and translate, 'Nor a lawgiver from between his feet for ever, for Shiloh shall come,' in order to get rid of the limitation of the time respecting Messiah's advent, and the consequence that the time is passed. It is true that Onkelos

עד דייתי for ever ; but he immediately adds עד עלמא has

D'until Messiah come.' We can, therefore, cite his authority for the English version, and, besides, that of Aben Ezra, Levi ben Gershom, Bechai, Lipman, Solomon, and . Zunz. Secondly, we have the Bible authority for asserting that must be taken together, and signify until.' See Gen. xxvi. 13, xli. 49, and 2 Sam. xxiii. 10, and observe the accentuation. For Jethiv serving Zakeph Katon see Judges iv. 24 and 1 Sam. xxii. 3.

שילה

( Shiloh. Some Jews take Shiloh as the name of the well-known locality, and translate 'until one come to Shiloh,' and understand the passage thus: Judah shall have the pre-eminence or lead until they come to Shiloh.' But this sense cannot be maintained, for, first, there was probably no such place in Jacob's time. It is not mentioned in the Pentateuch. It first occurs Josh. xviii. 1, and was probably only a place of rest or encampment for the ark and people at first, and hence the name Shiloh, i. e. 'Rest,' or 'peace.' Compare Ps. cxxxii. 8, and the account given in the passage of Joshua, 'The 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.' But even if there was such a place known to Jacob, the interpretation 'until they come to Shiloh' gives an insipidity to the whole, which shows that it is false—and, besides, it is contrary to fact. Judah was indeed foremost in fighting, but had not the chief command. Neither Moses nor Joshua was of the tribe of Judah.

2. Kimchi, Junius and Tremellius, take Shiloh as compounded of, son, and the suffix, his, and translate

Until his son come.' So the Pseudo-Jonathan says, 'Until the time that the King Messiah, the least of his sons shall come.' They refer to , Deut. xxviii. 57. But this feminine does not signify child;' and, further, would not be the form of its masculine.

3. Others, as Onkelos, interpret Whose it is,' 'He to whom it belongs.' This interpretation is ancient, finds favour amongst more modern Jews, and has some support from Ezek. xxi. 32. (English 27.) But this seems rather a happy allusion than an interpretation. The, and the at the end, seem to give the correct reading here, and to mark it as a proper name.

4. The truth is, that Shiloh is a noun, of the form bw, 7177, Isa. viii. 6, 7p, pry, and riba; the name of a place, Josh. xv. 51. It signifies' peace,' the abstract put for the concrete, as Gesenius takes the corresponding word, bw, Gen. xliii. 27. DJ'ax Dibwn, ‘Is your father well?' literally, 'Is your father peace?' Compare 1 Sam. xxv. 6, and especially Micah v. 4. This man shall be our peace.' The name 'Shiloh' is similar, therefore, to Solomon, and signi fies 'peace,' or the peaceful one.'

'Gathering,' np, more properly 'obedience.' See Proverbs xxx. 17.

'People,' by, 'Nations,' parallel with DDNS. Gen. xxvii. 29. Compare Exod. xv. 14, Deut. xxxii. 8, xxxiii. 17.

The sense of the whole verse, then, is, 'A chief tribal governor shall not cease from Judah, nor a subordinate magistrate from his posterity, until he who is PEACE shall come, and to him shall be the obedience of the nations ;' i. e. that until the appearance of Shiloh, Judah should not lose its separate existence as a tribe, nor its independent government that the heathen should obey Him. History tells us that the ten tribes lost both their tribal existence and their government seven hundred years before the Christian era:

that the tribe of Judah continued, and had an independent government until after the birth of Christ: that soon after the whole Jewish polity was brought to an end by the destruction of Jerusalem: that the obedience of the nations was to Jesus of Nazareth, and still continues: that Jesus taught the true principles of peace with God and with all the children of men. A society exists asserting that war is unlawful: calling upon all men to promote universal peace. They ground their chief arguments upon the precepts and example of Jesus, and the spirit of his religion: a striking proof of the tendency of his principles: a tendency nowhere else existing in any other religion or system of morals. Is not this the Shiloh? does not the fulfilment explain the prophecy, and at the same time prove that the prophecy is of God? To the Jews this argument ought to be more cogent still, as the great weight of Jewish tradition is in favour of the Messianic interpretation. The Targums of Onkelos and the Jerusalem: Zohar on Exod. fol. 49, col. 195. Yalkut Shimoni, i. fol. 49, 3. Bereshith Rabba, sec. 98, fol. 95, col. 1. Sanhedrin, fol. 90, 2; and Rabbi Bechai in loc., although Manasseh ben Israel suppresses this testimony in his Conciliator, Question 68 on Genesis.

DEUT. XVIII. 15—19.

With regard to the interpretation of this passage, the Rabbis are divided: and their differences show that they have no authoritative interpretation: that they utter only their own private opinion: and that, as Kimchi and Alshech differ from Aben Esra, and Bechai, and Abarbanel from all the others, they were in a difficulty: that they were unconvinced by their fellow Rabbis, and felt the necessity of some interpretation differing from that adopted by Christians.

L

1. Abarbanel suggests that Jeremiah was the prophet like unto Moses: and collects fourteen points of resemblance. Some of these might be applied to Isaiah and other prophets as well as to Jeremiah, as the seventh, 'that Moses often reproved Israel for their sins, and so did Jeremiah.' The eighth, 'Moses told Israel respecting their captivity, and their deliverance therefrom: so did Jeremiah.' The ninth, 'Moses reproved Israel for profaning the Sabbath: so did Jeremiah.' It is clear that not one of these is distinctive: and so it is with others. Indeed, Abarbanel was hard set to find a prophet like unto Moses, when he fixed on Jeremiah. Moses was a deliverer, the beginner of Israel's national independence, the author of the song of triumph, and, under God, supreme governor. Jeremiah involved in the calamities of his people, a witness of national ruin, the author of the Lamentations, and the helpless victim of oppression. He is, therefore, not the prophet like unto Moses.

2. Aben Esra and Bechai, and others, prefer Joshua. But he was not like Moses in those things in which Moses was peculiar. He was not a mediator. He was not the revealer of the will of God. He had no direct vision of the Almighty. Hengstenberg says that 'He had neither the name nor the characteristic of a prophet.' Joshua had the Spirit, and to have the Spirit as he had is to be a prophet. Compare Numbers xi. 29 with xxvii. 18, and Deut. xxxiv. 9. It is enough to say that he had not the essential features of the office and character of Moses.

3. Rashi, Kimchi, and Alshech, say that the prophet like unto Moses' implies a succession of prophets, one after the other. They acknowledge, therefore, that they could not find any individual to whom similarity to Moses could be ascribed at the same time they have devised an interpretation partly agreeable to the context. But against this

prophet, is

interpretation, we have, first, the fact, that singular. God says, not 'prophets,' but a prophet.' Secondly, that this word is never taken collectively, nor the prophets elsewhere spoken of collectively. Thirdly, that sacred history points out no such succession of one prophet; and, fourthly, this and the preceding interpretations are all contrary to two plain passages of Scripture. Numbers xii. 6-8 asserts distinctly that Moses was a prophet unlike the generality of prophets-and Deut. xxxiv. 10-12, a passage inserted probably by Esra, asserts that there arose no prophet like unto Moses. Both point out those things in which he was peculiar. Indeed, the Jews themselves, when not engaged in controversy with Christians, admit that Moses had peculiar privileges in which no other prophet was like him.* Maimonides reckons four particulars in which Moses differed from all other prophets: first, 'All other prophets prophesied in a dream or vision: Moses in a waking state, and standing.'. Second, 'All other prophets prophesied by the intervention of an angel, and, therefore, what they saw was in a similitude or enigma; Moses, mouth to mouth, as it is said, 'The Lord spake to Moses face to face,' and 'The similitude of the Lord shall he behold.' Third, 'All the other prophets were terrified, confounded, and fainting; but Moses as a man speaketh with his friend,' therefore without fear.' Fourth, 'The other prophets could not prophesy whenever they wished. But, whenever Moses desired, the Holy Spirit clothed him, and the prophetic power rested upon him; and he was not obliged to raise and prepare his mind, for he was always ready, like the ministering angels.' This statement, generally received by the modern Jews, is sufficient to refute the three Jewish interpretations, and to show that neither Jeremiah nor Joshua,

* Hilchoth Jesode Hattorah, c. vii.