Gen 34 is a "crazy" chapter. In it, we find the recording of the rape of Dinah, Jacob/Israel's daughter by Leah. We also find the "murderous acts" of Simeon and Levi against the Hivites in Shechem.
Gen 34:1-4 seems to indicate that Dinah "visiting" with the daughters of the land is more than a housecall. Dinah was becoming engaged in the Hivite culture which was the antithesis of a separated (holy) life. The intermingling of God's people with the influences of culture often creates an environment when bad things happen. In the midst of her "visiting" with the other women, she encounters Shechem who ultimately rapes her. The details of how the incident came to be are non-existent, but regardless of the details, she is violated.
When Jacob's sons learned of this, they were angered, grieved...and indignant (Gen 34:7). Something had to be done. Hamor, Shechem's father approached Jacob and his sons to negotiate a settlement (Gen 34:8-12). Never does Shechem or Hamor admit to the wrongdoing or show remorse for it; rather, Shechem's actions are justified because he "longed" for Dinah (Gen 34:8). Hamor's solution was to simply intermarry between the tribes and form a greater clan of people united.
Jacob's sons agreed to intermarriage if the men of the land would be circumcised. It is important to note that there was never an intent to allow intermarriage. The sons of Jacob simply wanted to incapacitate the natives so that they would be easier to kill (Gen 34:13-17).
Hamor and Shechem carry the proposal to the city gates and convince the men there this it is a good offer...and that it would be financially lucrative (Gen 34:18-24). I am not sure...but it must have sounded pretty good if all of the men were willing to be circumcised.
On the third day, when the men were most vulnerable from their "procedure," Simeon and Levi (sons of Leah and Jacob) sneaked into the city and killed all of the men including Hamor and Shechem (Gen 34:25). The took Dinah from Shechem's house (Gen 34:26) and then looted the city, taking herds, money, and women and children (Gen 34:27-29). Their intent was to inflict pain and take vengence for the rape of Dinah, their sister.
Why were Simeon and Levi the ones to act? It is important to remember that they were full brothers with Dinah since they too were sons of Leah. It also seems, from the reaction of Jacob and the presentation by the writer, that they acted rashly and impetuously...thus committing the sin of murder.
Jacob chides them for their actions in Gen 34:30. He tells them that their actions will have long-term consequences. This is a major difference from the impetuous man in his youth...before he gained a limp. Simeon and Levi try to justify their actions by pointing to the travesty committed against Dinah (Gen 34:31). The lack of acknowledgement and acceptance by Jacob (or the biblical writer) shows that their justification was lacking...and speaks to the saying of our parents, "two wrongs don't make a right."
The text does not diminish the violence shown toward Dinah or reduce the significance of the crime against her. That is not the point. The law in Israel was that "to lay with" a betrothed virgin warranted a death sentence, but "to lay with" an unbetrothed virgin warranted that the attacker marry her (support her for life) and pay a large penalty to her father. (Notably, there was no consideration for the rape of a woman by a non-Israelite).
It is easy enough to read this passage and respond with sympathy toward Simeon and Levi. However, the Bible does not justify their actions any more than it justifies the actions of Shechem (the rape) or Hamor (trying to negotiate a deal to make it go away). Vengeance belongs to the Lord...who may use civil authorities to carry it out, but there is no allowance for vigilante justice.
Proverbs 25:21-22 is the takeaway today. God's ways are so counter-cultural and counter-intuitive. No one desires to bless his enemy. Here, God's Word points out to us that when our enemy has needs, it is an open door for us to demonstrate God's goodness. It is one thing to show kindness to those who can benefit us. It is quite another to show kindness to him who has been against us in the past. By meeting our enemy's need, we give God "maximum room" to bring conviction. We also demonstrate our trust of God alone as our source, our strength, our Lord, and our Reward.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I am a little confused with the visiting with the daughters, what does that mean? She wanted to marry within the Hivites so she was learning their culture but she was not engaged.
I do want to side with the brothers but only because she was raped and the only judgement is for the raper to marry her, yuck! (I am not saying murder is okay)I guess it is because I see everything from our culture today and know little about their culture.
Speaking of culture, I have a question about your message tonight so going back a couple of weeks to Chapter 25. How does one sell their birthright? Was their a contact that Esau signed before eating his Lentils? I guess I was just thinking what kept Esau honest and from just lying and saying I did no such thing? Just a question I had during your message and didn't get a chance to ask you afterward. :)
Amanda,
Good question. I see why it is ambiguous. The best way I can put it is to say that she was hanging out with the wrong crowd. She was different than these people, but she was attracted to them and enticed by their lifestyle. I am reminded that no "boy" ever gets into trouble by himself. Two boys (however) can feed off one another to the point...that they will do almost anything.
It is difficult to decide which judgment is best. Kind of points to the fact that God alone is able to judge. Your comment reminded me of the times that I have concluded that there were only two solutions to a problem. I have come to realize that there is usually a third solution (which I cannot predict) because it involves a "God-factor" that He alone knows.
As for the birthright...it seems that this transaction was made by swearing an oath. Unfortunately...we live in a day where ones "word" is not necessarily their bond. We think contracts and attorneys are the way to demand the conditions of the agreement. The oath taken by Esau before God...was far more weighty than we might think today.
Good comments. Thanks.
Post a Comment