Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 35/2 (2009), pp.

109-120

Elie Assis (Bar Ilan University)

LOVE, HATE AND SELF-IDENTITY IN MALACHI: A NEW PERSPECTIVE TO MAL 1:1-5 AND 2:10-16
ABSTRACT
There are close affinities between the anti-Edomite oracle in Malachi 1:2-5 and Malachis condemnation of mixed marriages in 2:10-16. Following the demonstration of these connections, this paper suggests that intermarriage is the consequence of the peoples conviction that they are rejected by God. After the destruction of the Temple, the people felt that they were rejected as the chosen people. This feeling is reflected in the anti-Edomite oracle. Because they felt that they were no longer the chosen nation, the people felt that the distinction between them and other nations was no longer relevant. This paper posits the view that the people of Yehud adopted a humanistic ideology of equality between peoples that enabled intermarriage with foreign women. Malachi refuted these ideologies and conduct by claiming that Israel was still the chosen people, and that the ideology justifying relationships with foreign women should be abandoned.

1.

INTRODUCTION

The first oracle in the Book of Malachi (1:2-5) is an anti-Edomite prophecy. In it God declares His hatred of Edom and His love for Jacob. The third oracle condemns intermarriage with foreign women (2:10-16). It seems that the book is discussing two distinct and separate topics. Some scholars have observed that 1:2-5 has no connection to the rest of the book.1 However, a careful examination of key words, motifs and themes in the respective texts reveals surprising links between them. The words love and hate are key words in both the first and third oracles, and occur only in these two oracles (love in 1:2 (x3); 2:11, hate in 1:3; 2:16). These words denote the central theme in each pericope. In the first, God is blamed for hating Jacob (1: 2) and loving Esau instead (1:3). In the third, Israel is accused for loving foreign women (2:11) and divorcing Jewish wives, while God hates divorce (2:16).
1 Nogalski (1993:193). He sees 1:2-5 as a conclusion to the Book of Twelve (p. 194). Kaufmann (1977:437) distinguishes between 1:2-5, which deal with external political matters, and the rest of the book, which is entirely devoted to internal problems.

109

110

ELIE ASSIS

Beside the love-hate motif, the two pericopes share the father-son motif. In the first pericope Jacob and Esau are brothers and their father is God. Jacobs complaint is that the Father has preferred his brother, Esau, to him. God claims that He has chosen Jacob and rejected his brother Esau. In the third pericope the father-son relationship takes a surprising turn. A central point of this paper is, as I will demonstrate below, that the people consider God as being the Father of all humankind (2:10). All peoples of the world are brothers and God, being their Father, establishes a covenant relationship between the brothers, and thus it is a positive act to intermarry with foreigners. In both the first and third oracles the identity of the people is established through rejection of an outside party. In the first oracle God announces His repudiation of Esau (1:3); in the third oracle, the people are expected to repudiate their foreign wives (2:15-16). In these two oracles only the relationship of the people with non-Jews is addressed. The strong affinities between these two separate oracles can be no coincidence and cannot be overlooked. It is the aim of this paper to explore the relationship between the anti-Edomite prophecy and the oracle concerning intermarriage with foreign women. 2. THE ANTI-EDOMITE ORACLE (FIRST PERICOPE)

Why should the book open with a declaration of Gods love of Israel and hatred of Edom?2 It has been claimed that because the rest of the book is entirely accusation and sentencing, before addressing them harshly, God wants to reassure the people by saying: I love you.3 Yet one might still ask why it was necessary to announce Gods hatred for Edom. What is its relevance? In many places the lexeme denotes election, and conversely can mean rejection.4 Such is the meaning of the word love, for

Some claim that Edom here is a symbol for all Israels enemies, see e.g. Cresson (1972:125-148) and Hoffmann (1971:76-89). This approach is difficult inasmuch as 1:3-4 makes explicit reference to the geographic location and topography of Edom as a concrete place. E.g. Rudolph (1976:221-222), Verhoef (1989:195) and Hill (1998:146). Snyman (1986:438) claims that it is the love of God for Israel that is proclaimed and not His hatred. See Eichrodt (1961:256-257), Jenni (1997:52), Mason (1977:141), Rudolph (1976:255) and Hill (1998:147). The term , when referring to Israels love

LOVE, HATE AND SELF-IDENTITY IN MALACHI

111

instance, in Hos 11:1; Pss 47:5; 78:68; for the opposite meaning of the , see Hos 9: 15. Malachi contends here with the peoples word conviction that God has rejected Israel and they are no longer His chosen people, and that Edom has been chosen in their place. In other words, the prophet is not speaking here of feelings of love and hate, but rather of the notions of election and rejection.5 But why is it necessary to declare the election of Israel and the rejection of Edom at this point? To understand this we must go back to the reaction of Judah to the destruction of the Temple and the exile. After the destruction, the people thought that God had abandoned them forever, and that he had rescinded their election. There is cogent evidence of this in biblical sources, e.g., Isa 41:8; Jer 33:24-26; Ezek 37:1-14; Lam 3:8, 18. Despite their return to Zion the peoples feeling of abandonment was still very strong. There were several causes that produced such a feeling. Economic distress, natural disasters, the status of Zerubbabel,6 the small number of exiles who returned to the land7 and the lack of independence were the most significant (Bright 1960:346). I have claimed elsewhere that because the people thought that they were still rejected by God, they believed that the time was not ripe for building the Temple. Haggai counters these feelings, telling the people that God has not abandoned them and that He is with them.8 Haggais object was not merely to encourage the people in time of

5 6

of God, often refers to Israels covenantal obligation to obey God. See Moran (1963:77-87); see also: (1979:200-205). For a review of the various meanings that were offered for love and hate in this context, see Redditt (2000:175-190). See also Assis (2006b:1-20). Even if it is true, as some claim, that the Davidic monarchy was not cut off immediately after the disaster of 586 BCE, certainly its status suffered a serious blow. On the Davidic dynasty after 587 BCE, see Sacci (1989:131148, esp. 137-139), Bianchi (1991:133-150), Lemaire (1996:48-57) and Niehr (1999:229-231). This is the situation that is described in Zech 1:17; 2:8, which notes that Jerusalem was inhabited only by a small number of settlers. This situation continued even in the days of Nehemiah, 7:4. Assis (2007:514-527); for a variation of this understanding, see Kessler (2002:150).

112

ELIE ASSIS

difficulty,9 but to persuade them that the Lord has not rejected them, and that He is still with them (Hag 1:13; 2:4).10 The harsh attitude taken towards Edom in biblical sources in the exilic and postexilic periods is directly connected with the feeling of the people that God had rejected them as the chosen people (Assis 2006b:1-20; 2006a:287-302). Because Edom was identified with Esau, the rejected brother of Jacob, the possibility emerged that now Edom had been elected in place of Judah. This possibility was bolstered by the fact that Edom had contributed to Judahs calamity. Judahs destruction was understood as an act of rejection, and Edoms participation in Judahs rejection could have been easily seen as part of an act of divine will in which Edom had been chosen, replacing Judah. Further support for drawing this conclusion could have been found in the fact that Israel had been exiled from the chosen land at the same time that Edom was settling in Judea. The correlation between the possible election of Edom and rejection of Israel is explicit in the first prophecy in the Book of Malachi, 1:2-5, where the proof of Gods continuous election of Israel (I have loved you) is established by Edoms rejection (I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau). To sum up, in the first oracle the prophet seeks to consolidate the argument that, even after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the subsequent exile, Israel is still the chosen people. 3. AGAINST INTER-MARRIAGE: THE THIRD PERICOPE

Scholars are not agreed on the main subject of the third oracle. On the basis of 2:10, some claim that this pericope (2:10-16) deals with the cultic issue of syncretism in which the people are rebuked for apostasy. According to this interpretation, vv. 11-16 are figurative and use the manwoman relationship as a metaphor for the Israel-God relationship, as in many other biblical texts.11 It is vv. 10-11 that suggest a cultic
9 10 11 See e.g. Wolff (1988:50), and Meyers and Meyers (1987:35). The concept that Gods presence is required in order to build the Temple is clearly expressed in Psalm 102:13-17. See Torrey (1898:9-13), Isaaksson (1965:31-32) and Hugenberger (1994:3436); see also Petersen (1995:195-206), who claims that the topic of 2:10-15a is a criticism on the cult of Asherah; vv. 15b-16 were added by a scribe who addressed the issue of divorce and thus interpreted the previous verse. GlazierMcDonald (1987b:120) understands that the text has a double meaning, and that the interrelationship between both meanings has a rhetorical purpose. See Glazier-McDonald (1987a:607-611). Shields (1999: 68-86) believes that the

LOVE, HATE AND SELF-IDENTITY IN MALACHI

113

interpretation, but these verses have been incorrectly understood by many interpreters, as I will show shortly. Moreover, it has been recognised that the prophet is not consistent in his gender assignments in 2:10-16.12 Within this pericope the text shifts between describing Judah as male and female (OBrien 1996:247-250). If a figurative interpretation is adopted, these shifts undermine the basis of the argument. However, in a literal interpretation these can be regarded as a grammatical inconsistency that is common in biblical texts. I thus follow the understanding that the pericope does not address the topic of syncretism at all.13 V. 11 is a condemnation of marriage with foreign women. The problem is how to interpret vv. 13-16. Here the prophet indicates the weeping that the men cause through their betrayal of their wives the partners of their youth, and their wives by covenant (vv. 14-15). V. 16 expresses Gods hatred of divorce: For I hate divorce, says the LORD.14 This led the vast majority of Christian and modern interpreters to the conclusion that Malachi is opposing the institution of divorce.15 All Jewish mediaeval commentators understood the passage as dealing only with the issue of mixed marriages.16 It is very difficult to sustain the Christian/modern understanding. First, we know of no other source of the time that is opposed to divorce. Secondly, and this is the main problem, if this is indeed the topic of vv. 13-16, it is separate from the topic of foreign marriage in vv. 10-12. Yet there is no textual indication that a new topic is being addressed in v. 13. On the contrary, the opening of the verse with the words And this is the second thing you do forms a smooth continuation with the preceding verses. Moreover, it has been noticed that all oracles share a single style of disputation, in which the peoples attitude is quoted and then refuted by the prophet (Pfeiffer 1959:546-568;
passage is divided into two: the first, vv. 11-12, are figurative, while the second, vv. 13-16, should be understood literally. See OBrien (1996:241-250). Driver (1906:312), Smith (1912:47, 49), Rudolph (1976:271), Schreiner (1979:207-228) and Zehnder (2003:224-259). The word Hlx means send, but is also used to denote to divorce. Sperry (1956:1120, 1136). Sperry claims that Malachi here anticipates by five hundred years the position held by Jesus: see Mark 10:2-12. See also Smith (1984:325), Baldwin (1972:241) and Verhoef (1989:279-281). But contrary to this, see Schuller (1996:866-867). Rashi; Radak; Ibn Ezra; Balgenzi (1909:214-215). Torrey (1898:9), too, states that it is impossible to separate vv. 10-12 from vv. 13-16.

12 13 14 15

16

114

ELIE ASSIS

Mason 1990:235-236). Thus vv. 13-16 cannot be considered an independent unit, because it does not share this same structure. I accept the opinion that the whole passage, 2:10-16, deals with the issue of mixed marriage.17 The prophet addresses two aspects of this matter. The first is the cultic aspect: that marriage with a foreign woman is an abomination and it profanes Gods sanctuary, v. 11-12. The second aspect is a moral one, vv. 13-16. Men who were first married to Israelite wives would divorce them and marry instead their new foreign, and plausibly younger, wives (Smith 1912:52; Zehnder 2003:224-259). The prophet accused them on both cultic and moral grounds. What motivated the people to marry foreign women? What enabled or even encouraged this phenomenon? Ezra 9-10 and Neh 9:1-3, which also deal with this matter, do not provide an unambiguous answer to this question. If I interpret Malachi correctly, this is the only source that provides information on an ideology inherent in the phenomenon.18 Mal 2:10 reads: Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our ancestors? Most commentators believe that this verse is the prophets words to the people, in which he wishes to exhort them to commit to God, saying that they are all brothers, meaning: all of Israel have the same God,19 and thus they are all committed to observing the
17 There are several opinions on the identity of the foreign women in Ezra and Nehemiah. Dor (2006:133-138) is of the opinion that the foreign women belonged to those who remained in the land and did not go into exile to Babylon. Another possibility is that the foreign women belonged to the population of those who assimilated in the Judean population, especially the Samaritans. The third possibility is that Judeans intermarried with women of other ethnic groups. See Dor (2006:104-126). Glazier-McDonald (1987a:604-605) explains the mixed marriage in relation to the depressed economic conditions in Judea. Men chose to marry foreign wealthy women in order to raise their economic and social status. Although this explanation could indeed be one factor, it does not seem to be the only one. Nowhere does any biblical source indicate that the foreign women were wealthy, but Glazier-McDonald states this quite plainly without admitting that this is a hypothesis she makes so her claim would carry some weight. GlazierMcDonald mentions the open atmosphere that prevailed in the Persian Empire as a contribution to the phenomenon of intermarriage (op. cit. 604-605). Smith (1912:198-200). Some understand father to refer to Israels forefathers, see Baldwin (1970:237).

18

19

LOVE, HATE AND SELF-IDENTITY IN MALACHI

115

covenant and Gods commandments. Not doing so is a betrayal of the brotherhood of their own people, the people of Judea. According to this understanding, the prophet is the speaker and he is addressing the people. When he says Have we not all one father?, he is referring to the Israelites forefathers: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And when the prophet says Why then are we faithless to one another?, he means to the relationship of brotherhood of the Judeans between themselves. And when he says profaning the covenant of our ancestors, he is referring to Israels covenant with God. However, if this interpretation is correct, what then is the significance of the prophets rhetorical question in 2:10: And has not one God created us? What is the relevance of such a question? What does it actually mean when he says that God created us? In fact, He created all humankind and not just the Judeans alone. I believe that this whole line of interpretation is mistaken. The source of the error here is, I believe, that most readers did not pay attention to the identity of the speaker of this verse. I propose that the prophet is not uttering his, or a divine opinion, but that he is quoting the peoples claim to justify intermarriage with non-Jews.20 According to this interpretation, when the prophet says Why then are we faithless to one another?, he does not mean the brotherhood relationship of the Judeans between themselves, but the brotherhood of all human beings. When they say Have we not all one father?, they are not referring to the Israelites forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but to Adam, the one father of all humankind according to the biblical account. We can now understand the sentence: Has not one God created us? The people purported to have a belief in a universalistic philosophy professing the equality of all people and nations. Everyone is a descendant of one single man and thus all people are equal. The betrayal of the covenant to which they refer is the betrayal of the feeling of brotherhood and equality between all people. Now we understand their claim that one God created them all. This universalistic philosophy is an ideological one, founded on the story of the creation in Genesis. Intermarriage was based on the ideology of equality between all people, and a humanistic approach of brotherhood between the nations. It is against this philosophy that the prophet is contending. This interpretation is most appropriate not only because it corresponds best to the words of v. 11, but also because it is in line with the structure
20 For a similar interpretation, see the 15th c. Jewish Portuguese commentator, Isaac Abrabanel.

116

ELIE ASSIS

of the book as a record of disputes between the prophet and the people (Pfeiffer 1959:546-568; Mason 1990:235-236). According to this interpretation, the oracle opens with the philosophy of the people, which is immediately refuted by the prophet. This is indeed the basic structure of each one of the books oracles (Oracle 1 1:2; Oracle 2 1:6; Oracle 4 2:17; Oracle 5 3:8; Oracle 6 3:14). So we can clearly see that each one of the oracles contains a quotation from the peoples line of thought, which is immediately refuted by the prophet. If we do not accept the interpretation suggested here, then the third oracle will remain the only one that does not share the pattern of disputation that forms the structure of the book. This understanding will also help clarify some of the rhetoric of the oracle. The people believe that they are under a covenant with all humankind; thus they believe that avoiding intermarriage means profaning that covenant, and it is faithless behaviour towards other nations who are fellow human beings (2:10). Malachi uses the same terminology, but says exactly the opposite. Marrying gentiles, says Malachi, is profaning God, and breaking the marital covenant by being faithless to their wives (2:11, 14). Against the universalistic philosophy of the people, Malachi proposes a moral value: loyalty to their wives and not betrayal. They think that not marrying foreign women is profaning the universalistic covenant, and against this Malachi says that the Israelite wife who is being abandoned is your companion and your wife by covenant (2:14). Marriage with foreign women stemmed from a humanistic universal outlook regarding the need to break down the barriers between Israel and the nations. In this view, all human beings are equal and therefore not only is there nothing wrong with associating and integrating with other nations, but on the contrary, this is part of the expression of a covenant between all mankind which envisages equality between human beings and unity of the human race. This view appears clearly in the argument broached by the people in 2:10. 3.1 The Connection between Edom and Intermarriage I posit that the subject of Malachis admonishment of intermarriage in the third oracle derives from the peoples claim that they are rejected by God as reflected in the first oracle. This would provide an understanding of the relationship between the first and third oracles. This universal outlook is the product of the feeling of despair experienced by the people in the postexilic period. The destruction of the Temple led them to believe that

LOVE, HATE AND SELF-IDENTITY IN MALACHI

117

they had been rejected by God. This is apparent in the anti-Edomite oracle. The hypothesis that I would like to propose is that the feeling of the people that they were rejected by God led them to believe they were no longer His people and were therefore like all the nations. This in turn led to the belief that the old differences between Israel and the nations were no longer valid, and that all peoples were equal. I believe that this outlook became ideological at a later stage, reflected in the book of Malachi, and was implemented by physical integration with the nations, through intermarriage with foreign women. The connection between the first and third oracles is reinforced by a similar use of vocabulary and motifs. The words love and hate occur only in these two oracles (love in 1:2 (x3); 2:11, hate in 1:3; 2:16). In the anti-Edomite oracle God is blamed that He no longer loves Israel and has rejected her. As a result the people have established love relationships with foreign women. In the first oracle the people claim that God had rejected Israel. In the third oracle the people divorce their Israelite wives. In the first oracle God explains that He loves Israel and hates Esau in other words, that God regards the election of Israel as enduring and valid and this also brings in its wake Gods declaration to the people in the third oracle that he abhors the fact that the people are divorcing their Israelite wives. Scholars have realised that the openness and tolerant policies of the Persian Empire were an important factor in the increase of intermarriage in the Persian period (Glazier-McDonald 1987a:605). Although this atmosphere of tolerance doubtless provided further endorsement for the increase in intermarriage, I claim that internal Judean factors were the major cause of a phenomenon that was made easier within the atmosphere of general tolerance that prevailed within the Persian Empire. 4. SUMMARY

In summary, a clear correlation can be seen between the anti-Edomite oracle in Malachi 1:2-5, and Malachis condemnation of mixed-marriage in 2:10-16. Both oracles share the key-words love and hate and both make use of the father-son motif. In both the establishing of the peoples identity is achieved through the rejection of an outside party, of Edom in the first oracle, and of the foreign women in the third. I have claimed that the phenomenon of intermarriage derived from the peoples claim that they are rejected by God. Following the destruction of the Temple the people felt that they had been rejected as a chosen people, as reflected in the anti-Edomite oracle. If the people are no longer the

118

ELIE ASSIS

chosen nation, then the distinction between them and the nations of the earth is no longer relevant, and a humanistic ideology of equality between peoples takes root. Equality between Israel and the nations enabled intermarriage with foreign women. Malachi refuted these ideologies and conduct by claiming that Israel is still the chosen people, and that the ideology of association with foreign women should be abandoned. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Assis, E 2007. To Build or Not to Build: A Dispute between Haggai and His People. ZAW 119, 514-527. Assis, E 2006a, From Adam to Esau and Israel: An Anti-Edomite Ideology in 1 Chronicles 1. VT 56, 287-302. Assis, E 2006b. Why Edom: On the Hostility towards Jacobs Brother in Prophetic Sources. VT 56, 1-20. Baldwin, J G 1972. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries). London: Tyndale Press. Balgenzi, E 1909. Kommentar zu Ezechiel und den XII kleinen Propheten. Leiferung I. Warschau: Mekize Nirdamim. Bianchi, F 1991. Zorobabele re di Giuda. Henoch 13, 133-150. Bright, J 1960. A History of Israel2 (OTL). London: SCM. Cresson, B C 1972. The Condemnation of Edom in Postexilic Judaism, in: Efird, J M (ed.), The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring. Durham: Duke University Press, 125148. Dor, Y 2006. Have the Foreign Women, Really been Expelled? Separation and Exclusion in the Restoration Period. Jerusalem: Magnes Press (Hebrew). Driver, S R 1906. The Minor Prophets (CB). Edinburgh: T. C. & E. J. Jack. Eichrodt, W 1961. Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. 1, trans. J. A. Baker. London: SCM. Glazier-McDonald, B 1987a. Intermarriage, Divorce, and the bat-el nekar: Insights into Mal 2:10-16. JBL 106, 607-611. Glazier-McDonald, B 1987b. Malachi: The Divine Messenger (SBLDS 98). Atlanta: Scholars. Hill, A E 1998. Malachi (AB). New-York: Doubleday.

LOVE, HATE AND SELF-IDENTITY IN MALACHI

119

Hoffmann, Y 1971. Edom as a Symbol of Evil in the Bible, in: Uffenheimer, B (ed.), Bible and Jewish History: Studies in Bible and Jewish History Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 76-89 (Hebrew, Eng. Abstract pp. xii-xiii). Hugenberger, G P 1994. Marriage as A Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (VTS 52). Leiden: Brill. Ibn Ezra, see: Miqraot Gedolot. Isaaksson, A 1965. Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis, 24, trans N. Tomkinson). Lund: Gleerup. Jenni, E. 1997. ' hB to love, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol. 1. Peabody: Hendrickson, 45-54. Kaufmann, Y. 1977. History of the Religion of Israel. vol. iv. New-York: Ktav. Kessler, J 2002. The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud (VTS 91). Leiden: Brill. Lemaire A 1996. Zorobabel et la Jude la lumire de lpigraphie (Fin du VIe s.av. J.-C). RB 103, 48-57. Mason, R A 1977. The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (CBC). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mason, R 1990. Preaching the Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutics After Exile. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 235-236. Meyers C L and Meyers, E M 1987. Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 (AB). New York: Doubleday. Miqraot Gedolot, 1838. Later Prophets with Commentaries. Tel Aviv(?): Shoken. Moran, W L 1963. The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy. CBQ 25, 77-87. Niehr, H 1999. Religio-Historical Aspects of the Early Post-Exilic Period, in: Becking, B & Korpel, M C A (eds), The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times. Leiden: Brill, 229-231. Nogalski, J 1993. Redactional Processes in the Book of Twelve (BZAW, 218). Berlin: de Gruyter. OBrien, J M 1996. Judah as Wife and Husband: Deconstructing Gender in Malachi. JBL 115, 241-250.

120

ELIE ASSIS

Petersen, D L 1995. Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi, A Commentary (OTL). Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Pfeiffer, E 1959. Die Disputationsworte im Buche Maleachi: Ein Beitrag zur formgeschichtlichen Struktur. Evangelische Theologie 19, 546-568. Radak, see: Miqraot Gedolot. Rashi, see: Miqraot Gedolot. Redditt, P L 2000. The God Who Loves and Hates, in: Penchansky D and Redditt P L (eds), Shall not the Judge of all the Earth Do What is Right? Studies on the Nature of God in Tribute to James L. Crenshaw. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 175190. Rudolph, W 1976. Haggai Sacharja 1-8 Sacharija 9-14 Maleachi (KAT). Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn. Sacci, P 1989. Lesilio e la fine della monarchia davidica. Henoch 11, 131-148. Schreiner, S 1979. Mischehen Ehebruch Ehescheidung: Betrachtungen zu Mal 2:10-16. ZAW 91, 207-228. Schuller, E M 1996. The Book of Malachi. Vol. vii, NIB. Nashville: Abingdon. Shields, M A 1999. Syncretism and Divorce in Malachi 2,10-16. ZAW 111, 68-86. Smith, J M P 1912. Book of Malachi (ICC). Edinburgh: T & R Clark. Smith, R L 1984. Micah-Malachi (WBC). Waco: Word Books. Snyman, S D 1986. Antitheses in Malachi 1, 2-5. ZAW 98, 436-438. Sperry, W R 1956. The Book of Malachi. vol. 4 (IB). New York: Abingdon. Torrey, C C 1898. The Prophet Malachi. JBL 17, 1-15. Verhoef, P A 1989. Haggai and Malachi (NICOT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Thompson, J A 1979. Israels Haters. VT 29, 200-205. Wolff, H W 1988. Haggai, A Commentary (trans. M. Kohl). Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House. Zehnder, M 2003. Fresh Look at Malachi II 13-16. VT 53, 224-259.