Deeper Commentary
Gen 34:1 Dinah, the daughter of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob, went
out to see the daughters of the land- She went to see the girls, not
the boys; but any movement toward the world exposes to further temptation.
And that's just what happened here. The Jacob family by reason of their life
path would've been quite insular; being on the move all the time, they had
no opportunity to build up friendships or relationships with others outside
the group. And so we can understand the desire for a young person to go out
to meet the locals. But females in those days never travelled alone, always
there was a male relative present. But it seems Dinah almost escaped alone.
We can assume she was a naive teenager.
Gen 34:2 Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land,
saw her. He took her, lay with her, and humbled her- "Humbled" is the
same word translated "afflict"; and yet if he brutally raped her, his
genuine love for her in :3 and :12 is hard to understand. So the idea may be
that she was humbled by the experience. See on :3.
Gen 34:3 His soul joined to Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, and he loved
the young lady, and spoke kindly to the young lady- The language of
'joining' or [AV] 'cleaving' is that of Gen. 2:24 about cleaving in
marriage. His kind words and genuine love for her all suggest his desire
to marry her was sincere. What was wrong was that he prematurely slept
with her. But the whole incident had a far grosser spin placed upon it by
Jacob's sons. Shechem spoke kindly to her, Heb. 'to her heart', with
comfort- presumably the comfort that he had not just used her, but would
marry her and promised her a wonderful life. This is quite opposite to how
her brothers interpreted the situation, falsely claiming Shechem had used
her as a prostitute (:31).
Gen 34:4 Shechem spoke to his father, Hamor, saying, Get me this young
lady as a wife- She was indeed young. If Joseph was only 17 when he
was sold into Egypt about 11 years later, Dinah would have been around 16
at this time (cp. Gen. 30:21).
Gen 34:5 Now Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah, his daughter. And
his sons were with his livestock in the field. Jacob held his peace until
they came- Perhaps she had gone with other young folks, who returned
to the encampment with the news. "Defiled" is a strictly ceremonial or
moral word. The idea is not of rape; see on :2. The response and evil plan
of the sons appears to have been done without Jacob's knowledge. He
appears very passive; if he had acted more decisively at the time, perhaps
events might have turned out differently. The entire story is full of
weakness and failure on the part of absolutely all involved; and yet the
end result of it was the casting away of idols from Jacob's family, as
they threw themselves upon God's grace to preserve them.
Gen 34:6 Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to talk with
him- We have the impression of Jacob living at the city limits, and
the city clearly defined with a gate and houses within the walls. Hence
Shechem 'goes out' to Jacob. There may be an intended similarity with how
Lot pitched his tent just outside Sodom, and then moved in to the city
(Gen. 13:12). Shechem was also an area of rich pastureland which would've
been attractive to Jacob.
Gen 34:7 The sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it.
The men were grieved, and they were very angry, because he had done folly
in Israel in lying with Jacob’s daughter; a thing which ought not to be
done- There is reason to think that even at the end, Jacob was still in some ways weak. Thus despite his name having been changed from Jacob to Israel, the two terms are used by God in the record in juxtaposition (here
and
Gen. 35:22; 46:2, 5,8; 48:2) as if to reflect the way the full change of Jacob would only take place in the Kingdom, when each believer will receive his new name (Rev. 3:12).
The sons of Jacob are presented here as hypocritical; they despised the sign of the covenant, circumcision, and were ruthless and self-willed, murdering and pillaging. So their outrage was hardly because of their own morality. And as noted on :2 and :3, it was they who had decided that Shechem had raped their sister and treated her as a prostitute (:31). "Folly" is an extreme term, used of prostitutes and rapists (Dt. 22:21; Jud. 19:23,24). In reality he had not raped her, and she was at least partially responsible. But the problem with the usage of inflammatory language is that it creates images which do not easily subside. This incident stands for all time as a warning to us all; a mistake is made, a sin is committed, as these youngsters Shechem and Dinah did; but others get involved, and for the sake of family pride, they exaggerate what happened into something quite different, and once that image is in their mind, they will kill and pillage for it. This sort of thing goes on in secular and religious life all the time.
Gen 34:8 Hamor talked with them, saying, The soul of my son, Shechem, longs for your daughter. Please give her to him as a wife- Hamor avoids mentioning that Shechem has slept with her already. This was clearly intended to be a love marriage, it was not casual rape nor usage of a girl as a prostitute (:31). The sincerity of Shechem is consistently contrasted with the exaggeration and serious over reaction of Jacob's sons.
Gen 34:9 Make marriages with us, give your daughters to us, and take
our daughters for yourselves- Jacob had other daughters apart from
Dinah, mentioned also in Gen. 46:7. The sons of Jacob would have known the
family stories of how Isaac and Jacob had both gone to such trouble not to
marry local Canaanite women, and how these had been a grief of mind to
Isaac an Rebekah when Esau married them. They ought to have immediately
turned away from such a proposal, and simply ensured Dinah's safety and
return to their camp.
Gen 34:10 You shall dwell with us, and the land will be before you.
Live and trade in it, and get possessions in it- The land [eretz]
had been promised to the sons of Jacob as an eternal inheritance; the men
of Shechem suggested that an agreement with them would make the eretz
before them. They speak not for the town of Shechem, but the entire
eretz, as if an agreement with them would mean the rest of the
Canaanite tribes would be acceptant of them. This reasoning was quite
contrary to the Divine promise that by His grace He would give them the
eretz; it was because of this that "the land [is] before you"
(Dt. 1:21- the identical Hebrew is used). The whole behaviour of Jacob's
sons reflects a lack of spiritual perception and appreciation of the
promises. "Possessions" is literally 'things taken hold of' and is the
same word used of how Jacob took hold of Esau's heel (Gen. 25:26). He
ought to have learnt that he had given up grabbing hold, and would instead
take hold of God's grace.
Gen 34:11 Shechem said to her father and to her brothers, Let me find
favour in your eyes, and whatever you will tell me I will give- This
is the language of someone desperately in love. Again we note the emphasis
upon Shechem's integrity and that he most definitely did not treat her as
a prostitute (:31). Their accusation was therefore their imagination, and
their reaction was wrong.
Gen 34:12 Ask me a great amount for a dowry, and I will give whatever
you ask of me, but give me the young lady as a wife- AV "dowry and
gift"; the dowry being to the parents, and the gift to the bride. He was
obsessed with Dinah, the language is similar to Samson's about his first
Philistine wife; but despite that, he was eager to do things in accordance
with norms of societal behaviour, and his relationship with her was
clearly not of a casual nature.
Gen 34:13 The sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father with
deceit, and spoke, because he had defiled Dinah their sister-
"Defiled" has a religious, moral connotation. They were justifying their
anger and bloodlust by claiming they had to settle some gross religious
blasphemy. But Shechem is portrayed as most definitely not having used
Dinah, but rather wishing by all means to marry her in a responsible way.
And so often we see this; quasi religious / spiritual reasoning is used to
justify arrogance, pride and a desire to justify the outpouring of native
anger. And so they acted true to the character of their father Jacob and
grandfather Laban; they were deceitful.
Gen 34:14 And said to them, We can’t do this thing, to give our sister
to one who is uncircumcised; for that is a reproach to us- Again, as
noted on :13, they used quasi spiritual reasoning to justify their own
wrong behaviour. They made out that uncircumcision was a shameful thing
for them, pretending they were men of such high spiritual principle when
they were nothing of the sort.
Gen 34:15 Only on this condition will we consent to you. If you will
be as we are, that every male of you be circumcised- Circumcision was
the sign of the covenant; to even be willing to offer it to others shows a
deep lack of appreciation of covenant relationship. All the way through,
they are presented as being most unspiritual.
Gen 34:16 Then will we give our daughters to you, and we will take
your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one
people- As noted on :15, to even talk about being "one people" with
those who were not the people of God is reflective of their lack of
spirituality and appreciation of their relationship with God.
Gen 34:17 But if you will not listen to us, to be circumcised, then we
will take our sister, and we will be gone- Jacob had only just
purchased land at the city limits. So "we will be gone" was not going to
be so easily executed. "We will take our sister" could suggest a threat of
force. They do not ask for her to be delivered, but rather say they
will take her.
Gen 34:18 Their words pleased Hamor and Shechem, Hamor’s son- Not
least, because it was an honourable way out of the situation caused by
Shechem and Dinah's inappropriate and premature behaviour.
Gen 34:19 The young man didn’t wait to do this thing- The Hebrew
idea of waiting or delaying is nearly always used in a bad sense; not
delaying is associated with right behaviour. Again, Shechem is portrayed
as honourable. Perhaps the idea is that he was circumcised first,
immediately.
Because he had delight in Jacob’s daughter, and he was honoured above all the house of his father- This could also mean, as AV, that he was the most honourable. The others wanted to deceive the Israelites for material advantage, but Shechem is presented as being of integrity and sincerity despite his initial sin of passion in sleeping with Dinah.
Gen 34:20 Hamor and Shechem, his son, came to the gate of their city,
and talked with the men of their city, saying- The emphasis seems to
be upon them doing everything in a correct, transparent and appropriate
manner- in direct contrast to the devious behaviour of Jacob's sons.
Gen 34:21 These men are peaceful with us. Therefore let them live in
the land and trade in it. For behold, the land is large enough for them.
Let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our
daughters- The implication is that Jacob had bought some land on the
city limits, but this was recent; they had not yet begun to trade with the
locals and were without relevant permissions to do so. Moses alludes to
their words by saying that the entire eretz was a "large" land,
and because of the largeness of the inheritance, they would possess the
land of the Hivites (Ex. 3:8). The primary audience of Genesis were
intended to make this connection; the Hivites were reasoning as if it were
all their land when in fact it was the eternal inheritance of the
wayward but chosen-by-grace sons of Jacob.
Gen 34:22 Only on this condition will the men consent to us to live
with us, to become one people, if every male among us is circumcised, as
they are circumcised-
Marriage out of the Faith is associated with a
chronic lack of appreciation of covenant relationship. If Dinah had
married Hamor, this would have been a covenant relationship which would
have resulted in the people of God and the surrounding world becoming “one
people” (:16,22). How can we marry out of the Faith and
claim we are still God’s people, separated from the world and not "of it"?
Living together ["live with us"] was going to result in the process of
time with 'becoming one people', and this is so often how it goes when a
believer marries an unbeliever.
Gen 34:23 Won’t their livestock and their possessions and all their
animals be ours? Only let us give our consent to them, and they will dwell
with us- Here we see a less honourable side of Hamor and Shechem; the
Jacob family were perceived as wealthy, perhaps more wealthy than the
whole of Shechem. However, Shechem is definitely presented as honourable,
and as a young man we can assume that the idea of getting Jacob's wealth
was perhaps more pushed by his father. Or perhaps they felt they had to
offer some attractive side to the bargain, so that their people would
agree; when Shechem himself simply wanted to marry the girl he had fallen
in love with.
Gen 34:24 All who went out of the gate of his city listened to Hamor,
and to Shechem his son; and every male was circumcised, all who went out
of the gate of his city- The reference is not to those who sat
in the gate, which would have referred to the leadership. Those who went
out of the gate might therefore simply refer to "every male" who was old
enough to travel independently, i.e. to leave the city.
Gen 34:25 It happened on the third day, when they were sore, that two
of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, each took his sword,
came upon the unsuspecting city, and killed all the males- This was a
classic case of guilt by association. "All the males" were hardly guilty
of what one had done. The awfulness of the crime was not simply that they
over-reacted in hot blood, but that they planned this massacre over a
period of days. Although Simeon and Levi did the killing, it is clear that
the other brothers knew the plan; and surely Jacob did, and his silence is
significant. The whole incident portrays all involved as weak; and yet out
of it arises the mass repentance from idolatry of Gen. 35.
Gen 34:26 They killed Hamor and Shechem, his son, with the edge of the
sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went away- The poor
girl must have been so terribly traumatized and confused to see all this
happening at the hands of her brothers.
Gen 34:27 Jacob’s sons came on the dead, and plundered the city,
because they had defiled their sister- The term "Jacob's sons"
usually refers to the group; they were clearly complicent in the crime,
although the actual murders were committed by Dinah's two brothers. The
plundering was perhaps their way of showing that they had seen through the
real motivation of these people- it was to take the wealth of the Jacob
family (:23). But as with the language of demons in the New Testament, the
final clause is written from their perspective- they did this because
"they" had defiled their sister. Only Shechem could be accused of defiling
Dinah, so they are in the grip of guilt by association thinking; and the
language of 'defilement' for pre-marital consensual sex seems rather a
quasi-spiritual motivation for doing what was plainly wrong.
Gen 34:28 They took their flocks, their herds, their donkeys, that
which was in the city, that which was in the field- This was showing
that they had seen through the real motivation of these people- it was to
take the animals wealth of the Jacob family (:23). It must have been a
major operation, consciously planned and executed; for they took the
animals which they had which were "in the field".
Gen 34:29 And all their wealth. They took captive all their little
ones and their wives, and took as plunder everything that was in the house-
Taking the wives / women rather than killing them suggests that they then
married them or slept with them; for this was the idea of taking women as
"plunder". They did this on the excuse that one of the men had raped their
sister, when in fact the young couple wanted to get married and the sex
was consensual. Their evil is presented as being far greater than that
done by Shechem, and their sin was of the same order and nature of rape,
which they falsely accused Shechem of. Yet they did it on a mass scale.
They are presented as very selfish and hypocritical.
Gen 34:30 Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, You have troubled me, to make
me odious to the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the
Perizzites. I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together
against me and slay me, and I shall be destroyed, I and my house- So true to our experience, even after the night of wrestling Jacob slipped back at times into the old way of thinking. His pathetic bleating
here is a case of this: "I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house". Just note all those personal pronouns. God had promised to go with him
and make him a multitude, not "few in number", and the whole tenor of all
the promises was that there would come a singular seed from the line of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who would become a great house, or nation. But in
the heat of the moment, all this was forgotten. He had only recently
feared that he would be 'slain' by Esau and his family destroyed (Gen.
32:11 s.w., "he will come and smite me, and the mother with the
children"), and been brought to see that this fear was a lack of faith in
the fulfilment of the promises to him. We too can learn something in one
crisis, but then need to be re-taught it, or reveal our lack of having
learnt, when the essence of the crisis is repeated again in a later
similar incident.
The primary audience of Genesis was Israel in the wilderness, and as they approached Canaan, they must likewise have felt that they were going to be overcome by the local tribes. Yet such fears of not inheriting the Kingdom are presented as being but the same element of faithless fear which was in Jacob at this time. They feared they would be "destroyed" (s.w.) by the local tribes (Dt. 1:27). But somehow God would miraculously preserve them, as He did "Israel" at his first formation as a nation.
Gen 34:31 They said, Should he deal with our sister as with a prostitute?- Humanly, the sons of Jacob, unrepentant as they were, should have taken the consequence of their evil at the hand of the vengeful surrounding tribes. But God, in His grace, preserves them by a miracle (Gen. 35:5). By contrast, the unbelieving Shechemites acted more honourably. The Prince of Shechem didn't rape her, and he didn't just discard her. He could easily have just taken her as his wife with no more discussion with her family. He did the honourable thing in that he honestly wanted to marry her, and would do absolutely anything to enable this (Gen. 34). The brothers acted in greed and hurt pride, but justified it by exaggerating what had happened in their own mind; and they repeated the lie to themselves until they believed it were true.
As noted on :3, Shechem did not use Dinah as a prostitute, and their comment is tantamount to accusing their sister of being a prostitute. But they were so desperate to justify their sick actions that they cared nothing for the logic of their false accusations. We see that in people today, and their comment has the ring of psychological credibility in the situation.