THE

METHODIST QUARTERLY REVIEW.

JANUARY, 1855.

ART. I.-MALACHI.

THERE is something peculiarly solemn in the closing book of the Old Testament canon. The stern vigour of its reproofs, the yearning tenderness of its appeals, and the sublime sweep of its predictions, combine to give it an intrinsic interest of the profoundest character. But this interest is greatly enhanced by its position. It is the transition-link between the two great dispensations of redemption the last note of that magnificent oratorio of revelation, whose wailings of sorrow and breathings of hope were soon to give place to that richer song, which should be not only of Moses, but also of the Lamb; and tell not only of Eden and Sinai, but also of Calvary and heaven. Hence we find sounding through it voices of the past and voices of the future-the knell of the departing and the chimes of the coming age. It is, perhaps, in part to this fact that we owe some of the abruptness that characterizes this prophecy in so unusual a degree.

The same kind of interest attaches to the personal history of the prophet. He appears before us with some of the vague mystery as well as the stern vehemence of Elijah the Tishbite; delivers his message with an indignant earnestness, reproves the Pharisaic wickedness of the present, points forward to the glorious yet dreadful future, and disappears as suddenly as he came. His very name is by no means certain. The name Malachi (my messenger, or my angel) is commonly taken as an apocopated form of the name "messenger," or "angel of Jehovah." But the only instance of such an apocope given by Gesenius (Uri for Uriah) is very doubtful, if not absolutely erroneous. The invariable suffix in such forms is and not "; and the name would have been Malachiah, like Zechariah, and the large class of compounded names of this formation. Hence it was very anciently conjectured that this FOURTH SERIES, VOL. VII.-1

was not the name of the prophet. The Septuagint translates "by the hand of his angel," or "messenger," showing that they regarded it as not a proper name. The Targum of Jonathan adds after the word Malachi, "who otherwise is called the scribe Ezra," which, with other conjectures as to his name among the Jews, identifying him with Haggai, Mordecai, &c., shows that Malachi was regarded by them as merely a name of office. Indeed Haggai is actually called by this very name, "the messenger of Jehovah," in Hag. i, 13. And as the precise form itself occurs in chap. iii, 1 of this prophecy, where it must be translated "my messenger," there seems to be a very strong probability that it was given originally, at least, as an official rather than a personal title. He was called, by eminence, the messenger of God," partly because he was the last inspired messenger of the Old Testament, and partly because he came to announce the coming of the great Messenger of the New, chap. iii, 1. But as there is no other instance in the Old Testament in which the official title alone of the writer is prefixed to the book, it is by no means impossible that the official became a personal designation, as was afterward virtually the case with John the Baptist, and even the Apostle Peter.

There is less difficulty in determining the age of the prophet than in ascertaining his name or personal history. Indeed it may be regarded as absolutely settled by Vitringa, who, in his elaborate disquisition, (Observationes Sacra, lib. vi, cap. vii,) comes to the conclusion that Malachi prophesied about the time of the second return of Nehemiah from the court of Persia, which was somewhere between the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, B. C. 432, and the year B. C. 424; for Artaxerxes died after a reign of forty-one years, and Nehemiah returned the second time to Jerusalem during his life. Neh. xiii, 6. The temple was evidently built, (chap. i, 10; iii, 1-10,) which places him after Haggai and Zechariah; a civil ruler was over the Jews, which places him before the death of Nehemiah, who was their last civil ruler; and the crimes reproved by the prophet, such as mixed marriages, neglect of tithes, &c., were precisely the abuses corrected by Nehemiah. As these abuses were actually reformed by Nehemiah, we are compelled to assign the date of the prophet as precisely coincident with the second reformation of Nehemiah, or about B. C. 424. He then sustained the same relation to Nehemiah that Haggai and Zechariah did to Joshua and Zerubbabel, or Isaiah to Hezekiah, and Jeremiah to Josiah, in the earlier history of Israel. The silence of the Book of Nehemiah is no valid objection to this view, because it does not profess to be a complete history of the times, but only a personal

narrative of the acts of the author. It is an interesting coincidence, therefore, that while this stern Hebrew was reproving the formalism and falsehoods of the people of Jerusalem, Socrates was engaged in a similar work among the mercurial masses of Athens.

The characteristics of the times of Malachi are apparent on the surface of the prophecy. Before the captivity the besetting sins of the Jews were idolatry and superstition. Afterward they were prone to the other extremes of practical atheism and Epicureanism. There were two elements then at work which afterward issued in the frigid formalism of the Pharisees, and the .scoffing scepticism of the Sadducees. But the predominant element, owing to the fact that they were in the transition-state from superstition, was the Pharisaic,-a spirit of proud and bigoted self-righteousness that claimed the favour of God with insolent haughtiness, at the very moment that this favour was forfeited by unbelief and neglect of duty.

The period that elapsed between the return from Babylon under Joshua and Zerubbabel, and the mission of Nehemiah, (about a century,) was by no means prosperous. The efforts of Haggai and Zechariah were crowned with only partial success. Indeed, the prophecies of Zechariah contain manifest indications of much unbelief and obstinacy among the people, and consequent punishment from the Lord. Zech. v; x, 3; xi, 6, &c. Having neglected the commands of God, they were deprived of God's favour; and adversity, instead of softening their hearts, hardened them, and led them to accuse God instead of accusing themselves. This selfrighteous spirit was at the root of all their sins, as will be seen by a careful perusal of the prophecy. It had wrought its mournful results for many years preceding the first return of Nehemiah; so that he found the people disheartened, the worship of the temple neglected, and flagrant abuses encouraged in violation of the law. These he partially reformed during his first visit; but having returned to the Persian court, and remained there an indefinite time, (Neh. xiii, 6, 7,) probably from ten to twelve years, he came back to Jerusalem, and having found that the people had relapsed into many of their former sins, such as mixed marriages, (xiii, 23-30,) withholding of tithes, (xiii, 5,) and neglect of the Sabbath, (xiii, 15–22,) -he set himself vigorously to the work of a second reformation, that might be more permanent than the first. It was then, as we infer, that he was joined by Malachi, that the special dealings of God with his ancient Church might be finished, and the canon of Scripture closed up, until the coming of that great Messenger of the covenant, who was to open a new dispensation of the great plan of redemption.

He thus ends the great argument precisely where the evangelists take it up, so that a verse of his prophecy is made the introduction to one of the Gospels. (See Mark i, 2.)

The canonical authority of Malachi has never been called in question. It is found in all the authoritative enumerations of the canonical books, and is referred to repeatedly in the New Testament as an inspired prophecy. (See Matt. xi, 10; xvii, 12; Mark i, 2; ix, 11, 12; Luke i, 17; and Rom. ix, 13.)

The prophecy is composed of six distinct portions. Part I (c. i, 1-5) opens the charges against Israel by laying bare the root of their sin, an insensibility to the love of God, that had been so signally unfolded in their history; and shows, by reference to the history and condition of Edom, how great had been that love. Part II (c. i, 6-ii, 9) addresses the priests, reproving them for their neglect of the worship of God, and their profanation of his ordinances; threatening punishment for these sins, and predicting the calling of the Gentiles. Part III (c. ii, 10–16) rebukes the mixed marriages of the people, and their injurious treatment of the Jewish wives. Part IV (c. ii, 17-iii, 6) predicts the coming of Christ and his forerunner, and the different aspects in which he will appear from that in which he is looked for by the Jews. Part V (c. iii, 7-12) reproves their withholding of tithes. Part VI (c. iii, 13-iv, 6) describes more fully the sinful character of the people, contrasts it with the character of those who fear the Lord, and then describes the contrast in their destinies that shall take place in the dread scenes of the future.

It is our purpose, in further expounding this book, to give first a literal translation of the several sections in their order, followed by a comment, which, without going extensively into grammatical or expository details, shall yet discuss the more important verbal difficulties, and suggest the more weighty expository uses of the text, in a way that will make it useful not only to the ministry, but also to the more intelligent portion of the laity, who may have no acquaintance with the Hebrew. We have used freely all the aids within our reach, but especially C. B. Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Maurer, Hengstenberg, and those to whom they refer. Indeed, so little has been done for this prophecy in the present century, that most students are at fault in attempting to obtain suitable aids for its exposition. The ordinary English expositions are so meagre that they skim over most of the difficulties of the text, and more elaborate commentaries are beyond the reach of most readers. It is our aim in this humble effort to furnish some aid to the careful student, in the absence of better assistance from more competent

hands. If it shall assist, in the slightest degree, the student of the lively oracles, in his endeavour to understand the last note of ancient prophecy, or shall stimulate any abler hand to undertake the work in a more thorough manner, our labour will not be lost, and our wishes not be defeated.

1.

2.

SECTION I, CHAP. i, 1–5.

The Expostulation.

"A BURDEN.

The word of Jehovah to Israel by the hand of Malachi.

I have loved you, saith Jehovah.

And ye say, 'In what hast thou loved us?'

Was not Esau brother to Jacob? saith Jehovah.

3. And I loved Jacob; and Esau have I hated, and I made his mountains a 4. waste, and his heritage for the jackals of the wilderness. But if Edom should say [although] we are overthrown, yet shall we return and build up the ruins: thus saith Jehovah of hosts, They may build up, but I will cast down; and [men] shall call them the borders of wickedness, the people 5 against which Jehovah is angry forever. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, Great is Jehovah beyond the boundary of Israel."

Ver. 1 contains the heading of the book. The word x we have rendered "burden," being the motto of the prophecy. It is always prefixed to prophecies of a threatening character, and seems designed to indicate the fact, that like some dark cloud, heavy with its pent-up fury, these prophecies are surcharged with the wrath of God, and hang ready to pour their dreadful contents on those against whom they are directed. Many modern commentators give the word the meaning of "declaration;" but Hengstenberg shows clearly (Zechariah ix, 1, Christology II, pp. 77-79) that its undoubted meaning is "burden," in a threatening

sense.

Ver. 2, 3. There is something very touching in the opening of this message of rebuke. Addressing a self-righteous and disobedient people, we would naturally expect an outburst of indignant invective. But instead of this God speaks to them in accents of the softest tenderness, though the reproaching tenderness of love. It is like the language of some weeping parent, who seeks to woo back a prodigal child, by recalling to his memory the love that has been lavished upon him. And it is in painful contrast with this tearful tenderness of God's love that we hear the insolent challenge of the ungrateful people, "In what hast thou loved us?" Here they lay bare the root of their sin,-insensibility to the love of God, and to their own wickedness. They had been punished, and left to adversity; but instead of referring these calamities to the love of God, chastening their sins, they considered themselves unjustly treated,