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 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 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, 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. 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.