Genesis 34.5-12-Jacob and His Sons Reaction to Rape of Dinah and Hamor's Proposal for Intermarriage
Thursday September 21, 2006
Genesis: Genesis 34:5-12-Jacob and His Son’s Reaction to Rape of Dinah and Hamor’s Proposal of Intermarriage
Lesson # 209
Please turn in your Bibles to Genesis 34:1.
Last night we studied Genesis 34:1-4, which gives us the record of Shechem, son of Hamor raping Jacob’s daughter by Leah, namely, Dinah.
This evening we will study Genesis 34:5-7, which gives us the record of Jacob’s response to the rape of his daughter Dinah as well as the reaction of his sons.
Also, we will note Genesis 34:8-12 where Shechem’s father Hamor proposes that Jacob’s family intermarry with his.
Genesis 34:1, “Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the daughters of the land.”
Genesis 34:2, “When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and lay with her by force.”
Genesis 34:3, “He was deeply attracted to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke tenderly to her.”
Genesis 34:4, “So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, ‘Get me this young girl for a wife.’”
Genesis 34:5, “Now Jacob heard that he (Shechem) had defiled Dinah his daughter; but his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob kept silent until they came in.”
“Defiled” is the verb tame’ (am@f*) (taw-may), which means that Shechem’s rape of Dinah “dishonored” or, “disgraced” her because he was an uncircumcised man, an unbeliever and not a part of the covenant people led by Jacob, now Israel.
This expression “he (Shechem) had defiled Dinah” expresses the seriousness of Shechem’s rape of Dinah since it was a crime against God’s covenant people, which Dinah was a part of and it was an attack on God’s holiness and a crime that affected the entire community alienating it from God.
God’s holiness expresses His purity of His character or moral perfection and excellence and means that God can have nothing to do with sin or sinners.
He is totally separate from sin and sinners unless a way can be found to constitute them holy and that way has been provided based upon the merits of the impeccable Person and Finished Work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross.
The term “holiness” has become an obscure term.
Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines “holiness”, “the quality or state of being holy; sanctity” and they define “sanctity”, “sacred or hallowed character.”
One of the definitions that Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary gives for the adjective “holy” is, “entitled to worship or profound religious reverence because of divine character or origin or connection with God or divinity.”
Therefore, “holiness” pertains to the absolute perfection of the divine character.
One of the definitions for the noun “character” that Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary provides is that “character” is “the aggregate of features and traits that form the apparent individual nature of some person or thing.”
If we paraphrase this definition, and give it a spiritual application we would say that the “holiness” of God is “the aggregate (i.e. sum total) of perfect features and traits that form the nature of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.”
Thus, God’s holiness is related to all of His divine attributes or in other words, it is simply the harmony of all His perfections or attributes.
1 Chronicles 16:10, “Glory in His holy name; Let the heart of those who seek the LORD be glad.”
1 Peter 1:14-16, “As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."
Therefore, the rape of Dinah by Shechem was not only a serious crime against Dinah herself but a crime against God’s covenant people, Israel and thus an attack upon God’s holiness, which was represented by the covenant people, Israel.
The phrase “his (Jacob’s) daughter” emphasizes the relationship between Jacob and Dinah, which leads the reader to expect a fierce and angry reaction from Jacob, like David upon hearing of the rape of Tamar (2 Samuel 13:21).
However, instead, Jacob says and does absolutely nothing but rather waits until his sons arrive.
The statement “Jacob kept silent” condemns Jacob’s passivity and indifference to the rape of his daughter and violence against the covenant people of God, Israel, which was an attack upon God’s holiness, which Israel represented to the world.
Though silence may be appropriate under certain circumstances, the use of the phrase “his daughter” and the statement, “Jacob kept silent” are used by the narrator Moses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in order to condemn Jacob’s indifferent and passive behavior.
There should have been “righteous indignation” i.e. justified anger on the part of Jacob not only because of what Shechem did to his daughter but also because it was an attack on God’s covenant people, Israel and thus an attack upon the Person of God, and thus His holiness, which Israel represented before the world.
Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the narrator Moses censures Jacob’s passivity and indifference in the face of his daughter’s rape by contrasting his reaction to that of his sons.
They were furious but Jacob was not thus reflecting once again that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah who is the mother of Dinah.
Evidently, Jacob did not consider the rape of his own daughter important enough to immediately send for his sons.
It appears that after Jacob dealt with the problems of Laban and Esau, that he didn’t want to deal with any more problems but rather wanted to spend the rest of his life in peace and tranquility, with no problems.
However, this problem with Dinah he brought on himself because he failed to depart from Succoth and go directly to Bethel to fulfill his vow to the Lord to build an altar to worship the Lord there.
Genesis 34:6, “Then Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him.”
Initially, the negotiations between the two families begin with father speaking with father but then Jacob’s sons take over the negotiations from their father once they have arrived.
As we have noted in our study of the marriage of Rebekah and Isaac, it was customary for the brothers to negotiate the marriage of their sisters.
Genesis 34:7, “Now the sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it; and the men were grieved, and they were very angry because he had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter, for such a thing ought not to be done.”
Once Jacob’s sons heard of the rape of their sister they head in from the field.
How they found out is not revealed and who told them is not revealed as well but we can assume that word traveled quickly through the countryside of their sister’s rape and quickly reached their ears.
The intense emotional reaction of Jacob’s son upon hearing of the rape of their sister, which is justified stands in stark contrast to the lack of emotion and apparent indifference on the part of Jacob to the crime against his own daughter.
Jacob’s lack of emotion demonstrates that he does not consider the rape a moral outrage and an attack against God’s covenant people, who he is the leader of and therefore if an attack on God’s people it is an attack upon God’s holiness.
Jacob’s reaction to the rape of his daughter is comparable to that of Shechem and his father Hamor, who both find nothing offensive about the rape.
Both men feel that since Shechem truly loves Dinah, they can overlook the crime and simply settle the matter by negotiating a financial settlement for the marriage, which appears to be what Jacob desired since later he rebukes his sons for killing Hamor and Shechem and does not express moral outrage for the crime.
Jacob’s response to his son’s killing Shechem and his father Hamor for the rape of their sister Dinah indicates that Jacob at this point in his life wanted no trouble and lived in fear of the Canaanites.
Therefore, he was willing to overlook the crime against his daughter and his people and feels he would provoke the Canaanites to violence if he became angry with them over the rape of Dinah.
The angry reaction of Jacob’s sons exposes Jacob’s passivity and indifference and lack of moral outrage against this attack upon God’s covenant people, Israel.
The causal clause “because he had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter, for such a thing ought not to be done” presents the “reason” why Jacob’s sons were enraged and burning with righteous indignation.
“Disgraceful thing” is composed of the noun nevalah (hlbn+) (nev-aw-law), which means, “disgraceful” and the adverb me’odh (da{m+), which means, “very,” therefore, the rape of Dinah was considered by Jacob’s sons as “very disgraceful” since it was a flagrant violation of the moral standard in Israel.
The term “Israel” is an “anachronism” meaning it is not used of Jacob but rather for the nation that originated from him, thus indicating that Jacob’s sons considered the rape of their sister, not only a crime against her but a crime against their nation, which demanded action.
Apparently, the sons of Jacob appreciated the honor bestowed upon them as a family and believed in the promises the Lord bestowed upon Abraham, Isaac and their father Jacob that their family was to carry on the line of Christ and to inherit the blessings, promises, privileges and responsibilities of the Abrahamic Covenant.
They believed in the promises given to Abraham, Isaac and their father Jacob and knew that their family was destined to be the greatest of all the nations, from which the Messiah would come.
Jacob’s sons knew and believed in God’s purpose to raise up a holy nation through their family and that maintaining national integrity and purity was essential to assure God’s continued blessing upon them.
Not only did they resent the rape of their sister for the sake of their sister Dinah but also because it disrupted that national purity.
The statement “for such a thing ought not to be done” means that for society’s own self-protection, such heinous crimes such as rape and murder can never be tolerated or left unpunished in the society of the nation of Israel or in any civilized society.
The question arises as to what kind of punishment should be administered to Shechem.
Under the Mosaic Law in Israel, the rape of an “unengaged” woman like Dinah did “not” demand the death penalty but required restitution in the form of fifty shekels be paid by the offender to the family of the victim, which constitutes the “bride-price” and the offender was required to marry the victim if the father agreed to it and the offender could never divorce her.
Exodus 22:16-17, “If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.”
Deuteronomy 22:25, “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die.”
Deuteronomy 22:26, “But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case.”
Deuteronomy 22:27, “When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.”
Deuteronomy 22:28-29, “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.”
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 involved the case where a “single” woman was seized and raped and the crime was discovered.
Since this did not involve a breach in a relationship, as it did with adultery, the punishment was less.
Deuteronomy 22:25-27 involves a case where a woman is raped who is engaged to another man.
The offender was to be put to death since legally she was considered married to the man she was engaged to, thus it would constitute adultery on the part of the offender, which demanded the death penalty.
Of course, the engaged woman who was raped was not put to death because the sex was against her will.
Genesis 34:8, “But Hamor spoke with them, saying, ‘The soul of my son Shechem longs for your daughter; please give her to him in marriage.’”
Jacob’s sons take control of the negotiations with Hamor.
Hamor’s statement “the soul of my son Shechem longs for your daughter” expresses the fact that Shechem is infatuated with Dinah.
Amazingly, yet demonstrating their immoral degeneracy, neither Shechem nor his father Hamor offer an apology for the crime or express any remorse whatsoever.
Hamor speaks as if the rape of Dinah had never occurred, which further infuriates her brothers.
He deals with the family of Jacob only on account of his son’s love interests and omits mention of the crime as though nothing had ever happened.
Furthermore, Dinah is held captive in Shechem’s home and is never brought home, which again further enrages Jacob’s sons and well it should have.
Genesis 34:9, “Intermarry with us; give your daughters to us and take our daughters for yourselves.”
Hamor proposes marriage between his and Jacob’s family, which is out of the question for the family of Jacob since the Canaanites were under a curse according to the prophecy of Noah recorded in Genesis 9:24-27.
Later on the Mosaic Law prohibited the Israelites from intermarrying with the Canaanites since the latter would take the former away from their relationship with God and lead them into idolatry, which would result in divine discipline upon the nation of Israel (See Deuteronomy 7:1-4).
Satan, who is the great enemy of the nation of Israel, is behind this proposal since acceptance of this proposal would have meant the absorption of the Israelites by the Canaanites and the loss of their identity, thus preventing the birth of the Messiah.
The question arises as to how Jacob’s sons were to secure wives for themselves in the land of Canaan if they were prohibited from marrying Canaanite women.
After the conflict between the Arameans and Jacob, the option of returning to Paddan Aram to secure a wife was essentially ruled out.
More than likely, since Jacob had four different wives, they could have married among themselves even as Esau married the daughters of Ishmael.
Also, Jacob’s sons could have married Canaanite women if they accepted Christ as their Savior and adhered to having their children circumcised, which was required by God of His covenant people.
Remember that this curse upon Canaan was conditional meaning that any Canaanite who placed their faith in the God of Israel, Jesus Christ, could escape it.
An example is Rahab the harlot who was a Canaanite and placed her faith in the God of Israel, Jesus Christ and after a period of purification, was brought into Israel’s society.
Genesis 34:10, “Thus you shall live with us, and the land shall be open before you; live and trade in it and acquire property in it.”
Hamor presents an economic proposal to Jacob and his sons and urges them to consider the economic advantages of such an arrangement.
This economic proposal would be very tempting to the family of Jacob who were nomadic herdsman and therefore, resident aliens.
A resident alien was a person who moved into an area where he had neither land nor clan ties and would be without traditional tribal legal support and protection and would be vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.
Therefore, the proposal to Jacob and his sons by Hamor would be tempting since it would be a valuable provision to resident aliens like Jacob and his sons and would meet the basic need of a resident alien.
However, it also presents the greatest temptation and obstacle to the covenant people of God, Israel, namely the lust of the eyes and flesh.
This temptation originates with the cosmic system of Satan and is one that God’s people have been frequently exposed to throughout history.
This economic proposal is based upon intermarriage with the Canaanites and so therefore by accepting it, would be disobeying God’s will, which prohibited marriage to the Canaanites.
Acceptance of this proposal would in effect be love for the cosmic system of Satan, which believer’s are prohibited from doing (See 1 John 2:15-17).
So Hamor’s economic proposal would be appealing to the lust patterns of the old Adamic sin natures of Jacob’s family as well as the lust of their eyes.
Therefore, Satan has inspired this economic proposal to take Jacob’s family away from the plan of God for their family.
Also, in Genesis 34:23, Hamor’s proposal was designed to absorb all the wealth of Jacobs’ family into Shechemite society.
Genesis 34:11, “Shechem also said to her father and to her brothers, ‘If I find favor in your sight, then I will give whatever you say to me.’”
Shechem interrupts his father Hamor and begins to speak to both Jacob and Dinah’s brothers, inviting them to name their price for the bride-price.
Genesis 34:12, “Ask me ever so much bridal payment and gift, and I will give according as you say to me; but give me the girl in marriage.”
The terms “bridal payment” (Hebrew: mohar) is a reference to the “bride-price” which refers to the compensation paid to the family of the bride for the loss of the bride’s presence and services and her potential offspring and would demonstrate proof to the bride’s family that she would be well cared for by bridegroom.
The “bride-price” must not be confused with a “dowry,” since the latter was provided by the bride’s family whereas the former was provided by the groom.
In the case of a rape of an unengaged virgin, the Mosaic Law demanded payment of fifty shekels of silver and marriage without the possibility of divorce according to Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
The “gift” refers to a ceremonial gift that would be given to Dinah.
Shechem’s offer expresses the fact that he recognizes that he needs to make restitution for the rape of Dinah.
Shechem’s demand “Give me the girl in marriage” demonstrates his infatuation, personal love and affection for Dinah.
“Girl” is the noun na`arah (hr*u&n^), which signifies that Dinah was of marriageable age meaning she was approximately thirteen or fourteen years of age and was considered a “young woman.”