Miller, The Messenger, the Lord, and the Coming Judgement in the Reception History of Malachi 3

Miller, David M. "The Messenger, the Lord, and the Coming Judgement in the Reception History of Malachi 3." NTS 50 no. 1 (Jan 2007): 1-16.

No evidence of "Messiah" in Mal 3, and "no clear pre-Christian literary evidence for the belief that Elijah's future task consisted of preparing the way for the Messiah" (1; cf. n. 3, there is no unified identification of Elijah. Some point to the return of the 'prophet Elijah' while some wait for Elijah the Messiah of Aaron. These might be different people.).

"Scholars interested in Elijah traditions in the Gospels frequently attempt to resolve these questions before assessing potential allusions to Malachi in the Gospels. Unfortunately, preoccupation with what Malachi meant sometimes results in a failure to consider other plausible ways Malachi may have been construed by ancient readers. As several alternatives are possible, one should not be surprised if Second Temple sources take different sides on the precise nature of Elijah's role." (6)


So, how should I approach Mark's use of Malachi 3? Just recognize the range of opinions and let it hang as some sort of tension? Or do I allow the context of Mark to decide who Mark points to when he quotes Malachi? The ἐρχεται that points to Jesus after the Malachi quotation certainly seems to indicate Jesus as the one for whom the voice cries out in the desert. And JB is in the desert, speaking to the people, so the stage seems to be set. If Elijah is the messenger in Mal 3, then perhaps Mark intends his readers to take John as Elijah, and Jesus as whoever he prepares the way for. To what extent do I try to "resolve these questions before assessing potential allusions to Malachi" in Mark?

Analysis of Ancient Sources

• Ben Sira seems to connect the messenger of 3.1a with the messenger of the cov. in 3.2-4 as the same person. (8)
• 4Q521 seems to identify "the Lord" (האדון) with God because the author consistently uses אדני in place of the divine name, YHWH (10).
• LXX translates both אדני and אדון with κύριος, likely leading readers to assume both are references to the LORD, though distinction is possible (e.g., between "κύριος παντοκράτωρ who narrates the oracle and the coming κύριος who is the subject of the oracle") (11). 
• Summary: LXX limits Elijah's role to restoration, assigning 'fiery purification' to the coming 'Lord'. 4Q521 focuses on the divine Lord throughout. Ben Sira sees Elijah filling as associated with both the 'burning day' of judgement and the restoration. (11) With these as a varied background, how does Mark use Malachi? Can we conclude Mark's use based on what happens or what is emphasized in his narrative? Who does the restoring and who does the burning in Mark? Do these things happen, and if they do, are they done by the same person, or by different people?
• Luke links the task of Malachi's Elijah to JB and not to Jesus (16; though Luke has no problem associating Jesus with the Elijah of 1-2 Kings; these Elijahs seem to be different people in Luke). Luke identifies Jesus as the coming Lord of Mal 3, demonstrating that Jesus was "both prophet and messianic Lord during his earthly existence" (16).
  

"Luke's solution to the puzzle of Malachi 3 involved distinguishing between the Elijah of 1-2 Kings, who is associated with Jesus, and the Elijah of Malachi 3, who is consistently identified with John, the forerunner of the messianic 'Lord'." (1)

Does Mark do this as well? While Mark seems to point to JB as Elijah the messenger, Brodie and others make quite a case for Jesus' connection/imitation of Elijah-Elisha stories and miracles. Could Luke have picked up this differentiating from Mark?

Fitzmyer, "More about Elijah coming first"

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “More about Elijah Coming First.” JBL 104 2 (June 1985): 295-96.

Fitz. disagrees that the disciples' question ("Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?") and Jesus' response to it indicates that Elijah must come before the coming of Jesus the Messiah. Fitz. says that the disciples' question is actually about Elijah prefiguring the raising of the dead, not of the coming of the Messiah since this is what they go on to talk about in Mark. (295)

That's fine to say, but it seems that Fitz. is making the same mistake as Faierstein. Is it possible that the raising of the dead was also a well-known part of the day of the Lord? If so, this is the same issue. Messiah, raising of the dead, and Elijah may have all been understood to be part of the great and terrible day of the Lord. In order to judge this pericope properly, we, as disconnected 21st century people, need to understand the first-century understanding of the day of the Lord.

Daniel 12.2 should also be figured in to the disciples', scribes', first-century people's understanding of the Day of the Lord. Does this verse have verbal connections or at least connotations strong enough to suggest it should play a part in the disciples' question?