THE PROMISE TO THE PATRIARCHS.

A great epoch is, in Genesis, ushered in with the history of the time

of the Patriarchs. _Luther_ says: "This is the third period in which

Holy Scripture begins the history of the Church with a new family." In

a befitting manner, the representation is opened in Gen. xii. 1-3 by an

account of the first revelation of God, given to Abraham at Haran, in

which the way is opened up for all that follows, and in which the

dispensations of God are brought before us in a rapid survey. Abraham

is to forsake everything, and then God will give him everything.

Gen. xii. 1. "_And the Lord said unto Abraham, Get thee out of thy

country, and from thy hone, and from thy father's house, into a land

that I will show thee._ Ver. 2. _And I will make of thee a great

nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt

be a blessing._ Ver. 3. _And I will bless them that bless thee, and him

who curseth thee I will curse: and in thee all the families of the

earth shall be blessed._"

"_Into a land that I will show thee._" From what follows, it appears

that, in the very same revelation, the country was afterwards _more

definitely_ pointed out; for Abraham, without having received any new

revelation, goes to Canaan, For the sake of brevity, the writer gives

the details only afterwards, when he has occasion to report how they

were carried out. The land which God will show to Abraham, stands

contrasted with that in which he is at home,--in which he and his whole

being had taken root. This contrast points out the greatness of the

sacrifice which God demands of Abraham. With a like intent we have the

accumulation of expressions--"out of thy land," etc.--corresponding to

a similar one when the command was given to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. xxii.

2), and forming the condition of the promise which follows. This

promise is intended to make the sacrifice a light thing to Abraham, by

pointing out what he is to receive if he give up everything which

stands in the way of his living to God. A similar call comes to all who

feel impelled to renounce the world in order to serve God. This call to

Abraham is peculiar only as to its form; as to its essence, it is ever

repeating itself. This will appear the more distinctly, when we inquire

into the true reason of the _outward_ separation here demanded of [Pg

47] Abraham. It can be Intended only as a means of the internal

separation. In the circle in which he lived, sin had already made a

mighty progress, as appears from Josh. xxiv. 2,--a passage which shows

us that idolatry had already made its way into the family of Abraham.

In order to withdraw him from the influences of this corruption,

Abraham is removed from the circle in which he had grown up, and in

which he had hitherto moved. That the special thing here demanded is

only the result of the general duty of renunciation and self-denial,

which is here, in Abraham, laid upon the whole Church, appears from the

circumstance, that the promise was renewed at a subsequent period,

when, with a willing heart, he had offered up his son Isaac as a

spiritual sacrifice to his God. The carnal, ungodly love to Isaac is

thus placed on a level with the attachment to the land, etc., which

came betwixt him and his God. The general idea, that self-renunciation

lies at the foundation, is brought out in Psalm xlv. 11.

The words, "_And thou shalt be a blessing_," imply more than the

words, "I will bless thee:" they are intentionally placed in the centre

of the whole promise. Abraham shall, as it were, be an embodied

blessing--himself blessed, and the cause of blessing to all those who

bless him--to all the generations of the earth who shall, at some

future period, enter into this loving and grateful relation to him. On

the ground of Abraham's self-denial, and unreserved surrender, blessing

is poured out _upon him_, blessing also _on his account_ and _through

him_. The blessing connected with him begins with himself, and extends

over all the families of the earth.

"_And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee I

will curse._ The blessing is based upon the turning to Him who has

appointed Abraham for a blessing, as we may learn from the example of

Melchizedek, Gen. xiv. 19. They who bless are themselves not far from

the kingdom of God; blessing, therefore, is the preparatory step

towards being blessed. (Compare Matt. x. 40-42.)

"_And in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed._"

_Luther_ says: "Now there follows the right promise, which ought to be

written in golden letters, and proclaimed in all lands, and for which

we ought to praise and glorify."

The promise stands here in close connection with the Mosaic [Pg 48]

history of the creation. According to that, man, as such, bears upon

him the impress of the divine image. Gen. i. 26, and is the depository

of the divine breath. Gen. ii. 7. From such a beginning, we cannot

conceive of any limitation of salvation which is not, at the same time,

a means of its universal extension. It must therefore be in entire

accordance with the nature of the thing, that even here, where the

setting apart of a particular chosen race takes its rise, there should

be an intimation of its universally comprehensive object. There is, in

the circumstance of _families_ being spoken of, a distinct reference to

the history of creation; משפחה everywhere corresponds exactly with our

word "family." It is everywhere used only of the subdivisions in the

greater body of the nation or tribe. The expression, then, points to

the higher unity of the whole human race, as it has its foundation in

the fact that all partake in common of the divine image.

The announcement of the blessing in this passage leads us back to the

curse pronounced in consequence of sin, Gen. iii. 17: "Cursed is the

ground (_Adamah_) for thy sake." (Compare Gen. v. 29.) This curse is,

at some future time, to be abolished by Abraham. We can account for the

mention of the families of the "Adamah" only by supposing that a

reference to this passage was fully intended; for it was just the

"Adamah" (primarily, "land") which had there been designated as the

object of the curse.

In announcing that all the families shall be blessed in Abraham, the

writer refers also to the judgment described in Gen. xi., by which

the family of mankind,--which, according to the intention of God, ought

to have been united,--was dispersed and separated. When viewed in

this connection, we expect that the blessing will manifest itself

in the healing of the deep wound inflicted upon mankind, in the

re-establishment of the lost unity, and in the gathering again of the

scattered human race around Abraham as their centre.

Beyond this, no other disclosure about the nature of this salvation is

given. But that it consisted essentially in the union with God

accomplished through the medium of Abraham, and that everything else

could be viewed as emanating only from this source, was implied simply

in the circumstance, that all the blessing which Abraham enjoyed for

himself had its origin in [Pg 49] this, that he could call God _his

God_; just as, in Gen. ix., it had been declared as the blessing of

Shem, that Jehovah should be his God, and as the blessing of Japheth,

that he was called to become a partaker of this blessing. The blessings

which were either bestowed upon or promised to the Patriarchs and their

descendants, had for their object the advancement of knowledge and the

practice of true religion, and had been bestowed or promised only under

this condition (compare Gen. xvii. 1, xvii. 17-19, xxii. 16-18, xxvi.

5); they could not hence expect anything else than that their posterity

would, in so far, be the cause of the salvation of the heathen nations,

that the latter should, by means of the former, be made partakers of

the blessings of true religion.

With regard to the manner in which this blessing was to come to the

Gentiles, no intimation was given by the words themselves. The person

of the Redeemer is not yet brought before us in them; the indication of

that was reserved for a later stage in the progress of revelation.[1]

The last clause of ver. 3 cannot, by any means, take away from the

import of the preceding one; the announcement of the blessing which,

through Abraham, is to come upon all the families of the earth, does

not repeal the foregoing one, according to which all shall be cursed

who curse him. This view is confirmed by an allusion to this

announcement in Zech. xiv. 16-19, where the words, "the families of the

earth," must be regarded as a quotation. In ver. 16, the prophet says

that _all the Gentiles_ shall go up to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast

of Tabernacles; but then, in vers. 17-19, he intimates the punishment

of those who should refuse to go up. _Luther_ says: "If you wish to [Pg

50] comprehend in a few words the history of the Church from the time

of Abraham down to our days, then consider diligently these four

verses. For in them you will find the blessing; but you will see also,

that those who curse the Church are cursed, in turn, by God; so that

they must perish, while the eternal seed of the Church stands unmoved

and unshaken. For which reason, this text agrees with the first promise

given in Paradise, concerning the seed which is to bruise the serpent's

head. For the Church is not without enemies, but is assailed and

harassed so that she groans under it; but yet, by this seed, she is

invincible, and shall at length be victorious, and triumphant over all

her enemies, in eternity."

References to this fundamental prophecy are found in other parts of the

Old Testament, besides the passage just quoted from Zechariah. In the

28th verse of Ps. xxii., which was written by David, it is said: "All

the ends of the world shall remember, and turn unto the Lord; and all

the _families_ of the Gentiles shall worship before Thee." The

realization of the blessing announced in Genesis, to all the families

of the earth, appears in this psalm as being connected with the

wonderful deliverance of the just. Another reference is in Ps. lxxii.,

which was written by Solomon. In ver. 17 of this psalm it is said of

Solomon's great Antitype: "And they shall bless themselves in Him, all

nations shall bless Him." In these words the realization of the

Abrahamitic blessing is distinctly connected with the person of the

Redeemer.

Among the New Testament references, the most remarkable is in John

viii. There, in ver. 53, the Jews say to Christ: "Art thou greater than

our father Abraham, which is dead? Whom makest thou thyself?" Jesus, in

ver. 56, answers: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he

saw it, and was glad," In ver. 57 the Jews reply: "Thou art not yet

fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" In ver. 58 Jesus thus

says to them: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I

am."

Let us here, in the first place, consider only the declaration of

Jesus, that Abraham rejoiced to see His day, and was glad. It is

altogether out of the question to think of any such explanation of this

as the one given by _Lücke_, after the example of _Lampe_ namely: "that

Abraham, in the heavenly life, as a blessed [Pg 51] spirit with God,

saw the day of the Lord, and in heaven rejoiced in the fulfilment." For

it is the custom of Jesus to argue with the Jews from _Scripture_; and

He cannot, therefore, here be appealing to an assumed fact which could

not be proved from it. The answer of the Jews, in ver. 57, is likewise

opposed to such an explanation, inasmuch as it proceeds from a

supposition which Jesus had acknowledged to be true, namely, that the

question at issue was a meeting of Christ with Abraham not mentioned in

history; and in ver. 58 Christ sets aside their argument, "Thou art not

yet fifty years old." But _Lücke_ must himself bear testimony against

his own interpretation, inasmuch as, according to it, he is obliged to

speak of "the very foolish question of the adversaries."[2]

Jesus saw Abraham, and Abraham saw Jesus. Not the person, but the day

of Christ, was future to Abraham. And this can be explained only by

Jesus' being concealed behind Jehovah who appeared to him, and gave him

the promise, that in him and his seed all the nations of the earth

should be blessed. This blessing of all the families of the earth is

the day of Jehovah,--the day when He will be glorified on the earth.

The key to the right understanding of this is furnished by the doctrine

of the Angel of the Lord, which meets us as early as in Genesis. From

the passages in which, at the appearances and revelations of Jehovah,

the mediation of the Angel is expressly mentioned, we infer that it

(the mediation) took place even when Jehovah by Himself is spoken of;

and the more so, since, even in the former series of passages, the

simple name of Jehovah is commonly varied by that of the Angel of

Jehovah. The Evangelist John's whole doctrine of the _Logos_ points to

the personal identity of Jesus with the Angel of the Lord. Not less so

does the passage, John xii. 41; and there is unquestionably a purpose

which cannot be misunderstood in the fact, that, throughout the

discourses of Jesus, as reported by John, the declaration that God

_sent_ Him occurs with such frequency and regularity. But we can

scarcely conceive of any other purpose than that of marking out Jesus

as the Angel or Messenger of Jehovah spoken of in the writings of the

Old Testament. Compare, _e.g._, xii. 44, [Pg 52] 45: "Jesus cried and

said, He that believeth on Me, believeth not on Me, but on Him that

_sent_ Me; and he that seeth Me, seeth Him that _sent_ Me." So also iv.

34, v. 23, 24, 30, 37, vi. 38-40, vii. 16, 28, 33, viii. 16, 18, 26,

29, ix. 4, xii. 49, xiii. 20, xiv. 24, xv. 21, xvi. 5.

Let us now, in addition, turn to the words, "Abraham rejoiced to see

(literally, that he might see) My day." It cannot be liable to any

doubt, that these words express the heartfelt, joyful desire of Abraham

to see that day, and that _Bengel_ correctly explains it by the words:

_gestivit cum desiderio_. It is true, ἀγαλλιάομαι signifies, by itself,

only "to rejoice;" but it has added to it the idea of joyful desire by

its being connected with ἵνα. The words now under consideration are

expressive of Abraham's joy and longing in the spirit for the

manifestation of the day of Jehovah and of Christ, while those in the

last clause of the verse express the gratification of this longing,

which was produced by his receiving the promise that all the families

of the earth should be blessed.

The ardent desire of Abraham to see the day of Christ implies that he

already _knew_ Christ, which can be the case only on the supposition of

Christ's concealment in Jehovah. This longing desire is not expressly

mentioned in Genesis, but it is most intimately connected with all

living faith, and must necessarily precede such divine communications.

The seed of the divine promises is everywhere sown only in a well

prepared soil. That the promise in 2 Sam. vii. was to David, in like

manner, a gratification of his anxious desire--an answer to prayer--we

are not, it is true, expressly told in the historical record; and yet,

that it was so, is evident from the words of Ps. xxi. 3: "Thou hast

given him his heart's desire, and hast not withholden the request of

his lips." There is here, then, express mention made of that which is a

matter of course, and which forms the necessary condition of that which

was reported in Genesis.

We are furnished by the Book of Genesis itself with the right

explanation of what is meant by the day of Christ, about which

interpreters have so frequently erred. It is not the time of His first

appearing, but, in accordance with the New Testament mode of expression

(_e.g._, Phil. i. 10), the time of His glorification. The day of Christ

is the time when the promise, "In thee shall all the families of the

earth be blessed," shall be fulfilled.

[Pg 53]

Peter quotes this promise in Acts iii. 25, 26. Among the

families of the earth he enumerates, first and chiefly, the people of

the Old Testament dispensation; and he does so with perfect propriety,

since there is no warrant whatever for limiting it to the Gentiles.

Paul probably refers to this promise when, in Rom. iv. 13, he speaks of

a promise given to Abraham and his seed that he should be the heir of

the world. A blessing imparted to the whole world is a spiritual

victory obtained over the world. The world is, in a spiritual sense,

conquered by Abraham and his seed. Express references are found in Gal.

iii. 8, 14, 16.

The same promise is repeated to Abraham in Gen. xviii. 18. Instead of

the משפחות האדמה (the families of the earth), the גויי הארץ (the

nations of the earth) are there mentioned; the family-connection is

lost sight of, and the comprehensiveness only--the catholic character

of the blessing--is prominently brought out. This promise is a third

time repeated to Abraham in chap. xxii. 18, on a very appropriate

occasion, even that on which, by his endurance of the greatest trial,

and by his willingness to sacrifice to God even what was dearest to

him, he had proved himself a worthy heir of it. It is certainly not a

matter of mere accident that this promise is just three times given to

Abraham. There is in this a correspondence with the three individuals

to whom the same promise is addressed. Abraham, however, as the first

of them, and as the father of the faithful, could not be put on the

same footing with the others. Instead of "in thee," or "by thee" (בך),

we read in xxii. 18, "in" or "by thy seed" (בזרעך). The same promise is

confirmed to Isaac in chap. xxvi. 14, and it is transferred to Jacob in

chap. xxviii. 14. But while, in the first and second passages, it is

said, "by thee," and in the third and fourth, "by thy seed," we read,

in the passage last mentioned, "by thee and thy seed." This evidently

shows that, in those passages where we find "by thee" standing alone,

we are not at liberty to explain it as meaning simply: "by thy seed."

It is not only the seed of Abraham, but Abraham himself also, who is to

be the medium of blessing to the nations, as the foundation-stone of

the large building of the Church of God, as the father of our Lord

Jesus Christ according to the flesh, and as the father of all

believers.

There is a deep reason for the fact that, wherever the posterity [Pg

54] of the Patriarchs are spoken of as the instruments of blessing, the

singular is always used. This circumstance is pointed out by Paul in

Gal. iii. 16. The Apostle does not in the least think of maintaining

that, by זרע "seed," only a single individual could be signified. Such

an opinion, no one who understood Hebrew could for a moment entertain;

and Rom. iv. 13 shows that Paul was indeed very far from doing so. The

further development of the promise (which took place within the limits

of Genesis itself, in chap. xlix. 10), as well as its fulfilment (it

is, indeed, with reference to the promise now under consideration that

the lineal descent of Christ from Abraham is established at the

commencement of Matthew's Gospel), showed that the real cause of the

salvation bestowed upon the Gentiles was not the seed of Abraham as a

whole, but one from among them, or rather He, in whom this whole

posterity was comprehended and concentrated. Now, all to which Paul

intends to draw our attention is the fact, that the Lord, who, when He

gave the promise, had already in view its fulfilment which He had

Himself to accomplish, did not unintentionally choose an expression

which, besides the comprehensive meaning which would most naturally

suggest itself to the Patriarchs, admitted also of the more restricted

one which was confirmed by the fulfilment. In the _Protevangelium_, and

in the promise of the Prophet in Deut. xviii., we have a case quite

analogous to this; and in 2 Sam. vii. there is likewise a case which

is, to a certain extent, parallel.

In two passages out of the five--in chap. xxii. 18 and xxvi. 4--the

Hithpael of the verb ברך instead of the Niphal is found. We meet with

it also again in the derived passage in Ps. lxxii. 17, where it is said

of the great King to come, "And they shall bless themselves in Him, all

nations shall bless Him." In xxii. 18 and xxvi. 4, we shall be allowed

to translate only thus: "They shall bless themselves in thy seed." For

the Hithpael of ברך always signifies "to bless oneself;" and the person

from whom the blessing is derived (Isa. lxv. 16; Jer. iv. 2), or whose

blessing is desired, is connected with it by means of the preposition

ב. (Compare Gen. xlviii. 20: "In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God

make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh.") From the nature of the case, it

is evident that only the latter can be meant here. This is shown also

by the derived passage [Pg 55] in Ps. lxxii. 17, where the words, "they

shall bless themselves in Him," are explained by the subsequent

expression, "they shall bless Him."

But it is certainly not accidental that the Hithpael is on both sides

inclosed by the Niphal, and that the latter stands not only twice at

the beginning, but also at the end. Hence we are not at liberty to

force upon the Hithpael the signification of the Niphal; but the

passages in which the Hithpael occurs must be supplemented from the

real fundamental passages. "To bless oneself _in_" is the preparatory

step to being "blessed _by_." The acknowledgment of the blessing calls

forth the wish to be a partaker of it. (Compare Isa. xlv. 14, where, in

consequence of the rich blessings poured out upon Israel, the nations

make the request to be received among them.) Oftentimes in the Psalms

utterance is given to the expectation that, through the blessing

resting on the people of God, the Gentiles will be allowed to seek

communion in it. (See my Commentary on Ps. vol. iii. p. lxxvii.) But

especially in Ps. lxxii. does it clearly appear how "blessing oneself

in" is connected with "being blessed by." The very same people who

bless themselves in the glorious King to come, hasten to Him to partake

in the fulness of the blessings which He dispenses. He has dominion

from sea to sea; they that dwell in the wilderness bow before Him; all

kings worship Him; all nations serve Him.

Several commentators (_Clericus_, _Gesenius_, _de Wette_, _Maurer_,

_Knobel_, and, in substance, _Hofmann_ also) attempt to explain the

fundamental passage by the derived ones, and force upon Niphal the

signification of Hithpael; so that the sense would be only that a great

and, as it were, proverbial happiness and prosperity belonged to

Abraham: "Holding up this name as a pattern, most of the eastern

nations will comprehend all blessings in these or similar words: 'God

bless thee as He blessed Abraham.'" But this explanation is, according

to the _usus loquendi_, incorrect, inasmuch as the Niphal is used only

in the signification "to be blessed," and never means "to bless

oneself," or "to have or find one's blessing in something." To a

difference in the significations of the Niphal and the Hithpael, we are

led also by the circumstance that the Hithpael is connected only with

the seed--"they shall bless themselves in thy seed,"--and the Niphal

only with the person of the Patriarch: [Pg 56] "they shall be blessed

in thee," and "in thee and thy seed." The Patriarchs themselves are the

source of blessing, but, if these nations _blessed themselves_, they

wish for themselves the blessing of their descendants exhibited before

their eyes. The reference in Zech. xiv. 17, 18 to the promise made to

the Patriarchs presupposes the Messianic character, and the passive

signification of נברכו. In like manner, all the quotations of it in the

New Testament rest on the passive signification. It is from this view

of it that the Lord says that Abraham saw His day; that, in Rom. iv.

13, Paul finds, in this promise, the prophecy of His conquering the

world; and that, in Gal. iii. 14, he speaks of the blessing of Abraham

upon the Gentiles through Christ Jesus. Gal. iii. 8 and Acts iii. 25

render נברכו by ἐνευλογηθήσονται. The explanation, "they shall wish

prosperity or happiness to each other," is destructive of the

gradation, so evident in the fundamental passage,--blessing _for_, _on

account of_, and _by_ Abraham; it cannot account for the constant,

solemn repetition of this proclamation which everywhere appears as the

_acme_ of the promises given to the Patriarch; it destroys the

correspondence existing between this blessing upon all the families of

the earth, and the curse which, after the fall, was inflicted upon the

earth; it does away with the contrast, so clearly marked, between the

union of the families of the earth effected by the blessing, and their

dispersion, narrated in chap. xi.; it demolishes the connection

existing between the prophecy of Japheth's dwelling in the tents of

Shem (ix. 27), on the one hand, and the Ruler proceeding from Judah, to

whom shall be the obedience of the nations (xlix. 10), on the other;

and it severs all the necessary connecting links which unite these

prophecies with one another.

Another attempt to deprive this promise of its Messianic

character--that, namely, made by _Bertholdt_ (_de ortu theol. Vet.

Hebr._ p. 102) and others, who would have us to understand, by the

families and nations of the earth, the Canaanitish nations--does not

require any minute examination, as the weakness of these productions of

rationalistic tendency are so glaringly manifest.

Footnote 1: _Herder_ says, in his _Briefe das Studium der Theol._ betr.

ii. S. 278: "If, in Abraham's descendants, all the nations of the earth

were to be blessed, Abraham might and should have conceived of this

blessing in all its generality, so that everything whereby his nation

deserved well of the nations of the earth, was implied in it. If, then,

Christ also belongs to the number of those noble individuals who

deserved so well, the blessing refers to Him, not _indirectly_, but

_directly_; and if Christ be the chief of all this number, it then most

directly, and in preference to all others, refers to Him;--although, in

this germ, Abraham did not distinctly perceive His person, did not, nor

could, except by special revelation, in this bud, so plainly discover

the full growth of His merits."

Footnote 2: Even in this he was preceded by _Lampe_, who remarks:

"Christ had spoken of seeing the day; the Jews speak about seeing the

person. He had spoken of Abraham's seeing; they speak of Christ's

seeing."

[Pg 57]

THE BLESSING OF JACOB UPON JUDAH.

(Gen. xlix. 8-10.)

Ver. 8. "_Judah, thou, thy brethren shall praise thee; thy hand shall

be on the neck of thine enemies; before thee shall bow down the sons of

thy father._ Ver. 9. _A lion's whelp is Judah; from the prey, my

son, thou goest up; he stoopeth down, he coucheth as a lion, and as a

full-grown lion, who shall rouse him up?_ Ver. 10. _The sceptre shall

not depart from Judah, nor lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh

come, and unto Him the people shall adhere._"

Thus does dying Jacob, in announcing "what shall befall his sons in the

end of the days" (ver. 1), speak to Judah, after having dismissed

those of his sons to whom, in the name of the Lord, he must tell hard

things--things which did not, however, exclude them from the salvation

common to all of them (ver. 28), although their shadow made the light

of Judah shine so much the more brightly.[1]

In ver. 8 everything depends upon a right determination of the meaning

of the name Judah. Being formed from the Future in Hophal, it

signifies: "He (viz., God) shall be praised." This explanation rests

upon Gen. xxix. 35, where Leah, after the birth of Judah, says, "Now

will I praise the Lord;" and then follow the words: "therefore she

called his name Judah." It rests likewise on the common use of the verb

ידה, the Hiphil of which is, according to _Maurer_, almost constantly

used of "praising God," and is, as it were, set apart and sanctified

for that purpose. After having enumerated a multitude of passages,

_Gesenius_ says, in his _Thesaurus_: "In all these passages it refers

[Pg 58] to the praise of God, and it is only rarely (Gen. xlix. 8

compared with Job xl. 14) that it refers to the praise of men." Even

these few exceptions are such only in appearance. In Job xl. 14, he

whom God will praise is not an ordinary man, but a _god-man_. By the

subsequent words in Gen. xlix. 8, "Before thee shall bow down,"

something divine is ascribed to Judah; we need not therefore be

astonished that, by the word יודוך, he is raised above the merely human

standing. They only who do not know the Lion of the tribe of Judah,

have any reason to explain away, by a forced exposition, the slight

allusion to a superhuman dignity of the tribe of Judah. The greater

number of expositors, referring to the subsequent words, "thy brethren

shall praise thee," explain the name by the expression, "blessed one."

But, even though we should retain the sure explanation which has been

given above, the idea now mentioned falls very naturally in with it. He

who, in the fullest sense, is a "God's-praise" (_Gottlob_), whose very

existence becomes the cause of exclaiming, δόξα τῷ Θεῷ, praise be to

God, will assuredly receive praise from the brethren.--"Judah thou"

stands (according to Gen. xxvii. 36; Matt. xvi. 18) either for, "Thou

art Judah," _i.e._, thou art rightly called so, or, according to Gen.

xxiv. 60, for, "Thou Judah," _i.e._, I have something particular to

tell thee (compare the emphatic "I" in Gen. xxiv. 27).--On the

expression, "Thine hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies," _i.e._,

thou shalt put to flight all thine enemies, and press them hard while

they are fleeing, compare Exod. xxiii. 27, "I will make all thine

enemies (turn their) backs unto thee," and Ps. xviii. 41, where David

says, in the name of his family, in which Judah centred, as did Israel

in Judah, "Thou hast given me mine enemies (to be) a back." If,

however, we inquire how this prophecy was fulfilled, we must not

overlook the circumstance that the subjects of it are sinful men, and

that, for this reason, God could never give up the right of visiting

their iniquity,--a right which has its foundation in His very nature.

Three sentences of condemnation precede the blessing upon Judah, and

this indicates that Judah too will be weighed in the balance of

justice. "The excellency of dignity and the excellency of power,"

which, in ver. 3, were taken from Reuben, are here adjudged to Judah.

The circumstance of his being the first-born could not protect the

former against the loss of his privileges; [Pg 59] and just as little

will the divine election deliver Judah from a visitation for his sins,

although, by that election, the total loss of his privileges is

rendered impossible. These two ordinations--the election and the

visitation of sin in the elect--stand by the side of each other; and

the latter could not be stayed, even at the time when Judah had reached

its height in the Lion from out of his tribe; for although the Shepherd

was blameless, yet the flock was not so. The ordination of election is,

however, far from being thereby darkened; it only shines by a brighter

light. Often painful indeed were the defeats which Judah had to

sustain; often enough--as during the centuries which elapsed between

the destruction of David's kingdom and the coming of Christ--was the

promise, "Thy hand shall be in the necks of thine enemies," reversed.

But when we behold Judah ever and anon returning and rising to the

dignity here bestowed upon him,--when the advance then always keeps

equal pace with the preceding depths of humiliation (we need think only

of David's time, and compare it with the period of the Judges),--then

indeed it appears all the more clearly, that the hand of God is ever

active in bringing this promise to a sure and firm fulfilment. In the

history of the world there is only one power--that of Judah--in which,

notwithstanding all defeats, the promise, "Thy hand shall be in the

necks of thine enemies," is ever, after all, fulfilled anew; only one

power, the victorious energy of which may indeed be overcome by sleep,

but never by death; only one power which can speak as does David in the

name of his family in Ps. xviii. 38-40: "I pursue mine enemies and

overtake them, I do not return till they are consumed; I crush them,

and they cannot rise: they fall under my feet. And Thou girdest me

with strength for the war, Thou bowest down those that rise against

me."--Luther remarks on this passage: "These promises must be

understood in spirit and faith. This may be seen from the history of

David, where it often appears as if God had altogether forgotten him,

and what He had promised to him. After he had already been elected, he

was, for ten years, not able to obtain a fixed place, or residence in

the whole kingdom; and when at last he took hold of the reins of

government, he fell into great, grievous, heinous sin, and was sore

vexed when he had to bear the punishment of it. Therefore these two

things--promise and [Pg 60] faith--must always be combined; and it is

necessary that a man who has a divine promise know well the art which

Paul teaches in Rom. iv. 18, to believe in hope even against hope.--The

kingdom of Israel, too, was assailed by so great weakness, and pressed

down by so many burdens, that it appeared as if every moment it would

fall; and this was especially the case when sin, and punishment in

consequence of sin, broke in upon them, as, for instance, after David's

adultery with Bathsheba, and oftentimes besides. Yet, even in all such

temptations, it always remains, on account of the promise."--It must be

carefully observed that the words, "Thy hand shall be in the neck of

thine enemies," are placed between, "Thy brethren shall praise thee,"

and "Before thee shall bow down the sons of thy father," and that,

immediately after this, Judah's victorious power against the enemies of

God's people is again pointed out. This teaches us that the exalted

position which Judah, when compared with his brethren, occupies, rests

mainly on this:--that he is their fore-champion in the warfare against

the world, and that God has endowed him with conquering power against

the enemies of His kingdom. The history of David is best calculated to

show and convince us, how closely these two things are connected with

each other. That he was called to verify the truth of the promise given

to Judah, "Thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies," was first

seen in his victory over Goliath the Philistine, fore-champion of the

world's power. After David's word had been fulfilled, "The Lord who

delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the

bear. He will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine," and the

Philistines had fled, seeing that their champion was dead (1 Sam. xvii.

37-51), then also were fulfilled the other words: "Thy brethren shall

praise thee, the sons of thy father shall bow before thee." "And it

came to pass as they came, when David was returned from the slaughter

of the Philistine, that the women came out of all the cities of Israel,

singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and

with instruments of music. And the women answered one another as

they played, and said, Saul has slain his thousands, and David his

ten thousands."--And in Sam. xviii. 16, it is said: "But all Israel

and Judah _loved_ David, _because_ he went out and came in before

them;"--and in 2 Sam. v. 2, when the ten tribes acknowledged [Pg 61]

David as their king, they said: "Also in time past, when Saul was king

over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel." David

would never have succeeded in overcoming the jealousy and envy of the

other tribes, unless the promise, "Thy hand shall be in the neck of

thine enemies," had been fulfilled in him.--_Before Judah shall how

down the sons of his father._ I have already remarked, in my commentary

on Rev. xix. 10, that there is very little ground for the common

distinction between religious and civil προσκύνησις (bowing down,

worship). The true distinction is between that προσκύνησις which is

given to God, either directly or indirectly, in those who bear His

image, in the representatives of His gifts and offices,--and that

προσκύνησις which is exacted apart from, and against God. "The God of

Scripture demands to be honoured in those who bear His image, who hold

His offices,--in father and mother and old men (Lev. xix. 32), in

princes (Exod. xxii. 28), in the office of the judge (Deut. i. 17;

Exod. xxi. 6, xxii. 7, 8). It is wicked to refuse this honour, and its

natural expression in the bowing of the body, under the pretext, that

it is due to _God_ alone. It is to be refused only where there is some

danger that, thereby, any independent honour would be ascribed to the

mere vessel of the divine glory." In what the προσκύνησις consists,

which Judah is to receive from his brethren, we see distinctly from

Isa. xlv. 14, where the heathen, at the time of the salvation, fall

down before Israel: "Thus saith the Lord, The labour of Egypt and

merchandise of Ethiopia, and the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come

over unto thee, and be thine: they shall go behind thee; in chains they

shall walk; _and they shall fall down before thee, and they shall make

supplication unto thee_ (saying). _Only in thee is God, and there is no

God else._" The ground of Judah's adoration on the part of his brethren

is this:--that God's glory is visibly upon him, that by glorious deeds

and victories the seal is impressed upon him: "with us is God"

(_Immanuel_). And this found its most glorious fulfilment in the Lion

of the tribe of Judah, in Christ, of whom it is said in Phil. ii. 9-11:

"Wherefore God has highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is

above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of

all those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth; and

that every tongue should [Pg 62] confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord,

to the glory of God the Father." That, in its final accomplishment,

this prophecy referred to Christ, was known to Jacob as certainly as he

makes Judah centre in the Shiloh. This Solomon also knew, when, in Ps.

lxxii. 11 (compare Ps. xlv. 12), he ascribes to his great Antitype what

is here ascribed to Judah: "All kings shall worship Him, and all

nations shall serve Him." The consequence of the worship "by kings and

nations" is the worshipping "by the sons of the father." Jacob thus

transfers to Judah that which Isaac had promised to _him_: "People

shall serve thee, and nations shall worship thee: be lord over thy

brethren, and thy mother's sons shall worship before thee:" Gen. xxvii.

29.

In ver. 9 Judah is first designated a young lion,--a name which is

intended to indicate, that the victorious power ascribed to Judah

exists, as yet, only in the _germ_. It required that centuries should

pass away before he grew up to be a lion, a full-grown lion. By the

long period which thus intervened between the promise and its

fulfilment, the divine election is the more strikingly manifested.

(Several interpreters have been of opinion that there is no difference

between the young lion, the lion, and the full-grown lion. But it is

shown by Ezek. xix. 3--"And she brought up one of her גורים, and it

became a כפיר, and it learnt to tear prey,"--that גור אריה is a young

lion not yet able to catch prey.[2]) In the words, "From the prey, my

son, thou art gone up," the _prey_ is the _terminus a quo_: for עלה

with מן is always used of the place from which it is gone up (see Josh.

iv. 17, x. 9; Song of Sol. iv. 2): the _terminus ad quem_ is the usual

abode, as is shown by what follows. The residence of the conqueror and

ruler is conceived of as being _elevated_. Joseph, according to Gen.

xlvi. 31, goes up to Pharaoh, and in ver. 29 of the same chapter he

goes up to meet his father. The expression "to go up" is commonly used

of those who come from [Pg 63] other countries to Canaan. But the

"going up" in the passage under review implies also the "going down"

into the lower regions to seek for prey, just as in Ps. lxviii. 19,

where it is said of the Lord, after He had fought for His people, and

had been victorious, "Thou hast ascended on high, Thou hast led

captivity captive: Thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the

rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them." "_To

dwell_" means there, that, after having accomplished all this, thou

mayest dwell gloriously, and be inaccessible to the vengeance of the

conquered, in thy usual place of abode. The sense is the same in the

passage before us. Luther is therefore wrong in explaining it thus:

"Thou hast risen high, my son, by great victories,"--as are others also

who translate it, "From the prey thou growest up." Such a view of this

clause would, moreover, break up the connection, and all that follows

would appear without preparation.[3]

The words, "He stoopeth down, he croucheth as a lion, and as a

full-grown lion; who shall rouse him up?" contain a transition and

allusion to what we are subsequently told concerning Shiloh. Even here

we are presented with a picture of peace,--a peace, however, which is

not to the prejudice of victorious power, as in the case of Issachar

(vers. 14, 15), but which, on the contrary, preserves it undiminished.

If the promise, "From the prey, my son, thou art gone up," found its

first glorious, although only preliminary, fulfilment in the reign of

David (compare the enumeration of his victories in 2 Sam. viii.), the

words, "He stoopeth down, he coucheth," etc., are the most appropriate

inscription for the portal of Solomon's reign. But, in Christ, the

pre-eminence in the reign both of war and peace is united.--That לביא

is not "the lioness," but only the poetical designation of the lion,

appears from just the very passage which is so commonly adduced in

support of the former signification, viz., Job iv. 11; for the sons of

the lion spoken of in that passage are the sons of the wicked (compare

Job xxvii. 14).

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 Assyria shall [Pg 64] be brought down, and the

sceptre of Egypt shall depart away." All dominion of the world over the

people of God is only temporary; and so also, the dominion of the

people of God 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

passage 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 passage, 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. xxxv. 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 God, 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 über Schilo_, Münster 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 assertions, 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 God 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. lxxxix. 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 God 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 abasement, 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,

substitute the _commander's staff_. Is. xxxiii. 22 is explanatory of

this passage; "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

passage 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 passage the prose

expression would have been, "beside her," and in the passage 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 שלה, "to rest." In the

first edition of this work, the author gave it as his opinion, that its

formation was analogous to that of כידור, "tumult of war," from כדר,

"to be troubled," קיטר, "smoke," from שִׁלֹחַ ,קטר from שלח; 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 קיטר do not

constitute any special class in the etymology, but have originated from

_Piel_ forms (_Ewald_, Lehrb. d. Hebr. Spr. § 156 b), as is very

clearly shown by קימוש, being found by the side of קִמּוֹשׁ. 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

לח; _and there is not found, in general, any form of a root_ לח

_analogous to_ קיטר." But far more decisive is another reason. "The

_nomina Gentilia_ גילני (2 Sam. xv. 12), שילני (1 Kings [Pg 69] xi. 29,

xii. 15), lead us from the supposed form to the substantive termination

־וֹן which a _liquida_ may drop, and express the remaining vowel ו by

ה." (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 passage, are, up to the present moment, called _Seilun_,

and that Josephus writes _Silo_ as well as _Silun_, Σιλοῦν (compare

_Robinson_, Travels iii. 1, p. 305); and, _finally_, by the analogy of

the name שלמה, which is formed after the manner of שילה, and likewise

shortened from שלמון. We must confess that _Tuch_ is right also when he

asserts: "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 אבדה, "hell," in Prov. xxvii. 20; but even this is only an

_apparent_ exception, and is quite in accordance with the rule laid

down, inasmuch as "hell" is, in this passage, personified,--as is

frequently the case in other passages. (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 passage 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 analogy of the

name שלמה, which is formed after the manner of שילה, 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 יקהה 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 passage in which,

besides the one under consideration, the word יקהה is found, Prov. xxx.

17: "An eye that mocketh at his father, and despises the יקהה 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. ל _dicto audientem se præbuit

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 יקה _pius_ in Prov. xxx. 1, where the son of Jakeh

speaks to "With me is God, 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 passage. "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 bloody, 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 analogy of

the parallel Messianic passages 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 עד כי.

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 circumstances 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 analogies, we should have been

induced to expect that he would transfer it to one of his sons. And

_finally_,--from the analogy 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 passage, 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 passage contains the

promise of a personal Messiah.

1. Some interpreters (_Jonathan_, _Luther_, _Calvin_, _Knapp_, _Dogm._)

are of opinion that שילה is compounded of the noun שיל, "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 שיל [Pg 73] is destitute of any

tenable foundation. That by such an explanation, moreover, there is a

dissolution of the connection betwixt the Shiloh in this passage, 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 שֶׁלֹּה, compounded of ש for אשר, and the suffix ה for ו. They

suppose the language to be elliptical: "Until He come to whom the

dominion or sceptre belongs, or is due." The principal 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 שילה is simply rendered by משיחא, while the following

clause adds a complement from Ezek. xxi. 32, which is founded upon the

passage now under review. But it is certain that the LXX. supposed the

punctuation to be שֶׁלֹּה. They translate: ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ

(Thus read the two oldest manuscripts--the Vatican and Alexandrian. The

other reading, ᾧ ἀπόκειται, 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 substituted the τὰ

ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ for the earlier ᾧ ἀπόκειται. Comp. _Stroth_ in

_Eichhorn's_ Repert. ii. 95; _Hohne's_ edition of the LXX.) _Aquila_

and _Symmachus_, who translate, ᾧ ἀπόκειται, 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

circumstance 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

manuscripts? For the circumstance that forty manuscripts collected by

_de Rossi_ have שלה written without a י, 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 pronunciation; 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 passage 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 passage we shall afterwards comment--gave rise to

their error. Against this explanation it may be further urged, not only

that the ש _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 pass on to a consideration of the non-Messianic

interpretation, we shall first state the reasons which bear us out in

assuming that the passage 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 circumstance 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 passage 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" (ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ) they understood

nothing else than the sending of the Messiah, is shown by the words

following--καὶ αὐτὸς προσδοκία ἐθνῶν,--which can refer only to the

Messiah. (Compare Is. xlii. 4 according to the LXX.) In the same manner

the passage 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 _Breshith 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 passage,

which occupied so prominent a place in the polemics of the Christians.

(Compare the passage in _Raim. Martini Pug. Fid._ ed. _Carpzov_; _Jac.

Alting's_ Shiloh, Franc. 1660, 4to [also in the opp. t. v.];

_Schöttgen_, _hor. Hebr._ ii. p. 146; and, most completely, in "_Jac.

Patriarch. de Schiloh vatic. a depravatione Clerici assertum_, op.

_Seb. Edzardi_, Londini 1698, p. 103 sq.") The Samaritans, too,

understood the passage as referring to the Messiah. (Compare _Samarit.

Briefwechsel_, communicated by _Schnurrer_ in _Eichhorn's Repert._ ix.

S. 27.) It is true that from other passages ("_Epist. Samarit. ad Jobum

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 passage, 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 passage

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 passage 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 passage 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 circumstance that the former constitutes the

foundation of the latter, and contains, in the germ, all that is

afterwards more fully developed, entitle 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 passage 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 God, 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 passage, 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 passage, 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 passage

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 passage, only when, at the same time, the first indication of the

person of the Messiah is perceived in it.

If the reference of the passage 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

passage 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 passage, the dominion of Judah was to culminate, must then

necessarily belong to the house of David. _Further_,--If the passage

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 assign 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 God 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 God 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 asserted. 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 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 יקהה 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 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 assigned 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 tit 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 God 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 God 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_ assigns 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 עד כי,

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 God, 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 passage now under

consideration.