Reasons for rendering the formula, "Melach Jehovah," the
Messenger (who is) Jehovah; and not _the_ Angel, or _an_ Angel
_of_ the Lord.
An examination of the numerous passages in which the denominative
_Melach_ is coupled with the name Jehovah, or Elohim, or used
interchangeably with those names, renders it conclusively manifest that
in each and every instance the reference is to one and the same official
Person. This, however, is not entirely obvious from our common version,
owing to the circumstance that the translators rendered the formula,
Melach Jehovah, _the_ angel, or sometimes _an_ angel _of_ the Lord. The
word Jehovah, in the original, never has the article; nor the word
Melach, when coupled with Jehovah, though when employed alone to
designate the same official Person, the article is sometimes prefixed,
as in Gen. xlviii. 16: "_The_ Melach, which redeemed me." The word
Elohim often has the article, and retains it in most of the instances in
which the formula Melach Elohim occurs, requiring it to be read, Melach
_the_, or who is _the_, Elohim. See some twelve instances in the book of
Ezra, and more than twenty in Nehemiah, where there was a special
occasion to distinguish the true from the false God. In the formula,
Melach Jehovah, there is nothing in the original to forbid the two words
being considered as in apposition, and the rendering consequently _the
Messenger Jehovah_, or the Messenger who is Jehovah. And that such
should be the rendering, instead of the angel or messenger _of_ Jehovah,
is apparent from the following considerations:
1st. That the Person identified by this name of office is Jehovah, as is
shown by the use, in numerous passages, of the two names interchangeably.
The word Melach, it may be observed, is, when coupled with the name
Jehovah, and when used separately or interchangeably, with the same
personal reference, always in the singular number; and, when coupled with
that name, generally precedes it; by which circumstances, and the
relations in which it occurs separately, all confusion as to its reference
is precluded.
2d. From the consideration that this rendering corresponds with the
official character of the Person designated. His office is that of a
messenger, sent of the Father--the Mediator, the Christ. The designation
in question is in no instance applied to any created angel, and no doubt
it was intended to distinguish the delegated Person from the Father who
sent him. But to render it, the angel or messenger _of_ Jehovah,
especially in sentences in which the Person designated is called Melach
Jehovah, and also called Jehovah, Adonai, or Elohim, is not to
distinguish but to confuse.
3d. This rendering comports with the official agency of the delegated
Person, as the creator, upholder, lawgiver, and ruler of all creatures.
The works ascribed to him are, in the same sentences and connections,
ascribed to Jehovah.
4th. It comports with the designation by which, when he became
incarnate, he was familiarly known, and which is translated _Lord_, as
the equivalent of the name _Jehovah_ in Hebrew. Thus, Luke ii. 11, he is
announced as the "Saviour, which is Christ _the_ Lord." Campbell renders
it, _The Lord Messiah_. The sense is the same as that of _Jehovah who is
the Messiah_, or the Messenger _who is_ Jehovah, or the Anointed _who
is_ Jehovah. Again, when Thomas saw him after his resurrection, he
exclaimed, "My Lord and my God"--my Jehovah and my Elohe. John xx.
5th. It comports with Hebrew usage in other cases. The instances are
common in which particular persons are designated by two words in
apposition, indicating different characteristics. Thus, 1 Kings iv. 1:
"So king Solomon was king over all Israel;" literally, so was _the_
king, Solomon (or, who is Solomon) king, &c. Ibid. vii. 13, 14: And
_the_ king, Solomon, sent and fetched Hiram, son of a _woman_, a
_widow_--_i. e._, _a woman who was a widow_; and xvii. 9, a woman (_who
is_) a widow. Deut. xxii. 23, 28: A _damsel_, a _virgin_--_i. e._, a
damsel who is a virgin.
When the article is prefixed to the word Elohim, it often and perhaps
always is meant expressly to distinguish the True God from the false; as
when the people, seeing the triumph of Elijah over the prophets of Baal,
exclaimed, "Jehovah, he is _the_ Elohim:" he, and not the pretended
Elohim of idolaters, is the true God. The import of the formula, Jehovah
Elohim, is Jehovah _the true_ Elohim, and is not clearly or fully
expressed by the translation _Lord God_, any more than it would be by a
repetition of one or the other of those words. The meaning is, _Jehovah
who is the true God_. So _Melach Jehovah_, the respective terms
referring indisputably to the same person, means, _the Messenger who is
Jehovah_.
But our translators render Melach Jehovah, the angel _of_ the Lord, as
though the angel was a created agent; or, as though Jehovah in this
connection was the Father. McCaul, in his observations on Kimchi's
translation of Zechariah, defends this rendering: First, on the ground,
that if the words _Melach Jehovah_ are in apposition, the translation
should be, not, the Angel Jehovah, but _an_ angel, or _a_ Messenger
Jehovah. But, since the word Jehovah never admits the article, and since
in the formula in question the word Melach never admits it, no reason
can be assigned why the rendering should not be _the_ Angel, or _the_
Messenger Jehovah; it being admitted that one and the same Person is
uniformly designated by this formula. On the contrary, if this objection
were well founded, then in rendering the word _Jehovah_, where it occurs
alone, it should read in English, _a_ Lord, instead of _the_ Lord.
Moreover, if his criticisms were well founded, such a passage as 2
Chron. xxxii. 21, where the order of the designations is _Jehovah
Melach_, would require to be rendered, Lord of the angel, instead of
Jehovah the Messenger, or the Jehovah Messenger. The statement in the
text just quoted from 2 Chronicles is repeated in Isaiah xxxvii. 36,
where the order of the words in question is _Melach Jehovah_. Again, the
formula, (_the_) _Elohim Melach_, occurs in 1 Chron. xxi. 15, and also
in that and the next verse, _Melach Jehovah_, referring to the same
Person.
2d. He urges that if the words Melach Jehovah were to be rendered the
Angel Jehovah, then we should expect to find the article before the word
Melach; because, he says, the word Adon uniformly has it when employed
to designate Jehovah. But this is a misstatement. When so employed, that
word, in its different forms, is generally without the article; as
Joshua iii. 11 and 13: "The ark of the covenant of _Adon_," translated
_the_ Lord, "of all the earth." "The ark of Adon Jehovah, Adon of all
the earth," rendered in our version, "the ark of _the_ Lord, _the_ Lord
of all the earth." Here the translators suppress the word Adon where it
first occurs; probably assuming, as in the case of Melach above referred
to, that it was not in apposition with the next word, Jehovah; and
seeing that if it was not, the version must be, the Lord _of_ the Lord,
as they rendered Melach Jehovah, the angel _of_ the Lord. But the
reference of the word Adon being in every such connection identical with
that of the word Jehovah, and the two words, when conjoined, being, like
Melach Jehovah, in apposition, the version should have been, the Lord
(who is) Jehovah, the Lord of all the earth.
Again, 1 Kings ii. 26: "The ark of Adon Jehovah," rendered, the ark of
the Lord God; where the two words are taken to be in apposition: and if
the translator felt a difficulty, he would seem to have sought to avoid
it, as in other like instances, by an unusual version of the word
Jehovah. Again, 2 Kings xxii. 6: "Go up, for Adon," rendered _the_ Lord,
"shall deliver it." And to give but one other out of very numerous
instances, Ps. lxviii. 20: "Unto Jehovah Adon," rendered God the Lord,
"belong the issues from death." In all the foregoing and similar
instances the sense requires the words "who is" to be inserted or
understood.
McCaul further observes, that the word Jehovah must sometimes be taken
as the genitive case, and cites Mal. ii. 7: "The priests' lips should
keep knowledge, and _they_ should seek the law at his mouth, [referring
to Jehovah Zebaoth, vs. 2 and 4,] for he is _Melach_ Jehovah Zebaoth,"
rendered, "the messenger _of_ the Lord of hosts." But he gives no reason
why Melach Jehovah in this passage should not be rendered, _the_
Messenger Jehovah, as well as in any other passage. Again, he observes,
that to translate the formula, Melach Jehovah, the angel Jehovah, is
plainly against the Masoretic punctuation. But that is not conclusive;
for the points formed no part of the original text, and no one pretends
that they were inspired. The authors of that system of punctuation were
governed, in their application of the points, by their theological, as
well as by their grammatical theory; and however grammatically correct
they may have been in their appropriation of them in all ordinary cases,
in those passages of which they held an erroneous theological or
exegetical theory, they of course arranged the points conformably, so as
to make the text express their preconceived opinions. In relation to the
present instance, for example, Kimchi, as McCaul observes, "considered
the Person designated the 'angel of the Lord,' as nothing more than one
of the many angels to whom he supposes the governance of this lower
world is committed." Observations, page 9. Doubtless the authors of the
points held the same opinion. McCaul observes, in his introduction, that
Kimchi and other Rabbies of his day "endeavored to get rid of the
Christian interpretations, and to root out the Christian doctrines which
had descended from the ancient Jewish Church."