1AN ORACLE: The word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi.
Original Meaning
THIS HEADING IDENTIFIES aspects of the book: what it is, whom it is from, and whom it is to. The genre is an “oracle” (maśśāʾ ), the identity of two other prophetic books (Nah. 1:1; Hab. 1:1) and of portions of larger prophetic collections (Isa. 13:1; 15:1; 17:1; 19:1; 21:1; 22:1, 11, 13; 23:1; 30:6; 46:1–2 [wordplay]; Zech. 9:1; 12:1; cf. 2 Chron. 24:27; Isa. 14:28; Jer. 23:33–40; Lam. 2:14; Ezek. 12:10). Its Hebrew root (nśʾ ) means “raise, lift,” with a related noun meaning “burden, load.”1
Divine origin and authority derive from a maśśāʾ being “the word of the LORD,” a general designation of laws (Isa. 2:3) and prophecies (e.g., Isa. 28:13, 14; 38:4; Jer. 1:2, 4) as of divine origin. “LORD” (yhwh), the personal, covenant name of Israel’s God (see comments on Joel 1:1), is the most common designation of God in Malachi (forty-six occurrences); “God” (ʾ elōhîm) occurs only seven times. The message claims divine authority through its oracular nature.
The prophecy is directed toward “Israel” (cf. Mal. 1:5; 2:16). From its use in 2:11, this term is synonymous with Judah. This identification also fits the prophecy’s historical context, since the northern kingdom of Israel was exiled in 722 B.C., no longer existing by this period. Some Israelite remnants returned from exile under Cyrus (cf. Ezra 1:2–4), and so they also heard and appropriated this message. The united nation, Israel and Judah combined under the name of the former, is intended in Mal. 4:4, but there the modifier “all Israel” indicates this inclusivity.
The intermediary or messenger is “Malachi,” who is not further identified. He fulfills a scribal function similar to that of Moses at Sinai (Lev. 7:38). This similarity of role supports seeing malʾākî as a proper noun rather than as a title, since scribes regularly placed their names on documents for which they claimed responsibility.2 The message is sent “through,” that is, “by the hand of,” the prophet, signifying power designated by another rather than one’s own actual power and authority (e.g., Gen. 38:20; Lev. 16:21; Isa. 19:4); this word is used of messages from God or others (e.g., Ex. 9:35; 35:29; 38:21; Lev. 8:36; 1 Kings 12:15; 16:7; Hag. 1:1).3 Just as Moses, the lawgiver to Israel at Sinai (cf. Lev. 7:37–38), did not receive his legitimation through his person but rather through Yahweh, his sender, so it is for this prophet. Both message and messenger receive a divine imprimatur.
Bridging Contexts
ORACLES. The nature of an oracle (maśśāʾ ) as well as a play on the dual meaning of the word is best seen in Jeremiah 23:33–40. Comparing English translations shows this wordplay. The NIV uses “oracle” consistently throughout the passage, while NRSV, following the LXX, uses “burden,” rendering verse 33: “When this people, or a prophet, or a priest asks you, ‘What is the burden of the LORD?’ you shall say to them, ‘You are the burden.…’” The nature of an “oracle” becomes apparent in verse 36: “But you must not mention ‘the oracle of the LORD’ again, because every man’s own word becomes his oracle and so you distort the words of the living God, the LORD Almighty, our God” (NIV).
A true oracle derives from Yahweh and is not a human product. The means of reception (a dream, vision, or oral communication) is not the issue. This is congruent with the Latin etymology of the English “oracle” as “a divine utterance,” which itself derives from the Latin verb “to pray” (oro), since revelation is at times requested from the divine. What is central is the origin, not the means, of the message.
Contemporary Significance
THUS SAYS THE LORD. The prophet stood between God and the people as an intermediary, a spokesman charged with faithfully delivering the message to the people. In an earlier period God spoke directly to folks such as Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:9–19) and Moses on the mountain (Ex. 9–24:2), but during most of the Old Testament period, he spoke through the prophets. Many Christians see the preacher as fulfilling the prophetic role, or at least that of the priest, teaching people the revelation of God (Lev. 10:9).
Whichever model is adopted, it is vital to note the difference between the source of the message (God) and its conduit (the preacher). As a preacher, it is too easy to slip into a feeling that the authority lies in me rather than in the Word with which I am entrusted. Lack of diligence in studying the Word, lack of fervor in prayer over the Word, and lack of pastoral contact with the people and their hurts and desires—so that I am unaware of the specific needs they have—make it easy to no longer speak God’s message to the people, but my own message, with no real concern for God whatsoever. Claiming to present God’s word when it is not his at all not only affects us and our ministry, as it did with the seven sons of Sceva (Acts 19:13–16), but it damages the church and the honor of the name of God.
Jim Jones (1978) and David Koresh (1993) are but two of a regrettably steady stream of those doing this with deadly results, not only to physical life but to eternal life as well. There is, after all, only one person who speaks with his own divine authority (Matt. 7:29; 28:18), and claiming that same authority for ourselves is arrogant folly for us, while at the same time it demeans Christ.