Chapter 10

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.

THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IN THE PENTATEUCH, AND THE BOOK OF JOSHUA.

The New Testament distinguishes between the hidden God and the revealed God--the Son or Logos--who is connected with the former by oneness of nature, and who from everlasting, and even at the creation itself, filled up the immeasurable distance between the Creator and the creation;--who has been the Mediator in all God's relations to the world;--who at all times, and even before He became man in Christ, has been the light of [Pg 116] the world,--and to whom, specially, was committed the direction of the economy of the Old Covenant.

It is evident that this doctrine stands in the closest connection with the Christology,--that it forms, indeed, its theological foundation and ground-work. Until the Christology has attained to a knowledge of the true divinity of the Saviour, its results cannot be otherwise than very meagre and unsatisfactory. Wheresoever the true state of human nature is seen in the light of Holy Scripture, no high expectations can be entertained from a merely human Saviour, although he were endowed even with as full a measure of the gifts of the Spirit of God as human nature, in its finite and sinful condition, is able to bear. But unless there exist in the one divine Being itself, such a distinction of persons, the divinity of the Saviour cannot be acknowledged, without endangering the unity of God which the Scriptures so emphatically teach. If, however, there be such a distinction,--if the Word be indeed with God, we cannot avoid ascribing to God the desire of revealing Himself; nor, in such a case, can we conceive that He should content Himself with inferior forms of revelation, with merely transitory manifestations. We can recognise in these only preparations, and preludes of the highest and truest revelation.

The question then is, whether any insight into this doctrine is to be found as early as in the Books of the Old Testament. Sound Christian Theology has discovered the outlines of such a distinction betwixt the hidden and the revealed God, in many passages of the Old Testament, in which mention is made of the Angel or Messenger of God. The general tenor of these passages will be best exemplified by the first among them,--the narrative of Hagar in Gen. xvi. In ver. 7, we are told that the Angel of Jehovah found Hagar. In ver. 10, this Angel ascribes to Himself a divine work, viz., the innumerable increase of Hagar's posterity. In ver. 11, He says that Jehovah had heard her distress. He thus asserts of Jehovah what, shortly before. He had said of Himself. Moreover, in ver. 13, Hagar expresses her astonishment that she had seen God, and yet had remained alive.--The opinion that these passages form the Old Testament foundation for the Proemium of St John's Gospel, has not remained uncontroverted. From the very times of the Church-fathers it has been asserted by many, that where the [Pg 117] Angel of the Lord is spoken of, we must not think of a person connected with God by unity of nature, but of a lower angel, by whom God executes His commands, and through whom He acts and speaks. The latest defenders of the view are _Hofmann_ in "_Weissagung und Erfüllung_" and in the "_Schriftbeweis_" and _Delitzsch_ in his commentary on Genesis.--Others are of opinion, that the Angel of Jehovah is identical with Jehovah Himself,--not denoting a person distinct from Him, but only the form in which He manifests Himself. We shall not here discuss the question in its whole extent; we shall, in the meantime, consider only what the principal passages of the Pentateuch and of the adjacent Book of Joshua teach upon this point, and how far their teaching coincides with, or is in opposition to, these various views. For it is only to this extent that the inquiry belongs to our present object.

In Gen. xvi. 13, these words are of special importance: "_And she called the name of the Lord who spoke unto her, Thou art a God of sight: for she said, Do I now_ (properly _here_, in the place where such a sight was vouchsafed to me) _still see after my seeing?_" "Do I see" is equivalent to, "Do I live," because death threatened, as it were, to enter through the eyes. (Compare the expression, "Mine eyes have seen," in Is. vi.) רֹאִי is the pausal form for רֳאִי; see Job xxxiii. 21, where, however, the accent is on the penultimate. Then follows ver. 14: _They called the well_, "_Well of the living sight_;" _i.e._, where a person had a sight of God, and remained alive.

Hagar must have been convinced that she had seen God without the mediation of a created angel; for, otherwise, she could not have wondered that her life was preserved. Man, entangled by the visible world, is terrified when he comes in contact with the invisible world, even with angels. (Compare Dan. viii. 17, 18; Luke ii. 9.) But this terror rises to fear of death only when man comes into contact with the Lord Himself. (Compare the remarks on Rev. i. 17.) In Gen. xxxii. 31--a passage which bears the closest resemblance to the one now under review, and from which it receives its explanation--it is said: "And Jacob called the name of the place _Peniel_, for I have seen God face to face, and my life has been preserved." In Exod. xx. 19, the children of Israel said to Moses, "Speak thou with us, and we will hear; and let not God speak with us, [Pg 118] lest we die;" compared with Deut. v. 21: "Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die." (Compare also Deut. xviii. 16.) And it is Jehovah who, in Exod. xxxiii. 20, says, "There shall no man see Me and live." Israel's Lord and God is, in the absolute energy of His nature, a "consuming fire," Deut. iv. 24. (Compare Deut. ix. 3; Is. xxxiii. 14: "Who among us would dwell with the devouring fire? who among us would dwell with everlasting burning?" Heb. xii. 29.) It is not the reflected light, even in the most exalted creatures, nor the sight of the saints of whom it is said, "Behold, He puts no trust in His servants, and His angels He chargeth with folly,"--but the sight of the thrice Holy One, which makes Isaiah exclaim, "Woe is me, for I am undone; for I am a man of unclean lips, and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips."

So much then is clear,--that the opinion which considers the Angel of the Lord to be a created angel is overthrown by the first passage where that angel is mentioned, if the exposition which we have given of vers. 13, 14--an exposition which is now generally received, and which was last advanced by _Knobel_--be correct. But _Delitzsch_ gives another exposition: "Thou art a God of sight, _i.e._, one whose all-seeing eye does not overlook the helpless and destitute, even in the remotest corner of the wilderness." Against this we remark, that ראי never denotes the act of seeing, but the sight itself. "Have I not even here (even in the desert land of destitution) looked after Him who saw me?" "Well of the living one who seeth me," _i.e._, of the omnipresent divine providence. In opposition to this exposition, however, we must remark, that God is nowhere else in Genesis called the Living One. But our chief objection is, that these expositions destroy the connection which so evidently exists between our passage and those already quoted,--especially Gen. xxxii. 31; Exod. xxxiii. 20. (Compare, moreover, Jud. xiii. 22: "And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.")

It has been asked. Why should the Logos have appeared first to the Egyptian maid? But the low condition of Hagar cannot here come into consideration; for the appearance is in reality intended, not for her, but for Abraham. Immediately [Pg 119] before, in chap. xii. 7, it is said, "And the Lord appeared unto Abraham;" and immediately after, in chap. xvii. 1, "And when Abraham was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to him;" the appearance of the Lord Himself is mentioned in order that every thought of a lower angel may be warded off. The passage under consideration, then, contains the indication, that such appearances must only be conceived of as manifestations of the Deity Himself to the world. Just as our passage is preserved from erroneous interpretations by such passages as Gen. xii. 7, xvii. 1, so these receive from ours, in return, their most distinct definition. We learn from this, that wherever appearances of Jehovah are mentioned, we must conceive of them as effected by the mediation of His Angel. There is no substantial difference betwixt the passages in which Jehovah Himself is mentioned, and those in which the Angel of Jehovah is spoken of. They serve to supplement and to explain one another. The words, "In His Angel," in chap. xvi. 7, furnish us with the supplement to the succeeding statement, "And _Jehovah_ appeared to him" (so, _e.g._, also in chap. xviii. 1), just as the writer in Gen. chap. ii. iii. makes use of the name Jehovah-Elohim, in order that henceforth every one may understand that where only Jehovah is spoken of. He is yet personally identical with Elohim.

Let us now turn to Gen. xviii. xix. According to _Delitzsch_. all the three men who appeared to Abraham were "finite spirits made visible." _Hofmann_ (_Schriftb._ S. 87) says: "Jehovah is present on earth in His angels, in the two with Lot, as in the three with Abraham." We, however, hold fast by the view of the ancient Church, that in chap. xviii. the Logos appeared accompanied by two inferior angels. Abraham's regards are, from the very first, involuntarily directed to one from among the three, and whom he addresses by אֲדוֹנָי, O Lord (xviii. 3); the two others are considered by him as companions only. But Lot has to do with both equally, and addresses them first by אֲדוֹנַי, my Lords.--In chap. xviii., it is always one only of the three who speaks; the two others are mute;[1] while in chap. xix. everything comes from the two [Pg 120] equally. He with whom Abraham has to do, always, and without exception, speaks as God Himself; while the two with whom Lot has to do speak at first, as λειτουργικὰ πνεύματα, distinguishing themselves from the Lord who sent them (compare ver. 13); and it is only after they have thus drawn the line of separation between themselves and Jehovah, that they appear, in vers. 21, 22, as speaking in His name. They do so, moreover, only after Lot, in the anxiety of his heart and in his excitement, had previously addressed, in them, Him who sent them, and with whom he desired to have to do as immediately as possible. The scene bears, throughout, a character of excitement, and is not fitted to afford data for general conclusions. We cannot infer from it that it was, in general, customary to address, in the angels, the Lord who sent them, or that the angels acted in the name of the Lord. In chap. xviii., from ver. 1, where the narrative begins with the words, "And Jehovah appeared unto him," Moses always speaks of him with whom Abraham had to do as Jehovah only, excepting where he introduces the three men. (He with whom Abraham has to do is called, not fewer than eight times, Jehovah, and six times אֲדוֹנָי.) But in chap. xix., Jehovah, who is concealed behind the two angels, appears only twice in the expression, "And He said," in vers. 17, 21, for which ver. 13 suggests the supplement: "through His two angels."--Even in ver. 16, the narrative distinguishes Jehovah from the two men,--and all this in an exciting scene which must have influenced even the narrator. If he who spoke to Abraham was an angel like the other two, we could scarcely perceive any reason why he should not have taken part in the mission to Sodom; but if he was the Angel of the Lord κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, the reason is quite obvious; it would have been inconsistent with divine propriety.--In chap. xviii. Moses speaks of three men; it is evidently on [Pg 121] purpose that he avoids speaking of three angels. In chap.