13YOU HAVE SAID harsh things against me,” says the LORD.
“Yet you ask, ‘What have we said against you?’
14“You have said, ‘It is futile to serve God. What did we gain by carrying out his requirements and going about like mourners before the LORD Almighty? 15But now we call the arrogant blessed. Certainly the evildoers prosper, and even those who challenge God escape.’”
16Then those who feared the LORD talked with each other, and the LORD listened and heard. A scroll of remembrance was written in his presence concerning those who feared the LORD and honored his name.
17“They will be mine,” says the LORD Almighty, “in the day when I make up my treasured possession. I will spare them, just as in compassion a man spares his son who serves him. 18And you will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not.
4:1“Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire,” says the LORD Almighty. “Not a root or a branch will be left to them. 2But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings. And you will go out and leap like calves released from the stall. 3Then you will trample down the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I do these things,” says the LORD Almighty.
4“Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.
5“See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. 6He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.”
Original Meaning
IN SPITE OF God’s reassuring words in the previous section, Judah continues with one more disputation (Mal. 3:13–15). The genre changes, however, with a historical note of repentance and response to God’s pleas (v. 16), to which God responds with promises of restoration. He also looks beyond the present, postexilic situation of Judah to the nation’s future. In an eschatological passage, and in almost apocalyptic terms, God promises judgment (4:1, 3) and blessing (4:2) to his foes and friends, respectively. The book closes with a reminder of the covenant and the obligations it places on both parties—Israel to keep its stipulations (4:4), and God to allow and effect restoration and reconciliation (4:5–6).
A Final Disputation (3:13–15)
FOR THE LAST time, Malachi’s hearers dispute a divine claim. In this case, it is a dispute about words rather than actions: Israel’s words are “harsh, severe” against Yahweh. Israel has no authority to overturn her God, but she acts as if she does, actively speaking against his demands and desires. Elsewhere, Israel is exhorted to be strong in the face of opposition (Josh. 1:6; Hag. 2:4), but now, ironically, she can only be strong in opposition to the one (“me”) who seeks her good. The words of opposition against God are probably those of Malachi 2:17, where Israel perverted God’s perspective on right and wrong. Going beyond the weariness caused in that earlier context, God now takes active steps of judgment.
The hearers (“you”) respond with a characteristic disputational interrogative, turning the accusation back as a question, “what, how [NRSV]?” (cf. 1:2, 6, 7; 2:14, 17; 3:7, 8, 14). The disputers ask how they are speaking (dbr) in a harsh way. The Niphal verbal stem used here in 3:13, 16) is rare with the verb dbr, only occurring twice outside of Malachi (Ps. 119:23; Ezek. 33:30). In those two contexts there is dialogue, with people speaking together, which some take to be the understanding here as well (“how have we conversed together against you?” (NJPS; cf. Mal. 3:16, NIV). The verb is neutral, but the preposition ʿāl gives it an oppositional character.
Yahweh responds in verse 14 by quoting statements that the people have previously made. They are impugning the worth of following and serving God. In this context, divine service involves correctly observing cultic and covenantal regulations, the validity of which priest and people have repeatedly disputed in this prophecy. Here they do so again, characterizing this service as “futile,” something not producing intended or promised results (cf. Job 15:31; Isa. 1:13; Jer. 2:30; 4:30; 6:29; 46:11).
They then ask the related question of whether there is any “gain” in following God (having apparently forgotten those benefits listed in Mal. 3:10–12). “Gain” is neutral, sometimes indicating things ill-gotten (e.g., Ex. 18:21; 1 Sam. 8:3; Isa. 33:15; 57:17), but at other times showing no stigma attached to its acquisition (e.g., Judg. 5:19; Ps. 30:10; Mic. 4:13). Here there is no obviously negative connotation to the word, though the writer may well have in mind the negative nuances of many passages in which the term is used.
Two clauses describe possible sources for gain. The first concerns keeping (“carrying out”; cf. Mal. 2:7, 9, 15, 16; 3:7) a “requirement,” a noun deriving from the same root as the verb (šāmar mišmeret, lit., “keeping a kept thing”). This combination generally refers to duties owed to God (e.g., Gen. 26:5; Deut. 11:1; Zech. 3:7), which obligation is being challenged.
The second clause refers to going about (hlk) in a dark, black manner (qedōranît), an adverb used only here in the Old Testament but deriving from a verbal root indicating being dark, black (Joel 2:10; 5:15), with the extended meaning of being in mourning (Jer. 8:21; 14:2). This may refer to penitence the people displayed outwardly but did not find efficacious, perhaps because it was not real, heartfelt remorse.1 The people went around in this state in the presence of the Almighty himself (1:4), but the outward act of contrition did not seem to have the expected results, since it was insincere.
Judah’s reported speech continues with a new thought, introduced by the temporal adverb “now” (cf. Mal. 1:9; 2:1), raising the stakes from simply expressing doubt concerning the efficacy of serving God to denying and reversing his ethical norms. Those accused as “you” in verse 13 are now condemned by their own words (“we”), emphasizing their identity through the independent personal pronoun opening the clause. Judah blesses the arrogant (4:1), those who take pride in their sin and independence from God (Ps. 19:13; Isa. 13:11; Jer. 43:2). There is an unexpected reversal, since the earlier use of the verb had the pagans blessing Judah because of the God’s evident grace, while here God’s own people pervert this by lauding those who deny the standards of the source of blessing.
The coordinating adverb “certainly” (gam) heads both of the next two clauses and is best understood as heightening their emphasis (“certainly … and even” [NIV]; “indeed,” NAB, NJPS). They concern “evildoers,” a further description of the previously mentioned “arrogant.” These people serve grammatically as the subject of the next three clauses.2 (1) The first verb (bnh) deals with being “built [up],” used of places and things physically erected (e.g., cities and temples; Num. 13:22; Zech. 1:16; 8:9), but also referring to continuing a family line through the birth of children to those previously barren (e.g., Gen. 16:2; 30:3). Here this verb has a positive connotation, often translated as “prosper” (NIV, NRSV), though the writer points out that those who are so materially blessed in the eyes of the recalcitrant Judeans are not those whom God himself blesses in other, more relational and covenantal ways.
(2) They have also “tested” (bḥn; NIV, “challenge”) God. This is a term of opposition or provocation (e.g., Ps. 95:9; a meaning more commonly associated with the verb nsh; Num. 14:22; Ps. 106:14) rather than the positive, affirming action earlier called for by God (Mal. 3:10).
(3) Finally, these arrogant evildoers are able to avoid what they deserve for their actions (“escape,” like those fleeing destruction; Gen. 19:17; Joel 2:32). Through this quotation, the speakers are overturning God’s perspective regarding what is acceptable and what is not. This involves not simply a debate about words, but a reversal of truth (cf. Gen. 3:4).
Repentance and Restoration (3:16–18)
VERSE 16 BEGINS with a temporal adverb (ʾāz) that also has logical connotations (“then”), indicating a new point of narrative focus. This also shows the more acceptable response of others in the prophet’s audience in contrast to those who have made such a poor showing in the previous verse. This group is made up of God fearers (mentioned twice in this verse), those showing appropriate awe and reverence for God and his ways (cf. 1:6, 14; 2:5; 3:5). They speak together,3 with the mutual interaction on a positive, supportive note between intimates rather than the contentious relationship found earlier in the book (2:10).
Yahweh himself attentively hears this discussion and responds by memorializing those who fear him. For this he uses a “scroll of remembrance,” an instrument only mentioned again in Esther 6:1 as a Persian record of events and people important in the history of the kingdom (a royal diary). Those in correct relationship with God are honored by being inscribed herein (cf. Ps. 69:29; Ezek. 13:9), contrasting to those whose negative acts are recorded in less permanent media (cf. Jer. 17:13).
This record is kept for God’s use, like the Persian record kept for royal consultation. The subjects of the record, in addition to fearing God, are also described as honoring or highly regarding his name, representing Yahweh himself (cf. Isa. 33:8; 53:3). Ironically, this high regard for the person of God is like that of the surrounding pagans (Mal. 1:11, 14) but unlike that of the Israelite priests, who show it contempt (1:6).
God goes on to claim as his own those who rightly regard him (3:17), just as he does the Levites (cf. Num. 3:12; 8:14) and as he promises to his reestablished covenant community (Jer. 24:7; 32:38; Ezek. 11:20; 14:11; 37:23; Zech. 8:8), and indeed to other nations who follow him (Zech. 2:15). He seals this promise by repeating the messenger formula (“says the LORD Almighty”).
The fulfillment receives a time designation: “in the day” (lit., “during the day”), perhaps referring to his coming day, a time of judgment for apostates (Mal. 3:2) but here a day of blessing for the righteous (cf. 4:1). This is a day when God (“I”) acts, something the righteous have hoped for (3:16). Through the use of a participle, indicating an ongoing activity, God indicates he is making these people a “treasured possession” (segullâ). This term does not occur in other prophets, but elsewhere it designates a rare possession of God, select from among all others (Ex. 19:5; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; Ps. 135:4), or some special object of a king (1 Chron. 29:3; Eccl. 2:8). These people, who through their actions place themselves farther from a relationship with God than their pagan neighbors (cf. Mal. 1:11, 14), now are restored to him by his actions.
God continues to declare his actions, sparing the people in his pity, compassion, and grace from the punishment that is their due as covenant breakers. Though they de facto have denied the father-son covenant relationship between themselves and God through not rendering to him honor (cf. 1:6; 3:6) or service (cf. 3:18, 22), God’s “compassion” compares to that of a loving father (cf. 4:6) toward his obedient child. At least one of the parties of the covenant relationship remains aware of the affiliation and the obligations it entails.
The sequence of future events started in verse 17 continues in verse 18 with actions undertaken by Israel, the second covenant partner. Israel will (lit.) “return and see,” a construction in which the first verb functions as an adverb, modifying the second as an action that is done “again” (i.e., “you will again see”). “Seeing” here denotes cognition (“know, understand”; cf. English, “I see what you mean”) rather than physical vision (1:5). Israel’s insight extends to the ability to discriminate between the righteous and the wicked (4:3), a distinction between moral good and evil that they previously denied (2:17; 3:15). The nature of these descriptions is elucidated in the comparison between “those who serve God and those who do not” (3:17). Morality is here indicated by action.
A Look to the Future (4:1–3 [3:19–21)]
THE COMING DAY in which God acts (3:2, 17) now receives greater definition. Verse 1 begins with the emphatic/logical adverb (kî “for, indeed”) plus an emphatic particle (hinnēh), indicating the immediacy of an event (see comment on 3:1). This combination, coupled with the following participle (“is coming”), join to indicate that “the day” is just around the corner (Zech. 2:10; 3:9; 11:16; cf. Amos 4:2). This day, referring back to that mentioned in 3:15, is more fully identified as “the day of the LORD” (4:5, called elsewhere “that day”), a day of judgment (e.g., Zeph. 1:9, 10) but also of blessing (e.g., Joel 3:18; Amos 9:11; Mic. 4:6; Zeph. 3:11; Zech. 2:11), though in this case the former aspect dominates.
A characteristic of this day is indicated by the participle bōʿēr, functioning adjectivally to describe how it comes: “burning” (cf. Joel 1:19) “like a furnace” (NIV) or oven (NRSV; Ex. 8:3; Lev. 2:4). The connotation is not positive, such as with kitchen cooking, but negative, indicating heat such as that from a destructive blast furnace (Ps. 21:9; Isa. 9:17; 10:17). Those subject to the heat are the “evildoers” of Mal. 3:15. Israel condones these folk, but God condemns them, treating them as “chaff” or “stubble,” the remainders of grain husks and stalk after harvest (Ex. 5:12). Since grain cannot be harvested wet, the chaff is tinder dry and ignites easily.
Burning chaff is often a biblical metaphor for judgment (Isa. 5:24; 33:11; 47:14; Joel 2:5; Obad. 18), which God brings by having the coming day itself “set [the chaff of the wicked] on fire,” a verb used elsewhere in such a context (lhṭ; Deut. 32:22; Isa. 42:25; Ps. 97:3; 106:18; cf. Gen. 3:24; Ps. 104:4). God’s consuming, judgmental fire burning the chaff of Israel reverses Obadiah 18, where Israel is itself the fire burning Edom’s chaff in judgment against them, a similar judgment that God says he will bring in Malachi 1:2–4.
Usually a fire leaves something behind after it dies down, but God’s fiery judgment is so fierce that nothing remains. Continuing the vegetation metaphor, Israel is destroyed “root and branch,” a merism in which the two extremes stood for the entire object. This highlights the totality of the coming destruction, with its completeness made more evident through the burning even of the roots, which ordinarily do not succumb to a flash fire, being protected by the earth. New life can shoot up from a remaining root (Job 14:8–9; Isa. 11:1; 37:31). On that coming day, the people who asked for justice (Mal. 2:17) will see it, and it will befall them.
Judgment is not the final word for all of Judah, however (Mal. 4:2), only for the wicked. Others revere God’s name, as is done among the nations (1:14), with Levi (2:5), and with some of Israel (3:16). Such reverence is lacking among the Israelite wrongdoers (3:5), but since all such evildoers are to be destroyed, the remaining faithful are blessed. This blessing is explained in terms of a metaphor of a rising sun. The sun is ambiguous in its metaphorical use, sometimes indicating harmful, scorching heat (Ps. 121:6; Isa. 49:10; Jonah 4:8), which a first-time reader could see as continuing the theme of judgment of the last verse. There is a metaphorical reversal here, however, since this sun is associated with both “righteousness” and “healing.”
The “sun of righteousness” is a unique construct/genitive phrase, with the second noun modifying the first, though the nature of the modification is unclear (just as, in English, “of” linking two nouns has multiple possible connotations). The second noun could modify the first as an attributive adjective (“a righteous sun”), with the sun being characterized by righteousness. This has been understood as referring to God himself, a divine title with messianic overtones (cf. Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15). Many English translations allude to this by making the phrase definite, “the sun of righteousness” (KJV, which also capitalizes “Sun”; NASB, NIV, NRSV), even though the Hebrew is indefinite. It also seems to have been an interpretation from the time of Jesus, as shown by the words of Zechariah (Luke 1:76–79, in combination with Isa. 9:2).4 The same verb (zrḥ; “shine”) is also used of the appearing of God himself in all of his glory in a theophany (Deut. 33:2; Isa. 60:2). In ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia deities, including those represented by the sun, are at times depicted with wings.5
But “sun of righteousness” could also be an objective genitive, where the righteousness is produced or caused by the sun. The NJPS seems to take this view in translating as “a sun of victory,” though “victory” is not generally associated with this Hebrew term. Also the interpretation stumbles on suggesting that God brings about the righteousness, where the passage’s structure seems to contrast the wickedness done by some in Israel with the righteousness, covenant faithfulness of others among the people.
Whatever interpretation is adopted, the sun is a fitting evidence of a new day that dawns (cf. Mal. 1:11), a day of healing rather than of the oppression and deprivation that was there heretofore (3:5). Healing is needed from physical ailment or wounds (cf. 2 Chron. 21:18; Jer. 33:6) or apostasy (2 Chron. 36:16). It is contrasted to trouble, terror, disaster, and brokenness (Prov. 6:15; 13:17; 29:1; Jer. 8:15; 14:19) and compared to sweet honey, life, and true peace from God (Prov. 4:22; 16:24; Jer. 33:6). Rather than the fire of judgment, the balm of healing arrives by means of the “wings” of the sun of God, or, using an opposite metaphor, providing the protective shadow of God’s wings (cf. Ps. 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 63:7).
The metaphor changes from birds to calves that are penned up and getting fat (1 Sam. 28:24; Jer. 46:21; Amos 6:4; cf. the promised blessings of Mal. 3:10). When released from captivity, Israel from her sinful fellows and calves from their pen, they gambol around in exuberance (Jer. 50:11).
God acts in bringing the day and its judgment, but Judah has a part in it as well (Mal. 4:3). The verb describing their action (ʿss) only occurs here in the Old Testament, but apparently meant “to crush, pummel” (cf. “newly trodden wine” from the same root; Joel 1:5; 3:18; Amos 9:13). The righteous of Judah will trample the wicked underfoot like so much dust, the residue of a fierce destruction (Ezek. 28:18). The metaphor may also indicate the complete subjugation of the wicked by the faithful (Deut. 11:24). Those repeatedly defying and challenging God will be put in their place by those faithful to him and loved by him (Mal. 1:2).
The hearers can be sure that this message is true because of its originator, Yahweh himself (“says the LORD Almighty”). He is also the One identified at the beginning of the description of this day (Mal. 4:1), so that this little subsection opens and closes on the same note.
A Closing Covenant Reminder (4:4–6 [3:22–24])
THE PROPHECY CLOSES with two further addresses to “you,” in the context of the book’s being for those who fear God (4:2). Many commentators see these as two secondary additions. They change form from the previous sections, since they are not disputations but rather a command (4:4) and a prophetic curse along with identifying the messenger of 3:1 (4:5–6). It should be noted that the LXX reverses the order of verses 4 and 5–6, possibly indicating that they were added at two different times, or else as a matter of sensitivity, not wanting to end a book (whether Malachi, the book of the Twelve, or the entire prophetic corpus)6 on a negative note.
In 4:4, the audience is commanded, using an imperative form, to “remember” and act upon the Mosaic law, just as God himself remembers his covenant with Israel and acts according to it, saving Israel from Egyptian captivity (cf. Ex. 2:24; 6:5). In the biblical notion of remembering, cognition is not sufficient; it also requires faithful obedience. It is directed here to an unidentified “you,” most likely—at least in the present, canonical shape of the book—the righteous of the previous verse.
The object of their obedience is identified by three nouns: law, decree, and judgment. “Law” (tôrâ) is the true path (Mal. 2:6) that the priests should follow (2:7), but instead the wayward priests have perverted it to the destruction of others (2:8–9). These laws must again be remembered and kept. The law is associated with “Moses” (cf. Josh. 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 23:25; 2 Chron. 23:18; Ezra 3:2; 7:6; Neh. 8:1), described as God’s “servant.” Mosaic law and servanthood are joined together in several other passages (Josh. 8:31–32; Dan. 9:11, cf. v. 13). Note especially Joshua 1:13, where Israel is commanded to “remember the command that Moses the servant of the LORD gave you,” a command associated with rest and land, the same thing that is threatened if covenant obedience is not delivered (Mal. 4:6). This law was given on Mount “Horeb,” an alternative name for Mount Sinai (Ex. 33:6; Deut. 1:19), and it is directed to “all” Israelites, who have the option of being righteous if they just remember the laws.
The other terms for the law, “decrees” (ḥoq) and “judgments” (mišpaṭ; NIV “laws”), occur regularly together, especially in Deuteronomy (e.g., Deut. 4:5, 8, 14; 5:1; 6:1; 7:11). Judah, already condemned for not complying with God’s decrees (Mal. 3:7) and for denying judgment to God (2:17; cf. 3:5), is now reminded of their validity and necessity.
This book closes with a two-verse promise of events soon to take place. The opening particle hinnēh (“see”; cf. comments on 4:1), especially when accompanied by a participle, as here, indicates immediacy—something that has just (e.g., Gen. 37:9; Josh. 2:2; 1 Kings 3:21) or soon would (Mal. 2:3) happen. In Malachi, the majority of uses of this particle are in conjunction with the imminent coming of the Day (3:1[2x]; 4:1), which holds in this verse as well. Before that Day arrives, however, another event deriving from God himself will precede it. He is about to send a messenger (cf. 3:1) to Judah (“you”) in the person of Elijah. The most frequent use in this book of the preposition + pronoun suffix combination “to you” are in contexts of blessing befalling faithful Judah (3:10[2x], 11[3x]; 4:2). This may indicate that the messenger has potential for good here as well.
Elijah’s name occurs in two forms in the Old Testament, a shorter form such as occurs here (ʾēliyyâ; 2 Kings 1:3, 4, 8, 12), and a longer form (ʾēliyyāhû; over eighty times between 1 Kings 17 and 2 Kings 10). Elijah was the prophet who successfully stood against the growing influence of Baal worship in Israel and now stands against another form of burgeoning apostasy, neglect of the law. His mysterious disappearance, with no mention of his death (2 Kings 2:11–12), leaves open the possibility of his reappearing and continuing his prophetic ministry.
In Malachi, this ministry becomes associated eschatologically with the coming Day of Yahweh (cf. 3:1–2), which can be either a day of salvation or judgment (see “Bridging Contexts” section). Here both elements are at least potential. This day is described as “great and dreadful.” God’s arrival on that day is a momentous event (“great”) and awesome, inspiring dread. These two words occur together in several passages describing the vast and terrifying expanse of the desert facing the newly freed Israelites (Deut. 1:19), as well as the eschatological Day of the Lord with its cataclysmic natural phenomena (Joel 2:30–31, see comments), and even the nature of the God behind this day (Dan. 9:4; Neh. 4:14). The nature of the Day is ambiguous, based on this description; it can bring either weal or woe.
Verse 5 has strong linguistic parallels with Joel 2:31. There the coming day is preceded by the sun and moon turning to darkness and blood, respectively, just as Elijah precedes it here, and it also has the potential of either blessing for those who call on (remember) God, or hardship for those who do not.
Elijah’s ministry will be one of restoration and repentance (šûb in Hiphil, “cause to return”; cf. Mal. 2:6), something God desires (3:7, 18; cf. Deut. 4:30; 30:2–3; Hos. 14:1–2; Lam. 3:40). “Heart” (cf. Mal. 2:2) is not used elsewhere as the object of this verb. The heart is the seat of the emotions, desires, and resolve, much like the combination in today’s metaphorical language of the heart and mind. The restoration will be mutual (lit., fathers to sons and sons to fathers), though neither term is used here with gender exclusivity (cf. 2:10; 3:17, where God is metaphorically father to Israel, consisting of males and females designated as “sons”). The term “fathers” can also be the Judean ancestors, the forefathers who earlier entered into covenant with God (cf. Zech. 1:2–4), so this may be yet another form of the exhortation to obedience (Mal. 4:4). The result is a complete contrast to Ezekiel’s vision of cannibalism as part of the punishment necessitated by apostasy, fathers and sons eating each other (Ezek. 5:10).
If there is no restoration (“or else, lest,” indicating a contingency), a curse results. Repentance is urged for fear that, if it does not occur, dire consequences will follow. The ominous event is expressed with two verbs. The first (“I will come”) indicates that the coming Day of the Lord (cf. Mal. 4:1) is in fact a theophany, with God himself making an appearance. While the concept of God’s coming is neutral, since it can be for either blessing (Deut. 33:2–5; Hos. 6:3; Hab. 3:3) or punishment (Isa. 3:14; 13:5; 19:1), here it is negative, as indicated by the second verb, “to strike.”
If God does come, he will strike the land, a verb used elsewhere of God’s striking Egypt through the plagues (Ex. 3:20; cf. 12:12; Jer. 21:6, where Israel also suffers plague) and punishing Israel for her sins (Lev. 26:24; cf. Amos 3:15). It is also one of the punishments for breach of covenant (Deut. 28:22), which is appropriate here, a fulfillment of the punishment if the covenant is abandoned. Here God’s punishment falls on “the land,” the territory (cf. Gen. 15:18–21) of his covenant people, Judah, who are being called to respond to their covenant obligations. The word “land” can also have a broader meaning, the entire earth (cf. Gen. 1:1). The potential danger of the eschatological coming of the Lord and his Day can thus be cosmic, as it is in other prophetic contexts (e.g., Isa. 24:1–13; Joel 2:30–31; Obad. 15).
The nature of the judgment and the means by which God strikes is “with a curse” (ḥērem), elsewhere used of things banned for anything other than divine use, things that are completely destroyed (e.g., Deut. 7:26; Josh. 6:17; 7:12; 22:20). Even Israel and Judah are subject to such destruction because of their forefathers’ sins (Isa. 43:27–28). Wishing this fate on someone is a high form of curse (e.g., Josh. 7; Job 31:30; 2 Kings 2:24; Matt. 25:41), that they be totally and permanently destroyed.
Bridging Contexts
DAY OF THE LORD. The motif closing Malachi is a rich motif in other prophets as well. The Day of the Lord is like a coin, having two faces, one positive and the other negative (see also comments in the introduction to Joel). This is seen in Amos, the first to mention the topic:
Woe to you who long
for the day of the LORD!
Why do you long for the day of the LORD?
That day will be darkness, not light. (Amos 5:18)
Based on this verse, the popular Israelite view was of a day of light and blessing, one benefiting them as God’s chosen people. Yahweh paints a different picture, however, one of darkness and judgment. From Amos’s immediate context, the cause of misunderstanding this Day becomes clear. The prophet continues:
I hate, I despise your religious feasts;
I cannot stand your assemblies.
Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.
Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps. (Amos 5:21–23)
These rituals, established initially by God,7 take the place of a true relationship with God, which is not to be marked by outward ritual observance but by ethical actions toward one’s fellow Israelites. Amos’s following positive command shows this: “But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!” (Amos 5:24). God says that a true Israelite is a covenant keeper, involving sociopolitical action as well as ritual action.
Without a correct horizontal relationship with one’s fellow humans, a vertical relationship with God is impossible. If one does not embody the covenant obligations, one is not a member of God’s people, even if one can say, “I am a child of Abraham.” A family tree does not make someone an Israelite; rather, it is a faithful heart. It is not the Israelite’s view of the Day of the Lord that is wrong; it is in fact very correct. The Day is blessing to the true members of God’s people, and judgment for those who are not. Israel’s misunderstanding concerns what constitutes a true member of God’s people.
Unfortunately for Israel, the Day is most often described as a day of judgment (e.g., Ezek. 13:5; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31; Zeph. 1:7–18; Zech. 14:1) rather than one of blessing (e.g., Isa. 11:11; Joel 3:18; Zech. 14:6–11). The same judgment holds for other nations as well, who will experience God and his Day in the same way (e.g., Babylon, Isa. 13:6; Egypt and her African neighbors, Ezek. 30; the entire world, Isa. 13:9; Joel 3:14; Obad. 15; Acts 2:20; 2 Peter 3:10).
In the New Testament, both positive and negative elements continue, and the Lord of the Day becomes associated with Jesus. For example, 1 Corinthians 5:5 describes the destruction of the sinful nature (that which is not fit for God’s kingdom), but the salvation of the spirit (that which is fit for the covenant community) “on the day of the Lord.” Paul develops the idea of the Day as a positive time (e.g., 2 Cor. 1:14), though it still has judgment elements for those outside the covenant kingdom (e.g., 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:1–12, where the Day is associated with Jesus [2:1], and destruction is of the lawless [2:7], those outside the covenant community).
Malachi picks up two elements of the Judgment Day from previous texts. (1) It is coming, and quickly (e.g., Isa. 13:6, 9; Ezek. 30:3; Joel 1:16; 2:1; Obad. 15; Zeph. 1:7, 14). (2) At least part of the judgment comes in the form of fire (e.g., Ezek. 30:14, 16; Joel 1:19–20; 2:3, 30; Obad. 18; Zeph. 1:18). Fire also has two sides: It is destructive (e.g., Deut. 32:22; Ps. 21:9; 50:3; Mal. 4:1), but also refines and purifies (e.g., Jer. 6:29; Ezek. 24:11–12; Zech. 13:9; Mal. 3:2; 1 Cor. 3:13; 1 Peter 1:7; Rev. 3:18). The impact of the Day is thus relative in both Testaments: It brings good to God’s own, but ill to his enemies, no matter their ethnic background. Theology (and more specifically ethics, how one lives), not genealogy, determines how one will experience the Day.
The prophecies, covering several centuries, show the importance of the Day of the Lord for God’s people. It has several different manifestations, not all referring to a single, cataclysmic Day. It drew the hearers’ attention to judgment against Judah through an actual plague of locusts (Joel), against Edom (Obadiah), or against Judah through the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. (Amos). It also points ahead to an eschatological Day, when the world will be affected in a mighty way (Isa. 13; Zech. 14; Matt. 24; Mark 13; Rom. 2:5–10; 2 Peter 3). It can well be envisioned like the Allies’ attacks on mainland Europe during World War II. While there were smaller raids on various parts of the continent during the course of the war, it was June 6, 1944, which was D-Day. So there are numerous judgments of God on his people and the nations, but there will also be a final D-Day of the Lord, in which he will reestablish his rule over the earth through judgment, but followed by blessing.8
Elijah. Moses is the figure most associated with the Old Testament law (Mal. 4:4), while Elijah is a key figure in the growth of Israelite prophecy and other elements of the history of Israel. He prophesied during the troubled times of Ahab (mid-ninth century B.C.). Because of his marriage to Jezebel, Ahab allowed Canaanite worship, especially that of Baal, to gain a strong footing in the land (1 Kings 16:30–33). Most of Elijah’s recorded ministry involved standing against this departure from Israel’s covenant with God (cf. Ex. 20:3).9 Even though only from a small town in Transjordan and not even owning his own land (1 Kings 17:1), he is, through his faithfulness, given recognition as a “man of God” (17:18, 24) and a “prophet” (18:22, 36). Because of his courageous stand, even in the face of death (19:2), he stemmed the tide of encroaching paganism, protecting Israelite religion and culture in much the same way Greek culture was preserved from domination by the Persians through the stand the Greeks made in the Battle of Marathon (490 B.C.).
Beside his heroism, Elijah is also a tantalizing figure because, according to the biblical record, he did not die. He was instead carried up into heaven in a whirlwind, which his successor, Elisha, saw as the very chariots of Yahweh himself (2 Kings 2:11–12). Since he did not die in a way similar to most human experience, tradition arose about his possible bodily return. These two elements—his possible return and his heroic stand for God at a crucial time in Israel’s history—led to his mention by Malachi.
Both elements are also picked up in the New Testament. When Jesus asks what the people might be saying about his own identity, Peter states that some take him to be the returned Elijah (Matt. 16:14; Mark 6:15; 8:28). Jesus himself earlier said that this role is rather played by John the Baptist (Matt. 11:14), since he also played a key role in Israel’s history, being the one who heralded the arrival of the kingdom of God through the appearance of God the Son (11:12). John too, according to the prophecy revealed to his father, Zechariah, was the one to bring Malachi’s prophecy to completion by restoring family relationships (Luke 1:17; cf. Mal. 4:6). Zechariah also mentioned a second role, to return “the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” This is apparently what is implied, though not stated with the same terminology, in Malachi 4:4, where the hearers are commanded to remember, and act upon, the Mosaic law.
On the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1–13; Mark 9:2–13), Elijah physically appeared beside Jesus, along with Moses. Moses represents the covenantal law and Elijah the prophets, those charged to call the people and their rulers back to covenant faithfulness. These figures, concluding both the prophetic word in the Old Testament and the Protestant canon, direct the readers’ attention to the canon in its entirety, the Law and the Prophets. Their eschatological position in relation to God is determined by a return to the historical relationship on which Israel as a nation was established and to which she had been repeatedly called back.
Contemporary Significance
BASIS FOR MORALITY. Malachi draws a contrast between those whose actions align themselves with the will of God (those who fear him, Mal. 3:16) and others, including the priests and Levites, whose actions do not (1:6–3:15). Using terms already noted, Malachi notes that there are those for whom the coming Day will be a blessing and those for whom it will be a time of pain. What is the difference between these two groups—or perhaps bringing the discussion closer to home, what makes the difference in whether we choose between doing right or wrong? This is an important question because it asks how our ethics (i.e., what we do) relates to our theology (i.e., what we believe). We must ask this because we do not face the same situations as those facing Malachi’s generation, but we still face decisions regarding aligning faith and practice today.
Jesus saw the all-too-common disconnect between the theology and ethics when he asked: “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’[a theological statement] and do not do what I say [an ethical practice]?” (Luke 6:46). Knowledge is not sufficient, and Jesus commanded that knowledge and correct response to that knowledge be wedded when he said, as part of the Great Commission, to teach people to obey everything he commanded (Matt. 28:20). James also said that a strictly theological religion, no matter how correct that theology is, is insufficient in itself; it must be enfleshed (“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress,” James 1:27).
One aspect of decision making is not the topic of discussion here, namely, what is commonly called “guidance,” seeking a pathway through life looking to the long-term horizon (itself an important topic in its own right).10 The interest here is rather on individual choices made when facing everyday options, looking to the next step rather than the journey’s end.
Classically, there have been two approaches to making such ethical decisions, identified by the technical terms deontology and teleology. Deontology describes a decision-making process based on following certain rules. It is externally motivated by duty, for example of a child toward the parent. It has the advantage of knowing exactly what one is expected to do since it is extremely task-oriented. Teleology looks to the goals, asking what the desired outcome is so one may base decisions on what best leads to that outcome. It has the advantage of knowing where one is headed, which is not the case for a deontological approach.
Both of these approaches have their faults, however. One is that there is no complete list of rules; one can never be completely certain of the duty in any given situation. One’s parents will not always be around. Moreover, Paul states that the rules themselves, the law, can actually inspire sin by pushing rebellion against those rules (Rom. 5:20; 7:7–8). He also indicates that this kind of rule-book decision-making is simply supervisory until we outgrow it (Gal. 3:24–25). The Levites condemned by Malachi illustrate another problem with decisions completely made according to rules. They see how close they can come to fulfilling the letter of the law without crossing over the line either to disobedience or to full-fledged commitment. They take a minimalist approach to obedience: What’s the least I can get away with? They bring sacrifice, but try to do so at the least cost to themselves (Mal. 1:12–14).
A goal-directed ethic, by contrast, has a problem in that some goals are not attainable and so can lead to despair. More troubling is an attitude that says that the goal justifies the means. The focus can often not be on the people involved but simply on the task to be accomplished.
A third, more biblical approach to ethical decision-making concerns character or virtue. It flows from who we are as human beings, including our upbringing, our traditions, and the values we have inculcated. Goals are also an important part of how we decide since they are part of who we are, but they do not completely make up our character. The New Testament describes the inner motivation as deriving from the Holy Spirit (Rom. 7:6; 8:4) who transforms the fallen human nature that is the directing force before conversion (7:4–6), giving us a new ability to make right decisions as part of our very being (2:15) since we are a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). Paul in so many words advocates this character ethics as against duty ethics in Galatians 6:15: “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision [the rules] means anything; what counts is a new creation [a new character].” Ethical decision-making thus becomes part of our spiritual DNA.11
This relates to the issue of integrity, where the question is often framed as: What do you do when you are alone? In such a case, there is no one to enforce any external rules or to know whether an action leads to any desired goal. All that compels an action is the content of one’s character.12 In the view of Malachi, those who fear the Lord are those whose character is shaped through walking with him and whose very thoughts are of him (Mal. 3:16). The priests and Levites, however, ask, “What’s in it for me; how can I maximize my own gain?”
Unfortunately, these distinctions are still evident within the church. We are all aware of pastors who are more concerned with the number of people in the pews than they are for the amount of Christlikeness that is in the hearts, including their own. Our eye is too often on statistics rather than sanctification, duty rather than discipleship, and, unfortunately, words (including our own name) on a page rather than the Word in a heart. Do our actions put us, as either individuals or as a church, on the wrong side of the anticipated Day of the Lord?
Remembering. Malachi charged his hearers to remember the laws of God (Mal. 4:4). The church is also being commanded to remember. When instituting communion or the Eucharist, Jesus indicates that the bread symbolizes his body and the wine his blood. He said, “Do this in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24–25). This is not just to be a cerebral enterprise, reminiscing about old times, but a commitment to action (“Do this”).
What does this command refer to? How did the disciples understand these words? The Jews were well versed not only in Scripture but also in their national history, so when they heard Jesus using the words, “This is the cup of the new covenant in my blood” (1 Cor. 11:25), they would have picked up on the intended reference. The “new” covenant presupposes an “old” one, which is described in Exodus 24, the story of Israel ratifying the Mosaic covenant. As part of the ceremony, Moses read the law he had just received from God on Mount Sinai, and the people agreed to it: “We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey” (Ex. 24:7). Then Moses sprinkled sacrificial blood on all of the people, describing it to them: “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you.” Entering into an agreement to obey was their covenant with God, an occasion marked by eating and drinking by the leaders (24:11), a covenant meal celebrating the successful completion of an agreement.
Jews today remember not only the covenant blessings of God but also Elijah in their celebration of Passover. This spring festival (Ex. 12; Num. 28:16–25) is a reminder of God’s liberation of their ancestors from slavery in Egypt at the start of their journey to Sinai, the place where they became God’s covenant people. At the table during the Passover meal a place remains empty, and the door is opened to welcome an awaited guest. They look for Elijah, anticipating him as the harbinger of the Messiah (Mal. 4:5).
Christian communion is also a covenant meal, linked chronologically and theologically to the Passover (Luke 22:7–13). The meal is a reminder of the great sacrificial work of Christ on the cross and also that, in eating, we make a covenant commitment to God, sacrificially offering ourselves (Rom. 12:1) in obedience to his expressed wishes, promising to fulfill our own work. We join Israel in saying, “We will do everything the LORD has said.” Remembering without responding is actually forgetting.
Remembering also has eschatological ramifications. It directs us first of all to the initial, close relationship between God and humanity as established in creation (Gen. 1–2) and the subsequent separation between God and humanity because of rebellion and disobedience (Gen. 3). The rest of Scripture is a reminder of how God made provision to restore the original relationship, first through the superintendence of the law of Moses (e.g., Gal. 3:25) and then through the fulfilling of that law by Jesus Christ (Matt. 5:17), the Messiah of whom John the Baptist, fulfilling Elijah’s role (Matt. 11:14), was the herald.13
This directs one’s attention to the coming Day when creation will be restored (Rom. 8:19–23), with humanity restored to a new heaven and earth (Rev. 21:1–8), a new and eschatological Eden when human-divine relationship will be restored not by human effort but by divine sacrifice. Marred human relationships will also be restored, with family harmony (Mal. 4:6) replacing fratricide (Gen. 4:8).