MALAOHIAS
564
MALAOHIAS
composition of the Book of Malachlas may be placed
about 450 b. c.
IV. Importance op the Book. — ^The importance lies (1) in the data which the book furnishes for the study of certain problems of criticism concerning the Old Testament, and (2) in the doctrine it contains.
^1) For the study of the history of the Pentateuch, it IS to be remarked that the Book of Malachias is directly connected with Deuteronomy, and not with any of those parts of the Pentateuch commonly desig- nated under the name of priestly documents. Thus Mai., i, 8, where the prophet speaks of the animals un- fit for sacrifice, brings to mind Deut., xv. 21, rather than Lev., xxii, 22 sq.; the passage in Mai., ii, 16, re- lating to divorce by reason of aversion, points to Deut., xxiv, 1. What is even more significant is that, in his manner of characterizing the Tribe of Levi and its relations with the priesthood, Malachias adopts the terminology of Deuteronomy; in speaking of the priests, he brings into evidence "their origin not from Aaron but from Levi (ii, 4, 5 sqq.; iii, 3 sq.). Conse- quently, it would be an error to suppose that in this respect Deuteronomy represents a pomt of view which in the middle of the fifth century was no longer held. Let us add that the first of the two epilogueSj with which the book concludes (iv, 4; Hebrew, text, hi, 32), is likewise conceived in the spirit of Deuteronomy.
The examination of the Book of Malachias may be brought to bear on the solution of the question as to whether the mission of Esdras, related in I Esd., vii-x, falls in the seventh year of Artaxcrxes I (458 B. c.), that is to say, thirteen years before the first mission of Nehemias, or in the seventh year of Artaxer- xes II (398 B. c.)j and therefore after Nehemias. Im- mediately after his arrival in Jerusalem^ Esdras under- takes a radical reform of the abuse of mixed marriages, which are already considered contrary to a positive prohibition (I Esd., x). He tells us also that, sup- ported by the authority of the King of Persia and with the co-operation of the governors beyond the river, he laboured with full success to give to rehgious worship all its splendour (I Esd., vii, 14, 15, 17, 20— viii, 36). And nothing whatever justifies the beUef that the work of Esdras had but an ephemeral success, for in that case he would not in his own memoirs have re- lated it with so much emphasis without one word of regret for the failure of his effort. Can data such as these be reconciled with the supposition that the state of affairs described by Malachias was the immedi- ate outcome of the work of Esdras related in I Esd., vii-x?
(2) In the doctrine of Malachias one notices with good reason as worthy of interest the attitude taken by the prophet on the subject of divorce (ii, 14-16). The passage in question is very obscure, but it appears in V. 16 that the prophet disapproves of the clivorce tolerated bjr Deut., xxiv, 1, viz., for cause of aversion.
The Messianic doctrine of Malachias especially ap- peals to our attention. InMal.iii, l,Yahweh announces that he will send his messenger to prepare the way be- fore Him. In the second epilogue of the book (iv, 5. 6; Heb., text, iii, 23 sq.), tnis messenger is identifiea with the prophet Elias. Many passages in the New Testament categorically interpret this double prophecy by applying it to John the baptist, precursor of our Lora (Matt., xi, 10, 14; xvii, 11-12; Mark, ix^ 10 sqq.; Luke, i, 17). The prophecy of Malachias, iii, 1, adas that, as soon as the messenger shall have prepared the way, "the Lord, whom you seek, and the Angel of the testament J whom you desire, " will come to His temple. The Lord is here identified with the angel of the testa- ment; this is evident from the construction of the phrase and from the circumstance that the description of the mission of the angel of the testament (w. 2 sq.) is continued by the Lord speaking of Himself in the first person in v. 5.
A particularly famous passage is that of Mai., i, 10-
11. In spite of a difficulty in the construction of the
phrase, which can be avoided by vocalising one word
otherwise than the Massoretes have done (read miq-
Par, Sept. Bv/Uafxa^ instead of mti^r in v. 11), the
literal sense is clear. The principal question is to
know what is the sacrifice ana pure ofiferin|^ spoken of
in V. 11. A large number of non-Cathohc ex^etes
interpret it of the sacrifices actually being offered
from east to west at the time of Malachias himself.
According to some, the prophet had in view the
sacrifices offered in the name of Yahweh by the
proselytes of the Jewish religion among all the nations
of the earth; others are more inclined to the belief
that he signifies the sacrifices offered by the Jews
dispersed among the Gentiles. But in the fifth cen-
tuiy B. c. neither the Jews dispersed among the Gen-
tiles nor the prosel^-t^ were sufficiently numerous to
justify the solemn utterances used by Malachias; the
prophet clearly wants to insist on the universal diffu-
sion of the sacrifice which he has in view. Hence others,
following the exampleof Theodore of Mopsuestia, think
they can explain the expression in v. 11 as referring to
the sacrifices offered by the pagans to their own gods or
to the Supreme God; those sacrifices would have been
considered by Malachias as materially offered to Yah-
weh, because in fact Yahweh is the only true God.
But it appeara inconceivable that Yahwen should, by
mean& of Malachias, have looked upon as ** pure " and
"offered to his name" the sacrifices offered by the
Gentiles to this or that divinity; especially when one
considers the great importance Malachias attaches to
the ritual (i, 6 sqq., 12 sqq.; iii, 3 sg.) and the attitude
he takes towards foreign peoples (ij 2 sqq.; ii, 11 sq.).
The interpretation according to which chap, i, 11, con-
cerns the sacrifices in vogue among the Gentiles at the
epoch of Malachias himself fails to recognize that the
sacrifice and the pure offering of v. 11 are looked upon
as a new institution succeeding the sacrifices of the
Temple, furnishing by their very nature a motive
sufficient to close the doors of the house of God and
extinguish the fire of the altar (v. 10) Consequently
v. 11 must be considered as a Messianic prophecy.
The universal diffusion of the worship of Yahweh
is always proposed by the prophets as a character-
istic sign of the Messianic reign. That the phrase
is construed in the present tense only proves that
here, as on other occasions, the prophetic vision con-
templates its object absolutelv without any regard to
the events that should go before its accomplishment.
It is true that Mai., iii, 3-4, says that after the conrung
of the angel of the testament the sons of Levi will offer
sacrifices in justice, and that the sacrifice of Juda and
Jerusalem will \xi pleasing to the Lord. But the new
institutions of the Messianic reign might be considered,
either inasmuch as they were the realization of the
final stage in the development of those of the Old
Testament (and in this case they would naturally be
described by the help of the images borrowed from the
latter), or inasmuch as they implied the cessation of
those of the Old Testament in their proper form. In
Mai., iii, 3-4, the religious institutions of the Messianic
reign are considered from the former point of view, be-
cause the language is consolatory; in Mai., i, 10, 11,
they are considered from the latter point of view, be-
cause the language here is menacing.
Certain authors, while admitting the Messianic character of the passage, think that it should be interpreted not or a sacrifice in the strict sense of the word, but of a purely spiritual form of devo- tion. However, the terms employed in v. 11 express the idcA of a sacrifice in the strict sense. Moreover, according to the context, the censured sacrifices were not considered impure in their quality of material sacri- fices, but on account of the defoctM with which the victims were affected; it is consequently not on ac- count of an opposition to material Siiciificos that the offering spoken of in v. 1 1 is called i)ure. It is an alto-
