George Frideric Handel’s Messiah is a beloved oratorio composed in an astounding 24 days in 1741. The libretto—the actual text of the musical composition—consists entirely of biblical passages taken from the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible,[1] and it was compiled originally by Charles Jennens, a wealthy English landowner and friend of Handel. While most people today associate Messiah with Christmastime and the prophecies in the Old Testament about the coming of Jesus, the full piece is a work of biblical theology including also his life, death, resurrection, ascension, and return. It is a remarkable achievement, not only of musical genius but also in providing a narrative outline of the Bible according to the promise-fulfillment theme of Christ’s first coming (Part 1), his passion (Part 2), and his final victory in his return (Part 3).
1. Slight modifications of the KJV occur in a few places for musical or stylistic reasons. Most of the Psalm texts come from the Book of Common Prayer (1662). All other texts of Messiah are from the KJV. See Martin Dicke, “A Guide to the Original Source Texts for Handel’s Messiah.”
What I intend to provide below is a commentary on two less familiar texts in Messiah: Haggai 2:6–7 and Malachi 3:1–3. I will argue that Jennens was right to include these texts in his biblical theology, as they provide the oratorio with a rich overture of Old Testament expectation regarding the purpose and intent of the Messiah to come.
“Thus Saith the Lord of Hosts” (Haggai 2:6–7)
Messiah #5 is a recitative based on Haggai 2:6–7, “Thus saith the Lord of hosts.”[2] The context of Haggai concerns the rebuilding of the temple following the exile. Those who had seen its former glory during the monarchy now see this new temple as “nothing” (Hag. 2:3), lacking in the beauty and splendor that once characterized Israel’s house of God. Yet the Lord exhorts Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the High Priest not to be discouraged because “my Spirit remains in your midst” (Hag. 2:5). In other words, the external beauty of the former temple cannot outshine the purpose for which it was made, as the place where God himself dwells in the midst of his people. In Haggai 2, God is saying something similar: his Spirit with the people is, and shall remain, the main point of the temple.
2. Recitative is a form of musical dialogue often found in Italian operas and oratorios like Messiah, which is intended to mimic the rhythm of normal speech yet with tonality and notation. These are scattered throughout Messiah in order to carry along the storyline, and often lead directly into an aria (or song) or chorus, or both. As an example, the beginning of Messiah is a recitative of Isaiah 40:1–3 (“Comfort ye”) followed by a tenor aria in Isaiah 40:4 (“Every valley shall be exalted”) followed by a chorus in Isaiah 40:5 (“And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed”).
Moreover, the Lord is doing a new work which is related to the construction of the second temple, and it is here in Haggai 2:6 that the setting of this text within the Messiah becomes all the more poignant: “For thus saith the Lord of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land. And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts” (KJV).
Haggai’s introduction (“thus saith the Lord of hosts”) is a prophetic utterance and indicates a work of God still future. In this case, God is saying that he will “shake” heavens and earth. How so? The shaking of the earth at God’s presence recalls the Sinai theophany, when God’s great glory descended on the mountain in earthquakes, fire, and smoke (Exod. 19:16–20), something repeated when the glory fills the first temple after Solomon’s work is complete (2 Chron. 7:1–3). Moreover, it recalls the unique vision of Isaiah, who upon seeing the glory of God and the seraphim surrounding him, witnesses the foundations of the temple shaking at the voice of the one who is seated on the throne, and the house filling with smoke (Isa. 6:4). In Israel’s history, therefore, the Lord shook the whole earth by his presence in both vision and reality.
In Haggai 2, he promises to do that once again (“in a little while”), this time shaking not only the temple foundations, but “all nations” when he ushers in the “desire of all nations” to the house of God, and filling his house with glory (Hag. 2:7). The phrase “the desire of nations shall come” (KJV) is translated “treasures of all nations” in other English versions (ESV, NLT, CSB, “wealth” in NASB, “desirable things” in LSB), which reflects the struggle among translators to depict accurately a singular noun (desire/treasure) with a plural verb (they will bring in/come in).[3] The immediate context also seems to envision actual wealth/treasure since, in the very next verse, God says, “the silver is mine, and the gold is mine” (Hag. 2:8). In other words, after the Lord shakes the earth with his coming glory, the wealth that formerly characterized the first temple will be brought in by the nations when they come to the presence of God to worship him, an idea that appears in Isaiah’s eschatology especially (Isa. 60:5, 11; 61:6; 66:12, 20; cf. Zech. 14:14).[4]
3. The subject could also be taken as a collective singular, although it is revocalized in the LXX as a plural (ta eklekta).
4. These texts are not identical to Hag 2:7, however. Isaiah uses exclusively gôyim + ḥēl, as in “the wealth of the nations shall come” (ḥēl gôyim yāḇōʾû), while in Haggai the word ḥemdaṯ is used to describe something singularly desirable (ûḇāʾû ḥemdaṯ kol-haggôyim). This difference may be simply word choice, but Haggai might also be indicating something more precious than the mere “wealth” (ḥēl) of abundant silver and gold.
However, several commentators in church history have offered a messianic interpretation of Haggai 2:7, pointing toward the incarnation and the dwelling of God with man in human flesh.[5] This seems to be what Jennens had in mind since the use of “desire of all nations” in the context of Messiah is intended to evoke messianic overtones as the audience awaits the birth of Jesus. In this sense, the “desire of nations” refers not to wealth, but to an individual. This person “shall come” to the temple and “fill this house with glory” (Hag. 2:7), resulting in a house that will be “greater than the former” (Hag. 2:9). And it is in this way that the Lord of hosts will bring “peace” to Israel (Hag. 2:9), and, presumably, to the nations. Thus, the individual is the desire of the nations because his coming signals an end to their warfare; he is desirable in precisely the way God intends, as the hope of all the world, and a prince of peace.
5. This is also the interpretation of most medieval commentators and English puritans. Calvin however, rejects it, “We indeed know that Christ was the expectation of the whole world, according to what is said by Isaiah. And it may be properly said, that when the desire of all nations shall come, that is, when Christ shall be manifested . . . the glory of the second Temple shall then be illustrious; but as it immediately follows . . . the nations would come, bringing with them all their riches, that they might offer themselves and all their possessions as a sacrifice to God.” John Calvin and John Owen, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets (vol. 4; Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 360.
This reading of Haggai 2 has been largely abandoned by modern scholarship. Yet is there textual warrant for such an interpretation?[6] In a few other texts, Haggai’s word for “desire” (ḥemdaṯ) is used to refer to an individual instead of something material, like treasure. Saul in 1 Samuel 9:20 is the one “in whom all is desirable in Israel.” Further, three times the same Hebrew word is used to refer to Daniel, a man “greatly loved” by the Lord (Dan. 9:23; 10:11, 19). The use of the word to refer to a person is therefore not without precedent. Moreover, if the word “house” is used by Haggai in the same way it used of the Davidic dynasty (2 Sam. 7:11, “the Lord will make you a house”), then the “desire of nations” might have royal overtones. However, it is hard to ignore the immediate context of Haggai if the word is referring to the “desirable things” the first temple had which the Lord will fill in the second (or eschatological) temple.
6. The footnote in the NET Bible states bluntly, “In the OT context this [verse] has no direct reference to the coming of the Messiah.” So also Taylor, Richard A., and E. Ray Clendenen, Haggai and Malachi, New American Commentary Vol. 21 (Nashville: B&H, 2004), 160–65.
I suggest, therefore, a double entendre in Haggai 2:7. The people are mourning because they remember the material glory of the first temple as they look on the dilapidated appearance of the new one in disappointment. That is, it lacks the splendor that comes from the immense silver and gold which characterized the first one.[7] But the Lord exhorts them to remember that his presence in the temple and among the people is what is most important (Hag. 2:5). And although treasures will indeed be brought into the eschatological temple by all nations (Isa. 60:4–9), God will shake the earth “in a little while” by sending something more beautiful than gold and silver. He will send the “desire of nations,” who will enter the temple and fill it with glory, establishing peace and justice.[8] Only a king—the Lord’s anointed one—can restore the beauty and central purpose of the temple, and so a king must come marching in.
7. Aside from all the (first) temple ornaments being crafted out of gold, consider how every wall of the inner temple was overlaid with gold: “The inner sanctuary was twenty cubits long, twenty cubits wide, and twenty cubits high, and [Solomon] overlaid it with pure gold. He also overlaid an altar of cedar. And Solomon overlaid the inside of the house with pure gold, and he drew chains of gold across, in front of the inner sanctuary, and overlaid it with gold. And he overlaid the whole house with gold, until all the house was finished. Also the whole altar that belonged to the inner sanctuary he overlaid with gold” (1 Kgs. 6:20–22).
8. This interpretation accords with prior ethical instruction. The Israelites are often commanded not to desire silver and gold, but to trust solely in God to sustain and provide for them (Deut. 17:17; Ps. 20:7; 119:72; Prov. 3:14; 8:10, 19; 22:1; Isa. 2:7).
This interpretation fits the setting of Messiah, which spans the already of Christ’s first coming with the not-yet of his second.
“But Who May Abide the Day of His Coming” (Malachi 3:1–2)
Malachi 3:1–4 also figures prominently in Part 1 of Handel’s Messiah. The subject remains on the coming of an anointed one, and the text returns to the theme of a “messenger” (Mal. 3:1) who will “prepare the way” of the Lord, something already proposed in Messiah #2–4 (Isa. 40:1–5). As in that text, the full context of Scripture reveals this messenger to be John the Baptist, who is like Elijah (Mal. 4:5) in his bold preaching of repentance and courageous rebuke of Israel’s leadership. He “prepares the way” for Christ in his ministry of baptism and as a herald of the coming king.
Yet while the “messenger” is John the Baptist in Malachi 3:1a, the primary subject of Malachi’s prophecy in the following verses—and the subject of Messiah #6–7—is the Lord himself, who in 3:1b will “suddenly come to his temple,” something John does not do.[9] This coming one, moreover, is the “messenger of the covenant,” and thus different from the messenger who prepares the way.[10] Readers familiar with the Servant Songs in Isaiah 40–55 might note a parallel in Isaiah 42:6: “I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations.” As a covenant, Isaiah’s “Servant” is divine since he inhabits the Spirit of the Lord (42:1), bringing justice and righteousness (42:1, 3), and bears within him the promise/covenant of deliverance from oppression and bondage for all nations (42:6–7).
9. There might be speculation as to the identity of “the Lord” in Mal. 3:2b since the generic word for “lord” (ʾāḏôn) is used rather than the divine name (yhwh). But it is best to understand “lord” here as referring to God himself. All instances of ʾāḏôn plus the definite article (hāʾāḏôn) in the Old Testament refer to God, not a generic “lord” or “master”: Exod. 23:17; 34:23; Deut. 10:17; Isa. 1:24; 3:1; 10:16, 33; 19:4; Mal. 3:1; Ps. 136:3.
10. The phrase “my messenger” should not be conflated with Malachi. Eric Ortlund (“Malachi,” in Daniel–Malachi, vol. 7, ESV Expository Commentary [Wheaton: Crossway, 2018], 754–55) and others have proposed that Mal. 3:1–4 refers to a messenger who is not the Lord himself (except in the phrase, “The Lord whom you seek will suddenly come into his temple”) due to “significant ambiguous overlap” between the identity of the Lord and his messenger. In Ortlund’s view, the “messenger of the covenant” is John the Baptist, who comes to repair the covenant relationship (754–55). This interpretation is unsatisfying at several points. First, 3:1a describes a messenger preparing a way “before me.” Naturally, it follows in 3:1b that the Lord comes following the messenger’s preparatory work. Second, three times the verb “to come” is used to describe the Lord’s work and not a preparatory messenger. If it is the “messenger of the covenant” who is “coming” and who the people cannot abide, then certainly Malachi is describing the same person—the Lord himself. This aligns with Mal. 4:5–6, when the messenger who is like Elijah is “sent” before the day of the Lord “comes.” Third, the text of Isa. 42:6 is related to Mal. 3:2, where both the Servant of Isaiah and the “messenger of the covenant” should not be distinguished. It is not odd, in other words, to designate the two messengers of Mal. 3:1–4 by the same term (“messenger”) if their ministries are closely aligned, one a ministry of preparation, and another of covenantal renewal in judgment and righteousness.
11. Cf. Isa. 1:25; 48:10; Jer. 9:7; Dan. 11:35; 12:10; Zech. 13:9.
Thus, while in Malachi 3:1a the messenger points to John the Baptist, the one who prepares the way, in Malachi 3:1b and Isaiah 42:6, the “messenger of the covenant” can only be identified with Yahweh, whose coming will be “like a refiner’s fire” (Mal. 3:2). And if he comes in fire, Malachi asks, “Who may abide the day of his coming? And who shall stand when he appeareth?” (Messiah #6)
The implicit answer to these questions is “no one!” If the Lord comes as a refining fire, none can withstand the intensity of his judgment. A “refiner’s fire” is one that purifies and removes dross from precious metals, but not without intense heat.[11] In Malachi 3, however, it seems that the Lord’s intention is refinement, not utter destruction: “And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness” (Mal. 3:3). Purification means the removal of infirmities. The symbolic intention, therefore, is that of divine cleansing, and spiritual renewal through judgment which comes from a righteous offering.
“And He Shall Purify the Sons of Levi” (Malachi 3:3)
Moreover, a key purpose of the Messiah is that “he shall purify the sons of Levi” (Mal. 3:3), which is the lyric of Messiah #7, a chorus in a minor key to match the thematic content. The natural question is to ask why the messenger’s ministry is associated with the Levitical priesthood to begin with: why the mention of Levi in the context of a prophecy about the coming of Yahweh?
In Malachi, as in much of the prophetic literature, God’s judgment is centered on the activity of the priests and their failure to guide the people in righteousness and true worship, a key reason for their exile due to their religious decline (Jer. 2:8; 9:3, 6; 23:1–4; Mic. 3:9–11; Zeph. 3:1–5). The ministry of the messenger looks to the future purification of the priesthood, meaning the removal of the infirmities and unclean elements within it. In context, such purification is needed since the priests were offering sacrifices in Malachi’s day which were “evil” and unacceptable to the Lord (Mal. 1:8, 13). The purpose of their purification, therefore, is so that the priests might again “offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness” (Mal. 3:3).
This reading helps bring clarity to the reason why Malachi 3:1–3 is included in the first part of Handel’s Messiah as a forward-looking prophecy. Once the character of the priesthood has been transformed, the offerings will be worthy again in God’s sight, given in the right manner and spirit.[12] In the full context of Messiah, the priesthood is transformed not by a man born of Levi but by the offering given by one who is conceived of a virgin (Messiah #8), identified as “mighty God,” “everlasting Father,” and “prince of peace” (#12), as well as “righteous Savior” (#18), and who is the “Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” (#22). What Malachi is hinting at is that the purification of the Levitical priesthood actually means its nullification, or better, its fulfillment—not through an unblemished lamb, but though a righteous Man, the Desire of Nations, who is suddenly coming to his temple as a refiner’s fire and great High Priest. As a result, God’s people, whether from the tribe of Levi, or the nation Israel, or any of Gentile nations (cf. Isa. 66:20–21), will be purified and able to serve in the presence of God as the Levites were once called to do (Mal. 3:4), but now as a new and royal priesthood and holy nation (1 Pet. 2:9).[13]
12. Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1972), 265.
13. David S. Schrock, The Royal Priesthood and the Glory of God, Short Studies in Biblical Theology (Wheaton: Crossway, 2022), 96.
Conclusion
After surveying the use of Haggai 2:6–7 and Malachi 3:1–4, we conclude that Handel’s Messiah is not a mere catena of texts, but a weaving together of theological themes with profound depth and significance.
Together these passages show that God’s plan for refinement—the Day of the Lord—involves a coming of his Messiah in two stages. In the first, a messenger prepares the way for the Lord’s anointed, a man who is divine, who is the embodiment of the temple, a priest who offers a true and righteous sacrifice, and the Lamb of God. As both the sacrifice and the priest, this man is also the messenger of a (new) covenant in his blood whose sacrificial offering is applied to all to who accept it by faith. This results in the purification of the people who join the covenant, and who together are being built up into a new temple with the Messiah as the chief cornerstone (1 Pet. 2:4–5).
In the second stage, still in the future, the Messiah will come again not as lamb but as lion, bringing recompense with him to judge all rule, authority, and power which would oppose his kingship. In this way he is the “desire of nations,” resulting in peace, righteousness, and justice on the earth. But the audience must await this coming until Messiah Part 3.
Rightly Handel’s Messiah continues to be a global phenomenon after nearly 300 years, not only because of its musical and lyrical beauty, but because it centers on history’s central subject, the Lord Jesus Christ. Given his person and work, it is only fitting that its most famous chorus begins and ends with shouts of “Hallelujah! For the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.” He is prophet, priest, and king, and so we sing, “Glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth, good will toward men.”
