The Messianic Prophecy of Jacob
(Genesis 49:8-12)

Rev. E. Yuritch, S.J., "The Messianic Prophecy of Jacob." Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Fifth Series, Volume XX. (1922) pp. 352-368.

The Patriarch Jacob was a hundred and forty-seven years of age, seventeen years of which he had spent in Egypt, when he felt the time of his death drawing near. He therefore gathered his sons around him that he might bless them, and "tell them that which shall befall them in the latter days" (Gen 49:1). In consequence of this blessing, Reuben forfeits the rights of primogeniture, Joseph receives a double share of inheritance, Simeon and Levi are cursed for their cruelty, while Judah is constituted the bearer of the hopes promised to the seed of Abraham. This prophetical blessing of the venerable Patriarch, recorded in the forty-ninth chapter of Genesis, is an elaborate piece of poetry, and forms one of the most explicit Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. The main part of the prediction in itself is very manifest, but it is by no means an easy task to clear away the difficulties which obscure the original text.

The present article has for its scope to deal with these textual difficulties as well as to inquire into the prophecy as such. It is verse 10 which presents the chief difficulty. The Vulgate translates the original Hebrew text as follows: "Non auferetur sceptrum de Juda et dux de femore ejus donec veniat, qui mittendus est; et ipse erit expectatio gentium." The Revised Version has: "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be." The great discrepancy between the two translations — "donec veniat qui mittendus est" and "until Shiloh come" — is apparent, and is due to the uncertainty of the Hebrew reading and interpretation, which is now to be investigated. Although the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is here presupposed, it will, nevertheless, be necessary to vindicate the authenticity of verse 10, which has been called in question by some scholars.

Those rationalist critics who do not admit any such thing as a supernatural prophecy are, of course, bound to account for this verse in a rationalistic manner. For some the easiest solution of the problem is the elimination of verse 10 from the original blessing as being an interpolation, added, for example, in the time of the prophets. This view is held by Dillmann, Holzinger, Wellhausen; and Driver is also of opinion "that verse 10 might quite possibly be a later addition to the original blessing, added at a time when Messianic hope in Israel had become more distinct."¹ These authors found their doubts on the following two arguments: first, that verse 10 breaks the connexion between verses 9 and 11; and secondly, that the idea of a personal Messiah is not older than the eighth century B.C.

But Skinner rightly replies² that the connexion between verses 9 and 11 is, in any case, not so obvious as to justify the removal of verse 10, and Father Hetzenauer³ sufficiently indicates the connexion between the two verses. The praise of Judah in verse 8 and in verse 9 would seem rather empty and pointless but for verse 10.

The other alleged reason, that the figure of the Messiah is a creation of the literary prophets, is a gratuitous assumption which contradicts the evidence, and is based only on the false prejudice that prophecies, in the biblical sense, are impossible. Moreover, positive internal evidence can be adduced for the authenticity of verse 10. Thus König, for instance, rejects on rhythmical grounds and on account of the context the view of Cornhill and Rothstein that verse 10b is interpolated.⁴ There is, therefore, no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of verse 10 itself.

But what is the authentic original text of the verse? In pursuing this inquiry it should be borne in mind that in the ancient Hebrew only the consonants of the word were written, and the reader had perforce to guess the vowels. The system of punctuation employed in modern Hebrew Bibles in order to supply the missing vowels dates from about the sixth century A.D. The oldest MSS. of such punctuated Bibles date from the first half of the ninth century. It is therefore evident that this arrangement of the vowels in the Sacred Text cannot be accepted as an absolutely trustworthy reproduction of the Sacred Text issued about two thousand years earlier. Moreover, not only the vowels, but also the consonants of a word, as found in the modern Hebrew Bible, need occasionally to be examined. This is the case with verse 10. The crucial word is that "Shiloh," which is reproduced in the Massoretic (or traditional rabbinical) text as sh-y-l-h, i.e., with four letters, of which the second might of itself be consonant or vowel, but here would certainly be the latter (y or i). This traditional reading was favoured by many older authors, and especially by Herder. The Revised Version has adopted it, as has also König among modern critics. Yet this reading is not only contrary to the overwhelming mass of textual evidence, as will be shown in the course of the article, but the interpolation of the second letter (y or i) renders impossible the translation, "Until there come, whose it is," which is solidly based upon the textual evidence, and which we adopt in this article. According to our view, the original reading was not the traditional form "Shiloh" but the form "Shelloh."

Some of those who follow the textus receptus, the Revised Version, for example, consider the form Shiloh as a Nomen Proprium, a name of the Messiah. Yet there are grave difficulties in the way of this rendering. For this seemingly most obvious of all interpretations first became current only in the versions and commentaries of the sixteenth century. The earliest trace, and possibly the origin of "Shiloh" as a personal name of the Messiah, is found in a passage of the Talmud, which runs as follows:

Rab said, the world was created... for the sake of the Messiah. What is his name? Those of the school of R. Shela (a teacher of the third century A.D.) say Shiloh is his name, as it is said: Until his son come (Heb. Shiloh). Those of the school of R. Yannai say Yinnon is his name, as it is said (Psalm 72:17): Let his name be for ever, before the sun let his name be propagated (Heb. Yinnon). Those of the school of R. Haninah say Haninah is his name, as it is said (Jer 16:13): For I will give you no favour (Heb. haninah).⁵

This curious passage does not suggest that at that time "Shiloh" (translated above "his son," because that seems to have been the current Jewish rendering at the time, or at least fairly soon afterwards), was a commonly known designation of the Messiah. The context rather suggests a surprising compliment paid to the Rabbi by his pupils, by the linking together of the Messianic title with his name, as in the other examples. Also Driver, referring to this passage, rightly remarks that, "the value (of such an exegesis) in determining the real meaning of a passage in the Old Testament, is evidently nil. The authority of the pupils of R. Shela is of no greater weight in determining the true sense of Genesis 49:10, than that of the pupils of R. Yannai in determining the true sense of Psalm 72:17. It is, however, in this doubtful company, that Shiloh is first cited as a name of the Messiah."⁶ This evidence, therefore, can scarcely justify the interpretation of Shiloh as a personal name of the Messiah. It is true that Shiloh is used as a Messianic title in the eleventh century and also by Samuel of Russia in the twelfth. But this is an isolated instance, possibly depending on the above-quoted passage of the Talmud, and the interpretation, therefore, lacks sufficient traditional authority. Nor is the etymology more satisfactory; for Shiloh could be derived only from the verb shalah, which usually implies the sense "to be careless"; and this does not suit the context. For these reasons Shiloh, as a personal name of the Messiah, is to-day generally abandoned.

Another reading is the following: "Until ( Judah) come to Shiloh," the well-known centre of the tribe of Ephraim, an interpretation which has the support of many authorities. Herder, in particular, enlarges in a rhetorical manner on an imagined scene enacted by Judah at Shiloh. Ewald and Delitzsch follow him and likewise Dillmann, the last named with hesitation.

But this rendering is not older than the second half of the eighteenth century, and consequently has no support in tradition. History also is against it, since it is more than doubtful whether Judah had any particular connexion with Shiloh, which was in the tribe of Ephraim and not in that of Judah. Thus, in spite of the many names supporting this rendering it is not viewed with favour by recent scholars.

Tuch, with some others, interprets the clause, "as long as one comes to Shiloh," i.e., for ever. This also is an arbitrary translation, without traditional or philological support. König, who in general is a warm advocate of the Massoretic text, follows it also here. He derives the word Shiloh from shalah as above, and interprets it as "calming down." He translates the sentence, "Bis Beruhigung eintritt" (till peaceful times come). The sense of the prediction would be this: Judah, the holder of sceptre and staff, the victorious leader of the tribes, will not forfeit his dignity as long as the war rages. When peaceful times come, of course, there will be no danger of forfeiting the dignity and power which, according to the subsequent verses 11 and 12, he is going to enjoy.⁷

Yet König's argument is not without its weakness. He makes assertions without proving anything. He denies the possibility of proving positively that this particular noun Shiloh could not be derived from the verb shalah. This might be true, but the question is, is it so? The common Jewish and Christian tradition answers that it is not so; then the undoubted Messianic character of the passage excludes a non-Messianic interpretation. These are the most important renderings given to Shiloh, if read with four letters. Yet such a reading cannot be maintained.

Those who advocate it rely on the authority of the Massoretic text, which, as we have seen, is open to question. König, who is very confident about this reading, produces in a footnote only this one argument for it, that "Shiloh is the reading of most MSS."⁸ This argument, if balanced with the evidence for the contrary, appears to be very insignificant. First of all, there are about forty MSS. of the Massoretic text itself, which have three and not four letters. The same is the case with the Samaritan Pentateuch, which is not punctuated. The Septuagint shows two alternative translations of the clause, both of which presuppose a reading with three letters in the Hebrew original. The Old Latin corresponds to the inferior rendering of the Septuagint. The Vulgate, owing to an obvious mistake as to the last consonant, occupies an isolated position, which cannot be defended; but it really presupposes the reading with three consonants in the original Hebrew. Moreover, the Targum Onkelos, that earliest of the Aramaic paraphrases (fifth century A.D.?), and the Jerusalem Targum, which is much later, indicate clearly a reading of three and not of four consonants. The Syriac Peshitta and a quotation in Aphraates (about 330-350) confirm this reading. Finally Ezechiel (21:27) has a passage which seems reminiscent of this text; and if it be so, it is a very strong argument, not only for a reading with three consonants, but also for our punctuation and interpretation. This cumulative evidence makes the reading with three consonants a certainty.

There remains, however, the problem of punctuating the three consonants. Historically two forms of punctuation were adopted, namely, sh-i-l-o-h and sh-e-ll-o-h. The doubling of the l would not require that it be written twice. The former has received the same interpretation as sh-y-l-o-h (or sh-i-l-o-h) the four-letter reading, which has already been considered and rejected. Thus, abstracting from a few ingenious changes in the Hebrew text itself, proposed by various scholars, there remains only the reading shelloh, which is almost universally accepted to-day by critics and experts, and which may be adopted as a reasonably certain one.

This word shelloh is compounded of three elements: the relative sign (shel), the preposition (l), and a pronominal suffix (oh). It can be rendered in the context either "Until that which is his shall come," or "Until there come, whose it is." The former rendering grammatically presents no difficulty, and very good reasons may be adduced in its support. The better reading of the Septuagint and the corresponding inferior Old Latin reading are specifically in its favour. The sense might be, that Judah shall not lose his high position until his greatest privilege and peculiar possession come, the Messiah and the Messianic kingdom.

The latter rendering has, however, received the most support and also conveys the best sense. Specifically in its favour can be adduced the inferior reading of the Septuagint and the better Old Latin reading, as well as the Targums, the Peshitta, and the passage cited from Ezechiel. The somewhat compressed construction of the sentence may be paralleled from Psalm 16:8; it may be added that a form of relative is used which is not common till later times, but which does occur quite early, for example, in Judges 10:7.

Thus, having disposed of the main critical difficulty, it will now be necessary to add a few linguistic notes for the better understanding of the prophecy. The blessing of Judah in verse 8 begins with a play on words. The Patriarch, addressing Judah, says, "Thee shall thy brethren praise." Here there is a clear allusion to his name, which may be rendered, "The praised one."

The Hebrew word for sceptre, "shebet" (rod, staff, tribe), is used only impersonally as an instrument or emblem. The parallel word "mehokek" may be used either personally or impersonally. In the former case it means "prescriber of laws," in the latter "staff." In verse 10 the parallelism demands the impersonal meaning, namely, the "commander's staff." The Septuagint, Vulgate, and some recent authors, for instance Hoberg,⁹ do not take the parallelism into account, and translate "leader" personally.

The phrase "from between his feet" suggests a chieftain or king seated, with his staff of office held upright in front of him. The Bedouin sheiks and headmen of villages are said still to carry such insignia of authority.¹⁰ Hoberg, however, prefers to think of human generation. The question arises, whether the emblems of sceptre and staff denote kingly authority, military leadership, or merely tribal independence. The expression shebet, combined with the picture of a king seated on his throne and receiving kingly homage, as indicated in verse 8, seems to suggest a royal sceptre. But the fact is, that Judah obtained royal dignity only centuries after this prophecy was uttered. Military hegemony is in no way suggested apart from the connexion with verse 8, which does not demand a military leadership for Judah. It must, therefore, mean tribal independence or autonomy, the symbols of which are sceptre and staff. Nevertheless, since the previous verses express some kind of supremacy over other tribes, the emblems of sceptre and staff must not be limited to tribal autonomy.

Some doubt exists as to whether verse 10 of the original text contains the word "expectation" or "obedience." Both readings are found in the MSS., but the evidence is much in favour of the reading "obedience." The word is found only in this passage and in Proverbs 30:17, and consequently the meaning of the word is not quite determined by contexts alone. Nevertheless, the corresponding Arabic root ("wakiha," oboedivit) shows sufficiently the real significance of the verb.

After these preliminary, though necessary, explanations the prophecy itself calls for consideration. For the sake of convenience, the full text, so far as it is relevant, will be reproduced. It runs as follows (Gen 49):

8 (a) Judah, thee shall thy brethren praise,
(b) Thy hand shall be on the neck of thine enemies,
(c) Thy father's sons shall bow down before thee.
9 (a) Judah is a lion's whelp;
(b) From the prey, my son, thou art gone up;
(c) He stooped down, he couched as a lion
(d) And as a lioness: who shall rouse him up?
10 (a) The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
(b) Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet
(c) Until there come, whose it is,
(d) And unto him shall be the obedience of the peoples.

Verses 11 and 12, which have little bearing on the exegesis of the prophecy, need not here be considered.

The structure and logical sequence of the verses are clear. In verses 8 and 9 Judah is the object of praise and "adoration" on the part of his brethren and an object of dread to his foes. He is a lion's whelp, and a lion so strong and fearful, that none will dare to rouse him up. To this is added in verse 10 the promise of the sceptre and ruler's staff, with assurance that these will not depart from Judah until something happens — until some one comes — in fact, until he comes, whose it is and whom the peoples shall obey. Verses 11 and 12 resume the description of the happiness Judah will enjoy.

Who is that great hero, whose advent is here announced? Is it the Messiah or someone else? During thousands of years uninterrupted tradition, Jewish as well as Christian, has answered that it is the Messiah. Theologians, exegetes, early fathers, and ecclesiastical writers are of one mind on this point.

This unanimous consent is founded in part on the clearness of the context itself, and in part on the consideration of the circumstances under which the prophecy was uttered. God had said of old to Abraham: "I will make of thee a great nation and will bless thee and make thy name great... in thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Gen 12:2,3). And later, the Lord appearing to Isaac said to him: "I am the god of Abraham thy father, fear not, for I am with thee and I will bless thee and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham's sake" (Gen 26:24). These promised blessings were handed down to Jacob by his father Isaac with the words:

God give thee of the dew of heaven,
And of the fatness of the earth.
And plenty of corn and wine:
Let peoples serve thee,
And nations bow down to thee,
Be lord over thy brethren
And let thy mother's sons bow down to thee (Gen 27:28ff).

Was it, then, intelligible that the great Patriarch, the ancestor of God's chosen people, would allow this solemn occasion of taking final leave of his beloved children to pass without mentioning the greatest privilege promised to his offspring? It was only natural that under divine guidance he should speak about the Messiah before departing, and give further information about this all-important subject to his sons. That is exactly what is found in this blessing of Judah, which cannot be fully understood without reference to the previous promises given to our first parents in the garden of Eden, and further specified to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Unmistakable allusions in other parts of Holy Writ also warrant the Messianic interpretation of this prophecy. For instance, the lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, that prevailed to open the book and to look for seven seals thereof, cannot be disconnected from this prediction, for the lion is the lamb of God, the Messiah (cf. Apoc 5:5-6). The sceptre also and the universal obedience of peoples is a marked feature of the Messiah in the Old and New Testaments.

Besides, there is the entire Jewish tradition, as expressed in Targumim and the Talmud, in which there is not the remotest suggestion of any other than a Messianic interpretation of the prophecy. The passage of the Talmud, quoted above, may suffice as an illustration of this. Even the Samaritans, so far as they have a tradition of their own, emphasize the Messianic character of this prophecy. This view is indicated in the letter sent to England by their chieftain, Moffaridj, quoted by Corluy.¹¹

Under the stress of such weighty arguments many even of the modern critics admit the Messianic character of the prophecy, or at least concede that it could be taken in this way. Thus, for example, Driver writes: "The verse is undoubtedly 'Messianic' in the broader sense of the word, ...whether it is 'Messianic' in the narrower sense of the word depends upon the question whether or not a personal ruler is referred to in the clause (c), i.e., line 10c above.¹² Skinner also acknowledges that "the tendency of recent scholars has been to regard verse 10 as Messianic." Among the many scholars named by him are Wellhausen, Dillmann, and Driver. He himself cannot but admit that "a reference to a Messianic tradition is quite conceivable,"¹³ although he prefers another view in this regard. König stands alone in disregarding the Messianic character of the prophecy. His point of view is determined by the principle, stated on page 126 of his book, that to combine the consideration of the Old and of the New Testament is equivalent to treating Scripture "unhistorically" and "unbiblically." Taking, therefore, into account all this internal and external evidence, the Messianic character of the prophecy is conclusively demonstrated. One might ask, where precisely is the Messiah introduced into the prophetic utterance? Here again the Jewish and Christian tradition is unanimous in referring the decisive word Shiloh, or better, Shelloh, to the Messiah.

It remains now to interpret the meaning of the Messianic prophecy contained mainly in verses 8-10, for which purpose it will be best to investigate, first, the promise made to Judah under the emblem of sceptre and staff and in the preceding verses, secondly, the relation of Judah to the announced Messiah, and finally, what is made known about the Messiah himself.

The sceptre and the ruler's staff, as already explained in the context, primarily suggests the tribal independence or autonomy of Judah. The natural meaning of this autonomy is a sovereign rule, though a kind of Home Rule may be implied as well. Accordingly verse 10 promises that Judah will be a fully independent, or at least self-governing, tribe, though under foreign domination for a certain period. The previous two verses demand an extension of the sovereignty of Judah's tribe over the tribes of his brethren. The length of time and the manner of bringing about this supremacy are not specified. The context does not necessarily require the subjugation of the other tribes, still less a lasting subjugation. A temporary submission of some of the tribes might easily justify the words "thee shall thy brethren praise," and, "thy father's sons shall bow down before thee." But it must be observed that the general drift of the prophecy points to Judah as being the tribe, the principal tribe and the representative of the nation; the centre round which other tribes will group themselves, the eldest brother to which the others will look up. The way in which this pre-eminence of Judah had to be realized is not indicated in the text, and it is possible that neither Judah nor his brethren grasped the full significance of the words at the time. Like all other prophecies, this too gives only the main features of the events to be realized, without entering into fuller detail.

The relation of Judah to the Messiah is, likewise, vaguely touched upon in the prophecy. Judah will enjoy his position of supremacy until the Messiah appears. The corresponding Hebrew word for "until" — ad ki — is somewhat indeterminate, and consequently it is not clear, from the wording of the sentence, whether Judah's supremacy is to be terminated by the advent of the Messiah or not. This point can only be determined by the whole context, or perhaps only from the facts themselves. In verse 10, at any rate, it is clearly expressed that Judah's position will be secure until the Holy One of Israel comes. That the time will be reckoned mathematically is not asserted, and a rough computation is sufficient. No more is it affirmed that Judah will be maintained at the very height of his success and glory until the coming of the Messiah. In any case, the prophecy will then attain its full realization.

At first sight, nothing seems to be said as to what will happen to Judah on the appearance of the Saviour, yet the words "until there come, whose it is," if carefully studied in the context, suggest an ultimate and definite limitation of Judah's pre-eminence. For these words naturally mean that the sceptre, etc., belong of right to the Messiah, and that when he appears he will come into his own natural possession. It is therefore probable that he will use his right, and take the privileges of Judah to himself. This meaning may be legitimately inferred from the words "and unto him shall the peoples obey." For although the Hebrew conjunction is only co-ordinate, here the context evidently shows a climax, which is introduced with "and," connecting the previous statements and bringing them to a culmination, which consists in a universal dominion of the Messiah, not only over the seed of Jacob, but over all peoples. This naturally involves a transition of power from Judah to the expected Messiah, and therefore the termination of Judah's supremacy when the Messiah shall have come. Whether this transition will be effected suddenly or in a gradual manner, remains to be seen; for we can gather nothing from the context on this point. There is even no explicit affirmation that the great Ruler will be an offspring of Judah, though the context leaves no room for doubt on this subject. For it is to be borne in mind that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob personally received the promise that in their seed all nations will be blessed. The present prophecy is addressed to Judah, and this necessarily implies a special relationship between Judah and the Messiah. He will take over the sceptre and staff from Judah, and become himself par excellence to the whole world what Judah was to the tribes of Israel, and this very fact is indicated in the prophecy as the greatest privilege and distinction of Judah. The universal rule of the Messiah is the culmination of the blessings so lavishly bestowed on Judah. All this is intelligible only if Judah can consider the Messiah's greatness as his own, as continuation, perfection, and extension of his privileges. In other words, Judah knows that he, like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is a fortunate ancestor of the glorious Ruler of future ages.

Two characteristic features of the Messiah are expressed in the prophecy as well as a suggestion of the time of his coming. He will come when the tribe of Judah finally loses its historical position. His mission will be to take over the sceptre and staff of Judah and set up, not a national rule, but a universal kingdom wherein all peoples shall obey Him. Although the nature of His universal kingdom is not quite clear, it may be gathered, to some extent, from the context. Judah's actual supremacy was founded on a temporal rather than a spiritual power. His hand is on the neck of his enemies, he is a lion's whelp, a lion gone up from prey, while it is foretold of the Messiah that He shall have only the obedience of the peoples. This obedience of peoples seems to stand in contrast with the material force of Judah, and suggests a kingdom in which the head and the members, the Ruler and subjects, are connected, not by a forced subjection, but by the spiritual bonds of a free and voluntary submission. The Messiah is conceived here as a king of peoples round whom all nations will gather in order to pay Him their homage, to offer Him their service, their hearts, their will, in readiness to obey His word and to carry out His royal and sovereign will. His rule will be perfect, whereas Judah's rule is but its type, and Judah's supremacy but a foreshadowing of that great spiritual sovereignty which the Redeemer of the world will exercise over mankind.

In short, the prophecy declares that Judah will finally lose his tribal independence, and promises a certain but vague and indetermined kind of supremacy over at least some of the other tribes until the advent of the Messiah. But when the Messiah comes, He will take the sceptre and staff from Judah into His own hand as His own possession, and will continue the pre-eminence of the tribe of Judah, but in a changed as well as in an essentially elevated and spiritualized form, making Himself the great centralizing power to which all nations shall pay homage and obedience.

Catholic exegetes are agreed on the fundamental points of this interpretation, but none of them consider the prophecy in detail. Father Hetzenauer seems to lay undue stress on the principatus of Judah expressed in the emblems of sceptre and staff. In consequence, his view of the promised position of Judah and of the fulfilment of the prophecy differs from the exposition given above. Father Murillo has given careful consideration to the problem, but he reads into the text more than the words will bear. Hoberg differs in many details, bearing rather on the conception than on the sense of the prophecy, taken as a whole. Schöpfer appears to follow Hoberg, more or less, while Pelt for the most part reproduces the ideas of Schöpfer. Von Hummelauer does not give a full and detailed exposition of the prophecy itself, but his treatment of the subject, so far as it goes, does not differ to any great extent from our own.

The rationalistic critics take up in this matter their usual attitude, and exclude a priori any supernatural prophecy. König, for example, passes over this text as though it had no reference to the Messiah. Others recognize, as we have seen, the Messianic character of the verse, but look on it as a vaticinium ex eventu [i.e., a prophecy written after the events it "foretells" had already transpired, B.D.]. Skinner is of this class. "It seems to me," he writes, "that justice is done to the terms and the tenor of the oracle if we regard it as a prophecy of David and his dynasty, a vaticinium ex eventu, like all the other oracles in the chapter."¹⁴ On this supposition, of course, the authenticity of the text or the Mosaic authorship of Genesis would have to be sacrificed. Driver's view on this subject has already been mentioned. He regards the verse as containing a Messianic thought, promising "that the sovereignty will not depart from Judah till it is merged in the higher, more perfect sovereignty to be exercised by its ideal Ruler, the Messiah." But he hastens to add that "such a reference to the Messiah seems to presuppose the teaching of Isaiah and other prophets." For this reason he would consider it an open question, whether this verse was not a later addition to the genuine blessing.¹⁵

There is no need to refute such methods and reasons, which, on account of a prejudice, are not based on the critical evidence and the obvious meaning of the text. It is surely strange that such a scholar as Driver would rather incur the risk of contradicting himself, in finding the prophecy at once so vague and so distinct, than shake off the ties of an unwarranted axiom.

Finally, a few words may be added as to the strikingly complete fulfilment of this prophecy. Jacob died in the land of Goshen and was buried in the land of Canaan. His children and grandchildren grew into a nation, left Egypt and settled in Canaan. In due time David was anointed King of Israel, wielded powerfully the sceptre and staff, and from his stronghold at Jerusalem showed himself indeed the conquering lion, whom none dared to rouse. Later, the Temple was built, and Judah became the religious centre of the theocracy. Some of the tribes permanently remained under the sway of Judah. Such was the state of affairs until the Babylonian captivity in 586 B.C. broke for a time the power of Judah. When after the exile, the Machabees came into power, though not of the tribe of Judah, they were the chosen princes and representatives of the power and autonomy of Judah. In this way Judah had possession of sceptre and staff till Herod obtained kingship over Israel in 38 B.C. With the accession of an Idumean prince and representative of the Roman power, Judah ceased to be an independent tribe but still continued to be a self-governing nation within the Roman Empire, and formed the national and religious centre of the Jewish race. Not until its incorporation into a heathen province, with a heathen procurator at its head, did all vestige of independence finally pass from Judah, and there can be no question that when the chief priests, the natural and official leaders of the people, declared before Pontius Pilate, the representative of Rome, that they had no king but Caesar, the sceptre and staff was already taken from Judah.

From this brief sketch of historical development it becomes strikingly manifest how the decline of Judah coincided with the advent of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah. Born in the reign of King Herod, He suffered and died under the fifth procurator, Pontius Pilate. Judah had lost political independence. Forty years later the pride and glory of the people, the glorious Temple of Sion, was finally destroyed, and God's chosen people enslaved and scattered over the world.

On the other hand, Palestine and Asia, Greece and Illyricum, Italy and Spain, Gaul and Africa, went down in humble adoration before Jesus Christ, and yielded Him their obedience, even shedding their blood in His cause. Truly Jesus Christ had taken the sceptre from Judah, had changed it, elevated it, spiritualized and extended its sway over the whole world, nor shall the sceptre ever pass from His almighty hand.

Engelbert Yuritch, S.J.

[1] Genesis, p. 414.

[2] Genesis, p. 523.

[3] Comm. in Lib. Gen., p. 662.

[4] Genesis, p. 731.

[5] Driver, Genesis, p. 413.

[6] Genesis, p. 413.

[7] Genesis, p. 130.

[8] Genesis, p. 730.

[9] Genesis, p. 442.

[10] Skinner, Genesis, p. 520.

[11] Genesis, p. 414.

[12] Spicilegium, vol. i. p. 470.

[13] Genesis, pp. 523, 524.

[14] Genesis, p. 524.

[15] Genesis, p. 386.