Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Genesis 49:5
Simeon and Levi [are] brethren; instruments of cruelty [are in] their habitations.
5. Simeon and Levi ] These two brothers were associated in the massacre of the Shechemites, to which reference is possibly here made in language of indignation. (See ch. Gen 34:25; Gen 34:30.)
swords ] The Hebrew word ( m’khrh) occurs only here. Its similarity in sound to the Greek , “a sword,” has suggested the English rendering. If it be rightly derived from a root meaning “to dig,” possibly the traditional rendering denoting “a weapon” is correct. The R.V. marg., compacts, gives another conjecture. Driver (Add. xl.) says the word “must come from karar, prob. to turn round; hence Dillm. suggests a curved knife, or sabre.” The obscurity accounts for the following variant renderings: LXX ; Lat. vasa iniquitatis bellantia; Targ. Onkelos, “mighty men in the land they dwelled in, they did a mighty deed”; Spurrell, “weapons of violence are their shepherds’ staves”; Gunkel, “deceit and violence are their pitfalls.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Gen 49:5-7
Simeon and Levi are brethren
The blessing of Simeon and Levi:
I.
THEIR SIN.
1. Immoderate revenge.
2. Cruelty to unoffending beasts.
3. Their cruelty was deliberate.
II. THEIR PENALTY.
1. To be disavowed by the good.
2. Their deed is branded with a curse.
3. They are condemned to moral and political weakness. (T. H.Leale.)
Simeon and Levi
The passage begins by declaring Simeon and Levi are brethren. Brethren not merely as having the same parents, but in thought, feeling, action. Instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. Such wickedness had these two brothers committed (see chap. 34. 25th and following verses) that Jacob could have no sympathy with it. As they had joined together to commit it, so righteous retribution was to follow. They were to be divided and scattered. Thus the murderous propensity of their nature would bring untold trouble upon Israel, and only by breaking this union and scattering them throughout Israel could their power for evil be weakened. They should form no independent or compact tribes. This sentence was so strikingly fulfilled when Canaan was conquered, that on the second numbering under Moses, Simeon had become the weakest of all the tribes (see Num 26:14).
1. Among the many lessons taught by the conduct of this tribe let us notice first, that though men may be brethren, there may be underneath this hallowed term principles utterly at variance with it. How sacred may be the outward sign, how suggestive of all that is commendable and holy, how hideous the principles it covers! The whited sepulchre may indeed cover the revolting sight of dead mens bones. Such terms are the outward memorials of what should be, but too often they serve to represent their very opposite. One bearing the holiest of all names, Christian, may have a devil at heart.
2. Mark another truth. Their swords are weapons of violence, the patriarch says–the anger was fierce, the wrath was cruel. The sword is a lawful weapon. Anger may be right and wrath too. It is when they degenerate into violence, fierceness, and cruelty that they become sin. From being instruments of righteousness it is an easy transition to become instruments of Satan. And let not our inveterate self-righteousness take refuge under the covering that because no such crime as houghing the oxen is ours, therefore we are all right before God. Is it possible for such an easy self-deception: Yes, possible, and the thought of many, yea of most. What I is there not adultery in a look? Is there not murder in a feeling?
3. And observe, it is the sin that is cursed and not the sinner: Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel. It is the same all through the Bible. The sinner is never cursed apart from the sin that is in him. And for this sin which draws down that curse God has made a rich provision in Christs precious blood. If the sinner is cursed it is because he loves his sin, and clings to it, and will not have it removed. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin. Sin must be cursed. And if the sinner will not avail himself of the remedy, but still cleave to his sin, then he may be cursed with it—the wrath of God abideth on him.
4. Observe another truth in the history of these tribes in conjunction with that of Reuben in the last chapter. It is this, that the result of all sin, all living to the flesh, is diminution. Reubens sin led to it, for Moses had to pray that he might have a few men left, and not become altogether extinct. Simeon and Levi were to be divided and scattered; and both traceable to one cause–giving way to the flesh, to sensuality and self-will. Yes, living to self, to sin, to anything lower than Christ, does diminish. It makes us little–increasingly little. It banishes every vestige of largeness and greatness and grandness from our character, and from everything about us. We become little hearted, little souled, little in our ways of looking at things.
5. Lastly, let Jacobs word of warning go forth to every Christian: O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united. The patriarch, as he thinks of their sin, traces its source to a secret spring, and its manifestation in an assembly. He warns us to have nothing to do with one or the other. The outward association and the secret spring are both alike dangerous to the soul. Like the Psalmist in his first Psalm, he would, as a faithful sentinel, warn us against coming in the way of either. And it is well, when evil is around us, to talk to ones own soul about it all. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; mine honour, be not thou united. To make a clamour is easy. But let us watch our own souls, and all such meditation should have one effect–one of solemnity, separation, holiness: Come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united. If there is anything of God in you, then, be not thou united. No union with the flesh, or with aught that is contrary to God. (F. Whitfield, M. A.)
The tutors prediction respecting Tiberius
Theodorus Gaddaraeus, who was tutor to Tiberius the Roman Emperor, observing in him, while a boy, a very sanguinary nature and disposition, which lay lurking under a show of levity, was wont to call him a lump of clay steeped and soaked in blood. His predictions of him did not fail in the event. Tiberius thought death was too light a punishment for any one that displeased him. Hearing that one Carnulius who had displeased him had cut his own throat, Carnulius, said he, has escaped me. To another, who begged of him that he might die quickly, No, said he, you are not so much in favour as that yet. (Moral and Religious Anecdotal.)
A curse or a blessing
I would remind you of the different histories of the tribes of Simeon and Levi, as being alike fulfilments of one and the same prophecy. That was not because the prediction itself was, like some of the heathen oracles, so vague or so ambiguous that it could not be falsified by any event, for the phrases, I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel, are both definite and clear. But the explanation is to be found in the subsequent conduct of the men of Levi, as contrasted with that of the men of Simeon, whereby in the one case the prophecy took the ultimate character of a blessing, and in the other it kept that of a curse. Now this was in the lifetime of a tribe which extended over hundreds of years, but something not dissimilar may occur in the lifetime of an individual. Let us suppose that two men have been guilty of the same sin, and that as the penal consequence they have both had to bear the same thing, namely, separation from their native land and virtual transportation to a new and strange country. But the one, unwarned thereby, continues in his wicked ways, and goes down and down in iniquity, until he ceases to be recognizable even by those who look for him; while the other, moved to penitence, begins a new career, earns an honourable independence, gives himself to public affairs, and becomes a benefactor to the colony or the state, so that at length his name is everywhere mentioned with gratitude and respect. Here the proximate results in both cases were the same, but the ultimate how different! and all owing to the different dispositions of the two men. Nor is this an improbable supposition; you may have come on many eases like it, and they are all full of warning to some and encouragement to others, not only for the present life, but also for that which is to come. Up to a certain point we have power, by our penitence, to make blessing for ourselves for the life that now is and for that which is to come; nay, even after we have lost the first opportunity, there may come another on a lower plane; but at length there is a limit, beyond which all such opportunities cease, and we must dree our weird eternally. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
5. Simeon and Levi, brethren:
They have accomplished their fraudulent purposes.
6. Into their secret council my soul did not come;
In their confederacy my honour was not united:
For in their anger they slew a man, ( ish, a noble,)
And in their pleasure they murdered a prince.
7. Cursed was their anger, for it was fierce!
And their excessive wrath, for it was inflexible!
I will divide them out in Jacob,
And I will disperse them in Israel.
Verse 5. Simeon and Levi are brethren] Not only springing from the same parents, but they have the same kind or disposition, head-strong, deceitful, vindictive, and cruel.
They have accomplished, c.] Our margin has it, Their swords are weapons of violence, i. e., Their swords, which they should have used in defence of their persons or the honourable protection of their families, they have employed in the base and dastardly murder of an innocent people.
The Septuagint gives a different turn to this line from our translation, and confirms the translation given above: They have accomplished the iniquity of their purpose with which the Samaritan Version agrees. In the Samaritan text we read [Samaritan] calu, they have accomplished, instead of the Hebrew keley, weapons or instruments, which reading most critics prefer: and as to mecherotheyhem, translated above their fraudulent purposes, and which our translation on almost no authority renders their habitations, it must either come from the AEthiopic macar, he counselled, devised stratagems, &c., (see Castel,) or from the Arabic [Arabic] macara, he deceived, practised deceit, plotted, &c., which is nearly of the same import. This gives not only a consistent but evidently the true sense.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Simeon and Levi are brethren; not only by nature, but in iniquity; of like cruel and bloody disposition, confederate in the same wicked design, Gen 34:25. So the word brother is elsewhere used, for him that agrees much with another in his temper, or employment, or designs, as Job 30:29; Pro 18:9, &c.
Their bloody swords are yet in their dwellings, to bear witness against them for their barbarous cruelty. But these words may be, and are by some both ancient and later interpreters, rendered otherwise. For the Hebrew word mecheroth, here rendered habitations, is never so used, nor indeed is found elsewhere in Scripture. Nor doth that signification agree with the Hebrew root from whence this comes, which is machar, and signifies to bargain, or sell, or exchange. And accordingly this word is by the Samaritan translator, and by other learned interpreters, rendered, their conventions, or compacts, or civil contracts, or agreements. And, which is more, the Chaldee verb mechar, from whence this word may very well be deduced, signifies to espouse; and the noun mechirah, derived from it, signifies a spouse. And so the words may be rendered thus, their contracts, or agreements, ( or their nuptial contracts, ) were instruments of cruelty. Which translation seems better than the other,
1. Because it keeps closest to the words of the text, and leaves out that particle in, which is not in the Hebrew text, but was added by our translators to complete the sense.
2. Because this best agrees with the history recorded, Gen 34:1-31, where we read that they did cover their bloody design with a pretence of an agreement and nuptial contract with the Shechemites, which was a great aggravation of their villany, that those things which to others are bonds of love and peace, were made by them instruments of cruelty.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Simeon and Levi are brothers,…. Not because they were so in a natural sense, being brethren both by father and mother’s side, for there were others so besides them; but because they were of like tempers, dispositions, and manners f, bold, wrathful, cruel, revengeful, and deceitful, and joined together in their evil counsels and evil actions, and so are joined together in the evils predicted of them:
instruments of cruelty are in their habitations: or vessels, utensils, household goods gotten by violence and rapine, and through the cruel usage of the Shechemites; these were in their dwellings, their houses were full of such mammon of unrighteousness, or spoil; or, as others, “instruments of cruelty” are “their swords” g; what they should only have used in their own defence, with these they shed the blood of the Shechemites very barbarously, Ge 34:25. Some think the word here used is the Greek word for a sword; and the Jews say h that Jacob cursed the swords of Simeon and Levi in the Greek tongue; and others say it is Persic, being used by Xenophon for Persian swords; but neither of them seems probable: rather this word was originally Hebrew, and so passed from thence into other languages; but perhaps the sense of it, which Aben Ezra gives, may be most agreeable, if the first sense is not admitted, that it signifies covenants, compacts, agreements i, such as these men made with the Shechemites, even nuptial contracts; for the root of the word, in the Chaldee language, signifies to espouse k; and these they abused to cruelty, bloodshed, and slaughter, in a most deceitful manner: in the Ethiopic language, the word signifies counsels; so De Dieu takes it here.
f “——–par nobile fratrum Nequitia et nugis pravorum et amore gemellum.” Horat. Sermon. l. 2. Satyr. 3. g “Machaerae eorum”, Montanus, Tigurine version, Schmidt; and so R. Sol. Urbin Ohel Moed, fol. 31. 2. h Pirke Eliezer, c. 38. i So Castell. Lexic. col. 2058. Junius & Tremellius, Piscator. k Chald. & Syr. “despondit”, “desponsavit”, Schindler. Lex. col. 998.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
“Simeon and Levi are brethren: ” emphatically brethren in the full sense of the word; not merely as having the same parents, but in their modes of thought and action. “ Weapons of wickedness are their swords.” The lec. is rendered by Luther, etc., weapons or swords, from = , to dig, dig through, pierce: not connected with . L. de Dieu and others follow the Arabic and Aethiopic versions: “plans;” but , utensils, or instruments, of wickedness, does not accord with this. Such wickedness had the two brothers committed upon the inhabitants of Shechem (Gen 34:25.), that Jacob would have no fellowship with it. “ Into their counsel come not, my soul; with their assembly let not my honour unite.” , a council, or deliberative consensus. , imperf. of ; , like Psa 7:6; Psa 16:9, etc., of the soul as the noblest part of man, the centre of his personality as the image of God. “ For in their wrath have they slain men, and in their wantonness houghed oxen.” The singular nouns and , in the sense of indefinite generality, are to be regarded as general rather than singular, especially as the plural form of both is rarely met with; of , only in Psa 141:4; Pro 8:4, and Isa 53:3; of , only in Hos 12:12. : inclination, here in a bad sense, wantonness. : , to sever the houghs (tendons of the hind feet), – a process by which animals were not merely lamed, but rendered useless, since the tendon once severed could never be healed again, whilst as a rule the arteries were not cut so as to cause the animal to bleed to death (cf. Jos 11:6, Jos 11:9; 2Sa 8:4). In Gen 34:28 it is merely stated that the cattle of the Shechemites were carried off, not that they were lamed. But the one is so far from excluding the other, that it rather includes it in such a case as this, where the sons of Jacob were more concerned about revenge than booty. Jacob mentions the latter only, because it was this which most strikingly displayed their criminal wantonness. On this reckless revenge Jacob pronounces the curse, “ Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I shall divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.” They had joined together to commit this crime, and as a punishment they should be divided or scattered in the nation of Israel, should form no independent or compact tribes. This sentence of the patriarch was so fulfilled when Canaan was conquered, that on the second numbering under Moses, Simeon had become the weakest of all the tribes (Num 26:14); in Moses’ blessing (Deut 33) it was entirely passed over; and it received no separate assignment of territory as an inheritance, but merely a number of cities within the limits of Judah (Jos 19:1-9). Its possessions, therefore, became an insignificant appendage to those of Judah, into which they were eventually absorbed, as most of the families of Simeon increased but little (1Ch 4:27); and those which increased the most emigrated in two detachments, and sought out settlements for themselves and pasture for their cattle outside the limits of the promised land (1Ch 4:38-43). Levi also received no separate inheritance in the land, but merely a number of cities to dwell in, scattered throughout the possessions of his brethren (Josh 21:1-40). But the scattering of Levi in Israel was changed into a blessing for the other tribes through its election to the priesthood. Of this transformation of the curse into a blessing, there is not the slightest intimation in Jacob’s address; and in this we have a strong proof of its genuineness. After this honourable change had taken place under Moses, it would never have occurred to any one to cast such a reproach upon the forefather of the Levites. How different is the blessing pronounced by Moses upon Levi (Deu 33:8.)! But though Jacob withdrew the rights of primogeniture from Reuben, and pronounced a curse upon the crime of Simeon and Levi, he deprived none of them of their share in the promised inheritance. They were merely put into the background because of their sins, but they were not excluded from the fellowship and call of Israel, and did not lose the blessing of Abraham, so that their father’s utterances with regard to them might still be regarded as the bestowal of a blessing (Gen 49:28).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
5 Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. 6 O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall. 7 Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.
These were next in age to Reuben, and they also had been a grief and shame to Jacob, when they treacherously and barbarously destroyed the Shechemites, which he here remembers against them. Children should be afraid of incurring their parents’ just displeasure, lest they fare the worse for it long afterwards, and, when they would inherit the blessing, be rejected. Observe, 1. The character of Simeon and Levi: they were brethren in disposition; but, unlike their father, they were passionate and revengeful, fierce and uncontrollable; their swords, which should have been only weapons of defence, were (as the margin reads it, v. 5) weapons of violence, to do wrong to others, not to save themselves from wrong. Note, It is no new thing for the temper of children to differ very much from that of their parents. We need not think this strange: it was so in Jacob’s family. It is not in the power of parents, no, not by education, to form the dispositions of their children; Jacob bred his sons to every thing that was mild and quiet, and yet they proved to be thus furious. 2. A proof of this is the murder of the Shechemites, which Jacob deeply resented at the time (ch. xxxiv. 30) and still continued to resent. They slew a man, Shechem himself, and many others; and, to effect that, they digged down a wall, broke the houses, to plunder them, and murder the inhabitants. Note, The best governors cannot always restrain those under their charge from committing the worst villanies. And when two in a family are mischievous they commonly make one another so much the worse, and it were wisdom to part them. Simeon and Levi, it is probable, were most active in the wrong done to Joseph, to which some think Jacob has here some reference; for in their anger they would have slain that man. Observe what a mischievous thing self-will is in young people: Simeon and Levi would not be advised by their aged and experienced father; no, they would be governed by their own passion rather than by his prudence. Young people would better consult their own interests if they would less indulge their own will. 3. Jacob’s protestation against this barbarous act of theirs: O my soul, come not thou into their secret. Hereby he professes not only his abhorrence of such practices in general, but his innocence particularly in that matter. Perhaps he had been suspected as, under-hand, aiding and abetting; he therefore thus solemnly expresses his detestation of the fact, that he might not die under that suspicion. Note, Our soul is our honour; by its powers and faculties we are distinguished from, and dignified above, the beasts that perish. Note, further, We ought, from our hearts, to detest and abhor all society and confederacy with bloody and mischievous men. We must not be ambitious of coming into their secret, or knowing the depths of Satan. 4. His abhorrence of those brutish lusts that led them to this wickedness: Cursed be their anger. He does not curse their persons, but their lusts. Note, (1.) Anger is the cause and original of a great deal of sin, and exposes us to the curse of God, and his judgment, Matt. v. 22. (2.) We ought always, in the expressions of our zeal, carefully to distinguish between the sinner and the sin, so as not to love nor bless the sin for the sake of the person, nor to hate nor curse the person for the sake of the sin. 5. A token of displeasure which he foretels their posterity should lie under for this: I will divide them. The Levites were scattered throughout all the tribes, and Simeon’s lot lay not together, and was so strait that many of the tribe were forced to disperse themselves in quest of settlements and subsistence. This curse was afterwards turned into a blessing to the Levites; but the Simeonites, for Zimri’s sin (Num. xxv. 14), had it bound on. Note, Shameful dispersions are the just punishment of sinful unions and confederacies.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 5-7:
Simeon and Levi are next in line after Reuben. Their wanton cruelty in the massacre at Shechem (34:25-31) united them as “brethren” (companions) in evil. But as they had united for evil, they would be “scattered” among the other tribes of Israel and would not form closely-related tribes. Levi did not obtain a territorial inheritance in the distribution of the Land under Joshua, but was assigned 48 cities in which to dwell (Ge Nu 18:20; Jos 13:14; 21:1-42).
As for Simeon, at Israel’s second census (Nu 26:14) his tribe was the smallest in number. And Moses in his final blessing (De 33) makes no mention of him. Simeon had no clearly-defined territory in the Land, but occupied certain cities in Judah’s inheritance (Jos 19:1-9). And of the families in Simeon’s tribe who later rose to prominence, most left the Land and settled outside it (1Ch 4:38-43).
Simeon and Levi were disqualified from receiving the firstborn rights forfeited by Reuben, due to a character defect. They were bitter at the humiliation of their sister Dinah. Although justice demanded satisfaction for the crime against Dinah, these brothers did not follow righteous principles in obtaining that justice. This defect rendered them incapable of leadership in Israel. Levi’s descendants later demonstrated loyalty to Jehovah and His righteous principles, and were elevated to a spiritual ministry (Ex 32:25-29; 33:8-11). This demonstrates God’s blessings upon a repentant spirit.
Simeon and Levi took matters into their own hands, to vindicate the honor of the Chosen Family by carnal means. God’s answer to this was to scatter their tribes, to let all know that He gives victory by spiritual, not carnal means.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
5. Simeon and Levi are brethren. He condemns the massacre of the city of Shechem by his two sons Simon and Levi, and denounces the punishment of so great a crime. Whence we learn how hateful cruelty is to God, seeing that the blood of man is precious in his sight. For it is as if he would cite to his own tribunal those two men, and would demand vengeance on them, when they thought they had already escaped. It may, however, be asked, whether pardon had not been granted to them long ago; and if God had already forgiven them, why does he recall them again to punishment? I answer, it was both privately useful to themselves, and was also necessary as an example, that this slaughter should not remain unpunished, although they might have obtained previous forgiveness. For we have seen before, when they were admonished by their father, how far they were from that sorrow which is the commencement of true repentance; and it may be believed that afterwards they became stupefied more and more, with a kind of brutish torpor, in their wickedness; or at least, that they had not been seriously affected with bitter grief for their sin. It was also to be feared lest their posterity might become addicted to the same brutality, unless divinely impressed with horror at the deed. Therefore the Lord, partly for the purpose of humbling them, partly for that of making them an example to all ages, inflicted on them the punishment of perpetual ignominy. Moreover, by thus acting, he did not retain the punishment while remitting the guilt, as the Papists foolishly dream: but though truly and perfectly appeased, he administered a correction suitable for future times. The Papists imagine that sins are only half remitted by God; because he is not willing to absolve sinners gratuitously. But Scripture speaks far otherwise. It teaches us that God does not exact punishments which shall compensate for offenses; but such as shall purge hearts from hypocrisy, and shall invite the elect — the allurements of the world being gradually shaken off — to repentance, shall stir them up to vigilant solicitude, and shall keep them under restraint by the bridle of fear and reverence. Whence it follows that nothing is more preposterous, than that the punishments which we have deserved, should be redeemed by satisfactions, as if God, after the manner of men, would have what was owing paid to him; nay, rather there is the best possible agreement between the gratuitous remission of punishments and those chastening of the rod, which rather prevent future evils, than follow such as have been already committed.
To return to Simeon and Levi. How is it that God, by inflicting a punishment which had been long deferred, should drag them back as guilty fugitives to judgment; unless because impunity would have been hurtful to them? And yet he fulfills the office of a physician rather than of a judge, who refuses to spare, because he intends to heal; and who not only heals two who are sick, but, by an antidote, anticipates the diseases of others, in order that they may beware of cruelty. This also is highly worthy to be remembered, that Moses, in publishing the infamy of his own people, acts as the herald of God: and not only does he proclaim a disgrace common to the whole nation, but brands with infamy, the special tribe from which he sprung. Whence it plainly appears, that he paid no respect to his own flesh and blood; nor was he to be induced, by favor or hatred, to give a false color to anything, or to decline from historical fidelity: but, as a chosen minister and witness of the Lord, he was mindful of his calling, which was that he should declare the truth of God sincerely and confidently. A comparison is here made not only between the sons of Jacob personally; but also between the tribes which descended from them. This certainly was a specially opportune occasion for Moses to defend the nobility of his own people. But so far is he from heaping encomiums upon them, that he frankly stamps the progenitor of his own tribe with an everlasting dishonor, which should redound to his whole family. Those Lucianist dogs, who carp at the doctrine of Moses, pretend that he was a vain man who wished to acquire for himself the command over the rude common people. But had this been his project, why did he not also make provision for his own family? Those sons whom ambition would have persuaded him to endeavor to place in the highest rank, he puts aside from the honor of the priesthood, and consigns them to a lowly and common service. Who does not see that these impious calumnies have been anticipated by a divine counsel rather than by merely human prudence, and that the heirs of this great and extraordinary man were deprived of honor, for this reason, that no sinister suspicion might adhere to him? But to say nothing of his children and grandchildren, we may perceive that, by censuring his whole tribe in the person of Levi, he acted not as a man, but as an angel speaking under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, and free from all carnal affection. Moreover, in the former clause, he announces the crime: afterwards, he subjoins the punishment. The crime is, that the arms of violence are in their tabernacles; and therefore he declares, both by his tongue and in his heart, that he holds their counsel in abhorrence, (197) because, in their desire of revenge, they cut off a city with its inhabitants. Respecting the meaning of the words commentators differ. For some take the word מכרות ( makroth) to mean swords; as if Jacob had said, that their swords had been wickedly polluted with innocent blood. But they think more correctly, who translate the word habitations; as if he had said, that unjust violence dwelt among them, because they had been so sanguinary. I do not doubt that the word כבד ( chabod) is put for the tongue, as in other places; (198) and thus the sense is clear, that Jacob, from his heart, so detests the crime perpetrated by his sons, that his tongue shall not give any assent to it whatever. Which he does, for this end, that they may begin to be dissatisfied with themselves, and that all others may learn to abhor perfidy combined with cruelty. Fury, beyond doubt, signifies a perverse and blind impulse of anger: (199) and lust is opposed to rational moderation; (200) because they are governed by no law. Interpreters also differ respecting the meaning of the word שור ( shor.) (201) Some translate it “bullock,” and think that the Shechemites are allegorically denoted by it, seeing they were sufficiently robust and powerful to defend their lives, had not Simon and Levi enervated them by fraud and perfidy. But a different exposition is far preferable, namely, that they “overturned a wall.” For Jacob magnifies the atrociousness of their crime, from the fact, that they did not even spare buildings in their rage.
(197) If this interpretation were admitted, the passage would read thus: “Simeon and Levi are brethren, instruments of cruelty are their swords.”
(198) In coetu eorum non uniaris lingua mea This is Calvin’s version; and it may perhaps be vindicated by the use made of the word כבד in other passages, where the tongue is metaphorically called the glory of man. Yet the passage plainly admits of another and perhaps a more simple signification. — Ed
(199) Quia in furore sua, etc. Because in their fury they killed a man. — Ed.
(200) Libido is not the word used in Calvin’s version, though his commentary proceeds on that supposition. His words are “ voluntate sua eradicaverunt murum.” In their will, or pleasure, they uprooted a wall. — Ed.
(201) The marginal reading of our Bible for “they digged down a wall,” is “they houghed oxen.” Some translators who think that the word ought to be rendered “ox,” and not “wall,” regard the word ox as a metaphorical term for a brave and powerful man. Thus Herder, in Caunter’s Poetry of the Pentateuch, gives the following version:
“
My heart was not joined in their company, When in anger they slew a hero, And in revenge destroyed a noble ox.”
Dr. A. Clarke suggests an alteration in the word, which gives the passage another sense:
“
In their anger they slew a man, And in their pleasure they murdered a prince.”
—
Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.
Gen. 49:4. Unstable as water.] Heb. Boiling over as water. Another form of this word is rendered lightness, in Jer. 23:32; Zep. 3:2, referring to the character of false prophets. The image points to the heated passions which led Reuben into disgrace. Thou shalt not excel.] He shall have no share in the dignity and privileges of the firstbornthe birthright supremacy. The double portion was transferred to Joseph, the chieftainship to Judah, and the priesthood to Levi.
Gen. 49:6. In their self-will they digged down a wall.] The LXX has, they have hamstrung oxen. The true rendering refers to a process of wantonly cutting the tendons of oxen so as to make them useless. In Chron. Gen. 34:28, the carrying off of the cattle is mentioned. This wanton cruelty was doubtless added. (Jacobus.)
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Gen. 49:5-7
THE BLESSING OF SIMEON AND LEVI
I. Their sin.
1. Immoderate revenge. (Gen. 49:5-6.) They were justified in feeling anger, and even in avenging the outrage upon the family honour. They must have been less than men had they been indifferent. And as religious men they were bound to feel a righteous indignation. In that state of society, when there were no regular modes of trial, the avenger of blood was an instrument of justice. It is the excess of their anger that is blamed. For it was fierce. For it was cruel. Not content with taking vengeance upon the man who did the deed, they slew a whole tribe of men.
2. Cruelty to unoffending beasts. They wantonly cut the tendons of animals so as to make them useless. This was an uncalled for ferocity.
3. Their cruelty was deliberate. They were, indeed, brethren both in sympathy and co-operation. They supported and counselled each other in their cruel designs. They had their secret, their assembly. They were men capable of framing dark plots. They wrought iniquity by a law.
II. Their penalty.
1. To be disavowed by the good. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united. Jacob could not prevent their deed, but he would have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.
2. Their deed is branded with a curse. He curses their wrath and their cruelty, not their persons.
3. They are condemned to moral and political weakness. I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel. The penalty was appropriate. As they had worked together in wickedness, they are to be divided. Simeons tribe was weak, his territory scattered. Levi was likewise scattered in Israel, and had no territorial allotment; yet his was a privileged tribe, being the tribe of priests. The penalty is by grace transmuted into blessing. The Lord keeps the execution of the sentence in His own hands. Simeons sons continue to be like himselfdoing the same works. On them the sentence falls with unmitigated severity. In the tribe of Levi there are indications of a better mind. And the sentence is graciously sanctified.(Candlish.)
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Gen. 49:5. His two next sons were guilty of a crime still worse than Reubens. If it did not wound their father in a part so tender, it gave him not less pain, and exposed him to greater mischief. If a merciful providence had not wonderfully preserved him, he and all his family must have been destroyed, in consequence of the revenge of the enraged Canaanites.(Bush).
Gen. 49:6. Time had not changed Jacobs feelings with regard to the crime of his sons. His soul had the same abhorrence of the act now, as it had then.
Gen. 49:7. There is a kind of anger which deserves not to be cursed, but to be blessed. Such was the anger of Moses when he came down from the Mount, and seeing the idolatries of the camp of Israel, broke the tables of the law which he held in his hands. But the anger of Simeon and Levi was entitled neither to commendation nor apology. Sharp rebuke is necessary for those who have greatly offended.(Bush).
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(5) Simeon and Levi are brethren.That is, they are alike in character and disposition. Despising the feeble Reuben, they seem to have been close friends and allies, and probably tried to exercise a tyrannical authority over their younger brethren, Judah being the only one near them in age.
Their habitations.This translation is universally abandoned, but there is much difference of opinion as to the real meaning of the word. The most probable explanation is that given by Jerome and Rashi, who render it swords. Apparently it is the Greek word machaera, a knife; and as neither the Hebrews nor the Canaanites were metallurgists, such articleswere imported by merchants from Ionia. Long before the days of Jacob, caravans of traders traversed the whole country, and the goods which they brought would carry with them their own foreign names. The sentence, therefore, should be translated, weapons of violence are their knives. The other meaning given by some competent critics, namely, compacts, if the word could be formed at all from the supposed root, would mean marriage contracts, and this gives no intelligible sense.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
5. Simeon and Levi are named together, because they were brothers in the twofold sense of being sons of the same mother, and so much alike in disposition and character . Hence, after pronouncing their names, the patriarch pauses, and then emphatically adds the word brothers. Their similar spirit was seen and became historical in their cruel slaughter of the Shechemites, (Gen 34:25-31,) for in that massacre they led the way . The memory and fear of that act never departed from Jacob’s soul, and as Reuben’s incest cost him the rights and glory of the firstborn, so the bloody deed of Simeon and Levi colours all this oracle, and brought them cursing where they might have had blessing .
Instruments of violence their swords The word , rendered swords, occurs here only, and manifestly means some instrument of violence; but its derivation is uncertain. The ancient versions differ widely, and the word has been variously explained, as machinations, ( De Dieu,) betrothals, ( Dathe,) habitations, (Eng. version.) But the rendering swords, (perhaps from , to pierce, or penetrate,) seems most in harmony with the context, and is adopted by many of the best interpreters . According to Rashi, the Greek word , sword, was derived from this . According to Gesenius, Rabbi Eliezer says: “Jacob cursed their swords in the Greek tongue . ” According to Gen 34:25, Simeon and Levi “took each man his sword” ( ) and slaughtered all the men of Shechem .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“Simeon and Levi are brothers,
Weapons of violence are their swords,
Oh my soul, do not come into their council,
Oh my glory, to their assembly do not be united.
For in their anger they slew man,
And in their self-will they hamstrung oxen,
Cursed be their anger for it was fierce,
And their wrath for it was cruel,
I will divide them in Jacob,
And scatter them in Israel.”
Simeon and Levi demonstrated their strength and their fierceness when they led their men against Shechem having disabled the inhabitants by their ruse (Genesis 34). They were two of four full brothers to Dinah, but Reuben and Judah did not join with them in their blood vengeance, although later joining in the general destruction of the city. They wanted justice without mercy, and acted together in unison. And that is Jacob’s complaint, that they are merciless. (Their being mentioned together may suggest that they are twins).
“Their swords are weapons of violence.” Or alternately ‘Their plans (devices) are instruments of violence.’ The meaning of mecherah is not certain, but the general idea is clear. They are violent men who carry out violent deeds. Thus they are to be avoided.
“Oh my soul, do not come into their council, oh my glory, to their assembly do not be united.” They are troublemakers and best avoided, they are the kind who lead men astray. ‘Oh my glory’ is parallel to ‘oh my soul’ and clearly has a similar implication. He is warning his immediate family, his ‘soul’, not to be carried along by their aims and methods, and warning his ‘glory’, all the remainder of the household, not to be so either.
“For in their anger they slew man, and in their selfwill they hamstrung oxen.” This could be seen as referring metaphorically to their ruse whereby the men of Shechem were basically hamstrung by circumcision and slain. But it also refers to more general cruelty, that being short tempered and harsh they do not restrain themselves. They have within them a streak of cruelty and harshness. They slay men without thought and hamstring oxen. Hamstringing of oxen (cutting the tendons in the hocks) was unnecessary and may have been their way of punishing someone who had offended them. Compare here Jos 11:6; Jos 11:9 where battle chargers were hamstrung to prevent their use in battle.
The point here is that while all had to kill in those days if necessary in self defence, they seemed to delight in it. They were not murderers, but they were heartless.
“Cursed be their anger for it was fierce, and their anger because it was cruel.” This again suggests Shechem and may confirm that the oxen are to be seen as metaphorical. But Jacob would surely not have so dealt with them if it had been a one-off incident. So the impression is of passionate, violent and merciless men who do not mind inflicting pain.
“I will divide them in Jacob, I will scatter them in Israel.” The use of ‘Israel’ for the tribal group rather than just the patriarch has begun to be apparent (Gen 47:27; Gen 48:20). Here ‘Jacob’ is also used in the same way. Because of their fierce and cruel ways they must be separated by the tribe and kept apart, otherwise they will dominate. They are dangerous men. ‘Scatter’ is a poetic use to parallel ‘divide’. The ‘I’ may be God who will do the dividing, or the tribe acting in Jacob’s name.
The age of the narrative comes out in that there is no thought of Levi as a priestly tribe (although even there they were not averse to slaying their brothers. They had a fierce godliness). As a tribe Levi would indeed be scattered among the tribes, but then for a godly purpose. His descendants will have, as it were, purged his contempt. But this is clearly not what Jacob has in mind, although we may see it as having a secondary significance. As a result they were divided up.
Simeon later combines with Judah as the weaker of the two tribes (Jos 19:9) but it retains its identity (1Ch 4:41-43; 1Ch 12:24-25; 2Ch 15:9) although it is never mentioned after the Exile (except in the list in Revelation 7). Thus Jacob’s words do not directly relate to the tribes of Simeon and Levi but to his sons, with only secondary application to their seed.
So the first two deathbed sayings are analyses of the brothers themselves, depicting their weaknesses and the consequences. In the case of Reuben loss of pre-eminence, something that has already partly befallen him. In the case of Simeon and Levi separation in the tribe in order to control their blood lust. Thus it comes as some surprise when the words about Judah are more full and prophetic, for in his case his father sees wonders that lie ahead. But by now Judah had revealed his leadership potential.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The blessing upon Simeon and Levi
v. 5. Simeon and Levi are brethren, v. 6. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honor, be not thou united; v. 7. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce;
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Gen 49:5. Simeon and Levi are brethren That is, fellows in wickedness. achim, rendered brethren, is used for persons of the same turn of mind. See Pro 18:9; Pro 18:24. Jacob intimates that these his sons were not nearer related in blood than in their cruel disposition, which had manifested itself in an act shocking to humanity; on the mention of which, Pro 18:6 he immediately breaks off, declares in an affecting manner that he was not privy to, and testifies his utter abhorrence of it. He comes next to some of the particulars of that infamous day, when these two chiefs, in cold blood, destroyed a whole town, from the principal to the meanest inhabitant, (as is related at length, with all the circumstances of perfidy and inhumanity, ch. 34:) In Pro 18:7 the good old man, roused with indignation at so barbarous a scene, warmly exclaims against the immoderate wrath which had produced such bitter fruits, and takes his leave of them, by assuring them that their punishment, though flow, would certainly overtake them.
Instruments of cruelty, &c. i.e.. Their swords were instruments of cruelty. They have abused their arms, by cruelly and deceitfully killing the innocent Shechemites. The Hebrew word mekeroteihem, seems very naturally derived from karet, to cut off as a branch, Isa 18:5 and so to signify instruments of cutting, swords, &c. and to justify the marginal translation of our English Bibles, weapons of violence.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Gen 34:30 . The Simeonites and Levites were scattered among the other tribes. Jos 21:3Jos 21:3 ; 1Ch 6:24 , etc.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Gen 49:5 Simeon and Levi [are] brethren; instruments of cruelty [are in] their habitations.
Ver. 5. Simeon and Levi are brethren. ] Nobile par fratrum a not more in nature than in iniquity. Here Moses blancheth not over the blemishes of his progenitors, but wrote as he was inspired by the impartial Spirit of truth. If it could be said of Suetonius, b that in writing the lives of the twelve Caesars, he took the same liberty to set down their faults that they took to commit them; how much more truly may this be said of the holy penmen, they spared not themselves, much less their friends. See my “True Treasure,” page 21.
Instruments of cruelty are in their habitations.
a Horat. Metaphora et latens Antanaclasis. – Piscat.
b Ea libertate scripsit Imperatorum vitas, qua ipsi vixerunt.
c Mekerah [ ] alii reddunt per Graecam vocem, Machoeroe eorum. Non incommode. – Pareus.
d D . – Dio.
e The World Encomp., by Sir Fr. Drake, p. 53.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 49:5-7
5″Simeon and Levi are brothers;
Their swords are implements of violence.
6Let 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.
7Cursed 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.
Gen 49:5 “Simeon and Levi are brothers” These two hot-blooded brothers were apparently the planners of the slaughter of the men of Shechem (cf. Gen 34:25-30). This text even includes the fact that they, in their anger (BDB 60 and BDB 720), lamed the oxen of that city, which is something we do not learn from Genesis 34 or it may be an idiom to denote the leading men of that city.
There are no VERBS in Gen 49:5 in the original text.
NASB, NRSVtheir swords”
NKJVhabitation”
NJBplans”
LXX”choice of action”
REB, JB”counsels”
Peshitta”nature”
The Hebrew (BDB 468) is uncertain, but the word (found only here) means “tools.” Some assume that they came into Shechem carrying only farming tools and no one suspected that they were there for harm until they began to use the tools against the populace.
The UBS Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives two options which both use the same consonants,
1. their swords (educated guess from similarity with the Greek word, NRSV)
2. their destructions
It chooses the second option, but gives it a “C” rating (considerable doubt).
There is a third option from an Ethiopian root meaning “to advise” (cf. James Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, p. 57, cf. JB, REV).
NASB “implements”
NKJV “instruments”
NRSV, TEV “weapons”
This word (BDB 479) basically means “a utensil,” “a vessel.” It can refer to
1. household property
2. money
3. baggage
4. ornaments
5. hunting weapons
6. war weapons
7. musical instruments
8. yoke
9. shepherd’s bag
10. cooking pot
Obviously this word has a wide semantic field. It is parallel to “swords” (or whatever BDB 468 means). In the MT this word (BDB 479) is first then BDB 468. The JPSOA has “their weapons are tools of lawlessness.” The confusion of this verse can be seen in the wide variety of the ancient versions.
However, it is obvious that it refers to these two brothers slaughtering the Shechemites (cf. Genesis 34).
The UBS Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (p. 77) lists two ways to understand the Hebrew phrase.
1. weapons of violence
2. they decided upon
It combines the two options “weapons of violence,” but gives it a “B” (some doubt) rating.
Gen 49:6
NASBmy soul. . .my glory”
NKJVmy soul. . .my honor”
NRSV, Peshitta”I. . .I”
NJB, REV”my soul. . .my heart”
JPSOA”my person. . .my being”
LXX”my soul. . .my inward parts”
The first term (BDB 659, see note at Gen 35:18 ) is nephesh, which means “a person’s or animal’s life-force” (i.e., that which breathes). It is used several times in chapter 46 (Gen 46:15; Gen 46:18; Gen 46:22; Gen 46:25-26 [twice], 27 [twice]), but translated numerous ways.
The second term (BDB 458) “kabod,” means “abundance,” “honor,” or “glory” (see Special Topic: Glory ). This form of this root appears only here, Gen 31:1, and Gen 45:13. These same two words appear together in Psa 7:5. However, in this context it refers to Jacob himself and is parallel to nephesh. Both of these terms occur in parallel JUSSIVE clauses.
These first two lines of poetry in Gen 49:6 are an idiomatic way of Jacob not wanting to be associated with the plans or actions of his two older sons which issued in the premeditated slaughter of all the males of the Canaanite city of Shechem.
“because of their anger they slew men” Jacob did not want to be identified with the rash, violent acts of these two sons.
“and in their self-will they lamed oxen” This is parallel to line 3. It apparently refers to the slaughter at Shechem in an idiomatic way. These two brothers treated all the men of Shechem as if they were animals. It may even be an allusion to the slowness of their movements (three days after being circumcised).
Gen 49:7 “curse” This (BDB 76, KB 91) is a PASSIVE PARTICIPLE used as an exclamation (cf. Gen 3:14; Gen 3:17; Gen 4:11; Gen 9:25; Gen 27:29; Num 24:9; Deu 27:15-26; Jdg 21:18; 1Sa 14:24; 1Sa 14:28). It has a specialized usage in Gen 12:3; Gen 27:29 related to the Abrahamic covenant, but that cannot be the meaning here because these sons are part of the covenant! The curse must be related to their rejection as leaders of the family (primo geniture). It is their “anger” (BDB 60) that is cursed, not the sons themselves. However, note that it is YHWH Himself (“I will divide/disperse them in Jacob,” BDB 323, KB 322, Piel IMPERFECT, FIRST PERSON SINGULAR).
Notice the clear synthetic parallelism between lines 1 and 2 and lines 3 and 4 in Gen 49:7. This is a good example of how so much of Hebrew poetry is structured (see article on Hebrew Poetry).
“I will disperse them in Jacob” We know from history that the tribe of Simeon, in receiving the tribal allocation close to the Philistines (cf. Jos 19:1-9), was very quickly decimated and assimilated into the tribe of Judah. The tribe of Levi takes the place of the firstborn children (cf. Exodus 13) and becomes priests who are spread throughout the land, particularly the forty-eight Levitical cities. One reason to believe in the ancientness of this blessing is because there is no seeming blessing on the dispersion of Levi as there is in Moses’ blessing of the tribes in Deuteronomy 33.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Simeon: Gen 29:33, Gen 29:34, Gen 34:25-31, Gen 46:10, Gen 46:11, Pro 18:9
instruments: etc. or, their swords are weapons of violence, Gen 34:25-29, Gen 34:31
Reciprocal: Gen 6:13 – filled Gen 34:30 – Ye have Gen 42:24 – Simeon Num 1:22 – General Jos 19:1 – within the Psa 74:20 – habitations Eze 48:24 – Simeon Eph 5:11 – no Rev 7:7 – Levi
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gen 49:5. Simeon and Levi are brethren In disposition, but unlike their father: they were passionate and revengeful, fierce and wilful; instruments of cruelty are in their inhabitations, or, as mecherotheihem rather signifies, their counsels, or compacts, alluding to their treacherous agreement with the Shechemites: their swords, which should have been only weapons of defence, were (as the margin reads it) weapons of violence, to do wrong to others, not to save themselves from wrong.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Simeon and Levi. These two were brothers not only by blood but also in disposition. They were violent, wicked men (Gen 34:25-31). Because of their wickedness they would have no independent tribal territory, but their descendants would live scattered among the other tribes. By the second census, just before the Israelites entered Canaan, the Simeonites had become the smallest tribe (Numbers 26). Moses passed over the Simeonites in his blessing of the Israelites (Deuteronomy 33). This tribe received only a few cities within the allotment of Judah rather than a separate geographical territory (Jos 19:1-9). The Simeonites eventually lost their tribal identity and lived among the other tribes, especially Judah (cf. 1Ch 4:27; 1Ch 4:38-43).
The Levites also received no large land grant, but Joshua gave them several cities in which they lived among the other tribes (Jos 21:1-42). The Levites gained a special blessing at Mt. Sinai by siding with Moses when the other Israelites apostatized (Exo 32:26-28; Num 3:5-13; Num 18:6-32). This resulted in their becoming a tribe of priests in Israel.
Even though these first three tribes suffered punishment for their sins, Jacob’s prophecies about them were still a blessing. They retained a place in the chosen family and enjoyed the benefits of the patriarchal promises as Jacob’s heirs.
"By demoting Reuben for his turbulence and uncontrolled sex drive, Jacob saves Israel from reckless leadership. Likewise, by cursing the cruelty of Simeon and Levi, he restricts their cruel rashness from dominating." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 603.]