Elijah, John and Malachi

Mike asked a question about "Elijah" and "John" and Malachi's oracles . . .

FIRST, the Old Testament is RARELY “predictive.” By this, I mean . . . A “prediction” is basically “pre-written history,” so you can see 1 Kings 13:1,2, where Josiah (explicitly, by name) is predicted some 200 years in advance, or see Isaiah 44:28; 45:1 where Cyrus the Great (explicitly, by name) is predicted around 150 years in advance. (Among the prophets, Daniel is EXCEPTIONAL! His text is radically predictive; his book is filled with dates and names about the future. BUT, most of the prophets are NOT predictive in this specific/explicit manner (as opposed to what most preachers would say). Most preachers haven’t thought through these issues, so we’re used to hearing/reading the Old Testament texts treated PREDICTIVELY.

SECOND, I’d suggest a more common alternative. I think that PROTOTYPE (or something of the sort) is a more favorable suggestion for the normal/common/popular way that the prophets speak. So, instead of predicting “JOHN THE BAPTIST” – which God certainly could have done (as listed in the cases of Josiah or Cyrus)! – Malachi opts for the title “Elijah.” Or, he uses a MODEL (a prototype, an analogy) so that he can make his point by relating it to something with which they were familiar. In this case of Malachi, “Elijah” (the term/title) is a familiar character, so he’s drawing out similarities . . . This still raises questions . . .

First, how does Malachi intend “Elijah” as a title? This is a REALLY DICEY point. The Jews’ “eschatology” (end-time expectation) DIFFERS from our Christian “eschatology” (end-time expectation). For instance, the Old Testament knows nothing of a “second coming” of the Messiah (still not yet identified as Jesus of Nazareth); they ONLY know of a “first coming” of the Messiah, which they expected to be the ONLY coming of the Messiah, which would involve their defeat of the heathen nations, the building of a final, great temple and kingdom, the reuniting of the empire (which had become divided after Solomon), etc., etc. . . . Bodily resurrection, second coming of Jesus Christ, end of the planet, final judgment are all CHRISTIAN “eschatological” (end-time concepts), taught in the New Testament . . . So, how does all of this relate to Malachi’s term, “Elijah”?!

The Old Testament Jews made a distinction between Jesus/Messiah and God/Yahweh. So, they didn’t put together that the Messiah was to be God in the flesh. Malachi 3:1 presents two messengers; the first “messenger” is presented as clearing the way before “me” (GOD), but the second “messenger (of the covenant)” is God. BUT, compare Malachi 3:1 with Malachi 4:5; the linguistic structure begins identically . . . “Behold, I am going to send . . .” BUT, 3:1 ends with “My messenger” and 4:5 ends with “Elijah the prophet.” It seems sound to conclude that the first “messenger” of 3:1 is the same figure of 4:5 termed “Elijah.”

Now, you’ll have to put yourself into the shoes of an Old Testament Jew for a brief moment . . . Imagine that you’re a Jew, living before the coming of Jesus of Nazareth . . . How would you read Malachi 3:1 and Malachi 4:5? AS AN OLD TESTAMENT JEW, I think that the first “messenger” in 3:1 and “Elijah” in 4:5 would be understood as references to the Messiah. (Again, it is critical to realize that the Old Testament Jews DISTINGUISHED the Messiah figure – yet to be identified – from Jehovah God in the flesh. They looked at the “Messiah” as just another Davidic king, a human character. Psalm 110 suggests that the Messiah was to be “God in the Flesh” in some way, but they didn’t know how to read that passage correctly, as Matthew 22:41-46 reflects; Jesus really pins them down with it.)

So, as an Old Testament Jew, the “messenger”/ “Elijah” would be a forerunner for Jehovah God. The Jews probably understood the “messenger” / “Elijah” to be the Messiah, a forerunner for Jehovah God (incorrectly drawing a distinction that wasn’t to be drawn).

NOW, CATCH THIS!!! . . . When Jesus calls John the Baptist “Elijah,” how would that grab an Old Testament Jew? Better yet . . . When Jesus said that John the Baptist was “Elijah,” the messenger (Mal. 3:1; 4:5), HIS (JESUS’) FORERUNNER what was He then saying about Himself?! See Mark 1:1-4 (where he blends Malachi with Isaiah 40:3) and Luke 1:13-17! Both texts make it clear that the New Testament treated John as the “Elijah” . . . BUT, the Jews would have been expecting the Messiah (not yet identified for them as Jesus, specifically) to be the “forerunner.” So, again, when Jesus said that John was HIS forerunner and said that he (John) was Elijah, what was Jesus implying?! HE WAS CLAIMING TO BE THE SECOND MESSENGER OF MALACHI 3:1! HE WAS CLAIMING TO BE JEHOVAH IN THE FLESH! This is a creative and complex way of Jesus’ claiming to be “God in the flesh.” Or, another way, Jesus is saying that He IS Israel’s God (Jehovah). This was too much for the Jews, but the New Testament truly does this in hundreds of cases. The New Testament often takes passages from the Old Testament about Jehovah God and rereads/rewrites them, plugging Jesus of Nazareth into the text where Jehovah God had been. This is what is called a CHRISTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT; it is one of the many ways that the New Testament says that Jesus (the human) was God in the flesh. (The Malachi texts simply happen to be one of the more complex instances of this.)

Second, why “Elijah” as a title? Again, I think we need to realize that Malachi is searching for a good MODEL or PROTOTYPE to use as an analogy, with which his audience can be familiar. So, for Malachi, there are several similarities . . . Elijah addressed all Israel in his ministry (1 Kings 18:20); Malachi does the same. The people of Elijah’s day were severely fragmented by indecision of faith (1 Kings 18:21); this was true in Malachi’s day also. A “curse” had come upon Israel’s land in Elijah’s day (1 Kings. 18:1); Malachi uses the same threat against Israel in his own day (Mal. 4:6). Elijah challenged Israel to decide between two options, of God or Baal (1 Kings 18:20,21); Malachi frames the same decision (Mal. 3:18). Elijah was victorious by proper offerings and fire from heaven (1 Kings 18:38); Malachi uses the same terminology (Mal. 3:3; 4:1). And, finally, “Elijah” as a title (of one to “come again”) is appropriate to the Jews to ponder because he had not “died” but had been taken alive into heaven (2 Kings 2:1,11,12).

Here’s the point . . . I don’t think that “Elijah” was understood literally by the Old Testament Jews, but I think that they understood that “Elijah” was used by Malachi symbolically to make several points about the KIND of character that would come. I think that they thought this “Elijah” KIND OF CHARACTER was going to be the Jewish Messiah (yet to be identified for them) who would prepare the way for Jehovah God. (Now, maybe, SOME of the Old Testament Jews really expected a physical/personal reappearance of Elijah, the Old Testament prophet; see Matthew 16:14, but I don’t think that was a dominant idea – if it even was one! [Matthew 16:14 may mean that some associated Jesus of Nazareth with being “Elijah,” understanding the title symbolically, as just suggested above. Read Matthew 16:13-20 for the whole context.])

Third, two more passages to consider are John 1:19-27 and Matthew 17:8-13. The John text presents John the Baptist as saying explicitly that he is NOT Elijah; the Matthew text has Jesus saying that John IS Elijah. (It would APPEAR to be a blatant contradiction, but I think there’s more going on here . . . Saying that it’s a “contradiction” just doesn’t appreciate the complexity of the issue and the depth that is involved.)

IF ANYTHING THAT I’VE SUGGESTED ABOVE IS CORRECT, John CANNOT (in this particular instance) say that he IS “Elijah” since the Jews would then have concluded (INCORRECTLY) that he (John) was the MESSIAH! This would have been a result of their incorrect reading of Malachi 3:1 and 4:5, where they INCORRECTLY think that the first messenger (3:1) and “Elijah” (4:5) was the Messiah. If John had admitted that he WAS Elijah, the audience – who is demanding some kind of identification out of John – would have incorrectly focused on him as Messiah, rather than Jesus. SO, John denies being “Christ” / “Messiah (John 1:20), denies being “Elijah” (John 1:21), denies being “the prophet” (of Deut. 18:15-18; John 1:21) . . . AND, as John 1:22 shows them demanding John’s identity from the Old Testament, John simply settles on being “the voice of one crying in the wilderness, making straight the way of the Lord” (as taken from Isaiah 40:3 [also, see Mark 1:1-4]). This is John’s vague way of keeping the FOCUS on Jesus of Nazareth, who – unbeknownst to the Old Testament Jews – was the MESSIAH, the PROPHET, the SUFFERING SERVANT, the SON OF MAN, etc., etc. The Jews thought that all of these “OFFICES” were to be different individuals; they did NOT know that Jesus of Nazareth would fulfill all of the roles.

In Matthew 17:8-13, the text is clearly presented to the disciples. The context is just after the transfiguration. And, Matthew 17:9,10 makes it clear that He is speaking to the disciples. I’m assuming that Jesus is trusting that they should know that He is the Messiah AND God in the flesh, so he can tell them that John was “Elijah” . . . So, he and John are not “contradicting” each other . . . Jesus can tell the disciples that John is “Elijah” because they 1) should know that Jesus is Messiah and 2) know that Jesus is also God in the flesh. The group in John 1:19-27 does NOT “get” that, so John’s identifying himself as “Elijah” would be very problematic. Jesus’ disciples, I think, have the proper understanding of Malachi’s text; the inquirers of John 1 do not; Jesus’ disciples also have the proper understanding of Jesus’ identity; the inquirers of John 1 do not. THUS, Jesus can tell the disciples that John is Elijah (since they have the proper “frontloading” to hear such); John cannot tell the inquirers that he is Elijah (since they lack the proper foundation to hear such).