Scholarly consensus has grown around the dating of the ministry and book of Malachi between 516–458 bce (Hill 1998:75; Pierce 1984).¹ Malachi reflects the same historical and theological background as Zechariah and 3 Isaiah. Politically, the returnees from exile were subjected to the Persian Empire, and hardly survived as a rural subsistence economy, burdened as they were by heavy taxes to be paid to the imperial administration. In addition, in Malachi’s time the country-side was ravaged, again by droughts and later also locusts (Hg 1:5–6, 9–11; 2:15–17; Ml 3:10–11). The smallish Persian province of Yehud numbered approximately 20–30 thousand inhabitants at most, and were vulnerable to the threat of external and internal enemies (Floyd 1999; Lipschitz 2003:364; Vandenhooft 2003:235–262). Malachi’s ministry assumes a functioning temple cult (post-516 bce). A considerable part of his book is dedicated to a biting critique of this cult and its officials (Ml 1:10). The renewal and reconstruction programmes, instigated by Ezra and Nehemiah (Wielenga 2013:1–5), are not yet anticipated, even though, partially, both reformers addressed the same social and religious ills that were found in Malachi’s time (Ezr 8–10; Neh 5; 13).

In short, roughly between 516–458 bce Malachi must have entered the scene of the suffering remnant population of Jews, disillusioned and disappointed by the circumstances they found themselves in, which they ascribed to a God not interested in what was happening to his own people (Ml 2:17). The eschatological fervour, ignited by Haggai, and confirmed by Zechariah and 3 Isaiah, had long died down.

The faith traditions that Malachi shared with his prophetic colleagues, could be characterised in essence as, covenantal. The pre-exilic covenant theology as developed in Deuteronomy (Block 2012; McConville 1984; Miller 1990:10–16) also finds expression in Malachi (Assis 2012:212–219; McKenzie & Wallace 1983:549–563; O’Brien 1990:85–107 and Weyde 2000:37–47). The covenant, known for its asymmetrical mutuality (unilaterally established by the sovereign God (Ml 1:6) and bilaterally maintained by God in cooperation with his faithful people),² was breached by the people on two accounts.

Firstly, the theological basis of the covenantal relationship was undermined. God’s presence among them in the temple was threatened by their apathetic worship. Malachi’s harsh criticism of the temple staff and their mismanagement of the crucial sacrificial cult (Ml 1:6–2:9) is in stark contrast with Haggai’s eschatological focus on the temple, and Zechariah’s emphasis on the significance of a pure temple community under the leadership of a divinely cleansed high priest (Zch 3:1–7). The severe critique of the spiritual and social condition of the nation, found in 3 Isaiah, confirms Malachi’s stance.

The spiritual force behind this ritual decline is pointed out in Malachi 2:5–7. The original calling of the priesthood to revere God’s name, to instruct the people in the law of Moses, and to turn them away from sin had been corrupted.³ As ‘messenger of the Lord Almighty’ (O’Brien 1990:42; Weyde 2000:199–203) the priest had an authoritative mediating role to play between God and his people. But the priests violated their calling and led the people astray. Their running down of the sacrificial ministry in the temple is decried by Malachi as a blasphemy of God’s name. The breaking of ‘the covenant with Levi’ resulted in the non-payment of the tithes to the temple (Ml 3:6–12), understood by Malachi as a robbing of God (Assis 2010:359). The people’s apathy in the execution of their covenantal duties had been aggravated by the priests’ failure to keep God’s ‘covenant with Levi’. This apathy stood in sharp contrast with their eagerness to do all what God had forbidden in the law of Moses (cf. also Is 56:9–57:13; 59:1–20).

Secondly, the males in the community came in for harsh criticism: some got married outside the faith to the daughters of a foreign god (Ml 2:11–12), while some others divorced the wives of their youth to do the same (Ml 2:13–16).⁴ Their dire economic circumstances and perceived lack of social security caused them to marry into the ranks of established families of their heathen neighbours or of the syncretistic Samaritans (Snyman 2006:30). Malachi censured this as a desecrating of God’s dwelling place among them, a ‘detestable’ thing to commit (Ezr 9:11; 10:17; Ml 2:10–11). It boiled down to a breaking up of God’s covenant concluded with the fathers (Ex 2:24; 19–24), destabilising the small-scale Yehud society as well (Hill 1998:258; Snyman 2014:600). Especially the raising of the offspring in the ancestral faith (Ml 2:13, 15) was at stake here (see Kottsieper 2007:95–124 on Neh 13:23–28). Their continued worship in the temple became therefore futile (Ml 2:12–13).

In conclusion, the coherence of God’s covenant people was under threat as direct consequence of the ill-functioning temple cult, aggravated by the many socio-economic ills (Ml 3:5) that should have reminded them of the prophetic rebukes from before the exile (Zch 1:2–6; 7:1–14). Their mistrust of God and his promises (Ml 3:14) made them apathetic in their worship and negligent in their obedience, unchecked by the deficient teaching ministry of the priests.

Haggai announced that ‘in a little while’ (Hg 2:6) the heavens and the earth would be shaken by the Lord Almighty, and the political world map be redrawn by him. The nations would pilgrimage to the rebuild temple and would bring glory to the Lord Almighty together with the people of Israel. Peace would spread out from the temple, the centre of the world. In the turmoil of the times ahead God would look after his people like a king looks after his signet ring (Hg 2:20–23; Goswell 2010:77–90; Rose 2000:208–247). As pointed out, in Malachi’s days this vision had lost its lustre and appeal; the people had lost hope that this eschatological promise would be fulfilled soon, if ever.

Theologically Haggai’s eschatological vision can be analysed as follows. It is rooted in the covenantal promise of God to his people in the redemptive past (Ex 2:24; 19:1–24:18) to always be their God. This promise anchors the future of God’s people throughout history, and through them the future of the world (Wright 2006). This promised future, entrenched in the redemptive past, shapes the present in which the people had to live in the presence of God, who dwelled among them in the temple of Jerusalem. Therefore they had to break with their sins committed in times gone by (537–520 bce), and be committed to God and his promised future, which would arrive in his time and according to his good pleasure. Their turnaround should be demonstrated by their rebuilding the temple but also the temple community (Zechariah’s focus). On their journey from the present into God’s future the people were assured of God’s providential care, and could already fragmentarily anticipate the peace they had to wait for with patient impatience.

Because of the constraints of this article the focus will be only on Zechariah 7–8 (Boda 2003:390–406; Kashow 2013:385–403), and Zechariah 14 (Floyd 2002:401–422; Rose 2012:183–196; 2013:213–230).

The unity between Zechariah 7 and 8 which play a crucial role in connecting Zechariah 1–6 with 9–14, must be maintained (for a different view, see Assis 2012b:17–18; see, however, Boda 2003:395–397). In Zechariah 7–8 reasons are given why the future, promised in 520 bce by Haggai, has not yet arrived (Zch 1–6). Subsequently these chapters introduce Zechariah 9–14, where this delay in fulfilment is elaborated upon from an eschatological (and apocalyptic, cf. Cook 1995:123–166) perspective.

The literary cohesion of Zechariah 1–14 is assumed in this article; the different sections (Zch 1–8; 9–11; 12–14) are also theologically interlinked.⁵

In this article there is no need to go into the complicated discussions within Isaianic scholarship with regard to the literary composition and thematic unity of this book and especially of its third part (Is 56–66).⁹ Consensus is growing around the categorisation of 3 Isaiah as scribal prophecy (Blenkinsopp 2003:37–39; Stromberg 2014:211). Its postexilic scribes based their written texts upon the scriptures, which came to them authoritatively in oral or written form, in 1 and 2 Isaiah. With a view to the present time they read and interpreted its message, which became reconfigured in the process.¹⁰

Attention will now be paid to two interrelated themes developed especially in 2 Isaiah that found their reconfiguration in 3 Isaiah. They are relevant to the understanding of Malachi’s eschatology. Firstly, the divine promise of hope for the eschatological future is discussed and secondly, Israel’s identity in that future is also scrutinised.

At this point it is good to take stock of the discussion so far. Do the results of the investigation in Zechariah and 3 Isaiah show indeed that the eschatological discourse since Haggai has been progressing in one way or another?

Firstly, in Zechariah and 3 Isaiah Haggai’s eschatological vision (Hg 2:6–9, 20–23) is endorsed with regard to the new world order centred around the temple in Jerusalem (Is 62:1–12; 65:17–25; Zch 8:1–8, 20–23; 14:8–21). They address the problem of the perceived delay in the fulfilment of this promise, made in 520 bce. The lack of a true, covenantal spirituality among the majority of the community is pointed out as the cause of the delay. Hence divine judgement is introduced into the eschatological discourse; the warfare imagery, associated with the Day of the Lord prophecies, however absent in Haggai, is now fully employed (Is 63:1–6; Zch 14:3–10). This eschatological judgement is aimed at the nations, oppressing God’s people, but not less at God’s people themselves (Is 59:15b–20; 61:2; 63:1–6; Zch 9:2–8).

Secondly, the identity of God’s people is reconfigured in the process. Having survived judgement, they represent ‘all Israel’, and are included in the covenant (Is 61:8; 63:16–17). Their new identity is inclusive, including those of the nations who have been ‘missionised’ by people from their own ranks (Is 66:18–21), and have responded to their call to pilgrimage to Zion.

Thirdly, in Zechariah and 3 Isaiah end-time figures appear on the eschatological scene to make the promised new things happen, even if their identity remains enigmatic. This clearly differs from Haggai, who does not introduce an end-time figure in his eschatological discourse.¹⁶

In summary as in Haggai, in Zechariah and 3 Isaiah the eschatological future is anchored in the past of the redemptive history of God with his people and shapes the present, in which they have to live in God’s presence. The introduction of divine judgement into the eschatological discourse aims at the transformation of the people in the present in preparation for the promised future. At heart, all three prophets are one in their trust in God’s covenantal faithfulness as the hard core of their eschatological hope.

In this passage the people’s accusation also is refuted: it is not futile to serve God and to obey his requirements; it is not true that evildoers prosper and escape judgement (Ml 3:14–15). These accusations are born out of the dismal conditions of the community and are proof of a spirituality gone wrong. But a turnaround in their condition is announced by God, introduced with a narrative unit in Malachi 3:16 (Weyde 2000:360–362). The turnaround will take place on the Day of the Lord (Ml 3:17–19), and will cause a division between those who fear the Lord (Ml 3:16) and the wicked who do not serve God (Ml 3:18). The first group will continue to trust the Lord and their names will be remembered by God (Ml 3:16); they will enjoy the eschatological peace, basking in the sun of righteousness, which will rise with healing in its wings (see in this regard Is 30:26; 53:5; 58:8).²⁴ But for those who persist in their arrogance towards God and in their evil behaviour (Ml 3:19) that day will come burning like a furnace; nothing of them will be left. This judgement is total and definite in contrast with the judgement announced in Malachi 3:2 and 5, where it is compared to a refiner’s fire. A purified temple staff and worship will be the result around which a transformed nation of God-fearers could develop (Snyman 2014:608).

In Malachi 3:17–21 the Day of the Lord stands central as the final conclusion of history. Weyde (2000:366–368) points out that that day itself is subject to the destruction of all that is evil. Again no temporal indicators are given. The imminence and urgency of that day is implicit now as well; no time schedule is provided. The emphasis is upon heeding the warning and acting upon it accordingly, as the time of grace is still in place.

The question is whether Malachi is speaking here (Ml 3:2–5 and 3:19) about one day from two distinguishable perspectives (Verhoef 1972:265), or whether the two days take place at different moments in time, each with its own significance but interrelated (Van der Woude 1982:134). It seems more likely that the two defining aspects of the Day of the Lord are stressed. The salvific aspect is put across in the image of a refiner’s fire, and the destructive aspect is visualised in the image of a burning furnace (Petersen 1995:224). There is hope for those who tremble at God’s Word; there is no hope at all for those who disregard God’s Word, as contained in the law of Moses (Mal 3:5; 3:22). The announcement of the Day of the Lord functions as a wake up call and a clear sign that God still loves his people (Ml 1:2–5; 3:17), undeniably albeit not indiscriminately (Snyman 2014:599–600).

That Malachi 3:22–24 is a very deliberate addition by a later hand to the book it is attached to, but also has to be considered as conclusion to the Corpus Propheticum and the Old Testament canon as a whole, seems plausible (Assis 2011a:207–209; 2012:3; Petersen 1995:232).²⁵ Chapman (2000:139–-145) could be right in describing Malachi 3:22–24 as scribal prophecy, in which the faith traditions of Israel, as found in the law and the prophets are seen as representing ‘complementary dispensations within a single economy of Israel’s God’.²⁶ Here only the function of this passage as conclusion to the book of Malachi is studied.

In this time of crisis, the people were admonished to remember (Assis 2011:209–210) the teachings of Moses²⁷ with regard to the service of God, indicating that they had not only to observe those teachings outwardly, but from the heart (Dt 4:9–10, 29; 6:4–5; 10:12–13). At the same time they had to await the eschatological future which would break in with the arrival of the prophet Elijah before God’s final Day. That day would bring destruction for the wicked to be burned like stubble in the fire of a burning furnace, but acceptance to those who tremble at his word with a love like the warmth of the sun rising with healing in its wings. The task set out for Elijah to perform in the future, turning the hearts of the fathers to the children, and those of the children to the fathers (Ml 3:24), is illustrative of the great social reversal which will take place in the eschatological era. Against the background of the ancient Near Eastern literature (Kruger 2011:638–645; Van der Woude 1982:159) it is almost a standard literary convention to describe the devastating chaos of the whole of society as a total collapse of ancient family structures. Their restoration is seen as a sign of the eschatological future, the core of a newly stabilised and peaceful society. In the present the past and the future of redemptive history are coordinated in two prophetic figures dominating Israel’s history, Moses and Elijah, representing the law and the prophets, who had to guide them in the present towards the future.

That just these two personalities, Moses and Elijah, are mentioned here, makes sense in view of the Deuteronomistic traditions, that are alluded to in this passage (Glazier-McDonald 1987b:246–247; Kruger 2011:630–634). The redemptive history narrated in the Old Testament is periodised by these two prophetic personalities (Dt 18:14–19; 34:10–12, and 1 Ki 17–2 Ki 2.).²⁸ Moses as prophet pre-eminent was involved in the birth of Israel as a nation under God. He announced the coming of a prophet ‘like me from among you’ (Dt 18:18) through whom the Lord would speak to his people (Chapman 2000:118–123). Elijah fitted this description to perfection. Like Moses, God spoke with him face to face; like Moses, he was taken up by God in heaven; like Moses, he was a fearless spokesman of God at a crucial moment in Israel’s history. During his ministry ‘all Israel’ was being reconfigured into a remnant-nation, the 7000 who did not bow the knee to Baal (1 Ki 19:18). From then on it became more and more this remnant of God-fearers, representing ‘all Israel’ (Ml 3:22), who would experience God’s favour, and less and less the nation as a whole. Even though Elijah is not introduced as a Moses redivivus, as no other prophet in the Old Testament he was a prophet like Moses. It is understandable that the editors of Malachi have seen in the forerunner from Malachi 3:1a the prophet Elijah as his final manifestation. At the end not only of this book, but at the end of the Old Testament as a whole, it makes sense that just those two prophetic personalities, with an unparalleled reputation in the postexilic community, are called up from the pre-exilic past to guide them into the future.

Malachi’s eschatology is now analysed within its own context as outlined in the previous sections. The contention of this article is that eschatology is one of the themes that connects the four prophetic texts studied, and that a theological development has taken place since Haggai started his prophetic ministry²⁹ – a development which grew out of the circumstances at the time.

One has to realise that in Malachi too, eschatology is anchored in the past of redemptive history, as attested to in Malachi 1:2–5; 1:6; 2:10; 3:17 and Exodus 19:5 (Snyman 2014:599–600). It shapes the present, which compels the community to live as a Torah-compliant community, conforming to the exhortation in Malachi 3:22 to remember the law of God’s servant Moses (Boloje & Groenewald 2015:4–5).