Malachi.
Malachi.
§ 167. Malachi (
) means “messenger” or “angel.” The rabbinic scholars think that this Malachi is Ezra, whose canonical book is extant, which they conclude from the fact that he reproves the same sins that Ezra rebuked. Augustine, De civit. Dei, bk. 20, c. 25: “There are some who believe that the prophet Malachiel or Malachi, who is also called ‘the angel,’ is also Ezra the priest whose other works have been taken into the canon. Jerome says that this is the opinion of the Hebrews concerning him.” This argument, however, is not strong. Some think that the name Malachi is not a proper name but the common title for all the prophets and that we can take this name to mean Haggai, who is also called “the angel of the Lord” (Hag. 1:13). This, however, is just as uncertain as the notion that this was Ezra.
** There are some who think that this was the angel who came down from heaven and took on human form to prophesy to Israel what God had commanded. Jerome attributes this idea to Origen. Epiphanius, on the other hand, writes that he was born in the town of Sopha in the tribe of Zebulun and that he was given the name “Angel” because he was endowed with an excellent form and blameless behavior. **
This Malachi was the last prophet of the Old Testament, whom, in the order of the New Testament, John the Baptist followed as the forerunner of the Messiah. This Malachi of ours prophesied about John in 3:1 and 4:5. Augustine, De civit. Dei, bk. 17, c. 24: “During that entire time from when the Jews returned from Babylon and after Malachi, Haggai, and Zechariah, who prophesied at that time, and Ezra, they did not have prophets until the coming of the Savior.”
The book has four chapters that we can divide into two parts. The first of these is the rebuke in which the priests and the people are charged both because of their negligence and deceits in divine worship and their greed in the sacrifices and because of their violation of the marriage laws and because of their blasphemies (Malachi 1-2). The second part is consolatory, in which the coming of the Messiah, as well as of His forerunner, John the Baptist, is foretold (Malachi 3-4).
§ 168. These are the “twelve minor prophets,” as they are called. The Hebrews put their prophecies into a single book, which they call 
, as if to say, “the Book of the Two and Ten.” For the Chaldeans, ‘“
has the same value as 
(“two”) has among the Hebrews. And 
corresponds to the Hebrew 
(“ten”). The Greeks call it 
[“the Book of the Twelve Prophets”].
In addition to this distribution by which the prophets are divided into major and minor, there also occurs that distribution by which all of them together are grouped into three classes. To the first belong those who prophesied before the Babylonian captivity: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. To the second belong those who prophesied during the actual captivity: Ezekiel and Daniel. To the third group, those who prophesied after the captivity are to be referred: Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.
Andreas Osiander claims that there once were three kinds of prophets (bk. 1, Annotat. on Jeremiah, c. 11). The first was of those who, whenever the situation would demand it, would have oracles, visions, or prophetic dreams. Such men were Moses, Samuel, and others. In the early times these were called “seers” or, by the Jews, commonly, “the earlier prophets.” The second class was of those who, though they could never of their own choice tell their oracles, visions, or prophetic dreams, would nevertheless prophesy as often as it seemed good to God to teach, rebuke, or admonish His people through these prophets. These the Jews commonly called “the later prophets” because the greatest part of them came after Solomon and under the idolatrous kings—as, for example, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve they call the minor prophets—since the former, better kind almost ceased around the time of David. The third is the class of those who, though they never had oracles, visions, or prophetic dreams, nevertheless learned from the prophets of the above-mentioned class as from erudite teachers. Having been taught by the inner anointing of the Holy Spirit, they have a correct understanding of the prophetic writings; they know how to explain them to others and how to give good advice from them to those who ask. They are able to have a clear view of what necessarily follows from a correct reasoning from their statements. In the old days these were called “the sons of the prophets.” When Paul writes to the Corinthians, he simply calls them “prophets.”
§ 169. Those called “prophets” in the specific sense had as their responsibility: (1) To know and foretell the future long before it would occur (Deut. 18:22). Hence Justin (Tryphon., p. 175) says that the prophets are “blessed men, righteous, lovers of God, dear to God Himself, speaking and foretelling what had to be fulfilled in the future by the inbreathing of the Holy Spirit.” (2) They had to reveal the will of God to men, for as Lactantius explains (Instit., bk. 1, c. 4), the prophets were sent “to be the heralds of His majesty and the correctors of human corruption.” Thus Augustine calls the prophet “the declarer of God’s words” (Q. 17 in Exod.). (3) They had to interpret secret matters that otherwise no one could understand easily. Thus the office of the prophets was being performed by Joseph before Pharaoh (Genesis 41) and by Daniel before Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2). (4) They had to advise the people in secret, doubtful, and perplexing matters (1 Sam. 9:19; 25:6). (5) They had to be on watch always, lest the church and state fall into some harm. You see, they once were called “seers” not only because they would see what was going to happen and because what they were prophesying was as certain as if they had seen it before their eyes (which Chrysostom, in vol. 1, col. 718, gives as the reasons for this title) but also because they were set up like a mirror and had to keep watching and seeing what was going to happen with regard to the church and state (Ezek. 3:2). (6) Their special and most important function was “to prophesy all things concerning Christ that we believe have been fulfilled and that we discern are being fulfilled and that we trust will be fulfilled,” as Augustine says (De civit. Dei, bk. 7, c. 32). For he also says that everything that is contained in their books was said either about Christ or for Christ’s sake (Contra Faustum, bk. 12, c. 7). This he proves throughout bk. 18 of De civit. Dei, as did also Justin (Dial. cum Tryphon.), Tertullian (Contra Judaeos, bk. 9), Cyprian (Contra Judaeos), Chrysostom (Adv. Jud., homily 4), Nicetas (Thesaurus, bk. 3, c. 1), Lyra (Contra Judaic. perfidiam), etc.
§ 170. Therefore all the things that occur in the writings of the major prophets as well as of the minor prophets can be divided into two general headings, namely, that some are historic and some dogmatic. The dogmatic material involves either the Law or the Gospel. That related to the Law contains exhortations with connected promises or dissuasions with connected threats, some of which concern the people of God in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah and some, on the other hand, that concern the enemies of God’s people: the Babylonians, Assyrians, Edomites, Moabites, etc. To the Gospel portion pertain prophecies about Christ, whose birth, teaching, miracles, suffering, death, resurrection, ascension, etc., they foretell with clear and lucid language.
§ 171. However, some heretics formerly called the canonical authority of the prophetic writings into doubt. (Bishop Theodore of Mopsuestia used to say, “The prophets never prophesied anything about Christ,” as we conclude from fragments of his commentaries, which are listed in V. Synod. collat. 4. According to Eusebius [Hist. eccles., bk. 5, c. 13], Apelles used to say that, inspired by a contrary spirit, they foretold many things as uncertain because they seemed to have proposed some contrary things as far as their appearance is concerned. The Ebionites would not admit the prophets except Moses, in whom they would accept some things and reject some, as they wished. Extremely close to these are the Photinians who indirectly tear apart the authority of the prophetic writings.) [The heretics] do this despite the fact that by the unanimous approval of the Israelite, as well as the Christian, church these prophetic writings have been accepted into the canon; also, Christ and the apostles clearly confirm this in the New Testament. It is beneficial, therefore, to note carefully what statements of the prophetic writings the evangelists and apostles, as well as Christ Himself, cite in the New Testament because such citations provide manifest testimony about the divine and canonical authority of those writings.
§ 172. Of the same grain—or, rather, chaff—with those foes of the prophetic writings are those who formerly rejected all the books of the Old Testament as if some evil god dictated them. Such were the Simonians, the Basilidians, and the Marcionites (in Irenaeus, bk. 1, c. 20, 22, 29); the Manichaeans (in Epiphanius, Haeres. 66; Augustine, De utilit. credendi contra Manich., c. 2; and Eusebius, Hist. eccles., bk. 5, last chapter); and the Bogomiles (in Euthymius, Panopl., part 2, title 23, c. 1). Antoninus (part 4, title 2, c. 7) attributes the same error to the Albigensians, but he does them an injustice. In the previous century, the Anabaptists in the conference held at Franckenthal decided that one must not admit the Old Testament books into a debate of faith in any other way except to the extent that they are in harmony with the New Testament. The Photinians stand in the footsteps of the Anabaptists because they also attribute too little to the books of the Old Testament. Socinus, De auctorit. script., p. 16:
It is certain that no one can by any reason or means accept the Christian religion unless he at the same time confess that the prophecy concerning Christ and things pertaining to Him and (because of it) to the Christian religion became known by its revelation. [He must also confess] that at least some [of these] things present another understanding than that which appears and that this is the sort of thing about which no one could indeed suspect anything without that revelation.
In Refut. Carol., p. 54, Sommerus proposes this sort of canon: “Whatever is transferred from the Old Testament to the New is indeed carried over in the same words [verba]. But in actuality [res] it has nothing except a likeness, and this is often slight.” Page 55: “Even if David did write something about Christ and the spiritual reality [res] of the New Testament, nevertheless he did not realize this.” Theophil. Nichol., Adversus Miedzibozium, p. 68: “To be sure, we accept this testimony of the prophet, but it would have had greater impact had the apostle spoken.” Ostorodus calls the Old Testament “imperfect, but the New is perfect,” and, therefore, he concludes that the former takes second place to the latter (Instit. Germ., part 3, c. 28, p. 187). As regards shadows, ceremonies, sacrifices, and forensic laws, the Old Testament is true, but the moral law and instruction regarding the Messiah are the same in both. The grades are rather of clarity than of authority in both Testaments. Schmaltzius, Refut. Smiglec., p. 79: “It is of little concern what a prophet of the old covenant says about the worship of God.” Again Schmaltzius, Contra Frantz.: “Why is it so strange if a person who discusses the Christian religion particularly presses passages of the new covenant, because it is certain that that religion must be proved especially and principally from them and because whatever is brought to that religion from the Old Testament does not do so much to confirm it or create faith in it as to illustrate and commend it?”
§ 173. To this error we oppose an argument of this kind: Whatever Scripture is such that (1) it is God-breathed, (2) Christ commands that we search it, (3) Christ and His disciples cite it and confirm their teachings from it, (4) and it contains the Church’s foundation, this Scripture is canonical and has equal authority with the books of the New Testament.
But the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament is such that: (1) It is God-breathed. See 2 Tim. 3:16 where we conclude that the passage is speaking about the books of the Old Testament, too, not only from the known universal “all Scripture,” namely, Holy Scripture (from v. 15), but also from the circumstance of time, because at the time of Timothy’s infancy, little or nothing of the New Testament had been committed to writing.
(2) Christ commands us to search it (John 5:39) and adds this eminent statement that it testifies of Him and that we can find eternal life in it. In Luke 16:29 He commands that we hear Moses and the prophets and states that we can avoid the torments of hell if we listen carefully to them and accept their instruction.
(3) Christ and the apostles quote the Scripture of the Old Testament and prove everything they teach from it (Luke 24:27; Rom. 3:21; Acts 10:43; 26:[22]; etc.).
(4) It contains the foundation of the Church. Eph. 2:20: “You are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” Certainly, Socinus (Tract. de loco Matth. 16, p. 66) says that “prophets” must be taken in this statement of the apostle to mean those New Testament prophets who are mentioned in Eph. 4:11 and 1 Cor. 12:28. He writes: “They would disclose certain hidden things that had to do with the Christian religion. From this they could increase and confirm the faith of their hearers. The name ‘foundation’ is applied to them in no other sense than that they were among the first who announced and confirmed the Christian religion.” The apostle is speaking here, however, about the universal foundation of the Church both in the New and in the Old Testament, that foundation upon which the faith of both Jews and Gentiles rests, as we can conclude from what comes before and after the passages cited. He establishes the apostles and prophets as the foundation, that is, with respect to their teaching, just as in Rev. 21:14 the wall of the holy city is said to have “twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” So because the teaching of the prophets agrees exactly with the teaching of the apostles (Acts 26:22; Rom. 3:21), therefore in the description of this foundation of the Church the prophets are joined with the apostles. What of the fact that in De auctor. Script., p. 5, Socinus writes that the New Testament clearly confirms the Old? How, then, will they not have the same authority?
18 A Gnostic, disciple of Valentinus, who lived in the second century after Christ’s birth.
19 An antinomian, Gnostic sect mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 3.4 (ANF 2:387).
20 The Vulgate at 2 Chron. 33:19 takes the Hebrew word 
, often translated as “Seers,” as a proper noun.
21 Read “2” instead of “22.”
22 Luther’s German Bible and the Vulgate at Ezra 2:63 treat the Hebrew word 
as a proper noun.
23 Cotta’s edition places this paragraph here. Preuss’s edition inappropriately places it earlier in § 131.
24 That is, a story presenting a conflict that ends happily. Not necessarily humorous.
25 That is, introduction, increase of tension, and resolution.
26 Cf. StL 22:1415 (Table Talh).
27 Cf. StL 22:1422 (Table Talh).
28 Cf. Douay-Rheims version of the Bible. In Luther’s translation, this is v. 14.
29 WA 53:58.
30 WA DB 10/1:9.
31 Lit., “with that which was assumed.”
32 Beginning here, the Preuss and Frankfurt/Hamburg editions have a repetition of the rest of this paragraph. Instead of “Some think,” the repetition begins with “Chrysostom thinks.”
33 Quod sol in coelo est, inter tot biblica scripta / Davidis psalmos regis id esse reor. / Sol planetarum ductor caligine pulsa / Omnia coelesti luce, calore fovet. / Sic mentis tenebras pellunt Davidica plectra / Atque animas vivis alloquiis amant etc.
34 StL 22:1411 (Table Talh).
35 Cf. AE 35:320; WA DB 11/2:227.