Criswell Theological
Review 2.1 (1987) 99-117
[Copyright © 1987 by
digitally prepared for use at
Gordon and
ELIJAH, ELECTION,
AND THE USE OF MALACHI
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
CRAIG L. BLOMBERG
Denver Seminary, Denver,
CO 80210
At
first glance, the book of Malachi seems not to play a prominent
role in the NT. To be sure, key themes from this
last oracle of OT
prophecy reappear in the later Scriptures. One
may compare, for
example, the Jews' contemptuous treatment of
their sacrifices (Mal
1:7-14)
with Paul's admonitions to the Corinthians concerning the
Lord’s
Supper (1 Cor
Levites
(Mal 2:1-12) with Jesus' consistent critique of many of the
Pharisees
and Sadducees in his day, God's hatred of divorce and his
monogamus designs for marriage
(Mal
Paul’s
teachings on the same topics (Mark 10:1-12 pars.; 1
Corinthians
7),
the promise of the Lord's coming in righteousness to his temple
both to save and to judge (Mal 3:1-4; 4:1-3) with
the repeated NT
emphasis on the fulfillment of these prophecies
in Christ's first and
second comings, or the insistence that God's blessings
are contingent
upon the faithful stewardship of one's tithe (Mal
3:8-12) with Paul's
teaching on the collection for
explicit quotations from Malachi find their way
into the pages of the
NT. These two passages, however, by virtue of
their theological
importance more than compensate for their lack of
companions.
1 In each case, the OT teaching is not
adopted without qualification. The salvation-
differences between the testaments make it clear
that the nature and role of
priesthood, temple, and tithe, and the exceptions
to the prohibition
divorce are all altered in NT times. The precise
nature of those alterations is
and usually determined on the basis of larger
theological systems.
100
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
I. The
Coming of Elijah
"See, I will send my messenger, who will
prepare the way before
me" (Mal. 3:1a).
A.
Text and Attribution
All three Synoptic gospels contain quotations of
this statement
(Mark
1:2; Matt
it to John the Baptist. Matthew and Luke have
virtually the same
Greek
verbatim: ]Idou> (e]gw) a]poste<llw to>n a@ggelo<n mou pro> prosw<-
pou
sou, o{j kataskeua<sei th>n o[do<n sou e@mprosqe<n sou, while
Mark
merely deletes the final two words. The first clause
of this quotation
parallels the LXX of Exod
equivalent there. Both clauses are paralleled more
loosely in the LXX
of Mal 3:1, where kai>
e]pible<yetai o[do<n occurs before the phrase
pro>
prosw<pou, instead of o!j kataskeua<sei to>n o[do<n after it. Also the
personal pronouns are first person mou's in Malachi, while the
verb
a]poste<llw
has the prefix e]c attached.
In Exodus, the promise of a divinely sent
messenger occurs in the
context of preparation for guidance during the
Israelites' trek from
Sinai to the Promised Land. Malachi's prophecy may
deliberately
echo the Pentateuchal
text;2 if not, a later rabbinic juxtaposition of
these two texts may suggest that their combination
was already tra-
ditional in Jesus' day.3
Interpreters of the gospels should therefore not
read too much into this reminiscence of Exodus.4
At the same time,
Mark's
juxtaposition of this conflation of Exodus and Malachi with a
quotation of Isa 40:3
(Mark 1:3), highlighting the wilderness theme
which Isaiah's "crying voice" and John the
Baptist share, may suggest
that the gospels' wording was designed to call to
mind the remote
setting of the Israelites in Exodus.5
The change from e]pible<yetai
to
kataskeua<sei follows the Massoretic pointing of the Hebrew (pinna
rather than pana).6 The addition of the definite article
before o[do<n
enhances the parallelism with the Isaiah quote in
Mark 1:3,7 and
2 C. L. Feinberg, The Twelve Minor Prophets (Chicago: Moody, 1977) 260.
45, citing Exod. Rab.
4 However, contra G. L. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old
Testament Quotations
in the New Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1983) 165, eight consecutive
paralleled words
seem more than "purely verbal
resemblance," especially when Exodus and the Synop-
tics both contain the same shift in pronoun from the
text of Malachi.
5 This, rather than any innovative, christological interpretation of Mal 3:1 most
naturally accounts for the shift in person of the
pronouns.
6 H. B. Swete, The Gospel
according to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1909) 2.
7 So also A. Schlatter,
Der Evangelist Matthaus
(Stuttgart: Calwer, 1948) 363.
Blomberg: MALACHI IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT 101
e@mprosqen may reflect stylistic
variation from pro> prosw<pou.8 Not-
withstanding these minor changes,
the Hebrew text of Malachi is
represented very naturally by the Greek form of the
Synoptic passages
in question.
A more substantive preliminary puzzle arises
from the conjunc-
tion of Mal 3:1 with Isa 40:3 in Mark 1:2-3. Mark attributes the
composite quotation to Isaiah. The textual
variant, "in the prophets,"
adopted by the KJV, is too weakly attested and
obviously harmonistic
to be accepted as original. Hypotheses about later
textual errors or
glosses are even less supportable.9
The vast majority of commentators
not surprisingly claim that Mark has simply made a
mistake, although
reasons for that mistake range from Mark's
alleged distance from and
unfamiliarity with primitive gospel
tradition and its Jewish roots10 to
his uncritical adoption of early, traditional
materials in which the two
passages had already been linked (perhaps along
with others as well)
under one heading.11
Scholars who have not viewed Mark's attribution
as an error
have proposed alternate explanations. Some suggest
that a literary
convention existed in ancient Judaism by which a
reference to more
than one person's writings could be attributed
simply to the most
prominent author12 or to the source of
the more significant reference,
but without supplying extra-biblical examples of
this phenomenon.13
W.
Hendriksen sidesteps the real problem by encouraging
critics not
to complain that Mark supplies two things after
only promising one!14
The
most helpful solution is suggested by the example of the Dead
Sea
text 4QTestim, in which several quotes, not all from the Penta-
teuch, are juxtaposed under
the common head, "The Lord said to
Moses," irrespective of their relative
prominence or significance. Mark
most likely follows this practice, which was apparently
accepted in
8 R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel (
Brill, 1967) 12.
9 As, e.g., with V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark (
1952) 153.
10 E.g., P. Parker,
"The Posteriority of Mark," New Synoptic Studies (ed. W. R.
Farmer; Macon: Mercer, 1983) 76.
11 E.g.,
Knox,
1970) 29; K. Stendahl, The
Testament (Lund: Gleerup, 1954) 51.
12 E.g., G. L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (
van, 1982).
13 E.g., D.
1974)
29; R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (2 vols.;
14 W. Hendriksen,
Exposition of the Gospel according to
Mark (
Baker, 1975) 34.
102
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
his day, but no conclusions may be drawn from it
concerning the
respective importance of the Malachi and Isaiah
quotations, nor may
Mark
fairly be accused of erring.
Matthew and Luke not surprisingly omit the
quotation from
Malachi
in their parallel accounts (Matt 3:3, Luke 3:4-6) and thus
dispense with the problem of the attribution to
Isaiah. These omissions
are accounted for far better by the hypothesis of Markan priority
than by any of its competitors; the idea of Mark
introducing this
ambiguity into a source which was free of it seems
odd in the
extreme.15 The two "minor
agreements" of Matthew and Luke against
Mark
do not offset this, since the three contexts in
question are not
parallel. Matthew and Luke cite Mal 3:1 as part
of Jesus' explanation
to the crowds concerning the identity and mission
of John, after the
Baptist
had been imprisoned, whereas Mark uses the quote as his
introduction to John's ministry.
Undoubtedly the quotation had come
down to the evangelists in at least two traditions
(Mark and the
material common to Matthew and Luke).
B. Meaning and Pedigree
of the Passages
No one disputes that the Synoptic evangelists use
Mal 3:1 to
elucidate the ministry of the Baptist nor that
they do so in a way
which presupposes that the messenger of 3:1 is none
other than
Elijah,
whose coming is foretold in 4:5-6 (MT
questions which are debated, however, include: (1)
Did Jesus himself
understand John to be Malachi's prophesied
messenger in this sense?
(2)
In what way, if any, did John understand himself in this role,
especially in light of his denial of it in John
1:21? (3) Are the gospels'
interpretations fair to the original
text and context of Malachi?
1. Jesus'
Understanding of John.
The passage common to
Matthew
11 and Luke 7 explicitly attributes the quotation of
Mal 3:1
to Jesus. Matthew's account is longer and more
detailed, but this is
15 Similarly A. T. Hanson, The Living Utterances of God (
Longman & Todd, 1983) 36.
16 A few scholars argue that Luke, in
contradistinction to Matthew and Mark,
downplays or altogether obliterates this John =
Elijah typology, possibly because he
sees Jesus as the new Elijah instead. This type of
hypothesis might account for Luke's
omission of Mark 9:11-13 but it does not explain
his retention of
of the unparalleled statement in
Elijah.
Luke may well have seen parallels between Jesus and Elijah too; typologies are
by nature fluid and often somewhat
interchangeable. For a fuller discussion of the
various views, see J. A. Fitzmyer,
The Gospel according to Luke I-IX (Garden
City:
Doubleday,
1981) 320, and R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City:
Double-
day, 1977) 276-77.
Blomberg: MALACHI IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT 103
probably due to Luke's customary abbreviation of
his sources rather
than to Matthean
expansion. Matthew's most noteworthy distinction
occurs with Jesus' words in
this is Elijah, the one about to come." The
conditional clause suggests
that the interpretation may be a novel one and will
not meet with
universal acceptance. The same equation is again
attributed to Jesus
in Mark 9:11-13 (par. Matt 17:10-13) when the
disciples who were
descending from the Mount of Transfiguration ask
Jesus about the
coming of Elijah. Here Jesus replies more elliptically
by simply
remarking that Elijah has come, but Matthew adds
that the disciples
understood their master to be referring to John.
Older commentators often took this equation for
granted, and
assumed without question that pre-Christian
Judaism widely believed
that Elijah would return from heaven as a Messianic
forerunner. Since
Jesus
believed himself to be the Messiah, his application of Mal 3:1 to
his forerunner, John, would have been entirely
natural, and the ele-
ment of uncertainty
introduced by "if you are willing" would have
stemmed only from the fact that John was not the
literal Elijah
returned from heaven but simply an ordinary human
personage whose
prophetic ministry paralleled that of Elijah in
important respects.17
This line of interpretation (along with
traditional views of Jesus'
self-understanding more generally) has
been sharply criticized by
recent studies, which take their starting point from
the claim that no
unambiguous evidence exists for a pre-Christian
Jewish belief in
Elijah
as a Messianic forerunner.18 The rabbinic
texts traditionally
cited on behalf of this belief are all post-Christian
and mostly Tal-
mudic,19 while demonstrably pre-Christian
references to Elijah's
return (most notably Sir 48:10) do not link the
prophet with a Messiah.
No
convincing explanation has been given, however, for the post-
Christian
Jewish adoption of a perspective which supported the
Christian
interpretation of Mal 3:1. In light of rabbinic Judaism's
censorship of numerous Christian beliefs which
earlier Jews seem to
17 Cf., e.g., Jeremias,
" [Hl(e)i<aj,"
TDNT 2 (1964) 928-41. More recently, cf.
A,. Wiener, The Prophet Elijah in
the Development of Judaism (
Kegan Paul, 1978) 42, who uncritically assumes that
the Gospels' reference to the
scribes' belief in Mark 9:11 par. combined with
Justin's 2nd century Dialogue with
Trypho (
ordinary Jewish people as well as the spiritual
elite expected the return of Elijah as the
precursor and attendant of the Messiah from the
house of David."
18 See esp. M. M. Faierstein,
"Why Do the Scribes Say that Elijah Must Come
First?"
JBL 100 (1981) 75-86. Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, "More about Elijah Coming First,"
JBL 104 (1985) 295-96.
19 For a relatively full list of texts, see
L. Ginzberg, An
Unknown Jewish Sect
(New York: Jewish Theological Seminary,
1976)212, n. 14.
104
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
have held, it seems likely that some pre-Christian
Jewish precedent
must have given rise to these traditions.20
But this cannot be proven,
and such traditions, if they existed, may well not
have been
widespread.
What both the traditional and the more recent
sides of this
debate fail to grasp is that the gospels do not
suggest that the logic of
Jesus'
equation of John with Elijah follows from his self-understanding
as Messiah and belief in Mal 3:1 and 4:5-6 as
Messianic prophecies.
There
is no clear reference to the Messiah in Malachi and no indication
that the NT writers found one there. Rather the
texts speak of God
himself coming (3:1b) to usher in the day of
judgment and salvation
(3:2-5).
Whatever Jesus' specific beliefs about the ministry of the
Messiah,
it is widely admitted that he believed himself to be some
kind of special envoy from God who was to usher in
God's kingdom,
at least in inaugurated form, incipiently bringing
both salvation for
those who would turn from their sin and judgment for
those who
would not. The logic of the John = Elijah equation
may thus be
encapsulated as follows: (1) Malachi
speaks of Elijah, the messenger,
preparing the way for the Day of the Lord. (2)
Jesus' ministry brings
at least a partial fulfillment of the prophecies
concerning the Day of
the Lord. (3) The one who prepared the way for
Jesus must therefore
at least partially fulfill the role of Elijah
according to Malachi.21
Nevertheless,
there is high Christology here, all the more significant
as it is merely implicit, since Jesus is
appropriating a text about the
coming of God and applying it to himself.22
The above syllogism clearly does not reflect
pre-Christian Jewish
thought and was replaced early on in the history
of the church with a
more specifically Messianic interpretation.23
The criterion of dissimi-
larity can therefore be
invoked to support the authenticity of Jesus'
equation of John with Elijah. The multiple
attestation of this tradition
in Mark, the teachings common to Matthew and Luke,
and the
distinctively Lucan
material (Luke
ness, as does the incidental reference to scribal
tradition vis-a-vis
clear scriptural teaching24 and the
enigmatic nature of Jesus' comments
on the topic more generally.25
Tradition-critical dissections of Mark
20 Cf. D. C. Allison,
"Elijah Must Come First," JBL
103 (1984) 257.
21 Cf.
H.
Schiirmann, Das Lukasevangelium (Freiburg:
Herder, 1969) 1.417.
22 R. T. France, Matthew (Leicester: InterVarsity,
1985) 194.
23 Fitzmyer,
Luke I-IX, 673.
24 Allison, “Elijah,” 256.
25 A. Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St.
Matthew (London: Robert Scott,
1915) 240.
Blomberg: MALACHI IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT 105
within the passages, which are highly subjective and sometimes
self-
canceling.26 W. Wink's notion of a Markan "Elijanic
secret" modeled
after his Messianic secret fails to shore up the
numerous weaknesses
in the latter hypothesis.27 G. B. Caird's conclusion, with specific refer-
ence to the Moses and Elijah
typology applied to John in Luke 7:27,
could quite naturally embrace all the texts in
question: "it is far more
likely that such a synthesis of ideas as this had its
origin in the creative
mind of Jesus."28
2. John's
Own Views.
The Synoptics never report John's own
opinions concerning his identity. But all three
agree on information
which is generally acknowledged to be historical
about the nature of
his ministry: he preached a message of repentance
thoroughly con-
sonant with the oracles of the OT prophets, he adopted
the dress of
an Elijah-like figure (camel's hair and a leather
girdle; cf. 2 Kgs 1:8),
and the location of his ministry in the wilderness
easily conjured up-
memories of both Elijah and Moses who spent so
much time in
similar locations.29 While it cannot
be proven that John consciously
set out to model Elijah specifically, he should
hardly have been
surprised to find others pointing out the
similarities.
Why then does the Fourth Gospel report John's
response to his
Jerusalemite
inquirers in terms of a flat denial to their question,
"Are
you Elijah?" (John 1:21)? Most modern
scholarship affirms that this is
just another Johannine
inaccuracy, where theology has outrun history.
A
popular theory has been to assume that an important but divisive
element in the Johannine
community was a group of over-zealous
followers of the Baptist, who perhaps even saw him
as a Messiah, and
that the fourth evangelist deliberately modified the
more authentic
tradition reflected in the Synoptics
in order to try to combat their
26 So, e.g., A. H. McNeile,
The Gospel according to St. Matthew (
Macmillan,
1915) 54; D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (London: Oliphants, 1972) 200;
on which see D. A. Carson, "Matthew," Expositor's Bible Commentary (12 vols.;
ed.
F. Gaebelein;
based on implicit false dichotomies; e.g., J. Gnilka (Das Evangelium nach Markus [2
vols.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener;
Mark
9:9-13 a "Gemeindedisput"; or V. Schonle (Johannes, Jesus
und die Juden
[
implicit. Both observations may be correct, but
neither needs impinge on the authen-
ticity of the sayings involved.
27 W. Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (
Press, 1968) 16.
28 G. B. Caird, The Gospel of St. Luke (Harmondsworth:
Penguin, 1963) 113.
29 Cf. C. H. H. Scobie, John the
Baptist (London: SCM, 1964) 127, 129.
106
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
devotion.30 J. A. T. Robinson has stood this approach on its
head,
arguing that the Fourth Gospel, here and
elsewhere, is more historic-
ally accurate than the Synoptics
where they seem to contradict one
another, and that only later did John's status
become elevated, accom-
panying the early church's
development of a higher Christology.31
There are several plausible hypotheses, though,
which find neither
John nor the Synoptics
involved in a contradiction. The most common
is that the Baptist was simply denying that he was
the literal Elijah
returned from heaven as some Jews were expecting.32
It might be
asked if this would not have been self-evident to
John's inquirers.
Others
think that John did not genuinely know he was fulfilling the
function of an Elijah,33 but in light
of his historical actions, noted
above, this seems somewhat dubious. Perhaps a better
approach is to
side with M. de Jonge, who
notes the popularity of an expectation of
a purely human Messiah who would not know his
identity until Elijah
revealed him; John would naturally deny this type
of Elijanic role.34
Alternately,
J. R. Michaels proposes that the series of denials in John
1:19-21
(that the Baptist was not the Christ, the Prophet, or Elijah) all
refer to the same fact--that John was not the
Messiah.35 The type of
role for Elijah which John would have disclaimed
would then be one
which was Christological in nature itself, perhaps a
development
from the facts that Malachi's messenger could easily
be seen as
priestly (Mal 2:7) and that the
the doctrine of two Messiahs--a priestly as well as
a Davidic one.36 It
is difficult to choose among all of these options,
but objective histori-
ography demands that a viable,
harmonistic solution be preferred to
one which requires that the gospels contradict
themselves.37
30 For a detailed discussion from this perspective, see Wink, John
the Baptist,
89-93.
31 J. A. T. Robinson, "Elijah, John
and Jesus: An Essay in Detection," NTS
4
(1957-58)
263-81; cf. B. Lindars, The Gospel of John (London: Oliphants, 1972)
103-4.
C.
S. Mann, Mark (Garden City:
Doubleday, 1986) 364-68, generally endorses Robin-
son's perspective but argues that Jesus himself first
made the switch in identification.
32 Classically, B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (
millan, 1908) 34; cf. also L.
Morris, The Gospel according to John
(
Eerdmans,
1971) 134-35; Carson, "Matthew," 269.
33 C. F. D. Moule,
The Phenomenon of the New Testament (London:
SCM, 1967)
70;
cf. also Morris and Carson as in n. 32 above.
34 M. de Jonge,
"Jewish Expectations about the 'Messiah' according to the Fourth
Gospel," NTS 19 (1972-73) 246-70.
35 J. R. Michaels, John (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984) 12.
36 Cf., in part, B. V. Malchow,
"The Messenger of the Covenant in Mal 3:1," JBL
103 (1984) 252-55.
37 See esp. C. L. Blomberg,
"The Legitimacy and Limits of Harmonization,"
Hermeneutics, Authority
and Canon
(ed. D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge; Grand
Rapids: Zondervan,
1986) 139-74.
Blomberg: MALACHI IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT 107
3. The
Context of Malachi.
Even if the authenticity and non-
contradictory nature of the gospel
texts can be maintained, the final
and perhaps most important question of the meaning
of Mal 3:1 in its
original context must be faced. Has the NT fairly
utilized this Scrip-
ture by interpreting it
first in light of 4:5-6 on Elijah and then by
applying it to John the Baptist? With respect to
the first question, it
must be admitted at once that the referent of the
messenger in 3:1 is
not self-evident. Commentators have suggested a
host of different
figures besides Elijah; the more significant
include Malachi himself
(whose name means "messenger"), God himself (taking
v 1b as
parallel), the angel of the Lord (as God's
heavenly representative on
earth), an ideal figure (and thus not to be equated
with any historical
individual), and the whole line of divinely
ordained prophets.38 But
scholars also tend to agree that the function of
4:5-6 is to identify the
messenger of 3:1 as Elijah.39 These
verses, along with 4:4, are fre-
quently considered, however, as
a later appendix to Malachi's proph-
ecy, added by a redactor
and therefore not determinative of the
original meaning of 3:1.
To these consensus views three replies need to
be made. First,
when a verse as ambiguous as 3:1 is interpreted both
by later verses
in the same book (whether or not they were added
by the same
hand) and by later works in the same religious
tradition in one and
only one way, that interpretation should receive at
least prima facie
priority.40 Even if it might be
plausibly construed in other ways as
well, Mal 3:1 makes sense as a reference to Elijah,
and that observation
bears considerable weight. Second, there is no clear
indication that
Mal
4:5-6 is a later addition, despite the popularity of that view.
There
is not a shred of textual evidence to support the hypothesis,41
even though conclusions to biblical books are often
the sources of
conflicting textual variants. Third, even if 4:5-6
were offering an
interpretation contradictory to that
intended by the author of 3:1,
Jewish
and Christian interpreters alike have historically affirmed that
38 On the alleged parallelism of vv la, b,
and c, see C. D. Isbell, Malachi (Grand
Rapids:
Zondervan, 1980) 58-59; for all the other views and
sample representatives, see
R.
L. Smith, Micah-Malachi (Waco: Word,
1984) 327-28.
39 E.g., J. M. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Book of
Malachi (Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1912) 62-63; A. Cohen, The Twelve Prophets
(London:
Soncino, 1948) 349; B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as
Scripture (London: SCM, 1979) 496. Childs even
acknowledges that while 4:5-6 go
beyond the prophet's original message, they do not do
injustice to it.
40 Cf. E. Achtemeier,
Nahum-Malachi (Atlanta: John Knox,
1986) 184, who notes
that regardless of its pedigree, this interpretation
"is just as valid as any of the many
others that have been proposed."
41 Cf. R. L. Alden, "Malachi," Expositor's Bible Commentary (12 vols.;
F. Gaebelein, ed.;
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985) 7. 700.
108
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
it is the final, canonical form of a given book of
Scripture which
determines its interpretation, not any hypothetical
earlier stage of
tradition history.42 Jesus and the
evangelists would almost certainly
have been following this principle, already
enshrined in pre-Christian
Jewish
tradition, when they took 4:5-6 as normative for the interpreta-
tion of 3:1.
The final question that remains is whether or
not Mal 3:1 was
entirely fulfilled in the ministry of John the
Baptist. Since John only
prepared the way for Christ's first coming, those
who accept the NT
belief in a second coming of Christ will naturally
wonder if a similar
messenger will prepare the way again in the last
days. Rev 11:1-13
describes two such messengers, whose prophetic
ministries closely
resemble those of Moses and Elijah (vv 5-6).43
Irrespective of the
specific identity of these two figures, it seems
reasonable, therefore,
to say that Mal 3:1 and 4:5-6 have a still future
aspect to their
fulfillment, and to reject both poles of the
interpretive spectrum
which affirm on the one hand that the prophecy was
entirely exhausted
in the life of the Baptist44 and on the
other that the prophecy could
not have been fulfilled at all in John.45
42 This principle has become the
cornerstone of B. Childs' form of canon criticism
and is stressed throughout his works. See esp. his Old Testament as Scripture and The
New Testament as Canon: An
Introduction
(London: SCM, 1984).
43 Some commentators prefer to compare the
two with Enoch and Elijah, often in
conjunction with the belief that these witnesses
will be heavenly envoys (since Enoch
and Elijah were the two OT figures who never died
and so apparently already live in
heaven in human form). According to Wiener (Elijah, 146) the early church fathers
generally favored a view which looked for the
return of a literal Elijah redivivus. On
the other hand, since Christ's return will not be
the coming of a literal David redivivus,
despite numerous prophecies that might give that
impression, a less literal interpretation
seems more probable.
44 E.g., C. F. Keil,
The Twelve Minor Prophets (2 vols.; 1868, reprinted, Grand
Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1949) 2.457;
reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) 268-69.
45 A natural view, of course, for
interpreters who do not find the Christian canon
normative. More puzzling is the approach of W. C.
Kaiser, Jr. (Malachi: God's
Unchanging Love [
the future a]pokatasth<sei in Matt
argues that John only mirrors Elijah in spirit and
power, while the true fulfillment of
this prophecy still awaits the end times. Even less
persuasive is his attempt (pp. 107-8)
to drive a wedge between Malachi's "Elijah
the prophet" and the historical "Elijah the
Tishbite" in order to open "the door
for a succession of announcers all the way up to
the second advent of Messiah when the first and
last Elijah would step forth as the
beginning and end of the prophets." Among
this succession Kaiser includes such men
as Augustine, Calvin, Meno
Simons, Luther, Zwingli, Moody, and Graham! Such a
historicist hermeneutic would wreak havoc with the
rest of Scripture if it were
consistently applied elsewhere in
similar fashion.
Blomberg: MALACHI IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT 109
II. The Election of Jacob
"I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have
hated" (Mall:2b-3a).
A. The Context of
Malachi
This short, dramatic pronouncement reappears as
a crucial plank
in Paul's discussion in Romans 9 of what
theologians have come to
refer to as election and reprobation (v 13). There is
no significant
difference among the MT, LXX, and NT texts, only
the inversion by
the NT of the subject and predicate in the first
clause. Unlike with
Mal
3:1, the meaning of 1:2-3 is remarkably clear. This time it is the
NT use of the passage which sharply divides
commentators.
Exe-
getical clarity therefore
dictates a reversal of sequence of topics for
discussion; Malachi must be examined before Romans.
The most startling discovery for the Neutestamentler
or theo-
logian accustomed to hearing
this verse cited on behalf of the Calvinist
doctrine of double predestination46 is
the way in which Malachi
interprets Jacob and Esau exclusively in light of
the nations or peoples
of
destinies (1:3-5). This interpretation is so
self-evident from these
three verses that commentators do not even raise
alternate views.47
The
question can be asked, however, whether or not Malachi has
been fair to the Genesis narrative which describes
God's selection of
Jacob
and Esau when he applies it in this limited, corporate fashion.
Isaac's
two sons were, after all, individuals before they became the
ancestors of nations. Yet the key verse in Genesis,
the second half of
which is also cited by Paul (Rom
ence to Mal 1:2-3,
specifically begins with God's promise to Rebekah,
"Two
nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within
you
will be separated; one people will be stronger than
the other. . ."
(Gen
25:23, NIV). Moreover, as the story of the relationship between
Jacob
and Esau unfolds, there is not a hint anywhere that Esau's
"curse" is to extend to his personal, eternal destiny.48
If anything, the
46 E.g., J. H. Gerstner, A Predestination Primer (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960) 43;
K.
D. Johns, Election: Love Before Time (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed,
1977)
6.
For brief histories of the development of this doctrine and the debates it has
incited,
see L. Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949)
136-53;
P. K. Jewett, Election and Predestination
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985) 5-
23;
and in more detail but limited to the post-Reformation period, A. P. F. Sell, The
Great Debate: Calvinism,
Arminianism and Salvation (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1983).
47 Cf., e.g., Alden, "Malachi,"
709-10; Keil, "Malachi," 430-32; J. G.
Baldwin,
Haggai, Zechariah,
Malachi
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1972) 222-24.
48 Later Jewish tradition
often did make this suggestion, but it also rationalized
Mal
1:2-3 so as to deny most all of God's initiative in the treatment of
110
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
ultimate reconciliation of the two brothers
(Genesis 33) strongly sug-
gests that Esau also eventually became right with
God.49
A more immediate exegetical problem concerns the
precise nu-
ances of ‘ahab and sane’ (usually "love" and "hate") in Mal 1:2-3.
Even
if the prophet has nations rather than individuals in mind, and
temporal punishments rather than eternal ones,
the description of
God
hating Esau continues to trouble many. Some interpret the
contrast after the way Matt
"hate" really mean "love more" and "love
less."50 But Jesus' saying in
the gospels deals with two objects of honor-God and
family,
whereas Malachi contrasts the honor attaching to
Jacob with the
dishonor of Esau. Others insist that personal
animosity or favor
ought to be predicated of God, in light of the usual
meanings
of the Hebrew terms elsewhere.51 But
the Scriptures are filled with
anthropomorphisms--terms which change
their usual meaning when
lifted out of the human realm and applied to God, so
this is an
untrustworthy guide as well. The best
solution undoubtedly is to side
with those scholars who have pointed out the
frequent OT use of love
and hate in a covenantal or political context,52
to note the importance
of faithfulness to the covenant for the message of
Malachi,53 and
therefore to interpret the terms dispassionately
as "to choose" and "to
reject," in the context of the temporal and
national blessings of God's
covenant with Israel.54
Schoeps, Paul [
concerned with Malachi's original meaning.
49 Cf. G. Stockhardt,
cited by J. Piper, The Justification of
God (
Baker, 1983) 44. G. L. Archer, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1958)
59,
notes that the possibility of repentance also remained for Esau's descendants
(see
esp. Amos 9:11-12 and cf.its
interpretation in Acts 15:16-18).
50 E.g., Kaiser, Malachi, 27.
51 W. Sanday and
A. C. Headlam, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1896) 247; J. Murray, The Epistle to
the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968)
22-23; A. C. Custance, The Sovereignty
of Grace (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1979)
294-95. Tellingly, the last
two of these authors wind up substantially
redefining the type of hate appropriate for
God
even while insisting on translating the word that way; the first two assume
that
Paul
is simply adopting a common Jewish interpretation, without dealing with the
question of its appropriateness for Malachi.
52 See esp. J. A. Thompson, "
53 See esp. S. L. McKenzie and H. N.
Wallace, "Covenant Themes in Malachi,"
CBQ 45 (1983) 549-63.
54 E.g., R. Smith, Micah-Malachi, 305; Baldwin, Haggai,
Zechariah, Malachi, 222-
23;
C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans (2 voIs.;
Blomberg: MALACHI IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT 111
B. Usage in Romans
Paul Jewett suggests that the interpretive bias
resulting from
one's theological traditions affects commentators on
Romans 9 as
much as on any other passage of Scripture.55
A survey of studies of
this chapter, sadly, does not call Jewett's verdict
into question. Yet
surely the undisputed meaning of the passage in
Malachi should be
given at least a
priori preference before interpreters attempt to explain
Paul's use of the OT in some less than
straightforward manner. If a
NT
text can make sense in light of the plain meaning of the OT
passages it cites, one should not complicate
matters by introducing
new interpretations. This is especially crucial
here in light of the fact
that Paul specifically chose to refer to the choice
of
text which can only be interpreted in one way,
rather than limiting
himself to texts from the Genesis narrative
which can be taken to
refer either to individuals or nations.56
Can Rom
temporal selection of
a crucial role in Paul's developing argument in
chaps. 9-11 on the role
of
gospel,57 and more immediately in
Paul's attempt in 9:1-2958 to deal
with the question of why so many Israelites have not
responded
(Divine Election [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960] 72 and n. 29) who stresses that his
translation of "to prefer" and "not
to prefer" has nothing whatever to do with any
Arminian
tendencies.
On God's "hating" more generally as not an emotion so much as a
rejection in will and deed, see O. Michel, "mise<w," TDNT, 4.687.
55 Jewett, Election, 67.
56 So, e.g., Cranfield,
Romans, 479; F.-J. Leenhardt, L'epitre de
Romains (Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1957) 142. Some have suggested that Paul's
choice of Mal 1:2-3 to complement Gen 25:23 simply
followed the rabbinic practice of
citing both the Torah arid the Prophets to prove a
particular point (e.g., E. Kasemann,
Commentary on Romans [
explain the choice of this particular prophetic
passage, since numerous others also deal
with these topics.
57 On the structure of these chapters more
generally, especially in light of their
use of the OT, see J. W. Aageson,
"Scripture and Structure in the Development of the
Argument
in Romans 9-11," CBQ 48 (1986)
265-89; F. Siegert, Argumentation bei
Paulus gezeigt an Rom 9-11 (Tiibingen:
Mohr, 1985); C. A. Evans, "Paul and the
Hermeneutics of 'True Prophecy': A Study of Rom.
9-11," Bib 65 (1984) 560-70.
58 A glaring weakness of Piper, Justification, is his failure to include
vv 24-29 in
his analysis. That this context forms the proper
boundaries for an analysis of v 13 is
further confirmed by recent studies which have
shown that vv 6-29 form a tightly knit
unity following the rabbinic form known as a proem midrash. See esp. E. Earle Ellis,
Prophecy and Hermeneutic
in Early Christianity
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 155;
W.
R. Stegner, "Romans 9:6-29-A Midrash,"
JSNT 22 (1984) 37-52.
112
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
positively to that proclamation.59 In
9:6 Paul specifically raises the
potential protest that the word of God might have
failed. Paul
responds to this objection by arguing that true
coterminous with physical
remnant of Jews in any given generation who
received God's covenant
blessings (cf. v 27). In Paul's day that remnant
is equivalent to all
Jewish
Christians.60 In earlier eras, illustrations of the remnant prin-
ciple have included the
choice of only one of Abraham's sons (9:6-9)
and only one of Isaac's sons (vv 10-13) to be
recipients of the
covenant blessings. More broadly, a principle is
at work throughout
history where God bestows his mercy and wrath as
he wills, and not
through human merit (vv 14-16). This principle
emerges not only in
the Abraham and Isaac narratives but also in the
accounts of God's
dealings with Moses and Pharaoh (vv 17-18).
When the logic of these verses is sketched in
this fashion, no
reference to eternal, individual predestination
either to salvation or
damnation comes into play until at least v 21, nor
is such a reference
needed to make sense of the passage. Vv 21-23 may
reflect a stronger
kind of predestination, though, since at this point
in his argument
Paul
is speaking of those who accept or reject the gospel, and the
accompanying "new
covenant" blessings are certainly both individual
and eternal. If that is the case, then one must ask
if in fact this
broader concept of election has been implicit
all along or if Paul is
now contradicting his earlier teaching. One option,
of course, is to see
Paul
shifting gears in the middle of the chapter, irrespective of
consistency, but this view not viable for those with
a high view of
Scripture,
nor is it fair even for interpreters of other convictions to
treat as profound and nuanced a thinker as Paul in
such cavalier
fashion.61 At the same time, it is
not clear that such a shift from
temporal to eternal election is necessarily
self-contradictory;62 both
kinds could well be specific examples of a more
general principle-
59 L. Gaston ("
that although this explanation of the transition
from Romans 1-8 to 9-11 is widely held,
it is never explicitly stated by Paul and
therefore indefensible. Any attempt to apply
such a logically fallacious principle on a wider
scale would result in massive exegetical
agnosticism!
60 It is important to realize that at least
until v 18 no reference to Gentile
Christians
explicitly occurs. They are not specifically mentioned until v 25, where it
becomes clear that God's people are now, in
Christ, a combination of Jew and Gentile.
61 J. E. Barnhart ("Every Context Has
a Context," SJT 33 [1980] 502)
stresses that
consistency is only required by inerrantists,
a point which needs strongly to be disputed.
62 Contra Piper (Justification, 46, 52-53) who argues that a reference to
individuals
in the latter part of the passage must imply a
reference to individuals in the former.
Blomberg: MALACHI IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT 113
that God dispenses his mercy as he sees fit, in all
types of situations-
and it is precisely this overarching truth to which
But the case can be made even more persuasively.
Assuming that
vv 22-23 do refer to individuals' eternal
salvation and damnation,64
two important observations disclose the
asymmetrical nature of Paul's
statements about the two kinds of people. The
"vessels of mercy"
have been specifically prepared by God and that
preparation has
occurred "beforehand." The
"vessels of wrath," however, are simply
in a state of readiness for destruction, with the
one responsible for
that condition left unexpressed and with no temporal
prefix attached
to the verb (katarti<zw)
rather than prohtoima<zw).65
2 Tim
contains wording strongly reminiscent of these
verses, but suggests
that vessels prepared for dishonor can, if they
become clean, be
transformed into honorable vessels. Thus if a
doctrine of predestina-
tion is to be derived from
Rom
rather than double predestination.66 Yet in
process of irrevocable selection and rejection.
Unless one is to argue
that Paul has contradicted himself, therefore, that
earlier process
must be seen to refer to something other than
eternal, unalterable
destinies.
Vv 6-9 and 14-18 reinforce this conclusion, when
one examines
the original contexts of the OT references
employed. Nothing in the
OT
suggests that either Ishmael or Pharaoh was eternally damned,
though unlike with Esau, nothing suggests positively
their restoration
to God's favor either. What the passages Paul uses
do teach is that
Isaac
shall be the ancestor of those of Abraham's offspring who will
inherit God's promises concerning a nation, a
great name, and a
blessing to all the peoples of the earth (Gen
this son will be born to Abraham and Sarah despite
their advanced
age (Gen
transpired once he sold his birthright to his
younger brother, and that
63 Cf. R. Smith, Micah-Malachi, 306-7.
64 Even this assumption can be disputed.
See esp. W. W. Klein's forthcoming
monograph on the doctrine of election in the NT.
65 Cf. E. F. Harrison, "Romans," Expositor's Bible Commentary (12 vols.; ed.
F. Gaebelein, 1976)
10. 107; Cranfield, Romans, 492-97.
66 On the doctrine of single predestination
more generally, see esp. D. P. Scaer,
"The
Doctrine of Election: A Lutheran Note," Perspectives on Evangelical Theology I
(ed. K. S. Kantzer and S. N.
Gundry;
Moody,
The Word of Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981) 341; and F. L. Fisher,
The Purpose of God and
the Christian Life
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) 92-112.
See
now also B. Demarest and G. Lewis, Integrative
Theology (3 vols.;
Zondervan, 1987-) 1. 293-335.
114
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Pharaoh's
hardheartedness in refusing to let the Israelites leave
would lead to successively greater miracles
(culminating in the
Exodus),
thereby proclaiming the greatness of God's name and glory
to all the earth (Exod
The most significant remaining objections to
this "temporal"67
interpretation of Rom 9:13 must now be
addressed. They include: (1)
Paul's
language in 9:8 ("children of God," "children of the
promise")
is elsewhere primarily used for Christians"
so more than just the
earthly OT promises must be in view.68
(2) The choice of a given
people to receive God's earthly blessings strongly
predisposes them
to be receptive to God's eternal blessings. To put
it another way,
surely a much greater percentage of Jews than Gentiles
were "saved"
in OT times, thus revealing the artificiality of
divorcing eternal from
temporal gifts.69 (3) Regardless of
their wider contexts, the actual
passages Paul has chosen to quote refer
exclusively to individuals not
to collectives, rendering the national view of
election suspect.70 (4)
Election
in the NT should always be interpreted as election in Christ
to salvation (cf., e.g., Eph 1:4). Neither
temporal nor reprobational
interpretations focus on the core of
the doctrine.71
The problem with objection (1) is that it proves
too much.
Elsewhere,
admittedly, Paul uses "children of God (or of the
promise)" to refer to all Christians--Jews
and Gentiles (cf. Gal
29;
4:21-31; Rom 2:25-29). But such meaning here would subvert his
intention to point out the perennial existence of
a remnant within
Judaism
(see esp. n. 60 above).72 Immediate context must always take
precedence over usage elsewhere. Objection (2) may
be accepted in
part, but unless it is applied deterministically, it
does not threaten the
temporal interpretation of the passages at hand.
Paul's entire thrust in
the opening chapters of Romans is to deny that any
are unaccountable
before God, Jew and Gentile alike. And the rebellion
of so many
67 Phrasing it this way, rather than
emphasizing the corporate or national nature
of OT election, avoids the relatively convincing
counterargument that it is impossible
to predestine groups of individuals without
predestining at least one individual within
each group (to ensure that someone exists in order
to form the "group").
68 So esp. Piper, Justification, 48-52.
69 So, e.g.,
Romans (1886; reprinted,
70 So, e.g., Piper, Justification, 40, 46-47. Cf. Johns, Election, 9.
71 So, classically, K. Barth,
Church Dogmatics,
2.2. 3-506; summarized by
G.
Bromiley, An
Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth (
1979)
86-98. Cf. also M. Barth, The People of God (Sheffield: ISOT, 1983); and C. K.
Barrett,
Romans (New York: Harper & Row,
1957) 183.
72 So esp. Gaston, "
and
Blomberg: MALACHI IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT 115
individuals in so many generations of OT Jews could
make the cynic
wonder how much of a "better chance for
salvation" they actually
had! Objection (3) poses a false dichotomy. Options
for interpretation
are not limited to the views which see all
within
defining election in terms of the corporate
concept of a remnant.73
Point
(3) also avoids the full force of the position it contests by
viewing it primarily as a collective or national
rather than temporal or
earthly election. The Barthian
approach of (4) depends on numerous
exegetical and theological decisions, the
investigation of which lie
well beyond the scope of this short study. Jewett's
brief but incisive
critique aptly summarizes its major strengths and
weaknesses; suffice
it to say that it has not found widespread support
among interpreters
of either Calvinist, Arminian
or various intermediate traditions, largely
because of its incipient universalism.74
The most glaring weakness of the view which
interprets Rom
9:13
as teaching double predestination to salvation or damnation is its
utter failure to handle adequately the text of
Malachi 1. For less
conservative interpreters this poses
no problem; E. Kasemann, for
example, is refreshingly candid when he explains
of Gen 25:23 and
Mal
1:2-3 in Romans 9 that "the quotations are taken out of their
context and its sense is disregarded. For Paul
is no longer concerned
with two peoples and their destiny, but timelessly
with the election
and rejection of two persons who are elevated as
types."75 Ironically,
J.
Piper's robust, evangelical defense of the traditional Calvinist inter-
pretation of Rom 9:1-23 draws
upon Kasemann's exegesis more than
that of any other commentator on
Kasemann's first sentence just cited or admitting
the contradiction
involved.76 Approaches which fall
back on a hermeneutic that speaks
of Paul as the OT's authoritative interpreter
either beg the question at
hand or presuppose an unfalsifiable
fideistic position which renders
OT exegesis irrelevant. 77
A second lacuna is the regular omission of any
consideration of
single predestination as a viable explanation of Rom
9:22-23. Many
Calvinists
and Arminians alike simply assume that election and
repro-
bation stand or fall together
and therefore never interact with an
73 Cf. W. D. Davies, Jewish and Pauline Studies
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 132.
Contra
H. Hubner, Gottes Ich und
Romer 9-11 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984)
22.
74 Jewett, Election, 47-56.
75 Kasemann,
Romans, 264.
76 Piper, Justification, 46, 52-53, 228-29, nn. 25-26.
77 So, e.g., Barnhart, "Context,"
502.
116
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
important possible alternative.78 To be
sure it is not easy to see how
one may simultaneously affirm that God elects those
who are saved
and maintain that those who are damned are entirely
responsible for
their own fate, but these two statements so
fundamentally encapsulate
major strands of biblical teaching that neither may
fairly be denied.79
The
apparent tension is similar to that which surrounds divine sover-
eignty and human
responsibility more generally, a tension which
cannot be shown to be either necessarily contradictory
or obviously
compatible, but which best summarizes numerous
passages in which
both doctrines are sharply juxtaposed.80
In both cases, the distinction
between necessity and certainty may point the
way toward an
explanation.81
It would be easy to digress far beyond the
bounds set by analysis
of Malachi in the NT. Suffice it to conclude that
if any predestination
is in view in these verses it is, as U. Wilckens phrases it, salvation-
historical and not cosmological.82 Or as
H. Ridderbos admits, despite
his heritage in the Reformed tradition, Paul has
here the continuation
of the holy line of the people of God in view
rather than any election
or reprobation to eternal destiny.83
Here, if ever, historical and con-
textual exegesis must set strict boundaries which
systematic theology
may not be permitted to transgress.84
Conclusion
Two explicit citations of a given OT work
scarcely lead to any
generalizations about "the use of
Malachi in the New Testament." But
78 Thus, e.g., Jewett, a Calvinist,
declares that "election obviously implies rejec-
tion" (Election, 26) and never again raises the
question. R. Shank, an Arminian,
succeeds in spending 44 pages (Elect in the Son [
108-52)
discussing conditional election with special reference to Romans 9 without
even considering single predestination once, despite
frequent citations of its supporters
when they side with Shank in opposing the Calvinist
doctrine of reprobation.
79 E. Brandenburger
("Paulinische Schriftauslegung
in der Kontroverse urn das
Verheissungsworth Gottes
[Rom 9]," STK 82 [1985] 1-47)
helpfully stresses how Paul's
teaching on predestination develops directly from
his teaching on justification (which
stresses both of these statements), rather than
vice-versa.
80 See esp. D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility
(
John
Knox, 1981).
81 See, e.g., M. J. Erickson, Christian Theology 3 vols.;
1983-85) 1. 356-62.
82 U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer
(3 vols.; Neukirchen- Vluyn: Neukirchener;
83 H. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of his Theology (
1975) 344.
84 Cf. D. E. H. Whiteley,
The Theology of
Blomberg: MALACHI IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT 117
each citation by itself plays an integral role in
the passages in which it
is embedded, and correct understanding of the OT
text is crucial to
valid exegesis of the larger NT context. As so often
in studies of the
use of the OT in the NT, commentators generally
jump too quickly to
the assumption that the NT writers were not
concerned with valid
exegesis in their appropriation of Scriptural
materials. Not surpris-
ingly, therefore, only a
minority of modern studies takes the time to
build on a carefully laid foundation of OT interpretation
when treat-
ing the application of its
texts by the New. The relationship between
the testaments is arguably the least satisfactorily
resolved issue in
contemporary evangelical scholarship
and the most pressing problem
for those who would defend a high view of
Scripture, though it is
often not perceived as such. Hopefully this brief
look at two per-
plexing passages from Malachi
may contribute constructively to the
ongoing study of this relationship.85
85 I would like to express my hearty thanks
to my colleagues Gordon Lewis,
Bruce
Demarest, Bill Klein, and Bob Alden for their reading of and helpful comments
on a previous draft of this paper.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu