Anthony R. Petterson. Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.
Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2015. This book is part of the
Apollos Old Testament Commentary series, which is edited by David W.
Baker and Gordon J. Wenham. See here to buy the book.
Anthony R. Petterson’s commentary on the biblical books of Haggai,
Zechariah, and Malachi is a conservative Christian commentary. Whereas
more liberal scholars have maintained that Zechariah 1-8 and Zechariah
9-14 have different authorships, Petterson believes that they are by the
same person (even if that person, Zechariah, was not the one who
actually wrote them down), and Petterson tends to dismiss source
criticism of the Book of Zechariah as rather speculative. Whereas many
liberal scholars have seen Haggai and Zechariah as works that predict an
imminent apocalypse, a prediction that historically failed to
materialize, Petterson maintains that this is not the case: that Haggai
was not necessarily suggesting in Haggai 2:23 that his contemporary
Zerubbabel would be the Messiah, and that a fulfillment in the future is
consistent with certain prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah. Some
liberal scholars downplay or reject the notion that certain passages in
Zechariah predict a Davidic Messiah: they say that the high priest
Joshua in parts of the Book of Zechariah is crowned as king (which
differs from expecting a Davidic king), and that the pierced one in
Zechariah 12:10 is not necessarily the Davidic Messiah, notwithstanding
what a number of Christians have claimed. Petterson disagrees, as he
looks closely at the passages themselves, while also setting them within
the context of previous prophetic books, which, according to Petterson,
Zechariah affirms and upholds. For Petterson, the books of Haggai,
Zechariah, and Malachi not only talk about a Davidic Messiah, but they
actually foreshadow, even predict, the work of Jesus Christ. A number
of liberal scholars would doubt that Satan in the Book of Zechariah is
the archenemy of God that he would become, seeing Satan rather as a
prosecuting attorney, or as part of the divine council; Petterson, by
contrast, believes that seeing Satan as the archenemy of God in the Book
of Zechariah makes sense, from a canonical perspective, and on the
basis of what Satan in the Book of Zechariah does.
Did I find Petterson to be convincing? His arguments definitely
deserve consideration. I do have questions about some of his scenarios,
especially as he meshes the Books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi
with Christianity. Why would Haggai focus so much on rebuilding the
physical temple because it is a significant aspect of God’s plan, if
Jesus would be the new temple, anyway? How would Jesus fit the literal
picture in the Book of Zechariah of a man being wounded in
eschatological battle, as enemies prepare to attack Jerusalem, when that
is not exactly what happened to Jesus? Taking these books literally,
in my opinion, does not always mesh that well with Christianity.
Petterson sometimes reconciles these books with Christianity rather
well—–as when he says that the rejection of Jesus is similar to the
rejection of God and the prophet in the Book of Zechariah, a view that
honors the Book of Zechariah’s literal meaning, while also deeming that
relevant to Christianity. Sometimes, Petterson’s attempt at
reconciliation strikes me as a stretch, even if I find it intriguing:
Petterson says that Matthew 24 may not be about the attack of Jerusalem,
but rather the attack on Jesus, who embodies Jerusalem, and that this
may solve the problem of Jesus wrongfully predicting the end of the
world in Matthew 24:34.
Petterson does interact with scholarship and present the different
views of what various verses mean, sifting through them and offering his
own opinion. Overall, he does this well. There were items in the
commentary that I found particularly interesting. Petterson, for
example, contrasts the Hebrew Bible’s approach to divorce with that of
the Code of Hammurapi, and he also notes that the Book of Malachi is not
the last book of the Hebrew Bible, in either the Septuagint or the
Masoretic Text. He still believes that it providentially came to be the
last book of the Hebrew Bible, however, thus serving as a smooth
transition between the Old Testament and the New Testament. But he
acknowledges facts that indicate that this was not always the case.
Not everything that Petterson argued convinced me, but I still give
this commentary five stars because I found it to be meaty and
informative.
Intervarsity Press sent me a complimentary review copy of this commentary, in exchange for an honest review.