Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. There are various lists of the tribes in the Old Testament, no two of which present the same names in the same order. It does not seem probable that any special design underlies the selection and arrangement here. First, with regard to the selection, we observe that Dan and Ephraim are omitted, the number being completed by inserting Levi, Joseph, and Manasseh. Although Ephraim and Manasseh are sometimes inserted instead of Joseph and Levi, and sometimes omitted, there seems only one example of a list in which any one of the others is omitted, viz. that in Deuteronomy 33:1-29., where no mention is made of Simeon. It has been thought that Simeon was purposely passed over by Moses on account of his ill conduct (see Genesis 34:1-31.)—conduct for which, unlike Levi, he afterwards made no sufficient atonement. This has led many commentators (Hengstenberg, Wordsworth, etc.) to conclude that Dan finds no place here because of the idolatrous worship of the tribe ( 18:1-31.). Many ancient writers (Bede, Andreas, etc.) account, somewhat similarly, for the omission by supposing that, in accordance with a very commonly received opinion, antichrist would arise from this tribe—an opinion probably originated by a comparison of the "serpent" of Genesis 49:17 with Revelation 12:9; Revelation 20:2. A third group, amongst whom are Ebrard, Dusterdieck, De Wette, Grotius, referring to an ancient Jewish tradition that the tribe of Dan had become extinct, and relying on the omission of this tribe in 1 Chronicles 4-7.—though Hushim (1 Chronicles 7:12) may be the sons of Dan (see Genesis 46:23)—believe that the children of Dan no longer existed, and were therefore omitted. In the insertion of the name Manasseh (i.e. "Forgetting") Bengel sees an intended allusion to the omission of Dan, who is, he thinks, omitted for some mysterious reason. Ewald believes that St. John wrote δαν, and that MAN., the abbreviated form of "Manasses," was substituted by error; and he appeals to manuscripts 9, 13, which, however, have "Dan" in place of "Gad." Moreover, Irenaeus, Origen, Arethas, have "Manasseh," and state plainly that Dan was omitted. It is certainly curious in connection with this conjecture that, if it were true, that is to say, if "Dan" should be read in place of "Manasseh," we should have a more intelligible order of arrangement. In that case, speaking generally, the elder sons would come first, the younger last; all the pairs of brothers are kept together (only that, in the case of the six brothers, there is a division into two lots); Judah naturally is placed first before Reuben, owing to the prominent place held by him in the Apocalypse in connection with our Lord. The order would then be—
Sons of Leah.—Juda, Reuben Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zabulon
Sons of Zilpah.—Gad, Aser
Sons of Bilhah.—Nepthalim, [Dan,]
Sons of Rachel.—Joseph, Benjamin
Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. As remarked above, Judah probably precedes Reuben from the greater importance he would possess in the mind of the writer of the Apocalypse, who continually exalts Christ, "the Lion of the tribe of Judah" (Revelation 5:5). Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.