e 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:
[Greek: hon egrapse Mouses en to nomo, heurekamen, Iesoun.] 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: [Greek: hOti houtos estin alethos ho
prophetes, ho erchomenos eis ton kosmon.] 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: [Greek:
oida hoti Messias erchetai, ho legomenos Christos. hoton elthe ekeinos,
anangelei hemin panta.] 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.