nation usually assumes, namely, that "my messenger" is John, regarded as a historical personage, to the exclusion of every one else. The explanation remains essentially correct, even if we find reason to understand the expression as denoting an ideal person, in other words, the whole company of the messengers of God, who were to prepare the way for the coming of salvation, and make known the approach of the kingdom of grace. For.

as the idea of a messenger was most perfectly concentrated in John, and God necessarily sent him because he had given this prophecy, and, on the other hand, dictated the latter because he would necessarily send him, he is, and will ever be, in the strictest sense of the word, the subject of the prophecy. It is evident, however, on the following grounds, that the ordinary form in which the explanation is given is faulty, and that his coming was merely the culminating point of its fulfilment, not the perfect fulfilment in itself, in other words, that the prophecy embraces all the means, by which God sought to lead his people to repentance, from the time of the prophet onwards.—(1). This is favoured by the passage in Isaiah, upon which we have commented already, and in which, as we have seen, "the voice crying in the desert" belongs to the whole company of the servants of God. Verse 1, where they are addressed in the plural, shows this very conclusively. (2). By assuming the name Malachi on the ground of this passage, the prophet intimated, that he regarded his own labours as resulting from the thought to which he has given utterance here; although he was certainly very far from cherishing the notion, that it was fully realised in himself alone, as we may clearly see from ver. 23. How could he ever

have imagined that Elijah, the greatest of all the prophets, had come to life again in him as an individual? (3). We have no right to separate the judgment with which the covenantnation is threatened in this prophecy, from the rest of the threats, which run through the whole book. But the commencement of the execution of the latter was evidently to take place in the immediate future, or rather might be witnessed already. This is obvious, for example, from chap. ii. 1, 2. "And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you, saith the Lord. If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you,

and curse your blessings, and curse them a second time, for ye do not lay it to heart." (Observe particularly the expression, "if ye do not hear," even in this case the coming of the Lord is preceded by the preparation of a way by his messenger). It is also apparent from chap. iii. 9, "ye are cursed with a curse, and yet ye rob me, even the whole nation;" from ver. 10, where the windows of heaven are represented as already closed, the blessing as already restrained; and from ver. 11, where "the devourer" is described as destroying the fruits of the ground. Now if, according to the view expressed elsewhere by the prophet, the coming of the Lord to judge, and therefore also to bless, commenced in his own day and continues through every age; we certainly must not assert, without assigning definite reasons for the assertion, that he had in his mind merely the last and most complete fulfilment, to the exclusion of all the rest, without which the last would have no reality at all. But if it is only so far as its perfect fulfilment is concerned, that the predicted coming of God belongs to the Messianic age, the same must be the case with the mission of the messenger, which also precedes the advent. (4). We must not overlook the connexion between these words and chap. ii. 7, 8, "for the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law, ye have corrupted the Levitical covenant." As the order of priests, the ordinary messenger of God, has failed to discharge its duties, the Lord sends his extraordinary messenger, who does what they ought to have done, leading many away from iniquity (compare chap. ii. 6 with the verse before us and ver. 24). The heavenly messenger then appears to bless or punish, according to the relation to the covenant, and the reception given to the call to repentance on the part of the earthly messenger. Now, if the order of priests, regarded as the messenger of God, is referred to as an ideal person, we might expect this also to apply to the extraordinary messenger of God, who is to fulfil the duties which they have failed to discharge. The prophet is opposed to the priest; compare chap. iv. 5. With this explanation the prophecy before us embodies the same idea, as that of Joel, respecting the mission of the teacher of righteous

ness. In the Messianic era its fulfilment is to be found, not merely in the appearance of John, but also in the early portion of the ministry even of Christ and his apostles, inasmuch as this was a continuation and completion of that of John, and was intended to announce that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, and to prepare the way for its coming. But John is justly to be regarded as the precise object to which the prophecy points, since the idea was not merely relatively, but absolutely realised in him. He was the forerunner of the Lord, and that alone. Whatever of Christ's ministry therefore partakes of the same character may be reckoned as a part of his, whilst the special work of Christ belonged to the second promise, of the Lord coming to his temple and of the covenant angel.'—It is only in the Piel, that has the meaning "to sweep," "to preis an expression peculiar to Isaiah. We find it not only in chap. xl. 3, but also in chap. lvii. 14 and lxii.

10.

That by

(the Lord) we are to understand God, cannot for a moment be doubted. The proofs of this are the following: The constant use of with the article in this sense; the fact that it is preceded by, before me (the person who comes here, must be the one who sends his messenger before him); the evident allusion to the question, "where is the God of justice;" and lastly, the expression his temple, with reference to the temple of Jehovah. On doctrinal grounds, namely, to set aside the argument in support of the divinity of Christ, which the earlier expositors founded upon the fact that the temple is spoken of here as belonging to the Lord, who is identified with the messenger of the covenant, Faustus Socinus explained as meaning the royal palace. It is not difficult

הֵיכָל

1 Hofmann (Weissagung p. 361) objects to the ideal interpretation of on the ground that the expressions "suddenly" and "behold" both show that one particular prophet is intended. Reinke (der Prophet Maleachi) adduces the same expressions as favouring the reference to John the Baptist. But it is a universal truth, which is constantly being fulfilled again and again, that the Lord comes unexpectedly, whenever through his interposition a call to repentance is uttered in the ears of his people. This 'suddenly,'" says Schmieder, "is repeated in every act and judgment of the Lord. The Lord of glory always comes as a thief in the night, to those who are asleep in their sins."

to show that this is inadmissible. Ver. 3 furnishes sufficient proof to the contrary. The is spoken of there as the place for priests and sacrifices. At the same time there is some truth

at the foundation of this erroneous interpretation, and that is our reason for mentioning it. There can be no doubt, that in this passage God is introduced as a king, and the temple as his palace. The king has long since taken his journey (añedńμnσev, Matt. xxi. 33, compare chap. xxv. 14); or, dropping the figure, his presence among his people has not been clearly manifested in blessings and punishments. He is now about to return and enquire into the conduct of all his servants and subjects during his absence, that he may reward and punish accordingly.

There can be no doubt as to the person intended by "the messenger of the covenant," who is called on other occasions "the angel of the Lord." That we are not to identify the messenger of the covenant with the messenger sent by the Lord before himself and with Elias, as Hitzig, Maurer, and others have done, is evident from the order in which the different events are narrated here; first, the messenger of the covenant comes; and then the Lord himself and the messenger of the covenant suddenly appear; compare the term "before" in chap. iv. 5, and also the expression, "whom ye delight in," which is parallel to "whom ye seek." They both point back to the words, "where is the God of justice ?" in chap. ii. 17, in which this delight and desire are expressed. But even apart from this particular allusion, the wish for a preacher of repentance to come proceeds from a state of mind, the very opposite of that which distinguishes these "just persons who need no repentance." Again there would be something very unsuitable in connecting God with his earthly servant in such a way as this. The singular

בָא

also indicates the essential unity of the Lord and the messenger of the covenant. And our conclusion is still further confirmed by the parallel passages in Isaiah, where the voice is first heard, and then the glory of the Lord appears. These reasons are also to some extent decisive against the view expressed by Hofmann (Weissagung i. p. 359, Schriftbeweis i. p. 162), that the angel of the covenant is "an antitype of Moses, a mediator between God and the nation, through whom God is about to enter into a new, more perfect and eternal

fellowship with Israel." The very fact that Hofmann is the first to entertain this opinion, creates a difficulty. The Holy Spirit would have expressed himself very obscurely if this were the meaning. But it is a sufficient reply, that, according to ver. 17, the wish of the nation (the angel of the covenant, whom ye desire) was not for the coming of a second Moses, but for the coming of God; not for the appearance of a reformer, but for the appearance of a judge; and in vers. 2-5 of this chapter it is not of reformation, but of judgment that the prophet speaks. A mediator by the side of the Lord, a mere counterpart of Moses, would not be distinguishable from "my messenger," from whom Hofmann would keep him distinct, though his mission is precisely the same. It is more difficult to explain the name, which is given here to the Angel of the Lord. Bauer and others, who adopt the rendering "the promised messenger," in direct opposition to the rules of the language, have been sufficiently refuted by Jahn. The "messenger of the covenant" is supposed by Jahn himself to mean "the messenger with whom the covenant was concluded." In his idea the covenant referred to is the Sinaitic. The early commentators, on the other hand, are unanimously of opinion that the new covenant is intended (Jer. xxxi. 31), the "messenger of the covenant" being equivalent to the "mediator of the new covenant" in Heb. ix. 15. The following is probably the correct explanation. We have already

pointed out at p. 189 the reason why the prophet does not speak of the coming of the Lord only, but also of the divine messenger, who is essentially one with Him. It is to be found, namely, in the previous mention of the earthly messengers of God, both ordinary and extraordinary. The divine messenger is called the messenger of the covenant, because he is sent in the cause of the covenant, and his coming to bless, as well as to punish, is the result of the covenant. The two earthly messengers might have been called the same. But the prophet had a special reason for applying this term to the heavenly messenger, in the fact that his coming had been desired by the murmurers on the ground of the covenant.1 "The covenant" does not denote one single

1 "God here casts reproaches upon the Jews, and appeals to his covenant in opposition to their impious blasphemies, for their impious murmuring will not prevent him from fulfilling his promises, and bringing to pass in his own time what they imagine will never take place." Calvin.