Genesis 34.13-17-Jacob's Sons Deceitfully Propose Circumcision as Condition of Intermarriage
Sunday September 24, 2006
Genesis: Genesis 34:13-17-Jacob’s Sons Deceitfully Propose Circumcision as Condition of Intermarriage
Lesson # 210
Please turn in your Bibles to Genesis 33:17.
This morning we will continue with our study of the massacre of the city of Shechem by Jacob’s sons in retaliation for the rape of their sister Dinah by Shechem, the son of Hamor, the Hivite
This sordid tale appears in Genesis 34 but actually begins in Genesis 33:17.
Genesis 33:17, “Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and built for himself a house and made booths for his livestock; therefore the place is named Succoth.”
Jacob stays temporarily in Succoth in order to rest his flocks and family after their difficult and long journey from Paddan Aram and confrontations with both Laban and Esau.
Genesis 33:18, “Now Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Paddan-aram, and camped before the city.”
Genesis 33:19, “He bought the piece of land where he had pitched his tent from the hand of the sons of Hamor, Shechem's father, for one hundred pieces of money.”
Genesis 33:20, “Then he erected there an altar and called it El-Elohe-Israel.”
Jacob crosses the Jordan and moves twenty miles to the west and settles at Shechem, and purchases land from Hamor, who was a Hivite.
Hamor sold this tract of land to Jacob with the intention of intermarrying with Jacob’s family and absorbing their great wealth and possessions that they acquired in Paddan Aram.
However, the Hivites were a branch of the Canaanites who were under a curse as stipulated in the prophecy of Noah, which is recorded in Genesis 9:24-27, thus Jacob’s family could not intermarry with Hamor’s people, the Hivites.
Genesis 34:1, “Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the daughters of the land.”
Dinah’s decision to fraternize with the Canaanite women was the result of the bad decision of her father to purchase land from the Canaanites, thus she saw nothing wrong in visiting the city of Shechem unchaperoned.
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.”
Jacob’s “passive” response to the news of his daughter’s rape was due to fear of retaliation by the Canaanites if he exacted revenge on Shechem for raping Dinah.
Genesis 34:6, “Then Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him.”
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.”
The “angry” reaction of Jacob’s sons to the rape of their sister Dinah stands in stark contrast with Jacob’s response and fueled further resentment of their father.
They were angry not only because their sister was raped but also because they considered her rape a crime against their nation, Israel.
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.’”
Genesis 34:9, “Intermarry with us; give your daughters to us and take our daughters for yourselves.”
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.”
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.’”
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.”
Shechem’s father Hamor presents intermarriage and economic proposals, which would be of great benefit to Jacob’s family who were resident aliens and constituted a great temptation from the cosmic system of Satan, namely, the lust of the eyes (See 1 John 2:15-17).
However, Jacob’s sons were prohibited from accepting such a proposal since the Canaanites were under a curse as stipulated in Noah’s prophecy in Genesis 9:24.
The fact that Shechem did love Dinah and was willing to marry her and pay any amount of money to ensure this indicates that he had a measure of integrity.
Genesis 34:13-17 records Jacob’s sons responding to Hamor and Shechem’s proposals by deceitfully proposing circumcision as the condition to be met by them and their constituents in order for Jacob’s family to accept Hamor’s proposals.
Genesis 34:13, “But Jacob's sons answered Shechem and his father Hamor with deceit, because he had defiled Dinah their sister.”
Genesis 34:14, “They said to them, ‘We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one who is uncircumcised, for that would be a disgrace to us.’”
Genesis 34:15-16, “Only on this condition will we consent to you: if you will become like us, in that every male of you be circumcised, then we will give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters for ourselves, and we will live with you and become one people.”
Genesis 34:17, “But if you will not listen to us to be circumcised, then we will take our daughter and go.”
Genesis 34:25 reveals that Simeon and Levi are involved in these negotiations with Shechem and his father Hamor and are the ones who hatched the deceitful plan to propose that the men of Shechem submit to circumcision as the condition to be met in order for Jacob’s family to accept Hamor’s proposals.
In Genesis 49:5-7, Jacob under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit rebukes Simeon and Levi for their conduct in dealing with the rape of Dinah indicating that these two alone hatched the plan and that Jacob was totally unaware of their intentions and was thus innocent of murder.
The fact that Jacob’s sons responded to Hamor’s proposals with deceit reveals that the fruit does not fall too far from the tree since Jacob’s sons manifest the deceitful character that originated from the old Adamic sin nature of their father Jacob.
At the moment of physical birth, every person born into the world without exception receives the imputation of Adam’s original sin in the Garden of Eden (See Genesis 5:12-21) and this results in every person possessing the disobedient nature of the first Adam (See Romans 5:12-19).
The nature of the first Adam is always disobedient to God and tempts the soul of every human being to commit mental, verbal and overt acts of sin against God (See Romans 5:12-19; Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Peter 2:11).
“Circumcised” is the verb mul (lWm) (mool), which refers to the act of cutting of the foreskin of the male’s penis and was given as a sign to Abraham and his biological descendants that they were set apart by God and yet was not given to justify or save them.
Genesis 17:9-14 records that the Lord gave Abraham and his descendants the ritual of circumcision to observe as a sign to ratify the covenant that He established with Abraham when he left Haran.
The ceremony of circumcision consisted in cutting away the foreskin, the hood or fold of skin covering the head of the male organ, which was generally done by means of a sharp knife, but in more primitive times sharp stones were used (Ex. 4:25; Josh. 5:2, flint knives).
The sexual act and reproductive organs and processes were created by God to be enjoyed by both the man and the woman in marriage and received the full blessing of God (Gen. 1:28; 9:1).
But with the Fall of Adam and the Woman, the sex organs and sex act became vehicles of sin and corruption since Satan led man into sexual debauchery, corrupting the institution of marriage in every conceivable way in order to stop God’s purpose for man and his redemption.
Therefore, we see a symbolic meaning of the act of circumcision where the cutting of the foreskin spoke of a surgical removal, a complete separation, from the sins of the flesh so widely prevalent in the world around Abraham and his descendants.
The nations and tribes around Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were involved in sins largely centered in the misuse of the male organ in adultery, fornication and sodomy.
Circumcision symbolized to the Jewish man that he was a member of an elect nation, a peculiar people, distinctly holy before God, in relation to sexual conduct, so it came indirectly to speak of holiness in every phase of life.
Therefore, the organ of the male body that was used for procreation is consecrated to God (cf. Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4) and failure to submit to circumcision demonstrated one’s overt unwillingness to obey the Lord.
Leviticus 20:7, “You shall consecrate yourselves therefore and be holy, for I am the LORD your God.”
According to Genesis 17:9-14 and Romans 4:1-11, circumcision was to be the distinguishing mark upon the organ of procreation among Abraham’s biological descendants, the Jews who had entered into the Abrahamic covenant and served as confirmation of Abraham’s lineage to fulfill their covenantal responsibility.
The ordinance of circumcision could “not” save man but was to be the distinguishing sign of the Jewish nation from the other nations.
God has not commanded circumcision of the flesh for Christians (Acts 15; Galatians 5).
Circumcision of the flesh is useless unless there is a circumcision of the heart, which refers to exercising faith alone in Christ alone resulting in regeneration.
Therefore, faith in Christ is what is important to God and not whether you are circumcised or not.
Deuteronomy 30:6, “Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.”
Colossians 2:11, “and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.”
Abraham was first justified by his faith and then he was given circumcision as a badge or a mark that he was saved and set apart by God (See Romans 4:1-13).
The 1st Church Council in Jerusalem that is recorded in Acts 15 recognized in the Scriptures that a Jew does not get saved through the practice of circumcision but through faith alone in Christ, thus the Gentiles were not required to be circumcised.
Galatians 6:15, “For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.”
Therefore, even if the Shechemites submitted to circumcision, they did not become a member of God’s covenant people and were still under the Canaanite curse unless they exercised faith in the God of Israel, the Lord Jesus Christ.
The moral outrage as expressed by Jacob’s sons towards the rape of their sister was totally justified and appropriate but the manner in which they dealt with the rape of their sister was “not” justified and totally inappropriate.
They dishonored God by using circumcision as the means to immobilize Shechem and Hamor and theirs subjects so that they could be murdered.
The very holiness that Jacob’s sons honored by expressing anger over the rape of their sister Dinah, they dishonored by murdering the Shechemites.
Jacob and his sons should have done the following in dealing with this problem with the rape of Dinah.
First of all, they should have immediately demanded that Dinah be returned to them and refused to negotiate her marriage to Shechem since the latter was a Canaanite and Jacob’s family was prohibited from intermarrying with Canaanites according to Noah’s prophecy recorded in Genesis 9:24-27.
The only possible way that they could have entered into negotiations with Shechem was if he accepted the Lord as His Savior and then submitted to the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, which is circumcision.
As we noted under the Mosaic Law in Israel, the rape of an unengaged or unmarried woman like Dinah did not require the death penalty.
But rather, it would have required fifty shekels of silver being paid to the victim’s family as the bride-price and there would not be a possibility of divorce if the father of the victim agreed to marriage (See Exodus 22:16-17; Deuteronomy 22:25-29).
However, in Jacob’s day, the Mosaic Law was not yet given and furthermore, Dinah was not raped by an Israelite but rather by a Canaanite and the family of Jacob was prohibited from intermarrying Canaanites because of the prophecy of Noah recorded in Genesis 9:24-27.
Therefore, if Shechem did not become a believer and then submit to circumcision, then Jacob and his sons should have asked for the return of Dinah.
No military action would have been required but rather Jacob and his sons should have simply taken Dinah and then separated from the Canaanites as they should have done in the first place.
However, if Shechem did not return Dinah, then that would have been considered an act of war, which would have called for military action in order to rescue Dinah.
If Shechem did return Dinah, then Simeon and Levi should have done nothing to him and his father and the inhabitants of their city but rather should have waited for the Lord to deal with Shechem and Hamor in His perfect timing.
Romans 12:19, “Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,’ says the Lord.”
The military action taken later by Simeon and Levi when they killed all the men of the city of Shechem was totally unnecessary and inappropriate because Dinah was not a prisoner of war but rather the object of a man’s infatuation and love and affection (See Genesis 34:3, 19)!