Biblical considerations of Divorce as an inverse relationship: An ethical -spiritual

implication of Malachi 2:16

by Emmanuel Kollie

Abstract

"For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one's garment with

violence," says the Lord of Hosts (Malachi 2:16, NKJV).” The institution of marriage was

established before the introduction of sin in the earth. While sin is in disharmony with God’s

intentions, yet by the introduction of sin, he did not dissolve his holy institution.

It is important to state that as it was from the beginning, it is still the intention of Satan to

destroy the solemnity of marriage. Satan intention is to destroy among others, the blessing of

procreation ( Gen 1:28); Unity/companionship of couple (Gen 2:18); the job of shared labor

(Gen 2:20); the concept of oneness; the value of nakedness without shame (Gen 2:23-25), etc.

Thus, He disrupted the serenity of man dependability upon God, and since then mankind has

developed a tendency toward wrong doings. So then, how can generations defiled by the

enormity of sin venture into a holy institution? Why not disengaged the marital contracts if it

would lead one to lose his human dignity or even lose faith in God?

It seems obvious that there is still a virtue in marriage which is in harmony with the

creation order, in favor with the completeness of humankind. In other words, human being may

not holistically live without being nurtured within the serenity of the marriage institution. Yet

the life of the human being is lived within the territory of sinfulness. This paper opted that as
man dwells in a sinful society, it must be understood that the marital institution still belongs to

God. Therefore marriage should be considered well before contracted, and must never be

regarded with an erroneous ideal, because deviance from the intention of God concerning His

institution would emerge the consequences of spiritual, and ethical implications on the divorcé

and divorcée as well as their offspring. Furthermore the paper highlighted the intention of God

for establishing marriage and thus his hatred against divorce, hence the biblical and ethical

reality which became a burden for the prophet Malachi.

Biblical Foundation of marriage

A close consideration of some relevant verses in the Genesis narrative clearly convey the

purpose of creating male and female as a capstone for understanding the institution of marriage.

Firstly, Gen 1:26 reveals that humankind (the man and his wife) was created to be like God in

order to rule over other living creation. God's purpose was that mankind resembles him by

reflecting his form and function over the created order on behalf of the heavenly government.1

Secondly, in Gen 1:28, they were to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth. In other

words, they were to bring under their control for their advantage and harness its potential and use

its resources for your benefit. Thirdly, in Gen 2:20, they were to be compatible to each other,

standing opposite each other as counterpart in their divine appointed assignments. Fourthly,

Genesis 2:25 reveal that they were to administer in nakedness, for they were naked (ֹ‫ערָוום‬
‫ ע‬,

êrȏm). The context of the word êrȏm frees it from the notion of sexual nakedness in mankind. It

provides a primary connotation of humility and dependability on a higher authority. In fact in

1
Bibleworks Electronic Version 9. Genenesis 1:26. The word ֶ‫( לֶצלֶלם‬tselem, "image") is used frequently of
statues, models, and images – replicas (see D. J. A. Clines, "The Etymology of Hebrew selem," JNSL 3 [1974]: 19-
25). The word ּ‫( דדמְּות‬demut, "likeness") is an abstract noun; its verbal root means "to be like; to resemble." In the
Book of Genesis the two terms describe human beings who in some way reflect the form and the function of the
creator. The form is more likely stressing the spiritual rather than the physical. The "image of God" would be the
God-given mental and spiritual capacities that enable people to relate to God and to serve him by ruling over the
created order as his earthly vice-regents.
ancient Israel, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Canaan, êrȏm connotes poverty, defeat, captivity, etc. It

represented the absence of status; Children and dead enemies were depicted naked.2 More so, the

Old Testament depicts the powerless condition of a person by the nakedness of a newborn baby

or a dead individual (Job 1:21; Eccl 5:15). Scripture evidence also reveal that prisoners of war

were stripped of their clothes and presented naked to the public to show that their status and

power had been removed (cf. Jer 46:24; 48:1, 13, 20, 39; 50:2; 51:51; Ezek 32:30; Hos 10:6). 3

Thus, in the biblical sense of the word, when Adam and Eve were pronounced husband

and wife, they were êrȏm. They were stripped of all superiority over each other, no authority, no

individual possessions, etc. They remained simple in their state of being with no lord or master.

They have not lost personal honor or dignity that would make them ashamed. They had nothing

to lose in their state of being.4 Therefore, whenever divorce occurs, in my biblical

understanding, a surgery is conducted without any anesthetic application to the patient (the man

and woman). Hence may never be completely healed in singleness again. A flesh is scattered and

a wound is created that may never be healed. In fact, Psalm 35:26 places shame on those who

assume power over others.

However, in Genesis 3, the devil introduced another form of êrȏm. For He was also

êrȏm, which made him wiser than all living creatures (Gen 3:1). A nakedness with a desire of

being like God; to lord over others or being in control. It is a nakedness of insecurity, fear and

inferiority. Hence power, suppression and control seem to be an immediate solution in order to

create an empire of self and a center of attention. This kind of nakedness creates a vacuum of
2
G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren and Heinz-Josef Fabry,ed. Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publsihing Company,1987), 349,350.
3
Ibid,..
4
Ibid,.
traumatic implication, ethical imbalances and brokenness, thereby breaking the covenantal

relationship between God and man, which result in a lawless generation against the standard of

righteousness. Unlike Satan’s êrȏm, the man and his wife was meant for collaborative rulership;

to exist in a collaborative communion; to be in control collaboratively; and live compatibly in

collaborative partnership, etc.

Congruent to the creating order, is God’s wisdom in the contrast values. The Genesis

account beings to mind the significant of contrast values in God’s creative activities, which also

share more light to the understanding of the institution of marriage. For instance, the coming

together of day and night provides a complete day of 24 hours. The coming together of the sun

and moon provide rulership over the day and night without confusion. The light and darkness

govern by providing the time of rest and the time to work. The dust of the ground and the breath

of God brought life in existence. God the creator and man the creature combine to form a

harmonious covenantal relationship, which lead to salvation. The contrast of husband and wife

provides the vivid understanding of oneness through which new life begins among others, etc.

And it is only when the man and woman combine in holy matrimony that the concept of

marriage is formed. In this regard, the man and his wife stick or cling (‫דבבבק‬
‫ ) ע‬together

permanently, and thus become one flesh (‫חד‬

‫א חע‬
‫ ) ל לב עשששרָ א‬according to God’s intention for His

institution.

In this regard, in Malachi 2:10-17 the prophet insists to challenge the returnees to the

reality that God hates divorce. Malachi reveals that marriage is the LORD'S holy institution,

which He loves (Mal 2:11), and that he is the one who created the contrast of two becoming one
(‫חד‬
‫א חש‬
‫ ) א‬flash (Mal 2:15). Therefore, to God divorce is beyond the sending away backed by legal

contract. Some interpreters are of the view that “the verb ֵ‫שנָׂנא‬
‫( ש‬sane') appears to be a third person

form, "he hates," which makes little sense in the context, unless one emends the following word

to a third person verb as well. Then one might translate, "he [who] hates [his wife] [and] divorces

her is guilty of violence.” Some others believe that the text must have had the first person

pronoun ִ‫'( אנ נָכֹכי‬anokhi, "I"), which it is possible might have accidentally dropped from the text

after ִ‫( כֹכי‬ki). 5 Whatever these views may be, God views divorce (ַּ֗‫שלַׁללח‬
‫ ) ל‬as an act of violence

against the victim. It is like shooting a gun in order to destroy ones enemy. It is described as one

rapping himself with a garment of continuous violence. Hence, their vulnerability is exposed,

their garment of dignity, honor and security is removed. They are exposed to the nakedness of

self seeking, personal respect, selfishness, and dominating spirit which leads to shame and

inferiority, as it is with Satan. For this reason The ִ‫ ככֹכי‬in the verse is taken in a causal sense

("for") to express God’s stance on the issue of divorce.6

This construction also presents a figurative expression of the garment as dress (garment),

which explains the inward part of a man, and therefore a soiled garment is a symbol of

uncleanness of heart, as referenced in Zechariah , “Then He answered and spoke to those who

stood before Him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And to him He said, see, I

have removed your iniquity from you, and I will clothe you with rich robes” (Zech 3:4). Hence

when the garment of marriage is removed by means of divorce the vulnerability of the man and

the woman is brought to open.

5
Bibleworks Electronic Database, version 9
6
Ibid,.
 Therefore in this construction Malachi 2:16 shows how the sin of sending away is

condemned as a violation of the marital unity, which Israel is encouraged to take heed to. 7 And

accordingly the immediate context of Malachi 2 presents divorce as one of the protests against

broken faith among the covenant people of God, which is expressed in the phrase ‫גדו ו‬
‫תב ל ו ח ו‬
‫ו לשלא ת‬

( not to act or deal treacherously, faithlessly, deceitfully"), which occurs five times in between

Malachi 2:10 -17. In a whole, he prophet Malachi, proclaimed to his people that, divorce is one

of the ways they profane the covenant thereby breaking faith with one another. Therefore God

hates it. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith, for it is seldom possible to

nurture the next generation of priest onto godliness.8

Ethical Consideration and spiritual implication

June Steffensen Hagen is of the view that the ethical system of man comes into conflict

when the rules and principles he is being guided by come into conflict with what seems to him a

far greater principle. His interpretation of his common sense seems to suggest that part of the

anxiety-filled encounters by mankind springs from the feeling that somehow mankind is being

pushed around by circumstances, and that he is not responsible for his actions.9 Furthermore, in

his ethical consideration, he sees self as a centre of judgment, thereby creating what seems as

value to him, thereby organizing the moral world around his consciousness of self as his ethical

fundamentum.10 In other words, man’s obedience to a divine command such as marriage is

7
C John Collins, the (intelligible) Masoretic Text of Malachi 2:16 or, How Does God Feel about Divorce?

8
David Clyde Jones, Malachi on Divorce.
9
June Steffensen Hagen, Ethical Reflection?: A Report on Teach-ing Hardy's Jude the Obscure with
Attention to Marriage, Divorce, and Re-marriage.
10
William Werpehowski, "Hearing the divine command: realism and discernment in Barth's
ethics." Zeitschrift Für Dialektische Theologie 15, no. 1 (January 1, 1999): 64-74. ATLA Religion Database with
grounded either in accordance with the immediate circumstances to a morally arbitrary will or

having the freedom to do as one likes to what seems as a rational norm to the divine command

(Mt 19:8). 11

Hence when these erroneous ethical system comes into conflict with rules and principles,

it becomes ethically right for man to ignore faithful response to the Word of God about marriage.

He rationalizes that there are circumstances in which it is not only legitimate but obligatory to

see that one's marriage is condemned and therefore require dissolution. 12 For these reasons most

Christian communities do not evaluate divorce as unethical ritual practice, which places an

irregular pattern in the life transition. Yet while other rituals are conducted with social and

personal significance, communal or public commitment to certain ethical or moral principles,

divorce does not acknowledge the depth of loss, as well as ethical and moral commitments for

the future. As important as this change of social statue may be, it takes place in privacy and in

shadows. Hence, Lori Heyman Gordon and Morris Gordon assert that:

With the exception of the legal profession, it is publicly ignored, and the emotional and physical
consequences of the change are often denied. The shattering effects are often privately enacted
through short or long term depression, despair, isolation, jealousy, and vindictiveness that
simmer beneath the surface of public awareness. There is no tribunal, no clan, no extended
family that can offer needed support, help, or even judgment when the event is shrouded in
secrecy, privacy, and denial.

Nevertheless it may be reasonable to assert that true ethical reflection of Christian

theology should compel us to think that human beings are responsible for their actions before

God. 13
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 17, 2013)
11
Ibid, 65.
12
Ibid,.
13
June Steffensen Hagen, Ethical Reflection?: “A Report on Teaching Hardy's Jude the Obscure with
Attention to Marriage, Divorce, and Re-marriage.”
 Implication for considerations

Congruent to the Genesis account, ethical implication recognizes the fact that men and

women are seen as very different at the opposite poles of humanity, therefore marriage should be

seen as the only or the best way to a full human life.14 Callahan asserts that one does not have to

be a social scientist to understand that marriage and family are the key institutions of our

individual and collective lives. 15

However, unethical principles towards marriage provides reasons such as, the husband

and wife conclude that their relationship can never meet their needs; (2) they are no longer

motivated to improve their relationship; and (3) they have become incompatible and have little in

common with each other. 16 Accordingly, divorce in most cases ends up in an intense emotionally

draining trauma experience which, according to Martin, in the work of Bill Flatt, equips divorce

to the experience of death. He asserts that in divorce the hopes and dreams of marital bliss

perish; and that the relationship with someone you have loved and given all to come to a halt.

Hence In divorce, there is death of a relationship.17 Oates described divorce as that form of grief

from which there are no flowers sent. 18 Similarly, Krantzler asserts that when divorce happens,

a separation shock is created, which can equal in intensity the feelings evoked by
the actual death of a husband or wife, and it sets in motion reactions similar to
those which an actual death can cause. The divorced person feels abandoned,
alone, disillusioned, rejected, angry, low, guilty, and frustrated. Overcoming such
feelings may take from six months to two years. The grieving person feels as if he
or she is bleeding inside.
14
Callahan, Sidney Cornelia. "A psychological perspective,” 130.
15
Ibid,.
16
Bill Flatt, "Divorce counseling by ministers." Restoration Quarterly 23, no. 3 (January 1, 1980): 129-
142. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 15, 2013)
17
Ibid, 131.
18
Ibid, 131.
 Similarly, Lori Heyman Gordon and Morris Gordon further mentioned that divorce also

involves parting through choice, a frequently feelings of failure, resulting in a devastating blow

to self-worth or self-esteem as they reflect on the loss of the benefits the marital union provided,

thereby contributing to a high level of stress.19

Moreover Bill Flatt opts that these breakdown after a divorce case are as a result of the

intense emotional turmoil, the overwhelming fear of being unable to cope with life’s

responsibilities and challenges, the fear of losing control or of going crazy, etc. And just as it is

mentioned in the biblical consideration of this paper, consideration create an impression that the

divorcee and divorcé appear to be single again, and yet not exactly single, because the bad things

about the former marriage may sometimes be forgotten, but the good things are remembered and

longed for again.

Another area of ethical implication is the concerning of raising of children. Divorce often

use the children against each other, leading the children to lose faith and trust, child-mother-

father relationship, sometimes environmental supports, and well as the pre-divorced children

care. When these happen the children are divided to usually idealize one parent and depreciate

the other.20

Thereby breaking significance primary relationships in the team efforts of the

father and mother, who remain the most important developing agent in the child’s life as

far as protection from malfunctioning behavior, is concerned. As a result, much of the

responsibilities for character building are taken over by the schools and eventually the
19
Gordon, Lori Heyman and Morris Gordon. "Ethical divorce: a format and a ritual." Reconstructionist 53,
no. 1 (September 1, 1987): 21-24.ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 20,
2013).

20
Flatt, Bill. "Divorce counseling by ministers
peers who become singularly influential during adult years, hence, leaving the child to

fate. 21 What seems good (divorce) as an ethical consideration now destroys in most cases

the self worth of the offspring. As Michael K Severe rightly puts it, “all divorces leave major

marks on children, marks that reach all the way into their core of being”. 22 He further expressed

major challenges post by divorce in following words:

Divorce is not just about political policy, dealing with social consequences or
creating "good divorces." Divorce is fundamentally a theological issue and must
be addressed. It is the break of community in which the child's identity rests. It
strikes at the heart of identity, self, being and community. It focuses to the place in
which "being" is formed, for in divorce being has been split, and even destroyed,
because It is fundamentally an attack against the very being of a child and
produces a loss of being. It forces children to construct themselves through
shattered mirrors, now in different physical and psychological locations. It is a
threat to the child's very ontology.23

Conclusion

Most marriages are under attack first of all because these marriages are not built on

biblical principles. By this I mean, godliness is not the center of their homes. Secondly, without

the guidance of a marriage counselor, most couples do not get acquainted with the reality of the

marriage life before their solemnization of holy matrimony. Unfortunately without trained

marriage counselors, most of these men and women become couples without a firsthand

knowledge of their synchronized typology on matter of their character traits and adjustment,

cultural/ethnic issues and differences it any, their sexual expectations, Communication skills,

conflict resolution, financial management, spiritual beliefs, step parenting expectations, family

21
J. K. Davidson and B. N Moore, Marriage and family (Texas, W.M.C.: Brown Publishers, 1992).
22
Michael K. Severe, "The children of divorce: the loss of family as the loss of being." Journal Of Youth
Ministry 10, no. 1 (September 1, 2011): 150-153. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed October 17, 2013).
23
Ibid,.
and friends, family history, leisure activities, partner lifestyle and habits, relationship

expectations, health related concerns, etc.

Marriage should be considered well before contracted, and must never be regarded with

an erroneous ideal. It must be patterned after its heavenly designed constitution, and Men are not

at liberty to make a standard of law for themselves, to avoid God's law and please their own

inclination.24 Jesus in all his discourse concerning divorce pointed his audience back to the

foundation of the marriage institution which was ordained at creation (Matt 19:8,9).

24
Ellen G. White, Adventist Home