Criswell Theological Review 2.1 (1987) 19-37
[Copyright © 1987 by
digitally prepared for use at
Gordon and
AN INTRODUCTION TO MALACHI
GEORGE L. KLEIN
I. The Authorship of
Malachi
Relatively
few scholars today believe that the book of Malachi was
written by a
prophet bearing the same name. The name Malachi,
according to
this view, is not a proper name, but a title ("My
messenger").1
Reasons for defending the anonymity of the book are
numerous.
First, there is no mention of the author's ancestry (e.g.,
Isaiah son
of Amoz, 1:1) or place or birth (e.g., Amos from Tekoa,
1:1) either
in the book itself or elsewhere in the OT as was usually the
case with
the prophets.2 Second, the same expression, hvhy-rbd xWm
("The
burden of the word of Yahweh"), occurs in Zech 9:1; 12:1 and
Mal 1:1. The
critical approach treats this expression as the introduction
to
three distinct and anonymous works, the first two of which were
appended to
the prophecies of Zechariah son of Iddo and the last
of
which was
given independent status as the present book of Malachi in
order to
round out the number of Minor Prophets to twelve.3 Third,
Jewish
tradition as witnessed by the LXX, Targum Jonathan4
and
Rashi,
plus Christian interpreters such as Jerome,5
Pseudo-Epiphanius6
and
Calvin,7 viewed "Malachi" as a title.
1 See
C. Torrey, "The Prophecy of 'Malachi;'" JBL
17 (1898) 1-2.
2 J.
A. Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament
(revised;
minster, 1976) 343.
3 A.
Lads, Histoire de la Litterature Hebraique et Juive
(Paris: Pay at, 1950) 523.
4 A. Sperber, ed., The Bible in
Aramaic, The Latter Prophets (3 vols.;
Brill, 1962) 3.500.
5
Cited by J. M. P. Smith, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Book of
Malachi (ICC; Edinburgh: T, & T. Clark, 1912)
19,
6
Cited by J. McClintock and J. Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological,
and
Ecclesiastical
Literature (reprinted;
10 vols.;
7 J. Calvin, The Twelve Minor Prophets (reprinted; 5 vols.;
20 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
What then was the origin of the title for those who believe that
the book
was anonymous? Nowack is representative of the
standard
reply
which maintains that the title was taken from the mention of
ykxlm ("My messenger") in 3:1.8
In other words, the mention of ykxlm
in 3: 1
was misunderstood as a reference to the name of the prophet
who
penned the book. However, Childs wisely observes, "Such an
identification wreaks havoc with the entire message of the book."9
The ykxlm of
1:1 and 3:1 cannot be the same person, for 1:1 must
refer to
the prophet through whom the oracle came whereas 3:1
speaks of
the one in whom rested the responsibility of paving the
way for
the future prophetic hope, the Messiah.10 As Childs notes,
one
cannot argue that an editor misunderstood the prophetic hope of
a
Messiah which is conveyed clearly in 3:1 as well as elsewhere.11
The first objection to identifying the author of Malachi with the
prophet
bearing the same name is relatively minor. Granted, the
lineage of
the prophet and his birthplace are regularly given in the
canonical
prophets, but exceptions are known. For instance, Obadiah's
lineage and
Habakkuk's place of birth are unknown, with both of
these
books mentioning the name of the prophet only in the super-
scription. The next two points, however, are the
main points upon
which the
theory of anonymity rests.
The anonymity of Malachi, while not a problem of liberalism as
such,12 is tied integrally to the liberal view
that Zech 9-11, 12-14, and
Malachi were
originally three independent and anonymous works.13
The view is
bolstered by the thrice-repeated phrase hvhy-rbd xWm
("the
burden of the word of Yahweh," Zech 9:1; 12:1; and Mal 1:1)
which is
generally interpreted to mean that these three oracles were
once part
of the same collection and were placed later in their
present
location in the canon arbitrarily. This widely-held conclusion
has been
challenged by Childs using various lines of argumentation.
Childs first argues that the form of the word xWm
("burden,
oracle")
is grammatically absolute (ie., syntactically
independent)14
8 D.
W. Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten (
1897) 390.
9 B.
S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (
Fortress, 1979) 493.
10 For
similar expressions see Isa 40:3; 57:14; and 62:10.
11 Childs, Introduction,
493.
12 See
W. S. LaSor, D. A. Hubbard and F. W. Bush, Old
Testament Survey
(Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 501-2; and R. K. Harrison, Introduction
to the Old
Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969) 958.
13 O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An
Introduction (
1965) 441.
14 The
word xWm is a
technical term often used to introduce a prophet's message
(cf. Isa 13:1; Nah 1:1 et al.).
Klein: AN INTRODUCTION TO MALACHI
21
in Mal
1:1, thus decreasing the similarity between the three occur-
rences of the term.15 Unfortunately
for Childs' thesis, the form of xWm
is
absolute in all three of the passages under consideration.16
Childs continues by maintaining that Zech 9:1 is not a super-
scription while 12:1 is. He further believes that
Mal 1:1 is also a
superscription sharing many points in common with other such super-
scriptions in the OT.17 Childs concludes
by noting that Zech 9:1 and
12:1 are
verbal constructions whereas Mal 1:1 is not, a minor point
actually, but
calculated to distance Malachi from the latter portions
of
Zechariah.18
In conclusion, Childs writes, "the problem of authorship of
the book
of Malachi is an independent question which cannot be
decided from
an alleged similarity to anonymous [sic] passages in
Zechariah."19
While I agree with Childs' observation, his arguments
are less
than convincing. Ultimately, the decision rests upon how one
views
Zechariah.
Critical scholars have divided Zechariah into two or three parts
with one
division occurring at 9:1 and the other, if advocated, at
12:1.20
Reasons for postulating a multiple authorship of Zechariah
center upon
mention of events centuries later than the 6th century B.C.
date of
Zechariah son of Iddo (cf. 9:1ff) and alleged
differences of
vocabulary and
literary style. Since stylistic arguments are notoriously
subjective, the
consensus is that the "prophecies" and how they are
understood
determine the outcome of the authorship and unity ques-
tions for Zechariah. At the risk of sounding
simplistic, the presup-
positions the
interpreter has regarding predictive prophecy will largely
determine the
conclusion one reaches.21 If one ascribes all 14 chapters
of
Zechariah to the son of Iddo then any affinity to
Malachi is tenuous
indeed.
We have discussed thus far the first half of the superscription,
but the
second half "through Malachi" must now be examined. The
English
title "Malachi" is a transliteration of the Hebrew word ykixAl;ma.
The basic
word j`xAl;ma can refer either to a human emissary (Gen
32:3)
or to
an angel (Gen 28:12). In Malachi a human messenger is clearly
in
mind.
15 Childs, Introduction, 491.
16 KJV,
RSV, NASB and NIV all fail to render this phrase consistently as "An
oracle: the
word of the LORD. . . .“
17 Childs, Introduction, 491-92.
18 Ibid., 492.
19 Ibid., 492.
20 Eissfeldt, Introduction, 434-40.
21 See
G. L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament
Introduction (revised;
22 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
The suffix (-i) has engendered a fair
amount of discussion. Keil's
view is
that the suffix is an old genitive ending called a hireq
com-
paginis,22 but this conclusion is utterly untenable.23 Another
view is
that the
suffix is a hypocoristicon (or abbreviation) for the
divine
name Yah,
the shortened form of Yahweh, which would be translated
"Messenger of Yah." While some like Soggin maintain that a theo-
phoric element in the name is "extremely
dubious,"24 there is good
biblical
precedent. For instance, one finds ybx (Abi, 2 Kgs 18:2) and
hybx (Abiyyah, 2 Chron 29:1) as well as yrx (Uri, 1 Kgs
hyrvx (Uriyah, 1 Chron
Malachi,
while not the simplest understanding, is a distinct possibility.
The
consensus of opinion, however, is that the suffix is the simple first
person
singular pronominal suffix "my."25
This brings us to the final and perhaps most important reason for
treating
Malachi as an anonymous work, namely the early Jewish and
Christian
tradition to that effect, of which the LXX is the most
notable. The
LXX renders Mal 1:1 with e]n xeiri>
a]gge<lou au]tou? ("by
the hand
of His messenger"). Immediately two questions are
raised.
First, why
did the LXX use the third person masculine singular
pronoun when
the MT attests a first person ("my") reading? Second,
was the Septuagintal understanding of the word as an appellative
correct? The
first problem can be easily explained by hypothesizing
that the
final yod of Malachi representing
"my" was misread as a '
waw signifying "his."26
The second question is harder to explain, but:
apparently the
confusion was due to the general lack of biographical:
information on
Malachi. To be sure, the LXX does understand ykxlm
as an
appellative in v 1, but Pusey does note that the LXX
did ap-
pend the name MALAXIAS ("Malachi") as a title,
seemingly witness-
ing to a completely different understanding,
that of a proper noun.27
In other
words, the testimony of the LXX is not as decisive in favor
of
anonymity as some think. Targum Jonathan's attempt to
identify
the
author of Malachi as Ezra the scribe as well as the numerous
22 C.
F. Keil, The Twelve Minor Prophets (2 vols.; 1868, reprinted; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1949) 2.425.
23 For
a general discussion, see GKC §90k-n.
24 Soggin, Introduction, 343.
25 See
J. G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (
Varsity, 1972) 211.
26 This
is a common textual corruption in which the "short tail" of the yod is
misread for
the "longer tailed (but otherwise identical)" waw.
For example, see Isa
27 E.
B. Pusey, The
Minor Prophets: A Commentary (reprinted; 2 vols.;
Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1950) 2.461.
Klein: AN INTRODUCTION TO MALACHI 23
other
identifications by other sources all seemingly stem from the
dearth of
knowledge about the prophet. Furthermore, as has been
noted
earlier in this study, the belief that Malachi was a proper name
could not
have originated from a misunderstanding of the referent in
3:1. Finally, then, since the canonical prophets were otherwise
not
anonymous and
the arguments for anonymity can be answered, it is
preferable to
treat the book as the only known work of the prophet
Malachi.
II.
The Date of Malachi
Malachi contains no precise information regarding the time of
the
book's writing. Thus one is forced to look to internal evidence in
the text
itself. Because Malachi mentions current abuses at the temple
(1:7ff;
B.C., the
year the second temple was completed. Since temple worship
has been
restored, Malachi must follow both Haggai and Zechariah.
More precise
dating can be accomplished by noting the similarity of
themes in
Malachi to those in Nehemiah, the silence in Nehemiah
regarding
Malachi, the interpretation of the term hHp ("governor ,"
1:8) and the
occasion of the conquest of the Edomites.
The similarity between concerns of Malachi and those of Nehe-
miah have long been noticed. W. Kaiser
summarizes well the basic
points:
1. Marriage of heathen wives (Mal 2:11-15 and Neh
13:23-27)
2. Neglect in paying the tithes (Mal 3:8-10 and Neh
3. Disregard of the Sabbath (Mal 2:8-9; 4:4 and Neh 13:15-22)
4. Corruption of the priesthood (Mal1:6-2:9-and Neh 13:7-9)
5. Existence of social wrongs (Mal 3:5 and Neh
5:1-13)28
Since it was
during Nehemiah's second period of ministry in
which he addressed
these issues, many scholars would date Malachi
to this
period also.29 E. Sellin and G. Fohrer would, however, date the
prophecy
before both Ezra and Nehemiah, around 465 B.C. since
Ezra and
Nehemiah put a stop to the practices outlined in Malachi.30
This view
fails to recognize the rapidity with which
relapse into
sin as well as overestimating the effect of the Ezra-
Nehemiah reforms.
28 W,
C. Kaiser, Jr., Malachi: God's Unchanging
Grace (
1984) 16.
29
Archer, Survey, 440.
30 E. Sellin and G. Fohrer, Introduction
to the Old Testament (
don,
1968) 470.
24 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
A surprisingly early dating of the book is found in the work of
B. Dahlberg
who properly notes dissimilarities between Nehemiah
and
Malachi such as: the absence of divorce from the books of Ezra-
Nehemiah;
the failure to find Nehemiah's concern for Sabbath abuses
addressed to
the same degree in Malachi; the far more elaborate
treatment of
tithes and offerings in Nehemiah as well as the distinction
which
appears to be made between priests and Levites (
which he
argues is not found in Malachi.31 Dahlberg argues further
that the
vocabulary, style and perspective of Malachi is so close to
that of
Deuteronomy, which he dates to the days of the Josianic
Reform (621
B.C.), that "Malachi's date is at the latest
exilic."32
Dahlberg's
observations concerning differences between Nehemiah
and
Malachi are valid, yet one need not date Malachi in such an
extreme
fashion. Indeed, no perceived difference is so great that one
should
reinterpret the date. Furthermore, the likeness which Malachi
bears to
Deuteronomy is also correct, but one should not date
Deuteronomy
to the Josianic era for reasons which surpass the
scope
of this
paper.
Next, since Nehemiah does not mention Malachi by name and
since the
closeness of the two is great as we have just seen, two
primary
views have appeared. One approach is to date Malachi after
Ezra and
before Nehemiah around 460 B.C. Others see the silence in
Nehemiah
concerning Malachi as indicative of Malachi's ministry
falling
within the two great periods of Nehemiah's activity in
(444 and ca. 435 B.C.). R. Dentan, however, argues in the
opposite
direction,
feeling that Malachi would have had great sympathy for
Nehemiah and
would surely have mentioned him by name. Dentan
wishes to
date the book around 450 B.C.33
The third point is the use of the word hHp for governor in 1:8.
This word
may well be of Persian origin leading some to render the
term
"satrap." W. Neil is representative of the position that hHP in
1:8
clearly
points to a Persian governor and not to Nehemiah.34 Dog-
matism is unwarranted as H. Wolf notes. Even
though xtwrt (tirsata',
Neh
10:1) was the expression usually applied to Nehemiah, he does
call
himself a hHp in
5:14.35 If Nehemiah was the governor of 1:8,
31 B.
T. Dahlberg, Studies in the Book of Malachi (Ph.D. dissertation,
University
of
32 Ibid., 191.
33 R. Dentan, "Malachi," Interpreter's Bible (12
vols.;
6.1118.
34 W.
Neil, "Malachi," Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols.;
Abingdon, 1962) 3.229.
35 H. Wolf, Haggai and Malachi
(Chicago: Moody, 1976) 58.
Klein: AN INTRODUCTION TO MALACHI 25
Kaiser
suggests that Malachi would likely have mentioned him as
Haggai named
Zerubbabel. If one does grant Kaiser's argument from
silence, one
could only say that Malachi was either before Nehemiah's
first
reform, before his second reform or after his second reform.36
Fourthly, 1:2ff mentions a recent calamity which has befallen
precise
dating of this event has never been determined satisfactorily.
Thus, the
event is useless for fixing the date of Malachi.37
A further line of evidence followed by non-conservatives is to
posit that
Malachi agrees with Deuteronomy against the Priestly Code
in
making no distinction between priests and Levites (2:4ff). Malachi
is
understood to follow Deuteronomy which is dated in the 7th
century B.C.
Malachi is in this regard different from the Priestly Code
which does
make this distinction and follows Malachi chronologi-
cally.38 The date of Malachi would then be 460-450
B.C. Rowley, on
the
other hand, argues that similarities in tithing laws might well
indicate that
Malachi was later than the P source.39 Torrey
argues
even more
extremely that Malachi is to be dated in the first half of
the 4th
century B.C.!40 If one accepts the biblical presentation of
reconstruction, then the material pertaining to priests and Levites in
Malachi has
no bearing upon the date of the prophecy.
In the final analysis, a precise date for the prophecy cannot be
fixed. One
must, it seems, place the date in the time of Nehemiah; as
J. M. P.
Smith observes, "the Book of Malachi fits the
situation amid
which
Nehemiah worked as snugly as a bone fits its socket."41 The
early date
of 460-450 B.C. is plausible, but R. Pfeiffer's conviction that
it is
"positive" is certainly overstated.42
On the other hand, several convincing arguments can be pre-
sented to favor the 435-433 B.C. date. For one,
Ezra reestablished the
knowledge and
authority of God's law (Ezra
importantly, if
the abuses outlined in Malachi had occurred at the
36
Kaiser, Malachi, 16-17.
37 Dentan, "Malachi," 1118.
38
Neil, "Malachi," 229; K. Elliger, Vas Buch der zwolf
Kleinen Propheten (Got-
tingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1951) 178.
39 H.
H. Rowley, The Growth of the Old Testament
(London: Hutchinson, 1950)
123.
40 Torrey, "Malachi," 14.
41 J. M. P. Smith, Malachi, 7.
42 R.
H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (
1941) 614.
43
Kaiser, Malachi, 15.
26 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
time of
Ezra's or Nehemiah's first reform, they would have been
mentioned in
the respective texts. Since hHp could have referred to
Nehemiah
himself, Keil writes:
If, therefore, Malachi condemns and threatens with the punishment
of
God the very same abuses which Nehemiah found in
second arrival there, and strove most
energetically to exterminate,
Malachi must have prophesied at that time; but whether immediately
before Nehemiah's second arrival in
there. . . cannot be decided with certainty.44
Thus, the
date of ca. 435 B.C., immediately before or at the onset of
Nehemiah's
second work in
III. The Unity of Malachi
Malachi does not present the interpreter with questions of unity
as
grave as elsewhere in the OT, but some questions have been
raised. D. Sellin is representative of those who believe that the book
has
editorial additions, mentioning 2:11ff and 4:5ff (= MT 3:23ff).45
Torrey adds
that 4:4ff (= MT 3:22ff) is an appendix to the book
having
"no natural connection with the preceding,"46 as the con-
servative writer J. Baldwin allows also.47
Rowley believes that these
verses
serve as an editorial conclusion to the entire Book of the
Twelve.48
A different analysis of the book has been produced by Y. Radday
and M. Pollatschek who apply computerized statistical analyses of
the
vocabulary of Malachi as well as the other post-Exilic works. This
study
concludes that all of chap. 3 was from the pen of a different,
writer from
chaps. 1-2!49 This endeavor has utilized a
highly dubious
methodology to
produce a conclusion of little or no value.
For a defense of the unity of the book one need not turn to
theological
conservatives, for many non-conservatives ably accom-
plish the task. O. Kaiser has no problems with
the book from his
44 Keil, Malachi, 427.
45 D.
E. Sellin, Vas Zwolfprophetenbuch
(Zweite Halfte;
Ver. D. Werner Scholl, 1930) 587. Note the somewhat larger and more
surgical list
(
Kleinen Propheten, 178. Elliger's
views have not been adopted, and at present only
4:4ff (= MT
3:22ff) is discussed as a possible addition.
46 Torrey, "Malachi," 7; see Lods,
Histoire, 525.
47
Baldwin, Malachi, 214.
48
Rowley, Growth, 124; see Dentan,
"Malachi," 1117.
49 Y. T. Radday and M. A. Pollatschek, "Vocabulary Richness in Post-Exilic
Prophetic Books," ZAW 92 (1980) 345.
Klein: AN INTRODUCTION TO MALACHI 27
literary-critical perspective, but does wish to transpose 3:6-12 and
present any
difficulties,"51 while R. Rendtorff
pleads that 4:4ff (= MT
3:22ff) must
be treated as an integral part of the last disputation
4:3 (= MT
3:6-21).52 A significant work by A. van Selms
not only
attempts to
validate the unity of the entire work, but maintains that
4:5ff (= MT
3:23ff) is "an integral part, if not the key-verse of the
whole
book."53 Moreover, a recent study has endeavored to demon-
strate not only the unity of Malachi, but
further that Haggai, Zecha-
riah and Malachi should be understood as a
literary and thematic
unity.54
IV. The Style of Malachi
Discussion has focused on how best to describe the method
Malachi uses
to communicate with
fered,55 while "catechisms" were
suggested to capture the question-
ing approach used in Malachi, a technique
found also in Haggai.56
The most
common term is that of "disputation."57 Despite Boecker's
preference for
the term "discussion,"58 "disputation" best captures
the
confrontational tone of the book.59 The disputes Malachi brings
against
covenantal law
serving as the basis for the charges against the
people.60 This confrontational style underscores the people's deep
hostility
toward both Yahweh and the prophet whom He had ap-
pointed. The
people were argumentative, challenging the prophet's
50 O.
Kaiser, Introduction to the Old Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975)
284.
51 Soggin, Introduction, 346.
52 R. Rendtorff, The Old
Testament: An Introduction (
1986) 242; Eissfeldt, Introduction, 442 accepts the
relationship between 4:4ff (= MT
3:22ff) and
the disputation within which it falls, but still argues that the last verses
are
an
addition.
53 A.
van Selms, "The Inner Cohesion of the Book of
Malachi," OTWSA 13-14
(1970-71) 38.
54 R.
W. Pierce, "Literary Connectors and a Haggai/Zechariah/ Malachi
Corpus,"
JETS 27 (1984) 277-89; "A Thematic
Development of the Haggai/Zechariah/Malachi
Corpus,"
JETS 27 (1984) 401-11.
55 Ibid., 285.
56 R.
Braun, "Malachi-A Catechism for Times of Disappointment," CurTM 4
(1977) 299.
57 Sellin, Zwolfprophetenbuch, 2.588.
58 H.
J. Boecker, "Bemerkungen
zur formgeschtlichen Terminologie des Buches
Maleachi," ZAW 78
(1966) 79.
59 R. Smith, Micah-Malachi (Waco: Word, 1984) 300. I
60 E. Achtemeier, Nahum-Malachi
(Atlanta: John Knox, 1986) 172.
28 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
mandate to
speak for Yahweh.61 Whether Israel's replies in Malachi
were
spoken by the people themselves or were a rhetorical device
used by
the prophet is inconsequential; the retorts accurately re-
flected the people's attitudes.
The structure of Malachi is commonly organized in a six-part
fashion
based upon Malachi's interrogations as follows:
1:1 (superscription)
1:2-5
1:6- 2:9
2:10-16
3:6-12
For a
critique of this method of organizing Malachi's message, see
the
compelling work of my colleague E. R. Clendenen.63 Clendenen
sees the
book in three chiastic movements, articulated from a linguis-
tic
perspective.64
Another question regarding Malachi's style is whether or not the
book is
poetry. The modern translations each arrange the text as
though it
was prose, but the editors of both BHK and BHS place the
Hebrew text in a poetic configuration. The difference of opinion is
reflected also
in the commentators. Sellin65 maintains that Malachi has
a
poetic rhythm to it while W. Kaiser flatly states that the book is
prose.66 J. M. P. Smith goes as far as to say that, "If Malachi is to
be
regarded as
poetical, either in form or content, distinctions between
poetry and
prose must be abandoned."67 Both extremes should be
abandoned,
however.
The prose-poetry distinction should properly be viewed as a
continuum. One
might find high style poetry in a passage, prosy
poetry or
poetic prose, and so forth. This mediating position best
represents the
situation in Malachi. Some passages appear prosaic
(1:10ff),
whereas others seem quite poetic, complete with parallelism
61 Neil, "Malachi," 231; LaSor, Survey,
503.
62 J.
A. Fischer, "Notes on the Literary Form and Message of Malachi," CBQ
34
(1972) 316.
63 E.
R. Clendenen, "The Structure of Malachi: A Textlinguistic Study," CTR
2 (1987).
64 This
chiastic arrangement of the three movements in Malachi argues for the
original
inclusion of 4:4-6 (= MT
otherwise.
65 Sellin, Zwolfprophetenbuch,
2.587.
66 W.
Kaiser, Malachi, 18.
67 J. M. P. Smith, Malachi, 5.
Klein: AN INTRODUCTION TO MALACHI 29
and
meter (1:6ff). Other passages lie somewhere in between (2:6ff).
Whether one
sees the book as "'lofty prose" as does Wolf68 or as
poetry
which is "often prosaic" with Torrey69 is inconsequential
as
long as
one does recognize a substantial quantity of poetic character-
istics in the book.70
V. The Purpose of Malachi
time in
centuries the land saw a degree of political autonomy from
the
Persians plus a new but developing money economy.71 Spiritually,
though, the
outlook was utterly bleak.
around her
had contributed to a new and secular outlook on life. The
old beliefs
and practices had become passe, and were in need of
reinterpretation according to the majority. Yahweh, the God who had
been so
active in
and
uninvolved in the lives of men (
notions was
clearly seen in the public worship at the
perfunctory
manner in which the priests conducted their duties was
the most
obvious consequence of the new mentality (1:6-2:9). The
people
evidenced an acceptance of pagan cults (2:10ff). The faithful
few
withdrew from their culture in discouragement, producing little
influence upon
their contemporaries (3:16ff).72
Another change, a change in the people's future expectations,
profoundly
influenced the way people thought and acted in Malachi's
time. The
eschatological prophecies in Isaiah 40-66 (and elsewhere)
led most
Israelites to believe that the post-exilic period would mark
the
beginning of the messianic age. The glories of the Davidic era
were soon
to be recovered they thought (cf. Jer 23:5ff). They
expected
the land
to become fertile as never before (Isa 41:18ff). The
Israelites
also
believed that all nations would begin to serve them in the post-
exilic era
(Isa 49:22ff). The realities which the former exiles
faced
were
brutal, anything but what they had anticipated. Only a small
group of
the exiles returned, and those who did found life as hard, if
not
harder than ever. The land reclaimed by the returnees was
proportionately quite small in comparison to what they had possessed
before the
exile. Finally, the land was rocky and infertile, not at all
68
Wolf, Malachi, 59.
69 Torrey,
"Malachi," 14.
70 See Nowack, Propheten, 392.
71 E. Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees (New Yark: Schocken,
1949) 12-13.
72 Torrey, "Malachi," 11-12.
30 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
what Isa 41:18ff had foretold. As the years of these conditions
multiplied, the
people became increasingly discouraged, cynical and
impious.73 Dentan summarizes the disconsolate
questions the people
were asking:
"'What is the good of our keeping his charge or of
walking as
in mourning before the LORD of hosts?' (
the God
of justice?' (
(1:2
paraphrase)."74 One can see that the responses of the people
to
their circumstances covered a wide spectrum. People were dis-
couraged and weeping (
life
(1:2;
perjury and
oppression (3:5). Worship was viewed with contempt
(
(1:9ff).75
The purpose of the book, then, was largely negative, being
essentially an
indictment designed to move the people to repentance.
Repentance
of their unbelief in God and their immoral treatment of
their
fellow Israelites was the first step, not a simple change in the
ritual. If
faith in God and justice in
Israelites
was not present, then the people could expect to see the
wrath of
God. In issuing these warnings Malachi sought to reignite
faith in
Yahweh, giving hope to the faithful in passages like 3:10ff,
16ff; 4:2 (=
MT
VI. The Theology of Malachi
It is customary to preface a discussion of Malachi's message with
an
unfavorable comparison to the prophets of an earlier era.76 Malachi
should not
be heard as the death rattle of a dying prophetic move-
ment. While Isaiah and Jeremiah were prophets
of immense stature,
it is
wrong to measure Malachi by the standard of any other prophet
for
Malachi was a different man, at a different historical setting
confronting
somewhat different sorts of problems.77 Malachi is a
prophet
whose perspective is not wholly like any other's. The book is
post-exilic, yet
without the apocalyptic emphases of Zechariah. Nor
does one
find the polemic tone of Hosea. One also discovers a causal
73 Dentan, "Malachi," 1118.
74 Ibid., 1118.
75 LaSor, Survey, 502.
76 See Dentan, "Malachi," 1120.
77 See
G. van Rad, Old Testament Theology (2 vols.;
1965) 2.279.
Klein: AN INTRODUCTION TO MALACHI 31
relationship between sin and retribution on the one hand and faith-
fulness and blessing on the other.78
These concepts were forcefully
employed to
explain why
able than
they were. P. Ackroyd expands these themes when he
writes:
The prophet directs his concern to two attitudes which run
contrary to
the recognition of this elective love. On the one hand, there is the
whole
condition of unacceptability which makes the
appropriation of divine
action impossible. The failure of the priesthood
stands central to this. . . .
Side by side with this are indications of the repudiation of
Yahweh and
of the community which is his, by irreligious and idolatrous practice,
and by alien intermarriage (
concerned with the problem of religious skepticism
(
Into this is woven again the stress upon a right response in which
alone
the divine will can be appropriated. But above all, this is the
context for
the reaffirmation of divine action, in the great act of deliverance
which
brings judgment upon the unrighteous and hope
for the God-fearers.
The continuing state of distress is seen as evidence for the
continuing
failure of the people. The rightness of divine
judgment and withdrawal
is stressed. The reality of divine action and intervention is made
plain.79
Covenant
Any discussion of covenant between God and man must begin
with a
rehearsal of a proper conception of what God is like and what
He has done
for those with whom He has bound Himself in cove-
nant.80 Malachi's reliance upon covenant is properly rooted in a lofty
view of
God. Central to Malachi's perspective of God is the "name
theology"
of the book where God's name is to be great, feared and
honored
(1:5, 11, 14; 2:2). It is the people's disrespect for the great
name of
Yahweh which compels the prophet to confront the people
(1:6). Even
the usual title for God in Malachi is the exalted tvxbc hvhy
("Yahweh
of Hosts").81
The meaning of Yahweh of Hosts is disputed, the question center-
ing upon the identity of the hosts. A common
view is that the hosts
refer to
armies since this is the normal meaning of the Hebrew word
78 Fischer, "Notes," 319.
79 P. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1968) 2.30-31.
80 Note
that a recapitulation of what the suzerain had done for his vassals was an
integral part
of both ancient Near-Eastern treaties as well as biblical covenants. See
D. J.
McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1963) 2-3,
28-29.
81 1:4,
6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14; 2:2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 16; 3:1, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17;
4:1
(= MT
32 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
xbc.
S. R. Driver proposes that the expression refers to heavenly
hosts,
stars and/or angels.82 W. Eichrodt
maintains that the term
speaks of
all which is, both in heaven and earth.83 The connotation in
post-exilic
Malachi is probably not the earlier holy war meaning, but
that of
the exalted status of the sovereign God over all. The LXX
catches this
nuance well when it translated Yahweh of Hosts with
pantokra<twr
("The Almighty," cf. 2 Cor
over, God
is portrayed as unchangeable (3:6)84 and as Master and
King (1:5,
6, 11, 14; 2:2).
One must not neglect to mention the great prophecy of
which
presents as high a conception of God as found anywhere in the
OT. The
recognition of the greatness of Yahweh's name by the
nations is a
moving notion, one that can only be fulfilled in the es-
chatological age.85 Dentan
is quite wrong when he says of this pas-
sage
" . . . that all true worship, even that of the heathen, who think
they are
worshiping other gods, is really offered to Yahweh, who is
the God
not only of
saying that
there are many ways to God.87 Indeed, the highly cov-
enantal context in which
salistic, and
of that
covenant. Mal
view of
God, but also portrays a God who is present and knowable, a
topic we
will now discuss.
No point underscores the nearness of God to His people more
than the
personal mode of speech in the book. Out of a total of 55
verses in
the book, 47 contain the first person address of Yahweh to
His promises
of a future for
tion (3:6). The imminency
of God to His people is also stressed in the
repeated
comparison of God's relationship with His people to that of
a
Father and son (1:6;
conception of
God as both exalted and very near.
82 S.
R. Driver, "Malachi,"
ners, 1900) 3.137-38.
83 W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (2 vols.;
minster, 1961-67) 1.192; see LaSor,
Survey, 504.
84 See
R. Alden, "Malachi," Expositor's Bible Commentary (12 vols.; ed. F.
Gaebelein;
85 See
the excellent study by J. G. Baldwin, "Malachi
Nations in the Old Testament," TynBul
23 (1972) 117-24.
86 Dentan,
"Malachi," 1120.
87 See Torrey, "Malachi," 13;
Baldwin, "Malachi
Klein: AN INTRODUTION TO MALACHI 33
Having established a proper view of God, Malachi reminds the
people of
their responsibilities to their Covenant-Maker.88 In achieving
this end
Malachi reveals a great reliance upon Deuteronomy as has
long been
observed.89 The love God has for
not only
in the theology of Malachi, but also in Deuteronomy (
7:8; 23:5).
Moreover,
love from
God plus the love toward God required of
monly misunderstood as an emotional response.
While I do not wish
to deny
categorically the association of emotions with the love of
God (viewed
as both subjective and objective genitive), Moran has
conclusively shown that the love of God is a covenantal term speaking
of
loyalty, service and on the human level, obedience.90 The treaty
background of
the love of God in Deuteronomy points clearly to the
fact that
the expression connotes God's selection of
on her
behalf as well as the covenantal stipulations which
obliged to
keep. The stipulations obviously have both vertical and
horizontal
dimensions.
To put it briefly,
selected by
God would be expected to act, not like Esau and his kin
who were
outside the covenantal community (1:2ff).
honor
Yahweh's name (1:6), to present acceptable offerings to Him
(1:7ff,
12ff; 2:8ff), to seek God earnestly (1:9ff) and to value her status
as a
participant in a covenant with God (2:10ff; 3:13ff). The faith
Malachi
sought to inculcate stressed the individual (1:6ff; 2:10ff, 17ff),
made the
inner motive for worship preeminent, understood the
essential
aspect of repentance for forgiveness and viewed acceptable
sacrifice as
being wholly dependent upon God's grace.91
ever,
failed to love (or covenantally speaking, obey) God,
so she also
failed to
love (serve, honor) her fellow Israelites. The broken relation-
ship with
God led to broken relationships with their peers.
The people responded to God's love with disloyalty, disobedi-
ence and disservice, not just toward God, but
also toward their
fellowman.92 Malachi alludes to such diverse crimes as robbery (
fraud (
88 S.
L. McKenzie and H. N. Wallace, "Covenant Themes in Malachi," CBQ
45
(1983) 549-63.
89 See
A. von Hoonacker, "Le Rapprochement entre Ie Deuteronome
et Mala-
chie," ETL 59 (1983) 86-00.
90 W.
L. Moran, "The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in
Deuteronomy,"
CBQ 2.5 (1963) 77-87. I
91 Eichrodt, Theology 2.391, 461, 473.
92 Eichrodt, Theology, 1.414.
34 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
(2:14ff),
sorcery (3:5), adultery (3:5), perjury (3:5) and oppression of
the
downtrodden (3:5). Each of these transgressions shows a flagrant
disregard of
Yahweh and His covenant which dictates proper con-
duct. It
should be added that Yahweh was concerned also with the
nations
outside of
experience not
only the blessings of a right relationship with Him, but
also in
their own land and in their dealings with
The most serious breach of covenant among humans in Malachi's
estimation is divorce.
In 2:10ff Malachi rebukes the people for making
marriage
covenants with those who worship idols. The problem is
squarely the
non-believing status of the spouse, not nationality. This
practice is
treachery against their fellow Israelites, and it is treachery
against
Yahweh. J. M. P. Smith writes of intermarriage:
It brings into the heart of the Jewish family those who have no
interest
in or care for the things of Yahweh. It involves the birth of
half-breed
children, who will be under the dominating influence
of mothers who
serve not Yahweh. It means the contamination of Jewish religious life
at
its source, by the introduction of heathen rites and beliefs. If the
worship
of Yahweh is to continue in
out upon
Apparently,
intermarriage was made possible by the misuse of Mosaic
divorce
legislation (Deut 24:1ff) in the dissolution of marriage cov-
enants among Israelite couples (2:14ff). God
expressed His indignation
over this
practice because divorce required the breaking of a covenant
which was
by definition, sin (2:8, 10).94 A further reason God em-
phatically declared "I hate divorce (
cruel to
the woman who faced a most precarious social and economic
future, and
destablilizing to the society as a whole.
The God of justice (
His covenant
(and His holiness which the covenant represents) is
transgressed. The expression of God's wrath in Malachi is fully in
accord with
the promised curses of covenantal disobedience found in
Deuteronomy 28. Moreover, God promises to curse the offenders
(
abased
(2:9), cut off (
(3:1ff),
draw near in judgment (3:5) and usher in the Day of Yahweh
as an
ultimate pronouncement of judgment (4:1ff [= MT 3:19ff]).
93 J. M. P. Smith, Malachi, 13.
94 One
should note the parallel drawn between the marriage covenant and the
covenant
between
Klein: AN INTRODUCTION TO MALACHI 35
Malachi
portrays God as not only the covenant-keeping God, but also
as the
God who will visit judgment upon every sinner. Yet God's
wrath is
tempered by His grace as T. Perowne observes,
"They are
not
'consumed,' though their sins deserve it, or His promise would
fail:
they must be purified and to that end chastened, or His holiness
would
cease."95 Thus, the book of Malachi (and the OT) ends with a
curse upon
the land because of sin.
In conclusion, covenant pervades the entire book of Malachi. As
we have
seen already, the opening statement (1:2ff) introduces God's
covenantal
relationship with
tation to obey the law of Moses (4:4 [= MT
understood as
the stipulations of covenant. Covenant determines
ultimate
destiny.
Theodicy96
Many Israelites believed that the Messianic age would be inaugu-
rated at
the end of the exile for reasons that were discussed earlier in
this
article.
centuries. The
ultimate indignity was the captivity itself. So when
prophets as
diverse as Isaiah, Ezekiel and Zechariah, to name a few,
predicted a
future glorious age, it is not surprising that the popular
interpretation understood the Messianic age as God's restoration of
be.
justice (
verify the
claim that she was in covenant with Yahweh and that he
did love
her (1:2).
Malachi sought to defend God's justice and to reestablish con-
fidence in Yahweh in the following three ways.97
First, Malachi
reminded
of God
without fulfilling her duties, namely obedience to Yahweh's
covenant. God
was insulted by
ment must begin with the people of God (Amos
3:2; 1 Pet
therefore
by God.
The multiple indictments in the book all point to the reasons
why
God's blessings are so distant from
to
rebuke
intended to
stir up faith in Yahweh once more.
95 T. T. Perowne, Malachi
(Cambridge: University Press, 1896) 12.
96 LaSor, Survey, 504.
97 Dentan, "Malachi," 1119-20.
36 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Second, Malachi points to the recent downfall of
spiritual foe,
and His
present activity in history (1:2ff). The manifest implication is
that
Yahweh could and would reverse lsrael's fortunes
positively just
as
quickly as He reversed
Third, the awesome Day of Yahweh is coming (3:16ff) when all
injustice
would be obliterated and all meritorious service for Yahweh
rewarded
according to the record books of God (
then look
forward to a future day when present inequities would be
gone. The
prophets' predictions of a new age would be understood as
commencing at
this same time.
Malachi requires a total change of heart for
problems are
due to their disobedience and disbelief.
obey and
trust Yahweh, for Malachi gives no signs indicating the
onset of
the coming era.
Forerunner
The notion that Yahweh would send an envoy before the great
Day of
Yahweh (3:1) is an OT idea found only in Malachi. Malachi
also
refers to this individual as "Elijah the Prophet (4:5 (= MT
The forerunner
is to prepare the way for the ministry of the
Messiah (Isa 40:3). The expectation of a forerunner grew in the
inter-
testamental period along with the growing
anticipation of the Messiah
Himself.99
This hope culminated in the NT association of Elijah with
John the
Baptist (Matt
John
VII. Conclusion
With Malachi the prophetic era and the OT come to a close. The
curse at
the end of the book,101 rampant sin and injustice, the futuristic
Day of Yahweh
and the expected advent of the forerunner and
Messiah all
point to the unfinished feeling left with the reader. LaSor
concludes:
The Exile was not the end, and the return was not the beginning of
the
new age.
Malachi leaves an expectation--a fear of judgment and a hope
98 See Alden, Malachi, 705; von Rad,
Theology, 2.289.
99 In
the Jewish Passover Seder, "Elijah's cup" is left untouched.
100 See
C. L. Blomberg, "Elijah, Election, and the Use
of Malachi in the New
Testament," CTR 2 (1987).
101 In
Jewish liturgy, after 4:6 (= MT
are
reread so that the biblical reading would not conclude with a curse.
Klein: AN INTRODUTION TO MALACHI 37
of healing. Christians believe that fulfillment of this hope comes
in at
least two stages: the First Advent of Christ, providing salvation for
all
who believe God's revelation; and the Second Advent, the final
judgment
and ult imate salvation.102
The Exile purged with finality the flagrant examples of idolatry
which were
so prevalent in the earlier days of
sophisticated type of idolatry which consisted of a legalistic attitude
toward
superficial
performance of divine commands replaced the weightier
issues of
confession and repentance of sin and faith in God.103 It is
here that
the relevance of the book for today shines through the most
clearly.
none of
its cutting edge through the passing of time. His teaching,
both
negative and positive, strikes at the heart of nominal, easy-going
Christianity
as it did that of Judaism."104 Finally, Malachi is written to
encourage
Israelites who were losing heart, asking if God still loved
and
cared for them. To the one asking those questions presently, the
book
reminds that God does indeed love and care for each of us.105
102 LaSor, Survey,
506.
103 Keil, Malachi, 428.
104
Baldwin, Malachi, 218.
105
Braun, "Catechism," 301.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu