Malachias

It is asked FIRST, who was Malachi? Origen, as reported by St. Jerome and Cyril, answers first that he was an angel who assumed a body and united it to himself hypostatically, so that he might be a type of Christ, and so that he might proclaim these oracles of God to the Jews. He proves this from the fact that Malachi in Hebrew means the same as the angel of the Lord. And thus the Septuagint translates it in chapter i, 1, and from them Clement of Alexandria in book I of the Stromata, and St. Augustine in book XX of the City of God, chapter xxv. And St. Chrysostom in oration 2 Against the Jews, and homily 14 on the epistle to the Hebrews: "Read," he says, "what Haggai says, what Zechariah says, what the angel (namely Malachi) says, what Ezra accuses." Moved by a similar argument, Origen held that Haggai and John the Baptist were incorporeal angels, because they are called angels in the Scriptures, as is evident from Haggai i, 13, and Matthew xi, 10. Tertullian in his book On the Flesh of Christ, chapters iii and vi, seems to have held a similar view with Origen, where he proves that it was not impossible for the Word of God to assume flesh, from the fact that it was possible for angels: which, unless you understand it of hypostatic assumption, his reasoning would be futile and of no weight. Moreover, Origen delivers this opinion both elsewhere and expressly in volume II on John, explaining those words of Malachi: "Behold I send my angel." But this is an error. For it is of faith that John the Baptist was a man, begotten of Zacharias and Elizabeth, as is evident from Luke i, 15, and John i, 6. And it is certain that all the Prophets were men. Whence Ecclesiasticus chapter xlix, 12: "And the bones of the twelve Prophets," he says, "shall flourish from their place." If they had bones, and these shall again flourish and rise again; therefore they were true men: for these consist of flesh and bones. Thus St. Jerome, Cyril, Theodoret and others everywhere. To the argument I answer that Prophets are called angels, that is, messengers and legates of God. Thus any priest is called an angel by Malachi, when he says in chapter ii, 7: "The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth; because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts." Second, they are called angels on account of angelic morals, form and life. In a similar way many today give their sons the name angel, on account of the devotion which they have toward the angels, and so that they might imitate their purity. Thus St. Epiphanius in his book On the Life and Morals of the Prophets, concerning Malachi and Haggai, who also adds from the opinion of the Hebrews, that Malachi is called an angel because whatever he preached, the same things were taught and confirmed by an angel coming from heaven. But let the credibility of this matter rest with the Hebrews; certainly it seems to smack of a fable and Rabbinic fiction.

Second, the ancient Hebrews, as well as the moderns, hand down that Malachi was Ezra the priest and scribe. This tradition is reported and followed by St. Jerome, Remigius, Rupert, Ribera and others. The reasons and conjectures of this opinion are various. The first, because Malachi treats the same subject as Ezra, namely he censures the neglect of the law and the worship of God, and specifically marriages with foreigners, which Ezra censures in chapter ix. The second, because Ezra lived at the same time as Malachi, and he mentions in chapter v, 1, Haggai and Zechariah, but not Malachi: therefore it is a sign that he himself was Malachi, who was so called, when sent by God as it were as an angel, that is a messenger and prophet, to the people, so that he might lead them to repentance, by which they might escape the impending calamities. The third, because Ezra, a man of remarkable holiness, zealous and an outstanding preacher, altogether seems to have been a prophet, and could not have been any other than Malachi.

Fourth, because Ecclesiasticus chapter xlix, when it praises Zerubbabel, Jesus, Nehemiah, passes over Ezra, who is not inferior to them in virtue and deeds: therefore it is likely that he himself praised him among the twelve Minor Prophets, under the name of Malachi. On the other hand, Josephus in his books of Antiquities and Eusebius in his Chronicle, mention Ezra, but not Malachi, as if they were one and the same: Eusebius, however, in book X of the Preparation, chapter iii, mentions Malachi, and associates him with Haggai and Zechariah.

But others distinguish Malachi from Ezra throughout. First, because Ezra is everywhere called Ezra, never Malachi: just as Malachi is everywhere called Malachi, never Ezra: nor does Malachi give any indication of Ezra. Second, because Ezra is everywhere called a scribe, but Malachi is everywhere called a prophet. Third, because Malachi was the last of all the Prophets, and in him prophecy ceased among the Hebrews, as they themselves acknowledge. He was the youngest of all the Prophets, as St. Epiphanius, Dorotheus and Isidorus write in his Life: but Ezra was older than Haggai and Zechariah, who after the return from the Babylonian captivity, equally with Malachi, prophesied. For Ezra was born before the captivity, or certainly in the first year of the captivity, as is evident from the fact that in that year his father Seraiah was slain by Nebuchadnezzar, soon after the capture of Jerusalem, in Riblah, Ezra vii, 1, joined with IV Kings xxv, 18 and 21. Now the captivity lasted 70 years: wherefore if you place its beginning in the destruction of Jerusalem, it follows that Ezra at its end was at least 70 years old: but if you place its beginning 11 years earlier, in the slaughter of Joiakim and the captivity of Jeconiah, it follows that Ezra at its end was 59 years old: to which add 3 years of Cyrus, 8 of Cambyses, 36 of Darius Hystaspes, 20 of Xerxes, 7 of Artaxerxes (for in the 7th year of Artaxerxes, Ezra was sent by him to Jerusalem, Ezra vii, 1 and 6) you will have 133 years of Ezra's life; after which he was still living, and performed those things which are recounted from chapter vii of Ezra to the end of the book. Wherefore it is necessary that he was very old and advanced in years: therefore Ezra was not Malachi, who died young, as Epiphanius, Isidorus and Dorotheus relate in his Life. Fourth, Ezra spent almost his whole life in Babylon; whence he was cupbearer of Artaxerxes: but Malachi lived in Judaea, and was born there after the return of the people from Babylon, as Epiphanius, Dorotheus and Isidorus teach. Fifth, because St. Chrysostom, cited at the beginning, distinguishes Ezra from Malachi, Theodoret in the preface to the Canticles, St. Augustine in book XVIII of the City of God, chapter xxxvi, Athanasius in the Synopsis, Lyra, Vatable, Clarius, de Castro, Arias and others. Moreover, the Hebrews, according to Genebrard in his Chronology, at the beginning of the sixth age, relate that the Hebrews held a council to write the canon of the canonical books, and in it Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi presided, but Ezra was the scribe. Hence the answer to the arguments is clear.

To the first, then, it is answered that most prophets treated almost the same subject as others, namely the threats of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldaeans.

To the second, Ezra does not mention Malachi, because he was prior to him: for after him Malachi prophesied in the last place. Add that Ezra mentions only those Prophets who stirred up the people to restore the temple: such were Haggai and Zechariah, but not Malachi, inasmuch as he prophesied after the temple was restored.

To the third I have already said that Ezra was a historian and scribe, but Malachi was a prophet, and this St. Augustine teaches expressly in book XVIII of the City of God, chapter xxxvi. For God distributes his gifts, especially prophecy, as he wills; hence he sometimes denies it even to the holier, but communicates it to the less holy, indeed even to the wicked, as Christ asserts in Matthew vii, 22.

To the fourth, Ecclesiasticus does not mention all illustrious men, but only some: hence just as it omits Ezra, so also it omits Daniel. I say the same of Josephus and Eusebius's Chronicle. Add that perhaps Josephus and Eusebius followed the tradition of the Hebrews, that Ezra and Malachi were one and the same, as St. Jerome also followed the same tradition.

Malachi prophesied under Darius Hystaspes, and afterwards, under whom also Haggai and Zechariah prophesied; but after them. Thus St. Jerome, who also followed the Hebrews, gives this chronological canon of the Prophets. For he relates and says, "in which (Prophets) the time is not given in the title, under those kings they prophesied under whom also those who came before them have titles." Again, he prophesied not before, as St. Jerome seems to wish, but after the completion of the building of the temple, as will appear if anyone compares chapter ii with chapters ix and x of Ezra. For chapters i and ii censure the priests, and threaten them with a curse, because they serve the temple and altar carelessly and impiously, he rejects the solemnities which the Jews performed in the temple unworthily, greedily and indecorously; and especially because they celebrated them while polluted both by other sins and by marriages with unbelievers, which sin Ezra equally censures and corrects in chapters ix and x. Whence alluding to him, Malachi says in chapter ii, 7: "The lips, he says, of the priest (Ezra) shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth." For Ezra

after the temple was completed (for this was done in the sixth year of Darius Hystaspes), namely in the seventh year of Artaxerxes he came from Babylon to Jerusalem, and there instructed the people in the law of God, and reproved and dissolved marriages with foreigners. Thus Cyril, Theodoret and others. Wherefore a little before the seventh year of Artaxerxes, Malachias seems to have warned about these foreign wives to be repudiated, and by the command of God to have commanded it. For in this seventh year Esdras arrived, who, assisting Malachias, actually persuaded the Jews to repudiate them, so that further admonition from Malachias was no longer necessary.

It is asked secondly, what is the subject matter of Malachias? I answer first, he reproves the Jews for ingratitude, and the priests for negligence and impiety toward God; in that, although they ought to be angels of the Lord, both in doctrine and in life, they provide neither. Second, he predicts that the Aaronic priesthood and sacrifice in Jerusalem is to be abolished, and that a pure and holy sacrifice of the Eucharist is to succeed it, to be celebrated throughout the whole world. Third, he reproves the Jews who were repudiating their wives and taking foreign women. Fourth, he predicts the coming of Christ, and his forerunner John the Baptist. Fifth, he curses the fruits of the Jews, on account of tithes and first-fruits denied to God. Sixth, he announces the day of judgment, and its herald and forerunner Elias, who will turn the hearts of the fathers to the sons. Wherefore the prophecy of Malachias is brief in sentences, but fertile in mysteries, especially those to come in the New Testament, which he, as the last and nearer to Christ and the Apostles, enunciates more clearly than others, and delivers to them the prophecies as it were a lamp, while he himself, as it were their index and light-bearer, ends and rests in them. Whence St. Jerome to Paulinus: 'Malachias,' he says, 'openly and at the end of all the Prophets, concerning the rejection of Israel and the calling of the Gentiles: I have no will in you, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will not receive a gift from your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, great is my name among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrificed and offered to my name a clean oblation.'

Moreover, since the whole people revered him as a man endowed with no less holiness than gentleness, they gave him the name Malachias, that is, angel: for he was indeed of a most excellent form. Whatever moreover Malachias said in prophecy, he seemed to be an angel instructing him day by day, and declaring it, etc. But before that day, while still young, he departed this life, and according to his ancestors was laid to rest in his own field.' Dorotheus has nearly the same thing word for word. Isidore adds that he was called an angel because the people believed his oracles as if they had been delivered by God through an angel. Castro adds that God through his mouth reproved and instructed the Jewish priests, and promised golden things in the New Testament; these therefore, since they are angels, demanded Malachias as the prophet and teacher of angels.

Justly therefore was Malachias, that is, angel, named; whose countenance, mind, deeds, and speech were angelic: for which reason he frequently speaks with angels and about angels, as in chapter ii, 7, he calls the priest an angel of the Lord, and in chapter iii, 1, he calls both Christ and John the Baptist angels: 'Behold,' he says, 'I send my angel (John the Baptist), and he shall prepare the way before thy face. And immediately there shall come to his temple the Lord whom you seek, and the Angel of the Covenant (of the new, namely Christ the Lord, who is the Angel of great counsel) whom you desire. Behold he cometh, saith the Lord of hosts. And who shall be able to think the day of his coming? and who shall stand to see him? For he shall be as a refining fire, and as the herb of fullers: and he shall sit refining and cleansing silver, and shall purify the sons of Levi, and shall refine them as gold, and as silver, and they shall offer to the Lord sacrifices in justice.'

Whence comparing him to the sun alone in chapter iv, 2: 'And there shall arise unto you that fear my name the Sun of justice, and health in his wings; and you shall go forth, and shall leap like calves of the herd.' Are not these the voices and jubilation of an exulting, heavenly and angelic spirit? Justly therefore is Malachias read to be inscribed in the choir of angels, and in the catalogue of Saints in the Roman Martyrology, on the 14th day of January.

Wherefore alluding to him St. Bernard in a sermon on Malachias Archbishop of Ireland, as being to him similar both in appellation and cognomen, and likewise in morals: 'Beloved,' he says, 'of God and men is Malachias,

But St. Epiphanius in his book On the Lives of the Prophets has comprised the life of Malachias in these few words: 'Malachias,' he says, 'of the tribe of Zebulun, is said to have been born in Sopha after the return of the people from Babylon. He is reported to have lived a blameless life from his earliest age, and while he was young. Concerning the coming of the Lord and the judgment of the life of the dead, some things were prophesied by him, and that the rite together with the laws of Moses would be changed, and amended.'

and rejoices in happiness." And soon after: "Let us rejoice that today he is received into the fellowship of angels, having obtained in reality what was signified by his name. And indeed before he was an angel not less in purity than in name; but now more happily the glorious interpretation of his name is fulfilled in him, when our angel ascends to his fellows with equal glory with the angels, performing the office of legate for the sons of captivity, reconciling our hearts with the blessed, making known to them the desires of the wretched."