The accusation of Moses must, then, according to this declaration, and in accordance with what follows, refer to the cause of Christ. But the passage under review is the only Messianic prophecy of a _threatening character_ which the Pentateuch contains,--the only one in which divine judgments are threatened to the despisers of the Messiah,--the only Mosaic foundation for the denunciation: "Woe to the people that despiseth thee." If it be denied that Christ refers to it,--if its Messianic character be not acknowledged, the first words of Christ are destitute of foundation. But if it be thus undeniable that Christ declared Himself to be the prophet of our passage, it must be considered an indirect attack upon His divinity to say, as _Dr Lücke_ does, that Christ did so by way of "adaptation to the interpretation of that time." It is just this appeal which forms the pith of Christ's discourse; it is the real death-blow inflicted by Him upon His adversaries. If this blow was a mere feint, His honour is endangered,--which may God forbid!--The Lord further marks Himself out as the prophet announced by Moses, and that, too, in a very distinct manner, in John xii. 48-50,--a passage which is evidently based upon vers. 18 and 19 of the text under review. (Compare John xiv. 24-31.)--To this we may add, further, that, according to St Luke xxiv. 44, the Lord Himself explains to His disciples the prophecies in the Pentateuch concerning Him; and we cannot well expect that Christ should have made no reference to a passage which one of the Apostles points out as being of greater weight than all others. This is done by Peter in Acts iii. 22, 23. The manner in which he quotes it, entirely excludes the notion that Moses was [Pg 109] speaking of Christ, only in so far as He belonged to the collective body of the prophets. Peter says expressly, that Moses and the later prophets foretold τὰς ἡμέρας ταύτας; and the words, τοῦ προφήτου ἐκείνου, show that he did not understand the singular in a collective sense. The circumstance that Stephen, in Acts vii. 37, likewise refers the passage to Christ, would not be, in itself, conclusive, because Stephen's case is different from that of the Apostles. But we must not overlook the passage Matt. xvii. 5, according to which, at Christ's transfiguration, a voice was heard from heaven which said: οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητὸς, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα· αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε. As the first part of this declaration is taken from the Messianic prediction in Is. xlii., so is the second from the passage under consideration; and, by this use of its words, the sense is clearly shown. It is a very significant fact, that our passage is thus connected just with Is. xlii.--the first prophetic announcement in which it is specially resumed, and in which the prophetic order itself is the proclaimer of _the_ Prophet. And it is not less significant that this reference to our text, with which all