Other opponents of the Messianic interpretation take Shiloh as a _nomen

appellativum_, in the signification of _rest_. They translate either,

"Until rest cometh and people obey him" (thus _Vater_, _Gesenius_,

_Knobel_), or, "Until he comes (or, they come) to rest" (thus

_Hofmann_, _Kurtz_, and others). By "rest," they understand either the

political rest enjoyed under David and Solomon, or they find here

expressed the idea of eternal rest in [Pg 83] the expected Messianic

time. Thus do _Gesenius_, _Hofmann_, and _Kurtz_ understand it. The

last-named determines the sense thus: "Judah shall remain in the

uninterrupted possession of a princely position among his brethren,

until through warfare and by victory he shall have realized the aim,

object, and consummation of his sovereignty in the attained enjoyment

of happy rest and undisturbed peace, and in the willing and joyful

obedience of the nations." But this explanation is to be suspected,

simply from the circumstance, that, in whatever other place Shiloh

occurs, it is used as a _nomen proprium_; while it is entirely

overthrown by the circumstance, that, according to its form, as already

deduced, Shiloh can be nothing else than a _nomen proprium_.[14] We

here only remark, by way of anticipation, that David, Solomon,

Isaiah, and Ezekiel bear testimony against this explanation. An

interpretation which dissevers the connection betwixt Shiloh and

Shiloh, betwixt Shiloh and Solomon, betwixt Shiloh and the Prince of

Peace, betwixt Shiloh and Him "whose is the judgment," must be,

thereby, self-condemned. Against the explanation, "Until he comes to

rest," it may also be urged, that the Accusative could not here stand

after a verb of motion; it was too natural to consider Shiloh as the

subject. If it had been intended in any other sense, a preposition

would have been absolutely requisite.

We further remark, that vers. 11 and 12, which ancient and modern

interpreters, _e.g._, _Kurtz_, have attempted to bring into artificial

connection with ver. 10, simply "finish the picture of Judah's

happiness by a description of the luxurious fulness of his rich

territory" (_Tuch_). Their tenor is quite different from that which

precedes, where a pre-eminence was assigned to Judah; for they contain

nothing beyond a simple, positive declaration. What is in them assigned

to Judah, belongs to him only as a part of the whole, as a fellow-heir

of the country flowing with milk and honey, and corresponds entirely

with the blessings upon the other sons, which are, almost all of them,

only individual applications of the general blessing. It is evidently

parallel to what, in vers. 25, 26, is said of Joseph, and in ver 20 of

Asher. That which Jacob here assigns to Judah, was [Pg 84] formerly, in

Gen. xxvii. 28, assigned by Isaac to Jacob, and in him to the whole

people: "God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the

earth, and plenty of corn and wine." Hence, it is not at all necessary

to examine history for the purpose of ascertaining whether Judah was

distinguished above the other tribes, by plenty of wine and milk.

We need not lose much time in discussing the attempts which have been

made to assign the blessing of Jacob to a later period. The futility of

all of them is proved by the circumstance, that we have not here before

us any special predictions, such as are peculiar to _vaticinia post

eventum_, but general prophetical outlines, individual applications

of the general blessings, exemplifications. Whatever seems, at first

sight, to be different, melts away while handling it. Thus, for

example, the blessings which Israel enjoyed by his dwelling on the

sea-side, are pointed out in the blessing upon Zebulun, because he had

his name from the _dwelling_, Gen. xxi. 20. That Zebulun is here viewed

only as a part of the whole, appears from the fact that, afterwards, he

did not live by the sea at all. In the case of Issachar, it was the

individuality of the ancestor Jacob which gave him occasion to

describe, from his own example, the dangers of an indolent rest.

History does not say anything of Issachar alone having yielded to these

dangers in a peculiar degree. In the case of Joseph, the events

personal to the son are transferred to the tribe, and in the tribe, to

the whole nation. In an inimitable manner the tender love of the father

towards his son and provider meets us here. The only thing which goes

beyond the human sphere of Jacob, is the prediction by which Judah is

placed in the centre of the world's history. But it is just this which,

even in its beginnings, goes beyond the time at which this pretended

_vaticinium post eventum_ is placed by _Tuch_, _Bleek_, and _Ewald_;

for, by this assumption of theirs, they are necessarily limited to the

time before David, if they wish to avoid the insurmountable

difficulties which arise from what is said of Levi and of Joseph. But

to the man who looks deeper, vers. 8-10 are just the seal of the

divinity, and hence of the genuineness also, of this prophecy, and,

with all his heart, he will hate such miserable conjectures.[15]

[Pg 85]

Let us now follow through history Jacob's blessing upon Judah. From

this inquiry it will appear how deep has been the impression made by it

upon the people of the covenant. On this occasion also, it will be seen

still more distinctly what the right is which rationalistic criticism

has to declare this _fundamental prophecy_ to be the recent production

of an obscure poet. The chain-like character of Holy Scripture will be

seen in a very striking light.

In Num. ii. regulations are laid down respecting the order in which the

tribes are to encamp about the tabernacle, and in which they are to set

forth. "On the east side, towards which the entrance of the sanctuary

is directed, and hence in the front, Judah, as the principal tribe, is

encamped; and the two sons of his mother--Issachar and Zebulun--who

were born immediately after him, pitch next to him. On the south side

there is the camp, with the standard, of Reuben; and next to him are

his brother Simeon, who was born immediately after him, and Gad, one of

the sons of his mother's maid. The west side is assigned to the sons of

Rachel, with Ephraim at their head. And, _finally_, on the north side,

the three other sons of the maids, viz., Dan, Asher, and Naphtali, have

their position. In the same order as they encamp they are also to set

forth." (_Baumgarten_.)

Judah is the chief tribe on the chief side. This distinction [Pg 86] is

not based on the deeds hitherto performed by Judah, nor is it the

result of any revelation which Moses received upon the subject. It is

regarded as a matter of course. And yet, there must necessarily have

been some foundation for such a distinction, because, otherwise, it

would have called forth the opposition of the other tribes, especially

of that of Ephraim. Such a foundation, however, is afforded only by the

blessing of Jacob, in which the tribe of Judah appears as the leading

one. The complete realization of this prediction is left, indeed, in

the hand of God; but the bearer of honours so great, even although

future, must, in the prospect of that future, enjoy, even in the

present, a certain distinction; such distinction, however, as does not

at all imply sovereignty.

But we are compelled to have recourse to Genesis, and especially to

chap. xlix., the more because the whole arrangement of the camp has

evidently its foundation in Genesis, and the key to a whole series of

facts in it can be found only in chap. xlix. If we ask why it is that

the tribes of Issachar and Zebulun are subordinate to Judah; that

Reuben, Simeon, and Gad, that Ephraim and Benjamin, that Dan, Asher,

and Naphtali are encamped by each other; it is in Genesis alone that we

are furnished with the answer.

The position which Reuben occupies specially points to Gen. xlix. As

the first-born, he ought to stand at the head; but here we find him

occupying the second place. In Gen. xlix. Jacob says to him, on account

of his guilt, "Thou shalt not excel;" and "the excellency of dignity,

and the excellency of power," which up to that time he had possessed,

are transferred to Judah. Yet Moses has so much regard to his original

dignity, that he places him immediately after Judah; the utterance of

Jacob did not entitle him to assign to him a lower position.

_Further_,--The reason why Dan stands at the head of the sons of the

maids is explained only in Gen. xlix. 16-18, where Dan is specially

distinguished among them, and where it is specially said of him, "Dan

shall judge his people."

If the blessing of Jacob be the production of a later time, then the

order of the encampment, which rests upon it, must necessarily be so

also; but such an idea will at once be discarded by every man of sound

judgment. Even they who refuse to acknowledge Moses as the author of

the Pentateuch, admit that [Pg 87] those regulations which bear

reference only to the condition of things in the wilderness must have

originated from him.

But exactly the same order which Moses in Num. ii. prescribes for the

encampment and setting forth of the tribes, is found again in chap.

vii., where there is described the offerings which the princes of the

tribes offered at the dedication of the altar. Every prince has here a

day to himself, and here also does Judah occupy the first place: "And

he that offered his offering the first day was Nahshon, the son of

Amminadab, of the tribe of Judah."--If any one should venture to set

down this chapter also, with all its details, as a fabrication of later

times, he would only betray an utter absence of all scientific

judgment.

According to Num. x. 14, Judah led the march when they set forth from

Sinai.

Balaam's prophecies, the genuineness of which is proved by so many

weighty arguments (compare the enumeration of them in my work on

Balaam), rest, in general, on the fundamental prophecies of Genesis,

but especially on the blessing of Jacob upon Judah.

In Num. xxiii. 24, Balaam says: "Behold, a people, like a full-grown

lion he rises, and like a lion he lifts himself up. Not shall he lie

down until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain." This

conclusion of Balaam's second prophecy, which at once demolishes

Balak's vain hopes of victory, by pointing out the dreadful power of

Israel, unconquerable by all his enemies, and crushing them all, has an

intentional reference to Gen. xlix. 9,--a reference specially suitable

for such a conclusion. What was there ascribed to Judah is here

transferred to Israel, whose fore-champion Judah is. "Dost thou think,"

says Balaam to Balak, "of being able to overcome them, to stop them in

their course towards the mark held out to them? Behold, according to an

old revelation of their God, they are a people destroying their enemies

with the lion's strength. Therefore, get thee out of their way, lest

such a fate befall thee."

In Num. xxiv. 9, Balaam says, "He couches, he lies as a lion, and as a

great lion, who shall stir him up?" As in the preceding prophecy he had

pointed out Israel's dreadful power which secures to him victory in the

battle, so here he shows how, even after having finished the battle,

this power so intimidates his enemies, that they do not venture to

disturb his peace. [Pg 88] That which Jacob had said of Judah, is, with

intended literality, here transferred to Israel.

In Num. xxiv. 17, we read: "I see him, but not now; I behold him, but

not nigh: a star goeth out of Jacob, and a sceptre riseth out of

Israel, and smiteth the borders of Moab, and destroyeth all the sons of

the tumult."--As the two preceding utterances carry us back to Gen.

xlix. 9, so this one refers to ver. 10, where the sceptre, the emblem

of dominion, denotes, just as it does in this passage, dominion itself,

and where to Judah, and in him to all Israel, the kingdom is promised

which shall at last be consummated in the Shiloh. The meaning of the

words, "A sceptre riseth out of Israel," is explained in ver. 19 by the

words, "Dominion shall come out of Jacob." Jacob has in view the

internal relations among his descendants, and hence he speaks specially

of Judah; but Balaam, in accordance with his object, speaks of Israel

only. Jacob points, at the close, to Shiloh's just and peaceful

dominion; but Balaam, who has to do with the enraged and obstinate

enemies of Israel, points out, from among the effects produced by the

star and sceptre, only the victorious might, and destructive power

which these will display in the conflict with the enemies of Israel.

In the blessing of Moses, Deut. xxxii. 7, it is said of Judah: "Hear,

Lord, the voice of Judah, and bring him unto his people; with his hands

he fights for himself, and be Thou an help to him from his enemies."

Even the remarkable brevity of this utterance points back to the

blessing of Jacob. With this brevity, the length of the blessing upon

Levi, who had been treated too summarily by Jacob, forms a striking

contrast. In the case of Reuben also, the attempt to pour oil into the

wounds then inflicted is visible. The whole announcement is based upon

the supposition that Judah is the fore-champion of Israel; and this

supposition refers us back to Gen. xlix. This appears especially in the

words, "Bring him to his people," on which light is thrown only by Gen.

xlix. It is for his people that Judah engages in foreign wars, and the

Lord, fulfilling the words, "From the prey, my son, thou goest up,"

brings him safely to his people.[16]

[Pg 89]

There can be no doubt that in Shiloh, as the name of a place, there is

a reference to Gen. xlix. 10. They who rightly denied that Shiloh

could, in that passage, be understood as the name of the place, could,

nevertheless, not feel satisfied as long as they allowed a twofold

Shiloh to exist unconnected with each other. The agreement in the very

rare and peculiar form, which nowhere else occurs, cannot well be a

matter of accident.

In the Pentateuch, Shiloh does not occur at all as the name of

a place. In the passage where Shiloh is first mentioned--in Josh.

xvi. 6--another name is beside it, and prefixed to it. According to

that passage, the former name was Taanah. (They who are of opinion that

this place was different from Shiloh, can find no support from the

authority of _Eusebius_; it is not said Taanah by Shiloh, but

Taanath-Shiloh.) After that place had become the seat of the Sanctuary,

the holy name _Shiloh_ took the place of the former natural one. The

reason why this name was given to it is indicated in Josh. xviii. 1:

"And the whole congregation of the children of Israel assembled

together at Shiloh, and set up the tabernacle of the congregation

there; _and the land was subdued before them_." Compare also xxi. 44,

xxii. 4, where it is remarked that at that time "the Lord gave them

rest round about." (See _Bachiene_, _Palestina_ ii. 3, S. 409 ff.) In

the subjection of the country,--in the rest which the Lord had given

them from all round about, they saw an earnest of, and a prelude to,

the obedience of the nations in general, and to the state of perfect

rest which should take place at some future time with the appearing of

Shiloh. Victory, peace! (_Siegfried!_) such was the watchword

corresponding to the elevated consciousness of the people. It is an

elevation quite similar to that which we so often perceive in the

Psalms. "Sometimes there rises the hope that the Gentiles shall, at

some future period, be received among the people of God--a hope based

upon the experience of the Lord's victorious power in the present, in

which faith perceives a pledge of the future subjection of the world's

power under His sceptre. Thus, in vers. 29-32 of Ps. lxviii., which was

composed by David on the occasion of his having, by the help of the

Lord, conquered his most dangerous enemies, the Aramites and Ammonites;

in Ps. xlvii., written on the occasion of Jehoshaphat's victory over

several heathen nations; and in Ps. lxxxvii., composed on the [Pg 90]

ground of the joyful events under Hezekiah, the germ of the hope for

the conversion of the heathen, which had all along lain dormant in the

people, was developed."[17]

After the main power of the Canaanites had been broken by the

expeditions of all Israel under Joshua, Judah begins, at the command of

God, to expel the Canaanites from the territory assigned to him. In

Judges i. 1, 2, we read: "And the children of Israel asked the Lord,

Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites at the beginning to fight

against them? And the Lord said, Judah shall go up; behold, I deliver

the land into his hands." They were concerned to find out the tribe

who, by the decree of God, had been destined to be the fore-champion

for his brethren, and with whom they might be sure of a happy

commencement of the war. The short answer, "Judah shall go up," would

scarcely have been justified, had it not had a foundation in a previous

declaration of God's will. It indicates that Jacob's blessing upon

Judah still possessed its power.

In like manner, in the war against Benjamin, according to divine

direction, Judah goes up first to the battle, forms the vanguard.

Judges xx. 18. The intentional identity of the expression used here and

in chap. i., leads us to the supposition that the words, "Judah shall

go up," have, in both passages, the same foundation.

From both of these events, we are led to expect that Judah may be

called to occupy a still more important position. The announcement of

Jacob regarding Judah, to which the words, "Judah shall go up," refer,

finds, in these events, evidently but a poor beginning of its complete

fulfilment. All, however, which was required in the meantime, was the

indication, by gentle touches, of the position which Judah was called

to occupy in future times. It is just God's way to take time in

carrying out [Pg 91] His elections; all human conditions must first

disappear. After these two intimations, at the end of the time of

Joshua (for Judges i. 1, 2, belongs to that period; the words, "And it

came to pass after the death of Joshua," do not refer to what follows

immediately after, but only to the contents of the book as a whole),

and at the beginning of the time of the Judges, Judah retires out of

view. During the whole period of the Judges, Ephraim held the

supremacy. Under David, the validity of the election suddenly appeared,

and the announcement of Jacob found a glorious fulfilment; but again,

such an one only as pointed to a still more glorious fulfilment in the

future. Before this took place, however,--before Shiloh came, to whom

the obedience of the people was promised, the lamp of Judah was once

more to be extinguished, so that, to human eyes, it should be invisible

for many centuries.

In 1 Chron. xxviii. 4, David says: "And the Lord God of Israel chose me

out of all the house of my father to be king over Israel for ever; for

He hath chosen Judah to be the ruler, and in the house of Judah, the

house of my father, and in the house of my father. He liked me to make

me king over all Israel." David here points to an event by which Judah

was raised to be the ruling tribe; and such an election is nowhere else

to be found than in Gen. xlix. We cannot for a moment suppose that

Judah was elected only in, and with, the election of David. Against

such a supposition militates the fact, that even the election of

David's house is represented in history as being distinct from the

election of David himself; for in 1 Sam. xvi. the decree of God is

first made known, that one of Jesse's sons is to be king; and it is

only afterwards that we are told which of them is to be chosen. The

expression too, "He hath chosen Judah to be the _ruler_," is decisive

against it; for this expression has an evident reference to the sceptre

and lawgiver in Gen. xlix. But if any doubt should still remain, it

would be entirely removed by the parallel passage in 1 Chron. v. 2,

where, in the words, "For Judah was mighty among his brethren, and of

him the prince was to come," there is an allusion, which cannot be

mistaken, to Gen. xlix.

There cannot be a doubt that David gave to his son the name Solomon,

because he hoped that, in his just and peaceful reign, he would be a

type of the Shiloh whom the nation should willingly [Pg 92] obey, just

as, in his own reign, there had been the first grand fulfilment of what

Jacob had prophesied of Judah's lion-courage, and lion-strength,--of

Judah's sceptre and lawgiver. We have here the counterpart of the fact,

that the children of Israel, after the first occupation of the country,

gave to the seat of the sanctuary the name of Shiloh. In the case of

Solomon, both the name and the substance point to Shiloh. With regard

to the _name_, three out of the four letters of which the name שלמה

consists, are common to it with Shiloh. The signification is precisely

the same; so also is the form. In שלמה as well as in שילה we meet with

the very rare case of the ן at the end being thrown off. In _Ewald's_

Grammar, § 163, these two names are, for this reason, pointed out and

placed immediately beside each other. And, with regard to the agreement

in the _substance_, we refer to 1 Chron. xxii. 9, where Nathan says to

David: "Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of

_rest_, and I will give him _rest_ from all his enemies round about;

for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto

Israel in his days." We refer, _further_, to 1 Kings v. 4, where

Solomon says to Hiram: "And now the Lord my God hath given me _rest_

round about; there is neither adversary nor evil obstacle." We refer,

_finally_, to 1 Kings v. 4, 5 (iv. 24, 25): "He had dominion over all

the region on the other side of the river, from Tiphsah even to Gaza,

over all the kings on the other side of the river, and he had peace

from all his servants round about. And Judah and Israel dwelt safely,

every man under his vine and fig-tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all

the days of Solomon."[18]

But if any further doubt should remain as regards the typical relation

in which Solomon stands to Shiloh, it would be removed by Ps. lxxii.,

which discards the very idea that Solomon could be anything more than a

type,--that any hope had ever been entertained of his being himself the

Shiloh. Even David's Messianic Psalms bear witness against such an

opinion. In harmony with the words of our Lord in Matt. xii. 42, "A [Pg

93] greater than Solomon is here," Solomon In this Psalm points beyond

himself. In his own just and peaceful dominion, he beholds a type of

the kingdom of the Prince of Peace, who, by His justice and love, shall

obtain dominion over the world, and whom all kings shall worship, and

all the heathen shall serve. How closely this Psalm is connected with

Gen. xlix. is pointed out by Ezekiel, in a passage of which we shall

immediately treat.

In ver. 9 of Ps. lx., which was composed by David, the words, "Judah

is my lawgiver"--equivalent to, Judah is my, _i.e._, Israel's ruling

tribe--point to Gen. xlix. 10, according to which the lawgiver shall

not depart from Judah; just as ver. 13, "Give us help from the enemy,"

alludes to Deut. xxxiii. 7, where it is said of Judah, "Be thou a help

to him from his enemies," and ver. 14, to Num. xxiv. 18.

That the Prince of Peace spoken of in Is. ix. 5, under whom there is

"no end to the increase of government and of peace," refers to the

Peaceful One, to whom the nations render obedience, will not be doubted

by those who have recognised the connection in which Solomon and Ps.

lxxii. stand to the Shiloh. Nor will such fail to recognise an allusion

to the Shiloh in all the other passages of the Prophets, in which the

Messiah is described as the Author of rest and peace; _e.g._, Mic. iv.

1-4; Is. ii. 2-4; Zech. ix. 10; and the less so, the more clearly it

appears, from passages of Ezekiel, what influence Gen. xlix. exercised

over the prophetic consciousness. Isaiah significantly alludes to it in

other passages also. In chap. xxix. 1, 2, he says: "Woe to Ariel,

(_i.e._, Lion of God), the city where David encamped! Add ye year to

year, let the feasts revolve. And I distress Ariel, and there shall be

heaviness and affliction, but it shall be unto me as Ariel;"--the

meaning of which is: Jerusalem will, in times to come, endure heavy

affliction (through Asshur), but the world-conquering power of the

kingdom of God will manifest itself in her deliverance. The name Ariel

is emphatically placed at the beginning, and, in it, the Prophet gives

to the congregation of God a guarantee for her deliverance. That which

Jacob had said of Judah, who, to him, appeared as the invincible lion

of God, is here applied to Zion, the city where David encamped, the

centre of the kingdom of Judah.

Ezekiel, in his lamentation over the princes of Israel who, [Pg 94] in

his time, were standing just at the brink of the abyss, says in chap.

xix. 2: "Thy mother was a lioness, who lay down among lionesses, and

brought up her whelps among young lions." The mother is the

congregation of Judah. The image of the lion points to the blessing of

Jacob, and its fulfilment in history. "Judah once couched in a

threatening position, endangering his adversaries,[19] in the midst of

lions, _i.e._, among the other powerful kingdoms fond of conquests."

(_Hävernick_.)

In Ezek. xxi. 15, 18 (10-15), the Lord, with an evident allusion to

Gen. xlix. 10, announces the (temporary) destruction of the sceptre of

His son (_i.e._, Israel or Judah), a sceptre which despises all other

sceptres.

In vers. 30-32 (25-27) of the same chapter, Ezekiel foretells, in the

name of the Lord, a complete overturning of all relations, a total

revolution, in which the Davidic kingdom especially is brought down, a

condition of affairs in which rest and safety will not anywhere be

found. This state of things is to continue "until He comes to whom is

the judgment; to Him I will give it."

The reference of this passage to Gen. xlix. cannot be mistaken. It was

recognised, indeed, by the ancient translators; only that most of them

erroneously found in it an explanation instead of an allusion.

Instead of the words, "to whom is the judgment," we should, from the

expression used in Gen. xlix. 10, "Until Shiloh cometh," have expected,

"to whom is peace;" but Ezekiel has filled up Gen. xlix. 10 from Ps.

lxxii. 1-5, where judgment and righteousness appear as the basis of the

peace which the Anointed One shall bring. And _peace_ occupies the

background in Ezekiel also. The advent of Him to whom is the judgment,

in contrast with the injustice and wickedness of those who were

hitherto the bearers of the sceptre, puts an end to strife, confusion,

and destruction. That, in like manner, in Gen. xlix., the _judgment_

occupies the background, we see plainly, from the commentary upon that

passage furnished by Ps. lxxii., as well as from Is. ix. and ii. In Ps.

lxxii., peace comes into consideration, only in so far as it is a

product and consequence of justice, which is an attribute of the King,

and is by him [Pg 95] infused into the life of the nation. In vers.

1-50, the thought is: "God gives righteousness to His King, and in

consequence of it, righteousness and the fear of God become indigenous

to the people, and these again bring peace in their train."

Every word in Ezekiel is taken from Gen. xlix. and Ps. lxxii. From the

latter are taken the words, "judgment," and "I will give it." (Compare

Ps. lxxii. 1: "Give the King thy judgments.") The combination of these

two passages points out their close connection, and indicates that Ps.

lxxii. is to be viewed as a comment. _Onkelos_, who thus translates the

passage in Gen. xlix., "Until Messiah comes, to whom the kingdom is

due, and Him the people shall obey," has very properly only

supplemented the declaration of Jacob from Ezekiel, or, at least, has

taken thence the explanation of Shiloh.

But, at the same time, the words אשר לי המשפט, which, on the basis of

Ps. lxxii., Ezekiel puts in the place of שילה, allude to the letters of

the latter word which forms the initials of the words in Ezekiel. That

ש is the main letter in אשר, is shown by the common abbreviation of it

into ש; and that the י in שילה is unessential, is proved by the

circumstance that the name of the place is often written שלה, and that

even in Gen. xlix. 10, a number of manuscripts have this orthography.

"From the allusion to a prophecy so well known, and so frequently used,

the brevity of the prophecy in Ezekiel is to be explained. It forms a

most powerful conclusion and resting-point for the prophetic

discourse." (_Hävernick_.)

There cannot be any doubt that Ezekiel found in Gen. xlix. 10, the

prophecy of a personal Messiah. They, therefore, who assert that no

such prophecy is contained in our passage, must, at the same time,

assert that Ezekiel misunderstood it; yea, even more, that, even as

early as at that period, a false view of that passage was generally

prevalent. For, the manner in which Ezekiel alludes to it presupposes

that, at that time, the view which found in it a personal Messiah was

generally held. If we observe still further, that Ezekiel connected the

allusion to Ps. lxxii. with that to Gen. xlix., we cannot hesitate for

a moment to admit that he understood the name Shiloh to be Rest-maker,

Peace-maker; only, that on the ground of Ps. lxxii., he mentions the

cause instead of the effect. He had, moreover, the stronger reason for

designating the bearer of peace as the bearer of judgment, [Pg 96]

because, in his time, the want of judgment had evidently produced the

absence of peace, and the general confusion, misery, and destruction.

"As in Gen. xlix. the Patriarch sees a light rising at a far distance,

and spreading its brightness over the darkness of centuries, so in

Ezekiel also, the same ray of glorious hope lightens through the dark

night of confusion and unutterable misery in which he sees himself

enveloped."

_Kurtz_, S. 266, has altogether denied the connection of the passage in

Ezekiel with Gen. xlix. These two passages are, as he thinks,

altogether different, inasmuch as Ezekiel announces destruction and

desolation which shall continue until He comes to whom is the judgment,

while Gen. xlix., when understood of a personal Messiah, announces

dominion which shall continue until Shiloh comes. But Ezekiel does not

contradict Gen. xlix. 10. He gives only the supplement necessary for

preventing this passage from being considered as a permission to sin,

and from becoming a support of false security. Ezekiel, too, assumes a

continuation of the dominion. If that were not concealed behind the

destruction, how could "the coming of Him to whom is the judgment" be

pointed out as the limit of that destruction? The tree indeed is cut

down, but the root remains in its full vigour.

When Jacob announces that the sceptre shall not depart until Shiloh,

the prince of peace, cometh, he can thereby mean only that it would not

depart _definitively_; for, otherwise, he would have belied his own

experience. From the way by which the Lord had led him, he had

sufficiently learnt that God's promises to sinful men must be taken

_cum grano salis_; that they never exclude the visitation of the elect

on account of their sins, and that it is only in the end that God will

bring all to a glorious fulfilment. When he went to Mesopotamia, God

had said to him, "I am with thee, and I will keep thee in all places

whither thou goest," Gen. xxviii. 15; and yet the deceit which he had

practised upon his father and brother was recompensed to him there by

the deceit of Laban, and he was obliged to say, "In the day the drought

consumed me, and the frost by night, and my sleep departed from mine

eyes," Gen. xxxi. 40. When he came from the land of the two rivers, God

blessed him and gave him the honourable name of Israel, Gen. xxxii.;

and yet [Pg 97] he had soon thereafter to experience grievous distress

on account of Dinah and Joseph; and in chap. xxxvii. 34, 35, we are

told concerning him: "And Jacob rent his clothes, and put sackcloth

upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days. And all his sons and

all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be

comforted, and he said, I shall go down into the grave unto my son in

sorrow." In the kingdom of God there are no other promises than such as

resemble those rivers which flow alternately above and below ground,

since it is certain that all the subjects of the promises are affected

by sin.

Ezekiel xliii. 15 likewise refers to the blessing of Jacob upon Judah.

The altar for the burnt-offerings in the new temple is first called

_Harel_ = the mountain of God, and afterwards _Ariel_ = the Lion of

God,--indicating that what had been promised to Judah in Gen. xlix.,

viz., the Lion's nature and invincible power, victorious over all

enemies, has its root in the altar,--in the circumstance that the

people of God are a people whose sins are forgiven, who dedicate

themselves to God, and give Him thanks and praise.

A very remarkable reference to Gen. xlix. meets us at the very

threshold of the New Testament. In Luke ii. 13, 14, the heavenly host

praise God, saying: "Glory be to God in the highest, and on earth

peace." The words, "glory" or "praise be to God," are an allusion to

Judah, and to the glorious things foretold in Gen. xlix. of him who

centres in Christ. Christ is the true Judah,--He by whom God is

glorified, John xiv. 13. The words, "on earth peace," contain the

explanation of the name Shiloh, the first name under which the Saviour

is celebrated in the Old Testament.

As the words with which the Saviour is first introduced into the world

allude to Gen. xlix., so the Lord Himself, before His departure,

alludes to this fundamental Messianic prophecy in John xiv. 27: "Peace

I leave with you. My peace I give unto you;" and in xvi. 33: "These

things I have spoken unto you, that in Me ye might have peace." So

also, after His resurrection, Christ says, in the circle of His

disciples, "Peace be unto you," John xx. 19, 21, 26.

The last book of the entire Holy Scripture--the Apocalypse [Pg

98]--likewise points back to the remarkable prophecy of Christ at the

close of its first book. In Rev. v. 5, we read: "And one of the elders

saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the

Root of David, hath prevailed." "The designation of Christ as the Lion

of the tribe of Judah, rests on Gen. xlix. 9. Judah appears there as a

lion, in order to denote his warlike and victorious powers. But Judah

himself, according to the blessing of dying Jacob, is at some future

period to centre in the Messiah. As a type, he had formerly centred

already in David, in whom the lion-nature of the tribe of Judah was

manifested." This allusion shows that even what Is said in vers. 8, 9,

found its complete fulfilment only in Christ, and that vers. 8, 9, are

parallel to the entire ver. 10, and not to its first half only.

_Bengel_ remarks on Rev. v. 6: "The elder had pointed John to a Lion,

and yet John beheld a Lamb. The Lord Jesus is called a Lion only once

in this prophecy, and that, at the very beginning, before the

appellation Lamb appears. This indicates that as often as the Lamb is

remembered, we should also remember Him as the Lion of the tribe of

Judah."

As the designation of Christ as the Lion refers to what, in the

blessing of Jacob, is said of the lion-nature of the tribe of Judah,

so, in the "Lamb"--the emblem of innocence, justice, silent patience

and gentleness--the name Shiloh is embodied.

Footnote 1: _Luther_ says: "No doubt the sons of Jacob will have waited

with anxious desire, and with weeping and groaning, for what their

father had yet to say; for, after having heard curses so hard and

severe, they were very much confounded and afraid. And Judah, too, will

certainly not have been able to refrain from weeping, and will have

been afraid, when thinking of what should now become of him. There will

have arisen in his heart very sad recollections of his sins, of his

whoredom with Thamar, and of the advice which he had given to sell

Joseph. Certainly, I should have died with sorrow and tears. But there

soon follow a fine dew and a lovely balm, refreshing the heart again."

Footnote 2: _Bochart_ says: "When the whelp of a lion is weaned, and

begins to go out for prey, and to seek his own food without the help of

his mother, he then ceases to be a גור, and is called a כפיר." Deut.

xxxiii. 22 must, therefore, not be translated, "Dan is a lion's whelp

leaping from Bashan"--as if the גור אריה were already active--but thus,

"Dan is a lion's whelp; he shall leap (_i.e._, after he shall have

grown up) from Bashan." Dan is in that place styled a lion's whelp,

just as is Judah in Gen. xlix. 9, because, as yet, he is only a

candidate for future victories.

Footnote 3: The LXX. translate, ἐκ βλαστοῦ υἱέ μου ἀνέβης, "from a shoot,

my son, thou hast grown up." They explain טרף by an inappropriate

reference to Ezek. xvii. 9, where it is used of a fresh green leaf.

Footnote 4: Calvin says: "This dignity is bestowed upon Judah only with

a view to benefit the whole of the people."

Footnote 5: In the first edition of this work, the author had likewise

maintained that view.

Footnote 6: It was this difficulty which led _Grotius_ to adopt the

feeble exposition, "That teachers out of Judah's posterity would lead

the people until the times of the Messiah, who would be the highest

leader and commander of Jews and Gentiles."

Footnote 7: Calvin says: "If any one should object, that the words of

Jacob convey a different meaning, we would answer him, that whatever

promises God gave concerning the outward condition of the Church, they

were so far limited that God might, in the meantime, exercise His

judgments in the punishment of men's sins, and prove the faith of His

people. And indeed it was not a light trial when, at the third

succession, the tribe of Judah was deprived of the greater part of his

territory. A more severe one followed when, before the eyes of the

father, the sons of the king were slain, his own eyes put out, and

himself was carried to Babylon, and given over to servitude and exile

along with the whole royal family. But the heaviest trial of all came,

when the people returned to their land, and were so far from seeing

their expectations fulfilled, that they were, on the contrary,

subjected to a sad dispersion. But even then, the saints beheld with

the eye of faith the sceptre hidden under ground; neither did their

hearts fail, nor their courage give way, so that they desisted not from

continuing their course."

Footnote 8: Many expositors, following the LXX. (ἐκ τῶν μηρῶν αὐτοῦ),

the _Vulgate_ (_de femore ejus_), and the Chaldee Paraphrast,

understand this expression as a designation of origin and production.

But in that case, we must assume a very hard ellipsis, viz., "he who is

to proceed." Moreover, this explanation is destructive of the

parallelism, according to which, "from between his feet" must

correspond with "from Judah."

Footnote 9: The signification, "expectation," given to this word by the

LXX. (καὶ αὐτὸς προσδοκία ἐθνῶν), _Jerome_, and other translators, is

founded upon the erroneous derivation of the word from קוה. In the

other passage (Prov. xxx. 17), where the LXX. translate, "the age of

his mother," they have confounded the root יקה with קהה, "to be

blunted."

Footnote 10: _Gousset_ says: The word can signify something good only,

on account of the passage, Prov. xxx. 17, namely, something which

adorns the relation of the son to his mother, the despising of which is

a crime on the part of the son, and which deserves that he should be

sent εἰς κόρακας. And not less so from its being used in Gen. xlix. 10

in reference to the Shiloh, where, thereby, not one or a few, but all

the nations without exception, are bound to Him by a tie similar to

that which exists betwixt mother and son.

Footnote 11: Thus Luther says: "This sceptre of Judah shall continue,

and shall not be taken from him, till the hero come; but when He comes,

then the sceptre also shall depart. The kingdom or sceptre has fallen;

the Jews are scattered throughout the whole world, and, therefore, the

Messiah has certainly come; for, at His appearing, the sceptre should

be taken from Judah."

Footnote 12: In the volume containing the _Dissertations on the

Genuineness of Daniel_, _etc._ Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.

Footnote 13: _Delitzsch_ (who had formerly been a defender of the

explanation of a personal Messiah) differs, in his Commentary on

Genesis, from this view, only in so far, that he supposes that, while

Judah's dominion over the tribes comes to an end in Shiloh, his

dominion over the nations dates from that period. But this explanation

must be objected to on the ground, that the dominion bestowed upon

Judah is not merely a dominion over the tribes, but over the world.

Footnote 14: _Knobel_ knows of no other expedient by which to escape

from the force of this argument, than by changing the punctuation. He

proposes to read שֶׁלֶה, a word which nowhere occurs.

Footnote 15: The rationalistic objection, that at so great an age, and

on the brink of the grave, man is not wont to compose poems, may be

refuted by a reference to the history of the ancient Arabic poetry.

The Arabic poets before the time of Mohammed often recited long

poems extempore,--so natural to them was poetry. (Compare _Tharaphæ

Moallakah_, ed. _Reiske_, p. xl.; _Antaræ Moallakah_, ed. _Menil._ p.

18.) The poet _Lebid_, who attained to the age of 157 years (compare

_Reiske prolegg. ad Thar. Moall._ p. xxx.; _De Sacy_, _Memoires de

l'Academie des inscriptions_, p. 403 ff.), composed a poem when he was

dying; compare _Herbelot Bibl. Or._ p. 513. The poet _Hareth_ was

135 years old when he recited extempore his _Moallakah_, which is

still extant; compare _Reiske_ l.c. The objection, too, that it is

inconceivable how the blessing spoken by Jacob could have been handed

down _verbatim_ to Moses, finds its best refutation in the history of

Arabic poetry. The art of writing was introduced among the Arabs only a

short time before Mohammed. (Compare _de Sacy_ l.c. pp. 306, 348;

_Amrulkeisi Moall._ ed. _Hengstenberg_, p. 3.) Up to that time, even

the longest poems, of which some consisted of more than a hundred

verses, were preserved by mere oral tradition (compare _Nuweiri_ in

_Rosenmüller_, _Zoheiri Moall._ p. 11); and the internal condition of

those which have been preserved to us bears the best testimony to their

having been faithfully handed down. But in the case before us,

something altogether different from a poem was concerned.

Footnote 16: _Onkelos_ paraphrases these words very correctly, thus:

"Hear, O Lord, the prayers of Judah when he goes out to war, and bring

him safely back to his people."

Footnote 17: It is probable also, that in the passage, Josh. xvi. 6,

where Shiloh occurs for the first time as the name of a place, and

which we have already discussed, there is not, as we assumed, a

connection of the former name with the latter, but the complete

appellation, of which the latter--Shiloh--is only an abbreviation. From

the well ascertained and common signification of the verb אנה, we are

entitled to explain Taanath-Shiloh: "the futurity, or the appearance of

Shiloh." Shiloh shall come! Such was the watchword at that time. The

word תאנה would then correspond to the יבא of the fundamental passage.

Footnote 18: That there exists a connection between Shiloh and Solomon

has often been guessed at and expressed; but expositors have not

succeeded well in determining it more closely. The Samarit. Arab.

Translation here says expressly: "Until Solomon cometh." (Comp. _Lib.

Genes. sec. Arab. Pent._ _Samarit. vers. ed. Kuenen_. _Leyden_, 51.)

Footnote 19: _Kimchi_ says: "As long as the Jews were doing the will of

God, they could lie down like the lion without fear."

BALAAM'S PROPHECY.

(Numb. xxiv. 17-19.)

Carried by the Spirit into the far distant future, Balaam sees here how

a star goeth out of Jacob and a sceptre riseth out of Israel, and how

this sceptre smiteth Moab, by whose enmity the Seer had been brought

from a distant region for the destruction of Israel. And not Moab only

shall be smitten, but its southern neighbour, Edom, too shall be

subdued, whose hatred against Israel had already been prefigured in its

ancestor, and had now begun to display Itself; and In general, all the

enemies of the [Pg 99] people of God shall be cast down to the ground

by the Ruler out of Jacob.

Ver. 17. "_I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not nigh. A star

goeth out of Jacob, and a sceptre riseth out of Israel, and smiteth

the borders of Moab, and destroyeth all the sons of the tumult._

Ver. 18. _And Edom shall be a possession, and Seir shall be a

possession--his enemies, and Israel acquireth might._ Ver. 19. _And a

Ruler shall come out of Jacob, and destroyeth what remaineth out of

the city._"

The star is, in Scripture, the symbol of the splendour of power. The

sceptre leads us back to Gen. xlix. 10; and, in general, the

announcements of Balaam have, throughout, the promises and hopes of the

Patriarchs for their foundation. As in the fundamental passage, so here

also, the sceptre, the symbol of dominion, stands for dominion itself.

The substance of the two figurative expressions is briefly stated in

ver. 19, in the words, "They shall rule out of Jacob," which are

tantamount to, "A Ruler shall come out of Jacob."

A difference of opinion exists regarding the glorious King who is here

announced. From the earliest times, the Jews understood thereby the

Messiah, either exclusively, or, at least, principally, so as to

admit of a secondary reference to David. _Onkelos_ translates: "When a

King shall rise out of Jacob, and out of Israel Messiah shall be

anointed;"--_Jonathan_: "When a valiant King shall rise out of the

house of Jacob, and out of Israel, Messiah, and a strong Sceptre shall

be anointed." The Book of Sohar remarks on the words, "I see him, but

now:" "This was in part fulfilled at that time; it will be completely

fulfilled in the days of Messiah." (Compare the passages in _Jos. de_

_Voisin_, in the _Prooem._ on _R. Martini Pugio fid._ p. 68; _R.

Martini_ iii. 3, c. 11; _Schöttgen_, "_Jesus Messias_," S. 151.) How

widely this opinion was spread among the Jews, is sufficiently apparent

from the circumstance, that the renowned pseudo-Messiah in the time of

Hadrian adopted, with reference to the passage under review, the

surname _Barcochba_, _i.e._, Son of the Star.--From the Jews, this

interpretation very soon passed over to the Christians, who rightly

found a warrant for it in the narrative of the star of the wise

men from the East. _Cyril_ of Jerusalem defended the Messianic

interpretation against _Julian_. (Compare _Julian_, ed. _Spanh._

p. 263 c. See other passages [Pg 100] from the fathers of the

Church in _Calov._) According to _Theodoret_ (Quest. 44 in Numb.),

there were, indeed, some to whom "Balaam appeared to have foretold

nothing concerning our Saviour;" but this opinion was rejected as

profane. The Messianic interpretation has, in a narrower and wider

sense--_i.e._, as referring in the first instance to David, but in the

highest and proper sense to Christ--become the prevailing one in the

Evangelical Church also. It was defended even by such interpreters as

_Calvin_ and _Clericus_, who, as to other passages, differed from the

prevailing Messianic interpretation. (Compare especially _Mieg_, _de

Stella et Sceptro Baleamitico_ in the _Thes. Nov._ p. 423 sqq., and

_Boullier_, _Dissert. Syll. Amsterdam_ 1750, _Diss._ I.) On the other

hand, the Messianic interpretation found a zealous and ingenious

opponent, first in _Verschnir_ in the _Bibl. Brem. nova_, reprinted

in his _Opusc._ He was joined by the rationalistic interpreters, who

maintained an exclusive reference to David. But _Rosenmüller_ and

_Baumgarten-Crusius_ (bibl. Theol. S. 369) returned to the Messianic

interpretation.

The question at issue is chiefly this:--Whether by the star and sceptre

some single Israelitish king is designated, or rather, an ideal

person--the personified Israelitish kingdom. The latter view I proved,

in my work on Balaam, to be the correct one, for the following

reasons:--1. The reference to a certain Israelitish king is against the

analogy of the other prophecies of the Pentateuch. A single person,

especially a single king of future time, is nowhere announced in

it,--except the Messiah, whose announcement, however, is different from

that of David. But, on the other hand, the rise of the _kingdom_ in

Israel is announced as early as in the promise to the Patriarchs, on

which all of Balaam's declarations rest throughout. It is only to this

that the words, "A star goeth out of Jacob, and a sceptre riseth out of

Israel," can refer,--according to the analogy of Gen. xvii. 6: "Kings

shall come out of thee;" ver. 16: "And she shall become nations,

_kings_ of people shall be of her;" and xxxv. 11: "Kings shall come out

of thy loins." 2. The reference to a single king would be against the

_analogy_ of _Balaam's_ prophecies, inasmuch as these nowhere refer to

a single individual. 3. The _sceptre_ does not, in itself, lead us to

think of an individual, since it does not designate a ruler, but

dominion in general. But that which especially militates against the

reference [Pg 101] to an individual is the comparison with the

fundamental passage, Gen. xlix. 10, in which Judah, and in him all

Israel, does not receive the promise of a single king, but of the

kingdom which shall at last be consummated in the Shiloh. 4. In favour

of this general interpretation is also ver. 19, in which the words,

"And dominion shall come out of Jacob," or literally, "They shall rule

out of Jacob," may be considered as just a commentary on the words, "A

sceptre riseth out of Israel." So also is ver. 7, "More elevated than

Agag be his king," where the king of Israel is an _ideal_ person--the

personification of the kingdom. Agag, _i.e._, the fiery one, is not a

proper name, but a surname of all Amalekite kings. The Amalekite

kingdom--which here represents the world's power, opposed to the

kingdom of God, because at the time of the Seer the Amalekites were the

most powerful among the people who were hostile to Israel (compare ver.

20, where they are called the _beginning_ of the heathen nations,

_i.e._, the most powerful of them)--is here put in opposition to the

Israelitish kingdom, and the latter will show itself superior to all

worldly power.

The arguments which thus prove the reference of Balaam's prophecy to

an Israelitish kingdom, disprove also, not only the exclusive reference

to David, but also the exclusive reference to Christ; although they

imply at the same time that the prophecy, in its final reference, has

Christ for its subject. The Israelitish kingdom, indeed, attained to

the full height of its destiny only in and with the Messiah; without

the Messiah, the Israelitish kingdom is a trunk without a head. The

prophecy thus centres in Christ. We are, however, not entitled to

suppose that the prophet himself was not aware of this; on the

contrary, we cannot but assume that Balaam must have known it. It is

with intention that he does not speak of a plurality of Israelitish

kings. The Israelitish kingdom, on the contrary, appears to him in the

from of an _ideal_ king, because he knows that, at some period, it will

find Its full realization in the person of one king. For the same

reason, Moses also describes the prophetic order, in the first

instance, as an _ideal_ prophet. That Balaam knew that the Israelitish

kingdom would centre in the Messiah, is shown by the reference which

his prophecy has to that of dying Jacob, in Gen. xlix. 10, from which

the figure of the sceptre is borrowed. According to the latter passage,

the whole dignity of Judah as [Pg 102] ruler and lord over the whole

heathen world is to centre in one elevated individual--the Shiloh. As

to the letter, Balaam's prophecy falls short of the prophecy to which

it refers, and on which it is founded, in two points. Instead of Judah,

it mentions Israel; and instead of the invincible kingdom which is at

last to centre in the Messiah, it represents the invincible kingdom

only in general. But in both cases, this generality is easily accounted

for by the _external_ direction of Balaam's prophecy: a more definite

tendency was of importance only for those who were _within_. We are

fully entitled to suppose that Balaam himself knew what was contained

in the fundamental passage. To the same result we are led by the

contents of the prophecy itself. Balaam here brings into view an

Israelitish kingdom, all-powerful on earth, and raised absolutely above

the world's power. He does not stop with the victory over Moab and

Edom--even this victory appears to him as an absolute and lasting one,

and hence, essentially different from the temporary submission to

David--but, from the particular, which only serves to exemplify the

idea in reference to the historical relations existing at the present,

he passes on, in ver. 19, to the general, the total overthrow of the

whole hostile world's power. Indeed, such a progress is probably found

even in ver. 17 itself. If at the close of it we read, "And destroyeth

all the sons of the tumult," the word _all_, which is wanting in Jer.

xlviii. 45, indicates that by the sons of the tumult we are to

understand not only the Moabites, but the whole _species_ to which they

belonged, the whole heathen world, whose nature is restlessness, desire

for strife, and the spirit of conquest,--the opposites of meekness and

gentleness, which are the virtues characteristic of the subjects of the

kingdom of God. In ver. 18, the particular is likewise followed by the

general. But while ver. 17 and 18 contain, in each of the two

particular features, a previous short allusion to the general, ver. 19

most expressly and intentionally reduces the particular to the general.

The absolute elevation above the world's power, attributed by Balaam to

the Israelitish kingdom, leads not only beyond the idea of a single

king of the ordinary stamp, but also beyond that of the entire ordinary

kingdom.

The objections urged against the Messianic interpretation are based

either on a misunderstanding, or upon a superficial view of the

passage. They who maintain that the judging activity of [Pg 103] the

Messiah is here brought forward in a manner too one-sided, forget that

this part only could here be treated of. As Balaam's discourse

formed the answer to Balak's message--"Come, curse me this people;

peradventure we shall prevail to smite them and drive them out of the

land,"--its natural subject was: _Israel's position towards their

enemies_; and Balaam had expressly stated, in ver. 14, that he would

treat of that subject. Balaam had to do with an enemy of Israel, and

his chief aim was to represent to him the vanity of all his hostile

efforts. The partial view arises, therefore, from the nature of the

case; and only _in that case_ could doubts arise as to the ultimate

reference to the Messiah, if the other view were altogether _denied_.

But such is by no means the case; for the words in ver. 9, "Blessed is

he that blesseth thee," distinctly point it out. They who object to the

Messianic interpretation on the ground that, at the time of Christ, the

Moabites had disappeared from the stage of history, overlook the

circumstance, that the Moabites here, as well as in Is. xi., where the

complete destruction of Moab is likewise assigned to the times of the

Messiah, are viewed only in their character as enemies to the

congregation of God. If the prophecy were fulfilled upon the Moabites,

even at the time when they still existed as a nation, not as Moabites,

but as the enemies of the people of God; then the limit of their

national existence cannot be the limit of the fulfilment of the

prophecy. A case quite analogous is found in Mic. v. 4, 5, where the

prophet characterizes the enemies of the kingdom of God at the time of

the Messiah by the name of Asshur, although it appears, from other

passages, that he distinctly knew that Asshur must, long ere that time,

have disappeared from the scene of history.

The Messianic character of the prophecy being thus established, it will

be impossible to misunderstand the internal relation between the star

of Balaam and the star of the wise men from the East. The star of

Balaam is the emblem of the kingdom which will rise in Israel. The star

of the Magi is the symbol of the Ruler in whom the kingly power appears

concentrated. The appearance of the star embodying the image of the

prophet, indicates that the last and highest fulfilment of his

prophecies is now to take place.

[Pg 104]

MOSES' PROMISE OF THE PROPHET.

(Deut. xviii. 15-19.)

Ver. 15. "_A prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like

unto me, Jehovah thy God will raise up: unto him ye shall hearken._

Ver. 16. _According to all that thou desiredst of Jehovah thy God in

Horeb, in the day of the assembly, when thou didst say, I will not hear

any farther the voice of Jehovah my God, and will not see this great

fire any more, that I die not._ Ver. 17. _Then Jehovah said unto me.

They have well spoken._ Ver. 18. _A prophet I will raise them up from

among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put My words into his

mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him._ Ver.

19. _And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My

words which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him._"

If we leave out of view the unfortunate attempts of those who would

understand by the prophet here promised, either Joshua--as is done

by _Abenezra_, _Bechai_, and _von Ammon_ (_Christol_. S. 29)--or

Jeremiah--as is the case in _Baal Hatturim_ and _Jalkut_ out of the

book _Pesikta_, and in _Abarbanel_--we may reduce the expositions of

this passage to three classes. 1. Several consider the "prophet"

as a collective noun, and understand thereby the prophets of all

times. Such was the opinion of _Origen_ (_c. Celsum_ i. 9, § 5,

_Mosh._), of the Arabic translator, and of most of the modern Jewish

interpreters,--especially _Kimchi_, _Alshech_, and _Lipman_ (_Nizachon_

137); while _Abenezra_ and _Bechai_ conjoin this view with that

according to which Jeremiah is meant. Among recent expositors, it is

defended by _Rosenmüller_, _Vater_, _Baumgarten-Crusius_ (_Bibl.

Theol._ S. 369), and others. 2. Some see in it an exclusive reference

to Christ,--a view which has been held by most interpreters in the

Christian Church, and from the earliest times. It is found as early as

in _Justin Martyr_, _Tertullian_, _Athanasius_, _Eusebius_ (_Demonstr._

iii. 2, ix. 11), _Lactantius_ (iv. 17), _Augustine_ (_c. Faustum_, xvi.

c. 15, 18, 19), and _Isidore_ of _Pelusium_ (c. iii. ep. 49). It was

held by _Luther_ (t. 3. _Jen. Lat._ f. 123), became the prevailing one

in the Lutheran Church, and was [Pg 105] approved of by most of the

Reformed interpreters. Among its earliest defenders, the most eminent

are _Deyling_ (_Misc._ ii. 175), _Frischmuth_ (in the _Thesaurus

theol.-philol._ i. 354), and _Hasaeus_ (in the _Thes. theol.-philol._

nov. i. S. 439.) In recent times it has been defended by _Pareau_ (in

the _Inst. interpr. V. T._ p. 506), by _Knapp_ (_Dogm._ ii. 138). 3.

Others have steered a middle course, inasmuch as they consider the

"prophet" to be a collective noun, but, at the same time, maintain that

only by the mission of Christ, in whom the idea of the prophetic order

was perfectly realized, the promise was completely fulfilled. Thus did

_Nicolaus de Lyra_, _Calvin_, several Roman Catholic interpreters,

_Grotius_, _Clericus_, and others.

In favour of the Messianic interpretation, the authority of tradition

has been, first of all, appealed to. It is true that modern Jewish

interpreters differ from it; but this has been the result of polemical

considerations alone. It can be satisfactorily proved that the

Messianic interpretation was the prevailing one among the older Jews. 1

Mac. xiv. 41--"Also that the Jews and priests resolved that Simon

should be commander and high priest for ever, until a _credible

prophet_ should arise,"--has been frequently appealed to in proof of

this, but erroneously. For, that by the "credible prophet," _i.e._, one

sufficiently attested by miracles or fulfilled prophecies, we are not

to understand the prophet promised by Moses (as was done by Luther, and

many older expositors who followed him), is shown, partly by the

absence of the article, and partly by the circumstance that a

_credible_ prophet is spoken of. The sense is rather this: Simon and

his family should continue to hold the highest dignity until God

Himself should make another arrangement by a future prophet, as there

was none at that time (comp. Ps. lxxiv. 9: "There is no more any

prophet"), and thus put an end to a state of things which, on the one

hand, was in contradiction to the law, and, on the other, to the

promise,--a state of things unto which they had been led by the force

of circumstances, and which could, at all events, be only a provisional

one. (Compare _J. D. Michaelis_ on that passage.) It is not on the

passage under review that the expectation of a prophet there rests, but

rather on Mal. iii. 1, 23, where a prophet is promised as the precursor

of the Messiah. But the New Testament furnishes sufficient materials

for proving the [Pg 106] Messianic interpretation. The very manner in

which Peter and Stephen quote this passage shows that the Messianic

interpretation was, at that time, the prevailing one. They do not deem

it at all necessary to prove it; they proceed on the supposition of its

being universally acknowledged. It was, no doubt, chiefly our passage

which Philip had in view when, in John i. 46, he said to Nathanael: ὃν

ἔγραψε Μωϋσῆς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ εὑρήκαμεν, Ἰησοῦν. For, besides the passage

under consideration, there is only one other personal Messianic

prophecy in the Pentateuch, namely, Gen. xlix. 10; and the marks of the

Shiloh did not so distinctly appear in Jesus, as did those of the

Prophet. The mention of the person of Moses[1] (which in Gen. xlix. 10

is less concerned), and of the law, clearly point to the passage under

review. After the feeding of the five thousand, the people say, in John

vi. 14: Ὅτι οὗτος ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ προφήτης, ὁ ἐρχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον.

The Messianic interpretation was, accordingly, not peculiar to a few

learned men, but to the whole people. Even with the Samaritans the

Messianic explanation was the prevailing one,--based, no doubt, upon

the tradition which had come to them from the Jews. The Samaritan woman

says, in John iv. 25: οἶδα ὅτι Μεσσίας ἔρχεται, ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός· ὅταν

ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν πάντα. Now, as the Samaritans acknowledged

only the Pentateuch, there is no other passage than that under review

from which the idea of the Messiah as a divinely enlightened teacher,

which is here expressed, could have been derived. The last words agree

in a remarkable manner with Deut. xviii. 18: "And he shall speak unto

them all that I shall command him." That too great weight, however,

must not be attached to tradition, is shown by John i. 21, and vii. 40,

41; for these passages clearly prove that there were also many who

thought it possible that Deut. xviii. contained not only the

announcement of the Messiah, but of some distinguished prophet also,

besides Him, who should be His precursor or companion. At the same

time, we must not overlook the circumstance that, in both passages, the

people are at a loss, and are thereby induced to deviate from the

prevailing [Pg 107] opinion. Their uncertainty and wavering, however,

is only about the person. In this they agree, notwithstanding, that in

Deut. xviii. they find the announcement of one distinguished person.

But the Messianic interpretation may appeal, with still greater

confidence, to the direct evidence of the New Testament. The

declaration of the Lord in John v. 45-47 is here to be noticed above

all: Μὴ δοκεῖτε ὅτι ἐγὼ κατηγορήσω ὑμῶν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα· ἔστιν ὁ

κατηγορῶν ὑμῶν, Μωϋσῆς, εἰς ὃν ὑμεῖς ἠλπίκατε. Εἰ γὰρ ἐπιστεύετε Μωϋσῇ,

ἐπιστεύετε ἂν ἐμοί· περὶ γὰρ ἐμοῦ ἐκεῖνος ἔγραψεν. Εἰ δὲ τοῖς ἐκείνου

γράμμασιν οὐ πιστεύετε, πῶς τοῖς ἐμοῖς ῥήμασι πιστεύσετε;--It is clear

that the Lord must here have had in view a distinct passage of the

Pentateuch,--a clear and definite declaration of Moses. Dexterous

explanations (_Bengel_: _Nunquam non_; _Tholuck_: The prophetical and

typical element implied in the whole form of worship) are of no

apologetic value, and it is not possible summarily, on such grounds, to

call the enemies before the judgment-seat of God. It was not enough to

allude, in a way so general, to what could not be at once perceptible;

greater distinctness and particularity would have been required. But if

a single declaration--a direct Messianic prophecy--form the question at

issue, our passage only can be meant; for it is the only prophecy of

Christ which Moses, on whose person great stress is laid, uttered in

his own name. Moreover, Christ would more readily expect that the Jews

would acknowledge our prophecy to be fulfilled in Him, than the

prophecy in Gen. xlix., which refers rather to the Messiah in glory.

The preceding words of Jesus likewise contain references to the passage

now under consideration. Ver. 38--"And ye have not His word abiding in

you; for whom He hath sent, Him ye believe not,"--contains an allusion

to Deut. xviii. 18: "And I will put My words into his mouth, and

he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him;" so that

whosoever rejects the Ambassador of God, rejects His word at the

same time. John v. 43--"I am come in My Father's name, and ye receive

Me not,"--acquires both its significance and earnestness from its

reference to ver. 19 of our passage: "Whosoever will not hearken unto

My words, which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him."

_Further_,--The point at issue in this discourse of Christ is an

accusation of the Jews against Christ, [Pg 108] that He had violated

the Mosaic law. (Compare John v. 10-16, and v. 18, which states the

second apparent violation of the law.) It was thus highly appropriate

that Jesus should throw back upon the Jews the charge which they

brought against Him, and should prove to them that it was just they who

were in fatal opposition to the enactments of the Mosaic law.

_Finally_,--It is this same Moses in whom they trusted, whom they

considered as their patron, and whom to please the more, they were so

zealous for his law against Jesus,--it is this same Moses whom Jesus

represents as their accuser. And he is such an accuser as renders every

other superfluous, so that Christ did not need specially to come

forward in such a character. The accusation of Moses must, then,

according to this declaration, and in accordance with what follows,

refer to the cause of Christ. But the passage under review is

the only Messianic prophecy of a _threatening character_ which the

Pentateuch contains,--the only one in which divine judgments are

threatened to the despisers of the Messiah,--the only Mosaic foundation

for the denunciation: "Woe to the people that despiseth thee." If it be

denied that Christ refers to it,--if its Messianic character be not

acknowledged, the first words of Christ are destitute of foundation.

But if it be thus undeniable that Christ declared Himself to be the

prophet of our passage, it must be considered an indirect attack upon

His divinity to say, as _Dr Lücke_ does, that Christ did so by way of

"adaptation to the interpretation of that time." It is just this appeal

which forms the pith of Christ's discourse; it is the real death-blow

inflicted by Him upon His adversaries. If this blow was a mere feint,

His honour is endangered,--which may God forbid!--The Lord further

marks Himself out as the prophet announced by Moses, and that, too, in

a very distinct manner, in John xii. 48-50,--a passage which is

evidently based upon vers. 18 and 19 of the text under review. (Compare

John xiv. 24-31.)--To this we may add, further, that, according to St

Luke xxiv. 44, the Lord Himself explains to His disciples the

prophecies in the Pentateuch concerning Him; and we cannot well expect

that Christ should have made no reference to a passage which one of the

Apostles points out as being of greater weight than all others. This is

done by Peter in Acts iii. 22, 23. The manner in which he quotes it,

entirely excludes the notion that Moses was [Pg 109] speaking of

Christ, only in so far as He belonged to the collective body of the

prophets. Peter says expressly, that Moses and the later prophets

foretold τὰς ἡμέρας ταύτας; and the words, τοῦ προφήτου ἐκείνου, show

that he did not understand the singular in a collective sense. The

circumstance that Stephen, in Acts vii. 37, likewise refers the passage

to Christ, would not be, in itself, conclusive, because Stephen's case

is different from that of the Apostles. But we must not overlook the

passage Matt. xvii. 5, according to which, at Christ's transfiguration,

a voice was heard from heaven which said: οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ

ἀγαπητὸς, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα· αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε. As the first part of this

declaration is taken from the Messianic prediction in Is. xlii., so is

the second from the passage under consideration; and, by this use of

its words, the sense is clearly shown. It is a very significant fact,

that our passage is thus connected just with Is. xlii.--the first

prophetic announcement in which it is specially resumed, and in which

the prophetic order itself is the proclaimer of _the_ Prophet. And it

is not less significant that this reference to our text, with which all

the other announcements by Isaiah concerning the Great Prophet to come

are so immediately connected, should precede chapters xlix., l., and

lxi. It thus serves as a commentary upon the declaration of Moses. The

beginning and the outlines receive light from the progress and

completion.

He, however, who believes in Christ, will, after these details, expect

that internal reasons also should prove the reference to Christ; and

this expectation is fully confirmed.

That Moses did not intend by the word נביא "prophet," to designate a

collective body merely, but that he had at least some special

individual in view, appears, partly, from the word itself being

constantly in the singular, and, partly, from the constant use of the

singular suffixes in reference to it; while, in the case of collective

nouns, it is usual to interchange the singular with the plural. The

force of this argument is abundantly evident in the fact, that not a

few of even non-Messianic interpreters have been thereby compelled to

make some single individual the subject of this prophecy. But we must

hesitate the more to adopt the opinion that נביא stands here simply in

the singular instead of the plural, because neither does this word

anywhere else occur as a collective noun, nor is the prophetic order

ever [Pg 110] spoken of in the manner alleged. The expectation of a

Messiah was already at that time current among the people. In what way,

then, could they understand a promise, in which one individual only was

spoken of, except by referring it, at least chiefly, to the one whom

they expected?--_Hofmann_ (_Weissagung und Erfüllung_ i. S. 253)

objects that the prophet here spoken of was, in no respect, different

from the _king_ in Deut. xvii. 14-20. But the king mentioned there is

no collective noun. An individual who, in future times, should first

attain to royal dignity, forms there the subject throughout. This

appears especially from ver. 20, where he and his _sons_ are spoken of.

The first king is held up as an example, to show in him what was

applicable to the royal dignity in general. On the other hand, it is in

favour of our view, that, in the verses immediately preceding (vers.

8-13), the priests are, at first, spoken of only in the plural,

although the priestly order had much more of the character of a

collective body than the prophetic order.

A comparison between this prophecy and that of the Shiloh in Gen. xlix.

10 is likewise in favour of the Messianic interpretation. Even there.

His prophetic office is alluded to in the kingly office. The ruler out

of Judah is the Peaceful One, to whom the nations yield a spontaneous

obedience, an obedience flowing from a pious source,--and He rules not

by compulsion, but by the word.

The prophet is moreover contrasted with a single individual--with

Moses; and this compels us to refer the prophecy to some distinguished

individual. In ver. 15, Moses promises to the people a prophet _like

unto himself_; and thus also does the Lord say, in ver. 18: "A prophet

_like unto thee_ I will raise up." We cannot for a moment suppose that

this likeness should refer to the prophetic calling only,--to the

words: "I will put My words into his mouth, and he shall speak unto

them all that I shall command him." It must at the same time be implied

in it, that the future prophet shall be as thoroughly competent for his

work, as Moses was for that which was committed to him. If it were not

so, the promise would be deficient in that consolatory and elevating

character which, according to the context, it is evidently intended to

possess. If we were to paraphrase thus, "The Lord will raise up a

prophet, inferior, indeed, to myself, [Pg 111] but yet the bearer of

divine revelations," we should at once perceive how unsuitable it were.

_Further_,--It is quite evident that the "Prophet" here is the main

instrument of divine agency among the Covenant-people of the

future,--that He is the real support and anchor of the kingdom of God.

But now the difficulties of the future were, as Moses himself saw, so

great, that gifts in any way short of those of Moses would by no means

have been sufficient. Moses foresees that the spirit of apostasy,

which, even in his time, began to manifest itself, would, in future

times, increase to a fearful extent. (Compare especially Deut. xxxii.)

Against this, ordinary gifts and powers would be of no avail. A

successful and enduring reaction could be brought about only by one who

should be, for the more difficult circumstances of the future, such as

Moses was for his times. But--and this circumstance is of still greater

weight--it forms the task of the future to translate the whole heathen

world into the kingdom of God. In it, Japheth is to dwell in the tents

of Shem; all the nations of the earth are to become partakers in the

blessing resting on Abraham. In the view of such a task, a prophet of

ordinary dimensions, as well as the collective body of such, would

dwindle down to the appearance of a dwarf. They would have been less

than Moses. In Deut. xxxiv. 10, it is said, "There arose not a prophet

since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face;"--a

passage which not only plainly refers to the experience acquired at

that time, but which expresses also what might be expected of that

portion of the future which was more immediately at hand. When Miriam

and Aaron said, "Doth the Lord indeed speak only by Moses, doth He

not speak by us also?" the Lord immediately, Num. xii. 6-8, reproves

their presumption of thinking themselves _like unto Moses_, as

respects the prophetical gift, in these words: "If some one be your

prophet,"--_i.e._, if some one be a prophet according to your way,

with prophets of your class,--"I, the Lord, make myself known unto him

in a vision, in a dream I speak unto him. Not so my servant Moses; in

all My house he is faithful. Mouth to mouth I speak to him, and face to

face, and not in dark speeches; and the appearance of the Lord he

beholds." Moses, as a prophet, is here contrasted with the whole order

of prophets of ordinary gifts. A higher dignity among them is claimed

for him on the ground that not some special mission, [Pg 112] but the

care of the whole economy of the Old Testament, was entrusted to him;

compare Heb. iii. 5. His is a specially close relation to the Lord, a

specially high degree of illumination. The collective body of ordinary

prophets cannot, therefore, by any possibility be the "prophet" who is

_like unto Moses_, as completely equal to the task of the future as

Moses was for that of his day. But the greater the work of the future,

the more necessary is it that the prophet of the future, in order to be

_like unto Moses_, should, in his whole individuality, and in all his

gifts, be far superior to him; compare Heb. iii. 6.

_Finally_,--The common prophetic order itself refuses the honour of

being the prophet like unto Moses. The prophecies of Isaiah, in

chapters xlii., xlix., l., and lxi., are based upon our passage, and in

all of them the Messiah appears as the prophet κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. It is to

Him that the mission is entrusted of being the restorer of Jacob, and

the salvation of the Lord, even unto the end of the world.

Whilst these reasons demand the reference of this prophecy to Christ,

there are, on the other hand, weighty considerations which make it

appear that a reference to the prophetic order of the Old Testament

cannot be excluded. These considerations are, 1. The wider context.

Deuteronomy is distinguished from the preceding books by this, that

provisions are made in it for the time subsequent to the death of

Moses, which was now at hand. From chap. xvii. 8, the magistrates and

powers--the superiors, to whose authority in secular and spiritual

affairs the people shall submit--are introduced. First, the civil

magistrates are brought before them, xvii. 8-20; and then the

ecclesiastical superiors, chap. xviii. Vers. 1-8 treat of the priests

as the ordinary servants of the Lord in spiritual things. Everywhere

else, offices, institutions, orders, are spoken of. In such a

connection, it is not probable that _the prophet_ should be only an

individual; and the less so, because evidently the prophet, as the

organ of the immediate revelation of God, is placed by the side of the

priests, the teachers of the law (compare xvii. 10, 11, 18; xxxiv. 10),

as their corrective, as a thorn in their flesh, to make up for their

inability. It is true that this wider connection is also against those

who would here _exclude_ Christ. If it be certain that Moses already

knew the Messianic promises (compare the remarks on Gen. xlix.), then,

just in this context, the reference [Pg 113] to Christ, the head of the

authorities of the future, could not be wanting.

2. An exclusive reference to Christ is opposed by the more immediate

context. This connection is twofold. In ver. 15, Moses first utters the

promise in his own name, and here it stands connected with what

precedes. Moses had forbidden to the people the use of all the means by

which those who were given to idolatry endeavoured to penetrate the

boundaries of human knowledge: "Thou shalt not do so," is his language;

for that which these are vainly seeking after in this sinful manner,

shall, in reality, be granted to thee by thy God. Here, it was not only

appropriate to remind them of the Messiah, inasmuch as His appearance,

as being the most perfect revelation of God, satisfies most perfectly

the desire after higher communications; but it would have been very

strange if here, where so suitable an opportunity presented itself, the

founder of the Old Economy had omitted all reference to the founder of

the New Economy, and had limited himself to the intervening, more

imperfect divine communications. But, on the other hand, it would have

been as strange if Moses had taken no notice of them at all,--if,

supposing that a series of false prophets would appear, he had been

satisfied to lay down in chap. xiii. 2 sqq. the distinctive marks of

true and false prophets, and had then, in the passage under review,

referred to the divine revelations to be expected in the distant

future, without noticing those to be expected in the more immediate

future,--thus neglecting to employ means peculiarly fitted for gaining

admission for his exhortations. The word נתן in ver. 14 is especially

opposed to such a view. "And thou (shalt) not (do) so, Jehovah thy God

gave thee." _J. D. Michaelis_ says: "What He gave to the Israelites is

specified in vers. 15 and 18." The past tense suggests the idea of a

gift which had already taken its beginning in the present.--The promise

stands in a different connection in ver. 18. Moses had already given it

in his own name in ver. 15. In order to give it greater authority, he

reports, in the following verses, when and how he had received it from

God. It was delivered to him on Sinai, where God had directly revealed

Himself to the people at the promulgation of the Law, partly in order

to strengthen their confidence in Moses the mediator, and [Pg 114]

partly to show them the folly of their desiring any other mode of

divine communication. But the people were seized with terror before the

dreadful majesty of God, and prayed that God would no longer speak to

them directly, but through a mediator, as He had hitherto done; compare

Exod. xx.; Deut. v. The Lord then said to Moses, "They have well

spoken; a prophet," etc. The words here, in ver. 17, agree very well

with Deut. v. 28. The agreement in the words indicates that _here_ we

have an addition to that which is _there_ communicated regarding what

was spoken by God on that occasion. _There_, we are told only what had

an immediate reference to the present--viz., the appointment of Moses

as mediator; _here_, we are told what was at that time fixed in

reference to the future of the people. We cannot fail to perceive that

_here_, if ever, a divine revelation was appropriate concerning the

coming of Christ, who, as the Mediator between God and man, veiled His

Godhead, and in human form, brought God nearer to man. But we should,

at the same time, expect here an allusion to the inferior messengers of

God, who were to precede Him.

3. The exclusive reference to the Messiah is inconsistent with vers.

20-22. The marks of a false prophet are given in them. If, however,

that which precedes had no reference at all to true prophets, it would

be almost impossible to trace any suitable connection of the thoughts.

4. If the passage were referred to Christ exclusively, the prophetic

institution would then be without any legitimate authority; and from

the whole character of the Mosaic legislation, as laying the foundation

for the future progress and development of the Theocracy, we could not

well conceive that so important an institution should be deficient in

this point. Moreover, the whole historical existence of the prophetic

order necessarily presupposes such a foundation. Deut. xiii. 2 sq. was

not fitted to afford such a foundation, as it refers, only indirectly

and by implication, to true prophets.

5. _Finally_,--There are not wanting slight hints in the New Testament

that the reference to Christ is not an exclusive one. These are found

in Luke xi. 50, 51: Ἵνα ἐκζητηθῇ τὸ αἷμα πάντων τῶν προφητῶν ... ἀπὸ

τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης ... ναὶ λέγω ὑμῖν ἐκζητηθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς

ταύτης. The emphatic repetition of ἐκζητεῖν in that passage shows

plainly its connection [Pg 115] with the words, "I will require it of

him," in the passage under review; just as the ידרש, which, according

to 2 Chron. xxiv. 22, the prophet Zechariah, who was unjustly slain,

uttered when dying, alludes not only to Gen. ix. 5, but to our passage

also. But here we must remark that, in consequence of the sin committed

against the Prophet κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν--Christ--vengeance for the crimes

committed against the inferior prophets is executed at the same time,

so that, in the first instance, _His_ blood is required, and, on this

occasion, all the blood also which was formerly shed.

But how can these two facts be reconciled:--that Moses had, undeniably,

the Messiah in view, and that, notwithstanding, there seems at the same

time to be a reference to the prophets in general? The simplest mode of

reconciling them is the following. The prophet here is an _ideal_

person, comprehending all the true prophets who had appeared from Moses

to Christ, including the latter. But Moses does not here speak of the

prophets as a collective body, to which, at the close, Christ also

belonged, as it were, incidentally, and as one among the many,--as

_Calvin_ and other interpreters mentioned above suppose; but rather,

the plurality of prophets is, for this reason only, comprehended by

Moses in an _ideal_ unity, that, on the authority of Gen. xlix. 10, and

by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, he knew that the prophetical

order would, at some future time, centre in a real person,--in Christ.

But there is so much the more of truth in thus viewing the prophetic

order as a whole, since, according to 1 Peter i. 11, the Spirit of

Christ spoke in the prophets. Thus, in a certain sense, Christ is the

only Prophet.

Footnote 1: _Lampe_ says: He has preserved to us not only what, in

Paradise, and afterwards to and through the Patriarchs, had been told

about this Redeemer; but he himself, under divine inspiration, has

prophesied of Him,--especially in Deut. xviii. 15-18.