לתשובת המינים

Malachi 3:1

Who is the Messenger Sent Before?

Matthew 11:10, Mark 1:2, Luke 7:27

"Behold, I am sending My messenger, and he will clear a path before Me; suddenly the Lord Whom you seek will come to His Sanctuary, and the messenger of the covenant for who you yearn, behold, he comes, says Hashem, Master of Legions"

In the Gospel of Mark opens with a citation of this verse, explaining it as a prophetic reference to the ministry of John the Baptist. Mathew and Luke go further and attribute the association between this verse and John the Baptist to the Nazarene himself. In the Christian Bible it is John the Baptist who is the "messenger" of this verse.

In the Gospel of Matthew the Nazarene makes a further connection, not only is John the Baptist the messenger of our verse, the messenger (John the Baptist) is Elijah the Prophet (Eliyahu HaNavi), "and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who was to come." (Matthew 11:14)

This is, indeed, hard for me to accept. Eliyahu HaNavi, Elijah the Prophet, is well known for having never died so I see little reason to see him coming back born into another body. When God says "I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and awesome day of the L-rd" (Malachi 3:23) I have no reason to believe than anyone other than Eliyahu will be Eliyahu.

I am not alone in this regard however, since John the Baptist himself rejected such an identity: "They asked [John], ‘Then who are you? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not.’" (John 1:21, NIV Bold Mine). Now perhaps this isn’t earthshaking to your typical Christian. I myself was fully aware of it when I was a Christian yet it took me much more to finally reject my belief in the Nazarene. While it is a relatively minor issue these two positions are in direct opposition to each other.

So while I can understand a believer in the Nazarene being content with letting this issue stand as a difficulty, it should be abundantly clear that I myself have no reason to believe that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of this prophecy when he himself rejects the Nazarenes understanding. To identify Malachi 3:1 as fulfilled by John the Baptist is a result of one’s belief in the "Apostolic Writings" not support of it.

Regarding to who the verse refers to, it is worthwhile to note that "messenger" can and often does mean "angel." Still others understand it as a reference to Mashiach ben Yosef (which would make this another verse indicating multiple individuals playing significant roles in the final redemption, contrary to the assertion that there is really "one "Messiah" with two roles"). Nevertheless there are sources which identify the messenger as Eliyahu HaNavi, who is mentioned explicitly at the end of the chapter (as noted above).

Regardless of who the messenger is, his function has not been fulfilled. The messenger will be a refining force which will make "the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem …be pleasant to the Lord as in the days of old and former years." (3:4). To interpret this as meaning anything other than the actual restoration of the sacrificial service in accordance with both the letter and intent of the Torah would be exceedingly forced (and ignores many other prophecies to the same effect). This and the other aspects of this prophecy simply have not yet come to pass so it has not been fulfilled regardless of the identity of the messenger.

While the Christian Bible has been somewhat restrained in its interpretation of this verse others have gone farther and indicated that the "Lord" mentioned in our passage is God and that the Rabbis concede this while identifying him with the Mashiach…

"Behold, I send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple, even the Messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,"says the LORD of hosts.-Malachi 3:1
The LORD is the King Messiah; He is also the Angel of the Covenant. -Rabbi David Kimchi [Radak—Teshuvas HaMinim]
The LORD is both the Divine majesty and the Angel of the Covenant, for the sentence is doubled.-Rabbi Aben Ezra [Iben Ezra—Teshuvas HaMinim]
The LORD may be explained of King Messiah -Mashimiah Jeshua fol. 76 [Mashmi’a Yeshu’ah, by the Abarbanel–Teshuvas HaMinim]. www.heartofisrael.net/chazak/articles/saywhat.htm

"LORD" capitalized, is the standard way of indicating in English the four-letter unique name of God (especially among Christians) which traditional Jews typically substitute with "Hashem" ("The Name"). By adopting this convention in the above passage, the impression is given…and intended, that the Rabbis believe that the Messiah which they speak of is God.

Of course, the Hebrew used in our verse is הׇאׇדוֹן which correctly translates as "the lord" or "the master" and this is the term used by the Iben Ezra in his commentary to this verse, the one used by the Radak, and although I don’t have immediate access to a copy I can say with certainty it is the one used by the Abarbanel. The capitalization of "lord" in the above quote is a mistranslation and a simple glance at the original confirms that these authors did not use the Divine name of God, "HaShem", to refer to the subject of this passage or the Messiah.

[Incidentally, I know the originator of the article which "cites" this, and can say with relative certainty that no malice or deception was intended. He and I frequently debated together online over ten years ago when I was young and he was even younger. He compiled this "article" or compilation of quotes from various Christian sources and simply had yet to learn that importance of independently verifying secondary sources. Upon my challenge he placed a disclaimer [which remained for many years but was subsequently removed by later cites which hosted the article] noting that some quotes could be out context. This is, one will find, a common problem. Well meaning, trusting, individuals will be overly reliant on secondary sources about what "Jewish sources" say in apparent support of Christian theology, only to inadvertently pass along misleading or fabricated information.]

There are those, such as Rashi, who do understand the lord of this verse as referring to The LORD, Hashem. And there are those, such as the Radak, who understand the lord of this verse the King Mashiach. But these are two mutually exclusive opinions and nothing in the verse would demand (or allow) one to accept both as the one-in-the-same subject.