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