). 4 So notes W.J. Dumbrell, "Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms," 44. Dumbrell goes on to stress how the post-exilic application of the covenant injunctions in : 16 AND DIVORCE 49

2) Malachi concludes his work with an emphatically Deuteronomic injunction: "Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statues and ordinances that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel" (3:22 [ET 4:4]).5 Horeb is mentioned as the site where Moses and Israel received God's revelation in Deut. 4: lOff.6 3) Malachi's special interest in affirming 's elective love for Israel in spite of her doubt of that love finds a parallel in Deuteronomy's similar affirmation of Yahweh's love over against the anticipated doubts of a "potentially refractory Israel" (Deut. 4:37; 7:6ff.).7 4) Malachi's concern for Yahweh's despised "name" (1:6ff.) may presuppose the "Name Theology" of Deuteronomy.8 5) Given the relatively infrequent mention of the "fatherhood" of God outside of Deuteronomy (within Deuteronomy cf. Deut. 8:5; 14:1; 32:6), Malachi's appeal to this concept may likewise suggest Deuteronomic influence. 6) Malachi's appeal to the "covenant with Levi" finds a possible source in Deut. 33:8-11.9 Similarly, it has been argued that Malachi reflects Deuteronomy's usage where, it is claimed, "priest" and "Levite" are employed synonymously (or at least without a rigorous distinction) and "Levites" are permitted to offer sacrifice, as in Deut. 18:lff.l0 7) Malachi's concern for the tithe may be related to the provision made in Deut. 26:12ff.11 As Dumbrell notes, Malachi's dependence on Deuteronomy regarding the tithe includes not only the stipulation, but also

Deuteronomy, such as the call to remember Yahweh's elective love, represents a "bold transference to the rump-state by the post-exilic of the projected ideal." Whether or not one accepts the reading of ?~ltD'-?f-?~ in place of MT ?~l~'-?~ in Mal. 1:11 (supported by some MSS. for which see BHS), this variant suggests a scribal desire to assimilate this verse to Deut. 1:1. Cf. also Mal. 3:22 [ET 4:4J. 5 Accordingly, Dumbrell considers Malachi to be a book "bound together by Deuteronomic inclusions, a fact which tends to underscore the derivative prophetic nature of the work" ("Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms," 44). Cf. A. Renker, Die Tora bei Maleachi (1979) 98-101. 6 So notes L.H. Brockington, "Malachi." 7 So W.J. Dumbrell, "Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms," 44, and L.H. Brockington, "Malachi," 656. 8 So U. Kellermann, "Erwiigungen zum Esragesetz" (1968) 383, n. 81, and W.J. Dumbrell, "Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms," 45. 9 So W.J. Dumbrell, "Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms." Against this see S.L. McKenzie and H.N. Wallace, "Covenant Themes in Malachi," 550. 10 So, e.g., L.H. Brockington, "Malachi," 656. See J .G. McConville for a careful reappraisal of Wellhausen's reconstruction of the history of the priesthood and, related to this, the supposed synonymy of the terms "priest" and "Levite" in Deuteronomy (Law and Theology in Deuteronomy [1984]124-153). Cf. also J .M. O'Brien, Priest and Levite in Malachi (1990). 11 So W.J. Dumbrell, "Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms," 49. A contrary view is expressed by a number of other scholars who argue that Malachi presupposes the legislation of P rather than D. Cf., e.g., G.A. Smith (The Book of the Twelve Prophets, II, 2nd ed. [1929] 328-330), W. Neil ("Malachi," 229), and P.A. Verhoef (The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 159).