It has been said that Shiloh is taken in its local sense as the sanctuary where the young Samuel was trained; and that, if doctrinal perversions did not interfere, hardly any one would doubt this to be the true sense.
What the training of the young Samuel has to do with it I cannot tell: if Shiloh refer to this, it is still a prophecy, but a prophecy very ill interpreted. It seems irrational to suppose that it is a divinely inspired prophecy about the name of the place where the young Samuel was trained, because the tabernacle was there. What is “till Shiloh come"? and yet more “to him shall the gathering (or, “obedience”) of the peoples be”? What has that to do with the place the young Samuel was trained in? It is not “people” (fancy might have spoken of the tabernacle so), but “peoples.”
The truth is that this use of Shiloh for the name of a place is a modern Jewish opposition to the faith of Jesus being the Messiah. All the old Jewish interpreters referred this to Messiah with one consent, though the root of the word be disputed. R. Lipmann first proposed to read it “till they come to Shiloh,” as in 1 Sam. 4:1212And there ran a man of Benjamin out of the army, and came to Shiloh the same day with his clothes rent, and with earth upon his head. (1 Samuel 4:12), where the words are so translated. And this a certain Teller in the last century defended, applying it to the fact in Joshua, that at the close of the war they pitched the tabernacle in Shiloh; and then Judah ceased to take the lead which in Numbers had been given him in the wilderness, Reuben and Gad left, &c. This interpretation has been adopted by the rationalists, as Eichhorn, Ammon, Bleek, Tuch, &c., denying any application to the Messiah.
The soberest and best Hebrew scholars, even rationalists, take it as referring to peace, and see Messiah in it as Prince of Peace, as the scepter shows dominion. They do so on Hebrew grounds, without troubling themselves about prophecy and its fulfillment. It is also translated “till he (Judah) come to rest:” seeing in it the full accomplishment of the promises to Israel when the nations of the earth will be subject, some adding the coming of Shiloh, when the land was distributed as a first installment and turning-point, because Israel got its rest of promise in first provisional fulfillment there.
Now these questions of interpretation we cannot enter into here. The objections of some (as Kurz) to a personal Messiah being as yet the subject of prophecy, are null. The Lord Himself says, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad.” In principle I see nothing to object to in a germinant accomplishment for responsible Israel, to be fully accomplished in their final glory with Messiah. That the prophecy is a pretended prophecy, after the event, has been shown to be absurd on the face of it; for the statements are, in almost every particular, such as no one speaking from the event could have made. You must always bear in mind that these rationalists never search even whether a passage may be a prophecy. They start with the assertion that there can be none, and then seek to show how the passage may have otherwise arisen. In this case the absurdity lies on the surface. Jacob declares that he speaks of the end of days, that this goes on to the full blessing of Israel. The gathering of the nations is therefore the natural interpretation, for those who believe in prophecy and the divine inspiration of scripture.
That there was a provisional inbringing of blessing, and the first proposal of it on Israel's responsibility in the first coming of Christ, is the belief of all Christians, and the express teaching of Peter in Acts 3 (now put off till Israel repent, while the church is being gathered, and yet to be fulfilled), and then to be accomplished by a glorious intervention in the last days, I have no doubt. And Judah is preserved as a tribe (I do not see more necessarily in Shebet” scepter”) for that day. It certainly never will be fulfilled till then. It has had, in the progressive development of Israel's victory, preparatory events. To make it Samuel's training-place is simply nonsense.
It is a question whether the name be not itself given from the fact of Joshua's sitting down there to distribute the conquered land. The point difficult to receive from the words is Israel's coming to Shiloh. Either it is, “until rest come,” or, “until Judah come to Shiloh.” If not, the sentence is broken off, and there is no antecedent to “come.” It is “people,” (as the French on) with no one mentioned before. If the ancient interpretation, Targums, &c., all which take it as Messiah, be not received, it is “till rest come,” or “till Judah come to rest.” The words “to him shall the gathering of the peoples be” are the difficulty then. If it be not translated “till Shiloh come,” the gathering will be to Judah, looked at as representing the people, as Judah did, and specially the stock of the house of David and Christ, in contrast with the ten tribes. That the people first should be the vessel of God's testimony, and Messiah take their place on their failure, and gather the peoples, is the distinct declaration of all prophecy. It is fully developed in Isa. 49, where Messiah declares He has labored in vain, if it be Israel; and then His gathering the remnant of Israel and the nations is fully set forth, going on to the rest and glory of Israel. It is the great subject. of prophecy—Messiah taking up the promise as a faithful servant when Israel had failed. Hence He is the true Vine; as Israel was the old vine, but was fruitless or bore wild grapes.