John Calvin Commentary Genesis 49:5

"Simeon and Levi are brethren; Weapons of violence are their swords." — Genesis 49:5 (ASV)

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 for such a great crime. From this we learn how hateful cruelty is to God, since the blood of man is precious in His sight.

For it is as if He would summon those two men before His own tribunal and demand vengeance on them, when they thought they had already escaped. However, it may be asked whether pardon had not been granted to them long ago; and if God had already forgiven them, why does He recall them to punishment again?

I answer that it was both privately useful to themselves and 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 beginning of true repentance. It may be believed that they afterwards became more and more stupefied with a kind of brutish torpor in their wickedness; or at least, that they had not been seriously affected by bitter grief for their sin.

There was also the fear that their posterity might become addicted to the same brutality, unless they were divinely impressed with horror at the deed. Therefore the Lord, partly to humble them and partly to make them an example to all ages, inflicted on them the punishment of perpetual ignominy.

Moreover, in acting this way, He did not retain the punishment while remitting the guilt, as the Papists foolishly imagine; 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 freely.

But Scripture speaks very differently. It teaches us that God does not exact punishments that compensate for offenses, but rather punishments that will purge hearts from hypocrisy, invite the elect to repentance—as the allurements of the world are gradually shaken off—stir them up to vigilant solicitude, and keep them under restraint by the bridle of fear and reverence.

From this it follows that nothing is more preposterous than that the punishments we have deserved should be redeemed by satisfactions, as if God, like men, would have what was owed paid to Him. Indeed, rather, there is the best possible agreement between the free remission of punishments and those chastenings of the rod, which prevent future evils rather than follow those already committed.

To return to Simeon and Levi. How is it that God, by inflicting a punishment that had been long deferred, should drag them back as guilty fugitives to judgment, if not because impunity would have been harmful to them? And yet He fulfills the office of a physician rather than that of a judge, who refuses to spare because He intends to heal; and who not only heals two who are sick, but also, by an antidote, anticipates the diseases of others, so that they may beware of cruelty.

This also is highly worth remembering: that Moses, in publishing the infamy of his own people, acts as the herald of God. Not only does he proclaim a disgrace common to the whole nation, but he also brands with infamy the special tribe from which he sprang. From this it plainly appears that he paid no respect to his own flesh and blood, nor could he be induced by favor or hatred to misrepresent anything or to deviate from historical faithfulness. Instead, as a chosen minister and witness of the Lord, he was mindful of his calling, which was to declare the truth of God sincerely and confidently.

A comparison is made here not only between the sons of Jacob personally but also between the tribes that descended from them. This certainly was an especially opportune occasion for Moses to defend the nobility of his own people. But so far is he from heaping praises upon them, that he frankly brands the progenitor of his own tribe with an everlasting dishonor, which would redound to his whole family.

Those Lucianist dogs, who carp at the doctrine of Moses, claim that he was a vain man who wished to acquire for himself command over the unrefined common people. But if this had been his project, why did he not also make provision for his own family? His sons, whom ambition would have persuaded him to try to place in the highest rank, he sets aside from the honor of the priesthood and consigns them to a lowly and common service.

Who does not see that these impious slanders have been anticipated by 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 attach to him? But to say nothing of his children and grandchildren, we can 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 adds the punishment. The crime is that instruments of violence are in their dwellings; and therefore he declares, both with his tongue and in his heart, that he holds their counsel in abhorrence, because, in their desire for revenge, they destroyed a city with its inhabitants.

Commentators differ regarding the meaning of the words. 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 those who translate the word as habitations think more correctly, as if he had said that unjust violence dwelt among them because they had been so bloodthirsty.

I do not doubt that the word כבד (chabod) is used for the tongue, as in other places. Thus the sense is clear: that Jacob, from his heart, so detests the crime perpetrated by his sons that his tongue will not give any assent to it whatsoever. He does this so that they may begin to be dissatisfied with themselves, and that all others may learn to abhor treachery combined with cruelty.

Fury, beyond doubt, signifies a perverse and blind impulse of anger; and lust is opposed to rational moderation, because they are governed by no law.

Interpreters also differ regarding the meaning of the word שור (shor). Some translate it as “bullock” and think that the Shechemites are allegorically denoted by it, since they were sufficiently robust and powerful to defend their lives, if Simon and Levi had not weakened them by fraud and treachery. But a different interpretation is far preferable, namely, that they “overturned a wall.” For Jacob magnifies the heinousness of their crime by the fact that they did not even spare buildings in their rage.