Commentaria in Genesim
... Josephus, who relates these words of Titus, with which, in his hearing, he addressed the Jews pressed by the siege shortly before the devastation of the city: “We have preserved for you your ancestral laws, and have allowed you to live, not only apart but with others also, by your own will.” Finally, Patrizi observes that the sense of the oracle is not that neither of the two would fail before the time indicated, neither tribe, I say, nor one decreeing, but that both would not fail, that is, that it would never be that the descendants of Judah should lack both at once without Silo having first come. So he himself, op. cit. vol. II, p. 84.
(1) The Hebrew ad always signifies until, as long as; yet as to this signification it is useful to transcribe what Noldius observed: “Until and till after an affirmation do not always deny the consequent... Until and till after a negation do not always affirm the consequent.” Hence, if Jacob spoke thus: “The sceptre shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a leader from his thigh, until Shiloh come,” it cannot be gathered from the mere force of the words that these were taken away after his coming. But though not from the particle until, yet from the whole sense of Jacob we sufficiently learn that he predicts their failing after the coming of Christ; and all interpreters agree. It is therefore singular, and posited without sufficient reason, what Meignan asserts, op. cit. p. 402, that by the word until the cessation of Judah’s dominion is not here indicated.
Shela be he of whom St. Paul speaks, Galatians 4: “When the fulness of time came, God sent his Son, made of a woman.”
Fifthly, Vatablus and Oleaster think that Silo, by a transposition of letters, is said as if scalia, that is, peaceable, author of peace, from the root scala, that is, he was quiet, peaceable. For Christ was born for this, to make peace between God and men, and to leave peace, and to give us his peace.
Whence from scala is derived scalua, that is, peace, quiet, abundance, prosperity, and perhaps even the Latin salve and salus, which in St. Augustine, in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, Bishop Valerius derived from the Punic and Hebrew scalos, which signifies three, as if it had been secretly hinted that true salvation was to be expected from the Most Holy Trinity.
Sixthly, it is very probable that for Silo should be read Shiloach, with chet, that is, ambassador, sent or to be sent, from the root scalach, that is, he sent: for so our Interpreter renders it, and this was long ago a common name of the Messiah, as is plain from Exodus chap. 4, 13. Whence Christ alluded to this his name Siloach when, about to enlighten the blind man, he sent him to the pool of Siloe, which in Hebrew is called Siloach, “which is interpreted Sent,” as St. John says, chap. 9, 7. For this reason also Christ in St. John, disputing against the Pharisees about his person, name, office and dignity, everywhere calls himself “him whom the Father sent,” or “sent by the Father.” For Christ’s proper office was to act as God’s ambassador among men: therefore his proper name was Siloach, that is, ambassador, or sent.
Wherefore impiously and foolishly R. Solomon understands by this Silo, or ambassador of God, Jeroboam, who was the first king of Israel, that is, of the ten tribes (2).
Equally impiously did Julian the Apostate understand by Silo the kingdom and kings of Judah. For Nabuchodonosor that he would bring tranquillity and all felicity to the world, the Hebrews always hoped; the ancient interpreters referred the name Shiloh to him with rare consent, although concerning its proper signification they differed among themselves.” For the various interpretations of the Rationalists see Meignan, ibid., of which we shall here bring forward at least one. To some, Shiloh is the city of Silo situated in the regions of the Ephraimites, which seems to have been as it were the terminus of the people’s journeys, Josue 18, 1; hence the sense of the prophecy would be, as pleases them, that the tribe of Judah in encamping and on the march itself would go before as the standard-bearer of the rest. Of which interpretation Rosenmüller rightly wrote: “Such a wish, by which the principate and dignity of leader for Judah is restricted to that space of time alone which precedes the occupation of Palestine, will have something languid and almost cold.”—To the reading of Jerome it is rightly objected that neither any of the manuscripts nor any other of the interpretations of the Bible agrees with it. Cf. Patrizi, ibid., p. 93 ff.
was not an expectation, but the scourge of all nations, especially of the Jews. All the Hebrews therefore, the Chaldee, the Greeks and the Latins understand by Silo, or this ambassador, the Messiah, or Christ.
Note: In these words, “The sceptre shall not be taken away, etc., until he come who is to be sent,” Jacob implicitly predicts that Christ will be born of Judah. For Jacob here, as to each of his sons he assigns his own blessing, so to Judah assigns Christ and the generation of Christ, as an exceptional blessing. So all the Hebrews understood this prophecy; whence Paul to the Hebrews 7, 14: “It is evident,” he says, “that our Lord sprang out of Juda.”
You will say: The Apostle there proves that Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, not of Levi, from the fact that he was born of Judah, not of Levi: therefore he opposes Judah and Levi. But Jacob here does not oppose but comprehends Levi, namely the Maccabees, under Judah, as I said above in the first title.
I reply first, that this, according to what was said there, is probably true on the part in which Jacob expressly asserts that the sceptre will not fail from Judah until Christ come: for then Levites can be comprehended under Judah. But the same is false on the part in which Jacob implicitly signifies by these words that Christ was to be born of Judah. For by the very fact that Jacob among his sons assigns Christ to Judah alone, he sufficiently signifies that Christ was to be born of Judah alone, not of Levi or others. This expression properly regards Judah alone, as to the beginning, propagation and end of the kingdom. For the kingdom of Judah began in David, was propagated through David’s descendants, and ends in Christ: both of whom were properly born of Judah; between these two extremes some from elsewhere, namely of Levi, the Maccabees to wit, are intermingled, who were mixed with Judah, as some grains of barley are mixed with wheat; but of these no account is taken: for these, being few, are not reckoned in so great a heap.
I reply secondly, that it is truer that by Judah here, as in Hebrews 7, 14, properly Judah and the Jews alone, not the Levites, are comprehended, whether you look to the beginning of the kingdom, or the middle, or the end, or anything else, in the manner and sense which I assigned above in the latter place, namely the second title. The other part of the antecedent in the argument or objection proposed is therefore false; and thus this argument most strongly persuades that Judah here must be taken properly for the Jews alone, with the Levites and Maccabees excluded, as I said above. This second response therefore is solid and genuine.
AND HE HIMSELF.—Silo, that is, the Messiah.
SHALL BE THE EXPECTATION OF THE GENTILES.—Ignorantly, falsely and deceitfully the Jews render: he himself (namely David; whereas here it is not about David, in whom the sceptre of Judah did not fail but began, but about the Messiah or Christ) shall lay waste, break, or blunt the Gentiles.
for this reason also he adds and a leader from his thigh, namely to note that Christ the leader would be born from the thigh of Judah. So the mind of this prophecy and of Jacob all the Hebrews understood and explained. For in the prophecies there are many things obscure, indistinct and involved, which must be unrolled, distinguished, separated and explained part by part. That Christ was born precisely of Judah, not of Levi, is plain from the fact that Christ was born of David: for David was of the stock and tribe of Judah. That Christ was promised to David no one is ignorant. For this is plain, 2 Kings 7, verses 12 and 13.