Genesis 49:10

[Kris]

Hello,

I have been doing a lot of reading about OT scriptures that Christians use to say that Jesus fulfilled the messiah requirements. One if Genesis 49:10:

The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh come: And unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be.

Christians state that Shiloh is the messiah and that even in the Talmud, some Rabbis agree.

My questions are this-- the scepter seems to indicate kingship-- this is something that Israel did not have during the Babylonian captivity, and even after, the scepter was not in a descendent of David's hands all of the time-- the Hasmoneans ruled for quite a while.

During Jesus' time, Judah was under Roman rule, although they let the Jews retain spiritual leaders and the Sanhedrin existed as well. Josephus records that the Sanhedrin could not hear capital cases beginning in 6-7ad.
The Christians love to use a verse in the Talmud that 40 years prior to the temple's destruction, the Sanhedrin lost the right to hear capital cases and were either "exiled" or "removed themselves" from the Hall of Hewn Stone. Was the Talmud rounding dates as it is different than the timing in Josephus? Did the Sanhedrin leave and quit hearing capital cases on their own accord-- as one verse in the Talmud also says? Didn't the Sanhedrin stay in power until the late 300's ad? And even if they didn't hear capital cases, they still created law, etc? Christians really tie the Sanhedrin to this scripture.

Who is Shiloh? Is Shiloh a person or place?

I would like to assert that Jesus did not meet the conditions of this messianic prediction, if it is even one at all, but would like other's takes. Any feedback--except ones that disagree with me are welcomed (Just Kidding!).

[Secret Alias]

Shiloh = 345 = Moses = the returning (Moses) who is God = Shemah, haShem

[Secret Alias]

I am that I am = 543 + 345 = 888 = "then sang" Exod 15.1 LXX a fact noticed by the founder of the Samaritan tradition whose name (famously) had the value 345 (= Marcus = M R Q H). What does it all mean? "There are two powers ..." is at the core of the Pentateuch. What does it tell us? The two powers are 'the Name' (or 'his Name' in Aramaic) and the Unnameable One (and Jews and Samaritans came from a cultural that traditionally deified their rulers).

[iskander]

Hello,

I have been doing a lot of reading about OT scriptures that Christians use to say that Jesus fulfilled the messiah requirements. One if Genesis 49:10:

The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh come: And unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be.

Christians state that Shiloh is the messiah and that even in the Talmud, some Rabbis agree.

My questions are this-- the scepter seems to indicate kingship-- this is something that Israel did not have during the Babylonian captivity, and even after, the scepter was not in a descendent of David's hands all of the time-- the Hasmoneans ruled for quite a while.

During Jesus' time, Judah was under Roman rule, although they let the Jews retain spiritual leaders and the Sanhedrin existed as well. Josephus records that the Sanhedrin could not hear capital cases beginning in 6-7ad.
The Christians love to use a verse in the Talmud that 40 years prior to the temple's destruction, the Sanhedrin lost the right to hear capital cases and were either "exiled" or "removed themselves" from the Hall of Hewn Stone. Was the Talmud rounding dates as it is different than the timing in Josephus? Did the Sanhedrin leave and quit hearing capital cases on their own accord-- as one verse in the Talmud also says? Didn't the Sanhedrin stay in power until the late 300's ad? And even if they didn't hear capital cases, they still created law, etc? Christians really tie the Sanhedrin to this scripture.

Who is Shiloh? Is Shiloh a person or place?

I would like to assert that Jesus did not meet the conditions of this messianic prediction, if it is even one at all, but would like other's takes. Any feedback--except ones that disagree with me are welcomed (Just Kidding!).

Genesis 49:10
10.The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the student of the law from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and to him will be a gathering of peoples.



Rashi :
until Shiloh comes: [This refers to] the King Messiah, to whom the kingdom belongs (שֶׁלוֹ) , and so did Onkelos render it: [until the Messiah comes, to whom the kingdom belongs]. According to the Midrash Aggadah, [“Shiloh” is a combination of] שַׁי לוֹ, a gift to him, as it is said:“they will bring a gift to him who is to be feared” (Ps. 76:12). - [From Gen. Rabbah ed. Theodore-Albeck p. 1210 ]
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi=true


The 13 principles:
Belief in Mashiah and awaiting his coming is one of the Thirteen Principles of the Jewish Faith.

[GakuseiDon]

I have been doing a lot of reading about OT scriptures that Christians use to say that Jesus fulfilled the messiah requirements. One if Genesis 49:10:

The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh come: And unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be.

Christians state that Shiloh is the messiah and that even in the Talmud, some Rabbis agree.

My questions are this-- the scepter seems to indicate kingship-- this is something that Israel did not have during the Babylonian captivity, and even after, the scepter was not in a descendent of David's hands all of the time-- the Hasmoneans ruled for quite a while.

Epiphanius, writing in the Fourth Century CE, addresses that prophecy to support the idea that the descendants of David continued through the Hasmoneans up until Herod, whom became the first non-Davidic ruler, and thus the harbinger of the Christ (since the scepter is not passed to Herod)

Epiphanius below discusses the heretical sect called "Herodians", whom believed that Herod was the Christ since he was the first non-Davidic ruler. From here: http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm#29.

• 20:1.1 And again, after this sect and the others there was a seventh, called the sect of Herodians. These had nothing different but were altogether Jews, good for nothing and hypocrites. They believed, however, that Herod was Christ, thought that the Christ awaited in all scriptures of the Law and prophets was Herod himself, 51
  
  1.2 and were proud of Herod because they were deceived about him. This was because, (besides holding the vain opinion in order to gratify the reigning king), they were won to it by the wording of the text, 'There shall not fail a leader from Judah, nor a ruler out of his loins, till he come for whom it is prepared'52—or, 'for whom are the things prepared,' as the other copies say.

Epiphanius continues on, and confirms that the rulers before Herod were all of Davidic descent:

• 29:3.2 In time past David's throne continued by succession until Christ himself, since the rulers from Judah did not fail until he came 'for whom are the things prepared, and he is the expectation of the nations,'8 as scripture says.
  
  3.3 For the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end with Christ's arrival...
  ...
  3.6 But then finally a gentile, King Herod, was crowned, and not David's descendants any more.

[DCHindley]

Epiphanius, writing in the Fourth Century CE, addresses that prophecy to support the idea that the descendants of David continued through the Hasmoneans up until Herod, whom became the first non-Davidic ruler, and thus the harbinger of the Christ (since the scepter is not passed to Herod)

Epiphanius ... confirms that the rulers before Herod were all of Davidic descent:

• 29:3.2 In time past David's throne continued by succession until Christ himself, since the rulers from Judah did not fail until he came 'for whom are the things prepared, and he is the expectation of the nations,'8 as scripture says.
  ...
  3.3 For the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end with Christ's arrival...
  ...
  3.6 But then finally a gentile, King Herod, was crowned, and not David's descendants any more.

Epiphanius can be wild and crazy at times, but also confusing because he often assumes all sorts of unstated premises to create a class of arguments called enthymemes.

So, IMHO, he seems to have meant that there continued to be individuals who could claim kingship on the basis of legitimate Davidic descent, but for circumstances beyond their control, could not assert their claim.

The Hasmonean dynasty was not Davidic, but Priestly, and perhaps Epiphanius meant to imply that the Hasmonean dynasty's claim to the kingly throne was essentially as "illegitimate" as the claim to kingship of Herod and his dynasty.

In reality, though, possession (of kingship) is 99% of the law, as can be seen by the mechanizations that Macedonian princes went to the trouble to at least "pretend" to be members of the Macedonian dynasties which were based in Syria, Egypt and the Greek Peloponnesus after the death of Alexander the Great.