# Does God hate divorce? not in Malachi



## BG (Oct 11, 2017)

why is the phrase “God hates divorce” not in Malachi 2:16 In modern translations?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 11, 2017)

These are translational choices, how to render the Hebrew. To take a less momentous detail from the verse: does violence cover the garment (like the hideous stain of blood, perhaps?); or is the garment used to cover violence (like one of those white sheets over a dead body)?

Who is "hating?" is the question the translator must address. Is the _hater _the man who divorces this woman he (evidently) despises? Under this interpretation, "hate" and "divorce" mat be set in synthetic poetic parallel; the one term is epexigetical of the other.

God obviously condemns this behavior. So, even if he is not identified as the _hater _(of divorce, or the one doing divorce presumably without any justification), the verse so rendered does not thereby make God the blithe countenancer of divorce.

We would have to qualify God as _hater_ of divorce if we prefer the other; for it is impossible for God to _hate _in any unqualified sense what he both included in the Law (as a means of mitigation of greater evil); and even made himself party to in spiritual terms, Jer. 3:8, etc.

Reactions: Informative 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## KeithW (Oct 12, 2017)

BG said:


> why is the phrase “God hates divorce” not in Malachi 2:16 In modern translations?


I'm old enough to think "modern" means NKJV, NIV 1984, etc.

Some modern translations have:

“For the LORD God of Israel says That He hates divorce, (NKJV 1982)
“For I hate divorce,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, (NASB 1995)
I hate divorce, says the LORD God of Israel, (NIV 1984)
"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, (NET 2015)
Others have:

“The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the LORD, (NIV 2011)
“For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, (ESV 2011)
But if thou shouldest hate thy wife and put her away, saith the Lord God of Israel, (LXX 200BC)
(OK, so I threw in a really old translation to consider.)

I don't read Hebrew, but it is my understanding that the basis of the Hebrew language is very different from Greek or English. This makes it much harder for translators.


----------



## BG (Oct 12, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> These are translational choices, how to render the Hebrew. To take a less momentous detail from the verse: does violence cover the garment (like the hideous stain of blood, perhaps?); or is the garment used to cover violence (like one of those white sheets over a dead body)?
> 
> Who is "hating?" is the question the translator must address. Is the _hater _the man who divorces this woman he (evidently) despises? Under this interpretation, "hate" and "divorce" mat be set in synthetic poetic parallel; the one term is epexigetical of the other.
> 
> ...







Bruce what version do you believe best translates the text? If your good with Hebrew feel free to give you translation of the text.


----------



## iainduguid (Oct 12, 2017)

BG said:


> Bruce what version do you believe best translates the text? If your good with Hebrew feel free to give you translation of the text.


The Hebrew is undoubtedly difficult here. Literally it reads something like "If (or "For") he hates divorcing, says the Lord, the God of Israel, then (or "and") he covers his garment with violence. It's hard to see how you get "I hate divorce" out of the Hebrew , except by emending the text as some modern versions do. The problem with the KJV rendering is that it reorders the text to make the Lord the subject of the verb, when in the second clause the subject is clearly the divorcer. It's not an impossible reading, but it's not in my view the most likely. It is smoother to read the sentence as the Lord saying this: "The one who hates, divorcing [his wife], covers his garment with violence."

The ESV is an astonishing (and in my view inaccurate) paraphrase here..."hate" does not simply mean "not love", even though that old chestnut has often been repeated, mostly in the context of Malachi 1:3, where strangely the ESV does not use "not loved".

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## BG (Oct 12, 2017)

iainduguid said:


> The Hebrew is undoubtedly difficult here. Literally it reads something like "If (or "For") he hates divorcing, says the Lord, the God of Israel, then (or "and") he covers his garment with violence. It's hard to see how you get "I hate divorce" out of the Hebrew , except by emending the text as some modern versions do. The problem with the KJV rendering is that it reorders the text to make the Lord the subject of the verb, when in the second clause the subject is clearly the divorcer. It's not an impossible reading, but it's not in my view the most likely. It is smoother to read the sentence as the Lord saying this: "The one who hates, divorcing [his wife], covers his garment with violence."
> 
> The ESV is an astonishing (and in my view inaccurate) paraphrase here..."hate" does not simply mean "not love", even though that old chestnut has often been repeated, mostly in the context of Malachi 1:3, where strangely the ESV does not use "not loved".



What translation gets it right?


----------



## iainduguid (Oct 13, 2017)

BG said:


> What translation gets it right?


In my opinion, the 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 Armies. Therefore, watch yourselves carefully, and do not act treacherously. 
Note: I'm part of the oversight committee for this translation, but here we simply retained the HCSB, where I didn't have any input on this passage. 

KJV/NKJV is not impossible here but unlikely. Since the grammatical structure is "He ______ says the Lord God of Israel and he _________ says the Lord of hosts" it seems odd to have different subjects for the two verbs. There's no need to emend the text to make it first person, as RSV and NIV, and the ESV mistranslates the verb.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## BG (Oct 15, 2017)

What part did you have in the CSB translation or update?


iainduguid said:


> In my opinion, the 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 Armies. Therefore, watch yourselves carefully, and do not act treacherously.
> Note: I'm part of the oversight committee for this translation, but here we simply retained the HCSB, where I didn't have any input on this passage.
> 
> KJV/NKJV is not impossible here but unlikely. Since the grammatical structure is "He ______ says the Lord God of Israel and he _________ says the Lord of hosts" it seems odd to have different subjects for the two verbs. There's no need to emend the text to make it first person, as RSV and NIV, and the ESV mistranslates the verb.


----------



## iainduguid (Oct 15, 2017)

BG said:


> What part did you have in the CSB translation or update?


I translated Ezekiel 26-48 for the original HCSB (though there were some edits along the way after it left my hands, as is normal). For the CSB update, I serve on the oversight committee, which means that I was one of four people working through the entire existing OT translation and seeking to improve it wherever necessary (there was a different team working in parallel on the NT). Working on this Bible translation is probably the most significant thing I will ever do in my life; technically, it was certainly one of the most stimulating and fulfilling projects, and a great privilege to work with my fellow team members.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## TaylorWest (Oct 19, 2017)

Interestingly, when the *HALOT* deals with the context of 'hating' a wife and putting her away, it does not reference Mal. 2:16. But certainly the passages it does list below are the context for Malachi.

*B*. not to be able to endure a woman any longer, decrease her status, see THAT 2:836, see above on שנא in EgArm. and cf. Akk. zeÖru in the context of family law, see AHw. 1522b, and also the quotations in CAD Z: 97b, zeÖru 1.1, including some from the Laws of Hammurabi: *Dt *22:13-16 24:3 *Ju *14:16, 15:2; שְׂנוּאָה a woman who has been scorned, decreased in status *Gn *29:31-33 *Dt *21:15-17 *Pr *30:23 *Sir *7:26, cf. *Is *60:15 (צִיּוֹן).​
For what it's worth, the *NAS* translates the verb as 'unloved' at least seven times.


----------



## BG (Oct 22, 2017)

Iain, this is a little of topic but I have another question about the hcsb. 
Acts 16:33-34 in the esv says the jailer believed and his household rejoiced, hcsb says the household believes? 


iainduguid said:


> I translated Ezekiel 26-48 for the original HCSB (though there were some edits along the way after it left my hands, as is normal). For the CSB update, I serve on the oversight committee, which means that I was one of four people working through the entire existing OT translation and seeking to improve it wherever necessary (there was a different team working in parallel on the NT). Working on this Bible translation is probably the most significant thing I will ever do in my life; technically, it was certainly one of the most stimulating and fulfilling projects, and a great privilege to work with my fellow team members.


----------



## TaylorWest (Oct 23, 2017)

I'm not a scholar, but I think it's clear that the HCSB rendering is possible. The question is whether the adverb (whole household) modifies the preceding verb (rejoice) or the following participle (having believed). As it is, I'm thinking Leedy's diagram is the more natural and therefore the ESV's rendering is better, but this is why we hold to the analogy of faith. We need other clearer passages for us to understand this one. Certainly Luke could have removed the ambiguity by adding an article in front of the adverb, but it's clear from other places in Scripture that the adverb could go either way.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Oct 23, 2017)

iainduguid said:


> I translated Ezekiel 26-48 for the original HCSB (though there were some edits along the way after it left my hands, as is normal). For the CSB update, I serve on the oversight committee, which means that I was one of four people working through the entire existing OT translation and seeking to improve it wherever necessary (there was a different team working in parallel on the NT). Working on this Bible translation is probably the most significant thing I will ever do in my life; technically, it was certainly one of the most stimulating and fulfilling projects, and a great privilege to work with my fellow team members.



I'm one of these folks who reads the KJV, knows a little Greek, and would like to learn a little Hebrew. But I want you to know I have always been in the habit of praying for translators and translation of Scripture. And it is a cause of real thanksgiving that there are men like yourself going letter by letter verse by verse through the Old Testament to make sure the Lord's people have the best representation that they can have. It is indeed significant, and I can only imagine that the work you have done will make many discussions like this one on this text so much easier in the future. Thank you for your service to our Saviour.


----------



## iainduguid (Oct 23, 2017)

TaylorWest said:


> I'm not a scholar, but I think it's clear that the HCSB rendering is possible. The question is whether the adverb (whole household) modifies the preceding verb (rejoice) or the following participle (having believed). As it is, I'm thinking Leedy's diagram is the more natural and therefore the ESV's rendering is better, but this is why we hold to the analogy of faith. We need other clearer passages for us to understand this one. Certainly Luke could have removed the ambiguity by adding an article in front of the adverb, but it's clear from other places in Scripture that the adverb could go either way.
> 
> View attachment 5281


I'm not a Greek expert and wasn't involved in the NT discussions, but I think this is a fair summary. However, I'd also point out that a majority of translations have adopted the same understanding as the HCSB and CSB: for example, KJV, NASB, NIV and NET Bible. I couldn't immediately see anyone else (apart from the RSV, on which the ESV is based) which went along with the ESV.


----------

