Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions Volume I Part 6

_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 s.h.i.+loh 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 wh.o.r.edom 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, refres.h.i.+ng 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 ???, and is called a ????." Deut.

x.x.xiii. 22 must, therefore, not be translated, "Dan is a lion's whelp leaping from Bashan"--as if the ??? ???? 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, ?? ?ast?? ??? ?? ?????, "from a shoot, my son, thou hast grown up." They explain ??? 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 G.o.d gave concerning the outward condition of the Church, they were so far limited that G.o.d 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. (?? t?? ???? a?t??), 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 a.s.sume 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. (?a? a?t?? p??sd???a ?????), _Jerome_, and other translators, is founded upon the erroneous derivation of the word from ???. In the other pa.s.sage (Prov. x.x.x. 17), where the LXX. translate, "the age of his mother," they have confounded the root ??? with ???, "to be blunted."

Footnote 10: _Gousset_ says: The word can signify something good only, on account of the pa.s.sage, Prov. x.x.x. 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 e?? ???a?a?. And not less so from its being used in Gen. xlix. 10 in reference to the s.h.i.+loh, 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 s.h.i.+loh, 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: _k.n.o.bel_ knows of no other expedient by which to escape from the force of this argument, than by changing the punctuation. He proposes to read ??????, 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 _Tharaphae Moallakah_, ed. _Reiske_, p. xl.; _Antarae Moallakah_, ed. _Menil._ p.

18.) The poet _Lebid_, who attained to the age of 157 years (compare _Reiske prolegg. ad Thar. Moall._ p. x.x.x.; _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 _Rosenmuller_, _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 pa.s.sage, Josh. xvi. 6, where s.h.i.+loh occurs for the first time as the name of a place, and which we have already discussed, there is not, as we a.s.sumed, a connection of the former name with the latter, but the complete appellation, of which the latter--s.h.i.+loh--is only an abbreviation. From the well ascertained and common signification of the verb ???, we are ent.i.tled to explain Taanath-s.h.i.+loh: "the futurity, or the appearance of s.h.i.+loh." s.h.i.+loh shall come! Such was the watchword at that time. The word ???? would then correspond to the ??? of the fundamental pa.s.sage.

Footnote 18: That there exists a connection between s.h.i.+loh 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sage, 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, princ.i.p.ally, 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 pa.s.sages in _Jos. de_ _Voisin_, in the _Prooem._ on _R. Martini Pugio fid._ p. 68; _R.

Martini_ iii. 3, c. 11; _Schottgen_, "_Jesus Messias_," S. 151.) How widely this opinion was spread among the Jews, is sufficiently apparent from the circ.u.mstance, that the renowned pseudo-Messiah in the time of Hadrian adopted, with reference to the pa.s.sage under review, the surname _Barcochba_, _i.e._, Son of the Star.--From the Jews, this interpretation very soon pa.s.sed 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 pa.s.sages [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 pa.s.sages, 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 _Rosenmuller_ 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 a.n.a.logy 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 a.n.a.logy 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 x.x.xv. 11: "Kings shall come out of thy loins." 2. The reference to a single king would be against the _a.n.a.logy_ 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 pa.s.sage, 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 s.h.i.+loh. 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 G.o.d, 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 ent.i.tled to suppose that the prophet himself was not aware of this; on the contrary, we cannot but a.s.sume 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 pa.s.sage, the whole dignity of Judah as [Pg 102] ruler and lord over the whole heathen world is to centre in one elevated individual--the s.h.i.+loh. 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 ent.i.tled to suppose that Balaam himself knew what was contained in the fundamental pa.s.sage. 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 pa.s.ses 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 G.o.d. 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 pa.s.sage. 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 circ.u.mstance, that the Moabites here, as well as in Is. xi., where the complete destruction of Moab is likewise a.s.signed to the times of the Messiah, are viewed only in their character as enemies to the congregation of G.o.d. 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 G.o.d; then the limit of their national existence cannot be the limit of the fulfilment of the prophecy. A case quite a.n.a.logous is found in Mic. v. 4, 5, where the prophet characterizes the enemies of the kingdom of G.o.d at the time of the Messiah by the name of a.s.shur, although it appears, from other pa.s.sages, that he distinctly knew that a.s.shur 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 G.o.d will raise up: unto him ye shall hearken._ Ver. 16. _According to all that thou desiredst of Jehovah thy G.o.d in h.o.r.eb, in the day of the a.s.sembly, when thou didst say, I will not hear any farther the voice of Jehovah my G.o.d, 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 pa.s.s, 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 pa.s.sage to three cla.s.ses. 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 _Rosenmuller_, _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 circ.u.mstance that a _credible_ prophet is spoken of. The sense is rather this: Simon and his family should continue to hold the highest dignity until G.o.d 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 circ.u.mstances, and which could, at all events, be only a provisional one. (Compare _J. D. Michaelis_ on that pa.s.sage.) It is not on the pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage which Philip had in view when, in John i. 46, he said to Nathanael: ??

???a?e ???s?? ?? t? ??? e????ae?, ??s???. For, besides the pa.s.sage under consideration, there is only one other personal Messianic prophecy in the Pentateuch, namely, Gen. xlix. 10; and the marks of the s.h.i.+loh 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 pa.s.sage under review. After the feeding of the five thousand, the people say, in John vi. 14: ?t? ??t?? ?st?? ?????? ? p??f?t??, ? ????e??? e?? t?? ??s??.

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: ??da ?t? ?ess?a? ???eta?, ? ?e??e??? ???st??? ?ta?

???? ??e????, ??a??e?e? ??? p??ta. Now, as the Samaritans acknowledged only the Pentateuch, there is no other pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sages 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 circ.u.mstance that, in both pa.s.sages, 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: ?? d??e?te ?t? ??? ?at?????s? ??? p??? t?? pat??a? ?st?? ?

?at?????? ???, ???s??, e?? ?? ?e?? ??p??ate. ?? ??? ?p?ste?ete ???s?, ?p?ste?ete ?? ???? pe?? ??? ??? ??e???? ???a?e?. ?? d? t??? ??e????