Simeon and Levi are brothers; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations.
Jump to: Barnes • Benson • BI • Calvin • Cambridge • Clarke • Darby • Ellicott • Expositor's • Exp Dct • Gaebelein • GSB • Gill • Gray • Haydock • Hastings • Homiletics • JFB • KD • KJT • Lange • MacLaren • MHC • MHCW • Parker • Poole • Pulpit • Sermon • SCO • TTB • WES • TSK
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)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 articles·were 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.Genesis 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 מכרתיהםmecherotheihem 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.
Accordingly they are divided from one another in their after history, the tribe of Simon being settled in the southwest corner of the territory of Judah, and Levi having no connected territory, but occupying certain cities and their suburbs which were assigned to his descendants in the various provinces of the land. They were also scattered in Israel. For Simon is the weakest of all the tribes at the close of their sojourn in the wilderness Numbers 26:14; he is altogether omitted in the blessing of Moses Deuteronomy 33, and hence, obtains no distinct territory, but only a part of that of Judah Joshua 19:1-9; and he subsequently sends out two colonies, which are separated from the parent stock, and from one another 1 Chronicles 4:24-43. And Levi received forty-eight towns in the various districts of the land, in which his descendants dwelt, far separated from one another. This prediction was therefore, fulfilled to the letter in the history of these brothers. Their classification under one head is a hint that they will yet count but as one tribe.Simeon and Levi are brethren; not only by nature, but in iniquity; of like cruel and bloody disposition, confederate in the same wicked design, Genesis 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 Proverbs 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, Genesis 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.
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, Genesis 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.Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations.
EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)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. Genesis 34:25; Genesis 34:30.)
swords] The Hebrew word (m’khêrâh) occurs only here. Its similarity in sound to the Greek μάχαιρα, “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 συνετέλεσαν ἀδικίαν ἐξ αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν; 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.”Verses 5-7. - Simeon and Levi are brethren (not in parentage alone, but also in their deeds; e.g. their massacre of the Shechemites (Genesis 34:25), to which undoubtedly the next words allude); instruments of cruelty are in their habitations - literally, instruments of violence their מְכֵדֹת, a ἅπαξ λεγόμ. which has been variously rendered
(1) their dwellings, or habitations (Kimchi, A. V., Calvin, Ainsworth), in the land of their sojourning (Onkelos), for which, however, there does not seem to be much authority;
(2) their machinations or wicked counsels, deriving from מָכַר, to string together, to take in a net, to ensnare (Nahum 3:4), the cognate Arabic root signifying to deceive or practice stratagems (De Dieu, Schultens, Castelli, Tayler Lewis, and others);
(3) their betrothals, or compacts of marriage, connecting with the same root as the preceding in the sense of "binding together" (Dathius, Clericus, Michaelis, Knobel, Furst, et alii);
(4) their rage, as suggested by the unused root כִּיד, to boil or seethe (Kalisch);
(5) their swords, from כּוּר = כָּרָה to dig or pierce through, cf. μάχαιρα (Vulgate, Luther, Gesenius, Rosenmüller, Keil, Murphy, and others). The preponderance of authority appears to be in favor of this last. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; literally, into their council or assembly (סוד, from יָסַד, to set or sit) come not, my soul, or my soul shall not come (cf. Proverbs 1:15, 16) - unto their assembly, mine honor, be not thou united: - literally, with or in their assembly or congregation (קָהֵל from קָהַל, to call together: cf. Genesis 28:3; Genesis 35:11; Genesis 48:4), mine honor or glory (i.e. the soul as being the noblest part of man: Psalm 16:9; Psalm 57:9; Psalm 108:2 - the term כְּבֹדִי is parallel with the preceding נַפְשִׁי), do not join (Keil), or shall not join (Kalisch) - for in their anger they slew a man, - literally, man, a collective, singular for "men," the plural form of XXX occurring rarely; only in Psalm 141:4; Proverbs 8:4; and Isaiah 53:3 - and in their self will they digged down a wall - literally, they houghed ox (LXX., Gesenius, Furst, Rosenmüller, Keil, Kalisch, Lange, Gerlach, T. Lewis, Murphy, &c., &e.), the singular שׁור, the plural of which is only found once, in Hosea 12:12, being retained here to correspond with אִישׁ. The received rendering, which is not without sanction (Onkelos, Targnm of Jonathan, Syriac, Arabic, Aquila, Symmachus, Vulgate, Dathius, Calvin), reads שׁוּר instead of שׁור, and takes עָקַרin the primary sense of destruere, evertexe. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: - the second synonym "wrath," literally, outpourings, indicates the fullness and intensity of the tide of fury which by Simeon and Levi was let loose upon the unsuspecting Shechemites - I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel. While for the sin (the deed, not the doers) Jacob has a curse, for the sinners themselves he has a well-merited chastisement. They had been confederate in their wickedness, they should in future, when returning to occupy their God. assigned inheritance, be disjoined. That this prediction was exactly fulfilled Scripture testifies. At the second census in the wilderness, shortly before the conquest, the tribe of Simeon had become so reduced in its numbers (reckoning only 22,000 as against 76,500 in Judah) as to be the smallest of the twelve (Numbers 26:14); to be passed over entirely in the last blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33.); to be accorded no independent allotment of territory in Canaan on the completion of the conquest, having only a few cities granted to it within the borders of Judah (Joshua 19:1-9); and to be ultimately absorbed in the more powerful and distinguished tribe under whose protection and tutelage, so to speak, it had been placed (1 Chronicles 4:27). The tribe of Levi also was deprived of a separate inheritance, receiving only a number of cities scattered here and there among the possessions of their brethren (Joshua 21:1, 40); and, though by its election to the priesthood the curse may be said to have been turned into a blessing, yet of this signal honor which was waiting Levi Jacob was completely silent, showing both that no prophecy was of any private interpretation (the seer seeing no further than the Holy Spirit helped him), and that Jacob spoke before the days of Moses. It is almost incredible that a late writer would have omitted to forecast the latter-day glory of the tribe of Levi; and this opinion is confirmed by observing the very different strain in which, after Levi s calling had been revealed, the benediction of Moses himself proceeds (Deuteronomy 33:8-11). Genesis 28:19) his younger brother will become greater than he, and his seed will become the fulness of nations." This blessing began to be fulfilled from the time of the Judges, when the tribe of Ephraim so increased in extent and power, that it took the lead of the northern tribes and became the head of the ten tribes, and its name acquired equal importance with the name Israel, whereas under Moses, Manasseh had numbered 20,000 more than Ephraim (Numbers 26:34 and Numbers 26:37). As a result of the promises received from God, the blessing was not merely a pious wish, but the actual bestowal of a blessing of prophetic significance and force. - In Genesis 48:20 the writer sums up the entire act of blessing in the words of the patriarch: "In thee (i.e., Joseph) will Israel (as a nation) bless, saying: God make thee as Ephraim and Manasseh" (i.e., Joseph shall be so blessed in his two sons, that their blessing will become a standing form of benediction in Israel); "and thus he placed Ephraim before Manasseh," viz., in the position of his hands and the terms of the blessing. Lastly, (Genesis 48:21) Israel expressed to Joseph his firm faith in the promise, that God would bring back his descendants after his death into the land of their fathers (Canaan), and assigned to him a double portion in the promised land, the conquest of which passed before his prophetic glance as already accomplished, in order to insure for the future the inheritance of the adopted sons of Joseph. "I give thee one ridge of land above thy brethren" (i.e., above what thy brethren receive, each as a single tribe), "which I take from the hand of the Amorites with my sword and bow" (i.e., by force of arms). As the perfect is used prophetically, transposing the future to the present as being already accomplished, so the words לקחתּי אשׁר must also be understood prophetically, as denoting that Jacob would wrest the land from the Amorites, not in his own person, but in that of his posterity.
(Note: There is no force in Kurtz's objection, that this gift did not apply to Joseph as the father of Ephraim and Manasseh, but to Joseph personally; for it rests upon the erroneous assumption, that Jacob separated Joseph from his sons by their adoption. But there is not a word to that effect in Genesis 48:6, and the very opposite in Genesis 48:15, viz., that Jacob blessed Joseph in Ephraim and Manasseh. Heim's conjecture, which Kurtz approves, that by the land given to Joseph we are to understand the high land of Gilead, which Jacob had conquered from the Amorites, needs no refutation, for it is purely imaginary.)
The words cannot refer to the purchase of the piece of ground at Shechem (Genesis 33:19), for a purchase could not possibly be called a conquest by sword and bow; and still less to the crime committed by the sons of Jacob against the inhabitants of Shechem, when they plundered the town (Genesis 34:25.), for Jacob could not possibly have attributed to himself a deed for which he had pronounced a curse upon Simeon and Levi (Genesis 49:6-7), not to mention the fact, that the plundering of Shechem was not followed in this instance by the possession of the city, but by the removal of Jacob from the neighbourhood. "Moreover, any conquest of territory would have been entirely at variance with the character of the patriarchal history, which consisted in the renunciation of all reliance upon human power, and a believing, devoted trust in the God of the promises" (Delitzsch). The land, which the patriarchs desired to obtain in Canaan, they procured not by force of arms, but by legal purchase (cf. Genesis 24 and Genesis 33:19). It was to be very different in the future, when the iniquity of the Amorites was full (Genesis 15:16). But Jacob called the inheritance, which Joseph was to have in excess of his brethren, שׁכם (lit., shoulder, or more properly nape, neck; here figuratively a ridge, or tract of land), as a play upon the word Shechem, because he regarded the piece of land purchased at Shechem as a pledge of the future possession of the whole land. In the piece purchased there, the bones of Joseph were buried, after the conquest of Canaan (Joshua 24:32); and this was understood in future times, as though Jacob had presented the piece of ground to Joseph (vid., John 4:5).
LinksGenesis 49:5 Interlinear
Genesis 49:5 Parallel Texts
Genesis 49:5 NIV
Genesis 49:5 NLT
Genesis 49:5 ESV
Genesis 49:5 NASB
Genesis 49:5 KJV
Genesis 49:5 Bible Apps
Genesis 49:5 Parallel
Genesis 49:5 Biblia Paralela
Genesis 49:5 Chinese Bible
Genesis 49:5 French Bible
Genesis 49:5 German Bible