Genesis 34:1-31

Gen. 34:1-31

1. Locate the passage

As Jacob and his family settled in the promise land conflicts began to develop. One such conflict erupted around his daughter, Dinah. The account of the incident between her and Shechem and the response of her brothers to it forms another potential threat to Abraham’s family in inheriting the Promised Land. The episode is bracketed in the text by two accounts of worship on Jacob’s part; the first in Shechem (33:20), and the second in Bethel (35:1). It is significant, that the Lord calls Jacob back to Bethel.

One may wonder if the fact that Jacob is in Shechem and has not fully been obedient to the Lord’s instructions in 31:13 is partly to blame for the events of Genesis 34.

2. Genre

The account is narrative. It records several conversations surrounding the sexual relationship between Dinah and one of the Hivites. Interestingly, the account does not record any conversations by any party in the episode with Dinah.

3. Determine the structure of the passage

4. Exegete the passage

The central question of the passage is whether or not Dinah was sexually assaulted. The details of the text are: the language of the narrative in 34:2, 7, and 19; Shechem’s response; Jacob’s response; the response of the brothers; the description of the brothers of the event in 34:31; and Dinah’s response. The use of the identical phrase in 2 Sam. 13:12 by Tamar (an incident that is unquestionably rape; see discussion below) is a curious connection between the two passages). The words used in 34:2 can imply rape, but do not necessitate it. In 34:7, the narrator says that the act was “disgraceful … in Israel” and “ought not to be done;” however, those descriptions do not necessitate assault. Also, Shechem’s description as “honorable” in 34:19 does not resolve the issue of his character. Shechem seems to be in love with Dinah and speaks kindly to her as though he is enticing her (contrasted by the emotional response of Amnon after his rape of Tamar). Jacob’s response is ambiguous. The response of the brothers is anger, but it is not entirely clear if they are angry because she was violated or because the sex was outside of marriage or with foreigners. The brothers’ suggestion in 34:31 is that Dinah was treated like a harlot (which does not necessarily imply coercion). Finally, Dinah’s response is curious. The fact that Dinah is still with Shechem (Cf. 34:26) suggests that she is either there willingly, has been coerced, or is resigned to the situation. Given the available evidence of the text, dogmatism does not seem warranted.

34:1 – Dinah the daughter of Leah

• Dinah’s mother and blood-brothers are significant in this passage. The brothers who defend her honor (Simeon and Levi) are also sons of Leah.
  • This is the only time Leah’s name occurs in this chapter; clearly to establish the full-blooded connection between Dinah and Simeon and Levi.
    39. The only other occasion in Scripture when a daughter is introduced by her mother’s name is in Gen. 36:39.[ref]Matthews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, 589.[/ref]
  • Dinah is referred to as the “sister” of Simeon and Levi in 13, 27, 31; and they are referred to as Dinah’s “brothers” in 34:25
• The word “daughter” occurs 14 times in this chapter and is central to the issue.

34:1 – Dinah went out to see

• The phrase recalls and similar incident in Gen. 6:2 when the sons of God “saw” the daughters of men.
• The verse suggests a curiosity on Dinah’s part, but need not suggest anything more.
  • Her going out does perhaps put her in danger, but does not necessitate seeing fault on her part.
  • “Some ancient rabbi’s ingeniously connected Dinah’s “going out” with her mother’s “going out” to meet Jacob. When Leah went out to Jacob, she informed him, ‘You must come in to me; for I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes’ (Gen. 30:16); and he did what she said and lay with her that night. The rabbinic interpreters argued that she was called Leah’s daughter because she is just like her mother.”[ref]Genesis Rabba 80; See also David E. Garland, and Diana S. Richmond Garland. Flawed Families of the Bible: How God’s Grace Works through Imperfect Relationships. (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2007), 89.[/ref]
• Dinah went out to see (Hb. “ra’ah”) the daughters of the land, Shechem “saw” (Hb. “ra’ah”) her.

34:2 – Shechem “took” her and … violated her.

• The verbs of verse two (took … lay … violated) do not explicitly denote force.
  • The verb “took” (Hb. “laqach”)
    • This word can mean to take as a wife, though that does not seem to be the case here as the later proposal is designed to obtain her as a wife.
    • See Gen. 20:2 where Abimelech “took” Sarah.
  • The verb “lay” (Hb. “shakab”) implies a sexual encounter.
    • The verb is elsewhere used in the context of rape in Gen. 19:32, 33, 35; Deut. 22:23, 25; 2 Sam. 13:6, 14.
    • However, it is also used in instances of consensual sex in Gen. 30:16; Ex. 22:16; Num. 5:13; 2 Sam. 12:24; (Cf. 1 Kings 1:2). In a few instances of the use of this verb, the “consent” regarding the sexual encounter is unclear in the text (Gen. 35:22; Deut. 22:28; 2 Sam. 11:4; 12:11).
  • The verb “violated” (Hb. “anah”) in the piel form can mean, “to violate; overpower” or it can mean “to humble.”
    • The word, “violated” (Hb. “anah”) is also used in the context of sexual assault in Deut. 22:29; 2 Sam. 13:12, 14, 22, 32; Judges 19:24; 20:5; Lam. 5:11; and Ezek. 22:10.
    • The word elsewhere means, “to humble.”
      • See Deut. 8:2, 3, 16; 21:14; 22:29
      • The occurrences of this verb in Deut. 21:14 and 22:29 also occur in the context of a sexual encounter, but do not necessarily suggest rape.
    • The same verbs “took” and “violated” (Hb. “shachab” and “anah”) occur together in the story of the rape of Tamar by Amnon (2 Sam. 13:14).
    • Taken together without comment from the narrator suggests that the sex may not have been consensual. But, the response of Shechem (who is said to love her) and the response of Dinah (who stayed in his house) leaves open the possibility of a consensual act.
      1. Moreover, the designation of Shechem as “honorable” (34:19) adds a curious aspect to the story (see comment below).
      2. Plus, the statement by the brothers in 34:31, “should he treat our sister like a harlot” certainly does not necessarily denote force, and could be used to argue against it.

34:3 – The intensity of emotion from Shechem after the sexual encounter with Dinah is contrasted by Amnon’s intensity of feelings for Tamar after he raped her (2 Sam. 13:15).

• Note, that here Dinah is described as the “daughter of Jacob” and not the “daughter of Leah.”
  • 34:1.

34:4 – Shechem demands of his father that he “get” (lit. “take”) the young woman for him as a wife.

• The same word (Hb. “laqach”) is used in his request of his father as in his action with Dinah; cf. 34:2. See also 34:26.
• Although Shechem was not a Hebrew and this event is certainly prior to the Old Testament law, his proposal of marriage is not entirely foreign to what was stipulated in the Old Testament under similar circumstances. Both Deut. 22:28-29 and Exod. 22:16-17 present the scenario of a sexual encounter similar to the one between Shechem and Dinah. Both passages suggest a dowry be paid to the father and for the couple to be married. Some have objected to this passage, suggesting that it forces a woman who was raped to marry the man who raped her. However, Exod. 22:17, suggests that the father had the right to refuse to allow her to marry the man.
  • In this culture, it would be difficult for a woman who was not a virgin to ever get married. So, this aspect of the law is actually an effort at protection for the woman.
    • See 2 Sam. 13:13. Tamar’s response to Amnon at least suggests that she would rather marry him than to be single and potentially destitute for the remainder of her life.
  • Thus, the father had authority to allow his daughter to marry the man, which, in some cases, might be preferable to a life for her of potential singleness and poverty.

34:5 – The fact that Jacob “heard” of the events and did nothing about it foreshadows a similar parental failure on the part of David upon the rape of his granddaughter,   Tamar (2 Sam. 13:21-22).

• The text does not indicate how Jacob heard about the event.
• The verb “defiled” (Hb. “tame”) suggests “to make unclean.” Intermarriage with people outside of Israel was later part of the law (Deut. 7:3).
  • Moreover, when Jacob left home, his mother’s fear was that he would marry a Hittite woman (27:46), and was instructed by his father not to marry a Canaanite woman (28:1).
• Jacob “held his peace” until Dinah’s brothers came
  • This suggests that Jacob was leaving her response to her brothers, instead of dealing with it himself.
  • Jacob’s two responses in this passage are telling. When he found out the situation, he “held his peace;” however, when he found out that Dinah’s brothers retaliated by killed the offenders (34:30), he responded angrily.
  • His response could indicate that he believed that the sex might have been consensual. Or, it may be that he was going to allow her brothers to deal with the issue.

34:7 – When Dinah’s brothers heard about the situation, they were “grieved” and “very angry.”

• The narrator explains the response of Dinah’s brothers by 2 phrases:
  • He had done a disgraceful thing by “lying” (Hb. “shaqab”) with Jacob’s daughter
  • A thing which ought not to be done.
• However, the narrator’s response could imply either rape, a sexual encounter outside of marriage, or simply a sexual encounter with a foreigner. Note that the verse says, “a disgraceful thing in Israel” leaving open the possibility that it might not be “disgraceful” in other cultures (as rape would be).
  • The phrase, “in Israel” (Hb. “b^eyisra’el”) here suggests that the descendants of Jacob are not considered a people group (i.e. a nation).
• There is a significant verbal connection here with 2 Sam. 13:12
  • Both passages depict a sexual encounter. Moreover, 2 Sam. 13:12 clearly depicts rape.
  • Both passages describe the action using identical language in Hebrew as something that “ought not be done.”
    • See the phrase, “ought not to be done” (Hb. “lo ye’asah”) in both
  • While this does not mandate that Shechem’s actions with Dinah are rape, it does show that Tamar may have been referencing this event with Amnon as something that “ought not be done.”

34:7 – The text indicates that Hamor went to speak to Jacob; however, 34:8 and 34:11 indicated that Simeon and Levi have joined the conversation. Moreover, it is Simeon and Levi who respond to Hamor in 34:14.

34:8 – Shechem’s father, Hamor, acquiesces to the wishes of his son and proposes a marriage alliance with Jacob’s sons.

• The proposal is much broader than simply Dinah and Shechem. Hamor is proposing a marriage alliance between the Hivites and Jacob’s family which includes marriage, dwelling together (the implication here is unity), and mutual trade.
  • However, Hamor’s intentions are more than just the wishes of his son and less than honorable. When he attempts to persuade the Hivites to accept the condition set by Simeon and Levi, his true intentions are revealed. He saw this as an opportunity to squander the family of Jacob financially (34:23).

34:11-12 – Hamor offers to pay any dowry requested by Jacob and his sons.

34:13 – Simeon and Levi speak up instead of Jacob. The narrator informs the reader that their intention was to deceive Hamor and the Hivites.

34:14 – We cannot … give our sister to one who is uncircumcised.

• The text does not indicate a previous “plan” on the part of Simeon and Levi, but a clear plan seems to have developed. The plan unfolds in 34:25.
• That Jacob is silent in the conversation, but does not seem to know about the plot of Simeon and Levi suggests that he was considering the proposal.

34:15 – The condition is for “every” male to be circumcised.

• The brothers imply that upon their acceptance that the family of Jacob and the Hivites will become “one people” (34:16).
• Though we only know of one daughter of Jacob (Dinah), the proposal would include his granddaughters.

34:19 – He was more “honorable” than all the household of his father

• “cavad” can mean, “Honored; heavy; or respected.” The language can reflect his character or merely his significance in the community.
• Shechem was attracted to Dinah (34:3), loved her (34:3), spoke kindly to her (34:3), desired to marry her (34:4), and delighted in her (34:19). These descriptions do not necessarily imply his character as honorable, but neither do they depict him as merely overcome with lust (as opposed to Amnon).

34:20-24 – Shechem seems to only have the intention of marrying Dinah. Hamor’s interests seem more suspicious. He implies to the men (who are being asked to be circumcised) that the wealth of Jacob would become theirs in the arrangement.

34:25 – Simeon and Levi wait until the pain of the circumcision would be at its peak before they attack.

• Even if their retaliation against Shechem is warranted (which is questionable in the passage), the killing of every male among the Hivites is a gross overreaction.
  • Jacob’s immediate response to their action (34:30) and his memory of the event at his death (49:5-7), where he describes their actions as “cruel,” suggests that he was not a part of the plot and that he perceived their actions as sinful.

34:26 – They “took” Dinah

• This is the same word (Hb. “laqach”) as in 34:2 and 34:4.

34:27-28 – In addition to their murderous response, Simeon and Levi also steal the flocks from the Hivites and the wealth from their houses.

34:30 – Jacob, who should have taken the lead in responding to Shechem and Hamor, now has to deal with the sinful response of Simeon and Levi. In addition, he is also aware that their actions have endangered his entire family.

34:31 – Simeon and Levi state that Shechem has treated their sister like a “harlot.”

• This description does not imply rape, but rather inappropriate sex. Often harlots are engaging in the sex consensually (just inappropriately).

5. Let the structure of the text drive the sermon

Exp. Jacob is at least partly responsible for the event as well as the response to it.

• Sin is more likely when believers are not where they should be

• Sin is more likely when believers do not respond as they should

Application

• When we are not where we should be and not doing what we should be doing, we put ourselves in jeopardy.
• The way we handle crises says a lot about our faith in the Lord and our relationship with Him.
• This passages reminds us why God values the relationship in the family as highly as He does. Our families work best when we do it God’s way.