state of suffering God mercifully entered into judgment, and promised that the head of the Tempter should be bruised by the seed of the woman. The promise was very general: perhaps obscure. As to the person of the Redeemer it may not have been as fully understood as by us (though of that we know nothing certain). As to the promise of future deliverance, I doubt not that it was better understood than it ever has been by any child of Adam. None of the human race but Adam and Eve were ever conscious of the happy state of innocence, immortality, and similitude to God. None, then, can comprehend as they did the awfulness of the fall into a state of guilt, sin, and physical mortality; and, therefore, none know the want of deliverance, or appreciate the particular nature of the deliverance required. Some writers are fond of talking of Adam and Eve as knowing nothing, and having only dim glimmerings of future salvation. I am persuaded that none of the readers of the New Testament ever understood the nature of ruin and redemption like that unhappy pair, who had actual experience of both states.

As to the person of the Tempter, we are not told whether they knew that it was Satan, and therefore can assert nothing about it. The narrative leads us to believe that he made use of the body of a serpent. The traditions of the Jews,* and the plain declarations of the New Testament, assure us that the real Tempter was the devil.+ We, therefore, can know that the promise of deliverance includes redemption from the powers of the devil, and all his works. The fact that it was given to Adam proves that the OldTestament doctrine of redemption refers not to the national

* See Eisenmenger's entdecktes Judenthum, I. p. 822; Breithaupt's Rashi, t. Gen. iii. 1, note 7; Moreh Nevochim, part ii. c. 30, in Buxtorf's translation, p. 280.

↑ John viii. 44; Rom. xv. 20; Rev. xii. 9.

restoration of the Jews, but to the deliverance of the human race from the evils of the fall. It becomes, therefore, the key to the promises which follow, and to the nature of Messiah's work; and at the very outset refutes all the rationalist assertions about the national particularism of the Jewish Scriptures.

II. GENESIS XLIX. 10.

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet until Shiloh come.'

The English version gives the general sense correctly— with following, signifies 'to cease.' Compare 1 Sam. vi. 3; 2 Sam. xii. 10, vii. 15; Zech. x. 11.

Da Sceptre' might be more accurately rendered 'Tribal Staff,' significant of the government of the tribe. Thus, verse sixteen of this chapter, Judges v. 14, Ps. xlv. 7, Amos i. 5, 8, Isaiah xiv. 5. Some Jews would interpret it of 'the rod of correction; but this is refuted, first, by the parallelism. a must have some meaning correlative to Ppnp Lawgiver:' second, by the general consent of the Jews. Onkelos has 19, LXX pxwv; and so Dr. Solomon of Hamburg, and Dr. Zunz, in their versions have 'Scepter' and 'Herscherstab.'

All are agreed as to the

See Judges v. 14, Isaiah

PpLawgiver' or 'Judge.' general meaning of this word. xxxiii. 22, Ps. lx. 9, Prov. viii. 15. The last passage seems to imply that a signifies a subordinate magistrate. The meaning then would be, 'Judah shall never want a chief or subordinate magistrates until, &c.'

'From between his feet.' See Deut. xxviii. 57, and Gen. xlvi. 26. Abarbanel takes it in the sense of sitting at the feet of a Rabbi to learn; but the true sense is conveyed by the passages referred to. Instead of the Samaritan has Somo Jews separate these words,

Tuntil.'

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

xwp‘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.

by 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 1, 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, Swould not be the form of its masculine.

6

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 rib,

,the name of a place ; גלה and צינק קיטור6 .Isa. viii כידור

Josh. xv. 51. It signifies' peace,' the abstract put for the concrete, as Gesenius takes the corresponding word,

Gen. xliii. 27. D'N D, '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,' p, more properly 'obedience.' See Proverbs xxx. 17.

'People,' Day, 'Nations,' parallel with D. 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