205
to be the deliverer of Israel. But when he would commence his work of deliver- ance his brethren will not understand his aim and reject him, 23-28. In the wilderness he receives a fresh commis- sion from God to undertake the delivery of the people, 29-34. But this Moses (otros) who was thus repulsed God had sent to be a ruler and deliverer—this man was he who led these people forth— and it was this Moses who said to the children; ‘‘ A prophet” etc., v.37. Why is this prophecy introduced except to support the inference that as Moses, a type of the Messiah, was thus repulsed, and afterwards raised to be a ruler and deliverer, so must, according to Moses’ own words, the Messiah of Israel be first rejected by His people? In the next division, vv. 38-50, the same parallel is again instituted between Moses and the Messiah. The former had delivered a law which consisted of ‘living oracles,” but instead of receiving it, Israel had given themselves up to the worship of idols, 35-43; instead of establishing a worship well-pleasing to God, those who came after Moses, not content with the tabernacle, which was not confined te one place, and which represented the heavenly archetype, had built a temple which called forth the cutting words of the prophet, 47-50. In his explanation of these last verses there lies at least one weakness of Spitta’s explanation, for he does not seem in his disapproval of the temple to allow that it had even a relative value, and that Solomon was well aware that God did not dwell only in temples made with hands. But Spitta’s main point is to trace again a connection with the verse which forms his centre, ver. 37 (Deut. xviii. 15). As Moses in vain communicated a spiritual law anda corresponding worship to a people whose heart turned after idols and the service of a temple, so the Messiah must also experience that the carnal mind of the people would oppose His revelation of the divine will in relation to a rightful service. Thus: the whole speech be- comes a proof of the Messiahship of Jesus as against those who appealed to the authority of Moses, and saw in Jesus a twofold cause of offence: (x) that ‘He was rejected by His people and crucified ; (2) that He had treated with impiety that which they held most sacred—the law and the temple.
In all this Spitta sees no direct answer to the false witnesses ; but the speech, he maintains, is much rather an answer to the two causes of offence which must
Uy
206