MOST GODLESS CHAPTER OF THE BIBLE

THE RAPE OF DI�AH

GE�ESIS 34 COMME�TARYWritten and edited by Glenn Pease

WARNING

Please note the three titles of this study. It is uploaded three times using each title once, and so if

you read one, do not bother to read the others, for they are identical.

PREFACE

This study has three titles, and I am putting it up three times on scribd because people will want

to read it for different reasons. It is a verse by verse study of a chapter in Genesis, and that will

appeal to some. It is a shocking godless chapter that makes it unique, and that will appeal to

others, and it is also a biography of Dinah and her family, and her rape experience which will

appeal to another set of readers. It is also an experiment to see which of the three titles gets the

most readers.

This is a very difficult chapter of Genesis to study, and many preachers and commentators

choose to just skip it altogether because it seems to have no redeeming value as a text to preach

on and study. It is more depressing than being of any help, and so it is ignored by many. I have

tried to find the best possible comments to give some understanding to this most godless chapter.

Sometimes I do not have the name of the person I quote, and if they are identified I will give them

credit where it is due. Others may not want their wisdom to be shared in this way, and if they

request it to be deleted I will do so. My e-mail is glenn_p86@yahoo.com

I�TRODUCTIO�

1. Steven Cole, “A few years ago, there was a popular movie called “Fatal Attraction.” I did not

see it (because it was R-rated), but it was about a man whose involvement with a prostitute

almost got him murdered. Genesis 34 is the original version of “Fatal Attraction.” A young man’s

lust for a teenage girl results not only in his murder, but also in the murder of his father and all

the men in his town. The script has lust, rape, anger, deception, greed, murder, and family

conflict. Who needs the movies or TV--it’s all right here in the Bible!

You may wonder, “Why is a sordid chapter like this in the Bible?” If a Jewish writer, like Moses,

had wanted to make the nation’s founding fathers look good, either he would have left this story

out or doctored it up, because it isn’t a pretty picture. While Shechem’s date rape of Dinah was

wrong, it was nothing compared to the treachery and brutality of Jacob’s sons, who even used

their religion to trick these friendly men. After slaughtering them, they looted their goods and

took their wives and children as slaves. God’s chosen people weren’t exactly being a channel for

His blessing to the nations!

Since “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for

training in righteousness” (2 Tim.3:16), this text has lessons for us. I think Moses included this

chapter in all its repulsiveness to warn God’s people of the danger of becoming assimilated with

the world. The nation Israel was about to go into the land of Canaan. The greatest danger facing

them was not fighting the giants in the land. It was the danger of being seduced into blending in

with the Canaanites. The same is true for us today.”

2. Bruce Goettsche , “From time to time we run across a passage in the Bible that I would call a

"stinker" passage. It is a passage that when you read it you immediately say, "what in the world

am I supposed to learn from this?" This passage would qualify as a "stinker" passage. This

chapter records a sordid account of sinful humanity. But like every other passage in the Bible we

need to remember Paul's words, "ALL scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching,

correction, and for training in righteousness." In other words, there are some things we can learn

from this passage.

This passage is unique in the Bible because the name of God is not mentioned at all in this

chapter. �ow, we know that the Bible was not written as chapters . . . chapters were added later

for ease of use. But . . . we do know that in this entire account (which makes up this chapter),

God's name is absent. In the book of Esther God's name is absent. However, all throughout the

book of Esther we see the fingerprints of God. This is not the case in Genesis 34. In this passage

we do not see God's name OR His influence. This is a passage filled with sin, excess and

godlessness.”

3. Scott Grant, “Genesis 34 is one of the most disturbing chapters in all of scripture. I love

Genesis 32-33. I have often thought of teaching those chapters at a retreat, but never have I

thought of Genesis 34 as retreat material. Yet Genesis 34 is every bit the word of God that

Genesis 32-33 is, so we must study it and teach it. To neglect such a passage, which slaps us in the

face with wickedness of our world, is to risk living in denial.”

4. David Guzik, “This chapter contains one of the most shameful incidents in Israel's history.

Leupold's homiletical suggestions on the chapter give us an idea of this: "We may well wonder if

any man who had proper discernment ever drew a text from this chapter . . . It is rightly

evaluated by the more mature mind and could be treated to advantage before a men's Bible class.

But we cannot venture to offer homiletical suggestions for its treatment." When the Bible shows

its leaders and heroes in such terrible, stark truth, we can know for sure that it is a book from

God. Men don't write about themselves and their ancestors like this.”

5. Susanne Scholz, “Genesis 34 is a largely unknown story. Although the chapter features Dinah,

the only daughter of Leah and one of the few biblical daughters identified by their mother’s

name, even feminist readers have often ignored this chapter in the Bible. The reason for the

neglect is clear. Tucked into the so-called Jacob-cycle, Genesis 34 presents a complicated

narrative. Readers are challenged to deal with rape and murder. The story received little

attention in the history of interpretation for various reasons. One relates certainly to the fact that

Genesis 34 poses such a complicated ethical dilemma.”

6. It is amazing to me how many great commentators just skip this chapter as if it does not exist,

and this leads to many having few insights as to its meaning and purpose. Jewish Rabbis even

admit that their school teachers skip this chapter in their teaching. It is a hard chapter to deal

with, but we cannot chicken out and ignore it. It is the Word of God, and it seems that great men

of wisdom have dishonored it by not giving us their insights about it, and by not striving to help

all of God's people to gain the value of God's purpose in having Moses write it. People say they

believe the Bible from cover to cover, and then they skip and ignore the parts that are hard to

grasp and use in a profitable way to teach and guide. There is very little positive in this chapter,

and everyone is agreed that everyone in this chapter is a part of the problem. The best I can do is

offer some ideas at the conclusion about the possible values of it.

Dinah and the Shechemites

1 �ow Dinah, the daughter Leah had borne to Jacob, went

out to visit the women of the land.

1. Clarke, “It is supposed that Jacob had been now about seven or eight years in the land, and

that Dinah, who was about seven years of age when Jacob came to Canaan, was now about

fourteen or fifteen. Why or on what occasion she went out we know not, but the reason given by

Josephus is very probable, viz., that it was on one of their festivals.”

1B. Dinah was the seventh and final child and only daughter of Leah and Jacob. Dinah was

probably around 14 or 15 years old in this chapter.

2. It is obvious that Dinah should not have been walking around the country alone, for in a

culture where morality was on a low level, it is folly for a girl to be alone. Her brothers should

have made sure that one of them was with her when she went out to visit. The Jewish scholars

debate what it means by her going out, for this word is often associated with prostitution as when

a prostitute goes out to do her business. She was a young girl going out to visit the pagan women

of the land, and this gives the impression that she was involved with them rather than with her

own people, and that she may have been a rebel teenager. This is speculation, but many felt that

Dinah was at fault for her being raped. One author wrote, “With all this cultural background,

'Dinah went out' is not an innocent statement. She is 'out of control' and something is going to

happen. And what happens is a father's nightmare: Dinah, who went out to see the girls, is seen

by a boy.” This is a common perspective, but it is speculation. It makes sense that the only girl in

a house full of boy would want to get out to make some friends with other girls. There is no need

to put any guilt on Dinah, for she is doing nothing wrong, but people almost always place blame

on any girl who is raped.

2B. Others see it in a very positive light. Pablo R. Andiñach, for example gives us his view:

“The profuse commercial exchanges meant that her life, which had previously been limited to the

family and tribe environment, now began to open toward other horizons, and this generated

larger expectations. The contact with diverse cultures and the exchange of merchandise and

goods enabled her to know more about the people who were behind those interactions and

transactions. For Jacob’s family it was no different, and that it all began with a woman who

wanted to know more about other women is something we should not dismiss. It is true that

leaving one’s place exposes one to dangers such as the one she finally suffered, but the

narration also points us to the inner strength of this woman who risked danger in the search

for new cultural openings, new relations and new friendships. Dinah goes out from her home

to meet other women, learn their stories, and know about their plans and projects.”

3. Calvin, “Dinah is ravished, because, having left her father’s house, she wandered about more

freely than was proper. She ought to have remained quietly at home, as both the Apostle teaches

and nature itself dictates; for to girls the virtue is suitable, which the proverb applies to women,

that they should be (οἰκουροὶ,) or keepers of the house. Therefore fathers of families are taught to

keep their daughters under strict discipline, if they desire to preserve them free from all

dishonor; for if a vain curiosity was so heavily punished in the daughter of holy Jacob, not less

danger hangs over weak virgins at this day, if they go too boldly and eagerly into public

assemblies, and excite the passions of youth towards themselves. For it is not to be doubted that

Moses in part casts the blame of the offense upon Dinah herself, when he says, “she went out to

see the daughters of the land;” whereas she ought to have remained under her mother’s eyes in

the tent.”

4. Steven Cole draws us a picture that makes more sense as to what probably happened as he

writes, “And it all came about in the course of everyday family living. Dinah, Jacob’s daughter by

Leah, was about 14 or 15. Like any teenage girl, she wanted some girl friends, so she started

wandering over to Shechem. As she hung out there, she scored big--the prince, for whom the

town was named, fell for her. What 14 or 15 year-old girl wouldn’t be thrilled by that? It would

be like a freshman girl being asked to the homecoming dance by the captain of the football team.

Dinah was probably a bit naive, so she allowed herself to get into a situation with Shechem where

the two of them were alone. His passion got the best of him, and he raped her.”

5. Jamison, “According to JOSEPHUS, she had been attending a festival; but it is highly

probable that she had been often and freely mixing in the society of the place and that she, being

a simple, inexperienced, and vain young woman, had been flattered by the attentions of the

ruler's son. There must have been time and opportunities of acquaintance to produce the strong

attachment that Shechem had for her.”

6. Henry, “She is reckoned now but fifteen or sixteen years of age when she here occasioned so

much mischief. Observe, Her vain curiosity, which exposed her. She went out, perhaps unknown

to her father, but by the connivance of her mother, to see the daughters of the land (Genesis 34:1);

probably it was at a ball, or on some public day. Being an only daughter, she thought herself

solitary at home, having none of her own age and sex to converse with; and therefore she must

needs go abroad to divert herself, to keep off melancholy, and to accomplish herself by

conversation better than she could in her father's tents. �ote, It is a very good thing for children

to love home; it is parents' wisdom to make it easy to them, and children's duty then to be easy in

it. Her pretence was to see the daughters of the land, to see how they dressed, and how they

danced, and what was fashionable among them. She went to see, yet that was not all, she went to

be seen too; she went to see the daughters of the land, but, it may be, with some thoughts of the

sons of the land too. I doubt she went to get an acquaintance with those Canaanites, and to learn

their way.”

7. Henry goes on, “Dinah went abroad to look about her; but, if she had looked about her as she

ought, she would not have fallen into this snare. �ote, The beginning of sin is as the letting forth

of water. How great a matter does a little fire kindle! We should therefore carefully avoid all

occasions of sin and approaches to it.” It seems almost impossible to avoid putting some blame

on the victim of rape. It is true what Henry says, and yet it leads to such subjective judgments as

to the level of responsibility for the abuse. Did Dinah do something, or dress in such a way that

she stimulated the abuse? Did she walk or talk in a seductive way to motivate Shechem in his

sexual attack? There are endless speculations about the level of blame, but the only objective fact

that we have here is that Shechem was a lust filled youth, and he wanted sex with Dinah, and he

took it. All other motivations are not relevant in this rape, for he alone is the primary cause for

what took place. There are girls who provoke sexual lust in men by their dress and manners, but

the bottom line is this: the one who is the aggressor , and who, for whatever reason, takes any

female against her will for sex, is the guilty party, and he alone is responsible for the rape. It is

not that the victim is not guilty of evil as well if they are provoking the potentiality of rape, but

they have not made the choice to give their body to be used. If they do, then it is not rape. Rape is

sex that is unwanted and resisted. In the case of Dinah we really do not know her state of mind,

for there is not a word from her in the whole account, and so speculation can go either way. If she

wanted sex with this boy, then she is the most guilty of all for the mass murder, for she kept silent,

and let her brothers kill innocent men. The text, however, puts all blame on the brothers for their

uncontrolled anger.

8. Keith Krell, “Was Dinah naive, rebellious, or just plain ignorant of the ways of the world?

Why was it so important that she get to know the women of the land, and why didn’t her mother

advise her and somebody dependable accompany her on her sightseeing trip? (Her brothers were

out in the field with the flocks.) Where are her parents? Where is Jacob? They know that

Shechem is a corrupt and godless place. How could they allow their teenage daughter to wander

the streets of such a wicked city? Jacob was a man of compromise. He should not have been

tarrying in this pagan neighborhood and deliberately endangering his family. He should have

been at Bethel leading them closer to the Lord. If Jacob had fully obeyed God and traveled to

Bethel instead of stopping short in Shechem, this would not have happened.”

9. Dr. Robert Rayburn, “The chapter begins with Dinah failing to keep a proper separation

between herself and the pagan world around her. That was her father's fault for not seeing to her

life and her needs. The impression one gets is that Dinah was looking for her happiness because

her father was paying no attention to it. And that is what we see throughout. What is genuinely

astonishing in this narrative is that Jacob is never seen to register any emotion over Dinah's

disgrace. He never cared for Leah and he didn't care nearly so much for her children as for

Rachel's. That will become still more obvious as we get into the history of Joseph. At the end of

the chapter, the only concern Jacob expressed was for himself, that the actions of his sons might

bring trouble down upon their father's head. This sordid, sorry episode is all a consequence of an

uncaring, irresponsible father. And, so sad to say, that father is Jacob, fresh from Peniel.”

2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of

that area, saw her, he took her and violated her.

1. The implication is that this was a rape, for having sex is not called violation if the couple are

both consenting to the sexual activity. How often does it happen that young women going for a

walk alone get into this kind of attack? It is often, and it makes you wonder why females walk

alone so often. So many times they have no choice because they work late or at unusual hours,

and they have to walk to their cars alone. It is high risk for any female to be walking alone at

night, and especially if it is a regular pattern that can be observed by an attacker. This could have

been the case with Dinah, and Shechem had his eye on her for some time.

2. Guzik quotes two authors, "Unattached young women were considered fair game in cities of

the time, in which promiscuity was not only common but, in fact, a part of the very religious

system itself." (Morris) "This occurrence serves to illustrate the low standard of morals

prevalent among the Canaanites. Any unattended female could be raped, and in the transactions

that ensue neither father nor son feel the need of apologizing for or excusing what had been

committed." (Leupold)

3. In the light of such knowledge as in the previous quotes, which the parents of Dinah had to be

aware, it was negligence on their part that led to this rape. On the other hand, how can any

parent know what their children are doing all the time? Most of us could tell of things we did as

young people that our parents never knew, and so commentators are probably too severe in their

judgment and blame of the parents. They were guilty to be sure, but just as most parents are, but

most feel the risks are better than making their children prisoners in their own home. Every rape

is due to risk taking that might have been avoided, but it is wrong to focus blame on anyone but

the one who chooses to take advantage of the mistakes of others and commit the evil deed. All too

often blame is put on the victims and not on the culprit who chooses to rape.

4. Dr. S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “Dinah from the chronology of this account appears to have been a

young girl of about 13 to 15 years of age but mature. In the East, in those days, the ladies

matured much more quickly than they do in the West today. The results are what one might have

expected. One of the commentators describes it very vividly. He says, “Poor girl, a moth

fluttering about a flame, a foolish fish nibbling at the bait. Was she lonely being the only girl that

she wants to show off some piece of jewelry or dress, did she long for more admiration, a

fascinating society than she could find at home? Was there a secret drawing to the young men of

the place? She went along a path that seemed to her girlish fancy ever so much more attractive

than the dull routine of home. She took no heed to the warnings that may have been addressed to

her and it all ended as it has ended in thousands of cases since in misery, ruin, and unutterable

disgrace.” That is something that still happens today. That not only happens in the world. That

is common in the world. It happens in evangelical circles. It even happens in evangelical

churches where the gospel is preached very strongly and powerfully, and it even happens in

churches where the sovereign grace of God is proclaimed.”

5. Johnson goes on, “It was the old, old story of, on the one hand, a young man of rank, wealth,

unbridled appetite and on the other beauty, weakness, dallying with temptation; whose fault was

it? Well, of course, it was Shechem’s fault and of course it was Dinah’s fault but it was also

Jacob’s fault. Jacob should never have been near that city. He should have been in Bethel. It is

not surprising that that happened here and I would imagine that Jacob forever reproached

himself because of this and later on, in the 49th chapter, he speaks about Simeon and Levi and

speaks about the violent deed that was brought about by virtue of this whole situation.”

6. There are many speculations about what happened, and they are speculations because we have

no details. One unknown author wrote, “"He SEDUCED HER" Dinah is probably about 13 or 14

years old by this time. Whether she was raped or seduced we cannot be sure from the text. She

was the daughter of Jacob, he was the son of the chief of the city (a prince if you will). It could

very well be that he "swept her off her feet" and convinced her that it really didn't matter and

that what was really important was that they love each other and practice safe sex. It could be

that Shechem really thought he was commiting no crime--no sin--besides they weren't hurting

anyone!! It may well be that Dinah gave in.”

7. Susanne Scholz, “The third verb, “to rape” (hn(, pi.), has posed many problems for translators.

For instance, none of the standard English Bible versions translate the verb as “he raped her”.

The King James Bible translates the verse: “He took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.” The

more recent �ew Revised Standard Version and the Tenakh write: “He seized her and lay with

her by force.” Some scholars justify this translation. They argue that the verb in Hebrew does not

mean “to rape” because Hebrew does not have a specific word for this action. [12] However,

classical reference books indicate that the verb signifies an act of violence. Mandelkern’s

concordance translates the Hebrew into the Latin equivalent “opprimere, vim affere”, which

refers to violent and oppressive action. The English dictionary of biblical Hebrew, edited by

Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, translates the verb as “1. humble, mishandle,

afflict; 2. humble, a woman by cohabitation; 3. afflict; 4. humble, weaken”. Wilhelm Gesenius’

dictionary provides the most direct translation: “to weaken a woman, through rape”. [13] Thus,

the classic reference books support that the verb describes a form of violent interaction, including

rape. Interestingly enough, the verb is sometimes translated as “to rape” in other biblical

passages. For example, the �RSV translates Lamentations 5:11: “Women are raped in Zion.”

Additionally, all major commentaries emphasize that Amnon raped Tamar in 2 Samuel 13:14.

[14] Also Erhard Gerstenberger’s word analysis supports the translation of “to rape”. He states

that the verb describes “unjust situations”, “the creation of a miserable situation”, and “physical

or psychological violence”

3 His heart was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob, and he

loved the girl and spoke tenderly to her.

1. There is a radically different spirit of the rapist here compared with the rape of Tamar by

Amnon. He hated her after sex, and told her to get lost, and out of his life. Here there is support

for the rapist to have true affection for his victim. He spoke to her like a lover, and obviously felt

very loving and tender toward her. The fact that he spoke at all indicates that they got to know

each other after the sexual tension had been satisfied. Most rapist just run off leaving the girl to

care for herself, but he seems to have stayed with her to talk, and we do not hear of any

screaming from Dinah, so she may have entered into conversation with him as well.

2. Calvin, “Moses intimates that she was not so forcibly violated, that Shechem having once

abused her, treated her with contempt, as is usual with harlots; for he loved her as a wife; and did

not even object to be circumcised that he might have her; but the fervor of lust had so prevailed,

that he first subjected her to disgrace. And therefore although he embraced Dinah with real and

sincere attachment, yet, in this want of self-government, he grievously sinned. Shechem “spoke to

the heart” of the maid, that is, he addressed her courteously, to allure her to himself by his bland

speeches: whence it follows, that when she was unwilling and resisted, he used violence towards

her.”

3. Gill, “His inclination was to her, she was always in his thoughts; it was not a mere lustful desire

that was suddenly raised, and soon over, but a constant and continued affection he bore to her, as

follows: and he loved the damsel; sincerely and heartily: and spake kindly unto the damsel; or "to

the heart" F7 of her, such things as tended to comfort her, she being sad and sorrowful; or to

soften her mind towards him, and take off the resentment of it to him, because of the injury he

had done her, and to gain her good will and affection, and her consent to marry him; professing

great love to her, promising her great things, what worldly grandeur and honour she would be

advanced to, and how kindly he would behave towards her; which might take with her, and

incline her to yield to his motion, which having obtained, he took the following method.”

4 And Shechem said to his father Hamor, "Get me this girl

as my wife."

1. Calvin, “In this place it is more clearly expressed, that Shechem desired to have Dinah for his

wife; for his lust was not so unbridled, that when he had defiled, he despised her. Besides, a

laudable modesty is shown, since he pays deference to the will of his father; for he does not

attempt to form a contract of marriage of his own mind, but leaves this to his father’s authority.

For though he had basely fallen through the precipitate ardor of lust; yet now returning to

himself, he follows the guidance of nature. So much the more ought young men to take heed to

themselves, lest in the slippery period of their age, the lusts of the flesh should impel them to

many crimes. For, at this day, greater license everywhere prevails, so that no moderation

restrains youths from shameful conduct.”

2. Gill, “And Shechem spake unto his father Hamor…

And told him the whole affair, at least what a strong affection he had for Dinah:

saying, get me this damsel to wife;

by which he meant not only that he would give his consent that he might marry her, but that he

would get her parents' consent unto it, and settle the matter with them; by which it appears how

early, and that even among Heathen nations, consent of parents on both sides was judged

necessary to marriage. It seems by this as if Dinah was now detained in the house of Hamor or

Shechem, and was upon the spot, or near at hand, when Shechem addressed his father about her,

see (Genesis 34:26) .”

5 When Jacob heard that his daughter Dinah had been

defiled, his sons were in the fields with his livestock; so he

kept quiet about it until they came home.

1. Jacob was just being cautious in his shock and grief, for had he gone off in anger to confront

the man who did this, he could have provoked a fight that would leave him at a great

disadvantage being alone with none of his boys at hand to help him. He suffered in silence until

he had backup. This is the positive spin on it, but there is another perspective as we see below.

1B. Coty Pinckney says, “Excuse me? He didn’t SE�D someone to his sons immediately? He

didn’t try to gather his adult sons together – they are now between the ages of 16 and 23 – and

take counsel, and decide together how do deal with this situation? Jacob seems to have become

so used to delaying that he just waits for his sons to come home. He shows no leadership, not even

any concern for his captive, defiled daughter.”

1C. Scott Grant, “Later, when Jacob assumes that his son Joseph is dead, he “mourned for his

son for many days,” he “refused to be comforted,” he expected to mourn for the rest of his life

and he wept (Genesis 37:34-35). Jacob, if he were to lose his son Benjamin, also envisioned

mourning until his death (Genesis 42:38). Why is Jacob so concerned for these two sons and not

for his daughter? Joseph and Benjamin were the only children born to Rachel, his favorite wife,

so he favored them. Jacob was less inclined toward Leah and, therefore, his daughter by her.”

2. Jamison, “Jacob, as a father and a good man, must have been deeply distressed. But he could

do little. In the case of a family by different wives, it is not the father, but the full brothers, on

whom the protection of the daughters devolves--they are the guardians of a sister's welfare and

the avengers of her wrongs. It was for this reason that Simeon and Levi, the two brothers of

Dinah by Leah [Ge 34:25], appear the chief actors in this episode; and though the two fathers

would have probably brought about an amicable arrangement of the affair, the hasty arrival of

these enraged brothers introduced a new element into the negotiations.”

3. Gill, “and Jacob held his peace until they were come;

neither murmuring at the providence, but patiently bearing the chastisement; nor reflecting upon

Leah for letting Dinah go out, or not keeping a proper watch over her; nor saying anything of it

to any in the family; nor expressing his displeasure at Shechem, nor vowing revenge on him for it,

nor taking any step towards it until his sons were come home from the field; with whom he chose

to advise, and whose assistance he would want, if it was judged necessary to use force to get

Dinah out of the hands of Shechem, or to avenge the injury done her.”

4. Keith Krell, “In keeping silent, Jacob was the precursor for another biblical character. When

King David’s daughter, Tamar, was raped, David was furious. However, like Jacob he also did

nothing (2 Sam 13:20-21). Consequently, his son Absalom took matters into his own hands and

inappropriately poured out his wrath (2 Sam 13:22). Likewise, instead of taking control of a

dangerous situation, Jacob let Dinah’s brothers handle things. Jacob’s refusal to do what was

right in this situation not only allowed evil to triumph, but also created an enormous leadership

vacuum in the family, which was immediately and sinfully filled by his angry sons. Edmond

Burke once said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do

nothing.”

6 Then Shechem's father Hamor went out to talk with

Jacob.

1. Scott Grant, “�otice how the story places Hamor, the pagan father of Shechem, in a better

light than Jacob, the Hebrew father of Dinah. Hamor at least is a man of action. Jacob does

nothing for his daughter. When Dinah was raped, Jacob should have gone to Hamor, but instead,

he waits until Hamor comes to him.”

1B. Henry, “ Hamor came to treat with Jacob himself, but he turns him over to his sons; and

here we have a particular account of the treaty, in which, it is a shame to say, the Canaanites were

more honest than the Israelites.

2. We tend to assume that pagans will never be superior to the people of God, but the Bible does

not support this illusion. It is possible for pagans to be superior to god's people in many ways, for

God's people are still sinners, and they often do not obey his Word, and the pagans do what is

right because they have values much like the will of God for his people, and they do live by them,

at least in part. At any one moment a pagan may be a better person than the child of God he is

dealing with on some moral issue.

3. Robert Candlish in his classical commentary on Genesis wrote, “ Hence partly, or rather

chiefly, the sad contrast which here once more appears, between the goodness of mere nature, in

its kindlier mood, and the evil of grace, — or gracious privilege and gracious profession, —

perverted and abused. For, as between the two parties brought together in this transaction, the

Hivites and the Israelites, — the prince and people of the land, and the prince and people of the

Lord, — who can hesitate to say on which side the preponderance of right and amiable feeling

lies 1 If only such allowance as the manners of the world ask is made for the young man's sin at

first, what is there in the narrative that does not redound to his credit ? Instead of despising and

hating his victim, — as is too often the case in such circumstances as his, — he continues to be

attached to her more than ever. It is simply and touchingly told that " his soul clave to Dinah the

daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel" (ver. 3). He is

most anxious to repair the injury he has done to her ; nothing will content him but honorable

marriage. In spite of the fault in which he has been overtaken, — and which he is so willing, as

far as j^ossible, to undo, — all our sympathy now is with the generous and faithful lover.

His father too we cannot but admire. His frank consent to his son's proposal, when he says, " Get

me this damsel to wife" (ver. 4), and his earnest appeal on his son's behalf to Jacob and his

household, " The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you to give her him

to wife" (ver. 8), bring this Hivite king before us in an aspect very pleasing. �or can we put any

other than an honest and generous construction on the larger overtures which he goes on to

make, for a permanent friendly union between the two houses (ver. 9, 10). Let this matrimonial

treaty, — this union of my son with your daughter, — be the auspicious inauguration of pros-

perous and peaceful times for both our tribes. It is in good faith, we cannot doubt, and with all

his heart, that the chief holds out thus frankly the right hand of fellowship. And it is a conclusive

proof of his own and his father's earnestness that Shechem gives, when he hastens to add, —

speaking " unto her father and unto her brethren," — "Let me find grace in your eyes, and what

ye shall say unto me I will give. Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according

as ye shall say unto me : but give me the damsel to wife"

We need have no scruple in allowing ourselves to be charmed with so artless and touching a

picture of love and honor. It is 2rood to mark the traces of his fair-minded and amiable feeling

among those who are still children of nature merely. We cannot but be drawn towards such

characters, although they may be nothing more than earthly and worldly after all ; and we

cannot but on that account be all the more grieved that dispositions so genial and upright as

those manifested by these Hivite princes, were not met far otherwise than they were on the part

of the family that should have proved itself to be the Church of the living God. Surely the

advances so honorably made by these mere men of the world should have been differently

received by men who were professedly the Lord's people. Either they should have been

courteously declined, and the reasons for declining them faithfully and kindly stated, so as to

impress the heathen with a sense of the sacredness of the chosen family, and the blessing that was

ultimately to come to all nations through its being kept separate, in the meantime, and apart. Or

else, if it had been considered lawful to entertain these advances favorably, the terms of alliance

might have been deliberately adjusted, and its pledges ought to have been scrupulously kept. If

one or other of these courses had been adopted in good feeling and good faith, who shall say what

impression might have been made on these noble-minded chiefs and on their nation. — and what

an influence for good might have been exerted on the whole of the ungodly world, in the midst of

which the chosen ones were sojourning 1 Alas ! that so precious an occasion should have been

lost, — so favorable an opportunity thrown away !”

7 �ow Jacob's sons had come in from the fields as soon as

they heard what had happened. They were filled with

grief and fury, because Shechem had done a disgraceful

thing in [a] Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter—a thing

that should not be done.

1. Constable, “Moses used the name "Israel" here for the first time as a reference to God's

chosen people (v. 7). The family of Jacob had a special relationship to God by divine calling

reflected in the name "Israel" (prince with God). Therefore Shechem's act was an especially

"disgraceful thing" having been committed against a member of the family with the unique

vocation (cf. Deut. 22:21; Josh. 7:15; Judg. 20:10; 2 Sam. 13:12; et al.). "What had happened to

Dinah was considered by Jacob's family to be of the same nature as what later was known as 'a

disgraceful thing in Israel' [i.e., rape]."828 As was customary in their culture, Jacob's sons took

an active part in approving their sister's marriage (v. 13; cf. 24:50). They were correct in

opposing the end in view: the mixing of the chosen seed with the seed of the Canaanites. Yet they

were wrong in adopting the means they selected to achieve their end. In their deception they show

themselves to be "chips off the old block," Jacob.”

8 But Hamor said to them, "My son Shechem has his

heart set on your daughter. Please give her to him as his

wife.

1. Gill, “And Hamor communed with them…

With Jacob and his sons, who came in just at that time:

saying, the soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter:

the daughter of the family, and the only daughter in it; for her Shechem had a vehement affection, a

strong desire to marry her, and could not be satisfied without her:

I pray you, give her him to wife;

he not only requests the consent of the parents of the damsel, but of her brothers also, which in those times

and countries seems to have been usual to ask and have, see (Genesis 24:50,51,55,59).”

2. Calvin, “Though the sons of Jacob were justly incensed, yet their indignation ought to have

been appeased, or at least somewhat mitigated, by the great courteousness of Hamor. And if the

humanity of Hamor could not reconcile the sons of Jacob to Shechem, the old man himself was

indeed worthy of a benignant reception. We see what equitable conditions he offers; he himself

was the prince of the city, the sons of Jacob were strangers. Therefore their minds must have

been savage beyond measure, not to be inclined to levity. Besides, the suppliant entreaty of

Shechem himself deserved this, that they should have granted forgiveness to his fervent love.

Therefore, that they remained implacable, is a sign of most cruel pride. What would they have

done to enemies who had purposely injured them, when they are not moved by the prayers of

him, who, being deceived by blind love, and by the error of incontinence, has injured them

without any malicious intention?”

9 Intermarry with us; give us your daughters and take our

daughters for yourselves.

1. Gill, “And make ye marriages with us…

There was no objection on their side, it lay on the other; Abraham's servant was charged by him

not to take a wife of the Canaanites to his son Isaac; and the same charge was given Jacob by

Isaac, (Genesis 24:3) (28:1) ; and therefore Jacob would never agree that his children should

marry any of that nation; and marriages with them were afterwards forbidden by the law of

Moses, (Deuteronomy 7:3) ;

[and] give your daughters unto us, and take our daughters unto you;

for though at present there were no other daughters in Jacob's family, yet there might be

hereafter; and the request is, that for the future there might be intermarriages between them, as

would be practicable in a course of time.”

10 You can settle among us; the land is open to you. Live

in it, trade [b] in it, and acquire property in it."

1. Gill, “And ye shall dwell with us…

. Peaceably and quietly, not as sojourners only, but as inhabitants:

and the land shall be before you;

to choose what part of it they pleased to dwell in, and which they should have in their own power

and possession:

dwell and trade you therein;

in any sort of traffic and commerce the land would admit of, and they should best choose:

and get you possessions therein;

buy houses and land, and enjoy them, they and their posterity; these are the arguments used by

Hamor to gain the consent of Jacob and his family that his son might marry Dinah; and the

proposals are honourable and generous.”

11 Then Shechem said to Dinah's father and brothers,

"Let me find favor in your eyes, and I will give you

whatever you ask.

1. Gill, “And Shechem said unto her father and unto her brethren…

To the father and brethren of Dinah; he addressed them after his father Hamor had done

speaking:

let me find grace in your eyes;

forgive the offense committed, the injury done to Dinah, and grant the request of her marriage,

and it will be considered as a great favor:

and what ye shall say unto me, I will give;

to her, to her parents, to her brethren and relations; let what will be fixed, shall be given; which

showed great affection for her, and that he was willing to do any thing to make amends for the

injury done; he cared not what it was that might be demanded of him, so be it that she became

his wife.”

2. Parry, Robin, “Shechem is presented in a complex fashion, so that even though he commits a

heinous crime when he rapes Dinah, 34:3, which avers his great love for her, softens the negative

judgment against him (pace Scholz); and that, from the biblical point of view, marriage to the

rapist is a lesser evil for the victim (again, pace Scholz), for all that modern readers are horrified

by the idea of a woman’s marrying her attacker. I should add that even in modern times, in

societies that practice abduction-marriage and the abductor rapes his prey, in most cases the

latter chooses to marry her kidnapper-rapist”

12 Make the price for the bride and the gift I am to bring

as great as you like, and I'll pay whatever you ask me.

Only give me the girl as my wife."

1. That must have been some sexual experience to motivate this young man to be willing to make

any sacrifice in order to have Dinah for his wife. This makes you wonder if their was more to

their relationship than that rape experience. Or maybe the tender talk referred to want on for a

long time, and Dinah was in agreement with him that they had a strong mutual attraction.

2. Wenham, “"Marriage was always preceded by betrothal, in which the bridegroom's family

paid a mhd 'marriage present' to the bride's family (1 Sam 18:25). In cases of premarital

intercourse, this still had to be paid to legitimize the union, and the girl's father was allowed to fix

the size of the marriage present (Exod 22:15-16 [16-17]; limited by Deut 22:29 to a maximum of

fifty shekels). . . . Here it seems likely that Shechem is offering both a 'marriage present' to Jacob

and 'a gift' to Dinah."

3. Gill, “Ask me never so much dowry and gift…

Or "multiply [them] exceedingly" F9, fix them at as high a rate as may be thought fit; the

"dowry" was what a man gave to a woman at her marriage; for in those times and countries,

instead of a man having a portion with his wife, as with us in our times, he gave one to his wife, or

to her parents for her; and especially in after times this was used, and became a law in Israel, in

the case of a vitiated virgin, see (Exodus 22:16,17) ; and "the gift" was either of jewels and clothes

to the women, or of such like precious things to her brethren and friends, see (Genesis 24:53) ;

and I will give according as ye shall say unto me;

determine among yourselves whatever shall be the dowry and gift, and it shall be punctually

observed:

but give me the damsel to wife;

only agree to that, and I care not what is required of me.”

4. R. C. Sproul, “When we read the Mosaic law, we often find some of its regulations quite

baffling. Take Deuteronomy 22:28–29, for example. This passage orders a man who rapes an

unmarried virgin to marry her, hardly a custom we find in today’s society.

However, this teaching is not a cruel injunction designed to have the wife bitterly remember the

violation of her body and soul. In fact, this law protects the woman. During the period in which

Moses lived and wrote about, women were extremely vulnerable members of their society. They

could not hope to survive if they were unmarried non-virgins, for only those who were virgins

could expect to find a husband. A woman who had been raped was therefore considered

untouchable in most places, but the Mosaic law protects the victim by prescribing marriage to

her attacker. In this way, the Lord guarded the woman from any further economic or

social harm.

In Genesis, those outside the covenant family often act “more righteously” than the sons of

Abraham (chap. 20), and this episode is a demonstration of this truth once again. In seeking to

marry Dinah and shield her from further harm (34:2–4), her rapist Shechem is more concerned

to do the right thing than Jacob, who remains silent about the attack in today’s passage (vv. 5–6).

Presumably, Jacob agrees to the marriage, but there is no record of his anger towards Shechem

for assaulting his daughter. This silence is deafening and shows how little the patriarch cared for

this child.”

13 Because their sister Dinah had been defiled, Jacob's

sons replied deceitfully as they spoke to Shechem and his

father Hamor.

1. Calvin, “The commencement of their perfidious course is here related: for they, being

outrageous rather than simply angry, wish to overthrow the whole city, and not being sufficiently

strong to contend against so great a number of people, they contrive a new fraud, in order that

they may suddenly rise upon the inhabitants weakened by wounds. Therefore, since the

Shechemites had no strength to resist, it became a cruel butchery rather than a conquest, which

increased the atrocity of wickedness in Jacob’s sons, who cared for nothing so that they might but

gratify their rage. They allege in excuse, that, whereas they were separated from other nations, it

was not lawful for them to give wives of their own family to the uncircumcised. Which indeed was

true if they said it sincerely; but they falsely use the sacred name of God as a pretext; yea, their

double profanation of that name proves them to be doubly sacrilegious; for they cared nothing

about circumcision, but were intent on this one thing, how they might crush the miserable men in

a state of weakness. Besides, they wickedly sever the sign from the truth which it represents; as if

any one, by laying aside his uncircumcision, might suddenly pass over into the Church of God.

And in this mode they pollute the spiritual symbol of life, by admitting foreigners, promiscuously

and without discrimination, into its society. But since their pretense has some color of probability,

we must observe what they say, that it would be disgraceful to them to give their sister to a man

uncircumcised. This also is true, if they who used the words were sincere; for since they bore the

mark of God in their flesh, it was wicked in them to contract marriages with unbelievers. So also,

at the present time, our baptism separates us from the profane, so that whoever mixes himself

with them, fixes a mark of infamy upon himself.”

2. Jamison, “The honor of their family consisted in having the sign of the covenant. Circumcision

was the external rite by which persons were admitted members of the ancient Church. But that

outward rite could not make the Shechemites true Israelites; and yet it does not appear that

Jacob's sons required anything more. �othing is said of their teaching the people to worship the

true God, but only of their insisting on their being circumcised; and it is evident that they did not

seek to convert Shechem, but only made a show of religion--a cloak to cover their diabolical

design. Hypocrisy and deceit, in all cases vicious, are infinitely more so when accompanied with a

show of religion; and here the sons of Jacob, under the pretense of conscientious scruples, conceal

a scheme of treachery as cruel and diabolical as was, perhaps, ever perpetrated.”

3. Gill, “And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor deceitfully,

&c.] Proposing the marriage of their sister on terms after mentioned, when they never intended it

should ever be: Onkelos, Jonathan, and Jarchi interpret it, "with wisdom", as if they answered

wisely and prudently, but the word is never used in a good sense; and if it was wisdom, it was

carnal wisdom and wicked cunning, and was disapproved of by plain hearted Jacob:

and said:

or spoke in this deceitful manner:

because he had defiled Dinah their sister;

and therefore were filled with indignation at him, and fired with resentment against him, and

vowed within themselves revenge upon him.”

4. R. C. Sproul, “Were it not for Genesis 34:13, we might believe Jacob’s sons were making their

proposition in good faith, even “evangelizing” these men in hopes of their full spiritual

restoration. �o such motivation is evident. In fact, the sons will use the demand for circumcision

to deceive Hamor and Shechem and exact vengeance upon these Canaanites (vv. 18–29). They

will take the covenant sign, a holy seal that indicated a separation from the world as well as a

dedication to the Lord, and profane it. These brothers are intent on cutting off from life those

who would receive it instead of cutting these pagans apart from the world to embrace God’s

abundant blessings.”

5. Keith Krell, “Moses says, the boys answered “with deceit.” �ow, where do you suppose these

sons learned how to be so deceitful? Deceit has been a problem in the patriarchal family right

from the very start. Deceit runs deep in this family, and nobody knows it better than Jacob. And

now his sons are just “chips off the old block.” Hence, the description “Jacob’s sons” rather than

“Dinah’s brothers.” The sons are just following in their father’s deceitful footsteps (34:13).”

14 They said to them, "We can't do such a thing; we can't

give our sister to a man who is not circumcised. That

would be a disgrace to us.

1. Gill, “And they said unto them…

Levi and Simeon, to Hamor and Shechem: we cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is

uncircumcised; not that there was any law against it at that time; and there were, on the other

hand, precedents for it both in Isaac and Jacob, who had married the daughters of uncircumcised

persons; nor indeed do they plead any law, only that it was not becoming their character, nor

agreeably to their religion, nor honourable in their esteem: for that [were] a reproach unto us;

and they should be reflected upon for slighting the institution of circumcision, which was of God:

so they pretend it might be interpreted, should they enter into affinity with uncircumcised

persons.”

15 We will give our consent to you on one condition only:

that you become like us by circumcising all your males.

1. These brothers were evil on so many different levels. They are telling outright lies to deceive

these people, and they are using what was a part of their covenant with God to trick them into a

state where they could be easily killed. It was all premeditated murder of the worst kind. It was

all total hypocrisy, and they had no intention of keeping any part of their promise.

2. Henry, “Jacob's sons basely pretend to insist upon a coalition in religion, when really they

designed nothing less. If Jacob had taken the management of this affair into his own hands, it is

probable that he and Hamor would soon have concluded it; but Jacob's sons meditate only

revenge, and a strange project they have for the compassing of it--the Shechemites must be

circumcised; not to make them holy (they never intended that), but to make them sore, that they

might become an easier prey to their sword.”

3. Henry goes on, “Had they been sincere herein their proposal of these terms would have had in

it something commendable; for Israelites should not intermarry with Canaanites, professors with

profane; it is a great sin, or at least the cause and inlet of a great deal, and has often been of

pernicious consequence. The interest we have in any persons, and the hold we have of them,

should be wisely improved by us, to bring them to the love and practice of religion (He that

winneth souls is wise); but then we must not, like Jacob's sons, think it enough to persuade them

to submit to the external rites of religion, but must endeavour to convince them of its

reasonableness, and to bring them acquainted with the power of it. 2. The intention was

malicious, as appears by the sequel of the story; all they aimed at was to prepare them for the day

of slaughter. �ote, Bloody designs have often been covered, and carried on, with a pretence of

religion; thus they have been accomplished most plausibly and most securely: but this dissembled

piety is, doubtless, double iniquity. Religion is never more injured, nor are God's sacraments

more profaned, than when they are thus used for a cloak of maliciousness. �ay, if Jacob's sons

had not had this bloody design, I do not see how they could justify their offering the sacred sign

of circumcision, the seal of God's covenant, to these devoted Canaanites, who had no part nor lot

in the matter. Those had no right to the seal that had no right to the promise. It is not meet to take

the children's bread, and cast it to dogs: but Jacob's sons valued not this, while they could make it

serve their turn.”

4. Gospel Chapel Ministries, “Do you know what the covenant of circumcision stands for? To

understand the blasphemy that this brings upon the church, we have to understand what

circumcision is. Circumcision was given to Abraham as the sign and seal of the righteousness of

the faith. Righteousness means obedience, conformity of life to the Divine Law. They are going to

enter into a circumcision covenant with the world - the very thing from which circumcision was

to separate them. That is what the covenant of circumcision was for: to put a hedge around the

house of God that no person was allowed to enter uncircumcised. The covenant of circumcision

was a separation; it was the hedge that was placed around the Church to separate them from the

world.” To use this symbol of separation from the world to entice the world to be one with them

was a joke to these sons of Jacob, but it was spiritual abuse for which they ought to be judged.

16 Then we will give you our daughters and take your

daughters for ourselves. We'll settle among you and

become one people with you.

1. Gill, “Then will we give our daughters unto you…

Meaning Dinah, whom they call their daughter, (Genesis 34:17) ; because she was the daughter of

their family, and because they were entreating in the name of their father, and in conformity to

the language used by those they were treating with, (Genesis 34:9) ; and we will take your

daughters to us;

in marriage for wives: and we will dwell with you;

not as sojourners but as fellow citizens: and we will become one people;

being so nearly related by marriage, and professing one religion, alike submitting to

circumcision, which was the distinguished badge of Abraham's seed.”

2. Coty Pinckney, “Think about that tactic: Circumcision is the precious sign of the covenant that

God gave to Abraham and his household. In using this sign as a tool for revenge, Jacob’s sons are

despising their birthright as effectively as Esau despised his when he sold it to Jacob for a bowl of

lentil stew.”

3. Keith Krell, “Here, Jacob’s sons play the religion card. Few sons are more despicable than

pressing the sacred into service for profane use. But Simeon and Levi, feeling justified by the

violation against Dinah, prostituted the symbol of God’s covenant in order to take advantage of

the men of Shechem. However, Jacob’s silence is even more evil than his sons’ schemes. His sons

proposed intermarriage with the Canaanites only as a means to induce them to be circumcised so

that they could be overcome more easily. Jacob silently and passively accepted the agreement

with the people of Shechem, fully expecting to carry it out. Jacob planned to allow his

descendants to intermarry with the Canaanites, but his sons had no such intention. Jacob, in

comparison with his sons, is even guiltier than they! Jacob’s willingness to intermarry with the

Canaanites is not only contrary to the purposes and promises of God in the Abrahamic covenant,

but it is also a direct violation of the instructions, which his father had given him (28:1-4).

Compromise can be deadly!”

17 But if you will not agree to be circumcised, we'll take

our sister [c] and go."

1. Clarke, “It is natural to suppose that the tribe of Hamor was very inconsiderable, else they

would not have sought an alliance with the family of Jacob, and have come so readily into a

painful, disgraceful measure, without having either the sanction of Divine authority or reason; for

it does not appear that the sons of Jacob urged either. And they are threatened here that if they do

not agree to be circumcised, Dinah shall be taken from them, and restored to her family; and this

is probably what the Shechemites saw they had not power at present to prevent.”

1B. Isaac Sachs, “..the fact that they threatened to have Dinah removed from Shechem’s house

during the negotiations (Genesis 34:17), implies that she was there as guest, not as a hostage!”

2. Robert Candlish, “ That Jacob was privy, or was consenting, to the horrid plot by which her

brothers avenged Dinah's fall, cannot for a moment be imagined. The idea is contradicted by all

we know of Jacob's general character, as well as by the express terms of the narrative. But he

erred greatly in leaving the matter too much in the hands of his sons, — committing the whole

negotiation to them, and allowing them to have their own way. He might have known them better

than to trust them so implicitly. He ought to have transacted the business himself ; if he had, the

foul crime could not have been committed. But he has let go the reins of government in his own

house ; — his sons have evidently got the upper hand. Hence they are in a position to concoct

their vile stratagem without his knowledge, and to carry it into bloody execution without his

being able to prevent them. Their device is very base ; doubly so because it is in the name of

religion that it is practiced. Religion ! Much wronged, deeply insulted, religion ! What frauds,

what foul abominations, what unutterable cruelties, art thou not invoked to cover ! And the true

religion too ! the religion of the one only living and true God ! With what smooth hypocrisy do

these villains propound their nice scruple of conscience !”

3. Leupold, “these terms and conditions are attributed to "the sons of Jacob" exclusively. There

is the possibility that after the transactions were under way Jacob retired in the great grief of his

heart and trusted that his sons would well be able to handle the case. It is quite certain that they

kept their father in the dark both in regard to their original demand as well as in regard to their

further purpose.”

18 Their proposal seemed good to Hamor and his son

Shechem.

1. Constable quotes others, “We can explain the agreement of the men of the city, including

Hamor and Shechem (v. 18), to undergo circumcision. Other nations besides Jacob's family

practiced this rite at this time as an act of consecration. Jacob was not suggesting that these men

convert from one religion to another. �ormally circumcision was practiced on adults rather than

on infants before God told Abraham to circumcise the infants born in his family (17:12-14).”

2. Gill, “The condition proposed was acceptable to them both, and they agreed to comply with it; Hamor,

because of the great love he had for his son; Shechem, because of the great love he had for Dinah.”

3. Henry, “To this perhaps they were moved, not only by the strong desire they had to bring

about this match, but by what they might have heard of the sacred and honourable intentions of

this sign, in the family of Abraham, which, it is probable, they had some confused notions of, and

of the promises confirmed by it, which made them the more desirous to incorporate with the

family of Jacob, Zechariah 8:23. �ote, Many who know little of religion, yet know so much of it

as makes them willing to join themselves with those that are religious. Again, If a man would take

upon him a form of religion to gain a good wife, much more should we embrace the power of it to

gain the favour of a good God, even circumcise our hearts to love him, and, as Shechem here, not

defer to do the thing.”

19 The young man, who was the most honored of all his

father's household, lost no time in doing what they said,

because he was delighted with Jacob's daughter.

1. This young man was truly hooked, for he was willing to do anything to have Dinah. He was

ready to cut himself and endure pain for some time in a very sensitive area to be in full

cooperation with the demands of Dinah's brothers.

2. Gill, “And the young man deferred not to do the thing…

To be circumcised himself, and to get all the males of the city circumcised; he delayed not a

moment, but made all the haste he could to get it accomplished: because he had delight in Jacob's

daughter;

he really loved her, and delighted in her person and company: it was not the effect of a brutish

lust, but a true affection he bore to her, that he desired her in marriage: and he [was] more

honourable than all the house of his father;

for though he had done a base thing in defiling Jacob's daughter, yet in this he was honourable,

that he sought to marry her, and to do any thing that was in his power to recompence the injury;

and he was honourable in keeping covenant and compact with men; and was honest, upright, and

sincere, to fulfil the condition imposed on him, and he had agreed to, as well as he was in greater

esteem among the citizens than any of his father's house, which made it the more easy to him to

get their consent to be circumcised; they having a very high and honourable opinion of him, and

ready to oblige him in anything they could.”

20 So Hamor and his son Shechem went to the gate of

their city to speak to their fellow townsmen.

1. The gate of the city is where all community business was conducted. It was the center of

communication in most ancient cities, and we see it frequently in the Bible. Father and son had to

convince the rest of the males in the city to go along with the plan that would lead to Shechem

getting his wife.

21 "These men are friendly toward us," they said. "Let

them live in our land and trade in it; the land has plenty

of room for them. We can marry their daughters and they

can marry ours.

1. It is a good thing he did not mention that Jacob only had one daughter, and if this vote goes

through she is already spoken for. That would be hard to get excited about, but the assumption is

that in the long range plan this would provide more females to choose from.

2. Gill, “These men [are] peaceable with us…

Meaning Jacob and his sons, pointing to their tents which were near their city; and no doubt

more was said than is here expressed, and that these words were introduced with a preface, in

which notice was taken of Jacob and his family, and their names mentioned, as here their

character is given; that they were men of peaceable dispositions, harmless and inoffensive, as

appeared they had been ever since they came into these parts; and there was a great deal of

reason to believe they still would be, and which was an argument in their favor, to admit them to

a residence among them: therefore let them dwell in the land, and trade therein;

give them leave to dwell where they please, and carry on what trade and traffic in the land they

think fit; since they are not likely to be quarrelsome and troublesome, but will deal honestly and

honorably, and pay duly for what they agree for or merchandise in: for the land, behold, [it is]

large enough for them; there is room enough for them to dwell in, and pasturage enough for their

cattle, and land enough to manure and till, without in the least incommoding the inhabitants: yea,

it is likely to be to their advantage, since they would pay for what they should purchase or hire,

and would improve the land which lay uncultivated: let us take their daughters to us for wives, and

let us give them our daughters; this was the thing principally aimed at; and the rest, both what

goes before, and what follows after, were in order to this.”

22 But the men will consent to live with us as one people

only on the condition that our males be circumcised, as

they themselves are.

1. Clarke, “This required conformity was made the cloak of the most base and infamous designs.

The simple unsuspecting Shechemites agreed to the proposal; and when rendered by this

religious rite incapable of defending themselves, they were basely murdered by Simeon and Levi,

and their city destroyed. Jacob, to his great honor, remonstrated against this barbarous and

bloody act, committed apparently under the sanction of religion; and God showed his abhorrence

of it by directing the patriarch, in his dying moments, to proscribe them from the blessings of the

covenant, so that they barely retained a name among the tribes of Israel, being in general small,

and ever disreputable, except merely in the service of the sanctuary, in which Levi was

employed.”

2. The circumcision here has nothing to do with their becoming a part of Israel, and being a part

of the covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It was just a way to get them in a

state of pain where they could not defend themselves. It was a dirty trick, and had nothing to do

with anything sacred.

23 Won't their livestock, their property and all their other

animals become ours? So let us give our consent to them,

and they will settle among us."

1. Here we see another motive for their cooperation, for they see that they will benefit

economically from having these people become one with them. They will in time become

incorporated into our community, and in the end we will possess all that they possess.

2. Henry, “They urged an argument which was very cogent (Genesis 34:23), Shall not their cattle

and their substance be ours? They observed that Jacob's sons were industrious thriving people,

and promised themselves and their neighbours advantage by an alliance with them; it would

improve ground and trade, and bring money into their country. �ow, [1.] It was bad enough to

marry upon this principle: yet we see covetousness the greatest matchmaker in the world, and

nothing designed so much, with many, as the laying of house to house, and field to field, without

regard had to any other consideration. [2.] It was worse to be circumcised upon this principle.

The Shechemites will embrace the religion of Jacob's family only in hopes of interesting

themselves thereby in the riches of that family. Thus there are many with whom gain is godliness,

and who are more governed and influenced by their secular interest than by any principle of

their religion.”

24 All the men who went out of the city gate agreed with

Hamor and his son Shechem, and every male in the city

was circumcised.

1. Clarke, “These simple people must have had very great affection for their chief and his son, or

have been under the influence of the most passive obedience, to have come so readily into this

measure, and to have submitted to this rite. But the petty princes in Asiatic countries have ever

been absolute and despotic, their subjects paying them the most prompt and blind obedience. I

shall give a few examples from Mr. Richardson's Dissertations.-

"Abu Thaher, chief of the Carmathians, about the year nine hundred and thirty, ravaged the

territory of Mecca, defiled the temple, and destroyed nearly 40,000 people. With only 500 horse

he went to lay siege to Bagdad: the caliph's general, at the head of 30,000 men, marched out to

seize him, but before he attacked him he sent an officer to summon him to surrender. 'How many

men has the caliph's general?' said Abu Thaher. 'Thirty thousand,' replied the officer. 'Among

them all,' says the Carmathian chief, 'has he got three like mine?' Then, ordering his followers to

approach, he commanded one to stab himself, another to throw himself from a precipice, and a

third to plunge into the Tigris; all three instantly obeyed, and perished. Then turning to the

officer, he said, 'He who has such troops needs not value the number of his enemies!'”

2. Calvin recognizes the greed motivating these people in their move to be one with Jacob and his

people, but he wrote, “..nevertheless, Simian and Levi were not, on that account, excusable for

the indulgence of their own cruelty: yea, their impiety appears the more detestable, because they

not only rush impetuously upon men, but, in a sense, trample upon the sacred covenant of God,

of which alone they make their boast. Certainly, if they had no feeling for the men themselves, yet

reverence for God ought to have restrained their ferocity, when they reflected from what cause

the weakness of the Shechemites proceeded.”

3. Keil, “But notwithstanding the advantages here pointed out, the readiness of all the citizens of

Shechem (vid., Gen_23:10) to consent to be circumcised, could only be satisfactorily explained

from the fact that this religious rite was already customary in different nations (according to

Herod. 2, 104, among the Egyptians and Colchians), as an act of religious or priestly

consecration.”

25 Three days later, while all of them were still in pain,

two of Jacob's sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brothers,

took their swords and attacked the unsuspecting city,

killing every male.

1. This is truly a case of overkill, for there was just one young man who violated their sister, and

yet they were so cruel as to kill all of the males for his evil act. There is no logic, nor sense of any

kind for this level of hatred. It is one of the worst atrocities in all of Scripture, and it was done by

people who were God's people. It reveals that God's people can be the worst of people when they

let their emotions rather than the laws of God be their guide to actions. In verse 17 the brothers

talked about taking her home if they would not be circumcised, and so she was there all along.

You would think that she would be fighting to return to her family if she had any objection to

what happened to her. She makes no attempt to escape, and her brothers are right there. She

could have said take me home, but she did not. It all implies that Dinah is perfectly content to live

with her rapist until the families can work everything out for the marriage of her and her rapist.

You have to admit this is an unusually friendly relationship of a rapist and his victim.

1B. "Crudely performed, circumcision could be quite incapacitating, particularly after two or

three days." (Kidner) Guzik, “This was not only a brutal, deceptive act, but it also disgraced

God's covenant of circumcision. Surely, with this clever act of violent deception, Simeon and Levi

show themselves to be the children of Jacob from a bitter, competitive home environment.”

1C. Constable, “Dinah, Simeon, and Levi were the children of Jacob and Leah, the unloved wife

(v. 25). Simeon and Levi doubtless felt closer to Dinah than some of her other half-brothers did

for this reason. Probably Jacob's indifference to Dinah's plight, evidenced by his lack of action,

prompted the violent overreaction of her brothers.”

1D. Leupold, “ One shudders to think of the bloody cruelty that animated these two brothers in

their carnal pride. �ot a word can be said to excuse these murderers. The account, as Moses

offers it, is strictly objective neither commending nor condemning; he trusts his readers to posses

sufficient ethical discernment to know how to judge the deed.”

2. “Here we see a lot about two wrongs don't make a right. It was immoral what he did, but the

revenge was just as immoral, and so nobody comes out of this smelling like a rose, but more like

skunk after a fight. This chapter wreaks with the odor of human depravity. Jacob's boys did

what was more cruel and hateful, for lust is normal at least, but to plot murder is not normal.

Men can make the pursuit of justice an excuse for doing evil. This is a story of the folly of God's

people and these sons did not become the channel to the Messiah.” author unknown

3. Clarke, “When the inflammation was at the height, and a fever ensued which rendered the

person utterly helpless, and his state critical, Simeon and Levi, the half brothers of Dinah, took

each man his sword, probably assisted by that portion of the servants which helped them to take

care of the flock, came on the city boldly, betach, securely-without being suspected, and being in no

danger of meeting with resistance, and slew all the males. Great as the provocation was, and it

certainly was very great, this was an act or unparalleled treachery and cruelty.”

4. Henry has a shocking comment on the justification of the slaughter of the males in this city. He

wrote, “It cannot be denied but that God was righteous in it. Had the Shechemites been

circumcised in obedience to any command of God, their circumcision would have been their

protection; but when they submitted to that sacred rite only to serve a turn, to please their prince

and to enrich themselves, it was just with God to bring this upon them. �ote, As nothing secures

us better than true religion, so nothing exposes us more than religion only pretended to.” He is

the only commentator who finds any justification for this slaughter, and it is a very weak

argument I feel, but it may be possible to rationalize this as God's judgment rather than the folly

of the brothers. There is no hint of God's approval, but there is a clear hint of the judgment of the

brothers as being evil in that Jacob in his dying words cut them off from his blessing. Henry does

add, “But Simeon and Levi were most unrighteous.” Henry is trying to have his cake and eat it

too, for they are unrighteous is his judgment, but yet they were doing the will of God in killing

them for their false motives in having circumcision.

Henry in struggling to make sense of this chapter, and in doing so he is trying to spread the blame

for it evenly across the board. He also wrote, “It was true that Shechem had wrought folly against

Israel, in defiling Dinah; but it ought to have been considered how far Dinah herself had been

accessory to it. Had Shechem abused her in her own mother's tent, it would have been another

matter; but she went upon his ground, and perhaps by her indecent carriage had struck the

spark which began the fire: when we are severe upon the sinner we ought to consider who was

the tempter.” The bottom line is this: Henry says that everybody is to blame, and so everybody

got just what they deserved.

5. Calvin, “Because Moses says that the slaughter took place on the third day, the Hebrews think

that, at that time, the pain of the wound was most severe. The proof, however, is not valid; nor is

it of much moment. Although Moses names only two authors of the slaughter, it does not appear

to me probable that they came alone, but that they were the leaders of the troop: for Jacob had a

large family, and it might be that they called some of their brothers to join them; yet, because the

affair was conducted by their counsel and direction, it is ascribed to them, as Cartage is said to

have been destroyed by Scipio. Moses also calls them the brothers of Dinah, because they were by

the same mother. We have seen that Dinah was the daughter of Leah; for which reason Simon

and Levi, whose own sister she was by both parents, were the more enraged at the violation of her

chastity: they were therefore impelled, not so much by the common reproach brought upon the

holy and elect race, (according to their recent boast,) as by a sense of the infamy brought upon

themselves. However, there is no reader who does not readily perceive how dreadful and

execrable was this crime. One man only had sinned, and he endeavored to compensate for the

injury, by many acts of kindness; but the cruelty of Simon and Levi could only be satiated by the

destruction of the whole city; and, under the pretext of a covenant, they form a design against

friends and hospitable persons, in a time of peace, which would have been deemed intolerable

against enemies in open war. Hence we perceive how mercifully God dealt with that people;

seeing that, from the posterity of a sanguinary man, and even of a wicked robber, he raised up a

priesthood for himself. Let the Jews now go and be proud of their noble origin. But the Lord

declared his gratuitous mercy by too many proofs for the ingratitude of man to be able to obscure

it. Moreover, we hence learn that Moses did not speak from carnal sense; but was the instrument

of the Holy Spirit, and the herald of the celestial Judge; for though he was a Levite, he yet is so

far from sparing his own race, that he does not hesitate to brand the father of his tribe with

perpetual infamy. And it is not to be doubted that the Lord purposely intended to stop the

mouths of impure and profane men, such as the Lucianists, who confess that Moses was a very

great man, and of rare excellence; but that he procured for himself, by craft and subtlety,

authority over a great people, as if, indeed, an acute and intelligent man would not have known

that, by this single act of wickedness, the honor of his race would be greatly tarnished. He had,

however, no other design than to extol the goodness of God towards his people; and truly there

was nothing which he less desired than to exercise dominion, as appears clearly from the fact,

that he transferred the office of priesthood to another family, and commanded his sons to be only

ministers. With respect to the Shechemites, although in the sight of God they were not innocent;

seeing they preferred their own advantage to a religion which they thought lawful, yet it was not

the Lord’s will that they should be so grievously punished for their fault; but he suffered this

signal punishment to follow the violation of one maid, that he might testify to all ages his great

abhorrence of lust. Besides, seeing that the iniquity had arisen from a prince of the city, the

punishment is rightly extended to the whole body of the people: for since God never commits the

government to evil and vicious princes, except in righteous judgment, there is no wonder that,

when they sin, they involve their subjects with them in the same condemnation. Moreover, from

this example let us learn, that if, at any time, fornication prevail with impunity, God will, at

length, exact punishments so much the more severe: for if the violation of one maid was avenged

by the horrible massacre of a whole city; he will not sleep nor be quiet, if a whole people indulge

in a common license of fornication, and, on all sides, connive at each other’s iniquity. The sons of

Jacob acted indeed wickedly; but we must observe that fornication was, in this manner, divinely

condemned.”

6. Here is how Eugene Peterson in The Message tells the story: “25-29 Three days after the

circumcision, while all the men were still very sore, two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s

brothers, each with his sword in hand, walked into the city as if they owned the place and

murdered every man there. They also killed Hamor and his son Shechem, rescued Dinah from

Shechem’s house, and left. When the rest of Jacob’s sons came on the scene of slaughter, they

looted the entire city in retaliation for Dinah’s rape. Flocks, herds, donkeys, belongings-

everything, whether in the city or the fields-they took. And then they took all the wives and

children captive and ransacked their homes for anything valuable.”

26 They put Hamor and his son Shechem to the sword and

took Dinah from Shechem's house and left.

1. The strange thing here is that Dinah was living with Shechem. It appears that she never left

being with him from the time she was raped. He not only raped her, but he captured her and took

her home. How horrible this scene had to be for Dinah, and especially so if she cared about this

man who raped her and took her as his prize.

2. Gill, “And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the

sword…

Whom they had been just treating with in a seeming friendly manner: Shechem was the chief

aggressor, and his crime was very heinous; but considering that he did all he could, after the fact

was committed, to make recompense for the injury done, he deserved other treatment, at least

mercy should have been shown him. Hamor, perhaps, was too indulgent to his son, connived at

his sin, and did not punish him for it; and, it may be, approved of it, and now dies for it:

and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out;

where she was kept from the time of her being ravished by Shechem, with an intention to marry

her, could the consent of her parents and relations be obtained; for it does not appear that he

kept her to carry on a criminal conversation with her, but a courtship in order to marriage.”

3. Henry, “Seizing the prey of Shechem, and plundering the town. They rescued Dinah (Genesis

34:26), and, if that was all they came for, they might have done that without blood, as appears by

their own showing (Genesis 34:17); but they aimed at the spoil; and, though Simeon and Levi only

were the murderers, yet it is intimated that others of the sons of Jacob came upon the slain and

spoiled the city (Genesis 34:27), and so became accessory to the murder. In them it was manifest

injustice; yet here we may observe the righteousness of God. The Shechemites were willing to

gratify the sons of Jacob by submitting to the penance of circumcision, upon this principle, Shall

not their cattle and their substance be ours? (Genesis 34:23), and see what was the issue; instead of

making themselves masters of the wealth of Jacob's family, Jacob's family become masters of

their wealth. �ote, Those who unjustly grasp at that which is another's justly lose that which is

their own.” Again, Henry justifies the slaughter of innocent men by saying they were not innocent

of greed, and so deserved their violent death and the loss of all their possessions. This was the

righteous judgment of God he claims, but it is hard to swallow this shallow justification.

4. James Baker, “On the third day after the circumcisions when all the men of Shechem were too

sore to defend themselves, Simeon and Levi swooped down on the town and killed them all.

Dinah was already in Shechem's house, for the two brothers “took Dinah out of Shechem's

house” after they had slain Hamor and Shechem. This can only mean that payment of the bride-

price, which included the circumcision of Shechem, concluded a formal marriage, and Dinah had

accompanied Shechem home as his bride. However, Shechem's pain would not have permitted

him to consummate the marriage, and Simeon and Levi annulled it when they killed the young

groom.”

27 The sons of Jacob came upon the dead bodies and

looted the city where [d] their sister had been defiled.

1. Clarke, “The rest of Jacob's sons, the remaining brothers of Simeon and Levi, spoiled the city.

Though the others could slay the defenceless males, it was not likely that they could have carried

away all the booty, with the women, children, and cattle; it is therefore most natural to suppose

that the rest of the sons of Jacob assisted at last in the business.”

2. Calvin, “Moses shows that, not content with simple revenge, they fly together to the spoil. As it

respects the words, they are said to have come upon the slain, either because they made

themselves a way over the slaughtered bodies; or because, in addition to the slaughter, they

rushed to the plunder. In whichever way it is taken, Moses teaches that, not satisfied with their

former wickedness, they made this addition to it. Be it, that they were blinded with anger in

shedding blood; yet by what right do they sack the city? This certainly cannot be ascribed to

anger. But these are the ordinary fruits of human intemperance, that he who gives himself the

rein in perpetrating one wickedness, soon breaks out into another. Thus the sons of Jacob, from

being murderers, become also robbers, and the guilt of avarice is added to that of cruelty. The

more anxious then should be our endeavors to bridle our desires; lest they should mutually fan

each other, so that at length, by their combined action, a dreadful conflagration should arise; but

especially, we must beware of using force of arms, which brings with it many perverse and brutal

assaults. Moses says that the sons of Jacob did this, because the Shechemites had defiled their

sister; but the whole city was not guilty. Moses, however, only states in what way the authors of

the slaughter are affected: for although they wish to appear just avengers of the injury, yet they

pay no respect to what it was lawful for them to do, and make no attempt to control their

depraved affections, and consequently set no bounds to their wickedness. Should any one prefer

taking the expression in a higher sense, it may be referred to the judgment of God, by which the

whole city was involved in guilt, because no one had opposed the lust of the prince: perhaps many

had consented to it, as not being very much concerned about the unjust dishonor done to their

guests; but the former sense is what I most approve.”

3. Gill is very weak in his disapproval of what happened here, for he seems almost to justify it as

being deserved because of the whole city not preventing the sin against Jacob's daughter. This is

really a very weak defense of the most godless cold blooded murders in the Bible. It is an attempt

to make it not seem as bad as it is, but in trying to do that it make Gill look bad. He is brilliant

and I will quote him for the rest of my life in Bible study, but he has pathetic comments here as

he makes out the whole city as laughing and making a big joke out of the raped of Dinah. Gill is

letting us see by his comments that he just refuses to believe and anyone chosen by God could be

this evil, and so he is desperately seeking a way to make it look like the victims deserve what they

got. He wrote, “The sons of Jacob came upon the slain… That is, the rest of them, as the Targum

of Jonathan paraphrases it; understanding what their two brothers had done, they came and

joined them, and partook of stripping the slain of their clothes, or from them what they found of

any worth about them: and spoiled the city; plundered it of all its goods and substance, spoiled all

the inhabitants of it of their wealth: because they had defiled their sister; one of them had done it,

which is imputed to them all, they not restraining him from it, when it was in their power; and

perhaps approving of it, and made a laugh of and jest at it; or however did not punish him for it.”

28 They seized their flocks and herds and donkeys and

everything else of theirs in the city and out in the fields.

1. Scott Grant, “The rescue operation is justified. However, killing every man of the city, apart

from the direction of the Lord, is not. The aftermath compounds the matter: Jacob’s sons loot the

city. Rescuing their sister who was raped is one thing; raping the city of the one who raped their

sister is another. Having made a mockery of both circumcision and marriage, the sons of Jacob

now make a mockery of holy war. They engage in it without the Lord’s direction, and they

collected the spoils for themselves instead of dedicating them to the Lord (�umbers 31:1-24).”

29 They carried off all their wealth and all their women

and children, taking as plunder everything in the houses.

1. They hated it that one man violated their sister, but now, for no valid reason they take all of the

women of this city for their plunder. Here is their secondary motive to kill the men of that city,

for it gave them the chance to become wealthy. There was no war going on, and so this was not

the valid spoils of victory. This was cold blooded mass murder, and deliberate robbery of people

who were seeking peace. It is understandable why this text is not preached on very much, for it is

so incredibly evil that nobody wants to hear that the people of God can fall this low.

2. Steven Cole, “It was terrible revenge. Even though God would later command Israel to wipe

out the Canaanites, He had not done that here. There is no way of justifying what they did. The

whole incident was like an avalanche which begins with a little stone and ends up burying a

whole town. It never would have happened if Dinah had not visited there, which would not have

happened if Jacob had not settled there. And it all came about in the course of everyday family

life. Perhaps as Dinah went out the door she called, “I’ll be back later; I’m going over to my

friend’s house.” Little did anyone suspect the events which would transpire.”

3. Gill, “And all their wealth…

Or "power"or "strength"; every thing that made them mighty and powerful; their gold and

silver, their jewels, and rich furniture of their houses, their arms and weapons of war, their goods

and substance, in which they trafficked:

and all their little ones and their wives took they captive:

they spared the women and children, as was usual war, and in the plunder of towns and cities:

and spoiled even all that [was] in the house;

of Shechem or Hamor, or in any of the houses of the inhabitants; they rifled and plundered

everyone, and took away whatsoever they found in them; but as Jacob disapproved of this unjust,

cruel, bloody, and perfidious action, so no doubt, as he set the captives at liberty, he restored to

them their cattle and substance.” Gill seems to know something that others do not know, for

nobody else says anything about the captives being set free with their goods. Where is this

written?

30 Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, "You have

brought trouble on me by making me a stench to the

Canaanites and Perizzites, the people living in this land.

We are few in number, and if they join forces against me

and attack me, I and my household will be destroyed."

1. Clarke, “Brought my mind into great distress, and endangered my personal safety; to make me

to stink-to render me odious to the surrounding tribes, so that there is every reason to suspect

that when this deed is come abroad they will join in a confederacy against me, and extirpate my

whole family. And had he not been under the peculiar protection of God, this in all human

probability would have been the case; but he had prevailed with God, and he was also to prevail

with men. That Jacob's resentment was not dissembled we have the fullest proof in his depriving

these two sons of the birthright, which otherwise they had doubtless enjoyed. See Genesis 49:5,7,

where some additional circumstances are related.”

1B. Here is the ultimate in self centered pity. His sons have wiped out a city of innocent men in

cold blooded murder and he says, “Look what you have done to me!” He only thinks of how this

is going to look as it affects his image in the eyes of the surrounding pagan people. It is not a

horrible shame that so many innocent men have died for no reason, but the shame of it is that it

will bring shame to my name among the people of the land. There is no weeping for the crime of

the century coming from his own boys, and no lamenting for the many widows and fatherless

children whose lives have been brutally and radically crushed because of his hot headed sons.

This is not the disturbing issue before us now, but what are people going to think of me now?

What a mess you have made in my life. Would anyone care to join this pity party? Jacob does not

say a word of how this atrocity is so out of the will of God. He does not use this occasion to teach

his sons that they are a chosen family to be a blessing to the nations of the world, and that this is

action in total reverse of their purpose in God's plan. There is no hint of their need to repent of

their godless response to an evil that was being resolved in peace. God was not in his thoghts at

all, and that is why this chapter exists. When people forget God, and leave him out of their lives,

there is no end to how far they can go in being tools of the devil.

1C. S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “Did you notice the first person? He said, “you have brought trouble

on me.” He said, “My men are few in number. They will gather together against me and attack

me and I will be destroyed, I and my household.” He does not say anything about the sin of

camping near the city of Shechem. He does not say anything about the fact that I am to blame

perhaps for what has happened. He has no repentance so far as we can tell. �o regret. �o

remorse for what has happened. He has no sense even of God’s promises to him and how this

action is a contradiction of that, but on the contrary, the only thing he can speak about is Jacob.

Jacob whose name has now become Israel, God’s fighter, is living like Jacob again. �o sense of

the divine blessing and the divine calling.”

1D. Barnhouse, “"Jacob! You brought that trouble on yourself. You passed your own deceitful

nature into your boys. You set them a constant example of guile. They heard you lie to Esau at

Peniel and start northwest after he went southeast. They saw your interest in the fat pastures

when you pitched your tent in Shechem. You said nothing when Dinah was violated . . . Talk to

God about your own sin before talking to these boys about theirs."

2. R. C. Sproul, “Jacob’s complaint after Simeon and Levi slaughter the men of the city reveals his

spiritual inadequacies. He could have justly condemned his sons for their wanton massacre of the

Shechemites, abuse of circumcision, or breach of contract (34:13–17, 25). But Jacob is not worried

about any of this; he is only afraid their actions will hurt him (34:30). Despite being transformed by His

wrestling with God at Peniel (32:22–32), Jacob lets his old self get the best of him. Once again, he

wants only to save his own skin (32:20).

2B. Steven Cole, “Throughout this chapter, Jacob is passive. He never warns or stops Dinah

before it’s too late. When he hears of her defilement, he is silent. He doesn’t give any direction to

his sons as to how they should deal with things. He’s passive in dealing with Hamor and Shechem,

letting his sons do all the talking. It seems he would have let Dinah marry Shechem after he was

circumcised, even though he still would have been as pagan as before. Although he rebukes his

sons, it’s based more on his own fear of retaliation than on moral principle (note the emphasis on

“me” and “I” in verse 30). If he was grieved over Dinah’s defilement or his sons’ godless revenge,

it’s not recorded. At least his sons grieved over what happened to their sister (34:7).”

3. Jamison, “This atrocious outrage perpetrated on the defenseless citizens and their families

made the cup of Jacob's affliction overflow. We may wonder that, in speaking of it to his sons, he

did not represent it as a heinous sin, an atrocious violation of the laws of God and man, but dwelt

solely on the present consequences. It was probably because that was the only view likely to rouse

the cold-blooded apathy, the hardened consciences of those ruffian sons. �othing but the

restraining power of God saved him and his family from the united vengeance of the people

(compare Ge 35:5). All his sons had not been engaged in the massacre. Joseph was a boy,

Benjamin not yet born, and the other eight not concerned in it. Simeon and Levi alone, with their

retainers, had been the guilty actors in the bloody tragedy. But the Canaanites would not be

discriminating in their vengeance; and if all the Shechemites were put to death for the offense of

their chief's son, what wonder if the natives should extend their hatred to all the family of Jacob;

and who probably equalled, in number, the inhabitants of that village.”

4. Wenham, “Of course, fear is natural in such a situation, but the reasons Jacob gives for

damning his sons betray him. He does not condemn them for the massacre, for abusing the rite of

circumcision, or even for breach of contract. Rather, he protests that the consequences of their

action have made him unpopular. �or does he seem worried by his daughter's rape or the

prospect of intermarriage with the Canaanites. He is only concerned for his own skin."

5. Gill, “And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi…

who were the principals concerned in this affair:

ye have troubled me;

because of the sin they had committed, because of the dishonour brought upon religion, and

because of the danger he and his family were hereby exposed unto; it greatly disquieted him,

made him very uneasy, he was at his wit's end almost, knew not what to do, what course to take

to wipe off the scandal, and to defend himself and family; since it served, he says,

to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land;

to make him odious and abominable, to be hated and abhorred by all the people round about,

and to be looked upon and treated as a deceitful, treacherous, and perfidious man, that had no

regard to his word, to covenants and agreements made by him; as a cruel and bloodthirsty man

that spared none, made no difference between the innocent and the guilty; and as a robber and

plunderer, that stopped at nothing, committing the greatest outrages to get possession of the

substance of others:

amongst the Canaanites and the Perizzites:

who were the principal inhabitants of the land, the most numerous, and the most rustic and

barbarous, and perhaps nearest, and from whom Jacob had most to fear:

and I [being] few in number;

or men of number F16; he and his sons and servants, in all, making but a small number in

comparison of the nations about him:

they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I

shall be destroyed, I and my house;

not that Jacob was afraid that this would be really the case, for he knew and believed the

promises of God to him, of the multiplication of his seed, and of their inheriting the land of

Canaan, and of the Messiah springing from him; but this he said to aggravate the sin and folly of

his sons, in exposing him and themselves to so much danger, which not only on the face of things

appeared probable, but even certain and inevitable, without the interposition of divine power and

Providence.

6. Calvin, “Moses declares that the crime was condemned by the holy man, lest any one should

think that he had participated in their counsel. He also expostulates with his sons, because they

had caused him to stink among the inhabitants of the land; that is, they had rendered him so

odious, that no one would be able to bear him. If then the neighboring nations should conspire

among themselves, he would be unable to resist them, seeing he had so small a band, in

comparison with their great number. He also expressly names the Canaanites and Perizzites,

who, though they had received no wrong, were yet by nature exceedingly prone to inflict injury.

But Jacob may seem to act preposterously, in overlooking the offense committed against God,

and in considering only his own danger. Why is he not rather angry at their cruelty? why is he

not offended at their perfidy? why does he not reprove their rapaciousness? It is however

probable, that when he saw them terror — stricken at their recent crime, he suited miswords to

their state of mind. For he acts as if he were complaining that he, rather than the Shechemites,

was slain by them. We know that men are seldom if ever drawn to repentance, except by the fear

of punishment: especially when they have any specious pretext as a covering for their fault.

Besides, we know not whether Moses may not have selected this as a part out of a long

expostulation, to cause his readers to understand that the fury of Simon and Levi was so

outrageous, that they were more insensible than brute beasts to their own destruction and that of

their whole family. This is clear from their own answer, which not only breathes a barbarous

ferocity, but shows that they had no feeling. It was barbarous, first, because they excuse

themselves for having destroyed a whole people and plundered their city, on account of the injury

done by one man; secondly, because they answer their father so shortly and contumaciously;

thirdly, because they obstinately defend the revenge which they had rashly taken. Moreover, their

insensibility was prodigious, because they were not affected by the thought of their own death,

and that of their parents, wives, and children, which seemed just at hand. Thus we are taught,

how intemperate anger deprives men of their senses. We are also admonished, that it is not

enough for us to be able to lay blame on our opponents; but we must always see how far it is

lawful for us to proceed.”

7. Guzik, “When Jacob was about to die, he prophesied over each of his 12 sons. This is what he

said about Simeon and Levi: Simeon and Levi are brothers; instruments of cruelty are in their

dwelling place. Let not my soul enter their council; let not my honor be united to their assembly;

for in their anger they slew a man, and in their self-will they hamstrung an ox. Cursed be their

anger, for it is fierce; and their wrath, for it is cruel! I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them

in Israel. (Genesis 49:5-7) He saw Simeon and Levi for who they were, but he rebuked them far

too late.

The prophetic word of God through Jacob proved true. God did in fact both divide the tribes of

Simeon and Levi, and scatter them among Israel. But, significantly, the way it happened for each

tribe was different. The tribe of Simeon, because of their lack of faithfulness, was effectively

dissolved as a tribe, and the tribe of Simeon was absorbed into the tribal area of Judah. The tribe

of Levi was also scattered, but because of the faithfulness of this tribe during the rebellion of the

golden calf (Exodus 32:26-28), the tribe was scattered as a blessing throughout the whole nation

of Israel. Both were scattered, but one as a blessing and the other as curse.”

8. Henry, “What could be expected, but that the Canaanites, who were numerous and

formidable, would confederate against him, and he and his little family would become an easy

prey to them? I shall be destroyed, I and my house. If all the Shechemites must be destroyed for

the offence of one, why not all the Israelites for the offence of two? Jacob knew indeed that God

had promised to preserve and perpetuate his house; but he might justly fear that these vile

practices of his children would amount to a forfeiture, and cut off the entail. �ote, When sin is in

the house, there is reason to fear ruin at the door. The tender parents foresee those bad

consequences of sin which the wicked children have no dread of. One would think this should

have made them to relent, and they should have humbled themselves to their good father, and

begged his pardon; but, instead of this, they justify themselves, and give him this insolent reply,

Should he deal with our sister as with a harlot? �o, he should not; but, if he do, must they be their

own avengers? Will nothing less than so many lives, and the ruin of a whole city, serve to atone

for an abuse done to one foolish girl? By their question they tacitly reflect upon their father, as if

he would have been content to let them deal with his daughter as with a harlot. �ote, It is

common for those who run into one extreme to reproach and censure those who keep the mean as

if they ran into the other. Those who condemn the rigour of revenge shall be misrepresented, as if

they countenanced and justified the offence.”

9. H. R. Mackintosh, “Thus it was the consequences in reference to himself that affected Jacob

most. He seems to have walked in constant apprehension of danger to himself or his family, and

in the manifestation of an anxious, a cautious, timid, calculating spirit, utterly incompatible with

a life of genuine faith in GOD. It is not that Jacob was not, in the main, a man of faith; he

assuredly was, and as such gets a place amongst the "cloud of witnesses" in Hebrews 11. But then

he exhibited sad failure from not walking in the habitual exercise of that divine principle. Could

faith have led him to say, "I shall be destroyed, I and my house?" Surely not. GOD's promise in

Chapter 28:14, 15, should have banished every fear from his poor, timid spirit. "I will keep thee I

will not leave thee." This should have tranquillized his heart. But the fact is, his mind was more

occupied with his danger among the Shechemites than with his security in the hand of GOD. He

ought to have known that not a hair of his head could be touched, and therefore, instead of

looking at Simeon and Levi, or the consequences of their rash acting, he should have judged

himself for being in such a position at all. If he had not settled at Shechem, Dinah would not have

been dishonored, and the violence of his sons would not have been exhibited.”

10. Keil has some defense of Jacob as he writes, “If Jacob laid stress simply upon the

consequences which this crime was likely to bring upon himself and his house, the reason was,

that this was the view most adapted to make an impression upon his sons. For his last words

concerning Simeon and Levi (Gen_49:5-7) are a sufficient proof that the wickedness of their

conduct was also an object of deep abhorrence. And his fear was not groundless. Only God in His

mercy averted all the evil consequences from Jacob and his house (Gen_35:5-6).”

11. Robert Candlish, “And how does Jacob feel when the terrible fact bursts upon his knowledge.

He is deeply moved, no doubt. The discovery of the atrocity is to him both a shock and a surprise

— and he does not hesitate to express his mind to the two who had been the ringleaders in the

exploit, Simeon and Levi (ver. 30). But even here, the traces of the lowered moral and spiritual

tone of his mind come out. The remonstrance, after all, is but a feeble one ; it indicates no high

principle — no holy indignation — no righteous wrath ; it turns mainly on considerations of

selfish pohcy and prudence. It is a false step that has been taken — a step false in point of

expediency. A blunder, rather than a crime, has been committed ; and it may lead to unpleasant

consequences. It may rouse the resentment of the neighbors and allies of the suffering tribe —

and so endanger the fortunes, and even the lives, of himself and his family. Surely this is a kind of

expostulation far below the occasion — not such as one who " feared God and regarded man "

would have been apt to utter. And he seems but too ready to accept the lame apology of the

culprits — "Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot" (ver. 31). For it was a lame apology,

and false as well as lame. It was an apology exaggerating the original offense, and suppressing all

that was so honorable to his heart in the subsequent conduct of the offender. It was, in truth, a

shameless justification of the foul deed, in all its foulness. And Jacob, by his silence, appears to

make himself almost a party to the deed — a sort of accomplice after the fact.

Long afterward, Jacob spoke very differently concerning this transaction. On his deathbed,

looking at it in the near prospect of eternity, he stigmatized it with somewhat more severity. By

that time the patriarch had come to view the matter more in the light of God's holy law, and less

in the light of human policy and passion. But alas ! for the close of the present chapter of his

history. It leaves him a dishonored and degraded parent, — reaping the bitter fruit of un-

steadfastness in ruling his own household, and giving sad evidence of that un-steadfastness being

the result, in large measure, of his own heart not being right with God.”

12. F. B. Meyer, “The real mistake of it all was that Jacob bought that land, and settled too near

the city (Genesis 33:18). As a pilgrim he had no right to do this. If Christian parents will settle

down in fellowship with the world, they have themselves to thank for all the misery which

accrues to themselves and children, and the dishonor to God.”

13. It might be well to remember that Jacob favored his children from Rachel over those who

were born to him from Leah, and it is Leah's children who are the ones in trouble in this chapter.

Some commentators point out that being a less favored child has a deep negative influence on

children. This could explain in part why these two sons of Leah are such angry hot heads who

give no thought to the danger they are causing their family. There is a lot of hostility pent up in

them, and this abuse of their sister was the detonator that set off the bomb they had in their

hearts. They became mad men on a rampage with no thought but hate. Most agree that Jacob

was a major cause for this bitter hate in them. In their minds he already had plenty of stink on

him.

31 But they replied, "Should he have treated our sister

like a prostitute?"

1. The implied answer is no he should not have done that. How simple minded can you be, for

just because it was wrong, and terribly wrong, you do not go on a murderous rampage and kill

everyone who knew the kid that did this. This is mind boggling wickedness on their part, and

they think it is justified because their sister was treated badly. It is wonderful when older

brothers stand up for their sisters, but this is as irrational as anything can be. Should he have

treated our sister like a prostitute? �O! But should you have treated him and his whole town as

worthless scum fit to be murdered by your hot headed injustice? �O !!!

2. Dr. Gordon Hugenberger, “ Genesis 34 offers no explicit moral comment on what Simeon and

Levi did. In Genesis 49, however, Jacob makes it abundantly clear that when they pretended to

avenge the honor of their sister, they committed an unjustified atrocity. Although they were the

next in line after Reuben, who forfeited his inheritance because of sexual sin, both Simeon and

Levi and their descendants forfeited their kingdom inheritance (neither tribe was given a tribal

allotment in the Promised Land), and the privilege of being the bearer of the promised Messianic

royal seed (Genesis 3:15; 12; 17:6, 16; 22:18) devolves onto Judah (Genesis 49:10), in whose line

King David and, ultimately, Jesus Christ were born.”

2B. Leslie Grant, “This whole action was so cruelly unjust that we wonder that there was nothing

whatever done in the way of retribution or correction. God has certainly exposed it in all it naked

wickedness, and we know He could not approve of anything like this. Yet why was there no

recompense? It seems the answer is simply that God does not always settle His accounts quickly:

the wheels of His government grind slowly, but He misses nothing, and will in His own time take

care of every detail of our ways. At least, as to Simeon, see Genesis 42:24. The other brothers at

the same time went through a traumatic ordeal. But the full end of the matter is in God's hands.

This is consistent with God's ways always in regard to Israel the nation. He did not allow others

at this time to attack Jacob, but He will deal with His people in His own time and way. This was

not fair mindedness, for Shechem had not actually dealt that way, and if he had, did that justify

Simeon and Levi in their killing all the men of that city and plundering their houses? their

dealings with the city were far worse than was Shechem's sin.”

3. Calvin, “Shechem, indeed, had acted wickedly and impiously; but it was far more atrocious

and wicked that the sons of Jacob should murder a whole people, to avenge themselves of the

private fault of one man. It was by no means fitting to seek a cruel compensation for the levity

and rashness of one youth, by the slaughter of so many men. Again, who had constituted them

judges, that they should dare, with their own hands, to execute vengeance for an injury inflicted

upon them? Perfidy was also super added, because they proceeded, under the pretext of a

covenant, to perpetrate this enormous crime. In Jacob, moreover, we have an admirable example

of patient endurance; who, though afflicted with so many evils, yet did not faint under them. But

chiefly we must consider the mercy of God, by which it came to pass, that the covenant of grace

remained with the posterity of Jacob. For what seemed less suitable, than that a few men in

whom such furious rage and such implacable malice reigned, should be reckoned among the

people and the sons of God, to the exclusion of all the world besides? We see certainly that it was

not through any power of their own that they had not altogether declined from the kingdom of

God. Whence it appears that the favor which God had vouchsafed unto them was gratuitous, and

not founded upon their merits. We also require to be treated by Him with the same indulgence,

seeing that we should utterly fall away, if God did not pardon our sins. The sons of Jacob have,

indeed, a just cause of offense, because not only are they affected with their own private

ignominy, but they are tormented with the indignity of the crime, because their sister had been

dragged forth from the house of Jacob, as from a sanctuary, to be violated. For this they chiefly

urge, that it would have been wickedness to allow such disgrace in the elect and holy people: but

they themselves, through the hatred of one sin, rush furiously forward to greater and more

intolerable crimes. Therefore we must beware, lest, after we have become severe judges in

condemning the faults of others, we hasten inconsiderately into evil. But chiefly we must abstain

from violent remedies which surpass the evil we desire to correct.”

4. Keil quotes, “The deception they practised, the abuse of the covenant sign of circumcision as a

means of gratifying their revenge, and the extension of that revenge to the whole town, together

with the plundering of the slain, were crimes deserving of the strongest reprobation. The crafty

character of Jacob degenerated into malicious cunning in Simeon and Levi; and jealousy for the

exalted vocation of their family, into actual sin. This event “shows us in type all the errors into

which the belief in the pre-eminence of Israel was sure to lead in the course of history, whenever

that belief was rudely held by men of carnal minds” (O. v. Gerlach).

5. Guzik, “They felt justified because the men of Shechem had treated their sister as a prostitute

(Genesis 34:31), but they were prostituting the sign of God's covenant for their own murderous

purpose.”

6. Ilona �. Rashkow writes from a feminist viewpoint and says these brothers do not even realize

they have destroyed their sisters life by depriving her of the right to live a normal life with a man

who loves her and desires her for a wife. We never hear of her again, and so it is likely that she

never married and had children, and it is possible to see these brothers as having raped Dinah in

an even more wicked way than did Shechem.

7. Rabbi Allison Bergman Vann writes from a Jewish woman's perspective. “Ruth Friedberg,

sent me a poem she authored when she heard of this sermon. An excerpt reads:

My brothers speak of honor,

Theirs, not mine.

And they write their words

In the blood

Of a man who cherished me.

I speak of nothing,

Listening to the wind

Blow round my tent

As the sun sets red

Over Shechem.

Dinah's voice deserves to be heard, and, thanks to the times we live in, we have the opportunity to

bring the text to life and allow Dinah to breathe again, as Ruth did in her beautiful work.”

7B. Rabbi Allison Bergman Vann goes on to deal with the ambiguity of this relationship. “Is this a

story of a rape or a secretive courtship?

The debate rages for the answers are unclear. I propose-perhaps because I am a romantic-that

this was a story of an illicit love affair gone terribly wrong. Besides the competing texts between

love and rape, we must look also to the whereabouts of Dinah. Where is she after Shechem lays

with her? We learn at the very end of the story that she was in Shechem's house! Was she there

by force-or setting up a love nest?

Ita Sheres says that Shechem “recognizes Dinah as a person of value”. In addition an ancient

rabbi believed that Simeon and Levi had to drag Dinah from Shechem's home. We may “be

tempted to speculate that the two of them -young, unwed, and crucially, each from a different

tribe-have fallen so deeply in love with each other they dare to engage in some kind of sexual

encounter. Anita Diamant writes, too, of the boundless love that Dinah had for Shechem, and the

pain she suffered when her brothers killed him and forced her home again. As contemporary

Jews-women and men-we must continue to give the voices of the women that shaped our

traditions voices, so that their stories may shine through. With their stories our tradition will be

enriched and we will be able to offer voices to the many silent voices in our tradition.”

7C. If the above, which is a view of some modern Jewish women, is true, then the brothers of

Dinah are the ones who robbed her of a life that she could have had, and forced her to be unwed

and motherless for the rest of her life. This adds another sin to their long list of violations of

God's expressed will in this chapter.

7D. Susan Jacobson, “It is only now that Dinah’s voice is being heard --- in interpretations such

Anita Diamant’s The Red Tent and other revisionings of the Bible that view the event from

Dinah’spoint of view, and attempt to give voice to her feelings. Was she ashamed of what had

happened? Did she want revenge? Or was this a secret love affair, frowned upon by her family?

Had she been able to speak, could she have averted the slaughter of the men of Shechem and the

plunder of the city? The silence of Dinah is deafening.”

8. Pablo R. Andiñach gives us this information on every text where Dinah is mentioned, “It is

very interesting to examine the references to Dinah in the Hebrew text and try to understand

their significance. Beyond the chapter with which we are concerned, there are two references to

Jacob’s daughter. To begin with, we should feel somewhat surprised that she is even mentioned in

these lists, since, normally, women were not included amongst family descendants. In the few

cases that daughters are mentioned, it is usually the case that the women relate to an event that

the author wishes to highlight. In this case, it is probable that the enmity between Israel and the

Shechemites may have been related to the massive crime of Simeon and Levi as revenge for the

kidnapping and rape of Dinah, and this could be the reason her name remained in the genealogy

of Jacob.

The first reference is in Gen 30:21 "Afterwards she bore a daughter, and named her

Dinah". This refers to Leah the less-loved wife of Jacob, but whom in her second stage of

fertility gave birth to two sons and Dinah. The mention is so brief that it has been suggested

that it is a later addition to the larger text. This is quite probable, but far from weakening the

text. In this case it is an added value, as it indicates that it was necessary to incorporate it so as

to preserve such a significant story for Israelite history. It may have a double sense as a story,

because in the list of Jacob’s descendants included in Gen 29:31-30:24 Dinah is needed to

reach number of twelve descendants. At this time of the narrative Benjamin had not been born

(but by Gen 35: 16-20 he will be), though by then the structure of the twelve tribes would

seem to have been acknowledged and justified. One can suspect that the inclusion of a woman

would permit that in the future she could be eliminated from the list and replaced by

Benjamin or some other male. But that does not seem to be the case, as it would have meant

the substitution of Levi once they became a priestly tribe, and as such, with no land to their

name; this will happen with the opening up of the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim.

There is a second list of Jacob’s descendants where Dinah’s name is mentioned. In

Genesis 46:8-27, which is a Priestly list, not only the names of the sons are included, but also

of the descendants of those who had arrived in Egypt. When mentioning the children born by

Leah in Paddan-aram, the text adds "together with his daughter Dinah". In the whole list of

descendants only two women are mentioned: Dinah and Serah, daughter of Asher. She is

named here and then disappears from the text. Curiously enough, Serah is named in 1

Chronicles 7:30 when reference is made to the list of descendants included at the time of

distribution of the land amongst the tribes. We do not hear of Dinah in the Old Testament

outside this chapter 34 and the two other texts.”

9. R. C. Sproul, “The references to violence and killing in Genesis 49:5–6 recall their perversion

of the sign and seal of circumcision to exact revenge upon the Shechemites for violating their

sister Dinah (chap. 34). �o direct commentary on the immorality of this event has been voiced

yet, though many contextual clues have indicated that God was displeased. The blessing on

Simeon and Levi removes any ambiguity about their deeds. Their wanton slaughter of an entire

city was wrong, and their families will feel the consequences.

All of Jacob’s sons are brothers, but he calls Simeon and Levi “brothers” explicitly since the

sword binds them together in ways they are not bound to their other brothers (49:5). The Hebrew

term for violence here tells us an abhorrent ruthlessness motivated their behavior. Simeon and

Levi even hamstrung Shechem’s oxen needlessly (v. 6), injuring innocent animals and ruining

them as beasts of burden. On account of their sin, the brothers will be scattered in the Promised

Land without permanent inheritance rights (v. 7).

As expected, Jacob’s words would come true in the history of the nation of Israel. Simeon is the

only tribe Moses does not bless in Deuteronomy 33, and he is given only a select number of cities

in Judah’s territory (Josh. 19:1–9). The tribe of Judah eventually absorbs the Simeonites, and

they disappear from history. Levi is also scattered throughout Israel, but his tribe fares better in

the history of redemption. Moses, a son of Levi (Ex. 2:1–10), later mediates the old covenant.

Moreover, God would choose the Levites to be His priests (�um. 3:5–13), restoring honor to these

displaced sons of Jacob.

9B. An unknown author gives us more light on why Levi was restored to favor. “As a result,

Jacob prophesies they would receive no inheritance but be scattered in Israel. The destinies of

these two tribes, however, were quite diverse. Levi became a dominant tribe, fathering the

priesthood of Israel, while Simeon was relegated to selected cities in the tribal inheritance of

Judah (Joshua 19:1). Since both brothers were equally guilty in the slaughter, there must be a

reason for their different destinies. Whereas the tribal members of Simeon did nothing to atone

for the crime of their father, the tribe of Levi, in singular loyalty, stood by Moses’ side when the

rest of Israel bowed to the golden calf. They responded to Moses’ ringing inquiry, "Who is on the

Lord’s side?" (Exodus 32:26-28). It has always been a truism that God hears the repentant heart,

even to the third and fourth generation. What a final lesson for each of us! If we have, in

rashness, done that which is wrong, or violent, or self-willed, a full return to the Lord will bring a

compensating blessing. Let us each seek to be as the descendants of Levi, not as the descendants

of Simeon.

10. There is so much subjectivity involved in interpreting this chapter that it can be frustrating to

draw conclusions. Parry, Robin wrote, “A History of the Interpretation of Genesis 34 with

Special Reference to Its Usein Ethics” (87–122), is a fascinating journey in the footsteps of

exegesis of the story from the second century to the present. Reading the contradictory

interpretations, one cannot avoid wondering how the same basic data can be read in such widely

varying fashions by different people and what this means for the eternal question of whether one

can ever arrive at the “correct” interpretation. For example, some argue that Dinah was seduced

rather than raped (e.g., Bechtel); some lay the blame at her door (e.g., Ambrose, Genesis Rabbah).

Some describe Dinah in a positive fashion and emphasize her guiltlessness (e.g., Philo). Some

justify the massacre (e.g., Jubilees, the book of Judith, Philo), while others describe it as wicked

(e.g., John Calvin, Fewell and Gunn). Some believe that the story portrays Jacob favorably (e.g.,

Martin Luther, Fewell and Gunn), while others think that he is depicted in an unflattering light

(e.g., Sternberg). Finally, some see Hamor as a devoted father (e.g., Sternberg), whereas others

argue that he failed in his duty to educate his son (e.g., Luther).”

JEWISH TRADITIO�S TRYI�G TO MAKE SE�SE OF THIS CHAPTER.

The following quotes are from Kadari, Tamar. "Dinah: Midrash and Aggadah." Jewish Women:

A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia. 20 March 2009. Jewish Women's Archive. April 15,

2010 <http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/dinah-midrash-and-aggadah>.

These are Jewish attempts to explain why this chapter exists in the Bible. It is primarily a focus

on punishment, or the judgment of God on Jacob and his family. Since it is just speculation, I am

not impressed with it as having any validity, but it is at least an attempt to find meaning in the

events here recorded. Some of them are so far fetched that I am skipping them. You can use the

above information to see all of them. I will just give a couple of examples.

1. A third tradition suggests that Jacob’s tardiness in honoring his vow was the cause of his

punishment. When he was in Bethel, during his flight from Laban, he vowed that if God favored

him, he would return to Bethel and there erect an altar to the Lord (Gen. 28: 20–22). Jacob,

however, procrastinated in fulfilling his pledge: first he lived in Laban’s house for twenty years,

and even after returning to Canaan, he first dwelled in Shechem. He therefore was punished by

experiencing all three of the cardinal sins of idolatry, forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed:

forbidden sexual relations—by Shechem’s rape of Dinah; bloodshed—the ensuing slaughter of

the inhabitants of Shechem by Simeon and Levi; and idolatry—following this massacre, Jacob

commands all the members of his household to rid themselves of foreign gods (Lev. Rabbah 37:1).

2. Yet another tradition claims that Jacob was penalized for preventing Dinah from marrying his

brother Esau. Before his encounter with the latter, Jacob sent his family across the Jabbok River,

as we are told in Gen. 32:22: “That same night he arose, and took his two wives, his two

maidservants, and his eleven children.” The midrash asks: Where was Dinah? and answers that

he had locked her in a chest, saying: “So that Esau should not see her and take her from me.”

God told him: You withheld Dinah from your brother, and, due to her good attributes, she could

have reformed him. Since you did not want to give her to Esau, who was circumcised, you are

punished through her being taken by one who was uncircumcised (Shechem son of Hamor); you

did not give her in legitimate matrimony, therefore you are punished by her being taken by

Shechem illegitimately (Gen. Rabbah 76:9; Tanhuma [ed. Buber], Vayishlah 19).”

Another set of speculations deal with it all being for the punishment of Leah.

1. The Rabbis alternately explain the rape of Dinah as retribution for Leah’s improper behavior

regarding the mandrakes. In the Biblical account, Reuben found mandrakes (an aphrodisiac) in

the field, and brought them to his mother Leah. Rachel, who was barren, asked Leah to sell them

to her, in return for forgoing her right to be with Jacob that night. Gen. 30:16 tells that upon

Jacob’s return from the field, Leah came out to greet him and called him to come to her tent.

According to the Rabbis, Leah was bedecked as a harlot when she went to meet her husband. For

acting in such an immodest manner, she was punished by her daughter behaving in the same

fashion when she went out to visit the daughters of the land (Gen. Rabbah 80:1).

2. Another midrashic explanation of Leah’s sin with the mandrakes is that she was ungrateful to

Rachel. God asked her: Is this the reward for a good deed? Is this the reward of your sister

Rachel, who gave you her signs with her husband [that Jacob and Rachel had agreed upon, so

that Laban would not be able to deceive Jacob], to spare you embarrassment on your wedding

night? As punishment for this behavior, God caused Leah even greater embarrassment with the

episode of Dinah (Gen. Rabbati, Vayishlah, p. 168).

There are other speculations and inventions as well, but what is quite interesting is the stories

and traditions of the Rabbis that lead them to a happy conclusion, so that this terrible chapter

ends up with much redeeming value. Here is a taste of very positive thinking on the part of

Jewish authors as they deal with what happened to Dinah after this personal tragedy. You have to

give them credit for their creativity, but unfortunately there is no Biblical or historical evidence

to support these theories.

1. When Simeon and Levi came to the city and killed Shechem and Hamor, they extricated Dinah

from Shechem’s home. Since they risked their lives for her, the Torah (Gen. 34:25) calls them,

specifically, “Simeon and Levi, brothers of Dinah” (Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Masekhta de-

Shirah, Beshalah 10). The Rabbis relate that the brothers were forced to drag Dinah out, because

she was too ashamed to leave Shechem’s house. Finally, Simeon vowed to her that he would

marry her. They wed, and a son was born from this union, “Saul the son of a Canaanite woman”

(Gen. 46:10); Dinah was the “Canaanite woman,” because her behavior was like that of the

Canaanites. According to another explanation of this appellation, when she died, Simeon buried

her in Canaan (Gen. Rabbah 80:11).

2. A different midrash relates that Dinah was married to Job, basing this on Job’s telling his wife:

“You talk as any shameless woman [ha-nevalot] might talk!” (Job 2:10), and on the episode of

Dinah in Gen. 34:7: “because he had committed an outrage [nevalah] in Israel” (Gen. Rabbah

19:12). Dinah converted Job, and therefore Jacob had erred when he opposed her being married

to his brother Esau, a union which would have led to the latter’s reformation (see above)

(Tanhuma [ed. Buber], Vayishlah 19). For more on Job’s wife, see the entry: “Wife of Job.”

3. According to another midrashic account, Dinah was impregnated by Shechem and gave birth

to Asenath. Jacob’s sons wanted to kill the baby, so it would not be said that there was harlotry in

Jacob’s tents. Jacob brought a gold plate and wrote on it the name of the Holy One, blessed be

He; according to another tradition, he recorded on it the episode with Shechem. Jacob hung the

plate around Asenath’s neck and sent her away. God dispatched the angel Michael to bring her to

the house of Potiphar in Egypt; according to another exegetical tradition, Dinah cast Asenath on

the wall of Egypt (i.e., the wall surrounding the palace). That day Potiphar went out for a walk

with his servants next to the wall and heard the infant’s crying. When they brought the baby to

him, he saw the plate and the record of the episode. Potiphar told his servants, “This girl is the

daughter of great ones.” He brought her to his home and gave her a wet nurse. Potiphar’s wife

was barren, and she raised Asenath as her own daughter. Consequently, she was called “Asenath

daughter of Poti-phera,” for she was raised in the home of Potiphar and his wife, as if she were

their own daughter (Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer [ed. Higger], chap. 37; Midrash Aggadah [ed. Buber],

Gen. 41:45).

These different midrashic accounts of Dinah’s marriage teach that Dinah overcame the episode

of her rape by Shechem, rehabilitated herself and was married. According to some of these

traditions, either she herself or her daughter married some family member from Jacob’s clan.

Her descendants included renowned individuals.”

Let me share a good thing that came out of this chapter from the experience of a young Jewish

man who found it by accident and it changed his motivation to study the Bible. He now has a blog

called “Blogging the Bible What happens when an ignoramus reads the Good Book?

By David Plotz

Here is a portion of his story: “I have always been a proud Jew, but never a terribly observant

one. Several weeks ago, I made a rare visit to synagogue for a cousin's bat mitzvah and, as usual,

found myself confused (and bored) by a Hebrew service I couldn't understand. During the second

hour of what would be a ceremony of �FL-game-plus-overtime-length, I picked up the Torah in

the pew-back, opened it at random, and started reading (the English translation, that is). I was

soon engrossed in a story I didn't know, Genesis Chapter 34.

This is not a story they taught me at Temple Sinai's Hebrew School in 1980: The founding fathers

of the 12 tribes of Israel lie, breach a contract, encourage pagans to convert to Judaism only in

order to incapacitate them for slaughter, murder some innocents and enslave others, pillage and

profiteer, and then justify it all with an appeal to their sister's defiled honor. (Which, incidentally,

may not have been defiled at all: Some commentators, their views dramatized in Anita Diamant's

The Red Tent, think Dinah went with Shechem willingly, and even the language in the two

translations I looked at is ambiguous. One says Shechem "lay with her by force," while the King

James say he "lay with her, and defiled her.")

Like many lax but well-educated Jews (and Christians), I have long assumed I knew what was in

the Bible—more or less. I read parts of the Torah as a child in Hebrew school, then attended a

rigorous Christian high school where I had to study the Old and �ew Testaments. Many of the

highlights stuck in my head—Adam and Eve, Cain vs., Abel, Jacob vs. Esau, Jonah vs. whale, 40

days and nights, 10 plagues and Commandments, 12 tribes and apostles, Red Sea walked under,

Galilee Sea walked on, bush into fire, rock into water, water into wine. And, of course, I absorbed

other bits of Bible everywhere—from stories I heard in churches and synagogues, movies and TV

shows, tidbits my parents and teachers told me. All this left me with a general sense that I knew

the Good Book well enough, and that it was a font of crackling stories, Jewish heroes, and moral

lessons. So, the tale of Dinah unsettled me, to say the least. If this story was strutting cheerfully

through the back half of Genesis, what else had I forgotten or never learned? I decided I would,

for the first time as an adult, read the Bible. And I would blog about it as I went along.” You can

follow his blog at http://www.slate.com/id/2141050/ This strange chapter started him on a

mission to better understand the Bible.

MY OBSERVATIO�S A�D QUOTES I� TRYI�G TO MAKE SE�SE OF THIS CHAPTER

1. Sailhamer, “While the story in this chapter operates at a level of family honor and the

brothers' concern for their ravaged sister, the story nevertheless also carries along the theme that

runs so clearly through the Jacob narratives, namely, that God works through and often in spite

of the limited self-serving plans of human beings. The writer's purpose is not to approve these

human plans and schemes but to show how God, in his sovereign grace, could still achieve his

purpose through them."

2. This is a clear demonstration that nobody is so evil that God cannot use them for his purpose

in history, and in the end redeem them and cleanse them, and make them instruments of blessing

to a great number of people. These are two of the most hateful and wicked men in the Bible, and

yet they were used of God in the formation of the nation of Israel. �evertheless, it cost them a

great deal in terms of their inheritance and image among the people of God.

3. “It explains why Jacob passed over Simeon and Levi for the special blessing.” This is a main

reason for this difficult chapter, for it had a long lasting effect on the tribes of Israel. Robert

Rayburn put it, “As Jacob will say of these two sons in his final blessing of his twelve sons in

Genesis 49 (vv. 5-7), what we see of Simeon and Levi here is what was all too true of them as a

rule. There was a vengeful and violent streak in their characters. It was this, their father would

later say, that disqualified them from leadership in Israel. Hotheaded, vengeful, and violent men

make for bad kings!”

4. “The sons remain blind to the larger economic issue, blind to the dangers they have created,

blind to the possibilities of cooperation, and blind even to the ways they have compromised their

own religion in their thirst for vengeance and gain” (Brueggemann, 279).

4B. This chapter is a warning of just how far God's people can fall when they shut God out of

their daily life. It is the ultimate example of how bad examples should frighten us to ever go a day

without asking for God's presence to be real to us, and that the mind of Christ be in all of our

thinking and actions.

5. This chapter makes it clear that the Bible is totally honest about the evil that lurks in every

heart. There is no coverup of the sinfulness of God's chosen people. We need not be in wonder

and shock when we read of Christians who do the most wicked things, for they are free to rebel

against God's will, and follow the path of their own emotions and lusts. The Bible deals with real

life, and not honey covered myths that hide the sinfulness of God's people. Parts of the Bible that

are avoided, such as this chapter, need to be expounded so believers know the extent to which

they can fall without the guidance of God's Word. Ron Clark wrote, “My clergy trainings with

Communities Against Domestic Violence (CADV); a non-profit organization committed to

creating awareness in our communities, have focused on faith communities and leadership. Faith

communities are viewed as being slow to respond to abuse and sexual assault. Faith communities

do not teach and preach texts such as Genesis 34. Is this silence similar to Jacob’s?”

6. I John 2:15-16, ““Do not love the world, not the things in the world. If anyone loves the world,

the love of the father is not in him for all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of

the eyes and the boastful pride of life is not from the father but is of the world.” It is the opinion

of some that this is the key value to be learned from this godless chapter. When the Christian

becomes too close to the world, and lets the love of the world draw them into its mold, it leads to

Christians becoming even more wicked than the world, for they pervert their faith in conforming

to the world, and lose the discipline to control their emotions and drives to conform to the will of

God. Jacob and his whole family were seduced and raped by the world around them, for they lost

the spirit of God that would enable them to live in peace with the world without becoming like

the world, which is exactly the lesson that the life of Jesus teaches us all.

7. A clear purpose of such a horror story is that of making us all aware of the utter folly of taking

things into our own hands, and going off hot headed to seek revenge. We need to leave revenge in

the hands of God, and when we do act it is to be according to the laws of justice that God has

built into human thinking. Later God gave laws to guide Israel, but even here before that law

mankind had an understanding of what was justice. These sons of Jacob went off half cocked and

took revenge to a level no people on earth would ever conceive as just. That is what revengeful

hate will do. It will lead to an extreme. If you ever feel like getting revenge, take it to the Lord

immediately and work out a way to relieve that dangerous tension, for to take matters into you

own hands will lead you to become a fool, and make your name stink in the minds of all who

become aware of you. Sproul, “Simeon and Levi warn us against going too far when we seek to

right a wrong. John Calvin comments on Genesis 34:7: “We must beware, lest, after we have

become severe judges in condemning the faults of others, we hasten inconsiderately into evil.”

Scott Grant adds, “Let us not forget that the Old Testament injunction of “an eye for an eye” was

meant to limit the punishment so that it did not exceed the crime. The law mitigated against the

tendency to overreact.” (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20).

8. Dr. Robert Rayburn, “The wise, discerning, practiced Christian never imagines that he has

mastered the Christian life. He knows he is nearly as far from true godliness as on the day he

began his pilgrimage. That is the overarching lesson of this chapter, along with those chapters

that have gone before it and will come after it. Our dependence upon the grace and forgiveness of

God, upon his faithfulness to his promises, is the great, unifying theme of all of this material.”

9. Keith Krell sees the lesson of this chapter as a clear warning about compromise that is actually

outright disobedience to the known will of God. Jacob was to get back to Bethel, but he stopped

along the way and settled in the midst of a pagan community, and this compromise was the cause

of this most godless chapter. Krell wrote, “In Genesis 34, we come to an awful chapter—not only

in the book of Genesis—but also in the history of mankind. �ow, we know that the Bible was not

written as chapters. Rather, chapters were added later for ease of use. But we do know that in

this entire account (which makes up this chapter), God’s name is absent. It is made worse by

being the only chapter in the Bible, outside the book of Esther, where the name of God is not even

mentioned. However, throughout the book of Esther we see the fingerprints of God. This is not

the case in Genesis 34. In this passage, we do not see God’s name or His influence. This is a

passage filled with sin, excess, and godlessness. Yet, this story serves to warn us of the high price

of compromise. The tragedies that take place in this chapter are the result of Jacob’s failure to be

obedient to God’s command to return to Bethel (28:21; 31:3, 13). That single act of compromise

cost his daughter dearly and put the rest of the covenant family of God at risk. What a chilling

reminder that half-hearted obedience can be just as deadly as disobedience.”

Footnotes:

a. Genesis 34:7 Or against

b. Genesis 34:10 Or move about freely ; also in verse 21

c. Genesis 34:17 Hebrew daughter

d. Genesis 34:27 Or because