in a certain sense, as a single word (road-making). Our attention being attracted by this similarity in the expression, we soon discover that the same similarity runs through the contents of the entire verse. In Malachi the messenger of the Lord prepares the way before him; in Isaiah the servants of the Lord are called upon to prepare the way. The meaning is the same in both. For it is self-evident that it is a moral preparation for the coming of the Lord, which is intended; and this is confirmed by the parallel passage in ver. 24. But, if this be the meaning, by what other method can the messenger of the Lord prepare the way, than by calling upon those to whom he is sent to prepare the way themselves, in other words, by crying loudly and incessantly "repent," ? In Isaiah the preparation of the way is followed by the revelation of the glory of the Lord; in Malachi, by the coming of the Lord to his temple. This agreement cannot be explained by supposing a unintentional reminiscence on the part of the prophet; as we may clearly see from the analogous allusions to Joel in vers. 2 and 23. The following appears to us the correct explanation. The discontent of the Israelites after the captivity was occasioned by the predictions, contained in the second part of the book of Isaiah, more than by any other prophecies. It was here that salvation was depicted in its most glowing colours; and threats were kept in the back-ground. The whole of it is chiefly adapted to afford consolation to the believing portion of the Israelites. In the time of trouble, therefore, it was principally upon these prophecies that the hopes of Israel rested. And when so little occurred to gratify their hopes after the return from captivity, it was chiefly upon these prophecies, that the charges brought against the covenant-faithfulness and righteousness of God were founded. Now the unfounded character of such charges as these could not be demonstrated in any better way, nor could the guilt be transferred from the accused to the accusers, to whom it properly belonged, in any surer manner, than by proving that they were not the people, to whom God had made such glorious promises by the mouth of his prophet. And the words of Is. xl. 3, 4 were peculiarly adapted to afford the evidence required. If the revelation of the glory of the Lord is preceded by the preparation of the way, the nation, in its present condition, is not ready for

the kingdom of God; and therefore, instead of murmuring because the appearance of God is delayed, it ought rather to thank him for first of all affording the means of repentance; and that which the nation without exception regarded as an object of desire, ought to be anticipated by the greater part as an object of dread. The words of the prophet, therefore, are equivalent to this, " ye, who complain in your considerate zeal, that the Lord has not fulfilled his promises, should rather consider, that according to his own declarations, mercy on his part must be preceded by repentance on yours. For this he now furnishes the means, and will continue to furnish them. He will then suddenly appear and make himself known as the God of justice, not merely by the blessings which he will bestow upon the godly, but also by the punishments which he will inflict upon you, the wicked members of the covenant-nation.

The next question that arises is, who is by (my messenger). The Jewish commentators are very vacillating (compare the collection of the expositions, which has been made by Frischmuth, de angelo foederis, Jena 1660). Abenezra supposes the Messias Ben Joseph to be intended. Kimchi observes: "an angel from heaven is meant, just as he says in Ex. xxiii. 20, behold I send an angel before thy face." Jarchi conjectures that the angel of death is referred to, who is to be sent to destroy the wicked. Abarbanel explains the word as referring to the prophet himself. The earlier Christian expositors were unanimously of opinion that the "messenger of the Lord" was John the Baptist. Among modern commentators, many, like Eichhorn, suppose either the whole body of prophets to be intended, or some one prophet, though it is uncertain which; Hitzig and Maurer, again, explain it as indicating the actual return of the prophet Elias.

We must first of all prove, in opposition to Kimchi and Jarchi, that it is not a heavenly, but an earthly messenger, who is referred to here. This is very evident—(1) from Isaiah. We have already seen that the voice, which there exhorts to prepare the way, proceeds from the covenant-nation itself.-(2). From the parallel passage, chap. iv. 5. The same person, who is called in the one the messenger of the Lord, is spoken of in the other as Elias the prophet; and the preparation of a way in ver. 5,

corresponds to the restoration of the spirit of the fathers, in chap. iv. 6.-(3). From the evident antithesis between "my messenger," and "messenger of the covenant." If a heavenly messenger were intended, this could only be the "Angel of the Lord," for he is called my angel, not an angel. But the person called "my messenger" must necessarily be a different individual from the angel of the Lord, who comes to his temple after him.—At the same time we must not shut our eyes to the fact, that there is some truth at the foundation of Kimchi's explanation. The allusion to Ex. xxiii. 20 is unmistakeable, and cannot be merely accidental, especially when we consider that it is a journey through the desert which is spoken of here, as well as there, and the preparation of a way through the midst of the desert. It serves to direct attention to the essential unity of the two events, notwithstanding the difference in the persons employed. Both the mission of the heavenly and that of the earthly messenger are manifestations of the same covenant fidelity on the part of God, and of the same mercy to the chosen race, and therefore as God formerly sent his messenger to conduct the people through the literal desert, so now he will also send his messenger to prepare the way through the spiritual desert. The truth which lies at the foundation of both is this, God not only bestows the blessing itself, but also provides the means of obtaining possession. At the same time, the allusion to the analogous conduct on the part of God on the former occasion also serves to direct attention to the responsibility, which would be consequent upon the abuse of his mercy on this occasion also. The declaration, which immediately follows the announcement in Ex. xxiii. 21, "Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression," was also applicable to the present circumstances, and this application is made in the next verse, and also in chap. iii. 6. The mission of a divine messenger is never without effect, it is always attended by blessings, or else by the severest punishment.

If we may regard it as established, that the messenger of God, referred to here, is an earthly one, our next duty will be to examine the correctness of the most widely adopted opinion, viz., that John the Baptist is the messenger intended. But our enquiry will have respect simply to the form, which this expla

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 ourse 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. 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

But