on with Judah at all. A restriction of the
promise to Judah, such as would take place if the Shiloh did not belong
to him, is the less legitimate, inasmuch as, in vers. 8, 9, victory and
dominion, without any limitation, are promised to Judah.

Having thus adduced the positive arguments in support of our view of
this passage, let us now further examine the opinions of those who
differ from us. Here, then, we must first of all consider those which
are at one with us in the acknowledgment that this passage contains the
promise of a personal Messiah.

1. Some interpreters (_Jonathan_, _Luther_, _Calvin_, _Knapp_, _Dogm._)
are of opinion that [Hebrew: wilh] is compounded of the noun [Hebrew:
wil], "child," and the suffix of the third person: "Until his (_i.e._,
Judah's) son or descendant, the Messiah, shall come." (Luther, somewhat
differently.) But this supposed signification of [Hebrew: wil] [Pg 73]
is destitute of any tenable foundation. That by such an explanation,
moreover, there is a dissolution of the connection betwixt the Shiloh
in this passage, and Shiloh the name of a place, which is written in
precisely the same manner, is decisive against both the view just given
forth and that which follows.

2. Others (the last of them. _Sack_ in the second edition of his
_Apolog._) suppose the word to be erroneously pointed. They propose to
read [Hebrew: wlh], compounded of [Hebrew: w] for [Hebrew: awr], and
the suffix [Hebrew: h] for [Hebrew: v]. They suppose the language to be
elliptical: "Until He come to whom the dominion or sceptre belongs, or
is due." The principal argument in support of this exposition is, that
most of the ancient translators seem to have followed this punctuation.
It is true that this is doubtful as regards _Onkelos_ and the _Targum_
of Jerusalem, which translate, "_Donec veniat Messias, cujus est
regnum_;" for we may well suppose that here [Hebrew: wilh] is simply
rendered by [Hebrew: mwiHa], while the following clause adds a
complement from Ezek. xxi. 32, which is founded upon the passage now
under review. But it is certain that the LXX. supposed the punctuation
to be [Hebrew: wlh]. They translate: [Greek: heos an elthe ta
apokeimena auto.] (Thus read the two oldest manuscripts--the Vatican
and Alexandrian. The other reading, [Greek: ho apokeitai], has no doubt
crept in from the later Greek translations, notwithstanding the charge
which _Justinus_ [_Dial. c. Tryph._ Sec. 120] raises against the J