Chapter 33 The Final Blessing of Moses On His People.
The dying words of a righteous man were in those days seen as having special significance. It was recognised that at such a time a man might receive unusual insights, and his words were indeed seen as actually affecting that future in some way. We are given no context for the blessing which is simply slipped in here as the final words of Moses.
‘ And this is the blessing, with which Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death.'
This poem is stated to be a blessing given by Moses, ‘the man of God' (compare for ‘man of God' Joshua 14:6; 1Sa 9:6; 1 Samuel 9:10; 1 Kings 13:1; 1Ki 13:8; 1 Kings 17:18, etc.), the great prophet, as a blessing on the children of Israel with his death in view (compare Jacob in Genesis 49 for a similar blessing on which in fact this one draws). A man's dying words were seen to be imbued with great power, and as being formative for the future, especially when that man was a prophet. And this blessing was especially significant in view of the fact that Moses knew that his death would mark a new beginning for Israel as they entered the promised land.
The basic message in his words is the revelation of the God of Sinai and the greatness of His power, ideas which both begin and end the poem, something very relevant to what Israel were about to face. Their future is caught up in the greatness of Yahweh. The mention of Sinai suggests that the poem was originally written down separately and later incorporated into Deuteronomy by Moses or his scribe as part of his benediction. Elsewhere in Deuteronomy Sinai is never mentioned, Moses always referring to Horeb, which probably indicated the wider area in which Mount Sinai was situated to include the place where the people gathered (this would be similar to his use of ‘the place' which Yahweh would choose, rather than mentioning the actual Sanctuary). But this was poetry and required vividness and directness, and therefore Sinai is distinctly mentioned, and in the poem it is important that it is the Mountain of God.
Between these revelations of Yahweh's glory and power at beginning and end are detailed blessings on the tribes. The detail concerning the tribes has Jacob's last words in Genesis 49 very much in mind, but is varied as a result of Moses' own experiences with the tribes. As the years had gone by he had seen them for what they were, their weaknesses and their strengths, and he had in his prophetic instinct some understanding of what their future could be if they were obedient to Yahweh.
It will be clear that he had outwardly more enthusiasm for some than for others. He had observed them all over the years and knew them intimately, but he only waxes eloquent over two, Levi which is exalted because of its vital place in God's work on behalf of His people, and Joseph. But the latter is partly as a result of Genesis 49, where Joseph is also dealt with extensively and from which he extracts some material. However, it may also partly be because he has great hopes for them in view of their size and what Jacob promised for them.
It will be noted immediately that there is no mention of Simeon among the twelve tribes. For us that is but a technicality requiring explanation, but for the tribe of Simeon it must have been devastating. To be left out of such a blessing would have been seen as very significant. Why then were they omitted?
Note: The Non-mention of Simeon.
There can only be one of two possible explanations for the non-mention of Simeon, for it could not have been by inadvertence. The first is that there was some special reason for its omission, probably of a disciplinary kind, and the second that the tribe of Simeon had by the time the poem was written faded into insignificance.
The evidence stands firmly against the second. The evidence demonstrates that Simeon continued to appear throughout the centuries as alive and well. See for example 1 Chronicles 12:25; 1Ch 27:16; 2 Chronicles 15:9; 2 Chronicles 34:6. It is clear that in the tradition Simeon were seen as able to provide numerous fighting men at various times, and were seen as having numerous cities in the time of Josiah. We may choose to ignore the evidence, but it is there, and there is little actual evidence the other way. For even though in Judges 1 they played second fiddle to Judah, there was no suggestion that they were absorbed by them. Their separate existence was still seen as continuing.
So if the fact that Simeon is not mentioned in the blessing is not due to Simeon disappearing from history, something which in fact on the evidence did not happen, to what can it be ascribed?
One reason was undoubtedly because one tribe had to drop out in the poem in order to maintain the sacred number twelve if both Ephraim and Manasseh were to be mentioned. We note that the tribes of Israel are listed a number of times throughout Scripture and always maintained at twelve, with the result that when Ephraim and Manasseh were seen as separate tribes another had always to be omitted. In the list in Genesis 49 the actual twelve sons were listed, as we would expect. Here in this list Simeon is omitted. In 1 Chronicles 27:16 Asher and Gad were omitted while Simeon was reintroduced, the twelfth tribe then being the half tribe of Manasseh. In Revelation 7 the names of Ephraim and Dan were omitted, although Ephraim comes in as Joseph. But why should Moses select Simeon to be omitted at this time?
The probable reason is to be found in the recent behaviour of the tribe of Simeon. For the fact was that they had recently, and very severely, blotted their reputation, so much so that the omission of their name was probably intended to be an indicator to them of God's disapproval, a warning that if they did not reform their name might be blotted out of Israel completely. It demonstrated that at this time Yahweh was not pleased with them and that nothing was expected of them, nor could they expect anything of Him, because they had openly defied Him (Numbers 25:14). The indication is thus that they were to see themselves as still under probation for that incident and that they were therefore being passed over in silence. They were being called on to purge their contempt.
Even prior to this incident Simeon had previously had a bad reputation. Like Reuben because of his behaviour with his father's concubine, Simeon too had originally come under wrath for their behaviour, along with Levi, in the affair at Shechem which Jacob never forgot (Genesis 49:5 compare Genesis 34). But unlike Levi they had not done anything to redeem themselves. Rather they had made their situation worse. For at the first great test following the movement towards the promised land after the years of waiting, they were prominent in their disobedience to Yahweh. This occurred at Baal-peor (Numbers 25). Here Israel demonstrated something of what the future would hold by failing the first time that they came in close touch with local idolatry. As they abode in Shittim some of them began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab and ‘joined themselves with Baal-peor' (Numbers 25:1). They became involved with the local Moabite religion and its sexual misbehaviour. The result was that all those involved, especially the chiefs, were sentenced to be put to death (Deuteronomy 33:4-5).
And there it might have ended. But worse was to follow. A prince/chieftain of the tribe of Simeon deliberately defied Yahweh and Moses, and even while the children of Israel were coming to Yahweh in mourning for their sin (Deuteronomy 33:6), he blatantly brought into the camp a Midianitish woman, seemingly with the support and encouragement of his fellow-tribesmen (‘brought to his brothers' - Deuteronomy 33:14), and this clearly in connection with participation in idolatrous worship. It was an open act of defiance against Yahweh and against Moses in the very thing which had been condemned, and it was carried out in the very camp of Israel itself and in the sight of Yahweh.
And it was then, as before in the molten calf incident, that Levi stepped in to support Yahweh's name, this time through the action of Phinehas, son of Eliezer, son of Aaron, who seizing a spear, followed the Simeonite prince into his tent and slew both him and the woman. Thus were Simeon and Levi divided before Yahweh, with Phinehas being praised by Yahweh for his righteous act and the prince of Simeon being dead in shame, having died for disgracing Israel. Levi were prominent in righteousness and Simeon were in deep disgrace. Levi indeed had averted the plague that Simeon had brought on Israel. This then almost certainly explains why Simeon were dropped here, in contrast with the blessing of ‘Simeon and Levi' in Genesis 49:5, with the blessing going to Levi alone. The blackened name of Simeon could not be mentioned along with Levi's (as it had been in Jacob's blessing).
But that was not to say that Simeon were excluded from the confederacy altogether. We may still see the blessing of ‘the twelve tribes' as a whole as confirmation that the whole of Israel were to receive the blessings in an overall way, and that would therefore include Simeon, but not as a separate identity. For the point was that Simeon were excluded from the distinctive features that belonged to the others. They were not named. There was nothing to say about them. One twin was exalted, the other unmentioned. It was a clear warning to both Simeon and all Israel of what their rebellion had meant and what such rebellion could mean in the future. It was a warning ‘shot across the bows'. It was a firm reminder that those who rebelled were in danger of being blotted out.
Simeon were not to see from it that they were totally rejected, that they were blotted out of Israel, but rather that they were out of favour and in need of repentance and contrition. It was a warning of what they had lost and that they needed to be careful in the future if they were to be restored to favour. It was a warning of the danger of being blotted out. They had to recognise that in order to be named in Israel they must prove themselves worthy. And the same message would go over to the whole congregation of Israel every time the song was sung. The warning would rank along with that of the death of Moses.
But the dropping out of their name then meant (and this was also possibly partly a cause as well) that a way had to be found to maintain the covenant ‘twelve'. This was achieved by including both Ephraim and Manasseh. Twelve was a number to be maintained at all costs because the number was seen as significant and sacred for the binding together of the tribes, Having twelve (or elsewhere six) in such a confederation seems to have been seen as a sacred requirement for such an alliance among the Terah and Abrahamic tribes, compare Genesis 22:20-24; Genesis 25:13-16.
Simeon and Levi were seemingly twins, and had clearly regularly worked together in mutuality in the past, and in the past when they had been blessed, they had been blessed together (Genesis 49:5). Now the deliberate dropping of Simeon's name spoke loudly of how Levi had been restored to favour so that they were the blessed of Yahweh, while the non-mention of Simeon declared the very opposite about them. Like Moses they were not totally excluded from Yahweh's favour, but nevertheless had to be punished for their failure at Baal-peor.
There was something else stark that stood out from the omission of their name. It was that their tie with Levi no longer stood. The incident of the molten calf, with its consequent result for Levi, may well be seen as having have broken this mutuality, with the incident of the Midianite woman confirming it. Levi could now show Simeon no special favours. They had a responsibility to Yahweh, and Simeon dropped out of the reckoning.
Thus Simeon would as a result of events recognise that they would have to seek another partner among the Leah tribes. They were no longer in close standing with Levi. Levi were, after all, no longer an ordinary tribe and working together with them would be difficult. They were now Yahweh's possession. So Simeon may well even at this time, and possibly even earlier, have turned to their brother tribe of Judah. For the fact is that Simeon would later (Judges 1) very much come to be seen as working closely with Judah, possibly even developing a joint leadership of elders from both tribes, in such a way that they would both see themselves, while maintaining their distinctive identities, as coming under the same umbrella. Indeed it may be that the disgracing of the Simeonite chieftain in such a severe manner had resulted in Simeon coming under the leadership of Judah and thus not being at this time distinguished as a separate tribe for the purpose of the blessing (they had lost a good number of their top leadership - Numbers 25:4). This would explain why Simeonite cities are also listed as cities of Judah in Joshua 15.
However, such relationships between neighbourly elements take long periods of mutuality to build up. It would only be after Levi had been given their unique position that Simeon, feeling bereft, may well have looked for another mutual partner in the Leah sub-confederacy, during the long stay around Kadesh, and in the wilderness, finding one in Judah. It is also interesting to note that in Judges also the mention of Simeon is quietly dropped once they have been initially introduced. They appear to have in some way become seen as secondary. Their shame still hung over them.
This would then further explain why, in the book of Joshua, Judah and Simeon were seen as given a joint lot, then divided between them, as is suggested from the lists of towns allocated to each (see Joshua 19:9). This being so it may be that in this blessing Simeon could see themselves as blessed in Judah. However the Chronicler clearly demonstrates that Simeon retained their separate identity within the alliance (1 Chronicles 12:25; 1 Chronicles 27:16; 2 Chronicles 15:9; 2 Chronicles 34:6). They were never totally merged into Judah, as the narrative in Judges 1 also makes clear. Thus their non-mention would still have been seen as a blow. It was an indication of the way their actions at Baal-peor were seen as having diminished them.
(But we are not because of this to see Simeon and Judah as separate from the general invasion. Their campaign in fact progressed from north to south, not from south to north. While acting separately they did so as part of the general movement out of Jericho and Gilgal. Judah had been a leader among his brothers, taking over from Reuben (Genesis 43:3; Genesis 43:8) and this sense of possibly unconscious superiority had no doubt passed down as the tribe had grown. With Joseph's obvious superiority in Egypt it was natural that Judah would for this reason tend to isolate itself and stand aloof, even while remaining a part of the loose family confederacy. They could not take kindly to being subservient. But over the years, as the position of ‘Joseph' weakened with the change of Pharaohs, the position would become ameliorated but it would remain nevertheless, and Moses was no doubt fully aware of the tensions it produced).
(End of note.)
The poem was probably written down by Moses with a view to recitation at the annual festivals, as a reminder and assurance of Yahweh's promises for the future. As a competent leader he would want to ensure the future for his people and give them permanent assurance of God's coming blessings. It is possible that in the original oral ceremony held by the dying leader some indication of Simeon's inclusion may have been given, even though they were in disgrace. But the ‘covenant blessing' required that there be only twelve names and Simeon's error was too recent. Thus they were deliberately omitted. But the maintenance of the number ‘twelve' was seen as sacred and ever later maintained, and included within its umbrella all Israel. For Israel was later see as splitting into ‘ten' and ‘two' (1 Kings 11:31; 1 Kings 11:35; 1 Kings 12:21). We are not told how Simeon fitted in to that, but their existence was clearly seen as continuing.