DIFFERENT MEANINGS A TEXT MAY ACQUIRE: THE CASE OF MALACHI 1:11

This article illustrates how a text may acquire different meanings over years of in- vestigation. On the basis of Malachi 1:11, the article demonstrates how this text was interpreted from various perspectives. Historical interpretation attempts to locate the meaning of the text either in the historical circumstances at the time of the ori-gin of the text or at some undefined future time. A literary interpretation does not attempt to locate the text in history but rather tries to interpret it either as a hyper-bole or metaphorically or by means of an intertextual investigation. At least eight different meanings were detected.


INTRODUCTION
There is no need to doubt that Malachi 1:11 presents the exegete with various problems. Deissler (1988:322), for instance, remarked: "Dieser Vers gehört zu den umstrittensten Texten der Bibel", and Reventlow (1993:141) stated: "Dieser Vers ist der meistdiskurierte des ganzes Buches". It is interesting to note how the meaning ascribed to this text has shifted over the years. The change of meaning ascribed to the text is also related to the approach followed in the exegesis of the text.
It is beyond the scope of this article to present a comprehensive exegesis of Malachi 1:11 in its literary and historical context. The crux interpretum of verse 11 is to find an answer to the question of to whom the people are bringing the pure offerings "in every place"? Various ingenious answers have been given to this question in the course of the history of the investigation of this book. The various attempts can be categorised into two main groups. The majority of scholars follow a historical approach, trying to locate the solution to the problem in history, either in the time of the prophet or in some future

Snyman
Malachi 1:11 A comparison of these translations reveals some interesting differences. In both the New Living Translation and the Contemporary English Version the first phrase of the text gives an indication of time ("from morning till night"; "from dawn till dusk") whereas the other translations give an indication of space ("everywhere"; "from the rising of the sun even to its setting"). The second notable difference is the translation of the middle section of the verse. Some translations render the text in the future tense (KJV, NKJV, NIV) whereas the other translations use the present tense. A third difference is the rendering of the phrase "among the nations" µywgb. Should it be translated as "every nation" (CEV), as "by people of other nations" (NLT), or as "among the nations" as is the case in most of the other translations?
The Hebrew text reads as follows: (BHS) Verse 11 starts with yk which immediately raises the question what kind of yk is meant in this instance. The particle yk can be understood in a causal sense ("because") meaning that verse 11 provides the reason why Yahweh has no pleasure in the offerings the people bring -his name is great among the nations and everywhere pure offerings are brought to honour him. Verse 11 concludes the argument of verses 6-10 with the implication that Yahweh is not concerned about the malpractices of the priests because He is honoured sufficiently elsewhere by the pure offerings brought to Him. But that is not the point. Yahweh wants to be honoured and worshipped in the correct and prescribed manner by his people; that is why the prophet rebukes the priests. Another possibility is to treat yk as a particle of assertion, meaning "yes" or "indeed". This would imply a new turn in the argument. Verse 11 provides a new perspective to the argument thus far. It answers the question of what will happen when the sacrifices cease in the temple as implied in verse 10. The proposal by Petersen (1995:174, 176) to read jrzmmk instead of jrzmm yk seems 84 Snyman Malachi 1:11 There are few text-critical problems in the text. According to BHS, verses 11-13 can be considered a later addition to the text and some scholars (Elliger 1975:195;Horst 1964:265;Botterweck 1960: 100-101) support this point of view. There is no proof from other manuscripts to substantiate such a claim.

HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS OF MALACHI 1:11
Scholars follow two main lines of historical interpretation. Some interpret the text as referring to conditions current at the time of the prophet, whereas others interpret the text as a reference to the future and therefore adhere to an eschatological interpretation of the text.
3.1 Malachi 1:11 as a reference to a situation current at the time of the prophet 3.1.1 Sacrifices offered by the nations Some scholars (G. A. Smith 1943:351;Horst 1964:267;Frey 1963: 148) were of the opinion that (pagan) nations brought pure offerings to honour Yahweh. According to them, there was in the time of the prophet a general shift towards a universal monotheistic worship, in particular the Persian era (Horst 1964:267). This (interpolated) saying (definitely not the prophet Malachi!) was clearly in line with this trend. G. A. Smith (1943:351), for instance, states that verse 11 does not merely teach that there are decent and righteous people in every nation, but that the sacrifices of the heathen are pure and acceptable to Him. This theory dates back as far as Theodore of Mopsuetia who claimed that even in serving idols, the pagans were worshipping God (Verhoef 1987:226).
Although this view was held by many scholars in the 20 th century, -Verhoef (1987:227) refers to this as an "almost universally accepted theory" and Rehm (1961:200) quotes a number of commentaries from the 19 th century supporting this view -few scholars would support this view today. Other texts (Malachi 1:2-5; 2:11-12; 3:4) militate against the idea of a universal worship of Yahweh. It is unthink-86 Snyman Malachi 1:11 name that is great "among the nations" (µywgb). Secondly, it is questionable whether there were large numbers of gentiles converted to Yahwism in the 5 th century BCE. At that time Judah was a minor part of the Persian Empire, and people would have no reason to convert to the God of a subjected nation.
3.1.3 Sacrifices offered by the Jews in the Diaspora Scholars put forward a third possibility, namely the Jews in the Diaspora. There were too few proselytes to serve as a basis for a claim to a worldwide acknowledgement of Yahweh; Jews were spread across the Persian Empire, from Babylonia and Persia in the East to parts of Southern Egypt in the West. Jewish colonies in Elephantine and possibly also in Leontopolis (Josephus, Antiquenes 13.3.1; par 65-8), Samaria and the Transjordan are well known and not all exiles living in Babylonia returned to the land in 538 BCE. Weyde (2000:149) notes a well-documented custom of Jews bringing offerings to Yahweh in other countries. At least, this verse opens up the possibility of proper worship of Yahweh beyond Jerusalem and the temple (Petersen 1995:184). According to Smith (1980:31), the allusion to the widely dispersed Jewish community beyond the borders of the country, is the most probable interpretation of this verse. This is also the conclusion of Utzschneider (1989:54-57, 84-87) who investigated intertextual relations between Malachi 1:11, Ezekiel 36 and Psalm 113:3-4.
The objection raised to this possibility is that the worship of Yahweh, in particular in Elephantine, was probably of a syncretistic kind, and would not serve the purpose of the present argument. Secondly, there is also the lack of clear textual evidence. Thirdly, according to Viberg (1994:303), the sacrifices are not only offered among the nations but are presented by them as "is clearly implied by the text". The point of the passage, according to Viberg (1994:303), is the contrast between the priests and the nations. However, Viberg's argument is not convincing. The text does not mention that offerings were brought by the nations. To claim that this "is clearly implied by the text" is rather Viberg's own interpretation. As noted earlier, interpreting the meaning of the phrase µywgb as "among the nations" differs from interpreting it as meaning "by the nations". The contrast is not so much between the priests and the nations, but rather between pro-88 Snyman Malachi 1:11 interpretation. The text cannot be confined to the circumstances of the Jews in the dispersion and to the proselytes but must also be applied to the situation of the Messianic age, according to the general trend of the prophetical message (Verhoef 1966:169).
A related interpretation is that of Rehm (1961:205) who is of the opinion that the text in question concerns the conversion of the nations as part of the messianic hope. Malachi 1:11 is an utterance from the prophet on the approaching messianic time. When the gentile nations convert to Yahweh they will bring him offerings expressing their respect and honour for him (Rehm 1961:207).
According to Baldwin (1972:122;1978:228-229), the absence of a verb in the statement that Yahweh is a great king in verse 14 leaves the door open for an eschatological interpretation of this verse. The phrase "from the rising of the sun to its setting" in the Psalms (50:1; 113:3) and in Isaiah (45:6; 59:9) is used in contexts that "look towards an eschatological demonstration of the Lord's person to the whole inhabited world". The hophal participle used may also "announce future actions or events". Moreover, this will be in line with many other prophetic announcements where a time is envisioned when Yahweh would be acknowledged as king and when nations will join themselves to Yahweh (Glazier- McDonald 1987:60-61;Merrill 1994:400). Verse 11 is thus a prediction rather than a description of current events, a future contrast to a present reality (Stuart 1998(Stuart :1306. Krieg (1993: 146-147) is also in support of an eschatological understanding of the text due to the occurrence of the theme in other parts of the Old Testament, Deutero-Isaiah and some of the Psalms (cf. also Deissler 1988:322-323;Achtemeier 1986:177).
The strength of this view is that it solves the problems of locating this saying in a historical context by projecting the text to the future and therefore undefined context. Objections to an eschatological interpretation are raised mainly on grammatical grounds. Viberg (1994: 305) rightly asks why the prophet expresses his references to the future by means of participles which usually express the present. Swetnam (1969:203) adds another objection: since it is the current state of

Snyman
Malachi 1:11 of the genuine faith of Jews living among non-Jews". Deutsch does not elaborate on this interpretation, but it seems as if he also has the Jews of the Diaspora in mind as they are the symbols of genuine faith. Recently, Viberg (1994:297-319) presented yet another metaphorical interpretation of verse 11. According to him, a literal interpretation of verse 11 is highly unlikely and he therefore favours a metaphorical interpretation. Like the phrases enveloping the middle section of verse 11 should be understood as metaphors on the basis of verse 14, the controversial phrase -and in every place incense/burnt offering is brought to my name -a pure offering -should also be understood as a metaphor. The intention of the metaphor in verses 14 and 11 is that of Yahweh's supreme authority of his rule over the world. The meaning conveyed by the metaphor in verse 14 and the two enveloping sections of verse 11 is that of rule and supremacy implying Yahweh's authority. The middle section of verse 11 elaborates on the metaphor used in the two enveloping sections. The meaning of the reawakened metaphor is that Yahweh is the great king who should be worshipped as such. Yahweh, as the supreme God, deserves the cultic recognition of all mankind. Because Yahweh is the supreme God -his name is great among the nations -he is also supreme in cultic life.
According to the Ezekiel text, the name of Yahweh is profaned among the nations by the Israelite exiles. According to the Malachi text the name of Yahweh is honoured among the nations because of a regular cult "in every place". This recalls Jewish sanctuaries "among the nations" so that Utzschneider (1989:57) ultimately concludes that this 92 Snyman Malachi 1:11 reference to sacrifices brought as something that will happen in future is quite different from interpreting it as a reference to current conditions in Israel. Likewise, to interpret the text by means of its literary features and characteristics will also have an influence on the eventual meaning ascribed to it. Trends in the development of exegesis can be clearly traced in this investigation. A stringent application of literary criticism (Literarkritik) will result in the scrapping of a text regarding it as a later (and unwelcome) interpolation. A less stringent historical approach and a more "evangelistic" exegesis will favour an eschatological interpretation of the text whereas church doctrine may also affect our understanding of a text. Literary investigation is less interested in historical and accurate facts and may therefore interpret a text along the lines of its literary qualities arriving at answers different from a historical interpretation. Trends in the method(s) of exegesis have an impact on the results of an exegetical investigation.
None of these interpretations can be labelled invalid. The proposed interpretations are substantiated by solid argumentation. This proves that a text has more than one valid meaning. There may be meanings that will be more likely or more convincing than others, but the less likely meaning may even add a valuable meaning(s) to a text.
The choice for a specific interpretation of a text is also reflected in its translation. (Or is it perhaps the other way around: a translation may influence the interpretation of a text?) In the case of Malachi 1:11 it is interesting to note how the KJV, NKJV and the NIV opted for an eschatological interpretation by translating the text in the future tense. The other translations opted for an understanding of the text in the circumstances current at the time when the prophet proclaimed the message.
This investigation reminds us of the relativity of interpretation. As the time differs, as our historical, sociological and philosophical contexts change, our interpretation of a text also differs. And so it happens that a text may acquire different meanings, Malachi 1:11 is a case in point.