nor any one of the prophets, was a prophet like unto Moses.

4. To be a prophet like unto Moses, the antitype must, in the first place, be a mediator between God and man. This the context absolutely requires. The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him shall ye hearken; according to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee,' &c. Israel was afraid of the manifestation of majesty on Sinai, and asked for some one to stand between them and God; to hold converse with the Lord, and bring down the divine communications. The Lord promised one who should be like in this respect. He who fulfils the prophecy must, then, be a mediator, receiving communications in the same way.

Secondly, Moses was a redeemer from slavery, which no other prophet was; his antitype must be a redeemer also.

Thirdly, Moses alone of all the prophets, was supreme governor; he was 'king in Jeshurun.' The promised prophet must be invested with similar dignity. Prophet, Mediator, Redeemer, King of Israel! These particulars belong to none but Messiah. According even to Jewish interpretation, these characteristics belong to him. Messiah is promised as prophet with the Spirit ever resting on him, Isaiah xi. 2, xlii. 1, lxi. 1; as mediator, coming from God with a covenant, Isaiah xlii. 6, compared with Jer. xxxi. 31; ascending into the presence of God as Moses did, Ps. cx. 1, Isaiah liii. 12; as redeemer, Isaiah lix. 20, Jer. xxiii. 6; as

king, Ezek. xxxvii. 39, Zech. ix. 9. Messiah is, then, the only prophet resembling Moses.

That this was once the popular interpretation amongst the Jews, is evident from John i. 21, vi. 14, vii. 40. Even the Samaritan woman referred to the promise, iv. 25; When he is come, he will tell us all things,' compared with Deut. xviii. 18, ' He shall speak all that I shall command him.' That this is the true interpretation, appears not only from what is said above, but from the testimony of God, Matt. xvii. 5, and of Peter, Acts iii. 22, 23, and from the fulfilment.

1. The Lord Jesus Christ was a prophet. He revealed perfectly the will and law of God, in his various discourses. He made known the future destinies of the kingdom of God amongst Jews and Gentiles. He predicted his own resurrection, the preaching of the gospel, the destruction of Jerusalem. Matt. xxiv. 14, 34, 36. He bestowed the spirit of prophecy upon others. 1 Pet. i. 11; 1 Cor. xii.; Rev. xix. 10. His disciples have predicted that of which much has come to pass. Rom. xi.; 1 Tim. iv. 2; 2 Pet. ii. iii., the Book of Revelation. We might even take Maimonides' account of the peculiar privileges of Moses, and show that the true antitype is found in our Lord. He prophesied in the waking state, on the Mount, walking with his disciples, or sitting with them contemplating the glory of the Temple. Did Moses speak face to face, as a man speaketh with his friend? St. John says, 'No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared Him.' (John i. 18.) Did Moses prophesy whenever he would, and did the power of prophesy always rest upon him? 'He whom the Father hath sent, speaketh the words of God; for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.' (John iii. 34.) If we compare the Old Testament with the New, in his character are

found the peculiar features that distinguished Moses from all the prophets. He is the true Mediator, Redeemer, and King of Israel. And, lastly, God has fulfilled His threat of vengeance upon those who refused to hearken to that prophet. Judgment has descended upon the Jews to the uttermost. The concluding verse of the prophecy under consideration, says, Whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I, even I, 2778 8, will require it of him.' So the LXX, ’Eyà indixńow §§ aůtoũ. Vulgate, Ego ultor existam. The Syriac ouso 21 11. Onkelos, yan. All, except our English version, preserve the force of the repetition of the personal pronoun, implying that God himself will take vengeance; and therefore Aben Esra says, ̄`D "TO IND’D. 'His death shall be by divine visitation.' The verb 277, to inquire, is frequently used in the sense of taking vengeance, as Gen. ix. 5; Ps. ix. 13, x. 13. Now that the Jews are suffering the wrath of God, they themselves admit; that the judgment began soon after their rejection of Christ, they cannot deny. The Jews, as a nation, refused to hearken to the words of Christ; divine vengeance soon overtook them, and is not yet removed. We abhor the cruelties and oppressions that have been inflicted on this people; but we cannot help recognising the hand of God in their history since the crucifixion of Jesus, and acknowledging that the providence of God has contributed its portion to the proof that Jesus of Nazareth is the Prophet like unto Moses.

PSALM II.

In interpreting this Psalm, it is satisfactory to notice— I. The time of its composition. It is certainly a Psalm of David. Acts iv. 25, will satisfy on this point any one who believes the New Testament. Rashi and Kimchi

ascribe it to David himself: Aben Esra to the time of David. Even modern criticism does not make it later than Solomon. Ewald says, 'This beautiful Psalm must necessarily have proceeded from the most glorious period of the monarchy,' and that the flourishing period of the monarchy is confined to the time of David, and the beginning of Solomon's reign. Venema gives three reasons for ascribing it to David. But it is enough to say, that, judged merely by internal evidence, it cannot be assigned to any time after that of Solomon, as no subsequent king had even the twelve tribes, much less all the ends of the earth, subject to him. This Psalm proclaims, therefore, the hope of the devout Israelite a thousand years before the coming of Christ.

II. It is necessary to notice the translations of some important words. In verse 12, the words pw (kiss the Son) are rendered by the LXX δράξασθε παιδείας : by the Chaldee, in the same sense, Nap, and by the Vulgate, 'Apprehendite disciplinam.' Ewald gives a similar version, 'Nehmt Rath an' (Receive advice). Of this it is sufficient to say that it is a commentary, but not a translation: and that learned men are not even agreed as to how this explanation could have arisen from the words. The verb pwa, to kiss, is not employed metaphorically in the sense of embracing, laying hold of does not ever signify learning. The rendering is, therefore, false.

Some modern Jews, anxious to get rid of this command to do homage to the Son of God, render the words, 'Arm yourselves with purity.' But the incorrectness of this is easily proved. 1st. The verb pw, in Piel, as it is here, means only to kiss.-(See Gen. xxix. 13; xxxi. 28; xxxii.; xlv. 15.) Gesenius, in his Thesaurus, shows that even in Kal it does not mean to 'arm.' 2ndly. does not mean 'purity.' If it be the adjective, then it is 'Kiss the pure one.' 3rdly. The overwhelming weight of authority, Jewish

and Gentile, is in favour of our English version, 'Kiss the Son.' Of ancients, the Syriac version, and the Midrash (which interprets 'Kiss the Son,' of appeasing the Son: 1210).* Aben Esra (who refers to Prov. xxxi. 2), Mendelsohn, Zunz, Dr. Solomon of Hamburg, Gesenius, De Wette, all interpret it of doing homage to the Son. The Son, The Anointed, is mentioned before as the Being against whom the king and nations rebel. Here they are warned against the consequences. The word is used instead of, because of immediately following.

III. The interpretation.

1. Ewald and others say that Solomon is the subject. But the rebellion of kings and Gentiles here spoken of does not agree with the perfect peace described 1 Kings iv. 20-25, and v. 4; (Heb. v. 1-5, and 18.)

2. Rashi and others interpret the Psalm of David, and refer it to the beginning of his kingdom, 2 Sam. v. 17. But, first, the Philistines, as Kimchi remarks, had no kings, but princes, ' '70. 2ndly. The expressions, heathen and nations,' and 'kings of the

earth,' are too general for this. 3rdly. The Philistines were not in a state of servitude to Israel, so as to say, 'Let us break their bonds in sunder,' Similar reasons forbid a reference to 2 Sam. viii., and the mention of heathen and foreign nations shows that none of the domestic rebellions can be here intended. 4thly. David never had a kingdom so extensive as that here spoken of. 5thly. To David cannot be applied the words, 'I have begotten thee,' nor 'Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.'

3. Others interpret this Psalm of the Messiah. That this was the old Jewish interpretation is admitted by Rashi, and is testified by the Talmud, (e. g., Succah. fol. 52,

* Jalkut Shimoni, in loc.