Genesis 49.5-7-Israel's Prophetic Anti-Blessings on Simeon and Levi

Tuesday April 17, 2007

Genesis: Genesis 49:5-7-Israel’s Prophetic Anti-Blessings on Simeon and Levi

Lesson # 314

Please turn in your Bibles to Genesis 49:1.

This evening we will continue with our study of Genesis 49, which gives us the record of Jacob/Israel bestowing prophetic blessings and antiblessings upon his twelve sons as well as giving instructions for his burial and records his death.

Just as Jacob’s father Isaac had prophetically outlined the future of his two sons’ families in Genesis 27 so Jacob prophetically outlined the future of his twelve sons.

Jacob employs a poem in order to communicate to his sons the future of their descendants, which is the first long poem in the Bible.

These prophecies cover the entire history of the nation of Israel from the conquest of Canaan to the millennial reign of Christ.

Interestingly, these “blessings” as in the case of Reuben, Simeon and Levi are in actuality “antiblessings,” much like ones that Isaac bestowed upon Esau (See Genesis 27:30-40).

If you recall, since Isaac gave everything to Jacob, all he had to give Esau was an “antiblessing,” which is a parody on Jacob’s blessing and were also prophecies concerning the future of Esau’s descendants who were the Edomites.

In the same way, the “antiblessings” given to Reuben, Simeon and Levi are a parody of the blessings bestowed upon Jacob’s other nine sons and were also prophecies as well.

If you recall, Reuben was disqualified for leadership of the family because he had sex with his father’s concubine according to a comparison of Genesis 25:21-22 and 1 Chronicles 5:1-2.

Simeon and Levi were disqualified as a result of killing all the men of the city of Shechem in retaliation for the rape of their sister Dinah according to Genesis 34.

However, in relation to the nation of Israel’s destiny, these “antiblessings” are a blessing in the sense that Reuben did not have the capacity for leadership because of his moral instability and immoral degeneracy.

Therefore, Israel does the nation a favor and blesses the nation by promoting Judah rather than Reuben with his poor leadership abilities and in the same way, Israel protects the nation from the cruelty and violence of Simeon and Levi.

Another feature of this remarkable poem is that the name “Jacob” appears five times expressing the “weakness” of the patriarch and the name “Israel” appears the same number of times expressing the “strength” of the patriarch in the future of his sons.

Finally, it is fascinating that Jacob’s life was prophesied before it began (Genesis 25:22-23) and in this chapter we see that it will end prophetically as well.

On Sunday morning we studied Genesis 49:1-4, which records Israel pronouncing an antiblessing on Reuben, his firstborn because Reuben committed adultery and incest with his concubine Bilhah.

This evening we will study Genesis 49:5-7, which records Israel’s prophetic anti-blessings that he bestowed upon Simeon and Levi for the massacre of the city of Shechem.

Genesis 49:1, “Then Jacob summoned his sons and said, ‘Assemble yourselves that I may tell you what will befall you in the days to come.’”

Genesis 49:2, “Gather together and hear, O sons of Jacob and listen to Israel your father.”

Genesis 49:3, “Reuben, you are my firstborn; My might and the beginning of my strength, preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power.”

Genesis 49:4, “Uncontrolled as water, you shall not have preeminence, because you went up to your father's bed; Then you defiled it -- he went up to my couch.”

Genesis 49:5, “Simeon and Levi are brothers; Their swords are implements of violence.”

“Simeon” (/w)um+v!) (shim`on) (shim-one) was the second child that Leah bore to Jacob and his name means, “the Lord has heard” and his birth is recorded in Genesis 29:33.

“Levi” (yw!l@) (lewi) (lay-vee) was the third child that Leah bore to Jacob and his name means, “My husband will be attached to me” and his birth is recorded in Genesis 29:34.

Israel’s statement “Simeon and Levi are brothers,” which in context does “not” emphasize their biological relationship of having the same father and mother but rather emphasizes that they were “confederates, allies, co-conspirators” or “partners in crime” in the massacre of the Shechemites.

The statement “Their swords are implements of violence” is a reference to the massacre of the Shechemites in retaliation for the rape of Dinah (See Genesis 34).

In Genesis 33:19, we read where Jacob purchased a tract of land from Hamor, the Hivite whose intention for selling this tract of land was to intermarry with Jacob’s family and absorbing their great wealth and possessions that they acquired in Paddan Aram (See Genesis 34:23).

The Hivites were a branch of the Canaanites who were under a curse as stipulated in the prophecy of Noah, which is recorded in Genesis 9:24-27, thus Jacob’s family could not intermarry with Hamor’s people, the Hivites.

Then, in Genesis 34:1-4, we saw Dinah raped by Shechem, the son of Hamor, the Hivite and Genesis 34:5-7 records Jacob’s “passive” response to the rape and the angry reaction of his sons.

In Genesis 34:8-12, we saw Hamor proposing intermarriage and an economic package to Jacob’s sons that would greatly benefit Jacob’s family.

A comparison of Genesis 34:13-17 with Genesis 34:25 reveals that Simeon and Levi deceitfully proposed to Hamor that he and his constituents agree to the condition of circumcision with the intention of killing him, his son Shechem and all the men of the city of Shechem in retaliation for the rape of their sister Dinah.

Genesis 34:25-29 records the murder of Shechem and his father Hamor as well as all the men of the city of Shechem by Jacob’s sons in retaliation for the rape of their sister Dinah.

The moral outrage and righteous indignation expressed by Jacob’s sons towards the rape of their sister was totally justified and appropriate but the manner in which they dealt with the rape of their sister was not justified and totally inappropriate.

They dishonored God by using circumcision as the means to immobilize Shechem and Hamor and theirs subjects so that they could be murdered.

The very holiness that Jacob’s sons honored by expressing anger over the rape of their sister Dinah, they dishonored by using circumcision to deceive the Shechemites and killing them without divine sanction.

Jacob and his sons should have done the following in dealing with this problem with the rape of Dinah.

First of all, they should have immediately demanded that Dinah be returned to them before negotiations could take place.

Secondly, they should have flat out refused this proposal of intermarriage due to the fact that they were prohibited from intermarrying with Canaanites unless of course, Shechem accepted the Lord as His Savior and then submitted to the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, which is circumcision.

Under the Mosaic Law in Israel, the rape of an unengaged or unmarried woman like Dinah did not require the death penalty but rather, it required fifty shekels of silver being paid to the victim’s family as the bride-price and there would not be a possibility of divorce if the father of the victim agreed to marriage (See Exodus 22:16-17; Deuteronomy 22:25-29).

However, in Jacob’s day, the Mosaic Law was not yet given and furthermore, Dinah was not raped by an Israelite but rather by a Canaanite and the family of Jacob was prohibited from intermarrying Canaanites because of the prophecy of Noah recorded in Genesis 9:24-27.

Therefore, if Shechem did not become a believer and then submit to circumcision, then Jacob and his sons should have refused to give Dinah in marriage to him.

No military action would have been required but rather Jacob and his sons should have simply taken Dinah and then separated from the Canaanites as they should have done in the first place.

If Shechem did not return Dinah, then that would have been considered an act of war, which would have called for military action in order to rescue her.

The fact that Dinah was raped by Shechem and that Simeon and Levi took Dinah from Shechem’s house indicates that Dinah was held against her will or in other words she was held hostage by Shechem even though he treated her well according to Genesis 34:3.

Therefore, we can see that Shechem and his father Hamor had never offered honest negotiations with Simeon and Levi who felt that they were negotiating with a gun held to their heads.

The fact that Dinah was held hostage by Shechem indicates that Shechem and Hamor had attempted to impose their will on Jacob’s family in the preceding negotiations, thus, the Shechemites brought down this violence upon themselves.

Jacob’s sons were correct in opposing the mixing of the chosen seed with the seed of the Canaanites but wrong in adopting the means they selected to achieve their end, which demonstrates that they were “chips off the old block,” Jacob since they too, like their father in his younger days, thought that the ends justified the means.

If Shechem did return Dinah, then Simeon and Levi should have done nothing to him and his father and the inhabitants of their city but rather should have waited for the Lord to deal with Shechem and Hamor in His perfect timing.

Romans 12:19, “Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,’ says the Lord.”

The Shechemites were Hivites and Hivites were descendants of Canaan and so therefore, God would have in His perfect timing dealt with Shechem and his father for the rape of Dinah since they were Canaanites and under the curse of Noah recorded in Genesis 9:24-27 and would thus be judged by God later in history.

Although Simeon and Levi were justified in their anger due to the fact that their sister Dinah was not only raped but also was held hostage by Shechem, they were “not” justified in murdering innocent people, namely, the men of the city of Shechem since they had nothing to do with the rape and kidnapping of Dinah.

They were also not justified in killing Shechem and his father Hamor since the Lord never sanctioned such a thing.

The actions of Simeon and Levi were totally unnecessary unlike Abraham’s military action, which he took against the four Eastern Mesopotamian Kings to rescue his nephew Lot.

Military action was necessary and appropriate by Abraham to rescue Lot since Lot who was a citizen of Sodom was taken as a prisoner of war by the Four Eastern Mesopotamian Kings after they had defeated the Five Dead Sea Kings (See Genesis 14:1-16).

The military action taken by Simeon and Levi was totally unnecessary and inappropriate because Dinah was not a prisoner of war but rather the object of a man’s infatuation and love and affection (See Genesis 34:3, 19)!

The Lord would not have approved the plundering of Shechem, which was a Canaanite city and He would not have approved of the taking captive the women and children of the city since later on in Israel’s history, the Lord prohibited Israel from plundering the Canaanites but rather everything had to be killed or destroyed (See Deuteronomy 20:16-18).

Further indicating that Simeon and Levi were out of the will of God is the inconsistency of their actions where they took the wives of the men of the city of Shechem as hostages when God prohibited marriage to Canaanite women!

Simeon and Levi considered this plunder as the spoils of war but this was totally unnecessary and inappropriate since Dinah was not a prisoner of war but rather the object of a man’s infatuation and love and affection!

Genesis 49:6, “Let my soul not enter into their council; Let not my glory be united with their assembly; Because in their anger they slew men, and in their self-will they lamed oxen.”

Israel’s statement “Let my soul not enter into their council” means that he denies conspiring with Simeon and Levi in their secret plot to massacre the Shechemites.

His statement “Let not my glory be united with their assembly” means that he denies agreeing with their conspiracy to massacre the Shechemites.

Psalm 1:1, “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked

or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.”

The causal clause “Because in their anger they slew men” indicates that Simeon and Levi killed all the men of the city of Shechem because they were motivated by the emotion of anger rather than obedience to God.

The statement “in their self-will they lamed oxen” means that Simeon and Levi crippled oxen by severing the tendons of their hind legs without their father’s and God’s consent and independently of their father and God.

Genesis 34 does not reveal that Simeon and Levi were cruel to animals.

Genesis 49:7, “Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce; And their wrath, for it is cruel. I will disperse them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.”

Israel’s statement “cursed be their anger for it is fierce” is a declaration of punishment upon Simeon and Levi since their actions against the Shechemites in response to the rape of Dinah was motivated by uncontrolled rage rather than obedience to God.

His statement “cursed be…their wrath for it is cruel” is a declaration of punishment upon Simeon and Levi since their anger in response to the rape of their sister Dinah expressed itself in violence as manifested in the murder of all the men of Shechem and it was cruel in that they hamstrung the oxen of the city.

The content of the curse is expressed in the prophecy “I will disperse them in Jacob and scatter them,” which signifies that the tribes of Simeon and Levi would lose power because they would be divided up and absorbed into the other ten tribes of Israel.

This prophecy was fulfilled when Simeon’s descendants were absorbed into the territory of Judah according to Joshua 19:1, 9.

Some of the descendants of Simeon were captured and dwelled in some of the territory of the Edomites and Amalekites, outside of Canaan according to 1 Chronicles 4:39-43.

During the period when the nation of Israel’s was a divided kingdom, many of the Simeonites left Israel to join up with the tribe of Judah according to 2 Chronicles 15:9.

In his farewell address to Israel recorded in Deuteronomy 33, Moses passed over the Simeonites in his blessing of the Israelites.

This prophecy in Genesis 49:7 was fulfilled when Levi’s descendants never received an inheritance of their own land and were apportioned forty-eight towns and pasturelands among the twelve tribes, including Ephraim and Manasseh according to Numbers 35:1-5 and Joshua 21:1-41.

Interestingly, the tribe of Levi redeemed itself and was chosen the priestly tribe in Israel by taking their stand with Moses against the idolatry of the Israelites at Sinai according to Exodus 32:26.

The Levites manifested the violent nature of their progenitor by killing three thousand idolatrous, uncontrollable mob of Israelites, which was justified since it was sanctioned by God and was in obedience to Moses’ command who was himself a member of the tribe of Levi.