(b.) The other which makes Shiloh the name of a town in Canaan, labors under serious, not to say insurmountable difficulties.
(a.) “Shiloh” is derived readily from the verb Shalah,[26] kindred with Shalam, both words being in frequent use in the sense of being at peace and in rest; expressing good wishes for peace—i. e. for all prosperity—the noun from which might naturally mean the author of peace, as we see in Mic. 5: 4. Furthermore, this distinctive feature of the Messiah’s character and mission is the theme of Ps. 72 and of many passages in Isaiah, e. g. 9: 6, 7, and 11: 1–10, and 60: 18–22. These prophecies naturally follow the lead of this and therefore sustain the construction here given it.
Moreover, it is natural and highly probable that Jacob whose twelve sons were to found the twelve tribes of Israel and who knew that the Messiah was to come in the line of some one of his sons, should indicate which. Noah had designated Shem: God had designated Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; now the choice is naturally made out of these twelve. That the long promised Seed was in Jacob’s thought is forcibly and beautifullysuggested in the midst of these dying benedictions by the words—“I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord” (49: 18). In the sustaining hope of a coming Savior he had waited and trusted through many long years; for these words express the precious experiences of a life. As Jesus himself testified of Abraham, “He rejoiced to see my day,” hailing it joyously from afar, so Jacob witnesses of himself, “I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord.”
(b.) Those who give “Shiloh” here the geographical sense argue that in every other case of its use in scripture, it refers to the town of that name. This name for a town appears first in Josh. 18: 1, 8, 10, and often subsequently in Judges, 1 Sam., etc. But there is no evidence that in Jacob’s day it had come into use in geography. This usage, so far as appears, was long subsequent. Nothing forbids, therefore, that Jacob should use it simply for its significance—the Peace-giving One.
Again, the most marked supremacy of Judah began after the nation had reached Shiloh. It is therefore bad history and very inept prophecy to represent Judah as holding the scepter until the nation came to Shiloh; the fact being that he had not held it in the full sense previously to reaching Shiloh, but did hold it for many centuries after Shiloh had lost its pre-eminence as the religious capital. I see therefore no good ground for setting aside the Messianic interpretation of this passage. The argument in its defense is ably and fully drawn out by Keil in his Commentary, and yet more fully by Hengstenberg in his Christology, vol. 1. pp. 50–63.
The less readable portions of Genesis.
We have passed several portions of Genesis with little or no notice; e. g. the genealogical tables, and some of the less important sketches of family and tribal history; e. g. that of Abraham’s sons by Keturah; of Ishmael, Esau, Laban, etc.
Of these less readable passages, let it be noted:
1. They are such as never could find place in a tale of fiction, gotten up in some later age to interest and amuse the reader. The fact that nobody finds interestand amusement in reading them now proves conclusively that no writer of fiction could possibly have concocted such chapters from his own fancy and have foisted them into a professedly ancient history. The men who forge books of fiction to pass them off as truthful history are careful not to put in unreadable chapters—void of rational or even imaginative interest to the men of after ages.
2. Consequently these passages are incontrovertible proof of the genuineness and real antiquity of these writings. In their time they had interest—just that interest which attaches to sober truth: none more or other than this.