to be addressed as it were to the other sons. 5-7.] Simeon and Levi. We know nothing of the two "brethren" except the deed of treachery and cruelty here dwelt upon, and the fact, unaccounted for in the history, that Joseph chose Simeon to remain bound as an hostage in Egypt. In the expression, are brethren, more is meant than the mere fact of birth: they were also joined in a brotherhood of dishonour and cruelty. The renderings of the latter part of the verse are very various. That of the A. V. seems to have hardly any authority. The LXX. has (and so nearly the Samaritan), "they accomplished the iniquity of their purpose; the Vulgate," warring vessels of iniquity;" the Syriac, "vessels of madness by their nature;" the Targum of Onkelos, "being men of courage, they did a brave deed in the land of their pilgrimage." This may serve to shew how great is the difficulty of deciding. The rendering in the text is that of the great majority of Hebraists. A summary of the others may be seen in Kalisch, p. 744. 6.] my glory is used, as in reff., for the centre and treasure of my personal being. Similarly we have used "mine only one," Ps. xxii. 21; xxxv. 17. The last words of the verse appear without doubt to require the rendering in the text. The verb may import "overthrew, digged down," but the substantive cannot, except by an alteration in the vowel pointing of the present Hebrew text. On the concluding words of the verse we may remark, that they furnish no mean argument for the genuineness of the prophecy, seeing that they contain no allusion to the subsequent exaltation of the tribe of Levi to the exclusive honour of the priesthood and service of the tabernacle. It is a remark of Bp. Wordsworth's, that it is "very honourable to Moses, the great Hebrew leader and lawgiver, who was himself of the tribe of Levi, that he has recorded these words of reproof and censure from the lips of Jacob." But surely it is descending to a lower view

b Ps. vii. 6; xvi. 9; XXX. 12; Ivíí. 8.

of Genesis than the Bishop usually takes, to see in it only a reflection of the personal character of Moses. Perhaps it is hardly possible to trace the fulfilment of these words in the subsequent fortune of the tribes. It is true that Simeon at the second numbering by Moses (Num. xxvi. 14) had sunk to the lowest population of all the tribes, and that it is altogether passed over in the blessing of Moses in Deut. xxxiii.; and it is even nearer to the purpose that in the allotting of the land, Simeon had no proper division of its own, but only certain cities within the lot of Judah (Josh. xix. 1-9). On the other hand in 1 Chron. iv. 24-43, commonly cited to bear out this view, it is given as a reason for the emigration of the Simeonites, their great increase and prosperity, the opposite being predicated of one family only, that of Mishma, ver. 27. Whatever countenance however the view might be supposed to find as regards Simeon, is entirely absent when we come to the case of Levi. The sentence pronounced here on the brethren is one of punishment for treachery and cruelty. To find in the scattering of the Levites through all Israel in the most honourable of all positions, that of ministers of God, a fulfilment of such a sentence, is surely mere trifling: compare Num. iii. 12, 45; viii. 5 to end; Deut. xxxiii. 10. To say again that the curse here pronounced was afterwards turned to blessing, is only an evasion; for if so, how can it be said in any sense to have been fulfilled? Had the tribes spoken of been Dan, the idolater, and Benjamin, the object of his brethren's vengeance, something might have been said for the fulfilment in their subsequent fortunes. As it is, we must regard the words as referring to their being deposed from their right of primogeniture, and giving place to the younger Judah. They were united as brothers in their powerful deed of treachery and blood; but such union should not prevail: it should be divided and scattered, and they too, like Reu

c Neh. ix. 24,

37. Dan. xi.

3, 16.

8

17.

Ps. xlv.

6. Isa. xiv.

5. Ezek. xix.

11, 14. Amos

11.

ben, should enjoy no leadership over the family. 8-12.] Judah. The first clause of ver. 8 contains an allusion to the name Judah, which (ch. xxix. 35) signified praise. Already in his lifetime, Judah was distinguished among the brethren. It was he who prevented the intended murder of Joseph (xxxvii. 26), who guaranteed the safety of Benjamin (xliii. 8), and made a noble pleading in order to fulfil it (xliv. 14, ff.), and who was sent before to Joseph as the herald of Jacob's arrival. And correspondent to this pre-eminence were the fortunes of the tribe of Judah. It was the most populous at both the numberings (Num. i. 27; xxvi. 22); it had the precedence in the marches through the wilderness (Num. x. 14); to it belonged Bezalcel, the architect of the tabernacle (Exod. xxxi. 2; xxxviii. 22), and Caleb, one of the only two of those alive at the Exodus who were allowed to enter the land of promise (Num. xiii. 6, 30; xiv. 6, 30), and who received the patriarchal city of Hebron as his portion. Judah, in the division, got the whole of S. Canaan. To follow the fortunes of this distinguished tribe afterwards would be superfluous. All may be included in “our Lord sprang out of Juda," (Heb. vii. 14). The literal rendering is Judah, thou, thy brethren shall praise thee: we have similar constructions in ch. xvii. 4; xxiv. 27. The idea of the lion is already before the speaker, and as the paw of the lion seizes the neck of the prey, so he represents Judah as having his hand on the neck of his enemies. In the concluding clause the period of Judah's

sovereignty under David and Solomon is prophesied. In ch. xxvii. 29, in the similar promise made to Jacob, the bowing down is predicated of his mother's sons. This expression would not, if used here, include all the tribes, which it is evidently intended to do. It was now well known, by experience in the case of Joseph, what these words imported.

9.] Judah, the kingly tribe, is likened to the lion, the king of beasts, who has taken his prey in the plain and is returning to his mountain habitation (Cant. iv. 8), a description eminently fitting Judah, whose lot was in the hills, and their forays in the level country of the Philistines (Judg. i. 18, f.; 2 Sam. v. 17-21). In Deut. xxxiii. 20 Gad, in v. 22 Dan, and in Num. xxiii. 24; xxiv. 9, the whole of Israel, is likened to a lion. It is from this prophecy that the remarkable title of the Lion of the tribe of Judah is given to Christ, Rev. v. 5. 10.] This verse is distinctly a prophecy of government in the line of Judah, and of its continuance up to a certain point. What that point is depends on the meaning of the difficult and unexampled word SHILOH. The common understanding of that word is that it designates Christ, and that the prophecy found its fulfilment in the extinction of the Idumæan kingdom of Herod soon after the birth of our Lord. Historically, this view is entirely untenable. For the kingdom in the line of Judah came entirely and irrecoverably to an end nearly 600 years before that date. For 50 years Judæa was subject to the Chaldæans; then for 200 years a province of Persia; then for 163 years under the suc

cessors of Alexander. When the Jews regained their independence they were ruled by the Maccabees, who were of the tribe of Levi, not of Judah; 63 years before Christ Palestine was conquered by Pompey and became subject to Rome. And Herod, who was probably not a Jew at all, was merely a tributary of Rome. If there be any meaning in words, the sceptre had departed from Judah many hundred years before the birth of Christ. It is very well for the maintainers of this theory to say that "the determination of this question is of minor importance;" in real fact it is of primary and essential importance and the very commentator from whom the above words are quoted, rejects other interpretations as "receiving no confirmation from history," whereas of the common one he refuses to let history be the criterion. Nor again will any fiction, such as that the lineage of Christ traced by St. Matthew through Abraham and David is a royal lineage, or that the words of the angel to the Virgin Mary, "the Lord God shall give to him the throne of his father David," imply that David's kingdom had never ceased, serve to defend the commonly received interpretation as to the continuance of royal power in and its departure from the tribe of Judah. Whether the word may designate Christ, is quite independent of this forcing of the course of history. The words of the prophecy do not necessarily imply any departure of that which is meant by the sceptre, or ruler's staff, from Judah. They are quite consistent with this remaining in Judah until and including the event mentioned. If they import only the preeminence enjoyed by Judah in possessing the royal city of David and being the first tribe and that which gave name to the chosen people, this indeed, unlike the actual kingdom, though for a time suspended, was restored, and never ceased until Christ came and lifted the tribe to yet more glorious eminence. But let us now consider the words themselves. The term for sceptre means a rod, or sprout; it is the ordinary term for tribe (ver. 16, c. g.), the tribes being regarded as sprouts from the main stem. It is also used for the rod of correction (2 Sam. vii.

14; Job ix. 34; Ps. lxxxix. 32; Prov. x. 13, al fr.), and finally for the rod of government, a sceptre: see reff. And there can be no doubt that such is the meaning here. The word rendered lawgiver in the A.V. seems rather to signify again a sceptre, or staff or rod of office, which in figures of kings, e. g. those at Persepolis, rests on their body and is held between their feet. Others, taking the meaning lawgiver, regard the words between his feet as applying to progeniture, as in Deut. xxviii. 57, "the young one that cometh from between her feet;" and so the LXX. and Vulgate render, "out of his thighs :" and Onkelos, "from his children's children." See 2 Kings xviii. 27; Isa. vii. 20; Ezek. xvi. 28. A similar way of speaking is found in Jer. xxx. 21. We now come to consider the word SHILOH, in which lies the kernel of the whole difficulty. First, there is a variation among the Hebrew MSS. as to the form of the word itself, tending to cast some doubt upon its meaning. Of the principal versions, the LXX. renders, “until the things reserved for him shall come;" the Vulgate, "until he shall come, who is to be sent;" the old Syriac, "until he comes whose it is." The Samaritan has, "until the peaceful one come;" the Targum of Onkelos, "until the Messiah come, whose is the kingdom." The rendering now preferred by many learned Hebraists would take Shiloh as the well-known city of that name, being the abode of the tabernacle and place of assembly of Israel. This view is taken by Bleek, Hitzig, Ewald, and Kalisch. But this interpretation, 1. In no way fulfils the historical conditions. Judah's royal leadership did not commence at all before the assembling of Israel at Shiloh : and in whatever sense the sceptre, &c., be understood, Judah's glories were more after than before that event. And 2. The mention of a local name of so little import at the time would be very unnatural. The only other instance in this prophecy is that of Zidon, ver. 13, a place well known from the most ancient times, ch. x. 19. Our choice seems to lie, in the uncertainty about the genuine Hebrew word itself, between the two allusions-(1) to peace, or the peaceful one, (2) to

P