both by words and deeds. This evasive reply was naturally followed by the declaration "neither do I tell you." They shewed plainly enough, that their hearts were not turned. Without faith in the divine mission of John, they could not believe in Christ, for the very same reason, that belief in the former would necessarily have led to belief in the latter. They had not said A, and therefore could not say B, and every attempt to lead them to do so would have been in vain. LUKE I. 16, 17. The angel says to Zechariah: "And many sons of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." The two principal passages in Malachi relating to the coming of John (chap. iii. 1, and iv. 5, 6), are here combined. To the former belongs, first of all, the clause, "and he shall go before him (ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ),” where the αὐτοῦ refers to the κύριος ὁ Oeòs, which goes before,-a fresh proof of the divinity of Christ, and his identity with the Lord and the angel of the covenant. To the first passage also belongs the last clause èтoiμáσαι, &c., which is to be regarded as a paraphrase of " he shall prepare thy way." Grotius explains this clause as meaning "a people ready to receive the kingdom of heaven;" and Bengel says, "the people is to be made ready, lest the Lord, finding the people not ready for him, should crush them with his majesty." All the rest belongs to the second passage. The careful manner in which the words, "and he shall turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers," are explained, apparently presupposes the existence at that time of misinterpretations, such as we find, in fact, in all the Jewish expositors, from the Septuagint downwards, and also in most of the Christian. First of all the essential element of the whole is brought out in the words, "he will turn to the Lord their God." The restoration of their union with God through true conversion lays the foundation for the restoration of the union between 66 the pious fathers and their ungodly children. Further light is then thrown upon the thought in its more particular form. This is done by the omission of the second half of the passage in Malachi, namely, the clause, "and the heart of the children to their fathers," which is necessarily implied in the first half, inasmuch as the relation is a mutual one, and substituting in its place the explanatory words καὶ ἀπειθεῖς ἐν φρονήσει δικαίων. The Telês were the existing rebellious generation; the Sixalot their pious ancestors. póvnois is used in the sense of disposition. "In the disposition," &c., is equivalent to, "so that they will have the disposition." The ordinary construction of verbs of motion with ? when the object moving remains in the place to which its moves, is perfectly analogous. The angel says, in the prudence, not into the prudence. The feeling (sensus) of those who are just, is immediately put on in conversion." Hence the hearts of the fathers are brought back to the children, that is, the bond of affection is restored between them, in consequence of the pious dispositions of the former being reproduced in the latter. By this means they become a "people prepared." Particular attention should also be paid to the πολλούς. Care is taken here to guard against a mistaken notion, which the Saviour afterwards expressly condemns, namely, the idea that a universal ἀποκατάστασις was to be expected from the forerunner of the Lord, an idea which would never have existed, if the fact had not been overlooked, that Malachi simply speaks of the gift and purpose of God. The words, "in the spirit and power of Elias," were also as thoroughly opposed, as any of the rest, to the notions prevalent at the time. They teach that "the flesh profiteth nothing." Wherever the pars melior of Elias, his spirit and power may be, there is Elias himself. LUKE I. 43. "And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" By direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit (ver. 41), Elizabeth recognised the Lord in the unborn child of Mary, who, because he was the Lord, was also her Lord, the Angel of the Covenant foretold by Malachi, and whose advent had been announced by the angel. Such a recognition as this belonged to the same sphere as its object, and equally transcended the limits of nature. JOHN I. 6. "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John." In the expression ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ, there is evidently an allusion to the words of Malachi, "behold I send my messenger before me.” The whole of the description which follows forms a simple commentary upon his prophecy. A verbal reference is apparent again in ver. 9. JOHN I. 9. "That was the true light, which lighteth every man, coming into the world." ἐρχόμενον, (was Why does John say u coming and not more briefly and clearly ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον (he came into the world)? The reply is, that the former gives greater prominence to the connexion with the prophecy. The great ερχόμενος (the coming one) was in every mouth, σὺ εἶ ὁ épxóuevos (art thou the coming one?) Matt. xi. 3, ¿ óπíσw μov épxóμevos in vers. 15, 27, 30, of this chapter. The Evangelist retains the form of the prophecy, but shows by the v which he prefixes that it had already been fulfilled, he was a coming one. The elaborate way in which the relation between John and Christ is afterwards described, evidently refers chiefly to Malachi, and is intended to hold up Christ as the Lord and Angel of the Covenant foretold by Malachi, an intention which was more likely to exist in the case of John, the theologian, than in that of the other Evangelists. The contrast between the heavenly and the earthly one is made as marked as possible (compare the åveρwπos in ver. 6, which is certainly not equivalent to ris in this connexion.) JOHN I. VER. 15 COMPARED WITH VER. 30. "John bare witness of him and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, he that cometh after me is preferred before me : for he was before me." "This is he of whom I said, after me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me” (μπрoodév μov γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν). My successor is my predecessor, for he is (according to the very prophecy, which forms the centre of my own existence) infinitely older than I. John alludes to Mal. iii. 1, where the sacred enigma, to which he gives utterance here, was already to be met with. He who follows "my messenger" (ô ỏπíow μov èpxóμevos), also sends my messenger." He is therefore his predecessor, and, as the Lord and Angel of the Covenant, is infinitely older than he, or rather than everything else in existence (for an explanation of πρῶτος μου compare ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν). There is nothing like tautology here. The absolute pre-existence, which is clearly implied in the names "the Lord" and "Angel of the Covenant," that occur in the original prophecy, constitutes the antecedent. We have no ground, therefore, for interpreting eμmpoo @ev as denoting superiority in rank, an explanation for which we can find no warrant either in Gen. xlviii. 20, or in the passages which Lücke has quoted from Plato.-If the Baptist everywhere expressed the firm conviction, that the Messiah was the Lord and Angel of the Covenant foretold by Malachi, we cannot possibly see on what ground it can be maintained that he had no clear or well defined idea of His divinity. And if the Baptist was not ignorant of the divinity of the Messiah, if it was because he was aware of it that he declared pôтós μov v; then, whenever we meet with the assertion, "the Baptist was certainly not thinking of the λόγος when he used the words πρῶτος μου ἦν,” we must erase the not to make it correct. A time will come when the artistically constructed edifice, into which the doctrine of the Móyos has been built in modern times, will have to be pulled to pieces, and the materials used for a little outhouse adjoining the principal building, which will be formed exclusively of stones taken from the Old Testament. In fact, if they were lost alto gether, no harm would be done to the question itself, and only some trifling injury in cases where verbal criticism was concerned. That in "the Lord, even the Angel of the Covenant," predicted by Malachi (as explained by everything contained in the Old Testament with reference to the "Angel of Jehovah ")—the essence of His Logos is fully contained, is shown clearly enough by the Evangelist, in the fact that he takes the words of Malachi as the basis of the remarks, which he has made upon the subject of the Logos. JOHN I. 21-23. "And they asked him, art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias." In what has already been stated, we have sufficient evidence that the Baptist merely gave a negative answer to the question whether he were Elias, on the ground that those who asked it had in their minds the false notion of a personal re-appearance of Elias himself. We would only remark, in addition, that to the relative denial in this case a relative affirmation (in ver. 23) is immediately afterwards opposed. For by declaring himself to be "the voice crying in the desert," as foretold by Isaiah, he at the same time asserts that he is the Elias and "my messenger," predicted by Malachi. The proof of this is also to be found in what has already been said. We have shown that the prophecy of Malachi is merely a resumption of that of Isaiah, and that it was constantly referred to in this light by the Baptist, by Christ, and by his Apostles. There can be no doubt whatever, that John regarded the kúptos of Isaiah as the Christ, and therefore also as truly God. |