Riverat:
Why has the tribe of Dan been left out?
The tribe of Dan was small in numbers yet productive. In 1 K. 12:25-33, we read of the tribe of Dan setting up a golden calf in the land, also putting high places of worship, throughout Israel.
1 Kings 12:30-31, "This thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan. And he made an house of high places, and made priest of the lowest of the people, which were not the sons of Levi."
Dan didn't set up that golden calf. The king, Jeroboam, did; and not only in Dan, but also in Bethel. The king also placed the priests of the golden calf in Bethel, not in Dan:
"And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made." -- 1Kin 12:32 KJV
So, why was Dan singled out, that is, if he was really singled out as claimed?
.
Scripture speaks of the tribe of Dan in the following way,
Gen.49:17, "Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward."
This was also part of the blessing:
"Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward. I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord." -- Gen 49:17-18 KJV
There was also this:
"And of Dan he said, Dan is a lion's whelp: he shall leap from Bashan." -- Deu 33:22 KJV
Don't you think it odd that Dan would receive one of the same blessings as Judah:
"Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?" -- Gen 49:9 KJV
Note that Dan was also mentioned as having something to do with salvation, but never as a villain.
.
Jeremiah 8:16, "The snorting of his horses was heard from Dan: the whole land trembled at the sound of neighing of his strong ones; for they are come, and have devoured the land, and all that is in it; the city, and those that swell therein."
It was a fact that the land of Dan was the northern-most land of Israel, and therefore was "first in line" to be slaughtered by invading armies, such as the Assyrians or Chaldeans. But that has nothing to do with idolatry.
.
Amos 8:14, "They that swear by the sin of Samaria, and say, Thy god, O Dan, liveth; and, the manner of Beersheba liveth; even they shall fall, and never rise up again."
Is that referring to the tribe of Dan; or is it referring to those who follow idols, from any tribe? The sin of Samaria (idolatry) was initiated by the king, not by Dan.
.
Judges 18:30, "The children of Dan set up the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land."
If the children of Manasseh were the priests of the tribe of Dan, during these supposed days of idolatry, why was Manasseh not singled out, along with Dan?
.
The sin of Samaria was the worship of the golden calves, Deut.9:21. Hosea 4:15. To swear by means to worship, Ps.63:11. The manner of worship means, the mode of worship. Ps.139:24, Acts 9:2. Thy god O Dan, the other golden calf at Dan, 1 Kings 22:26-30. "They shall never rise up again."
Again, Dan did not set up those idols, the king did. And his priests were placed in Bethel, not in Dan. Therefore, it is called the "sin of Samaria," not the "sin of Dan."
.
The tribe of Dan has lost its inheritance for the great sins committed by them. They worshipped the beast, and never repented. Cut off forever, they "Shall never rise up again."
There is absolutely no proof of that claim, that I have seen so far.
.
Why has Manasses been inserted in Dan's place? Manasses is mentioned in Rev.7 as one of the tribes that receives the mark from God in their forehead.
Yet Dan is mentioned in Ezekiel 48:2, in the 1000 year reign of Christ, in the land distribution.
And why would Manasseh replace Dan, since the priests of Dan were from the tribe of Manasseh? Were they not at least complicit, if there was any idolatry in the tribe of Dan before King Jeroboam?
There is this possible explanation from the Pulpit Commentary (and Ewald):
"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<BR>
[H.D.M. Spence, "The Pulpit Commentary Vol 41 - Revelation." Funk & Wagnalls Company, Rev 7:5, p.208]
If Manasseh belonged, it was out of order.
One other point: neither James, nor Paul, who both mentioned the twelve tribes in the present tense, hinted that one of the original tribes was missing:
"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting." -- Jas 1:1
"And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God, unto our fathers: Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews." -- Acts 26:6-7
