For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away - i:e., divorce.
For one covereth violence with his garment. Maurer translates, 'and (Yahweh hateth him who) covereth his garment (i:e., his wife, in the Arabic idiom: cf. Genesis 20:16, "He is to thee a covering of thy eyes;" the husband was so to the wife, and the wife to the husband; Ruth 3:9; Ezekiel 16:8) with injury.' In the English version, their "violence" is the putting away of their wives: the "garment" with which they try to cover it is the plea of Moses' permission (Deuteronomy 24:1; cf. Matthew 19:6-9), which, on the Saviour's authority, declares that Moses suffered this putting away of their wives only because of the hardness of their hearts; but from the beginning it was not so. It was a penal permission, injurious to those whose carnality required it; not a gracious blessing, designed for the spiritually-minded, who would act on the higher law originally established in Paradise. Their plea of self-excuse, "Wherein have we wearied Him?" (Malachi 2:17), is an illustration of the garment or cloak with which they covered their sin (Isaiah 30:1; Proverbs 28:13). But instead of succeeding in covering their violence, their "violence shall cover them as a garment," utterly overwhelming them (Psalms 73:6). I prefer the view of Ludovicus de Dieu. The Hebrew х kicaah (H3680) chaamaac (H2555) `al (H5920) lªbuwshow (H3830)] is, '(one) covereth (with) violence his garment;' or, 'spreads violence as a covering upon his garment.' Whereas they have spread the skirt of their garment over their wives, for the protection of those so dear, they covered their garment with violence toward them. The garment is the symbol of conjugal faith and protection (see Deuteronomy 22:30; Ruth 3:9; Ezekiel 16:8).