In response to the Latter-day Saint belief that the appearance of Elijah in the Kirtland Temple (D&C 110:13-15) is a fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, two critics of the Church wrote:
Upon careful examination we find that verses 5 and 6 of the 4th chapter of Malachi could not apply to an appearance of Elijah in the Kirtland Temple because the Bible says that this prophecy was fulfilled in Christ’s day. In fact, Jesus himself said that it was fulfilled . . . Jesus said:
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you will receive it, THIS IS ELIAS [or Elijah], which was to come.” (Matthew 11:12-14)
Matthew 17:10-13 makes it even clearer that the prophecy concerning the coming of Elijah has already been fulfilled in John the Baptist:
“And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come and restore all things. But I say unto you, that ELIAS [or Elijah] IS COME ALREADY, AND THEY KNEW HIM NOT, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that HE SPAKE UNTO THEM OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.” (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? [5th ed.; Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987], 454)
This portion of the Tanners' magnum opus is reflective of their poor exegetical skills.
Firstly, it should be enough to note that the NT often used the OT in a typological manner. In this way, Malachi 4 could be understood as being typologically fulfilled with John the Baptist with a then-future fulfilment with the person of Elijah the Tishbite appearing to the prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple. One example would be where, in Matt 2:15, we read the following:
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
However, when one examines the text Matthew quotes from (Hos 11:1), we find that, contextually, it is not a prophecy about the Messiah and his family, but is about the nation of Israel and how Yahweh rescued them from Egyptian bondage:
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images. (Hos 11:1-2)
Evangelical scholar, Robert Gundry, offered the following commentary on Matthew’s use of Hos 11:1:
The formula of fulfillment introducing the quotation from Hos 11:1 reads exactly as 1:22b . . . The preceding mention of Egypt has united with “Son of God” and “Son of the Highest” in the tradition of Jesus’ nativity (Luke 1:32, 35) and with Matthew’s own interest in Jesus’ divine sonship . . . to suggest the statement in Hos 11:1. There, the Lord addresses the nation of Israel as his son. The multiplicity of parallels drawn between the history of Israel and the life of Jesus suggests that Matthew saw that history as both recapitulated and anticipated in the “king of the Jews”; like Israel in the messianic age Jesus receives homage from the Gentiles (2:11); as a son he, like Israel, receives God’s fatherly protection in Egypt (2:15); his oppression brings sorrow as the oppression of Israel brought sorrow (2:17-18); like Israel he is tempted in the wilderness (4:1-10). The messianic reference preceding the statement “God brought him [the Messiah] out of Egypt” in Num 24:7-8 LXX may also have facilitated quotation of the similar statement in Hos 11:1, for Matthew has recently used Numbers 24. (Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982], 33-34)
Indeed, the idea that the coming of Elijah to the prophet Joseph Smith was a "fuller" or more "complete" fulfilment, though one that had "lesser" previous fulfilments (e.g., the coming of John the Baptist) can be seen in D&C 110:14 (emphasis added):
Secondly, when one reads chapters 3 and 4 of the book of Malachi, we see that Malachi prophesied of the coming of Christ as well as Elijah and Moses--all of them were together on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt 17:3-4; cf. Mark 9:4-5; Luke 9:30, 33) with the apostles Peter, James, and John, which prompted the apostles to ask about the seemingly incorrect sequence of events that led to Jesus speaking of John the Baptist. Note that Malachi did not speak of someone coming "in the spirit of Elijah." Those words were uttered by the angel Gabriel some four centuries after the time of Malachi In Mal 4:5 specifically, it says that the Lord will send Elijah, not someone else with the spirit of Elijah. Such is further strengthened by the fact that the LXX of Mal 4:5 does not simply speak of Elijah as the MT does, but Ηλιαν τὸν Θεσβίτην "Elijah the Tishbite," showing that the Jews of Jesus' day expected that the person of Elijah would come in fulfilment of Malachi's words.
Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi--testifying that he [Elijah] should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come.
Secondly, when one reads chapters 3 and 4 of the book of Malachi, we see that Malachi prophesied of the coming of Christ as well as Elijah and Moses--all of them were together on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt 17:3-4; cf. Mark 9:4-5; Luke 9:30, 33) with the apostles Peter, James, and John, which prompted the apostles to ask about the seemingly incorrect sequence of events that led to Jesus speaking of John the Baptist. Note that Malachi did not speak of someone coming "in the spirit of Elijah." Those words were uttered by the angel Gabriel some four centuries after the time of Malachi In Mal 4:5 specifically, it says that the Lord will send Elijah, not someone else with the spirit of Elijah. Such is further strengthened by the fact that the LXX of Mal 4:5 does not simply speak of Elijah as the MT does, but Ηλιαν τὸν Θεσβίτην "Elijah the Tishbite," showing that the Jews of Jesus' day expected that the person of Elijah would come in fulfilment of Malachi's words.
Thirdly, there was an early Christian expectation that Elijah the Tishbite would come to “fully” fulfil the prophecy in Mal 4, and such was the standard view amongst the patristics while premillennialism was the prevalent view of eschatology (and in some quarters, even after the acceptance of amillennialism). As Barry Bickmore notes:
Although one might argue that Joseph Smith could have extracted this doctrine from the Bible, but the fact that no other group has developed a similar dogma would seem not to support such a conclusion. Here again, Joseph struck upon a prominent doctrine of the early Church that had been lost. For example, Hippolytus (ca. 200 A.D.) indicated that various forerunners would appear to prepare the way for the second advent of the Savior:
[The Savior] is to be manifested again at the end of the world as Judge. It is a matter of course that His forerunners must appear first, as He says by Malachi and the angel [Malachi 4:5-6]. These, then, shall come and proclaim the manifestation of Christ that is to be from heaven; and they shall also perform signs and wonders, in order that men may be put to shame and turned to repentance for their surpassing wickedness and impiety. (Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ an Anti-Christ 44-46, in ANF 5:214)
Justin Martyr explained the doctrine of Elias in similar terms to Trypo the Jew, asking, "shall we not suppose that the word of God has proclaimed that Elijah shall be the precursor of the great and terrible day, that is, of his Second advent? . . . "(Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 49, in ANF 1:219) According to John Chrysostom, John was to be the forerunner of Christ's First Advent, and Elias would be the forerunner of the Second: "John is Elias, and Elias John. For both of them received one ministry, and both of them become forerunners."(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew 37:4, in NPNF Series 1, 10:245) Similarly, Victorinus, Methodius, Cyprian, Lactantius, Jerome, Augustine, and Theophylact all expressed the belief that Elijah would come to "restore all things" before the Second Coming of the Lord. (J.A. Seiss, The Apocalypse, 3 vols. [New York: Charles C. Cook, 1901], 2:192-193)
Therefore, it is safe to say that the early Christians had a certain belief that the way would be paved for the Lord's Second Advent through the agency of various prophetic forerunners, including Elijah the prophet, who the Savior said would come and "restore all things." And it is also safe to say that Joseph Smith preached a very similar doctrine. (Barry R. Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity [rev ed.; Redding, Calif.: FairMormon, 2013], 46-47)
For a scholarly monograph detailing Jewish and early Christian Elijah redivivus traditions, see Joel A. Weaver, Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 11:26: Recovering an Early Christian Elijah Redivivus Tradition (New York: Peter Lang, 2007). On pages 140-41, Weaver writes:
While the identification of John as the Elijah figure did, in fact, become the predominate Christian understanding of the Malachi prophecy, the explicit denial of this identification by John himself in John 1:21, coupled with the allusion to a returning Elijah in Revelation 11:3-13, served to keep diverse readings of the Elijah redivivus tradition current in the Christian community. That Matthew’s statement did not conclusively settle the matter is demonstrated in the middle of the second century, as Justin Martyr is forced to take up the issue of the identification of the coming Elijah.
In addressing the confusion, Justin first presents a line of interpretation that is followed by virtually all of the authors and texts included in this section. The solution calls for two advents—the first in humility and the second in glory—each with its own forerunner; thus, John the Baptist becomes the forerunner for the Incarnation while Elijah will be the forerunner for the Parousia. Luke 1:17 proves to be the interpretive linchpin in defense of this reading, as John the Baptist is argued to have appeared only “in the spirit and power of Elijah,” allowing for Elijah himself to return before the second advent. A second interpretive option is advanced in favor of the concept of two advents and two forerunners Theodoret makes a distinction between the identities of the figures in Malachi 3:1 and Malachi 3:23 [4:5], understanding John the Baptist as the messenger of 3:1, while 3:23 [4:5], as a separate prophecy, refers to the eschatological return of Elijah.
The Latter-day Saint reading of Malachi’s words is representative of the earliest Christian interpretations thereof. Latter-day Saints have therefore have a sound basis for interpreting Malachi to be speaking of the appearing of Elijah himself before the eschaton.
Interestingly, when Elijah appeared 3 April, 1836 in the Kirtland Temple, it was during the Jewish Passover. In Jewish tradition, Elijah would come during the celebration of Passover. Dr. Stephen D. Ricks' article from BYU Studies, "The Appearance of Elijah and Moses in the Kirtland Temple and the Jewish Passover" discusses this. Dr. Ricks concludes his article with the following:
The appearance of Elijah and Moses at Passover season to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery thus represents a fulfillment and a promise. Elijah did come at Passover time--as pious Jews had long hoped he would--although he did not avail himself of the hospitably opened door of a faithful Jewish family but came to the House of the Lord in Kirtland. And the appearance of Moses and Elijah together--to restore keys--harbors the promise of the Lord's imminent coming.
While much more could be said, it is clear that the Tanners are incorrect in their assessment of their interpretation of Mal 4:5-6. Furthermore, from early Christian and even Jewish traditions, we see that the Latter-day Saint interpretation of Mal 4:5-6 is on sound footing.
Finally, the Tanners in their section would later bring up the Elijah/Elias issue in the Doctrine and Covenants; for a full refutation of their claims, see my post: