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.