This post has nothing to do with the annual observation of the Feast of St. Francis on October 4 by the blessing of the animals. Instead, it is a quick overview of two blessings on the twelve tribes of Israel given by Jacob (Genesis 49) and Moses (Deuteronomy 33), at least those particular blessings which utilize animal imagery in a metaphorical way.
Judah (Genesis 49:9) “Judah is a lion's whelp”
“He was likened to a lion going forth to conquer great prey then returning to his rest, from which no one dared rouse him.” (Rigsby)
Balaam's oracle employs the lion as an image of inexorable rise of Israel (Num 23:24), echoing Jacob's deathbed metaphor...Eventually recognized as a messianic prophecy, the idea is recast in the apocalyptic title “Lion of the tribe of Judah' (Rev 5:5).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)
“When Genesis 49:9...came to be understood in later Judaism as a key messianic prophecy..., the image was still of the royal Messiah as military conqueror. The Apocalypse expresses this perplexing combination of Suffering Servant and military Messiah by melding the conquering Lion of the tribe of Judah with the Lamb that was slain (Rev 5:5-6). The juxtaposition of the two images of lion and lamb does not cancel the former but suggests the idea of conquest, not by destructive power but by obedience and sacrifice.” (DBI)
Wenham notes a minority opinion which sees nothing but a negative assessment in Jacob's words concerning Judah in vv. 8-12 based on early events in Judah's life only. But he concludes, “Ingenious as this allegorical interpretation is, it fails to carry conviction because the symbolic equations are far from obvious, and it demands Jacob's remarks being understood as criticisms of Judah rather than praise. This is difficult in the light of the explicitly positive v 8.”
Issachar (Genesis 49:14) “Issachar is a strong donkey”
Hamilton: “One may interpret Jacob's words to Issachar in two possible ways. The prevailing view is that Jacob points Issachar as a group of people who put creaturely comforts (v. 15a-b) ahead of any other value, and as a result it cost them their independence (v. 15c-d). They became serfs to the local Canaanites, i.e., the feudal barons ruling in the Jezreel valley...This majority interpretation has sufficient problems to warrant an alternative interpretation of v. 15.”
Thus, Heck feels it should read: “Issachar is a sturdy donkey lying down between two saddlebags. When he sees how good is a resting-place and pleasant the land, he will bend his shoulder to bear, and he will become a body of workers that work the land.”
Hamilton expresses this positive interpretation of Issachar with the following words: “He became a laboring worker.” This understanding is in accord with the Septuagint's rendering, “He became a farmer.” According to this understanding, it simply states that “they do not shy away from assuming tasks of some physical magnitude.”
Wenham feels we do not have enough data to clearly chose between the two alternatives.
Dan (Genesis 49:17) “Dan is a snake that bites the horse's heels”
Snakes often struck from hiding, biting without warning. This ever-present danger serves as a metaphor of sudden judgment, as in Isaiah 14:29 and Amos 5:19. “The bite of a snake, coming as a surprise, must have seemed unprovoked and unnatural, giving the serpent a permanent role in the spirit world.” (DBI)
Wenham sees a wholly positive image of the tribe of Dan here in that Dan's military victories will benefit all of Israel, not just his clan. A.P. Ross parrots this view in saying, “Dan, born of a concubine and not as privileged as the others, would help its people ge their rights.”
As to the possible historical background to Moses' prophecy, both Wenham and Rowe feel it may refer to Samson's attacks on the Philistines or to the events described in Judges 17-18.
(Deuteronomy 33:22) “Dan is a lion's whelp”
By calling Dan the whelp of a lion rather than a full-grown lion, Craigie feels that Moses is implying the weakness of youth but the promise of future strength. He is probably reading too much into the text, in my opinion.
Hamilton is another commentator who sees a contradiction between the two pictures of Dan given above. “Thus, in Gen. 49 Dan is a viper but in Deut 33 his tribe is one who avoids vipers, as would a lion cub.” This statement refers to Cross and Freedman's proposed re-interpretation of v. 22b from “that leaps forth from Bashan” to “that shies away from a viper.” Thompson explains that this alternative rendering of “Bashan” is based on an ancient Ugaritic word b-t-n, meaning “serpent.” But he goes on to state: “The point is not, however, beyond dispute.”
(Revelation 7:4-8)
The above text must also be cited in relation to the tribe of Dan. In these verses, every tribe except Ephraim and Dan is included. Several proposals have been made to explain the omission of Dan:
It could be due to Dan's association with idol worship in passages such as Judges 18:16-19 and I Kings 12:28-30. (Beale)
“Dan” may have been accidentally copied as “Man,” which was in turn understood to be an abbreviation for Manasseh. (Mounce)
“Perhaps Dan is omitted because of the tradition that the Antichrist would come from this tribe, as suggested in Irenaeus and Hippolytus. Both quote Jer 8:16 (cf also v. 17), and Hippolytus cites Deut 33:22 and Gen 49:17. It is true that in Gen 49:17 Dan is 'A horned snake..., that bites the horse's heel,” AB, and that in [the] Apocryphal Testament of Dan 5:6 it is written that the prince of the tribe of Dan is Satan.” (Ford)
Ford's explanation somewhat begs the point as to why Dan should have such negative connotations to begin with. But the most logical reason is seen in comparing the image of Dan as a serpent that bites the heel in Genesis 49:17 with the prophecy in Genesis 3:15 that states the satanic serpent in the garden will strike as the heel of the woman's (singular) offspring (i.e. the Messiah), and he will strike the serpent's head.
Naphtali (Genesis 49:21) “Naphtali is a doe that bears lovely fawns”
Wenham points out the main difficulty in adequately understanding the whole of this verse is that “each line can be understood in about three different ways, which has given rise to a great variety of interpretations.” Thus, if the second line reads “who gives words of great beauty,” then it may refer to Barak's good tidings of the victory over General Sisera since Barak was a Naphtalite (see Judges 4-5). A.P. Ross agrees with this assessment. “However, most modern commentators regard this as too abrupt a transition from the animal imagery of the previous line...Like the previous blessing on Asher (v. 20), it may be taken either as a straight-forward comment, a compliment, or a mild rebuke.”
“The blessings that Jacob and Moses conferred on Naphtali reflect the favored position the tribe would receive once it settled in Canaan.” (P.H. Wright)
However, Hamilton notes that in place of “doe,” others have proposed a terebinth (variety of tree) or a mountain-ewe. This last proposal, by Gevirtz, is the only negative interpretation: “A mountain goat who only gives birth to lambs,” i.e. he is born to be free but becomes domesticated instead.
Benjamin (Genesis 49:27) “Benjamin is a ravenous wolf”
Ross notes regarding the wolf: “It is no less voracious an animal than the lion but usually kills far more than it can eat. That is the picture given here, for Benjamin would divide the spoil.” Ross is probably reading far more into the imagery than was originally intended.
A more negative image is projected by DBI, which says that the literal details regarding a wolf's predatory habits “present a heightened picture of terror and ferocity, which provides the context for the repulsion that biblical writers and Jesus have toward evil people and institutions that they compare to wolves.”
Heck defends a positive description of Benjamin here mainly since “the great majority of animal comparisons [in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy] are positive.” And Westerman expresses the option that the “metaphor praises Benjamin's prowess in war and/or lust for booty.”
(Deuteronomy 33:12) “The beloved rests between his shoulders”
You may wonder why I have included this Deuteronomy reference since it doesn't appear to possess any references to an animal. The reason is that one of many interpretations of this difficult verse posits the image of a lamb being carried on a shepherd's back. But this seems to be a poor match with the characterization of Benjamin as a ravenous wolf. Thus, DBI states that “this youngest brother again reveals the heart of the rest of the brothers, and it is now a divided heart, in accordance with the seemingly contradictory blessings of Jacob and Moses.”
For more on this difficult passage, see my post entitled “Deuteronomy 33:12.”
Joseph (Genesis 49:22) “Joseph is a wild ass (or “a fruitful bough)”
This passage is another dubious animal reference. Wenham explains: “Text-critical issues...intertwine with multiple problems in the [standard Hebrew text] to make this an exegete's nightmare.” Unlike the comparison of Joseph to a wild ass, “the traditional view from the Targums to the majority of modern commentators is that the comparison is with a vine or some fruitful tree.” He hesitantly endorses this majority view. But against it are (1) the fact that it stands apart from the other blessings as having a botanical image instead of an animal comparison and (2) it seems to make little sense for an archer to attack it (v. 23).
(Deuteronomy 33:17) “a first-born bull – majesty is his. His horns are those of a wild ox.”
Mayes says it is not quite clear what is being referring to here. The strong bull may stand for king Jeroboam, Joseph's firstborn Ephraim, or the bull cult at Bethel. He personally opts for Ephraim. In this, Craigie agrees since Joseph's son Ephraim was given the preferred blessing by Jacob (see Genesis 48:8-20).
In contrast, Thompson feels that it is Joseph himself who is described as “Yahweh's first-born bull who possesses majesty and the horns of a wild ox or buffalo. With his horns he gores the nations and pushes the peoples to the ends of the earth.”
Gad (Deuteronomy 33:20) “Gad lives like a lion”
“The twelve Hebrew words for lion testify to deep concern about it...Because when the lion is on the haunt, something is going to die, it symbolizes the absolute power of kings and even of God.” (DBI)
The next verse goes on to say that “he chose the best for himself,” which Meyes explains as Gad enlarging its territory by adsorbing that of Reuben.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments