The book of Malachi, tucked away at the end of the Old Testament, contains a gem of a verse (sentence) that gives the lie to the idea that people should not divorce but endure abuse in marriage.
Abuse campaigner Barbara Roberts has released an academic paper on this verse – and Eternity News thinks her insight is worth sharing.
Barbara Roberts is speaking up for abused partners.
She is convinced that a proper reading of Malachi 2:16 is very significant when dealing with domestic abuse. Her paper argues that the King James Version sets Bible translations on the wrong course. Instead, she reaches back to the work of Myles Coverdale, whose translations (yes more than one) of the Bible into English have been influential – especially in the Book of Psalms. …
— John Sandeman, Eternity News, Jan 5, 2021
Read the whole of John Sandeman’s article at Eternity News:
The Bible verse that supports victims of domestic abuse
An ACFJ reader has asked me to seek comments on Beneth Jones’s book “Ribbing Him Rightly”. The book was given to a young engaged woman this ACFJ reader knows. Is the book dangerous? Is it worth reading?
Beneth Jones, the wife of Bob Jones III, wrote ten books. Thousands of people came to Bob Jones University for her funeral in 2019 (source).
Ribbing Him Rightly has only three reviews at Amazon: a 1-star review and two 5-star reviews. The 1-star review says:
It couldn’t be anything except a gag gift. The whole book starts from the premise that women are nothing but a piece of a male, created to serve the males of the species. It is absolutely outrageous and hilarious. What is Not funny is that there are women out there — from a dying generation of course — that actually believe that their husbands must be adored and catered to as if holding down a job and having a family is some kind of divine feat.
Good grief, this is a perfect example of a woman who has never in her life read a book but attempted to write one anyway. (source)
[review slightly edited for clarity of comprehension]
If you, dear readers, have any comments on Ribbing Him Rightly, or thoughts about Beneth Jones’s other books, please comment below. Please do not comment at FB because comments at FB soon become hard to find.
Don Hennessy’s new book, How He Wins: Abusive Intimate Partners Going Free, addresses a world-wide problem: Our failure to reduce the level of male intimate abuse.
We’ve all heard the terms ‘domestic abuse’ and ‘domestic violence’. When a man perpetrates abuse on his female intimate partner, Don Hennessy calls that male intimate abuse. The most common example is when a husband abuses his wife.
My name is Barbara Roberts. I’m a survivor of male intimate abuse. I’ve been writing on the issue of domestic abuse for 20 years.
Hennessy is a counselor who has worked in the domestic violence field in Ireland for many years. He has worked with male perpetrators and with their target women. In my view, his insight into the tactics and strategies of male intimate abusers will be helpful for even seasoned practitioners in the field.
Hennessy calls male intimate abusers “psychephiles”. The psychephile is a very controlling man who believes he is entitled to objectify his partner so that he can own her. One of his fundamental goals is to get his sexual needs met without having to negotiate. The psychephile surreptitiously invades the mind of the woman he has selected as a target. He is patient, cunning and skilled in achieving his goal. He modifies his tactics whenever he realises that his current strategies are no longer effective. He is usually several steps ahead of the professionals who in their professional capacity deal with domestic abusers or who interact with abused women. This is true whether the professionals are police, health practitioners, counselors, social workers, clergy, educators, academics, government officials, solicitors, court officials, or judges.
Hennessy argues that the system needs to protect the target woman, rather than merely offering support to the target woman. Protecting her from physical attack and harassment is not enough. The system needs to protect her mind from the psychephile’s devious and malevolent grooming and re-grooming.
For the system to do this, professionals need to be able to recognise, diagnose and resist the grooming tactics of the psychephile. Psychephiles proactively groom the professionals who work in the field of domestic abuse. Psychephiles groom society as a whole — they groom the whole system. The system needs to stop colluding with male intimate abusers.
Hennessy acknowledges Evan Stark’s book Coercive Control (2002) and then he says —
Stark disagrees with me in the need to analyse the behaviour of the psychephile within the confines of an intimate relationship. I am convinced that trying to define male behaviour without working with the male abusers has allowed these men to avoid being diagnosed. This lack of diagnosis also feeds the sense of arrogance and entitlement that energises their behaviour.
Hennessy says that
The psychephile is standing on the shoulders of generations of male intimate abusers and remains hidden in plain sight. He grooms us all to accept his definition of the issues within his relationship. He also manipulates us into engaging with him in solving the issue. He is an expert in getting what he wants in any forum. He is tolerated and even accepted. This book will delineate how he grooms all of us and how we how we need to change our position if we are to reduce the constant pandemic that is male intimate abuse.
If we accept that psychephiles are more devious and more expert than paedophiles, we must accept that protection of the vulnerable is the most effective response.
I have personally experienced some of the unhelpful responses from professionals that Don Hennessy describes in this book.
I went to a women’s refuge in 1990 when my daughter was a baby. My husband must have guessed I might be at the refuge. He found the phone number and telephoned the refuge. A worker in the refuge told me that my husband wanted to talk to me. I felt she was urging me to talk to him. I thought she would think I was rude if I refused to talk to him. I spoke to him on the phone, and agreed to meet him for a short time in a nearby park. When we met, he groomed me and told me lies, to suck me back in. The refuge had given me temporary physical safety and a place to sleep, but they did nothing to protect my mind and spirit from his sinister manipulation.
The second time I was at the refuge, one of refuge workers asked me, “What are you going to do, Barbara?” I told her I was probably going to go back to my husband. She looked at me askance and said dryly, “These men don’t change.” I felt she was looking down on me and disapproving of me because I was contemplating going back to my husband. She lent me a book to read titled Women Who Love Too Much. I felt she was blaming me for loving too much. I felt judged by her. I was so ashamed of being a victim of domestic abuse, and she just made my shame worse.
About ten years later, after I had separated from my husband for the last time, I found myself becoming a writer and advocate for other abuse victims. I attended a domestic violence seminar. One of the speakers was a police officer. He outlined the powers and policies that police have to respond to domestic abuse. He concluded by saying, “We do everything we can for them. We just wish they didn’t go back.” I felt stung. He was implicitly blaming victims for going back to their abusers.
Things in Australia have improved a fair bit since then, although there is still a lot of room for improvement. But from Don Hennessy’s book, I get the impression that in Ireland and in many other countries things are as bad, if not worse, than when I was seeking help from the system in Australia.
Hennessy gives case studies that will challenge practitioners from all sectors: legal practitioners, police, family courts, health practitioners, religious leaders, government leaders and policy makers, counselors, social workers and domestic violence support workers. He then suggests some solutions for the problem, acknowledging that he does not have all the answers.
Even if you are a professional who thinks you have enough training and experience to resist the male intimate abuser’s grooming tactics, I urge you to read this book. It will probably teach you something new; but even if it doesn’t, I am confident it will help you to train others in the field.
I also encourage target women to read How He Wins. The case studies of how male intimate abusers manipulate professionals will resonate with many target women. Hennessy’s book is easier to read than Evan Stark’s book Coercive Control. It has more case studies and less academic language.
Let me end with another quote from Don Hennessy:
The deviousness and cunning of a psychephile are beyond understanding. Until the issue of male intimate abuse is regarded as the core reason for the lawlessness that is rampant in our society, we will continue to trivialise its effects and we will continue to collude with the psychephiles in our community.
I was not paid to promote this book. Don Hennessy asked me to make a video about it and I was glad to do so because I think his work is excellent.
How He Wins (Liberties Press, Ireland) is available worldwide on Kindle. The paperback version is available now in the UK and will soon be available in other countries. If you buy it from Amazon via this link, A Cry For Justice will receive a small percentage of the sales price (we use these funds to give gift books to cash-strapped victims of abuse).
For more info about Don Hennessy’s work, including his previous books, go to my Don Hennessy Digest cryingoutforjustice.blog/2018/02/06/don-hennessy-digest
In his first letter, the Apostle Peter directs the following words to wives:
In the same way, wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, even if some disobey the word, they may be won over without a word by the way their wives live, having observed your pure lives lived with respect. (1 Peter 3.1–2)
These words have sometimes been used to expect victims of domestic violence to remain within their abusive relationships. Women are seen to be encouraged to put up with suffering under domestic abuse for the sake of the salvation of their spouses.
First of all, let me say straight up that domestic violence is always wrong. Always. There is never a time that domestic violence should be condoned or encouraged. Never. Ever.
Second, I believe that using Peter’s words here to encourage victims of domestic violence to remain in abusive situations is a complete misunderstanding and misuse of…
View original post 1,574 more words
Malachi 2:16, ancient versions and English translations, and how they apply to domestic abuse — a paper by Barbara Roberts
The translation and application of Malachi 2:16 is very significant when dealing with domestic abuse. I have published a paper Malachi 2:16, ancient versions and English translations, and how they apply to domestic abuse.
The paper examines and compares the ancient textual witnesses to that verse, how the verse has been variously translated into English, and how the verse applies to situations where a husband abuses his wife. It weighs the evidence and concludes that Myles Coverdale’s translation of Malachi 2:16 (published in 1535 in the Coverdale Bible) best conveys the meaning of the Hebrew text and is most consistent with the heart and character of God.
The paper is published at Academia.edu. You may have to sign in to Academia to read the paper. It is free to sign in. You don’t need to have an academic qualification or be working in an academic institution to sign in. The sign in options are email address, Facebook, or Google.
Go here to read the paper: Malachi 2:16, ancient versions and English translations, and how they apply to domestic abuse.
I hope you will share the paper with church leaders, Christian counselors and seminary teachers.
I am publishing this material here because I decided to remove it from the revised edition of my book Not Under Bondage in order to make room for other things. I did not want the revised edition to have more pages than the first edition. To increase the page length would have required an expensive and time-consuming update to the index.
The first edition of Not Under Bondage came out in 2008. Since then, new English versions of the Bible have been published: NIV2011 and CSB. The CSB was merely an update to the HCSB; it did not alter what the HCSB had at Malachi 2:16. I have added these two Bibles to the list and indented them to indicate what I added that was not in the 2008 book.
I will also publish this material at Academic.edu and put a link here when I’ve uploaded it to Academia. Footnote numbers are shown thus: (1)
Appendix 7 from the first edition of Not Under Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery and Desertion
Translations of Malachi 2:16
This appendix presents eighteen translations of Malachi 2:16 where the one who hates is the divorcing husband. The date of each translation is shown.
• 1868 (Ewald) For he who from hatred breaketh wedlock, saith Yahweh Israel’s God, — he covereth with cruelty his garment, saith Yahweh of Hosts. To arrive at his translation, Ewald repointed the perfect verb śānē’ as a Qal participle śōnē’ and the infinitive construct šallah as an infinitive absolute šallēah. (1)
• 1908 (van Hoonacker) Quand quelqu’un répudie par aversion, dit Jahvé le Dieu d’Isräel, il se couvre d’injustice par-dessus son vêtement, dit Jahvé des Armées. Hoonacker repoints śānē’ to the Qal active participle śōnē’ (like Ewald), but repoints the infinitive construct šallah as a Piel perfect “to send away, divorce” to match the perfect “covers” in the latter part of the verse. (2)
• 1927 (J. M. P. Smith) “For one who hates and divorces,” says the Lord God of Israel, “covers his clothing with violence,” says the Lord of Hosts. (3)
• 1934 (Lattey) For he that putteth away with hatred… (4)
• 1970 (New English Bible) If a man divorces or puts away his spouse, he overwhelms her with cruelty, says the Lord of Hosts the God of Israel.
• 1981 (René Vuilleumier) En effet, répudier par haine, c’est couvrir son vêtement de violence, dit YHWH Sabaot. (In fact, to repudiate through hatred is similar to covering one’s garment with violence says YHWH Sabaot.) (5)
• 1986 (Westbrook) For he has hated, divorced … and covered his garment in injustice… Westbrook follows J. P. M. Smith and takes the two verbs as finite. (6)
• 1987 (Glazier-McDonald) “For one who divorces because of aversion,” says Yahweh, the God of Israel, “thereby covers his garment with violence.” Glazier-McDonald says “making Yahweh the subject is wholly arbitrary and requires too many inferences.” (7)
• 1994 (Hugenberger) If one hates and divorces, says Yahweh, God of Israel, he covers his garment with violence, says Yahweh of hosts. Hugenberger spends thirty-five pages analyzing the various interpretations and translations of verse 16 made prior to his time of writing, and presenting reasons why his translation is the most supportable. He leaves both śānē’ and šallah unchanged, suggesting that šallah be interpreted “as a Piel infinitive absolute functioning as a substitute for a finite form, in this case a perfect … in the Piel conjugation the infinitive construct often provides an alternative form for the infinitive absolute.” (8)
• 1994 (D. C. Jones) Translation of the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament made in the intertestamental period). The Septuagint has the first clause in the verse in the second person: If you divorce out of hatred, says the Lord God of Israel, then ungodliness covers your thoughts. Jones says:
The Septuagint … is widely and mistakenly assumed to have the same rendering as the Targum and the Vulgate: “If you hate, divorce!”… Correctly parsed, however, the Septuagint is not a subjunctive and an imperative, but a participle and a subjunctive. It does not say, “If you hate, divorce!” It says, “If hating you divorce,” with the apodosis [result] still to come, as in the Hebrew. …This rendering is congruent with Malachi’s general style as Malachi often inserts “says the Lord” before completing the thought (1:10, 14; 3:10, 17). In one other verse he places it as here, between the protasis [condition] and the apodosis [result] of a conditional sentence (2:2). (9)
Jones notes how two distinct Septuagint readings dating from the fifth century have been confused. One reading said “If you hate, divorce!” the other said “If hating you divorce…”. The former came to be regarded as “the LXX” of Mal. 2:16 to the neglect of the other reading. Jones says there is overwhelming manuscript evidence for the latter reading. (10)
• 1994 (C. John Collins) renders the Septuagint as If having hated you should divorce… because “the participle is an aorist, and an adverbial aorist participle before the main verb normally denotes action prior to that of the main verb.” (11)
• 1994 (C. John Collins) translates the Hebrew: For he hated, he divorced [his wife] … and he will [consequently] cover his garment with wrongdoing. Collins suggests that šallah (‘divorce’) be taken “as a Piel perfect, with a rare but not wholly unattested a in the first syllable rather than the usual i.” This suggestion would give two perfect verbs (hated, divorced) denoting consecutive past action. He concludes: “Taken this way, Malachi 2:16 shows how the sin condemned but not named in verses 13 and 14 is a violation of the marital unity described in verse 15.” (12)
• 1997 (Sprinkle) When he hates so as to divorce, says the LORD God of Israel, then he covers himself with lawlessness. Sprinkle says I hate divorce is “an impossible translation of the MT, one that can only be retained on the basis of conjectural emendation without any manuscript support.” He takes the infinitive šallah as a result clause. (13)
• 1998 (Stuart) If one hates and divorces (Yahweh, Israel’s God, said), he covers his clothes with crime (Yahweh of the Armies said). Stuart sees both Hoonacker and Hugenberger’s suggestions as reasonable and does not arbitrate between them. He describes Malachi 2:16 as a conditional sentence with a typical “if … then” structure. The condition (if he hates and divorces) reflects the reference to divorce for aversion in Deuteronomy 24:3. The result (then he covers his clothes with crime) is the consequence of divorce for aversion. (14)
• 1999 (Holman Christian Standard Bible) “If he hates and divorces [his wife],” says the LORD God of Israel, “he covers his garment with injustice,” says the LORD of Hosts.
• 1999 (Shields) For the one who hates and divorces, says Yahweh, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says almighty Yahweh. (15)
• 2001 (English Standard Version) For the man who hates and divorces, says the LORD, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. (16)
• 2003 (Zehnder) For the one who hates and divorces, covers his garment with violence, says YHWH of hosts. Zehnder says “The widespread rendering of the clause with ‘For I hate divorce’ is … untenable.” He interprets śānē’ as “either a verbal adjective or (with revocalization) as a Qal participle, šallah as an infinitive Piel or (with revocalization) as a third person singular perfect Piel.” He also gives, as an alternative translation, the same wording used by Hugenberger. (17)
Added (not listed in the first edition of Not Under Bondage)
• NIV 2011 “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,”[a] says the Lord Almighty. Note [a] says: Or “I hate divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “because the man who divorces his wife covers his garment with violence,”
• CSB “If he hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord God of Israel, “he[a] covers his garment with injustice,” says the Lord of Hosts. Note [a] says: Or The Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce and the one who
These translations supply a weight of evidence against the common rendering “I hate divorce” and they all read the text as condemning a husband who both hates and divorces his wife. Since 1986, when the wave of these new translations began in earnest, an impressive degree of agreement has been developing amongst scholars.
There is not complete unanimity, however. For the sake of fairness, the scholars who have taken differing views will now be briefly canvassed. It will be seen that their various solutions have far less unanimity than the scholars listed above.
• Wilhelm Rudolph did not emend or revocalise śānē’ but argued that it could be construed as a verbal adjective acting as a participle, with an elided first person singular pronoun “I” as the subject. He read “sallah” as the object and arrived at “Because I hate divorce”. (18) Hugenberger refuted this, saying there are “no other first person pronouns in the context, and … a verbal adjective of śānē’ is otherwise unattested”. (19) Rudolph also repointed “covers” as an infinitive construct and added a prepositional prefix to it. Martin Shields refuted this by saying, “When a participle constitutes the predicate of a verbless clause, the subject is usually explicitly represented in the clause. The absence of such explicit representation in Malachi 2:16 is a serious difficulty for this view.” (20)
• In 1984, Ralph L. Smith emended śānē’ to the first person perfective form (“I hate”) as found in Malachi 1:3. (21)
• In 1986, A. S. van der Woude rejected the “I hate divorce” reading because it required emendation of “he covers”. He recognized the third person of “hates” but rejected Hoonacker’s translation on the grounds that “it must sincerely be doubted whether in Old Testament times even a prophet would have denounced divorce as a crime. Deuteronomy 24 tells against this interpretation.” His solution was to translate šallah not as divorce, but as “a morally detestable hostile act”. (22)
• In 1987, Pieter Verhoef rejected the translation “he hates” because he thought it must lead to “if he hates, let him send away” — which would contradict all that the prophet was seeking to convey. He argued for “I [God] hate divorce”, positing an elided “I” and repointing śānē’ to make it the Qal participle śōnē’. (23)
• In 1993, Andrew Cornes echoed Verhoef and Rudolph. He rejected a posited translation, “if he hated when divorcing it would be as bad as covering his garment with violence”, because “it would imply that divorce was perfectly acceptable if there were no hate involved and that would undermine all that Malachi is wanting to say about not breaking faith with your partner…” (24)
• In 1994, Eugene Merrill argued for “I hate divorce”, simply because he claimed that that translation seemed to be preferred by the majority of scholars. He saw no difficulty in rendering “he hates” as “I hate” because “one must allow for fluidity in such grammatical forms”. (25)
• In 1995, David Petersen translated verse 16a as “Divorce is hateful!” reading ki as asseverative and šallah as either a Piel imperative or an infinitive absolute. However, he read the passage as a metaphorical comment about Yahweh’s relationship to Israel rather than taking a literal divorce interpretation. (26)
• In 1995, John J. Collins reviewed Hugenberger’s book, applauding the new translation, but questioning the conclusion that Malachi was making a distinction between divorce based on aversion and divorce that is justified:
He [Hugenberger] is surely right to reject the traditional translation “for I hate divorce,” since the term “hate” is very widely associated with divorce in the extrabiblical sources. Despite the support of Westbrook, however, the term “hate” does not imply that divorce is “merely on the ground of aversion”. In the context of divorce, to “hate” means to repudiate without further qualification. The term is used as a technical term for divorce in the Elephantine papyri and the technical sense is reflected in such expressions as “silver of hatred” = divorce money, and “judgment of hatred” = divorce proceedings. The fact that the longer expression “hate and divorce” is also used at Elephantine does not prove that “hate” implies something beyond mere divorce. Marriage formulae are often redundant (cf. “to have and to hold, to love and to cherish”). We need not conclude that Malachi condemned divorce without qualification. Prophetic speech does not lend itself to legal niceties. We can only conclude that he was unhappy with the current practice of divorce in his day. We cannot attribute to him, on the basis of the verb “to hate”, a distinction between divorce based on aversion and divorce that is justified. (27)
Against John J. Collins, the view of Douglas Stuart may be relevant:
For those who recognize the overt dependency of the prophets on the Pentateuch and of Malachi specifically on Deuteronomy, it is entirely reasonable to expect that Malachi would be careful in the process of condemning what his contemporaries were doing — divorcing their first wives to marry pagans — not to state that all divorce was illegal. He might do this in the most semantically economical way (by the use of a single adjective [“hating”] to pin down the type of divorce under attack), but he would certainly want to do it. (28)
• In 1998, Andrew Hill argued that: “śānē’ makes excellent sense if one presumes that the subject, hā’ehād [‘The One,’ i.e., Yahweh], of the verb has been gapped from verse 15 (‘Indeed, The One hates divorce…’).” Yet Hill seemed to contradict himself by implying that the divorcing husband was the one doing the hating: “The occurrence of the verbs śn’ and šlh [hate/divorce] in Deuteronomy 24:3 gives rise to the interpretation that ‘hating’ or ‘aversion’ was the motive for divorce.” (29)
1 H. Ewald, Die Propheten des Alten Bundes, (2nd ed. 1868, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 3. 224). I have quoted the English edition Commentary on the Prophets of the Old Testament (trans. J. F. Smith, London: Williams,1881) cited by David Clyde Jones in “A Note on the LXX of Malachi 2:16”, 1990.
2 A. van Hoonacker, Les Douze Petits Prophètes, J. Gabalda & Cie., 1908, cited in Beth Glazier-McDonald, Malachi: The Divine Messenger (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), p. 110. A. S. van der Woude notes that Junker, Nötscher and Chary have each advocated similar repointing to Hoonacker’s.
3 J. M. P. Smith, The Old Testament, An American Translation, University of Chicago, 1927, cited in Jones, Biblical Christian Ethics, p. 191.
4 Lattey, The Book of Malachy (London, New York, Toronto: Longmans Green & Co., 1934), p. 12.
5 Réné Vuilleumier, “Malachie” in Commentaire de L’Ancein Testament XIc, eds Delachaux & Niestlé, (Paris: Neuchatel, 1981), p. 237.
6 Westbrook, “The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage”, p. 403.
7 Glazier-McDonald, Malachi: The Divine Messenger, pp. 82, 110.
8 Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant, pp. 69, 72-3, 83.
9 Jones, Biblical Christian Ethics, p. 191.
10 See Jones, “A Note on the LXX of Malachi 2:16”. Also Russell Fuller, “Text Critical Problems in Malachi 2:10-16” Journal of Biblical Literature 110/1 (1991): 54-7.
11 C. John Collins, “The Intelligible Masoretic Text of Malachi 2:16”, p. 40.
12 Ibid., pp. 37-9.
13 Sprinkle, “Old Testament Perspectives on Divorce and Remarriage”, p. 539.
14 Stuart, “Malachi”, pp. 1339, 1343-4.
15 Martin A. Shields, “Syncretism and Divorce in Malachi 2:10-16”, Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 111 (1999): 76.
16 Heth, “Jesus and Divorce, How my mind has changed”, p. 7, comments that the ESV is “the most probable translation”.
17 Zehnder, “A Fresh Look at Malachi 2:13-16”, pp. 251-2.
18 Wilhelm Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1-8, Sacharja 9-14, Malachi, Kommentat zum Alten Testament (Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1976) p. 270; ibid., “Zu Mal. 2:10-16” Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 93 (1981): 90.
19 Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant, p. 64.
20 Shields, “Syncretism and Divorce in Malachi 2:10-16”, p. 82.
21 Ralph L. Smith, Micah: Malachi, Word Biblical Commentary Series vol. 32 (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1984), p. 320.
22 A. S. van der Woude, “Malachi’s Struggle for a Pure Community: Reflections on Malachi 2:10-16”, in Tradition and Re-Interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature ed. van Henten, de Jonge, van Rooden, & Wesselius (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986), pp. 65-71.
23 Pieter A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 278.
24 Cornes, Divorce and Remarriage, p. 167.
25 Eugene Merrill, An Exegetical Commentary: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), pp. 420-25.
26 David L. Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), pp. 194-5.
27 John J. Collins, “Review of Marriage as Covenant by Hugenberger” Journal of Biblical Literature 114/2 (1995): 307.
28 Stuart, “Malachi”, p. 1342.
29 Andrew E. Hill, Malachi: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1998), pp. 250-1.