rsonal Saviour must necessarily arise from a
consideration of the known events of history, and meet the immediate
revelation of such an one by God. The whole history of the time of the
Patriarchs bears a _biographical_ character. Single individuals are, in
it, the depositaries of the divine promises, the channels of the divine
life. All the blessings of salvation which the congregation possessed
at the time when Jacob's blessing was uttered, had come to them through
single individuals. Why, then, should the highest Salvation come to
them in any other way? Why should not Abraham be as fit a type of the
Messiah as Moses, Joshua, and David,--Abraham, of whom God, in Gen. xx.
7, says to Abimelech, the heathen king, "Now therefore restore the man
his wife, for he is a prophet; and if he prays for thee, thou shalt
live?" Or why not Joseph, who, according to Gen. xlvii. 12, "nourished
[Pg 80] his father and his brethren, and all his father's household,"
and whom the grateful Egyptians called "the Saviour of the World?"

Just as untenable is a second argument against the Messianic
explanation,--namely, that there is no parallelism between the two
clauses, "until Shiloh comes," "and to Him shall be the obedience of
the nations," but only a pure progress of thought. The laws of
parallelism are not iron fetters; and, moreover, the parallelism in
substance fully exists here, if only it be acknowledged that [Hebrew:
iqhh] does not signify any kind of obedience, but only a willing
surrender. The words, "until Shiloh comes, and to Him shall be the
obedience of the nations," are identical in meaning with, "until He
cometh, who bringeth rest, and whom the nations shall willingly obey."
The second member thus serves to explain the first; the sense would be
substantially preserved although one of the members were wanting. The
parallelism is slightly concealed only by the circumstance that the
words run, "to Him the obedience of the nations,"--instead of, "He to
whom shall be the obedience of the nations."

Let us now take a survey of the principal non-Messianic
interpretations. A suspicion as to their having any foundation at all
in the subject itself must surely be raised by their variety and
multiplicity, as well as by the circumstance, that they who object to
the Messianic explanation can never, in any way, succeed in uniting
with each other, but that, with them, one interpretation is sure to be
overthrown by another. Such is, in ever