OT119

Introduction

It is universally agreed that Malachi is to be dated within what is often referred to as the “postexilic” period of Israel’s history. It is perhaps better to think of this as the Persian or Second Temple period; “postexilic” seems to imply a universal exile of the community, whereas the great majority of the population remained in Palestine through the political turmoil of the sixth century BCE. By the time of Malachi’s writing, however, this turmoil had died down; the book refers to a “governor” (peḥâ 1:8) whose position seems to be taken for granted as that of the established ruler. Since the governor is not named, one cannot establish a more precise date—attempts to date Malachi by reference to the various reforms described in Ezra and Nehemiah (see b. Meg. 15a) have largely been abandoned because of uncertainties relating to those books. The earliest reference to “the Twelve” as a collection is found in a deuterocanonical book (Sir. 49:10), so by then it seems that Malachi was established as part of a larger collection. It is widely held that the fifth century BCE is the most likely date, but any time during the period of Persian rule—that is, from the sixth century down to the conquests of Alexander the Great (c. 330 BCE)—is possible.

The uncertainty with regard to a precise historical setting has been one of the causes of a different approach to Malachi (and other prophetic collections) in recent study. The twelve Minor Prophets have usually been treated entirely independently of each other, implying that the “eighth-century prophets” such as Amos or Hosea would have had no connection with much later works such as Malachi. Even when historical approaches were still the norm, links were noted between Malachi and what immediately precedes it: Zech. 9:1 and 12:1, as well as Mal. 1:1, are all introduced by the word maśśā’, usually translated “oracle,” though there was no suggestion of identical authorship. A number of recent studies have maintained that one should take more seriously the idea of a “Book of the Twelve,” noting links between the different components (see Nogalski 1993a; 1993b). On such a literary reading, Malachi is to be seen as the end point of a coherent literary collection rather than as an isolated unit. It is too early to say whether this approach will become more general; it should certainly be borne in mind as an alternative to more customary readings.

In any case, the fact that virtually all the collections of the twelve Minor Prophets place Malachi at the end has been important in traditional Christian interpretation. In Judaism, the Prophets are followed by the Writings, so that the overall structure is different. Protestant Christians, reading through their Bible, found Malachi immediately followed by the Gospel of Matthew, and it was natural to conclude that such passages as the hoped-for return of Elijah (4:5) were prefiguring the world of the New Testament.

It may be helpful to note that, whereas historical-critical scholarship has claimed to identify later additions to many prophetic collections, it is usually held that virtually the whole of Malachi is likely to come from one period. Malachi 4:4–6 to some extent stands apart as a kind of appendix, either to the book or to the Book of the Twelve as a whole, and there are a few breaks in the flow that will be noted below; otherwise, whereas some prophetic books can readily be divided into different “sense units,” that is scarcely possible here. One possible way of dividing the book is offered below, but the book exists more naturally as a whole.

THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT

Is “Malachi” a personal name (1:1)? Many have supposed that the word (which does not occur as a personal name elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible) is best understood as “my messenger” (as in 3:1) and only came to be understood as a personal name when these oracles were taken to be a distinct collection (see 2 Esd. 1:40). Certainty is impossible; what is clear is that there is no basis for developing a “personality” approach such as used to be popular with many prophetic figures. However that may be, it is noteworthy that the message is addressed to “Israel.” This is clearly no longer a reference to the northern kingdom of Israel and its inhabitants; Malachi is in the middle of the process that led to Israel being characteristically the name of a religious grouping. One feature of that process is brought out well in 1:2–5. Part of the language is appropriate for a political entity, with the reference to the futile rebuilding of ruins of Edom and “the borders of Israel” (1:4–5).

THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION

It is likely that a major concern for the modern audience is the assertion put into God’s mouth: “I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau” (1:2–3), a judgment whose difficulty is made even more acute by Paul’s use of this passage for an elaborate theological reflection (Rom. 9:13). Those without any personal religious commitment may be content simply to observe that strong nationalistic feelings can be attributed to gods as much as to humans; religious believers will be more reluctant to think in this way of the one whom they worship. It has been proposed that “hate” here can be understood as “love less” (Kaiser 1984, 27), but there are no clear grounds for understanding the Hebrew verb (śānā’, “hate”) in this sense. It may be relevant that the strong covenantal language found later in the book (Mal. 2:4–11) implies not only the election of Israel but also the implicit rejection of other communities. By contrast, in one popular introduction to Judaism, Malachi is cited for contending that “all nations have a share in God’s goodness” based on the theology of “God as the One Father, the Creator of all” (Levine, 49).

THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT

The prophetic charge of Israel’s dishonoring of God (1:6a) unveils aberrations in the practice of worship (1:7–9). Their heinous offense is compounded by the priests’ failure or refusal to recognize the wrong (1:6b–7) even as they sacrifice blemished animals (1:8). Although prophetic condemnations of the sacrificial cult are well known (e.g., Isa. 1:11; Amos 5:21–24), Mal. 1:6–10 differs from the others in that what is here condemned is the unacceptable quality of the offerings being made (see Lev. 1:3, 10). The prophet compares the unacceptable worship to the unlikely scenario of gifting the governor with a damaged good (Mal. 1:8), although there is no obvious parallel elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible to the presentation here of offerings to God and to the secular authorities being set out as matters of comparison. God demands penitence (1:9) and the cessation of the corrupt cult (1:10).

Malachi 1:11 seems to have been the subject of greater attention than any other in this prophetic book, and there is still no agreement as to how its implications are to be understood. What is clear is that a sweeping claim is being made as to the power and extent of the rule of YHWH of hosts. It may also be relevant to note the similarity between Ps. 50:1 and the beginning of Mal. 1:11. There, too, the universality of the rule of YHWH and its implications are set out; the claims of the Jerusalem cult and its priests to be the sole means of access to God’s favor cannot be upheld. One may note also that three times in the verse stress is laid on the “name” of God; increasingly in Jewish practice, any direct reference to God—or usage of the divine name itself—was avoided, and circumlocutions such as that found here became customary.

It is clear from Mal. 1:12 that a contrast with contemporary Jerusalem practice is intended. The remainder of the chapter continues the condemnation of the current worship being offered (1:12–14; see also 1:6–10). It is striking that both the quality of the offerings and the attitude of those making the offerings are strongly condemned. As noted above, whereas in other prophetic condemnations of the worship being offered it seems as if no form of sacrifice could be acceptable to God, here the implication is that better-quality offerings and a different mental attitude would be acceptable.

In 2:1–2, God gives a stern warning to the priests, who assumed an increasingly important and often contested role in the Judaism of the last centuries BCE. That there were divisions within the community as to the proper exercise of the priestly role is evident both from 2:1–9 and other writings of the period. The distinction between priests and Levites is not always clear in much of the Hebrew Bible. Although the reference to “the covenant with Levi” (2:4; “the covenant of Levi,” 2:8) has no obvious parallel elsewhere, this is one of a number of passages in Malachi that suggest links with the Deuteronomic tradition rather than with the Priestly code. It may well be, though it cannot be proved, that the idea of what should be called “Scripture” was becoming established, and part of Malachi’s concern was to draw out for the community of his own time the implications of earlier texts. This may also help to account for an unusual feature of the book—the prominence of the series of questions and answers, expressed as if the audience should know how to behave but are neglecting to apply that knowledge. In general, the themes tie in with the emphases of Deuteronomy, though it will be shown below that the view of divorce set out here is at odds with that found in Deut. 24:1–4.

THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

One widely held approach has been to interpret Mal. 1:11 in a Christian context and to see it as prefiguring the Catholic Mass; it was much used in the sixteenth century CE at the time of the Protestant Reformation in controversies relating to proper forms of worship. Much Old Testament (and here that expression is more appropriate than “Hebrew Bible”) material has been understood as relating to events from a completely different period. This may be acceptable if one’s approach is purely literary, although it is clearly far from historical-critical approaches.

Other interpretations of this verse may be more plausible if the aim is to discover a possible “original” intention. It could be understood as setting out a surely rather overstated view of what came to be known as the Diaspora; Jewish communities came to be established all round the Mediterranean world, though the evidence for this is later than any plausible date for Malachi. It is also worth bearing in mind that there are other texts which imply that pagan worship may be better than the state to which the Jerusalem temple had descended. Jonah’s view of the sailors and the people of Nineveh would be an obvious example (Rudolph 1975, 263).

THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT

After the rather generalized condemnations of Mal. 2:1–9, matters become much more explicit in 2:10–16. The reference to the “daughter of a foreign god” (2:11) has elicited a wide variety of interpretations. One possibility is that in some quarters YHWH was thought to have a female consort, but this would have been a quite unacceptable view for Malachi. There is some evidence from earlier times to suggest such an understanding of YHWH (see Meshel), but none from this period, and the more usual view among commentators has been that the reference is either to marriage with foreign wives or the (perhaps surreptitious) worship of foreign deities. Certainty is impossible, and the extremely cryptic form of 2:12 does not help. There are not many major problems with the Hebrew text of Malachi, but this verse presents one such. Two words in Hebrew (‘ēr and ‘ōneh) are translated by NRSV as “any to witness or answer,” and a glance at different translations will show how uncertain the meaning is (for example, “the master and the scholar” in the KJV based on the Vulgate).

The terms of the rejection of divorce in 2:16 as something that YHWH detests are somewhat unexpected. The prophet condemns divorce in that it “serves to veil something that is amiss” (Petersen, 205). As noted above, some of the concerns link Malachi with Deuteronomy; here it seems as if there is a sharp disagreement with Deut. 24:1–4. There it appears that the possibility of divorce is taken for granted and the procedure for carrying it out is laid down; here (whether the third person of the Hebrew text or the first person favored by many translations including the NRSV is followed) it seems clear that the very possibility of divorce is rejected.

THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

In ancient versions, Mal. 2:16 is mostly interpreted as a concession of divorce. The Septuagint translates, “If you hate, send away.” The Targum says, “If you hate her, divorce her.” The text in a Qumran scroll (4Q82) is close to the Targum. Jewish scholars have been much exercised about the appropriate understanding of 2:16, but have mostly concluded that it is important that the woman so rejected should receive compassionate treatment. On the Christian side, the great seventeenth-century poet John Milton claimed to follow other contemporary interpreters in reading “he who hates let him divorce” (11), and justified this on the grounds that it was better for the woman to be spared any hard-heartedness (or worse) that might occur if she were in unwilling servitude.

THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT

The paragraph divisions in the Masoretic text suggest that Mal. 2:17 should be read along with 3:1–12. The combined section of Mal. 2:17–3:12 is marked by the question-and-answer form typical of Malachi, that much of the people’s behavior remains unacceptable (2:17; see also 3:7–9). In English Bibles, Malachi 3 ends with a characteristic warning to the audience (3:13–18).

Whereas the last section of the book is divided into Malachi 3 and 4 in English Bibles, it is one chapter in the Hebrew, and thus forms the conclusion to the middle section of the Hebrew Bible, the něbî’îm, or Prophets. In English versions, this means that these chapters form the conclusion to the “Old Testament,” and this may partly explain that they played a significant part in biblical studies before historical criticism became more or less the only approved approach. It is now almost universally accepted that the book of Daniel only reached its present form in the second century BCE, but when Daniel was taken as a sixth-century creation, Malachi was accepted as the last product of Judaism before what used to be described as the “intertestamental period.”

“My messenger” in 3:1 translates “Malachi,” and as is shown above it is likely that it was only at a later stage that this was taken to be a proper name (see 2 Esd. 1:40). The identity of this messenger is not revealed until Mal. 4:5, which is perhaps an explanatory gloss on 3:1. The figure expected is no mere bringer of a message (3:2–4). The prophet’s words in 3:5 are typical of many prophetic condemnations of false practice, especially in religious matters. It may be that one can establish from 3:5 the particular problems affecting the community in Malachi’s time, but to do this may be too specific—each of the evils condemned here could have been found at many different times in the people’s history.

Following the affirmation of YHWH’s continuing relationship with “the children of Jacob” (3:6), two rather divergent lines are pursued in 3:7–10. Malachi uses language typical of the Deuteronomistic tradition to warn the people against long-established practices regarded as sinful; they are to “return” to the requirements of the statutes laid down from of old (3:7). The verb šûb, here translated “return,” is common throughout the prophetic collection (e.g., Isa. 1:27; Jer. 3:12; Hosea 6:1), and has been seen by some as supplying a connecting thread binding together the Book of the Twelve as a single coherent collection. It is much disputed whether it implies that at some point in the past the people really had been loyal and obedient, or whether a better translation would be “turn,” implying something of a new start. In any case, following the promise of blessing for those who offer tithes and offerings (LXX “tithes and firstfruits,” 3:8–10), the next verses have a rather different emphasis, expressing the hope of a universal affirmation of Israel in a way uncommon in the Old Testament prophetic speeches with their overwhelming message of doom (3:11–12).

In Mal. 3:13–15, the prophet returns to the more characteristic note of warning. The values espoused by at least some in the community are to be reversed. The idea of a book (or scroll) of remembrance in 3:16–18 is a new development as far as the Hebrew Bible is concerned, though it is not difficult to envisage how it emerged from such origins as the scroll found in Josiah’s time (2 Kings 22).

THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

Malachi 3:1 has been very important in Christian tradition. Each of the Synoptic Gospels uses this passage to bring out their understanding of the figure of Jesus; the messenger is John the Baptizer, seen here as a precursor of Jesus. Mark, usually taken to be the earliest of the Gospels, attributes the passage to Isaiah (Mark 1:2). Whether this is a simple error or it reflects the way in which “Isaiah” came to be regarded as the typical prophet cannot be decided here. In any case, the later Gospels strengthen the association with the prophetic tradition by attributing the citation to Jesus himself (Matt. 11:10; Luke 7:27).

The early Christian writers, except Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428) (415), were confident that in Mal. 3:2–4 the reference was to Jesus, but this vivid language was scarcely borne out by what was known of his earthly ministry. From an early stage, therefore, they came to be associated with an anticipated second coming of Jesus, and an understanding of this kind was common through much of Christian history, as is illustrated by the use of this passage in Handel’s oratorio Messiah, which combines Mal. 3:1–3 with Hag. 2:6–7. This type of usage tended to play down the implications of Mal. 3:4, with its suggestion that the devastation would be followed by a speedy restoration of divine favor.

In later times, such a theme as “a book of remembrance” found in 3:16–18 became prominent, in the Dead Sea scrolls and the New Testament (Rev. 3:5), and of course through much of both Jewish and Christian history (see Daniélou, 198). Another matter that came to be of major significance in many religious traditions has been the distinction between the loyal members of the community (“the righteous”—those who serve God) and the rest (“the wicked”—those who do not). One is not far here from the themes of heresy and schism, which have occupied religious believers down the ages.

THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION

Malachi 3:6 found an unexpected contemporary application when the cricket World Cup played in India in 2011, with vast crowds gathering in Mumbai. Many religions were of course represented, and apparently a large Christian church near the ground had a big neon sign using this verse proclaiming “I am the LORD; I change not” (Wisden Cricketers’ Almanack 2012, 791, has the reference; it is not clear whether the sign had any effect!). More conventionally, this stress on the unchangeability of the God worshiped by Jews and Christians has been used by apologists for those faiths, contrasting them with the fickleness of other forms of belief.

It is noteworthy that those condemned in 3:13–15 raise a question that has constantly arisen in philosophical and theological discussion to this day: Is there any point in following the words of a demanding God when those who are described as evildoers “not only prosper” but are also able to put God to the test with impunity? The claim is that it would be better to recognize that those who take matters into their own hands (“the arrogant”) are really the blessed ones.

THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT

The theme of a day of judgment characterized by the burning of the wicked (Mal. 4:1–3) may be a development of the “day of YHWH” referred to in Amos 5:18; Zeph. 1:14–17; and elsewhere. The final verses of the book (Mal. 4:4–6) are widely regarded as a kind of appendix, perhaps by the same author as the main part of the book, but more probably by a later editor. In any case, it functions as an appendix not just to the book of Malachi, but probably to the Twelve Minor Prophets as a whole, or even to the whole of the prophetic collection, which might include the “Former Prophets” (Joshua–2 Kings), as well as the material that has been customarily considered as “prophetic.” The likelihood of its being the whole collection as the appropriate unit has been strengthened by the literary approach to this collection mentioned several times above.

Whereas in Mal. 4:4 the hearers or readers had been instructed to cast their mind back to God’s past dealings with the people, in 4:5–6 the emphasis is clearly on the future. It becomes clear in 4:5 why there has been reference to the sending of Elijah, for this was a topic that became prominent later. It may be that he is singled out, not only because of the prominent role he played in the books of Kings, resisting the temptation of alien worship, but also because he is said not to have died but to have been “[taken] up to heaven by a whirlwind” (2 Kgs. 2:1), the obvious implication being that God had some further purpose in mind for him. One needs to bear in mind that to the best of the currently available knowledge there was no established belief in a future life for all at this period.

The final verse (4:6) is distinctly and surely deliberately ambiguous. Many modern translations, including the NRSV, have “children” here, in accordance with twenty-first-century expectations, but the Hebrew speaks of “sons”; in antiquity, the male members of the community were those who spelled out the demands of obedience to the torah. So the book, and the whole prophetic collection (covering from the Former Prophets of Joshua–2 Kings to the Latter Prophets of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets) ends with the threat of a drastic curse.

THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

The majority of Christian interpreters down the centuries have understood Mal. 4:1 as a reference to an anticipated time of final judgment. John Calvin took it to mean the first coming, and others regard it as the second coming (see Verhoef, 32). The KJV rendering of the end of 4:1 (“neither root nor branch”) has become a standard way of describing the totality of judgment. The seventeenth-century English Long Parliament used the phrase “root and branch” to describe their desire to abolish episcopacy completely, and the situation eventually escalated to civil war.

The fate of the wicked is again the theme of 4:3, but the intervening, much more optimistic, verse (4:2) has been the source of a good deal of later reflection. In particular, the Gospels give no indication of the time of year at which Jesus was born, but his birth has come to be celebrated on December 25, following the winter solstice, and seen as the rising of a new sun of righteousness. Milton took up the theme in his Ode on the Morning of Christ’s Nativity, and it is also found in the well-known Christmas hymn “Hark, the Herald Angels Sing,” with its reference to Christ as “the sun of righteousness.”

Malachi 4:5 offers the clearest reference within the Hebrew Bible itself to “the law of Moses.” This may be a reference to the whole of the Pentateuch, but the most direct links are with Deuteronomy. As in Deuteronomy, “Horeb” is the name given to the holy mountain, rather than the more familiar “Sinai,” and it was of course to Horeb that Elijah fled in 1 Kings 19 from the threat of revenge from Jezebel.

The New Testament Gospels clearly have in mind the expectation of a return of Elijah in Mal. 4:5–6; it is not clear whether the figure of the returning Elijah should be seen as John the Baptizer. Matthew 11:14 appears to accept this identification, and John 1:21 to deny it. In any case, it is noteworthy that in the account of what is usually termed the “transfiguration” of Jesus, Elijah is actually named before Moses (Mark 9:4). In Jewish tradition also, Elijah became important, with particular emphasis on his role in sustaining family life (m. ‘Ed. 8:7; Danby 1933, 436–37); it is still a widespread custom to lay an extra place for Elijah at the Passover-tide meal.

The book (and the whole prophetic collection) ends with the threat of a drastic curse. Already by the time of the Greek translation (LXX), this was found unacceptable, and it was indicated that 4:4 should be read again after 4:6, to mitigate this threat. Some Jewish Bibles repeat 4:5 again in small print after 4:6, so that the book may end in the note of hope.