Covenant Continuity and Fidelity: A Study of Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis in Malachi 9780567665164, 9780567665140, 9780567665157

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

625 Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial Board Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, James E. Harding, John Jarick, Carol Meyers, Carolyn J. Sharp, Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, James W. Watts

COVENANT CONTINUITY AND FIDELITY

A Study of Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis in Malachi

Jonathan Gibson

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Imprint previously known as T&T Clark 50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published 2016 © Jonathan Gibson, 2016 Jonathan Gibson has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data Names: Gibson, Jonathan, 1977- author. Title: Covenant continuity and fidelity : a study of inner-biblical allusion and exegesis in Malachi / by Jonathan Gibson. Description: New York : Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. | Series: The library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament studies ; 625 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016005649 (print) | LCCN 2016017034 (ebook) | ISBN 9780567665140 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9780567665157 (epdf) Subjects: LCSH: Covenants--Biblical teaching. | Bible. Malachi--Criticism, interpretation, etc. Classification: LCC BS1675.6.C6 G53 2016 (print) | LCC BS1675.6.C6 (ebook) | DDC 224/.9906--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016005649 ISBN:

HB: ePDF:

978-0-56766-514-0 978-0-56766-515-7

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Series: Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Series, volume 625 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com)

‫‪For‬‬ ‫‪Jacqueline Clare‬‬ ‫יִמ ָצא וְ ָרחֹק ִמ ְפּנִ ינִ ים ִמ ְכ ָרהּ׃‬ ‫ת־חיִ ל ִמי ְ‬ ‫ֵא ֶשׁ ַ‬ ‫ָבּ ַטח ָבּהּ ֵלב ַבּ ְע ָלהּ וְ ָשׁ ָלל לֹא יֶ ְח ָסר׃‬ ‫)‪(Prov. 31.10-11‬‬

C on t en t s

Acknowledgements xi Preface xiii Abbreviations xv Chapter 1 Introduction: The Core of Malachi’s Imagination 1.1. Covenant in Malachi 1.2. Previous Research on Covenant Themes in Malachi 1.3. Inner-Biblical Interpretation: The Core of Malachi’s Imagination 1.4. Previous Research on Inner-Biblical Connections in Malachi 1.5. Justification for the Present Study 1.6. Outline of the Present Study 1.7. Text of Malachi

9 10 15 22 23

Chapter 2 Methodology 2.1. Introduction 2.2. Literary Features 2.3. Structure 2.4. Historical Context 2.5. Inner-Biblical Interpretation

24 24 24 28 28 30

Chapter 3 ‘I have loved you’: Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis in Relation to the Patriarchal Covenant (Malachi 1.2-5) 3.1. Translation 3.2. Text-Critical Issues 3.3. Structure and Theme 3.4. The Patriarchal Covenant 3.5. Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis 3.6. Excursus: History of Edom 3.7. Conclusion

45 45 46 47 48 49 70 74

1 1 3

viii Contents

Chapter 4 ‘I will curse your blessings’: Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis in Relation to the Levitical Covenant (Malachi 1.6–2.9) 4.1. Translation 4.2. Text-Critical Issues 4.3. Structure and Theme 4.4. The Levitical Covenant 4.5. Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis 4.6. Conclusion

75 75 77 81 82 85 114

Chapter 5 ‘Did he not make them one?’: Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis in Relation to the Marriage Covenant (Malachi 2.10-16) 5.1. Translation 5.2. Text-Critical Issues 5.3. Structure and Theme 5.4. The Mosaic Covenant and the Marriage Covenant 5.5. Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis 5.6. Conclusion

116 116 117 121 122 125 154

Chapter 6 ‘Who can endure the day of his coming?’: Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis in Relation to the New Covenant (Malachi 2.17–3.6) 6.1. Translation 6.2. Text-Critical Issues 6.3. Structure and Theme 6.4. The New Covenant 6.5. Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis 6.6. Conclusion

156 156 157 158 159 165 181

Chapter 7 ‘If I will not open the windows of heaven’: Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis in Relation to the Mosaic Covenant (Malachi 3.7-12) 7.1. Translation 7.2. Text-Critical Issues 7.3. Structure and Theme 7.4. The Mosaic Covenant 7.5. Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis 7.6. Conclusion

182 182 183 184 185 187 198

Contents

Chapter 8 ‘They will be my special possession’: Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis in Relation to Covenant Renewal (Malachi 3.13-21[4.3]) 8.1. Translation 8.2. Text-Critical Issues 8.3. Structure and Theme 8.4. Covenant Renewal 8.5. Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis 8.6. Conclusion Chapter 9 ‘Turning hearts’: Covenant Continuity and Fidelity (Malachi 3.22-24[4.4-6]) 9.1. Introduction 9.2. Translation 9.3. Text-Critical Issues 9.4. Compositional History: Original or Late Addition to Malachi? 9.5. Purpose: Internal or External to Malachi? 9.6. Arguments for Late Addition 9.7. Assessment of Arguments for Late Addition 9.8. Covenant Continuity and Fidelity 9.9. Conclusion Chapter 10 Conclusion: ‘For I, Yhwh, do not change’ 10.1. Overview 10.2. Types of Malachi’s Inner-Biblical Interpretation 10.3. Interpretive Significance of Malachi’s Inner-Biblical Interpretation 10.4. Conclusion

ix

199 199 200 202 203 205 212

213 213 213 214 215 215 216 220 235 255

257 257 258 261 264

Bibliography 265 Index of References 281 Index of Authors 299

A ck n owl ed g em e nts

The completion of this monograph would not have been possible without the assistance of many people. In the first place, I owe a special debt of gratitude to R. P. Gordon, Emeritus Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge University, for his supervision of my doctoral thesis, which forms the substance of this book. Robert, as he prefers to be called, was a marvellous Doktorvater, in every respect. His scholarship, coupled with genuine Christian humility, is an example to any student. He not only provided much wisdom on Malachi and its connections to other parts of the Hebrew Bible, but his Ulster wit and warmth – of which he has lost none – made the whole research experience most enjoyable. I am grateful to him for his time and patience throughout my four years of doctoral studies. Dr Katharine J. Dell and Professor Gordon J. McConville kindly examined my PhD thesis, and their comments have helped to sharpen the content of this book. Thanks are also due to Andrew Mein, editor of the LHBOTS series, for accepting the book for publication, and to Miriam Cantwell at Bloomsbury T&T Clark for her assistance in various ways. Duncan Burns in his role as copy editor has exuded grace, patience and care, for which I am very grateful. Stefan Bosman and Sookgoo Shin gave generously of their time to help with all things computer-related. It was a privilege to be part of the academic community of Tyndale House, Cambridge, during my doctoral studies (2009–2013). Special thanks to Dr Peter Williams, Warden of Tyndale House, for his insight into a number of areas related to the Old Testament. Librarian Dr Elizabeth Magba, and her successor, Simon Sykes, helped to track down important books on my topic, and were always generous with their time. My thanks also to Drs Peter Orr and Anthony Petterson for reading my thesis and providing valuable feedback, much of which has been incorporated into this book. My postgraduate studies at Cambridge University were funded by the Arts & Humanities Research Council, the Firstfruits Foundation, the SOLA Trust, the Tyrwhitt Hebrew Fund and individual friends. Without the generosity of these Trusts and friends, embarking on and completing my doctorate, and now this monograph, would not have been possible.

xii Acknowledgements

My family were a wonderful support throughout my doctoral studies and now the writing of this book. My brothers, David and Alastair (and their respective wives, Angela and Harriet), were an encouragement and the source of refreshing humour. My parents faithfully prayed for me and demonstrated their love in a variety of ways throughout this project. My parents-in-law, David and Jenny Brown, and sister-in-law, Katie Brown, encouraged from afar, even though my research meant farewelling their daughter and sister to the other side of the world. Our son, Benjamin Arthur, has brought much joy into our lives since arriving on the scene nearly four years ago. Named after one of the ‘children of Jacob’ (Mal. 3.6), and enfolded in covenant promise at his baptism, our prayer is that his heart would always be turned toward his parents and toward the Lord in covenant faithfulness (Mal. 3.24[4.6]). On 20th March this year we were expecting our second child, a daughter – Leila Judith Grace. But in the Lord’s good, wise and mysteri­ous providence he chose to call her home one week before her due date, on the evening of the Lord’s Day, 13th March. She was stillborn on 17th March. By God’s covenant grace, Leila belongs to that ‘godly offspring’ which God seeks from marriage (Mal. 2.15), and so she now rests in the care of her heavenly Father (Mal. 2.10). Leila died in the spring, and every spring, when we see the daffodils blooming, we will remember that the winter can never hold back the spring (1 Cor. 15.20-23). My deepest thanks are reserved for Jacqueline, my covenant partner and the wife of my youth (Mal. 2.14). She is my closest companion and confidant, my joy and delight, and an amazing mother to our two children. My heart trusts in her. At every stage of bringing this monograph to publication, she has reflected the unchanging character of the God of Malachi in her constant and loving support. It is to her that I affectionately and gratefully dedicate this book. Soli Deo Gloria Cambridge, Summer, 2016

P refa ce The theme of covenant permeates the book of Malachi. The core of the prophet’s imagination is shaped by his reflection on an authoritative collection of texts. This monograph investigates how Malachi’s innerbiblical interpretation of earlier source texts in the Hebrew Bible informs and shapes his central theme of covenant. Chapter 1 sets the scene for the study, focusing on the theme of covenant in Malachi and the book’s inner-biblical interpretation. A general overview of each is presented, together with a short history of previous research in the respective areas. Chapter 2 outlines the methodology adopted in this study. It commences with a brief discussion of the literary features, structures and historical context of the book, before providing an extended review of ‘intertextuality’ and ‘inner-biblical interpretation’ in biblical studies. Criteria for evaluating the evidence for correspondence between texts and the likely direction of dependence are first established, before defining the different kinds of connections that may exist between texts. The relationship between Malachi’s central theme of covenant and his inner-biblical interpretation is then investigated in the subsequent chapters (3–9). These follow the generally accepted divisions of the book: 1.2-5; 1.6–2.9; 2.10-16; 2.17–3.6; 3.7-12; 3.13-21[4.3]; 3.22-24[4.4-6]. Each chapter begins with a translation and outline of the structure and theme on the pericope under investigation. This is followed by a short discussion on the particular covenant in view, before embarking on an analysis of the inner-biblical allusion and exegesis at play in the unit. The aim in each case is to determine the most likely source texts that Malachi intended his readers to recall. Once these are established, the interpretive significance of the inner-biblical allusion and exegesis within the argument of the book is explored. Chapter 10 provides a summary of the investigation, categorizing the types of inner-biblical interpretation that Malachi uses, before assessing their interpretive significance for his central theme of covenant. When the function and rhetorical purpose of Malachi’s inner-biblical interpretation is observed within the argument of each pericope, the theme of covenant is significantly enriched. Malachi’s utilization of earlier source texts is neither random nor casual; rather, the texts have been strategically

xiv Preface

employed to inform and shape his central theme of covenant continuity and fidelity. The prophet’s inner-biblical allusion and exegesis serve to expose Israel’s covenant infidelity, give effect to Yhwh’s covenant curse and, most significantly, underline Yhwh’s covenant fidelity. Covenant continuity and fidelity is the overarching theme of Malachi’s disputational speeches, and one that is brought to a climax in the final verses.

A b b rev i at i ons

4QXIIa 8ḤevXIIgr AB ABD A.D. AJSL ANE AV B.C. B.C.E. BDB

BHQ

BHS BN BZ BZAW CBQ CBR CCS CD CRBS CTR CurBR DCH DJD EBib ESV EvT FAT FOTL

Minor Prophets scroll from Qumran Greek Minor Prophets scroll from Naḥal Ḥever Anchor Bible David N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (York: Doubleday, 1992) anno Domini American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Ancient Near East Authorized Version Before Christ Before the Common Era Francis Brown, S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907) Anthony Gelston (ed.), Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Fascicle 13, The Twelve Minor Prophets (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010) Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Biblische Notizen Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarterly Currents in Biblical Research Classic Commentary Series Cairo Genizah copy of the Damascus Document Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Criswell Theological Review Currents in Biblical Research David J. A. Clines (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (8 vols.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993–2011) Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Études Bibliques English Standard Version Evangelische Theologie Forschungen zum Alten Testament The Forms of Old Testament Literature

xvi Abbreviations GKC HALAT

HAR HBT HKAT HTKAT HTR HTS ICC IOSOT ITC JAOS JBL JETS JHS JJS JNSL Joüon-Muraoka JPS JQR JSOT JSOTSup JTS KAT KHC LHBOTS LSJM LXX MA MC ML Moffat

MSJ MT Mur 88 NAC NCB NEB

E. Kautzsch (ed.), Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (rev. and trans. A. E. Cowley; Oxford: Clarendon, 1910) Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner (eds), Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament (5 vols.; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967–95) Hebrew Annual Review Horizons in Biblical Theology Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Herdes theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review Hervormde Teologiese Studies International Critical Commentary The International Organisation for the Study of the Old Testament International Theological Commentary Journal for Ancient and Oriental Studies Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Hebrew Scriptures Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of NorthWest Semitic Languages Paul S. J. Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica 14/I-II; trans. and rev. T. Muraoka; 2 vols; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1996) Jewish Publication Society Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies H. G. Liddell, Robert Scott, H. Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie, Greek–English Lexicon: With a Revised Supplement (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) Septuagint Aleppo Codex Cairo Codex Leningrad Codex James Moffatt, The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments, a New Translation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1922) Mythological Studies Journal Masoretic Text Hebrew Minor Prophets scroll from Wadi Murabbaʿat New American Commentary New Century Bible New English Bible

Abbreviations NETS

xvii

Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (eds), A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIDOTTE Willem A. VanGemeren (ed.), New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997) NIGTC The New International Greek Testament Commentary NIV New International Version NRSV New Revised Standard Version OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis OT Old Testament OTE Old Testament Essays OTL Old Testament Library OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën RB Revue biblique RTR Reformed Theological Review SBLDS SBL Dissertation Series SBLMS SBL Monograph Series SEÅ Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok SP Samaritan Pentateuch StPB Studia Post-Biblica Syr. Syriac TDOT G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry (eds), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (trans. John T. Willis, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, David E. Green and Douglas W. Stott; 15 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977–2006) Tg. Targum TLOT Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann (eds), Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (trans. Mark E. Biddle; 3 vols.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997) TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries TTZ Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift TWOT R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr and Bruce K. Waltke (eds), Theological Workbook of the Old Testament (2 vols.; Chicago: Moody Press, 1980) TynBul Tyndate Bulletin UBS United Bible Society Vg. Vulgate VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum, Supplements WBC Word Bible Commentary W-O’C Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor (eds), An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Chapter 1 I n t rod uct i on : T he C ore of M a l a ch i ’ s I magi nat i on

1.1. Covenant in Malachi The theme of covenant permeates the book of Malachi. The prophet mentions covenant (‫ )ברית‬six times, identifying explicitly the covenant of Levi (2.4, 5, 8), the (Mosaic) covenant of the fathers (2.10), the covenant of marriage (2.14) and the messenger of the covenant (3.1). Malachi also uses identifiable covenant terminology (‫אהב‬, ‫שנא‬, ‫ארר‬, ‫ברך‬, ‫בגד‬, ‫שמר‬, ‫סור‬, ‫שוב‬, ‫)סגלה‬, key covenant concepts (land [1.3-5], father–son relationship [1.6; 2.10; 3.17], blessing and curse [1.6–2.9], laws [1.7-8, 12-14; 3.8-9, 22(4.4)], Yhwh’s ways [2.8-9], barrenness and fertility [3.7-12]) and significant figures associated with covenants (Jacob and Esau [1.2], Levi [2.4, 5, 8], Adam and Eve [2.15], Moses and Elijah [3.22-24(4.4-6)]) – all of which serve to confirm the central theme of covenant.1 These terms, concepts and figures are distributed throughout the book, including the final verses, which is decisive for the argument that covenant permeates the whole book. In short, Malachi is ‘a catechism on covenant relationship with Yahweh’,2 which is conveyed through the medium of disputational speeches.3 1.  Roger T. Beckwith, ‘The Unity and Diversity of God’s Covenants’, TynBul 38 (1987), pp. 93-118 (96), provides a helpful and comprehensive definition of covenant that may incorporate all of the different covenants in Malachi: ‘a league of friendship, either between man and man or between God and man, solemnly inaugurated, either by words alone or by words and symbolic ceremonies, in which obligations are undertaken on one or both sides. The obligations are often accompanied by an oath, and have the character of solemn promises.’ 2.  Andrew E. Hill, Malachi: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25D; New York: Doubleday, 1998), p. 37. 3.  While this monograph understands covenant to be the predominant theme of Malachi, this is not to be equated with the work of Julien Harvey, Le plaidoyer prophétique contre Israël après la rupture de l’alliance (Etude d’une formule littéraire de l’Ancien Testament; Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1967); Elizabeth Achtemeier, Nahum – Malachi (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1986), or Julia M.

2

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

The theme of covenant was both timely and poignant for the languishing community of Israel in post-exilic ‘Yehud’, a small satrapy within the Persian Empire. The rump-state was small and subject to a foreign government (1.8), experiencing agricultural barrenness (3.11-12); the popular attitude toward the cult and religious obligations could be described as apathetic at best and pathetic at worst (1.6–2.9; 3.7-12); and the community’s morals were in steep decline (2.10-16; 3.5). The people had started to question Yhwh’s love for them (1.2), the presence of his justice within the community (2.17) and the usefulness of serving him faithfully while evildoers prospered (3.14-15). There was also a growing scepticism because of Yhwh’s apparently failed promises: the grandiose ‘Zion visions’ of Isa. 40–66, Haggai and Zechariah lay unfulfilled and the ‘temple vision’ of Ezekiel had not materialized. Into this context Yhwh declares his covenant faithfulness to Israel. Two ‘thesis statements’ in the book reaffirm his commitment to his covenant promises: he has loved Israel (1.2) and, though he will punish covenant-breakers because he does not change, the children of Jacob will not be consumed (3.5-6). The opening pericope (1.2-5) recalls the patriarchal covenant as Yhwh announces his love for Israel. This undergirds Yhwh’s commitment to the Levitical (1.6–2.9), Mosaic (2.10-12; 3.7-12) and marital (2.13-16) covenants. The promise of the coming messenger of the covenant (3.1), whose work it is to restore the priesthood, reinforces the theme of Yhwh’s covenant fidelity. The declaration of Yhwh’s covenant love for Israel in 1.2-5 serves as the basis for the hortatory discourse that follows (1.6–3.21[4.3]), and as motivation for the people to live up to their obligations within the respective covenants. ‘The whole purpose of his message concerns the well-being of the covenant relationship and was directed toward Israel’s obligation to comply with its stipulations.’4 The six disputations that O’Brien, Priest and Levite in Malachi (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), who take the covenant theme a step further and see a covenant lawsuit (‫ )ריב‬pattern in some pericopes and/or the book as a whole. Hill, Malachi, pp. 32-33, points out that the proposals remain unconvincing for a number of reasons: Malachi does not contain classic features of the ‫ ריב‬oracle (such as the call to ‘Hear’ and the appeal to natural elements); the fundamental issue of the lawsuit – idolatry – is not present in Malachi; some pericopes are forced out of the disputational mould in order to fit with the larger paradigm of the covenant lawsuit (e.g. the question-and-answer style of 1.2-5 is read as ‘historical prologue’). 4.  Pieter A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 183. The stipulations and even the Day of Yhwh find their reference point in the broader framework of the covenant: Israel are exhorted to comply with the stipulations as part of keeping covenant with Yhwh; there will be

1. Introduction

3

comprise the main body of the book contrast Yhwh’s faithfulness with Israel’s unfaithfulness. The theme of covenant fidelity is brought to a conclusion in the final verses as Yhwh commands Israel to be faithful to the covenant by remembering the Law of Moses (3.22[4.4]) and as he promises to bring about generational covenant faithfulness by sending the eschatological prophet Elijah before the great and awesome Day of Yhwh (3.23-24[4.5-6]). 1.2. Previous Research on Covenant Themes in Malachi While commentators generally acknowledge the importance of covenant in Malachi, some scholars have focused more narrowly on critical details,5 as well as such issues as the work’s literary structure and genre,6 and a future judgement on the Day of Yhwh because there has been a violation of the covenant stipulations. 5.  J. M. P. Smith, ‘A Note on Malachi 2:15a’, AJSL 28.3 (1912), pp. 204-206; Joseph Mikik, ‘Textkritische und exegetische Bemerkungen zu Mal. 3:6’, Biblische Zeitschrift 17 (1925), pp. 225-37; Nahum M. Waldman, ‘Some Notes on Malachi 3:6; 3:13; and Psalm 42:11’, JBL 93 (1974), pp. 534-49; R. Althann, ‘Mal 2:13-14 and UT 125, 12-13’, Biblica 58 (1977), pp. 418-21; David N. Freedman, ‘An Unnoted Support for a Variant to the MT of Mal 3:5’, JBL 98 (1979), pp. 405-406; Beth GlazierMcDonald, ‘Malachi 2:12: ʿēr wěʿōneh – Another Look’, JBL 105 (1986), pp. 295-98; Russell E. Fuller, ‘Text-Critical Problems in Malachi 2:10-16’, JBL 110 (1991), pp. 47-57; Robert A. Kugler, ‘A Note on the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Mal 2:3a’, ZAW 108 (1996), pp. 426-29; C. John Collins, ‘The (Intelligible) Masoretic Text of Malachi 2:16’, Presbyterion 20 (1994), pp. 36-40; Russell E. Fuller, ‘The Sequence of Malachi 3:22-24 in the Greek and Hebrew Textual Traditions: Implications for the Redactional History of the Minor Prophets’, in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations – Redactional Processes – Historical Insights (ed. Rainer Albertz, James D. Nogalski and Jakob Wöhrle; BZAW 433; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), pp. 371-79. 6.  Egon Pfeiffer, ‘Die Disputationsworte im Buche Maleachi (Ein Beitrag zur formgeschichtlichen Struktur)’, EvT 19 (1959), pp. 546-68; H. J. Boecker, ‘Bemerkungen zu formgeschichtlichen Terminologie des Buches Maleachi’, ZAW 78 (1966), pp. 78-80; Gerhard Wallis, ‘Wesen und Struktur der Botschaft Maleachis’, in Das Ferne und Nahe Wort (Festschrift Leonhard Rost; ed. Fritz Maass; BZAW 105; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967), pp. 229-37; J. A. Fischer, ‘Notes on the Literary Form and Message of Malachi’, CBQ 34 (1972), pp. 315-20; Ernst R. Wendland, ‘Linear and Concentric Patterns in Malachi’, The Bible Translator 36 (1985), pp. 108-21; E. Ray Clendenen, ‘The Structure of Malachi: A Textlinguistic Study’, CTR 2 (1987), pp. 3-17; S. D. Snyman, ‘A Structural Approach to Malachi 3:13–21’, OTE 9.3 (1996), pp. 486-94; Elie Assis, ‘Structure and Meaning in the Book of Malachi’, in Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar

4

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

dating.7 Others have analysed the book’s historical and social contexts,8 cultic9 and ethical issues,10 and eschatology.11 More recently, interest has (ed. John Day; LHBOTS 531; London: T&T Clark International, 2010), pp. 354-69; S. D. Snyman, ‘Rethinking the Demarcation of Malachi 2:17-3:5’, Acta Theologica: Die Woord Verwoord 31.1 (2011), pp. 156-68. 7.  Hans H. Spoer, ‘Some New Considerations Towards the Dating of the Book of Malachi’, JQR 20 (1908), pp. 167-86; Andrew E. Hill, ‘Dating the Book of Malachi: A Linguistic Reexamination’, in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor; American Schools of Oriental Research 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 77-89. 8.  Joel F. Drinkard, Jr, ‘The Socio-Historical Setting of Malachi’, Review and Expositor 84 (1987), pp. 383-90; Jon L. Berquist, ‘The Social Setting of Malachi’, Biblical Theology Bulletin 19 (1989), pp. 121-26; Paul L. Redditt, ‘The Book of Malachi in Its Social Setting’, CBQ 56 (1994), pp. 240-55. 9.  G. Johannes Botterweck, ‘Ideal und Wirklichkeit der Jerusalemer Priester, Auslegung von Mal. 1:6-10; 2:1-9’, Bibel und Leben 1 (1960), pp. 100-109; Graham S. Ogden, ‘The Use of Figurative Language in Mal 2.10-16’, The Bible Translator 39 (1988), pp. 223-30; O’Brien, Priest and Levite; Carol B. Reynolds, ‘Malachi and the Priesthood’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, 1993). 10.  G. Johannes Botterweck, ‘Schelt und Mahnrede gegen Mischehen und Ehe­ scheidung, Auslegung von Mal. 2:2, 10-16’, Bibel und Leben 1 (1960), pp. 179-85; Stefan Schreiner, ‘Mischehen – Ehebruch – Ehescheidung’, ZAW 91 (1979), pp. 207-28; Wilhelm Rudolph, ‘Zu Mal 2:10-16’, ZAW 93 (1981), pp. 85-90; Clemens Locher, ‘Altes und Neue zu Malachi 2,10-16’, in Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy (ed. Pierre Casetti, Othmar Keel and Adrian Schenker; OBO 38; Fribourg: Éditions universitaires, 1981), pp. 241-71; Adam S. van der Woude, ‘Malachi’s Struggle for a Pure Community: Reflections on Malachi 2:10-16’, in Tradition and Reinterpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honour of Jürgen C. H. Lebram (ed. J. W. van Henten, H. J. de Jonge, P. T. van Rooden, and J. W. Wesselius; StPB 36; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986), pp. 65-71; Walter C. Kaiser, Jr, ‘Divorce in Malachi 2:1016’, CTR 2 (1987), pp. 73-84; Beth Glazier-McDonald, ‘Intermarriage, Divorce, and the bat-ʾel nekar: Insights into Mal 2:10-16’, JBL 106 (1987), pp. 603-11; Gordon P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (VTSup 52; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994); Martin A. Shields, ‘Syncretism and Divorce in Malachi 2:10-16’, ZAW 111 (1999), pp. 68-86; Markus Zehnder, ‘A Fresh Look at Malachi 2:13-16’, VT 53 (2003), pp. 224-59; Elie Assis, ‘Love, Hate and Self-Identity in Malachi: A New Perspective to Mal 1:1-5 and 2:10-16’, JSNL 35 (2009), pp. 111-23; John Elwolde, ‘Mal. 2.16a: Hebrew ‫כי‬, and the Proper Condemnation of Divorce’, JNSL 37 (2011), pp. 91-107. 11.  Martin Rehm, ‘Das Opfer der Völker nach Mal 1:11’, in Lex Tua Veritas (Festschrift Hubert Junker; ed. Heinrich Gross and Franz Mussner; Trier: PaulinusVerlag, 1961), pp. 193-208; Joyce G. Baldwin, ‘Malachi 1:11 and the Worship of the Nations in the Old Testament’, TynBul 23 (1972), pp. 117-24; T. C. Vriezen, ‘How to

1. Introduction

5

been turned to Malachi’s canonical placement within The Twelve and the wider OT canon,12 as well as its reuse of earlier source texts within the Hebrew Bible.13 In comparison, only a few studies have been devoted Understand Malachi 1:11’, in Grace upon Grace (Festschrift L. J. Kuyper; ed. James Cook; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 128-36; S. D. Snyman, ‘Eschatology in the Book of Malachi’, OTE 1 (1988), pp. 63-77; Åke Viberg, ‘Wakening a Sleeping Metaphor: A New Interpretation of Malachi 1:11’, TynBul 45 (1994), pp. 297-319; S. D. Snyman, ‘Different Meanings a Text May Acquire: The Case of Malachi 1:11’, Acta Theologica: Die Woord Verwoord (2004), pp. 80-95; Andrew S. Malone, ‘Is the Messiah Announced in Malachi 3:1?’, TynBul 57 (2006), pp. 215-28. 12.  Erich Bosshard and R. G. Kratz, ‘Maleachi im Zwölfprophetenbuch’, Biblische Notizen 52 (1990), pp. 27-46; Donald K. Berry, ‘Malachi’s Dual Design: The Close of the Canon and What Comes Afterward’, in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts (ed. James W. Watts and Paul R. House; JSOTSup 235; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), pp. 269-302; Stephen B. Chapman, ‘A Canonical Approach to Old Testament Theology? Deuteronomy 34:10-12 and Malachi 3:22-24 as Programmatic Conclusions’, HBT 25 (2003), pp. 121-45; S. D. Snyman, ‘Malachi 4:4-6 (Heb 3:22-24) as a Point of Convergence in the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible: A Consideration of the Intra[-] and Intertextual Relationships’, HTS 68.1 (2012), pp. 1195-201. 13.  Michael Fishbane, ‘Form and Reformulation of the Priestly Blessing’, JAOS 103 (1983), pp. 115-21; Eric M. Meyers, ‘Priestly Language in the Book of Malachi’, HAR 10 (1986), pp. 225-37; Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 332-34; Helmut Utzschneider, Künder oder Schreiber? Eine These zum Problem der ‘Schriftprophetie’ auf Grund von Maleachi 1:6–2:9 (Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums 19; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1989); James D. Nogalski, Redactional Process in the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 218; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), pp. 182-212; Michael Fishbane, ‘The Priestly Blessing and Its Aggadic Reuse’, in ‘The Place Is Too Small for Us’: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship (ed. R. P. Gordon; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), pp. 223-29; Berry, ‘Malachi’s Dual Design’; Hill, Malachi, pp. 401-12; Karl W. Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching: Prophetic Authority, Form Problems, and the Use of Traditions in the Book of Malachi (BZAW 288; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000); Lotta Valve, ‘Typological Use of Tradition of the Jacob Cycle in the Book of Malachi’, in Rewritten Biblical Figures (ed. Erkki Koskenniemi and Pekka Lindqvist; Winona Lake, IN: Åbo Akademi & Eisenbrauns, 2010), pp. 27-46; Rainer Kessler, Maleachi (HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2011), pp. 61-65; Lotta Valve, ‘The Case of Messenger-Elijah: The Origins of the Final Appendix to Malachi (3:23-24)’, in ‘My Spirit at Rest in the North Country’ (Zechariah 6.8): Collected Communications to the XXth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Helsinki 2010 (ed. Hermann M. Niemann and Matthias Augustin; Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums 57; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011), pp. 93-103;

6

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

to investigating the theme of covenant in Malachi: some have focused on specific covenants (e.g. the covenant with Levi14 or the covenant of marriage15) or on the intriguing figure of the messenger of the covenant.16 Yet to date, only one study, by Steven McKenzie and Howard Wallace, has attempted a wider treatment of covenant within the book. Writing in 1983, the authors note that ‘[l]ittle consideration has been given to the presence of covenant themes’ in Malachi.17 They provide a helpful, if brief, overview of the three named covenants (Levitical, covenant of the fathers, and marriage) in conversation with possible source texts that may have influenced, or formed the backdrop to, the particular covenant in view. For the covenant with Levi, McKenzie and Wallace see no clear antecedent text, dismissing Num. 18.19; 25.11-13; Deut. 33.8-10; Lev. 2.13; Jer. 33.20-26; and Neh. 13.26 as possibilities.18 What may be discerned is that the covenant with Levi forms the basis for the prophet’s censure of the priests. The covenant of the fathers is understood as the patriarchal covenant, with the phrase ‘one father’ being read as a reference to Abraham.19 On the marriage covenant, McKenzie and Wallace remain non-committal as to whether the problem relates to intermarriage or apostasy. They conclude that, if 2.13-16 does concern divorce, then it is ‘in striking contrast to the law of divorce in Deut 24:1-4’.20 In Mal. 3.1, idem, ‘Moses and Elijah at Horeb and at the End of Malachi’, in Holy Places and Cult (ed. Erkki Koshenniemi and J. Cornelis de Vos; Studies in the Reception History of the Bible; Turku: Åbo Akademi & Eisenbrauns, 2014), pp. 101-21. 14.  Ernst Haag, ‘Gottes Bund mit Levi nach Maleachi 2: Historische und theologische Aspekte des Priestertums im Alten Testament’, Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 107 (1998), pp. 25-44. 15.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant; George W. Harrison, ‘Covenant Unfaithfulness in Malachi 2:1-16’, CTR 2 (1987), pp. 63-72. 16.  Adam S. van der Woude, ‘Der Engel des Bundes – Bemerkungen zu Maleachi 3:1c und seinen Kontext’, in Die Botschaft und die Boten (ed. Jörg Jeremias and Lothar Perlitt; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), pp. 289-300; Bruce V. Malchow, ‘The Messenger of the Covenant in Mal 3:1’, JBL 103 (1984), pp. 252-55; Beth Glazier-McDonald, ‘Malʾak habberit: The Messenger of the Covenant in Mal 3:1’, HAR 11 (1987), pp. 93-104; S. D. Snyman, ‘Once Again: Investigating the Three Figures Mentioned in Malachi 3:1’, Verbum et Ecclesia 27.3 (2006), pp. 1031-44. 17.  Steven L. McKenzie and Howard N. Wallace, ‘Covenant Themes in Malachi’, CBQ 45 (1983), pp. 549-63 (549). 18.  The last two texts being dated later than Malachi (McKenzie and Wallace, ‘Covenant Themes’, pp. 550-51). The list follows the order presented by the authors. 19.  McKenzie and Wallace, ‘Covenant Themes’, p. 552. 20.  Ibid., p. 553. They do not mention a possible allusion to Adam and Eve in Gen. 2.

1. Introduction

7

the messenger of the covenant is equated with ‘my messenger’, and the exegetical reworkings of Exod. 23.20 and Isa. 40.3 are discussed briefly. Drawing on a parallel with Hos. 2, in which covenant renewal leads to fertility, McKenzie and Wallace argue for a covenant background to Mal. 2.17–3.12.21 Yhwh’s claims to consistency and faithfulness to the covenant explain why he will punish the wicked (3.5) but also why he offers salvation to those who return to him (3.7-12). Having dealt with the explicit references to covenant in Malachi, McKenzie and Wallace analyse units that do not refer explicitly to a covenant but that nevertheless contain covenant themes. In 1.2-5, Yhwh’s love is connected primarily with the concept of covenant love in Deuteronomy.22 The verb ‫ שנא‬is also understood in a covenant context, as seen in the presence of cognate terms in ANE treaties.23 However, although McKenzie and Wallace understand Jacob and Esau to refer to the patriarchs, as opposed to the respective nations of Israel and Edom, they do not mention the Genesis narrative. Moreover, they relate the curses on Edom primarily to the curses found in ancient treaties,24 with only a passing reference to Isa. 34.11-17. In 1.6-14, which is taken as a separate unit from 2.1-9, the covenant context is established via terminology commonly associated with treaties and covenants, such as father–son and master–servant relationships, the curse formula (‫ ;ארר‬cf. Deut. 27–28) and the title ‘great king’. McKenzie and Wallace admit that ‫ ארר‬and ‫ מלך גדול‬are not always used in covenant contexts, but their presence alongside the father–son and master–servant images suggests that a covenant relationship is in the background here. From a wider perspective, McKenzie and Wallace view the patriarchal covenant as ‘the overriding covenant applying to the postexilic community’,25 with the breach of ‘a smaller, more specialized covenant’ understood to be ‘in a sense a breach of Yahweh’s covenant with his whole people’26 (e.g. the Levitical or marital covenant). They argue that two main covenants in Malachi are violated: the Levitical (2.8) and the patriarchal (2.10). The purpose of casting the origins of these covenants

21.  They also reference Lev. 26.16; Deut. 11.13-14; 28.11-12, 18, 28. 22.  McKenzie and Wallace, ‘Covenant Themes’, p. 556. 23.  They are influenced here by William L. Moran, ‘The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy’, CBQ 25 (1963), pp. 77-87. 24.  Noted by Delbert R. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (Biblica et Orientalia 16; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964). 25.  McKenzie and Wallace, ‘Covenant Themes’, p. 558. 26.  Ibid., p. 559.

8

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

back to the patriarchal ancestors is, according to them, to stress the election of their respective descendants. In the final major section of Malachi (3.13-21[4.3]), McKenzie and Wallace see both the continuation and the narrowing of the covenant. For them, covenant concepts are communicated through the father–son motif and more especially through the keyword ‫סגלה‬, which they translate as ‘covenant possession’. They reference biblical texts that use the term (Exod. 19.5; Deut. 7.6; 14.2; 26.18; Ps. 135.4; Eccl. 2.8) and a Ugaritic letter that employs it in the context of a treaty relationship. The authors observe how Malachi applies the term ‫ סגלה‬more narrowly: it now refers to the righteous in Israel as opposed to the whole nation. In drawing their study to a close, McKenzie and Wallace divide the book into two main redactions: (1) 1.1–3.12 – covenant violations by priest and people in contrast to Yhwh’s faithfulness, with the promise of an extension of covenant blessing for return and faithfulness; and (2) 3.13-21[4.3] – covenant focus continued but now more narrowly applied to a group of Yhwh-fearers. They do not analyse the closing verses, 3.22-24[4.4-6], because they view them as unrelated to the immediate context. The article by McKenzie and Wallace is a helpful primer on covenant themes in Malachi. However, given their limitation in a journal article, the authors are unable to provide a comprehensive and penetrating analysis of the subject. Moreover, they do not propose a method or criteria for determining background texts to the named covenants or to the covenant language. Connections are proposed, but with little justification for them. Furthermore, the exclusion of 3.22-24[4.4-6] is too dismissive and leaves the assessment of covenant in Malachi impoverished. While McKenzie and Wallace’s article remains the solitary study on Malachi’s dominant theme, many scholars do acknowledge the predominance of covenant in the book. Few, however, move beyond the surface observation. For example, Donald Berry rightly notes that covenant is Malachi’s ‘organizing theme’.27 But when it comes to his discussion of the possible ‘allusions to canonical traditions in Malachi’, Berry relates his findings to the book’s structure rather than to the theme of covenant.28

27.  Berry, ‘Malachi’s Dual Design’, p. 287. 28.  Ibid., pp. 292-93. Berry sees the previous traditions as giving shape to the ‘dual design’ of the book: to past and present (Torah in chs. 1–2) and to future (prophecy in ch. 3): ‘The relationship between Moses and Elijah…stands as a symbol of the dual design of the final form of the book’ (p. 294).

1. Introduction

9

The present monograph therefore aims to fill the lacuna in studies on the covenant theme in Malachi as well as to redress the disconnect between Malachi’s central theme and his inner-biblical interpretation. 1.3. Inner-Biblical Interpretation: The Core of Malachi’s Imagination The core of Malachi’s imagination is shaped by his reflection on an authoritative collection of texts.29 He writes, as we will see, with earlier texts in mind. A number of features in Malachi’s prophecy encourage his readers to imitate his own backward glance. The most obvious one is his use of proper nouns in relation to nations, people and places. The opening address to ‘Israel’ (as opposed to ‘Judah’) and the closing comment on ‘all Israel’ gathered at Horeb cannot but echo Moses’ address to Israel in Deuteronomy. The name Israel carries theological weight: the covenant is still operative and the ideology of ‘Israel’ has been conferred upon the rump-state. Most importantly for the present study, the name Israel projects old traditions on to the continuing community.30 Israel’s post-exilic existence permits the nation to be the heir of a substantial body of received biblical traditions and texts. In addition, the mention of Edom situates the book historically and allows for connections to earlier prophetic texts concerning Israel’s ‘brother’ nation. Names of key figures in Israel’s history also encourage an inner-biblical orientation. Jacob and Esau recall the patriarchal narratives; allusion to the exemplary ‘Levi’ transports the reader to an earlier period of ideal priesthood; and the references to Moses and Elijah not only strengthen the authority of the prophet’s message, but also retroject the people back to Horeb, where both archetypal prophets had dealings with Yhwh on ‘Covenant Mountain’.

29.  I am borrowing the language of Michael Fishbane, who writes that ‘intertextuality [by which he means inner-biblical exegesis] is the core of the canonical imagination; that is, it is the core of the creative imagination that lives within a selfreflexive culture shaped by an authoritative collection of texts’ (‘Types of Biblical Intertextuality’, in Congress Volume: Oslo, 1998 [ed. André Lemaire and M. Sæbø; VTSup 80; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000], pp. 39-44 [39]). 30.  William J. Dumbrell, ‘Malachi and the Ezra–Nehemiah Reforms’, RTR 35 (1976), pp. 42-52 (45): ‘The tiny community in a sea of foreign peoples is still the carrier of the old salvation traditions’.

10

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Besides using proper nouns, Malachi conveys the inner-biblical backdrop to his book in other ways. There is the obvious employment of Deuteronomic terminology that permeates the book. The prophet also uses rare words and unique combinations of words/roots, which are generally exclusive to Malachi and at most a few other texts, in order to point out his connections with earlier parts of the Hebrew Bible. Allusions are also indicated by a common word in a specific context, lexical and syntactical parallels, or third-person ‘intrusions’ into first-person speech. In these various ways, Malachi indicates to his readers that his book is not to be read in isolation from the received biblical traditions and texts. Rather, his theological message (and thus his central theme of covenant) is to be understood against the backdrop of his inner-biblical interpretation. 1.4. Previous Research on Inner-Biblical Connections in Malachi Nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship on Malachi was mostly concerned with the book’s form or genre (Gattung).31 A shift in emphasis came in the latter part of the twentieth century. Previously, commentators had only given a cursory tipping of the hat to parallel references in other parts of the Hebrew Bible, but a seminal article by Michael Fishbane in 1983,32 republished twice with slight modifications in 1988 and 1995,33 redirected the attention of biblical scholars towards Malachi’s inner-biblical interpretation. Fishbane proposed that Mal. 1.6–2.9 utilizes the language of the Priestly Blessing in Num. 6.23-27 and performs ‘a thorough exegetical transformation of it’.34 Fishbane commented that ‘all the key terms of the Priestly Blessing are alluded to, or played upon, in the prophet’s diatribe’. The dense clustering of terms shows that the connections are deliberate, and not just casual similarities. This constitutes what Fishbane calls ‘a remarkable post-exilic example’ of ‘aggadic exegesis’.35

31.  See Julia M. O’Brien, ‘Malachi in Recent Research’, CRBS 3 (1995), pp. 8194, and Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, pp. 14-37, for helpful overviews of the various forms proposed: dialogue, disputation, rîb-pattern, tôrôt and tripartite composition, Hellenistic rhetoric, diatribe-like discourse – to name only some. 32.  Fishbane, ‘Form and Reformulation of Priestly Blessing’, pp. 115-21. 33.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, pp. 329-34; idem, ‘Priestly Blessing and Aggagic Reuse’, pp. 223-29, respectively. 34.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, p. 332. 35.  Ibid.

1. Introduction

11

Shortly after Fishbane, Helmut Utzschneider conducted a study of the same pericope, uncovering references rather different to Fishbane’s.36 Utzschneider employed the term ‘intertextuality’ (Intertextualität) to define his method.37 According to him, Malachi was linked to its source texts by ‘catchword connections’ (Stichwortverbindungen). Fundamental to Utzschneider’s approach was his view that in ancient Israel, besides the prophets (die Künder), there were scribes (Schreiber) whose activity was to interpret written texts; hence the name Schriftpropheten, of whom Malachi was one. In distinction from Fishbane, Utzschneider argued that one cannot speak of a receiving text that interprets a source text (Quellentext); rather, in his view the texts were connected by means of catchwords (Stichwörter).38 Taking his cue from Fishbane’s earlier work on Malachi’s ‘aggadic exegesis’ (1.6–2.9) of the Priestly Blessing (Num. 6.23-27), Eric Meyers searched Malachi for other ‘priestly’ language. He concluded that, besides Deuteronomic influence, ‘the terminology of Malachi also seems to demonstrate familiarity with the Priestly Code (P)’.39 Julia O’Brien continued the trend in her study of priest and Levite in Malachi, spotting a number of sources from ‘P’.40 In fact, she concluded that Malachi ‘exhibits familiarity not only with the Pentateuchal sources of D and P but also with a broad corpus of Israel’s historical and prophetic traditions’ – an observation overlooked by previous scholarship.41 O’Brien noted that Malachi does not quote from his sources verbatim but rather ‘interacts’ with them and ‘redirects their language’ to his own ends.42

36.  Utzschneider, Künder oder Schreiber?: Ezek. 44.6-16; Deut. 15.21; Gen. 32.14[15], 21-22[20-21], 31[30]; 33.10-11; Ezek. 36.20-22; Ps. 113.3-4; Exod. 18.8; Num. 20.14; Neh. 9.32; 2 Sam. 2.31; Deut. 33.8-11; Num. 25.10-13 (in the order in which he discusses the connections with Mal. 1.6–2.9). 37.  Ibid., p. 42. 38.  The distinction is disputed by Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, pp. 42-43, who argues that in practice Fishbane and Utzschneider’s approach amounts to much the same thing. 39.  Meyers, ‘Priestly Language’, p. 235. 40.  A similiar conclusion was reached by Carol B. Reynolds, ‘Malachi and the Priesthood’, p. 19. 41.  O’Brien, Priest and Levite, p. 111. O’Brien proposed that the lacuna in previ­ ous scholarship was ‘primarily due to a preoccupation with the problem of tracing Malachi’s position within the course of the Pentateuchal history’. Under Wellhausen­ ian influence, ‘P’ was dated later than Malachi to about 450–400 B.C. 42.  Ibid.

12

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

The monographs of Theodor Lescow and Matthias Krieg cut new ground in 1993 with their studies of the traditions that lay behind Malachi’s message.43 Karl Weyde comments that their emphasis on the traditions was a logical consequence of their method: for Lescow, prophecy had turned into a kind of teaching, while for Krieg, the oldest part of the book came into existence at a time when prophecy had gone silent.44 Sayings and writings of the past thus became more important to the formation of this kind of late prophetic writing. Krieg devoted a whole chapter to Malachi’s relationship with the traditions, though, interestingly, he discussed only a few references.45 His interest lay with isolated words and phrases and their similar (re)occurrences in other traditions. There is no discussion as to how, in cases of terminological similarity, one would differentiate between an intended allusion and conventional language. Lescow’s treatment of the traditions was also somewhat brief, focusing on only a few topics, such as the traditions associated with the named covenants and the nation of Edom. Around the same time, James Nogalski published two studies on ‘intertextuality’ in The Twelve.46 He explored the ‘catchword phenomenon’ that knits the books of The Twelve into a single entity.47 As one example, Nogalski argued for a dense volume of catchwords between Zech. 8.9-23 and Mal. 1.1-14. He noticed that the motifs of each passage further unite the two texts, though in a surprising way: the themes ‘paint a picture in which the two passages present contrasting images’.48 This is made possible by Zech. 9–14 post-dating Malachi. While looking for the seam connections between books of The Twelve, Nogalski did not rule out allusions to other texts within The Twelve or even outside The Twelve, but his focus was primarily on The Twelve.

43.  Theodor Lescow, Das Buch Maleachi (Arbeiten zur Theologie 75; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1993); Matthias Krieg, Mutmassungen über Maleachi: Eine Monographie (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 80; Zurich: Theo­ logischer Verlag, 1993). Both scholars assumed a Grundtext that was later expanded into the final form that we now possess. 44.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 38. 45.  Krieg, Maleachi, pp. 137-91. 46.  James D. Nogalski, Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993); idem, Redactional Process. 47.  Nogaliski, Literary Precursors, p. 13. Catchwords (Stichwörter) act like ‘seams’ between books. 48.  Nogalski, Redactional Process, p. 197.

1. Introduction

13

In 1996, Donald Berry proposed that the book of Malachi reveals a ‘dual design’ for the purpose of closing a chapter in the development of the canon.49 Allusions to traditions from the Law and the Prophets in the book reflect Malachi’s canonical position. Berry provided a list of allusions to canonical traditions in Malachi that include ‘Zechariah, Haggai, other books of the Twelve, the major prophets, the former prophets, and the Torah’.50 Several themes are drawn from other parts of the canon, which serve as ‘organizing media’ in Malachi.51 Most prominent is the theme of covenant, which Malachi draws from various segments of the Law and Prophets. Berry argued that ‘Malachi’s ties to previous traditions provide the key to the book’s structure’.52 In chs. 1–2, Malachi uses references to past obedience or rebellion to emphasize present rebellion; in ch. 3, he alludes to future acts but still with an emphasis on present rebellion. In 2000, Karl Weyde’s Prophecy and Teaching53 answered David Petersen’s challenge in 1995 that there had been no ‘comprehensive effort’ to explore earlier traditions and texts in the book of Malachi.54 Weyde’s monograph is certainly comprehensive. His starting point was the remarkable frequency of divine speech markers in Malachi. This showed both continuity and discontinuity with other prophetic books: continuity, because the presence of such speech markers is normal in the prophetic material; discontinuity, because the frequency of the formulae in Malachi, which is such a short book, is abnormal, as is the recurring question-and-answer style.55 Following Samuel Meier, Weyde proposed that the divine speech formulae possess a ‘legitimitizing function; they emphasize the linking of the message to the traditions and give authority to it’.56 He thus argued that 49.  Berry, ‘Malachi’s Dual Design’. 50.  Ibid., pp. 270-72. For Berry, ‘Malachi’s messages developed within the milieu of a relatively full canon’ (p. 287). 51.  Ibid., p. 287. 52.  Ibid., p. 292. 53.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching. 54.  David L. Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi (OTL; London: SCM, 1995), p. 32. 55.  Samuel A. Meier, Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible (VTSup 46; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992), p. 229: ‘the book of Malachi is unique in biblical literature with an explosion of occurrences where non-initial ‫ אמר‬is the dominant means of expressing DD [direct discourse]’. 56.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 12. Meier notes the following instances of the divine speech formula that mark a reference back to another text: Jer. 26.18: cf. Mic. 3.12; Obad. 1: cf. Jer. 49.14-16; Obad. 8: cf. Jer. 38.22; Zeph. 1.2-3: cf. Hos. 4.3. Weyde adds Isa. 65.25; cf. 11.9.

14

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Malachi contains ‘a special kind of prophecy’, which can be characterized as ‘teaching or instruction which had prophetic authority and was regarded as prophecy’. Weyde noted that this attests to a change in prophecy: the auditory or visionary experiences are absent in the superscription of Malachi. For Weyde, Malachi ‘reworked and interpreted divine words which he received from the traditions; he has exerted an influence upon the material which is actualized in his message’.57 Weyde set a new direction in his study by paying close attention to the forms of speech contained within Malachi.58 By observing these, he believed that new and different texts and traditions came into play, as compared with those identified in the previous studies of Fishbane, Utzschneider and Nogalski. In 2004, Weyde published an article in which he presented methodological reflections on the textual interrelationships that are evident in the Hebrew Bible, providing case studies from Malachi.59 No new insights were provided, but some clarity was given on the kinds of inner-biblical interpretation at play in Malachi. At least two significant commentaries in recent years have acknowledged the importance of intertextual connections in Malachi. In his magisterial commentary, Andrew Hill provides a list of examples of ‘intertextuality’ in Malachi.60 The list is not specifically diachronic but rather records ‘Malachi’s interdependence with other portions of the OT/HB’.61 Throughout his commentary, Hill draws attention to the inner-biblical connections but not in any in-depth manner, nor with any penetrating analysis of how the allusions function within the book’s theological message or of their rhetorical purpose. Rainer Kessler’s recent commentary is written with an eye on the ‘intertextual references’ in the book.62 He devotes five pages in his introduction to Malachi’s place in the canon, in which he outlines a number of innerbiblical connections between Malachi and various parts of the Hebrew 57.  Ibid. 58.  He lists the following: accusations (1.6-14; 2.8, 11, 14; 3.7, 8), announcements of punishment, both conditional and unconditional, against addressees or other persons (2.2-3, 9; 3.5, 19[4.1]), including one against Edom (1.4); exhortations (2.15, 16; 3.7, 10, 22[4.4]), admonitions (2.15, 16), announcements of salvation, both conditional and unconditional (3.7, 10-11, 17, 20[4.2], 23-24[4.5-6]); and finally, rhetorical questions (1.2, 8, 9, 13; 2.10; 3.8). 59.  Karl W. Weyde, ‘Inner-Biblical Interpretation: Methodological Reflections on the Relationship Between Texts in the Hebrew Bible’, SEÅ 69 (2004), pp. 269-82. 60.  Hill, Malachi, pp. 401-12. 61.  Ibid., p. 401. 62.  Kessler, Maleachi, pp. 61-65.

1. Introduction

15

canon. Kessler concludes that Malachi contains a ‘wealth of intertextual references’, representing the entire Pentateuch and an extensive collection of literary prophets – all three major prophets and most of the minor ones.63 1.5. Justification for the Present Study The accumulation of studies on the traditions and texts behind the book of Malachi may, prima facie, raise questions over the legitimacy of another investigation into Malachi’s inner-biblical interpretation. However, a comparison of the source traditions and texts noted or listed by these various scholars reveals that diverse methodologies are at play.64 For example, Hill provides a list of ‘Intertextuality in the Book of Malachi’, with the qualification that ‘[t]his listing of words and phrases does not necessarily presuppose the reliance of the book of Malachi upon the corresponding citation, nor does it attempt to distinguish categorically between an intertextual allusion and quotation’. Hill claims that his intent instead is ‘to gather under one heading words, phrases, and clauses suggesting Malachi’s interdependence with other portions of the OT/ HB’.65 Hill focuses on verbal repetition, but the nature and textual basis of his examples vary significantly: some are introductory formulae (‫אמר‬ ‫יהוה אלהי ישראל‬: Mal. 2.16//Jer. 11.3; ‫כי־היה‬: Mal. 3.19[4.1]//Zech. 2.13, 14[2.9, 10]); idiomatic phrases (‫שים על־לב‬: Mal. 2.2//Isa. 42.25; 57.1, 11; Jer. 12.11); similar words but in very different contexts or with divergent referents (‫מידכם היתה זאת‬//‫מידי‬: Mal. 1.9//Isa. 50.11; ‫מי [גם־]בכם‬: Mal. 1.10//Hag. 2.3); or a single verb (‫נפח‬: Mal. 1.13//Hag. 1.9; ‫זרה‬: Mal. 2.3//Ezek. 6.5). Alongside the various examples, there is also a lack of consistency: the exclusively rare word ‫ ּב ִֹרית‬is noted (Mal. 3.2//Jer. 2.22) but not the equally exclusive rare verb ‫( רשש‬Mal. 1.4//Jer. 5.17). Hill’s list therefore appears random and ad hoc. In comparison, Berry’s identification of examples of intertextuality is broader. Berry is aware that ‘coincidental parallels’ are ‘inevitable’ and that little is gained ‘by collecting bits and pieces of every tenuous claim ever made’ for Malachi’s relationship with other books. Nevertheless, 63.  Ibid., p. 65. 64.  Cf. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, pp. 329-34; Utzschneider, Künder oder Schreiber?, pp. 97-102; Krieg, Maleachi, pp. 137-91; Lescow, Maleachi, throughout; Nogalski, Literary Precursors, pp. 53-56; idem, Redactional Process, pp. 182-212; Berry, ‘Malachi’s Dual Design’, pp. 270-71; Hill, Malachi, pp. 401-12; Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, throughout; Kessler, Maleachi, pp. 61-65. 65.  Hill, Malachi, p. 401.

16

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

he widens his scope to include themes and not just words.66 As his list displays, he sees numerous connections in Malachi with other parts of the Hebrew canon. According to him, ‘[e]very point of correspondence means something’, though he admits that ‘[n]one of the claims of the book’s dependence on former writings can be finally proven’.67 Applying a synchronic approach, he evaluates Malachi within its canonical context. Thus, [w]hether or not the writer, editor, or redactor intentionally encoded each allusion, each correspondence to biblical texts merits acceptance as part of a network of images orienting the message of Malachi within its ‘position’ as a part of the Christian scriptures, the Hebrew Bible, the minor prophets, and any specialized section within these divisions.68

For his purposes, Berry employs ‘concepts from the domain of comparative literary studies, such as dependence, influence, allusion, and inter­textuality’, which serve as ‘essential tools’.69 He concludes that Malachi reveals influences from nearly every major section of the canon: books of The Twelve, major prophets, former prophets and the Torah. His synchronic approach is revealed in connections to books that are traditionally dated later than Malachi (e.g. Nehemiah and 2 Chronicles). Overall, Berry’s connections appear loose and unspecific. Although Berry’s methodological approach is primarily synchronic, he does not ignore the diachronic axis, and often speaks of Malachi ‘recalling’, ‘depending on’, ‘directly borrowing from’ other works; or being ‘directly influenced by’ or ‘dependent on’ other works. At no point, however, does he establish criteria for discerning between a case of intentional allusion, on the one hand, and simple conceptual or thematic correspondence, on the other. This at times leads to a complex set of texts that are connected to an individual text in Malachi. One example will suffice to illustrate the point. On the introduction of the messenger in Mal. 3.1 – ‫ – הנני שלח מלאכי‬Berry notes that the phraseology ‘shows direct influence’ from Exod. 23.20-21. However, he also discusses Nah. 2.14[13], which ‘may provide some of the background of Malachi’s theology of the messenger/angel’. He then comments that Zech. 1–8 provides a ‘stronger tie’: ‘The messenger of Mal. 3.1 could reflect not only the angel of Zechariah 1–8 but also the introduction of the visitations of Zechariah 9–14’. Finally, he states that 66.  Berry, ‘Malachi’s Dual Design’, pp. 270-71. 67.  Ibid., p. 272. 68.  Ibid. 69.  Ibid.

1. Introduction

17

Obad. 1 presents the ‘strongest tie between Malachi’s messenger and previous prophetic literature’: ‘Like Malachi’s messenger, the figure in Obadiah introduces the Day of the Lord’. Berry concludes: ‘The book of Malachi very likely presumes this background and further defines the nature of Obadiah’s “day” ’.70 These connections reveal a loose methodology, where four distinct texts are at play behind a single text in Malachi. This raises the question of authorial intent: Did Malachi have in his mind these four texts as he wrote 3.1? If not, then how does connecting this one text to four other texts enhance the understanding of the Malachian text at this point? How does one avoid a text in Malachi becoming so burdened by multiple source texts that it loses its own clarity? For Nogalski, the Book of the Twelve manifests ‘a very consistent catchword phenomenon’ between the writings.71 He acknowledges the need to differentiate between words in neighbouring writings being attributable to ‘accident’ or to ‘collection principle’ or to ‘redaction principle’.72 Although he speaks of ‘objective criteria’ for making distinctions among these three categories,73 he does not provide any.74 Clearly the ‘catchword’ category ties him to lexical links as his starting point.75 This is indicated in his proposal that Mal. 1.1-14 is closely connected to Zech. 8.9-23 by means of keywords and motifs. Nogalski notes at least twelve words and phrases that appear more than thirty times in both passages.76 He admits that the extensive catchwords may be accidental, but he believes that a comparison of the motifs in the two passages paints a picture of ‘contrasting images’.77 Nogalski does see connections to other texts, both inside and outside The Twelve: he believes that ‘Mal 1:2-5 explicitly takes

70.  Ibid., p. 282. 71.  Nogalski, Literary Precursors, p. 13. 72.  Ibid., p. 15. 73.  Ibid., p. 17. 74.  Similarly, a discussion of ‘objective criteria’ is lacking in Nogalski, Redactional Process. 75.  Nogalski, Literary Precursors, p. 20: ‘literal translations provide the best means for accentuating the common words between the respective passages’. 76.  Nogalski, Literary Precursors, pp. 53-56; idem, Redactional Process, p. 187: your hands (Zech. 8.9, 13; Mal. 1.9, 10, 13); people (Zech. 8.11, 12, 20, 22; Mal. 1.4); fruit (Zech. 8.12; Mal. 1.12); curse (Zech. 8.13; Mal. 1.14); nations (Zech. 8.13, 22, 23; Mal. 1.11); evil (Zech. 8.14; Mal. 1.8); father (Zech. 8.14; Mal. 1.6); return (Zech. 8.15; Mal. 1.4); gates (Zech. 8.16; Mal. 1.10); love (Zech. 8.17, 19; Mal. 1.3); hate (Zech. 8.17; Mal. 1.3); entreat the face (Zech. 8.21, 22; Mal. 1.9). 77.  Nogalski, Literary Precursors, p. 197 (italics original).

18

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

up the book of Obadiah’,78 for example, and he comments approvingly of Utzschneider’s analysis of connections to texts outside The Twelve in Mal. 1.6–2.9.79 In 1996, Nogalski provided a clearer definition of his ‘intertextuality’ as ‘the interrelationship between two or more texts which evidence suggests (1) was deliberately established by ancient authors/editors or (2) was presupposed by those authors/editors’.80 Nogalski wanted to avoid a reader-oriented approach because he wished to ‘attempt to recapture the intention of those responsible for the development of the Book of the Twelve’.81 For Nogalski, The Twelve exhibit five kinds of intertextuality: quotations, allusions, catchwords, motifs and framing devices. He concedes that there is overlap between these categories and that some are more objective than others. He thinks that catchwords ‘function as a type of allusion by using/reusing significant words to refer to (an)other text(s)’.82 Nogalski discusses some ‘subjectivity cross-checks’, which would equate to ‘criteria’, in order to determine cases of genuine quotation or allusion: word frequency, word pairings, motif development, literary homogeneity, and specific text combinations.83 Nogalski’s move towards establishing ‘cross-checks’ is welcome; however, the impression given is that any word occurring at the beginning of one text and at the end of another is significant.84 The words chosen are common words in the Hebrew Bible, and thus a deliberate link between two such texts is not self-evident. Moreover, close examination of Nogalski’s catchwords between Mal. 1.1-14 and Zech. 8.9-23 reveals that his ‘criteria’ allow for synonyms and not just exact words or cognates,85 78.  Ibid., p. 191. 79.  Idem, Redactional Process, pp. 195-96. 80.  James D. Nogalski, ‘Intertextuality and the Twelve’, in Watts and House, eds., Forming Prophetic Literature, pp. 102-24 (102; italics original). 81.  Ibid., p. 103 (italics original). 82.  Ibid., p. 112. 83.  Ibid., p. 109. 84.  For a critique of Nogalski’s works, see Richard J. Coggins, ‘Interbiblical Quotations in Joel’, in After the Exile: Essays in Honor of Rex Mason (ed. John Barton and David J. Reiner; Macon, GA: Mercer University Print, 1996), pp. 75-84 (77); and Richard L. Schultz, ‘The Ties That Bind: Intertextuality, the Identification of Verbal Parallels, and Reading Strategies in the Book of the Twelve’, in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), pp. 27-45 (30). 85.  For example, the catchwords ‘fruit’ (‫פרי‬: Zech. 8.12; ‫ניב‬: Mal. 1.12), ‘curse’ (‫קללה‬: Zech. 8.13; ‫ארר‬: Mal. 1.14), and ‘gates’ (‫שער‬: Zech. 8.16; ‫דלת‬: Mal. 1.10) are based on synonyms.

1. Introduction

19

and even where exact words are present they do not always have the same referent.86 Furthermore, the reuse is not always in the same direction: for example, Nogalski proposes that Zech. 8.21-22 presupposes Mal. 1.9.87 Weyde devotes five pages to his methodology. For the most part, he presents his own approach in conversation with Fishbane, Utzschneider and Nogalski. By focusing on forms, Weyde believes that ‘generic transformations’ of a received text may be discerned in the later application of it; and that a determination of forms enhances ‘the possibility of revealing characteristics of the message in Malachi’.88 For Weyde, the ‘reuse’ of traditions constitutes some kind of actualization or application, similar to Fishbane’s idea of inner-biblical exegesis.89 Although Weyde notes the need to allow for the possibility that Malachi utilizes ‘conventional language without having one specific tradition in mind’, he does not provide set criteria for distinguishing between actualization and conventional language.90 The closest he comes is in his critique of Nogalski’s common catchwords and motifs, which he avers cannot in themselves constitute a case of allusion. Weyde argues that Nogalski’s ‘criteria’ are not to be rejected, but rather ‘combined and used together with observations on forms’. He quotes approvingly from Sommer’s qualifications on similar terminology between two texts: If two texts share vocabulary items that are commonplace in Biblical Hebrew, the parallel between them is most likely coincidental. If they share terms that often appear together in biblical or ancient Near Eastern texts, then there is a strong likelihood that they independently draw on traditional vocabulary clusters. If the vocabulary is neither common nor part of a known vocabulary cluster, then the possibility of genuine borrowing is strong. If a text repeatedly alters the wording of ideas of earlier texts in certain ways, or if it displays a particular preference for certain texts, then examples of shared vocabulary which display those tendencies are likely to represent cases of borrowing.91

86.  For example, plural ‫ אבות‬in Zech. 8.14 refers to Israel’s ancestral fathers, whereas singular ‫ אב‬in 1.6 refers to a general biological father and to Yhwh as Father. 87.  Nogalski, Redactional Process, pp. 197-98 n. 56. 88.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 49. 89.  Ibid., p. 50. 90.  In a later article, Weyde, ‘Inner-Biblical Interpretation’, sought to define carefully the categories of allusion, influence, echo, and exegesis. 91.  Benjamin D. Sommer, ‘Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger’, VT 46.4 (1996), pp. 479-89 (484).

20

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Weyde’s dependence on Sommer appears to suggest that he is working with a purely diachronic approach: ‘our study involves a diachronic component; it is historically orientated’. However, he also incorporates the synchronic approach of ‘intertextuality’, in which ‘Malachi presumably makes use of terms, phrases, and themes occurring in other texts’.92 Weyde is aware of the charge that his approach is a ‘conglomeration of methods’, but he defends himself by claiming that methods should only be regarded as ‘guidelines’. Weyde sees two implications for his approach: first, any text in Malachi may be based on a combination of traditions, the attempt to identify them all being ‘rather complex’; and secondly, forms and modes of expression which some commentators find ‘disturbing’ or ‘unexpected’ may simply reflect ‘the prophet’s exegetical technique’.93 Weyde’s diachronic–synchronic method combines author-oriented and reader-oriented approaches. While he is fairly consistent in describing the different kinds of ‘reuse’ that occur throughout his book – actuali­ zation versus terminological similarity – it is unclear whether Weyde sees the latter exerting ‘influence’ on the message of Malachi. At times his language suggests as much. For example, in drawing his conclusions, Weyde argues that the prophet Malachi is dependent on material recorded in Genesis (J and P), in the Covenant Code, and the Holiness Code, in Deuteronomy/the Deuteronomistic History, and in prophetic traditions, both pre-exilic, exilic, and post-exilic; he uses poetic material, above all from the Psalms, and the wisdom traditions. A preference for one of these traditions is hardly discernible, but the analysis has demonstrated more examples of connections than has hitherto been recognized.94

To speak of Malachi not having a ‘preference’ for one of the traditions implies that, for Weyde, the wisdom traditions in the book are not simply interesting verbal parallels but actually exert some level of influence on the author as he writes his book, just as the other traditions do. Weyde’s study is impressive for the material that it covers, but it lacks an extensive discussion on criteria for establishing intentional connections and determining the direction of dependence. In an article published in 2004, Weyde sought to provide some methodological refinement in the area of ‘inner-biblical interpretation’, an umbrella term that, for him, includes inner-biblical allusion and exegesis 92.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 53. 93.  Ibid., p. 54. 94.  Ibid., p. 399.

1. Introduction

21

and intertextuality.95 Weyde argues that allusion should be distinguished from exegesis: ‘the former does not include the notion of interpretation but evokes only the memory of an older text’.96 Exegesis involves some kind of reinterpretation. He sees two kinds: application and modification. Having made these fairly neat distinctions, Weyde then takes a surprising turn: ‘it is not recommended to make a clear distinction between allusion (echo) and exegesis on the one hand, and intertextuality on the other’ because ‘scholars often cross the border between these approaches’.97 Weyde’s comment introduces the point of departure for the present study. Precisely because Malachi is a prophet with his own theological agenda and message, the aforementioned distinction between allusion/ exegesis (author-oriented) and intertextuality (reader-oriented) must be maintained if one is to discern how the traditions and texts function in his book and what rhetorical purpose they serve. It is the combined approach of the diachronic and synchronic, the author- and readeroriented approaches, that has distracted from a penetrating analysis on how the source texts in Malachi actually operate, and to what end. In sum, the range of source texts detected by Malachian scholars is an indication of the methodological confusion that besets the study of inner-biblical connections within the Hebrew Bible more generally. This overview of the competing methodologies reveals the need for a fresh discussion of Malachi’s inner-biblical connections.98 In particular, it reveals the importance of establishing criteria for evaluating the formal correspondence between texts and for determining the direction of dependence. One of the repercussions of the diversity of methodologies is that the interpretive significance of the inner-biblical connections within 95.  Weyde, ‘Inner-Biblical Interpretation’. This is different from how the term inner-biblical interpretation is being used in this monograph. The word ‘interpretation’ in the phrase ‘inner-biblical interpretation’ refers to the interpretation of the author and thus implies intent. It is my contention that it should not be used of synchronic/reader-oriented approaches. 96.  Ibid., p. 282. 97.  Ibid. It is also surprising why Weyde would locate inner-biblical allusion under the umbrella of inner-biblical interpretation if it ‘does not include the notion of interpretation’. 98.  Since Weyde’s comprehensive study, there has been much discussion on criteria for evaluating and determining textual reuse, which may now be applied to a study of Malachi’s inner-biblical interpretation. E.g. Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (JSOTSup 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), pp. 210-39, whose publication was released just prior to Weyde’s book; and Jeffery M. Leonard, ‘Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case’, JBL 127 (2008), pp. 241-65.

22

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

the book of Malachi becomes perplexing. The sheer number of source texts diverts attention away from evaluating how they actually function in Malachi and what rhetorical purpose they serve. Ignoring genuine cases of inner-biblical connection leads to semantic loss, but incorporating multiple connections that are simply examples of conventional biblical parlance leads to muddled interpretation.99 Burdened by too many source texts all operating at the same time, the clarity and force of Malachi’s theological message (and thus his central theme of covenant) is lost. 1.6. Outline of the Present Study This monograph investigates the relationship between Malachi’s central theme of covenant and the various inner-biblical connections contained in his book. The aim is to go further than simply stating that Malachi is ‘a treatise on the relationship of the people of the covenant to the God of the covenant’100 or that ‘the prophet who has conveyed this message had a large variety of traditions at his disposal’.101 Rather, this study seeks to bring these two statements into conversation more closely, analysing how Malachi’s inner-biblical interpretation informs and shapes his central theme of covenant. The burden of this book is that Malachi’s theme of covenant continuity and fidelity is heard most clearly when set against the backdrop of his inner-biblical allusion and exegesis of a range of texts in the Hebrew Bible. The present work proceeds along the following lines. Chapter 2 presents the methodological approach adopted in this study. It commences with a brief discussion of the literary features and historical context of the book, before embarking on an extended discussion of inner-biblical interpretation. Criteria for evaluating the evidence for correspondence between texts and the likely direction of dependence are first established before defining the different kinds of connections involved. The relationship between Malachi’s inner-biblical interpretation and his central theme of covenant is then investigated in the subsequent chapters (3–9), which follow the generally accepted divisions of the book: 1.2-5; 1.6–2.9; 2.10-16; 2.17–3.6; 3.7-12; 3.13-21[4.3]; 3.22-24[4.4-6]. Each of these chapters contains core elements relevant to the discussion: translation, 99.  As Berry, ‘Malachi’s Dual Design’, p. 287, states, somewhat ironically: ‘Because of all the assumed tradition “behind” Malachi, the eclectic style of the book appears somewhat incoherent. On the other hand, by elaborating more fully some of the traditions behind the work, Malachi’s messages take on more clarity.’ 100.  Hill, Malachi, p. 327. 101.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 399.

1. Introduction

23

text-critical issues, structure and theme, the particular covenant in view, inner-biblical allusion and exegesis and interpretive significance. Chapter 10 provides a summary of the analysis, categorizing the types of inner-biblical interpretation that Malachi displays, before assessing their interpretive significance for his central theme of covenant. 1.7. Text of Malachi The following study is based on the Masoretic Text (MT) of Malachi, as reflected in the Biblica Hebraica Quinta (BHQ), which collates the Leningrad (ML), Aleppo (MA) and Cairo (MC) Codices.102 4QXIIa (also known as 4Q76), which preserves part of Malachi (2.10–3.24[4.6]), is consulted in a few places.103

102.  Anthony Gelston, The Twelve Minor Prophets (BHQ 13; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010). 103.  Beate Ego et al., eds., Biblia Qumranica. 3B: Minor Prophets (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005). 4QXIIa is a Hebrew biblical manuscript of the Twelve Prophets from Qumran consisting of 21 fragments (Fuller, ‘Text-Critical Problems’, p. 47). It is a somewhat idiosyncratic witness that is unaffiliated to either the MT or the LXX (Russell E. Fuller, ‘Minor Prophets’, in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls [ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000], pp. 554-57 [557]).

Chapter 2 M et h od ol og y

2.1. Introduction Among scholars there is a general consensus concerning the literary features and the historical context of Malachi, which means that only brief comments are required by way of introduction. The main discussion in this chapter will concentrate on how to define and categorize innerbiblical connections between Malachi and other parts of the Hebrew Bible, since the area of ‘intertextuality’ or ‘inner-biblical interpretation’ is a point of significant disagreement and confusion. To speak of Malachi’s inner-biblical interpretation assumes a number of things in relation to the book’s literary features, structure and historical context. 2.2. Literary Features First, Malachi is an independent-but-related prophetic book within the Twelve Prophets, and in turn within the Hebrew canon.1 The recognition of its independence allows for an investigation into the book’s inner-biblical interpretation within its own confines; and its canonical placement at the end of the Law and the Prophets invites an analysis of its inner-biblical connections with other parts of the Hebrew canon. Although the particular form of Malachi’s oracular prose composition has been widely discussed,2 his continuity of, and connectivity to, the prophetic tradition is underlined 1.  Previous attempts to view it as an anonymous oracle alongside Zech. 9–11 and 12–14 (David L. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles [SBLMS 23; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977], pp. 23-34; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins [Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977], p. 108) are unconvincing. See Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (London: SCM, 1979), pp. 491-92, for a good critique. 2.  See Hill, Malachi, pp. 34-37, for a helpful overview of the various views.

2. Methodology

25

by the opening words of the superscription. The book is presented as a ‫משא‬, which is further qualified by ‫דבר־יהוה‬.3 Of the 65 occurrences of ‫משא‬, 27 designate prophetic speech and writing.4 Richard Weis’s seminal form-critical analysis of ‫ משא‬as a genre tag – a significant move away from the etymological studies that dominated the discussion5 – is potentially relevant for this study. Weis proposed that the word ‫ משא‬refers in post-exilic times to a particular type of prophecy: ‘prophetic exposition of divine revelation’.6 As attractive as this is for the present study, Weis’s proposal does not stand up to close scrutiny.7 Nevertheless, his point that prophecy underwent some kind of change after the exile should not be dismissed tout court.8 Given that most of the Primary History and prophetic corpus was available to prophets such as Zechariah and Malachi, it should not surprise us that their works reveal signi­ficant dependence on earlier material, more so than earlier prophets, even if this is not in line with the technical meaning of ‫ משא‬proposed by Weis. 3.  The syntax of ‫ משא דבר־יהוה‬may be read in a few different ways, but the one favoured here is as a noun–noun appositional relationship of the ‘sortal’ type: ‫דבר־יהוה‬ more narrowly defines ‫משא‬, providing it with a divine quality (cf. W-O’C § 12.3b, c). 4.  2 Kgs 9.25; Isa. 13.1; 15.1; 17.1; 19.1; 21.1, 11, 13; 22.1; 23.1; 30.6; Jer. 23.33 (2×), 35 (2×), 38 (3×); Ezek. 12.10; Nah. 1.1; Hab. 1.1; Zech. 9.1; 12.1; Mal. 1.1; Lam. 2.14; 2 Chron. 24.27. 5.  E.g. Henry S. Gehman, ‘The “Burden” of the Prophets’, JQR 31 (1940), pp. 10721; P. A. H. de Boer, ‘An Enquiry into the Meaning of the Term ‫’מׂשא‬, OTS 5 (1948), pp. 197-214. 6.  Weis’s PhD thesis was distilled in Richard D. Weis, ‘Oracle’, in ABD, V, pp. 28-29. His influence is reflected in Michael H. Floyd, Minor Prophets (FOTL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); idem, ‘The ‫ ַמ ָּׂשא‬as a Type of Prophetic Book’, JBL 121 (2002), pp. 401-22. Weis’s proposal was preceded by Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, p. 29, who had already proposed that ‫ משא‬defines later prophetic literature that was dependent on earlier classical prophetic work. 7.  For a thorough critique, see Mark J. Boda, ‘Freeing the Burden of Prophecy: Maśśāʾ and the Legitimacy of Prophecy in Zech 9–14’, Biblica 87 (2006), pp. 338-57: ‘The variety in the formal aspects of the [maśśāʾ] texts should have been a signal to Weis that he may not be dealing with a form at all’; he ‘must generalize the intention [of a maśśāʾ text] to the point that it could describe many prophetic texts which are not maśśāʾ’ (p. 349). Boda concludes, ‘Maśśāʾ is no more a genre tag than are phrases like “word of the Lord” or “vision of X prophet” ’ (p. 350). Moreover, no part of Zech. 1–8 is assigned the title ‫ משא‬and yet recent intertextual studies reveal that ‘prophetic exposition of divine revelation’ would be an appropriate description of Zechariah’s reuse of the ‘former prophets’. 8.  In agreement, Hill, Malachi, p. 139.

26

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Second, the identification of Malachi’s audience in the superscription as ‫ ישראל‬immediately provides ground for the plausibility of the book’s inner-biblical connections. The term refers to the ‘new’ Israel that had returned to the land and that was founded on a rebuilt temple, a reorganized Levitical priesthood, a restored temple practice, and a renewed covenant with Yhwh.9 The audience therefore is one that has a rich traditional and textual history, for whom the allusions to earlier works would be obvious and relevant. Third, identifying ‫ מלאכי‬as a proper noun as opposed to a title/appellative for an ‘anonymous’ work highlights the issue of authorial intent, a key factor in any study of inner-biblical allusion and exegesis. ‘The book of Malachi breathes the spirit of an original, genuinely prophetic personality.’10 On the other hand, taking Malachi as an appellative ‘renders the prophetic text with a confused and unintelligible meaning’.11 Reading ‫ מלאכי‬as a proper noun still requires some defence, however, since from the earliest versions ‫ מלאכי‬has been interpreted as a title and not a personal name. Hence the following points need to be made.12 First, the canonical prophetic works all cite an original author.13 Second, in most cases, the use of ‫ ביד‬to indicate the human instrument of God’s revelation is usually followed by a proper name with which it is in a construct relationship (e.g. Exod. 9.35; cf. Jer. 50.1; Hag. 1.1, 3; 2.1). In fact, the LXX rendering (‘through his messenger’) suggests that the translators saw it as problematic for an author to refer to himself as ‘my messenger’ when Yhwh’s direct speech had not yet commenced (Mal. 1.2). The LXX translation thus only serves to reinforce the originality of the MT:14 9.  Dumbrell, ‘Malachi and Ezra–Nehemiah Reforms’, pp. 44–45. 10.  Artur Weiser, Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961), p. 277. 11.  Childs, Introduction, p. 493. 12.  LXX: ‘by the hand of his messenger’ (ἐν χειρὶ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ); or ‘my messenger’ in Jewish tradition (b. Meg. 15a; Tg.); and Jerome, S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera, Pars I: Opera Exegetica 6: Commentarii in Prophetas Minores (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 76A; Turnhout, Belgium: Brepolis, 1970), pp. 901–902; John Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets. V. Zechariah and Malachi (Calvin’s Commentaries 15; trans. John Owen; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), p. 459; C. C. Torrey, ‘The Prophecy of “Malachi”’, JBL 17 (1898), pp. 1-15 (1). 13.  The view that ‫ מלאכי‬was added to an ‘anonymous’ prophetic oracle to ensure the sacred number 12, lacks consistency for the other two so-called anonymous oracles, namely, Zech. 9–11 and 12–14. 14.  Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1972), p. 212.

2. Methodology

27

‘Malachi’ is a unique and peculiar name. Third, whether one opts for ‘my messenger’ or ‘messenger of Yhwh’ (as I do),15 uniqueness and peculiarity do not necessarily preclude authenticity, as names of prophets such as ‫ יונה‬or ‫ חבקוק‬or people such as ‫‘( בארי‬my well’; Gen. 26.34; Hos. 1.1) and ‫‘( אתני‬my gift’; 1 Chron. 6.26[41]) indicate. Fourth, it is possible to view Malachi as the product of a single mind, thus avoiding the necessity of postulating compositional layers within the book. Numerous proposals have been made for secondary additions to the original composition – 1.1, 4-5, 11-14; 2.11-13a; 3.1c-4, 16, 22-24[4.4-6] – or for rearrangement of the material – 3.6-12 relocated to follow 1.2-5 or 2.1-16. The main reasons for late additions are: introduction of new material that diverts from the main theme (1.4-5; 2.11-13a; 3.1c) or of material that is contrary to themes elsewhere in the book (cf. 1.4 and 2.11 with 1.11); shift in person: first to third (2.10-13; 3.1-5), or Esau to Edom (1.3-4); unique speech formula (1.4); absence of key terms compared with elsewhere in the pericope (e.g. ‫ ;בגד ;אחד‬2.11-13a); deviation from the disputational style (2.11-12; 3.16); break in the flow of the argument (2.11-13a); or unrelated material to surrounding context (3.22-24[4.4-6]). My detailed analysis of the vocabulary, grammatical forms, logic of the argument, theme and structure suggests that these factors are not sufficiently weighty as to warrant the exclusion of the verses concerned from the original composition.16 This study therefore proceeds on the supposition that the prophet Malachi composed a unified book from 1.1 to 3.24[4.6].17 15.  ‫ מלאכי‬may be a typical î hypocoristic pattern, the shortest form in a series of successively shortened names: ‫( מלאכיהוה‬Malachiyahweh: ‘messenger of Yahweh’); ‫( מלאכיהו‬Malachiyahu: ‘messenger of Yahu’); ‫( מלאכיה‬Malachiyah: ‘messenger of Yah’). It is possible that the yod is a vestige of the construct genitive relationship between the two elements in the names (cf. ‫ פלטיאל‬and ‫ אבדיאל‬in the following list). There are linguistic precedents: ‫אבי‬‎(2 Kgs 18.2) and ‫אביה‬‎(2 Chron. 29.1); ‫ארי‬‎(1 Kgs 4.19) and ‫אוריה‬‎(1 Chron. 11.41); ‫פלטי‬‎(1 Sam. 25.44) and ‫פלטיאל‬‎(2 Sam. 3.15); ‫אבדי‬‎ (1 Chron. 6.29) and ‫אבדיאל‬‎ (1 Chron. 5.15); ‫בקי‬‎ (Num. 34.22) and ‫בקיהו‬‎ (1 Chron. 25.4, 13). Some ancient versions, such as the Peshitta, Theodotion and Symmachus (both, μαλαχίου) and the Vulgate, render Malachi as a proper name. Cf. also 2 Esd. 1.40. 16.  For example, abrupt changes in person are not unusual in poetic or prophetic language (cf. Deut. 32.15; Isa. 42.20; 54.14; 61.7; Job 16.7; Lam. 3.1), and this may be observed elsewhere in Malachi. Compare the shift from first person to third person, or vice versa, in relation to Yhwh in 1.9 and 1.10-11; 1.14b and 1.14c-d; 2.2-7b and 2.7c; 3.6-7 and 3.8a; 3.17 and 3.18, 23[4.5]. 17.  A reasoned defence for the inclusion of 3.22-24[4.4-6] as original and integral to Malachi’s prophecy is given in Chapter 9, since its secondary nature has become almost assumed in Malachian scholarship today.

28

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

2.3. Structure Following the superscription (1.1), six units provide the skeletal frame to Malachi (1.2-5; 1.6–2.9; 2.17–3.6;18 3.7-12; 3.13-21[4.3]), with an appended summary conclusion (3.22-24[4.4-6]).19 The six pericopes consist of disputations. The pericopes are delimited not according to Masoretic divisions, keywords, themes, treaty/covenant structures, rîb patterns, but rather by the internal literary form of the disputation speeches, which involve at least three key elements: opening prophetic declaration, rebuttal and refutation.20 The largest pericope (1.6–2.9) is directed against the priests, three against the people of Judah (1.2-5; 2.10-16; 3.7-12), and two against the sceptics in the community (2.17–3.6; 3.13-21[4.3]). Identifying the sub-groups is helpful but it should not overshadow the collective address to Jacob (1.2; 2.12; 3.6) and all Israel (1.1, 5; 2.11; 3.22[4.4]; cf. ‘one’ in 2.10). 2.4. Historical Context For the purposes of this present study, only a brief discussion of the historical context of Malachi is required because the majority of scholars date the book late enough for large amounts of the Hebrew canon to be chronologically prior to Malachi. Although Malachi’s superscription provides no exact date for the book, most commentators situate it in the fifth century on the basis of the internal evidence. Historically, the destruction of Edom (1.4), the presence of a ‫( פחה‬governor; 1.8) and a completed and operational temple (1.8; 3.3) suggest the Persian era, during the reigns of either Darius I (521–486 B.C.), Xerxes (486–65 B.C.) or Artaxerxes I 18.  There is some dispute as to where the fourth pericope ends, whether at 3.5, 3.6 or 3.7. I read the particle ‫ כי‬as causal and therefore closely connected to the preceding verses, while also forming a link to the following verses. In many ways, 3.6 is a ‘hinge’ verse between two pericopes. 19.  See Hill, Malachi, pp. 26-34, for a detailed treatment of Malachi’s structure. 20.  Pfeiffer, ‘Die Disputationsworte im Buche Maleachi’, pp. 546-68, was seminal in classifying Malachi as a well-developed example of disputation speeches. Boecker, ‘Maleachi’, pp. 78-80, softened Pfeiffer’s approach, calling them ‘discussion speeches’. But this neglects the strong tone and rhetoric in many of the speeches. See, for example, 2.3 where Yhwh threatens to rub dung in the face of the priests! Two units diverge from the ‘normal’ pattern of declaration, objection, refutation: 2.10-16 begins with a question (v. 10), and delays the charge against the people until (v. 13); 3.13-21[4.3] differs significantly from the disputational style by introducing a narrative report (v. 16) after Yhwh’s explanation (vv. 14-15) in response to the people’s objection (v. 13c). These differences simply reveal that there is no one particular generic mould that is normative for all the units in the book.

2. Methodology

29

(464–24 B.C.).21 Lexically, two other potential ‘Persianisms’ appear in the book – the unique phrasee ‫( ספר זכרון‬3.16; cf. Ezra 4.15; 6.1-2; Est. 2.23; 6.1-3) and ‫( שמש צדקה‬3.20[4.2]).22 Linguistically, Andrew Hill’s examination of Malachi’s language has been most influential. He argues that Malachi’s grammar falls between classical and late Biblical Hebrew prose, indicating a date of composition some time between 515 and 458 B.C.23 Hill’s dating is consonant with that of other scholars.24 Socio-politically, Malachi aligns with a time similar to that of Ezra and Nehemiah. Although there is debate over whether Malachi precedes or is contemporary with Ezra and Nehemiah, either coming in between the two or during one of Nehemiah’s governorships,25 it is clear that his preaching addresses similar issues to those that confronted Israel’s scribe and governor: mixed marriages and divorce (2.10-16; cf. Ezra 9.1-15; Neh. 13.23-31), a lax and corrupt priesthood (1.6–2.9; cf. Neh. 12.30, 44-47), cultic decay, especially in relation to the tithe (3.8-12; cf. Neh. 13.4-22), and social justice (3.5; cf. Neh. 5.1-13) – all of which resonate with the Ezra–Nehemiah era.26 Finally, Malachi’s theology resonates with the post-exilic period on issues such as exclusivism (Ezra–Nehemiah), universalism (Isa. 56–66) and eschatology (Isa. 56–66; Joel; and Zech. 9–14). In conclusion, historical, lexical, linguistic, socio-political and theo­ logical factors in Malachi combine to support a date in the first half of the fifth century. For the purpose of this study, narrowing down the date to a more specific point is unnecessary. In writing so late in the history of Israel, the general consensus among scholars is that Malachi would have had at his disposal a wide range of traditions and texts from the Hebrew canon as he composed his book, these including from the Primary History 21.  See Hill, Malachi, pp. 51-74, for an overview of the Persian period and the province of ‘Yehud’. 22.  John Gray, ‘The Day of Yahweh in Cultic Experience and Eschatological Prospect’, SEÅ 39 (1974), pp. 5-37 (6 n. 1), sees the influence of Zoroastrianism in 3.20[4.2]. 23.  Hill, ‘Dating of Malachi’, pp. 77-89. In his commentary, Hill argues that ‘Malachi’s linguistic affinity to Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 and the hypothesis of language change between the first and second generations of returning exiles support a date of near 500 B.C./E. for the composition of Malachi’ (Hill, Malachi, p. 83). 24.  E.g. Alexander von Bulmerincq, Einleitung in das Buch des Propheten Maleachi (Dorpat: Matthieseus, 1926), I, pp. 42-49; David N. Freedman, ‘The Law and the Prophets’, in Congress Volume: Bonn, 1962 (ed. G. W. Anderson et al.; VTSup 9; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963), pp. 250-65. 25.  See Hill, Malachi, pp. 393-95, for the adherents to various positions on the date of Malachi. 26.  Following the analysis of 2.10-16, I date Malachi prior to Ezra–Nehemiah.

30

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

and most of the prophetic corpus. Dating the source material used in Malachi therefore mostly requires only passing comments. In sum, the broad and general consensus among scholars on the literary features, structure and historical context of Malachi raises no major problem for the study of the traditions and texts employed in the book. However, the same cannot be said of the inner-biblical connections themselves. The study of intertextual connections within the OT more generally is something of a minefield and so a careful and extended discussion is à propos. 2.5. Inner-Biblical Interpretation One of the main problems in discussions of inner-biblical connections within the Hebrew Bible relates to the different, and at times confusing, terminology that is employed by scholars working in this area. At least five prominent terms describing inner-canonical connections currently exist in scholarly literature: inner-biblical allusion,27 inner-biblical exegesis,28 inner-biblical interpretation,29 intertextuality,30 and tradition history.31 Increasingly, intertextuality is the preferred term among biblical scholars.32 27.  Risto Nurmela, Prophets in Dialogue: Inner-Biblical Allusions in Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14 (Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press, 1996). 28.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation; Konrad Schmid, ‘Innerbiblische Schrift­ auslegung: Aspekte der Forschungsgeschichte’, in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift (Festschrift Odil Hannes Steck; ed. Reinhard G. Kratz, Thomas Krüger and Konrad Schmid; BZAW 300; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), pp. 1-22: ‘innerbiblische Schriftauslegung’. 29.  John Day, ‘Inner-Biblical Interpretation in the Prophets’, in Gordon, ed., ‘The Place Is Too Small for Us’, pp. 230-46. 30.  Michael R. Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8 (LHBOTS 506; London: T&T Clark International, 2009). 31.  Nicholas H. F. Tai, Prophetie als Schriftauslegung in Sacharja 9–14: Traditions und Kompositionsgeschichtliche Studien (Calwer Theologische Monographien A17; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1996): ‘traditionsgeschichtliche Hintergründe’. Here the interest is primarily in how the source traditions passed from oral to written stages until their final form in the book. 32.  The term ‘intertextuality’ was first coined by the French-Bulgarian semiologist Julia Kristeva in the late 1960s, where its original meaning was somewhat different from how it is now defined in biblical studies. For Kristeva, intertextualité was a fundamental property of all signifying systems as they intersect with each other: writers, addressees, culture, even society itself, are all ‘texts’ that combine and transform other texts (Julia Kristeva, Revolution in Poetic Language [trans. Margaret Waller; New York: Columbia University Press, 1984], pp. 59-60). In her own words: ‘any text is

2. Methodology

31

Intertextuality describes ‘the ways in which the meaning of a text is shaped by its relationships with other texts’.33 Patricia K. Tull and Geoffrey Miller have provided helpful overviews of the differing positions and the points of disagreement and confusion.34 Miller discerns two basic methodological approaches within biblical studies:35 (1) a reader-oriented approach, which tends to rely solely on a synchronic analysis of texts where two texts are read together without concerns for direction of dependence;36 and (2) an author-oriented approach, which is interested in a diachronic analysis of texts, whereby one text is understood to be dependent on another.37 Miller points out that the author-oriented approach still places ‘great importance’ on the role of the reader.38 The difference in this approach, however, is that constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another text’ (Julia Kristeva, Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art [New York: Columbia University Press, 1980], p. 66). The words are originally found in the fourth chapter of her Semeiotike: Recherches pour une sémanalyse (Paris: Seuil, 1969), p. 146. The essay is dated in the book to 1966, and later appeared as, ‘Bakhtine, le mot, le dialogue et le roman’, Critique 23 (1976), pp. 438-65. 33.  Michael R. Stead, ‘Intertextuality and Innerbiblical Interpretation’, in Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets (ed. Mark J. Boda and J. Gordon McConville; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2013), pp. 355-64 (355). Stead sees two aspects to the term: ‘innerbiblical interpretation’ and ‘synchronic intertextuality’. 34.  Patricia K. Tull, ‘Intertextuality and the Hebrew Scriptures’, CurBS 8 (2000), pp. 59-90; Geoffrey D. Miller, ‘Intertextuality in Old Testament Research’, CBR 9 (2010), pp. 283-309. 35.  Ibid., pp. 284-88. In practice, Miller observes that some scholars try to combine these two approaches, though without much success. 36.  E.g. Ellen J. van Wolde, ‘Trendy Intertextuality’, in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas Van Iersel (ed. S. Draisma; Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1989), p. 47; and L. Eslinger, ‘Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Question of Category’, VT 42 (1992), pp. 47-58; Kirsten Nielsen, ‘Intertextuality and Hebrew Bible’, in Lemaire and Sæbø, eds., Congress Volume: Oslo, 1998, pp. 17–31 (18). 37.  E.g. Fishbane, ‘Form and Reformulation of Priestly Blessing’, pp. 115-21; idem, Biblical Interpretation; idem, ‘Inner-Biblical Exegesis’, in Hebrew Bible, Old Testament, the History of Its Interpretation (ed. M. Sæbø; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), pp. 33-48; Sommer, ‘Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality’, pp. 486-87; idem, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (The Contra­ versions Series; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998). 38.  Miller, ‘Intertextuality’, p. 284; cf. also Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 26-27, who notes the need to acknowledge the role of the reader without jettisoning authorial intent.

32

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

the reader decodes the meaning of the source text in the alluding text as opposed to creating meaning between the two texts.39 Precisely because the term intertextuality carries with it so many presuppositions from the world of literary theory in which it arose, and because ‘almost everybody who uses it understands it somewhat differently’,40 the term is accordingly avoided here. For example, Sanders pinpoints three main ways in which the term ‘intertextuality’ is currently used: ‘the interrelation of blocks of text (large or small) in close proximity; the function of older literature cited or in some way alluded to in later literature; and the interrelation of text and reader’.41 Each of these is rather different. The confusion of terminology has meant that ‘[i]t is impossible to speak of an “intertextual method” in biblical studies’.42 I therefore join my voice to those in recent times who prefer to avoid the term ‘intertextuality’ when speaking about the diachronic analysis of texts.43 For this study, the terms ‘inner-biblical allusion’ and ‘inner-biblical exegesis’ (with ‘inner-biblical interpretation’ as an umbrella term for the two) are preferred, since they focus on the diachronic aspect of earlier source texts being appropriated by the prophet Malachi. 2.5.1. Mapping Inner-Biblical Interpretation At its most basic level, inner-biblical interpretation involves what Richard Hays calls, ‘the imbedding of fragments of an earlier text within a later 39.  Miller, ‘Intertextuality’, p. 288. 40.  Heinrich F. Plett, ‘Intertextualities’, in Intertextuality (ed. Heinrich F. Plett; Research in Text Theory 15; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991), pp. 3-29 (3). 41.  James A. Sanders, ‘Intertextuality and Canon’, in On the Way to Nineveh: Studies in Honor of George M. Landes (ed. Stephen L. Cook and Sara C. Winter; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), pp. 316-33 (316). 42.  Miller, ‘Intertextuality’, p. 285. 43.  Cf. David M. Carr, ‘The Many Uses of Intertextuality in Biblical Studies: Actual and Potential’, in Congress Volume: Helsinki, 2010 (ed. Martti Nissinen; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2012), pp. 505-35; Michael A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (LHBOTS 507; London: T&T Clark International, 2009), p. 50; Sommer, ‘Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality’, pp. 486-87; idem, A Prophet Reads Scripture, pp. 6-10. Miller, ‘Intertextuality’, p. 285, has recently called for alternative terminology to describe the two differing approaches in order to alleviate the ‘methodological befuddlement’ hampering studies of intertextuality. He concludes: ‘Since the reader-oriented, purely synchronic approach constitutes a more authentic application of the post-structuralist concept borrowed from literary theory and postmodern thought, it should be designated as the study of intertextuality. The more diachronic, author-oriented approach indebted to traditional methods of biblical criticism should be given a different name as many scholars have tried to do’ (p. 305).

2. Methodology

33

one’.44 The difficulty comes when one tries to categorize the kind of ‘imbedding’ that Hays describes. Similar vocabulary, phraseology or motifs do not in themselves constitute a case of dependence; language may simply be unintentionally ‘borrowed’. The reason for the similarity between two texts may be due to coincidence, an independent third source on which the two authors are dependent, a similar tradition-history background, a shared stream of linguistic tradition, that is, conventional biblical parlance or stock vocabulary in the form of formulaic, idiomatic or proverbial sayings. Malachi’s terminology and phraseology encourage reflection on the traditions and texts that lie behind his book, but exactly which traditions and texts are employed remains a point of disagreement among scholars. As noted in the introduction, a comparison of the connections noted or listed by scholars who attend to Malachi’s inner-biblical interpretation reveals that diverse methodologies are at work. There is no agreed definition of terminology or criteria, which has had the effect of allowing an extensive range of verbal parallels to accumulate. An extended treatment on the method is therefore necessary, before proceeding into the main body of the monograph. Mapping inner-biblical connections between two texts involves three aspects: (1) evaluating the evidence for correspondence between texts; (2) determining the direction of dependence between texts; and (3) defining the kind of correspondence between texts. (1) Evaluating the Evidence for Correspondence Between Texts: Established Criteria The following criteria help to evaluate whether verbal correspondence between two texts is intentional or whether the parallels exist for some other reason, such as a shared stream of linguistic tradition.45 First, lexical coordinates create the first ‘point of contact’ between two texts.46 To the degree that the search for textual links departs from the lexical data, the element of subjectivity will tend to undermine

44.  Hays, Echoes of Scripture, pp. 13-14. Fishbane, ‘Biblical Intertextuality’, p. 39: ‘new texts imbed, reuse, or otherwise allude to precursor materials – both as strategy for meaning-making, and for establishing the authority of a given innovation’. 45.  It is best to view these criteria as cumulative steps towards establishing a link between two texts. The degree of probability for an explicit/implicit intentional reuse of an earlier work is directly proportional to the number of criteria that are met. 46.  Leonard, ‘Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions’, p. 246, calls this ‘the single most important factor’ for establishing a link.

34

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

the strength of any proposed connection.47 However, some nuances or qualifications are important. (a) The number of parallel words alone does not in itself prove the connection is intentional, since exact wording may be explained by other reasons, as noted above. Conversely, a connection between two texts can be established by a single word, in the case of a proper noun (‫ יעקב‬and ‫ ;עשו‬Mal. 1.2-3a) or a rare word (‫ ;מארה‬2.2; 3.9), or a common word in a specific context (‫ ;אחד‬2.15). (b) The presence of unshared language is inevitable due to the shift in literary genre or style, and especially if the author has creatively re-presented the source material. As Fishbane notes, Materials are always moving from one setting to another, being joined to different genres, and resulting in new redactional units for instruction. Indeed, we must take note of the fact that traditions were always being integrated and moved from one sphere of instruction – be that oral, written, priestly, sapiental, or whatever – to another.48

(c) This first criterion does not rule out thematic links; however, it does indicate that for those links to be probable, the themes must be communicated through similar words/roots.49 In short, the more lexical coordinates the more likely a connection, though in some cases a single lexeme in a specific context may alone form the link. Second, the frequency and distribution of the shared lexemes increases the probability of a connection between two texts. Fishbane calls this ‘multiple and sustained linkages between two texts’.50 If common words or phrases are used evenly throughout Scripture, then the likelihood of a deliberate allusion to one particular text is most likely coincidental. But if the words are more specific to these two particular texts, then a connection 47.  Ibid., p. 246. 48.  Michael Fishbane, ‘The Hebrew Bible and Exegetical Tradition’, in Inter­ textuality in Ugarit and Israel (ed. Johannes C. de Moor; OTS 40; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998), pp. 15-30 (18). Cf. also Schultz, Search for Quotation, p. 235. 49.  The word/root must be the same but not necessarily appear in the same grammatical form (lemma) or genre. This is where I depart from Stead, who sees the possibility of a link between two texts through cognates or synonyms that transverse the same semantic domain (Stead, Zechariah 1–8, pp. 33-34, 37). On this axis, the element of subjectivity significantly increases, and raises the question why the original author did not use the same word/root if he wanted the reader to be directed to a particular source text or theme. By using a different word/root he has immediately put the reader off the intertextual scent. 50.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, p. 285.

2. Methodology

35

is plausible. If the terms are exclusive to the two texts, then the probability of an intended connection significantly increases. Moreover, the accumulation of locutions51 from a particular text/book can work recursively to reinforce the probability of an intended connection. Third, peculiar occurrences of shared lexemes, such as rare words or lexical clusters, increases the likelihood of correspondence between two texts, especially if the rare terms or clusters are exclusive to the two texts.52 A rare word can mark an allusion to another text (e.g. ‫ רשש‬in Mal. 1.4; cf. Jer. 5.17), but not always so (e.g. ‫ ּב ִֹרית‬in Mal. 3.2; cf. Jer. 2.22). Context is needed to illuminate whether the connections are intentional. In the case of ‫רשש‬, in Jer. 5.17, it is used in relation to the coming destruction of Judah by the Babylonians, and in Mal. 1.4, when Edom claims to have been shattered (‫)רשש‬, this is arguably a reference to their own destruction by the same enemy.53 The idea of lexical clusters is evidenced in Mal. 1.3-4, where Malachi employs terminology that is common to conventional curse or judgement language elsewhere in the prophets against Israel, Edom, and other nations – terms such as ‫ שממה‬and ‫( חרבה‬Isa. 34.5-15; Jer. 49.7-22; Ezek. 25.12-14; 35; Joel 4.19[3.19]; Obad. 10-14). However, the possibility of an intended connection to some of the Edom texts (particularly Ezek. 35) is increased significantly when it is observed that unique terminology and word/root combinations involving these common terms are exclusive to Malachi and Ezek. 35: ‫ שממה‬+ ‫ הר‬is shared by only Ezekiel (33.28; 35.7, 15) and Mal. 1.3; ‫( נחלה‬singular) + √‫ שמם‬is unique to Ezek. 35.15 and Mal. 1.3.54 The exclusivity invites an investigation into the kind of correspondence that is at play here, as well as the rhetorical purpose it serves in Malachi’s message at this point. Fourth, shared phrases may suggest a stronger connection than individual shared lexemes. That is, syntactical correspondence, as well as lexical parallels, increases the likelihood of a link. For example, the rare 51.  Locution is used as an umbrella term for a word, phrase, or expression. 52.  Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, p. 72: ‘if a locution shared by two texts could have been selected from a number of semantically equivalent locutions, it is more likely to be the result of a purposeful and conscious choice’. Of course, an author may intentionally employ common words from an earlier text as well as rare words. However, the use of a rare lexeme is a clearer indication of which text exactly is being quoted. 53.  By Nabonidus, during his Arabian campaign in 552 B.C. (see John R. Bartlett, ‘Edom’, in ABD, II, pp. 287-95 [293]). See below for further discussion. 54.  Isa. 49.8 has ‫נחלות שממות‬, where the servant is promised as a covenant to the people in order to establish the land and apportion the desolate heritages.

36

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

word ‫ מארה‬occurs only three times (Deut. 28.20; Prov. 3.33; 28.27) outside of Malachi. Superficially, the term could point to any one of these texts. However, it is the syntactical parallel with Deut. 28.20 that narrows down an allusion to this particular text. Only Deut. 28.20 and Mal. 2.2 reflect the syntactical sequence of ‫ שלח‬+ ‫ ב‬+ pronominal suffix + ‫ את‬+ ‫ ה‬+ ‫ מארה‬in the Hebrew Bible. Another consideration is that in some cases the source text may be reworked in such a way as to change the syntactical sequence of words, for example, for rhetorical purposes. This is seen in Malachi’s accusatory oracle against the priests (Mal. 1.6–2.9), where the prophet takes the Priestly Blessing from Num. 6.23-27 and exegetically transforms it into a curse against the priests.55 The neat literary structure that conveys the holistic blessing in Numbers is shattered and fragmented as the curse is delivered by Malachi. To require syntactical parallels rules out other legiti­mate kinds of textual reuse that involve techniques such as ‘splitting’,56 ‘conflation’,57 ‘reversal/inversion’,58 ‘revision’ – all of which intentionally ‘break’ the syntax in the source text, since that is part of the transformative or reinterpretative process.59

55.  See Chapter 4, for a full defence of this reading. 56.  Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, pp. 68-69: the words in the source text are split and then recombined in parallel lines. 57.  David M. Carr, ‘Method of Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11-26 and Its Parallels’, in Gottes Volk am Sinai. Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (ed. Matthias Köckert and Erhard Blum; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2011), pp. 107-40 (135). 58.  The key elements in the source text are dislocated from their original context and relocated into their new context by inversion. The phenomenon derives from Moshe Seidel, whose study of common locutions in Isaiah and the Psalms pointed up this inversion pattern (Moshe Seidel, ‘Parallels Between Isaiah and Psalms [Hebrew]’, Sinai 38 [1955], pp. 149-72, 229-40, 272-80, 335-55; cited in Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 121). The theory has been adopted by Meir Weiss, The Bible from Within: The Method of Total Interpretation (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1984), pp. 95-6, 116, 257, 326-27, 337 n. 85, 429; Gershon Levi, ed., The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1990), pp. 69-70; and Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 22; New York: Doubleday, 1983), pp. 333, 335. 59.  In this regard, Schultz’s set criterion of verbal and syntactical parallels is too restrictive in the light of the case studies of inner-biblical interpretation (Schultz, Search for Quotation, p. 223). It can be a helpful criterion but is not a necessary one.

2. Methodology

37

These qualifications notwithstanding, shared lexical and syntactical parallels can be indicative of a deliberate connectivity between two texts. Fifth, contextual and thematic awareness of both texts can significantly help to distinguish between a formal connection of some kind and an unconscious ‘borrowing’ of shared language. As Leonard comments, ‘When context is paired with the earlier principle concerning distinctive terms, the likelihood of a textual connection is even greater’.60 This is because, unlike borrowing, an allusion/quotation has a referential character: the specific context of the source text comes into conversation with the alluding text. Absence of this contextual recall means that ‘one merely has borrowed language with no referential value’.61 Observing the context of both passages involves their historical, literary and rhetorical contexts, and more immediately, the surrounding themes and concepts. The contexts and themes may be similar, drawing a coherent analogy between the two texts. For example, the context and theme of Mal. 3.7-12 and Deut. 28 centre around the idea of blessing and curse, which strengthens the case for an allusion based on the shared vocabulary. The contexts and themes may also be contrastive.62 For example, the rare phrase ‘windows of heaven’ (‫ )ארבות השמים‬occurs in Gen. 7.11; 8.2 in the context of curse; in Mal. 3.10, it is dislocated from that historical and literary context and relocated in a prophetic context in which God promises to bless on condition of repentance. The contrasting contexts and themes serve to spotlight the potential reversal on the horizon should Israel repent – widespread curse may yet be turned to abundant blessing. Understanding the context and theme of both passages also helps to elucidate the purposes for which the source text has been utilized. This may be seen in relation to earlier prophecies. According to Fishbane, the interpretation and reinterpretation of prophetic oracles was caused primarily by the concern for their fulfilment. The oracles in their original context projected a ‘rational order on to the apparent disorder of events’, but their non-fulfilment posed a threat to the ‘entire framework within which a believer lived’. The interpretation of the oracles thus served to reduce the resultant ‘cognitive dissonance’ that would have been naturally felt when the oracles were not fulfilled.63 As Fishbane observes, ‘the exegetical redirection of lapsed or unfulfilled oracles functioned to reestablish cognitive consonance and to 60.  Leonard, ‘Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions’, p. 255. 61.  Schultz, Search for Quotation, p. 228. 62.  A point that Leonard, ‘Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions’, p. 255, ignores. 63.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, pp. 509-11.

38

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

realign the predictive hope with empirical reality’.64 This is applicable to the promise–fulfilment matrix that Malachi establishes at the beginning of his book (1.2-5). The people were experiencing unfulfilled expectations in the post-exilic period: there was growing scepticism because the promise of the exilic prophets, such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, or the Zion visions of Isaiah, Haggai and Zechariah had not materialized as expected. By alluding to the fulfilment of Ezek. 35 after the event, Malachi demonstrates to Israel that Yhwh has been true to his prophetic word. ‘Cognitive consonance’ replaces the dissonance as a result of Malachi’s inner-biblical allusion to Ezek. 35. (2) Determining the Direction of Dependence Between Texts: Assumed Criteria In analysing texts with these criteria in mind, one is already implying that the direction of dependence is moving in a certain direction. To establish this further, the following two criteria are employed:65 Availability One of the prerequisites of inner-biblical allusion and exegesis is the chronological priority of the source text.66 The availability of the source text is not only required for the author, it is also assumed for his audience. Since Malachi and his audience are situated in the first half of the fifth century B.C., availability of the source material is generally unproblematical. It is generally accepted that by Malachi’s time, Israel had inherited a rich history of traditions and texts, ranging from the Primary History to most of the prophetic corpus. Inner-canonical studies on books such as Ezekiel67 and Zechariah68 provide correlative support for the chronological priority of some of the texts to which Malachi alludes.

64.  Ibid., p. 510. 65.  Leonard, ‘Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions’, p. 258, provides a list of helpful questions to ask: ‘(1) Does one text claim to draw on another? (2) Are there elements in the texts that help to fix their dates? (3) Is one text capable of producing the other? (4) Does one text assume the other? (5) Does one text show a general pattern of dependence on other texts? (6) Are there rhetorical patterns in the text that suggest that one text has used the other in an exegetically significant way?’ 66.  The texts may be from the same era, but textual priority of one is still required. 67.  E.g. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy; V. A. Hurowitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel (Cahiers de la Revue biblique 20; Paris: Gabalda, 1982). 68.  E.g. Stead, Zechariah 1–8.

2. Methodology

39

Plausibility Besides chronological priority, another important principle is plausibility. In the historical and literary context, is it reasonable to think that the author has referred to a particular source text? And if so, would the original readers have grasped the connection? This is a helpful guide when the historical date of a book is uncertain: Does it make more sense for one text to allude to another text than vice versa? How would the inner-biblical allusion or exegesis work in the opposite direction? A good example presents itself in Malachi, where the common phrase ‫לפני בוא יום‬ ‫( יהוה הגדול והנורא‬3.23[4.5]) naturally links to Joel 3.4[2.31] and raises the question of the direction of dependence. Answering the question is complicated by the fact that the text of Joel is notoriously difficult to date, with some scholars even placing it after Malachi.69 The issue of chronological priority remains in some ways elusive. However, noting that Joel’s presentation of the Day of Yhwh simply follows the traditional language, whereas Malachi expands on the tradition by uniquely involving Elijah redivivus in the eschatological event, suggests that it is Malachi who has reused Joel, and not vice versa. Moreover, the third-person reference to Yhwh in Mal. 3.23[4.5] is surprising in the context of the otherwise first-person speech of Yhwh in 3.17–24[4.6]. This ‘incongruity’ serves as a marker to the reader that the author may be alluding to another text. Having discussed criteria for evaluating the evidence for correspondence between texts and the assumed criteria for determining the direction of dependence, we must now define the kinds of correspondence that exist between texts. (3) Defining the Kinds of Correspondence Between Texts: Established Categories The difficulty in categorizing the types of correspondence between texts is because scholars use different terminology to describe the links, such as: ‘echo’, ‘allusion’, ‘direct borrowing’, ‘imitation’, ‘reminiscence’, ‘exe­ gesis’, ‘transformation’, ‘quotation’, ‘citation’ – to name but a few. Some of these terms overlap, while others are held as distinct. A heuristically helpful way to categorize the kinds of correspondence between texts is to imagine a continuum, from explicit citation to invisible trace, with the 69.  Late fifth century to mid-fourth century (Hans W. Wolff, Joel and Amos [trans. Waldermar Janzen, S. Dean McBride, Jr, Charles A. Muenchow; Hermeneia: Fortress, 1977]); early third century (Marco Treves, ‘The Date of Joel’, VT 19 [1957], pp. 149-56); second century (Bernhard Duhm, Anmerkungen zu den Zwölf Propheten [ZAW 31; Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1911]).

40

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

categories of quotation, allusion and echo in between.70 Since these are the most common terms used in the current literature, they will be adopted here. The categories are not ‘fixed’ as there is inevitable permeability among them. Quantitative Versus Qualitative Scholars tend to make quantitative or qualitative distinctions in defining the categories. Michael Stead, for example, defines the categories according to the number of shared vocabulary features: quotation (four words or more), allusion (two or three words), echo (one or two words). He acknowledges an inevitable ‘fluidity’ among these categories and recognizes that others will judge them differently. In expanding upon the definitions, Stead includes syntactical word order in the categories of quotation (‘identifiable word-for-word repetition’) and allusion (‘partial reuse of a sequence of words’).71 Two main problems attend the quantitative approach. First, it fails to differentiate between verbal correspondence that may be due to a shared stream of linguistic tradition, on the one hand, and verbal dependence that constitutes a quotation or an allusion, on the other. Two passages may share the same four or more words in close or exact syntactical sequence but still be independent of each other. For example, apart from a conjunctive waw and a plene spelling in the verb ‫בוא‬, the opening clause of Mal. 1.11 – ‫ד־מבֹואֹו‬ ְ ‫ח־שׁ ֶמשׁ וְ ַע‬ ֶ ‫ – ִמ ִמּזְ ַר‬mirrors the opening clauses in Pss 50.1 and 113.3 – ‫ד־מבֹואֹו‬ ְ ‫ח־שׁ ֶמשׁ ַע‬ ֶ ‫מ ִמּזְ ַר‬. ִ 72 The differing contexts between Malachi and these Psalms reveal that this is most likely a case of independent occurrences of a common expression. Conversely, as noted above, a single word in a specific context can have powerful allusive resonances with earlier traditions or texts: for example, ‫( אחד‬Mal. 2.15; cf. Gen. 2.23).73 Second, the problem with tying (syntactical) sequences of words to the categories of quotation or allusion is that when a source text is picked up and reused by an author there will sometimes be an unavoidable change in 70.  Such a continuum has been proposed by various scholars, though not always in dependence on one another: Hays, Echoes of Scripture, p. 23: ‘Quotations, allusion, and echo may be seen as points along a spectrum of intertextual references, moving from the explicit to the subliminal’. Cf. also Stead, Zechariah 1–8, pp. 21-22, and his dependence on Patricia Tull Willey, Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), p. 61. 71.  Stead, Zechariah 1–8, p. 22. 72.  In Ps. 50.1, ‫ ְמבֹאֹו‬is written defectively. 73.  See Chapter 5.

2. Methodology

41

the grammatical form, at the very least, if not in the sequence and syntax of the repeated words. This is because the author may employ the lexemes in a newly creative way or may have to adjust the grammar and syntax in the process of integrating the quotation into his own sentence construction. In some cases, the author may deliberately ‘break’ the sequence and syntax of the words in order to convey his rhetorical point – Malachi’s accusatory oracle against the priests (Mal. 1.6–2.9) being a case in point. In these instances, there is no ‘word-for-word repetition’ or ‘reuse of a sequence of words or themes’; there is, rather, inversion and fragmentation, which serve the author’s rhetorical purpose. Yet this still constitutes a case of intentional dependence, just as much as does an exact citation of another biblical text. For these two reasons, defining the kind of correspondence between texts in primarily quantitative terms is deemed inadequate. Obviously, at least some quantifiable connection is required – at least one lexeme – but a qualitative approach is necessary if the different kinds of linkages between texts are to be accounted for. Defining the terms along explicit/ implicit and intentional/unintentional lines is a better way to describe the correspondence between texts, because it allows for the diverse ways in which one text may allude to another. The quantitative approach fulfils a role, but the qualitative approach controls the discussion. The categories used in this study have not been defined a priori – the problem with a predominantly quantitative approach – but have been articulated a posteriori, following a comprehensive, inductive study of Malachi’s inner-biblical interpretation, and in reading other writers who have researched inner-biblical connections in Malachi and other canonical books. The definitions are not to be applied rigidly or followed slavishly; they remain open to further refinement, but they serve as a map to the rough terrain of inner-biblical interpretation. Categories of Formal Correspondence A citation is an intentional, attributed quotation, acknowledging the source, perhaps through an introductory formula. There are no such examples in Malachi. A quotation is an intentional, explicit reuse of keywords or a phrase from an earlier work, which may include the element of exegesis or reinterpre­ tation of the source text within the quoting text. In this monograph, quotation is equivalent to inner-biblical exegesis. An allusion is an intentional, implicit reuse of keywords or a phrase from an earlier work, which begins to exert interpretive significance in the alluding text – hence the phrase inner-biblical allusion. As with quotation, the allusion is employed for a rhetorical or strategic end. The line between

42

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

quotation and allusion is admittedly porous, but the qualitative difference between them is the element of reworking,74 what Fishbane calls ‘textual transformations, reapplications, and reinterpretations’.75 According to Fishbane, the identification of…exegesis where external objective criteria are lacking [i.e., introductory citation formulae] is proportionally increased to the extent that multiple and sustained lexical linkages between two texts can be recognized, and where the second text…uses a segment of the first…in a lexically recognized and topically rethematized way.76

The following example from Malachi may illustrate the difference between quotation and allusion. In Mal. 1.6-14, the prophet utilizes key terms from the sacrificial laws in Lev. 22.17-25 and Deut. 15.21 (‫עור‬, ‫פסח‬, ‫ )חלה‬in order to expose the priests’ transgressing of the sacrificial laws. Apart from the fact that a historical, literary and rhetorical shift naturally occurs in moving terms from the Pentateuch to a post-exilic prophetic oracle, there is no actual transformation of the words. There is no reapplication or reinterpretation of the words. What they mean in the sacrificial laws for the priests in the Pentateuch is what they mean now in the context of sacrificial worship at the temple in post-exilic Judah. Malachi has employed the terms for his own rhetorical purpose of confronting the priests over their breaking of the law – the allusion exposes their infidelity to the covenant with Levi – but he has not transformed them in any major way. In contrast, the vocabulary of the Priestly Blessing in the same unit (1.6–2.9) has been exegetically transformed: the key terms that function positively in Num. 6.23-27 are reinterpreted with negative meaning and offensive connotation; the neat literary structure of the Blessing that reflected a balanced and symmetrical style of speech is represented in an unbalanced and asymmetrical form. ‘The transformation of the sacerdotal blessing into a curse is thus expressed both on the manifest level of content and on the deeper levels of structure and form.’77 This element of reworking – exegetical transformation – is the key difference between allusion and quotation. Allusion exerts interpretative influence on the alluding text without being transformed in any way; quotation exerts interpretative influence in the quoting text by being transformed in a certain way. 74.  Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, p. 17: ‘An exegetical text clarifies or transforms an earlier text; an allusive text utilizes an earlier text’. 75.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, p. 282. 76.  Ibid., p. 285. 77.  Ibid., p. 334.

2. Methodology

43

In contrast to both quotation and allusion, an echo is an unintentional reuse of keywords or a phrase from an earlier work, which does not exert interpretive significance in the echoing text.78 The echo is more like a literary fossil than a living entity in the new text. Keeping in mind the difference between a qualitative and a quantitative approach, an echo may range from a single word or phrase to a whole sentence or passage. One text may repeat a whole phrase from another because it is borrowing language from the same linguistic stream, as noted above for Mal. 1.11 (cf. Pss 50.1; 113.3), in which case the echo has no impact on the interpretation of the text in question.79 A trace is an unintentional connection that is so faint as to be unattributable. The line between explicit and implicit, and intentional and unintentional, is, admittedly, subjective, and can become blurred in practice. For example, Fishbane views the reuse of the Priestly Blessing in Mal. 1.6–2.9 as an example of ‘inner-biblical exegesis’,80 whereas Sommer describes it as a simple case of ‘allusion’,81 and Hill and Kessler call it an ‘echo’.82 While established criteria and principled guidelines can help to categorize similarities more carefully in vocabulary between two texts, it must be kept in mind that detecting and defining the kind of correspondence is ‘more art than science’.83 2.5.2. Interpretive Significance Studies of intertextual connections between texts within the Hebrew canon often find their terminus in the mere discovery of the source texts. Not to recognize a case of inner-biblical allusion or exegesis ensures ‘an unfortunate semantic loss’ to the meaning of the passage.84 But it is also true that if the allusion/quotation is recognized but not explored with respect to the argument and theological message of the book in which it is found, then there is a significant interpretive loss. As Schultz observes, ‘Too often, interpreters are content merely to cite parallel verses parenthetically, as 78.  Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, p. 31: echoes ‘do not suggest any altered understanding of the passage in which they appear’. 79.  This is what Schultz, Search for Quotation, p. 217, calls a ‘verbal parallel’: any ‘correspondence between two texts in which actual dependence is either impossible or unnecessary (for the sake of argument) to demonstrate’. 80.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, p. 333. 81.  Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, pp. 21-22. 82.  Hill, Malachi, p. 39. Similarly, Kessler, Maleachi, p. 64. 83.  Leonard, ‘Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions’, p. 264. 84.  Schultz, Search for Quotation, p. 225.

44

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

if there were no need to comment on them further. Yet if quotation truly is present, its evaluation may be crucial to understanding the text which contains it.’85 In other words, having established that inner-biblical allusion or exegesis is present, the next important step is to discern the interpretive significance of the source text for the alluding or quoting text. This is where the ‘cash value’ lies in the study of Malachi’s inner-biblical interpretation. Recent scholarship on Malachi reveals a significant lacuna in this area. Commentators and other scholars working on Malachi have noted the various connections to other parts of the Hebrew Bible, but few have investigated the function and purpose of those connections within Malachi’s own prophecy, especially as they relate to his key theme of covenant.86 Discerning the interpretive significance of the source texts involves two aspects: (1) the function of the source text in the message of Malachi; and (2) the rhetorical purpose of the source text on the message of Malachi. If the criteria for evaluating textual links between two texts and the assumed criteria for determining the direction of dependence keep one from over-interpretation and parallelomania, discerning the function and rhetorical purpose of the source text within Malachi guards one from under-interpretation. This monograph attempts to walk the line between these two extremes. A more sober approach to Malachi’s inner-biblical interpretation frees the text from a complexity of source texts all operating at the same time (most of which cannot be attributed to authorial intent), and provides space to explore the function and rhetorical purpose of only those texts intentionally woven into the message of Malachi. The burden of this study is that, while Malachi uses a range of earlier source texts, his employment of them is not as extensive as some scholars think, or as random or casual as some scholars (inadvertently at times) imply. Rather, Malachi’s innerbiblical interpretation is rhetorically strategic: it informs and shapes his central theme of covenant, by exposing Israel’s covenant infidelity, by giving effect to Yhwh’s covenant curse, and by underlining Yhwh’s covenant fidelity. Covenant continuity and fidelity is the overarching theme of Malachi’s disputational speeches, and one that is brought to a climax in the final verses. 85.  Ibid., p. 231. 86.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, provides summaries after each pericope but there is no comprehensive analysis of how Malachi’s inner-biblical interpretation functions within the book or of how it serves the purpose of the prophet’s own theology and message. His primary concern is detecting every possible connection with any part of the Hebrew canon. He does not outline any pattern or purpose to the actualization or application that he notes.

Chapter 3 ‘I h av e l oved you ’: I nne r - B i b l i ca l A l l us i on and E xe ge si s i n R e l at i on to t h e P at ri a r chal C ove nant (M a l a ch i 1.2- 5)

3.1. Translation BHQ

‫אָה ְב ִתּי ֶא ְת ֶכם‬ ַ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם ַבּ ָמּה ֲא ַה ְב ָתּנוּ‬ ‫ֲהלֹוא־אָח ֵע ָשׂו ְליַ ֲעקֹב‬ ‫נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫וָ א ַֹהב ֶאת־יַ ֲעקֹב׃‬ ‎‫אתי‬ ִ ֵ‫ת־ע ָשׂו ָשׂנ‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫ת־ה ָריו ְשׁ ָמ ָמה‬ ָ ‫אָשׂים ֶא‬ ִ ָ‫ו‬ ‫וְ ֶאת־נַ ֲח ָלתֹו ְל ַתנֹּות ִמ ְד ָבּר׃‬

v.

Author’s translation

1.2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f 3a 3b 3c

‘I have loved you, says Yhwh. But you say, “How have you loved us?” Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? declares Yhwh. Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated. I have made his mountains a desolation and left his inheritance for the jackals of the desert. Though Edom says, “We have been shattered but we will again build the ruins”, thus says Yhwh of hosts, They may build, but I will destroy. They will be called “a wicked country” and “the people with whom Yhwh is angry forever”.’ Then your eyes will see it, and you will say, “Great is Yhwh beyond the country of Israel”.’

‫אמר ֱאדֹום ֻר ַשּׁ ְשׁנוּ‬ ַ ֹ ‫ִכּי־ת‬

4a

‫וְ נָ שׁוּב וְ נִ ְבנֶ ה ֳח ָרבֹות‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות‬ ַ ‫כֹּה‬ ‫ֵה ָמּה ְיִבנוּ‬ ‫וַ ֲאנִ י ֶא ֱהרֹוס‬ ‫וְ ָק ְראוּ ָל ֶהם גְּ בוּל ִר ְשׁ ָעה‬ ‫ד־עֹולם׃‬ ָ ‫וְ ָה ָעם ֲא ֶשׁר־זָ ַעם יְ הוָ ה ַע‬

4b 4c 4d 4e 4f 4g

‎‫יכם ִתּ ְר ֶאינָ ה‬ ֶ ֵ‫וְ ֵעינ‬ ‫אמרוּ‬ ְ ֹ ‫אַתּם תּ‬ ֶ ְ‫ו‬ ‫יִ גְ ַדּל יְ הוָ ה ֵמ ַעל ִלגְ בוּל יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל׃‬

5a 5b 5c

46

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

3.2. Text-Critical Issues In Mal. 1.2-5, a few textual variants exist among the versions, but none that challenge the MT. In 1.3, the LXX’s ἔταξα is somewhat interpretative for ‫שים‬, where ποιέω is expected (Jer. 6.8; Ezek. 35.4; Zeph. 2.13).1 Besides this, the LXX exhibits two cases of mistaken verbal roots in vv. 3-4: the unique occurrence of ‫ לתנות‬is translated εἰς δόματα from √‫נתן‬ (cf. Hos. 9.1), and ‫ זעם‬is rendered παρατέτακται from √‫( זמם‬cf. Zech. 1.6). The translation of ‫ תנות‬has received most attention by scholars and requires some commentary here. The LXX’s δόματα (‘gifts’) presupposes the root ‫נתן‬. Perhaps the irregular feminine plural ‫ תנות‬from ‫‘( תן‬jackal’) confused translators, who may have read ‫ תנות‬as a miswriting of ‫‘( מתנות‬gifts’; cf. Gen. 25.6). Some have misunderstood the LXX’s δόματα to be the equivalent of δῶματα (‘dwellings’).2 This confusion is reflected in English translations of the LXX. For example, NETS translates the clause, ‘and [made] his heritage gifts of the wilderness’, whereas Brenton translates it, ‘and made his heritage as dwellings of the wilderness’.3 Whether or not δόμα is an innerGreek corruption on δῶμα, this (mis)reading of the MT by the LXX has continued in modern commentaries.4 The possibility of a different Hebrew Vorlage (‫)לנות‬5 behind the LXX is eliminated by the fact that ‫ נוה‬is never rendered δῶμα;6 besides, the LXX reads δόματα not δῶματα.7

1.  A case of haplography has occurred in the LXX translation: τὰ ὂρεια αὐτοῦ (‘his mountains’) has been misspelt as τὰ ὅρια αὐτοῦ (‘his borders’). 2.  E.g. Syr. (Gelston, Twelve Minor Prophets, p. 149*). Cf. LSJM, I, p. 444: δόμα (A) = gift; δόμα (B) = δῶμα (house). 3.  Lancelot C. L. Brenton, The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (4th ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), p. 1127. 4.  E.g. Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, p. 203; Hill, Malachi, p. 155; Douglas K. Stuart, ‘Malachi’, in The Minor Prophets (ed. Thomas E. McComiskey; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), III, p. 1288: ‘Normally δόμα translates ‫[ גַ ג‬roof]’. 5.  From ‫נָ וָ ה‬, ‘grazing place’ (HALAT, III, p. 641: ‘Weideplatz’). 6.  Gelston, Twelve Minor Prophets, p. 149*. In the LXX, it is translated: τρίβος (Jer. 9.9[10]); νομή (Jer. 23.10); κατάλοιπος (Jer. 25.37 [LXX: 32.37]); ὡραῖος (Joel 1.19, 20); πεδίον (Joel 2.22); τόπος (Ps. 23.2 [LXX: 22.2]); ὡραιότης (Ps. 68.13 [LXX: 67.13]); οἴκος (Ps. 74.20 [LXX: 73.20]); ἁγιαστήριον (Ps. 83.13 [LXX: 82.13]). 7.  This is the reading employed by Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta (7th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), and Joseph Ziegler, ed., Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum: Duodecim Prophetae (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1943).

3. ‘I have loved you’

47

Since Cappellus in the early seventeenth century, the majority of biblical scholars have emended the MT to ‫ לנות‬from √‫נוה‬.8 The word ‫נוה‬, however, has the overwhelming positive connotation of fertility and bounty (e.g. Joel 2.22; Zeph. 2.6; Pss 23.2; 65.13). Such usage runs contrary to the tenor of the verse: a place that has become ‫ שממה‬is not fit for a ‘dwelling’ or a ‘pasture’.9 Overall, it seems best to stay with the MT and read ‫ תנות‬as the irregular feminine plural of ‫‘( תן‬jackal’). While ‫ תנים‬is usually the plural form of ‫תן‬, the irregular feminine plural ‫ תנות‬is not beyond the realm of possibility, as the unique ‫ תנין‬in Lam. 4.3 demonstrates. The choice of ‫ תנות‬is probably influenced by the preceding feminine nouns ‫ שממה‬and ‫נחלה‬. 3.3. Structure and Theme The opening disputation is structured as follows: Declaration Rebuttal Refutation

1.2a-b 1.2c 1.2d-5

Malachi 1.2-5 opens with Yhwh’s declaration of his love for Israel: ‘I have loved you’ (‫ ;אהבתי אתכם‬1.2a),10 and is immediately followed by Israel’s rebuttal: ‘How have you loved us?’ (‫ ;במה אהבתנו‬1.2c). Yhwh refutes the challenge with two examples of his love for Israel: (1) he has loved (‫)אהב‬ Jacob but hated (‫ )שנא‬Esau (1.2d-3a); and (2) he has destroyed Edom forever (explicit) but has restored Israel (implicit) (1.3b-4). The result: Israel will see Edom’s destruction with their own eyes and will worship 8.  E.g. Wilhelm Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten (HAT; 3rd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922), p. 427, suggests ‫ נאות‬was original (cf. Jer. 9.9[10]; Zeph. 2.6; Ezek. 25.5). For Torrey, ‘Prophecy of “Malachi”’, p. 2 n. 5, ‫( נות‬from ‫ )נאות‬is the original word that became ‫ לתנות‬through dittography from the ending of the previous word ‫נחלתו‬. Alexander von Bulmerincq, Kommentar zum Buche des Propheten Maleachi (Tartu: Krüger, 1932), II, p. 27, proposes the reading ‫למעון תנים‬ (cf. Jer. 9.10[11]), while Karl Marti, Das Dodekapropheton (KHC 13; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr Siebeck, 1904), p. 461, emends ‫ לתנות‬to ‫נתתי ל‬: ‘ich machte sein Erbe zur Wüste’. 9.  Jackals are often mentioned as frequenting deserted cities (Isa. 13.22; 43.13; Jer. 9.10[11]; 10.22; 49.33; 51.37). 10.  The tense of a qatal stative verb is generally understood as present: ‘I love you’. However, the accompanying wayyiqtols suggest that the qatal here is a past action with a resulting state: ‘I have loved you’.

48

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Yhwh for his greatness (1.5). Both examples involve inner-biblical allusion and exegesis of earlier parts of the OT, which serve to enhance the central theme of Yhwh’s covenant love for his people. 3.4. The Patriarchal Covenant Although the word covenant (‫ )ברית‬is not present in the opening pericope, a number of factors in the text suggest that the unit concerns the patriarchal covenant. (1) The love–hate language reflects not only the treaty/ covenant language of the ANE,11 but also the covenant language of the OT, especially in Deuteronomy. The verb ‫ אהב‬means ‘to like, love’.12 Depending on the context, it can describe human sexual love, emotion and affection, familial relationships, socioethical behaviour etc.13 But when it portrays the relationship between Yhwh and Israel, the term carries covenant connotations. (2) Yhwh’s covenantal love (‫ )אהב‬for Israel is sometimes accompanied by the idea of divine choosing (e.g. Deut. 4.37; 7.6-8; 10.14-15; Isa. 41.8; Pss 47.5[4]; 78.68),14 an idea central to the Jacob–Esau story alluded to here. Indeed, election is a concept fundamental to Yhwh’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and subsequently with Israel too.15 (3) The language of love is applied to Jacob in the context of birthright and land – key elements in the patriarchal covenant. (4) The curse delivered to Edom is a consistent outworking of the Abrahamic covenant, that those who curse the chosen seed will be cursed (Gen. 12.3; esp. 27.29). In sum, while the word ‫ ברית‬does not occur in this section, the concept certainly does in relation to the patriarchal covenant.

11.  See Moran, ‘Love of God in Deuteronomy’. 12.  HALAT, I, p. 17: ‘gern haben, lieben’. The Hebrew verb ‫ אהב‬occurs 32 times in reference to Yhwh’s love, 23 times of which relate to Israel or individuals (e.g. Deut. 4.37; 10.15; Isa. 41.8; 48.15; Jer. 31.3; Hos. 3.1; 11.1; Pss 47.5[4]; 78.68). The noun ‫ אהבה‬is used five times of Yhwh’s love for his people (Deut. 7.8; Isa. 63.9; Jer. 31.3; Hos. 11.4; Zeph. 3.17). 13.  Gerhard Wallis, ‘‫’א ַהב‬, ָ in TDOT, I, p. 102-12. 14.  See Moran, ‘Love of God in Deuteronomy’, on how ‫אהב‬, or any of its forms, is used as a technical term in both biblical and ANE treaty and covenant texts to speak of choice or election to covenant relationship, especially in ‘suzerainty documents’. 15.  In each case, when Yhwh enters or maintains a covenant, divine choosing is present in the background: Abraham was chosen from among the people of Ur of the Chaldeans (Gen. 11.31–12.1; Josh. 24.3), Isaac over Ishmael (Gen. 17.18-19), Jacob over Esau (Gen. 25.23), and Israel over the nations (Deut. 7.7-8).

3. ‘I have loved you’

49

3.5. Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis In order to prove Yhwh’s love for Israel, Malachi resorts to two striking examples of his love: the first relates to his electing love and the second to his enduring love. In both cases, he alludes to earlier material in the Hebrew Bible and reworks it for his own purposes. 3.5.1. Electing Love: ‘I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated’: Malachi 1.2-3a and Genesis 25–36 While Yhwh’s language of love may contain Deuteronomic resonances,16 it is the Jacob–Esau tradition (Gen. 25–36) that forms the backdrop to Malachi’s text. Lexical and Syntactical Parallels The juxtaposition of the names Esau (‫ )עשו‬and Jacob (‫)יעקב‬, in the context of their brotherhood (‫)אח‬, can take one to only two sets of texts: the patriarchal narrative in Genesis (chs. 25–36) and the prophecy of Obadiah.17 For a few reasons, the former is more likely to be within Malachi’s purview. While the names Esau and Jacob appear together in Obadiah, the book explicitly mentions their relationship only twice (vv. 10, 12), whereas brotherhood is foundational to the Genesis plotline. Moreover, the words love (‫ )אהב‬and hate (‫)שנא‬, while not used of Yhwh’s attitude to Jacob or Esau in the Genesis story, better describe the divine choice in the tent of Rebekah than any single incident in the history of the nations of Israel/Judah and Edom as they interacted with each other.18 16.  The combination √‫ אהב‬+ ‫( את‬direct [personal] object marker plus pronominal suffix in relation to Israel) occurs in only two texts (Deut. 7.8; 10.15). 17.  The words ‫ אהב‬and ‫ שנא‬occur in the Genesis narrative, but in neither case is Yhwh the subject: Isaac loved (‫ )אהב‬Esau but Rebekah loved (‫ )אהב‬Jacob (Gen. 25.28), while Esau hated (‫ )שנא‬Jacob (Gen. 27.41). Deut. 2.4, 8 has the combination ‫ אח‬+‎ ‫ עשו‬but ‫ אח‬is in the plural and is a reference to the nation of Edom: ‘your/our brothers’. Bosshard and Kratz, ‘Maleachi’, pp. 31, 35-36, argue that the Jacob–Esau tradition in Mal. 1.2-5 draws primarily from Hos. 11 and the reference to Jacob in 12.4. Similarly, Berry, ‘Malachi’s Dual Design’, p. 275; and Ruth Scoralick, ‘The Case of Edom in the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Reflections on Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis’, in Albertz, Nogalski and Wöhrle, eds., Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve, pp. 35-52 (44). However, Esau is not mentioned in any of these Hosea texts. 18.  Contra Beth Glazier-McDonald, Malachi: The Divine Messenger (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), p. 34, who proposes that Jacob and Esau are simply metonyms for the respective nations Israel and Edom: Malachi intends only a ‘contemporary illustration’.

50

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Furthermore, the word order in the rhetorical question ‫הלוא־אח עשו ליעקב‬ follows the sequence of the twins’ births in the Genesis narrative. Esau is named first because he was the firstborn; but, in the next clause, Jacob is named first because Yhwh chose him to be heir of the covenant promises by setting his love upon him. The reversal of order reflects the divine reversal in the tent of Rebekah (Gen. 25.23). Finally, the switch from addressing Israel directly in the second-person plural (‫ ;אתכם‬Mal. 1.2a) to the mention of Jacob and Esau in the third-person singular (‫ יעקב‬and ‫;עשו‬ Mal. 1.2d-3a) suggests that the designations Jacob and Esau are a reference to the patriarchs by name and not just metonyms that represent two nations.19 Contextual and Thematic Parallels The context of the Jacob–Esau story is the inheritance of the covenant promises as they relate to the land. The lives of Jacob and Esau play out in relation to the land promised to Abraham. Jacob goes into ‘exile’ for a time, while Esau remains in the land (Gen. 28–33). Yet, in the end, Jacob returns to possess what is his by divine right, while Esau moves out of Canaan and into his own possession, the hill country of Seir (Gen. 33.16-20; 36.43–37.1). Land is therefore an essential part of the Jacob– Esau complex, and its importance is shared by Malachi, who focuses on the territory of Edom (explicitly) and Israel (implicitly) (1.3-5). The theme of election is also central to both texts: in Genesis, it marks the turning point in the destiny of the twin brothers (25.23); in Malachi, it is used as the first example to resolve any doubt over Yhwh’s love for Israel (1.2-3a). Availability Two factors indicate that at least the Genesis tradition, and most probably the text, was available to the prophet. First, the interrogative ‫ ה‬and the negative particle ‫ לא‬form a type of double negative that anticipates an affirmative answer.20 The rhetorical question ‫ הלוא־אח עשו ליעקב‬implies that the people know the answer, which means that they must be in possession of at least the tradition, if not the text. Second, the verb forms in 1.2-3 concerning Yhwh’s love (‫ )ואהב‬and hate (‫ )שנאתי‬are in the past tense, indicating that they relate to some time or event in the past and

19.  The third-person singular suffixes on ‫ הרים‬and ‫ נחלה‬in Mal. 1.3 are unproblematic when it is understood that Esau’s eponymous name may serve double-duty for both the patriarch and the nation. 20.  Cf. W-O’C § 40.3. ‫ הלוא‬is routine idiomatic Hebrew and conveys emphasis.

3. ‘I have loved you’

51

are not just a present reality.21 These two factors create historical distance between Malachi and the Genesis tradition or text to which he alludes. Whatever date is assigned to the Jacob–Esau tradition (calculations vary from second millennium B.C.22 to the second half of the sixth century B.C.23), it predates Malachi, meaning that it was available to the prophet. The same applies to the Genesis text by almost any reckoning: according to the Documentary Hypothesis, the ‘J’ source is dated to around the end of the eighth century B.C. In current scholarship, it is generally accepted that the Pentateuch reached some form of completion in the late exilic or early post-exilic period.24 Numerous allusions to various parts of the Pentateuch elsewhere in Malachi provide cumulative weight to the possibility that the prophet had this corpus of material at his disposal, and thus in this case was alluding to the Genesis text.25 Assessment The lexical, contextual and thematic parallels between the two passages make an allusion to the Jacob–Esau story most likely. Yhwh’s discriminating love for Jacob and hatred of Esau recall the Genesis text concerning

21.  The absence of any verb in the nominal clause ‫ הלוא־אח עשו ליעקב‬means that the phrase can be read as past or present. 22.  See Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), pp. 313–72, esp. 358–60, 371–72; Alan R. Millard, ‘Methods of Studying the Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Texts’, in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (ed. Alan R. Millard and Donald J. Wiseman; Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1980), pp. 43-58 (51). 23.  Bert Dicou, Edom, Israel’s Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story (JSOTSup 169; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), p. 198. 24.  For example, T. Denis Alexander, From Paradise to Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002), p. 82, commenting on the material of Genesis–Kings states: ‘On the basis of content and language, we may with reasonable confidence assume that all this material was brought together to form this continuous narrative shortly after 562 BC, the date of Jehoiachin’s release from prison in Babylon (2 Kgs 25.27-30)’. Alexander points to the work of V. A. Hurowitz, ‘The Historical Quest for “Ancient Israel” and the Linguistic Evidence of the Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations’, VT 47 (1997), pp. 301-15, for a recent defence of this dating based on linguistic considerations. 25.  This monograph proceeds on the basis that the prophet had the Pentateuch available to him, and therefore space will not be allocated to defending the availability of other possible source texts from this section of the Hebrew canon.

52

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

the two brothers and in particular the divine economy established in the tent of Rebekah. Yhwh set his love on one brother and rejected the other. Because the words ‫ אהב‬and ‫ שנא‬do not occur in relation to Yhwh in the Genesis narrative, Malachi’s employment of them in retelling the story reveals a creative reapplication of the fraternal tradition for his own audience. The allusion has been exegetically reworked by the prophet with creative new terminology in order to demonstrate Yhwh’s love for Israel. 3.5.2. Interpretive Significance The allusion to Jacob and Esau occurs in the context of an objection by Israel over Yhwh’s declaration of his love for them. The recall of the Jacob–Esau story forms the first part of Yhwh’s answer and works powerfully to communicate his particular love for Israel. Because Esau and Jacob were twins, both sons had equal opportunity as Isaac’s sons to receive the covenant inheritance promised to Abraham (Gen. 12.1-3; cf. 27.27-29). Esau, being the firstborn, had the natural right of primogeniture; yet, in the tent of Rebekah, Yhwh announced that ‘the older shall serve the younger’ (Gen. 25.23). In doing so Jacob inherited the covenant promises and became the father of Israel. No explanation is given in the Genesis narrative, or anywhere else in the OT, as to why Jacob was chosen and Esau rejected. When the story is retold by Malachi, he creatively employs new terminology to describe the divine choice, but still does not explain why Yhwh loved one and hated the other. In both Genesis and Malachi, Yhwh’s love is presented as a sovereign choice – unconditional and unmerited.26 Malachi’s use of the words love (‫ )אהב‬and hate (‫)שנא‬, then, is a rearticulation of Yhwh’s choice between twin brothers.27

26.  This analysis therefore calls into question any attribution of moral causality to Yhwh’s love and hate. See, for example, Kimḥi (A. J. Rosenberg, ed., Mikraoth Gedoloth: Twelve Prophets. A New English Translation [New York: Judaica Press, 1992], p. 399); T. Miles Bennett, ‘Malachi’, in Broadman Bible Commentary (ed. Clifton J. Allen; Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1969), I, pp. 366-94 (375); Rex A. Mason, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (The Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 141; Hill, Malachi, p. 152; Rainer Kessler, ‘Jakob und Esau als Brüderpaar in Mal 1,2-5’, in Diasynchron: Beiträge zue Exegese, Theologie und Rezeption der Hebräischen Bibel (ed. T. Naumann and R. Hunziker-Rodewald; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2009), pp. 209-29 (222). 27.  The context of covenant and election is the wider paradigm within which the terms ‘love’ and ‘hate’ should be understood (Bradford A. Anderson, Brotherhood and Inheritance: A Canonical Reading of the Esau and Edom Traditions [LHBOTS

3. ‘I have loved you’

53

By stating Yhwh’s love for Jacob and his hatred of Esau, Malachi conveys that Yhwh’s choice of Jacob–Israel to inherit the covenant promises has not been annulled or retracted, even in difficult circumstances under a Persian government. Given Israel’s knowledge of the twin brothers, it suffices simply to ask, ‘Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?’ and then to state, ‘Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated’. Malachi could have used as his analogy Yhwh’s election of Abraham from among all the people in Ur of the Chaldeans (Gen. 12.1-3; Josh. 24.3), Yhwh’s choice of Isaac over Ishmael (Gen. 17.18-19) or his choice of Israel over all the nations (Deut. 7.7-8; 10.15); instead, he chose the illustration of divine election that carried the most rhetorical impact: Yhwh’s choice between twin brothers, both of whom were descendants of Abraham and Isaac. The antithetical structure of the syntax and the antonymic pair of ‘love’ and ‘hate’ intensifies the divine choice in the tent of Rebekah and drives home Yhwh’s point in dramatic fashion: ‘I have loved you’.28 3.5.3. Enduring Love: ‘I have destroyed Edom, but Israel I have restored’: Malachi 1.3b-5 and Edom Prophetic Texts Since Jacob and Esau were viewed as the fathers of the two nations Israel and Edom respectively, a second example is afforded by the prophet: Yhwh’s discriminating love and hate in the histories of Edom and Israel.29 Yhwh destroyed Edom (explicit) but restored Israel (implicit). The language that is used of Edom’s destruction in Mal. 1.3-4 is common in ANE treaty curses.30 It also reflects prophetic judgement language against the nations in the Hebrew Bible. The issue is whether this is simply conventional curse or judgement language or whether it refers to specific, earlier oracles against Edom.

556; London: T&T Clark International, 2011], pp. 203-27). See also Anderson’s helpful critique of differing interpretations of the terms, ranging from nationalistic ideology, to the incapacity of Hebrew to explain the comparative degree, to an inegalitarian or abusive relationship between father and son. 28.  The independent object marker plus plural suffix is emphatic. 29.  The third-person masculine pronominal suffixes in v. 3 – his mountains (‫)הריו‬ and his inheritance (‫ – )נחלתו‬indicate a connection between Esau and Edom. The feminine singular yiqtol form (‫ )תאמר‬in v. 4 is easily explained by the feminine often being the gender used for a country or land. 30.  Cf. Hillers, Treaty Curses, p. 53.

54

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Conventional Curse or Judgement Language? ‫ שממה‬+‎‫חרבה‬ The word ‫שממה‬, ‘desolation, waste’,31 is prominent in the oracles of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, accounting for 46 of the 55 times that the word appears in the Hebrew Bible. Frequently, it is used in a judgement formula introduced by ‫( נתן‬Ezek. 15.8; 33.28; 35.7), ‫( שים‬Jer. 6.8) or ‫עשה‬ (Ezek. 35.14). The word ‫חרבה‬, ‘waste, desolation, ruin’,32 occurs some 40 times in the Hebrew Bible, and most frequently in judgement oracles in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, often in relation to military action.33 The two terms ‫ שממה‬and ‫ חרבה‬appear together in curse or judgement texts against Israel (Lev. 26.33; Jer. 44.6), Egypt (Ezek. 29.9-10) and Edom (Ezek. 35.4).34 ‫ שים‬+‎ ‫שממה‬ The combination of ‫ שים‬+‎ ‫ שממה‬occurs nine times, mainly in prophetic texts. It appears in Jeremiah’s warnings of impending judgement on Israel, where the land will become a desolation (‫)שממה‬, a land that is uninhabited (‫ ;ארץ לוא נושבה‬Jer. 6.8), a lair for jackals (‫ ;מעון תנים‬Jer. 10.22; cf. 12.11; 18.16; 19.8). The combination is also used of laying waste to Babylon (Jer. 25.12), Samaria (Mic. 1.7) and Nineveh (Zeph. 2.13). ‫תנים‬/‫תנות‬/‫תנין‬ Jackals are mentioned 14 times in the OT, most often as part of a biblical curse.35 Jackals are named in the judgement against Damascus (Isa. 17.1-2), Israel (Isa. 27.10; 32.14; 34.13), Judah (Jer. 10.22), Jerusalem 31.  BDB, p. 1031. HALAT, IV, p. 1448: ‘menschenleeres und deshalb Schauer erregendes Gebiet, unheimliche Öde’. 32.  BDB, p. 352. HALAT, I, p. 336: ‘Trümmerstätte’. 33.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 87, states that 29 of 41 occurrences fit this description either implicitly or explicitly. 34.  Each word also appears with cognates of the other word: for example, ‫שממה‬ occurs with ‫‘( חרב‬sword’), ‫‘( חרב‬drought, heat, waste’), or the verb ‫‘( חרב‬to be dry, waste’) (Lev. 26.33; Ezek. 29.10), while ‫ חרבה‬occurs with ‫‘( שמה‬horror’) or the verb ‫‘( שמם‬to be devastated, appalled’) (Lev. 26.31; Isa. 49.19; 61.4; Jer. 25.9, 11, 18; 44.22; 49.13; Ezek. 36.4) – and various combinations in between (e.g. the verbs ‫שמם‬ and ‫ חרב‬appear together in Amos 7.9 and Zeph. 3.6). The language is employed, in the threat of judgement on Israel (or other nations), of what will become of the land and its cities, or, in the promise of restoration, of how Yhwh will reverse the desolations and ruins in Israel after the exile. 35.  Isa. 13.22; 34.13; 35.7; 43.20; Jer. 9.10[11]; 10.22; 14.6; 49.33; 51.37; Mic. 1.8; Mal. 1.3 (‫ ;)תנות‬Ps. 44.20; Job 30.29; Lam. 4.3 (‫)תנין‬.

3. ‘I have loved you’

55

(Jer. 9.9-10[10-11]), Hazor (Jer. 49.33), Babylon (Jer. 51.37), and Ammon (Ezek. 25.5). Possibility of an Allusion? This brief overview reveals that Malachi’s use of certain terms reflects conventional curse or judgement language. However, since the language is shared by Mal. 1.3-4 and other prophetic texts concerning Edom, this at least invites an investigation into whether an inner-biblical allusion exists. The possibility of an allusion has been recognized by commentators, but there is a difference of opinion regarding the exact texts to which Malachi may be alluding. For example, Kessler notes that Jer. 49.7-22 and Ezek. 35 reflect the most dense concentration of Malachi’s terminology,36 while for Bradford Anderson it is Isa. 34.13 and Ezek. 35.37 Hill suggests Joel 4.19[3.19]38 but also adds in Jer. 49.7-22, Ezek. 3539 and Obadiah.40 Joyce Baldwin singles out Ezek. 35,41 while Nogalski sees a clear allusion to Obadiah.42 For Arndt Meinhold, Malachi is aware of Jer. 49.7-22, Ezek. 35 and Obadiah.43

36.  Rainer Kessler, ‘The Unity of Malachi and Its Relation to the Book of the Twelve’, in Albertz, Nogalski and Wöhrle, eds., Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve, pp. 223-36 (229). Kessler does not really favour one above the other. 37.  Anderson, Brotherhood and Inheritance, pp. 222-23. 38.  Hill, Malachi, p. 154: ‘Malachi’s use of [‫ ]שממה‬may be yet another example of dependence upon Joel, given the similar pronouncement that Edom would become a “desert wasteland” ’. Cf. also Edward B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), II, pp. 179-80: ‘Malachi attests the first stage of fulfilment of Joel’s prophecy.’ 39.  Ibid., pp. 160, 169: ‘Mal 1:4 echoes the sentiments of Jer 49:13 regarding Edom’; ‘God had demonstrated the utter reliability of his revelation in fulfilling the pronouncements of his servants Jeremiah (49:7-22) and Ezekiel (35:1-15)’. 40.  Hill, Malachi, p. 168: ‘Obadiah indicates that the fall of Edom should be viewed as the trigger event setting in motion the fulfillment of Yahweh’s covenant promises to Israel. Perhaps this text lies behind Malachi’s use of Edom’s recent history as an illustration of Yahweh’s love for Israel.’ 41.  Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, p. 233: ‘Malachi is undoubtedly aware of Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning Edom.’ 42.  Nogalski, Redactional Process, pp. 191-94. 43.  Arndt Meinhold, Maleachi (BKAT; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlags­ gesellschaft, 2006), p. 49.

56

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

The following points of contact between Mal. 1.3-4 and the prophetic texts concerning Edom may be noted: ‫( עשו‬Mal. 1.2-3; cf. Jer. 49.8, 10; Obad. 6, 8, 9, 18 [2×], 19, 21); ‫( יעקב‬Mal. 1.2-3a; cf. Obad. 10, 17); motif of brotherhood (Mal. 1.2; cf. Amos 1.11; Obad. 10, 12); ‫( שים‬Mal. 1.3; cf. Ezek. 35.4; Obad. 4, 7); ‫הרים‬/‫( הר‬Mal. 1.3; cf. Ezek. 35.3, 15; Obad. 8, 19, 21); √‫( שמם‬Mal. 1.3; cf. Jer. 49.13, 17; Ezek. 32.29; 35.3-4, 7, 9, 14-15); ‫( נחלה‬Mal. 1.3; cf. Ezek. 35.15); ‫תנים‬/‫( תנות‬Mal. 1.3; cf. Isa. 34.14); feminine verb forms with the noun ‫( אדום‬Mal. 1.4; cf. Jer. 49.17; Ezek. 32.29); √‫( חרב‬Mal. 1.4; cf. Isa. 34.10; Jer. 49.13; Ezek. 25.13; 35.4); ‫( גבול‬Mal. 1.4, 5; cf. Obad. 7); ‫( עולם‬Mal. 1.4; cf. Isa. 34.10, 17; Jer. 49.13; Ezek. 35.9; Obad. 10). Kessler rightly concludes that not all the allusions are exclusive, nor are they significant when seen in isolation. ‘The cluster they form, however, shows that Malachi must have known at least some of these texts.’44 Sifting the Source Texts Close analysis removes some of these texts from the discussion. For example, Jer. 49.7-22 and Ezek. 25.12-14 share some terms with Malachi (such as √‫ שמם‬and √‫)חרב‬, but beyond this there is nothing exclusive between the texts. Moreover, in Jer. 49 and Ezek. 25 the condemnation of Edom occurs in a list of oracles against the nations, whereas in Malachi it is located in the context of consolation for Israel. Nogalski confidently claims that ‘Mal 1:2-5 explicitly takes up the book of Obadiah’.45 Nogalski believes that Edom’s resolve to rebuild (‫‘ )בנה‬plays off Obad. 3-4’; for him, the language ‘alludes quite clearly’ to Obad. 4.46 He thinks that, although the eponymous name Esau ultimately derives from the Genesis traditions, its rarity in the prophetic literature (only Jer. 49.8, 10 and Obad. 6, 8, 9, 18 [2×], 19, 21) introduces the possibility that Malachi may be alluding to Jeremiah or Obadiah. Nogalski opts for Obadiah over Jeremiah on the basis of the transmission history of The Twelve and also the topographical connectors – ‘his mountains’ (‫ ;הריו‬Mal. 1.3) and ‘Mount Esau’ (‫ ;הר עשו‬Obad. 8, 18) – which describe Edom’s terrain and which are exclusive to these two texts.47 In addition, Nogalski notes other shared terminology such as ‫ עולם‬and ‫גבול‬, and proposes that the conditional statement in Mal. 1.4 corresponds to the one in Obad. 4. Finally, in his view, the motif of self-deception is shared 44.  Kessler, ‘Unity of Malachi’, p. 229. 45.  Nogalski, Literary Precursors, p. 191. 46.  Ibid. 47.  Ibid., p. 192 n. 36.

3. ‘I have loved you’

57

by both texts: it is prominent in Obadiah, carrying a delusional element, while in Malachi it is presumed in Edom’s misapprehensions of its own capacity to recover after the devastation.48 Nogalski’s proposal hinges upon the allusion to building in Obad. 3-4. In quoting the text, he translates v. 4, ‘Though you build as high as the eagle, and though your nest is placed among the stars, from there I will bring you down – utterance of Yhwh’.49 The word which he translates as ‘build’ is not ‫ בנה‬but ‫ גבה‬in the hiphil stem, ‘to make high’.50 Thus Nogalski’s argument works at the conceptual level but not the lexical level – a reason to temper his confident assertion that Malachi ‘alludes quite clearly’ to Obadiah. Moreover, in neither form nor content do the conditional clauses in Mal. 1.4 and Obad. 4 correlate exactly: the particles introducing the conditional clauses are different (Malachi: ‫ ;כי‬Obadiah: ‫)אם‬. As to content, Obadiah’s conditional clause relates specifically to Edom’s height, whence Yhwh will bring them down; in Malachi’s conditional clause the focus is on restorative attempts and not topography. The word ‫ עולם‬is employed in the same conceptual sense – to be ‘cut off forever’ is the same as Yhwh being ‘angry forever’ – but the other lexical coordinates that support Nogalski’s proposal (‫ הר‬and ‫ )גבול‬do not carry much weight. The term ‫ הר‬certainly links to Obadiah but Nogalski has failed to see that the word also links to Ezek. 35 with ‘Mount Seir’; indeed, the plural form ‫ הרים‬actually has more evocative connections within Ezek. 36 (‫)הרי־ישראל‬, as will be demonstrated below. The use of ‫ גבול‬is also different in each book: in Obad. 7, it refers to the border/edge of Edom, while in Mal. 1.3 and 5 it most likely denotes territory/country. In sum, Nogalski’s confident proposal for an allusion in Mal. 1.3 to Obad. 3-4 is tempered by the lack of exact lexical coordinates. This close analysis raises the flag of caution and suggests that perhaps other texts were more in the forefront of the prophet’s mind: Isa. 34.5-15; Ezek. 35; and Joel 4.19-20[3.19-20]. 3.5.3.1. ‘I have destroyed Edom’ (Explicit) What follows is an intertextual analysis in order to discern whether one can establish a connection between Malachi and one or more of the prophetic texts that concern Edom.

48.  Ibid., p. 192. 49.  Ibid., p. 191 (italics original). 50.  HALAT, I, p. 163: qal: ‘hoch sein’; hiphil: ‘hoch machen’. In the context of the eagle’s nest, HALAT, I, p. 164, interprets hiphil ‫ גבה‬as ‘to build high’ (‘Höhe bauen’).

58

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Malachi 1.3-4 and Isaiah 34.5-15 Lexical and Syntactical Parallels Malachi 1.3-4 and Isa. 34.5-15 are the only pair of texts in the OT that describe Edom’s land as a habitation for jackals. The lack of identical lemmata (Mal. 1.3: ‫ ;תנות‬Isa. 34.13: ‫ )תנים‬perhaps create some hesitancy as to a direct allusion. If an allusion is present, the choice of ‫ תנות‬over the more common ‫ תנים‬is probably influenced by the preceding feminine nouns ‫ שממה‬and ‫נחלה‬. Contextual and Thematic Parallels The texts share the same context: Edom’s desolation occurs in the wider context of Israel’s restoration.51 The theme of Edom’s dispossession is also common to the texts. Malachi 1.3 and Joel 4.19-20[3.19-20] Lexical and Syntactical Parallels Although only two lexemes link Mal. 1.3 and Joel 4.19[3.19] – ‫מדבר‬ and ‫ – שממה‬the reversal of terms as they appear in Mal. 1.3 may be an example of Seidel’s law, that literary reference of one text to another may be indicated by inversion of elements within the source text – terms, expressions or clauses appear in reverse order.52 Thus the reversed word order may be the marker within the text for an allusion. However, the fact that the combination of ‫ מדבר‬+ ‫ שממה‬occurs in other texts in either order (Isa. 64.9; Jer. 12.10; Ezek. 6.14; Joel 2.3; Zeph. 2.13) prevents one from too confidently asserting a connection between Mal. 1.3 and Joel 4.19[3.19]. Contextual and Thematic Parallels In favour of a possible allusion is Joel’s interest in the restoration of Judah and Jerusalem (4.1[3.1]) and the rehabilitation of Judah and Jerusalem (4.20[3.20]). As with Malachi, judgement on Edom is associated with the restoration of Judah–Israel. Malachi 1.3-4 and Ezekiel 35 Of all the prophetic texts that have been mentioned so far, Ezek. 35 presents the best case for an allusion in Mal. 1.3-4. This can be seen by tabulating the lexical coordinates and contextual parallels. 51.  The oracle against Edom in Isa. 34 does not occur in the oracles against the nations, but is rather juxtaposed to the theme of Israel’s restoration in ch. 35. 52.  Seidel, ‘Parallels Between Isaiah and Psalms (Hebrew)’, pp. 149-72, 229-40, 272-80, 335-55 (cited in Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 121).

‫ ’‪ 3. ‘I have loved you‬‬

‫‪59‬‬ ‫‪Ezek. 35‬‬

‫‪Mal. 1.3-4‬‬

‫וַ יְ ִהי ְד ַבר־יְ הוָ ה ֵא ַלי ֵלאמֹר׃‬ ‫ל־הר ֵשׂ ִעיר וְ ִהנָּ ֵבא ָע ָליו׃‬ ‫ן־אָדם ִשׂים ָפּנֶ יָך ַע ַ‬ ‫ֶבּ ָ‬ ‫אָמר ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה ִהנְ נִ י ֵא ֶליָך‬ ‫אָמ ְר ָתּ לֹּו כֹּה ַ‬ ‫וְ ַ‬ ‫יתי יָ ִדי ָע ֶליָך וּנְ ַת ִתּיָך ְשׁ ָמ ָמה‬ ‫ר־שׂ ִעיר וְ נָ ִט ִ‬ ‫ַה ֵ‬ ‫וּמ ַשׁ ָמּה׃‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫אַתּה ְשׁ ָמ ָמה ִת ְהיֶ ה‬ ‫אָשׂים וְ ָ‬ ‫ָע ֶריָך ָח ְר ָבּה ִ‬ ‫י־אנִ י יְ הוָ ה׃‬ ‫וְ יָ ַד ְע ָתּ ִכּ ֲ‬ ‫עֹולם וַ ַתּגֵּ ר‬ ‫יַ ַען ֱהיֹות ְלָך ֵא ַיבת ָ‬ ‫י־ח ֶרב ְבּ ֵעת ֵא ָידם‬ ‫ת־בּנֵ י־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ַעל־יְ ֵד ָ‬ ‫ֶא ְ‬ ‫ְבּ ֵעת ֲעֹון ֵקץ׃‬ ‫י־ל ָדם ֶא ֶע ְשָׂך‬ ‫ָל ֵכן ַחי־אָנִ י נְ ֻאם ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה ִכּ ְ‬ ‫את וְ ָדם יִ ְר ֲדּ ֶפָך׃‬ ‫וְ ָדם יִ ְר ֲדּ ֶפָך ִאם־לֹא ָדם ָשׂנֵ ָ‬ ‫וּשׁ ָמ ָמה‬ ‫ת־הר ֵשׂ ִעיר ְל ִשׁ ְמ ָמה ְ‬ ‫וְ נָ ַת ִתּי ֶא ַ‬ ‫וְ ִה ְכ ַר ִתּי ִמ ֶמּנּוּ ע ֵֹבר וָ ָשׁב׃‬ ‫אֹותיָך‬ ‫עֹותיָך וְ גֵ ֶ‬ ‫ת־ה ָריו ֲח ָל ָליו גִּ ְב ֶ‬ ‫אתי ֶא ָ‬ ‫וּמ ֵלּ ִ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫י־ח ֶרב יִ ְפּלוּ ָב ֶהם׃‬ ‫ל־א ִפ ֶיקיָך ַח ְל ֵל ֶ‬ ‫וְ ָכ ֲ‬ ‫ישׁ ְבנָ ה‬ ‫עֹולם ֶא ֶתּנְ ָך וְ ָע ֶריָך לֹא ֵת ַ‬ ‫ִשׁ ְממֹות ָ‬ ‫י־אנִ י יְ הוָ ה׃‬ ‫[תשׁ ְֹבנָ ה] וִ ַיד ְע ֶתּם ִכּ ֲ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ת־שׁ ֵתּי ָה ֲא ָרצֹות‬ ‫ת־שׁנֵ י ַהגֹּויִם וְ ֶא ְ‬ ‫יַ ַען ֲא ָמ ְרָך ֶא ְ‬ ‫נוּה וַ יהוָ ה ָשׁם ָהיָ ה׃‬ ‫ִלי ִת ְהיֶ ינָ ה וִ ַיר ְשׁ ָ‬ ‫אַפָּך‬ ‫יתי ְכּ ְ‬ ‫ָל ֵכן ַחי־אָנִ י נְ ֻאם ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה וְ ָע ִשׂ ִ‬ ‫אָתיָך ָבּם‬ ‫יתה ִמ ִשּׂנְ ֶ‬ ‫אָתָך ֲא ֶשׁר ָע ִשׂ ָ‬ ‫וּכ ִקנְ ְ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫נֹוד ְע ִתּי ָבם ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר ֶא ְשׁ ְפּ ֶטָך׃‬ ‫וְ ַ‬ ‫אָצֹותיָך‬ ‫ֶ‬ ‫ת־כּל־נָ‬ ‫י־אנִ י יְ הוָ ה ָשׁ ַמ ְע ִתּי ֶא ָ‬ ‫וְ יָ ַד ְע ָתּ ִכּ ֲ‬ ‫ל־ה ֵרי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֵלאמֹר‬ ‫אָמ ְר ָתּ ַע ָ‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ַ‬ ‫אָכ ָלה׃‬ ‫[שׁ ֵממוּ] ָלנוּ נִ ְתּנוּ ְל ְ‬ ‫ָשׁ ֵמ ָמה ָ‬ ‫יכם‬ ‫יכם וְ ַה ְע ַתּ ְר ֶתּם ָע ַלי ִדּ ְב ֵר ֶ‬ ‫וַ ַתּגְ ִדּילוּ ָע ַלי ְבּ ִפ ֶ‬ ‫ֲאנִ י ָשׁ ָמ ְע ִתּי׃ ס‬ ‫אָרץ‬ ‫ל־ה ֶ‬ ‫אָמר ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה ִכּ ְשׂמ ַֹח ָכּ ָ‬ ‫כֹּה ַ‬ ‫ה־לְּך׃‬ ‫ְשׁ ָמ ָמה ֶא ֱע ֶשׂ ָ‬ ‫ְכּ ִשׂ ְמ ָח ְתָך ְלנַ ְח ַלת ֵבּית־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ַעל‬ ‫ה־לְּך ְשׁ ָמ ָמה ִת ְהיֶ ה‬ ‫ר־שׁ ֵמ ָמה ֵכּן ֶא ֱע ֶשׂ ָ‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁ ָ‬ ‫י־אנִ י‬ ‫ל־אדֹום ֻכּ ָלּהּ וְ יָ ְדעוּ ִכּ ֲ‬ ‫ר־שׂ ִעיר וְ ָכ ֱ‬ ‫ַה ֵ‬ ‫יְ הוָ ה׃ פ‬

‫ת־ה ָריו ְשׁ ָמ ָמה‬ ‫אָשׂים ֶא ָ‬ ‫אתי וָ ִ‬ ‫ת־ע ָשׂו ָשׂנֵ ִ‬ ‫וְ ֶא ֵ‬ ‫וְ ֶאת־נַ ֲח ָלתֹו ְל ַתנֹּות ִמ ְד ָבּר׃‬ ‫אמר ֱאדֹום ֻר ַשּׁ ְשׁנוּ וְ נָ שׁוּב וְ נִ ְבנֶ ה ֳח ָרבֹות‬ ‫ִכּי־ת ֹ ַ‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות ֵה ָמּה ְיִבנוּ וַ ֲאנִ י ֶא ֱהרֹוס‬ ‫כֹּה ַ‬ ‫וְ ָק ְראוּ ָל ֶהם גְּ בוּל ִר ְשׁ ָעה וְ ָה ָעם ֲא ֶשׁר־זָ ַעם‬ ‫ד־עֹולם׃‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫יְ הוָ ה ַע‬

‫‪Lexical and Syntactical Parallels‬‬ ‫‪Ezekiel 35 displays the most lexical coordinates with Mal. 1.3-4. The‬‬ ‫‪ְׁ is prominent, forming the dominant theme of desolation. It‬ש ָמ ָמה ‪noun‬‬ ‫)עשה‪/‬היה‪/‬נתן( ’‪occurs seven times in relation to what Yhwh will ‘make‬‬ ‫‪ is used twice in the context of Edom’s‬שמם ‪of Edom.53 The related verb‬‬ ‫‪ִ in v. 7, which HALAT, IV, p. 1448, and DCH, VIII, p. 447,‬שׁ ְמ ָמה ‪53.  Includes‬‬ ‫‪ׁ.‬ש ָמ ָמה ‪both read as‬‬ ‫ְ‬

60

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

response to Israel’s destruction: Edom boasted, ‘They are laid desolate [‫’]ׁש ֵמ ָמה‬ ָ (v. 12), and rejoiced over Israel’s inheritance (‫)נחלה‬, ‘because it was laid waste [‫’]ׁש ֵמ ָמה‬ ָ (v. 15). The repetition of this Leitwort makes a strong case for Ezek. 35 forming the textual backdrop to Mal. 1.3-4. Malachi’s presentation of Edom in the opening pericope contains only four lines, the first of which concerns Edom’s current state because of Yhwh’s past actions. The two words that Malachi chose to describe Edom’s state are ‫( שממה‬v. 3) and ‫( חרבות‬v. 4), with the primary term being ‫שממה‬. The description in the parallel clause of Edom’s inheritance (‫)נחלה‬ being given to the jackals of the desert (‫)לתנות מדבר‬, simply unpacks the implications of ‫שממה‬.54 The terms ‫ שממה‬and ‫ חרבה‬are used in Ezek. 35, although Ezekiel coordinates different verbs with each term: for ‫ שממה‬he uses ‫נתן‬, ‫היה‬, ‫עשה‬, whereas Malachi employs ‫ ;שים‬and for ‫ חרבה‬Ezekiel uses ‫שים‬, while in Malachi the term is coordinated with ‫בנה‬.55 The idea that the desolation will be permanent is shared by both texts in the use of the word ‫עולם‬: in Ezek. 35.9, Yhwh promises to make Edom a perpetual waste (‫)שממות עולם‬, while in Mal. 1.4 Yhwh declares that Edom will be a people with whom he is angry forever (‫)עד־עולם‬. The combination of the words ‫ שממה‬and ‫ חרבה‬is not unique in itself. As already noted, the terms appear together in other prophetic texts against Israel (Jer. 44.6) and Egypt (Ezek. 29.9-10). However, there are combinations of other terms with ‫ שממה‬or other ‫ שמם‬derivatives that are exclusive to Ezekiel and Malachi. For example, the combination of ‫ הר‬+ ‫ שממה‬is shared only by Ezekiel (33.28; 35.7, 15) and Mal. 1.3: Ezekiel announces that Mount Seir (‫ )הר־שעיר‬will be made a waste (‫ )שממה‬and a desolation (‫)שממה‬, while Malachi declares that Esau–Edom’s mountains (‫ )הריו‬have been made a desolation (‫ ;שממה‬35.7, 15).56 Additionally, the combination of ‫( נחלה‬singular) + √‫ שמם‬is unique to Ezek. 35.15 and Mal. 1.3.57 Edom rejoiced at the ‘inheritance of Israel’ (‫ )נחלת בית־ישראל‬being made a waste (‫;ׁש ֵמ ָמה‬ ָ Ezek. 35.15), yet Malachi states that Edom’s land has been laid waste (‫)ואשים…שממה‬, and his inheritance (‫ )נחלתו‬left for

54.  The main wayyiqtol verb ‫ ואשים‬governs both clauses, and the preposition ‫ ל‬on ‫ תנות‬alleviates any syntactical awkwardness, contra Torrey, ‘Prophecy of “Malachi”’, p. 2 n. 5. 55.  This difference in verbal coordination is not so significant since the verbs ‫נתן‬, ‫היה‬, ‫ עשה‬and ‫ שים‬are used interchangeably in these curse or judgement contexts. 56.  Cf. Ezek. 33.28: the mountains (plural) of Israel (‫ )הרי־ישראל‬will be made desolate (‫)ושממו‬. 57.  Isa. 49.8 has ‫נחלות שממות‬, where the servant is promised as a covenant to the people in order to establish the land and apportion the desolate heritages.

3. ‘I have loved you’

61

the jackals of the desert (1.3). What is striking here about Yhwh’s words is that nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible is Edom’s land ever referred to as her ‘inheritance’ (‫)נחלה‬. In Deut. 2.5 and Josh. 24.4, Yhwh gives Esau the hill country of Mount Seir to possess (‫ ;)ירש‬it is his descendants’ territory (Num. 20.17). But the word ‫ נחלה‬never describes Edom’s land. This implies that by employing these terms, Malachi wishes to convey the divine reversal that Edom has experienced: they rejoiced over the desolation of Israel’s inheritance (‫ ;נחלה‬Ezek. 35.15), yet in the end their own inheritance (‫ )נחלה‬is given to the jackals of the wilderness (Mal. 1.3). Contextual and Thematic Parallels Ezekiel 35 does not appear in the context of oracles against the nations in chs. 22–32, but rather in the framework of the group of prophecies of consolation and rehabilitation (chs. 33–48). The consolation is announced because of the fall of Jerusalem (33.21); Yhwh’s promise to make the mountains of Israel a desolation (‫ )שממה‬has come true (33.28-29). One of the central themes of this part of Ezekiel is the loss and restoration of Israel’s land. Edom’s destruction (Ezek. 35) is juxtaposed with Israel’s restoration to their land (Ezek. 36); it is viewed as ‘the indispensable prelude to Israel’s restoration’.58 This fits exactly with the context of Mal. 1.3-4 and its thematic note of Edom’s destruction (‫)שממה‬. As in Ezekiel, so in Malachi: the condemnation of Edom is the consolation of Israel. Availability A survey of current scholarship reveals that the prophetic texts concerning Edom are dated to the exilic period or shortly afterwards. The content of the announcements against Edom in Isa. 34.5-15, Ezek. 35 and Joel 4.19-20[3.19-20], embedded in the language of the future, creates enough historical distance between these texts and Malachi. They present Edom as a stable, fortified state awaiting destruction; in Malachi, she is already destroyed.59

58.  Beth Glazier-McDonald, ‘Edom in the Prophetical Corpus’, in You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He Is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition (ed. Diana V. Edelman; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), pp. 23-32 (31). 59.  Of course the unpointed verb form ‫ ואשים‬in v. 3 could be a weyiqtol form, but no commentators challenge the Masoretic pointing. The wayyiqtol form continues the sequence of wayyiqtol + qatal from vv. 2-3.

62

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Assessment There is the possibility that Malachi intended some level of ‘contact’ with each of the main texts concerning Edom (Isa. 34.5-15; Jer. 49.7-22; Ezek. 25.12-14; 35; Joel 4.19-20[3.19-20]; Obadiah) in order to demonstrate that the prophetic announcements concerning Edom’s downfall have come to fulfilment. However, the analysis above encourages more specificity in identifying particular texts. Of the texts analysed, Isa. 34.5-15, Ezek. 35, and Joel 4.19-20[3.19-20] stand out as the main possibilities for allusion. Given the number of lexemes shared between Mal. 1.3-4 and Ezek. 35 (especially the Leitwort ‫)שממה‬, the unique combinations of words/roots, and the similar literary context in which it is located, Ezek. 35 emerges as the most likely text within Malachi’s purview. 3.5.4. Interpretive Significance Malachi employs two examples from Israel’s history to answer the question as to how Yhwh has loved Israel. In the first, he alludes to the Jacob–Esau story as proof of Yhwh’s electing love for Israel. Having mentioned Jacob and Esau, a second example is afforded by the prophet: he alludes to the explicit destruction of Edom and the implicit restoration of Israel as proof of Yhwh’s enduring love for Israel. Malachi’s allusion to at least one prophecy against Edom (Ezek. 35), if not more (Isa. 34.5-15; Joel. 4.19-20[3.19-20]), forms the second prong in his argument concerning Yhwh’s enduring love for Israel. By utilizing the language from ‘Edom condemnation’ texts that announced her destruction as a future event, and reworking it into an oracle against Edom in the past tense, Malachi presents a promise–fulfilment matrix through which Israel should view Yhwh’s love for them. Malachi’s terminology, conveyed in the past tense, indicates to the reader that Yhwh has kept his promise regarding the destruction of Edom. The twin nation currently lies in waste (‫)שממה‬, as Ezekiel, for example, prophesied, and any attempt to rebuild will be thwarted by Yhwh. The territory of Edom is the focal point because land was an essential part of the birthright (Gen. 23.25; 27.28; cf. 27.38), and while ‘twin-brother’ Edom was in the ascendancy, even migrating into Israel’s land (Ezek. 35.10), there would always be the threat that Israel’s inheritance would be lost, that the birthright might not be theirs in the end. But if Edom is utterly destroyed, the security of Israel’s election (and therefore the possession of the birthright) is put beyond any reasonable doubt. By speaking so explicitly of Edom’s permanent destruction and Yhwh’s enduring wrath against them, Yhwh not only confirms his loving commitment to Israel, but also ensures its perpetuity. Edom’s dispossession from their land is a marker of Yhwh’s faithfulness to Israel’s repossession of their land ‫עד־עולם‬.

3. ‘I have loved you’

63

The allusions to other prophetic texts form the basis for the condemnation of Edom and encourage nuance in the presentation of Malachi’s election theology. The ‘harshness’ of Yhwh’s non-choice of Esau–Edom is tempered by these texts because they provide a reason for Yhwh’s judgement on Edom.60 Yhwh does choose between Jacob and Esau before either twin has done good or evil, but the attitudes and actions of Esau’s descendants – as displayed in Ezek. 35.5, 10 or Joel 4.19[3.19], for example – provide justification for Edom’s condemnation. Edom cherished perpetual enmity against Israel, giving them over to their enemy (Ezek. 35.5), and taking possession of their land once they were in exile (Ezek. 35.10); they did violence to the people of Judah and shed innocent blood in the land (Joel 4.19[3.19]). In other words, while Yhwh rejected Esau, election is not the only factor at play in his life and the lives of his descendants: divine retribution is also at work.61 Edom’s downfall, though it is not explicitly expressed by Malachi, is because of her attitude and actions toward Israel.62 True, Edom was not Yhwh’s elect ‘son’, but that did not mitigate their responsibility to live in an amicable relationship with Yhwh’s chosen son, Israel. The Abrahamic covenant is still in operation: those who curse the chosen seed will be cursed (Gen. 12.3; esp. 27.29).63 3.5.5. ‘…but Israel I have restored’ (Implicit) Noting the intertextual connections between Mal. 1.3-4 and earlier prophetic texts concerning Edom illuminates the promise–fulfilment matrix through which Yhwh’s love is to be understood: Yhwh has destroyed Jacob– Israel’s main competitor for the birthright and land, and therefore he remains committed to Israel and none other. However, careful attention to Malachi’s choice of vocabulary and terminological combinations reveals

60.  As the text stands, the consecutive wayyiqtol ‫ ואשים‬may give the impression that Yhwh’s hatred of Esau continued with the nation without any other factor at work for Edom’s condemnation, i.e., Yhwh laid Edom waste simply because he hated their ancestral father, Esau. 61.  The fact that they will be known as a country of wickedness (‫)גבול רשעה‬ supports the idea that their destruction is in part due to their own evil deeds in at least some way. 62.  Anderson, Brotherhood and Inheritance, p. 224. 63.  This point should not be read back into the previous verse in order to provide moral causality for Yhwh’s hatred of Esau. To do so would be to distort the allusion to Jacob and Esau, and the fact that Yhwh chose one twin and rejected the other before either had done good or evil.

64

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

that embedded within these verses is a deft comparison between Edom’s destruction (explicit) and Israel’s restoration (implicit). This is demonstrated in a number of ways: (1) Unique Terminology Regarding Edom’s Land Recalls Israel’s Land The two words chosen to describe the land of Edom – ‫ הרים‬and ‫– נחלה‬ appear strategic. The first is, prima facie, unsurprising: from her early days, Edom was known as the hill country of Seir (‫;הר ֵשׂ ִעיר‬ ַ Josh. 24.4). However, given the allusive connections with Ezek. 35, its plural form may also subtly recall Ezek. 36, where Israel is addressed as ‫הרי־‬ ‫ ישראל‬and is promised that her wastes (‫ ;שמות‬v. 3) and desolate wastes (‫ ;חרבות השממות‬v. 4) will be restored and rebuilt (‫ ;בנה‬vv. 10, 33). Thus, while Edom’s mountains are devastated and made a habitation for jackals, the ‘mountains of Israel’ are restored. The Persians may rule the land, but at least Israel inhabits her own ‘mountains’, and even enjoys a functioning temple on one of them. The second term ‫ נחלה‬is surprising. In the OT, Edom’s land is described as a possession (‫אחזה‬/‫ )ירשה‬granted by Yhwh (Gen. 36.43; Deut. 2.5; cf. Josh. 24.4), where Esau went after he deprived himself of his inheritance (Gen. 33.16). But nowhere is Edom’s land referred to as their own ‘inheritance’ (‫ – )נחלה‬except in Mal. 1.3. The term, however, is used frequently to describe Israel’s land.64 Indeed, it is used of Israel’s land in Ezek. 35 and 36. As observed above, the combination of ‫נחלה‬ (singular) + √‫ שמם‬is unique to Ezek. 35.15 and Mal. 1.3-4. Since Edom rejoiced over the inheritance (‫ )נחלה‬of the house of Israel because it was made desolate (‫)ׁש ֵמ ָמה‬, ָ Yhwh will make them desolate (‫)ׁש ָמ ָמה‬. ְ With this same unique combination of terms, Malachi’s language serves as a mental trigger to indicate that Yhwh’s word against Edom has come true, but also, by implication, that Israel has received her inheritance back. Edom’s ‘inheritance’ now belongs to the jackals of the desert; Israel’s belongs to her. And this is exactly what Ezek. 36 states: the ‘mountains of Israel’ (v. 8) will be the inheritance (‫ )נחלה‬of the people again (v. 12). By cursing Edom’s land, Yhwh ‘violates’ his earlier land grant to Edom (Deut. 2.5). But Yhwh did not violate the land grant made to Abraham and to his children. Their inheritance, which was for a time taken from them, was eventually returned to them. The choice of ‫ נחלה‬is therefore strongly evocative of Israel’s restored status. 64.  Canaan was Israel’s ‫נחלה‬, as mentioned in Deuteronomy (4.21, 38; 19.10, 14; 21.23), Joshua (passim) and the later prophets (Isa. 19.25; 58.14; Jer. 2.7; 3.19; Ezek. 35.15; 36.12; 44.28; 48.29; Joel 4.2[3.2]).

3. ‘I have loved you’

65

(2) Unique Terminology and Word Combinations Regarding Yhwh’s Curse on Edom Recall Yhwh’s Curse on Israel Malachi employs terminology and word combinations for his curse on Edom that are unique or generally exclusive to Yhwh’s curse on Israel in prophetic texts. In recalling this terminology, Malachi provides an implicit reminder to Israel that they are no longer under Yhwh’s curse; rather, Edom now is. (a) ‫רשש‬ The verb ‫ רשש‬occurs in only two texts in the Hebrew Bible: Jer. 5.17 (polel, ‘to smash, batter to pieces’65) and Mal. 1.4 (pual, ‘to be shattered’66). In the former, Yhwh promises that a nation from afar (the Babylonians) will shatter into pieces the fortified cities of Israel. The rarity of this verb means that its appearance in Malachi is evocative of Israel’s devastation by the Babylonians, yet here the term is applied to Edom.67 Detailed analysis of historical and archaeological evidence indicates that Malachi’s language of desolation, shattering and ruination most likely refers to the Babylonian invasion,68 since this would make best sense of the comparison that Yhwh draws between the two nations. Israel survived the Babylonian invasion, whereas Edom did not. Pieter Verhoef counters this point by arguing that Israel and Edom were not destroyed simul­ taneously with the Babylonian invasion; Edom had allied themselves to the Babylonians at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (Obad. 10-14; Ps. 137.7).69 However, the argument here is not that Edom was destroyed at the same time, but simply that the same enemy destroyed them within a close period of time, an enemy from which Israel recovered but Edom did not. The rarity of the verb ‫ רשש‬supports this. It is true that Edom partially recovered (as their intentions in v. 4 make

65.  HALAT, IV, p. 1211: ‘zerschlagen’. 66.  Ibid.: ‘zerschlagen sein’. 67.  Prima facie, Jer. 5 was written by the prophet in the days of Josiah (Jer. 1.1-3; 3.6), and so the text has chronological priority to Malachi. Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20 (AB 21A; New York: Doubleday, 1999), pp. 398-99, suggests a date late in Josiah’s reign or early in the reign of Jehoiakim; William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. Chapters 1–25 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), p. 186, dates it soon after the king burned Jeremiah’s scroll in December 601 B.C. 68.  Bartlett, ‘Edom’ (ABD). For further discussion, see ‘Excursus: History of Edom’ below. 69.  Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, p. 203.

66

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

clear),70 but not for long: the subsequent Nabataean invasion brought indigenous Edomite existence to an end, either by annihilation or by intermarriage.71 (b) ‫זעם‬ The verb ‫זעם‬, ‘to curse, scold’,72 occurs 33 times in the Hebrew Bible. Although it is used in conventional curse or judgement language against the nations (e.g. Isa. 26.20; 30.27; 66.14; Jer. 10.10; Nah. 1.6; Hab. 3.12; Zeph. 3.8), it is mainly employed in contexts of Yhwh’s curse or judgement against Israel (e.g. Num. 23.7-8; Isa. 10.25; 13.5; 26.20; Ezek. 21.36; 22.24, 31; Zech. 1.12; Lam. 2.6). In four texts, ‫ זעם‬is accompanied by an explicit temporal marker: Isa. 10.25; 20.26; Zech. 1.12; and Mal. 1.4. In the first three, the time reference concerns Israel in some way; in the last text, Edom. In Isa. 10.25, Israel is not to fear Yhwh’s fury (‫)זעם‬ in the Assyrian invasion, for it will come to an end in a little while (‫כי־‬ ‫ ;)עוד מעט מזער‬in Isa. 26.20, they are to hide for a little while (‫)כמעט רגע‬ from Yhwh’s wrath against the nations. Zechariah 1.12 provides a more specific temporal marker: Yhwh has been angry (‫ )זעם‬with Jerusalem and Judah for ‘these seventy years’ (‫)זה שבעים שנה‬. H. D. Preuss observes that post-exilic texts inquire whether Yhwh’s wrath, manifested in the punishment of the exile, would continue ‘forever’ (‫( )עולם‬Isa. 57.16; Pss 77.8[7]; 85.6[5]; 103.9).73 In the end, his wrath lasted only a little while against Israel (Isa. 10.25), and 70 years against Judah in the south (Zech. 1.12). Malachi 1.4, on the other hand, stands in stark contrast: Yhwh’s wrath (‫ )זעם‬against Edom will be ‫עד־עולם‬. The verb ‫ זעם‬plus a temporal marker would surely recall for Israel their own experience under Yhwh’s ‫זעם‬, and, at the same time, it would remind them that, unlike Edom, they are no longer under his indignation.74 (c) ‫ הרס‬+ ‫זעם‬ Further indication that the employment of the verb ‫ זעם‬is deliberate and not simply conventional curse or judgement language against the nations 70.  Archaeological evidence of continued Edomite occupation may be found at Bozrah, Tell el-Kheleifeh, and possibly Petra, data which suggest that rebuilding efforts commenced soon after the Neo-Babylonian defeat (Petersen, Malachi, p. 172). 71.  Jean Starcky, ‘The Nabateans: A Historical Sketch’, The Biblical Archaeologist 18 (1955), pp. 84-106 (86); Jacob M. Myers, ‘Some Considerations Bearing on the Date of Joel’, ZAW 74 (1962), pp. 177-95 (187). 72.  HALAT, I, p. 265: ‘verwünschen, beschelten’. 73.  H. D. Preuss, ‘‫’עֹולם‬, ָ in TDOT, X, p. 540. 74.  An early post-exilic date for Zech. 1–8 is generally accepted among commentators, which allows Zech. 1.12 to be available to the prophet.

3. ‘I have loved you’

67

is possibly seen in its unique combination with another term. The combination ‫ הרס‬+ ‫ זעם‬occurs only in Mal. 1.3-4 and in Lam. 2, where Yhwh broke down (‫ )הרס‬the strongholds of the house of Judah (v. 2) and threw them down (‫ )הרס‬without pity (v. 17), as he acted in fierce indignation (‫ )זעם־אף‬against king and priest in Judah (v. 6). In other words, terminological combinations that are unique to Israel have been applied by Malachi to Edom.75 Words that were once combined in condemnation of Judah are now utilized to condemn Edom.76 In addition, with these unique terms and word combinations in view, it is possible to see how other conventional curse or judgement language – such as ‫ שממה‬and ‫ – תנות‬could evoke for Israel the days of Nebuchadnezzar, when Jerusalem and Judah were made a desolation and a lair for jackals (Jer. 9.10[11]; 10.22). (3) Terminology and Unique Word/Root Combinations Regarding Edom’s Attempts to Rebuild Their Ruins Recall Yhwh’s Promise to Rebuild Israel’s Ruins Word combinations in Mal. 1.3-4 allude not only to Yhwh’s curse on Israel but also to his promise to restore Israel after their land had been made waste and desolate. (a) ‫ בנה‬+ ‫חרבה‬/‫חרבות‬ The combination of ‫ בנה‬+‎ ‫ חרבה‬occurs seven times, six of which are in the Prophets. Outside of Malachi, the coordination of these terms is only ever used of the reversal of Judah’s misfortunes, where Yhwh promises to rebuild (‫ )בנה‬the cities of Judah and raise up (‫ )קום‬the ruins (‫ ;חרבות‬Isa. 44.26; 58.12; 61.4). Similar promises are made in Ezekiel (36.10, 33), the waste places (‫ )החרבות‬will be rebuilt (‫)בנה‬. What Yhwh promises to do for Israel, he ensures will not happen for Edom: though Edom says, ‘We have been shattered but we will again build [‫ ]ונבנה‬the ruins [‫’]חרבות‬, Yhwh says, ‘they may build [‫]יבנו‬, but I will destroy [‫( ’]אהרוס‬Mal. 1.4).77

75.  Because of the vivid description and the sincere emotion contained in the book of Lamentations, few scholars date the composition later than the end of the exile. Most date it much earlier in the exilic period, with a few arguing for a date around the reconstruction of the temple (515–500 B.C.). See Iain W. Provan, Lamentations (NCB; London: Marshall Pickering, 1991), pp. 7-19, for a helpful overview. 76.  In support: Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 104. 77.  Where there may be, for some scholars, a question over the availability of the so-called Trito-Isaiah texts in Malachi’s time, no such problem attends the similar language in Ezek. 36, which is dated, with ch. 35, to the late exilic period at the latest.

68

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

(b) ‫ בנה‬+ ‫הרס‬ The combination ‫ בנה‬+ ‫ הרס‬occurs 10 times. When a nation is involved, the combination is present only in prophetic texts that concern Yhwh’s promise to rebuild in Israel’s land and not to tear it down again (Jer. 24.6; 42.10; Ezek. 36.36; Amos 9.11).78 Again, Ezek. 36 is notable. Yhwh promises that he will rebuild (‫ )בנה‬the ruined places (‫ )הנהרסות‬for Israel (Ezek. 36.36), but refuses to allow such fortune for Edom (Mal. 1.4). (c) √‫ חרב‬+ √‫ שמם‬+ √‫הרס‬ The triple root combination of ‫ חרב‬+ ‫ שמם‬+ ‫ הרס‬is reflected in only three texts in the Hebrew Bible (Isa. 49.19; Ezek. 36.35; and Mal. 1.3-4). Both Isa. 49.19 and Ezek. 36.35 are found in the context of restorative promises to Israel. Given the aforementioned connections to Ezek. 36, the cluster of these roots in Mal. 1.3-4 more likely points back to Ezek. 36.35 than to Isa. 49.19. In Ezek. 36.35, Yhwh promises that the waste and desolate and ruined cities (‫ )הערים החרבות והנשמות והנהרסות‬will be fortified and reinhabited. (4) Deuteronom(ist)ic Terminology Recalls Israel’s Safety and Their United Kingdom (a) ‫ועיניכם תראינה‬ The phrase in Mal. 1.5 recalls Deuteronomic texts, in which Israel are reminded of what their eyes saw when Yhwh delivered them from their enemies, whether foreign kings or Egypt (Deut. 3.21; 4.3, 9; 7.19; 10.21; 11.7; 29.2; cf. Josh. 24.7). To use such a phrase is surely strategic in the context of naming Israel’s present archenemy: ‘the fall of Edom had the same theological import as the Israelite Exodus from Egypt’.79 (b) ‫גבול ישראל‬ The phrase occurs 13 times in the OT, most often in the Deuteronomistic History with reference to the united kingdom.80 In Malachi it thus carries theological weight. Whether -‫ מעל ל‬is rendered ‘over’ or ‘beyond’, the point is that Israel exists as a restored entity and with a name, one that 78.  The language is used in relation to Jeremiah’s own ministry (1.10) and in the context of judgement on the land (45.4). Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 97, thinks that Malachi materialises the terms used in Job 12.14. However, Weyde does so without establishing a date for Job. Moreover, the same language is not exclusive to Job: see Ps. 28.5 and Prov. 14.1. 79.  Hill, Malachi, p. 160. 80.  Judg. 19.29; 1 Sam. 7.13; 11.3, 7; 27.1; 2 Sam. 21.5; 1 Kgs 1.3; 2 Kgs 10.32; 14.25; Ezek. 11.10, 11; 1 Chron. 21.12.

3. ‘I have loved you’

69

recalls the united kingdom: ‫גבול ישראל‬. Edom, on the other hand, will be known simply as ‫ – גבול רשעה‬a country without a name, the ‘Never-Land’. Once Israel sees Edom’s permanent devastation in the future, they will declare that Yhwh is great over or beyond their ‘united kingdom’.81 In sum, while Mal. 1.3-4 explicitly describes Edom’s present and future desolate state, the language employed by the prophet in vv. 3-5 is an implicit-but-evocative reminder for Israel of their own once-desolatebut-now-restored state. Malachi, in the short space of two verses, employs the same unique terminology and word/root combinations that are used regarding Israel’s land, Yhwh’s curse on Israel and his promise to restore Israel following their desolation and ruination. Even the phraseology in v. 5 emphasises the note of restoration: Israel will see the destruction of their archenemy with their own eyes, as did their forefathers of their enemies; and, as a result, they will praise Yhwh for his greatness over or beyond the ‘united kingdom’ of Israel. The rare cluster of word combinations shared by only Mal. 1.3-4 and Ezek. 36 significantly strengthens the case for an allusion to Ezek. 36 and adds credence to Kessler’s contention that ‘Malachi’s text is a counter-text to Ezek. 36’.82 Malachi has done more than allude; he has taken terminology and word/root combinations regarding the desolation of Israel’s land, Yhwh’s curse on Israel and Yhwh’s promise to restore their land, and he has exegetically reapplied them in an oracle regarding Edom’s current and continuing desolate state. 3.5.6. Interpretive Significance The actualization of Ezek. 36 in Mal. 1.3-4 strengthens the case for Yhwh’s covenant love for Israel: not only is Edom destroyed, as he promised (Ezek. 35), but Israel have returned to the land and have rebuilt their desolated waste places and ruined cities; indeed, Jerusalem is occupied again, and with a fully functional temple. Not so Edom. What Yhwh promises to Israel in Ezek. 36 (and has brought about by the time of Malachi) is denied to Edom in Mal. 1.3-4. Edom mirrors what Israel once was, which encourages appreciation from Israel for what they now are. The difference between the nations is ‘a living representation’83 of Yhwh’s enduring love for Israel; they are still his chosen son. 81.  The nominal construction ‫ גדול יהוה‬is common in the Psalms (48.2[1]; 95.3; 96.4; 99.2; 135.5; 138.5; 145.3; cf. 1 Chron. 16.25), but the verbal construction ‫ גדל‬+ ‎‫ יהוה‬occurs in only a handful of texts (2 Sam. 7.22, 26; Pss 35.27; 40.17[16]; 104.1), none of which stands out as a specific precursor for Malachi. 82.  Kessler, ‘Unity of Malachi’, p. 229. Kessler, however, does not present detailed data to prove the point. 83.  Calvin, Zechariah and Malachi, p. 468.

70

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

3.6. Excursus: History of Edom On Mal. 1.3-4, Petersen is wise to caution that ‘it would be a fundamental mistake to think that a historical reconstruction will serve as an interpretation of the text’.84 Nevertheless, it is helpful at least to consider to what incident the text of Malachi may be referring, especially if one is arguing that Mal. 1.3-4 constitutes the fulfillment of earlier prophecies concerning Edom. Understanding the history of Edom is, however, made difficult by the simple fact that there are no extant records from Edom itself; the evidence is dependent on external material. Seven proposals exist among scholars as to the historical reference for the desolation (‫ )שממה‬and ruination (‫ )חרבה‬that Edom experienced. It may refer to (1) a possible invasion by Nebuchadnezzar during one of his military campaigns;85 (2) Nabonidus’ Arabian campaign (commencing 552 B.C.);86 (3) gradual infiltration of Arabic tribes, perhaps first by Qedarites87 and then later by Nabataeans;88 (4) combination of (2) and (3);89 (5) devastation of Edom by a Bedouin incidence around the year 460;90 (6) a long process of devastation, starting after Nabonidus’ campaigns but not as a result of infiltration of Nabataeans;91 or (7) the Persian–Egyptian wars.92

84.  Petersen, Malachi, p. 172. 85.  O’Brien, Priest and Levite, p. 117. 86.  Bartlett, ‘Edom’, p. 293. 87.  Starcky, ‘Nabateans’, p. 86; Myers, ‘Date of Joel’, p. 187. 88.  B. C. Cresson, ‘The Condemnation of Edom’, in The Use of the Old Testament in the New (ed. James M. Efird; Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1972), pp. 125-48 (138). 89.  Jacob M. Myers, ‘Edom and Judah in the Sixth–Fifth Centuries’, in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (ed. Hans Goedicke; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971), pp. 377-92 (386). Nabonidus took over the trade routes around the middle of the sixth century B.C. and the step-by-step encroachment of the Nabataeans meant that the Edomites were gradually squeezed out of their strongholds. 90.  Max Haller, ‘Edom im Urteil der Propheten’, in Vom Alten Testament. Karl Marti zum siebzigsten Geburtstage gewidmet von Freunden, Fachgenossen und Schülern (ed. Karl Budde; BZAW 41; Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1925), pp. 109-17 (113). 91.  Lescow, Maleachi, pp. 62-64. 92.  George A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets: Commonly Called the Minor Prophets (The Expositor’s Bible 2; New York: Armstrong & Son, 1928), p. 645.

3. ‘I have loved you’

71

The last three options lack significant evidence and lean more towards hypothesis and conjecture. Options (3) and (4) are similar and carry some weight. The slow infiltration of nomadic Arab tribes into the region may help to explain the continuity of site occupation from Edomites to Nabataeans,93 though this evidence is restricted to certain cities in Edom.94 Moreover, such an infiltration does not adequately explain how Edom’s land had become a waste (‫)שממה‬, given over to the jackals of the desert (‫)לתנות מדבר‬, devastated (‫ )רשש‬and destroyed (‫)הרס‬, as described by Malachi (1.3-4). There must have been an attack of some kind. Option (1) is attractive but cannot be substantiated. Nebuchadnezzar had various campaigns in the surrounding regions during his reign (605–562 B.C.). In 582/1 B.C., he invaded Syria in the twenty-third year of his reign. Moab and Ammon were subjected and more Jews were exiled (Jer. 52.30). Undoubtedly, Edom would have lost power to control and profit from the trade route between Arabia and the Mediterranean, but there is no record of any invasion into Edom’s land.95 A better explanation exists in option (2).

93.  N. Glueck, ‘Explorations in Eastern Palestine’, AASOR 15 (1935), pp. 1-114 (61, 72), remarks that ‘almost invariably where there was an Edomite settlement it was followed by a Nabataean one’. See also N. Glueck, The Other Side of the Jordan (Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1970). Similarly, John R. Bartlett, ‘From Edomites to Nabataeans: A Study in Continuity’, PEQ 3 (1979), pp. 53-66, maintains that statements about a nomadic Arab occupation are ‘the correlative of an oversimplified view of the absence of sedentary occupation in Edom between the Edomites and the Nabataeans’. Bartlett thinks that there is no real ‘gap’ in occupation in Edom’s land, but rather continuity between Edomite occupation and the Nabataeans: ‘The process [of people change in Edom] was a gradual one, without drama, without disasters, without any “gap” ’. 94.  Myers, ‘Edom and Judah’, and Crystal M. Bennett, ‘Excavations at Buseirah (Biblical Bozrah)’, in Midian, Moab and Edom: The History and Archaeology of the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age Jordan and Northwest Arabia (ed. John F. A. Sawyer and David J. A. Clines; JSOTSup 24; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1983), pp. 9-17, have demonstrated that a large number of sites were abandoned by the sixth century B.C. In 1995, Piotr Bienkowski, ‘The Edomites: The Archaeological Evidence in the Transjordan’, in Edelman, ed., You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite, pp. 41-92, summarized all the archaeological findings and concluded that there was ‘no decisive proof for continuity of settlement into the Persian period in Edom’ (p. 61). 95.  John R. Bartlett, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Kingdom of Edom’, PEQ 104 (1972), pp. 26-37 (37).

72

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

In 552 B.C., it is thought that Nabonidus defeated Edom in his so-called Arabian campaign.96 According to the Nabonidus Chronicle (ANET 3 305), Nabonidus besieged a place called [uru A/U]du-um-mu, which some scholars suggest is to be interpreted as ‘the city of Edom’.97 If so, then Nabonidus may be responsible for the destruction, burning and clearing of the acropolis at Buseirah (biblical Bozrah),98 and perhaps also the destruction of Period IV at Tell el-Kheleifeh.99 Both places were revived and remained centres of population, administration and trade throughout the following period, until the infiltration of the Nabataeans precipitated its decline.100 Nabonidus’ advance on Teman would have taken him into the Edomite trade areas. He also established a number of military bases in Edom.101 It is this campaign of Nabonidus that best explains the prophetic announcements on Edom: references to deportation (Obad. 7), military attack on Bozrah (Jer. 49.22), locations from Teman to Dedan (Ezek. 25.13; Jer. 49.7-22), and the shattered ruins which need rebuilding (Mal. 1.4) – ‘all seem more appropriate to a Babylonian campaign than to a speculative and unevidenced invasion of nomadic Arabs’.102 As a result, the Edomite population in Edom started to fade out some time in the sixth century.103 Edom moved into the Negev and it may be that, being met 96.  N. Glueck, ‘Transjordan’, in Archaeology and Old Testament Study (ed. D. W. Thomas; Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), pp. 429-52 (442); J. Lindsay, ‘The Babylonian Kings and Edom, 605–550 B.C.’, PEQ (1976), pp. 23-39; Bartlett, ‘From Edomites to Nabataeans’. For further, see Bartlett, ‘The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood of Edom’, JTS 20 (1969), pp. 1-20; idem, ‘Kingdom of Edom’; idem, ‘The Moabites and the Edomites’, in Peoples of Old Testament Times (ed. Donald J. Wiseman; Oxford: Clarendon, 1973), pp. 229-58 (243-44); idem, ‘The Brotherhood of Edom’, JSOT 2 (1977), pp. 2-27; idem, Edom and the Edomites (JSOTSup 77; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989); idem, ‘Edom’ (ABD). 97.  Bartlett, ‘Edom’, p. 293. 98.  Crystal M. Bennett, ‘Excavations at Buseirah, S Jordan’, Levant 9 (1977), pp. 1-10 (4-6): inscriptions from the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. recall in a few words Nabonidus’ campaign as a time of great consequence. 99.  Glueck, Other Side of the Jordan, p. 134. 100.  Idem, ‘Transjordan’, p. 442; Bennett, ‘Excavations at Buseirah (Biblical Bozrah)’, p. 9; Bartlett, ‘Edom’, p. 293. 101.  Lindsay, ‘Babylonian Kings and Edom’, p. 39; Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, p. 161. 102.  Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, p. 161. After Nabonidus, there is no further mention of an Edomite king. He was perhaps replaced by a Babylonian governor, as was the case in Jerusalem. 103.  Myers, ‘Edom and Judah’, p. 389. Bartlett, ‘Kingdom of Edom’, p. 26, suggests that Edom’s decay actually began in the seventh century B.C. The archaeological

3. ‘I have loved you’

73

with little or no resistance at first, hope was inspired of returning to their land and rebuilding (Mal. 1.4). This of course would be a considerable change of circumstances for Edom, given that some biblical texts indicate that Edom had ‘allied’ itself to Babylon at the time of the downfall of Judah/Jerusalem (Obad. 10-14; Ps. 137.7; cf. Lam. 4.21-22; 1 Esd. 4.45).104 Obadiah 7, however, does provide support to the idea that Edom experienced a certain ‘treachery’ by one of their allies.105 In any case, whatever the historical causes behind Edom’s destruction, Mal. 1.2-5 indicates a terminus ad quem for Edom’s downfall. Edom in the Persian period is virtually unknown, remaining without settled population.106 The nation is not mentioned in Ezra or Nehemiah. The Greek writer Diodorus Siculus records that Edom was occupied by the Nabataeans by the year 312 B.C., where Petra was established as their capital.107 All things considered, it seems likely that Malachi’s language of devastation and ruination refers to the Babylonian invasion, since this would make best sense of the comparison that Yhwh draws between the two nations. Israel survived the Babylonian invasion, whereas Edom did not. evidence is still meager, but it shows the general collapse in Edomite culture in the last part of the sixth century (P. Kyle McCarter, ‘Obadiah 7 and the Fall of Edom’, BASOR 221 [1976], pp. 87-91 [89]). See further, Bienkowski, ‘Edomites’; Glazier-McDonald, ‘Edom’. 104.  In a number of places, Bartlett dismisses the view that Edom actually played a role in the events of 587 B.C. For him, texts such as Obad. 10-14 and Ps. 137.7 merely describe the presumed attitude of Edom and not her actions (see John R. Bartlett, ‘Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem 587 B.C.’, PEQ 114 [1982], pp. 13-24 [23]; idem, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 151-55; along with Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. [The Old Testament Library; London: SCM, 1968], p. 224). According to Bartlett, the charges are general and conventional rather than specific and circumstantial. He employs Jer. 40.11, which entails Edom providing a sanctuary for refugees, as the only hard evidence of Edom’s involvement in the events of 587 B.C. But this is to downplay seriously what Obad. 10-14 and Ps. 137.7 state; and besides ‘that Edom survives the Babylonian onslaught argues for some accommodation to/cooperation with Babylon’ (Glazier-McDonald, ‘Edom’, p. 28). 105.  The idea is supported by Bartlett, ‘Kingdom of Edom’, p. 36; Lindsay, ‘Babylonian Kings and Edom’, p. 39. Starcky, ‘Nabateans’, thinks that the treachery by allies in Obad. 7 describes Edom’s trading partners from Arabia to the south and south-east who brought Edom low. 106.  See Glueck, Other Side of the Jordan; Starcky, ‘Nabateans’. 107.  Diodorus Siculus, Biblicotheca Historica (LCL; trans. Richard M. Geer; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1954), XIX, pp. 94-97.

74

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

3.7. Conclusion Some commentators have tended to argue that Mal. 1.2-5 functions as a warning to Israel, that, if they do not obey, then Israel ‘is in peril of the same judgment pronounced on Edom’;108 the oracle ‘may not be as comfortable [for Israel] as it has often been understood’;109 ‘the lesson on love is a warning, and the example of Edom a threat’.110 However, this interpretation fails to discern that Malachi’s language portrays not a warning to Israel but an encouragement. Restoration and consolation, not potential desolation and ruination, are the key notes. Unique terminology and word/root combinations form an implicit allusion to texts such as Ezek. 35 + 36. Malachi has reworked material intended for Israel and reapplied it to Edom, in an ironic reversal of fortunes. What was promised to Israel is denied to Edom. In turn, Malachi’s choice of language serves as a subtle-but-evocative reminder to Israel that Yhwh has kept his promise to restore them as a nation. Malachi 1.2-5 is all about Yhwh’s favour; the responsibility of covenant obligations will follow, but commentators should not get ahead of the prophetic argument.111

108.  Hill, Malachi, p. 152. 109.  Mason, Malachi, p. 141. 110.  Peter C. Craigie, Twelve Prophets, II: Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (Daily Study Bible; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), p. 229. 111.  For example, Israel’s response in v. 5 carries no sense of concern for what might possibly happen to them.

Chapter 4 ‘ I wi l l c ur s e y ou r ble ssi ngs ’: I nne r - B i b l i ca l A l l us i on and E xe ge si s i n R e l at i on to t h e L ev i ti cal C ove nant (M a l a ch i 1.6– 2.9)

4.1. Translation v. Author’s translation ‫ ֵבּן יְ ַכ ֵבּד אָב וְ ֶע ֶבד ֲאד ֹנָ יו‬1.6a ‘A son honours his father, and a servant his lord. ‫בֹודי‬ ִ ‫ וְ ִאם־אָב אָנִ י אַיֵּ ה ְכ‬6b Now, since I am Father, where is my honour? ‫מֹור ִאי‬ ָ ‫ם־אדֹונִ ים אָנִ י אַיֵּ ה‬ ֲ ‫ וְ ִא‬6c And, since I am Lord, where is my fear? 6d says Yhwh of hosts, ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות‬ ַ 6e to you, O priests, despisers of my name. ‫ָל ֶכם ַהכּ ֲֹהנִ ים בֹּוזֵ י ְשׁ ִמי‬ ‫ וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם ַבּ ֶמּה ָבזִ ינוּ‬6f But you say, “How have we despised your name?” ‫ת־שׁ ֶמָך׃‬ ְ ‫ֶא‬ 7a By offering defiled food on my altar. ‫ל־מזְ ְבּ ִחי ֶל ֶחם‬ ִ ‫ישׁים ַע‬ ִ ִ‫ַמגּ‬ ‫ְמגֹאָל‬ ‫אַלנוָּך‬ ְ ֵ‫ וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם ַבּ ֶמּה ג‬7b But you say, “How have we defiled you?” 7c By saying, “The table of Yhwh is despised.” ‫ֶבּ ֱא ָמ ְר ֶכם ֻשׁ ְל ַחן יְ הוָ ה נִ ְבזֶ ה‬ ‫הוּא׃‬ ‫י־תגִּ שׁוּן ִעוֵּ ר ִלזְ בּ ַֹח ֵאין ָרע‬ ַ ‫ וְ ִכ‬8a When you offer blind upon the altar, is it not evil? ‫ וְ ִכי ַתגִּ ישׁוּ ִפּ ֵסּ ַח וְ ח ֶֹלה ֵאין‬8b When you offer lame and sick, is it not evil? ‫ָרע‬ 8c Present it to your governor! ‫ַה ְק ִר ֵיבהוּ נָ א ְל ֶפ ָח ֶתָך‬ 8d Will he accept you ‫ֲהיִ ְר ְצָך‬ ‫ אֹו ֲהיִ ָשּׂא ָפנֶ יָך‬8e or show you favour? 8f says Yhwh of hosts. ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃‬ ַ ‫י־אל‬ ֵ ֵ‫ וְ ַע ָתּה ַחלּוּ־נָ א ְפנ‬9a Now, entreat the favour of God ‫יחנֵ נוּ‬ ָ ִ‫ ו‬9b so that he might be gracious to us. 9c With such a thing from your hand ‫יְתה זֹּאת‬ ָ ‫ִמיֶּ ְד ֶכם ָה‬ 9d will he show favour to any of you? ‫ֲהיִ ָשּׂא ִמ ֶכּם ָפּנִ ים‬ 9e says Yhwh of hosts. ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃‬ ַ BHQ

76

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Oh that there were one among you who would shut the doors ‫א־ת ִאירוּ ִמזְ ְבּ ִחי ִחנָּ ם‬ ָ ֹ ‫ וְ ל‬10b so that you might not light my altar in vain! ‫ין־לי ֵח ֶפץ ָבּ ֶכם‬ ִ ‫ ֵא‬10c I have no pleasure in you, 10d says Yhwh of hosts. ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות‬ ַ 10e And an offering I will not accept from your ‫א־א ְר ֶצה ִמיֶּ ְד ֶכם׃‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וּמנְ ָחה ל‬ ִ hand. ‫ד־מבֹואֹו‬ ְ ‫ח־שׁ ֶמשׁ וְ ַע‬ ֶ ‫ ִכּי ִמ ִמּזְ ַר‬11a For from the rising of the sun to its setting ‫ גָּ דֹול ְשׁ ִמי ַבּגֹּויִ ם‬11b my name will be great among the nations: 11c in every place incense will be offered to my ‫ל־מקֹום ֻמ ְק ָטר ֻמגָּ שׁ‬ ָ ‫וּב ָכ‬ ְ name ‫ִל ְשׁ ִמי‬ 11d – a pure offering! ‫הֹורה‬ ָ ‫וּמנְ ָחה ְט‬ ִ ‫ ִכּי־גָ דֹול ְשׁ ִמי ַבּגֹּויִ ם‬11e For my name will be great among the nations, 11f says Yhwh of hosts. ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃‬ ַ ‫אַתּם ְמ ַח ְלּ ִלים אֹותֹו‬ ֶ ְ‫ ו‬12a But you are profaning it ‫ ֶבּ ֱא ָמ ְר ֶכם ֻשׁ ְל ַחן ֲאד ֹנָ י‬12b by saying “The table of the Lord is defiled ‫ְמגֹאָל הוּא‬ ‫אָכלֹו׃‬ ְ ‫ וְ נִ יבֹו נִ ְבזֶ ה‬12c and its fruit – its food – is despised.” ‫ וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם ִהנֵּ ה ַמ ְתּ ָלאָה‬13a But you say, “Oh! What a nuisance!” ‫ וְ ִה ַפּ ְח ֶתּם אֹותֹו‬13b And you snort at it, 13c says Yhwh of hosts. ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ִפּ ֵסּ ַח‬ ַ ‫אתם גָּ זוּל וְ ֶא‬ ֶ ‫ וַ ֲה ֵב‬13d And you bring injured and the lame and the sick, ‫חֹולה‬ ֶ ‫ת־ה‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫ת־ה ִמּנְ ָחה‬ ַ ‫אתם ֶא‬ ֶ ‫ וַ ֲה ֵב‬13e and you bring them as the offering. ‫אֹותהּ ִמיֶּ ְד ֶכם‬ ָ ‫ ַה ֶא ְר ֶצה‬13f Will I accept them from your hand? 13g says Yhwh. ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה׃ ס‬ ַ ‫נֹוכל וְ יֵ שׁ ְבּ ֶע ְדרֹו זָ ָכר‬ ֵ ‫ וְ אָרוּר‬14a Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock ‫ וְ נ ֵֹדר‬14b and vows it, ‫ וְ ז ֵֹב ַח ָמ ְשׁ ָחת ַלאד ֹנָ י‬14c but sacrifices blemished animals to the Lord. ‫ ִכּי ֶמ ֶלְך גָּ דֹול אָנִ י‬14d For I am a Great King, 14e says Yhwh of hosts, ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות‬ ַ 14f and my name will be feared among the nations. ‫נֹורא ַבגֹּויִם׃‬ ָ ‫וּשׁ ִמי‬ ְ ‫יכם ַה ִמּ ְצוָ ה ַהזֹּאת‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַע ָתּה ֲא ֵל‬2.1a And now, this “command” is against you, O priests. ‫ַהכּ ֲֹהנִ ים׃‬ 2a If you do not listen, ‫ִאם־לֹא ִת ְשׁ ְמעוּ‬ ‫ל־לב‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ִאם־לֹא ָת ִשׂימוּ ַע‬2b if you do not take to heart 2c to give honour to my name, ‫ָל ֵתת ָכּבֹוד ִל ְשׁ ִמי‬ 2d says Yhwh of hosts, ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ְמּ ֵא ָרה‬ ַ ‫ וְ ִשׁ ַלּ ְח ִתּי ָב ֶכם ֶא‬2e then I will send the curse upon you ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫כֹות‬ ֵ ‫ת־בּ ְר‬ ִ ‫אָרֹותי ֶא‬ ִ ְ‫ ו‬2f and I will curse your blessings. ‫יה‬ ָ ‫אָרֹות‬ ִ ‫ וְ גַ ם‬2g Indeed, I have cursed them 2h because you are not taking it to heart. ‫ל־לב׃‬ ֵ ‫ִכּי ֵאינְ ֶכם ָשׂ ִמים ַע‬ ‫ם־בּ ֶכם וְ יִ ְסגֹּר ְדּ ָל ַתיִ ם‬ ָ ַ‫ִמי ג‬

10a



4. ‘I will curse your blessings’

77

‫ת־הזֶּ ַרע‬ ַ ‫ִהנְ נִ י ג ֵֹער ָל ֶכם ֶא‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ל־פּנ‬ ְ ‫יתי ֶפ ֶרשׁ ַע‬ ִ ‫וְ זֵ ִר‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ֶפּ ֶרשׁ ַחגּ‬ ‫וְ נָ ָשׂא ֶא ְת ֶכם ֵא ָליו׃‬ ‫וִ ַיד ְע ֶתּם ִכּי‬ ‫יכם ֵאת ַה ִמּ ְצוָ ה‬ ֶ ‫ִשׁ ַלּ ְח ִתּי ֲא ֵל‬ ‫ַהזֹּאת‬ ‫ת־לוִ י‬ ֵ ‫יתי ֶא‬ ִ ‫ִל ְהיֹות ְבּ ִר‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃‬ ַ ‫יְתה ִאתֹּו‬ ָ ‫יתי ָה‬ ִ ‫ְבּ ִר‬ ‫ַה ַחיִּ ים וְ ַה ָשּׁלֹום וָ ֶא ְתּנֵ ם־לֹו‬ ‫מֹורא וַ יִּ ָיר ֵאנִ י‬ ָ ‫וּמ ְפּנֵ י ְשׁ ִמי נִ ַחת הוּא׃‬ ִ ‫יְתה ְבּ ִפיהוּ‬ ָ ‫תֹּורת ֱא ֶמת ָה‬ ַ ‫וְ ַעוְ ָלה לֹא־נִ ְמ ָצא ִב ְשׂ ָפ ָתיו‬ ‫וּב ִמישֹׁור ָה ַלְך ִא ִתּי‬ ְ ‫ְבּ ָשׁלֹום‬ ‫וְ ַר ִבּים ֵה ִשׁיב ֵמ ָעֹון׃‬ ‫רוּ־ד ַעת‬ ַ ‫י־שׂ ְפ ֵתי כ ֵֹהן יִ ְשׁ ְמ‬ ִ ‫ִכּ‬ ‫תֹורה ַיְב ְקשׁוּ ִמ ִפּיהוּ‬ ָ ְ‫ו‬

3a 3b 3c 3d 4a 4b

Behold, I am rebuking your offspring, and I will spread dung on your faces, the dung of your feasts, and someone will lift you away on it. Then you will know that I sent this “command” against you

4c 4d 5a 5b 5c 5d 6a 6b 6c 6d 7a 7b

‫ה־צ ָבאֹות הוּא׃‬ ְ ָ‫ִכּי ַמ ְלאְַך יְ הו‬ ‫ן־ה ֶדּ ֶרְך‬ ַ ‫אַתּם ַס ְר ֶתּם ִמ‬ ֶ ְ‫ו‬ ‫תֹּורה‬ ָ ‫ִה ְכ ַשׁ ְל ֶתּם ַר ִבּים ַבּ‬ ‫ִשׁ ַח ֶתּם ְבּ ִרית ַה ֵלּוִ י‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃‬ ַ ‫ם־אנִ י נָ ַת ִתּי ֶא ְת ֶכם נִ ְבזִ ים‬ ֲ ַ‫וְ ג‬ ‫ל־ה ָעם‬ ָ ‫וּשׁ ָפ ִלים ְל ָכ‬ ְ ‫ְכּ ִפי ֲא ֶשׁר ֵאינְ ֶכם שׁ ְֹמ ִרים‬ ‫ת־דּ ָר ַכי‬ ְ ‫ֶא‬ ‫תֹּורה׃ פ‬ ָ ‫וְ נ ְֹשׂ ִאים ָפּנִ ים ַבּ‬

7c 8a 8b 8c 8d 9a 9b 9c

so that my covenant with Levi might stand, says Yhwh of hosts. My covenant was with him: life and peace, I gave them to him, fear, and he feared me, and before my name he stood in awe. True instruction was in his mouth, and wrong was not found on his lips. In peace and uprightness he walked with me, and many he turned from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is a messenger of Yhwh of hosts. But you have turned from the way and have caused many to stumble in the Law. You have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says Yhwh of hosts. So I have made you despised and abased before all the people, because you are not keeping my ways,

9d

but are showing partiality in the Law.’

4.2. Text-Critical Issues At Mal. 1.6–2.9, two minor differences exist between some of the Hebrew ֲ in 1.8, while MA and witnesses. ML has an erroneous dagesh forte (‫)הּיִ ְר ְצָך‬ ֲ ML contains a further error in 1.9, MC have the correct pointing (‫)היִ ְר ְצָך‬. this time with a missing dagesh forte (‫יחנֵ נוּ‬ ָ ִ‫)ו‬, compared to MA and MC (‫יחּנֵ נוּ‬ ָ ִ‫)ו‬. At 1.6-14, the earliest versions pose no major challenge to the MT’s integrity. The LXX exhibits expansion, facilitation, amplification, liberty and assimilation in various places. In 1.7, the third-person masculine plural pronoun αὐτούς, which translates for the second masculine singular suffix on ‫אַלנוָּך‬ ְ ֵ‫ג‬, relates back to ἄρτους ἠλισγημένους (‫)ל ֶחם ְמגֹאָל‬, ֶ and thus avoids any theological problem

78

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

in God being defiled.1 Since for Tg. ‘the uniqueness and the transcendence of the God of Israel is paramount’, it reads ‘How is it abominable?’2 Milgrom’s thorough study of Levitical terminology reveals that the verbs ‫ קרב‬and ‫ נגש‬have the idea of ‘contact’ (cf. Num. 4.15, 19; Ezek. 44.13, 15), which may thus explain how ‫ חלל‬and ‫ גאל‬are predicated of Yhwh’s name or himself.3 The expansion at the end of 1.7 in the LXX (καὶ τὰ ἐπιτιθέμενα βρώματα ἐξουδενωμένα) is due to assimilation from 1.12. In 1.8, LXX’s εἰς θυσίαν for MT’s ‫ ִלזְ בּ ַֹח‬is an example of facilitation of syntax. Similarly, in 1.9 (ἐν χερσὶν ὑμῶν)4 and 1.10 (ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν ὑμῶν), there are attempts to smooth the syntax. In 1.9, the LXX takes liberty in rendering ‫יחנֵ נוּ‬ ָ ִ‫ ו‬as καὶ δεήθητε αὐτοῦ. The phrase πρόσωπα ὑμῶν, which translates ‫פּנִ ים‬, ָ is an assimilation from context (cf. εἰ λήμψεται πρόσωπόν σου; 1.8). In 1.10, LXX’s διότι appears to be a misreading of ‫מי‬ for ‫כי‬, which may have precipitated the LXX’s modification of syntax – συγκλεισθήσονται θύραι for ‫וְ יִ ְסגֹּר ְדּ ָל ַתיִם‬. The emphatic particle ‫ גַ ם‬lacks a counterpart in some versions, perhaps for stylistic reasons. Since the word is absent from the citation in CD vi 13, Anthony Gelston suggests that it may represent an alternative tradition.5 Historically, 1.11 has been a crux interpretum. The LXX translates differently the nominal phrase ‫ גדול שמי בגוים‬in its two occurrences: first, as a main verbal clause: δεδόξασται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν; then, as a verbless clause: μέγα τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. The atypical occurrence of two hophal participles in sequence (‫ )מקטר מגש‬is variously translated by the earliest versions. The LXX translates ‫ מקטר מגש‬as θυμίαμα προσάγεται (‘incense is offered’), taking the first hophal participle as a substantive and the second as a present passive indicative verb. The Tg. opts for an expansive, dynamic translation: since offerings made away from Jerusalem were unacceptable, ‫ בכל־מקום‬is given temporal status (‘on every occasion’), and ‫ מקטר‬is interpreted in relation to prayer and doing God’s will.6 1.  The LXX may itself be an inner-Greek corruption on ἄρτους (bread), reflecting dittography of ‫לחם‬. 2.  K. J. Cathcart and R. P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets, XIV (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989), p. 4. See also Carmel McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (OBO 36; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), pp. 55, 115, on how neither Mal. 1.12 nor 1.13 is a genuine tiqqun. 3.  Jacob Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970), p. 35. 4.  The LXX may have misread the ‫ מ‬as a ‫ כ‬at the beginning of ‫מיֶּ ְד ֶכם‬. ִ 5.  Gelston, Twelve Minor Prophets, p. 149*. 6.  Cathcart and Gordon, Targum of Minor Prophets, pp. 230-31. Cf. Tg. 2 Sam. 23.16; Jonah 1.16; Zeph. 3.15, 17.



4. ‘I will curse your blessings’

79

In the Vg., Jerome cuts his own course in regard to the two hophal participles: he translates each as present passive indicatives, inserting a conjunction between them (sacrificatur et offertur), leaving oblatio munda as the sole subject of the verse. None of the textual variations likely reflect a different Vorlage to the MT.7 The difficulties concerning the two participles are probably best resolved by reading ‫ מקטר‬as a noun,8 with the ‫ ו‬on ‫ מנחה‬as explicative.9 In 1.12, ‫ אֹותֹו‬has been reckoned as a tiqqun sopherim for ‫ אותי‬in a few Masoretic lists. However, it is probably not one of the original cases,10 especially since none of the versions attest to a first-person singular suffix. All the versions reflect difficulty in rendering the rare word ‫ניבו‬: LXX makes a guess (τὰ ἐπιτιθέμενα) through assimilation from 1.7; it is followed in its interpretation by Vg. (quod superponitur), which adds cum igni. The word ‫ ַמ ְתּ ָלאָה‬in 1.13 seems to be a contraction of ‫ה־תּ ָלאָה‬ ְ ‫מ‬, ַ but all the versions interpret the ‫ מ‬as the preposition ‫( ִמן‬e.g. LXX: ἐκ κακοπαθείας). The uncertainty of the antecedent to ‫ אֹותֹו‬perhaps explains the LXX’s choice of the plural αὐτὰ. The generic word ‫ גָּ זוּל‬is also rendered in the plural by LXX: ἁρπάγματα. In 1.14, the LXX exhibits two cases of misreading Hebrew roots: it has ἦν δυνατὸς for MT’s ‫נֹוכל‬ ֵ (via √‫ )יכל‬and ἐπιφανὲς for MT’s ‫נֹורא‬ ָ (via √‫)ראה‬. 5QapMal reads ‫ משחת‬as a pual and not a hophal. Malachi 2.1-9 has few textual variants in comparison to 1.6-14. In 2.2, the LXX reads τὴν εὐλογίαν (‫ )ברכתכם‬for ‫ברכותיכם‬, perhaps in an attempt to align with the singular feminine suffix on ‫ארותיה‬. But the singular suffix can have a collective reference.11 The LXX contains an entire additional sentence after ‫וגם ארותיה‬: καὶ διασκεδάσω τὴν εὐλογίαν ὑμῶν (‘and I will scatter your blessing’). Although the LXX may reflect an original Hebrew clause lost by homoioteleuton, the MT makes sense as it stands. 7.  Gelston, Twelve Minor Prophets, p. 149*. 8.  Cf. Albin van Hoonacker, Les Douze Petits Prophètes (EBib 4; Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre, 1908), p. 711, who repoints ‫ מקטר‬as a noun miqṭār (‘incense’). 9.  Contra some commentators who have tried various tinkerings with ‫מקטר מגש‬. E.g. Julius Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten: Die kleinen Propheten (4th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1892), p. 205, reads ‫ מקטר‬as a verb (‘smoke is made to rise’) and omits ‫ מגש‬as an inserted gloss. Carl F. Keil, The Minor Prophets (Commentary on the Old Testament; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), p. 438, and D. H. Müller, ‘Discours de Malachie sur le rite des sacrifices’, RB 5 (1896), pp. 535-39 (536), insert a conjunctive waw between the participles, rendering them as verbs (‘incense is burned and is offered’). D. Ernst Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch übersetzt und erklärt (KAT 12; Leipzig: Deichert, 1929), p. 596, changes the word order of MT to ‫מקטר לשמי ומגש‬. 10.  McCarthy, Tiqqune Sopherim, pp. 111-13. 11.  W-O’C § 16.4b; e.g. Jer. 36.23.

80

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Malachi 2.3a presents a variant reading, with potential significance for an intertextual connection with 1 Sam. 2.31. The LXX has ἀφορίζω ὑμῖν τὸν ὦμον (literally: ‘I separate the shoulder at [?] you’) for ‫הנני ג ֵֹער לכם‬ ‫את־הזֶּ ַרע‬ ַ (‘Behold, I rebuke your seed’). It has been argued that the LXX translation turns on a possible case of metathesis with ‫גדע( גער‬/‫ )גרע‬and the revocalization of ‫ זֶ ַרע‬to ‫זְ ר ַֹע‬.12 The translation of ὦμον for ‫ זְ ר ַֹע‬may seem obvious enough, but, interestingly, ὦμος only otherwise translates ‫שכם‬ (Gen. 21.14) or ‫( כתף‬Exod. 28.12) in the LXX. More problematic is the suggestion that metathesis lies behind the rendering ἀφορίζω. The LXX never uses ἀφορίζω to render ‫ גדע‬or ‫גרע‬, let alone ‫גער‬. These comments highlight the uncertainty surrounding the MT reading but also demonstrate that recourse to the LXX does not necessarily provide a convincing explanation or solution. Two factors make the final clause of 2.3 in the MT awkward. There is the abrupt shift from first to third person alongside the ambiguous thirdperson suffix on the preposition ‫אל‬: ‫ונשא אתכם אליו‬. J. M. P. Smith argues that the MT is corrupted by a ‘wrong distribution of letters, dittography, haplography, and confusion between ‫ א‬and ‫’ע‬. He emends to ‫נשאתיכם‬ ‫מעלי‬.13 Wilhelm Rudolph changes ‫ אליו‬to ‫‘( אלה‬curse’) and reads ‘one will take up a curse against you’ (cf. Num. 5.21 and Jer. 29.18).14 The LXX reads καὶ λήμψομαι ὑμᾶς εἰς τὸ αὐτό in keeping with Yhwh as the subject in 2.2-3, with τὸ αὐτό (‘the same’) possibly referring to the same time (Brenton) or the same place (NETS).15 The LXX’s λήμψομαι translates the qal infinitive absolute ‫ נָ ׂשֹא‬with Yhwh as the subject inferred from ‫ הנני‬and ‫וזריתי‬. This reading continues the force of Yhwh’s actions against the priests: ‘And so I will carry you up to it!’ (‫)נשאתיכם אליו‬. The Vg. is different again, taking ‫ פרש‬as the subject of ‫נשא‬: et adsumet vos secum (‘and it shall take you away with it’).16 12.  Stuart, ‘Malachi’, p. 1313, gives eight options with all the different possible combinations. 13.  J. M. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Malachi (ICC 2; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912), p. 46. Cf. also Petersen, Malachi, p. 176 n. j: ‘you shall be carried away from me’ (‫)נשאתיכם מעלי‬, which assumes an incorrect word division; BHS suggests ‫מ ָע ַלי‬. ֵ Similarly, NIV; NRSV. 14.  Wilhelm Rudolph, Haggai–Sacharja–Maleachi (KAT 13.4; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1976), p. 260. 15.  Robert C. Dentan and William L. Sperry, ‘Malachi’, in The Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon, 1956), VI, pp. 1117-44 (1131), question the integrity of the clause in the MT, while BHS conjectures it to be secondary. Syr. follows LXX. 16.  So too: M. Luther, Lectures on the Minor Prophets, I: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi (Luther’s Works 18; St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1975), 400; and Calvin, Zechariah and Malachi, p. 518.



4. ‘I will curse your blessings’

81

In 2.4, the LXX adds ἐγώ for ‫כי‬, which may be explained as the result of homoioteleuton, the scribe’s eye skipping from yod in ‫ כי‬to the yod in ‫שלחתי‬. Although the MT of 2.4b makes perfect sense as it stands – reading ‫ להיות‬as a purpose17 or result18 clause – a number of emendations have been suggested to give alternative readings of the text: ‫‘( מהיות‬from being my covenant’),19 ‫‘( לחתת‬so that my covenant is shattered’),20 ‫‘( לחיות‬to revive/enforce my covenant’).21 O’Brien’s comment, that emendations ‘are deemed necessary only when one assumes that the deity is destroying the covenant’,22 is a good example of how decisions regarding the integrity of the MT have a significant impact on the reading and theology of the book as a whole. 4.3. Structure and Theme Malachi 1.6–2.9 is the longest pericope in the book and is structured as follows: Declaration 1.6a-e Rebuttal 1.6f Refutation: sacrifices 1.7a-14 Refutation: Torah 2.1-9

17.  NAB; Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, p. 244. 18.  LXX; Syr.; JPSV; NIV; NJB; NRSV. 19.  So NEB (‘my covenant with Levi falls to the ground’). F. Horst, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten, Nahum bis Maleachi (HAT 14; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr Siebeck, 1964), p. 266; T. Chary, Aggée, Zacharie, Malachie (Sources bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 1969), p. 167; von Bulmerincq, Kommentar, pp. 195, 199; and Alwin Renker, Die Tora bei Maleachi: Ein Beitrag zur Bedeutungsgeschichte von Tora im AT (Herder: Freiburg, 1979), p. 103, all read ‫מהיות‬, suggesting that the covenant with Levi will be annulled (‘from existing’ [so that my covenant will not exist any longer]) (cf. 1 Sam. 1.8; Prov. 14.35). Maintaining the MT, G. R. Driver, ‘Malachi’, JTS 39 (1938), pp. 399-400 (399), arrives at the same rendering by arguing that ‫להיות‬ occasionally means ‘to fall’. 20.  Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch, p. 599, from hiphil of ‫‘( חתת‬to break, shatter’). 21.  Rudolph, Haggai–Sacharja–Maleachi, p. 260, and Petersen, Malachi, pp. 175, 190. Hill, Malachi, p. 204: ‘His words call for the restoration or reinstatement of the covenant with Levi as it was in the former days’. 22.  O’Brien, Priest and Levite, p. 40.

82

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Malachi 1.6–2.9 illustrates the importance of not forcing each pericope into a generic mould of disputational speeches. The key elements of declaration (1.6a-e), rebuttal (1.6f) and refutation (1.7a-14) are present, but Malachi delivers Yhwh’s curse in an extended section (2.1-9). The logical connective ‫( ועתה‬2.1) and the second direct address to the priests (‫ ;הכהנים‬cf. 1.6) indicate that Malachi’s second pericope spans 1.6–2.9.23 Although this means that the length of the unit is significantly longer compared to others in the book, the logical flow of the argument and the common theme of honouring Yhwh’s name (1.6, 11, 14; 2.2, 5) indicate that the two main sections (1.6-14 and 2.1-9) belong together. Having established the grounds for covenant unfaithfulness in the priests (1.6-14), Malachi then proclaims the covenant curse upon them (2.1-4). He further elaborates the basis for the curse, contrasting the disobedient priests with the ideal priest ‘Levi’ (2.5-7). The unit is brought to a climax with a final curse announcement on the priests (2.8-9), but one that involves an ironic reversal: the priests despise (‫ )בזה‬Yhwh’s name (1.6), so in the end they will become despised (‫ ;בזה‬2.9). The central theme of this whole pericope is the fear and honour of Yhwh and his great name (‫ ;שם‬1.6 [2×], 11 [3×], 14; 2.2, 5).24 Yhwh’s name was feared in the past by Levi (2.5); it is about to be revered as great by the nations in the future (1.11, 14), but at present it is being despised by the priests (1.6; 2.2).25 4.4. The Levitical Covenant Malachi 1.6–2.9 is one long tirade against the priests of post-exilic Israel. Their duties consisted mainly in drawing lots for divine guidance, upholding and teaching the Torah to Israel and regulating cultic worship (cf. Deut. 33.8-11). Malachi addresses two of these responsibilities in his 23.  So most commentators, except Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, p. 171, who opts for two pericopes: 1.6-14 and 2.1-9. 24.  Yhwh’s ‫ שם‬can denote his person (Gen. 4.26), his reputation (Gen. 11.4), or even his presence (Deut. 12.5) (Adam S. van der Woude, ‘‫ ֵׁשם‬šēm Name’, in TLOT, III, pp. 1348–67). Here in Malachi, it denotes Yhwh’s reputation and fame as they are bound up with his temple. 25.  Space precludes a full analysis of the crux interpretum of Mal. 1.11 and whether or not the verse has an eschatological horizon, except to comment that I take the uncommitted tense of the participle phrase ‫ מקטר מגש לשמי‬as imminent future (cf. 2 Sam. 20.21; 1 Kgs 2.2). The unique terminology (‫ )מקטר‬and unique phraseology (‫ )מנחה טהורה‬point to a new kind of offering, one that has not yet been witnessed in the history of Israel.



4. ‘I will curse your blessings’

83

accusation against the priests: they have not offered the proper sacrifices (1.6-14) and they have not taught the Torah correctly (2.1-9). These accusations are understood within the context of the covenant with Levi (‫)ברית את־לוי‬, which is explicitly mentioned three times (2.4, 5, 8). Other terms and expressions in this pericope are also associated with the concept of covenant. For example, some Malachian scholars have proposed that the terms ‫ אב‬and ‫בן‬, and ‫ אדונים‬and ‫עבד‬, reflect ANE terminology associated with covenants and treaties.26 Their hastiness in making the connection directly to covenants and treaties underplays the fact that the opening statement ‫ בן יכבד אב ועבד אדניו‬is clearly a proverbial saying from everyday life. Nevertheless, the two relationships described in the saying serve to illustrate Yhwh’s relationship with Israel in ways that connect with covenant conceptuality. By means of the parallel rhetorical questions, Yhwh is introduced as a father who expects honour from his son (1.6b) and as a master who expects fear from his servant (1.6c). In the OT the father–son references to Yhwh and Israel (e.g. Exod. 4.22) relate to a number of concepts, such as redemption (Deut. 1.31), spiritual progeny (Deut. 32.5-6), care and discipline (Deut. 8.5; 32.19-20; Hos. 11.1-11); but the combination of these father–son dimensions is also redolent of ‘the dual direction of relationship and obligation in the covenant’.27 That Yhwh’s father–son relationship with Israel is connected to covenant concepts is seen in the earlier pericope in which Yhwh affirms his covenant love for one son (of Isaac), Jacob–Israel, over another, Esau–Edom.28 The master–servant relationship in which service (‫ )עבד‬and fear (‫)ירא‬ were due to Yhwh is reflected most strongly in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History, where the covenant obligation of service (‫)עבד‬ is integrally bound to that of ‘fearing’ (‫ )ירא‬Yhwh (Deut. 6.13; 10.12, 20; 13.4; cf. Josh. 24.14; 1 Sam. 12.14, 24). Service refers to ‘worship, cultic 26.  McKenzie and Wallace, ‘Covenant Themes’, pp. 557-58; Rex A. Mason, Preaching the Prophetic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 242; Chary, Malachie, p. 238. 27.  Christopher J. H. Wright, ‘‫’אב‬, ָ in NIDOTTE, I, p. 22. Dennis J. McCarthy, ‘Notes on the Love of God in Deuteronomy and the Father–Son Relationship Between Yahweh and Israel’, CBQ 27 (1965), pp. 144-47 (145): ‘The very ancient Israelite concept of Israel as Yahweh’s son is very close to or even identical with the Deuteronomic conception articulated in terms of the treaty or covenant and should not be separated entirely from it’. Cf. also F. Charles Fensham, ‘Father and Son as Terminology for Treaty and Covenant’, in Goedicke, ed., Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, pp. 121–35 (134). 28.  Interestingly, Calvin, Zechariah and Malachi, p. 463, ends the first unit at v. 6 because he feels that the father–son illustration is connected to vv. 2-5.

84

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

service or faithfully keeping his covenant as his people’,29 while fear is the practical result of covenant loyalty (Deut. 5.29; 6.2, 13, 24; 10.12-13; 25.18), and refers to ‘worship of Yahweh, faithfulness to the covenant, which finds expression in the cult of Yahweh alone and observance of the Covenant Code’.30 Malachi also uses a number of other Deuteronomic expressions that occur in a covenantal context. There are phrases that ‘evoke thoughts of covenant responsibility’31 – ‫( אם־לא תשמעו‬Mal. 2.2; cf. Deut. 11.28; 28.15); ‫ שים‬+ ‫( על־לב‬Mal. 2.2; cf. Deut. 11.18; 32.46); ‫סרתם מן־הדרך‬ (Mal. 2.8; cf. Exod. 32.8; Deut. 9.12, 16; 11.28; 31.29; cf. Judg. 2.17) – and there is language of curse for breach of the covenant – ‫( ארור‬Mal. 1.14; cf. Deut. 27 passim; 28.16-19);32 and ‫ שלח‬+ ‫( מארה‬Mal. 2.2; cf. Deut. 28.20). Another term not found in Deuteronomy but which may also contain covenantal connotations is ‫( בזה‬Mal. 1.6), which occurs three times in Ezekiel in the context of a broken covenant (16.59; 27.16, 19). The title ‫( מלך גדול‬Mal. 1.14) has been observed to refer to a ‘suzerain’ or ‘overlord’33 and could have covenantal significance in this passage. At the same time, given the context of Malachi, with its reference to the Persian governor (1.8) and the more general recognition of the Persian emperor as ‘Great King’,34 the phrase may have more polemical overtones. While some of these terms should not be overplayed, the fact that they are sometimes associated with covenants should be considered here in a context that concerns the Levitical covenant. It is of particular interest 29.  Eugene Carpenter, ‘‫’עבד‬, in NIDOTTE, III, p. 306. 30.  H. F. Fuhs, ‘‫’יָ ֵרא‬, in TDOT, VI, p. 308. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), pp. 83-84, 332, suggests that ‘fear’ was part of the ‘diplomatic vocabulary of the Near East’ used in treaties to demand ‘exclusive allegiance’. Cf. also F. Charles Fensham, ‘Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Near Eastern Vassal-Treaties and the Old Testament’, ZAW 74 (1962), pp. 1-9. 31.  Hill, Malachi, p. 198. 32.  The passive form of ‫ ארר‬occurs forty times in the OT, mainly in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. The context is often one of punishment following a breach of covenant obligations. See Herbert C. Brichto, The Problem of the ‘Curse’ in the Hebrew Bible (JBL Monograph Series 13; Philadelphia: SBL, 1963), p. 17: ‘In the context of a berit (covenant), the passive participle is the introductory rubric for the imprecations upon violators of the terms of the covenant’. 33.  According to Mitchell Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100 (AB 17; New York: Doubleday, 1968), p. 284. 34.  Robert W. Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament (New York: Abingdon Press, 1926), p. 382: Cyrus calls himself a ‘great king’ and applies the title to his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather.

‫‪85‬‬

‫ ‬

‫ ’‪4. ‘I will curse your blessings‬‬

‫‪that at times Malachi’s terminology and phraseology involve language‬‬ ‫‪associated with covenant in Deuteronomy. That he can take covenant‬‬ ‫)‪terms that are intended for the nation and apply them (with modifications‬‬ ‫‪to the priests will be explored below.‬‬ ‫‪4.5. Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis‬‬ ‫‪Malachi’s inner-biblical interpretation in this pericope operates in two‬‬ ‫‪ways. Malachi’s allusion to earlier source texts serves to expose the‬‬ ‫‪covenant infidelity of the priests, while his exegesis of these same texts‬‬ ‫‪functions to give effect to the covenant curse on the priests.‬‬ ‫‪4.5.1. Covenant Unfaithfulness in Cultic Sacrifices: Malachi 1.7-14 and‬‬ ‫‪Leviticus 22.17-25‬‬ ‫‪Lev. 22.17-25‬‬

‫‪Mal. 1.7-14‬‬

‫וַ יְ ַד ֵבּר יְ הוָ ה ֶאל־מ ֶֹשׁה ֵלּאמֹר׃‬ ‫ל־בּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ל־בּנָ יו וְ ֶאל ָכּ ְ‬ ‫ל־אַהר ֹן וְ ֶא ָ‬ ‫ֲ‬ ‫ַדּ ֵבּר ֶא‬ ‫אָמ ְר ָתּ ֲא ֵל ֶהם ִאישׁ ִאישׁ ִמ ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫וְ ַ‬ ‫ן־הגֵּ ר ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֲא ֶשׁר יַ ְק ִריב ָק ְר ָבּנֹו‬ ‫וּמ ַ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫בֹותם‬ ‫וּל ָכל־נִ ְד ָ‬ ‫יהם ְ‬ ‫ְל ָכל־נִ ְד ֵר ֶ‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר־יַ ְק ִריבוּ ַליהוָ ה ְלע ָֹלה׃‬ ‫וּב ִעזִּ ים׃‬ ‫ִל ְרצֹנְ ֶכם ָתּ ִמים זָ ָכר ַבּ ָבּ ָקר ַבּ ְכּ ָשׂ ִבים ָ‬ ‫כֹּל ֲא ֶשׁר־בֹּו מוּם לֹא ַת ְק ִריבוּ ִכּי־לֹא ְל ָרצֹון‬ ‫ח־שׁ ָל ִמים ַליהוָ ה‬ ‫יִ ְהיֶ ה ָל ֶכם׃ וְ ִאישׁ ִכּי־יַ ְק ִריב זֶ ַב ְ‬ ‫ְל ַפ ֵלּא־נֶ ֶדר אֹו ִלנְ ָד ָבה ַבּ ָבּ ָקר אֹו ַבצֹּאן ָתּ ִמים‬ ‫יִ ְהיֶ ה ְל ָרצֹון ָכּל־מוּם לֹא יִ ְהיֶ ה־בֹּו׃‬ ‫אֹו־יַבּ ֶלת אֹו‬ ‫ֶ‬ ‫אֹו־חרוּץ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ַעוֶּ ֶרת אֹו ָשׁבוּר‬ ‫א־ת ְק ִריבוּ ֵא ֶלּה ַליהוָ ה וְ ִא ֶשּׁה‬ ‫גָ ָרב אֹו יַ ֶלּ ֶפת ל ֹ ַ‬ ‫ל־ה ִמּזְ ֵבּ ַח ַליהוָ ה׃ וְ שֹׁור‬ ‫א־ת ְתּנוּ ֵמ ֶהם ַע ַ‬ ‫לֹ ִ‬ ‫רוּע וְ ָקלוּט נְ ָד ָבה ַתּ ֲע ֶשׂה אֹתֹו‬ ‫וָ ֶשׂה ָשׂ ַ‬ ‫וּמעוְּך וְ ָכתוּת וְ נָ תוּק‬ ‫וּלנֵ ֶדר לֹא יֵ ָר ֶצה׃ ָ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫אַר ְצ ֶכם‬ ‫וּב ְ‬ ‫וְ ָכרוּת לֹא ַת ְק ִריבוּ ַליהוָ ה ְ‬ ‫ת־ל ֶחם‬ ‫וּמיַּ ד ֶבּן־נֵ ָכר לֹא ַת ְק ִריבוּ ֶא ֶ‬ ‫לֹא ַת ֲעשׂוּ׃ ִ‬ ‫ל־א ֶלּה ִכּי ָמ ְשׁ ָח ָתם ָבּ ֶהם מוּם‬ ‫יכם ִמ ָכּ ֵ‬ ‫ֹלה ֶ‬ ‫ֱא ֵ‬ ‫ָבּם לֹא יֵ ָרצוּ ָל ֶכם׃ פ‬

‫ל־מזְ ְבּ ִחי ֶל ֶחם ְמגֹאָל וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם‬ ‫ישׁים ַע ִ‬ ‫ַמגִּ ִ‬ ‫אַלנוָּך ֶבּ ֱא ָמ ְר ֶכם ֻשׁ ְל ַחן יְ הוָ ה נִ ְבזֶ ה‬ ‫ַבּ ֶמּה גֵ ְ‬ ‫י־תגִּ שׁוּן ִעוֵּ ר ִלזְ בּ ַֹח ֵאין ָרע וְ ִכי‬ ‫הוּא׃ וְ ִכ ַ‬ ‫ַתגִּ ישׁוּ ִפּ ֵסּ ַח וְ ח ֶֹלה ֵאין ָרע ַה ְק ִר ֵיבהוּ נָ א‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫ְל ֶפ ָח ֶתָך ֲהיִ ְר ְצָך אֹו ֲהיִ ָשּׂא ָפנֶ יָך ַ‬ ‫יחנֵ נוּ‬ ‫י־אל וִ ָ‬ ‫ְצ ָבאֹות׃ וְ ַע ָתּה ַחלּוּ־נָ א ְפנֵ ֵ‬ ‫יְתה זֹּאת ֲהיִ ָשּׂא ִמ ֶכּם ָפּנִ ים‬ ‫ִמיֶּ ְד ֶכם ָה ָ‬ ‫ם־בּ ֶכם וְ יִ ְסגֹּר‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃ ִמי גַ ָ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ין־לי ֵח ֶפץ‬ ‫א־ת ִאירוּ ִמזְ ְבּ ִחי ִחנָּ ם ֵא ִ‬ ‫ְדּ ָל ַתיִם וְ ל ֹ ָ‬ ‫א־א ְר ֶצה‬ ‫וּמנְ ָחה ל ֹ ֶ‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות ִ‬ ‫ָבּ ֶכם ַ‬ ‫ִמיֶּ ְד ֶכם׃‬ ‫ד־מבֹואֹו גָּ דֹול ְשׁ ִמי‬ ‫ח־שׁ ֶמשׁ וְ ַע ְ‬ ‫ִכּי ִמ ִמּזְ ַר ֶ‬ ‫ל־מקֹום ֻמ ְק ָטר ֻמגָּ שׁ ִל ְשׁ ִמי‬ ‫וּב ָכ ָ‬ ‫ַבּגֹּויִם ְ‬ ‫הֹורה ִכּי־גָ דֹול ְשׁ ִמי ַבּגֹּויִ ם‬ ‫וּמנְ ָחה ְט ָ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫אַתּם ְמ ַח ְלּ ִלים אֹותֹו‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃ וְ ֶ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ֶבּ ֱא ָמ ְר ֶכם ֻשׁ ְל ַחן ֲאד ֹנָ י ְמגֹאָל הוּא וְ נִ יבֹו‬ ‫אָכלֹו׃ וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם ִהנֵּ ה ַמ ְתּ ָלאָה וְ ִה ַפּ ְח ֶתּם‬ ‫נִ ְבזֶ ה ְ‬ ‫אתם גָּ זוּל‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות וַ ֲה ֵב ֶ‬ ‫אֹותֹו ַ‬ ‫אתם‬ ‫חֹולה וַ ֲה ֵב ֶ‬ ‫ת־ה ֶ‬ ‫ת־ה ִפּ ֵסּ ַח וְ ֶא ַ‬ ‫וְ ֶא ַ‬ ‫אָמר‬ ‫אֹותהּ ִמיֶּ ְד ֶכם ַ‬ ‫ת־ה ִמּנְ ָחה ַה ֶא ְר ֶצה ָ‬ ‫ֶא ַ‬ ‫נֹוכל וְ יֵ שׁ ְבּ ֶע ְדרֹו זָ ָכר וְ נ ֵֹדר‬ ‫יְ הוָ ה׃ ס וְ אָרוּר ֵ‬ ‫וְ ז ֵֹב ַח ָמ ְשׁ ָחת ַלאד ֹנָ י ִכּי ֶמ ֶלְך גָּ דֹול אָנִ י‬ ‫נֹורא ַבגֹּויִם׃‬ ‫וּשׁ ִמי ָ‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות ְ‬ ‫ַ‬

86

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Lexical and Syntactical Parallels The two passages share common terminology that relates to different aspects of cultic worship: (a) the offering of sacrifices; (b) the description of sacrifices; and (c) the acceptability of the sacrifices. It is helpful to analyse each of these in turn. (a) Malachi uses three cultic terms for the offering of sacrifices that are unique to the Haggai–Zechariah–Malachi group, but which all appear in Leviticus: ‫בוא‬, ‫ קרב‬and ‫( נגש‬cf. Lev. 2.8).35 Malachi appears to respect the general Levitical distinction made between the hiphil forms of ‫נגש‬ and ‫קרב‬. The former is used of sacrifices or offerings brought to an object (e.g. ‫ )אל־מזבח‬for sacrifice (‫)לזבח‬, whereas hiphil ‫ קרב‬is generally used in relation to a human being (e.g. ‫אל־הכהן‬, or in the case of Malachi, ‫)לפחתך‬.36 (b) The use of ‫ לחם‬as a summarizing term for animal sacrifices in general appears in both texts (Mal. 1.7; cf. Lev. 22.25). Its structural placement within the unit of each text is inverted, as is ‫‘( זכר‬male’; Mal. 1.14; cf. Lev. 22.19). This may be an example of Seidel’s law, a deliberate inversion of terms or expressions.37 Terms for the blemished sacrifices are also similar: ‫( עור‬Mal. 1.8) correlates with the hapax legomenon ‫עורת‬ (Lev. 22.22), and, more significantly, the rare hophal participle ‫משחת‬ (‘blemished’;38 cf. Prov. 25.2) corresponds to ‫‘( משחתם‬a blemish in them’) in Lev. 22.25.39 Although none of the animals mentioned in Mal. 1.8 corresponds exactly to those listed in Lev. 22.22, a closer look at the list suggests that Malachi covers each of the categories: ‫ עורת‬corresponds 35.  The hiphil of ‫‘( נגש‬to offer’) is a key cultic word for offering sacrifices (Lev. 2.8; 8.14; 22.17-25) and in Malachi it ‘has almost become the normal expression for offering of sacrifices’ (Helmer Ringgren, ‘‫’נָ גַ ׁש‬, in TDOT, IX, pp. 218-19). In the Hebrew Bible it is used interchangeably with the hiphil of ‫קרב‬, which is the other general term used for the offering of sacrifices. The two words share semantic equivalence (cf. Lev. 21.21; Judg. 20.23-24; Isa. 41.1, 21; 65.5; Jer. 30.21; Ezek. 44.13-16). 36.  There is one exception: in Lev. 1.15, hiphil ‫ קרב‬is followed by ‫אל־מזבח‬. In the qal, ‫ קרב‬may be used in relation to the altar (Lev. 9.7-8). 37.  So too Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 121. 38.  LXX: διεφθαρμένον; Vg.: debile. 39.  Both words derive from the root ‫שחת‬, ‘verderben’ (HALAT, IV, p. 1363). On ‫משחת‬, see HALAT, IV, p. 1365: (1) ‘verdorben (Quelle)’ (Prov. 25.26; Lev. 22.25); (2) ‘von einem zur Opferung gelobten Tier’ (Mal. 1.14). F. H. W. Gesenius, Hebräisches und araäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament (6 vols.; Berlin: SpringerVerlag, 1987), VI, p. 1344; Gerhard Lisowsky, Konkordanz zum Hebräischen Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Privileg, 1958), pp. 871, 1425; Solomon Mandelkern, Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae Hebraicae atque Chaldaicae (Tel Aviv: Hierosolymis, 1986), II, pp. 1163-64, all make a distinction between ‫ משחת‬in Lev. 22.25, on the one hand (‘Verderbnis, v. d. Kastration d. Tiere’), and ‫ משחת‬in Mal. 1.14 and



4. ‘I will curse your blessings’

87

to ‫‘( שבור‬broken’40); ‫ עור‬may be an animal that limps or is lame (‫)פסח‬, and the rest of the animals – ‫‘( חרוץ‬maimed’), ‫‘( יבלת‬having a discharge’), ‫גרב‬ (‘itch’), or ‫‘( ילפת‬scabs’) – may come under the category of ‫( חלה‬sick). The use of ‫ חלה‬demonstrates innovation on Malachi’s part. (c) God’s displeasure at impure sacrifices is captured in both texts by the term ‫רצה‬, which in the qal means ‘to be pleased with, to treat favourably’ (Mal. 1.8, 10, 13; cf. Lev. 22.19, 20, 21, 23, 25).41 Contextual and Thematic Parallels A comparison of Mal. 1.7-14 and Lev. 22.17-25 reveals a number of contextual similarities. Both passages concern votive offerings (‫ ;נדר‬Mal. 1.14; cf. Lev. 22.18, 21, 23), which are described generally as God’s ‫לחם‬ (Mal. 1.7; cf. Lev. 22.25). The combination of ‫ עור‬+ ‫ פסח‬is present in the larger context of Lev. 22.17-25, in 21.18. Central to both is the idea that to offer an animal with blemish was to profane (‫)חלל‬42 the name (‫ )שם‬of Yhwh (Mal. 1.6, 7, 12; cf. Lev. 22.2, 32).43 More broadly, Weyde has noted that the passages share formal and structural similarities, with ‫משחת‬ appearing in both texts as a concluding description of the sacrifices.44 Mal. 1.6-14

Lev. 22.17-25

General accusation (v. 6) Elaborations of the accusation (vv. 7-13) ‫ משחת‬characterises the animals with a blemish in them (v. 14)

General instructions (vv. 18-21) Elaborations of the instructions (vv. 22-24) ‫ משחת‬characterises the animals with a blemish in them (v. 25)

Prov. 25.26, on the other. The distinction does not affect the possible allusion here, since Lev. 22.25 and Mal. 1.14 are the only two passages where a term derived from ‫ שחת‬occurs in the context of sacrifices. 40.  A hapax legomenon. Cf. HALAT, IV, p. 1289: ‘Bruch (eines Gliedes)’. 41.  Terence E. Fretheim, ‘‫’ר ָצה‬, ָ in NIDOTTE, III, p. 1186. HALAT, IV, p. 1195: ‘wohlgefällig annehmen (Opfer)’. The verb ‫ רצה‬and its noun are used some 30 times in cultic contexts ‘regarding that which is (or is not) pleasing to God, especially sacrifices’ (cf. Jer. 14.10, 12; Hos. 8.13; Amos 5.22; Mic. 6.7). 42.  ‫ חלל‬is synonymous with ‫ בזה‬and ‫( גאל‬A. Even-Shoshan, A New Concordance of the Old Testament Using the Hebrew and Aramaic Text [2nd ed.; Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1989], p. 372). 43.  Even though Lev. 22 does not relate the profaning of Yhwh’s name directly to sacrifices, it does so in the more general context of observing Yhwh’s ‘holy things (offerings)’ (‫ ;קדשים‬v. 2) and observing his ‘commandments’ (‫ ;מצות‬v. 31) in relation to the offering of sacrifices. 44.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 120.

88

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

4.5.2. Covenant Unfaithfulness in Cultic Sacrifices: Malachi 1.8 and Deuteronomy 15.21 Mal. 1.8

Deut. 15.21

‫י־תגִּ שׁוּן ִעוֵּ ר ִלזְ בּ ַֹח ֵאין ָרע וְ ִכי ַתגִּ ישׁוּ ִפּ ֵסּ ַח‬ ַ ‫וְ ִכ‬ ‫וְ ח ֶֹלה ֵאין ָרע ַה ְק ִר ֵיבהוּ נָ א ְל ֶפ ָח ֶתָך ֲהיִ ְר ְצָך אֹו‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃‬ ַ ‫ֲהיִ ָשּׂא ָפנֶ יָך‬

‫וְ ִכי־יִ ְהיֶ ה בֹו מוּם ִפּ ֵסּ ַח אֹו ִעוֵּ ר כֹּל מוּם ָרע לֹא‬ ‫ֹלהיָך׃‬ ֶ ‫ִתזְ ָבּ ֶחנּוּ ַליהוָ ה ֱא‬

Lexical and Syntactical Parallels The combination of ‫ עור‬+ ‫ פסח‬occurs seven times in the Hebrew Bible, four in relation to human beings (2 Sam. 5.6, 8; Jer. 31.8; Job 29.15) and three in relation to animals (Lev. 2.18; Deut. 15.21; Mal. 1.8). Even though the word order is reversed in Deut. 15.21,45 the rarity of the combination in the context of sacrifices presents the possibility of an allusion in Mal. 1.8.46 The words ‫ רע‬and ‫ זבח‬are also common to both texts. Contextual and Thematic Parallels Both texts concern the qualification for animal offerings, though Deut. 15.19-23 is more narrowly concerned with the offering in preparation for the Passover (Deut. 16; cf. Exod. 13.12; 22.30; 34.19; Num. 18.17). In Mal. 1.8, the occasion is sacrificial offerings in general. Assessment The large number of lexical connections as well as contextual links between Mal. 1.7-14 and Lev. 22.17-25 makes it the stronger candidate over against Deut. 15.21. However, the fact that the latter contains a rare combination of at least two of the three descriptions of blemished animals (‫ עור‬+ ‫ )פסח‬means that it should not be easily dismissed. It seems that Malachi has alluded to both texts in a rather free manner.47 Since the terms are not transformed in any way, and remain applicable to the

45.  Possibly a case of Seidel’s law. 46.  Utzschneider, Künder oder Schreiber?, pp. 249-50, proposes a ‘hypothetical [third] text’ behind both of these texts. This may have been a ‘legal text’ that was based on codification and stood close to Lev. 22 in form and theme, though not identical with it due to the missing key words ‫ פסח‬and ‫ ;רע‬or it may reflect formal cultic speech, as in a kind of declaratory formula, based on genre connections. Utzschneider concludes that methodologically we stand in the zone between literature, genre, and tradition histories. However, in any case, Utzschneider’s proposal can only remain on the level of conjecture. We must deal with the texts before us. 47.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 133.



4. ‘I will curse your blessings’

89

same intended audience (namely, the priests, primarily), the use of these texts should be categorized as an allusion as opposed to an exegetical reworking. 4.5.3. Interpretive Significance In Mal. 1.6-14, the prophet takes legal instructions related to the people and priests of Israel (Lev. 22.17-25; Deut. 15.21) and employs them in his accusation against the priests (and people; cf. Mal. 1.14). The allusions function to expose the priests’ breach of their obligations in relation to cultic sacrifices, which has resulted in the despising and profaning of Yhwh’s great name (Mal. 1.6, 12). The responsibility for ‘perfect’ (‫;תמם‬ Exod. 12.5; 29.1; Lev. 1.3; 22.18-33) sacrifices ‘without blemish’ (‫;מום‬ Lev. 22.20, 21, 25) lay with the priests who were to bring the offerings to the altar (Lev. 21.6, 21) and ensure that Yhwh’s name was not profaned (‫ ;חלל‬Lev. 22.2, 32). The incongruity of their actions, which the allusions reveal, is indicated implicitly by the paragogic nun in the first parallel clause in Mal. 1.8 (‫)תגשון‬,48 and explicitly by the prophet’s twice-repeated rhetorical question: ‫אין רע‬.49 The contrast that Malachi creates with his allusions plays into the lesser-to-greater argument that follows. In order to underline how wrong the sacrifices are, and with an element of sarcasm, Malachi exhorts the priests to offer their sacrifices to the governor to see whether he would accept them (‫ )הירצך‬or show favour to them (‫ ;הישא פניך‬1.8).50 These

48.  J. Hoftijzer, The Function and Use of the Imperfect Forms with Nun Paragogicum in Classical Hebrew (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985), pp. 55-56: the presence of a paragogic nun conveys ‘exceptions to normal practice, contradictions, deviation from normal expectations, …[and] statements…which are contrary to the wishes…of other peoples’. Although Hoftijzer suggests this pattern of contrastivity is less clear in verse compared to prose, prophetic or not, the context here is one of contrast. Hill, Malachi, p. 179: ‘the prophet uses the form to punctuate the fact that the priests discern no malpractice in this particular deviation from normal expectation’. 49.  The absence of the interrogative particle is uncharacteristic in the context (1.6b-c, 6f, 7b, 8d, 9d, 10a), but not problematic, given that Malachi exhibits a variation of style elsewhere (2.10a; cf. 2.15a). Contra Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 130, who argues that the words express the attitude of the priests, which requires a change in speaker, something not indicated here. The speech of the addressees in Malachi is always marked by ‫אמר‬. 50.  Victor P. Hamilton, ‘‫’נׂשא‬, in NIDOTTE, III, p. 162, suggests that the phrase may be equivalent to a ‘smile’ and means ‘a facial expression of favour’. On idioms using ‫פנים‬, see H. Simian-Yofre, ‘‫’ּפנִ ים‬, ָ in TDOT, XI, p. 597.

90

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

phrases are repeated in 1.9-10 in relation to God: with such a gift from their hand would Yhwh show them favour? (‫ ;הישא מכם פנים‬v. 9); and then, having expressed his desire for temple worship to cease altogether, Yhwh states his rejection of their offering: ‫( לא־ארצה מנחה‬v. 10; cf. v. 13). Both phrases recall the rhetorical questions regarding the governor and create a comparison between the governor and God: if the governor would not accept such sacrifices, how much less would God accept them? Verses 12-13 repeat the point of vv. 6-10: Yhwh’s name is profaned (‫ואתם‬ ‫ )מחללים אותו‬because they bring injured (‫ )גזול‬and lame (‫ )פסח‬and sick (‫ )חלה‬animals, so how can Yhwh accept them from their hand (‫הארצה‬ ‫?)אותה מידכם‬ The introductory clause in v. 14 brings to a close the first half of the oracle against the priests. The curse formula betrays influence from the Deuteronomic covenant curses. All the curse sayings employing ‫ ארור‬are directed against ‘one violating his relationship to God’.51 The covenant curse is directed at ‘the deceiver’ (‫)נוכל‬. The anarthrous substantival participle broadens the scope of Yhwh’s curse to anyone who may act in such a way. Thus the curse includes both priests and people: the person, for offering a faulty animal in place of a good one; the priests, for allowing the sacrifice of such an animal when it was their responsibility to pronounce an animal good (‫ )טוב‬or faulty (‫ ;רע‬Lev. 27.11-12; cf. 10.10-11). Priest and people together participate in a sordid co-operative system.52 The motivations for Yhwh rejecting the polluted offering from the priests’ hands (v. 10) and for cursing the cheat who brings a blemished animal (v. 14) are similar: the imminent greatness and revering of Yhwh’s name among the nations (vv. 11 and 14). The phrase ‫מלך דגול‬ occurs three times in the Hebrew Bible in reference to Yhwh (Mal. 1.14; Pss 47.3[2]; 95.3; cf. 48.3[2]). There is little in the context of either Ps. 47 or Ps. 95 that connects directly with Mal. 1.14. It seems that the prophet has simply employed conventional terminology for his own purpose. Because Yhwh is a Great King, the priests will be cursed for their disobedience to his laws. By alluding to the laws, the priests have no excuses or escape.

51.  Victor P. Hamilton, ‘‫’א ַרר‬, ָ in TWOT, I, p. 75. 52.  Stuart, ‘Malachi’, p. 1308.



4. ‘I will curse your blessings’

91

4.5.4. Covenant Curse: Malachi 2.1-4a and Deuteronomy 28.15-20, 46, 59 Mal. 2.1-4a ‫יכם ַה ִמּ ְצוָ ה ַהזֹּאת ַהכּ ֲֹהנִ ים׃‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַע ָתּה ֲא ֵל‬ ‫ל־לב‬ ֵ ‫ִאם־לֹא ִת ְשׁ ְמעוּ וְ ִאם־לֹא ָת ִשׂימוּ ַע‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות‬ ַ ‫ָל ֵתת ָכּבֹוד ִל ְשׁ ִמי‬ ‫אָרֹותי‬ ִ ְ‫ת־ה ְמּ ֵא ָרה ו‬ ַ ‫וְ ִשׁ ַלּ ְח ִתּי ָב ֶכם ֶא‬ ‫יה ִכּי ֵאינְ ֶכם‬ ָ ‫אָרֹות‬ ִ ‫יכם וְ גַ ם‬ ֶ ‫כֹות‬ ֵ ‫ת־בּ ְר‬ ִ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ת־הזֶּ ַרע‬ ַ ‫ל־לב׃ ִהנְ נִ י ג ֵֹער ָל ֶכם ֶא‬ ֵ ‫ָשׂ ִמים ַע‬ ‫יכם וְ נָ ָשׂא‬ ֶ ֵ‫יכם ֶפּ ֶרשׁ ַחגּ‬ ֶ ֵ‫ל־פּנ‬ ְ ‫יתי ֶפ ֶרשׁ ַע‬ ִ ‫וְ זֵ ִר‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ֶא ְת ֶכם ֵא ָליו׃ וִ ַיד ְע ֶתּם ִכּי ִשׁ ַלּ ְח ִתּי ֲא ֵל‬ ‫ֵאת ַה ִמּ ְצוָ ה ַהזֹּאת‬

Deut. 28.15-20, 46, 59 ‫ֹלהיָך‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָהיָ ה ִאם־לֹא ִת ְשׁ ַמע ְבּקֹול יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫ֹותיו וְ ֻחקּ ָֹתיו‬ ָ ‫ל־מ ְצ‬ ִ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫ִל ְשׁמֹר ַל ֲעשֹׂות ֶא‬ ‫וּבאוּ ָע ֶליָך‬ ָ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר אָנ ִֹכי ְמ ַצוְּ ָך ַהיֹּום‬ ‫אַתּה‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ְקּ ָללֹות ָה ֵא ֶלּה וְ ִה ִשּׂיגוָּך׃ אָרוּר‬ ַ ‫ָכּ‬ ‫אַתּה ַבּ ָשּׂ ֶדה׃ אָרוּר ַטנְ ֲאָך‬ ָ ‫ָבּ ִעיר וְ אָרוּר‬ ‫אַד ָמ ֶתָך‬ ְ ‫וּפ ִרי‬ ְ ‫י־ב ְטנְ ָך‬ ִ ‫אַר ֶתָּך׃ אָרוּר ְפּ ִר‬ ְ ‫וּמ ְשׁ‬ ִ ‫אַתּה‬ ָ ‫ְשׁגַ ר ֲא ָל ֶפיָך וְ ַע ְשׁ ְתּרֹות צֹאנֶ ָך׃ אָרוּר‬ ‫אתָך׃ יְ ַשׁ ַלּח יְ הוָ ה‬ ֶ ‫אַתּה ְבּ ֵצ‬ ָ ‫ְבּב ֶֹאָך וְ אָרוּר‬ ‫ת־ה ִמּגְ ֶע ֶרת‬ ַ ‫הוּמה וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ְמּ‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ְמּ ֵא ָרה ֶא‬ ַ ‫ְבָּך ֶא‬ ‫ל־מ ְשׁ ַלח יָ ְדָך ֲא ֶשׁר ַתּ ֲע ֶשׂה ַעד‬ ִ ‫ְבּ ָכ‬ ‫ד־א ָב ְדָך ַמ ֵהר ִמ ְפּנֵ י ר ַֹע ַמ ֲע ָל ֶליָך‬ ֲ ‫ִה ָשּׁ ֶמ ְדָך וְ ַע‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ֲעזַ ְב ָתּנִ י׃‬ … ‫ד־עֹולם׃‬ ָ ‫וּבזַ ְר ֲעָך ַע‬ ְ ‫מֹופת‬ ֵ ‫וּל‬ ְ ‫וְ ָהיוּ ְבָך ְלאֹות‬ … ‫ת־מכּ ְֹתָך וְ ֵאת ַמכֹּות זַ ְר ֶעָך‬ ַ ‫וְ ִה ְפ ָלא יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬ ‫ַמכֹּות גְּ ד ֹלֹות וְ נֶ ֱא ָמנֹות וָ ֳח ָליִם ָר ִעים וְ נֶ ֱא ָמנִ ים׃‬

Lexical and Syntactical Parallels Malachi 2.1-4 reflects Deuteronomic terminology (‫ ;מצוה‬cf. Deuteronomy passim) and phraseology (‫ ;אם־לא תשמעו‬cf. Deut. 11.28; 28.15; ‫תשימו‬ ‫ ;על־לב‬cf. Deut. 11.18; 32.46; ‫ ;ושלחתי בכם את־המארה‬cf. Deut. 28.20). What moves some of these connections from a shared stream of linguistic tradition to the realm of inner-biblical allusion and exegesis is the rarity of the word ‫מארה‬. Outside of Malachi (2.2; 3.9), it occurs only three times (Deut. 28.20; Prov. 3.33; 28.27). The likelihood of a connection to Deut. 28.20 over the Proverbs texts is seen through the definiteness of ‫מארה‬, which is lacking in both Prov. 3.33 (‫ )מארת יהוה‬and 28.27 (‫)רב־מארות‬, and the unique syntactical sequence of ‫ שלח‬+ ‫ ב‬+ pronominal suffix + ‫ את‬+ ‫ ה‬+ ‫מארה‬.53 The mention of curse in both texts is prefaced with conditional clauses that follow the pattern ‫( אם־לא תשמעו‬Deut. 28.15; Mal. 2.2a). The case for an intended allusion to Deut. 28.20 is strengthened by the presence of the participle ‫ גער‬in Mal. 2.3a, which corresponds to the hapax legomenon ‫‘( מגערת‬rebuke’) in the Deuteronomy text. 53.  The verb ‫ שלח‬is used in prophetic judgements of Yhwh ‘unleashing’ punishments on people, cities, or nations for misconduct, or, in the case of Israel, for violation of the covenant (Jer. 9.15[16]; 24.10; 49.37; Ezek. 5.17; 7.3; 14.21; 28.23; 39.6; Hos. 8.14; Amos 1.4, 7, 10, 12; 2.2, 5). However, none of these texts combines ‫ שלח‬with ‫מארה‬.

92

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Contextual and Thematic Parallels Contextually, Deut. 28.15-20 provides a neat parallel to Mal. 2.1-4, since in both passages God threatens curse for disobeying his laws.54 Both texts also contain the contrast of blessing and curse. In Deuteronomy, Yhwh promises to bless if Israel obeys, and threatens to curse if Israel disobeys; in Malachi, Yhwh will curse the priests’ blessings for their failure to honour his name (Deut. 28.58; Mal. 2.2d). Furthermore, each text contains the tight connection between addressees and their descendants (‫)זרע‬, with the theme of curse falling on the latter as a result of the transgression of the former (Deut. 28.46, 59; Mal. 2.3a). Assessment Malachi 2.1-4 and Deut. 28.15-20 are clearly linked through Deuteronomic phraseology and a parallel syntactical sequence of a unique covenant formula: ‫ שלח‬+ ‫ ב‬+ pronominal suffix + ‫ את‬+ ‫ ה‬+ ‫מארה‬. Malachi’s reuse of Deut. 28.20 in particular is more than a simple allusion; it also involves exegesis. The prophet has taken the unique curse language of Deut. 28.20, which is intended for national Israel, and he has applied it narrowly to the priests within Israel. 4.5.5. Covenant Curse: Malachi 2.1, 4 and Deuteronomic Phraseology Seeing Malachi’s modification of phraseology in Deut. 28.20 leads us back to the rather strange expression that envelops the covenant curse in this section: ‫המצוה הזאת‬. Strong Deuteronomic overtones and covenantal connotations accompany ‫ המצוה הזאת‬in Mal. 2.1, 4, since the phrase is exclusive to these two books (Deut. 6.25; 11.22; 15.5; 19.9; 30.11).55 The phrase has been variously interpreted as the contents of the covenant with Levi,56 one of the covenant stipulations of Deuteronomy (cf. 7.11),57 or a ‘judgement, verdict’ (e.g. Nah. 1.4; cf. Isa. 5.6; Jer. 34.22;

54.  See the earlier connections noted between Mal. 1.14 (‫ )ארור‬and Deut. 28.16-19 (‫)ארור‬. 55.  The most frequent use of ‫ מצוה‬denotes the commandments or commands of Yhwh (Leviticus and Deuteronomy passim); it is also used as a term to describe commands in their aggregate (‫ ;המצוה‬Deut. 5.31; 6.1; 7.11), as well as being a parallel for Torah (Prov. 6.23). 56.  Hill, Malachi, p. 197: this command would involve ‘ “observing” the word of Yahweh, “keeping” his covenant, “teaching” Jacob God’s law, and “offering” sacrifices upon Yahweh’s altar (Deut 33:9-10). It is the standard by which Malachi indicts and judges the priests’. 57.  Petersen, Malachi, p. 187.



4. ‘I will curse your blessings’

93

Amos 6.11; 9.3, 9).58 While the purpose clause in Mal. 2.4c (‫ )להיות‬keeps one from identifying ‫ מצוה‬with ‫ – ברית‬the purpose of the ‘command’ delivered to the priests is in order to maintain the covenant – a close association between the two is certainly warranted. At the same time, the verb ‫ שלח‬recalls v. 2 where Yhwh promised to send the curse (‫)מארה‬ upon the priests. Now he is sending (‫‘ )שלח‬this command’ upon them. The repetition of the verb suggests that the curse and ‘this command’ are closely connected. It seems, then, that we must avoid the false dichotomy between ‘command’, with covenantal overtones, on the one hand, and a connotation of ‘judgement’, on the other.59 Given the modification in v. 2 of Deut. 28.20, it seems best also to see a modification of the Deuteronomic term ‫‘ – מצוה‬command’. The prophet presents an ironic twist. The priests were entrusted with teaching Yhwh’s ‫ מצות‬to the people of Israel, yet now because they have not obeyed those very ‫ מצות‬they will receive from Yhwh a new ‫ – מצוה‬a word of punishment.60 Wordsmith that he is, Malachi surely intended a wordplay:61 what is against the priests is an ‘admonition’, a ‘judgement’ for not keeping the ‘command’ associated with their office, which, ironically, primarily involved teaching ‫מצות יהוה‬. ‘What the priests were used to dealing with, God would now use against them… The word was surely chosen for its covenant overtones and for its relation to daily priestly practice.’62 58.  Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, pp. 64-65, following von Bulmerincq, Kommentar, p. 173. Cf. also Goswin Habets, ‘Vorbild und Zerrbild. Eine Exegese von Maleachi 1,6–2,9’, Teresianum 41 (1990), pp. 5-58 (39). E. Ray Clendenen, ‘Malachi’, in Haggai and Malachi (Richard A. Taylor and E. Ray Clendenen; NAC 21A; Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2004), pp. 203-464 (288): ‘admonition’. 59.  Contra Petersen, Malachi, p. 187, who sees no element of judgement in the text; and contra Frederick C. Eiselen, The Minor Prophets (New York: Eaton & Mains, 1907), p. 716, who argues that ‘No command of any sort is found in these verses’; rather, according to him, ‫ מצוה‬denotes the divine decree of destruction. 60.  The consequential conjunctive ‫‘( ועתה‬Now’) appears frequently in the prophets to introduce ‘judgement sentences’ (cf. Isa. 5.5; 16.14; 47.8; Jer. 18.11; 26.13; 27.6; 42.15, 22; 44.7; Hos. 2.12[10]; 5.7; 8.8, 13; Amos 6.7; 7.16; Nah. 1.13; Zech. 8.11). 61.  On the definition of wordplay in the Hebrew Bible, see L. J. de Regt, ‘Wordplay in the OT’, in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2008), pp. 898-900: ‘Wordplay can…involve one and the same word used in the same context with different meanings’ (p. 898); Edward L. Greenstein, ‘Wordplay, Hebrew’, in ABD, VI, pp. 968-71: ‘Use in proximity of words that display similarity of sound with dissimilarity of meaning…words whose form is similar but whose meaning is different’ (p. 668). 62.  Stuart, ‘Malachi’, p. 1310.

94

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

4.5.6. Content of Yhwh’s Covenant Curse The essence of the ‫ מצוה‬in Mal. 2.1, 4 consists in the ‫ מארה‬of vv. 2-3. But what does ‫ מארה‬actually mean? And what is the effect of Yhwh’s cursing (‫ )ארר‬on the priests? For Herbert Brichto, ‫ מארה‬is a curse in the ‘material, operative sense’, an imposition of a ‘ban or barrier, a paralysis on movement or other capabilities’,63 and it is just this force that inheres in Mal. 2.2 and 3.9.64 Yhwh’s ‫ מארה‬is a ban on the priests, which disables them from their duties, ultimately leading to their disqualification. How this curse affects the priests is elaborated in three climactic stages: (1) reversal of the Priestly Blessing: ‘I will curse your blessings’ (v. 2f-g); (2) elimination of the priestly line: ‘I am rebuking your seed’ (v. 3a); and (3) removal from priestly service: ‘I will spread dung on your faces’ (v. 3b-d). (1) Reversal of the Priestly Blessing: ‘I will curse your blessings’ (v. 2f-g) In the first place, Yhwh will curse the priests’ ‘blessings’ (‫)ברכות‬. Five main interpretations exist concerning the referent of these ‫ברכות‬.65 (a) Material Blessings of Priests Ferdinand Hitzig argues that the ‫ ברכות‬are the benedictiones reales; that is, the priests’ revenues, tithes, atonement-money, and portions of sacrifices (Num. 18.1-31; Neh. 13.5; cf. Gen. 49.25, 26; Isa. 65.8).66 But this is unconvincing because ‫ ברכות‬is never used in the Hebrew Bible of the priests’ ‘goods’ that Yhwh graciously provides. This interpretation remains merely conjectural.

63.  Brichto, ‘Curse’ in the Hebrew Bible, p. 113. 64.  Similarly, Andrew A. Macintosh, ‘A Consideration of the Hebrew ‫’גער‬, VT 19 (1969), pp. 471-79 (476), who thinks that ‫ גער‬has the same connotation of the operative curse in Mal. 2.3, and that it perhaps implies that the curse is on the crops (p. 477). A. Caquot, ‘‫’גָ ַער‬, in TDOT, III, p. 53, suggests the possibility that ‫גער‬ preserves as a secondary sense something of the meaning attested by Arabic ǧaʿara, ‘to have a bowel movement’. In view of this, Macintosh proposes that ‫ גער‬may have a possible association with ‫( פרש‬p. 472). James M. Kennedy, ‘The Root GʿR in the Light of Semantic Analysis’, JBL 106.1 (1987), pp. 47-64, who explores the root with regard to structural semantic analysis, defines its primary meaning as ‘explosive blast’, whereby the target of God’s ‘rebuke’ is rendered useless and unfit to function. 65.  See Smith, Malachi, pp. 36-37, for a list of the various speculations. 66.  Ferdinand Hitzig, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1881), p. 420.



4. ‘I will curse your blessings’

95

(b) Agricultural Blessing A stronger case can be made for the view that ‫ ברכות‬denotes the priestly pronouncement assuring agricultural fertility (Mal. 3.11; cf. Gen. 3.17-19). The agricultural blessing makes better sense of the ‘ban’ or ‘paralysis’ conveyed by ‫מארה‬.67 Yhwh is threatening drought and a poor harvest. This interpretation is dependent on ‫ זרע‬denoting agricultural seed. However, ‫ זרע‬does not actually indicate fruit or crops in the Hebrew Bible; it refers, rather, to the seed planted that produces crops. Moreover, such a punishment seems rather light on the priests: the prepositional phrase ‫לכם‬ reveals that the seed relates specifically to the priests; agricultural seed, while tithed to the priests, was primarily the people’s possession. (c) Blessing of Life and Peace Some suggest that the blessing is the promise of life and peace given to the priests (2.5; cf. Deut. 33.8-11).68 But this would imply that Yhwh had cursed the covenant with Levi, which runs counter to the purpose clause (‫ )להיות‬of Mal. 2.4c: life and peace for Levi is what Yhwh wishes to uphold by cursing the priests. (d) Blessing of the Priesthood Similar to (c), but more broadly, the ‘blessing’ is understood comprehensively as a general reference to the priestly privileges.69 ‘The blessing of the priest was the sheer privilege of handling the holy things as the mediator between God and His people.’70 The blessings should be understood in the same way as the curse, ‘as an essential part of the covenant with Levi’.71 On this reading, the curse affected the status and function of the priestly office, which may justify the singular suffix on ‫ארותיה‬.72 67.  This was the common position of medieval Jewish commentators (Rosenberg, ed., Mikraoth Gedoloth, p. 406), and is followed by Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, pp. 67-68; Hill, Malachi, p. 200; and, tentatively, Macintosh, ‘Hebrew ‫’גער‬, p. 477. For the concept of blessing including the direct and indirect yield of the ground, see Gen. 26.12; Lev. 25.21; Deut. 12.15; 14.24; Hag. 2.19; Mal. 3.10; Pss 65.11; 132.15. 68.  Habets, ‘Vorbild und Zerrbild’, p. 40, who rules out the blessings given by the priests. 69.  Duane A. Garrett, ‘Israel’s Unfaithfulness: The Priests. Malachi 1:6–2:9’, Mid-America Journal 11 (1987), pp. 21-32 (29). 70.  Eugene H. Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi – An Exegetical Commentary (LaVergne, TN: Biblical Studies Press, 2003), p. 352. 71.  Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, p. 239. 72.  The singular suffix may refer collectively to the blessings (‫ )ברכותיכם‬or distributively (‘each particular blessing’) and therefore emendation is unnecessary.

96

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

‘The whole content of the priests’ blessed existence and office will be turned into a curse.’73 As appealing as this reading is, it falters for a couple of reasons. The Hebrew Bible does not refer to the office or institution of priesthood as a ‘blessing’. If the whole office is cursed, then the ban on the offspring (v. 3a) and permanent removal of the priests (v. 3b-d) become somewhat redundant. Of course, v. 3 may be an expansion on the curse of the blessing of priesthood but then an epexegetical waw on ‫ הנני‬would be expected. The asyndetic clause commencing v. 3 (‫ )הנני‬suggests that a new curse is in view. (e) Priestly Blessing The final option is to view the blessings as those ‘pronounced by the priests upon the people by virtue of their office’.74 Blessing was the priests’ business; it was why the people came to them. Priests were pronouncers of blessings concerned with benefit and well-being. If Fishbane is correct that Lev. 9.22, Deut. 10.8 and 21.5 are ‘circumspect allusions’ to the divine blessing in Num. 6.23-27,75 then is Malachi bringing a curse on these specific blessings? Four factors point in this direction. First, although the priestly act of blessing is never predicated with the noun ‫ברכה‬, frequent verbal forms of ‫ ברך‬attribute to the priest the prerogative of blessing (Lev. 9.22-23; Num. 6.23; Deut. 10.8; 21.5; 27.12; Josh. 8.33; 1 Chron. 23.13; 2 Chron. 30.27).76 Second, association of the priestly blessings with the temple and pilgrim feasts (cf. Mal. 1.10; 2.3) present the strong possibility that this is what Malachi had in mind. The Aaronic Blessing was the ‘high point’ and ‘conclusion’ of a worshipper’s experience at the temple,77 as the practice of Second Temple Judaism reveals (Sir. 50.20).78 Third, the reason for the curse on the blessings in Mal. 2.2 is that the people did not lay it to heart 73.  Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, p. 240. 74.  Keil, Twelve Minor Prophets, p. 645; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, pp. 332-34. 75.  Ibid., p. 330. Some interpreters transpose the Blessing of Num. 6.24-26 to a position after Lev. 9.22 (e.g. George B. Gray, Numbers [ICC 4; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903], p. 71). 76.  The most frequent expression is ‫לברך‬. 77.  Blessing was offered upon entering the sanctuary (Ps. 118.26), but more commonly at the end of the worship service (Lev. 9.22-23; 2 Sam. 6.18; 1 Kgs 8.14, 55; 2 Chron. 30.27). 78.  ‘Then he descended and raised his arms toward the entire assembly of Israel. And the benediction of the Lord was on his lips; he pronounced words of praise in the name of the Lord’ (cf. m. Tamid 7.2; m. Soṭah 7.6; Midr. Sipre Num. 39).



4. ‘I will curse your blessings’

97

to give honour to Yhwh’s name (‫)לתת כבוד לשמי‬.79 This tight connection between blessing and Yhwh’s name in the context of priestly duties is reflected in no other place in the Hebrew Bible except Num. 6.23-27, where, following the Blessing, Yhwh promises to bless (‫ )ברך‬his people while the priests set his name (‫ )שם‬on them (v. 27).80 Finally, in the wider context of Mal. 2.1-9 there is an interest in what proceeds from the mouth of the priest (vv. 6-7). These factors provide more convincing grounds for this final interpretation as compared with the other ones. If this is what Yhwh will curse and has cursed, then L. H. Brockington captures the significance well: ‘To threaten that the blessing be turned into a curse was to undermine and overthrow the whole fabric of institutional religion in Israel’.81 Further support for this reading is seen in Malachi’s creative exegesis of the Priestly Blessing as he gives effect to the curse on the priests in this unit (see below). (2) Elimination of the Priestly Line: ‘I will rebuke your seed’ (v. 3a) The exact meaning of the curse in v. 3a depends on how one reads ‫ גער‬and ‫זרע‬. If one reads ‫ זרע‬with the LXX (‘shoulder’) and also emends ‫ גער‬to ‫‘( גדע‬to separate’ as in ‘to cut off’) then the idea is that of the priest losing his office.82 ‘It is with the arm that a man performs his business or the duties of his calling; and rebuking the arm, therefore, signifies the neutralizing of the official duties performed at the altar and in the sanctuary.’83 A severed limb would also render the priest unfit for service at the sanctuary (Lev. 21.16-23; esp. v. 19). Intriguing as this interpretation is, however, it is dismissed on the ground that the MT reading of ‫ גער‬is valid 79.  The clause is elliptical and refers back to v. 2b-c, which contains the purpose clause ‫לתת כבוד לשמי‬. 80.  The Blessing itself has three occurrences of the tetragrammaton (vv. 24-26). 81.  L. H. Brockington, ‘Malachi’, in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (ed. Matthew Black; London: Nelson, 1962), pp. 656-58 (657). 82.  So Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, p. 197: ‘For ‫ גער‬read ‫ גדע‬and say zerôa [arm]; since the threat is based on 1 Sam. 2.31’. Kugler, ‘Note on Mal 2:3a’, pp. 427-28 n. 8, differs from Wellhausen as to how the text was corrupted. Wellhausen explained the inner-Hebrew corruption as mistaking ‫ ר‬for ‫ד‬, followed by a metathesis of ‫ ר‬and ‫ ;ע‬then the scribe read ‫ זֶ ַרע‬instead of ‫זְ ר ַֹע‬. Kugler, on the other hand, suggests a metathesis of ‫ ד‬and ‫ע‬, which produced the nonsensical consonantal configuration ‫געד‬. A subsequent scribe then replaced ‫ ד‬with ‫ ר‬to eliminate the meaningless root. It is important to note that Wellhausen’s translation of MT Mal. 2.3a is not based on the LXX translation (contra Kugler, ‘Note on Mal 2:3a’, p. 427 n. 8, who misrepresents Wellhausen here), but is rather due to influence from MT 1 Sam. 2.31. 83.  Keil, Twelve Minor Prophets, p. 443.

98

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

as it stands; no Hebrew variant to a different text exists.84 This use of ‫גער‬ agrees with usage in the Second Temple era (e.g. Isa. 50.2; 51.20; 54.9; 66.15; Zech. 3.2), and is in keeping with Mal. 3.11: ‫ וגערתי לכם‬parallels ‫הנני גער לכם‬. Moreover, explanation for the unique phrase in Mal. 2.3a is easily achieved by reading it in the light of Deut. 28: the proximity of ‫ מגערת‬to ‫ מארה‬in Deut. 28.20 suggests that the presence of ‫ גער‬in Mal. 2.3 is original. The verb ‫ גער‬corresponds to the nominal ‫ מגערת‬in Deut. 28.20, and the curse on the ‫‘( זרע‬offspring’) reflects a theological stance in relation to the offspring of priests similar to that in other parts of the OT (Exod. 28.43; Lev. 21.17; 22.4; Num. 17.5[16.40]; 18.19; 25.13). Indeed, Deut. 28 expresses judgement on the offspring of covenant violators (28.18, 32, 41, 53, 55, 57). More specifically, in Deut. 28.46, Moses tells Israel that the curses (‫ ;קללות‬v. 45) will be a sign and wonder against them and their offspring (‫ )זרע‬forever. In v. 59 the announcement of punishment for disobedience to the law is one that affects their ‫זרע‬. Thus, although in Mal. 1.14 and 2.2 the curse is directly upon those guilty of wilful neglect of the Torah, now the curse is said to be on their offspring too (v. 3) – a pattern identical to that of the Deuteronomic curse. The judgement that is imminent, then, is a ban on, or disqualification of, the priestly offspring.85 Yhwh’s rebuke is an operative curse that brings their priestly line to an end – no small thing given that the priestly office was hereditary. (3) Removal from Priestly Service: ‘I will spread dung on your faces’ (v. 3b-d) The third and final element of the curse in vv. 2-3 is that of removal and ruination: Yhwh will spread (‫ )זרה‬dung on the priests’ faces and someone will carry them away on it.86 The noun ‫ פרש‬denotes the content of the 84.  This alleviates any perceived need to emend the MT either in line with MT 1 Sam. 2.31 (Wellhausen) or the LXX. Wellhausen’s proposal requires emendation (‫גדע‬/‫ גרע‬for ‫ )גער‬and a repointing of ‫ זֶ ַרע‬to ‫זְ ר ַֹע‬. Besides, the reason behind the LXX (ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀφορίζω ὑμῖν τὸν ὦμον) is not as straightforward as some suggest. As noted under ‘Text-Critical Issues’ above, ὦμος only otherwise translates ‫( שכם‬Gen. 21.14) or ‫( כתף‬Exod. 28.12), and ἀφορίζω is never used to render ‫ גדע‬or ‫גרע‬, let alone ‫גער‬. 85.  Stuart’s proposal, ‘I am going to diminish (‫ )גרע‬your descendants’, is unnecessary. He seems to assume that reading ‫‘( גער‬rebuke’) constitutes merely a rhetorical scolding, referring to it as ‘a remarkably weak’ curse (Stuart, ‘Malachi’, pp. 1313-14). But understanding ‫ גער‬rightly, as an operative curse – a ban or disqualification – allows one to stay with the MT, while still affirming a curse of decimation or infertility. 86.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 166, thinks that Mal. 2.3 connects with Lev. 26.30 and Ezek. 6.4 along the lines of ‘sharing the fate of cultic things as a consequence of disobedience to the law’ (p. 167). See also Clendenen, ‘Malachi’, p. 291



4. ‘I will curse your blessings’

99

intestines – faeces.87 The expression is the strongest form of contempt, ‘the greatest ignominy’.88 The additional explanatory clause ‫ פרש חגיכם‬perhaps heightens the vulgarity with the thought of the volume of dung that would be spread on their faces.89 Certainly, the volume of dung would increase their humiliation, but to have this soil one’s face at the most prestigious feasts would humiliate still further. These festivals effected sacral continuity and social integration, but now Yhwh’s action produces radical impurity and social disintegration.90 With animal excrement spattered on their faces, the priests were deemed unclean by the most unholy thing possible and therefore disqualified from service at the temple sanctuary. But does the word ‫ פרש‬convey still more? Of the five possible texts that ‫ פרש‬recalls (Exod. 29.14; Lev. 4.11-12; 8.17; 16.27; Num. 19.3-5), all of them explain that the dung is carried outside the camp (‫)מחוץ למחנה‬ and burned (‫)שרף‬. The priests, who knew these texts inside out, could not have failed to understand the repercussions arising from Malachi’s invective. It is perhaps their assumed familiarity with this part of temple routine that explains why Malachi needed only a one-word link to convey his point. The priests would not only be humiliated and disqualified from service at the temple – they would be ‘carried away’ (‫ )נשא‬to be utterly destroyed. The use of the indefinite ‫ נשא‬in Mal. 2.3d provides a certain strain of irony. By using the impersonal subject of ‫נשא‬, Malachi hints that the priests have already been demoted from their duty of carrying out the dung and have been replaced by someone else.91 This understanding illuminates further the rebuke of the offspring. As noted earlier, ‫ גער‬in n. 187: ‘Its use here of scattering and so removing the offal from the temple courts may allude to these contexts of divine judgment’. 87.  HALAT, III, p. 918, favours content of the intestines, faeces (‘Darminhalt, Kot’); BDB, p. 831: ‘faecal matter found in intestines of victim’. DCH, VI, p. 788, suggests that it may refer to the intestines as well as excrement. Habets, ‘Vorbild und Zerrbild’, p. 43, proposes the entire filth that accumulates with the offerings. 88.  Keil, Twelve Minor Prophets, p. 646. 89.  Stuart, ‘Malachi’, p. 1314. The word ‫ חג‬is used most often in the OT for the three annual festivals of Passover, Pentecost (Harvest or Weeks), and Tabernacles (Exod. 23.14-19; 34.18-26; Lev. 23.4-44; Deut. 16.1-17). It serves as a metonym for sacrifice (Ps. 118.27). 90.  Petersen, Malachi, p. 189. The offensiveness of the expression is seen by the Targum’s ameliorative tendency: ‘I will reveal the shame of your sins upon your faces’ (Cathcart and Gordon, Targum of Minor Prophets, p. 232). 91.  This alleviates the pressure to emend ‫ נשא‬to first person. Hill, Malachi, p. 202, suggests that the shift in person from first to third is ‘probably due to the prophet’s reluctance to ascribe the menial (and ritually defiling) duty of transporting the priests (likened to the “sacrificial offal”) to the ash heap directly to Yahweh’.

100

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

the Hebrew Bible means more than a ‘scolding’; an operational ban is inflicted – a disqualification. By removing the priests from office, the curse extends to their offspring as well. The closure of the temple in 1.10 is now matched with the disqualification of the priesthood in 2.3. A final piece of irony is at play in this short pericope. The use of ‫פנים‬ and ‫ נשא‬recalls the earlier, positive use of the phrase in 1.9, where it refers to Yhwh’s possible acceptance or blessing. In 1.9 the question was raised as to whether Yhwh would lift up his own face in favour. The unequivocal answer now arrives: not only will Yhwh not lift up (‫ )נשא‬his face (‫ ;)פנים‬instead dung will be spread on their faces, and as a result they will be carried away (‫ )נשא‬with it. The request for acceptance in 1.9 is answered with rejection in 2.3.92 All told, ritual logic requires destruction of the dung, and in turn, therefore, a destruction of the priests and their offspring. ‘There is an aspect of permanence in the realization of God’s judgment.’93 This judgement contrasts sharply with the life and peace previously granted to Levi (v. 5). 4.5.7. Covenant Maintenance As noted above, the infinitive construct clause ‫ להיות‬in v. 4c has been variously interpreted, even among those who follow the MT. All things considered, it seems best to take the infinitive construct in its primary function as denoting direction or purpose.94 The reason for the ‘command’ and curse against the priests is in order to maintain the covenant with Levi (‫ ;ברית את־לוי‬2.4c). This makes best sense, since 2.5 indicates that a covenant with Levi was already in existence.95 The purpose of the admonition is to preserve the covenant with Levi: ‘all evil priests had to repent or be swept away from the sanctuary in order that the covenant with Levi might stand’.96 The reaffirmation of the priesthood in 3.1-4 supports this interpretation. 92.  There is probably also a pun here on Num. 6.24-26 (see below). 93.  Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, p. 242. 94.  For ‫ היה‬meaning ‘remain, continue’, see Gen. 17.7; Josh. 7.12; 1 Sam. 19.8; 2 Sam. 7.29; Ezek. 17.14; 44.7; Est. 1.22; Ruth 1.2; Dan. 1.21; 1 Chron. 17.27; 2 Chron. 6.6; 7.16. For the recognition formula + ‫ ל‬expressing purpose, see Ezek. 20.12, 20, 26. 95.  This is similar to the position of Habets, ‘Vorbild und Zerrbild’, pp. 37, 45 n. 150, who reads the full clause with ‫ להיות‬as ‘(gerade) weil es meinen Bund mit Levi gibt’; and Smith, Malachi, p. 37, who reads the ‫ ל‬in the temporal sense: ‘while my covenant with Levi existed’. However, while they see the announcement as consequential of the Levi covenant, I view it as purposive: it is made in order to maintain the covenant that already exists. 96.  E.g. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, pp. 45, 69; Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, p. 244.



4. ‘I will curse your blessings’

101

4.5.8. Covenant Unfaithfulness in Torah Instruction: Covenant with Levi and Possible Source Texts In Mal. 1.6-14, allusion to legal and cultic texts concerning sacrifices exposes the priests’ covenant infidelity in relation to their responsibility in the cult. In 2.1-9, allusion to the covenant with Levi and the idealized Levi of the past exposes the priests’ covenant infidelity in relation to their responsibility in Torah instruction. Described by one scholar as a ‘bland allusion’,97 the reference to the covenant with Levi presents an obscure case of inner-biblical allusion in Malachi. The phrases ‫( ברית את־לוי‬2.4) and ‫( ברית הלוי‬2.8) are unique in the Hebrew Bible; moreover, nowhere does the OT explicitly record the establishment of a covenant between Yhwh and Levi/the Levites. The covenant was most likely made with the tribe of Levi rather than with Levi the ancestor.98 ‘Levi’ is the corporate ‘representative of the priestly class’.99 That such a covenant existed is assumed in two places (Jer. 33.20-22; Neh. 13.29), though no detail is given of its origin. Proposals for a source text behind Malachi’s reference to the covenant with Levi have centred on two main texts: Num. 25.10-13100 and Deut. 97.  Berry, ‘Malachi’s Dual Design’, p. 280. 98.  Contra Jerome Kodell, Lamentations, Haggai, Zechariah, Second Zechariah, Malachi, Obadiah, Jonah, Baruch (Old Testament Message; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1982), p. 101; and Robert A. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi (SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), pp. 18-22. Kugler argues that, on the basis of the anarthrous ‫ לוי‬in Mal. 2.4 and the third-person suffix on the preposition ‫אתו( את‬, ‘with him’) in 2.5, Malachi is referring to a covenant with ‘the individual named Levi’ (p. 19; italics original). The anarthrous ‫ לוי‬can refer to an individual Levite (Judg. 17.9; 19.1), but Kugler and Kodell fail to note that ‫ לוי‬is used elsewhere of the whole tribe (Num. 1.49; 3.6; Deut. 33.8; cf. Num. 3.9; 17.13; 26.59; Deut. 10.9; 27.12; Ezek. 48.31; 1 Chron. 21.6). 99.  Smith, Malachi, p. 38. 100.  Those in support of a connection here are, among others: Kimḥi; Rashi (Rosenberg, ed., Mikraoth Gedoloth, p. 407); A. Deissler, Zwölf Propheten III: Zefani, Haggai, Sacharja. Maleachi (Neue Echter Bibel 21; Würzburg: Echter, 1988), p. 326; Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, pp. 77-80; Meyers, ‘Priestly Language’, p. 232; Walter C. Kaiser, Jr, Micah – Malachi (Preacher’s Commentary 23; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1992), p. 457. Smith, Malachi, p. 38, sees the tradition as opposed to the text in the background here, since, according to him, ‘P’ is later. Ebenezer Henderson, The Twelve Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), p. 452, restricts ‫ אתו‬to Phinehas not Levi. Henning G. Reventlow, Die Propheten Haggai, Sacharja und Maleachi (Das Alte Testament Deutsch; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), pp. 143-44, thinks that Mal. 2.4 reflects similar traditions to Num. 25 but not literary dependence,

102

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

33.8-11,101 with some scholars suggesting that Malachi integrates both passages into ‘a distinctive portrait of the ideal priest’.102 At the surface level, Mal. 2.4c-7 connects with both texts through a number of lexemes

while Krieg, Maleachi, pp. 156-59, suggests that Mal. 2.5-9 refers to Num. 25 but that a ‘covenant with Levi’ was a later addition to the text (pp. 114-16). For Merrill, Malachi, pp. 353-54, both Exod. 32.26-29 and Num. 25.10-13 are in view, but more so the latter. 101.  Those in support of a connection here are, among others: K. Elliger, Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten. II: Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephania, Haggai, Sacharia, Maleachi (Das Alte Testament Deutsch 2; 7th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), p. 186; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, p. 76 n. 2; Renker, Die Tora bei Maleachi, pp. 117-21; Graham S. Ogden and Richard R. Deutsch, Joel and Malachi: A Promise of Hope – A Call to Obedience (ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 92; Ralph L. Smith, Micah – Malachi (WBC 32; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1984), p. 317; Mason, Malachi, pp. 242-45; Hill, Malachi, p. 206. Kessler, ‘Unity of Malachi’, pp. 230-32, thinks that Mal. 2.4-8 presents a midrashic connection with Deut. 33.8-11; Utzschneider, Künder oder Schreiber?, p. 66, suggests that because Deut. 33.8-11 alludes back to Exod. 32.26-29, the Levi covenant comes into play; similarly, Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (rev. and exp. ed.; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), p. 212. Von Bulmerincq, Kommentar, pp. 204, 211, proposes that Deut. 33.8-11 and a missing narrative previously joined to Deut. 10.6-9 stand behind the Levi covenant in Mal. 2.4-6. Habets, ‘Vorbild und Zerrbild’, p. 49, opts for a covenant with the priesthood (eponymous ‘Levi’) from Deut. 33.8-11, but rules out allusions to Num. 25.10-13, Jer. 33.21 and Neh. 13.29, since, according to him, these are written after Malachi. Rudolph, Haggai–Sacharja–Maleachi, p. 267, sees the idea of covenant rooted in Deut. 33.9, and thinks that Num. 25 is ruled out because it concerns a covenant with Aaron’s line only. Petersen, Malachi, p. 190, suggests Deut. 33.9, with other texts in play too: Exod. 32.25-29; Deut. 10.8-9; 18.1. Lescow, Maleachi, pp. 36-38, argues for Deut. 33.8-11 on the basis that the duties outlined there – teaching and offering sacrifices – are present in Mal. 1.6–2.9. 102.  O’Brien, Priest and Levite, p. 106. Similarly, Russell E. Fuller, ‘The Blessing of Levi in Dtn 33, Mal 2, and Qumran’, in Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte (Festschrift Klaus Baltzer; ed. Rüdiger Bartelmus, Thomas Krüger and Helmut Utzschneider; OBO 126; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), pp. 31-44 (38), argues that Deut. 33 is closer but Num. 25 is also a possibility. So too: David J. Clark and Howard A. Hatton, A Handbook on Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 2002), p. 401; Eileen M. Schuller, ‘The Book of Malachi’, in The New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996), VII, pp. 844-77 (860-61); Harrison, ‘Covenant Unfaithfulness’, pp. 63-65, who adds Exod. 32.26-29 and Num. 3.5-13. Paul L. Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 168, and Stuart, ‘Malachi’, p. 1316, suggest that there is an eclectic set of texts subtly woven into the main concerns of Mal. 1.6–2.9, namely, Num. 6.24-26; 25.10-13; and Deut. 33.8-11.



4. ‘I will curse your blessings’

103

in Num. 25.10-13103 and Deut. 33.8-11.104 However, careful analysis reveals that the connections to each text are not as close as might at first seem. Although a number of phrases in Mal. 2.4-5 appear to resemble those in Num. 25.10-13,105 the vocabulary is not exclusive to these two passages. The phrase ‫ ברית שלום‬is reflected in other texts (Isa. 54.10; Ezek. 34.25; 37.26; Num. 25.12; Josh. 9.15; 1 Kgs 5.26; Obad. 7), as is the phrase ‫( בריתי אתו‬Gen. 17.19). The common construction ‫ שוב‬+ ‫מן‬ does not match either, since, when it appears in Numbers, Phinehas does not turn the people from sin as Levi did; rather, he can only divert God’s wrath after they have sinned. The priestly context is similar, but in Num. 25 Yhwh establishes an everlasting covenant of priesthood with the line of Phinehas (later known as the Zadokite priests) and not with the wider tribe of Levi. If Malachi intended an allusion to Num. 25.10-13, then it has the potential to grant privilege inadvertently to the Zadokite priests at the expense of the wider Levitical priesthood. Such a move would appear contrary to Malachi’s egalitarian agenda for priest and Levite.106 Moreover, the reasons behind the covenant grant appear different in each Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 183, entertains this possibility. Utzschneider, Künder oder Schreiber?, pp. 66, 69, thinks that there may be connections with both Deut. 33.9-11 and Num. 25.10-13, but favours the latter. 103.  ‫( ‏כהן‬Mal. 1.6; 2.1, 7; cf. Num. 25.11, 13); ‫( שוב‬Mal. 2.6; cf. Num. 25.11); ‫( נתן‬Mal. 2.2; cf. Num. 25.12); ‫( ברית‬Mal. 2.4, 5, 8; cf. Num. 25.12, 13); ‫( שלום‬Mal. 2.5, 6; cf. Num. 25.12); ‫( זרע‬Mal. 2.3; cf. Num. 25.13). 104.  ‫בן‬, ‫( אב‬Mal. 1.6; cf. Deut. 33.9); ‫( ידע‬Mal. 2.4; cf. Deut. 33.9); ‫( שמר‬Mal. 2.9; cf. Deut. 33.9); ‫תורה‬/‫( ירה‬Mal. 2.6, 7, 8, 9; cf. Deut. 33.10); ‫( שים‬Mal. 2.2; cf. Deut. 33.10); ‫( מזבח‬Mal. 1.7, 10; cf. Deut. 33.10); ‫( ברך‬Mal. 2.2; cf. Deut. 33.11); ‫יד‬ (Mal. 1.9, 10, 13; cf. Deut. 33.11); ‫( רצה‬Mal. 1.9, 13; cf. Deut. 33.11). 105.  Mal. 2.1-9 Num. 25.10-13 ‫להיות בריתי את־לוי‬ ‫הנני נתן לו את־בריתי‬ ‫בריתי היתה אתו‬ ‫והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו ברית‬ ‫בריתי היתה אתו החיים והשלום‬ ‫את־בריתי שלום‬ ‫ברית הלוי‬ ‫ברית כהנת עולם‬ 106.  Contra Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, p. 80, who argues that ‘the “levite” personifies the ancient and idealized priestly class, while “priest” refers to the degenerate clergy’. A closer look reveals that Malachi exhibits no difference between the terms ‫כהן‬, ‫לוי‬, and ‫בני־לוי‬. In Mal. 2.7, the ideal is predicated of the priest (‫ )כהן‬not just the Levite: the lips of the priest should guard knowledge. And while Levi has acted as the ideal priest in the past; in Mal. 3.3 it is the sons of Levi (‫ )בני־לוי‬who need to be purified in the present. Thus the neat comparison of corrupt priest in the present versus the ideal Levi in the past (or future) does not hold. Priest and Levite are used interchangeably of both ideal and corrupt priesthood. For further, see O’Brien, Priest and Levite, pp. 27-48.

104

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

case. In Num. 25, Yhwh inaugurates a covenant of peace with Phinehas as a result of his jealous act for God; in Malachi, a covenant of life and peace was made with Levi without prior obedience (2.5). Levi’s fear and respect for Yhwh’s name came in response to the covenant already established (2.6); it was not a priority before the covenant came into existence, which points to another difference. Phinehas’ covenant is purely a covenant of promise;107 there are no commands attached to it, unlike the covenant with Levi. The central themes of the passages do not match exactly: Num. 25.10-13 is centred on Phinehas’ jealousy for Yhwh in the context of idolatry, whereas in Malachi, Levi is concerned with fearing Yhwh’s name and standing in awe of him in the context of delivering proper instruction from the Law as Yhwh’s messenger (2.5-7). For these reasons, an intended allusion to Num. 25.10-13 remains uncertain. Deuteronomy 33.8-11 fares no better as a possible source text for the covenant with Levi in Mal. 2.4c-7. Of all the common lexemes between the texts, five are used in a similar way (‫)רצה ;יד ;מזבח ;תורה ;שמר‬, but none of these constitutes rare vocabulary, nor is this a unique cluster of terms exclusive to Mal. 2.4c-7 and Deut. 33.8-11. The words reflect common vocabulary. Although the passages refer to the Levitical roles of sacrificing and teaching, the main obstacle to recognizing an allusion is that the covenant mentioned in Deut. 33.9 is the national covenant with Israel and not the Levitical one. In sum, neither of these texts creates a neat fit for an allusion in Mal. 2.4c-7. The prophet’s description of the covenant and the model behaviour of Levi are alien to the content of either passage. Some scholars avoid the search for sources by defining the covenant as a ‘special relationship’108 rather than an actual ratified covenant. However, the fact that in Malachi every other occurrence of ‫ ברית‬refers to an actual covenant (2.10, 14; 3.1), and that outside of Malachi there are references to a covenant between Yhwh and the priests and Levites (Jer. 33.20-22; Neh. 13.29), suggests that an actual covenant with Levi is within the prophet’s purview. For these reasons, it is proposed here that Malachi intends an actual covenant with Levi, that is, with the Levitical priesthood, which was inaugurated at some point in the past, ‘solemnly inaugurated, either by words alone or words and symbolic ceremonies’.109 When exactly this 107.  Rightly, Beckwith, ‘God’s Covenants’, p. 104. 108.  McKenzie and Wallace, ‘Covenant Themes’, pp. 550-51; Haag, ‘Gottes Bund mit Levi’; Alviero Niccacci, ‘Poetic Syntax and Interpretation of Malachi’, Liber Annuus 51 (2001), pp. 55-107 (80). 109.  Beckwith, ‘God’s Covenants’, p. 96.



4. ‘I will curse your blessings’

105

was is unknown. Malachi may apply the word ‫ ברית‬to an OT passage that itself does not contain the word ‫( ברית‬e.g. Exod. 32.26-29; Lev. 2; Num. 3.5-13; 18; Deut. 10.6-9; 18.1-18; cf. 2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), or the reference to a covenant with Levi may be a summary of his interpretation of various OT texts, or Malachi may have in view an assumed tradition rather than a textual allusion. In any case, to look for source texts in this case is frustrated by the lack of lexical, contextual and thematic parallels. Malachi has not made an allusion to a specific precursor text obvious to us. Malachi 2.4c-7 consists mainly of unique combinations of words and phrases that do not reflect other parts of the Hebrew Bible. This, however, does not negate or undermine the fact of a covenant with Levi and an ideal ‘Levi’ in the past. The qualification is important because the existence of a covenant with Levi explains why Malachi can take Deuteronomic language of blessing and curse relative to the national covenant with Israel and apply it to the priests. The application of covenant curse to the Levites is possible because their relationship to Yhwh was understood fundamentally in terms of covenant. This is Malachi’s point: the priests will receive a covenant curse from Yhwh because they are in a covenant relationship with Yhwh. In sum, when exactly the Levitical covenant was inaugurated is a question that Malachi does not deem important for his readers, nor exactly which source text(s) is/are at play. That the covenant was in existence and is to be maintained is deemed vitally important: it is the basis for applying the Deuteronomic curse. 4.5.9. Interpretive Significance The covenant with Levi refers to the ‘whole arrangement that made them priests in Israel – the entire body of Mosaic law that defined Israel’s religion’.110 While there are no clear source texts present in Mal. 2.4c-7 – at least, none that Malachi has made obvious to the reader – some things are clear: the covenant with Levi existed in the past, serves as an ideal for the present, and will be maintained in the future. The reference to Levi as an example of obedience functions in the section to expose the priests’ covenant infidelity. Instead of following the ideal Levi (2.5-7), the priests have fallen short of their covenant obligations in their instructing of Yhwh’s people (2.8-9). The contrast is already preempted through the word ‫מורא‬, which recalls 1.6c, where Yhwh complains about a lack of fear from the priests. Levi is set up as the ideal person who had feared Yhwh’s name (2.5), while the priests in Jerusalem are contrasted as those who have not feared Yhwh’s name (1.6). The eightfold use of Yhwh’s name 110.  Stuart, ‘Malachi’, p. 1315.

106

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

(‫ )שם‬in Mal. 1.6–2.9 indicates that his name was the focal point of priestly service. All their priestly duties were conducted in the presence of Yhwh (‫ ;לפני יהוה‬cf. Lev. 10.2; 22.3); they ministered in his name (‫לשרת בשם‬ ‫ ;יהוה‬Deut. 18.5), and blessed the people in his name (Deut. 10.8; cf. Num. 6.24-26).111 The fronted elements in Mal. 2.6 heighten the ideology of Levi and prepare for the stark contrast in 2.8-9. The three-verse poem mentions three principal elements of Levi’s teaching and conduct: he was truthful and accurate in instruction (2.6a-b), full and consistent in obedience (2.6c), and he preserved the holiness of the community by turning many away from sin (2.6d). Picking up on the metonyms for speech in 2.6a-b (‫ שפה‬+ ‫)פה‬, Malachi expands on the theme of the priests’ duty in teaching: they are to guard knowledge and godly instruction (2.7). The knowledge (‫ )דעת‬that the priest is to guard (‫)שמר‬, as the messenger of Yhwh, is the knowledge of God in the Torah. In this regard, Levi of old was impeccable. ‘Both by word and example the priests of an earlier era induced the people of Israel to desist from sinning and to return to God in repentance.’112 That Malachi intends a contrast between the past idealized priest/Levite and the present corrupt priest/Levite is seen by the repetition of key vocabulary from 2.4c-7 in his direct accusation in 2.8-9: ‫רבים‬, ‫תורה‬, and ‫ברית הלוי‬. 4.5.10. Covenant Unfaithfulness and Covenant Curse: Malachi 2.8-9 and Deuteronomic Phraseology In presenting his accusation against the priests, Malachi takes Deuteronomic phraseology for covenant unfaithfulness and applies it directly to the priests: ‫( ואתם סרתם מן־הדרך‬Deut. 9.12, 16; 11.28; 31.29; cf. Exod. 32.8; Judg. 2.17).113 The common noun ‫ דרך‬with the definite article specifies a unique theological referent:114 it refers to ‘the divine way of Yahweh’s covenant made known to Israel through the teaching of his statutes and ordinances’115 (cf. Exod. 18.20). Malachi’s reuse of this phrase is more than a mere allusion. What was a general description of national covenant violation has been modified and narrowed in application to the priests. The phraseology not only conveys covenant violation in a Deuteronomic way, but rhetorically it would be offensive to a priest, since the phrase 111.  F. Reiterer, ‘‫’ׁשם‬, ֵ in TDOT, XV, p. 137, notes that ‫ בשמו‬in Deut. 10.8 is a qualifier, so that ‫ ב‬is understood instrumentally: ‘the blessing is bestowed with the help of the name’ (cf. Deut. 21.5). 112.  Hill, Malachi, p. 210. 113.  Four of these texts also contain the verb ‫‘( שחת‬to corrupt’) in the immediate context (Exod. 32.7; Deut. 9.12; 31.29; Judg. 2.19), as does Mal. 2.8c. No one text stands out specifically. 114.  Cf. W-O’C § 13.5.1b. 115.  Hill, Malachi, p. 214.



4. ‘I will curse your blessings’

107

occurs in contexts of apostasy. Reading between the lines, Malachi implies that the priests’ corruption of the covenant with Levi (2.8) is equivalent to the apostasy of a previous era. The curse for desecrating the covenant is that Yhwh will make the priests despised for not keeping his ways (‫ )אינכם שמרים את־דרכי‬and for showing partiality in the Torah (‫)נשאים פנים בתורה‬.116 Yhwh’s words bring the pericope to an appropriate close with an ironic twist. The priests expect Yhwh to ‘lift up their faces’ because of their sacrifices (1.8-9), but he will make them despised and debased – ‫ שפל‬being conceptually opposite to ‫ – נשא‬precisely because they have ‘lifted up faces’, that is, have shown partiality, in regard to his sacrificial laws (2.9). In sum, in 1.6–2.9, Malachi’s inner-biblical allusion and exegesis work to do two things: they expose the priests’ covenant infidelity and they give effect to the covenant curse on the priests. We have observed how the curse comprises four key elements: cursing the blessings, rebuking the seed, spreading dung on the priests’ faces and causing them to be despised among the people. We return now to the first element of the curse in 2.2: the cursing of the blessings. Here we see Malachi’s most creative example of inner-biblical exegesis, one that permeates the whole pericope. 4.5.11. Covenant Curse Climax: An Anti-Blessing: Malachi 1.6–2.9 and Numbers 6.23-27 Fishbane contends that Mal. 1.6–2.9 highlights ‘a remarkable post-exilic example of the aggadic exegesis of Num. 6.23–27’.117 For Fishbane, ‘Malachi’s outspoken and vitriolic critique of cultic and priestly behaviour is, at once, a systematic utilization of the language of the Priestly Blessing and a thorough exegetical transformation of it’.118 There is not simply reuse of the terms; rather, the dense clustering and the ‘transformed reapplications’ demonstrate that Malachi’s oration is exegetical in nature.119 The prophet takes the contents of the Priestly Blessing and ironically inverts them: the Blessing becomes an anti-Blessing. ‘The priests, bearers of the cultic Blessing, and sensitive to its language, could not have missed the exegetical irony and sarcastic nuance of the prophet’s speech.’120 116.  I am reading ‫ נשא פנים‬here in the sense of ‘showing partiality’. The influence of ‫ אין‬may be limited to the first participial clause, while its pronominal suffix is carried over as the implied subject in the next participial clause (cf. Deut. 21.20). 117.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, p. 331. 118.  Ibid., p. 332. Prior to Fishbane (1983), the earliest connection made between Malachi and the Priestly Blessing among English commentators appears to be Joyce Baldwin in 1972, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, pp. 232-33. 119.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, p. 332. 120.  Ibid., p. 334.

‫‪Covenant Continuity and Fidelity‬‬ ‫‪Num. 6.23-27‬‬ ‫ל־בּנָ יו ֵלאמֹר כֹּה‬ ‫ל־אַהר ֹן וְ ֶא ָ‬ ‫ֲ‬ ‫ַדּ ֵבּר ֶא‬ ‫ת־בּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל אָמֹור ָל ֶהם׃ ס‬ ‫ְת ָב ֲרכוּ ֶא ְ‬ ‫‪‎‬יְב ֶר ְכָך יְ הוָ ה וְ יִ ְשׁ ְמ ֶרָך׃ ס‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫יחנֶּ ךָּ ׃ ס‬ ‫‪‎‬יָ ֵאר יְ הוָ ה ָפּנָ יו ֵא ֶליָך וִ ֻ‬ ‫‪‎‬יִ ָשּׂא יְ הוָ ה ָפּנָ יו ֵא ֶליָך וְ יָ ֵשׂם ְלָך ָשׁלֹום׃ ס‬ ‫ל־בּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וַ ֲאנִ י‬ ‫ת־שׁ ִמי ַע ְ‬ ‫‪‎‬וְ ָשׂמוּ ֶא ְ‬ ‫ֲא ָב ֲר ֵכם׃ פ‬

‫ ‪108‬‬

‫‪Mal. 1.6–2.9‬‬ ‫בֹודי‬ ‫ֵבּן יְ ַכ ֵבּד אָב וְ ֶע ֶבד ֲאד ֹנָ יו וְ ִאם־אָב אָנִ י אַיֵּ ה ְכ ִ‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות‬ ‫מֹור ִאי ַ‬ ‫ם־אדֹונִ ים אָנִ י אַיֵּ ה ָ‬ ‫וְ ִא ֲ‬ ‫ָל ֶכם ַהכּ ֲֹהנִ ים בֹּוזֵ י ְשׁ ִמי וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם ַבּ ֶמּה ָבזִ ינוּ‬ ‫ל־מזְ ְבּ ִחי ֶל ֶחם ְמגֹאָל וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם‬ ‫ישׁים ַע ִ‬ ‫ת־שׁ ֶמָך׃ ַמגִּ ִ‬ ‫ֶא ְ‬ ‫אַלנוָּך ֶבּ ֱא ָמ ְר ֶכם ֻשׁ ְל ַחן יְ הוָ ה נִ ְבזֶ ה הוּא׃‬ ‫ַבּ ֶמּה גֵ ְ‬ ‫י־תגִּ שׁוּן ִעוֵּ ר ִלזְ בּ ַֹח ֵאין ָרע וְ ִכי ַתגִּ ישׁוּ ִפּ ֵסּ ַח‬ ‫וְ ִכ ַ‬ ‫וְ ח ֶֹלה ֵאין ָרע ַה ְק ִר ֵיבהוּ נָ א ְל ֶפ ָח ֶתָך ֲהיִ ְר ְצָך אֹו‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃ וְ ַע ָתּה ַחלּוּ־נָ א‬ ‫ֲהיִ ָשּׂא ָפנֶ יָך ַ‬ ‫יְתה זֹּאת ֲהיִ ָשּׂא ִמ ֶכּם ָפּנִ ים‬ ‫יחנֵ נוּ ִמיֶּ ְד ֶכם ָה ָ‬ ‫י־אל וִ ָ‬ ‫ְפנֵ ֵ‬ ‫ם־בּ ֶכם וְ יִ ְסגֹּר ְדּ ָל ַתיִ ם‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃ ִמי גַ ָ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫אָמר‬ ‫ין־לי ֵח ֶפץ ָבּ ֶכם ַ‬ ‫א־ת ִאירוּ ִמזְ ְבּ ִחי ִחנָּ ם ֵא ִ‬ ‫וְ ל ֹ ָ‬ ‫א־א ְר ֶצה ִמיֶּ ְד ֶכם׃‬ ‫וּמנְ ָחה ל ֹ ֶ‬ ‫יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות ִ‬ ‫ד־מבֹואֹו גָּ דֹול ְשׁ ִמי ַבּגֹּויִ ם‬ ‫ח־שׁ ֶמשׁ וְ ַע ְ‬ ‫ִכּי ִמ ִמּזְ ַר ֶ‬ ‫הֹורה‬ ‫וּמנְ ָחה ְט ָ‬ ‫ל־מקֹום ֻמ ְק ָטר ֻמגָּ שׁ ִל ְשׁ ִמי ִ‬ ‫וּב ָכ ָ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫אַתּם‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃ וְ ֶ‬ ‫ִכּי־גָ דֹול ְשׁ ִמי ַבּגֹּויִם ַ‬ ‫ְמ ַח ְלּ ִלים אֹותֹו ֶבּ ֱא ָמ ְר ֶכם ֻשׁ ְל ַחן ֲאד ֹנָ י ְמגֹאָל הוּא‬ ‫אָכלֹו׃ וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם ִהנֵּ ה ַמ ְתּ ָלאָה וְ ִה ַפּ ְח ֶתּם‬ ‫וְ נִ יבֹו נִ ְבזֶ ה ְ‬ ‫ת־ה ִפּ ֵסּ ַח‬ ‫אתם גָּ זוּל וְ ֶא ַ‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות וַ ֲה ֵב ֶ‬ ‫אֹותֹו ַ‬ ‫אֹותהּ‬ ‫ת־ה ִמּנְ ָחה ַה ֶא ְר ֶצה ָ‬ ‫אתם ֶא ַ‬ ‫חֹולה וַ ֲה ֵב ֶ‬ ‫ת־ה ֶ‬ ‫וְ ֶא ַ‬ ‫נֹוכל וְ יֵ שׁ ְבּ ֶע ְדרֹו זָ ָכר‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה׃ ס וְ אָרוּר ֵ‬ ‫ִמיֶּ ְד ֶכם ַ‬ ‫וְ נ ֵֹדר וְ ז ֵֹב ַח ָמ ְשׁ ָחת ַלאד ֹנָ י ִכּי ֶמ ֶלְך גָּ דֹול אָנִ י אָ‬ ‫יכם‬ ‫נֹורא ַבגֹּויִם׃ וְ ַע ָתּה ֲא ֵל ֶ‬ ‫וּשׁ ִמי ָ‬ ‫ַמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות ְ‬ ‫ַה ִמּ ְצוָ ה ַהזֹּאת ַהכּ ֲֹהנִ ים׃ ִאם־לֹא ִת ְשׁ ְמעוּ וְ ִאם־לֹא‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות‬ ‫ל־לב ָל ֵתת ָכּבֹוד ִל ְשׁ ִמי ַ‬ ‫ָת ִשׂימוּ ַע ֵ‬ ‫יכם‬ ‫כֹות ֶ‬ ‫ת־בּ ְר ֵ‬ ‫אָרֹותי ֶא ִ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ת־ה ְמּ ֵא ָרה וְ‬ ‫וְ ִשׁ ַלּ ְח ִתּי ָב ֶכם ֶא ַ‬ ‫יה‬ ‫אָרֹות ָ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫וְ גַ ם‬ ‫ת־הזֶּ ַרע‬ ‫ל־לב׃ ִהנְ נִ י ג ֵֹער ָל ֶכם ֶא ַ‬ ‫ִכּי ֵאינְ ֶכם ָשׂ ִמים ַע ֵ‬ ‫יכם וְ נָ ָשׂא ֶא ְת ֶכם‬ ‫יכם ֶפּ ֶרשׁ ַחגֵּ ֶ‬ ‫ל־פּנֵ ֶ‬ ‫יתי ֶפ ֶרשׁ ַע ְ‬ ‫וְ זֵ ִר ִ‬ ‫יכם ֵאת ַה ִמּ ְצוָ ה ַהזֹּאת‬ ‫ֵא ָליו׃ וִ ַיד ְע ֶתּם ִכּי ִשׁ ַלּ ְח ִתּי ֲא ֵל ֶ‬ ‫יתי‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃ ְבּ ִר ִ‬ ‫ת־לוִ י ַ‬ ‫יתי ֶא ֵ‬ ‫ִל ְהיֹות ְבּ ִר ִ‬ ‫מֹורא‬ ‫יְתה ִאתֹּו ַה ַחיִּ ים וְ ַה ָשּׁלֹום וָ ֶא ְתּנֵ ם־לֹו ָ‬ ‫ָה ָ‬ ‫יְתה‬ ‫תֹּורת ֱא ֶמת ָה ָ‬ ‫וּמ ְפּנֵ י ְשׁ ִמי נִ ַחת הוּא׃ ַ‬ ‫וַ יִּ ָיר ֵאנִ י ִ‬ ‫וּב ִמישֹׁור‬ ‫ְבּ ִפיהוּ וְ ַעוְ ָלה לֹא־נִ ְמ ָצא ִב ְשׂ ָפ ָתיו ְבּ ָשׁלֹום ְ‬ ‫י־שׂ ְפ ֵתי כ ֵֹהן‬ ‫ָה ַלְך ִא ִתּי וְ ַר ִבּים ֵה ִשׁיב ֵמ ָעֹון׃ ִכּ ִ‬ ‫תֹורה ַיְב ְקשׁוּ ִמ ִפּיהוּ ִכּי ַמ ְלאְַך‬ ‫רוּ־ד ַעת וְ ָ‬ ‫יִ ְשׁ ְמ ַ‬ ‫ן־ה ֶדּ ֶרְך‬ ‫אַתּם ַס ְר ֶתּם ִמ ַ‬ ‫ה־צ ָבאֹות הוּא׃ וְ ֶ‬ ‫יְ הוָ ְ‬ ‫תֹּורה ִשׁ ַח ֶתּם ְבּ ִרית ַה ֵלּוִ י‬ ‫ִה ְכ ַשׁ ְל ֶתּם ַר ִבּים ַבּ ָ‬ ‫ם־אנִ י נָ ַת ִתּי ֶא ְת ֶכם נִ ְבזִ ים‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃ וְ גַ ֲ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ל־ה ָעם ְכּ ִפי ֲא ֶשׁר ֵאינְ ֶכם שׁ ְֹמ ִרים‬ ‫וּשׁ ָפ ִלים ְל ָכ ָ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫תֹּורה׃ פ‬ ‫ת־דּ ָר ַכי וְ נ ְֹשׂ ִאים ָפּנִ ים ַבּ ָ‬ ‫ֶא ְ‬



4. ‘I will curse your blessings’

109

Lexical and Syntactical Parallels Each of the six verbal roots in the Priestly Blessing (‫ברך‬, ‫שמר‬, ‫אור‬, ‫חנן‬, ‫נשא‬, ‫ )שים‬is repeated in Mal. 1.6–2.9 either as a verb or in a nominal form.121 Nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible does this cluster of verbal roots repeat itself. The idiomatic expression of favour (‫ )נשא פנים‬of Num. 6.25 is present in Mal. 1.8, 9, and 2.9, and further strengthens the link. Contextual and Thematic Parallels The contextual links are obvious enough: in both texts the addressees are the priests; in both Yhwh addresses the priests in relation to their duties as mediators of divine blessing.122 More broadly, the connection between law and blessing is central to each text. In Numbers, the Blessing concludes the long section of (mainly) priestly stipulations in the Pentateuch (Lev. 1.1–Num. 6.21), thus implying that blessing follows adherence to these laws.123 If the priests were to fail in their duties, then neither they nor the people could expect blessing from Yhwh (Num. 6.23-27). The Blessing also precedes the offerings for the dedication of the tabernacle altar (Num. 7). The same connection between law and blessing is evident in Mal. 1.6–2.9: in the first half (1.6-14), Malachi alludes to some altar laws concerning animal sacrifices (Lev. 22.17-25; Deut. 15.21), which the priests have flouted; as a result, the prophet states clearly that their blessings will be cursed (Mal. 2.2). Thus the integral relationship between law and blessing in the Pentateuch is exhibited here in Malachi, only this time it is reversed: contempt for Yhwh’s priestly laws brings curse. The theme of blessing encapsulates the words to Aaron in Num. 6.24-26, while in Mal. 1.6–2.9 the blessings are replaced by curse and contempt (1.14; 2.2, 9). The prominence given to Yhwh in Num. 6.24-26 as the fronted subject of each of the main verbs and the placing of his name upon Israel through the Blessing are reversed in Mal. 1.6–2.9 through the priests’ contempt for Yhwh’s name (1.6) and their failure to bring honour to his name (2.2). The content of Mal. 1.6–2.9 reveals that the way in which Yhwh’s name is honoured or despised is dependent on the priests’ behaviour (cf. Deut. 28.10). 121.  The one exception is the root ‫ברך‬, which is expressed as a noun (‫ )ברכות‬and not a verb in Mal. 2.2. 122.  Apart from a few exceptions (Num. 20.12; 22–24), the priests are established as mediators between God and his people (Lev. 9.22; Deut. 10.8; 21.5; 1 Sam. 2.20; 1 Chron. 23.13; 2 Chron. 30.27). The threefold mention of Yhwh in the Blessing establishes him as the clear source of all blessing. 123.  Indeed, this sequence of law and blessing within the Pentateuch means that the blessing on Israel was dependent on the obedience of the priests.

110

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Assessment For Utzschneider, the keyword connections proposed by Fishbane are not significant enough to prove that there is wordplay on the Priestly Blessing. For him, the keywords can lead one equally to Lev. 26 or Deut. 28, with their blessings and curses. Nevertheless, Utzschneider concedes that at a traditions-history level one can determine in the Malachi text an ‘ironic reversal of the priest’s language, actions and hopes’.124 Utzschneider’s problem is that he fails to see how Malachi could refer to both Num. 6.23-27 and Deut. 28. He has set up an either-or dichotomy in his ‘intertextuality’. The exegesis of Num. 6.23-27 extends throughout Mal. 1.6–2.9, alongside the modification of Deut. 28 in Mal. 2.1-4. Moreover, as already demonstrated, the context and theme of both Num. 6.23-27 and Mal. 1.6–2.9 resonate strongly together. Weyde is similarly off-mark when he argues that it is not possible to follow Fishbane’s proposal.125 Weyde relegates any connection with Num. 6.23-27 to the background, promoting Lev. 22.17-25 as primary. The difficulty with this is that Weyde misses the strong connection in the Pentateuch between the priestly sacrifice and the benediction pronounced over the people at the end of the offering service. It is more likely that Malachi has both texts equally in mind because both are linked: the curse on the blessings comes as a result of failing to obey the obligations of the sacrificial laws. Stuart acknowledges that keywords and concepts of Num. 6.23-27 are obviously reused and played upon ironically in Mal. 1.6–2.9. He raises questions, however, about some of Fishbane’s more nuanced points in his inner-biblical exegesis. For example, in order for Fishbane’s proposal to work he regards any two contiguous consonants, regardless of vowel sounds or other consonants, as purposely linked. Stuart comments: A listener would never be able to pick this up from the actual spoken words, since human speech moves too rapidly for people to notice and consciously evaluate successions of consonants in parts of words, unless rhyme or another obvious connection is present, let alone connect the word in which they occur to a different word in a different context that happens to share some, but not all, the same consonants.126

Stuart has a point, but only in so far as Malachi’s oracle is limited to oral delivery; once it is written down, then the nuanced connections are more discernible with careful analysis. Additionally, the familiarity of 124.  Quoting Fishbane, Utzschneider, Künder oder Schreiber?, p. 71. 125.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 121. 126.  Stuart, ‘Malachi’, p. 1296.



4. ‘I will curse your blessings’

111

this saying, for priests in particular, but also for the ordinary people, is a strong factor in supporting the possibility of a case of inner-biblical exegesis. 4.5.12. Interpretive Significance 4.5.12.1. Cursing the Blessing: Reversing the Content of the Priestly Blessing The following discussion of how the inner-biblical exegesis of the Priestly Blessing plays out in Mal. 1.6–2.9 has been mainly influenced by Fishbane, though I present some further reflections of my own on the next two pages. Yhwh’s brightened countenance (‫ ;יאר יהוה פניו‬Num. 6.25a) leading to his favour (‫ ;ויחנך‬Num. 6.25b) and the raising of his countenance (‫ ;ישא יהוה פניו‬Num. 6.26a) resulting in peace (‫ ;שלום‬Num. 6.26b) are punningly countered by the prophet’s request that the priests no longer ignite (‫ ;תאירו‬Mal. 1.10) the altar in vain (‫ ;חנם‬Mal. 1.10), and by the anticipated divine curse (‫ ;המארה‬Mal. 2.2). The priests’ crime is that, in contradistinction to asking Yhwh to raise his countenance (show favour) upon the people (‫ ;ישר יהוה פניו אליך‬Num. 6.26a), the priests have raised their countenance (shown partiality) in their handling of Torah (‫ונשאים‬ ‫ ;פנים בתורה‬Mal. 2.9). As a result, the priests have spurned the divine gift of ‫שלום‬, so that, instead of Yhwh’s bright countenance being raised (‫)נשא‬ upon them, they will have animal dung spread on their faces (‫ )על־פניכם‬as they are ‘raised’ up with the dung (‫ ;ונשא אתכם אליו‬Mal. 2.3).127 This is a stark answer to the rhetorical question of 1.9: ‫ ?הישא מכם פנים‬If the priests fail to fulfil their office of guarding (‫ ;שמרים‬Mal. 2.7) Yhwh’s ways, they can hardly take for granted Yhwh’s blessing of protection (‫ ;וישמרך‬Num. 6.24b) upon the people of Israel. As Fishbane concludes: A more violent condemnation of the priests can hardly be imagined… The ironic reversal of the priests’ language, actions, and hopes is thus textured through a series of reworkings and plays on the liturgical language of Num. 6.23-27. In this way the priests’ cultic language is desacralized and their actions cursed. By unfolding the negative semantic range of most of the key terms used positively in the Priestly Blessing, the rotten core and consequences of the language and behaviour of the priests is echoed throughout the diatribe.128 127.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, p. 333, reads the connection in a slightly different way: animal dung will be ‘raised’ for them, or, the polluted refuse of their offerings will be ‘against their “faces” ’. Is it possible that the rather strange prepositional phrase ‫( אליו‬Mal. 2.3), which has puzzled commentators, is influenced by the prepositional phrase ‫( אליך‬Num. 6.26a)? 128.  Ibid., pp. 333-34.

112

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Reading Mal. 2.1-3 in the light of the context and meaning of Num. 6.23-27 provides yet more rhetorical power. If it is correct that the first line (6.24) encapsulates the whole Blessing, with lines two and three (6.25-26) elaborating the two verbs ‫ ברך‬and ‫שמר‬, respectively, then Malachi’s curse in 2.3 presents a significant reversal of this prayer for God’s gracious blessing and his watchful care over his people. For example, if the basic meaning of ‫ ברך‬relates to fertility or fertilization129 and abundant prosperity,130 and if ‫ חנן‬relates to God’s gracious tempering of his justice,131 then blessing has turned to curse because Yhwh’s rebuke (‫ )גער‬of the priests entails elimination of their offspring (v. 3a) – justice has not been tempered by mercy. The blessing of the priests’ fertility has been replaced with the curse of infertility – mercy has become retribution. Moreover, if ‫ שמר‬relates to God’s keeping and preserving of his people, and if ‫ שלום‬relates to general well-being,132 then blessing has turned to curse because Yhwh will spread dung on their faces, which will result in removal and destruction. Preservation has become excommunication – shalom has turned to destruction. In short, if Num. 6.24-26 promised God’s care, favour, presence and peace, then logically God’s curse involves not only the removal of these but also the application of their opposites: neglect, disfavour, absence and various disasters.133

129.  A. Murtonen, ‘The Use of the Words LeBAREK and BERAKAH in the Old Testament’, VT 9 (1959), pp. 158-77 (177), prefers the latter as it is more encompassing and concrete. 130.  There is some debate as to what exactly the ‘blessing’ is that Yhwh gives to Israel through the priests. Claus Westermann, Elements of Old Testament Theology (trans. Douglas W. Stott; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), p. 113, views blessing as ‘growth, prosperity, and success, in the larger framework of life’. Similarly, Jacob Milgrom, Numbers (JPS Torah Commentary; New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1990), p. 51: ‘God’s blessing comprises of mainly material bounty, specifically, posterity (Gen. 28:3; Deut. 1:11); possessions and wealth (Gen. 24:35); land (Gen. 35:12; 48:3); fertility, health, victory (Deut. 7:12-16); strength and peace (Ps. 29:11)’. In other words, the blessing is all-inclusive; it is ‫שלום‬. The promised blessings of Deut. 28.1-15 encompass all these things, and thus the prayer in Num. 6.24-26 is, in a sense, a prayer for covenant blessings. 131.  Milgrom, Numbers, p. 52: ‘God will temper His justice by His mercy’. Graciousness refers to the granting of redemption from enemies, evil, and sin (Pss 4.1; 9.13; 41.4). 132.  Peace encompasses positive blessings of prosperity (Deut. 23.7; Prov. 3.2), good health (Ps. 38.4), friendship (Jer. 20.10; 38.22), and general well-being (in greetings; 1 Sam. 16.4; 2 Sam. 18.28). 133.  Stuart, ‘Malachi’, p. 1312.



4. ‘I will curse your blessings’

113

The verbal blessing has not just become ineffective; it has been turned into a curse. As Milgrom comments, ‘The prophet has taken the contents of the Priestly Blessing, negated it, and hurled it like a boomerang back [sic] at the priests.’134 In brief: their divine election has become divine rejection. 4.5.12.2. Ruining Shalom: Fracturing the Form of the Priestly Blessing The relationship between form and content further supports and illuminates the case for inner-biblical exegesis of the Priestly Blessing in this section of Malachi. The form of the Priestly Blessing is balanced and symmetrical; in Mal. 1.6–2.9 it is unbalanced and asymmetrical.135 For example, Num. 6.27 balances the narrative instruction of v. 23, providing a neat envelope to the Blessing.136 The three clauses of vv. 24-26 fit neatly together, increasing in length, from three to five to seven words, from 15 to 20 to 25 consonants, and from 12 to 14 to 16 syllables.137 The first and last cola of the poem form a complementary envelope of ‘blessing’ and ‘peace’.138 The tight unit moves toward the final word of the final line: ‫שלום‬. ‘The impression is given of a stream of blessing that begins as a trickle but flows ever more strongly.’139 All three lines contain two verbal phrases, with, arguably, the two verbs of line one being expounded in lines two and three, respectively.140 In other words, ‘bless’ (‫ )ברך‬is unpacked in

134.  Milgrom, Numbers, p. 361. 135.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, p. 334. 136.  The precise meaning of Num. 6.27 and its relationship to the previous blessing (6.24-26) has been a crux interpretum since the earliest translations. For example, SP reads ‫( ושימו‬probably a plural imperative) in order to balance the command of v. 23, while LXX transposes v. 27 to the end of v. 23, tightening the connection between the verses. Observing the lexical nexuses of ‫ ברך‬in vv. 23 and 24 and of ‫ שים‬in vv. 26 and 27 diffuses any hesitancy over the MT as it stands. 137.  The syllable count is based on the divine name being pronounced with two syllables. Even though the exact pronunciation of the divine name is unknown, the syllable count of each line would still increase by the same number each time. 138.  Milgrom, Numbers, p. 51. Again, whatever the syllable count of the divine name, they share the same syllabic length. 139.  Timothy R. Ashley, Numbers (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 151. 140.  Milgrom, Numbers, p. 51. Despite varying views on the structural logic of the unit (see Patrick D. Miller, ‘The Blessing of God: An Interpretation of Numbers 6:22-27’, Interpretation 29 [1975], pp. 241-51 [243-44]; Ashley, Numbers, pp. 15153; Dennis T. Olson, Numbers [Interpretation; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996], pp. 40-43; D. N. Freedman, ‘The Aaronic Benedictions’, in No Famine

114

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

the call for Yhwh to make his face shine (‫ )אור‬and be gracious (‫)חנן‬, while ‘keep’ (‫ )שמר‬is elaborated in God’s relational stance of favour (‫)נשא פנים‬ toward Israel, with peace (‫ )שלום‬ensuing.141 Fishbane argues that this rounded form of the Blessing in Num. 6 ‘is the objective literary correlative of the hopes for protection, wellbeing, favour, and sustenance expressed therein’.142 Conversely, then, the disjointed and scattered allusions to the Blessing are the ‘literary correlative of the fracture and disruption of harmony forecast in the threats and curses’.143 In sum: ‘The transformation of the sacerdotal blessing into a curse is thus expressed both on the manifest level of content and on the deeper levels of structure and form’.144 4.6. Conclusion The priests’ failure to give honour to Yhwh’s name through obedience to the sacrificial laws (Lev. 22.17-25; Deut. 15.21) leads to a ‘command’ against them in the form of a curse. Malachi borrows covenant terminology from Deut. 28, but he adapts and applies it to the priests in particular. There is not merely an allusion but a ‘transformed reapplication’, which demonstrates that Malachi’s oration is exegetical in nature. What was once a general curse on the nation of Israel has been particularized for the priests; what was once a term primarily connoting covenantal commands has been sent as a judgement. The already-existing covenant with Levi is the basis for this peculiar application of covenant terms and obligations. Although little is known about when this covenant was actually inaugurated with ‘Levi’ in the past, Malachi makes known its existence, its portrayal of the priestly ideal and its future preservation. Yhwh will bring his curse on the priests in order to maintain this covenant. In judgement there is hope. The desire to close the temple doors (1.10) and the announcement of a curse on the priests (2.1-4) do not militate against temple worship per se, in the Land: Studies in Honor of John L. McKenzie [ed. James W. Flanagan and Anita W. Robinson; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975], pp. 35-48), all agree that the verses present a structured unit. 141.  Miller, ‘Blessing of God’, p. 243, influenced by Martin Noth and James L. Mays, speaks of how the first clause invokes God’s movement towards his people; the second, his action on behalf of the people. 142.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, p. 334. 143.  Ibid. 144.  Fishbane thinks that Malachi’s diatribe may ‘have its very Sitz im Leben in an antiphonal outcry in the gates of the Temple’ (p. 334).



4. ‘I will curse your blessings’

115

nor do they nullify the covenant with Levi; rather, Yhwh’s faithful love for Israel (1.2-5) will be seen in his purification of the Levites and in his personal visit to the temple (3.1-4). This exegesis and reapplication of Pentateuchal material is also exhibited in Malachi’s transformation of the Priestly Blessing into a curse: Malachi puns the content of the Blessing, producing a remarkable volte-face; he also fractures its form, scattering its keywords across his oracle against the priests – the Priestly Blessing has become an anti-Blessing.

Chapter 5 ‘ D i d h e n ot m a k e t h e m one ? ’ : I nne r - B i b l i c a l A l l u s i on and E xe ge si s i n R e l at i on to t h e M a r r i age C ove nant (M a l a ch i 2.10 - 16)

5.1. Translation v. Author’s translation BHQ ‫ ֲהלֹוא אָב ֶא ָחד ְל ֻכ ָלּנוּ‬2.10a ‘Is there not one Father for us all? ‫ ֲהלֹוא ֵאל ֶא ָחד ְבּ ָראָנוּ‬10b Has not one God created us? 10c Why then are we unfaithful to one another, ‫אָחיו‬ ִ ‫דּוּע נִ ְבגַּ ד ִאישׁ ְבּ‬ ַ ‫ַמ‬ ‫ ְל ַח ֵלּל ְבּ ִרית ֲאב ֵֹתינוּ׃‬10d profaning the covenant of our fathers? 11a Judah has been unfaithful, ‫הוּדה‬ ָ ְ‫ָבּגְ ָדה י‬ ‫תֹוע ָבה נֶ ֶע ְשׂ ָתה ְביִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬11b and abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem. ִ‫ירוּשׁ ָלם‬ ָ ‫וּב‬ ִ 11c For Judah has profaned the sanctuary of ‫הוּדה ק ֶֹדשׁ יְ הוָ ה‬ ָ ְ‫ִכּי ִח ֵלּל י‬ Yhwh, 11d which he loves, ‫אָהב‬ ֵ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר‬ 11e and has married the daughter of a foreign ‫ת־אל נֵ ָכר׃‬ ֵ ‫וּב ַעל ַבּ‬ ָ god. 12a May Yhwh cut off for the man who does this ‫יַכ ֵרת יְ הוָ ה ָל ִאישׁ ֲא ֶשׁר יַ ֲע ֶשׂנָּ ה‬ ְ ‫אָה ֵלי יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ֳ ‫ ֵער וְ עֹנֶ ה ֵמ‬12b the one who awakes and answers from the tents of Jacob, 12c though he brings an offering to Yhwh of ‫וּמגִּ ישׁ ִמנְ ָחה ַליהוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃ פ‬ ַ hosts. ‫ וְ זֹאת ֵשׁנִ ית ַתּ ֲעשׂוּ‬13a And this second thing you do: ‫ת־מזְ ַבּח יְ הוָ ה‬ ִ ‫ ַכּסֹּות ִדּ ְמ ָעה ֶא‬13b you cover the altar of Yhwh with tears, 13c weeping and groaning, ‫ְבּ ִכי וַ ֲאנָ ָקה‬ 13d because he no longer regards the offering ‫ל־ה ִמּנְ ָחה‬ ַ ‫ֵמ ֵאין עֹוד ְפּנֹות ֶא‬ ‫ וְ ָל ַק ַחת ָרצֹון ִמיֶּ ְד ֶכם׃‬13e or accepts it with favour from your hand.

5. ‘Did he not make them one?’ ‫ה‬ ‎ ‫ל־מ‬ ָ ‫וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם ַע‬ ‫וּבין‬ ֵ ‫ַעל ִכּי־יְ הוָ ה ֵה ִעיד ֵבּינְ ָך‬ ‫עוּריָך‬ ֶ ְ‫ֵא ֶשׁת נ‬ ‫אַתּה ָבּגַ ְד ָתּה ָבּהּ‬ ָ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ‫יתָך׃‬ ֶ ‫וְ ִהיא ֲח ֶב ְר ְתָּך וְ ֵא ֶשׁת ְבּ ִר‬

14a 14b

‫א־א ָחד ָע ָשׂה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וְ ל‬ ‫רוּח לֹו‬ ַ ‫וּשׁאָר‬ ְ ‫וּמה ָה ֶא ָחד‬ ָ ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ְמ ַב ֵקּשׁ זֶ ַרע ֱא‬ ‫רוּח ֶכם‬ ֲ ‫וְ נִ ְשׁ ַמ ְר ֶתּם ְבּ‬ ‫אַל־יִבגֹּד׃‬ ְ ‫עוּריָך‬ ֶ ְ‫וּב ֵא ֶשׁת נ‬ ְ

15a 15b 15c 15d 15e 15f

‫י־שׂנֵ א ַשׁ ַלּח‬ ָ ‫ִכּ‬ ‫ֹלהי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ַ ‫ל־לבוּשֹׁו‬ ְ ‫וְ ִכ ָסּה ָח ָמס ַע‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות‬ ַ ‫רוּח ֶכם‬ ֲ ‫וְ נִ ְשׁ ַמ ְר ֶתּם ְבּ‬ ‫וְ לֹא ִת ְבגֹּדוּ׃ ס‬

16a 16b 16c 16d 16e 16f

14c 14d

117

But you say, “For what reason?” Because Yhwh was a witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have been unfaithful. But she is your companion and the wife of your covenant. Did he not make them one, and a remnant of the spirit for that oneness? And why one? Because he was seeking a godly offspring. So guard your spirit and with the wife of your youth do not let anyone be unfaithful. If one hates and divorces, says Yhwh the God of Israel, then he covers his clothes with violence, says Yhwh of hosts. So guard your spirit, and do not be unfaithful.’

5.2. Text-Critical Issues A number of textual variants are present in Mal. 2.10-16, some of which are of exegetical significance for the present study. In 2.10, the LXX inverts the first two clauses of the MT, presumably because it understands the father to be a patriarch rather than God.1 The LXX deviates from the traditional interpretation of 2.11 as a reference to marriage (MT; Tg.), and instead sees a reference to idolatry: ἐπετήδευσεν εἰς θεοὺς ἀλλοτρίους (cf. Syr.). In 2.12, the difficulties with the obscure phrase ‫ ער וענה‬are ‘exegetical rather than textual’.2 Nevertheless, a variant does exist in some of the early versions. The LXX reads ‫( עד‬ἕως) for ‫ ער‬3 and translates ‫ ענה‬as the verb ‘to humble, humiliate’:4 ἕως καὶ ταπεινωθῇ ἐκ σκηνωμάτων Ιακωβ (‘until 1.  Gelston, Twelve Minor Prophets, p. 150*. The verb ‫ נִ ְבּגַ ד‬may be either a third-person masculine singular niphal perfect, or a first-person plural qal imperfect. Reading it as an imperfect is supported by ‫ נבגוד‬in 4QMiscellaneous Rules, as well as Syr., Tg., and implicitly Vg. (violans). Nevertheless, the vocalization in v. 10 stands in sharp contrast to the verb’s vocalization in vv. 15-16. Perhaps the best explanation is that it is rendered here as an imperfect stative. 2.  Ibid., p. 150. 3.  4QXIIa also reads ‫( עד וענה‬Fuller, ‘Text-Critical Problems’, p. 51). 4.  ‫ענה‬-II in the qal (DCH, VI, p. 497).

118

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

he has even been humiliated from the texts of Jacob’; NETS).5 The LXX seems to have influenced scholars such as Julius Wellhausen who also reads ‫ עד‬but translates it as ‘witness’.6 Other versions variously interpret the phrase ‫ער וענה‬. So Tg. translates it as ‫‘( בר ובר בר‬son and grandson’).7 The Talmud and Vg. explanation is distinct again. The Talmud reads the phrase as referring to a wise teacher among the sages and a student who knows how to answer.8 The interpretation refers to the practice of learning by memorizing: the one who awakes (‫ )ער‬is the teacher, and the one who answers (‫ )ענה‬is the pupil. This reading appears to have influenced the Vg.: magistrum et discipulum.9 The participle phrase is admittedly difficult to interpret, but retroversion of ancient versions to a different Hebrew Vorlage, conjectural emendation, or various etymological and philological considerations of the homonymic verbs ‫ עור‬and ‫( ענה‬some on the basis of cognate languages) do not yield a clear understanding of how to interpret the obscure phrase.10 There is a reasonable case for staying with the MT on the basis of a different methodological approach. By comparing the construction ‫ כרת‬+ ‫ ל‬+ two coordinated participles/nouns (often displaying alliteration and/or assonance) with other biblical texts, some progress is possible on discerning the meaning of this difficult phrase, even if an exact rendering remains beyond our grasp.11 The phrase is most likely a grammatical 5.  At 2.12c, the LXX seems to take the mem on the front of the participle ‫ מגיש‬as a preposition, as in the previous phrase (‫)מאהלי‬, and so renders ‫ מגיש‬as ἐκ προσαγόντων (‘from among those who bring’; NETS). 6.  Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, p. 198. 7.  Tg. has the same expression for ‫‘( שרש וענף‬root and branch’) in Mal. 3.19 (cf. Tg. Isa. 11.10; 14.22), but these occurrences ‘do not inspire confidence in Tg.’s philological competence’ (Cathcart and Gordon, Targum of Minor Prophets, p. 233 n. 18). Tg. also changes ‘tents’ to ‘cities’ (cf. Tg. Hab. 1.6). 8.  b. Sanh. 82a: ‘If he is a scholar, he shall have none awakening [i.e., teaching] among the sages and none responding among the disciples’; b. Šabb. 55b: ‘If an Israelite, he shall have none awakening [i.e., teaching] among the sages and none responding among the disciples’; followed by Rashi and Kimḥi (Rosenberg, ed., Mikraoth Gedoloth, p. 409). 9.  Cf. AV [original 1611 version]: ‘the Master and the Scholler’ (cited in Cathcart and Gordon, Targum of Minor Prophets, p. 233 n. 18). 10.  For my own assessment of these, see Jonathan M. Gibson, ‘Cutting Off “Kith and Kin”, “Er and Onan”? Interpreting an Obscure Phrase in Malachi 2:12’, JBL 133 (2014), pp. 519-37. 11.  If the two verbal roots are to be rendered more literally, I would suggest ‘to rouse oneself, awake’ (‫ )עור‬and ‘to answer, respond’ (‫( )ענה‬cf. BDB, pp. 734, 772, respectively). Hence the translation above: ‘the one who awakes and answers’.

5. ‘Did he not make them one?’

119

hendiadys, which constitutes an idiom for ‘offspring’ – one’s own ‘kith and kin’.12 At 2.13, the LXX misreads ‫ שנית‬for ‫( שנות‬or ‫)?שנאתי‬, rendering it as ἃ ἐμίσουν (‘which I hated’; NETS). For ‫מאין‬, both 4QXIIa and LXX read ‫ ו‬in the place of ‫י‬, presumably vocalizing ‫( ֵמ ָאוֶ ן‬ἐκ κόπων). LXX reads this word with the previous clause (καὶ στεναγμῷ ἐκ κόπων), which in turn necessitates the introduction of ἄξιον to construe the present clause: ἔτι ἄξιον ἐπιβλέψαι εἰς θυσίαν κτλ. (‘Is it still appropriate to look at sacrifice…?’; NETS). With regard to 2.15, Smith speaks for many when he describes it as ‘the most obscure verse in the book of Malachi’13 if not in the OT.14 The opening clause of 2.15 is noteworthy for its obscurity in the MT, causing some to conclude that the text is ‘impossible to make sense of’,15 ‘Unintelligible’,16 ‘almost beyond solution’,17 so corrupt and uncertain ‘that the verses cannot form the basis of any sure conclusion’.18 Gordon Hugenberger, however, tempers the pessimism when he writes that ‘the text and sense of Mal. 2:15 may not be so irrecoverable after all’.19 Certainly the large number of explanations offered by various exegetes ‘invites caution’, as R. Vuilleumier-Bessard states;20 but while the text is ‘rugged like other utterances of Malachi’, W. E. Barnes proposes that ‘there is no sufficient reason for counting the text corrupt’.21 The LXX is of no help here. For example, the LXX confuses ‫ד‬ for ‫ ר‬in ‫ אחד‬and so reads ‫( אחר‬ἄλλος). It then inserts καὶ εἴπατε in v. 15c, making the people, as opposed to the prophet, those who ask the 12.  Gibson, ‘Cutting Off “Kith and Kin”’, p. 533. 13.  Smith, ‘Malachi 2:15a’, p. 204. 14.  Clark and Hatton, Malachi, p. 420: ‘one of the most obscure places in the Old Testament’. 15.  Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, p. 240. 16.  L. Kruse-Blinkenberg, ‘The Pesitta [sic] of the Book of Malachi’, Studia Theologica 20 (1966), pp. 95-119 (102): ‘I think the best thing to do is…to put some dots instead of a translation and to make a note: Unintelligible.’ 17.  Brockington, ‘Malachi’, p. 29. 18.  A. Welch, ‘Malachi, Book of’, in Dictionary of the Bible (ed. James Hastings; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), III, pp. 218-22 (220). 19.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, p. 126. 20.  R. Vuilleumier-Bessard, Agée, Zacharie, Malachie (Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament 9; Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1981), p. 239: ‘Le grand nombre d’explications proposées par différents exégètes nous invite à la prudence’. 21.  W. E. Barnes, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; 2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934), p. 124.

120

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

question ‫( מה האחד מבקש זרע אלהים‬Τί ἄλλο ἀλλ᾿ ἢ σπέρμα ζητεῖ ὁ θεός;).22 Distinctly different is Tg., which, in its expansionist translation, offers an intertextual reading with the Abraham-and-Hagar episode (see below). The issues in 2.16 are not so much textual as exegetical.23 How should ‫ כי‬be understood: as introducing a causal clause24 or a conditional clause (so most early witnesses25)? Is ‫ שנא‬a participle (LXX: μισήσας),26 a verbal adjective acting as a participle,27 a third-person masculine singular qal perfect?28 Should it be emended to ‫?שנאתי‬29 Four options exist for how to read ‫ׁש ַּלח‬: ַ (a) piel infinitive construct (most common);30 (b) third-person singular piel perfect (‫)ׁש ֵּל ַח‬, ִ 31 which corresponds in form to ‫;כ ָּסה‬ ִ (c) piel 32 infinitive absolute (‫;)ׁש ַּלח‬ ַ (d) masculine singular imperative.33 The variety of possible interpretations for each word in 2.16a is reflected in ancient and modern versions, as a cursory glance will show. All the early witnesses to the MT understand initial ‫ כי‬as introducing a conditional clause. The Tg. translation ‘But if you hate her, divorce her’ conforms to the tradition of Jewish exegesis in relation to the divorce question (cf. 4QXIIa).34 Vg. seems to agree with Tg.: cum odio habueris, 22.  For consistency the LXX translates the awkward, negated third-person yiqtol ‫ אל־יבגד‬as second-person ἐγκαταλίπῃς in keeping with the second-person singular pronoun σου. 23.  The only textual variant is found in Syr., which deletes the phrase ‫כי שנא שלח‬ due to a possible inconsistency with Deut. 24.1-4 or because it has a known tendency to omit where it is unsure of meaning (L. Kruse-Blinkenberg, ‘The Book of Malachi According to Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus’, Studia Theologica 21 [1967], pp. 62-82 [68]). 24.  NRSV. So too: Reventlow, Maleachi, p. 146; Lescow, Maleachi, p. 104; Krieg, Maleachi, p. 117; Collins, ‘Malachi 2:16’, p. 39. Petersen, Malachi, p. 268, takes the ‫ כי‬as ‘asseverative’, but does not translate it. 25.  LXX; 4QXIIa; Tg. 26.  Keil, Twelve Minor Prophets, p. 653. 27.  Rudolph, Haggai–Sacharja–Maleachi, p. 270: ‘Denn ich hasse Scheidung’. 28.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, p. 70. 4QXIIa has second-person singular qal perfect, ‫שנתה‬, with the loss of quiescent ‫א‬. 29.  So Smith, Micah – Malachi, pp. 319-20. 30.  Clendenen, ‘Malachi’, p. 367 n. 196, thinks that ‫ שלח‬is best taken as the infinite construct, where it completes the meaning of the preceding perfect (cf. Gen. 8.12; Exod. 2.18; Ps. 109.16): ‘he divorced hatefully’. Or it serves as the result of the perfect: ‘hate so as to divorce’ (Joe M. Sprinkle, ‘Old Testament Perspectives on Divorce and Remarriage’, JETS 40 [1997], pp. 529-50 [539]). 31.  Collins, ‘Malachi 2:16’, p. 37 and n. 10. 32.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, pp. 52, 73. 33.  So 4QXIIa; LXXLW; Vg.; Tg. and most Jewish interpretation. 34.  See b. Giṭ. 90b for interpretations for and against divorce in Mal. 2.16.

5. ‘Did he not make them one?’

121

dimitte (‘If you have hate, send away’), though Jerome interprets the meaning to be that if anyone divorces his wife, except for fornication (excepta causa fornicationis), then they cover their garments with sin.35 LXX takes ‫ שנא‬as a participle ‫( ׂשנֵ א‬μισήσας) which functions causally: ‘But if, since you hate her, you should send her away’ (NETS).36 Given the complexities involved in interpreting Mal. 2.15 and 2.16, space will be devoted below to establishing the MT and the best English translation, before proposing any case of inner-biblical allusion and exegesis. 5.3. Structure and Theme The pattern of declaration, rebuttal and refutation is modified in the unit: Declaration 1 Declaration 2 Rebuttal Refutation

2.10-12 2.13 2.14a 2.14b-16

Yhwh’s declaration of the sin in Israel is extensive, with two parts to his complaint. In the first, the prophet addresses the problem of unfaithfulness in relation to the covenant with their fathers. The people are guilty of mixed marriages which have led to an abomination in Judah and Jerusalem (2.10-11), and for which Yhwh issues a curse on the guilty man (2.12). In the second complaint (2.13), Yhwh accuses the people of covering his altar with tears because he no longer accepts their offerings. The people’s rebuttal is thus delayed until 2.14a, with the refutation from Yhwh following immediately (2.14b-16). 35.  Jerome, Prophetas Minores, p. 925. 36.  Contrary to scholarly consensus, the protasis–apodosis construction is supported by the LXX. This has only recently come to light by David C. Jones, ‘Malachi on Divorce’, Presbyterion 15 [1989], pp. 16-22, who points out that the true meaning of the LXX has been muted by its close association with Tg. and Vg. and by a failure to differentiate between two Greek traditions, one affirming divorce and the other not. LXXLW: ‘If, having hated, divorce! [ἐξαποστείλον] says the Lord the God of Israel, then iniquity will cover his garments, says the Lord Almighty’. LXXBV: ‘If, having hated, you divorce [ἐξαποστείλῃς], says the Lord God of Israel, then iniquity will cover his garment, says the Lord Almighty’. Examples of those who fail to differentiate between the superior and inferior readings of the LXX and who suggest that the LXX has been ‘corrected’ to pull into line with Deut. 24 are: Kaiser, ‘Divorce in Malachi 2:10-16’, p. 78; and David J. Clark, ‘A Discourse Approach to Problems in Malachi 2:10-16’, BT 46 (1998), pp. 415-25 (420).

122

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

The paragraph displays a concentration of keyword repetition more so than any other pericope in the book: ‫( בגד‬2.10, 11, 14, 15, 16); ‫( אחד‬2.10 [2×], 15 [2×]); ‫( רוח‬2.15 [2×], 16); ‫( אשה‬2.14 [2×], 15); ‫( כסה‬2.13, 16); ‫( ברית‬2.10, 14); ‫( חלל‬2.10, 11); ‫( מנחה‬2.12, 13), ‫( שמר‬2.15, 16). The effect of the repetition produces clarity and emphasis. The keywords of ‫ בגד‬and ‫ אחד‬stand out in frequency and distribution; they envelop the pericope and thus highlight the central theme of loyalty in the covenant of the fathers and in the marriage covenant. 5.4. The Mosaic Covenant and the Marriage Covenant Two covenants are explicitly mentioned in this pericope: the covenant with the forefathers (‫ ;ברית אבתינו‬2.10) and the covenant with a marriage partner (‫ ;אשת בריתך‬2.14). Other terms in the passage also support the focus on covenant. Apart from the obvious verb ‫‘( בעל‬to marry’), there is the keyword ‫בגד‬, which ‘is used when the OT writer wants to say that a man does not honour an agreement, or commits adultery, or breaks a covenant or some other ordinance given by God’.37 The root ‫ חבר‬is also suggestive of covenant relations.38 Fellow Israelites are not designated with the term ‫ חבר‬merely on the basis of their involvement in Yhwh’s covenant with Israel; it is used of two parties who enter into agreement (cf. Judg. 20.11; Eccl. 4.10).39 In Mal. 2.10, there is a question over which covenant is being described. The ‘covenant of our fathers’ has been interpreted as the patriarchal covenant or even the Levitical covenant. McKenzie and Wallace argue for the former on the basis that the ‘one father’ of 2.10 is Abraham.40 Also, Deut. 4.31 describes the patriarchal covenant as the ‘covenant of your fathers’ (‫ ;ברית אבתיך‬cf. 7.12-14; 8.18), though this is not decisive (see Jer. 34.13; 2 Kgs 17.15). The interpretation is problematic for the simple reason that Abraham married a foreigner – Hagar (Gen. 16). Graham Ogden contends that the ‘one father’ is Levi, and that the covenant unfaithfulness relates to the priests’ infidelity to the covenant

37.  Seth Erlandsson, ‘‫’ּבגַ ד‬, ָ in TDOT, I, p. 470. 38.  BDB, p. 287: ‘to unite, be joined’. Hill, Malachi, p. 242: connotation of ‘permanent bonding’. 39.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, p. 28. Paul Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant (AnBib 88; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982), pp. 51-53, argues that covenant associations may be present in Dan. 11.6, 23; 2 Chron. 20.35; Hos. 4.17 through the use of ‫חבר‬. In Sir. 7.25 the verb ‫ חבר‬means ‘to marry’. 40.  McKenzie and Wallace, ‘Covenant Themes’, p. 551.

5. ‘Did he not make them one?’

123

with Levi.41 Ogden’s proposal is riddled with problems and has therefore not been adopted by current scholarship. For a start, the shift from secondperson plural in the previous unit (2.1-9) to third-person plural in this unit (2.10-16) indicates that the address to the priests has ended and that the prophet is now addressing a wider audience, and, in particular, all married Judahite men. The Mosaic covenant makes the best sense as the referent for ‫ברית אבתיך‬. Whether one interprets marriage figuratively as referring to the relationship between Yhwh and Israel or literally as referring to marriage between a man and a woman, a ‘mixed marriage’ would constitute the profaning of the Mosaic covenant, either through breaking the first commandment or through contravening explicit Mosaic commands that forbade marriage to foreigners (cf. Exod. 34.12-16; Num. 25.10-13; Deut. 7.3-5). Since the earliest versions, a figurative (religious) interpretation of marriage in this pericope has been proposed. The LXX renders ‫ובעל‬ ‫ בת־אל נכר‬as καὶ ἐπετήδευσεν εἰς θεοὺς ἀλλοτρίους (‘and busied himself with foreign gods’; NETS).42 Many scholars have followed suit, noting that the idea of Israel/Judah committing spiritual adultery with foreign gods is a common theme among the prophets (e.g. Isa. 54.5-6; Jer. 2.2-3; 3.1-20; 31.32; Hos. 1–2; cf. Ezek. 16.60).43 For some, Malachi displays not only similarity with this prophetic theme but also dependence. According to O’Brien, ‘Malachi utilizes this prophetic discourse of idolatry as adultery’.44 For others, this makes most sense because, on their reading, ‫ ברית‬is not used of a marriage between a man and a woman. For example, Isaksson argues that ‘marriage was not a compact entered into by man, wife and Yahweh as witness but a matter of commercial negotiation between two men [husband and father-in-law]’.45

41.  Ogden, ‘Figurative Language in Mal 2.10-16’, pp. 223-30. 42.  This contrasts with the Tg.’s literal translation: ‘and they have chosen to marry wives from the daughters of the nations’. The LXX reading may have been adopted because mixed marriages were common among Hellenistic Jews (Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, p. 269). 43.  E.g. van der Woude, ‘Malachi’s Struggle’, pp. 65-71; Abel Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis XXIV; Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1965), pp. 30-34. 44.  Julia M. O’Brien, ‘Judah as Wife and Husband: Deconstructing Gender in Malachi’, JBL 115.2 (1996), pp. 241-50 (245-46). 45.  Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry, p. 31.

124

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

The literal interpretation, however, is found to be superior for a variety of reasons, not least because the religious interpretation presents an ‘insuperable difficulty’:46 it requires Yhwh to assume the position of wife. The image of Yhwh as wife reverses the normal OT image of the marriage between Yhwh and Israel; instead, Yhwh becomes ‫אשת‬ ‫ נעוריך‬and Israel becomes ‫בעל‬. The shift is theologically ad hoc and unnatural – even O’Brien recognizes the problem. The fact that Yhwh is said to have been a witness (‫ )העיד‬to this marriage further complicates this view (cf. Gen. 31.50). The phrase ‫ אשת בריתך‬is read most naturally as referring to a female spouse, as are the expressions ‫ אשת נעוריך‬and ‫חברתך‬. Hugenberger’s comment on the phrase ‫ אשת בריתך‬is decisive. In Biblical Hebrew, where the nomen regens refers to a person and ‫ ְּב ִרית‬is suffixed or is in construct, ‘the referenced covenant exists between the person(s) indicated by the nomen regens… and the person referred to by the pronominal suffix’ (only in Gen. 14.13; Obad. 7; Pss 25.10; 103.18).47 That two of these four nominal syntagms involve Yhwh as one of the two covenant partners does not undercut Hugenberger’s argument that in Mal. 2.13-16 the marriage covenant between a man and a woman are in view.48 Also strongly suggestive of human marriage in the context are the reference to a man’s offspring (‫)ער וענה‬, his own ‘kith and kin’ being cut off for the sin of intermarriage (2.12), and Yhwh’s desire for godly offspring in the midst of exhortations to avoid marital unfaithfulness (2.15). The issue of divorce is also best read in this context. Finally, as will be seen below, inner-biblical exegesis of the account of the original pair in Gen. 2 adds support to this reading. The literal interpretation of human marriage is the more natural reading of the pericope and contains the least amount of difficulties or anomalies compared to the religious interpretation. However, it should not be understood as eliminating any religious element in the text. The marriage is not to be understood in a religious sense, but the literal marriage to ‘a daughter of a foreign god’ (‫ )בת־אל נכר‬brings with it religious implications. As Marvin Tate comments: ‘Intermarriage with foreign women would have gone hand in hand with the worship of foreign gods’.49 Such an act constituted unfaithfulness to the covenant with the fathers. This reading, however, should be distinguished from those that see two ‘levels’ of meaning in such phrases as ‫בת־אל נכר‬. The phrase does not refer to the 46.  I have borrowed the phrase from Torrey, ‘Prophecy of “Malachi” ’, p. 9. 47.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, pp. 29-30. 48.  Contra Zehnder, ‘Malachi 2:13-16’, p. 235 n. 27. 49.  Marvin E. Tate, ‘Questions for Priests and People in Malachi 1:2–2:16’, Review and Expositor 84 (1987), pp. 391-407 (402).

5. ‘Did he not make them one?’

125

foreign woman and the goddess. The construct relation must be respected: the woman was the daughter of a foreign god, meaning that marriage to the woman inevitably led to worship of that foreign god, a point made clear by Malachi’s use of ‫תועבה‬, which in this context bears the connotation of idolatry. It is a confusion of language and a neglect of the syntax to suggest that ‫ בת־אל נכר‬meant ‘both at once’.50 In sum, the mixed marriage in 2.11 is a human one, but one that had religious implications: it led to the abomination of idolatry in Israel – the worship of a foreign god. 5.5. Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis Before proposing a case of inner-biblical exegesis on the first marriage in Gen. 2, we must first resolve a number of textual, exegetical and syntactical issues in Mal. 2.15 that pertain to the first three clauses of the verse.51 5.5.1. Interpretations of Malachi 2.15 Of the many interpretations proposed for v. 15a, five main ones are presented here: (1) Did he [God] not make them one? (AV)52 (2) Did not One [God] make [them/us/her]? (Vg.)53

This interpretation has the advantage of interpreting the four instances of ‫ אחד‬as referring to the same entity. (3) Did not the one [Abraham] do it? (Tg.)54

50.  Pace Glazier-McDonald, ‘Intermarriage, Divorce’, p. 610. Glazier-McDonald runs into the same problem as O’Brien above, assigning to Yhwh the role of estranged wife. 51.  See Clendenen, ‘Malachi’, pp. 350-51, for a helpful summary of the many issues in Mal. 2.15. 52.  Kaiser, ‘Divorce in Malachi 2:10-16’, p. 75. 53.  Jerome, Prophetas Minores, pp. 923-94; Petersen, Malachi, pp. 194, 203; Hill, Malachi, p. 246. 54.  Common among Jewish commentators, e.g. Rashi and Kimḥi (Rosenberg, ed., Mikraoth Gedoloth, p. 411). For a helpful discussion of the Targumic standpoint, see R. P. Gordon, ‘Dialogue and Disputation in the Targum to the Prophets’, in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Versions: Selected Essays of Robert P. Gordon (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), pp. 338-46 (342-46).

126

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

The argument for an allusion to Abraham in v. 15 is not unreasonable, since ‘Abraham was the great “lone man,” the echad, in the history of Israel’55 (cf. Isa. 51.2; Ezek. 33.24). The expansionist translation of the Tg. is, according to Rashi and Kimḥi, influenced by a tradition that the prophet’s mention of marriage brought to the surface the question of Abraham’s relationship with Hagar.56 The words of v. 15 are thus from the lips of the accused in v. 14: ‘Did not one [Abraham] do it?’ There are two main variants for the opponents’ interjection: (1) Abraham took another wife to produce godly offspring, so why can we not?; and (2) Abraham separated from one of his two wives, so why can we not? In both cases, Malachi is seen to dismiss the argument by analogy with Abraham: ‘His intention was not like your intention [He had a different (‫ )שאר‬spirit (‫( ’])רוח‬so Tg.; Aggadah).57 They (or the prophet) then ask, ‘Now what did the one [Abraham] seek [‫’?]ומה האחד מבקש‬58 And Malachi responds: ‘To have the seed of God [‫’]זרע אלהים‬. Kimḥi suggests two interpretations of this phrase, which are similar to Tg. and Aggadah:59 (a) Abraham did not pursue his lusts by taking an extra wife; he was intimate with Sarah only for the purpose of propagation, to ensure the seed of God (Kimḥi);60 (b) when Abraham married Hagar it was only for the purpose of a godly seed once it was clear that Sarah could not give him an heir. But, nevertheless, he did not deal treacherously with Sarah but only took Hagar with her consent (Kimḥi’s father).61 In other words, although the Judahite men employ Abraham as an example to justify their actions in either scenario, Malachi exposes their argument-by-analogy as illegitimate: Abraham had a different intention (spirit) in taking Hagar: godly offspring, not lust! And when he did take her as his wife he did not send away his first wife, Sarah. 55.  Theodore F. K. Laetsch, Minor Prophets (CCS 3; St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1956), p. 529. 56.  Cathcart and Gordon, Targum of Minor Prophets, p. 234 n. 26, suggest that Syr. (‘the one sought seed from God’) and Vg. (et quid unus quaerit, nisi semen Dei?) may also presuppose the interpretation. 57.  Rosenberg, ed., Mikraoth Gedoloth, p. 411. The Tg.’s reading is similar to the interpretation of the Aggadah. See Cathcart and Gordon, Targum of Minor Prophets, pp. 234-35. 58.  The question may either be from the protesters in response to Malachi saying Abraham was of a different spirit to them, or it may be from the prophet asking why Abraham took a second wife. 59.  Rosenberg, ed., Mikraoth Gedoloth, pp. 411-12. 60.  Kimḥi explains v. 15a as a statement by the prophet: ‘The one [Abraham] did not do [that].’ 61.  Kimḥi quotes his father, who reads v. 15a as a question by the people: ‘Did not the one [Abraham] do this [leave his wife and take her maidservant Hagar]?’

5. ‘Did he not make them one?’

127

(4) No one has done this… (NASB)62

Here ‫ אחד‬is understood with ‫ לא‬as ‘no one’ and the second part means ‘No one has acted like that if he has a remnant of the spirit’.63 ‘Remnant of the spirit’ means ‘any trace of moral sense’ (Moffatt). ‫ האחד‬in the second clause then refers to the same person. Such a one seeks godly offspring. (5) Did God not make one (chosen nation)?64

In line with the assertion of the nation’s oneness in v. 10, some argue that v. 15a is a reaffirmation of the nation’s oneness. 5.5.2. Exegesis of an Obscure Text Having briefly surveyed the five main interpretations, we will now devote some space exegeting the text. (1) ‫אחד‬: Subject or Object? Taking ‫ אחד‬as the subject of the verb ‫ עשה‬provides three possibilities for its referent: Abraham, no one or God. In each case, ‫ אחד‬is read as a pronominal substantive. Though Abraham is counted as numerically one in Isa. 51.2 and Ezek. 33.24, in both texts Abraham is named alongside the cardinal number. This suggests that ‫ אחד‬is more a numerical statement about Abraham than an alternative designation for him. Moreover, for the analogy with Abraham to work properly, strictly speaking, Sarah should be the wife that was sent away, since she was ‫אשת נעוריך‬, not Hagar. On this reading, Hagar would become the ‫אשת נעוריך‬, which makes little sense. Verhoef and Markus Zehnder’s interpretation of ‫ לא אחד‬as ‘no one’ or ‘not even a single one’ is, at first glance, attractive because there is precedent elsewhere for the use of ‫ אחד‬as a substantive negated by ‫לא‬.65 62.  This position is popular among commentators: e.g. Hitzig, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten, p. 424; Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, p. 106; Zehnder, ‘Malachi 2:13-16’, p. 241. 63.  The advantage of this interpretation is that the two uses of ‫( עשה‬vv. 13 and 15) maintain the same subject. 64.  Patrick Fairbairn, The Christian Treasury (Edinburgh: Johnson, Hunter & Co., 1847), p. 187; Thomas V. Moore, A Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), pp. 137-38. 65.  Exod. 8.27[31]; 9.6; 10.19; Num. 11.19; 16.15; 35.30; Deut. 19.15; Josh. 17.17; 23.14; 2 Sam. 13.30; 17.12; 1 Kgs 8.56; Pss 106.11; 139.16 (ketiv); Job 14.4; 31.15. There are only three occurrences of the precise phrase ‫( לא אחד‬Mal. 2.15; Ps. 139.16; Job 14.4).

128

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

However, of the 16 occurrences where ‫ לא‬and ‫ אחד‬appear together – though not always in the exact phrase ‫ – לא אחד‬the word ‫ אחד‬is never used as an indefinite pronominal substantive. In each case the numerical ‘one’ is clearly prominent. In the two cases of the phrase ‫ לא אחד‬besides Mal. 2.15, Ps. 139.16 (ketiv) uses ‫ אחד‬as a cardinal number, while in Job 14.4 it may refer to God as ‘the One’.66 Moreover, in the Hebrew Bible the most common way of forming the indefinite person (‘no one’) is ‫ לא‬+ ‫ איש‬+ perfect, or ‫ לא‬+ perfect, or even ‫ לא‬+ third-person plural perfect.67 Finally, three other factors go against this reading: first, if ‫אחד‬ is the subject then the transitive verb ‫ עשה‬lacks an object; second, it is unlikely that the prophet would refer to ‘no one’ in the first clause by ‘that one’ (‫ )האחד‬in the second clause;68 third, the position of ‫לא־אחד‬ preceding the verb in its clause and the subsequent question introduced by ‫ מה‬suggest that v. 15a should be understood as a question. This leaves the option of either reading ‫ אחד‬as the subject (God: the One) of the verb ‫ עשה‬or as the object of the verb ‫( עשה‬one: marital oneness). Admittedly, whichever exegetical decision one makes, the same sense is intended: a rhetorical question about God’s creation of the first human pair: ‘Did God not make them one?’ or ‘Did not One [God] make them?’ Although an identity of subject is maintained in v. 15a and 15c if ‫ אחד‬is the subject of the first clause,69 the interpretation adopted here is that ‫ אחד‬is best taken as the object of the verb ‫עשה‬. This means that God is the implied subject of ‫עשה‬, which the logic of v. 14 strongly suggests. Taking ‫ אחד‬as the subject requires an elided object which makes for an awkward clause; it is more natural to understand ‫ אחד‬as a fronted object of the verb ‫ עשה‬that gives emphasis to the oneness of the marriage relationship just previously mentioned. The immediate context suggests that marital unity is the focus, with the mention of Yhwh’s witnessing to the covenant made between the man and his wife (v. 14). Either interpretation of ‫ אחד‬allows for the inner-biblical connection to God’s creation of man and woman, but the interpretation proposed here is more supportive of such a connection, as will be demonstrated below.

66.  See Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, pp. 130-31, for an extended discussion on these particular texts. 67.  Ibid., p. 130. 68.  Van der Woude, ‘Malachi’s Struggle’, p. 69. 69.  In this case, the definite article on ‫ האחד‬also points back to the description of God in v. 10 as ‫ אב אחד‬and ‫לא אחד‬.

5. ‘Did he not make them one?’

129

(2) ‫ולא־אחד עשה‬: Question or Statement? The LXX presents v. 15a as a statement, though its rendering is an example of Fehlerkonsequenz: reading ‫ אחד‬as ‫אחר‬, the LXX opts for ‘and no one else did it’ (καὶ οὐκ ἄλλος ἐποίησεν).70 As shown above, reading ‫ אחד‬as an indefinite pronominal substantive is unwarranted in this verse and thus rules out the LXX statement. The clause may still be read as a statement, however, but with a different meaning, as Rudolph proposes: ‘He [God] has not created an individual person, but “flesh (from his flesh) as a supplement” for him’.71 It seems better, however, to view the clause as a question in parallel with the question of v. 15c: ‫ומה האחד‬. Some scholars emend ‫ ולא‬to ‫הלא‬ (or ‫ )הלוא‬in order to turn the clause more explicitly into an interrogative (cf. Mal. 1.2; 2.10).72 It can, however, grammatically constitute a question as it stands (cf. Mal. 1.8).73 As F. H. W. Gesenius notes: ‘frequently the natural emphasis upon the words is of itself sufficient to indicate an interrogative’.74 The unmarked interrogative clause is introduced relatively frequently with ‫( ו‬e.g. Jonah 4.11) or ‫( )ו(לא‬e.g. Exod. 8.22[26]). Inverted word order is also prominent in this construction,75 something

70.  Van der Woude, ‘Malachi’s Struggle’, pp. 69-70, following the LXX: ‘A foreigner does not do this, as long as he has a remnant of spirit. What is such a foreigner? One who wants godly children!’ In other words, the glossator reminded his people that, as with Mal. 1.11, the foreigners lead by example: a foreigner would not undermine the religious and national unity of his community by marrying someone from outside his community. On this reading, ‫ זרע אלהים‬refers to ‘descendants who worship the same gods as their fathers revere’ (p. 70). 71.  Rudolph, Haggai–Sacharja–Maleachi, p. 268: ‘Er hat ja nicht ein Einzelwesen erschaffen, sondern für es’. This is Rudolph’s literal translation. He later emends the text a little (see p. 270). Cf. also Rudolph, ‘Zu Mal 2:10-16’, p. 86. 72.  Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, p. 199. 73.  Contra Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 260, who dismisses a rhetorical question in 2.15 on the grounds that 1.8 (‫ )אין רע‬does not provide two examples of unmarked rhetorical questions, but adaptations of the priestly instruction (‘That is no evil!’). For him, the interrogative ‫ ה‬is present in 1.8 to mark such questions. But, as noted earlier, this requires an awkward change in person. Weyde fails to see that Malachi demonstrates flexibility in his style in other areas. For example, there is gapping and non-gapping of ‫ אין‬within a short space of a few verses (cp. 2.9 with 2.13). If Malachi can demonstrate a flexibility of style with other grammatical and syntactical features, then why not here in regard to an unmarked rhetorical question? 74.  GKC § 150a. 75.  Joüon-Muraoka § 161a.

130

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

that is present in v. 15a if one reads ‫ אחד‬as the object of ‫עשה‬.76 Thus, Malachi may simply have fluctuated between styles in stating a rhetorical question. But the omission of the interrogative ‫ ה‬may not simply be a case of stylistic variation; rather, if H. G. Mitchell’s analysis and contention are correct, the absence of the interrogative ‫ ה‬induces an element of incredulity, sarcasm, or even irony into the clause.77 In the context of exhorting men to be faithful to their wives, this makes the best sense. (3) ‫ושאר רוח לו‬: What Is the Best Interpretation of This Obscure Clause? A number of interpretations exist for the clause in v. 15b: (a) ‫ רוח‬refers to the Spirit of God: ‘No one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit’ (NASB). (b) ‫ רוח‬is a reference to the breath of life (cf. Gen. 2.7), the ‘life force’ or ‘life principle’:78 ‘And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit’ (AV). This could be read in reference to the remnant of life in created man,79 or it could refer to life in relation to God. The idea with the latter interpretation is that God made Adam and Eve one flesh but he had a remnant of the breath of life, ‘overflowing power’, such that ‘God could have given to one man two or three wives’.80 But God only gave one wife because monogamy was God’s standard for producing godly offspring. (c) ‫ רוח‬means intelligence, sound reason (cf. Num. 27.18; Deut. 34.9; Josh. 5.1; 1 Kgs 10.5; Isa. 19.3; Ps. 51.12), or moral character (Isa. 57.15;

76.  For an in-depth discussion of the unmarked interrogative question in Biblical Hebrew, see Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, pp. 144-46. 77.  H. G. Mitchell, ‘The Omission of the Interrogative Particle’, in Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Memory of William Rainey Harper (ed. Robert F. Harper, Francis Brown and George F. Moore; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1908), I, pp. 115-29, as would also be the case in 1.8. 78.  Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, pp. 240-41. Hill, Malachi, pp. 245-46, conjectures that the cryptic line may be a partial quote from a contemporary proverb, song or even funeral dirge. 79.  Petersen, Malachi, p. 194, ‘Has not (the) One made (us), his vigorous remnant?’ Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, p. 199, makes a number of emendations – ‫ ולא‬to ‫הלא‬, and ‫ּוׁש ָאר‬ ְ to ‫וַ ּיַ ְׁש ֵאר‬, and ‫ לֹו‬to ‫ – ָלנּו‬to produce the translation: ‘Has not the same God given us breath and sustained us? And what does he desire? Seed of God!’ Locher, ‘Malachi 2,10-16’, p. 256, reads it negatively: the one who has acted this way will not have a remnant of life, that is, will be cut off (v. 12). Similarly, Redditt, Malachi, p. 173. 80.  Calvin, Zechariah and Malachi, p. 556. Similarly, Kaiser, ‘Divorce in Malachi 2:10-16’, p. 76. In this case, ‫ ו‬on ‫ שאר‬is taken to be concessive and ‫ לו‬relates to Yhwh as the implied antecedent.

5. ‘Did he not make them one?’

131

66.2; Ps. 32.3; Prov. 11.13):81 ‘But no one does it (as a rule) in whom there is a remnant of spirit (intelligence, sound judgment). Yet what does the one (do)? He is seeking godly offspring.’82 Verhoef explains, ‘In other words the person who seeks a godly offspring has spiritual insight and does not violate the marriage as a divine institution’.83 (d) ‫ רוח‬carries sexual connotations: ‘creative potential’, that is, the man who intermarries is denied the ability to procreate, ‘he has not even a remnant of the spirit [loses his vigour] that comes from Yahweh’.84 (e) ‫ רוח‬refers to Yhwh’s spiritual blessing, which he could have extended to other nations (‘for the residue of the Spirit was with God’). Yet he chose one nation in order to make a seed of God, ‘a nation which he should train to be the repository of his covenant and the stock of his Messiah’.85 To introduce polytheism and idolatry into the one nation was to break up this oneness. (f) Emend ‫ ְׁש ָאר‬to ‫ׁש ֵאר‬, ְ which also involves shifting the conjunctive waw to ‫רוח‬: ‘Both flesh and spirit are his’ (NRSV). Among commentators, the emendation was first proposed by Albin van Hoonacker, who saw a clear reflection of Gen. 2.23-24 in Mal. 2.15: ‘Did he not make “them” to be a single [being], which has its flesh [and] its life? And what does this unique [being] seek? A posterity of God!’86 Rudolph agreed, making some additional emendations: he repointed ‫ ְׁש ָאר‬to ‫ ְׁש ֵאר‬and then emended it to ‫מ ְׁש ֵארֹו‬. ִ To make the line even clearer, he inserted ‫ ִאם ִא ָּׁשה ִּכי‬after ‫ ָע ָׂשה‬and also emended ‫רּוח‬ ַ to ‫רוַ ח‬.ֶ He thus translated: ‘He has not created one individual person [Einzelnen], but the woman from his flesh as a supplement [Ergänzung] for him.’87

81.  BDB, p. 925, § 8. 82.  Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, pp. 276-77; cf. also Shields, ‘Syncretism and Divorce’, p. 81. Alternatively, the clause could be understood in a sarcastic manner, as proposed by Schreiner, ‘Mischehen – Ehebruch – Ehescheidung’, p. 217: ‘And no one does (any such thing), so long as he has an ounce of sense; for what does such a one seek (who does any such thing): Children! So guard (for yourselves) your sense, and let no one treat the wife of his youth faithlessly.’ 83.  Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, p. 277. 84.  Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, pp. 107-109. Thus Glazier-McDonald also reads ‫ בקש‬with sexual connotations. 85.  Moore, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, p. 137; cf. also Fairbairn, The Christian Treasury, p. 187. 86.  So van Hoonacker, Douze Petits Prophètes, pp. 726, 758. 87.  Rudolph, Haggai–Sacharja–Maleachi, p. 270.

132

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

(g) Weyde presents a slight difference on this general view of van Hoonacker and Rudolph. He takes ‫ אחד‬as a reference to man, follows the revocalization by van Hoonacker and Rudolph of ‫ ְׁש ָאר‬to ‫ׁש ֵאר‬, ְ but then resists further alteration, whether relocating the initial ‫ ו‬to ‫ רוח‬or repointing ‫ רוח‬itself. For him, the phrase ‫ּוׁש ֵאר רּוח‬ ְ is analogous to ‫ער וענה‬, where two complementary terms have one referent. ‘Flesh’ and ‘spirit’ are complementary terms denoting a human, in this context referring to the woman in the creation account. He thus translates: ‘Not one [not only man] did he [Yhwh] make, but flesh with spirit [woman] for him [man].’88 Weyde explains the reason for Malachi’s choice of ‫ שאר‬over ‫בשר‬ (which would more closely point to the Genesis story) along the following lines. While the terms ‫בשר‬, ‫ נשמת חיים‬and ‫ רוח‬are used in the OT more generally for living creatures/humans (cf. Gen. 2.7, 23; 6.17; 7.15, 22), Weyde argues that in some contexts ‫ שאר‬appears in parallel with ‫בשר‬ (‘flesh and body’; Prov. 5.11) or in construct relationship with it (‫שאר‬ ‫ ;בשרו‬Lev. 18.6; 25.49) to convey kinship.89 Thus the word can not only mean ‘flesh’, ‘but can also be applied to two persons (or more) who are near relatives, and belong to the people of God’.90 So, through the use of ‫ אחד‬and the word pair ‫ שאר‬and ‫רוח‬, Malachi has alluded to the man and woman of Gen. 2.23-25, respectively.91 (h) Hugenberger takes the antecedent of ‫ לו‬to be ‫ אחד‬and not Yhwh,92 diffusing the point that ‘remnant of the spirit’ (in relation to God) lacks analogy elsewhere in the OT.93 He interprets ‫ רוח‬to be ‘the spirit of God which resides in man’ (cf. Ps. 104.29; Job 32.8; Dan. 5.12; 6.4), which is also synonymous with the breath of life (Gen. 2.7; Ps. 104.29). The advantage is that this reading maintains the same meaning for ‫ רוח‬in vv. 15 and 16. Hugenberger sees a possible analogy with Num. 11.25, where Yhwh takes some of the spirit that was upon Moses and puts it on the seventy elders.94 Though Hugenberger does not explicitly spell out the meaning of Mal. 2.15b, a reasonable guess is that, for him, when God made Adam and Eve as one, he gave his spirit to them, that is, he breathed his life-giving spirit into them. God’s spirit belonged to the couple as a 88.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 262. 89.  Ibid., pp. 262-63. 90.  Ibid., p. 263. 91.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, pp. 264, 266, also suggests an allusion to Deut. 7.3 and Yhwh’s command to avoid mixed marriages in the phrase ‫ומה האחד‬ ‫מבקש‬, but there are no lexical or syntactical links. 92.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, p. 137. 93.  So Smith, Malachi, p. 54. 94.  A parallel acknowledged also by Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, p. 276.

5. ‘Did he not make them one?’

133

couple. Hugenberger acknowledges difficulties with this position, and that the OT nowhere speaks of a married couple possessing the divine spirit. But he references Hag. 2.5 as one of a number of texts that speak about the community of Israel possessing the divine spirit, which may provide an appropriate analogy. The issue still remains, however, as to what it means for the couple to have ‘the remnant of the spirit’. Here Hugenberger draws on Hellmuth Frey’s interesting proposal that Malachi, having already drawn attention to creation and the marriage of Adam and Eve, now also obliquely alludes to Genesis 6, where God determined that his holy-giving spirit would not continue to strive with mankind (Gen. 6:3) as a result of the marital infractions described in that context.95

The decision on the span of human life is tied to some kind of incorrect behaviour concerning marriage. So here, the Judahite men who have divorced their wives have only a residue of his spirit which they must now guard.96 For Hugenberger, herein lies the connection between the various occurrences of ‫ רוח‬in Mal. 2.15: concern for one’s life is equivalent to fidelity to one’s spouse. In other words, to guard one’s spirit (‫ונשמרתם‬ ‫ )ברוחכם‬is to be faithful to one’s wife. Assessment of the Various Interpretations of ‫ושאר רוח לו‬ (a) The idea of God’s Spirit being ‘left over’ is foreign to the OT. Smith is right to point out that ‫ שאר רוח‬is hardly a Hebrew expression and lacks all analogy, while ‫ וישאר רוח‬could only mean ‘and left (“kept”) spirit (“breath”) over’ and not ‘and has maintained breath’, as Wellhausen preferred.97 Also, the end of the verse refers to ‘your spirit’, which suggests that the spirit is connected to the human spirit. (b) Reading ‫ שאר רוח‬as a remnant of life force or a remnant of the breath of life is problematic in a number of ways. First, strictly speaking, it demands that ‫ אחד‬refer to Eve, and not to the marriage: ‘Did he not make one [wife for Adam]?’ If this is the case, then the feminine form 95.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, p. 137, following Hellmuth Frey, Das Buch der Kirche in der Weltwende: Die kleinen nachexilischen Propheten (Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments 24; 5th ed.; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1963), p. 160. Similarly, Niccacci, ‘Interpretation of Malachi’, p. 88 n. 68. Zehnder, ‘Malachi 2:13-16’, p. 239 n. 37, rejects this view on the basis that the differences between the two passages are too significant to consider an allusion to be at play. 96.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, p. 137. 97.  Smith, ‘Malachi 2:15a’, p. 54.

134

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

‫ אחת‬or even the expression ‫ אשה אחת‬are conspicuous by their absence. Secondly, the context of 2.10-12 and 2.13-16 presupposes monogamous marriage and so a subtle counter to polygyny appears out of place. In 2.10-12, Malachi condemns exogamous marriage rather than polygyny. It would be rather strange for Malachi to argue here that Yhwh’s Spirit was not exhausted after the creation of the original pair. Indeed, if polygyny was common, then there would have been little reason for a Jewish man to divorce his first wife in order to marry a pagan woman.98 Moreover, it is divorce rather than polygyny that is the focus of Malachi’s prohibition: ‫כי שנא שלח‬. (c) Although ‘intelligence, sound judgment’ is a possible meaning for ‫ רוח‬in Num. 27.18 and Deut. 34.9, E. Ray Clendenen notes that this meaning does not easily fit the other passages that Verhoef and Zehnder mention.99 Additionally, the parenthetic ‘as a rule’ (Verhoef) or ‘any such thing’ (Stefan Schreiner) is unsupported in the text. A positive description of those who behave appropriately seems out of place in the surrounding context. To credit some Judahite men with good intentions here seems odd. The sarcastic reading of Schreiner makes less sense because it is unlikely that the prophet would dare to call the offspring of mixed marriages ‫זרע אלהים‬. (d) Beth Glazier-McDonald’s interpretation of ‫ שאר רוח‬as ‘sexual’ remains questionable. Nowhere in the OT is ‫ רוח‬associated with ‘man’s reproductive potential’,100 and ‘remnant of spirit’ is an unlikely way to refer to the power of procreation. (e) Although Mal. 2.10 does allude to the creation of Israel, nowhere is Israel referred to as ‫האחד‬, ruling out the interpretation of Thomas Moore and Patrick Fairbairn. (f) The ancient versions all read unpointed ‫ שאר‬as ‘remnant’ and not ‘flesh’.101 These versions diverge from the MT on other aspects of Mal. 2.15, but not this one. Given the universal testimony among the versions to the difficulty of the expression, this uniform witness is remarkable. Moreover, the repointing from ‫ ְׁש ָאר‬to ‫ ְׁש ֵאר‬carries with it at least one or two more additional changes: having ‫ ְׁש ֵאר‬and ‫ רוח‬in parallel may create a neat semantic parallelism of ‘flesh and spirit’, but the syntax is not in its 98.  Even the post-exilic biblical corpus does not flag polygyny as a problem. 99.  Clendenen, ‘Malachi’, p. 352. Similarly, BDB and HALAT do not support the reading of ‘sense’ or ‘understanding’. The interpretation also clashes with the use of ‫ רוח‬in v. 15e, where Malachi calls on his audience to guard their spirits. 100.  Clendenen, ‘Malachi’, p. 353. 101.  LXX: ὑπόλειμμα; Vg.: residuum.

5. ‘Did he not make them one?’

135

favour: the conjunctive ‫ ו‬needs to be removed from its initial position on ‫ שאר‬and relocated to the front of ‫רוח‬. Since ‫ שאר‬is commonly found in the construct state in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Isa. 10.19; 11.11, 16; 28.5; Neh. 11.20; 1 Chron. 11.8; 2 Chron. 24.14), it requires no emendation here. (g) Weyde’s proposal is overly strained. There are more simple ways for Malachi to allude to the original pair than ‫( אחד‬man) and ‫שאר רוח‬ (woman).102 It requires repointing ‫שאר‬, and interprets ‫ רוח‬as a reference to the wife, which creates some awkwardness for Malachi’s repeated exhortation to the Judahite husbands to guard (‫ )שמר‬their own spirits (‫)רוח‬. It is better to read ‫ רוח‬with a similar or connected meaning throughout the verses. (h) While Hugenberger’s proposal is among the more plausible of the various options, and moves in the right direction, some weaknesses surface on close examination. If ‫ רוח‬refers to the ‘life-spirit’ of the men who were violating the marriage covenant, then a second-person pronoun would seem to fit better: ‘with a remnant of spirit belonging to you [‫’?]לך‬ The allusion to Gen. 6.3 is also tentative at best: the text has ‫ ידון‬in relation to ‫רוח‬, whereas Mal. 2.15 employs ‫ ;שאר‬and the incorrect behaviour in Gen. 6 seems not to involve divorce. A better option is available: ‫ לו‬refers back to ‫אחד‬: ‘and a remnant of the spirit for that oneness’, which applies even in the couple who have divorced.103 Clendenen suggests that what is in view is ‘not a threat but a reality that was being neglected’. In other words: ‘Marriage is not only a union of flesh that can be dissolved but one of the divine Spirit, who “remained,” maintaining a unity that survived human efforts to sever it… That is, in spite of the treachery there was yet a remnant of the spiritual bond.’104 (4) ‫ומה האחד מבקש זרע אלהים‬: Where Does the Question End? There is some debate over where the question ends in v. 15c-d. Does ‫ מה האחד‬constitute the question (so masoretic accentuation) or does ‫מה‬ ‫ האחד מבקש‬constitute the question (so traditional reading). On Clendenen’s reading, which follows the masoretic accentuation, ‫ מבקש‬goes with the following words (‫)זרע אלהים‬, not with the rhetorical question (‫)ומה האחד‬,105 and thus in both cases ‫ אחד‬refers to marital oneness. In other words, the 102.  Indeed, alluding to Adam as ‫ אחד‬would be unique in the Hebrew Bible. 103.  Under influence from Clendenen, ‘Malachi’, p. 350. Similarly, ESV: ‘with a portion of the Spirit in their union’. 104.  Clendenen, ‘Malachi’, p. 355. 105.  Ibid., pp. 355-56.

136

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

purpose of marital oneness is to seek godly offspring.106 The advantage with this reading is that ‫ אחד‬has the same reference in both occurrences, and the definite article (‫ )ה‬in 2.15c is simply anaphoric. However, whether one reads 2.15c-d according to the masoretic accentuation,107 or according to the traditional reading,108 there is the same goal: ‫זרע אלהים‬. The word ‫ אלהים‬may be an attributive adjective (‘godly seed’109) or it could be used in the sense that the seed originated with God or belonged to him. In either case, ‫ זרע אלהים‬refers to godly children that are the result of faithful unity in the marriage of man and woman. The phrase is connected to the wider theme of faithfulness in Malachi.110 The theme of godly seed is a familiar one in the OT narrative (Gen. 21.12; 24.3-4; 27.46–28.4), and is picked up again at the end of Malachi where the hearts of fathers will be turned back to children and the hearts of children to their fathers (3.24[4.6]). 5.5.3. ‘Did he not make them one?’: Malachi 2.15 and Genesis 2.23-24 It has been necessary for the exegesis of the first four clauses of Mal. 2.15 to be detailed and extensive in order to establish firmly whether an investigation into inner-biblical interpretation of Gen. 2 is legitimate. Having interpreted the plain sense of Mal. 2.15 to be referring to marriage and godly offspring, we may now assess whether Gen. 2 forms the textual backdrop to Malachi’s ethical defence of human marriage. Mal. 2.15 ‫וּמה ָה ֶא ָחד‬ ָ ‫רוּח לֹו‬ ַ ‫וּשׁאָר‬ ְ ‫א־א ָחד ָע ָשׂה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וְ ל‬ ‫רוּח ֶכם וּ‬ ֲ ‫ֹלהים וְ נִ ְשׁ ַמ ְר ֶתּם ְבּ‬ ִ ‫ְמ ַב ֵקּשׁ זֶ ַרע ֱא‬ ‫אַל־יִבגֹּד׃‬ ְ ‫עוּריָך‬ ֶ ְ‫ְב ֵא ֶשׁת נ‬

Gen. 2.23-24 ‫אָדם זֹאת ַה ַפּ ַעם ֶע ֶצם ֵמ ֲע ָצ ַמי‬ ָ ‫אמר ָה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ ‫וּב ָשׂר ִמ ְבּ ָשׂ ִרי ְלזֹאת יִ ָקּ ֵרא ִא ָשּׁה ִכּי ֵמ ִאישׁ‬ ָ ‫ֻל ֳק ָחה־זֹּאת׃‬ ‫ת־אמֹּו וְ ָד ַבק‬ ִ ‫ת־אָביו וְ ֶא‬ ִ ‫ב־אישׁ ֶא‬ ִ ָ‫ל־כּן יַ ֲעז‬ ֵ ‫ַע‬ ‫ְבּ ִא ְשׁתֹּו וְ ָהיוּ ְל ָב ָשׂר ֶא ָחד׃‬

106.  The same understanding of the text can be held even if ‫ האחד‬is taken as a reference to God. The idea of Yhwh being ‘one’ and the people being one is introduced in v. 10. 107.  NIV (1984): ‘And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring’. NIV (2011) reverted to the traditional reading: ‘And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring’. 108.  NRSV: ‘And what does the one God desire? Godly offspring’. 109.  So most English translations. 110.  Hill, Malachi, p. 247: ‘descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who love him, obey him, and hold fast to him (Deut. 30.19-20)’.

5. ‘Did he not make them one?’

137

Lexical and Syntactical Parallels Although a large number of scholars see an allusion to Gen. 2 in Mal. 2.15, albeit with differing interpretations of the latter, Angelo Tosato and Adam van der Woude, among others, have registered objections to a connection between the two texts.111 They argue that, for the allusion to work, a number of conjectural textual emendations in the verse are required (as noted above). Their objection carries weight: from a strict lexical perspective there is little to link Mal. 2.15 and Gen. 2.23-24. The only common lexeme is ‫אחד‬, a word which out of context could lead to any number of texts in the Hebrew Bible. Attempts to strengthen the connection between the two texts by the suggested revocalization of ‫ ְׁש ָאר‬to ‫( ְׁש ֵאר‬so van Hoonacker) are not necessarily successful: Gen. 2 contains the word ‫ בשר‬not ‫ שאר‬to describe the woman’s common essence with the man (v. 23) and the unity that they experience in marriage (v. 24). Additionally, ‫ רוח‬in Mal. 2.15 does not exactly recall ‘the breath of life’ (‫ )נשמת חיים‬in Gen. 2.7. A final difference emerges in relation to the key verbs of each text. Malachi uses ‫ עשה‬to describe God’s making of the couple as one, whereas Gen. 2 contains ‫ יצר‬and ‫ בנה‬to describe the creation of the individual man and woman (vv. 7, 22), with no mention of him ‘making’ (‫ )עשה‬them one. On the surface, these observations invite caution over a connection between the texts. Nevertheless, a closer examination of the texts, as well as examples of Malachi’s previous inner-biblical exegesis (in particular 1.2-5), suggest that the link is not so strained. First, Gen. 1 does use the verb ‫ עשה‬for the creation of mankind, male and female (v. 26), and in ch. 2 the same verb is employed to describe the making of a helper for the man (v. 18), a text surely related to Mal. 2.15, where God is said to have made (‫ )עשה‬the man and the woman to be one (‫)אחד‬. ‘By analogy, Malachi may imply in 2:15 that the One God who made Adam and Eve likewise made them to be “one” and hence, on penalty of their lives (2:15bα, cf. Gen. 2.23), requires that they should act as “one” (cf. Gen. 1:27 and 2:24).’112

111.  Angelo Tosato, ‘Il Ripudio: Delitto e Pena (Mal 2:10-16)’, Biblica 59 (1978), pp. 548-53, cited in Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, p. 142; van der Woude, ‘Malachi’s Struggle’, p. 69. Others who disagree with finding an allusion to Gen. 2.23-24 here are: Reventlow, Maleachi, pp. 146, 149; Redditt, Malachi, p. 173; Petersen, Malachi, pp. 194, 203; Shields, ‘Syncretism and Divorce’, p. 80. Schreiner, ‘Μischehen – Ehebruch – Ehescheidung’, p. 226, dismisses an allusion to Gen. 2 in Mal. 2.15, but recognizes the possibility of an allusion to Gen. 2.23 in the wider context of Mal. 2.15. 112.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, p. 148.

138

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Secondly, analysis of Malachi’s inner-biblical interpretation earlier in his oracle reveals that a significant number of lexemes do not have to be present in order for there to be a link to an earlier text. For example, in 1.2-5 the only connection to the Jacob–Esau narrative in Gen. 25–27 is the names of the twins. The key verbs ‫ אהב‬and ‫ שנא‬appear in the Genesis story, but not with Yhwh as subject; they are Malachi’s reinterpretation of Yhwh’s choice between the twin boys. It is my contention that the same kind of inner-biblical exegesis is at work here in Mal. 2.15. The prophet has alluded to the first marriage and re-presented the creation account of the one-flesh-unity between the first man and woman, in his own unique way, applying it to his current context. He has chosen to allude to the account with a single word – ‫ – אחד‬just as earlier he alluded to the divine choice in the tent of Rebekah (Gen. 25.23) by way of the two names ‫יעקב‬ and ‫עשו‬. On this reading of Mal. 2.15, ‫ אחד‬could parallel ‫ בשר אחד‬in Gen. 2.24, ‘for what could be more natural in a disputation on covenantbreaking divorces than for the prophet to return to the originating passage where the biblical norm for marriage had been set forth?’113 Malachi’s second clause in 2.15 (‫ )שאר רוח לו‬simply reflects his expansive reinterpretation of the first holy matrimony in a context of divorce – just as earlier he reinterpreted the election of Yhwh’s choice of Jacob over Esau with the unique terminology of ‫ אהב‬and ‫שנא‬. Malachi applies the reality of marital oneness to the context of divorce: a remnant of the spirit was given to the ‘bondedness’ of human marriage. As he has shown with the covenant with Levi, Malachi exhibits freedom in alluding to earlier traditions and describing them in terms hitherto unknown in the Hebrew Bible. Contextual and Thematic Parallels A closer look at the context and theme of the two texts reveals strong resonances between them. First, although the creation imagery of Mal. 2.10 is directly related to the creation of Israel, it nevertheless prepares for an allusion to Genesis. There is thus substantial verbal and conceptual linkage between the two verses.114 Secondly, the conceptual framework of marriage in Mal. 2.13-16, where the onus is on the man to ensure its unity and stability, replicates that of Gen. 2. There the wife is called the man’s ‘helper’ (‫)עזר‬, but there is also the importance of the man’s loyalty to her. Marriage constitutes a loyalty shift from his parent’s family to that of his new family which is established with his wife (v. 24). The incentive for this loyalty is grounded in the fact that the woman is ‘bone of his bones’ and ‘flesh of his flesh’ 113.  Kaiser, ‘Divorce in Malachi 2:10-16’, p. 75. 114.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, p. 148.

5. ‘Did he not make them one?’

139

(v. 23);115 for this reason they are to become ‘one flesh’ (v. 24).116 Such loyalty may be captured in Malachi’s description of the wife as ‫חברתך‬ (Mal. 2.14). As Walter Kaiser writes, ‘Perhaps there is an echo of the “one flesh” of Gen. 2:24 in the word “companion,” which means “united, or joined together”’.117 Further, as with Gen. 2, Malachi places the obligation on the man to ensure the unity of the marriage: ‫ונשמרתם ברוחכם ובאשת‬ ‫( נעוריך אל־יבגד‬Mal. 2.15; cf. 2.16). Thirdly, both passages share the conceptual idea of offspring in their wider contexts: in Gen. 1.26-27 the couple are to multiply and produce seed (cf. Gen. 3.15), and, similarly, in Mal. 2 offspring are in the wider purview: first in the alliterative idiom ‫ ער וענה‬in v. 12, which stands for offspring, and secondly, in the phrase ‫ זרע אלהים‬in v. 15, which refers to the offspring of a faithful marriage. Fourthly, the broader context of Malachi supports the inner-biblical connection to Genesis. Malachi’s closing exhortation to ‘remember the Law of Moses’ brings into its orbit texts such as Gen. 2.118 So far there have been a number of allusions to the Pentateuch, with one focused on Genesis (Mal. 1.2-5; cf. Gen. 25–36; Mal. 1.8; cf. Lev. 22.17-25; Deut. 15.21; Mal. 2.2; cf. Deut. 28.20; Mal. 1.6–2.9; cf. Num. 6.23-27). A further connection, then, to Genesis follows the pattern already exhibited in the book thus far. Malachi is prone to appealing to ‘the ancient standards and common convictions’.119 5.5.4. Interpretive Significance In this text Malachi alludes to the creation account of the one-fleshunity between the first man and woman – expanding on the oneness of marriage with unique terminology – before applying it to his contemporary audience. Malachi’s rhetorical question derives from and alludes to Gen. 2 by means of the lexeme ‫ אחד‬and the verb ‫עשה‬. Malachi’s 115.  Hugenberger (ibid., pp. 164-65, 167) argues that the expression ‘finds a close parallel in texts such as 2 Sam. 5:1 and 1 Chron. 11:1, where it is employed as a covenant-ratifying declaration formula’ (p. 167). 116.  For a helpful discussion on what exactly ‘one flesh’ denotes, see ibid., pp. 160-63: ‘In summary, it appears likely that “they become one flesh” refers to the familial bondedness of marriage which finds its quintessential expression in sexual union’ (p. 163). 117.  Walter C. Kaiser, Jr, Malachi: God’s Unchanging Love (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), p. 70. 118.  See Chapter 9, for a defence of the originality and integrality of the final verses to Malachi. 119.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, p. 166.

140

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

inner-biblical allusion and exegesis functions in the context of an address to Judahite men who were forsaking their covenant vows with the wives of their youth and marrying foreign women. The actualization of the allusion works to communicate that just as Yhwh made the original pair to be ‘one’ in their marriage covenant, so the men of Malachi’s day must recognize that God made them one with the wives of their youth. For this reason, they are to guard their spirits and be faithful to their wives. The allusion to Gen. 2 works to expose covenant infidelity in relation to marriage (and subsequently in relation to the Mosaic covenant too); but it has another function in that it serves as a reminder and motivation to strive to maintain the spiritual bond in marriage, since a remnant of the spirit has been given to marital ‘oneness’. In this regard, Yhwh reaffirms the continuity of the marriage (and Mosaic) covenant(s) and calls for fidelity on the part of husbands, and thus, more broadly, of Israel. 5.5.5. Relationship Between Malachi 2.16 and Deuteronomy 24.1-4 Malachi’s exhortatory discourse on covenant fidelity in marriage is brought to a close with his enigmatic words on divorce (2.16): ‫כי שנא שלח‬. If one grants that the literal interpretation of human marriage is correct for 2.15, with an inner-biblical connection to Gen. 2, then immediate innercanonical tensions arise in Mal. 2.16. Weyde captures the dilemma well: By this actualization and interpretation of the Genesis tradition it may seem that Mal 2:16a expresses a total rejection of divorce. But then a tension appears between this view and the legal stipulations in Deut 24.1ff, according to which divorce is permitted. Is it likely that Mal 2:16 modifies the law?120

The problem cannot be avoided, since in other parts of Malachi the prophet is indebted to the Deuteronomic perspective, and thus ‘any interpretation which considers Mal. 2:16 to prohibit divorce will have to give an account for this apparent radical departure from that dependency’.121 Rex Mason states the case succinctly: ‘If the passage does contain an outright rejection of divorce it stands alone in the Old Testament’.122 The same may also be said when one compares Malachi with the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The former discourages divorce, while the latter encourage it (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13). There have been at least two approaches to the relationship between Mal. 2.16 and Deut. 24.1-4. 120.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 274. 121.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, p. 50. 122.  Mason, Prophetic Tradition, p. 245.

5. ‘Did he not make them one?’

141

5.5.5.1. Malachi 2.16 Contradicts Deuteronomy 24.1-4 Some of the early witnesses to Mal. 2.16 appear to recognize the innercanonical tension between Malachi’s stance on divorce and Deuteronomy’s apparent leniency. As a result, a smoothing of the text seems to have occurred. Russell Fuller suggests that ‫ שלח‬in 4QXIIa is plausibly read as a masculine singular piel imperative: ‘divorce’.123 The Tg. (‫ארי אם סנית‬ ‫ )לה פטרה‬and Vg. (cum odio habueris, dimitte) are in agreement, as is LXXLW: ‘If, having hate, divorce! [ἐξαποστείλον] says the Lord the God of Israel’. These renderings suggest that a contradiction with Deut. 24.1-4 was being avoided.124 As Fuller observes: ‘The fact that three witnesses [4QXIIa; LXXLW; Tg.], two quite old, preserve texts that promote divorce probably indicates that this question was of interest to the communities that copied and transmitted these texts’.125 5.5.5.2. Malachi 2.16 Supersedes Deuteronomy 24.1-4 John Collins articulates this position when he writes: ‘In this matter Malachi goes far beyond the law of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which takes the practice for granted’.126 For Verhoef, Malachi supports the ‘stricter stipulations’ on marriage commitments of the post-exilic era, apparently in connection with the prohibition of marriages with Canaanites and heathen people in general (Exod. 34.16; Deut. 7.3),127 while, for Pierre Grelot, Malachi’s presentation on marriage and divorce is in keeping with Ezra and Nehemiah, both of whom go ‘far beyond the tolerances of the Torah’.128 Without stating it explicitly, other writers arrive at the same position. So L. Kruse-Blinkenberg: ‘In my opinion, the meaning of [Mal] ii. 16 is

123.  Fuller, ‘Text-Critical Problems’, p. 55. 124.  Hence why Syr. perhaps omitted the words ‫ כי שנא שלח‬due to a possible inconsistency with Deuteronomy. 125.  Fuller, ‘Text-Critical Problems’, p. 56. Among commentators, see Reventlow, Maleachi, pp. 149-50. 126.  John J. Collins, ‘The Message of Malachi’, The Bible Today 22 (1984), pp. 209-15 (212). So too: Craigie, Malachi, pp. 236-37; Achtemeier, Nahum – Malachi, p. 182; Ogden and Deutsch, Malachi, p. 98. Also Hill, Malachi, p. 251: ‘There is, however, a sense in which the prophet brings a new and more rigorous understanding to the post-exilic Hebrew community, in an attempt to correct abuses resulting from liberties taken in the application of the Mosaic divorce laws (Deut 24:1-4).’ (Hill also sees an allusion to Deut. 24.1-4 at play.) 127.  Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, p. 280. 128.  Pierre Grelot, Man and Wife in Scripture (New York: Herder & Herder, 1964), p. 69.

142

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

that Yahweh hates divorce’.129 Alviero Niccacci agrees: ‘an interpretation of the passage as an absolute prohibition of divorce is perfectly acceptable’.130 According to Smith, 2.16 presents ‘the strongest and most outspoken condemnation of the divorce evil that the Old Testament offers’.131 5.5.6. Interpretations of Malachi 2.16 ‫כי־שנא שלח‬ Discerning the correct relationship between Mal. 2.16 and Deut. 24.1-4 turns on how one interprets the first three words of the Mal. 2.16: ‫י־ׂשנֵ א ַׁש ַּלח‬ ָ ‫ּכ‬. ִ These words have been notoriously difficult to interpret, with a number of proposals in current existence. The main problem attending v. 16 is not the meaning of the individual terms. It is generally accepted that ‫ שלח‬refers to divorce (Deut. 21.14; 22.19, 29; 24.1, 3, 4; Isa. 50.1; Jer. 3.1, 8),132 while ‫ שנא‬in Biblical Hebrew does not express divorce itself but rather an underlying dimension of the divorce: hatred.133 The real issue is how these words are to be parsed. Seven main interpretations exist. The following presentation will start with the least likely and move toward the more probable. (1) ‘For I hate stripping off…and putting a pagan device on one’s garment.’134 Besides the inadequacies of the religious interpretation of Mal. 2.10-16, I. G. Matthews’s proposal is problematic because it requires a number of emendations: he has to change ‫ שנא‬to ‫שנאתי‬, citing the LXX in partial 129.  Kruse-Blinkenberg, ‘Book of Malachi’, p. 103, who thinks that the author of Malachi seems to protest against the dissolving of mixed marriages in his time, contra Ezra and Nehemiah. 130.  Niccacci, ‘Interpretation of Malachi’, p. 88 n. 69. Niccacci is following David Volgger in his contention that Deut. 24.1-4 concerns engagement rather than actual marriage (‘Dtn 24,1-4 – Ein Verbot von Wiederverheiratung?’, BN 92 [1998], pp. 85-96 [95]). 131.  Smith, Malachi, p. 56. 132.  Other terms for divorce include: ‫כריתות‬, ‘certificate of divorce’, literally, ‘cutting off’ (Deut. 24.3; Isa. 50.1; Jer. 3.8); ‫גרש‬, ‘to expel, put away’ (Lev. 21.7, 14; 22.13; Num. 30.10; Ezek. 44.22). 133.  Raymond Westbrook, ‘The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4’, in Studies in Bible, 1986 (ed. Sara Japhet; Scripta Hierosolymitana 31; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986), pp. 387-405 (401). ‫ שנא‬describes the kind of divorce that occurred; that is, because one hated, one divorced. Later in the Aramaic of the Elephantine papyri ‫ שנא‬became equated with divorce (D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism [New York: Arno, 1973], p. 366). 134.  I. G. Matthews, Malachi (Philadelphia: Judson, 1935), p. 27, who built on the views of Torrey and Winckler.

5. ‘Did he not make them one?’

143

support (ἀλλὰ ἐὰν μισήσας),135 and then he must delete the divine speech formula ‫אמר יהוה אלהי ישראל‬.136 Matthews claims that the ‘stripping off’ may have been one of the features in Tammuz worship, but there is in fact no evidence for such cultic practice. (2) ‘To the wife of your youth, one must not be unfaithful because he hated, sending (her) away’137 On this reading the ‫ כי‬relates to the positive form of the last main clause in v. 15, that is, ‘one must not be unfaithful because he hates’, rather than ‘one must not be unfaithful. Because/for he hates…’ John Elwolde thinks that this reading avoids the problem of an unmarked shift in person for ‫שנא‬ (third-person traitor to first-person God) or unmarked shift in third-person subject (from traitor to God).138 Elwolde takes ‫ ַׁש ַּלח‬as a piel infinitive absolute (cf. Isa. 58.6).139 The problem with Elwolde’s novel interpretation is that it is based on a relatively rare usage of ‫כי‬,140 as is the use of the infinitive absolute ‫ ַׁש ַּלח‬to denote a new action after a finite verb.141 (3) ‘For he who neglects (his Jewish wife) puts forth his hand (in hostility)’142 Van der Woude reads ‫ שלח‬as an abbreviation of the idiomatic expression ‫( שלח יד‬cf. 2 Sam. 6.6; Obad. 13b), which designates a ‘morally detestable hostile act’.143 For him, this tallies exactly with the next clause – ‫וכסה חמס‬ ‫ – על־לבושו‬which he understands as an idiomatic expression for a violent 135.  ‫ שנאתי‬is unlikely given that the aorist participle μισήσας has an implicit second-person subject. 136.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 266, presents a reasonable case that the expanded speech formula emphasizes that it is the God of Israel who rejects divorce and not a foreign god. It alludes to the idea that God is the Father and Creator of his people (v. 10a): ‘The phrase, then, may underscore the gravity in the admonition against being faithless to the wife of one’s own (= God’s) people (v. 15bβ)’. 137.  Elwolde, ‘Mal. 2.16a’, p. 104. 138.  Ibid., p. 103. 139.  Ibid., p. 104. In two other places, the piel infinitive absolute is pointed as ‫( ַׁש ֵּל ַח‬Deut. 22.7; 1 Kgs 11.22). 140.  Elwolde, ‘Mal. 2.16a’, p. 105 n. 39, provides only eight such cases out of the 975 uses of ‫( כי‬Lev. 18.26-27; 1 Kgs 15.3-4; Isa. 1.11-12; Pss 49.18-19; 71.9-10; 109.1-2; Job 20.18-19; 2 Chron. 28.20-21), with only Lev. 18.26-27 showing some recognition of the usage in the English translation (NASB). 141.  Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible ‫ ַׁש ַּלח‬after a finite verb is found only in Isa. 58.6. 142.  Van der Woude, ‘Malachi’s Struggle’, p. 71. 143.  Ibid.

144

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

act. Thus, according to van der Woude, the issue for Malachi is the ‘subordination and maltreatment of married Jewish women because of foreign heathen wives’.144 The interpretation is thus in line with Deut. 24.1 and paves the way for Ezra’s struggle for a pure community. The proposal is unconvincing, however, because it requires the assumption of an ellipsis of the direct object ‘hand [‫ ’]יד‬as well as an ellipsis of a prepositional phrase, something akin to ‘against her [‫’]בה‬. The proposal especially depends on ‫ שלח‬serving as an abbreviation for ‫ ;שלח יד‬but as Hugenberger points out, van der Woude’s two cited texts (2 Sam. 6.6; Obad. 13b) are unpersuasive.145 Moreover, van der Woude’s reconstruction of the social circumstances of Judah’s mixed marriages demands an inventive mirror reading: ‘By marrying foreign women Judeans tried to share the privileges of their alien overlords. The common cause they made with them gave rise to severe tensions between a well-to-do class and the poor in one and the same religious community.’146 For van der Woude, this explains the disloyalty between a man and his brother and the profaning of the covenant of the forefathers. But this interpretation remains speculative at best. There is no hint of a class struggle in the text. Furthermore, in the ANE it was in fact the second wife who was accorded a secondary status (e.g. Gen. 16). (4) ‘For the one who hates – divorce!’147 The form ‫ ַׁש ַּלח‬may be either a piel imperative or a piel infinitive construct. The imperative meaning may be ascribed to ‫ שלח‬without revocalization. Several commentators believe that the present text is the result of secondary reworking to align it to Deut. 24.1-4.148 Jewish interpretation has understood ‫ שלח‬as an imperative. So, according to Rashi, who acknowledges a division of opinion on Mal. 2.16 in the Talmud tractate b. Giṭṭin, it is kinder to divorce a hated wife than it 144.  Ibid. 145.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, pp. 55-56. 146.  Van der Woude, ‘Malachi’s Struggle’, p. 67. 147.  So most ancient versions: LXXLW; Vg.; and Tg. Cathcart and Gordon, Targum of Minor Prophets, p. 235, call the Tg. reading a straightforward example of ‘“converse translation”…by which MT is made to say the opposite of what is intended and so, in this case, conform to rabbinic orthodoxy in relation to the divorce question’. Rashi affirms the interpretation, acknowledging a division of opinion in the Talmud (b. Giṭ. 90b: ‘R. Jehuda said, “If you hate her, you should put her away [‫)’”]אם שנאת[ה] שלח‬. So too Kimḥi (Rosenberg, ed., Mikraoth Gedoloth, p. 412). 148.  E.g. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, p. 241; Botterweck, ‘Schelt und Mahnrede’, p. 185.

5. ‘Did he not make them one?’

145

is to keep her in marriage, causing her anger and pain. Schreiner agrees in taking ‫ שלח‬as an imperative, but views the exhortation as the lesser of two evils: divorce is preferable to polygyny. He interprets the imperative to divorce as a ‘plea for monogamy’.149 He translates the ‫ כי‬as conditional, as with the Jewish interpretation, but then reads the ‫ ו‬as contrastive: ‘If one no longer loves, divorce…; but such a one covers his garment with shame’.150 Schreiner suggests that the ‘greater’ sin of intermarriage entailed a three-fold violation of the law: adultery (Exod. 20.14; Deut. 5.18; 22.22-29), marriage to pagan wives (Exod. 34.16; Deut. 7.3), and sin against the children, since the offspring of mixed marriages were prohibited from the congregation (Deut. 23.4[3]); cf. Neh. 13.1). Wanting to uphold the ideal of monogamy, Malachi encourages divorce of the heathen wife as ‘the choice of the lesser evils’.151 The advantage of Schreiner’s interpretation is that the text is not emended and Mal. 2.10-16 appears to align well with Deut. 24.1-4, especially with the keyword ‫שנא‬. Nevertheless, Schreiner’s explanation is unconvincing for several reasons. (a) The awkward shift from third person (‫ )שנא‬to second person (‫ )שלח‬remains. (b) The apodoses of conditions introduced by ‫ כי‬are just as often marked (typically by a weqatal) as they are unmarked. Thus, some explanation is required as to why the unmarked apodosis with ‫ שלח‬triumphs over the marked apodosis with ‫וכסה‬, as implied by LXX‫א‬ABQV.152 (c) There is no grammatical clue that the second clause is introduced by a contrastive ‫ו‬. (d) Most problematic is the inherent contradiction of encouraging divorce and then critiquing the action within the same sentence. Employment of the ‘lesser-of-twoevils’ logic constitutes special pleading – ‘an ethical calculus which seems rather too modern for the fifth century B.C. in any case’.153 Finally, (e) neither in Ezra nor in Nehemiah is there any indication that polygyny was a problem in the post-exilic community; the social reconstruction by Schreiner therefore remains speculative.

149.  Schreiner, ‘Mischehen – Ehebruch – Ehescheidung’, p. 207: ‘Plädoyer für die Monogamie’. 150.  Ibid., pp. 217-18: ‘Wenn einer nich mehr liebt, Ehe scheiden…; aber der jenige besudelt mit Schande sein Gewand’. 151.  Ibid., p. 226: ‘die Wahl des kleineren Übels’. 152.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, p. 61. 153.  Ibid., p. 62.

146

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

In sum, the problem with (4) is that it runs counter to the overall message of Mal. 2.10-16. Verse 15 has just concluded that the people of Judah are to guard their spirits against that which breaks the oneness of marriage. The reading of the earliest versions which render ‫ שלח‬as an imperative is best explained as an attempt to reconcile the words with Deut. 24.1-4, which permitted divorce. (5) ‘But you say, “The Lord God of Israel says, ‘Let anyone who hates his wife divorce her’”’154 David Clark, who follows the imperatival reading of ‫שלח‬, puts the words into the mouth of the people as they (mis)quote Yhwh. The reading falters for the same reasons as (4). (6) ‘For I/he/the One hate(s) divorce’155 (NRSV; NJPSV) On this reading ‫ שלח‬is a piel infinitive construct with normal function: ‘for I/he hate(s) sending away’.156 ‫ שנא‬is a third-person singular qal perfect in the MT but it may be revocalized as a participle or as an infinitive construct. If one takes ‫ שנא‬as a participle and also ‫ שלח‬as a piel infinitive construct acting as a substantive, then the resulting clause reads: ‘For [I am] hating divorce’.157 If ‫ שנא‬is a participle, then the assumed subject may be Yhwh, expressed by an elided ‫ אני‬or ‫הוא‬. The omission of an intended personal pronoun is possible in the Hebrew Bible,158 though in relation to the first-person singular (‫ )אני‬it is found only twice outside of Mal. 2.16 (Hab. 1.5; Zech. 9.12), making it unlikely here.159 If Yhwh is the intended subject by means of an implied ‫הוא‬,160 then the sequence of ‘for he hates divorce’ and ‘says Yhwh the God of Israel’ is awkward, though 154.  Clark and Hatton, Malachi, p. 425; Clark, ‘Problems in Malachi 2:10-16’, pp. 422-24. 155.  Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, p. 241. 156.  Though the use of ‫ שנא‬followed by an infinitive occurs only here and Ps. 101.3. 157.  So Rudolph, Haggai–Sacharja–Maleachi, p. 270, who argues that ‫ ָׂשנֵ א‬is a verbal adjective with the meaning of a participle, ‘Denn ich hasse Scheidung’. Taking ‫ ָׂשנֵ א‬as a participle is theoretically possible for a verb with ‘stative’ vocalization (so Collins, ‘Malachi 2:16’, p. 37 n. 6), but is otherwise unattested for this verb. 158.  See GKC § 116s, which adds, ‘But all these passages are more or less doubtful’. Cf. Joüon-Muraoka § 154c. 159.  Rudolph, Haggai–Sacharja–Maleachi, p. 270, suggests that ‫ אני‬fell out by haplography in the presence of ‫שנא‬. Smith, Micah – Malachi, pp. 319-20, 324, opts for ‫שנאתי‬. 160.  In this case the antecedent subject would then be ‫ האחד‬from v. 15 (so Hill, Malachi, p. 250).

5. ‘Did he not make them one?’

147

Malachi has used a similar sequence in 1.9.161 Moreover, the main problem of Yhwh being the subject of ‫שנא‬, whether by an implied ‫ אני‬or ‫הוא‬, is the issue of a change of subject between ‫ שנא‬and ‫וכסה‬. Some change ‫ וכסה‬to the infinitive construct (BHS) or infinitive absolute and add the preposition ‫ כ‬to avoid the problem – ‫ּכ ַכ ֵּסה‬: ְ ‘as if someone covers his garment with violence’.162 There are a number of difficulties with this interpretation. (a) Omission of the explicit independent pronoun when there are no other first-person pronouns in the context leaves the interpretation suspect. (b) Taking ‫ שנא‬as a verbal adjective functioning as a participle, as Rudolph does, is unattested. It seems best to take ‫ שנא‬as a third-person singular qal perfect. (c) Such a bold statement of divine opposition to divorce seems to run counter to the laws governing divorce (Deut. 22.19, 29; 24.1-4), to the regulations governing marriage to a divorced woman (Lev. 21.7, 14; 22.13; Num. 30.10; Ezek. 44.22) and even to those passages where Yhwh initiates divorce (Isa. 50.1; Jer. 3.8).163 (d) The statement seems to run counter to the practice of Ezra who encourages divorce in the case of mixed marriages. (e) The reading ‘overlooks a considerable body of evidence, both biblical and extrabiblical, where hate in the context of divorce is a frequently specified attribute of one of the marriage partners’.164 (f) If this text did discourage divorce one would expect to see it employed in the DSS, NT or even rabbinic literature. Thus, Joe Sprinkle concludes that the traditional rendering ‘is an impossible translation of the MT, one that can only be retained on the basis of conjectural emendation without any manuscript support’.165 A better solution is at hand. 161.  To relate ‫ שנא‬to ‫ האחד‬in v. 15 in order to explain Yhwh as the subject is overly strained; ‫ האחד‬is too far removed. 162.  Rudolph, Haggai–Sacharja–Maleachi, p. 270: ‘wie wenn jemand sein Gewand mit Gewalttat bedeckt’. Adopted by Petersen, Malachi, p. 195. Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, pp. 278-79, does not emend ‫ כסה‬but infers a relative pronoun. 163.  Elwolde, ‘Mal. 2.16a’, p. 97, perhaps overstates his case when he writes: ‘Indeed, there is no statement whatsoever in the Old Testament that actively discourages divorce, with the exception of Sir 7:26’. Similarly: David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), p. 23: ‘Several passages speak about divorce, but none of them condemns or even discourages it’. However, Instone-Brewer fails to see that Mal. 2.16 could be the first. 164.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, p. 65. 165.  Sprinkle, ‘Divorce and Remarriage’, p. 539. So too Collins, ‘Malachi 2:16’, p. 36.

148

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

(7) ‘If he/one hates and divorces…then he/one covers his garment with violence’166 On this reading, Mal. 2.16a functions as a conditional (‫ )כי‬protasis with ‫ וכסה‬introducing the apodosis. It is common in the Hebrew Bible for a sentence-initial participle to function as a casus pendens with a weqatal introducing the apodosis.167 Hugenberger provides a helpful insight into how ‫ כי‬functions here: ‘When ‫ ִּכי‬functions as a causal subordinating conjunction, the main clause most commonly precedes the ‫ ִּכי‬clause. When ‫ ִּכי‬functions as a conditional particle introducing a protasis, the apodosis, or independent clause, most often follows the ‫ ִּכי‬clause.’168 The order of clauses in v. 16 favours the conditional reading of ‫כי‬.169 On the conditional reading, ‫ שנא‬may be taken as a third-person singular qal perfect, or as a verbal adjective functioning as a participle with a thirdperson singular pronoun implied from the context. In either case, the subject is the divorcing man or, more exactly, the impersonal subject: ‘if one hates/hating…’170 Likewise, ‫ שלח‬may be parsed as a piel infinitive construct or infinitive absolute that functions as a finite verb,171 or as a piel 166.  Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, pp. 82, 109-11. 167.  See W-O’C § 32.2.3; 32.2.5; GKC § 116w-x. 168.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, p. 67. See A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Function and Interpretation of ‫ כי‬in Biblical Hebrew’, JBL 105 (1986), pp. 193-209 (197-99). 169.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, p. 70, notes that there are over fifty examples in the Hebrew Bible of ‫ כי‬being used in a conditional manner (e.g. Gen. 4.24; Exod. 21.14, 37; 22.9[10], 13[14], 15[16]; Lev. 11.38; 13.40). In a significant number the apodosis is marked by a weqatal (e.g. Exod. 23.5; Lev. 13.16; 25.25; Num. 27.8). 170.  There are some who interpret the verse as above but read ‫ כי‬as non-conditional: ‘For he has hated, divorced…and covered his garment in injustice’ (Westbrook, ‘Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage’, p. 403). C. John Collins translates ‫ כי‬as causal and the weqatal ‫ וכסה‬as future to the action of the first two asydeton perfects: ‘For he hated, divorced [his wife], and he will [consequently] cover his garment with wrongdoing’ (‘Malachi 2:16’, p. 39). (Collins thinks that ‫ כי‬+ qatal cannot introduce a conditional clause, though see Num. 5.20; Job 7.13-14 [GKC § 159aa.]). Weyde’s approach is similar, but he reads the two clauses in parallel: ‘For I hate divorce and covering…’ (Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 272). These causal readings ignore the weighty points by Hugenberger above. 171.  So van Hoonacker, Douze Petits Prophètes, p. 728, improving on a suggestion by Georg H. A. Ewald, The Prophets of the Old Testament: Commentary on the Books of Haggai, Zakharya, Mal’aki, Yona, Barûkh, Daniel (trans. J. Frederick Smith; London: Williams & Norgate, 1881), V, p. 82, who repointed the verb as an infinitive absolute: ‘he that hateth by putting away [‫’]ׁש ֵּל ַח‬. ַ Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, pp. 52, 73, points out that interpreters may have overlooked this

5. ‘Did he not make them one?’

149

perfect.172 In any case, ‫ שלח‬is seen in close relationship with ‫שנא‬: ‘If one hates [and] divorces’173 or ‘If one hating, divorces’.174 Numerous advantages accompany this reading: (a) it has the support of at least one of the ancient versions (e.g. LXXBV); (b) it requires no emendation of ‫ שנא‬or ‫ וכסה‬and keeps the same subject across the two clauses, creating a reasonable protasis–apodosis construction; (c) it is not in conflict with the divine speech formula; (d) more broadly, it connects with the wider testimony of marriage/divorce texts that involve the word ‫( שנא‬Gen. 29.31; Deut. 21.15-17; 22.13, 16; 24.3; Judg. 15.2; Isa. 60.15; Prov. 30.23);175 (e) the reading eliminates any clash with Deut. 24.1-4, since what is being denounced is not divorce per se, but divorce for aversion. Rather than weakening the protest against marital infidelity, the possibility because the piel infinitive absolute of ‫ שלח‬appears twice elsewhere as ‫( ַׁש ֵּל ַח‬Deut. 22.7; 1 Kgs 11.22): ‘in the Piel conjugation the infinitive construct often provides an alternative form for the infinitive absolute’ (cf. GKC § 52o; JoüonMuraoka § 52c). A piel infinitive absolute functioning as a finite verb, in this case, a perfect, is common in direct discourse, and thus may lend support to this reading. Cf. W-O’C § 35.5.2; Joüon-Muraoka § 123x. 172.  The piel perfect ‫ ִׁש ֵּל ַח‬is erroneously pointed: the attested form is ‫( ִׁש ַּלח‬eleven times in the qatal and eight times in weqatal). Collins, ‘Malachi 2:16’, p. 37, and n. 10, presents a slight variant. He proposes that ‫ ַׁש ַּלח‬is a piel perfect, ‘with a rare but not wholly unattested a in the first syllable rather the usual i’. See, for example, the piel form in Gen. 41.51 (‫ )נַ ַּׁשנִ י‬and the pilpel form in Num. 24.17 (‫)וְ ַק ְר ַקר‬. (Joüon-Muraoka § 52a notes that the Hebrew piel perfect ‫ ִק ֵּטל‬derives from an ancestral form ‫ק ַּטל‬.) ַ On this reading, then, there are two asyndetic perfects following the ‫כי‬, that is, two perfects denoting past actions without a conjunction (cf. Judg. 5.27). Collins takes the two verbs to describe ‘consecutive parts of a composite action’, which, according to him, the same two verbs do in Deut. 24.3: he ‘hated her’ and that led to his ‘divorcing her’ (p. 38 n. 11). 173.  So Jones, ‘Malachi on Divorce’, p. 17: ‘If [anyone] hating [his wife] divorces [her], says the Lord God of Israel, then violence covers his garments, says the Lord of hosts’. 174.  Cf. LXXBV takes ‫ שנא‬as a participle ‫( ׂשנֵ א‬μισήσας) which functions causally: ‘But if, since you hate her, you should send her away’ (NETS). To be more accurate, there are two Greek traditions, one affirming divorce and the other not. LXXLW: ‘If, having hated, divorce! [ἐξαποστείλον] says the Lord the God of Israel, then iniquity will cover his garments, says the Lord Almighty’. LXXBV: ‘If, having hated, you divorce [ἐξαποστείλῃς], says the Lord God of Israel, then iniquity will cover his garment, says the Lord Almighty’. See Jones, ‘Malachi on Divorce’, pp. 16-22. 175.  Jacob J. Rabinowitz, ‘Marriage Contracts in Ancient Egypt in the Light of Jewish Sources’, HTR 46 (1953), pp. 91-97. Reuven Yaron, ‘The Restoration of Marriage’, JJS 17 (1966), pp. 1-11, rejects the biblical example of Deut. 21.15, cited by Rabinowitz. Raymond Westbrook’s analysis of parallels to the phrase ‘he

150

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

prophetic word against divorce is given more force by its definite focus: divorce for aversion (‘hatred’) is a radical breach of covenant loyalty; indeed, it constitutes ‘violence’ against one’s spouse.176 ‫וכסה חמס על־לבושו‬ Reading the first clause as conditional creates a protasis–apodosis relation between the two main clauses of v. 16: ‘If one hates and divorces…then he covers his clothes with violence’.177 The advantage of this reading is that the subject of ‫ כסה‬is then taken to be the husband.178 The phrase in v. 16c is unique to the OT and is generally understood as a figure of speech. A number of possibilities exist for the meaning of the word ‫לבוש‬: (1) a metonym for the marriage covenant itself (Deut. 22.30[23.1]; Ezek 16.8; Ruth 3.9),179 though the texts cited use ‫‘( כנף‬wing, corner’) not ‫;לבוש‬ (2) a metaphor for wife, but this usage of ‫ לבוש‬is without support in the Hebrew Bible;180 (3) a reference to the person or their inner character (Jer. 2.34; Zech. 3.3-5; Pss 73.6; 109.18).181 Since marriage is a public affair, as is the picture of covering the altar with tears, it seems best to take this clause as a reference to one’s character (3): to divorce on the basis of hatred is to mark one’s character publicly.182 hates [and] divorces’ in ANE texts leads him to propose that the phrase served as ‘a standard legal idiom’ for ‘he divorces without adequate grounds’ (‘Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage’, pp. 398-403). 176.  Jones, ‘Malachi on Divorce’, p. 22. 177.  The protasis–apodosis construction can also be maintained if one takes ‫ כי‬as causal (so ESV). 178.  In support: Tg. and Syr. LXX and Vg. take ‫ חמס‬as the subject. Either option is possible with little difference in meaning. The verb ‫ כסה‬is attested with ‫ על‬+ object and simple noun as an ‘accusative of means’, i.e., ‘to cover someone with something’ (cf. 2.13; Ezek. 24.7; Job 36.32), or the simple noun can function as the subject, i.e., ‘something covers someone’ (cf. Num. 16.33; Keil, Twelve Minor Prophets, p. 653). The previous use of the verb in Mal. 2.13 tilts the decision in favour of the former. 179.  Jones, ‘Malachi on Divorce’, p. 19; Moore, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, p. 139; Kaiser, Malachi, p. 74. 180.  Contra Hitzig, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten, p. 425, who, on the basis of Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, p. 288, interpreted ‫ לבוש‬as ‘wife’ after the analogy of the Arabic libāsum (cf. Qur’an, Sura II, p. 183: ‘Wives are your garment and you are theirs’). The passage in the Qur’an, however, dates over a thousand years after Malachi. 181.  Hill, Malachi, p. 253; Collins, ‘Malachi 2:16’, pp. 38-39, and n. 15. 182.  Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, p. 280, is correct to see a repetition of the verb ‫ כסה‬from v. 13, but he goes too far in linking it to cultic activities in v. 16, where ‫ חמס‬refers to the splashed blood of hypocritically sacrificed animals.

‫‪151‬‬

‫ ’?‪ 5. ‘Did he not make them one‬‬

‫‪Having established the best reading of Mal. 2.16, we may now proceed‬‬ ‫‪to an investigation into its relationship with Deut. 24.1-4.‬‬ ‫‪5.5.7. ‘If he hates and divorces’: Malachi 2.16 and Deuteronomy 24.1-4‬‬ ‫‪Deut. 24.1-4‬‬ ‫וּב ָע ָלהּ וְ ָהיָ ה ִאם־לֹא‬ ‫ִכּי־יִ ַקּח ִאישׁ ִא ָשּׁה ְ‬ ‫י־מ ָצא ָבהּ ֶע ְרוַ ת ָדּ ָבר‬ ‫א־חן ְבּ ֵעינָ יו ִכּ ָ‬ ‫ִת ְמ ָצ ֵ‬ ‫יתת וְ נָ ַתן ְבּיָ ָדהּ וְ ִשׁ ְלּ ָחהּ‬ ‫וְ ָכ ַתב ָלהּ ֵס ֶפר ְכּ ִר ֻ‬ ‫יְתה‬ ‫ִמ ֵבּיתֹו׃ וְ יָ ְצאָה ִמ ֵבּיתֹו וְ ָה ְל ָכה וְ ָה ָ‬ ‫אַחרֹון וְ ָכ ַתב‬ ‫וּשׂנֵ אָהּ ָה ִאישׁ ָה ֲ‬ ‫ישׁ־אַחר׃ ְ‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫ְל ִא‬ ‫יתת וְ נָ ַתן ְבּיָ ָדהּ וְ ִשׁ ְלּ ָחהּ ִמ ֵבּיתֹו‬ ‫ָלהּ ֵס ֶפר ְכּ ִר ֻ‬ ‫ר־ל ָק ָחהּ‬ ‫אַחרֹון ֲא ֶשׁ ְ‬ ‫אֹו ִכי יָמוּת ָה ִאישׁ ָה ֲ‬ ‫א־יוּכל ַבּ ְע ָלהּ ָה ִראשֹׁון‬ ‫לֹו ְל ִא ָשּׁה׃ ל ֹ ַ‬ ‫ר־שׁ ְלּ ָחהּ ָלשׁוּב ְל ַק ְח ָתּהּ ִל ְהיֹות לֹו ְל ִא ָשּׁה‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁ ִ‬ ‫י־תֹוע ָבה ִהוא‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫אַח ֵרי ֲא ֶשׁר ֻה ַטּ ָמּאָה ִכּ‬ ‫ֲ‬ ‫אָרץ ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ‫ת־ה ֶ‬ ‫ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה וְ לֹא ַת ֲח ִטיא ֶא ָ‬ ‫ֹלהיָך נ ֵֹתן ְלָך נַ ֲח ָלה׃ ס‬ ‫יְ הוָ ה ֱא ֶ‬

‫‪Mal. 2.10-16‬‬ ‫ֲהלֹוא אָב ֶא ָחד ְל ֻכ ָלּנוּ ֲהלֹוא ֵאל ֶא ָחד ְבּ ָראָנוּ‬ ‫אָחיו ְל ַח ֵלּל ְבּ ִרית ֲאב ֵֹתינוּ׃‬ ‫דּוּע נִ ְבגַּ ד ִאישׁ ְבּ ִ‬ ‫ַמ ַ‬ ‫וּביר‪‎‬‬ ‫תֹוע ָבה נֶ ֶע ְשׂ ָתה ְביִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ִ‬ ‫הוּדה וְ ֵ‬ ‫ָבּגְ ָדה יְ ָ‬ ‫אָהב‬ ‫הוּדה ק ֶֹדשׁ יְ הוָ ה ֲא ֶשׁר ֵ‬ ‫וּשׁ ָלםִ ִכּי ִח ֵלּל יְ ָ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ת־אל נֵ ָכר׃‬ ‫וּב ַעל ַבּ ֵ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫יַ ְכ ֵרת יְ הוָ ה ָל ִאישׁ ֲא ֶשׁר יַ ֲע ֶשׂנָּ ה ֵער וְ עֹנֶ ה‪‎‬‬ ‫וּמגִּ ישׁ ִמנְ ָחה ַליהוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃ פ‬ ‫אָה ֵלי יַ ֲעקֹב ַ‬ ‫ֵמ ֳ‬ ‫ת־מזְ ַבּח‪‎‬‬ ‫וְ זֹאת ֵשׁנִ ית ַתּ ֲעשׂוּ ַכּסֹּות ִדּ ְמ ָעה ֶא ִ‬ ‫ל־ה ִמּנְ ָחה‬ ‫יְ הוָ ה ְבּ ִכי וַ ֲאנָ ָקה ֵמ ֵאין עֹוד ְפּנֹות ֶא ַ‬ ‫וְ ָל ַק ַחת ָרצֹון ִמיֶּ ְד ֶכם׃‬ ‫ל־מה ַעל ִכּי־יְ הוָ ה ֵה ִעיד ֵבּינְ ָך‪‎‬‬ ‫וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם ַע ָ‬ ‫אַתּה ָבּגַ ְד ָתּה ָבּהּ‬ ‫עוּריָך ֲא ֶשׁר ָ‬ ‫וּבין ֵא ֶשׁת נְ ֶ‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫יתָך׃‬ ‫וְ ִהיא ֲח ֶב ְר ְתָּך וְ ֵא ֶשׁת ְבּ ִר ֶ‬ ‫וּמה ָה ֶא ָחד‪‎‬‬ ‫רוּח לֹו ָ‬ ‫וּשׁאָר ַ‬ ‫א־א ָחד ָע ָשׂה ְ‬ ‫וְ ל ֹ ֶ‬ ‫רוּח ֶכם‬ ‫ֹלהים וְ נִ ְשׁ ַמ ְר ֶתּם ְבּ ֲ‬ ‫ְמ ַב ֵקּשׁ זֶ ַרע ֱא ִ‬ ‫אַל־יִבגֹּד׃‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫עוּריָך‬ ‫וּב ֵא ֶשׁת נְ ֶ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫ֹלהי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וְ ִכ ָסּה‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ֱא ֵ‬ ‫י־שׂנֵ א ַשׁ ַלּח ַ‬ ‫ִכּ ָ‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות וְ נִ ְשׁ ַמ ְר ֶתּם‬ ‫ל־לבוּשֹׁו ַ‬ ‫ָח ָמס ַע ְ‬ ‫רוּח ֶכם וְ לֹא ִת ְבגֹּדוּ׃ ס‬ ‫ְבּ ֲ‬

‫‪Lexical and Syntactical Parallels‬‬ ‫‪A number of keywords from Mal. 2.10-16 are reflected in Deut. 24.1-4,‬‬ ‫‪) is common to both,‬בעל( ’‪as is highlighted above. The verb ‘to marry‬‬ ‫‪) that arises from some kind‬תועבה( ’‪as well as the noun ‘abomination‬‬ ‫‪of misconduct in relation to marriage. More significantly, the keyword‬‬ ‫‪ reflects Deut. 24.1-4.183 The two texts‬שנא ‪ and‬שלח ‪combination of‬‬ ‫‪also betray a protasis–apodosis construction.184 In Deut. 24.1-4, the first‬‬ ‫‪ (v. 1), but the second husband‬ערות דבר ‪husband divorces his wife for‬‬ ‫‪) her. It is this latter scenario that resonates‬שנא( ’‪simply because he ‘hates‬‬ ‫‪with Mal. 2.16: divorce for aversion.‬‬ ‫‪ occur together in only five texts (Gen. 26.27; Deut.‬שלח ‪ and‬שנא ‪183.  The roots‬‬ ‫‪24.3; Jer. 44.4; Mal. 2.16; Est. 9.16). Only Deut. 24 and Mal. 2 concern marriage and‬‬ ‫‪divorce.‬‬ ‫‪184.  Grammatically, the consensus reading of Deut. 24.1-4 sees the apodosis‬‬ ‫א־יּוכל ‪starting with‬‬ ‫‪ in v. 4. The AV deviates from this by commencing the apodosis‬ל ֹ ַ‬ ‫‪ in v. 1.‬וְ ָכ ַתב ָלּה ‪with‬‬

152

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Contextual and Thematic Parallels Contextually, matters are complicated when one tries to discern the exact meaning of Deut. 24.1-4. Hugenberger outlines ten different views behind the prohibition of palingamy to a former spouse in Deut. 24.1-4.185 185.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, pp. 76-77 n. 144. These are: (a) To renew such a marriage would be to condone adultery, which is implicit in the second marriage (Philo, De Specialibus Legibus [Oeuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie I et II; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1975], III, pp. 75-77 [§29-31]); (b) The remarriage of a divorced woman is tantamount to adultery (Carl F. Keil, The Pentateuch [Commentary on the Old Testament 1; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001], pp. 950-51; S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy [ICC; 2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896], p. 272); (c) Protect the first marriage (a deterrent against rash divorce) (Driver, Deuteronomy, p. 272); (d) A consequence of marriage as an unalterable relationship (John Murray, Divorce [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1961], p. 14); (e) Codify natural revulsion (Hubert Junker, Das Buch Deuteronomium übersetzt und erklärt [Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes II/2; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1933], p. 100); (f) Protect the second marriage (Driver, Deuteronomy, p. 272; Yaron, ‘Restoration of Marriage’, pp. 8-11); (g) Avoid incest (Gordon J. Wenham, ‘The Restoration of Marriage Reconsidered’, JJS 30 [1979], pp. 36-40; William E. Heth and Gordon J. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce: Towards an Evangelical Understanding of New Testament Teaching [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1984], pp. 106-110); (h) Protect the woman (William F. Luck, Divorce and Remarriage: Recovering the Biblical View [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987], pp. 57-67); (i) Prohibit unjust enrichment (due to estoppel) (Westbrook, ‘Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage’, pp. 387-405); (j) Avoid legalized adultery (closing a possible loophole in the prohibition against adultery) (John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony [Calvin’s Commentaries 3; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993], p. 94; Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976], p. 306). Each of these positions is not mutually exclusive; nor do all scholars confine themselves to only one position. John H. Walton, ‘The Place of the hutqaṭṭēl within the D-stem Group and Its Implications in Deuteronomy 24:4’, Hebrew Studies 31 (1990), pp. 7-17 (11-14), provides a further possibility: (k) A remarriage would create an abomination (‫)תועבה‬, the nature of which is described by ‫הטמאה‬. Walton interprets this as ‘she has been made to declare herself unclean’ (p. 11). For Walton, this is not a reference to sexual immorality; rather it relates to the earlier reference to ‫ערות דבר‬, which he interprets as a euphemism

5. ‘Did he not make them one?’

153

However, whatever the meaning of ‫ערות דבר‬, Kaiser’s comments are helpful: ‘the purpose of the Mosaic regulation was neither to encourage divorce, enjoin it, nor to approve it; instead, it was given to prescribe certain procedures if and when it tragically took place’.186 Regulation of divorce did not entail moral approval of the practice.187 If so, an apparent contradiction between Malachi and Deuteronomy is eliminated. ‘Moses and Malachi come at the issue of divorce from different angles. Moses allows it under certain conditions. Malachi condemns it except under certain conditions.’188 Deuteronomy permits divorce on the grounds of an act of indecency by the wife;189 Malachi does not permit divorce on the basis of aversion. The passage in Deuteronomy does not encourage divorce; rather, it sets restrictions for its regulation. The two passages do not therefore have to be in conflict.190 In fact, rather than Mal. 2.16 being in conflict with Deut. 24.1-4, the latter provides the context for the former. As David Jones observes: ‘Malachi is aiming his protest directly at the practice falsely assumed to be morally permissible from the merely descriptive terms of a case’ in Deut. 24.3.191 5.5.8. Interpretive Significance By employing the keywords from Deut. 24.1-4, Malachi implies that some people were misusing this text to make their divorces morally permissible: they were divorcing out of dislike/hate (‫ )שנא‬and not on the permissible grounds of ‘something indecent’ (‫)ערות דבר‬.192 The criticism is thus not one of divorce per se, but of divorce for ‘hate’; a divorce possibly motivated for ‘menstrual irregularities’ that would render a woman unclean (cf. Lev. 15.25; Deut. 23.15). Sprinkle, ‘Divorce and Remarriage’, p. 532 n. 4, considers the matter unresolved. 186.  Kaiser, ‘Divorce in Malachi 2:10-16’, p. 81. 187.  Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, p. 77 n. 146. Similarly, Robert C. Campbell, ‘Teachings of the Old Testament Concerning Divorce’, Foundations 6 (1963), pp. 174-78 (175). 188.  Stuart, ‘Malachi’, p. 1343. 189.  The schools of Hillel and Shammai disputed the interpretation of the phrase ‫( ערות דבר‬m. Giṭ. 9:10). 190.  Dumbrell, ‘Malachi and Ezra–Nehemiah Reforms’, p. 47, believes that Malachi’s attitude toward divorce need not be viewed as incongruous with Deut. 24.1-4 if the purpose of Deut. 24 was not ‘to facilitate divorce (the possibility of which is admittedly presupposed), but rather [to affirm] the indissolubility of the (original) marriage relationship’. 191.  Jones, ‘Malachi on Divorce’, p. 19. 192.  See also, Westbrook, ‘Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage’, pp. 387-405, who provides a similar explanation.

154

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

from intermarriage with a foreigner (Mal. 2.11). Deuteronomy 24 put a check on the husband to avoid him divorcing his wife for whatever reason he liked; Malachi denounces divorce in accordance with the spirit of the same law. The allusion to Deut. 24 thus works powerfully to counter any abuse of divorce that was derived from an earlier part of the Jewish canon. The idea of Malachi correcting a mishandling of the Torah laws (in this case, in relation to divorce) fits other parts of Malachi. Most importantly, in Mal. 1.6–2.9 the prophet deals with the priests mishandling the Torah laws in relation to sacrifices (e.g. 2.9). 5.5.8.1. Malachi 2.16 Alludes to Deuteronomy 24.1-4 If our reading of Mal. 2.16 above is correct, then some of its apparent tension with Deut. 24.1-4 is immediately resolved. Malachi 2.16 neither contradicts nor supersedes Deut. 24.1-4; rather, it alludes to it.193 What Malachi is condemning is not an absolute prohibition of divorce (since Ezra and Nehemiah encourage it in certain circumstances), but a relative prohibition of divorce: if a man divorces merely on the grounds of aversion, or in order to enter a mixed marriage, then he covers his garment with violence. Malachi 2.16 is not at variance with Deut. 24.1-4; rather, the divorce is condemned for not being in accordance with the divorce regulations of Deut. 24.194 In other words, an inner-biblical allusion is at work. 5.6. Conclusion The contention of this chapter is that Mal. 2.10-16 primarily concerns marriage, understood literally (between a man and a woman) and not figuratively (between Israel and Yhwh). In addressing the abuses of mixed 193.  Contra Clendenen, ‘Malachi’, p. 359, who thinks that there is no connection between the two texts. Malachi is concerned with the breaking of one’s marriage vows and ‘does not deal with the case of a man divorcing a wife who has already broken her marriage vows, so it also does not apply to the case of a woman divorcing her husband who has already broken his marriage vows’. Similarly, Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 275: ‘If v. 16 is viewed against this background [of mixed marriages], no tension occurs in relation to the laws on divorce in Deut. 24.1ff, which are concerned with other matters than is the Malachi passage’. In contrast, Hill, Malachi, p. 250: ‘The prophet’s codicil on divorce seems to allude to both the ideal of heterosexual monogamous marriage ordained in Genesis 1 and 2…and the divorce statutes of the Mosaic Law (Deut 24:1-4)’. Schreiner, ‘Mischehen – Ehebruch – Ehescheidung’, pp. 211, 217, 227-28, argues that Malachi alludes to Deut. 24.1-4, but the issue there is not so much one of divorce as remarriage. 194.  Hill, Malachi, p. 226.

5. ‘Did he not make them one?’

155

marriage and divorce in post-exilic Israel, the prophet recalls the marriage of the first human pair as he calls on Judahite men to be faithful to their wives. The inner-biblical allusion and exegesis of the account of the first instance of holy matrimony in Gen. 2 exposes the infidelity in the marital (and subsequently Mosaic) covenant, while at the same time motivating Judahite men towards faithfulness in these respective covenants. The strong language against divorce prima facie suggests a tension with the divorce laws of Deut. 24.1-4. A close comparison of the passages, however, reveals that Mal. 2.16 neither contradicts nor supersedes the Mosaic law on divorce; rather, it alludes to it: Malachi’s exhortation against divorce for aversion finds its rhetorical force in connection with Deut. 24.1-4.

Chapter 6 ‘ W ho c a n en d ur e t h e d ay of hi s comi ng ? ’ : I nne r - B i b l i c a l A l l u s i on and E xe ge si s i n R e l at i on to t h e N ew C ove nant (M a l a ch i 2.17– 3.6)

6.1. Translation v. Author’s translation BHQ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ הֹוגַ ְע ֶתּם יְ הוָ ה ְבּ ִד ְב ֵר‬2.17a ‘You have wearied Yhwh with your words. ‫ וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם ַבּ ָמּה הֹוגָ ְענוּ‬17b But you say, “How have we wearied him?” ‫ ֶבּ ֱא ָמ ְר ֶכם ָכּל־ע ֵֹשׂה ָרע טֹוב‬17c By saying, “Anyone who does evil is good in the eyes of Yhwh, ‫ְבּ ֵעינֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬ 17d and he delights in them”, ‫וּב ֶהם הוּא ָח ֵפץ‬ ָ ‫ֹלהי ַה ִמּ ְשׁ ָפּט׃‬ ֵ ‫ אֹו אַיֵּ ה ֱא‬17e or, “Where is the God of justice?” ‫אָכי‬ ִ ‫ ִהנְ נִ י שׁ ֵֹל ַח ַמ ְל‬3.1a Behold, I am sending my messenger, 1b and he will prepare the way before me. ‫ה־ד ֶרְך ְל ָפנָ י‬ ֶ ָ‫וּפנּ‬ ִ 1c And suddenly he will come to his temple, ‫יכלֹו‬ ָ ‫ל־ה‬ ֵ ‫וּפ ְתאֹם יָבֹוא ֶא‬ ִ 1d the Lord whom you are seeking, ‫ר־אַתּם ְמ ַב ְק ִשׁים‬ ֶ ‫ָהאָדֹון ֲא ֶשׁ‬ 1e and the messenger of the covenant whom ‫ר־אַתּם‬ ֶ ‫וּמ ְלאְַך ַה ְבּ ִרית ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ַ you desire, ‫ֲח ֵפ ִצים‬ 1f behold, he is coming, ‫ה־בא‬ ָ ֵ‫ִהנּ‬ 1g says Yhwh of hosts. ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃‬ ַ 2a But who can endure the day of his coming, ‫וּמי ְמ ַכ ְל ֵכּל ֶאת־יֹום בֹּואֹו‬ ִ 2b and who can stand when he appears? ‫וּמי ָהע ֵֹמד ְבּ ֵה ָראֹותֹו‬ ִ 2c For he is like a refining fire and washing ‫וּכב ִֹרית‬ ְ ‫ִכּי־הוּא ְכּ ֵאשׁ ְמ ָצ ֵרף‬ lye. ‫ְמ ַכ ְבּ ִסים׃‬ ‫וּמ ַט ֵהר ֶכּ ֶסף‬ ְ ‫ וְ יָ ַשׁב ְמ ָצ ֵרף‬3a He will sit refining and cleansing silver, ‫י־לוִ י‬ ֵ ֵ‫ת־בּנ‬ ְ ‫ וְ ִט ַהר ֶא‬3b and he will cleanse the sons of Levi, ‫ וְ זִ ַקּק א ָֹתם ַכּזָּ ָהב וְ ַכ ָכּ ֶסף‬3c and he will purify them like gold and silver. ‫ישׁי ִמנְ ָחה‬ ֵ ִ‫ וְ ָהיוּ ַליהוָ ה ַמגּ‬3d Then they will be presenters of an offering in righteousness to Yhwh, ‫ִבּ ְצ ָד ָקה׃‬ ‫הוּדה‬ ָ ְ‫ וְ ָע ְר ָבה ַליהוָ ה ִמנְ ַחת י‬4a and the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to Yhwh ִ‫ירוּשׁ ָלם‬ ָ ִ‫ו‬ 4b as in the days of old and as in former years. ‫וּכ ָשׁנִ ים ַק ְדמֹנִ יֹּות׃‬ ְ ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ימי‬ ֵ ‫ִכּ‬

6. ‘Who can endure the day of his coming?’ ‫יכם ַל ִמּ ְשׁ ָפּט‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָק ַר ְב ִתּי ֲא ֵל‬ ‫יתי ֵעד ְמ ַמ ֵהר‬ ִ ִ‫וְ ָהי‬ ‫וּב ְמנָ ֲא ִפים‬ ַ ‫ַבּ ְמ ַכ ְשּׁ ִפים‬ ‫וּבנִּ ְשׁ ָבּ ִעים ַל ָשּׁ ֶקר‬ ַ ‫אַל ָמנָ ה‬ ְ ‫ר־שׂ ִכיר‬ ָ ‫וּבע ְֹשׁ ֵקי ְשׂ ַכ‬ ְ ‫וְ יָתֹום‬ ‫וּמ ֵטּי־גֵ ר‬ ַ ‫וְ לֹא יְ ֵראוּנִ י‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃‬ ַ ‫יתי‬ ִ ִ‫ִכּי ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה לֹא ָשׁנ‬ ‫יתם׃‬ ֶ ‫אַתּם ְבּנֵ י־יַ ֲעקֹב לֹא ְכ ִל‬ ֶ ְ‫ו‬

5a 5b 5c 5d 5e 5f 5g 6a 6b

157

Then I will draw near to you for judgement, and I will be a quick witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the wages of a hired worker, widow and orphan, and those who mistreat the stranger – who do not fear me, says Yhwh of hosts. For I, Yhwh, do not change, but you, children of Jacob, are not consumed.’

6.2. Text-Critical Issues The MT of Mal. 2.17–3.6 is unproblematic and textual variants in the earliest versions do not present any significant challenge to its integrity. 4QXIIa reflects characteristic graphical differences at various points, and any potential challenges to the MT in the LXX are easily explained. Syr. and Tg. show some grammatical substitutions.1 Some general comments will help to alleviate any concerns over the integrity of the MT. The LXX’s use of the present active masculine participle οἱ παροξύνοντες to translate ‫ הוגעתם‬in 2.17 is an example of syntactical liberty-taking, and the addition of αὐτόν in the question Ἐν τίνι παρωξύναμεν αὐτόν simply makes explicit what is inferred from the context: ‫במה הוגענו‬. The LXX’s ἐπιβλέψεται for MT’s ‫ פנה‬in 3.1 is explained by the translator reading qal ‫ ָפּנָ ה‬instead of the piel ‫פּּנָ ה‬. ִ The latter makes more sense in the context. In 3.2, the LXX adds εἰσπορεύεται. This may reflect an original ‫בּא‬, ָ which dropped out because of haplography via homoioteleuton, but it is more likely that the LXX translator made an attempt to clarify by assimilating from the context (3.1), as the similar example of ὡς τὸ ἀργύριον καὶ ὡς τὸ χρυσίον for ‫ כסף‬in 3.3 shows. In 3.5, the LXX displays a number of differences from the MT. The words τῷ ὀνόματί μου are added as a complement to the substantive participle τοὺς ὀμνύοντας.2 This may have been due to

1.  Tg. exhibits its typically loose expansion in translation and avoids anthropomorphisms where necessary: for example, in 3.5, ‘my Memra’ replaces ‘I’ in the MT (Cathcart and Gordon, Targum of Minor Prophets, p. 236). 2.  De Rossi, Kennicott and Ginsburg all record multiple manuscripts in support of this reading, and Freedman, ‘Variant of MT Mal 3:5’, pp. 405-406, notes that almost all extant Talmud manuscripts and the earliest printings of b. Ḥagigah reflect the variant reading (b. Ḥag. 5a).

158

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

influence from Zech. 5.4, ‫הנשבע בשמי לשקר‬,3 or the MT may be a case of haplography via homoioarcton, given the frequency of the letter beth in the verse. In either case, the MT reflects normal Hebrew phraseology (cf. Lev. 19.12; Jer. 7.9) and is unproblematic as it stands. At points the LXX exhibits free and expansionist renderings because of difficult phrases or in order to maintain consistency and parallelism with the syntax. So, in 3.2, χωνευτηρίου translates ‫מצרף‬, and in 3.5, the LXX translates the single occurrence of the verb ‫ עשק‬three times and in different ways (as three participles: ἀποστεροῦντας, καταδυναστεύοντας, κονδυλίζοντας) to bring out the sense for each of the objects which are stated. The addition of τοὺς κονδυλίζοντας creates syntactical balance, while τοὺς ἐκκλίνοντας κρίσιν freely translates the oblique construct Hebrew phrase ‫מטי־גר‬, perhaps assimilating Deut. 24.17 and 27.19 in the process.4 6.3. Structure and Theme Malachi 2.17–3.6 follows the normal disputation pattern: Declaration Rebuttal Refutation

2.17a 2.17b 2.17c–3.6

The unit opens with Yhwh’s declaration that the people have wearied (‫ )יגע‬him with their words (2.17a), followed immediately by the people’s rebuttal: ‘How have we wearied you?’ (2.17b). In his refutation, Yhwh outlines two ways: (1) they accuse him of viewing evildoers as good, as people in whom he delights, and (2) they complain that there is no exercising of his justice against the wicked (2.17c-e). Yhwh responds to these criticisms in reverse order: the question of the whereabouts of the God of justice is answered by his imminent and sudden appearance (3.1-5a), while the accusation of Yhwh’s moral perversion is answered by his judgement of the lawbreakers in Israel (3.5b-f). Yhwh, the Lord, who is in fact the messenger of the covenant,5 is coming to refine the priesthood (3.2-4) and to judge evildoers (3.5). The reason he will come suddenly to purify the priests and be swift to judge evildoers is because he

3.  Gelston, Twelve Minor Prophets, p. 152. 4.  Ibid., p. 151. Tg. similarly expands the translation: ‘the judgment of the stranger’ (Cathcart and Gordon, Targum of Minor Prophets, p. 236). 5.  See below.

6. ‘Who can endure the day of his coming?’

159

does not change (3.6).6 The climactic statement of 3.6 captures the central theme of the unit: Yhwh’s covenant fidelity. Out of his faithfulness to his covenant, Yhwh will draw near in judgement on the priests and the people. In judgement, however, there is hope: the priests will be purified and righteous worship will be restored in Judah and Jerusalem as in the days of old; and, though Yhwh will punish the evildoer, the children of Jacob will not be consumed. 6.4. The New Covenant Malachi’s fourth pericope is centred on the arrival and work of the messenger of the covenant. The explicit reference to a ‫ ברית‬situates the unit in a covenantal context. The list of lawbreakers in 3.5 relates either to specific laws in the Decalogue or more generally to covenant stipulations in the Pentateuch; and the ‘thesis statement’ of 3.6 – ‘For I, Yhwh, do not change’ – is best understood in relation to Yhwh’s covenant word. Both of these require some unpacking, before discussing which covenant is in view. Malachi’s list of lawbreakers in post-exilic Israel derives from the Covenant Code (Exod. 21–23), the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–25) and Deuteronomy: ‫( מכשפים‬Exod. 22.17[18]; Deut. 18.10); ‫( מנאפים‬Exod. 20.14; Lev. 20.10; Deut. 5.18; 22.22-27); ‫( נשבעים לשקר‬Exod. 20.16; Lev. 19.12; cf. Jer. 7.9); ‫( עשקי שכר־שכיר אלמנה ויתום ומטי־גר‬Exod. 20.2021[21-22]; Lev. 19.10; Deut. 10.8-19; 14.28; 16.14; 24.17-22; 26.12-13; 27.19; cf. Zech. 7.10). A detailed analysis of Malachi’s terms reveals that there is no one source text that stands behind the list or any of the individual phrases. The texture of Malachi’s scroll is influenced by the language of the Pentateuch, but not to the degree where one could suggest an intended allusion to a specific text. What is clear, however, is that the list contains infractions of covenant stipulations in the Mosaic covenant. The summary phrase in 3.5 captures the point: ‫ולא יראוני‬.7 The wording is characteristic of Deuteronomic rhetoric, ‘a more general description of the one who disregards the covenant’.8 Thus, while the word ‘covenant’ is only mentioned once, the list of lawbreakers strengthens the covenantal context. 6.  I read the ‫ כי‬as a causal conjunction tying it to the preceding verses. Ending the unit at 3.6 makes the divine speech marker the penultimate statement in the unit, a pattern which is witnessed elsewhere in Malachi (e.g. 1.14; 2.8, 16). Mal. 3.7 is also a natural opening statement for a unit, patterning other pericopes in the book (e.g. 1.2, 6; 2.1, 10, 17; 3.13). 7.  To fear Yhwh was the goal of his words and commands (Lev. 19.14; Deut. 4.10; 5.29; 6.2, 13, 24; 8.6; 10.12, 20; 13.5; 14.23; 17.19; 28.58; 31.12, 13). 8.  O’Brien, Priest and Levite, p. 73. Cf. Fuhs, ‘‫’יָ ֵרא‬, in TDOT, VI, p. 308.

160

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Alongside Yhwh’s opening declaration in 1.2, 3.6 stands as a potential second ‘thesis statement’ to the whole book: ‘For I, Yhwh, do not change, but you, children of Jacob, are not consumed’.9 The words may also relate to the covenant. Whether one reads the ‫ כי‬as a disjunctive emphatic adverb,10 a disjunctive adversative,11 or a causal conjunction (as I do), all agree that there is some coordination with the preceding verses (2.17–3.5). Attending to the previous verses helps to decide whether the parallel clauses of 3.6 relate to each other as antithesis or synthesis. The synthetical reading requires an abrupt shift in logic: ‘I will draw near to judge… Indeed/For I, Yhwh, do not change so that you are not consumed.’ The antithetical reading seems to make more logical sense: the clause of 3.6b introduces an antithesis to the motivated announcement of judgement in 3.5-6a: ‘I will draw near to punish because I do not change, but you, children of Jacob, are not consumed’. As Weyde comments: ‘in his faithfulness Yhwh sets a limit to the punishment’.12 But in what way does Yhwh not change? Stuart relates Yhwh’s immutability in 3.6 to his nature.13 This moves in the right direction but fails to connect ‫ שנה‬more directly to the context of 3.1-5. Yhwh is accused of not acting in justice against the wicked; as a result, he will send a messenger to prepare his way. He, the Lord, the messenger of the covenant, will come to refine the cult and draw near to judge evildoers. The word ‫ שנה‬therefore relates in some way to the arrival of the messenger of the covenant. As Hill remarks, the phrase ‘I do not change’ refers to ‘the constancy of divine character that manifests itself in unswerving loyalty to his covenant word’.14 This interpretation of ‫ שנה‬is supported by two of the three other texts in which Yhwh is the subject of ‫שנה‬.15 In Ps. 77.11[10], in the context of a 9.  Reading the parallel clauses as appositional as opposed to subject–predicate makes the best sense. The subject–predicate reading creates slightly strange logic: ‘For I am Yhwh, I do not change, but you are children of Jacob, you are not consumed’. 10.  Hill, Malachi, p. 294. 11.  Smith, Malachi, p. 66. 12.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 319. 13.  Stuart, ‘Malachi’, p. 1363. 14.  Hill, Malachi, p. 322. The Tg. conveys a similar sense: ‘For I the Lord have not changed my covenant which is from of old’ (Cathcart and Gordon, Targum of Minor Prophets, p. 236). Waldman, ‘Notes on Malachi 3:6; 3:13; and Psalm 42:11’, pp. 543-49 (543-45), thinks that this meaning of ‫‘ שנה‬has a connotation which is brought out by an Akkadian parallel’: enû, ‘change’, which is used both transitively and intransitively in the G form. But see the critique of Hill, Malachi, pp. 295-96. 15.  The verb ‫ שנה‬occurs with Yhwh as the subject in four texts of the Hebrew Bible, in qal (Mal. 3.6; Ps. 77.11[10]) and in piel (Ps. 89.35[34]; Job 14.20).

6. ‘Who can endure the day of his coming?’

161

lament in which Yhwh’s covenant love (‫ )חסד‬is questioned, the Psalmist is grieved (‫)חלותי היא‬16 that the right hand of the Most High (‫)ימין עליון‬ has changed (‫ – )שנות‬an intransitive use of the verb.17 Yhwh’s right hand performed his mighty deeds and redemption in the past for the children of Jacob (‫ )בני־יעקב‬and Joseph (77.15-16[14-15]). The focus here seems to be on visible signs of Yhwh’s gracious acts, though his promises (‫)אמר‬ are also mentioned (77.9[8]). The complaint from the Psalmist, then, is that Yhwh’s covenant love towards him has changed. In Ps. 89.35[34], Yhwh reaffirms his covenant loyalty to David, promising not to ‘change’ (‫ )שנה‬the word that has come from his lips – a transitive use of the verb. The words are in parallel to his promise not to violate his covenant (‫ )לא־אחלל בריתי‬with David. In sum, in both psalms, where Yhwh is the subject, the verb ‫ שנה‬is linked to questions over Yhwh’s covenant fidelity. Malachi 2.17–3.5 reveals a similar context to the psalms, where the issue of Yhwh’s faithfulness to act is brought into question (2.17). Malachi 3.6 serves as an explanation as to why he will draw near to judge the evil deeds in the community (3.5): because he has not changed. Yhwh will respond to violations of his covenant laws in the way that he has always done – in judgement.18 However, Yhwh’s covenant fidelity does not just extend to his coming in judgement; as the second clause of 3.6 makes clear, there is a glimmer of hope too: ‫ואתם בני־יעקב לא כליתם‬. Taking the intransitive qal ‫ כלה‬in its usual sense of ‘to stop, come to an end’,19 the clause may be read positively.20 Several instances of the noun ‫כלה‬, ‘complete destruction’,21 occur 16.  LXX: καὶ εἶπα Νῦν ἠρξάμην (‘and I said: “I have begun” ’). NRSV renders the phrase: ‘And I say: “It is my grief” ’, after ‫חלל‬-II, ‘to pierce’. 17.  Instead of reading ‫ שנות‬as the infinitive construct of ‫שנה‬, some translations read a feminine plural noun, ‘years’; so ESV: ‘I will appeal to this: to the years of the right hand of the Most High’. 18.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 318. 19.  HALAT, II, p. 454: ‘zugrunde gehen’. BDB, p. 477: ‘to be complete, at an end, finished, accomplished, spent’. 20.  Reading the clause negatively requires one either to supply an object (e.g. ‘your sins’) for ‫ כלה‬to complete the sentence (so van Hoonacker, Douze Petits Prophètes, p. 733: ‘not come to an end’ of their sin of covenant violation), or to alter the meaning of ‫ כלה‬to ‘change’ (so Reventlow, Maleachi, p. 155: they have ‘not changed’ in their natures as cheats, like their father Jacob) or to make ‫ בני־יעקב‬the object of ‫כלה‬, which, in this case, disrupts the parallelism (so Kruse-Blinkenberg, ‘Book of Malachi’, pp. 104-105: they have ‘not ceased to be’ children of Jacob). These readings run counter to Yhwh’s offer to escape his judgement (3.7). 21.  BDB, p. 478.

162

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

in contexts of Yhwh’s restrained judgement on his people. The general pattern is that an announcement of judgement against Yhwh’s people, or of a present judgement on them, is followed by a clause promising restraint (e.g. Jer. 5.18; 30.11; 46.28; Ezek. 20.17; Neh. 9.31). In each of these verses Yhwh promises ‘not to make an end’ (‫)לא־אעשה אתכם כלה‬ of them. The clause ‘functions as an antithesis to the previous announcement or description of judgement’ (cf. also piel ‫ כלה‬in Lev. 26.44; Num. 25.11).22 These examples provide a basis for understanding ‫ לא כליתם‬in Mal. 3.6 to be positive. Although prophetic references to Jacob often carry the connotation of his cheating and rebellious behaviour (Isa. 43.27; 58.1; Jer. 9.3; Hos. 12.4-5; cf. Gen. 27.35-36), the title ‫ בני־יעקב‬in Mal. 3.6 carries primarily positive overtones. Thus, if there is an allusion here to Jacob, it is not to the cheating Jacob of Genesis but to the loved Jacob of Malachi (1.2).23 This is compatible with the opening ‘thesis statement’: in 1.2, Yhwh reaffirms that his love for Jacob (Israel) has not changed; now, in 3.6, he reaffirms that his covenant fidelity to the children of Jacob (Israel) has not changed. Yhwh is an unchanging covenant-keeper, and thus he will draw near to punish wrongdoing, yet Israel will not be consumed. This tension, between the just punishment of sin and the unmerited sparing of the covenant-breaker, is central to the biblical covenants, wherein curse for disobedience and the possibility of unconditional forgiveness coexist. The tension goes to the heart of the book of Malachi, where Yhwh reaffirms his covenant love to Israel (1.2-5) and at the same time holds them accountable for breaking his laws (1.6–2.9; 2.10-16; 3.5, 9). Yhwh promised to bless or curse depending on Israel’s obedience or disobedience to his laws (Deut. 28). However, built into Yhwh’s covenant was a promise to change Israel from the inside (Deut. 30.6), a change that would enable them to return to him (Deut. 30.10), and avoid being forsaken indefinitely (cf. Mal. 3.23-24[4.5-6]). The immutability of God, then, is at one and the same time the guarantee that his people will be judged for their sins and yet will not be consumed. That Yhwh remains faithful to his covenant promises with the arrival of the messenger of the covenant has been established. The question now is which covenant is in view.

22.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 319. 23.  Reading ‫ קבע‬and not ‫ עקב‬in the surrounding context (3.8-9) also negates an allusion to the Jacob of Genesis (see next chapter).

6. ‘Who can endure the day of his coming?’

163

6.4.1. Messenger of Which Covenant? A number of options have been suggested: (a) the covenant with the patriarchs;24 (b) the Sinai/Mosaic covenant,25 the covenant with the fathers;26 (c) the covenant community, and not simply the Sinai covenant itself;27 (d) the Levitical covenant;28 and (e) the new covenant.29 While the exact covenant is not specified, I propose that the covenant that Malachi has in mind relates to new covenant conceptuality.30 This is arrived at by a process of elimination and the unique terminology and phraseology that Malachi employs. In Mal. 3.1-5, there are elements connected to the Levitical and Mosaic covenants. The reference to the Levites and their renewed offerings (3.3) relates to the covenant with Levi (2.4-5, 8) and the blemished sacrifices that were being offered (1.7-8, 13); Yhwh’s swift judgement on the transgressors of the Decalogue and Deuteronomic laws (3.5) relates to the Mosaic covenant. And yet the Lord is messenger of only one covenant: ‫הברית‬. Having explicitly identified the ‘covenant with Levi’ (2.4, 5, 8), and the ‘covenant of our fathers’ (2.10) earlier in the book, Malachi would have to presume that his readers possessed telepathic skills if ‫ הברית‬refers to one of these two covenants and not the other in a context where elements of both are present. On this basis, it seems reasonable to assume that Malachi does not mean either of these covenants, and yet the covenant that he does mention is related in some way to both, since elements of both are present. The only covenant that is capable of this is the new covenant, which brings to fulfilment the patriarchal covenant and incorporates elements from the Levitical, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. For example, the covenant maxim to Abraham – ‘to be God to you and to your offspring after you’ (Gen. 17.7) – is present in the new covenant promises of Jeremiah (31.33)

24.  Valve, ‘Typological Use of Tradition’, p. 42. 25.  Merrill, Malachi, p. 371 n. 5. 26.  Glazier-McDonald, ‘Malʾak habberit’, p. 96 n. 2. 27.  Van der Woude, ‘Der Engel des Bundes’, p. 297. 28.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 289. 29.  Hill, Malachi, p. 270. 30.  Writing on the new covenant, Jack R. Lundbom, ‘New Covenant’, in ABD, IV, pp. 1088-94, comments that it ‘forms the centerpiece of a larger eschatological hope which includes a new act of salvation, a new Zion, and a new Davidic king’ (p. 1088). Lundbom states that the belief in a new covenant existed among the Essenes of Qumran and later in the Christian church, but was anticipated by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, so-called Deutero-Isaiah, and Malachi.

164

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

and Ezekiel (36.28; 37.27).31 The laws of the Mosaic covenant, so integral to its inauguration (Exod. 20–24), are not eliminated in the new covenant, but rather internalized in the human heart (Jer. 31.33; Ezek. 36.27). This would include marital faithfulness. The covenant with Levi (Exod. 32.25-29; Num 18.19; 25.10-13; Deut. 33.8-11), so integral to the spiritual health of God’s people, is reaffirmed in the new covenant (Jer. 33.18-26; Isa. 66.21). The same goes for the covenant made with David (2 Sam. 7.5-16; cf. Ps. 89.4[3]); it too is reaffirmed in the new covenant (Jer. 33.17-26; Ezek. 37.24-26).32 For Malachi to speak of a ‫ ברית‬that related to both the Levites and the Mosaic laws is therefore suggestive of new covenant conceptuality. A number of elements in the text may also suggest this. Malachi’s note of futurity, his choice of terms and phrases and his emphasis on divine intervention, all connect with new covenant conceptuality. First, the work of the messenger of the covenant relates to future things. The definite article on ‫ המשפט‬may indicate that the eschatological day of judgement is in mind (cf. 3.2, 19[4.1], 21[4.3]).33 Even if this stretches the evidence, the Lord’s coming to his temple (3.1) certainly correlates with Ezekiel’s eschatological vision of Yhwh entering the temple and filling it with his glory (43.1-5). Secondly, unique terminology and phraseology in the unit communicates that this moment in history concerns something genuinely new. The Lord will come to his temple with a title previously unknown: ‫מלאך הברית‬.34 The wordplay on ‫ּב ִרית‬/‫ית‬ ְ ‫ ּב ִֹר‬in Mal. 3.1-2 may possibly convey a covenant that involves cleansing, which would connect with the cleansing that was integral to the new covenant (Jer. 33.8; Ezek. 36.25, 33; 37.23).35 Malachi is known for his repetition of vocabulary, and this section itself contains a number of words that are repeated.36 Alliteration and terminal and internal 31.  Admittedly, only Jeremiah uses the phrase ‫ ברית חדשה‬but the concept is present in Ezekiel. 32.  See Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36 (AB 21B; New York: Doubleday, 2004), pp. 537-39, 541-46, for the continuity of these elements in the new covenant promises in Jeremiah. 33.  Hill, Malachi, p. 270, goes so far as to suggest that the question, ‘Where is the God of justice?’, may be paraphrased, ‘Where is this new covenant?’ 34.  See below for a defence of this identification. 35.  The word ‫ ּב ִֹרית‬describes an alkaline salt extracted from soap-plants, Mesembrianthemum cristallinum (HALAT, I, p. 152: ‘Laugensalz’) or Salsola kali (Holladay, Jeremiah 1, p. 99). The LXX πόα (‘grass, herb, lye’) and the Vg. herba (‘plant, grass, herb’) support this understanding. 36.  For example: ‫( יגע‬2.17); ‫( אמר‬2.17; 3.1); ‫( משפט‬3.1, 5); ‫( הנה‬3.1); ‫( מלאך‬3.1); ‫( בוא‬3.1, 2); ‫( מצרף‬3.2, 3); ‫( טהר‬3.3); ‫( כסף‬3.3); ‫( מנחה‬3.3); ‫( שכר‬3.5).

6. ‘Who can endure the day of his coming?’

165

rhyme are also prominent in 3.1-2, strengthening the case for the wordplay on ‫ּב ִרית‬/‫ית‬ ְ ‫ּב ִֹר‬. The unique combination of ‫ מנחה‬+ ‫ ב‬+ ‫צדקה‬37 and the use of the rare qal verb ‫ערב‬-III, ‘to be well-pleasing’38 – when the synonym ‫רצה‬ (cf. 1.8, 10, 13) would suffice – suggest that the offering itself is new.39 The result of the messenger of the covenant’s work is that the priests will be cleansed and purified and righteous worship will be restored in Jerusalem. This renewal of the priesthood correlates with Jeremiah’s promise of the perpetuity of the priesthood (33.18, 21-22). Thirdly, Malachi presents the answer to the problem of covenant infidelity in the priests (1.6–2.9) and people (2.10-16) as dependent upon divine intervention, which is one of the key elements in the new covenant: Yhwh himself must intervene to cleanse (Jer. 31.34; Ezek. 36.25), to circumcise hearts (Deut. 30.6) or to perform heart surgery (Ezek. 36.26), to put his law in their hearts (Jer. 31.33) or to cause his people to walk in his ways (Ezek. 36.27). So too here in Malachi: the Lord must come to his temple and, as the messenger of the covenant, cleanse the Levites in order that right worship might be restored. As will be seen in Chapter 9, he will send Elijah to turn the hearts of fathers and children back towards each other. Elijah carries out this work on the heart, but Yhwh initiates the process. In sum, the note of futurity, unique terminology and wordplay on ‫ברית‬, as well as the focus on divine intervention, all link to new covenant conceptuality. The advantage of associating the messenger of the covenant with the reality of the new covenant is that elements of the Levitical and Mosaic covenants in the wider context are able to be included. 6.5. Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis 6.5.1. Identifying the Figures of Malachi 3.1 An investigation into Malachi’s inner-biblical allusion and exegesis at this point is complicated by the fact that this verse is described as an ‘enigmatic passage’40 and an ‘interpretative crux’.41 This exegetical 37.  The closest parallel is ‫ זבחי־צדק‬in Deut. 33.19; Pss 4.6[5]; 51.21[19]. 38.  HALAT, III, p. 830: ‘gefallen’; a rare verb in the Twelve Prophets used elsewhere only in Hos. 9.4. 39.  The prepositional phrase ‫ בצדקה‬can function in the clause as an adjective to ‫( מנחה‬RSV) or as an adverb on ‫( נגש‬NRSV). Malachi has already used the adjective ‫ טהורה‬with ‫ – מנחה‬itself a unique word combination suggestive of future worship – without a preposition (1.11), and so it is probably best to view ‫ בצדקה‬adverbially here. See W-O’C § 10.2.2e, for this use of the preposition ‫ב‬. 40.  Malchow, ‘Messenger of the Covenant’, p. 252. 41.  Glazier-McDonald, ‘Malʾak habberit’, p. 94.

166

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

knot first needs to be untied before one is able to establish any innerbiblical connections present in the text. The verse reveals four identifiable, separate parties, some of whom appear to merge into the same figure: (1) the speaker, Yhwh of hosts (‫)יהוה צבאות‬, who announces that he is about to send his messenger (‫( ;)הנני שלח מלאכי‬2) ‘my messenger’ (‫)מלאכי‬, who is sent by the speaker and who prepares the way before him (‫( ;)פנה־דרך לפני‬3) ‘the Lord’ (‫)האדון‬, who will come (‫ )בוא‬to his temple; and (4) ‘the messenger of the covenant’ (‫)מלאך הברית‬, who is also coming (‫)בוא‬. Taking Yhwh as the speaker, the possible combinations for identifying the other three figures may be reduced to three main options with some variations within them: (a) The three figures refer to one and the same person: ‫ מלאכי‬is Yhwh, the Lord (‫)האדון‬, who is in turn ‫;מלאך הברית‬42 or the three figures are the heavenly messenger of Yhwh;43 or, again, the three figures are identified as an earthly prophetic person.44 This line of interpretation identifies ‫מלאכי‬ and ‫ מלאך הברית‬as the same person. (b) The three figures refer to three different persons: the messenger is the angel of death, the angel of the covenant is the angel of the Lord, and the Lord is the Lord God;45 or ‫ מלאכי‬is identified as ‘the Angel of Yhwh’ who was commissioned as Israel’s ‘forerunner’ in the covenant ratification ceremony at Mount Sinai (Exod. 23.20-21, 23): he is the ‘alter-ego or surrogate of some kind for Yahweh’; ‫ האדון‬is identified as God; and ‫ מלאך הברית‬is a further manifestation of ‘ “the Angel of Yahweh” because this personage is also associated with the aftermath of the Israelite breach of the Sinai treaty as a covenant enforcer of sorts (Exod. 32.34; 33.2)’.46

42.  Lescow, Maleachi, pp. 119-20. 43.  Van der Woude, ‘Der Engel des Bundes’, pp. 293, 295: ‘einen himmlischen Boten Jahwes’ who is the ‘Schutzengel der Bundesgemeinde Israels’. He later identifies him with Michael (Dan. 12.1; 1 En. 20.5). 44.  Petersen, Malachi, pp. 211-12: ‘the lord’ is not Yhwh but rather a minor deity or a prophetic figure who was ‘endowed by the same sort of powerful abilities that Elijah received according to Malachi 3:23-24[4:5-6]’. For Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, p. 43, this messenger will function as a ‘covenant enforcer’. 45.  Rashi (Rosenberg, ed., Mikraoth Gedoloth, p. 413). 46.  Hill, Malachi, pp. 287-90. Though Hill argues for three distinct figures, in effect he has presented two figures and not three, since the Angel of Yhwh in Exod. 23 and 33 is the same person, thus equating ‘my messenger’ and ‘the messenger of the covenant’ in Mal. 3.1.

6. ‘Who can endure the day of his coming?’

167

(c) The three figures refer to two different persons: ‫ מלאכי‬refers to a (human prophetic) forerunner who prepares the way for the coming of Yhwh, ‫האדון‬, while ‫ מלאך הברית‬is equated with ‫;האדון‬47 or the two messengers are the same person but distinct from ‫( האדון‬cf. NJPS): ‫האדון‬ is identified with Yhwh, while ‫ מלאכי‬may refer to a priestly figure who later on is identified as ‫מלאך הברית‬.48 On this reading, the messenger is the main actor in 3.2-3: he, not Yhwh or the Lord, will sit refining and purifying the sons of Levi. 6.5.2. Exegesis of Malachi 3.1 Correctly identifying the figures in Mal. 3.1 is critical to our discussion, because the distinction or equation of the two messenger figures significantly influences what constitutes inner-biblical allusion or exegesis in Mal. 3.1, and, as we will see, in 3.23[4.5]. (a) The Identity of ‘My Messenger’ (‫)מלאכי‬ Various proposals have been made for the identity of ‫מלאכי‬: the prophet Malachi,49 an unnamed prophet,50 an ideal figure51 or a prophetic forerunner (Elijah),52 a mythical Messiah ben Joseph of the rabbis who was to precede the Messiah ben David,53 a heavenly representative of Yhwh, such as the ‘angel of Yhwh’ of old,54 or perhaps a somewhat

47.  This is the main position of Jewish and Christian interpreters who opt for a messianic/Christological interpretation: Kimḥi, who raises the possibility that ‘the messenger of the covenant’ may also refer to Elijah (Rosenberg, ed., Mikraoth Gedoloth, p. 413); Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, pp. 122, 130-33; Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, p. 289. 48.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, pp. 289-90. Similarly, Krieg, Maleachi, pp. 161, 162, 180, 226; Anthony R. Petterson, Haggai, Zechariah & Malachi (Apollos Old Testament Commentary 25; Nottingham: Apollos, 2015), p. 362. 49.  E.g. Snyman, ‘Three Figures in Malachi 3:1’, p. 1041, on the basis that 3.1a is seen as a later addition. 50.  Malchow, ‘Messenger of the Covenant’, pp. 252-55, based on Isa. 40.3. 51.  S. R. Driver, The Minor Prophets (The Century Bible; Oxford: Oxford Uni­ versity Press, 1906), p. 318. 52.  Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, pp. 242-43. Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, p. 288, suggests ‘a pyramid of “forerunners” ’, which eventually has its pinnacle in John the Baptist. Similarly, Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, The Christology of the Old Testament and Commentary on the Messianic Predictions of the Prophets (London: Francis & John Rivington, 1847), II, pp. 1204-205. 53.  Ibn Ezra, Commentary, cited in Smith, Malachi, p. 62. 54.  Rudolph, Haggai–Sacharja–Maleachi, pp. 278-79.

168

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

independent, spiritual servant of God.55 Others wish to remain agnostic on the identity of ‫מלאכי‬.56 Attending to the parallel wording and syntax in Mal. 3.23[4.5] helps to bring clarity amidst the plethora of proposals. The emphatic ‫ הנה‬particle with first-person singular pronominal suffix or pronoun, set in syntactical relationship with the participle ‫שלח‬, presents a reasonable case for seeing an intended parallel at play here. Supporting this is the fact that the messenger/prophet prepares for the coming (‫ )בוא‬of Yhwh or the coming Day (‫ )יום‬of Yhwh, respectively. It seems reasonable, then, to equate the messenger of 3.1 with the eschatological prophet Elijah. (b) The Identity of ‘the Lord’ (‫)האדון‬ While ‫ אדון‬can apply to humans as much as to deities,57 there is little reason to doubt the identity of ‘the Lord’ as Yhwh.58 Apart from Mal. 1.6a, all other references to ‫ אדון‬in Malachi denote Yhwh (1.6c, 12, 14), and only he could claim to be the owner of the temple (‫ ;היכלו‬cf. Zech. 1.16), or someone who would come to his temple. Additionally, every biblical occurrence of the definite article ‫ ה‬+ ‫ אדון‬refers to Yhwh (Exod. 23.17; 34.23; Isa. 1.24; 3.1; 10.16, 33; 19.4). So it makes good sense to understand ‫ האדון‬as a reference to Yhwh here. (c) The Identity of ‘the Messenger of the Covenant’ (‫)מלאך הברית‬ Various proposals exist for the identity of ‫מלאך הברית‬: a heavenly figure,59 a guardian angel of the nation of Israel,60 or a minor deity.61 Identifying ‫ מלאך הברית‬is difficult because the title is unique to the Hebrew Bible62 and its relation to the previous clause is ambiguous.63 The identification 55.  Johannes Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Blackwell, 1963), pp. 405, 421. 56.  E.g. Smith, Malachi, p. 63. 57.  Gordon H. Johnston, ‘‫’אדֹון‬, ָ in NIDOTTE, I, pp. 256-61, finds a ratio of 10:1 in favour of human/divine referents. 58.  Contra Duhm, Anmerkungen zu den Zwölf Propheten, p. 94, who distinguishes between the ‘Lord of the temple’ and Yhwh himself. 59.  Chary, Malachie, p. 264. 60.  Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel, pp. 405, 421. 61.  Petersen, Malachi, p. 211. 62.  Some have suggested that the title is borrowed from the Baal-berith worshipped by the Shechemites (Judg. 8.33; 9.4, 46) (cited in Smith, Malachi, p. 63). 63.  The LXX is ambiguous too: the joint subject of ἥξει could be κύριος and ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς διαθήκης, with the καὶ functioning epexegetically, whereby ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς διαθήκης explains the identity of κύριος. It is equally possible, however, for κύριος to

6. ‘Who can endure the day of his coming?’

169

with ‘the Angel of Yhwh’ is possible, given that elsewhere in the OT Yhwh and the ‘messenger of Yhwh’ are closely related and at times interchangeable (e.g. Gen. 16.7-14; Exod. 3.2-22; Judg. 6; 13; 2 Sam. 24.16; 2 Kgs 19.35). Seeing a chiastic construction in 3.1c-f, however, helps to discern the identity: ‫ר־אַתּם ְמ ַב ְק ִשׁים‬ ֶ ‫יכלֹו ָהאָדֹון ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ָ ‫ל־ה‬ ֵ ‫וּפ ְתאֹם יָבֹוא ֶא‬ ִ ‫ה־בא‬ ָ ֵ‫ר־אַתּם ֲח ֵפ ִצים ִהנּ‬ ֶ ‫וּמ ְלאְַך ַה ְבּ ִרית ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ַ

The Lord and the messenger of the covenant are subjects of the verb ‫בוא‬ which frames the verse. The middle part of the chiasm also displays a parallelism: both relative clauses are grammatically and syntactically, verbally and conceptually synonymous.64 Together they form a type of hendiadys, ‘representing two aspects of a complex situation’:65 the people are complaining about the absence of one person – the God of justice (2.17); and so it makes sense that one person comes to answer to their complaint: the Lord, the messenger of the covenant. That the messenger of the covenant is to be equated with the Lord is further seen in the two rhetorical questions of 3.2, which would only be asked of a divine theophany.66 Moreover, the activity of the messenger of the covenant in 3.2-3 reflects divine action more than that of a human prophetic messenger (cf. Isa. 1.25; 48.9-11; Jer. 6.27-30; 9.6[7]; Ezek. 22.17-22; Zech. 13.9; Dan. 11.34-35; 12.10).67 Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that the messenger of the covenant is the Lord who is coming to his temple. In sum, there are two not three figures in Mal. 3.1. There is the messenger who goes before Yhwh and is later identified as the eschatological prophet Elijah (3.23[4.5]), and there is the Lord, Yhwh himself, uniquely described as the messenger of the covenant. Having untied the exegetical knot concerning the number and identity of the figures, we may now begin the investigation of inner-biblical allusion and exegesis in 3.1.

be the sole subject of ἥξει and ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς διαθήκης the subject of ἔρχεται. That the LXX may intend the latter is suggested by the choice of two different Greek verbs for the one Hebrew verb ‫בוא‬. 64.  In this case the conjunctive waw joining both sentences is explicative or epexegetical. 65.  Hill, Malachi, p. 270. 66.  Fire is often associated with divine theophanies (Gen. 15.17; Exod. 3.2; 19.18; 24.16-17), including those in eschatological contexts (Isa. 4.5; Joel 4.3[3.3]). 67.  Contra Pamela J. Scalise, ‘To Fear and Not to Fear: Question and Reward and Punishment in Malachi 2:17–4:3’, Review and Expositor 84 (1987), pp. 409-18 (411).

170

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

6.5.3. Divine Protection in First Exodus: Malachi 3.1a and Exodus 23.20 Although most commentators acknowledge some connection to Exod. 23.20 in Mal. 3.1, S. D. Snyman argues that there are too many differences for an intended allusion.68 For him, the texts differ over (1) the messenger’s relationship to Yhwh: in Exod. 23, the angel and Yhwh are closely connected (‘my name is in him’); in Mal. 3, the messenger is a human figure (cf. 3.23[4.5]); (2) the messenger’s purpose: in Exod. 23, he guards the people on their way to the Promised Land; in Mal. 3, he prepares the way for Yhwh’s coming in order to judge them; (3) the contextual situations: in Exod. 23, God’s people are in the wilderness on the way to the Promised Land from Egypt; in Mal. 3, they have resettled in the city of Jerusalem. Standing in contrast to Snyman’s comment is Petersen’s: ‘[t]he relationship with Mal 3:1 and Exod 23:20 is too striking to be accidental’.69 There is, however, some disagreement as to exactly which part of Mal. 3.1 alludes to Exod. 23.20, and in what way the allusion works. Some see a connection to Exod. 23.20 through ‫( מלאכי‬Mal. 3.1a),70 while others see the link through ‫( מלאך הברית‬3.1e).71 Petersen equates the two messengers as the same person (in distinction from Yhwh), and thus both titles relate to the messenger of Exod. 23.20. The messenger is ‘a judging figure whose work of purification will allow the requisite purity of cult for Yahweh to appear’.72 In distinguishing ‫ מלאכי‬from ‫מלאך הברית‬, and equating the latter with Yhwh, Glazier-McDonald sees the allusion to Exod. 23.20 arising from the messenger of the covenant in 3.1e, and not from the messenger of Mal. 3.1a.73 This is because the roles of Yhwh and his messenger seem 68.  Snyman, ‘Three Figures in Malachi 3:1’, p. 1042. 69.  Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, p. 43. 70.  Scalise, ‘To Fear and Not to Fear’, p. 412, following Childs, Introduction, pp. 495-96; Berry, ‘Malachi’s Dual Design’, p. 291; Malone, ‘Messiah Announced’, p. 227; Ogden and Deutsch, Malachi, p. 101; Hill, Malachi, p. 265. 71.  Glazier-McDonald, ‘Malʾak habberit’, p. 96; idem, Malachi, p. 130; Stuart, ‘Malachi’, p. 1347; O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Prophets (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2004), p. 401; Moore, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, p. 149: ‘He is called the “messenger” or “angel” of the covenant, in allusion to Exod. 23:20’. 72.  Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, p. 42. 73.  Glazier-McDonald, ‘Malʾak habberit’, p. 97. So too Robertson, Christ of the Prophets, p. 401: ‘the messenger of the covenant…draws on the older reference to the “messenger” from the Lord who preceded Israel in the wilderness as he led them to their eschatological rest (Exod. 23.20-23).’ The implication of what Robertson states

6. ‘Who can endure the day of his coming?’

171

to merge in Exod. 23.20-23, as is the case with ‫ האדון‬and ‫ מלאך הברית‬in Mal. 3.1c-e.74 For her, the allusion to the exodus implies that Yhwh was coming to contract a new covenant. Stuart makes the connection to Exod. 23.20 from Mal. 3.1a, but then confuses this connection by concluding that ‫ מלאך הברית‬of 3.1e is the same person as Yhwh on the basis that the messenger’s identity ‘merges with that of Yahweh’ in Exod. 23.20.75 The confusion deepens when he then applies the word ‘sent’ to ‫מלאך הברית‬. ‘The messenger who is sent by Yahweh in 3:1 turns out to be none other than Yahweh himself. How can God both send and be sent?’76 But the verb ‫ בוא‬is used of ‫מלאך הברית‬ in 3.1e, while ‫ שלח‬applies only to ‫ מלאכי‬in 3.1a. The first messenger is sent by Yhwh; the second one comes as Yhwh. Stuart has conflated the two messengers and then introduced a theology of sending for the second messenger that is absent in the text. This is where the confusion lies. In sum, while a connection between Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1 is clear, what is not so clear is how the allusion works out in Mal. 3.1. For example, if one distinguishes the two messengers in Mal. 3.1, as seems most sensible to do, which one is connected to the messenger of Exod. 23.20? And, if one accepts that the connection to Exod. 23.20 relates to ‫ מלאכי‬in Mal. 3.1a, as the parallel syntax indicates, does this mean that this messenger must be a heavenly figure as he is in Exod. 23.20? And if so, how does this correlate with Elijah redivivus, a human prophet, being identified as ‫ מלאכי‬in Mal. 3.23[4.5]? Untying these knots and providing a fresh look at the connections between Mal. 3.1 and Exod. 23.20 is therefore necessary. here is that Mal. 3.1e not 3.1a is an allusion to Exod. 23.20-23. But unlike Petersen, Robertson does not equate the two messengers. In her commentary on Malachi, Glazier-McDonald initially distinguishes the two messengers (Malachi, pp. 130-31, following van Hoonacker, Douze Petits Prophètes, p. 731), but then later in her commentary on 3.23-24[4.5-6] she somewhat confusingly equates the messenger who prepares the way before Yhwh with the messenger of the covenant, by assigning to the first messenger the role of purifying the priesthood (3.2) (pp. 261-63). She then applies 3.23-24[4.5-6] to this one single messenger (similarly, Valve, ‘MessengerElijah’, p. 94; and Elie Assis, ‘Moses, Elijah and the Messianic Hope: A New Reading of Malachi 3.22-24’, ZAW 123.2 [2011], pp. 207-20 [214-15]). 74.  Cf. also Gen. 16.7-14; 21.17-21; 22.1-18; Exod. 3.2-4; 13.19, 24; Num. 22.2235; Judg. 6.11-16; 13.3-23. ‘In all these instances, the messenger (‫)מ ְל ָאְך‬ ַ is Yahweh’s mode of self revelation’ (Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, p. 131). 75.  Stuart, ‘Malachi’, p. 1350. 76.  Ibid., p. 1353. So, too Robertson, Christ of the Prophets, p. 401, speaking of ‫מלאך הברית‬, says, ‘Though sent by the Lord, he is the Lord’.

172

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity Mal. 3.1

‫וּפ ְתאֹם‬ ִ ‫ה־ד ֶרְך ְל ָפנָ י‬ ֶ ָ‫וּפנּ‬ ִ ‫אָכי‬ ִ ‫ִהנְ נִ י שׁ ֵֹל ַח ַמ ְל‬ ‫ר־אַתּם ְמ ַב ְק ִשׁים‬ ֶ ‫יכלֹו ָהאָדֹון ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ָ ‫ל־ה‬ ֵ ‫יָבֹוא ֶא‬ ‫ה־בא‬ ָ ֵ‫ר־אַתּם ֲח ֵפ ִצים ִהנּ‬ ֶ ‫וּמ ְלאְַך ַה ְבּ ִרית ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ַ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃‬ ַ

Exod. 23.20 ‫ִהנֵּ ה אָנ ִֹכי שׁ ֵֹל ַח ַמ ְלאְָך ְל ָפנֶ יָך ִל ְשׁ ָמ ְרָך ַבּ ָדּ ֶרְך‬ ‫ל־ה ָמּקֹום ֲא ֶשׁר ֲה ִכנ ִֹתי׃‬ ַ ‫יאָך ֶא‬ ֲ ‫וְ ַל ֲה ִב‬

Lexical and Syntactical Parallels The texts of Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1 invite discussion of an intended allusion because they share lexical and syntactical parallels. The combination of ‫ הנה‬+ first-person pronominal suffix or pronoun + participle ‫שלח‬ + object ‫ מלאך‬is shared by these two texts only.77 The exclusivity of this parallel is too close to be coincidental. Contextual and Thematic Parallels Besides the obvious fact that both messengers are closely associated with Yhwh, both texts are located within the wider context of God’s covenant relationship with his people. For example, Exod. 23 belongs to the Book of the Covenant (20.22–23.33; cf. 24.7), in which the statutes for the covenant are laid out; these are an explication of the Decalogue which precedes them (20.1-17). The opening verses of Exod. 23.20-33 demonstrate the conditional nature of the covenant. It is in this context that Yhwh sends his messenger, to guard them on their way to the Promised Land (vv. 20, 23). Israel is exhorted to obey carefully the voice of the messenger. This idea of covenant obedience that is associated with a messenger resonates with Malachi, where the sending of ‘my messenger’ is for the purpose of preparing the way for Yhwh.78 In 3.23[4.5], which is an expansion of 3.1a, Yhwh promises to send Elijah before the Day of Yhwh in order to prepare the people for his arrival: Elijah will turn the hearts of fathers to children and the hearts of children to their fathers (3.24[4.6]), which relates to ensuring generational covenant fidelity, as will be seen in Chapter 9. This promise is made in the context of an encouragement to remember the Law of Moses and the covenant commands given at Horeb (3.22[4.4]). In other words, in each text the messenger is connected to 77.  Similarly, the LXX of both texts is virtually identical, the only slight difference is that LXX Mal. 3.1 has the verb ἐξαποστέλλω, while LXX Exod. 23.20 has ἀποστέλλω. 78.  Clendenen, ‘Malachi’, p. 386: ‘One might argue that whenever a messenger of God appears in the Old Testament, the covenant between the Lord and Israel is always the issue’. Cf. Gen. 31.11-13; Exod. 23.20-23, 32; Judg. 2.1-4, 20; 1 Sam. 11.7; 2 Sam. 3.12-14; 5.11; 1 Kgs 20.1-9, 34; 2 Kgs 17.4, 13; Isa. 33.7; 44.26; Ezek. 17.15; Mal. 2.7; Ps. 78.49.

6. ‘Who can endure the day of his coming?’

173

covenant obedience in some way. In this regard, each messenger is sent as a precursor for a key event in the salvation history of God’s people: in Exodus, for the possession and conquest of the land; in Malachi, for the preparation for Yhwh’s arrival. Exodus 23.20-33 concerns land possession and conquest through covenant obedience, helped by Yhwh’s messenger. In Malachi, the community of Israel are back in the land, but under foreign occupation. Their covenant disobedience has precipitated the need for Yhwh to send his people another messenger to prepare them for his arrival. Assessment The exclusive lexical and syntactical parallels between Mal. 3.1a and Exod. 23.20 are hardly coincidental, which encourages an investigation into Malachi’s inner-biblical interpretation of the Exodus passage. The overview of the context of both passages reveals significant points of similarity, not least as regards the relationship between Yhwh’s messengers and covenant obedience on behalf of his people. Nevertheless, there are also some differences, which highlight that more than mere allusion is at play: Malachi has adapted this key text associated with the first exodus for his own purposes. In later identifying ‫ מלאכי‬as Elijah the prophet, and therefore a human figure in 3.23[4.5], Malachi has changed the messenger from one who is a heavenly angel, and at times nearly indistinguishable from Yhwh, to an earthly messenger who is distinct from Yhwh.79 ‘My messenger’ of Mal. 3.1a does not merge with Yhwh. The messenger in Exod. 23.20 was heavenly; the messenger in Mal. 3.1a is earthly – but both are sent to ensure covenant obedience related to a key event in the salvation history of God’s people.80 6.5.4. Interpretive Significance The theodicean accusation in 2.17 of Yhwh’s apparent absence is answered with a flurry of constant activity by Yhwh (‫שלח‬, ‫ישב‬, ‫צרף‬, ‫טהר‬, ‫)זקק‬, with the verb ‫ בוא‬as the key action in the unit. Yhwh is constantly on the move toward Israel. Alliteration and terminal rhyme enhance the sensation of motion, and underscore the imminence of Yhwh’s arrival.81 In preparation for his coming, Yhwh announces that he will send his messenger. The phrase recalls Yhwh’s sending the angel to protect Israel 79.  In Hebrew ‫ מלאך‬can refer to either a heavenly ‘angel’ or an earthly ‘messenger’. 80.  There is some ‘heavenly’ connotation with Elijah, since he did not die but was taken to heaven (2 Kgs 2.11; cf. 1 En. 89.52). 81.  Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, p. 124.

174

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

as they travelled to the Promised Land (Exod. 23.20-23). The angel would guard them on the way, and they were to obey his voice. Now back in the land after a ‘second exodus’, the people are struggling with their obedience: the priests have desecrated the covenant with Levi (Mal. 1.6–2.9); the nation as a whole have been unfaithful to the covenant that Yhwh made with their forefathers (Mal. 2.10-12); and husbands have been unfaithful to the wives of their marriage covenant (Mal. 2.13-16). By alluding to the messenger associated with the first exodus and covenant, does Malachi intend to conjure up ideas of a new exodus or a new covenant? The themes of exodus and covenant, subtly introduced here with the allusion to Exod. 23.20, are brought into sharper focus with an allusion to Isa. 40.3 in the next clause of Mal. 3.1. 6.5.5. Divine Presence in Second Exodus: Malachi 3.1b and Isaiah 40.3 An allusion to Isa. 40.3 in Mal. 3.1b was not obvious from some of the earliest encounters with the Hebrew text. The LXX’s choice of ἐπιβλέψεται (‘survey’) for the piel ‫ פנה‬in Mal. 3.1 exhibits the failure of the translator to see any connection to Isa. 40.3, where LXX reads Ἑτοιμάσατε. However, this does not rule out the possibility of a link. Mal. 3.1 ‫וּפ ְתאֹם‬ ִ ‫ה־ד ֶרְך ְל ָפנָ י‬ ֶ ָ‫וּפנּ‬ ִ ‫אָכי‬ ִ ‫ִהנְ נִ י שׁ ֵֹל ַח ַמ ְל‬ ‫ר־אַתּם ְמ ַב ְק ִשׁים‬ ֶ ‫יכלֹו ָהאָדֹון ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ָ ‫ל־ה‬ ֵ ‫יָבֹוא ֶא‬ ‫ה־בא‬ ָ ֵ‫ר־אַתּם ֲח ֵפ ִצים ִהנּ‬ ֶ ‫וּמ ְלאְַך ַה ְבּ ִרית ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ַ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃‬ ַ

Isa. 40.3 ‫קֹורא ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר ַפּנּוּ ֶדּ ֶרְך יְ הוָ ה יַ ְשּׁרוּ‬ ֵ ‫קֹול‬ ‫אֹלהינוּ׃‬ ֵ ‫ָבּ ֲע ָר ָבה ְמ ִס ָלּה ֵל‬

Lexical and Syntactical Parallels The ‫ קול קורא‬most likely refers to a messenger or herald and so can correspond to ‫ מלאכי‬in Mal. 3.1a. More significantly, the syntactical sequence of piel ‫ פנה‬+ direct object ‫ דרך‬is used outside Mal. 3.1 in only Isa. 40.3; 57.14; 62.10. In each case, the context of the phrase is an oracle of salvation and restoration addressed to Israel, where the phrase means to prepare the way for someone, in the sense of removing obstacles along a path.82 Isaiah 57.14 and 62.10 concern removing obstacles for Yhwh’s people, but, in Isa. 40.3, the way is to be prepared for Yhwh himself (‫ ;)דרך יהוה‬a highway is made straight for God (‫)לאלהינו‬. Thus, of these three texts, only Isa. 40.3 properly corresponds to Mal. 3.1, where the way (‫ )דרך‬is prepared (piel ‫ )פנה‬for Yhwh (‫)לפני‬. 82.  In Isaiah the phrase is used to describe the need to remove ‘the “obstacles” of self-interest, spiritual lethargy, and evil behaviour embedded in the people of God’ (Hill, Malachi, p. 267).

6. ‘Who can endure the day of his coming?’

175

Contextual and Thematic Parallels The literary context of Isa. 40.3 comes at the beginning of a major shift in the prophecy of Isaiah. The present judgement, seen in the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, abruptly dissipates as the joyous anticipation of the dawn of salvation and future restoration rises on the horizon. While the language of Isaiah may subvert the ceremonial parades of Babylonian deities, the imagery is clearly from the ‘exodus’: the path that needs to be prepared for Yhwh is in the wilderness (‫ )במדבר‬and in the desert (‫ ;בערבה‬40.3; cf. Exod. 3.18; 13.20-21; 23.20); the words of Ιsa. 40.3 occur in the context of comfort and deliverance from sin and exile (Isa. 40.1-2, 9-11); preparation is made for the welcome and manifestation of the real presence of the invisible God (40.3-5), just as he had been present in delivering his people out of Egypt. The broader context of Isa. 40–55 draws extensively from exodus imagery as well.83 For example, ‫דרך‬ forms an important theme in Isa. 40–55. Yhwh’s power was seen in his making a way (‫ )דרך‬in the sea (43.16), a way (‫ )דרך‬through the wilderness (43.19; 51.10) – strong allusions to the first exodus. The word ‫ דרך‬is also connected with the sending of Cyrus (45.13; 48.15) – the precursor to the second exodus. In this new exodus, Yhwh takes up a similar role to that of the first exodus: he will be Israel’s front and rear guard (52.12), just as he was when their forefathers came out of Egypt (Exod. 13.21-22; 14.19-20); Yhwh will lead his ‘blind’ people along a path they do not know (Isa. 40.11; 42.7, 16; 49.10; cf. 35.5-7); he will turn darkness into light before them (42.16) as they pass through the waters (43.1-3; 51.9-10) and the desert (41.17-20; 43.19-20); as their compassionate shepherd (Isa. 40.11; cf. Exod. 15.13), he will provide food and water for them (Isa. 43.19-20; 49.9-10). The key motif running through all this is Yhwh’s comforting presence: without it there can be no salvation (Isa. 40.1, 5, 9, 10, 11). The point of Isa. 40.3 is that the real exodus does not occur with a return to the land but with a revelation of Yhwh. His advent (‫ )בוא‬as a mighty warrior and compassionate shepherd is the sine qua non of Israel’s deliverance (40.1011).84 Isaiah 40.1-11 is therefore pivotal for Israel’s future hope, being termed by some as the locus classicus of Isaianic new-exodus salvation.85 83.  John D. W. Watts, Isaiah (WBC 24-25; Waco, TX: Word, 1985), II, p. 81: ‘the intensity and fullness of Exodus symbolism in Isa. 40–55 is unique’. 84.  Rikki E. Watts, ‘Mark’, in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), pp. 111249 (114). 85.  Ibid., p. 115.

176

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

The theme of Yhwh’s advent and presence in Isa. 40 relates easily with Mal. 2.17–3.6, a pericope which is preoccupied with the presence of Yhwh – or, rather, with his apparent absence and imminent arrival. The people ask where the God of justice is (2.17), and he responds by promising to send his messenger to prepare the way before him. Real presence will replace apparent absence. To answer the question of Yhwh’s absence with a passage suffused with Yhwh’s presence is poignant. However, there is also contrast between the two passages: in Isaiah, the focus is salvation – pardon from iniquity and sin – which is brought about by Yhwh’s comforting presence; in Malachi, it is judgement, brought about by Yhwh’s terrifying presence: ‘who can endure the day of his coming?’ (3.2). Combining the two texts together, it appears that Yhwh’s coming will involve salvation through judgement. The judgment will have a purifying effect, as the sons of Levi are cleansed for worship at the temple (3.3). In other words, Yhwh’s presence will ultimately comfort, but only after it has first terrified and purified. Availability The availability of the text of Isa. 40.3 poses no major problem for its reuse in the book of Malachi, since the general consensus is that Isaiah was basically in its present form by the period in which Malachi was written. Assessment The syntactical sequence of piel ‫ פנה‬+ direct object ‫ דרך‬is shared by Mal. 3.1b and Isa. 40.3 only, which suggests an intended allusion. The respective contexts of salvation and judgement work by contrast to link the two passages together and enrich the Day-of-Yhwh motif. 6.5.6. Interpretive Significance In response to the accusation that Yhwh has been absent and so not executing just judgement on evildoers in Israel (Mal. 2.17), Yhwh announces his imminent arrival (Mal. 3.1) in words reminiscent of Isa. 40.3: a messenger would prepare the way before him. ‘The notion rests upon an eastern custom of sending messengers ahead of a visiting king to inform the inhabitants of his coming and to pave the way, to make it passable, literally to remove all obstacles.’86 In Malachi’s context, it relates to preparing God’s people spiritually for his coming. The words recall the idea of salvation and a new exodus for God’s people, especially 86.  Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, p. 287.

6. ‘Who can endure the day of his coming?’

177

in the light of the immediately preceding allusion to the first exodus and covenant in Exod. 23.20.87 What becomes clear is that the second exodus is centred, not on a return to the land but on the revelation of Yhwh, as he comes to his temple. His coming, however, would be a surprise. In Isa 40.1-11, Yhwh’s presence comforts; in Mal. 3, it will initially terrify – ‘who can endure the day of his coming?’ (v. 2) – before it purifies – ‘and he will cleanse the sons of Levi’ (v. 3). The words of 3.2 serve to shock the addressees who viewed themselves as above reproach and piously claimed that they longed for Yhwh’s justice to be seen (2.17). Yhwh’s justice would indeed be seen, but first and foremost on those who had called for it. The Lord whom they were seeking would come, but who could stand at his appearing? His judgement, however, would not be destructive. Being focused firstly on the priests, it would be a purifying judgement out of which a righteous cult in Jerusalem and the nation would emerge (3.3-4), before ultimately comforting not consuming the children of Jacob (3.6). In other words, Yhwh’s coming would involve salvation through judgement. 6.5.7. Day of Yhwh: Malachi 3.2a and Joel 2.11 The first rhetorical question of 3.2, which indicates that Yhwh’s arrival would not produce the comforting effect promised by Isaiah, points up another possible case of inner-biblical allusion. Mal. 3.2

Joel 2.11

‫וּמי ָהע ֵֹמד ְבּ ֵה ָראֹותֹו‬ ִ ‫וּמי ְמ ַכ ְל ֵכּל ֶאת־יֹום בֹּואֹו‬ ִ ‫וּכב ִֹרית ְמ ַכ ְבּ ִסים׃‬ ְ ‫ִכּי־הוּא ְכּ ֵאשׁ ְמ ָצ ֵרף‬

‫וַ יהוָ ה נָ ַתן קֹולֹו ִל ְפנֵ י ֵחילֹו ִכּי ַרב ְמאֹד ַמ ֲחנֵ הוּ‬ ‫נֹורא‬ ָ ְ‫ִכּי ָעצוּם ע ֵֹשׂה ְד ָברֹו ִכּי־גָ דֹול יֹום־יְ הוָ ה ו‬ ‫וּמי יְ ִכ ֶילנּוּ׃‬ ִ ‫ְמאֹד‬

Lexical and Syntactical Parallels While Mal. 3.2a and Joel 2.11 employ the same verbal root ‫ – כול‬the former, the pilpel stem of the participle; the latter, the hiphil stem of the imperfect – the possibility of an allusion naturally surfaces because the combination of ‫ מי‬+ ‫ כול‬is unique to these two texts.

87.  Watts, ‘Mark’, p. 118: ‘Malachi sees the delayed second exodus as an ironic recapitulation of the first’. That Malachi intended a composite allusion to Exod. 23.20 and Isa. 40.3 is given support in some of the earliest reception of Mal. 3.1 in the NT (Matt. 11.10; Mark 1.2; Luke 7.27-28; John 3.28 – all of which have a composite quote of either Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1, or Mal. 3.1 and Isa. 40.3). A link between Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1 is present in late midrash (Midr. Exod. Rab. 32.9).

178

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Contextual and Thematic Parallels The imminent Day of Yhwh (‫ )יום יהוה‬theme is prominent in both passages (Mal. 3.23[4.5]; Joel 3.4[2.31]).88 The surrounding context of each text is also similar, where Yhwh calls on his people to return to him (Mal. 3.7; Joel 2.12-13), with the possibility of blessing as a result (Mal. 3.11; Joel 2.14). Availability The issue of the direction of dependence is tricky because which prophet has chronological priority over the other is not obvious. The internal evidence of Joel may be applied to early and late dates and thus remains inconclusive.89 While I avoid specifying an exact date, I understand Joel to be earlier than Malachi for a few reasons. In Joel, it would appear that the people are in the land (a trumpet is to be sounded in Zion; Joel 2.1, 15), with the threat of a foreign army invasion (2.2-11).90 Edom also appears to be a present reality (Joel 4.19[3.19]) yet to become (‫ )תהיה‬a desolate desert. In Malachi, Edom’s destruction is viewed as something that is past (1.3-4). For this reason, it is plausible for Malachi to be dependent on Joel. Furthermore, some scholars have noted a ‘sustained allusion’ to Joel 1–2 in Zech. 1–8, which, if accurate, indicates that Joel was definitely prior to Malachi.91 Likely Direction of Dependence While the internal evidence in Joel and Malachi may point in the direction of the former’s priority over the latter, it is not finally conclusive. What 88.  In the Prophets, the construct chain ‫ יום יהוה‬occurs 15 times in the Hebrew Bible (Isa. 13.6, 9; Ezek. 13.5; Joel 1.15; 2.1, 11; 3.4[2.31]; 4.14[3.14]; Amos 5.18, 20; Obad 15; Zeph. 1.7, 14 [2×]; Mal. 3.23[4.5]). The prophets paint the day in positive and negative light. Positively, it is a day of salvation (Isa. 13.6-13; 40.10; 59.20; Jer. 46.10; Ezek. 13.5; 30.3-4; Joel 3.1-5[2.28-32]; 4.14[3.14]; Obad. 15; Zech. 2.10; 9.9; 14.1); negatively, it is a day of judgement (Isa. 3.14; 13.5; 66.15; Joel 1.15; 2.1, 11; Amos 5.18-20; Zeph. 1.7, 14-18; Mal. 3.23[4.5]). It is Yhwh’s decisive intervention in history, when he purifies (Mal. 3.2; cf. Isa. 1.25; 4.4-5; Ezek. 36.25) and when he judges (Mal. 3.5; cf. Jer. 21.13; 25.31; 49.4; 65.15-16; Joel 4.12-13[3.12-13]; Zech. 14.5). 89.  For a general overview of some of the issues surrounding the dating of Joel, see Elie Assis, The Book of Joel: A Prophet Between Calamity and Hope (LHBOTS 581; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), pp. 3-8. 90.  Joel 2.20 speaks of ‘the northerner’ (Babylonians?). 91.  E.g. Stead, Zechariah 1–8, pp. 68-71, 92-98, who proposes that the parallels between Zech. 1–8 and Joel 1–2 (at least) are best explained by the former alluding to the latter.

6. ‘Who can endure the day of his coming?’

179

may ease any uncertainty is an assessment of the likely direction of dependence.92 Leslie Allen comments that it is ‘doubtful’ that Joel 2.11 (cf. 3.4[2.31]) alludes to Mal. 3.2 (cf. 3.23[4.5]), since ‘the latter passages themselves have an allusive ring’.93 Certainly the allusions to Exod. 23.20 and Isa. 40.3 in Mal. 3.1, and ‘echoes’ of various Pentateuchal texts in Mal. 3.5, indicate that this pericope does have an ‘allusive ring’ to it. In support of this diachronic order is the fact that Joel’s description of this ‘day’ is in line with other prophetic references to ‫יום יהוה‬. The ‘dark’ colour that Joel paints of the day (2.10) is represented in texts such as Amos 5.18-20; Zeph. 1.15; and Zech. 14.6. Joel therefore contains what may be called a ‘traditional view’ of the day, whereas Malachi, by linking the Day of Yhwh to a precursory messenger sent before the coming of Yhwh to his temple (3.1), and by incorporating the awful day of judgement into a process of purification (3.3-4), introduces new elements to this biblical theme. It is Malachi, therefore, and not Joel who has progressed the ‫ יום יהוה‬motif in the prophetic corpus.94 The same could be said of Malachi’s reference to the great and awesome Day of Yhwh in 3.23[4.5]: the prophet ties it to the coming of Elijah redivivus – another unique idea associated with the prophetic ‫יום יהוה‬. Moreover, the problem of ‘delay’, which is clearly reflected in 2.17 and 3.5, does not appear to be a problem that Joel seeks to address. If Joel is later than Malachi, and the Day of Yhwh has still not occurred, one would expect an even greater emphasis upon the issue in Joel – yet it is absent. Assessment The exclusive combination of ‫ מי‬+ ‫ כול‬suggests that at least some kind of connection between Mal. 3.2 and Joel 2.11 is intended. The direction of dependence may be carefully discerned from comparing internal factors in each book (e.g. imminent foreign invasion; status of Edom), as well as asking which direction of dependence makes more sense. Given that Joel presents the traditional view of the Day of Yhwh, while Malachi introduces new elements, it seems that Malachi is later and therefore alludes to Joel. 92.  At the beginning of the twentieth century, George B. Gray, A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Duckworth & Co., 1913), p. 210, employed the same question in arguing as to why Joel alludes to so many other texts. Interestingly, Gray does not deal with Joel 2.11; 3.4[2.31] and Mal. 3.2, 23[4.5]. 93.  Leslie Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 25. 94.  Even if both texts are alluding to a common tradition, the point still stands: Malachi progresses the tradition in ways that Joel does not.

180

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

6.5.8. Interpretive Significance If the reasons outlined above for Malachi’s dependence on Joel are plausi­ble, then the allusion functions rhetorically to introduce an element of surprise into Malachi’s text. The people questioned the absence of Yhwh (2.17), and they desired his coming (3.1); but by alluding to Joel 2.11, Malachi surprises his audience: Yhwh is indeed coming, but when he comes, ‘who can endure the day of his coming?’ (3.2). Joel 2.1-11 envisages the Day of Yhwh as a great and terrible day for Yhwh’s own people (cf. Amos 5.18-20). The people’s expectation of the Day of Yhwh is tragically mismatched with the reality of the event. ‘His imminent coming will be more than a surprise, it will be inimical.’95 However, the day of his coming would not involve complete destruction, as we have seen. By alluding to Isa. 40.3 prior to the allusion to Joel 2.11, Malachi provides some hope in the context of judgement: Yhwh’s coming would involve salvation through judgement. This is seen in the similes that Malachi employs: the messenger of the covenant is described as a refining fire (‫ )אש מצרף‬and a launderer’s lye (‫)ברית מכבסים‬, two figures that suggest the ongoing existence of the objects of purification and cleansing. Fire and lye are agents of separation: the former burns the slag or dross out of the ore, while the latter separates the dirt from the fabric. Yhwh is coming to separate good from evil and to ensure that a pure remnant remains among the priests – an apt response to the accusation that he perceived evildoers as good and delighted in them (2.17). The priests are the focus of the purifying judgement because as mediators of Yhwh’s covenant and as representatives of Israel, their purity is essential for the purification of God’s people.96 But in the end the children of Jacob are also spared (3.6). The work of the messenger of the covenant produces a reversal on earlier parts of Malachi. The offering (‫ )מנחה‬of Judah and Jerusalem that is pleasing to Yhwh (3.4) replaces the abomination that had been committed in Israel and Jerusalem, where Judah had defiled (‫ )חלל‬the ‫קדש‬ ‫( יהוה‬2.11), and it reverses Yhwh’s earlier desire to shut the temple doors because of the blemished offering (‫ ;מנחה‬1.10). The restoration of worship in the temple capital and beyond (3.4) and the previous announcement of a pure offering that will be imminently offered among the nations (1.11) raise the question of chronological priority within Yhwh’s restoration 95.  Hill, Malachi, p. 271. The note of doom has already been hinted at in 3.1 through the use of ‫פתאם‬, an adverb of ominous quality which is used 25 times in the OT, and in every case (apart from 2 Chron. 29.36) the context is one of disaster and judgement. See, e.g., Num. 6.9; 12.4; Isa. 30.13; 47.11; Jer. 4.20; Prov. 6.15; 24.22. 96.  Ibid., p. 276.

6. ‘Who can endure the day of his coming?’

181

project. It would appear that the eschatological renewal among the nations (1.11) is precipitated by the transformation of Yhwh’s own people in Jerusalem (3.1-6), since this is what is given the most urgency in the adverbs ‫ פתאם‬and ‫( ממהר‬vv. 1, 5).97 Malachi’s theology thus fits that of other OT prophecy, in which Yhwh will first renew Israel before salvation can come to the Gentile nations (cf. Isa. 40–55). 6.6. Conclusion The covenant context of Mal. 2.17–3.6 is made clear by the arrival and work of the messenger of the covenant. The prophet does not indicate which covenant is in view. Our attention to the note of futurity, unique terminology and phraseology and an emphasis on divine intervention highlight new covenant conceptualities. In the context of an accusation against Yhwh’s apparent indifference to evildoers and his absence and failure to execute just judgement, Yhwh announces he will send a messenger to prepare the way for his arrival. The words allude to Exod. 23.20 and evoke images of the first exodus and covenant; the next allusion to Isa. 40.3 recalls the new exodus and conjures up images of salvation. However, Malachi situates these positive allusions to exodus/new exodus themes in an oracle of judgement (3.2). The surprise is heightened by an allusion to Joel 2.11, where the terror of the Day of Yhwh is captured in the rhetorical question ‘who can endure the day of his coming?’ The allusion functions to shock Malachi’s audience out of their complacency as Yhwh answers their call for him to appear. He will indeed come, but first in judgement. However, it would not be the end of God’s people. As the allusion to Isa. 40.3 indicates, Yhwh’s coming would involve salvation through judgement. His presence would first terrify but it would then purify and ultimately comfort. That the work of the messenger of the covenant is not finally to destroy but to refine reveals covenant continuity. Yhwh desires for the priesthood to remain (cf. 2.4), but to remain it must be purified (3.2-3). Moreover, his drawing near to be a swift judge against the covenant-breakers in the community (3.5) also reveals covenant continuity. He has not changed in relation to his covenant word to punish those who break his laws. However, the immutability of Yhwh brings a glimmer of hope, for, although he is coming to judge because he does not change, the children of Jacob will not be consumed (3.6). 97.  Contra Glazier-McDonald, ‘Malʾak habberit’, p. 103, who argues for the reverse: the eschatological renewal of the nations ‘culminates in the transformation of Yahweh’s own people (3:1-5)’.

Chapter 7 ‘ I f I wi l l n ot op en t h e wi n dows of he ave n ’: I nne r - B i b l i c a l A l l us i on and E xe ge si s i n R e l at i on to t h e M os ai c C ove nant (M a l a ch i 3.7-12)

7.1. Translation BHQ ‫יכם ַס ְר ֶתּם ֵמ ֻח ַקּי‬ ֶ ‫ימי ֲאב ֵֹת‬ ֵ ‫ְל ִמ‬

v. 3.7a

‫וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְר ֶתּם‬ ‫שׁוּבוּ ֵא ַלי‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫אָשׁוּבה ֲא ֵל‬ ָ ְ‫ו‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות‬ ַ ‫וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם ַבּ ֶמּה נָ שׁוּב׃‬ ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫אָדם ֱא‬ ָ ‫ֲהיִ ְק ַבּע‬ ‫אַתּם ק ְֹב ִעים א ִֹתי‬ ֶ ‫ִכּי‬ ‫וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם ַבּ ֶמּה ְק ַב ֲענוָּך‬ ‫רוּמה׃‬ ָ ‫ַה ַמּ ֲע ֵשׂר וְ ַה ְתּ‬ ‫אָרים‬ ִ ֵ‫אַתּם נ‬ ֶ ‫ַבּ ְמּ ֵא ָרה‬ ‫אַתּם ק ְֹב ִעים‬ ֶ ‫וְ א ִֹתי‬ ‫ַהגֹּוי ֻכּלֹּו׃‬ ‫ל־בּית‬ ֵ ‫ל־ה ַמּ ֲע ֵשׂר ֶא‬ ַ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫ָה ִביאוּ ֶא‬ ‫אֹוצר‬ ָ ‫ָה‬ ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫יהי ֶט ֶרף ְבּ ֵב‬ ִ ִ‫ו‬ ‫וּב ָחנוּנִ י נָ א ָבּזֹאת‬ ְ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות‬ ַ ‫ִאם־לֹא ֶא ְפ ַתּח ָל ֶכם ֵאת‬ ‫ֲא ֻרבֹּות ַה ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם‬ ‫וַ ֲה ִריק ִֹתי ָל ֶכם ְבּ ָר ָכה‬ ‫י־די׃‬ ָ ‫ד־בּ ִל‬ ְ ‫ַע‬

7b 7c 7d 7e 7f 8a 8b 8c 8d 9a 9b 9c 10a 10b 10c 10d 10e 10f

Author’s translation ‘Since the days of your fathers you have turned away from my statutes and have not kept them. Return to me and I will return to you, says Yhwh of hosts. But you say, “How shall we return?” Can man rob God? Yet you are robbing me! But you say, “How have we robbed you?” The tithe and contribution. With the curse you are being cursed, yet you are robbing me – the whole nation. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse so that there will be food in my house. Then test me in this, says Yhwh of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour out a blessing for you until there is no more need.

7. ‘If I will not open the windows of heaven’ ‫וְ גָ ַע ְר ִתּי ָל ֶכם ָבּא ֵֹכל‬ ‫ת־פּ ִרי‬ ְ ‫וְ לֹא־יַ ְשׁ ִחת ָל ֶכם ֶא‬ ‫ָה ֲא ָד ָמה‬ ‫א־ת ַשׁ ֵכּל ָל ֶכם ַהגֶּ ֶפן ַבּ ָשּׂ ֶדה‬ ְ ֹ ‫וְ ל‬

11a 11b

‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃‬ ַ ‫ל־הגֹּויִ ם‬ ַ ‫וְ ִא ְשּׁרוּ ֶא ְת ֶכם ָכּ‬ ‫אַתּם ֶא ֶרץ ֵח ֶפץ‬ ֶ ‫י־ת ְהיוּ‬ ִ ‫ִכּ‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃ ס‬ ַ

11d 12a 12b 12c

11c

183

Then I will rebuke the devourer for you so that he will not destroy the fruit of the land for you, so that the vine of the field will not miscarry for you, says Yhwh of hosts. Then all nations will bless you for you will be a land of delight, says Yhwh of hosts.’

7.2. Text-Critical Issues At Mal. 3.7-12 the earliest versions pose no major challenge to the MT’s integrity.1 The LXX exhibits its usual amplification and facilitation of stylistic awkwardness or difficulty in the MT. For example, in 3.8, μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν εἰσιν expands on the abrupt ‫;המעשר והתרומה‬2 in 3.10, the LXX exegetes ‫ מעשר‬as τὰ ἐκφόρια (‘produce’), and interprets ‫ בחן‬in such a way as to avoid the idea of putting God to the test: ἐπισκέψασθε δὴ ἐν τούτῳ (‘Do observe by this’; NETS);3 the ‫ ברכה‬that Yhwh will pour out is personalized in LXX: τὴν εὐλογίαν μου; and, in 3.11, the LXX is liberal in its rendering of the phrase ‫וגערתי לכם באכל‬: καὶ διαστελῶ ὑμῖν εἰς βρῶσιν (‘and I will distinguish among you for food’; NETS). There are also graphical errors or misreadings of the MT in the LXX, some of which at first sight seem to call the MT’s integrity into question. In 3.8-9, the LXX differs from the MT in significant ways, the first being the most important for our discussion.

1.  BHK proposed twelve emendations of the MT (3.7, 8 [5×], 9, 10 [2×], 11, 12 [2×]), while BHS reduced this to nine (3.7 [2×], 8 [5×], 9 [2×]). Although BHQ departs from BHK and BHS in avoiding regular emendations by the editor, it does leave room for ‘a hypothetical reading (i.e., a conjecture)’ but ‘only when it is the only explanation of the extant readings in a case’ (Adrian Schenker et al., Megilloth [BHQ 18; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004], XIII). Interestingly, on Mal. 3.7-12 there are no conjectural emendations suggested in BHQ (see Gelston, Twelve Minor Prophets, pp. 152-53). 2.  The Vg., followed by most English translations (e.g. NRSV; NASB; NJPS), smooths the abrupt phrase by reading the ‫ ב‬preposition in the preceding question as elliptical: in decimis et in primitivis. 3.  Similarly Tg.: ‘and make trial now before me’ (Cathcart and Gordon, Targum of Minor Prophets, p. 237).

184

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

(a) The LXX’s rendering of ‫ קבע‬in 3.8-9 as πτερνίζειν, ‘to deceive’ or ‘to trip up’ (NETS), suggests an intended or accidental metathesis of the consonants to produce ‫עקב‬. The LXX translation makes sense given that it ties the final word of 3.6 (reading ‫ כלא‬instead of ‫ )כלה‬to the beginning of 3.7: καὶ ὑμεῖς, υἱοὶ Ιακωβ, οὐκ ἀπέχεσθε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀδικιῶν τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν (‘And you, O sons of Iakob, are not keeping a distance from the injustices of your fathers’; NETS). The LXX reading has led commentators to propose an allusion here to Jacob. However, a number of factors affirm the MT and tell against an allusion here to Jacob: (i) the rare verb ‫ קבע‬is used in the sense of ‘to rob/steal’ in Prov. 22.23; (ii) the MT presents the lectio difficilior – a change (by intent or accident) of ‫ קבע‬to ‫ עקב‬is more likely than ‫ עקב‬to ‫;קבע‬4 (iii) Malachi’s comparison is with the days of their fathers, not of their father (Jacob), as even the LXX (τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν) acknowledges; (iv) Malachi is not prone to paronomasia; and (v) ‘rob’ makes perfect sense in the context of tithing and avoids the theological conundrum of cheating/deceiving God. (b) At Mal. 3.9, 4QXIIa and LXX both reflect √‫ראה‬: ‫ומראים אתם ראים‬/ καὶ ἀποβλέποντες ὑμεῖς ἀποβλέπετε.5 The rarity of the niphal ‫ ארר‬perhaps explains why. (c) In the final phrase of 3.9, the LXX reads ‫( כלה‬συνετελέσθη) instead of the noun ‫כל‬: ‘the nation has been made an end of’ (NETS).6 (d) Finally, in 3.10, the LXX departs from the MT (‫ )ויהי טרף בביתי‬with καὶ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ ἔσται ἡ διαρπαγὴ αὐτοῦ (‘and it shall be pillage in my house’; NETS). 7.3. Structure and Theme Malachi 3.7-12 is more complex than previous disputations: 4.  Though the early witness of 4QXIIa has most of the text missing, it does have the masculine plural participle ‫ קבעים‬in 3.8, thus supporting the MT. So too Vg.: affigere, ‘to afflict’, which assumes the Aramaic sense of the word, ‘to overpower, rob’ (Marcus Jastrow, ed., A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005], p. 1311). To ‘rob’ God was unthinkable for Tg., hence ‘provoke’ (Cathcart and Gordon, Targum of Minor Prophets, p. 236). 5.  Vg.: in penuria vos maledicti estis. 6.  It is unnecessary to correct the ‘awkward’ phrase ‫הגוי כלו‬, contra BHS. The grammatical device has been used already by Malachi (1.7, 12; cf. Isa. 9.8). Attending to the incomplete inverted parallelism of 3.8b and 3.9b, helps us to see how the final clause of 3.9c serves to answer the questions of 3.8a: ‘Can man rob God?… The whole nation of you are doing it!’

7. ‘If I will not open the windows of heaven’

185

Declaration 3.7a-e Rebuttal 3.7f Refutation 3.8a-b Rebuttal 3.8c Refutation 3.8d-9 Exhortation 3.10a-d Promise 3.10e-12

The oracle begins with a declaration (3.7a-e) and then includes two rounds of rebuttal (3.7f, 8c): in response to the first question as to how they will return, Yhwh introduces the issue of robbing God in the tithe (3.8a-b); this in turn evokes a second question enquiring how they have robbed God (3.8c). This question in 3.8c is answered immediately (3.8d-9), while the question of 3.7f finds its delayed answer in the imperative of 3.10a,7 with the subsequent promise of blessing for repentance (3.10e-12). The essential theme of this unit is not tithing but repentance, with ‫ שוב‬serving as a Leitwort. Running through the paragraph is the motif of reversal: the people have robbed (‫ )קבע‬God in the tithe (‫ ;משער‬3.8) and are invited to give back to God in the tithe (3.10). If the people comply, Yhwh promises to reverse the present curse (‫ ;מארה‬3.9) and pour out a future blessing (‫ ;ברכה‬3.11): drought will turn to downpour and provision and protection will replace scarcity and destruction, as threat gives way to promise. A whole nation that was under a curse (3.9) will be blessed by all the nations (3.12); a land of barrenness (3.11) will become a land of delight (3.12).8 7.4. The Mosaic Covenant The fifth pericope contains a number of terms and concepts related to the Mosaic covenant. First, the opening phrase ‫ למימי אבתיכם‬arguably recalls the Sinaitic generation, who first broke covenant with Yhwh.9 Proposals for the exact era to which Malachi refers range from the contemporary generation or a generation prior to the exile (Zech. 1.2-6; 7.  Similarly framed questions by addressees are normally answered immediately (1.2, 6, 7; 2.14, 17; 3.13). 8.  The inversion of ‫ כל‬and ‫ גוי‬in 3.12 compared to 3.9 plays into the reversal theme present in the pericope, as does the emphatic use of the pronoun in 3.12. 9.  The compound preposition ‫ למן‬is comprised of a temporal ‫ ל‬and locational ‫ מן‬and denotes a terminus a quo (cf. W-O’C § 11.2.10c, 11.2.11). The prepositional phrase refers to ‘a point in time when Israel began to drift away from a specified beginning point’ (Hill, Malachi, p. 298).

186

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

7.7-14)10 to the Sinaitic covenant breach (Exod. 34.10),11 or the era of the patriarchs.12 Mention of Israel’s ‘fathers’ recalls ‘the covenant with our fathers’ (‫ )ברית אבתינו‬in 2.10, which, as argued there, is best interpreted as the Mosaic covenant. Moreover, Malachi’s penchant for Deuteronomic language suggests that 3.7 relates to the Sinaitic generation. For example, although the combination of ‫ סור‬+ ‫ חק‬is unique to the Hebrew Bible, ‫ שמר‬+ elliptical ‫ חק‬reflects Deuteronom(ist)ic language.13 This gives credibility to the view of some scholars that the word ‫ חקים‬here in Malachi more closely approximates to the meaning in Deuteronomy: that of a general sense of ‘Torah’, the Law of Moses.14 The first significant incidence of turning from Moses’ Law was at Sinai (Exod. 32; 34.10-16). Second, the way in which the people have turned away from Yhwh is through robbing God in the tithe and the offering (‫)המעשר והתרומה‬.15 The definite articles on both nouns suggest that the reference is to tithes and offerings prescribed in the Mosaic Law with which the addressees were familiar (cf. Lev. 27.30-32; Num. 18.21-32; Deut. 12.5-12; 14.22-29). Third, the antonymic concepts of curse (‫ )מארה‬and blessing (‫)ברכה‬ and the key term ‫ שוב‬convey that the Mosaic covenant is still operative. William Holladay speaks of a ‘covenant usage’ of ‫שוב‬, meaning ‘a change of loyalty on the part of Israel or God, each for the other’.16 This ‘mutuality’ in the relationship between Yhwh and his people, as expressed in the imperative + resultative (weyiqtol) clause of v. 7 – ‫שובו אלי ואשובה‬ ‫ – אליכם‬reflects a covenantal arrangement.17 The idea of returning to Yhwh was built into the Mosaic covenant in Deut. 30.

10.  Smith, Malachi, p. 69. 11.  Hill, Malachi, p. 298. 12.  Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, p. 475. 13.  Deut. 4.5-6, 40; 5.1; 6.17; 7.11; 11.32; 16.12; 17.19; 26.16-17; 28.45; 1 Kgs 3.14; 8.58; 9.4; 2 Kgs 17.13, 37; 23.3. The lack of object on ‫ שמרתם‬is typical of Malachi’s ‘gapping’ style (cf. 1.3, 7, 12; 2.9, 17; 3.8). Hill, Malachi, p. 300, suggests that the verbs ‫ סור‬and ‫ שמר‬serve as a hendiadys, a form representing ‘two aspects of a complex situation’. 14.  Hill, Malachi, p. 299; Helmer Ringgren, ‘‫’ח ַקק‬, ָ in TDOT, V, p. 145. 15.  The phrase is terse and abrupt through ellipsis, with the ‫ ב‬from the preceding question carrying over. 16.  William L. Holladay, The Root ŠÛBH in the Old Testament: With Particular Reference to Its Usages in Covenantal Contexts (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1958), p. 116. 17.  Ibid., p. 141.

7. ‘If I will not open the windows of heaven’

187

7.5. Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis 7.5.1. Temporary Repentance: Malachi 3.7 and Zechariah 1.2-6 The expression ‫ שוב אל‬is used throughout the prophetic literature of Israel’s need to return to Yhwh (e.g. Isa. 9.12[13]; Jer. 5.3; Ezek. 18.23; Hos. 6.1; 12.7[6]; Amos 4.6). The phrase ‫ואשובה אליכם‬, with Yhwh as subject and Israel as the object, occurs only in Zech. 1.3; Mal. 3.7; and 2 Chron. 30.6, and ‘[t]he passages’ almost verbatim agreement raises the question concerning which has priority’.18 Malachi’s dependence on 2 Chronicles is ruled out on the basis of scholarly consensus that the latter is later than the former. There is no disagreement among scholars that Zech. 1 was earlier than Malachi. The question is whether Malachi exhibits a verbal dependence on Zech. 1 or simply verbal correspondence. Some commentators suggest that Mal. 3.7 ‘echoes’ Zech. 1.2-6,19 while others call Mal. 3.7 a ‘citation’ of Zech. 1.3.20 Mal. 3.7

Zech. 1.2-6

‫יכם ַס ְר ֶתּם ֵמ ֻח ַקּי וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְר ֶתּם‬ ֶ ‫ימי ֲאב ֵֹת‬ ֵ ‫ְל ִמ‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות‬ ַ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫אָשׁוּבה ֲא ֵל‬ ָ ְ‫שׁוּבוּ ֵא ַלי ו‬ ‫וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם ַבּ ֶמּה נָ שׁוּב׃‬

‫אָמ ְר ָתּ ֲא ֵל ֶהם‬ ַ ְ‫יכם ָק ֶצף׃ ו‬ ֶ ‫בֹות‬ ֵ ‫ל־א‬ ֲ ‫ָק ַצף יְ הוָ ה ַע‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות שׁוּבוּ ֵא ַלי נְ ֻאם יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫כֹּה‬ ‫אָמר‬ ַ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ְצ ָבאֹות וְ אָשׁוּב ֲא ֵל‬ ‫יכם ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ֶ ‫אַל־תּ ְהיוּ ַכ ֲאב ֵֹת‬ ִ ‫יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃‬ ‫יאים ָה ִראשׁ ֹנִ ים ֵלאמֹר‬ ִ ‫יהם ַהנְּ ִב‬ ֶ ‫אוּ־א ֵל‬ ֲ ‫ָק ְר‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות שׁוּבוּ נָ א ִמ ַדּ ְר ֵכ‬ ַ ‫כֹּה‬ ‫יכם] ָה ָר ִעים‬ ֶ ‫[וּ][מ ַע ְל ֵל‬ ַ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫וּמ ֲע ִל ֵיל‬ ַ ‫ָה ָר ִעים‬ ‫א־ה ְק ִשׁיבוּ ֵא ַלי נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה׃‬ ִ ֹ ‫וְ לֹא ָשׁ ְמעוּ וְ ל‬ ‫עֹולם יִ ְחיוּ׃‬ ָ ‫ה־הם וְ ַהנְּ ִב ִאים ַה ְל‬ ֵ ֵ‫יכם אַיּ‬ ֶ ‫בֹות‬ ֵ ‫ֲא‬ ‫ת־ע ָב ַדי‬ ֲ ‫יתי ֶא‬ ִ ִ‫אְַך ְדּ ָב ַרי וְ ֻח ַקּי ֲא ֶשׁר ִצוּ‬ ‫יכם וַ יָּ שׁוּבוּ‬ ֶ ‫יאים ֲהלֹוא ִה ִשּׂיגוּ ֲאב ֵֹת‬ ִ ‫ַהנְּ ִב‬ ‫אמרוּ ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר זָ ַמם יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות ַל ֲעשֹׂות‬ ְ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ ‫וּכ ַמ ֲע ָל ֵלינוּ ֵכּן ָע ָשׂה ִא ָתּנוּ׃ ס‬ ְ ‫ָלנוּ ִכּ ְד ָר ֵכינוּ‬

Lexical and Syntactical Parallels Doubts over dependence are initially raised because not every paralleled word correlates exactly. For example, in Zech. 1.6, ‫ חקים‬refers to the curses of Deuteronomy (28.15, 45), whereas in Mal. 3.7, ‘statutes’ means the Torah. However, the fact that Mal. 3.7 reflects Zech. 1.3 almost verbatim in lexical and syntactical construction, with the divine speech formula 18.  Heinz-Josef Fabry, ‘‫’ׁשּוב‬, in TDOT, XIV, 506. 19.  James D. Nogalski, The Book of the Twelve: Micah – Malachi (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011), p. 1054. 20.  Hill, Malachi, p. 302.

188

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

following both clauses, suggests a strong possibility of an allusion. The minor differences in Malachi – the absence of the interjecting ‫נאם יהוה‬ ‫ צבאות‬in the protasis–apodosis construction, or the change from first-person weyiqtol to first-person weyiqtol cohortative21 – do not discourage the case for an allusion. Minor changes in grammar and syntax accompany textual reuse. Since the phrase occurs in only three passages in the Hebrew Bible, there is a strong possibility of deliberate dependence here. Contextual and Thematic Parallels The passages share the theme of mutual returning (‫ )שוב‬as between Yhwh and Israel. Contextually, there are also similarities. Each call to return to Yhwh occurs in the context of a reference to the fathers (‫)אבות‬: Zechariah encourages his generation not to be like their fathers (1.4); Malachi accuses his generation of perpetuating their fathers’ disobedience (3.7). In both, the fathers are portrayed negatively.22 These connections strengthen the case that Malachi makes his exhortation with one eye on Zech. 1.2-6. Assessment The exclusivity of the lexical and syntactical construction linking Mal. 3.7 with Zech. 1.2-6 strongly indicates a case of allusion here. This is supported by the contextual and thematic parallels. 7.5.2. Interpretive Significance Yhwh’s call to Israel to return to him occurs in the context of the announcement that he is coming to judge the lawbreakers because he does not change in relation to his covenant (3.5-6). The final clause of 3.6 held out a glimmer of hope, however: the children of Jacob would not be consumed. But while such a statement arose out of Yhwh’s unconditional

21.  The weyiqtol cohortative has the nuance of purpose or result in the dependent clause. 22.  Stead, Zechariah 1–8, p. 78, argues that the ‘fathers’ in Zech. 1.2-6 refer to a former generation that received the critique of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel and then repented. The repentance, however, did not last: once back in the land, tension arose again between expectations of fertility in the land and Yhwh’s expectations of the people’s behaviour (see Zech. 7.8-14; 8.15-17). ‘What was right in Zechariah 1–8, notably the portrayal of Joshua the high priest and the glorious temple, have become covenant violations in Malachi’ (Jason T. LeCureux, The Thematic Unity of the Book of the Twelve [Hebrew Bible Monographs 41; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012], p. 220). This much is true, but even in Zech. 7–8 there are indications that the people were guilty of the very thing that Yhwh is coming to judge them for in Mal. 3.5.

7. ‘If I will not open the windows of heaven’

189

favour to Jacob–Israel (cf. 1.2-5), the promise did not ipso facto produce the reality. Built into Yhwh’s covenants was a bilateral relationship of command and obedience. When disobedience occurred, Israel could not presume upon Yhwh’s forgiveness: repentance was required on the part of the covenant violators. Hence Yhwh’s exhortation for Israel to return to him. It is in this context that Malachi alludes to the call to repentance in Zech. 1.2-6. But doing so, he exposes the people’s need of repentance: the repentance of their ‘fathers’ (in the immediate generation) has not been maintained. This is not to suggest that the phrase ‘days of your fathers’ in Mal. 3.7 means from the time of the previous generation. As we have seen, the prepositional phrase ‫ למימי‬directs the reader back to a terminus a quo, a point in time when Israel first broke covenant with Yhwh (e.g. that of the Sinai community).23 Malachi’s argument is that, from its beginnings in Sinai to its present post-exilic existence in ‘Yehud’, Israel has repeatedly turned away from Yhwh and has not kept his statutes, which means that even the repentance recorded in Zech. 1.6 has dissipated. The allusion to Zech. 1.3, therefore, serves to underline Malachi’s argument and reiterates the need for repentance. The way in which Malachi calls the people to repentance is demonstrated in the tithe and offering (‫ ;המעשר והתרומה‬3.8). The prophet exhorts the nation to bring the whole tithe (‫ ;כל־המעשר‬3.10) into the storehouse at the temple.24 The location for the tithe’s collection is significant, because it reverses Yhwh’s wish to close the temple in 1.10. The change of perspective in 3.10 may be explained by the intervening material in 3.1-4, where the work of the messenger of the covenant reforms and renews the priesthood and cult, and thus ‘reopens’ the temple for worship again.

23.  Interpreting the phrase as the immediate generation would not actually make sense, since Zechariah records that the fathers did eventually repent. 24.  This indicates that the ‘Levitical tithe’ is in view (Lev. 27.30, 32; Num. 18.2132), though arguably the ‘festival tithe’ (Deut. 14.22-26) and the ‘poor tithe’ (Deut. 14.27-29) were not unrelated. The book of Nehemiah, for example, demonstrates its knowledge of the legislation of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, yet it presents only a single tithe (10.38-39[37-38]) (cf. J. Gordon McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy [JSOTSup 33; Sheffield: JSOT, 1984], p. 75). Similarly, Jacob Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), pp. 55-63, who critiques Wellhausen’s developmental theory, and concludes that ‘H, P and D posit an annual, fixed tithe’ (p. 60); ‘the biblical codes know only of an annual fixed tithe’ (p. 62).

190

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

7.5.3. Actualization of the Deuteronomic Curse: Malachi 3.9-11 and Deuteronomy 28 Mal. 3.9-11 ‫אַתּם ק ְֹב ִעים‬ ֶ ‫אָרים וְ א ִֹתי‬ ִ ֵ‫אַתּם נ‬ ֶ ‫ַבּ ְמּ ֵא ָרה‬ ‫ל־בּית‬ ֵ ‫ל־ה ַמּ ֲע ֵשׂר ֶא‬ ַ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫ַהגֹּוי ֻכּלֹּו׃ ָה ִביאוּ ֶא‬ ‫וּב ָחנוּנִ י נָ א ָבּזֹאת‬ ְ ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫יהי ֶט ֶרף ְבּ ֵב‬ ִ ִ‫אֹוצר ו‬ ָ ‫ָה‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות ִאם־לֹא ֶא ְפ ַתּח ָל ֶכם ֵאת‬ ַ ‫ֲא ֻרבֹּות ַה ָשּׁ ַמיִם וַ ֲה ִריק ִֹתי ָל ֶכם ְבּ ָר ָכה‬ ‫י־די׃ וְ גָ ַע ְר ִתּי ָל ֶכם ָבּא ֵֹכל וְ לֹא־יַ ְשׁ ִחת‬ ָ ‫ד־בּ ִל‬ ְ ‫ַע‬ ‫א־ת ַשׁ ֵכּל ָל ֶכם‬ ְ ֹ ‫ת־פּ ִרי ָה ֲא ָד ָמה וְ ל‬ ְ ‫ָל ֶכם ֶא‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃‬ ַ ‫ַהגֶּ ֶפן ַבּ ָשּׂ ֶדה‬

Deut. 28.18 ‫אַד ָמ ֶתָך ְשׁגַ ר ֲא ָל ֶפיָך‬ ְ ‫וּפ ִרי‬ ְ ‫י־ב ְטנְ ָך‬ ִ ‫אָרוּר ְפּ ִר‬ ‫וְ ַע ְשׁ ְתּרֹות צֹאנֶ ָך׃‬ 28.20 ‫הוּמה‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ְמּ‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ְמּ ֵא ָרה ֶא‬ ַ ‫יְ ַשׁ ַלּח יְ הוָ ה ְבָּך ֶא‬ ‫ל־מ ְשׁ ַלח יָ ְדָך ֲא ֶשׁר ַתּ ֲע ֶשׂה‬ ִ ‫ת־ה ִמּגְ ֶע ֶרת ְבּ ָכ‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫ד־א ָב ְדָך ַמ ֵהר ִמ ְפּנֵ י ר ַֹע‬ ֲ ‫ַעד ִה ָשּׁ ֶמ ְדָך וְ ַע‬ ‫ַמ ֲע ָל ֶליָך ֲא ֶשׁר ֲעזַ ְב ָתּנִ י׃‬ 28.33 ‫אכל ַעם ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ַ ֹ ‫אַד ָמ ְתָך וְ ָכל־יְ גִ ֲיעָך י‬ ְ ‫ְפּ ִרי‬ ‫ל־היָּ ִמים׃‬ ַ ‫ית ַרק ָעשׁוּק וְ ָרצוּץ ָכּ‬ ָ ִ‫לֹא־יָ ָד ְע ָתּ וְ ָהי‬ 28.42 ‫אַד ָמ ֶתָך יְ יָ ֵרשׁ ַה ְצּ ָל ַצל׃‬ ְ ‫וּפ ִרי‬ ְ ‫ל־ע ְצָך‬ ֵ ‫ָכּ‬ 28.51 ‫י־אַד ָמ ְתָך ַעד ִה ָשּׁ ְמ ָדְך‬ ְ ‫וּפ ִר‬ ְ ‫אָכל ְפּ ִרי ְב ֶה ְמ ְתָּך‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר לֹא־יַ ְשׁ ִאיר ְלָך ָדּגָ ן ִתּירֹושׁ וְ יִ ְצ ָהר ְשׁגַ ר‬ ‫ֲא ָל ֶפיָך וְ ַע ְשׁ ְתּר ֹת צֹאנֶ ָך ַעד ַה ֲא ִבידֹו א ָֹתְך׃‬

Lexical and Syntactical Parallels Malachi has already employed the rare word ‫( מארה‬2.2), which, as previously noted, is an allusion to Deut. 28.20. Only Deut. 28.20 and Mal. 2.2 reflect the syntactical sequence of ‫ שלח‬+ ‫ ב‬+ pronominal suffix + ‫ את‬+ ‫ה‬ + ‫ מארה‬in the Hebrew Bible. The definite article on ‫ מארה‬in 3.9 suggests that the same Deuteronomic curse of 28.20 is in view, since outside Malachi ‫ מארה‬occurs only three times (Deut. 28.20; Prov. 3.33; 28.27).25 Additionally, Malachi employs the verb ‫ ארר‬for expressing the curse, as is done in Deut. 28.26 The combination of the verb ‫ ארר‬and ‫ מארה‬occurs in only Mal. 2.2; 3.9 and Deut. 28.15-20, suggesting the possibility of a deliberate allusion.

25.  The Proverbs texts do not resonate in context with Mal. 3.9, leaving Deut. 28.20 as the most likely source text. 26.  This is not the first time the verb ‫ ארר‬has been employed: the cheat has been cursed (1.14), as have the priests (2.2-3), and now the whole nation is cursed (3.9).

7. ‘If I will not open the windows of heaven’

191

Rebuking the devourer (‫ )וגערתי לכם באכל‬is a unique expression in the Hebrew Bible, but the object phrase in the negated resultative clause (‫ )ולא־ישחת‬is not: ‫פרי האדמה‬. The phrase occurs 14 times in the Hebrew Bible, either with the definite article on ‫ אדמה‬or with a secondperson singular pronominal suffix.27 The majority of occurrences are in Deuteronomy, in the context of blessing for covenantal obedience (7.13; 26.2, 10; 28.4, 11; 30.9) or curse for covenantal disobedience (28.18, 33, 42, 51). For obedience, Yhwh promises to bless the fruit of the ground (‫פרי‬ ‫ ;אדמתך‬28.4, 14), but, for disobedience, he threatens to curse (‫ )ארור‬the fruit of the ground (‫)פרי אדמתך‬: it will be eaten (‫ )אכל‬by a foreign nation (28.33, 51), eaten (‫ )אכל‬by the worm (‫ ;תלעת‬28.39), and dispossessed (‫ )ירש‬by crickets (‫ ;צלצל‬28.42). The phrase ‫ פרי האדמה‬is the most frequent expression used in Deut. 28 (occurring six times) for describing what Yhwh will either bless or curse, which perhaps explains why Malachi chose this particular phrase in order to convey that the curse of Deut. 28 had been actualized in his day. The choice of phrase makes sense because the blessing of increased herds, flocks and the fruit of the womb are all dependent on the fruit of the ground. Rain and crops are foundational to the blessing (and curse) of material things: to bless the fruit of the ground is to bless herds, flocks and the fruit of the womb; conversely, to curse the fruit of the ground is to curse herds, flocks and the fruit of the womb. Contextual and Thematic Parallels Malachi 3.7-12 and Deut. 28 centre on the themes of blessing and curse. Contextually, in Mal. 3.7-12, curse is announced as a present reality for turning away (‫ )סור‬from Yhwh’s statutes (‫ )חקות‬and not keeping (‫)שמר‬ them (v. 7); in Deut. 28, the blessing is promised for obedience to Yhwh’s laws and statutes (‫)חקות‬, and curse is threatened for disobedience in not keeping (‫ )שמר‬them. Assessment Rare vocabulary (‫)מארה‬, unique combination of words (‫ מארה‬+ ‫ )ארר‬and a distinct Deuteronomic phrase (‫ )פרי האדמה‬demonstrate a clear allusion to Deut. 28 in Malachi’s fifth pericope.28 In alluding to Deut. 28, Malachi shows that the threatened curse has become a reality again in post-exilic Judah. 27.  Gen. 4.3; Deut. 7.13; 26.2, 10; 28.4, 11, 18, 33, 42, 51; 30.9; Jer. 7.20; Mal. 3.11; Ps. 105.35. 28.  Contra Nogalski, ‘Intertextuality and the Twelve’, pp. 111 n. 24, and 117, who maintains that the locusts of Joel 1 form the textual background to Mal. 3.10-11. Nogalski’s proposal lacks the lexical linkages that Deut. 28 provides.

192

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

7.5.4. Interpretive Significance Malachi opens this unit with a statement about Israel’s generational covenant infidelity and an invitation to return to him. The invitation recalls Zech. 1.2-6 and exposes the fact that, though their fathers in the immediate generation repented, it did not last, and hence the renewed call to return to Yhwh. When the people enquire how they might return, Malachi pinpoints the problem of robbing God (Mal. 3.8). The accusation is met with a swift second rebuttal enquiring how they have robbed God. The point is illustrated in the tithe. In order to expose their breach of covenant stipulations in this area, Malachi proceeds to demonstrate that the covenant curse of Deut. 28 has already been actualized. That the curse is contemporaneous is conveyed by the niphal participle ‫ נארים‬in Mal. 3.9, as well as the fact that Yhwh promises in v. 10 to open up ‫ארבות‬ ‫‘( השמים‬the windows of heaven’), which presupposes that the drought is operative (Deut. 28.22-24;29 cf. Lev. 26.19-20). Yet despite this, the people are still robbing (‫ )קבע‬God in the tithe.30 The fourfold repetition of the rare verb ‫ קבע‬reveals Yhwh’s incredulity and exposes the stubbornness of Israel’s heart. They are still not repentant. While most commentators see in the verb ‫( קבע‬or rather its emendation to ‫ )עקב‬an allusion to Jacob, the connection that Malachi wishes to make is not to their father Jacob, but to their fathers: since the days of their fathers, Israel has repeatedly turned away from Yhwh’s statutes (3.7). This is the key issue that Yhwh has with Israel: for their generational covenant infidelity, the covenant curse of Deut. 28 has been inflicted on them – and yet they are still unrepentant. However, despite this, Yhwh offers Israel a dramatic reversal of fortunes if they repent by bringing the full tithe into the house of Yhwh. Covenant curse may be replaced by covenant blessing. This is seen in a further link to Deut. 28 and a possible connection to Deut. 30. 7.5.5. Reversal of the Deuteronomic Curse: Malachi 3.9-11 and Deuteronomy 28 In Deut. 28.20, ‫ מארה‬and ‫ מגערת‬are juxtaposed as Yhwh announces the curses for disobedience. The same noun ‫ מארה‬and the same root ‫גער‬ occur together in Mal. 2.2-3 and 3.9-11. The difference in the latter case, 29.  HALAT, II, p. 336, reads ‫ חרב‬in Deut. 28.22 as ‘drought’ (‘Trockenheit, Dürre’) and not ‘sword’, contra BHS. 30.  The coordinating waw on the second clause in Mal. 3.9 (‫ )ואתי אתם קבעים‬can be read causally – ‘because you are robbing me’ – or as a disjunctive – ‘but/yet you are robbing me’. Understanding the curse to be already operative (cf. 2.1-3), the latter interpretation is favoured here. God responds in amazement: ‘You are being cursed with the (Deuteronomic) curse, yet you are still robbing me?’

7. ‘If I will not open the windows of heaven’

193

however, compared with Mal. 2.2-3 and Deut. 28.20, is that the root ‫גער‬ is used positively to convey the reversal of the curse, whereas in the other texts ‫ גער‬is employed to bring the curse.31 The people are cursed at present (‫ )ארר‬with the curse (‫ ;)המארה‬yet if they bring the whole tithe into Yhwh’s storehouse, then Yhwh will rebuke (‫ )גער‬the devourer (‫)אכל‬, so that it will no longer destroy (‫ )לא־ישחת‬the fruit of the ground (‫ )פרי האדמה‬or cause the vine of the field (‫ )הגפן בשדה‬to miscarry (‫)לא־תשכל‬. The Deuteronomic curse that is currently targeted at the crops will be reversed: not only will there be a plentiful harvest but that which was harmful to such a harvest – the ‫ – אכל‬will itself be eliminated.32 In other words, Yhwh promises abundant provision and protection.33 Connecting with the theme of reversal is the repetitious use of the ‘lamed of interest’ or ‘(dis)advantage’. In the space of two verses, the phrase ‫‘( לכם‬for you’) is used five times.34 Yhwh promises to open the windows of heaven for Israel (‫ ;)לכם‬to pour out a blessing for them (‫;)לכם‬ to restrain the devourer for them (‫)לכם‬, so that it will not destroy the fruit of the ground for them (‫)לכם‬, or miscarry the vine of the field for them (‫)לכם‬. ‘The repetition places heavy emphasis on the benefits Israel accrues from covenant relationship with Yahweh.’35 Given the strong Deuteronomic allusions already present, is it possible to see here a reversal of the Deuteronomic curses where Yhwh vowed to be ‘against’ Israel? Yhwh threatened that his anger would be against Israel (‫ ;בכם‬Deut. 11.17); he would send his curse (‫ )המארה‬against them (‫ ;בך‬28.20); the curses would be a sign and a wonder against them (‫ ;בך‬28.46); he would send enemies against them (‫ ;בך‬28.48); he would bring all the diseases of Egypt against them (‫ ;בך‬28.60; cf. Lev. 26.17-25). On condition of repentance, all this can be reversed as Yhwh again becomes explicitly for (‫ )לכם‬Israel. 31.  Recalling Macintosh’s argument that ‫ גער‬has the connotation of an operative curse in the form of a ban or paralysis (‘Hebrew ‫’גער‬, p. 476), it seems best to view this curse in relation to a crop famine. Cf. also Kennedy, ‘Root GʿR’, pp. 47-64. 32.  The word ‫ אכל‬has been variously interpreted as locust (cf. Joel 1.4), caterpillar, mildew and adverse climate (heat, frost, hail). While most commentators opt for the locust, V. A. Hurowitz, ‘The ‫ אכל‬in Malachi 3:11 – Caterpillar’, JBL 121 (2002), pp. 327-30, has presented a reasonable case for ‫ אכל‬being the caterpillar. Perhaps Malachi chose a general term to encompass a number of possibilities mentioned in Deut. 28. 33.  Another possible hint of reversing the Deuteronomic curse arises with the verb ‫ כלה‬in Mal. 3.6. In Deut. 28.21, Yhwh threatened to consume (‫ )כלה‬disobedient Israel by pestilence (‫)דבר‬, but, in Mal. 3.6, he promises that they will not be consumed (‫)כלה‬. 34.  All the lines of Mal. 3.10-11 are similarly constructed: verb + ‫ לכם‬+ noun. 35.  Hill, Malachi, p. 314.

194

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

7.5.6. Repentance and Blessing: Malachi 3.7, 11 and Deuteronomy 30.1-3, 9-10 Mal. 3.7, 11 ‫יכם ַס ְר ֶתּם ֵמ ֻח ַקּי וְ לֹא ְשׁ ַמ ְר ֶתּם‬ ֶ ‫ימי ֲאב ֵֹת‬ ֵ ‫ְל ִמ‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות‬ ַ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫אָשׁוּבה ֲא ֵל‬ ָ ְ‫שׁוּבוּ ֵא ַלי ו‬ ‫וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם ַבּ ֶמּה נָ שׁוּב׃‬ … ‫וְ גָ ַע ְר ִתּי ָל ֶכם ָבּא ֵֹכל וְ לֹא־יַ ְשׁ ִחת ָל ֶכם‬ ‫א־ת ַשׁ ֵכּל ָל ֶכם ַהגֶּ ֶפן‬ ְ ֹ ‫ת־פּ ִרי ָה ֲא ָד ָמה וְ ל‬ ְ ‫ֶא‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃‬ ַ ‫ַבּ ָשּׂ ֶדה‬

Deut. 30.1-3, 9-10 ‫ל־ה ְדּ ָב ִרים ָה ֵא ֶלּה‬ ַ ‫‏וְ ָהיָ ה ִכי־יָ בֹאוּ ָע ֶליָך ָכּ‬ ‫ַה ְבּ ָר ָכה וְ ַה ְקּ ָל ָלה ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ַת ִתּי ְל ָפנֶ יָך וַ ֲה ֵשׁב ָֹת‬ ‫יחָך יְ הוָ ה‬ ֲ ‫ל־הגֹּויִם ֲא ֶשׁר ִה ִדּ‬ ַ ‫ל־ל ָב ֶבָך ְבּ ָכ‬ ְ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ֹלהיָך‬ ֶ ‫ֹלהיָך ָשׁ ָמּה׃ וְ ַשׁ ְב ָתּ ַעד־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ֶ ‫ֱא‬ ‫וְ ָשׁ ַמ ְע ָתּ ְבקֹלֹו ְכּכֹל ֲא ֶשׁר־אָנ ִֹכי ְמ ַצוְּ ָך ַהיֹּום‬ ‫וּב ָכל־נַ ְפ ֶשָׁך׃‬ ְ ‫ל־ל ָב ְבָך‬ ְ ‫וּבנֶ יָך ְבּ ָכ‬ ָ ‫אַתּה‬ ָ ‫בוּתָך וְ ִר ֲח ֶמָך וְ ָשׁב‬ ְ ‫ת־שׁ‬ ְ ‫ֹלהיָך ֶא‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָשׁב יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫יצָך יְ הוָ ה‬ ְ ‫ל־ה ַע ִמּים ֲא ֶשׁר ֱה ִפ‬ ָ ‫וְ ִק ֶבּ ְצָך ִמ ָכּ‬ ‫ֹלהיָך ָשׁ ָמּה׃‬ ֶ ‫ֱא‬ … ‫ֹלהיָך ְבּכֹל ַמ ֲע ֵשׂה יָ ֶדָך‬ ֶ ‫הֹות ְירָך יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ִ ְ‫ו‬ ‫אַד ָמ ְתָך‬ ְ ‫וּב ְפ ִרי‬ ִ ‫וּב ְפ ִרי ְב ֶה ְמ ְתָּך‬ ִ ‫ִבּ ְפ ִרי ִב ְטנְ ָך‬ ‫טֹובה ִכּי יָ שׁוּב יְ הוָ ה ָלשׂוּשׂ ָע ֶליָך ְלטֹוב‬ ָ ‫ְל‬ ‫ל־אב ֶֹתיָך׃ ִכּי ִת ְשׁ ַמע ְבּקֹול‬ ֲ ‫ר־שׂשׂ ַע‬ ָ ‫ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ‫ֹותיו וְ ֻחקּ ָֹתיו ַה ְכּתוּ‬ ָ ‫ֹלהיָך ִל ְשׁמֹר ִמ ְצ‬ ֶ ‫יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫ָבה ְבּ ֵס ֶפר‬ ‫ֹלהיָך‬ ֶ ‫תֹּורה ַהזֶּ ה ִכּי ָתשׁוּב ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ָ ‫ַה‬ ‫וּב ָכל־נַ ְפ ֶשָׁך׃ פ‬ ְ ‫ל־ל ָב ְבָך‬ ְ ‫ְבּ ָכ‬

Lexical and Syntactical Parallels The combination of the verb ‫ שוב‬and the construct phrase ‫פרי האדמה‬ does not only direct the reader to Deut. 28 but also to Deut. 30. This latter passage is of interest because the promise of blessing, evidenced in the prosperity of the fruit of the ground (‫ )‏פרי אדמתך‬among other things, will occur in the future after the people have repented (‫ )שוב‬of their sin (vv. 1-2), when (‫ )כי‬they obey the voice of Yhwh their God to keep (‫)שמר‬ his commandments and statutes (‫)חקות‬, and when (‫ )כי‬they turn (‫ )שוב‬to Yhwh their God with all their heart and soul (v. 10). Indeed, when Israel returns (‫ )שוב‬to Yhwh, then Yhwh will return/restore (‫ )שוב‬their fortunes (‫ ;את־שבותך‬v. 3). The protasis–apodosis construction centred around the keyword ‫ שוב‬is reflected in Mal. 3.7: ‫שובו אלי ואשובה אליכם‬. Other key vocabulary in Deut. 30.10, such as the verb ‫ שמר‬and the plural noun ‫חקות‬, is reflected in Mal. 3: Yhwh accuses his people of not having kept (‫ )שמר‬the statutes (‫)חקות‬, and calls on them to return (‫ )שוב‬to him (v. 7); if they bring the tithe into his storehouse – evidence of their return to Yhwh – then Yhwh will pour out his blessing on them, rebuking the devourer so that the fruit of their land (‫ )פרי האדמה‬will no longer be destroyed, and so that the vine of the field will no longer fail to bear.

7. ‘If I will not open the windows of heaven’

195

In other words, Yhwh will reverse the curse of Deuteronomy that is currently in place and will replace it with abundant prosperity, if they will return (‫ )שוב‬to him.36 Contextual and Thematic Parallels The two passages naturally connect because of the shared context of future blessing.37 Thematically, the future agricultural blessing (‫פרי‬ ‫ )האדמה‬in each case is dependent upon a reciprocal returning (‫ )שוב‬of Israel and Yhwh one to the other. As in Deuteronomy, so in Malachi: after repentance and beyond curse, blessing. Assessment The sharing of keyword vocabulary (‫ )פרי האדמה ;שוב ;חקות ;שמר‬in the context of future blessing, along with the similar protasis–apodosis construction in relation to the keyword ‫שוב‬, makes the case for an innerbiblical allusion to Deut. 30.1-10 in Mal. 3.7-12. 7.5.7. Interpretive Significance While Malachi actualizes the Deuteronomic curse in Mal. 3.7-9, some of the vocabulary used in his offer to bless upon condition of repentance demonstrates a reversal of the curse. The root ‫ גער‬that was used to bring the curse in Deut. 28 is now used to rebuke the devourer of the crops in Mal. 3.11; though the curse was against Israel (‫ )בך‬in Deut. 28, Yhwh would now be for them (‫)לכם‬. More significantly, the nexus between repentance and blessing alludes to Deut. 30. The subtle link serves to motivate the people toward repentance. As Yhwh promised in the past, so now in the present: Israel will experience restored fortunes in their agricultural life (‫ )פרי האדמה‬in the land if they would only return to Yhwh. And why? Because Yhwh does not change in relation to his covenant word (Mal. 3.6). In all this, Malachi highlights the theme of covenant continuity: the tithe laws still stand, the Deuteronomic curse is still operative for covenant disobedience; but so too is the promise of blessing, based on the condition

36.  Petersen’s proposal that the ‘covenant language’ of Deut. 28.10-12 has been utilized in Mal. 3.10-12 is true as far as it goes: ‘It is difficult to read Mal. 3.10b-12 and not recognize the covenant ethos exemplified in Deuteronomy’ (Petersen, Malachi, p. 218). Petersen, however, misses the other elements that are present, not least the return and blessing that Yhwh promises in Deut. 30. 37.  Contra Rudolph, Haggai–Sacharja–Maleachi, pp. 282-83, who contends that this unit is non-eschatological.

196

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

of repentance that was built into Yhwh’s covenant. In this regard, Yhwh has not changed in relation to his covenant: he is still willing to bless his people if they repent. 7.5.8. ‘As the rain waters covered the earth’: Malachi 3.10 and Genesis 7.11; 8.2 In order to add rhetorical effect and drama to the reversal of the Deuteronomic curse, Malachi exegetically transforms a text from the flood narrative in Genesis. Mal. 3.10 ‫יהי‬ ִ ִ‫אֹוצר ו‬ ָ ‫ל־בּית ָה‬ ֵ ‫ל־ה ַמּ ֲע ֵשׂר ֶא‬ ַ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫ָה ִביאוּ ֶא‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫וּב ָחנוּנִ י נָ א ָבּזֹאת‬ ְ ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ֶט ֶרף ְבּ ֵב‬ ‫ְצ ָבאֹות ִאם־לֹא ֶא ְפ ַתּח ָל ֶכם ֵאת ֲא ֻרבֹּות‬ ‫י־די׃‬ ָ ‫ד־בּ ִל‬ ְ ‫ַה ָשּׁ ַמיִם וַ ֲה ִריק ִֹתי ָל ֶכם ְבּ ָר ָכה ַע‬

Gen. 7.11; 8.2 ‫שׁ־מאֹות ָשׁנָ ה ְל ַחיֵּ י־נ ַֹח ַבּח ֶֹדשׁ‬ ֵ ‫ִבּ ְשׁנַ ת ֵשׁ‬ ‫ה־ע ָשׂר יֹום ַלח ֶֹדשׁ ַבּיֹּום ַהזֶּ ה‬ ָ ‫ַה ֵשּׁנִ י ְבּ ִשׁ ְב ָע‬ ‫ל־מ ְעיְ נֹת ְתּהֹום ַר ָבּה וַ ֲא ֻרבֹּת‬ ַ ‫נִ ְב ְקעוּ ָכּ‬ ‫ַה ָשּׁ ַמיִם נִ ְפ ָתּחוּ׃‬ … ‫וַ יִּ ָסּ ְכרוּ ַמ ְעיְ נֹת ְתּהֹום וַ ֲא ֻרבֹּת ַה ָשּׁ ָמיִם וַ יִּ ָכּ ֵלא‬ ‫ן־ה ָשּׁ ָמיִם׃‬ ַ ‫ַהגֶּ ֶשׁם ִמ‬

Lexical and Syntactical Parallels The phrase ‫‘( ארבות השמים‬windows of heaven’) is exclusive to the flood narrative in Genesis (7.11; 8.2) and Mal. 3.10.38 The connection between the texts has been recognized by some commentators, but often with only a passing reference.39 The rarity of the phrase suggests an intentional reuse here. The combination of the verb ‫ פתח‬with the phrase ‫ארבות‬ ‫ השמים‬is unique to Gen. 7.11 and Mal. 3.10. The windows of heaven were the source of the judgement; Yhwh opened (‫ )פתח‬them to release rain upon the earth. Following the flood, God shut (‫ )סכר‬the fountains of the deep (‫ )מעינת תהום‬and the windows of heaven (‫ ;ארבות השמים‬8.2), promising never again to curse (‫ )קלל‬the ground (‫ )האדמה‬because of mankind (8.21). 38.  2 Kgs 7.2 and 7.19 contain the two words ‫ ארבות‬and ‫שמים‬, but not in construct relationship as here. In 2 Kgs 7, they serve as the object and indirect object (‫ )ב‬of the verb ‫עשה‬, respectively. Isa. 24.18 speaks of ‘windows from on high [‫’]ארבות ממרום‬. 39.  E.g. Redditt, Malachi, p. 180; Barnes, Malachi, p. 130. Hill, Malachi, p. 314, sees the construction as ‘associated with’ the great flood of Gen. 7.11 and 8.2, but does not expand further. Some are more explicit about the connection; see Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 335: the similarity is ‘hardly accidental’; Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, p. 308: ‘God will pour out…the abundance of blessing, through the open “windows of heaven”, as it was done in the time of the flood (Gen. 7:11)’. Verhoef’s wording mistakenly gives the impression that God poured out a blessing in Gen. 7.11.

7. ‘If I will not open the windows of heaven’

197

Contextual and Thematic Parallels The theme of curse is present in the context of both passages, while the introduction of blessing in Mal. 3.10 presents a thematic reversal. Assessment Given the rarity of the phrase ‫ ארבות השמים‬and the antithetical themes of curse and blessing, there is good reason for Malachi to utilize the phrase in order to promote his theme of reversal. 7.5.9. Interpretive Significance In conveying the promise to pour out a blessing, Malachi employs the language of the Noahic flood narrative. Malachi reworks a key phrase associated with a curse and relates it to a blessing. He takes a verb and a rare phrase from Gen. 7.11; 8.2 and transforms them for his own rhetorical effect in Mal. 3.10.40 The windows of heaven, which were the source of judgement, will become the source of blessing. What was once the agent of curse will be turned into an agent of blessing. Downpour will displace drought (cf. Hag. 1.6; 2.16, 19).41 Keeping in mind Deut. 28 as the textual backdrop suggests that the blessing is a ‘bountiful harvest’42 and not simply fructifying rainfall.43 Rain is given as a blessing for obedience to Yhwh’s laws (Lev. 26.3-4; Deut. 11.13-14; 28.8, 12) and drought is a consequence of disobedience (Lev. 26.19-20; Deut. 11.16-17; 28.22-24), but in all these texts the blessing of rain or the curse of drought is tied directly to the prosperity of crops. The promised blessing for obedience to God’s word is not only focused on the agent of blessing, such as rain (Deut. 28.12), but also on the production of material things: for example, field, cattle, crops, bowls and barns (Deut. 28.3-5); conversely, the curse is also focused on these material things (Deut. 28.15, 17, 19, 21-24, 30, 33, 38-40, 42, 48, 51), and not just on drought. This also fits best with the context of tithing in Mal. 3. Yhwh promises to open the windows of heaven such that the abundance of rain will be conversely reminiscent of the abundance of rain in the Noahic flood, only this time with the opposite

40.  ‫ אם־לא אפתח‬serves as the apodosis to the protasis which is implied in the preceding imperatives: ‫ הביאו‬and ‫בחנוני‬. 41.  The verb ‫ריק‬, ‘to pour out’ (HALAT, IV, p. 1145: ‘ausschütten’), may have been chosen because of its assonance with the noun ‫רקיע‬, ‘sky/firmament’, a frequent word in Gen. 1, and the source of rain. 42.  Hill, Malachi, p. 315. 43.  Contra von Bulmerincq, Kommentar, p. 439, who takes the phrase as being an abbreviation of ‫‘( גשמי ברכה‬showers of blessing’) in Ezek. 34.26.

198

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

result – an abundant harvest, ‘until there is no more need’ (‫)עד־בלי־די‬.44 The reversal is brought to a climax in Mal. 3.12 where the nations bless (‫ )אשר‬Israel, a once barren land under curse, because it has become a land of delight (‫ ;ארץ חפץ‬cf. Isa. 61.9; 62.4). Although there are no lexical coordinates with Gen. 12.3, conceptually, the nations play out the Abrahamic promises. 7.6. Conclusion The Mosaic covenant forms the context of Mal. 3.7-12 in which Yhwh calls Israel to repentance. The opening statement of their continual covenant infidelity since the days of the Sinaitic community sets the scene for Yhwh’s call to return to him. In order to demonstrate how they can do this, Yhwh presents the problem of robbing him in the tithe. The covenant curse is actualized in the unit through key terminology and phraseology from Deut. 28 in order to expose their guilt in this matter. The allusion communicates that the curse is currently operative and heightens Yhwh’s incredulity at their lack of repentance: although Israel are under the covenant curse, they are still robbing God in the tithe. However, despite their brazen stubbornness, Yhwh offers a dramatic reversal of fortunes if they will repent. Bringing the whole tithe into his house will result in a bountiful harvest and future protection of their crops. Terminology from Deut. 28 remains in play as Yhwh performs a volte-face on the root ‫גער‬. What was used to communicate the curse (‫ )מגערת‬is now employed to rebuke (‫ )גער‬the devourer. Alongside this, the nexus between repentance (‫ )שוב‬and blessing (‫ )ברכה‬recalls Deut. 30, and serves to motivate the people toward repentance. As Yhwh promised in the past, so he will do in the future. In order to add rhetorical effect and drama to the reversal of the Deuteronomic curse, Malachi exegetically transforms a phrase from the flood narrative in Genesis. The windows of heaven (‫)ארבות השמים‬, which were the source of judgement, will become the source of blessing. What was once the agent of curse will be turned into an agent of blessing. All told, whether in the curse or the blessing, covenant continuity is ensured, undergirded by Yhwh’s covenant fidelity – because he does not change (Mal. 3.6).

44.  The phrase has been variously interpreted (see Smith, Malachi, p. 73, for a full list), but each rendering essentially communicates the same thing: ‘until there is not sufficiency, i.e., until my abundance can be exhausted, or, as this can never be, for ever’ (BDB, p. 191).

Chapter 8 ‘ T he y wi l l b e m y s p ec i al posse ssi on ’: I nne r - B i b l i ca l A l l u s i on and E xe ge si s i n R el at i on to C oven ant R e ne wal (M a l a ch i 3.13-21 [ 4.3] )

8.1. Translation BHQ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ָחזְ קוּ ָע ַלי ִדּ ְב ֵר‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם ַמה־נִּ ְד ַבּ ְרנוּ ָע ֶליָך׃‬

v. 3.13a 13b 13c

‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם ָשׁוְ א ֲעבֹד ֱא‬ ‫ה־בּ ַצע ִכּי ָשׁ ַמ ְרנוּ ִמ ְשׁ ַמ ְרתֹּו‬ ֶ ‫וּמ‬ ַ

14a 14b

‫וְ ִכי ָה ַל ְכנוּ ְקד ַֹרנִּ ית ִמ ְפּנֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫ְצ ָבאֹות׃‬ ‫אַשּׁ ִרים זֵ ִדים‬ ְ ‫וְ ַע ָתּה ֲאנַ ְחנוּ ְמ‬ ‫גַּ ם־נִ ְבנוּ ע ֵֹשׂי ִר ְשׁ ָעה‬ ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫גַּ ם ָבּ ֲחנוּ ֱא‬ ‫וַ יִּ ָמּ ֵלטוּ׃‬ ‫אָז נִ ְד ְבּרוּ יִ ְר ֵאי יְ הוָ ה ִאישׁ ֶאת־‬ ‫ֵר ֵעהוּ‬ ‫וַ יַּ ְק ֵשׁב יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ָמע‬ ‫וַ יִּ ָכּ ֵתב ֵס ֶפר זִ ָכּרֹון ְל ָפנָ יו‬

14c 15a 15b 15c 15d 16a 16b 16c 16d

‫וּלח ְֹשׁ ֵבי ְשׁמֹו׃‬ ְ ‫ְליִ ְר ֵאי יְ הוָ ה‬

16e

‫וְ ָהיוּ ִלי‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות‬ ַ ‫ַליֹּום ֲא ֶשׁר ֲאנִ י ע ֶֹשׂה ְסגֻ ָלּה‬

17a 17b 17c

‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָח ַמ ְל ִתּי ֲע ֵל‬ ‫ל־בּנֹו‬ ְ ‫ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר יַ ְחמֹל ִאישׁ ַע‬ ‫ָהע ֵֹבד אֹתֹו׃‬

17d 17e

Author’s translation ‘Your words are harsh against me, says Yhwh. But you say, “What have we spoken against you?” You have said, “It is vain to serve God. And what is the profit of keeping his charge or of walking mourning before Yhwh of hosts? So now we call the arrogant blessed. Evildoers not only prosper, they even test God and escape.”’ Then those who feared Yhwh spoke with one another, and Yhwh paid attention and listened, and a book of remembrance was written before him of those who feared Yhwh and esteemed his name. ‘They will be for me, says Yhwh of hosts, on the day that I act, a special possession, and I will have compassion on them just as a man has compassion on his son who serves him.

200

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

‫יתם ֵבּין ַצ ִדּיק‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַשׁ ְב ֶתּם ְוּר ִא‬ ‫ְל ָר ָשׁע‬ ‫ֹלהים ַל ֲא ֶשׁר לֹא‬ ִ ‫ֵבּין ע ֵֹבד ֱא‬ ‫ֲע ָבדֹו׃ ס‬ ‫י־הנֵּ ה ַהיֹּום ָבּא בּ ֵֹער ַכּ ַתּנּוּר‬ ִ ‫ִכּ‬

18a 18b 19a[4.1a]

‫וְ ָהיוּ ָכל־זֵ ִדים וְ ָכל־ע ֵֹשׂה ִר ְשׁ ָעה‬ ‫ַקשׁ‬ ‫וְ ִל ַהט א ָֹתם ַהיֹּום ַה ָבּא‬

19b[4.1b]

‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות‬ ַ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר לֹא־יַ ֲעזֹב ָל ֶהם שׁ ֶֹרשׁ וְ ָענָ ף׃‬

19d[4.1d] 19e[4.1e]

‫וְ זָ ְר ָחה ָל ֶכם יִ ְר ֵאי ְשׁ ִמי ֶשׁ ֶמשׁ‬ ‫ְצ ָד ָקה‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫וּמ ְר ֵפּא ִבּ ְכנָ ֶפ‬ ַ ‫אתם‬ ֶ ‫יצ‬ ָ ִ‫ו‬ ‫וּפ ְשׁ ֶתּם ְכּ ֶעגְ ֵלי ַמ ְר ֵבּק׃‬ ִ ‫סֹּותם ְר ָשׁ ִעים‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַע‬ ‫ִכּי־יִ ְהיוּ ֵא ֶפר ַתּ ַחת ַכּפֹּות‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ַרגְ ֵל‬ ‫ַבּיֹּום ֲא ֶשׁר ֲאנִ י ע ֶֹשׂה‬ ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות׃ פ‬ ַ

20a[4.2a]

19c[4.1c]

20b[4.2b] 20c[4.2c] 20d[4.2d] 21a[4.3a] 21b[4.3b] 21c[4.3c] 21d[4.3d]

Then you will again distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, between the one who serves God and the one who has not served him. For behold, the day is coming, burning like the oven, when all the arrogant and any evildoer will be stubble. The day that is coming will set them ablaze, says Yhwh of hosts, so that it will not leave for them root or branch. But for you who fear my name the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings, so that you will go out and leap like fattened calves. And you will trample the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day that I act, says Yhwh of hosts.’

8.2. Text-Critical Issues At Mal. 3.13-21, minor differences exist between some of the Hebrew witnesses. In 3.13, an original prefix ‫ נ‬on ‫ נדברנו‬was omitted from ML and then later inserted. MA and MC support the reading ‫נדברנו‬.1 The main Hebrew codices also differ over two paragraph markings: MC has a ‫ס‬ between 3.15 and 3.16, which is absent in MA and ML; MC has a ‫ ס‬at the end of 3.21[4.3], where MA and ML have a ‫פ‬.2 The ML reading of ‫ את־‬in 3.16 is supported by the loose citation in CD xx 18; ‫ את־‬is generally used in the idiom ‫ איש את־רעהו‬when the verb is ‫דבר‬, but ‫ אל‬is used when the verb is ‫( אמר‬though contrast Exod. 33.11).3 The Qumran text 4QXIIa is fragmentary but essentially reflects the MT, except for minor, inconsequential differences. In 3.15, a conjunctive waw is joined to the second of the two ‫ גם‬particles.4 In 3.16, ‫ על‬for MT’s ‫ את־‬is 1.  CD has [‫די]רב‬. The LXX neglects the reciprocal sense of the niphal (cf. Ezek. 33.30) with the aorist active κατελαλήσαμεν. 2.  There is no paragraph marker in 4QXIIa. 3.  Gelston, Twelve Minor Prophets, p. 152*. CD xx 21 has ‫ ורשע‬for MT ‫לרשע‬. 4.  It is impossible to determine if LXX and Vg. read the copula or not.

8. ‘They will be my special possession’

201

improbable in the context and probably a corruption of ‫;אל‬5 the weqitol ‫ ויהיו‬substitutes for weqatal ‫ והיו‬in 3.17, and singular ‫( כעגל‬cf. 1 Sam. 28.24) is in the place of plural construct ‫ כעגלי‬in 3.20[4.2]. In 3.21[4.3], 4QXIIa has the graphical error of ‫ עוצותם‬for ‫עסותם‬. The LXX demonstrates its usual liberty-taking in semantics, syntax, assimilation from context, amplification, exegesis and different vocalization. For example, semantically, the masculine plural noun ἱκέται (‘suppliants’; NETS) is used for the adverb ‫;קדרנית‬6 the verb ἀντέστησαν (‘withstood’; NETS) translates ‫( בחנו‬3.15); and εὐλαβουμένοις (‘reverence’; NETS) substitutes for the verb ‫( חשב‬3.16).7 Syntactically, the LXX takes liberty in switching ‫ חזקו‬to second-person plural with Ἐβαρύνατε (‘you have made…heavy’; NETS) (3.13), while καὶ substitutes for ‫אשר‬ (3.19[4.1]). The LXX presents a case of assimilation from context in 3.19[4.1], where construct singular ‫ עשה‬is rendered οἱ ποιοῦντες in the light of construct plural ‫ עשי‬in 3.15.8 The phrase ‫ כל־עשה‬is a collective expression and is continued by ‫ אתם‬in the next line. Amplification occurs in the LXX’s rendering of ‫ כתנור‬with ὡς κλίβανος καὶ φλέξει αὐτούς (‘like an oven, and it will set them ablaze’; NETS) (3.19[4.1]), and ‫ מרבק‬is exegeted to mean ἐκ δεσμῶν ἀνειμένα (‘[as calves] let loose from tethers’; NETS) (3.20[4.2]). The translation Ταῦτα for ‫אז‬, beginning 3.16, may be a case of inner-Greek corruption of τότε,9 a confusion with ‫ זה‬or ‫זאת‬,10 or a facilitation in view of the uncertain time reference of ‫אז‬.11 Three cases 5.  Gelston, Twelve Minor Prophets, p. 152*. 6.  The word ‫קדרנית‬, ‘mourning’ (HALAT, III, p. 1003, ‘mit Trauermiene’), is a hapax legomenon and may derive from ‫קדר‬, ‘to be dark’, hence ‘mourning’, or ‫קדד‬, ‘to bow down’, though the latter requires emendation. See Ps. 42.10[42.9], ‫הלך קדר‬, ‘to go about mourning’. D. W. Thomas, ‘The Root ‫ קדר‬in Hebrew, and the Meaning of ‫ קדרנית‬in Mal 3:14’, JJS 1 (1949), pp. 182-88, argued for a similar meaning, but on the basis of the Arabic qadara, ‘measured’, which, as with the Latin modeste from modus, means ‘moderately, temperately, discreetly’. 7.  Smith, Malachi, p. 78, argues that the final clause of the MT text (‫)ולחשבי שמו‬ ‘creates a difficult and isolated Hebrew idiom and yields a rather weak sense’. He opts for the amendment ‫‘( ולחסי בשמו‬for those who take refuge in his name’). LXX uses εὐλαβέομαι to render ‫ חסה‬in Nah. 1.7; Zeph. 3.12. There are some other cases in the Hebrew Bible, however, where ‫ חשב‬is a reinforcing synonym, approximating the sense of ‘esteem’ (Isa. 13.17; 33.8; 53.3-4; Job 41.29[27]). 8.  Also in several codices of Benjamin Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum: Cum Variis Lectionibus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1776). 9.  Rudolph, Haggai–Sacharja–Maleachi, p. 287. Vg. stays with MT: tunc. 10.  Smith, Malachi, p. 84. 11.  Gelston, Twelve Minor Prophets, p. 152*. On the force of the qatal with ‫אז‬, see GKC § 107c.

202

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

of different vocalization explain the LXX’s choice of words: ὁ δουλεύων reads ‫ ע ֵֹבד‬instead of ‫( ֲעבֹד‬3.14); καὶ ἔγραψεν translates the qal ‫וַ ּיִ ְכּתֹב‬ instead of niphal ‫( וַ ּיִ ָּכ ֵתב‬3.16); and ὑπολειφθῇ renders the niphal ‫יֵ ָעזֵ ב‬ instead of the qal ‫יַ ֲעזֹב‬, with the choice of verb explaining ἐξ αὐτῶν for ‫להם‬ (3.19[4.1]) The third-person singular active is often used as an equivalent to the passive.12 There are only three cases where the LXX suggests that its Hebrew Vorlage may be different to the MT. In the first two cases, a mistaken letter may explain the translation: in 3.15 and 3.19[4.1], the substantival masculine plural adjectives ἀλλοτρίους and οἱ ἀλλογενεῖς translate ‫ זרים‬instead of ‫זדים‬, respectively. The most sensible explanation is the mistaking of ‫ ד‬for ‫ר‬.13 In the third case, an explanation for the LXX’s choice of αἱρετίζω (‘to choose’) in 3.17 to translate two different Hebrew verbs remains elusive: καὶ αἱρετιῶ αὐτοὺς ὃν τρόπον αἱρετίζει ἄνθρωπος τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν δουλεύοντα αὐτῷ (‘and I will choose them as a person chooses his son who is subject to him’; NETS). The verb αἱρετίζω normally renders ‫ בחר‬and ἐλεέω usually translates ‫חמל‬. The MT, however, is unproblematic, being supported by 4QXIIa, Vg., Syr. and Tg. 8.3. Structure and Theme The format of the sixth pericope (3.13-21[4.3]) follows the familiar pattern of the standard three-part disputation of declaration, rebuttal, and refutation. However, the pericope is slightly different from the previous ones, with the interruption of a short prose narrative (3.16) followed by Yhwh’s response (3.17-21[4.3]).14 Declaration 3.13a-b Rebuttal 3.13c Refutation 3.14-15 Narrative report 3.16 Yhwh’s response 3.17-21[4.3]

Yhwh’s opening accusation in 3.13a receives a negative response (3.13c), before being expanded upon in 3.14-15. The negative response of 3.13 turns to a positive one in the narrative report of 3.16, with the conversation of the faithful Yhwh-fearers. This leads in 3.17-18 to the promise 12.  Smith, Malachi, p. 84. 13.  The same mistake is seen in LXX Mal. 2.12 where ‫ ער‬is read as ‫‘( עד‬until’). 14.  Malachi 3.16 is marked off from 3.14-15 by the initial adverb ‫ אז‬and the syntactical construction of qatal + three consecutive wayyiqtols. It is separated from 3.17 with the recommencement of divine speech.

8. ‘They will be my special possession’

203

of a divine affirmation of the Yhwh-fearers on the future Day of Yhwh. In the final subunit of 3.19-21[4.1-3], the fates of the righteous and the wicked are compared in the light of the Day of Yhwh. The theme of this pericope concerns the complete reversal of fortunes of the righteous and the wicked. A sharp contrast between the two groups runs throughout the pericope.15 The unit commences by addressing the problem of theodicy, ‘the seeming triumph of wickedness over righteousness and God’s apparent delinquency in judging sin within the community’.16 The evildoers prosper and test God without consequence or divine recompense. Faithful service to Yhwh, which is reflected in observance of his charge or walking in mourning, appears vain and without profit. The problem is so extensive that the righteous begin to call the arrogant ‘blessed’ (3.15). It is resolved at the end of the unit where the wicked will be stubble, burned up on the Day of Yhwh, with no remnant (3.19[4.1]), while the righteous will have the sun of righteousness shine on them, bringing healing (3.20[4.2]). The reversal of fortunes is set forth in the final verse: those who were blessed, prospering and escaping Yhwh’s punishment for testing him, are now trampled under foot by the righteous (3.21[4.3]). 8.4. Covenant Renewal This unit’s relation to covenant is centred on 3.16-17 and the group of Yhwh-fearers who will become Yhwh’s treasured possession. The hint of their conversion from sceptics to Yhwh-fearers, followed by Yhwh’s positive response, is suggestive of a covenant renewal. Debate exists as to whether the Yhwh-fearers of 3.16 are to be distinguished from or identified as the sceptics of 3.13. The twofold use of the niphal verb ‫ דבר‬in 3.13 and 3.16 suggests equating the two groups.17 The idea is that the sceptics of 3.13 become the Yhwh-fearers of 3.16. While the details of the conversation among the Yhwh-fearers unfortunately remains elusive,18 whatever was spoken appears to be a positive response to Yhwh’s explanation (3.14-15) of how their words were harsh against 15.  For the terminological connections between these terms in Malachi and the wisdom traditions, see Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 371. There are no allusions in these. 16.  Hill, Malachi, p. 328. 17.  The niphal in 3.13 is reflexive and conveys speaking with one another against Yhwh. The notion is made explicit in 3.16 by the phrase ‫איש את־רעהו‬. 18.  Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, p. 320, proposes that the content of their conversation was that ‘Yhwh has paid attention and listened [to us]’.

204

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

him (3.13).19 This is indicated in two ways. First, a book of remembrance was kept before Yhwh for those who feared him and esteemed his name. Secondly, following their conversation Yhwh responds positively by affirming the Yhwh-fearers as his special possession and as his own son. This implies that the sceptics have changed in some way, since in 3.13-15 their words receive a negative response from Yhwh. Reading the narrative report in this positive way – both in relation to responses from the people and from Yhwh – is supported by how other narrative reports function (cf. Joel 2.18 and Hag. 1.12). This ‘conversion’ of the sceptics in Mal. 3.16-17 suggests that covenant renewal is implicitly in focus here.20 Certainly, the word ‫ירא‬, used twice in construct plural form in 3.16, connotes covenant loyalty to Yhwh, which is expressed in moral obedience and right worship.21 Some aspects of Yhwh’s positive response in 3.16-17 may also support the idea of covenant renewal. First, the recording of something in the book of remembrance (‫ )ספר זכרון‬may equate to some kind of covenant renewal.22 The phrase ‫ ספר זכרון‬is unique to the Hebrew Bible. Memorial books/documents are mentioned in the OT (Exod. 17.14; 32.32-33; Ezek. 13.9; Dan. 7.10; 12.1; Ps. 69.29[28]; cf. Ps. 87.6; Est. 6.1), but none matches the phrase in Mal. 3.16.23 Nogalski argues that the ‫ ספר זכרון‬is a record of God’s words for the pious faithful to read, comprising either the book of Malachi or the Twelve Prophets.24 Weyde proposes that what was written in the book was the announcement of salvation in 3.17.25 But neither of these does full justice to the head noun ‫זכרון‬. It seems better to opt for the general interpretation of some kind of memorializing of the people’s deeds.26 That is, they speak with one another in response to 19.  The adverb ‫ אז‬suggests more than simply a temporal sequence; it seems to indicate logical consequence too. 20.  Some scholars propose that ‘speaking with one another’ is a covenanting together (so Stuart, ‘Malachi’, pp. 1382-83). 21.  Fuhs, ‘‫’יָ ֵרא‬, in TDOT, VI, pp. 303, 306-13. 22.  So Blenkinsopp, Prophecy in Israel, p. 221, who thinks that the covenant entered into is identical to the one in Ezra 9–10. Stuart, ‘Malachi’, pp. 1382-83, argues that the ‘book of remembrance’ amounts to a covenant renewal document. Similarly, Dumbrell, ‘Malachi and Ezra–Nehemiah Reforms’, p. 50; Berry, ‘Malachi’s Dual Design’, p. 295. 23.  The closest is Exod. 17.14: ‫כתב זאת זכרון בספר‬. 24.  Nogalski, Redactional Process, pp. 206-10. 25.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 362. 26.  Petersen, Malachi, p. 219: ‘a scroll memorializing’; E. Cashdan, The Twelve Prophets: The Soncino Books of the Bible (Bournemouth: Soncino, 1948), p. 354: ‘the divine ledger of good deeds meriting future reward’. David C. Deuel, ‘Malachi

8. ‘They will be my special possession’

205

Yhwh’s rebuke, and as a result their positive response is written down. This interpretation fits with other references to record-keeping in the same era. Both Ezra and Nehemiah report the documentation of people’s sins and their repentance (Ezra 10 and Neh. 9–10). Interestingly, both occasions are tied to the renewal of a covenant (Ezra 10.3; Neh. 9.38[10.1]). Secondly, and most significantly, Yhwh’s affirmation of this ‘converted group’ conveys the language of covenant relationship. The description of the relationship as being like a father who has compassion on the son (‫)בן‬ who serves (‫ )עבד‬him recalls Israel’s covenant relationship with Yhwh in Exod. 4.22-23. Outside of Malachi, only this text combines the concepts of sonship and service. But more pertinent to overtones of covenant renewal is the use of the rare word ‫סגלה‬, which is tied closely to the concept of covenant (Exod. 19.5; Deut. 7.6; 14.2; 26.18). This brings us to a discussion on inner-biblical allusion and exegesis in this passage. 8.5. Inner-Biblical Allusion and Exegesis A possible allusion to some earlier Pentateuchal texts through the word ‫ סגלה‬is dependent on untying some exegetical knots in Mal. 3.17. 8.5.1. Exegesis of Malachi 3.17: ‫והיו לי…סגלה‬ The word ‫ סגלה‬is rendered in various ways by translators: ‘my jewels’ (AV);27 ‘treasured possession’ (ESV); ‘special possession’ (NRSV). Weinfield sees in the terms sglt (Ugaritic) and ‫( סגלה‬Hebrew) ‘treaty and covenant terminology’; ‘they are employed to distinguish a special relationship of the sovereign to one of his vassals’.28 Greenberg understands the term as ‘private property’ or ‘personal possession’.29 In any 3:16: “Book of Remembrance” or Royal Memorandum? An Exegetical Note’, MSJ 7 (1996), pp. 107-11, opts for the rendering ‘memorandum’ or ‘record’ (cf. Ezra 4.15; 6.1-2; Est. 6.1), arguing that in all three texts ‘memoranda were recorded to retain an accurate account of the past so as to engage legal action in the future’ (p. 110). He explains Mal. 3.16 to mean: ‘God’s memorandum is on file in His royal archives for the great and terrible day of His visitation in battle against His enemies (cf. Malachi 4)’. 27.  The AV translates ‫ סגלה‬as ‘peculiar treasure’ in Exod. 19.5; Deut. 14.2; 26.18; Ps. 135.4, probably under influence from the Vg. (peculium/peculiaris). 28.  Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, p. 226 n. 2. He translates the term: ‘treasured people’ (cf. Deut. 7.6). 29.  The term’s Akkadian cognate sikiltum, ‘private hoard, accumulation, fund’, suggests that ‫ סגלה‬was originally an economic term: ‘a dear personal possession, a treasure’ (Moshe Greenberg, ‘Hebrew Segulla: Akkadian Sikiltu’, JAOS 71 [1951], pp. 172-74 [174]).

206

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

case, the sense of ‘special possession’ is clear. The emphasis of the term lies not in priceless value but on exclusive property.30 Translators and commentators agree that ‫ לי‬is an emphatic possessive pronoun, but there is a difference of opinion over what the referent of ‫ סגלה‬is and how it relates syntactically to other words in the sentence. A resolution of these issues is important because one’s interpretation of this verse influences the possibility of a case of inner-biblical exegesis involving some Pentateuchal texts. Three main readings exist among the translations and commentators: (1) Smith views ‫ סגלה‬as a gloss, which makes for difficult Hebrew. According to him, its distance from ‫ והיו לי‬is abnormal and one would expect ‫ לסגלה‬with the preposition.31 Some resolve the abnormal position of ‫ סגלה‬by linking it to ‫ליום‬, and viewing it as the object of the verb ‫עשה‬: ‘in the day that I make mine own[, a treasured possession]’.32 (2) Joseph Halévy, and at least one English translation, take ‫ סגלה‬to refer to the Yhwhfearers in 3.16, functioning as the object of the verb ‫עשה‬: ‘the day when I make up my treasured possession’ (ESV).33 The masoretic accents are in favour of this interpretation, with the conjunctive accent mûnaḥ on the verb ‫ עשה‬linking it to the noun ‫סגלה‬. (3) The majority of English translations understand the term ‫ סגלה‬to refer to the Yhwh-fearers in 3.16, taking it to function appositionally to ‫לי‬, albeit gapped. The verb ‫ עשה‬is then taken as an intransitive verb, meaning ‘to act’ rather than ‘to make’, while the relative pronoun ‫ אשר‬is read as introducing a temporal clause: ‘They shall be mine, says the Lord of hosts, my special possession on the day when I act’ (NRSV). The gapping of ‫ סגלה‬gives the term added emphasis. Assessment The difficulty with (1) is that ‫ סגלה‬is assigned a unique referent. The rare word ‫ סגלה‬occurs eight times in the Hebrew Bible, five of which refer unequivocally to Israel (Exod. 19.5; Deut. 7.6; 14.2; 26.18; Ps. 135.4) and two of which apply to gold and silver (Eccl. 2.8; 1 Chron. 29.3). Assigning ‫ סגלה‬to the anomalous referent of ‘day’ does not transgress any semantic law as such, but the syntactical construction of ‫ היה‬+ ‫ לי‬+ ‫ סגלה‬is Deuteronomic, and in every other case in this construction ‫ סגלה‬refers to Israel as a people. Thus a unique referent is unlikely in Mal. 3.17. Option (2) has the advantage of assigning the common referent to ‫ ;סגלה‬however, 30.  Stuart, ‘Malachi’, p. 1384. 31.  Smith, Malachi, pp. 79, 84. 32.  Barnes, Malachi, p. 132. On this reading, ‫ אשר‬is treated as a relative pronoun. 33.  Joseph Halévy, ‘Le prophète Malachie’, Revue sémitique 17 (1909), pp. 1-44 (42): ‘le jour où je constituerai un trésor de choix’.

8. ‘They will be my special possession’

207

making it the object of ‫ עשה‬would more naturally mean ‘acquire property’ (cf. Gen. 12.5; 31.1; Deut. 8.17; Isa. 19.10).34 Option (3) is superior for a number of reasons: (a) ‫ סגלה‬is assigned its most common referent of Israel; (b) the syntax is supported by four other texts (Exod. 19.5; Deut. 7.6; 14.2; 26.18); (c) rendering ‫ עשה‬as ‘act’ rather than ‘make’ fits with the surrounding context of Mal. 3, which is action-packed: the Day of Yhwh is the day Yhwh comes (v. 2), appears (v. 2), judges (v. 5), delivers (v. 17), and destroys (v. 20[4.2]). ‘It is not a day which he “makes” like any other; it is the day when he takes decisive action.’35 The people have demanded divine intervention (2.17) and the Day of Yhwh will deliver it. In sum, the best interpretation is to read the referent of ‫ סגלה‬in 3.17 as Israel and tie it syntactically to the construction ‫ היה‬+ ‫ל‬, rather than to the verb ‫עשה‬. This opens up the possibility for an allusion to some (mainly Pentateuchal) texts. 8.5.2. ‘My special possession’: Malachi 3.17 and Exodus 19.5; Deuteronomy 7.6; 14.2; 26.18; Psalm 135.4 Mal. 3.17 ‫אָמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאֹות ַליֹּום ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ַ ‫וְ ָהיוּ ִלי‬ ‫יהם ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ֶ ‫ֲאנִ י ע ֶֹשׂה ְסגֻ ָלּה וְ ָח ַמ ְל ִתּי ֲע ֵל‬ ‫ל־בּנֹו ָהע ֵֹבד אֹתֹו׃‬ ְ ‫יַ ְחמֹל ִאישׁ ַע‬

Exod. 19.5 ‫וּשׁ ַמ ְר ֶתּם‬ ְ ‫מֹוע ִתּ ְשׁ ְמעוּ ְבּק ִֹלי‬ ַ ‫ם־שׁ‬ ָ ‫וְ ַע ָתּה ִא‬ ‫ל־ה ַע ִמּים‬ ָ ‫יתם ִלי ְסגֻ ָלּה ִמ ָכּ‬ ֶ ִ‫יתי וִ ְהי‬ ִ ‫ת־בּ ִר‬ ְ ‫ֶא‬ ‫אָרץ׃‬ ֶ ‫ל־ה‬ ָ ‫י־לי ָכּ‬ ִ ‫ִכּ‬ Deut. 7.6 ‫ֹלהיָך ְבָּך ָבּ ַחר‬ ֶ ‫אַתּה ַליהוָ ה ֱא‬ ָ ‫ִכּי ַעם ָקדֹושׁ‬ ‫ֹלהיָך ִל ְהיֹות לֹו ְל ַעם ְסגֻ ָלּה ִמכֹּל‬ ֶ ‫יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫ל־פּנֵ י ָה ֲא ָד ָמה׃ ס‬ ְ ‫ָה ַע ִמּים ֲא ֶשׁר ַע‬ Deut. 14.2 ‫וּבָך ָבּ ַחר‬ ְ ‫ֹלהיָך‬ ֶ ‫אַתּה ַליהוָ ה ֱא‬ ָ ‫ִכּי ַעם ָקדֹושׁ‬ ‫יְ הוָ ה ִל ְהיֹות לֹו ְל ַעם ְסגֻ ָלּה ִמכֹּל ָה ַע ִמּים ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ‫ל־פּנֵ י ָה ֲא ָד ָמה׃ ס‬ ְ ‫ַע‬ Deut. 26.18 ‫וַ יהוָ ה ֶה ֱא ִמ ְירָך ַהיֹּום ִל ְהיֹות לֹו ְל ַעם ְסגֻ ָלּה‬ ‫ֹותיו׃‬ ָ ‫ל־מ ְצ‬ ִ ‫ר־לְך וְ ִל ְשׁמֹר ָכּ‬ ָ ‫ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּ‬ Ps. 135.4 ‫ִכּי־יַ ֲעקֹב ָבּ ַחר לֹו יָ הּ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ִל ְסגֻ ָלּתֹו׃‬

34.  According to Smith, Malachi, p. 84. 35.  Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, p. 227.

208

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Lexical and Syntactical Parallels The word ‫ סגלה‬occurs eight times in the Hebrew Bible (Exod. 19.5; Deut. 7.6; 14.2; 26.18; Mal. 3.17; Ps. 135.4; Eccl. 2.8; 1 Chron. 29.3). As established earlier, in the first six texts the referent of ‫ סגלה‬is Israel, whereas in the last two the word is applied to gold and silver. The Exodus and Deuteronomy texts also contain the construction ‫ היה‬+ ‫ ל‬as reflected in Mal. 3.17. The phrase ‫ לעם‬is present in the Deuteronomy texts but absent in the Exodus and Malachi texts. Thus, prima facie, Exod. 19.5 is the closest parallel to Mal. 3.17, though the Deuteronomy texts also closely resemble it. Contextual and Thematic Parallels Contextually, the verses recall Israel’s covenant experiences with Yhwh and their intimate relationship from the very beginning. In Exod. 19, the words occur in the context of the inauguration of Yhwh’s covenant relationship with Israel. The people are reminded how graciously Yhwh has dealt with them, bringing them out of Egypt on eagles’ wings (v. 4). The promise to make them his ‫ סגלה‬is premised on the condition (‫)אם‬ that they obey his voice (‫ )שמוע תשמעו בקלי‬and keep his covenant (‫ ;ושמרתם את־בריתי‬v. 5). The contexts of the Deuteronomic passages are covenantal too, though slightly different. In Deut. 7, the idea of belonging to Yhwh as his ‫ סגלה‬occurs in the context of motivating the people toward national holiness in the Promised Land; in particular, not intermarrying with the people in the land and worshipping their gods (vv. 1-5). In Deut. 14, the expression is employed to motivate holiness in relation to the people’s treatment of themselves, the dead, and also clean and unclean foods (vv. 1-21); in Deut. 26, the expression occurs in the context of Israel’s promise to walk in Yhwh’s ways and keep his commandments and rules and obey his voice, especially in relation to firstfruits and tithes. The phrase is not explicitly introduced as a reward for obedience, as it is in Exod. 19, but rather simply occurs alongside exhortations to obey his commands.36 In short, the Deuteronomic texts seem to assume Israel’s status as Yhwh’s special possession, which then serves (in some cases) as a motivation for holy obedience to Yhwh’s commands. The Exodus text is different in that Israel’s becoming Yhwh’s special possession is conditional upon their obedience. It is this sequence of covenant obedience leading to Yhwh’s declaration that they are his ‫סגלה‬, which is present in Malachi: the Yhwh-fearers’ speaking with one another following Yhwh’s 36.  Both declarations occur in a string of prepositional phrases.

8. ‘They will be my special possession’

209

accusation results in a positive response from Yhwh. This is followed by Yhwh’s announcement that they will be his special possession on the day when he acts. The themes of election, holiness and obedience connect together the texts that contain the construction ‫ היה‬+ ‫ ל‬+ ‫סגלה‬. In each of them, Yhwh declares Israel to be his ‫ סגלה‬from out of all the nations (‫)מכל העמים‬. This election carries with it the assumption of Israel’s holiness, and, as already noted, the importance of obeying Yhwh’s commands. These themes are present in Mal. 3.16-21[4.3], even if not stated in exactly the same way: the Yhwh-fearers’ conversation with one another that occurs in response to Yhwh’s accusation suggests repentance and a renewed vision for obedience; the distinction of the righteous from the wicked in 3.18 and in 3.20-21[4.2-3], as those who ‘fear Yhwh’ – which is equivalent in Deuteronomy to obeying his voice and keeping his covenant – conveys the ‘set apartness’ of holiness; and, finally, the application of ‫ סגלה‬to the group of Yhwh-fearers within Israel indicates a kind of election from within Israel itself. Common to all the texts is the theological backdrop of sonship (cf. Exod. 4.22-23; Deut. 1.31; 8.5; 14.1-2), which is also present in Mal. 3.17. The syntactical construction of 3.17 (‫ כאשר‬+ ‫ איש‬+ verb + ‫ )בן‬reflects two of the Deuteronomy texts but without a suggestion of dependence on either.37 What is of interest is that the simile of a man’s having compassion on his son would work fine without the additional adjectival clause ‫העבד‬ ‫אתו‬. The best explanation for the adjectival phrase is that it answers the problem in 3.14, where serving God is viewed as vain. Additionally, the juxtaposition of ‫ בן‬and ‫ עבד‬occurs elsewhere only in Exod. 4.23 – a clear declaration of Israel’s sonship.38 Thus in Mal. 3.17 the Exodus concept of sonship is clearly indicated and this supports the view that the verse most closely alludes to Exod. 19.5.

37.  Yhwh carried Israel just as (‫ )כאשר‬a man (‫ )איש‬carries (‫ )נשא‬his son (‫;בן‬ Deut. 1.31); Yhwh disciplined Israel just as (‫ )כאשר‬a man (‫ )איש‬disciplines (‫ )יסר‬his son (‫ ;בן‬Deut. 8.5). Hill, Malachi, p. 343, proposes some borrowing from Ps. 103.13, but while the sentiment is similar, different vocabulary is used (‫ אב‬+ ‫ )רחם‬as well as the plural ‫בנים‬. It is true that in some texts there is little distinction between qal ‫חמל‬ and piel ‫( רחם‬Ezek. 16.5; Isa. 63.9), but if an allusion to Ps. 103.13 is intended here, it still invites the question as to why Malachi did not simply use the same verb. 38.  Clark and Hatton, Malachi, p. 457, think that Mal. 3.17 ‘echoes’ Exod. 4.22-23. Similarly, Merrill, Malachi, p. 385, though he does not use the word ‘echo’.

210

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

Assessment In appropriating the ‫ סגלה‬concept, Malachi does more than simply allude to covenant inauguration: he reapplies the terms, introducing two new elements into the mix. The first is that Malachi’s employment of the term constitutes a reapplication to a group more narrow than national Israel. In the ‫ היה‬+ ‫ ל‬construction in the Pentateuchal texts ‫ סגלה‬refers to the nation of Israel; here in Malachi, the prophet has narrowed the designation of the term to a group of Yhwh-fearers within the nation. Not all who are related to Israel will be Yhwh’s ‫סגלה‬. The common accompanying phrase ‫מכל‬ ‫ העמים‬is ‘replaced’ with ‫מכל ישראל‬, so to speak. The second new element is that the concept of ‫ סגלה‬is tied to the Day of Yhwh. The Yhwh-fearers will be his ‫ סגלה‬on the day when he acts (‫ ;ליום אשר אני עשה‬Mal. 3.17, 21[4.3]). This phraseology, along with that of 3.19[4.1], is unattested elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. 8.5.3. Interpretive Significance The words commencing Mal. 3.13 recall 2.17, where the people questioned God’s justice. There the people’s theodicean accusations ‘wearied’ (‫)יגע‬ Yhwh; here their questions of theodicy are ‘harsh’ (‫ )חזק‬against him. They claim that service of Yhwh is vain and of no profit, and that evildoers test God and escape (3.14-15). Yhwh’s declaration that this accusation is harsh against him is met positively in 3.16 by a group called the Yhwh-fearers: they speak with one another (‫ )נדברו‬and Yhwh responds positively to them. A book of remembrance is kept, presumably of their repentance and deeds – something that was reflected in the covenant renewal ceremonies of Ezra (ch. 9) and Nehemiah (chs. 9–10). The possibility of a covenant renewal occurring in Mal. 3.16 is given more plausibility through the deliberate allusion to Exod. 19.5 (and closely related Deuteronomic texts: 7.6; 14.2; 26.18) in Mal. 3.17. The phrase ‫ והיו לי…סגלה‬is strongly covenantal and recalls the inauguration of the covenant with Israel, where Yhwh promised to make them his ‫ סגלה‬on the condition of their obedience. Malachi picks up this phrase but reappropriates it with two new elements: first, he applies it to a group more narrow than national Israel, the Yhwh-fearers who esteem his name; and secondly, he ties it to the Day of Yhwh. In doing so, Malachi makes a link with the Israel of old, not just rhetorically but theologically. He connects Israel in the past with the Yhwh-fearers of the present and so maintains the theological integrity of Israel as the people of God which ensures the continuity of the covenant with Jacob.39

39.  Childs, Introduction, p. 497.

8. ‘They will be my special possession’

211

The fact that the faithful remnant will be the ‫ סגלה‬of Yhwh entails that he will spare (‫ )חמל‬them as his son (‫ )בן‬who serves (‫ )עבד‬him (3.17), a concept expressed by these two terms elsewhere only in Exod. 4.22-23. All this will take place on the day when he acts. On that day, the Yhwh-fearers will see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked (Mal. 3.18). The coming Day of Yhwh in Malachi is essentially a crisis, a dividing within the covenant people itself. The day becomes the medium for Yhwh’s acts of punishment, and the means by which this sifting will take place. The imagery of fire as metaphor for Yhwh’s coming judgement, conveyed by the pictures of a burning oven (‫)בער כתנור‬, stubble (‫ )קש‬and burning (‫)להט‬, is not unusual in the prophetic literature (e.g. Isa. 4.4; 10.16; 30.27; 47.14; Jer. 21.14; Ezek. 21.1-4; Amos 1.3; Zeph. 1.18; 3.8), but the combination of these terms for the Day of Yhwh is. The fire of Mal. 3.19[4.1] is unlike the refining fire of 3.2, because it will consume everything: no remnant (‫ )שרש וענף‬will be left.40 The nouns ‫ שרש‬and ‫ ענף‬describe the two extremities of a tree to denote the whole, and in some cases suggest growth and prosperity (Ps. 80.10-11[9-10]). This would appear to be the best interpretation of this unique merismic phrase: the wicked have no hope of shooting up again to life (cf. Isa. 10.1-4; Jer. 7.29-34; 10.22; Ezek. 13.8-16; Amos 2.9). For those who fear Yhwh’s name, however, the Day of Yhwh will be a different experience. The images of a burning oven and a rising sun both convey the idea of heat (Mal. 3.19[4.1]), but, in the first, the heat brings destruction, whereas in the second, it brings healing. The rising sun is not a person but rather ‘a figurative description of the eschatological day; the dawning of a new day ushering in an era of righteousness in which Yehud will experience the complete reversal of current circumstances’.41 This element of health is then ‘athleticized and explored with a simile’:42 the righteous will go out, leaping like calves from the stall (Mal. 3.20[4.2]).

40.  Rashi, following Tg., reads the phrase as ‘neither son nor grandson’ (cf. 2.12), while Abarbanel reads it rather differently as referring to the good deeds of the wicked which will be consumed (Rosenberg, ed., Mikraoth Gedoloth, p. 420). Wendland, ‘Linear and Concentric Patterns’, p. 111, thinks that the phrase is part of a proverbial quotation from an unknown (contemporary?) wisdom source. Ogden and Deutsch, Malachi, p. 111, trace the phrase to Phoenician and Ugaritic, as a variation of an ancient curse formula. 41.  Hill, Malachi, p. 349. 42.  Petersen, Malachi, p. 226.

212

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

The theme of reversal comes to a climax in Mal. 3.21[4.3], but with a surprise: the righteous will not only emerge on the Day of Yhwh free and vindicated, but they will crush the wicked; indeed, the wicked will be like ashes under the soles of their feet. This is not to suggest that the righteous will be agents of the destruction of the wicked. Rather, the image must be interpreted within the context of the complaint of 3.14-15: the wicked are seen to prosper and test God without recompense, while the righteous receive no reward. Not so in the end: a great inversion or ‘righting’ will occur and the righteous will be vindicated. Those who tested Yhwh and escaped will be judged and completely consumed; those who feared Yhwh and esteemed his name will be vindicated and entirely healed. The righteous will appear triumphant over the wicked. The Day of Yhwh will bring it to light. 8.6. Conclusion The hint of a ‘conversion’ of the sceptics, reference to a book of remembrance, and Yhwh’s positive affirmation of the Yhwh-fearers in terms associated with covenant conceptuality all combine to suggest some kind of covenant renewal in Mal. 3.13-21[4.3]. Some sceptics within Israel react positively to Yhwh’s accusation that their words are harsh against him. Yhwh’s response to their ‘conversion’ is to renew covenant with them: a book of remembrance of their deeds is kept and he declares that they will be his ‘special possession’ on the day when he comes to act. The keyword ‫ סגלה‬recalls texts that carry strong covenant overtones in which Yhwh declares Israel to be his ‘special possession’. The difference here is that Malachi has not just alluded to these texts but has exegetically reapplied them to a group smaller than national Israel. Though there is a narrowing of the term, its application to the Yhwh-fearers ensures covenant continuity.

Chapter 9 ‘T ur n i n g h ea rt s ’: C ov e n a n t C on t i n u i t y and F i de li ty (M a l a ch i 3.22-24[ 4.4- 6] )

9.1. Introduction We have seen so far that Malachi’s inner-biblical interpretation functions to expose Israel’s covenant infidelity, give effect to Yhwh’s covenant curse, and underline Yhwh’s covenant fidelity. The rhetorical purpose is to reassure Israel of Yhwh’s covenant faithfulness; in response, Yhwh now calls Israel to covenant faithfulness. The beginnings of a new obedience in the nation emerges with a remnant group of Yhwh-fearers with whom Yhwh renews covenant (3.13-21[4.3]), thus ensuring covenant continuity and fidelity. The central theme of covenant continuity and fidelity comes to a climax in the closing verses of Malachi, which underscore the theme in two ways: command (3.22[4.4]) and promise (3.23-24[4.5-6]). 9.2. Translation v. Author’s translation BHQ ‫תֹּורת מ ֶֹשׁה ַע ְב ִדּי‬ ַ ‫ זִ ְכרוּ‬3.22a[4.4a] ‘Remember the Law of Moses my servant, ‫יתי אֹותֹו ְבח ֵֹרב‬ ִ ִ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר ִצוּ‬22b[4.4b] which I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel, ‫ל־כּל־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ָ ‫ַע‬ 22c[4.4c] the statutes and the judgements. ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ִטים׃‬ ִ ‫ֻח ִקּים‬ 23a[4.5a] Behold, I am sending to you Elijah the ‫ִהנֵּ ה אָנ ִֹכי שׁ ֵֹל ַח ָל ֶכם ֵאת‬ prophet ‫ֵא ִליָּ ה ַהנָּ ִביא‬ ‫ ִל ְפנֵ י בֹּוא יֹום יְ הוָ ה ַהגָּ דֹול‬23b[4.5b] before the great and awesome Day of Yhwh comes. ‫נֹּורא׃‬ ָ ‫וְ ַה‬ ‫ל־בּנִ ים‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵה ִשׁיב ֵלב־אָבֹות ַע‬24a[4.6a] And he will turn the hearts of fathers to children and the hearts of children to their fathers, 24b[4.6b] ‫בֹותם‬ ָ ‫ל־א‬ ֲ ‫וְ ֵלב ָבּנִ ים ַע‬ lest I come 24c[4.6c] ‫ֶפּן־אָבֹוא‬ ‫אָרץ ֵח ֶרם׃‬ ֶ ‫ת־ה‬ ָ ‫יתי ֶא‬ ִ ‫ וְ ִה ֵכּ‬24d[4.6d] and strike the land with complete destruction.’

214

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

9.3. Text-Critical Issues The Vg., Syr. and Tg. all follow the MT’s order of verses for Mal. 3.22-24[4.4-6]. The LXX, however, transposes 3.22[4.4] to the end of the pericope, ending the book with the exhortation to remember the Law of Moses. Some argue that the LXX verse sequence reflects the earliest ‘official copy’ of the Hebrew, while the MT verse sequence is a later redaction.1 Others propose that the verses in the LXX were reversed in order to avoid a harsh ending to the book.2 The main difference in 3.22-24[4.4-6] between Hebrew witnesses is over the short and long form of Elijah: MA, ML and MC have the shorter spelling for the prophet Elijah (‫)אליה‬, while 4QXIIa has the longer (usual) spelling (‫)אליהו‬.3 The LXX exhibits its usual facilitation of style (καὶ ἰδοὺ for ‫)הנה‬, liberty-taking (ὃς ἀποκαταστήσει for ‫)והשיב‬4 and exegesis (adverb ἄρδην for the noun ‫)חרם‬. In only two places are there indications of a different Hebrew Vorlage.5 First, in 3.22[4.4], τὸν Θεσβίτην substitutes for ‫הנביא‬. Second, in 3.23[4.5], singular nouns in the LXX substitute for plural ones in the MT – καρδίαν πατρὸς πρὸς υἱὸν (‘the heart of the father to the son’; NETS) for ‫ – לב־אבות על־בנים‬and the corresponding phrase ‫ולב‬ ‫ בנים על־אבותם‬is rendered καὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου πρὸς τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ (‘and the heart of a person to his neighbour’; NETS). The first difference in 3.22[4.4] may be explained by the LXX translator reading the verse literally as opposed to typologically; that is, the figure to come is the historical Elijah of 1 and 2 Kgs, the Tishbite, and not a typological Elijah redivivus. The second difference in 3.23[4.5] may be an example of facilitation of style or liberty-taking, where the translator chose to individualize the first phrase and to diversify the repetition of the second (inverted) phrase; or, alternatively, there may have been internal influence from 3.16 or external influence from Isa. 3.5.6

1.  E.g. Fuller, ‘Sequence of Malachi 3:22-24’, pp. 374-75. 2.  E.g. Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, p. 344. See below for further discussion. 3.  4QXIIa also differs from MA, ML and MC in having a space after ‫ ]וה[נורא‬instead of a sôp pāsûq [‫]׃‬. 4.  The LXX translates ‫ שוב‬as ἀποκαθίστημι (‘to restore, return’) instead of the expected ἐπιστρέφω (‘to turn back, return’). 5.  The LXX rendering ἐπιφανῆ in 3.23[4.5] is easily explained by the root ‫ראה‬. 6.  So Mason, Malachi, p. 161.

9. ‘Turning hearts’

215

9.4. Compositional History: Original or Late Addition to Malachi? Since the earliest translations, questions have been raised about what was original to the final verses of the prophet’s oracle and what was added later by a redactor. A number of proposals exist: 3.22-24[4.4-6] (original);7 3.22[4.4] (original), 3.23-24[4.5-6] (late addition);8 3.22[4.4] (late addition), 3.23-24[4.5-6] (late addition);9 3.22-24[4.4-6] (late addition).10 9.5. Purpose: Internal or External to Malachi? Debate not only surrounds the originality of Mal. 3.22-24[4.4-6] but also the integrality of this unit to the book of Malachi. To what exactly are the verses a conclusion? A number of proposals exist: (a) book of Malachi;11 (b) Book of The Twelve;12 (c) Former and Latter Prophets (Joshua– Malachi);13 (d) Torah (Pentateuch) and the Prophets;14 (e) Primary History (Genesis–2 Kings) and Latter Prophets (Isaiah–Malachi);15 (f) whole Hebrew canon: ‘a point of convergence for the Prophets, the Pentateuch and the Psalms’.16 The different positions on the purpose of Mal. 3.22-24[4.4-6] are not necessarily mutually exclusive – some scholars view the appendices as serving double duty17 or even triple duty.18 Generally speaking, however, 7.  Driver, The Minor Prophets, pp. 286-87; Floyd, Minor Prophets, pp. 568-69; von Bulmerincq, Einleitung, pp. 136-39, 221-24, all consider the final verses to be fragments of a seventh oracle which was original to Malachi. 8.  Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten, p. 445; Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch, pp. 564-65. 9.  Chary, Malachie, pp. 276-77; Childs, Introduction, p. 495. There is no conjunction between 3.22[4.4] and 3.23[4.5]; hence the idea of two appendices. 10.  Meinhold, Maleachi, pp. 408-12, who holds that the sixth disputation (3.1321[4.3]) is also secondary. Valve, ‘Moses and Elijah at Horeb’, p. 107, thinks that ‘the possibility cannot be ruled out that the appendices still stem from the same hand – or perhaps a same school of thought’. 11.  Childs, Introduction, p. 495; Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, p. 244 n. 1; Valve, ‘Moses and Elijah at Horeb’, pp. 101-21. 12.  Kessler, ‘Unity of Malachi’, p. 235. 13.  Rudolph, Haggai–Sacharja–Maleachi, p. 250. 14.  Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon, p. 121. 15.  Hill, Malachi, p. 365. 16.  Snyman, ‘Malachi 4:4-6 (Heb 3:22-24)’, p. 1201. 17.  E.g. Hill, Malachi, p. 364. 18.  E.g. Petersen, Malachi, pp. 228, 232-33; Snyman, ‘Malachi 4:4-6 (Heb 3:22-24)’.

216

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

commentators interpret the primary relevance of Mal. 3.22-24[4.4-6] to be external to the book. Their reasons are based on a number of factors that suggest the lateness of the unit. The arguments in favour of a late date are as follows. 9.6. Arguments for Late Addition (1) Textual The paragraph markers in various Hebrew manuscripts have been used to argue for the secondary status of Mal. 3.22-24[4.4-6]. So Hill states: ‘MT manuscripts consistently show a major paragraph break (‫ )פ‬at 3.21[4.3], and the Aleppo separates 3.22-24[4.4-6] markedly from the rest of the book in distinct columnar fashion’.19 He then contends that ‘the complete two-line blank space separating 3:22-24 and 3:21 [‫ ]פ‬is strong evidence the Masoretes regarded these three last verses as an appendix to the book of Malachi (and the entire prophetic corpus?)’.20 Rudolph points to the enlarged and, in some cases, ornate consonant ‫ז‬ that begins 3.22[4.4] in a few medieval manuscripts,21 as an indicator for making a ‘special section’ (Sonderabschnitt) (cf. Gen. 1.1; Prov. 1.1; Song 1.1; Eccl. 1.1; 1 Chron. 1.1).22 In addition to the paragraph marking of the Hebrew manuscripts, the fact that the earliest versions, as well as some early liturgical traditions, ‘tamper with the arrangement of the closing verses of the book suggests that it was not considered part of the original’.23 For example, the LXX places 3.22[4.4] after 3.23-24[4.5-6],24 while the Masorah instructs a rereading of Mal. 3.23[4.5] after 3.24[4.6].25 The LXX sequence is considered favourable for two reasons: first, the positioning of 3.23-24[4.5-6] ensures that the Day of Yhwh theme continues on from the preceding verses (3.17-21[4.3]) without interruption;26 and secondly, as the final verse, 3.22[4.4] ‘forms an intentional scribal inclusio…which 19.  Hill, Malachi, p. 366. 20.  Ibid., p. 27. 21.  Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum: Cum Variis Lectionibus, pp. 305, 67, 141, 82, 130, 171, 287, 288T, 289, 300T, 659 (respectively). 22.  Rudolph, Haggai–Sacharja–Maleachi, p. 291. 23.  Hill, Malachi, p. 366. 24.  Same with the Arabic. Vg.; Syr.; and Tg. all follow the MT’s order. 25.  At the end of Malachi, the Masorah notes that, in the reading of Isaiah, The Twelve, Lamentations and Ecclesiastes, the penultimate verse of each book is to be repeated in the synagogue readings. 26.  Snyman, ‘Malachi 4:4-6 (Heb 3:22-24)’, p. 1196.

9. ‘Turning hearts’

217

“brackets” the entire collection of the Prophets (Josh 1:7 etc.) and also links the connection of the Prophets to the Torah (Deut 34)’.27 (2) Unique Terminology and Phraseology According to many commentators, the lexical terminology and phraseology in Mal. 3.22-24[4.4-6], in comparison to the rest of the book, raise suspicion over the originality of the unit.28 For example: (a) the phrase ‫ תורת משה‬is a construction employed only here; elsewhere the prophet uses phrases or terms such as ‫( תורת אמת‬2.6) and ‫( תורה‬2.7-9); and while the words ‫ חק‬and ‫ משפט‬are used elsewhere, the combination ‫ חקים ומשפטים‬is unique. (b) The sole occurrence of ‫ כל־ישראל‬differs from the threefold ‫( ישראל‬1.1, 5; 2.11). (c) The alternative, longer spelling of the first-person pronoun ‫אנכי‬, occurring only here, stands out against the more regular use of the short form ‫( אני‬1.4, 6 [2×], 14; 2.9; 3.6, 17, 21[4.3]). (d) The expression ‫יום יהוה‬, with the adjectival clause ‫הגדול‬ ‫והנורא‬, is different from Malachi’s earlier references to the day: ‫יום בואו‬ (3.2), ‫( היום הבא‬3.19[4.1]) or ‫( ביום אשר אני עשה‬3.21[4.3]). (e) Malachi frequently introduces Yhwh’s speech with the divine speech marker ‫אמר‬ ‫ יהוה‬or ‫( אמר יהוה צבאות‬1.2 [2×], 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 [2×], 14; 2.2, 4, 8, 16 [2×]; 3.1, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 19[4.1], 21[4.3]), but they are absent in these verses. (f) The rarity of Moses in The Twelve (Mic. 6.4; Mal. 3.22[4.4]) and elsewhere in the Prophets (Isa. 63.11, 12; Jer. 15.1), alongside the only reference to Elijah in the Latter Prophets, has led some to conclude that a developing sense of canon must be the reason for their mention here.29

27.  Fuller, ‘Sequence of Malachi 3:22-24’, p. 376. Fuller argues that the LXX verse sequence in 3.22-24[4.4-6] is the earlier ‘official copy’ of the Hebrew, while the MT preserves a later ‘official copy’ that was redacted in order to suit eschatological concerns. He thinks that the order was changed during the Maccabaean revolt (second century B.C.), and first attested in 4QXIIa from this time period (150–125 B.C.). (The Maccabaean revolt and the subsequent Hasmonaean period entertained an interest in messianism; hence the positioning of the Elijah verses at the end of the book in order to spotlight the Day of Yhwh.) Fuller bases his arguments, in part, on Tov’s observations ‘that when later material was added to a composition, the scribes sometimes put the late material in different places’ (p. 374). Tov argues by analogy with the LXX and MT versions of Jeremiah. 28.  E.g. Schuller, ‘Malachi’, p. 875: ‘the language is distinctive enough to suggest that these verses come from another source’. 29.  Nogalski, Book of the Twelve, p. 1068.

218

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

(3) Style and Structure One of the arguments for the material being late is that it presents a ‘sharp difference in form’.30 The two distinct genres that close the book – ethical imperative (3.22[4.4]) and an eschatological Heilswort (3.23-24[4.5-6]) – stand in stark contrast to the disputational style throughout the book.31 Moreover, antithesis – arguably a major literary feature in each unit of the book – is absent in these verses.32 Furthermore, structurally, it is argued that the fifth unit (3.13-21[4.3]) would serve as ‘an excellent close for the book’,33 and, because the fourth unit starts with an imperative (3.7c), on the reading of some scholars, the imperative ‫ זכרו‬in 3.22[4.4] also suggests a new beginning.34 (4) Deuteronomic Language and Points of Canonical Convergence The wording of Mal. 3.22-24[4.4-6] is clearly Deuteronomic (‫;תורת משה‬ ‫)חקים ומשפטים ;כל־ישראל ;חרב‬35 and this has led some commentators to assume that the appendices are therefore dependent upon that body of material and not the earlier parts of Malachi.36 In addition, as mentioned earlier, catchwords/phrases such as ‎‫משה עבדי‬, ‎‫תורה‬,‎ ‫נביא‬, and ‫ צוה‬make this part of the Hebrew canon ‘a point of convergence’ for the Law and the Prophets, and perhaps even the Writings (Deut. 34.10-12; Josh. 1; Hos. 14; Ps. 1).37 (5) Theme The argument for thematic discontinuity between 3.22-24[4.4-6] and 1.1–3.21[4.3] is based mainly on the different linguistic features between the two bodies of material. Some go so far as to state that one or both of the

30.  Richard J. Coggins, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Old Testament Guides; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987), p. 78. 31.  Snyman, ‘Malachi 4:4-6 (Heb 3:22-24)’, p. 1196. 32.  Ibid. 33.  Ibid. Similarly, Hill, Malachi, p. 367, who argues that, since the disputations end at 3.21[4.3], so too must the original version of Malachi. 34.  Snyman, ‘Malachi 4:4-6 (Heb 3:22-24)’, p. 1197. 35.  So too ‫ פן‬+ yiqtol (cf. Deut. 6.12, 15; 8.11, 12; 9.28). 36.  Hill, Malachi, p. 369: ‘the language of Mal 3:22 [4:4] is Deuteronomistic only to the degree that postexilic editors and/or compilers deliberately selected vocabulary from Deuteronomy (and the Primary History) to cement the literary and theological relationship of the Latter Prophets with the Primary History by means of this appendix’. 37.  Snyman, ‘Malachi 4:4-6 (Heb 3:22-24)’.

9. ‘Turning hearts’

219

appendices are ‘unrelated to anything that has gone before’.38 For others, the appendices create a tension with earlier parts of Malachi’s prophecy. For example, according to Weyde, the sharp change in focus from the announcement of the Day of Yhwh (3.17-21[4.3]) to an admonition to remember the Law of Moses (3.22[4.4]) suggests that the appeal to Moses has significance beyond the prophet’s own message; the announcement of Elijah’s coming in relation to the Day of Yhwh is a new idea which is not expressed in 3.17-21[4.3]; and Elijah’s role in 3.24[4.6] to turn the hearts of fathers and children back toward one another is different from the role of the messenger in 3.1 to prepare the way for Yhwh’s arrival.39 For Hill, the harshness of the threat of curse seems to overshadow Malachi’s earlier invitation to the people to return to Yhwh, with the accompanying promise that he would return to them (3.7); it also undermines the restoration of Israel as Yhwh’s ‘special possession’ (3.17). What was held out as hope has been retracted and replaced with the threat of curse.40 Summary On the basis of these five factors, the majority of commentators opt for a late date for Mal. 3.22-24[4.4-6] and then conclude from this that the primary relevance of these verses is external to the book of Malachi. However, if these five factors are exposed as not being as substantial in weight as may at first appear, then the originality of the verses at least becomes a possibility, and thus in turn their integrality to the book of Malachi.41 This at least provides a foundation for the continuity of the main theme of Malachi in these final verses and thus allows for an investigation of Malachi’s inner-biblical interpretation in them.42 A close analysis of the five factors reveals this to be the case. 38.  Smith, Micah – Malachi, p. 340. So too: Mason, Malachi, p. 159; Smith, Malachi, p. 81; McKenzie and Wallace, ‘Covenant Themes’, p. 560. 39.  Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, pp. 388-89, 393. 40.  Hill, Malachi, pp. 364-65. 41.  It is acknowledged that the integrality of the verses to Malachi is not necessarily dependent on their originality. But this is a position held by only two scholars, to my knowledge (Childs, Introduction, pp. 495-96; and Valve, ‘Messenger-Elijah’, p. 94), who date the material late but understand its primary function to be internal to the book of Malachi. It is possible, of course, that one could hold to the originality of these verses, but understand their primary relevance as being external to the book of Malachi. No scholar, however, has yet proposed such a view. 42.  Contra Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching, p. 389, who argues that abstention from an analysis of the source texts in Mal. 3.22-24[4.4-6] is justified on the basis that they are an editorial addition.

220

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

9.7. Assessment of Arguments for Late Addition (1) Textual Three comments may be made in response to the arguments for a late addition based on textual issues. First, Hill’s comment about a ‘complete two-line blank space’ between Mal. 3.21[4.3] and 3.22[4.4] is misleading at best and mistaken at worst: MA has one complete line space between 3.21[4.3] and 3.22[4.4]: ‫ אמר יהוה צבאות‬fills the last line of 3.21[4.3] and ‫ זכרו‬commences 3.22[4.4] without indentation; ML has a blank space after the final word ‫ צבאות‬on the last line of 3.21[4.3], with the imperative ‫ זכרו‬beginning 3.22[4.4] without indentation. Thus, there is no ‘complete two-line blank space’ between 3.21[4.3] and 3.22[4.4] in either codex; there is only a ‘one-line blank space’. Commenting on scribal practices and approaches reflected in the texts from the Judaean Desert, Emmanuel Tov notes that the most major section division among scribes was a space extending from the last word in a line to the end of the line, followed by a completely blank line.43 In other words, the Masoretes had at their disposal a mechanism to indicate a major division at Mal. 3.21[4.3], but chose not to use it in any of the main Hebrew manuscripts (4QXIIa; MA; ML; MC). Moreover, a comparison with other Hebrew manuscripts, and other books of The Twelve within those manuscripts, shows that conclusions from the significance of a break within a column should not be overstated. This is not to undermine the fact that ‘unit delimitation determines to a large extent the interpretation of a given passage’;44 it is, however, to encourage caution, given the diversity of division markers among Hebrew manuscripts. As Tov comments: ‘The subjective and impressionistic system of sense divisions explains the many differences between parallel manuscripts, both in the Judean Desert texts and within the medieval Masoretic family’.45 Tov’s 43.  Emmanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts from the Judean Desert (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2004), p. 147. This sounds more like Hill’s ‘complete two-line blank space’. 44.  Marjo C. A. Korpel, ‘Introduction to the Series Pericope’, in Delimitation Criticism (ed. Marjo C. A. Korpel and Josef Oesch; Pericope 1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2000), pp. 1-50 (1). 45.  Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), p. 200. See also, Tov, Scribal Practices, p. 149: ‘a unit that was denoted as an open section by one scribe could be denoted as a closed one by the scribe of another manuscript of the same composition’. Tov observes that ‘the notion of “original sense divisions,” which some scholars try to establish, is as difficult as that of establishing the original text of Hebrew Scripture’ (p. 157).

9. ‘Turning hearts’

221

point is illustrated by comparing the division markers in Malachi in 4QXIIa and the codices of MA, ML and MC. Table 1. Comparison of 4QXIIa, MA, ML and MC Paragraph Markers46 Malachi verses 1.13 2.9 2.12 2.16 3.12 3.16 3.18 3.21[4.3] 3.23[4.5]

4QXIIa X X --Vac --------Vac

MA ‫ס‬ ‫פ‬ ‫פ‬ ‫פ‬ ‫פ‬ --‫פ‬ ‫פ‬ ---

ML ‫ס‬ ‫פ‬ ‫פ‬ ‫ס‬ ‫ס‬ --‫ס‬ ‫פ‬ ---

MC --‫פ‬ --‫פ‬ ‫פ‬ ‫ס‬ ‫פ‬ ‫ס‬ ---

Table 1 reveals differences between the early Hebrew manuscript of 4QXIIa and the main medieval codices as to what constitutes a major (‫ )פ‬or minor (‫ )ס‬division within a book, which supports Tov’s point that the divisions were subjective and impressionistic.47 It would therefore be unwise to place too much weight on the paragraph markers at the end of Malachi. Besides, they were intended to mark a contextual shift rather than indicate a ‘late’ or ‘secondary addition’, in the modern sense of literary criticism. Moreover, a paragraph marker between 3.22[4.4] and 3.23-24[4.5-6] is conspicuous by its absence if these verses comprise two distinct additions, as most commentators contend. Second, the enlarged or, in some cases, ornate consonant ‫ ז‬that begins 3.22[4.4] may simply be a scribe’s way of indicating a new section48 (which is not necessarily late) or the unique pronouncement of this verb form in The Twelve.49 The point, however, carries little weight, since none

46.  The paragraph marker follows the verse in the left-hand column. The sign ‘X’ = text not extant in the manuscript, and the sign ‘---’ = no paragraph marker present. The sign ‘Vac’ is used by the editors of the Biblia Qumranica edition (Ego et al., eds, Biblia Qumranica. 3B: Minor Prophets, p. xvi) to indicate an empty space up to the end of a line; it matches the BHS and BHQ editorial use of ‫ פ‬or ‫ס‬, but not consistently so. Sometimes it is present where there is no paragraph marker in the BHS or BHQ. 47.  Note how MA has open paragraph markers where ML sometimes has closed paragraph markers. 48.  Keil, Twelve Minor Prophets, p. 663 n. 1. 49.  The imperative verb ‫ זכרו‬is unique to The Twelve (cf. Hos. 12.6; 14.8: ‫)זִ ְכרֹו‬. Israel Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah (trans. E. J. Revell; Chico,

222

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

of the main Hebrew witnesses contain the enlarged ‫ ;ז‬it is found in only a few medieval manuscripts. Third, the different verse orders in the LXX and the Masorah are not necessarily evidence of a late addition. Hebrew textual witnesses are unanimous in having the order of verses as in the MT (4QXIIa; MA; ML; MC),50 and some secondary Greek manuscripts follow the MT ordering of the verses (SC; L” [86txt]; C; LXX‫א‬Y; Syro-hexaplar).51 A reasonable explanation for the different verse sequencing is that the LXX translators and the Masoretes did not want to end the book with the negative threat of a curse. The fact that both reorder the verses slightly differently supports this theory. Snyman’s contention that the LXX verse order continues the Day of Yhwh theme is not denied, but the primary connection of 3.23[4.5] is to 3.1a and not 3.17-21[4.3], as the lexical and syntactical parallelism reveals. The messenger who precedes Yhwh’s coming is identified as Elijah the prophet. Fuller’s proposal that the position of 3.22[4.4] ‘forms an intentional scribal inclusio’ is based on two assumptions: (1) that the LXX verse sequence is the original order (250–150 B.C.), the MT preserving a later redaction; and (2) that when later material was added to an earlierbut-not-yet-finished composition it was positioned in different places; he employs the text of Jeremiah as an example. Both assumptions are questionable. First, Fuller himself concedes that the order of books in the MT collection may represent a rearrangement of the LXX order ‘or, alternatively, may represent a variant organization of the XII, which was

CA: Scholars Press, 1980), pp. 47-48, notes that large letters may (1) stand at the beginning of a book (Genesis, Proverbs, Chronicles) or at the beginning of a new section (Eccl. 12.13); (2) draw attention to some significant point (Lev. 11.42; 13.33), which marks the half-way point in the Torah in letters and in words, respectively; (3) warn that a reading must be precise (Deut. 6.4). He states that in most cases, however, there is no obvious reason for the large letter. He does not entertain the theory that the enlarged consonant may indicate a late addition by a scribe. 50.  There is one exception: Camb. Uni. Ms. 5.27, Sephardic, dated 7 Adar 616 = 856 AD; the last line reads ‘the land (the earth). Behold I will send.’ The Hebrew equivalent of ‘with a curse’ is supplied in the margin by another hand. 51.  Cited in Russell E. Fuller, ‘Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts: Their Interpretations and Their Interpreters’, in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures (ed. Armin Lange, Emmanuel Tov, Matthias Weigold and Bennie H. Reynolds III; 2 vols.; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2010), I, pp. 101-10 (104).

9. ‘Turning hearts’

223

later chosen by the temple scribes as the authoritative form of the scroll’.52 If Fuller is willing to concede the possibility that a variant organization in the books of The Twelve already existed, why not a variant ordering of the verses 3.22-24[4.4-6], which was later chosen by the temple scribes as the authoritative form of Malachi? Secondly, the argument-by-analogy from Jeremiah as a way of explaining the differences in verse sequence is fallacious: in the case of Mal. 3.22-24[4.4-6] there is no addition of new material as there is in Jeremiah; in Malachi, it is the same material which is reordered into a different sequence.53 More importantly, Fuller does not realize that his argument, that the LXX verse sequence forms ‘an intentional scribal inclusio’ with Josh. 1.2 etc., is flawed for the very simple reason that in the Greek manuscripts and lists The Twelve appear most often at the beginning of the Latter Prophets and not the end.54 Thus, the position of Mal. 3.22[4.4] at the end of the book cannot actually serve a ‘canonical’ purpose in the LXX or its Hebrew Vorlage. (2) Unique Terminology and Phraseology The argument that lexical and syntactical dissimilarities raise suspicion over the originality (and possibly the integrality) of 3.22-24[4.4-6] is easily answered by Glazier-McDonald’s simple point that ‘[v]ariety of expression is a characteristic of Israel’s literature’.55 This can be demonstrated for each of the earlier cases: (a) the phrase ‫ תורת משה‬may be unique to the prophetic literature, but similar expressions are used throughout the Hebrew Bible, with variety existing within the same books: Joshua: ‫( ספר תורת משה‬8.31); ‫( תורת משה‬8.32); ‫( ספר התורה‬8.34); ‫תורת אלהים‬ (24.6); Isaiah: ‫( תורת יהוה צבאות‬5.24); ‫( תורת יהוה‬30.9); Nehemiah: ‫( תורת אלהים‬8.18; 10.29); ‫( תורת־יהוה אלהי־ישראל‬9.3). (b) Various descriptions for the people of Israel are exhibited in other books of the Hebrew Bible; for example, Ezekiel: ‫( כל־ישראל‬45.16); ‫( כל־בית ישראל‬3.7; 12.10; 20.40; 45.6); ‫( בית ישראל‬3.4, 7; 6.11); and 52.  Fuller, ‘Sequence of Malachi 3:22-24’, p. 377. Fuller thinks that 4QXIIa preserves a third, variant order that existed prior to the ‘official’ version in the MT. The MT’s order becomes recognized in the Greek Naḥal Ḥever scroll of The Twelve (8ḤevXIIgr; last half of the first century B.C.) and the Hebrew scroll of The Twelve from Wadi Murabbaʿat (Mur 88; A.D. 132–135). Fuller hypothesizes that the proto-MT order of The Twelve became ‘official’ ca. 100–50 B.C. (p. 378). 53.  Fuller does not argue that the MT added new material to the ending of Malachi; he does, however, fail to see that recourse to the example of Jeremiah is not a fit analogy here. 54.  For further, see below. 55.  Glazier-McDonald, Malachi, p. 251.

224

Covenant Continuity and Fidelity

‫( ישראל‬14.1; 20.1; 21.17; 44.29). This makes the single use of ‫כל־ישראל‬ in Malachi, in comparison to ‫ ישראל‬elsewhere (1.1, 5; 2.11), unsurprising. (c) Using the two forms of the first-person singular pronoun (‫ אני‬and ‫ )אנכי‬as source indicators is problematic, because some prophets use one of the two first-person pronouns, exclusively (e.g. Zephaniah: ‫ ;אני‬Micah: ‫ ;אנכי‬Haggai: ‫)אני‬, some use both, commonly (e.g. Hos. 3.3; 4.6; 5.2-3, 12, 14; 7.15; 10.11; 13.5; 14.9[8]: ‫ ;אני‬Hos. 1.9; 2.4[2], 10[8]; 5.14; 7.13; 11.3; 12.10-11; 13.4: ‫ ;אנכי‬Jonah 1.9, 12; 2.10; 4.11: ‫ ;אני‬Jonah 1.9; 3.2: ‫ ;אנכי‬Jer. 1.8, 11, 19; 3.12; 4.13; 11.19; 23.3: ‫ ;אני‬Jer. 1.6-7, 17; 3.14; 4.6: ‫ ;אנכי‬Isa. 43.4, 13; 44.6; 45.12: ‫ ;אני‬Isa. 45.13; 49.25: ‫)אנכי‬, while others use one, mostly, and the other, only occasionally (e.g. Ezekiel typically uses ‫אני‬, but once ‫ אנכי‬in 36.28; Amos is the opposite: he typically uses ‫ אנכי‬regularly, but ‫ אני‬only once in 4.6).56 These many examples counter the idea of secondary authorship which is based on the variation of short and long first-person pronouns in a prophetic book. (d) Several prophets give different descriptions for the Day of Yhwh: e.g. Amos: ‫( יום יהוה‬5.2); and ‫( יום רע‬6.3); Joel: ‫( יום יהוה‬1.15; 2.1; 4.14); ‫( יום יהוה הגדול והנורא‬3.4[2.31]; cf. 2.11); ‫( היום‬1.15); and ‫יום חשך ואפלה‬ ‫( יום ענן וערפל‬2.2); Isaiah: ‫( יום יהוה‬13.6, 9); and ‫( יום חרון אפו‬13.13); Zephaniah: ‫( יום יהוה‬1.7); ‫( יום זבח יהוה‬1.8); ‫( יום יהוה הגדול‬1.14); ‫יום עברת‬ ‫( יהוה‬1.18); ‫( יום אף־יהוה‬2.3); and ‫( יום קומי לעד‬3.8). In this last example, Zephaniah employs six different expressions for the Day of Yhwh, which means that Malachi’s diverse expressions are not unusual. (e) The absence of divine speech markers in this section does not necessarily mean that the verses are a late addition. There are larger portions of text in Malachi that are without the divine speech formula, namely, 2.9-15, and 3.2-4. Also, the final unit might not be accompanied by divine speech markers, but the verses are still rendered as Yhwh’s speech. Indeed, 3.17-24[4.6] is one continuous speech of Yhwh in the first person.57 56.  Hill’s claim, that a presentation such as this is flawed because it fails to examine the use of the two forms of this independent pronoun in disputed texts (Malachi, p. 375), is itself flawed. He uses Zechariah as an example, but assumes (without argument for the case) that ‘First Zechariah’ and ‘Second Zechariah’ are two distinct books: ‘First Zechariah’ uses ‫ אני‬exclusively, while ‘Second Zechariah’ prefers ‫אנכי‬. But even here he has to admit that there is an exception: Zech. 13.9 has ‫אני‬. Hill is correct to note that ‘[d]istinct patterns of preference are clearly discerned in the corpora of the postexilic prophets’ (p. 375), but it is a non sequitur to conclude from this that a prophet may not use some variation, as even Hill must admit with his example of Zech. 13.9. 57.  The third-person reference to Yhwh in the phrase ‫( לפני בוא יום יהוה‬3.25[4.5]) is explained by an allusion to Joel 3.4[2.31].

9. ‘Turning hearts’

225

(f) Rather than being a reason for the secondary nature of the final unit, the mention of Moses and Elijah – rare figures in the Prophets – is in fact further evidence for the originality of these verses. Malachi simply follows the pattern of the infrequent mention of both figures in the prophetic corpus. The near exact repetition of wording in 3.23[4.5] from 3.1 indicates that the messenger who is to precede Yhwh’s coming is being identified. There is no reason to suggest that this must entail a different author. The idea of referring to a person first and only naming them later is paralleled in Isaiah with reference to Cyrus: he is first mentioned in vague terms in 41.2, 25 (‘one that is stirred up from the east’, ‘and from the north’), and then he is later named in 44.28. In sum, the challenge of unique terminology and phraseology to the originality and integrality of Mal. 3.22-24[4.4-6] is seen to be insubstantial: variety of expression is a common feature of the Hebrew Bible, and of individual authors in particular. As Smith concedes: ‘The linguistic usage of these verses is not conclusive in itself’.58 Although Malachi employs unique terms and phrases in these closing verses, a large majority of his vocabulary is replicated from elsewhere in the book. Vocabulary and key phrases link the final unit (3.22-24[4.4-6]) to the rest of the book (1.1–3.21[4.3]).59 Table 2 (overleaf) reveals that the vocabulary and key phrases in Mal. 3.22-24[4.4-6] overlap significantly with the earlier material in 1.1–3.21[4.3]. Of the 41 words used in the closing verses, around 80% are replicated from elsewhere in Malachi, with the words in the closing verses being represented in each of the main pericopes of the book. Where there are lexical similarities between the oracles of Malachi and the final unit, Hill contends that these ‘are overshadowed by syntactical dissimilarities’.60 For example, the word pair ‫ גדול‬and ‫ נורא‬in 1.14 are predicate adjectives, while in 3.23[4.5] they are attributive adjectives; 3.23[4.5] inverts the order of ‫ יום‬+ ‫ בא‬found in Mal. 3.2; and the emphatic position of ‫ הדגול והנורא‬in 1.14 finds its complement in ‫חקים ומשפטים‬ (3.22[4.4]) and not the attributive phrase ‫( הגדול והנורא‬3.23[4.5]).61 58.  Smith, Malachi, p. 85. 59.  This does not deny the findings of Yehuda T. Radday and Moshe A. Pollatschek, ‘Vocabulary Richness in Post-Exilic Prophetic Books’, ZAW 92 (1980), pp. 333-46, that Mal. 3 contains significantly different vocabulary from Mal. 1–2; however, the basic point remains. Radday and Pollatschek’s observations can be easily explained by the fact that Mal. 3 marks a significant change in topic as the book orientates the reader towards the future. 60.  Hill, Malachi, p. 377. 61.  Ibid., p. 378.

1.6–2.9      >î@           >î@  >î@ >î@     

1.1-5    

 

          

    >î@  

3.22-24[4.4-6] :)$ 3 !:#= :