A parallel to the words in ver. 10, "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah," is formed by the departing of the sceptre from Egypt, in Zech.
x. 11: "And the pride of a.s.syria shall [Pg 64] be brought down, and the sceptre of Egypt shall depart away." All dominion of the world over the people of G.o.d is only temporary; and so also, the dominion of the people of G.o.d over the world, as it centres in Judah, can sustain only a temporary _interruption_: its departure is everywhere in appearance only; and when it departs, it is only that it may return with enhanced weight.--The _sceptre_ is the emblem of dominion. The words, "A sceptre rises out of Israel" (Num. xxiv. 17), are explained in chap. xxiv. 19 by the words, "_Dominion_ shall come out of Jacob." The question as to the subjects of this dominion must be determined from the preceding words; for there shall not depart from Judah what Judah, according to these words, possesses. Hence they are (1) the brethren of Judah, and (2) the enemies of Israel. The latter can the less properly be excluded, because of these alone the whole of the preceding verse treated. In the words of Balaam, in Num. xxiv. 17 (which refer to the pa.s.sage under consideration), "There cometh a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre riseth out of Israel, and smiteth the territories of Moab, and destroyeth all the sons of the tumult," there is viewed, in the sceptre, only the victorious and destructive power which he shall display in his relation to the _world_; but the subjects of dominion are, in that pa.s.sage, according to ver. 19, the heathens also. The sceptre is pre-eminently an ensign of kings. Hence, to the sceptre and star out of Israel (Num. xxiv. 17) corresponds, in ver. 7, his _king_: "And his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted,"--_i.e._, not merely a single royal person, but the Israelitish kingdom. But we can here the less legitimately separate sceptre and kingdom from each other, because, even in the earlier promises made to the Patriarch, there is the prophecy of the rising of a kingdom among their descendants,--of a kingdom, too, that shall extend beyond the boundary of that posterity itself. (Compare Gen.
xvii. 6, "Kings shall come out of thee;" ver. 16, "And she shall become nations. Icings of nations shall be of her." See also Gen. x.x.xv. 11.) In vol. ii. of the _Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, p. 166 f., we detailed the natural foundations which there existed for foreseeing the establishment of a kingdom in Israel. It is evident that the promise which was formally given to the whole posterity of the Patriarchs, is here appropriated specially to Judah, who, for [Pg 65] the benefit of the whole people, is to have the sceptre.[4] From what has been remarked, it appears that the fulfilment of this prophecy began first with David; up to that time Judah had been only "a lion"s whelp." "In the person of Saul," as Calvin remarks, "there was an abortive effort; but there came out at length in David, under the authority and legitimate arrangement of G.o.d, the sovereignty of Judah, according to the prophecy of Jacob." It also appears, from what has been observed, that _Reinke_, S. 45 of his Monography, _Die Weissagung Jacobs uber Schilo_, Munster 1849 (a work written with great diligence), is mistaken in determining the sense to be,[5] that Judah as a tribe would not perish, and his superiority not cease, until out of him Shiloh, etc.; and that he is wrong, too, in maintaining, S. 133, that the continuance of the royal dignity, and the superiority over all the tribes until the time of Christ, were not required by these words.
From the remarks which we have made, even more than that is required,--the _continuance_, namely, _of Judah"s dominion over the Gentiles_; for otherwise it would be necessary to make a violent separation of these words from the preceding ones. That which has given rise to such interpretations and a.s.sertions, viz., the apparent difficulty encountered in pointing out the fulfilment,[6] is by no means removed by such an explanation. For, if we look to the surface only, what had been left of the superiority of the tribe of Judah, at the time when Christ appeared? But if we look deeper, we shall find no reason for such feeble interpretations. The fulness of strength which, notwithstanding the deepest humiliation, still dwelt in the sceptre of Judah at the time when Christ appeared, is made manifest by the very appearance of Christ--the Lion of the tribe of Judah. Although faint-heartedness, perceiving only what is immediately before the eyes, might have said, "The sceptre has departed from [Pg 66] Judah," to every one who was not blinded it must have been evident, at the very moment when Christ appeared, that the sceptre had not departed from Judah. We must not allow ourselves to be perplexed by any events and arguments adduced to prove that the sceptre _has departed_ from Judah; for the very same events and arguments would militate against the eternal dominion of his house which had been promised to David, and would therefore make us doubtful of that also. All these events and arguments lose their significancy, when we remark, that this departing is only an _apparent_, not a _definitive_ one;--that G.o.d never, by His promises, binds the hands of His punitive justice;--that His election goes always hand-in-hand with the visitation of the sins of the elected; but that, in the end, the election will stand in all its validity.[1] To Judah applies exactly what in Ps. lx.x.xix. 31-35 is said of David: "If his children forsake My law, and walk not in My judgments; if they break My statutes, and keep not My commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless, My loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer My faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of My lips." But the greater the degradation that had come upon Judah, the more consoling is this promise. If we see that neither the decline of David"s and Judah"s dominion after Solomon, nor the apparently total disappearance of David"s kingdom which took place after the Chaldee catastrophe, and continued for centuries; nor the altogether comfortless condition (when [Pg 67] looking only at what Is visible) which Jeremiah describes in the words: "Judah is captive in affliction and great servitude: she dwelleth among the heathen, and findeth no rest. The anointed of the Lord, who was our consolation, is taken in their pits, he of whom we said, Under his shadow we shall live among the heathen. Slaves are ruling over us, and there is none to deliver us from their hand;"--if we see that all these things did not prevent the fulfilment of the words, "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh come;"--that, notwithstanding all these things, it most gloriously manifested itself in the appearance of Christ, that the dominion remained still with Judah;--why should we be dismayed though the river of the kingdom of G.o.d should sometimes lose itself in the sand? Why should we not be firmly confident that in due time it shall spring forth again with its clear and powerful waters?--But the _Jews_ are not benefited by this distinction betwixt the _definitive_ departing of the sceptre, and one which is merely _temporary_. The latter must necessarily be distinguished from the former by this:--that even in the times of abas.e.m.e.nt, there must be single symptoms which still indicate the continuance of the sceptre; and this was evidently the case in the times before Christ. In Jehoshaphat, Uzziah, and Hezekiah, the sceptre of Judah brought forth new leaves; after their return from the captivity, the place, at least, was pointed out by Zerubbabel, which the Davidic kingdom would, at some future period, again occupy. The victories of the times of the Maccabees, though they themselves were not of the tribe of Judah, served to manifest clearly that the lion"s strength and the lion"s courage had not yet departed from Judah. It is not without significance that _Judas Maccabeus_ had his name thus. And under all these events the family of David always remained distinct, and capable of being traced out. But nothing of all this is to be found with the Jews during the 1800 years after Christ; and hence the vanity of their hope that, in some future time, it will be made evident by the appearance of Shiloh, that the supremacy and dominion of Judah are not lost.
Along with the _sceptre_ which shall not depart from Judah, the _lawgiver_ is mentioned, for whom many would, quite arbitrarily, subst.i.tute the _commander"s staff_. Is. x.x.xiii. 22 is explanatory of this pa.s.sage; "For the Lord our Judge, the [Pg 68] Lord our Lawgiver, the Lord our King, He will save us"--where the _lawgiver_ is put on a level with the _judge_ and _king_. Gesenius translates it by: our _commander_.
The lawgiver shall not depart "from between his feet." This is a poetical expression for "from him." He is, as it were, to have the lawgiver wherever he moves or stands. Explanatory of this is the pa.s.sage in Judges v. 27, where, in the Song of Deborah, it is said of Jael, "He bowed between her feet, he fell, he lay down." That which any one has between his feet, is accordingly his territory on which he moves, that within his reach. In the latter pa.s.sage the prose expression would have been, "beside her," and in the pa.s.sage under consideration, "from him."[8]
Sceptre and lawgiver shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh come.
Here everything depends upon fixing the derivation and signification of this word. There cannot be any doubt, and, indeed, it is now almost universally admitted, that it is derived from ???, "to rest." In the first edition of this work, the author gave it as his opinion, that its formation was a.n.a.logous to that of ?????, "tumult of war," from ???, "to be troubled," ????, "smoke," from ??????? ,??? from ???; and many (_Hofmann_, _Kurtz_, _Reinke_) have stedfastly maintained this opinion even until now. But the author must confess that the objections raised against this derivation by _Tuch_ are well-founded. "In the first place," _Tuch_ remarks, "it is well known that forms like ???? do not const.i.tute any special cla.s.s in the etymology, but have originated from _Piel_ forms (_Ewald_, Lehrb. d. Hebr. Spr. -- 156 b), as is very clearly shown by ?????, being found by the side of ????????. But the _o_ in the final syllable of these words is not an o unchangeable, according to the rules of etymology, and could, therefore, not remain in a root ??; _and there is not found, in general, any form of a root_ ??
_a.n.a.logous to_ ????." But far more decisive is another reason. "The _nomina Gentilia_ ????? (2 Sam. xv. 12), ????? (1 Kings [Pg 69] xi. 29, xii. 15), lead us from the supposed form to the substantive termination ???? which a _liquida_ may drop, and express the remaining vowel ? by ?." (Compare _Ewald_, -- 163.) Now that _Shiloh_ is an abbreviation of _Shilon_ is proved, not only by the _nomen gentile_, but also by the fact, that the ruins of the town which received its name from the Shiloh in our pa.s.sage, are, up to the present moment, called _Seilun_, and that Josephus writes _Silo_ as well as _Silun_, S????? (compare _Robinson_, Travels iii. 1, p. 305); and, _finally_, by the a.n.a.logy of the name ????, which is formed after the manner of ????, and likewise shortened from ?????. We must confess that _Tuch_ is right also when he a.s.serts: "That it is quite impossible to give the word the signification of an appellative noun, since it is only in proper names, in which the signification of the suffix of derivation is of less consequence, that _on_ is shortened into _o_." The only exception is that of ????, "h.e.l.l," in Prov. xxvii. 20; but even this is only an _apparent_ exception, and is quite in accordance with the rule laid down, inasmuch as "h.e.l.l" is, in this pa.s.sage, personified,--as is frequently the case in other pa.s.sages. (Compare Rev. ix. 11.) But this case very plainly shows that we are not at liberty to apply, as _Tuch_ does, the measure of our proper names to those of Scripture, which are used in a more comprehensive sense. The Samaritan translation is, therefore, right in retaining the "Shiloh." As the pa.s.sage under review is the first in which the person of the Redeemer meets us, so Shiloh is also the first _name_ of the Redeemer,--a name expressive of His nature, and quite in correspondence with the names in Is. ix. 5, and with the name Immanuel in Is. vii. 14. With respect to the _signification_ of the name, the termination _on_, according to _Ewald_, -- 163, forms adjectives and abstract nouns. The a.n.a.logy of the name ????, which is formed after the manner of ????, indicates that it has here _an adjective_ signification, and, like Solomon, Shiloh denotes "the man of rest," corresponds to the "Prince of Peace" in Is.
ix. 5, and, viewed in its character of a proper name, is like the German "_Friedrich_" = Frederick, _i.e._, "rich in peace," "the Peaceful one."
To Shiloh the nations shall adhere. The word ???? is commonly understood as meaning "obedience."[9] But it does not [Pg 70] denote every kind of obedience, but only that which is spontaneous, and has its root in piety. This is clearly shown by the only pa.s.sage in which, besides the one under consideration, the word ???? is found, Prov. x.x.x.
17: "An eye that mocketh at his father, and despises the ???? of his mother."[10] To this view we are led also by the Arabic, where the word [Arabic: **], does not denote obedience in general, but willing obedience, docility, in the viii. sq. ? _dicto audientem se praebuit more discipuli_. (Compare _Camus_ in _Schulten_, on Prov. l. c.) Cognate is [Arabic: **], "to take care," "to guard oneself," specially of the conflict with the higher powers of life, in the viii. _semet custodivit ah aliqua re, et absolute timuit coluitque Deum, pius fuit._ From it is derived ??? _pius_ in Prov. x.x.x. 1, where the son of Jakeh speaks to "With me is G.o.d, and I prevail" (_Heb._ Itheal and Ucal.)
Luther, although he has misunderstood the right meaning of Shiloh, has yet beautifully comprehended the sense of the whole pa.s.sage. "This is a golden text," he says, "and well worthy of remembrance, namely: that the kingdom of Christ will not be such a kingdom as that of David was, of whom it is said, 1 Chron. xxviii. 3, that he was a man of war and had shed much blood. The kingdom of Shiloh, which succeeded it, is not a kingdom so powerful and b.l.o.o.d.y, but consists in this,--that the word, by which it is ruled or administered, is heard, believed, and obeyed.
All will be done by means of preaching; and this will just be the sign by which the kingdom of Christ is distinguished from the other kingdoms of this world, which are governed by the sword and by physical power."
To this point also Luther draws attention, that our prophecy affords a powerful support to the ministers of the Word: "It will be done by the proclamation of the promise, and Shiloh will be [Pg 71] present with it, and will be efficient and powerful through our tongue and mouth."
That by the _nations_ are not meant either the Canaanites in particular, or the tribes of Israel, but the nations in general, appears, partly, from the connection with what precedes--those who now willingly obey are evidently the enemies spoken of in vers. 8, 9,--and, partly, from the reference to the earlier promises of Genesis, all of which refer to nations in general. If a limitation had been intended, an express indication of it would have been necessary. The a.n.a.logy of the parallel Messianic pa.s.sages likewise militates against such a limitation; _e.g._, Ps. lxxii. 8: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth." (Compare also Is.
xi. 10.)
In the Shiloh, the whole dignity of Judah as Lord and Ruler is to be concentrated. It hence follows, that the nations who will not willingly obey Him as Shiloh, must experience the destructive power of His sceptre (Num. xxiv. 17; Ps. ii. 9), and that behind the attractive kingdom of peace, there is concealed the destructive dominion of the lion.
Several interpreters have determined the sense as follows:--The dominion of Judah should continue until the appearing of Shiloh; but that then he should lose it.[11] We, on the contrary, conceive the sense to be this: "That the tribe of Judah should not lose the dominion until he attain to its highest realization by Shiloh, who should be descended from him, and to whom all the nations of the earth should render obedience."
Against this interpretation no difficulty can be raised from the ?? ??.
It is true that this term has always a reference to the _terminus ad quem_ only, and includes it; but it is as certain that, very frequently, a _terminus ad quem_ is mentioned which is not intended to be the last, but only one of special importance; so that what lies beyond it is lost sight of. (Compare the author"s _Dissert. on the Genuin. of Daniel_, pp. 55-56.) If [Pg 72] only sceptre and lawgiver were secured to Judah up to the time of Shiloh"s coming, then, as a matter of course, they were so afterwards. That, previous to the coming of Shiloh, great dangers would threaten the sceptre of Judah, is indicated by Jacob, since he lays so much stress upon the sceptre"s not departing until that time. _Hence we expect circ.u.mstances that will almost amount to a departing of the sceptre._
But the positive reason for this interpretation is, that if, according to the other opinion, Judah were told that the dominion of his tribe were, at some future period, to cease, this would not be in harmony with the tone of the remainder of the address to Judah, which is altogether of a cheerful character. And _then_,--Jacob would, in that case, not have allowed the Messianic promise to remain in its indefinite state; from former a.n.a.logies, we should have been induced to expect that he would transfer it to one of his sons. And _finally_,--from the a.n.a.logy of the other Messianic prophecies, as well as from history, it seems not to be admissible to contrast the dominion of Judah with the kingdom of the Messiah. The dominion of Judah does not by any means _terminate_ in Christ; it rather _centres_ in Him.
We are not expressly told that the Shiloh will be descended from Judah; but this is supposed to be self-evident, and is not, therefore, expressly mentioned. If it were otherwise, the Shiloh would not have been alluded to in connection with Judah at all. A restriction of the promise to Judah, such as would take place if the Shiloh did not belong to him, is the less legitimate, inasmuch as, in vers. 8, 9, victory and dominion, without any limitation, are promised to Judah.
Having thus adduced the positive arguments in support of our view of this pa.s.sage, let us now further examine the opinions of those who differ from us. Here, then, we must first of all consider those which are at one with us in the acknowledgment that this pa.s.sage contains the promise of a personal Messiah.
1. Some interpreters (_Jonathan_, _Luther_, _Calvin_, _Knapp_, _Dogm._) are of opinion that ???? is compounded of the noun ???, "child," and the suffix of the third person: "Until his (_i.e._, Judah"s) son or descendant, the Messiah, shall come." (Luther, somewhat differently.) But this supposed signification of ??? [Pg 73] is dest.i.tute of any tenable foundation. That by such an explanation, moreover, there is a dissolution of the connection betwixt the Shiloh in this pa.s.sage, and Shiloh the name of a place, which is written in precisely the same manner, is decisive against both the view just given forth and that which follows.
2. Others (the last of them. _Sack_ in the second edition of his _Apolog._) suppose the word to be erroneously pointed. They propose to read ???????, compounded of ? for ???, and the suffix ? for ?. They suppose the language to be elliptical: "Until He come to whom the dominion or sceptre belongs, or is due." The princ.i.p.al argument in support of this exposition is, that most of the ancient translators seem to have followed this punctuation. It is true that this is doubtful as regards _Onkelos_ and the _Targum_ of Jerusalem, which translate, "_Donec veniat Messias, cujus est regnum_;" for we may well suppose that here ???? is simply rendered by ?????, while the following clause adds a complement from Ezek. xxi. 32, which is founded upon the pa.s.sage now under review. But it is certain that the LXX. supposed the punctuation to be ???????. They translate: ??? ?? ???? t? ?p??e?e?a a?t?
(Thus read the two oldest ma.n.u.scripts--the Vatican and Alexandrian. The other reading, ? ?p??e?ta?, has no doubt crept in from the later Greek translations, notwithstanding the charge which _Justinus_ [_Dial. c.
Tryph._ -- 120] raises against the Jews, that they had subst.i.tuted the t?
?p??e?e?a a?t? for the earlier ? ?p??e?ta?. Comp. _Stroth_ in _Eichhorn"s_ Repert. ii. 95; _Hohne"s_ edition of the LXX.) _Aquila_ and _Symmachus_, who translate, ? ?p??e?ta?, as well as the Syriac and Saadias, who translate, _Ille cujus est_, follow the same reading. But the defenders of this exposition are wrong in inferring, from the circ.u.mstance of the ancient translations having followed this punctuation, that it was generally received. Had such been the case, how could it be explained that it should no more be found in any of our ma.n.u.scripts? For the circ.u.mstance that forty ma.n.u.scripts collected by _de Rossi_ have ??? written without a ?, cannot be considered as of great weight; since it is merely a defective way of writing, occurring frequently in similar words. But if we consider the fact, which may be established upon historical grounds, that the Jews watched with most anxious care the uncorrupted preservation of the received [Pg 74] text of Holy Scripture, according to its consonants and p.r.o.nunciation; that they did not even venture to receive into the text any emendation, though it should have recommended itself as in the highest degree probable; while, on the other hand, the ancient Jewish and Christian translators took great liberties in this respect, and, in the manifold perplexities into which, owing to their insufficient resources and knowledge, they fell, helped themselves as best they could;--it will certainly appear to us most probable, that even the ancient translators found our vocalization of the word as the received one, but felt themselves obliged to depart from it, because they could, in accordance with it, give no suitable derivation; whilst the punctuation adopted by them agreed perfectly with the traditional reference of the pa.s.sage to the Messiah. But if this be the case, the authority of the ancient translations can here be of no greater weight than that of any modern interpreter; and, in the case under review, we are at liberty to urge all those considerations which are, in general, advanced against any change in the vocalization, unless there be most urgent reasons for it.
The ancient translators, moreover, can have less weight with us, because we can distinctly perceive that a misapprehension of Ezek. xxi.
32 (27)--on which pa.s.sage we shall afterwards comment--gave rise to their error. Against this explanation it may be further urged, not only that the ? _prefix_ occurs nowhere else in the Pentateuch--an objection which is not in itself sufficient, since it occurs so early as in the song of Deborah, Judges v. 7--but also, that the supposed ellipsis would be exceedingly hard. (Compare _Stange_, _Theol. Symm._ i. S. 238 ff.)
Before we pa.s.s on to a consideration of the non-Messianic interpretation, we shall first state the reasons which bear us out in a.s.suming that the pa.s.sage under review contains a prophecy of a personal Messiah.
It is certainly, with respect to this, a matter of no slight importance that, with a rare agreement, exegetical tradition finds a promise to this effect here expressed; and this circ.u.mstance has a significance so much the greater, the less that this agreement extends to the interpretation of the particulars, especially as regards the Shiloh.
How manifold soever these differences may be, _all antiquity agrees in interpreting this pa.s.sage of a personal Messiah_; and we could scarcely conceive of such an agreement, [Pg 75] unless there had been some objective foundation for it. As regards, first, the exegetical tradition of the Jews,--how far soever we may follow it, it finds, in ver. 10, the Messiah. Thus the LXX. explained it; for, that by "what is destined to Judah" (??? ?? ???? t? ?p??e?e?a a?t?) they understood nothing else than the sending of the Messiah, is shown by the words following--?a? a?t?? p??sd???a ?????,--which can refer only to the Messiah. (Compare Is. xlii. 4 according to the LXX.) In the same manner the pa.s.sage was understood by _Aquila_, the Chaldee Paraphrasts, the _Targum_ of _Onkelos_, of _Jonathan_, and of _Jerusalem_, the _Talmud_, the _Sohar_, and the ancient book of _Bres.h.i.th Rabba_. Several even of the modern commentators, _e.g._, _Jarchi_, have retained this explanation, although a strong doctrinal interest, to which others yielded, tempted them to give another interpretation to this pa.s.sage, which occupied so prominent a place in the polemics of the Christians.
(Compare the pa.s.sage in _Raim. Martini Pug. Fid._ ed. _Carpzov_; _Jac.
Alting"s_ Shiloh, Franc. 1660, 4to [also in the opp. t. v.]; _Schottgen_, _hor. Hebr._ ii. p. 146; and, most completely, in "_Jac.
Patriarch. de Schiloh vatic. a depravatione Clerici a.s.sertum_, op.
_Seb. Edzardi_, Londini 1698, p. 103 sq.") The Samaritans, too, understood the pa.s.sage as referring to the Messiah. (Compare _Samarit.
Briefwechsel_, communicated by _Schnurrer_ in _Eichhorn"s Repert._ ix.
S. 27.) It is true that from other pa.s.sages ("_Epist. Samarit. ad Job.u.m Ludolfum_," in _Eichhorn"s Repert._ xiii. S. 281-9, compared with _de Sacy_ "_de Vers. Samarit. Arab. Pentateuchi_ in _Eichhorn"s Biblioth._"
x. S. 54) it appears that, in accordance with their doctrine of a double Messiah--one who had already appeared, and one who was still to come--they referred our pa.s.sage, partly to the former, and denied its reference to the real Messiah. But this is of no importance. For, as Gesenius also has remarked (_Carmina Samaritana_, p. 75), the doctrine of a double Messiah is of recent origin with the Samaritans as well as with the Jews; and hence, it is very probable that the reference to the real Messiah was, formerly, the generally prevailing one, which was, even afterwards, to a large extent retained, as is shown by the pa.s.sage first quoted.--_Finally_, In the Christian Church the Messianic interpretation has been the prevailing one ever since the earliest times. We find it as early as _Justin Martyr_. [Pg 76] The Greek and Latin Fathers agree in it. (Compare the statements in _Reinke_.) Even _Grotius_ could not but admit that this pa.s.sage referred to the Messiah; and _Clericus_ stands quite alone and isolated, in his time, as an objector against the Messianic interpretation of it.
But even in the Canon itself, this pa.s.sage is understood of a personal Messiah. David, Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, look upon it in this light.
(Concerning this point, compare the inquiries in the subsequent portions of this work.)
The entire relation of the Pentateuch to the succeeding sacred literature, and the circ.u.mstance that the former const.i.tutes the foundation of the latter, and contains, in the germ, all that is afterwards more fully developed, ent.i.tle us to expect, that the Messianic idea has also found its expression in those books. The more prominent the place occupied, in the later books, by the announcement of a personal Messiah, the more unlikely it will be to him who has acquired right fundamental views regarding the Pentateuch, to conceive that this announcement should be wanting in it--the announcement, especially, of the Messiah in His kingly office; for it is this office of the Messiah which, in the Old Testament, generally takes a prominent place, and is, before all others, represented in the subsequent books.
But there cannot be any doubt, that the promise of a personal Messiah in His kingly office, if it be found in the Old Testament at all, must exist in the pa.s.sage which we are now considering.
The promises which first were given to Jacob"s parents, and thereafter transferred to him, included two things:--_first_, a numerous progeny, and the possession of Canaan for them;--and _secondly_, the blessing which, through them, was to come upon all nations. How, then, could it be expected that Jacob, in transferring these blessings to his sons, and while in spirit seeing them already in possession of the promised land, and describing the places of abode which they would occupy, and what should befall them, should have entirely lost sight of the second object, which was much the more important, and as often repeated? Is it not, on the contrary, probable that, as formerly, from among the sons of Abraham and Isaac, so now, from among the sons of Jacob, _he_ should be pointed out who should, according to the will of G.o.d, become the depositary of this [Pg 77] promise, which was acquiring more and more of a definite shape? The contrary of this we can the less imagine, because, according to ver. 2, Jacob is to tell his sons that which shall befall them "at the end of the days." The expression, "the end of the days," is always used of that only which lies at the end of the course which is seen by the speaker. (Compare my work on Balaam,[12]
p. 465 f.) Accordingly, it indicates, in this pa.s.sage, that Jacob"s announcement must comprehend the whole of the future sphere which was accessible to him. But if we do not admit the reference, in this pa.s.sage, to the Messiah, then a whole territory of future time, notoriously accessible to Jacob, is left untouched by his announcement.--From the beginning of Genesis, we find the expectation of an universal salvation; and at every new separation, the depositary of this salvation, and its mediator for the whole remaining world, are regularly pointed out. At first, salvation is promised to the whole human race, then to the family of Shem, then to Abraham, then to Isaac, then to Jacob. "Now that the patriarchal _trias_, since Jacob, has extended into a _dodekas_ forming the historical transition from the family of the promise to the nation of the promise, the question arises, from which of the twelve tribes salvation, _i.e._, the victory of mankind, and the blessing of the nations, is to come." (_Delitzsch_, _Prophetische Theologie_, S. 293.) Should Genesis become to such a degree inconsistent with itself as not to answer a question which itself has called forth? But that answer is contained in the pa.s.sage under consideration, only if Shiloh be taken for the personal name of the Redeemer. Unless we have recourse to artificial explanations, the announcement of Judah"s being the bearer of salvation is to be found in our pa.s.sage, only when, at the same time, the first indication of the person of the Messiah is perceived in it.
If the reference of the pa.s.sage to a personal Messiah be explained away, we should certainly be at a loss to discover where the fundamental prophecy of such an one could possibly be found. We should then, in the first place, be thrown upon the Messianic Psalms, especially Ps. ii. and cx. But as it is the office of prophecy only to introduce to the knowledge of the congregation [Pg 78] truths absolutely new, it would subvert the whole relation of psalm-poetry to prophecy, if in these psalms we were to seek for the origin of the expectations of a personal Messiah. These psalms become intelligible, only if in Shiloh we recognise the first name of the Messiah. The pa.s.sage in question, in combination with the prophetical announcement of the eternal dominion of the house of David, afforded the complete objective foundation for the subjective poetry of the Psalms. The eternity of dominion here promised to Judah was, as we learn from 2 Sam. vii., transferred to David. The exalted person in whom, according to our pa.s.sage, the dominion of Judah was to culminate, must then necessarily belong to the house of David. _Further_,--If the pa.s.sage under review be understood of the Messiah, we have an excellent fountainhead for all the prophecies of a personal Messiah; in its significant, enigmatical, and expressive brevity, it is most suitable for such a purpose. But if its reference to the Messiah be explained away, we are deprived altogether of a suitable starting-point. In the Davidic psalms, the Messianic prophecy already more strongly resembles a stream than a fountain.
So great is the weight of these reasons for the Messianic interpretation, that we might reasonably have expected that such expositors at least as stand on the ground of positive Christianity should abandon it only from overwhelming reasons, or, at least, from such only as are in the highest degree probable. But in this expectation we have been disappointed. The most superficial objections have been considered sufficient by _Hofmann_, _Kurtz_, and others, to induce them to disregard the consensus of the whole Christian Church.
We cannot, indeed, but be astonished at this.
_Kurtz_, following the example of _Hofmann_, says: "The organic progress of prophecy, and its correlative connection with history, which must be maintained in all its stages, forbid us, most decidedly, to a.s.sign to the expectation of a personal Messiah, a period so early as that of the Patriarchs. The clearly expressed aim of the whole history of this period is the expansion into a great nation; its whole tendency is directed towards the growth of the multiplicity of a people from the unity of the Patriarchs. As long as the subject of the history was the increase into a nation, the idea of a single personal Saviour [Pg 79] could not, by any means, take root. Such could occur only after they had actually expanded into a great nation in history, and the necessity had been felt of concentrating the multiplicity of the expanded, into the unity of a single, individual, _i.e._, after one had appeared as the deliverer and saviour, as the leader and ruler of the whole nation. It is therefore only after Moses, Joshua, and David, that the expectation of a personal Messiah could arise."--Do you mean to teach G.o.d wisdom? we might ask, in answer to such argumentation. To chain prophecy to history in such a manner, is in reality nothing short of destroying it. How much soever people may choose to varnish it, this is but another form of Naturalism, against the influence of which no one is secure, because it is in the atmosphere of our day. Men who occupy a ground of argumentation so narrow-minded and trifling,--who would rather shape history than heartily surrender themselves to it, and find out, meditate upon, and follow the footsteps of G.o.d in it,--will be compelled to erase even the promise in Gen. xii. 3, "In thee all the families of the earth shall be blessed," yea, even the words, "I will make of thee a great nation," with which the promise begins; for even _that_ violates the natural order. But the historical point of connection for the announcement of a personal Messiah, which here at once, like a flash of lightning, illuminates the darkness, is not at all wanting to such a degree as is commonly a.s.serted. On the contrary, if the blessing upon the heathen be allowed to stand, the expectation of a personal Saviour must necessarily arise from a consideration of the known events of history, and meet the immediate revelation of such an one by G.o.d. 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 G.o.d, 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 ???? 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 circ.u.mstance 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 princ.i.p.al 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 circ.u.mstance, 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 every case, a sure indication of error.
Moreover, it is possible, in every case, to trace out some interest, apart from the merits of the question, which has led to the objections against the Messianic interpretation. With the Jews, it was because they were driven to a strait by the argumentation of the Christians, that the Messiah must long ago have come, since sceptre and lawgiver had long ago departed from Judah. The rationalistic interpreters have evidently been determined by their antipathy to any Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. _Hofmann_ and his followers do not in the least conceal that they are guided by their principle of a concatenation of prophecy with history.
The opinion, according to which it is maintained that Shiloh is the name of the well-known locality in Ephraim, has found not a few defenders. Among these, several, and last of all [Pg 81] _Bleek_, in the _Observ._; _Hitzig_, on Ps. li. 2; _Diestel_, "der Segen Jacobs,"
translate: "Until he or they come to Shiloh." The sense is thus supposed to be: "Judah will be the leader of the tribes, in the journey to Canaan, until they come to Shiloh." There, in consequence of the tribes being dispersed to the boundaries a.s.signed to them, he would then lose his leadership.[13] But such an explanation is, in every point of view, inadmissible. It is very probable that the town Shiloh did not exist at all, under this name, at the time of Jacob. The name nowhere occurs in the Pentateuch; and the Book of Joshua (as we shall show at a subsequent time) contains traces, far from indistinct, that it arose only after the occupation of the land by the Israelites. But even supposing that the town of Shiloh already existed t.i.t the time of Jacob, yet the abrupt mention of a place so little known would be something strange and unaccountable. It would be out of the range of Jacob"s visions, which nowhere regard mere details, but have everywhere for their object only the future in its general outlines.
_Further_,--The temporary limitation thus put to the superiority of Judah would be in glaring contradiction to vers. 8 and 9, where Judah is exalted to be the Lion of G.o.d without any limitation as to time.
And, _finally_,--Up to the time of their arrival in Shiloh, Judah was never in possession of the sceptre and lawgiver;--and this reason would alone be sufficient to overthrow the opinion which we are now combating. We have already proved that, by these terms, royal power and dominion are designated, and that, for this reason, the _beginning_ of the fulfilment cannot be sought for in any period previous to the time of David. But even if we were to come down to the mere _leadership_ of Judah, we could demonstrate that even this did not belong to him. His marching in front of the others cannot, even in the remotest degree, be considered as a leadership. Moses, who belonged to another tribe, had been solemnly called by G.o.d to the chief command. Nor was Joshua [Pg 82] of the tribe of Judah. In him, on the contrary, there appeared the germ of Ephraim"s superiority, which continued through the whole period of the Judges, and which came to an end only by David"s having been raised to the royal dignity. (Compare my commentary on Ps.
lxxviii.)
Others (_Tuch_, _Maurer_) give the explanation: "As long as they come to Shiloh." This, according to them, the "poet" meant to be identical with: "in all eternity." They think that his (the "poet"s") meaning was, that the holy tabernacle, which at his time (_Tuch_ a.s.signs the composition of Jacob"s blessing to the period of Samuel) was at Shiloh, would remain there to all eternity. To this exposition it would be alone sufficient to object that, according to it, the phrase ?? ??, which uniformly means only "until," is taken in the signification "as long as." _Further_,--History plainly enough shows how little the sanctuary was considered to be bound to Shiloh; to which place it had been brought, not in consequence of an express divine declaration, but only in accordance with Joshua"s own views. When the ark of the covenant was carried away by the Philistines, this was considered as an express declaration of G.o.d, that He would no longer dwell in Shiloh.
How different was the case as regards Jerusalem! Notwithstanding the destruction by the Chaldees, the city continued to be the seat of the sanctuary. _Further_,--This view implies a strange blending of gross error--viz., the supposition that the sanctuary would remain for ever in Shiloh--and of true prophecy, viz., the announcement, uttered at the time of Ephraim"s leadership, of the dominion of the tribe of Judah, which was first realized in David"s royalty. The only ground in support of the Ephraimitic Shiloh--the fact, namely, that Shiloh, wherever else it occurs in the Old Testament, always signifies the name of the place--we hope to invalidate by and by; when it will be seen that the town received its name only on the ground of the pa.s.sage now under consideration.
Other opponents of the Messianic interpretation take Shiloh as a _nomen appellativum_, in the signification of _rest_. They translate either, "Until rest cometh and people obey him" (thus _Vater_, _Gesenius_, _k.n.o.bel_), or, "Until he comes (or, they come) to rest" (thus _Hofmann_, _Kurtz_, and others). By "rest," they understand either the political rest enjoyed under David and Solomon, or they find here expressed the idea of eternal rest in [Pg 83] the expected Messianic time. Thus do _Gesenius_, _Hofmann_, and _Kurtz_ understand it. The last-named determines the sense thus: "Judah shall remain in the uninterrupted possession of a princely position among his brethren, until through warfare and by victory he shall have realized the aim, object, and consummation of his sovereignty in the attained enjoyment of happy rest and undisturbed peace, and in the willing and joyful obedience of the nations." But this explanation is to be suspected, simply from the circ.u.mstance, that, in whatever other place Shiloh occurs, it is used as a _nomen proprium_; while it is entirely overthrown by the circ.u.mstance, that, according to its form, as already deduced, Shiloh can be nothing else than a _nomen proprium_.[14] We here only remark, by way of antic.i.p.ation, that David, Solomon, Isaiah, and Ezekiel bear testimony against this explanation. An interpretation which dissevers the connection betwixt Shiloh and Shiloh, betwixt Shiloh and Solomon, betwixt Shiloh and the Prince of Peace, betwixt Shiloh and Him "whose is the judgment," must be, thereby, self-condemned. Against the explanation, "Until he comes to rest," it may also be urged, that the Accusative could not here stand after a verb of motion; it was too natural to consider Shiloh as the subject. If it had been intended in any other sense, a preposition would have been absolutely requisite.
We further remark, that vers. 11 and 12, which ancient and modern interpreters, _e.g._, _Kurtz_, have attempted to bring into artificial connection with ver. 10, simply "finish the picture of Judah"s happiness by a description of the luxurious fulness of his rich territory" (_Tuch_). Their tenor is quite different from that which precedes, where a pre-eminence was a.s.signed to Judah; for they contain nothing beyond a simple, positive declaration. What is in them a.s.signed to Judah, belongs to him only as a part of the whole, as a fellow-heir of the country flowing with milk and honey, and corresponds entirely with the blessings upon the other sons, which are, almost all of them, only individual applications of the general blessing. It is evidently parallel to what, in vers. 25, 26, is said of Joseph, and in ver 20 of Asher. That which Jacob here a.s.signs to Judah, was [Pg 84] formerly, in Gen. xxvii. 28, a.s.signed by Isaac to Jacob, and in him to the whole people: "G.o.d give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine." Hence, it is not at all necessary to examine history for the purpose of ascertaining whether Judah was distinguished above the other tribes, by plenty of wine and milk.
We need not lose much time in discussing the attempts which have been made to a.s.sign the blessing of Jacob to a later period. The futility of all of them is proved by the circ.u.mstance, that we have not here before us any special predictions, such as are peculiar to _vaticinia post eventum_, but general prophetical outlines, individual applications of the general blessings, exemplifications. Whatever seems, at first sight, to be different, melts away while handling it. Thus, for example, the blessings which Israel enjoyed by his dwelling on the sea-side, are pointed out in the blessing upon Zebulun, because he had his name from the _dwelling_, Gen. xxi. 20. That Zebulun is here viewed only as a part of the whole, appears from the fact that, afterwards, he did not live by the sea at all. In the case of Issachar, it was the individuality of the ancestor Jacob which gave him occasion to describe, from his own example, the dangers of an indolent rest.
History does not say anything of Issachar alone having yielded to these dangers in a peculiar degree. In the case of Joseph, the events personal to the son are transferred to the tribe, and in the tribe, to the whole nation. In an inimitable manner the tender love of the father towards his son and provider meets us here. The only thing which goes beyond the human sphere of Jacob, is the prediction by which Judah is placed in the centre of the world"s history. But it is just this which, even in its beginnings, goes beyond the time at which this pretended _vaticinium post eventum_ is placed by _Tuch_, _Bleek_, and _Ewald_; for, by this a.s.sumption of theirs, they are necessarily limited to the time before David, if they wish to avoid the insurmountable difficulties which arise from what is said of Levi and of Joseph. But to the man who looks deeper, vers. 8-10 are just the seal of the divinity, and hence of the genuineness also, of this prophecy, and, with all his heart, he will hate such miserable conjectures.[15]
[Pg 85]
Let us now follow through history Jacob"s blessing upon Judah. From this inquiry it will appear how deep has been the impression made by it upon the people of the covenant. On this occasion also, it will be seen still more distinctly what the right is which rationalistic criticism has to declare this _fundamental prophecy_ to be the recent production of an obscure poet. The chain-like character of Holy Scripture will be seen in a very striking light.