Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Genesis 49:1 - 49:33
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jacob’s blessing of his sons. Judah and his brethren. Jacob’s last arrangements. His burial in Canaan. His death.
Gen_49:1-33
[There is quite a number of rare Hebrew words and phrases in this 49th chapter; but as it is difficult to separate the philological and textual consideration of them from the more general interpretation, the reader is referred to the places in the Exegetical and Critical where they will be found discussed, and to marginal notes subjoined.—T. L.]
1. The prophetic development. The blessing of Jacob forms the close, the last full bloom of the patriarchal prophecy, or of the theocratic promise of the patriarchal time. The seed of the protevangel passes, in its unfolding, through the blessing of Noah, through the promises given to Abraham (especially the closing one of Genesis 22), and, finally, through the blessing of Isaac, and the promises made to Jacob, to become, at last, the prophetic form of life, as it is manifested in the future of the twelve tribes. Thenceforth, in respect to its tenor, is the Messianic germ more distinctly unfolded than in the promises hitherto; whilst the poetic form, which is so peculiar a feature of the Messianic predictions, attains in them to the full measure of its bloom. We shall mistake the meaning of this blessing, unless we estimate it according to the theocratic degree of its development, or, if we do not bear in mind that it stands midway between the blessing of Isaac and the Mosaic promises.
In respect to the fundamental ideas contained in these benedictions, it may be said that the blessing of Judah forms evidently its central point, to which that of Joseph makes a corresponding contrast. The spirit of Israel finds its corresponding expression in the one, the heart of Jacob in the other. The others group themselves around these, not as isolated atoms, but in significant relations. The declarations made in respect to Reuben, Simeon, Levi, link themselves together, and have a direct view to the distinction of Judah. In those of Zebulun and Issachar, who, as sons of Leah, are placed before the sons of the handmaids, there is a reversal of the natural order of succession, since Zebulun, the younger, precedes. There seems to have been a motive here similar to that which led to the preference of Ephraim to Manasseh. Zebulun’s preference seems to consist in this, that he has place between two seas, extending from the Galilean sea to the Mediterranean, an indication of a richer worldly position. Dan closes the group which, like a constellation of seven stars, forms itself around Judah. Then follows the ejaculation (Gen_49:18), in which there seems to be again a sound of Judah’s destiny. In the natural order, Naphtali would have come next; but the blessing includes both the two sons of Leah’s handmaid, Gad and Asher, between the sons of Rachel’s handmaid, Dan and Napthali. It is not easy to see the reason of this, unless it was somehow to reinforce the line of Rachel through Naphtali; or we may suppose that the position of the three named before Joseph led to Joseph and Benjamin. Gad is like Joseph an invincible hero in defensive war. Asher makes the prelude to the rich blessing of Joseph in natural things. Naphtali ranks with Benjamin in impetuousness and decision of character. It is strictly in accordance with the spirit of prophecy, that the picture here given of the future of Israel’s tribes should have its light and shade, its broad features, and its mere points of gleaming, and that it should be just as indeterminate in its chronology. In respect to the nature of its contents, Knobel maintains that this portion of Scripture is incorrectly called the blessing of Jacob. The blessing of Moses, Deuteronomy 33, is rightly so designated, because it contains only good for the tribes; whilst this, on the contrary, has much that is to their disadvantage. “Judah and Joseph, as the most important, are treated in the most favorable manner; Naphtali, also, is spoken of favorably in respect to deeds of heroism, and poetic art, as Asher for his productive territory. To a tolerable degree the same may be said of Gad, who, indeed, is overcome, but overcomes at last; whilst it is not saying much for Zebulun that he shall dwell by the seas. What is declared of Issachar, that he yields himself to labor like an ass, or concerning Dan, that like a serpent he lurks in the path, or of Benjamin, that he shall be like a ravening wolf, contains, at least, a mingling of disapprobation,” etc. This shows but a poor comprehension of the prophetic forms of speech. If, in a good sense, Judah is a lion rampant, why, in the same sense, may not Benjamin be a wolf, especially a victorious one, that “in the evening divides the spoil?” And why should not Dan, who is judge in Israel, be compared with the serpent in view of his strategical cunning? Along with Naphtali, the swift-footed deer may also be named, in no unfavorable way, the strong-boned ass Issachar, who, in his comfortable love of peace, devotes himself to peasant service, and to the transport of burdens between the Galilean sea and the southern regions. Next to these animal figures, whose characteristics are to be regarded according to the oriental usage, and not moralized upon in our occidental way, comes the figure of the plant: Joseph the fruitful vine, supplemented by the human figure: Joseph, the archer, or mark for the archer’s arrows. Less developed is the figure of Asher, the royal purveyor, or of Zebulun the shipper, or that of Reuben drawn from the instability of water. Is it an evil doom pronounced upon Reuben, pointing, as it does, to his sin, that he should be deposed from the birthright? Rather, according to the Scripture, is it a misfortune when a man embraces a calling to which he is unequal, as, for example, Saul and Judas. The prince of the twelve tribes must be something more than an unstable vapor. It was, however, by this determination that Reuben was guarded from his own destruction. He remains the first below the first-born, and, from this state of forbearance and protection he may still develop the more moderate blessing pronounced Deu_33:6. Simeon and Levi have not, like Reuben, so repented of their old guilt, that it may not be again charged upon them, with a malediction of the deed that may yet become a blessing, if it is the occasion of chastising, warning and purifying them. How their dispersion in Israel, which is imposed upon them as a penalty, may be transformed into a distinction, is shown in the position of Levi, and in the blessing later pronounced upon him, Deu_33:8. Through this dispersion, Simeon, indeed, disappears as a tribe, but he becomes incorporated with Judah, the best of the twelve (Jdg_1:3). Benjamin, “the ravening wolf,” becomes, in the blessing of Moses, a protector of the beloved of Jehovah. Zebulun is praised for his maritime position; Issachar, the broad-limbed peasant, rejoices in his tents. Gad, the fighter in Genesis, becomes, in the blessing of Moses, a lion like Judah; and so Dan is a young lion, ready to spring, as before he was compared, in a similar manner, to a darting serpent. Naphtali is still described as full of grace, though in more expressive language. Asher, who, in Genesis, is full of bread, is changed, in the Mosaic blessing, to the “abounding in oil.” We need not wonder therefore, that Joseph, who is ever praised, is compared, in the blessing of Moses, to the ox and the buffalo. In the later benediction, the blessing of Judah becomes more mysterious, more individual, more spirituous, whilst yet there is a falling back of the rich development presented in Genesis. This designation, therefore: the blessing of Jacob, is well grounded, besides being expressly confirmed in Gen_49:28. In regard to the relations, or the perspective of this prophecy, it is incorrect to say, as Baumgarten and Kurtz do, that the seer here looks at the time of the Judges as giving the fulness of his picture. Thus to limit the prophecy in the olden time, is to divest it of its character as true prediction, and make it a mere presaging. Each prophecy, indeed, has its own provisional points of aim and rest, belonging to the time in whose forms and colors it clothes itself, yet still, in its last aim, ever points to the perfection of the kingdom of God. This, moreover, is here expressed in the very letter, “ áàäøéú äéîéí , literally, at the end of the days, that is, in the last time, ἐð ’ ἐó÷Üôùí ôῶí ἡìåñῶí (LXX)—not the future in general, but the closing future, in fact, the Messianic time of the completion,” etc. (Keil, p. 284). True it is, that the period from the time of the Judges to that of David appears as the determinate foreground view of the seer, but this is, itself, a symbolic configuration, in which he looks through, and beholds the whole Messianic future, even to its close, though not in its perfectly developed features. Just so does the protevangel point already to the end, but only in its most general outlines as the salvation of the future.
2. The blessing, in the character of its contents. In each prophecy we must distinguish three capital points: 1) Its basis in the present, or its point of departure; 2) its nearest form of the future; 3) the symbolical significance of the same for the wider fulfilling of the redemption history. And so here Israel is at the standpoint of promise as hitherto unfolded; in the prophetic clearness of its illumination, he sees the characters of his sons, and the real prophetic as it lies in their individuality. What is more clear than that Judah already reveals the lion nature, Joseph that of the fruitful tree, or that Reuben, Simeon, and Levi do already show clear points of distinction in their lives. But in the character of the sons he sees, too, the first unfolding of the tribes in Canaan, even as it reveals itself from the time of the Judges to that of David. Then Reuben is no more the first-born, yet still well provided for in a way corresponding to his impatient nature. The dispersion of Simeon and Levi has already begun. The tribe of Judah advances more and more towards the royal dignity. Zebulun has his position, so favorable for worldly intercourse, between the Galilean and the Mediterranean seas. Issachar has drawn his lot in the rich regions of the plain of Jezreel, etc. But now one would go entirely out of the prophetic sphere, if he should mistake the theocratic redemption idea, as it shines through these outlines and colors, or their symbolical character. This character comes clearest into view in Judah.
3. The poetic form. With the sacred appearance of the people of God, the people of the new world, comes the speech of the new world: that is its poetry, perfectly developed. There is already the rhythmical song, the beautiful parallelism, the exuberance of figures, the play upon names (Gen_49:8; Gen_49:13; Gen_49:16; Gen_49:19-20; Gen_49:22; according to Knobel also 15 and 21), the play upon words (Gen_49:8; Gen_49:19), the peculiar forms of expression, the elevation of spirit, the heart feelings; and all these form a poetry corresponding to the greatness of the objects as well as to the character of the speaker, who shows so many traits of the human heart in his deep emotion, and in the grandeur of his faith in God.
4. The last remark takes us to the subject of origin. The reckless inclination of our times to disconnect the choicest productions of genius from the names with which they are associated, and to ascribe them, in any and every way, to some unknown author, finds a special occasion for its lawless criticism in the passage of Scripture now before us. Nevertheless, the reference of it to Jacob, and in the form in which it stands, still finds its many and able supporters. Those who now best represent this view are Delitzsch, Baumgarten, Diestel, Hengstenberg, Keil, and others. On the other hand, the ascription to Jacob is wholly rejected by De Wette, Schumann, Bleek, Knobel, and others. This is due, in part, to the spirit of rationalism, a fundamental assumption of which is that prophecies must have arisen after the events they are supposed to predict. Governed by this, Knobel transfers the origin of the passage to the time of David, and is inclined, with Bohlen and others, to ascribe it to the prophet Nathan. Knobel deems it a weighty objection, that a “simple nomade” could never have produced anything of the kind, especially an enfeebled and aged one. This may be carried farther, so as to deny generally that the patriarchal nomades could have carried with them anything of the spirit of the Messianic future; which would show that this confident assumption of the critic runs clear into absurdity. In respect to the last ground see the Analogies. As far as concerns the objection of Heinrich and others, namely, if the patriarch could foretell the future at all, why did he not go beyond the Davidian period, it may be said that it is too narrow, too limited in its scope, to demand attention. On the question, whether the poem is to be ascribed to the Elohist, or to the Jehovist, see Knobel, p. 335. As it will not exactly suit either the Elohist or the Jehovist, Knobel has to betake himself to his documentary storehouse that he keeps ever lying behind the scenes. As to what concerns the age and authority of our document, a writer who lived at the time of the first formation of the Aaronic priesthood, would have hardly ventured to place the tribe of Levi in so unfavorable a light as that in which it here appears. And so, too, the tribes of Reuben and Simeon would never have allowed any Hebrew song-writer to make such a representation of their ancestors. In respect to its character, the poem claims for itself not only a patriarchal age, but also a patriarchal sanction. Nevertheless, a distinction may be safely made between the patriarchal memorabilia (whose safe-keeping was doubtless attended to by Joseph) and a canonical recension which did not venture to change anything essential.
5. The analogies. The dying Isaac (Genesis 27), the dying Moses (Deuteronomy 32), the dying Joshua (Joshua 24), the dying Samuel (1 Samuel 12), the dying David (2 Samuel 23), in the Old Testament, the dying Simeon, the dying Paul, and the dying Peter, in the New, prove for us the fact, that the spirit of devoted men of God, in anticipation of death, soars to an elevated consciousness, and either in priestly admonitions, or prophetic foreseeings, attests its divine nature, its elevation above the common life, and its anticipation of a new and glorious existence. The testimony of antiquity is harmonious in respect to such facts,—even heathen antiquity. So declared the dying Socrates, that he regarded himself as in that stage of being when men had most of the foreseeing power (Plato: Apologia Socratis). Pythagoras taught that the soul sees the future, when it is departing from the body. In Cicero, and other writers, we find similar declarations. (See Knobel, p. 49.) Knobel, however, presents it, as a grave question, whether the narrator means to assert a direct gift of prophetic vision in the dying Jacob, or whether there is not rather intended an immediate derivation of knowledge from God. This is just the way in which orthodox interpreters oftentimes place the divine inspiration in contrast with, and in contradiction to, their human preconditionings; whereas a rational comprehension of life sees here a union of natural human states (consequently a more fully developed power of anticipation in the dying) with the illuminating spirit of revelation that shines through them.
6. The literature of the passage, see the Introduction, p. 120. The Catalogue, by Knobel, p. 356. Note in Keil, p. 286. See Marg. Note, p. 661.
7. The division: 1) The introduction (Gen_49:1-2); 2) the group of Judah, or the theocratic number seven, under the leading of the Messianic first-born (Gen_49:3-18): a. The declarations that are introductory to Judah, Reuben, Simeon, Levi (Gen_49:3-7); b. Judah the praised, the prince among his brethren (Gen_49:8-12); c. the brothers associated with Judah, as types of the Jewish universalism, of the Jewish ministry, and of the Jewish public defence: Zebulun, Issachar, Dan (Gen_49:13-18); 3) the group of Joseph, or the universalistic (Egyptian) number five, under the leading of the earthly firstborn (Gen_49:19-27): a. the tribes that are introductory to Joseph’s position, the culture tribes: Gad, Asher, Naphtali (Gen_49:19-21); b. Joseph, the devoted, as the Nazarite (or the one separated) of his brethren (Gen_49:22-26); c. Benjamin, the dispenser and the propagator of the universal blessing of Israel (Gen_49:27); 4) the closing word, and connected with it, Jacob’s testamentary provision for his burial (Gen_49:28-33).
[Excursus.—Jacob’s Dying Vision of the Tribes and the Messiah.—There is but one part of the Scripture to which this blessing of Jacob can be assigned, without making it a sheer forgery, and that, too, a most absurd and inconsistent one. It is the very place in which it appears. Here it fits perfectly. It is in harmony with all its surroundings; whilst its subjective truthfulness—to say nothing now of its inspiration, or its veritable prophetic character—gives it the strongest claim to our credence as a fact in the spiritual history of the world, or of human experience. There is pictured to us a very aged patriarch surrounded by his sons. He has lived an eventful life. He has had much care and sorrow, though claiming to have seen visions of the Almighty, and to have conversed with angels. His sons have given him trouble. Their conduct has led him to study closely their individual characteristics. He lives in an age when great importance is attached to the idea of posterity, and of their fortunes, as the sources of peoples and races. This is more thought of than their immediate personal destiny. It is, of all ages, the farthest removed from that sheer individualism, which, whether true or false, is now becoming so rife in the world. Men lived in their children, for the future, as they looked back “to be gathered to their fathers,” in the past. The idea of a continued identity of life in families, tribes, and nations, making them the same historical entities age after ago, is in no book so clearly recognized as in the Bible, and in no part of the Bible is it more striking than it is in Genesis, though we are presented there with the very roots of history. Along with this were the ideas of covenant and promise, which, whether real or visionary, were most peculiar to that time, and to this particular family. In such a subjective world, the patriarch lives. At the approaching close of his long pilgrimage of one hundred and forty-seven years, he gathers around him his sons, and his sons’ sons, to give them his blessing, or his prophetic sentences, as they were regarded in his day. This is, in itself, another evidence of inward truthfulness. He had derived from his fathers the belief, that, at such a time, the parental benediction, or the contrary, carried with it a great spiritual importance. It was not confined to this family; such a belief was very prevalent in the ancient world. It was a partial aspect of a still more general opinion, that the declarations of the dying were prophetic. How much of this do we find in Homer. It is still in the world. The most sceptical would be cheered by the blessing, and made uneasy by the malediction of a departing acquaintance, much more, of a dying father. Besides this, Jacob had specially inherited the notion, and the feeling, from his grandfather Abraham and his father Isaac. Thus affected, he would no more die without such a benedictory close, than a loving and prudent father, at the present day, could leave the earth without making his testament. Keep all this in vew, and think how much more impressive is the scene from its being in a foreign land, whither they had been driven by famine, and from which, as the firmly-believed promise assured them, they were eventually to go forth a great people.
Having thus placed before us the accessories of the vision, we may ask the question, was it real? that is, subjectively real, if the term is not deemed a paradox. Were these utterances merely formal sentences? Was it all a ceremony with the dying old man,—a solemn one, indeed, but requiring only certain usual benedictory formulas. Or did he see something? that is, was there corresponding to each of these utterances an actual state of soul, visionary, ecstatic, clairvoyant—call it what you will,—the product of an excited imagination, the movement of a weak or shattered brain, a delirious dream, or a true psychological insight, dim indeed, irregular, flitting, fragmentary, yet real as an action of the soul coming in close view of the supernatural world, and by the aid of it, seeing something, however shadowly, of the successions and dependencies in the natural and historical? Think of it as we may, all that need be contended for here, as most important in the letter interpretation, is the inner truthfulness of such a vision state, and its harmonious connection with the whole subjective life that had preceded it. This granted, or established, the outward truth these visions represent, or are supposed to represent, may be safely trusted to the credence of the serious thinker. Such a vision, with such antecedents, and such surroundings, compels a belief in higher realities connected with them; though still the vision itself, if we may so call it, is to be interpreted primarily in its subjective aspect, leaving the inferences from it to another department of hermeneutics as belonging to theology in general, the analogies of Scripture, and what may be called its dogmatic, in distinction from its purely exegetical interpretation (see Excursus on the Flood, p. 315 and marginal note). It may be conceded that commentators have been too minute in their endeavors to trace in this imagery a connection with particular events in subsequent history; as though Jacob had before him the historical event itself, just as it took place, and invented the imagery as a mode of setting it forth. Better to have left it as it was, with no attempt to go beyond what may be supposed to have been actually seen by the dying man—flitting images of his sons, as individual persons in some future aspects of their genealogical history,—these images reflected from his own spiritual experience of their characteristics,—truly prophetic, but not getting far out of their individual traits, as so well known to him by their conduct. Though all the pictures are thus more or less prophetic, they are still subordinate to one that stands out in strongest light—the vision of one coming from afar, the Shiloh prophecy, wherein is unfolded the Messianic idea inherited from his father,—a sight he catches of the Promised Seed, the one “in whom all nations should be blessed,” the “one to whom the gathering of the peoples ( òַîִéí , in the plural, the Gentiles) should be.” This is the central vision, coming from the central feeling, and around it all the rest are gathered. They are to it as the historical frame to the picture. All their importance comes from it. Judah is more closely connected with this central vision than all the rest. Joseph we would have thought of, though Judah’s late noble conduct had done much to draw the father’s heart towards him; but here comes in the thought of something controlling the merely natural subjective state. The main thing, however, is the Messianic idea regarded by itself, and for this the history of Jacob and his father, the feelings and belief in which he had lived, that ever-vivid idea of a covenant God, that other conception of a Goel, or “Redeeming angel” delivering from all evil,—the very name suggesting the idea of some human kinsmanship—afford an ample ground. He calls this one who is to come by the mysterious name of Shiloh. Commentators have given themselves unnecessary trouble about the exact objective point indicated by the word. It may refer to the great Deliverer, or to the great deliverance that would characterize his coming. The closest examination of this anomalous form shows that, in some way, there enters into every aspect of it, whether as proper name, or as epithet, the idea of peace, stillness, gentleness, and yet of mighty power. It is perfectly described, Isa_42:2 : “He shall not cry, nor lift up his voice, nor cause it to be heard in the streets; a bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking wick he shall not quench; but he shall bring forth righteousness victoriously.” Why does the dying man speak this unusual word Shiloh? Unusual then,—perhaps before unuttered,—unusual since in the form it takes, although the verbal root is more common. A reason can hardly be given for it. It was, most likely, a strange, if not wholly unknown, name to those who then heard it uttered. We can trace it to no antecedents. It was a wondrous, a mysterious name. A startling dream-like character pervades the whole chapter, with its sudden transitions, its rapt outpourings, its quick changes of scene, defying all the canons of any mere rhetorical or poetical criticism; but this vision aspect appears especially in the unexpected coming in of this remarkable word Shiloh, and the extraordinary use that is made of it. It suggests the mysterious ôִּìְàִé (rendered secret) of Jdg_13:18, the Wonderful, ôֶּìֶà of Isa_9:6, and the incommunicable one, Gen_32:30, who says, “why inquirest thou after my name? “The patriarch himself, perhaps, could not have explained, how or why he used it, or in what way it came to him, whether by some conscious association, or as having its birth in a sudden arresting of the mind by some new and wondrous thought, like that which prompted the strange ejaculation in verse 18. It was intended to be mysterious (we may reverently, say who believe in the prophetical character of the vision), that men might ponder much upon it, and be the better prepared to understand its glorious import, when it should be fully realized upon the earth. The whole vision is like other prophecy in this, that it is the remote appearing strangely as seen from a present standpoint, and through intervening historical scenes regarded as more or less near. We cannot reduce the perspective to chronological order. We can only seize the prominent point of view in the picture, and feel that the other parts, with their greater or lesser degrees of light and shade, are all subordinate.
So, too, there must not be pressed too closely, in our exegesis, what is said about Judah, and the sceptre, and the îְçֹ÷ֵ÷ , the ruler’s staff, or as otherwise rendered, “the law-giver, from between his feet.” We cannot square it with the monarchy of Herod, or any precise historical change of magistracy. We cannot make out, as indicated by it, a Jewish royalty to a certain period, or a Jewish independence, general or partial, to some other period. But when we view it as expressing chiefly the relation of Judah to the other tribes, his surviving as a tribal name, and giving the name Jews (Judæi) to the whole Israelitish people, after the other tribes had lost their historical identity, and when we remember about what time even this ceased to be, and the Jews (Judæi) became utterly denationalized politically, whether as an independent or a subject people, we see a light and a power in the picture which is unmistakable,—a point of view which we may suppose to have flashed upon the seer’s mind, without regarding it as occupied with any precise historical dates or dynasties, contemplated merely in their political aspects. Until here ( òַã ëּé ) means unto and then ceasing, or unto and not after. Judah shall survive them all, but he too shall disappear when Shiloh comes, and the “gathering of the people” takes place. Then was to be fulfilled that ancient prayer which was sung by the whole Israelitish nation before they lost the world-idea founded on the patriarchal promises, and the later narrow, exclusive spirit took full possession of them: “That thy way may be known in the earth, thy saving health among all nations,—let the peoples praise thee, O God, let all the peoples praise thee.” See Psa_67:3-4, and other similar passages.
What, then, was the historical date of this writing, and of the vision it records, whether subjective or objective, genuine or forged? There has been a strenuous effort to assign it to a later period. And why? Because it assumes to prophesy, and all prophecy must have been written after the events. This is the canon, the bare dictum rather, to which everything else must yield. Take it, however, out of its place in Genesis, and the thoughtful mind cannot avoid seeing that there is no other which does not destroy its subjective character, obliterate all the marks of its inward truthfulness, and make it not only a lie, a forgery, but a most unmeaning one. Had it been made up at any other time, it would have had more distinctness of historical reference. What it told us, whether it had been more or less, would have had a more unmistakable application. Had it been all a fiction, made after the supposed events, they would never have been left in such a dream-like, shadowy state, unless on the hypothesis of such a style being carefully imitated, with a skilful throwing in of the antique coloring, and that, for reasons elsewhere given (see p. 637), would have been incredible, we might almost say, inconceivable. There would have been no such irregularities as we find, no such shadows; the dim perspective would have been filled up; for in any such case it would have been a sheer forgery, a conscious lie in every part, with every word and figure showing design. It would have given evidence of its being the language of art rather than of emotion which uses words simply as the vehicles of its utterance, rather than with any studied aim of conveying precise conceptions, whether true or false. The metaphors which, even in their incongruities, fit so well into the picture of the patriarch’s dying condition, with its antecedents and surroundings, would have been made more suggestive of the known historical than of those individual traits on which they are so evidently grounded. The young lion, the lioness, the foal bound to the vine, the strong ass between his two burdens, the serpent by the way, the adder in the path, the hind let loose and giving goodly words, the ravening wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at night dividing the spoil—all these would either have been entirely left out, or they would have been made to mean more, in their particular applications, as well as in their general bearing. They are far more truthful in the supposed vision of the dying man, than they would be in such a conscious forgery, even though we might regard the former as only a dream of delirium. The picture, too, of the future power to whom “the gathering of the peoples should be,” would have been painted in more gorgeous splendor, instead of being left like a far-off light, guiding to a sublime hope, and yet giving so dim a view of the Messianic royalty. Thus to speak of it is not to disparage its true excellence as viewed from the place it occupies in the earliest Scripture. It is, indeed, the whole of it, a divine vision, with its central glory, yet irregularly refracted and reflected to us from a broken and uneven human mirror. This central light has grown brighter in the trance of Balaam (Num_24:17); how much clearer still has it become, and higher in the prophetic horizon, as it appears in the nearer visions of the evangelical Isaiah: “Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of Jehovah is rising upon thee.”
Again, when we regard the record in question as the forgery of a later date, its moral aspect wholly changes. It is strange that they who talk of prophecies made after the event do not see what a moral stigma they cast upon the supposed makers. It is usual for this “higher criticism” to speak, or affect to speak, with great respect of the Hebrew prophets as very sincere and honest men, upright, professing a stern morality, in advance of their age, etc.; but what are they, on this hypothesis, but base liars, conscious, circumstantial liars,—yea, the boldest as well as the most impious of blasphemers! It is no case of self-deluding prognostication, or of a fervid zeal creating in the mind a picture of the future, which the seer honestly believes as coming from the Lord. They know that the events are not future, but that they themselves have falsely and purposely put themselves in the past. They have simply antedated, or forged an old name, turning history into prediction, and greatly confusing and exaggerating it to keep up the imposture. And then the daring impiety of the thing for men professing such awe of Jehovah, the Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth, with his immutable truth, his everlasting righteousness,—the God who especially abhors falsehood, “who is of purer eyes than to behold evil,—that frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh the diviners mad, that turneth wise men backward and maketh their knowledge foolishness,—that confirmeth the word of his servants, and performeth the counsel of his messengers.” Take, for example, the prophecies of “the later Isaiah,” as this “rational school” are fond of styling him, and whom they so greatly praise for the loftiness of his morality. He lives after the events he assumes to predict, he knows that they have come to pass, and yet with what bold blasphemy he throws himself upon Jehovah’s prescience as the attestation of his prophetic power, and challenges the ministers of false religions to produce anything like it in the objects of their worship: “Let them bring forth and show us what shall happen; let them show the former things, and things to come, that we may know that ye are gods; who hath declared from the beginning, that we may know? and before the time, that we may say, He is true? Behold the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them.” See how this impostor who pretends to predict a captivity that is past, represents God as specially challenging to himself foreknowledge, and proclaiming it to be the ground of trust in his messenger: “I am God, and there is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done; calling from the East the man that executeth my counsel, from a far country; yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass.”
The absurdity and difficulty of such a hypothesis become still more striking when considered in reference to this patriarchal document. Had it been a concoction of later times, some things in it would certainly not have appeared as they actually do in the vision as it has come down to us. Lange has well shown this in what he says, p. 650, about the tribes of Levi and Simeon, and those condemning utterances, which, neither in the times of the judges nor of the kings, would the tribes of Reuben and Dan, much less the proud Levitical priesthood, have ever borne. Above all does such a view become incredible when this pretended ancient prophecy is ascribed to Nathan, as is done by Bohlen, Knobel and others. Who was Nathan? and what is there recorded of him that can be supposed to have made him the fit instrument for such an imposition. We have but little about him, but that is most distinct. See 1 Chronicles 17 where he brings to David the message concerning the Lord’s house, and 2 Samuel 12. The latter passage, especially, presents an unmistakable character, warranting a most intense admiration of the man. He is no mere theoretical moralist. Seneca wrote some of the choicest ethical treatises, containing sentiments which some have represented as vying with, or even surpassing, those of Paul; and yet he was more than suspected of conniving at some of the worst crimes of his imperial master Nero. How different the character, and the attitude, of the old Hebrew prophet! How sternly practical was he, as well as theoretically holy. The king had covered over his adultery by marriage. Had Seneca been there, or some philosophical courtier of his class, he would have pronounced it well, whilst of the murder, and the manner of it, he would have thought himself, perhaps, not called to speak; seeing that such events were not strangers to thrones and palaces, and a prudential, respect for authority might justify silence, when speech, perhaps, might be useless as well as dangerous. The Hebrew seer was of another school. He appears before the king, now in the height of his power, Rabbah fallen, and all his enemies subdued. He addresses him in that parable of the poor man and his lamb, which has ever challenged, and must continue to challenge, the admiration of the world. Not by ethical abstractions, but by a direct appeal to the conscience, lying oft below the individual’s consciousness, yet most mysteriously representing to him the voice of God, he uncovers the strange duality of the human soul, and brings out the monarch’s sentence, yea, even his malediction, upon himself: “As Jehovah liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die.” Every reader of the Bible is familiar with the scene. The prophet’s interview with the self-forgetting king is unsurpassed by anything in the world’s literature, historic, epic, or dramatic. The human soul never appeared purer or loftier than in that wise, that gentle, and, at the same time, most powerful, rebuke of royal unrighteousness. This is what we have of Nathan. And now to think of such a man deliberately sitting down to fabricate a lie, to personate the character of old Jacob, the revered father of his nation, treating with contempt the old records or old traditions of his day, making no scruple of rejecting them, or of altering them in any way to suit his purposes, making them falsely seem prior to events already past, and with all this, most absurdly as well as dishonestly, assuming to foist upon his cotemporaries, at that later day, what they had never before heard of as connected with the sacred ancestral name. Think of him minutely forging the scene presented by the dying old man, and the sons surrounding his bed, racking his invention, like some modern Chatterton or Defoe, to find figures, and speeches, and antique idioms, to put into his mouth, conscious all the time of lying in the whole and every part—such inconsistent, unmeaning lying, too—and then palming it off as an old prophecy! Incredible! We could not believe it of the most scoffing Sadducee of Jacob’s race, how much less of the truthful, incorruptible, holy Nathan, in name and character so like the one whom our Saviour pronounced “an Israelite in whom there was no guile.”
There is no need of going farther in this to meet the rationalist. The same mode of argument, and from the same point of view, may be applied to all their hypotheses of pseudo Jacobs, pseudo Isaiahs, apocryphal Moses, and personated Jeremiahs. The later they bring down this patriarchal document, especially, the greater becomes the wildness and the absurdity. Their theories of prophecy after the event, it will bear to be repeated, are utterly inconsistent with any moral respect for these old Jewish lights, whom they affect to admire as far-seeing men, most patriotic, most humanitarian, elevated in their views of reform, rising above the prejudices of a dogmatic legal tradition, righteous beyond the formal worship and superstitions of their times, but not to be regarded as veritable seers of the future, or as specially inspired by God in any way different from all “lofty-minded men,” or as assuming to be such, except in a rhetorical or poetical way. Most pious are they, most reverent, yet have they no scruple about announcing in the name of Jehovah events as foretold which they knew to be past at the time of the announcement, or to be utterly false as assumed divine messages. There were, it is true, some men of old who did this, but in what abhorrence they were held we learn from Jer_23:25-32, and 1Ki_22:19-20.
There arises here a sharp issue, as has been already said, but it cannot be evaded. There is no honest middle-ground of compilation and tradition mixed together. The Bible statements are of such a nature as not to allow the supposition. They are so peculiar, so linked together, they form such a serial unity, that we must believe it all a forgery, Nathan, David, as well as Jacob and his blessing, or we must give credence to it as being, all together, a coherent, chronological, consistent history. (See p. 99, introduction, and marginal note.) It is, throughout, delusion, imposture, forgery, nonentity, or it is the most serious and truthful chapter in all this world’s history. If the former view staggers even the most sceptical,—if, in itself, it is more incredible than any supernatural events recorded in such forgeries, then must we come back heartily to the old belief,—the Bible a most truthful book,—all true (allowing for textual inaccuracies)—all subjectively true, at all events, although admitting of human misconceptions in respect to the science and mediate causalities of things narrated, or that which often comes to the same thing, human imperfections necessarily entering into the language employed as the medium of their record. In other words, everything is honestly told, and believed by the writers to be just as they have told it. Whether it be narrative, description, statistical statement, precept, sentiment, thought, devotional feeling, pious emotion of any kind, moral musing, sceptical soliloquizing, as in Ecclesiastes, passionate expostulation, as in Job, prophetic announcements grounded on visions or voices believed to come from the Lord,—all is given just as it was experienced, known, or believed to be known, heard, received from accredited witnesses living in or near the very times, conceived, felt, remembered seen by the eye of sense, seen in the ecstatic trance, dreamed in the visions of the night, or in any way present to their souls as knowledge, thought, memory, or conception, most carefully and truthfully recorded. There is no fiction here, no invention, no art, no “fine writing,” no mere aiming at rhetorical effect,—no use of metaphors, images, or impassioned language, except as the expression of inward vivid and emotional states that imperatively demanded them as the best medium for their utterance.
We must choose between this or the grossest forgery. The more the issue is distinctly seen, the more certain, for every thoughtful mind, the only decision it allows. This human, so appearing, demands the superhuman and divine. This natural, subjective truthfulness once admitted, thoroughly and heartily admitted, the supernatural cannot be excluded. It must come in somewhere in both its forms,—whether it be the objective supernatural which the Scripture itself records, or the inward, spiritual supernatural, still more wonderful, connected with the very existence of such a book in such a world.—T. L.]
2. Gen_49:3-18. The group of Judah. a. The blessings that are introductory to Judah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi.—Reuben, thou art my first-born.—My strength. The meaning of first-born explained. He is the first fruits of his vigor spiritually as well as bodily.—The excellency of dignity and the excellency of power.—A reference to the dividing of the birthright into two rights. In the dignity there lie together the priesthood and the double inheritance. The power is the germ of the warlike chieftainship. Further on Jacob disposes of the power in favor of Judah; the double inheritance he gives to Joseph. The priesthood does not here specially appear; and it is this feature that speaks for the antiquity of the blessing.—Unstable as water.—The verb used here denotes literally the bubbling and exhalation of boiling water. Spiritually it denotes a rash and passionate impulsiveness, LXX, ἐîýâñéóáò . For other interpretations see Knobel. This trait of character is immediately explained:—Because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed (see Gen_35:22).—This impulsiveness shows itself likewise in his offer of his two sons as hostages. Later it shows itself, in the tribe, in the insurrection of Dathan and Abiram, who desired a share in the priesthood—a claim which, doubtless, had reference to the lost birthright of their father. At a still later period, the tribe of Reuben, and that of Gad, desire to have their inheritance specially given them together in the conquered district, on the other side of Jordan, Num_32:1; in which case their request was granted on condition that they should help fight out the war for the conquest of Canaan. Through this Reuben gets an isolated position on the southwestern border, in the pasture land over the Arnon. Again, in the erection of the altar at the Jordan, on their return (Joshua 22), there manifests itself the same old impetuosity, which might have occasioned a civil war, had they not sufficiently excused it.—Thou shalt not excel (that is, thou shalt not have the dignity). See 1Ch_5:1. Joseph has the double inheritance, and, so far, the áְּëֹøָä (or birthright); whilst Judah became prince. To a certain degree, therefore, as Delitzsch remarks, the first-born of Rachel comes into the place of the first-born of Leah. “In order that God’s righteous ruling here may not be arbitrarily imitated by men, the law forbids (Deu_21:15-17) that any preference should be shown to the first-born sons of a beloved wife, over those born of one less favored.” Delitzsch. The good will, and fraternal fidelity, which belonged to Reuben’s character, appear in the history of the tribes. Points of interest in the character of this tribe: the victory, in connection with the Gadites, over the Amorite king Sihon; also over the Gadarenes (1Ch_5:8-10). The less significant blessing of Moses (Deu_33:6), simply indicating the danger of transgression. A reproach cast upon them (Jdg_5:15) for their divisions, etc., in the nation’s peril.—He went up to my couch.—Jacob speaks indirectly (of him) in the third person. Was it because he turned away from him in displeasure? We may rather suppose that he turns himself to the other sons in order to fix their attention upon his sentence.—Simeon and Levi.—True brothers in their disposition, as it appeared in their treatment of the Shechemites. Therefore it is, that they are included in one declaration. Its most obvious aim is to revoke for them also their leadership.—Instruments of cruelty.—They must have been something else than swords. Clericus, Knobel, and others, understand îְëֵøֹúֵéäֶí as denoting malicious and crafty purpose, marriage proposals, etc., an explanation that seems not easy.—Into their secret.—As he would clear himself from their fanaticism, so also, in respect to the prophetic destiny would he clear his people, and the Church of God. It is the very nature of a secret plot, or of a factious conspiracy, to make itself of more importance than the community, and thus to produce disunion.—Unto their assembly, mine honor.—My life, or my soul (Psa_7:6; Psa_16:9). The expression here is well chosen. The believer cannot trust his personality, with its divine dignity, to a congregation in which secret conspiracies, and fanaticism, are allowed to be the ruling powers. So, too, is the expression ÷äì significantly chosen, as also the verb éçã . There is no union, no communion, between the soul of Israel, and the companionship of such fleshly zeal.—They slew a man.—Man is taken collectively.—A wall (an Ox Lange more properly renders it ).—They cut the sinews of the hinder foot of the cattle in order to destroy them. This was done after the manner of war mentioned Jos_11:6; Jos_11:9; 2Sa_8:4, with relation to the horses of the Canaanites and Syrians. According to Gen_34:28, they could not have done it to any cattle that they could carry off with them; and this, therefore, must be taken as a supplemental account.—Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce (Lange, violent).—They were not personally cursed, but only their excess and their angry doings; neither are they reproved for simply being angry.—I will divide them.—A prophetic expression of divine authority. So speaks the spirit of Israel, giving command for the future, as the spirit of Paul, though far absent in space (1Co_5:3). This dispersion was the specific remedy against their insurrectionary, wrathful temper. In the first place, they could not dwell together with others as tribes, and, secondly, even as single tribes must they be broken up and scattered. Thus it happened to the weakest of these two tribes (Simeon, Num_26:14), in that it held single towns, as enclosed territory, within the tribe of Judah (Jos_19:1-9) with which it went to war in company (Jdg_1:3-17), and in which it seems gradually to have become absorbed. In the days of Hezekiah, a portion of them made an expedition to Mount Seir (1Ch_4:42). In the blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33), Simeon is not named. Levi, too, had no tribal inheritance, but only an allotment of cities. At a later day, by reason of his tithe endowment, he is placed in a more favorable relation to the other tribes; nevertheless, he lacked the external independence, and because of the privations they suffered, they yielded themselves sometimes, as individuals, to the priestly service of idolatry. The turning, however, of Levi’s dispersion to a blessing, threw an alleviating light upon the lot of Simeon, who, together with Benjamin, came into closest union with Judah.
b. Judah (Gen_49:8-12).—Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise.—Luther happily remarks that Jacob says this as one who hitherto had been in vain looking about for the right one: Judah, thou art the man. For the history of Judah and the literature pertaining to this blessing, see Knobel, p. 362.—Shall praise.—A play upon the name Judah, as meaning one who is celebrated. At a later day this name (Judea, Jews) passes over to the whole people. Originally it is the name of one for whom thanks are given to God.—Thy hand shall be upon the neck.—The enemies flee or bow themselves; as victor, or lord, he lays his hand upon their necks. His power in peace corresponds to his greatness in war; a contrast which, further on, appears still more strongly.—Shall bow down before thee.—He, the foremost and strongest against the foe, shall, therefore, be chief among his brethren. “That he should be a ðָâִéã , a prince, among them (1Ch_5:2), is his reward for the part he took in that blessed turn which the history of Israel received through Joseph.” Delitzsch.—Thy father’s children.—All of them; not merely thy mother’s sons, but all thy brethren.—A lion’s whelp.— âּåּø is to be distinguished from ëְּôִéø as quite a young lion. The expression denotes, therefore, the innate lion-nature which Judah had shown from his youth up, not only Judah personally, but the tribe especially. His faults were no malicious ones; on the contrary, he early withstood his brethren in their evil design, and, at a later period, became their reconciling mediator before Joseph.—From the prey, my son, thou art gone up.—By Knobel and others this language is interpreted of the lion seizing his prey in the plain, and then carrying it up to his abode in the mountains (Son_4:8), which seems especially applicable to Judah, as dwelling in the hill-country. We prefer, however, the interpretation of Herder, Gesenius, and others, who understand the word of growing, advancing in strength and size, and especially because it is said îִèֶּøֶó , from the prey, in the sense of through, or by the means of, the prey; since it is with the prey that the lion goes back to the hills. At the same time, growth, in warlike deeds of heroism, forms a contrast to the quiet yet fearful ambush of the lion. The old lion is stronger than the young one; and more fearful still is the lioness, especially in defence of her young. So lies down the strong-grown Judah; who shall venture to attack, or drive him up for the chase? This prophetic lion-figure was especially realized in the royal and victorious dominion of David; although even in the wilderness, the tribe of Judah marched before the other tribes—a figure of the young lion.?—The sceptre shall not depart from Judah.—The sceptre is the mark of royal power. The ruler’s staff, îְçֹ÷ֵ÷ , seems, from the parallelism, to express the same thing. The word denotes that which establishes, makes laws; hence the ruler’s staff. Here, however, is meant the staff or mace of the warrior chief; and so it would be the ducal, or field-marshal’s staff. In correspondence with this the term øַâְìָéå (at his feet) would seem like an allusion to the army that follows the chieftain, although the expression would primarily present the figure of the chief sitting upon his throne, with his sceptre between his feet. In respect to the sceptre, and representations of princes with the sceptre between their feet, see Knobel, p. 364. If we had to choose, we should prefer the interpretation of Ewald and others, according to which øâìéå here, according to the connection, must mean the people or army. For other explanations see Knobel. Judah is not merely to possess the sceptre, but also command with it, and rule with vigor.—Until Shiloh come.—[Lange translates, until he (Judah) comes home as the restgiver.] The expression òַãÎëּé does not denote the temporal terminus where Judah’s lordship ceases, but the ideal terminus where it reaches its glorious perfection. According to the first supposition, the place has been, in various ways, interpreted of the Messiah. With the dominion of Herod did the sceptre depart from Judah, and, therefore, then must the Messiah, or Shiloh, have made his appearance. The different interpretations of the word Shiloh do not require of us here a more copious exegesis; we may simply refer to the commentaries. There are, 1. The verbal prophetic Messianic interpretations, that ùִׁéìֹä is the abstract for the concrete (see the verb ùׁìä ), and denotes the author of tranquility, the Messiah. This is the old Jewish, the old Catholic, and the old Protestant interpretation. Those who still hold it are Hengstenberg, Schröder, Keil and others, as also Hofmann, according to his later view. Modifications: a. It is from