Dan omitted?

**py3ak** · #1 (**permalink**) 10-03-2009, 11:09 AM

Revelation 7:5-8 is, I think, the last time in the Bible that the 12 tribes of Israel are listed out.

Interestingly, Dan is not mentioned in the list. This catches my eye, because Manasseh is listed, and Joseph is listed (Joseph presumably standing for Ephraim since Manasseh is listed separately). So there would have been room to mention Dan, if Joseph had been used to include Manasseh and Ephraim. Also, in other lists Simeon is omitted (e.g., Deuteronomy 33), so this does seem a little unusual.

Is there any particular reason given in Scripture that Dan would be omitted at this point?

Ask Mr. Religion · #2 (**permalink**) 10-04-2009, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

Is there any particular reason given in Scripture that Dan would be omitted at this point?

Possibly Judges 17-18, which records the tribe's idolatry. They are not all Israel who are Israel. I believe this was a view that Matthew Henry commented upon in his Revelation commentary (which I don't have handy at the moment).

AMR

ewenlin · #3 (**permalink**) 10-04-2009, 04:23 AM

Quote:

In this list the tribe of Dan is omitted, perhaps because they were greatly addicted to idolatry; and the order of the tribes is altered, perhaps according as they had been more or less faithful to God.

That's all Matthew Henry says in his commentary. I think AMR's is the most common answer (Judges 17-18).

The only other commentary I have with me now is by Walvoord. Don't know if you want to hear what he says.

Solus Christus · #4 (**permalink**) 10-04-2009, 02:44 PM

Not much to bring to the table since Gill says something similar in his commentary:

Quote:

Now twelve thousand out of each tribe make just the number of a hundred forty and four thousand, Rev_7:4; the tribe of Dan is not mentioned, it may be because of the apostasy of that tribe, one of Jeroboam's golden calves being set up there; showing that God had no sealed ones of that sort, and instead of him Levi is reckoned; though that tribe had no part in the division of the land of Israel, yet had a part in Christ, and is therefore mentioned in this mystical account. Nor is the name of Ephraim used, it may be for the same reason; there having been a great defection in that tribe from the pure worship of God, and instead of him the name of Joseph appears.

I also think it's interesting that Judah is listed first, most likely due to Reuben's indiscretion.

TimV · #5 (**permalink**) 10-04-2009, 05:11 PM

If you start from the assumption that the passage is symbolic rather than an actual number of people from different tribes, which one should, then you look to spiritual significance. Perhaps it has to do with both Dan's association with apostasy as well as Dan being the first fruit of the exercise of human works to obtain God's favor? It's difficult to find a passage in the OT describing as clearly works religion as the following.

Quote:

Gen 30:1 When Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she envied her sister. She said to Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"
Gen 30:2 Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said, "Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?"
Gen 30:3 Then she said, "Here is my servant Bilhah; go in to her, so that she may give birth on my behalf, that even I may have children through her."
Gen 30:4 So she gave him her servant Bilhah as a wife, and Jacob went in to her.
Gen 30:5 And Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son.
Gen 30:6 Then Rachel said, "God has judged me, and has also heard my voice and given me a son." Therefore she called his name Dan.

Notice the similarity to Hagar, and how Hagar is used as a metaphor in the NT.

Quote:

Gal 4:24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.

Just some ideas.

**py3ak** · #6 (**permalink**) 10-04-2009, 06:41 PM

Matthew Henry's view might be supported by Amos 8:14. Of course, it adds an interesting twist that Ezekiel does include Dan in his vision (Ezekiel 48:1,32).

Tim, your idea would seem to be in line with A.W. Pink's idea about the first and the final mention of something in Scripture being particularly significant with regard to that thing (though I know you would have to include the full mention as well).

It's not unusual for Reuben not to be listed first. There's great variation in the way the tribes are listed - sometimes by age, sometimes by mother, sometimes by order of encampment, etc.