354), and _Hasaeus_ (in the _Thes. theol.-philol._ nov. i. S. 439.) In recent times it has been defended by _Pareau_ (in the _Inst. interpr. V. T._ p. 506), by _Knapp_ (_Dogm._ ii. 138). 3. Others have steered a middle course, inasmuch as they consider the "prophet" to be a collective noun, but, at the same time, maintain that only by the mission of Christ, in whom the idea of the prophetic order was perfectly realized, the promise was completely fulfilled. Thus did _Nicolaus de Lyra_, _Calvin_, several Roman Catholic interpreters, _Grotius_, _Clericus_, and others. In favour of the Messianic interpretation, the authority of tradition has been, first of all, appealed to. It is true that modern Jewish interpreters differ from it; but this has been the result of polemical considerations alone. It can be satisfactorily proved that the Messianic interpretation was the prevailing one among the older Jews. 1 Mac. xiv. 41--"Also that the Jews and priests resolved that Simon should be commander and high priest for ever, until a _credible prophet_ should arise,"--has been frequently appealed to in proof of this, but erroneously. For, that by the "credible prophet," _i.e._, one sufficiently attested by miracles or fulfilled prophecies, we are not to understand the prophet promised by Moses (as was done by Luther, and many older expositors who followed him), is shown, partly by the absence of the article, and partly by the circumstance that a _credible_ prophet is spoken of. The sense is rather this: Simon and his family should continue to hold the highest dignity until God Himself should make another arrangement by a future prophet, as there was none at that time (comp. Ps. lxxiv. 9: "There is no more any prophet"), and thus put an end to a state of things which, on the 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: ὃν ἔγραψε Μωϋσῆς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ εὑρήκαμεν, Ἰησοῦν. 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.