THE PROPHET MALACHI. The question as to the period at which the prophet wrote has been set at rest by Vitringa (de Mal. proph. in the Obss. vol. ii.). The reasons adduced by him in support of his conclusion, that. the book was composed under Nehemiah, about the time of his second arrival in Canaan, subsequent to the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, hardly leave any further room for doubt. The principal reason which he assigns is the following: in Malachi, and in the thirteenth chapter of Nehemiah, which is occupied with the period succeeding his return, the same offences are referred to as common at the time, and described in nearly the same words. Compare, for example, chap. ii. 8 with Neh. xiii. 30, where the sin of the nation, especially of the priests, in marrying heathen wives, is referred to; and chap. iii. 10 with Neh. xiii. 10-12, in which allusion is made to the neglect of the people to bring the tithes. Of the objections offered by Hitzig, Reinke, and others to this conclusion, the only one which has any plausibility is that the governor, mentioned in chap. i. 8, does not appear to be an Israelite, and certainly not to be Nehemiah, who had refused to take even such presents as were justly due to him (see Neh. v. 14, 15). But this passage merely treats of forced contributions and extortions. Such a position, as that of Nehemiah, can hardly be conceived of in an eastern country without presents. And an absolute refusal to receive them would have been a manifestation of unfeeling harshness. The only point, about which there can be any doubt, is whether the public appearance of Malachi occurred shortly before, or shortly after, or precisely at the period of the reform movement which took place on the occasion of Nehemiah's second arrival. The last is the most probable supposition. It cannot be right to fix upon an earlier period, since the strength of the abuses that had arisen, is represented in Nehemiah as not in the least diminished,—a fact which presupposes that God had left the nation to itself for some time,-and also because a governor over the civil affairs is mentioned in chap. i. 8 as existing at the time in the midst of the nation. A later period cannot be thought of, from the very nature of the case; and according to Nehemiah's own account, the steps taken by him to effect a reformation cannot be supposed to have been altogether without effect. Hence it is probable, that the contemporaneous labours of Malachi and Nehemiah bore the same relation to each other, as those of Haggai and Zechariah on the one hand, and Joshua and Zerubbabel on the other. The outward efforts of Nehemiah to bring about a reform were accompanied by the more spiritual efforts of Malachi. Nehemiah cast forth all the household stuff of Tobiah out of the chamber (ver. 8); "if ye do so again," he threatens the Sabbath-breakers in ver. 21, "I will lay hands on you." He smites the men, who have taken foreign wives, and plucks off their hair (ver. 25). Malachi, on the other hand, merely smites with the word of God. He points expressly to the judgment of God, the beginning of which was already to be seen in the midst of the nation, and which would continue to increase in distinctness and strength, in proportion as the germ of destruction, which already existed, became more and more developed. A similar parallel in the progress of inward and outward reform is to be met with on various occasions in the history of Israel; for example, that of Isaiah and Hezekiah, and again that of Jeremiah and Josiah. There is not a single example of a purely outward reform. Vitringa's views, with regard to the name of the prophet, viz. that Malachi was an ideal name and not the prophet's own name, have met with far less favour than those with respect to the date at which he wrote. And yet the reasons, that may be adduced in support of this opinion, are by no means weak, though Vitringa himself did not perceive them all. In the first place we cannot but be struck at the outset with the fact, that the superscription contains no further information as to the prophet himself, not even the name of his father or his birth-place. There are only two other instances of this,-both of them in the case of minor prophets,-Obadiah and Habakkuk; though, of course, these two parallel cases are sufficient to prevent our inferring anything with certainty from this fact alone. Secondly, we cannot fail to be struck with another circumstance, namely, that doubts were entertained at a very early period, as to the historical personality of Malachi. It is very certain that the translators of the Septuagint regarded the name as merely an official one. They render the words, év Xeipì ảyyékov avrou. This is also the case with the Chaldee translator, who αὐτοῦ. appends to the name Malachi the words "qui alias Ezra scriba vocatur." Jerome, who expresses the same opinion, has certainly followed the Jewish tradition. From these testimonies so much at least may be inferred with perfect certainty, that tradition knew nothing of a historical person named Malachi. And this absence of any traditional account is the more striking, in proportion to the lateness of the period at which the prophet lived. But we may even go further with some degree of certainty. How came it to pass, that it was only in the case of Malachi, and not in that of other prophets, the circumstances of whose lives were just as little known, that such conjectures were ever expressed? This certainly appears to point to the conclusion, that tradition was not merely silent with regard to the existence of any prophet named Malachi, but expressly denied that any prophet of that name really did exist. Thirdly, The name itself furnishes the strongest argument. This would not be the case, if it were compounded of and as Vitringa, Caspari (on Micah, p. 28), and others assume. Cases of a similar kind, in which the name and the vocation correspond, are frequently to be met with in the Scriptures; and in many instances the influence of God in producing this result is unmistakeable. Again, the name would prove nothing, if the rendering angelicus, suggested by Gesenius and Winer, were admissible. But the rules of the language will not allow of either of these explanations. The first is untenable, because not a single reliable example can be adduced of such an abbreviation of the word. Moreover, could not mean a messenger, but the messenger of the Lord, and therefore, although the whole of the priesthood might be so designated, the expression could not be properly applied to a single individual. The second is inadmissible, because the words in 1, when derived from ordinary nouns, are only used to denote descent or occupation. But a still stronger reason is, that is not a proper name peculiar to the angels, from which such an adjective as angelical could be derived; and this is particularly apparent in the case of our prophet, seeing that he only uses the word once in connexion with a heavenly messenger, and twice of an earthly messenger sent by God. But how could any one think מַלְאָכִי in the superscription differently from מַלְאָכִי of rendering in chap. iii. 1? We have here a sufficient disproof, not only of both the derivations mentioned, but also of the untenable opinion that the name signifies "messenger," "one sent." That the two are connected, whatever the nature of the connexion may be, must be at once apparent to every one. Now in chap. iii. 1 the rendering "my messenger" is not exposed to any difficulty. But if the same meaning be adopted in the heading, it would be difficult to find any analogy to such a proper name, except the perfectly isolated name Hephzibah in 2 Kings xxi. 1 (compare Is. lxii. 4). And where should we find another example of a proper name, the form of which can only be explained on the supposition that it was given by God himself? The actual state of the case would be a very different one, if Malachi were regarded as a name which the prophet adopted for this particular prophecy. He would then expect every one to gather the meaning from the word itself, as found in chap. iii. 1. We might imagine it preceded by some such introductory words as these: 1 Caspari appeals to the fact that the name in 2 Kings xviii. 2 is an abbreviation of in 2 Chr. xxix. 1. But the cases are not parallel. The in is not an abbreviation of Jehovah, but the name of God is dropped altogether, a circumstance of frequent occurrence: "Hebraei nomina divina saepissime in fine nominum propriorum reticent," Simonis p. 11. The same remark applies to the name "my deliverance," of which the full form is Paltiel, "God my deliverance," 2 Sam. iii. 15. Burden of the word of the Lord through "my messenger. If the name be regarded as dependent upon the passage referred to, the more precise explanation given will necessarily differ according to the different modes in which this passage is explained. If we understand by "my messenger" John the Baptist in his historical character, Cocceius' is right, and the name must be interpreted as meaning, "he who has prophesied of the messenger of the Lord," or "he of whose prophecy 'my messenger' forms the sum and substance." If we understand the expression "my messenger" as used ideally, so that it is simply because the idea was most perfectly realised in him, that John comes principally into consideration, whilst the labours of the prophet himself are also represented as included in the idea, then the meaning of the name is, "he whom the Lord himself has called his messenger." In this case he directs attention to the extreme responsibility incurred by those who refuse to listen to his message. He says exactly the same thing as Haggai expresses in the words, "then spake Haggai, the Lord's messenger, in the Lord's message unto the people" (chap. i. 13). The latter supposition is evidently the more natural of the two; and no other furnishes any kind of analogy to other proper names. In this way, too, the name of the prophet himself serves to confirm the second explanation of chap. iii. 1, of the correctness of which we shall by and by bring forward still further proofs. Caspari's objection, that there is no other instance of an ideal name of this description, may be met by a reference to Agar in Prov. xxx. 1, and to Lemuel in Prov. xxxi. 1. But it is very questionable, whether even in the case of the other prophets the names are to be all regarded as those which they received at their birth; whether, on the contrary, many of them do not resemble the name Peter. The sacred character of the names is so unmistakeable, and the agreement between the name of the prophet and the peculiar character of his prophecy is frequently so striking (for example in the case of Jeremiah), that this assumption is a very natural one. If the name be really an ideal one, it might be argued, in support of the opinion that Ezra is hidden under Malachi, that the priestly calling of 1 "In hoc nomine est μvnμóovvov potissimae prophetiae hujus libri, quae exstat c. iii. 1." |