Introduction to Malachi

MALACHI IS THE last of the twelve Minor Prophets, closing the collection of the “Prophets” and, in the Protestant canon, the entire Old Testament. In the Jewish canon the books of the “Writings” follow it. Malachi is unique in the Old Testament because of its form—a dispute or diatribe between God and those of his people who have become apathetic or even antagonistic to him. He dialogues with both people and priests, showing particular concern for their unfaithfulness. The prophecy closes with a look forward to the Day of the Lord, a time of judgment for those who misbehave.

Several elements of the book are most familiar to Christians. “I hate divorce” (Mal. 2:16a), God says, so many people and churches take this as an absolute statement holding for all time and in every situation. A lack of care in reading a statement like this in its context has led to women and children being sent back into abusive relationships, too often to their death. Malachi 3:10–12 is often quoted in the context of teaching concerning tithing and giving to God’s work, though not in a way that is based on the meaning in the context of this book. The last two verses of chapter 4 are also known through their allusion to Elijah coming to usher in the Day of the Lord (4:5–6). Jesus interprets this as anticipating the ministry of John the Baptist, his forerunner (Matt. 11:14; 17:12–13).

Malachi the Person

IN HEBREW, the name malʾākî is translated either as “my messenger/angel,” where the -î ending is the first person common singular suffix, or as “messenger/angel of Yahweh,” where the ending is an abbreviation for Yahweh.1 Since passages refer to a prophet as a “messenger of Yahweh” in the Old Testament (Hag. 1:13; cf. Mal 2:7, where the term refers to a priest),2 the name of this book could be a title rather than a proper name, though the latter interpretation appears more convincing. Whichever interpretation one adopts, there is a play on the name in 1:1 and the role of a messenger in 2:7 and 3:1.

The text provides no direct information concerning Malachi (the same also holds for Obadiah). From the book’s content, one can perceive that he is a steadfast follower of God, who is able to stand up against at least verbal opposition even from his own people (cf. Jer. 20:7).

Geographical Setting

THE TWO NAMED protagonists in the prophecies are Jacob and Esau. While referring to two historical brothers (Gen. 25:21–28), the names also designate two nations that descended from them: Israel (Gen. 32:28; Ex. 1:1) and Edom (Gen. 25:30; 36:1). Edom is the subject of numerous other prophecies of judgment, especially that of Obadiah (see introduction to Obadiah; cf. also Isa. 11:14; 63:1–6; Jer. 25:21; 49:7–22; Ezek. 25:12–14; Joel 3:19; Amos 1:6, 9, 11). It is located in the Transjordanian highlands southeast of the Dead Sea (cf. the mountains of Mal. 1:3).3

In the postexilic period, Jacob, or Israel, is limited geographically. From evidence available from the list of returnees from the Babylonian exile under the Persians (Ezra 2:1–34; Neh. 3:1–32; 7:6–38) as well as archaeological findings, the Persian district of Yehud/Judah was centered on Jerusalem (Mal. 2:11) and ranged only from just south of Ein Gedi on the Dead Sea to north of Jericho, and from the Jordan River to On, about ten miles inland from Joppa.4 Idumea bound it to the south and Samaria to the north. Although the northern nation of Israel was long exiled by this time, its name was used as a synonym of Judah (2:11).

The last geographical reference is Mount Horeb (4:4), an alternative name for Mount Sinai (Ex. 33:6; Sir. 48:7). Though the exact location of the mountain is debated,5 it is the place where Israel became a nation, since there they received their “constitution,” the law of Moses (Ex. 19–24), as well as various other instructions on how to live as a people under the authority of God (Ex. 25–Num. 10:10).

Chronological Setting

UNLIKE SEVERAL OLD TESTAMENT prophetic books (e.g., Isa. 1:1; 6:1; Jer. 1:2; Ezek. 1:1; Dan. 1:1; Hos. 1:1; Amos 1:1; Hag. 1:1), Malachi, like Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, and Habakkuk, does not begin with a time indicator. Any dating suggestions must arise from contextual and internal evidence. Regarding the former, Malachi’s location at the end of the prophets and immediately after the postexilic prophecies Haggai and Zechariah strongly suggests a postexilic date for this book.6

Internally, the first event that might be datable is the destruction of Edom (Mal. 1:3–4). This may refer to the campaigns of the Babylonian king Nabonidus in the several years following 552 B.C., when numerous cities were besieged and destroyed.7 The nation was not obliterated, however, and some sites were rebuilt and reinhabited. Another, less precisely datable suggestion is the time of the usurpation of territory by the Nabateans, who forced the Edomites to resettle in Judah during the later Persian period, which ends with the arrival of Alexander of Macedon in 333 B.C.8 The fact that the Edomites are presented as being hopeful of restoration (1:4) testifies against the latter events being the setting of the prophecy.

An operational altar and sacrificial system in a functioning temple in Jerusalem are evident (1:6–14; 2:13; 3:1; 4:10), requiring a date subsequent to the building of the Second Temple as recorded in Ezra (1; 3:2–3, 8–10). Cyrus, the king of Persia, allowed the Israelites to return and start the building project, but it stalled until reinstituted under Darius in 520 B.C., at the encouragement of Haggai and Zechariah and under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Joshua, the priest. It was finally completed in 516–515 B.C.

Several other historical, theological, and philological points have been brought to bear on the dating question. Malachi 1:8 mentions a peḥâ (“governor,” which some suggest is Nehemiah),9 a proposed Akkadian loanword (bēl pīḫāti).10 The term does refer to an official in other Old Testament texts, including a functionary from Assyria (2 Kings 18:24), and indicates a governor or delegated ruler during the Persian period (e.g., Ezra 8:36; Neh. 5:14; Jer. 51:28; Hag. 1:1). The term, even if borrowed, does not help chronologically, however, since it is used of functionaries from as early as the Old Babylonian period.11

Verhoef suggests that the excitement of renewed temple worship evident in Haggai and Zechariah has by the time of Malachi been replaced by rote uncaring (Mal. 1:6–14; 2:1–9; 3:6–12).12 While this may be the case, it is not necessary to prove a lengthy time lapse, since, for example, there is religious apathy among the priests and Levites at the same time that Hezekiah and the people were enthusiastic about restoring a vibrant Yahwism (2 Chron. 29–30). Since religious fervor on the part of some and spiritual aridity on the part of others in our congregations happens all the time, it should not serve as a criterion for establishing a date for Malachi, whose fellow worshipers are not much different from our own.

A number of the sins condemned in Malachi also concerned Ezra and Nehemiah, suggesting that they are contemporaries. These include:

The implications of these similarities have been interpreted differently, particularly regarding the relative dates of the events. Some suggest that Malachi preceded Ezra and Nehemiah, since the latter put a stop to the undesirable practices.13 Others suggest that Malachi is dated to the time of Nehemiah’s second visit to Jerusalem (Neh. 13:6–7), since it is at that period he addressed these issues.14 Unfortunately, dating by categories of sin is not very productive, since specific sins are also not restricted to certain times, and sin is not known to stay eradicated, even if preached against. This is clear throughout the prophets (and indeed throughout human history!), where the same breaches of covenant are condemned again and again by prophetic contemporaries and different prophetic generations.

Evidence is not sufficient to provide a definitive date for the prophecy. Its canonical position at the end of the corpus of prophets places it in the postexilic, Persian period, so Malachi could well be a contemporary of Nehemiah.

The Persians pursued a more enlightened policy toward their subject nations than did the preceding Assyrian and Babylonian empires, who took both Israel (722 B.C.) and Judah (586 B.C.) into exile. These two empires displaced major parts of captured populations, resettling them in various parts of their far-flung territories and importing others to take their place (e.g., 2 Kings 17:23–24; 25:7, 11–21). This hindered any possibility of developing an underground movement to throw off the Mesopotamian overlords, since the leaders of a nation found themselves far removed from any grassroots support from among their people from which they might develop a guerilla and resistance movement.

Persia, however, reversed this policy among the nations that they inherited when they conquered the Babylonian empire. It allowed subject people to return to their ancestral lands and reestablish their religious practices (e.g., 2 Chron. 36:22–23; Ezra 1:1–4). This the Judeans did, rebuilding the temple and the city walls and establishing their own province under Persian rule (Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther). It is within this context that Malachi prophesies.15 His audience has lost the enthusiasm of those who were first allowed to return to Judah with the task of rebuilding not only a temple but a nation (see the enthusiastic response from diverse areas within the society of the returnees to the call for help in rebuilding the city wall, Neh. 3).

Though not necessarily reflecting all of Judean society, the vocal group with which Malachi is in dialog is at best apathetic to the law of Moses and the practices expected of God’s people. Even the priests, those who led Israel in her religious and social practices, helped them discern between right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, and taught this to the people (cf. Lev. 10:10–11), were not practicing what they were supposed to preach. Malachi has to enter into debate with them and the people as a whole to even get them to see that what they are doing, or not doing, is irresponsible in light of the covenant with God that constituted them as a nation. They do not realize that their apathy is, in fact, unfaithfulness to that covenant and is placing its very continuation in jeopardy.

Literary Context

CANONICAL AND HISTORICAL context place Malachi closest to Haggai and Zechariah, both of which are also prophecies to a people recently returned from exile. There is a marked contrast between these books in terms of literary form and aim, however. Haggai is in the form of a narrative, tracing the ministry of the prophet as he exhorted and encouraged the disheartened people to action over the course of four months. The goal was to rebuild the ruined temple.

The first part of Zechariah shows much the same chronological framework and seeks the same goal, though in the form of vision reports. Zechariah 9–14 is different in form, language, and concern from the previous eight chapters and shows some similarity to Malachi in that it twice contains material identified as an “oracle” (maśśāʾ; 9:1; 12:1; cf. Mal. 1:1).16 The contents of these two books are dissimilar, however, for Zechariah sought to encourage a flagging people through announcing judgment on her enemies and the mighty presence of God working on their behalf. Malachi, by contrast, challenges an apathetic and antagonistic people through warnings of the mighty presence of God working punishment against them.

In sum, while sharing historical context with Haggai and Zechariah, Malachi presents a different literary character and content. It also has its own rich vocabulary, some of which it shares with Haggai and Zechariah,17 but some of which is unique within the Old Testament.18 Malachi is not an island, however, but does share terms and concepts with other prophecies. A major shared theme is the Day of the Lord, referring to both judgment and deliverance for Israel and the nations (3:1–4:6).19 Other terms and constructions are also shared, though this does not necessarily indicate literary dependence or, if there is such dependence, which way it went—that is, which book relies on which.20