Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Malachi

[Dr. Danger]

Malachi 4:5-6 says that Elijah is supposed to come back. Elijah isn't dead, so it's possible he can return to earth in physical form, just like Jesus. The author of Mark has a hard time fulfilling this prophecy, it seems.

To stress the point home, Mark then has the transfiguration: Jesus stands with Moses and Elijah. To further elaborate, he makes Jesus say John The Baptist is the spiritual successor of Elijah. Furthermore, Matthew does the same thing! He goes back into the Old Testament to learn more about Elijah, and describes the garments of John the baptist almost identical to Elijah.

I didn't know someone undead could be spiritually reincarnated into a new being, but If God exists..miracles exist.

I don't see anything to suggest Elijah was supposed to come back in spiritual form, or even implied it was for a brief time. If the spirit of Jesus comes back by proxy of another man, is Jesus back? There have been many men that I can identify with Jesus, including human sacrifice, dying for the betterment of humanity, if I really wanted to. This is why this answer to the explanation of the prophecy makes no sense. Elijah would be the final sign before the lord returned. Why would the lord return, show Elijah, then leave again only to return later?

The verse in Malachi 4:5-6 implies that Elijah will come back and let his face be known. Basically, He will show up in front of everyone in israel, not just select disciples.

[jimwalton]

It's hard to discern what your actual question is, but I'll make some comments. The prophecy of Malachi pertains to the end of time, Jesus' second coming, not to his first. It's obvious that is the reference. John the Baptist himself stated he was not the herald referred to in Mal. 4.5. John was a type of Elijah in that he was the forerunner of Christ, but Malachi is speaking of a different return of Elijah in the End Times.

You're right that there is nothing to suggest Elijah is supposed to come back in spiritual form. The Mount of Transfiguration story referred to in Mark is not the coming of Elijah referred to in Malachi. You're also right that Mal. 4.5-6 implies that Elijah will come back and let his face be known—he will show up in front of everyone. This is a reference to the end times, not to Jesus in the first century.

So the reply to your bolded part: "If the spirit of Jesus comes back by proxy of another man, is Jesus back?" is No. Elijah is prophesied to come back literally; Jesus is prophesied to come back physically and literally.

[Dr. Danger]

Where's the evidence this is the second coming? Elijah coming back means israel will be spared and even restored, does it not?

Also Jesus says he's already come. He's John the Baptist. John is the only book that says otherwise.

[jimwalton]

Mal. 4.1: "Surely the day is coming;..." This is the Day of the Lord, a prominent and common theme in the OT prophets. The imagery of the verse is judgment, and the imagery of v. 2 is eschatological blessing for those who remain faithful—again, typical end times imagery.

Mal. 4.3. The "trampling of the wicked" is another common end times image.

Verse 5 repeats the "Day of the Lord" theme of dreadful judgment. Jews understood the verse to pertain to the end times, and in every Passover celebration a place is set at the table for Elijah, expecting (or hoping for) his coming. John the Baptist is interpreted to be the "Elijah" as the forerunner of Jesus, but not the Elijah of the end times.

[Dr. Danger]

How many Elijah's are there? I read somewhere there were three.

[jimwalton]

The Malachi texts speak of various peaks of fulfillment. Malachi 3.1 & 4.5 seem to be written to different audiences, referring to a different event. Obviously there was the historical figure of Elijah the Tishbite of 1 Kings. Secondly, John the Baptist was Elijah in spirit (Lk. 1.16, 27), and recognized as so by Jesus (Mt. 17.12), but John himself knew that he didn't fulfill all of the prophecy of Malachi (Jn. 1.21). Even Jesus acknowledged that there was more to the Elijah prophecy than John the Baptist—he speaks of Elijah's coming "to restore all things" as still future (Mt. 17.11). So while Elijah, in the person of John the Baptist, is already come in a sense, there is still more. So there is even in our future a further fulfillment of the prophecy, and we don't know what form it will take. Many speculate that one of the unnamed witnesses of Rev. 11 will be Elijah, come back in the flesh (possibly) at the end time to fill up the prophecy of Malachi.

People mistakenly take the Bible as a simple, single-planed, one-faceted book, and that's an error. The Bible's many literary forms and multi-layered coverage of history, as well as theological complexity, requires us to look deeper than 1 inch.

[Dr. Danger]

You make it sound like the bible was written with compilation in mind. It wasn't.

[jimwalton]

It's hard to know what the authors knew. Neither of us can speak with certainty. It depends of which part of the Bible you're talking about. We have a few clues:

Moses seemed to know that he was writing what God had revealed, and that it would be compiled in a book. We don't know who wrote the historical books, when, or whether they knew their writing would be compiled. They seemed to know these things would be kept in the annals of the kings.

The prophets knew what they were speaking was of the Lord. There must have also been a knowledge that such things would be kept, since the writings of all prophets who went before them were being kept.

It is completely unknown who assembled the OT, and when, but it is common thought to be Ezra in about 500 BC. The prophets knew they were speaking the word of the Lord, as evidenced by their writings and affirmed by 2 Pet. 1.20-21.

The odds are they weren't thinking about compilation, because there was no such thing. Books weren't invented until there was technology to make books. Before that there were only collections of scrolls, carvings, and ostracons. Books—compilations—didn't exist anywhere. They weren't invented until after Christ.

It's also hard to know what the NT writers knew. Ignatius of Antioch (AD 30-110) and Clement of Rome (30-100) both quote from the gospels as authoritative narratives. As early as AD 97 Hermas (in "The Shepherd") mentions that there are 4 gospels. The writers of the 3 synoptics lead off pretty formally and confidently:

Matthew: "A record of the genealogy of Jesus, the son of David, the Son of Abraham..." Then look at Mt. 1.18 and 2.1. He seems to know he is writing for the ages and for keeps.

Mark: "The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Same comments.

Luke: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

So it's hard to know what they knew or believed about compilation. They seemed to be well-enough aware that what they were writing would be kept, and maybe that's more important than the compilation aspect, since such a technology didn't exist during any of the writing of the autographs.

[Dr. Danger]

> Moses seemed to know that he was writing what God had revealed, and that it would be compiled in a book. We don't know who wrote the historical books, when, or whether they knew their writing would be compiled. They seemed to know these things would be kept in the annals of the kings.

Moses clearly didn't write his part. That is oral tradition and folklore. If you read the bible, you can see plan as day that it gets repetitive in some cases, cause its certain sources telling their version and the redactor did a sloppy job of redacting the story.

> The prophets knew what they were speaking was of the Lord. There must have also been a knowledge that such things would be kept, since the writings of all prophets who went before them were being kept.

Possibly. I wouldn't say prophet. I would say author. Its possible the author knew his writing would be circulated. For sure.

> It is completely unknown who assembled the OT, and when, but it is common thought to be Ezra in about 500 BC. The prophets knew they were speaking the word of the Lord, as evidenced by their writings and affirmed by 2 Pet. 1.20-21.

Hate to be negative, but since 2 peter is considered a forgery by most scholars, I don't believe anything that book says.

> Matthew: "A record of the genealogy of Jesus, the son of David, the Son of Abraham..." Then look at Mt. 1.18 and 2.1. He seems to know he is writing for the ages and for keeps.

Agreed. Matthew is correcting Mark's gospel and making it more complete with jewish roots in it.

> Mark: "The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Same comments.

He's the originator. He knows his gospel is incomplete. I mean, it sounds like from his sentence he does. I guess short of sources?

> Luke: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Doesn't sound like he knew it would be compiled. If anything he sought out to write a gospel to quell rumors and correct any falsehoods. Mark and Matthew sound like they know.

[jimwalton]

Wow, I hate to say it, but you're spewing out a lot of unfounded opinions here that unfortunately makes me think you skimmed some Google links rather than done the required research. Sorry to say so, but that's the way your'e coming across.

> Moses

There is no end to theories about the authorship of Genesis to Deuteronomy. The Bible itself claims that Moses is the writer (Josh. 8.31; 23.6; 1 Ki. 2.3; 2 Ki. 14.6; Mt. 8.4; 19.7; Mk .7.10, and many others). Also in the earliest biblical literature, the Pentateuch is ascribed to Moses. Jesus affirmed repeatedly that Moses was the author. Mosaic authorship was unanimously accepted by both Christians and Jews until the rise of criticism in the 17th century.

Though the authorship of the Pentateuch by Moses cannot be verified, it is clear that he was considered the authority behind the Torah that we have. His words, teachings, and actions can be considered to be represented with accuracy in the biblical text. As the leader of the people, Moses was generating information that would be considered important enough to preserve in written documents. Some undoubtedly would have been recorded in his time and under his supervision. Others may well have been produced by later generations after some time of oral transmission (a few portions were clearly added later, including the narratives of his death). It matters neither how much material is in each category nor which portions are which; the authority derives from Moses and he is inseparable from the material. Even if Moses didn’t actually write it, there is no verified reason to doubt that the material is his, even if it was not written down until much later.

The source theory of Biblical assembly has come under great attack of late, and is falling apart thanks to better research, new discoveries, and more thorough scholarship. Absolutely no textual evidence exists for the fragmentation of the Pentateuch. No archaeologist has ever uncovered a copy, a fragment, or any reference to J, E, D, or P. It is pure academic speculation. Those who insist on empirical evidence should be ashamed to subscribe to these theories.

The so-called repetitions are easily explained as records of distinct but similar events. Who goes through life without encountering similar experiences on multiple occasions?

You cannot begin to affirm with confidence that Moses clearly didn't write it.

> Hate to be negative, but...

My main point was about the canon of the OT as probably assembled by Ezra. Your diversion to 2 Peter is a dodge. The OT is evidence enough that the OT prophets considered they were speaking the word of the Lord.

> Matthew is correcting Mark's gospel

Even the theory of Markan primacy is being highly questioned by further scholarship. "Q" is speculative theory (never been proved or any evidence found), and some scholars are now doing work that shows that Matthew and Luke possibly didn't copy from Mark, but possibly even preceded it. You cynicism about Matthew correcting Mark, and Mark knowing his gospel is incomplete are pure (and a little cynical) conjecture.

> Doesn't sound like he knew it would be compiled

We are left to interpret. It's hard to tell what he thought and knew, as I suggested, but to me it sounds as if he has done his homework and plans to write down a reliable account that can be read and re-read. It's impossible to know at this point (until more is discovered) what he knew about the other gospels, if anything.