Levi/Simeon Cursed by Jacob & Yet Blessed by God: Did God Reverse Jacob's Judgement?

[Gxg (G²)]

Shalom

Concerning why I wrote this, it has been interesting to me to see the ways that the Lord often seems to redeem others despite what other people seek to put on them - and in studying the patriarchs, I've been convinced that some of the things they did in blessings/curses were not infalliable or above being subject to error. I've often heard it said that others - be it Noah with His sons or Jacob with his own children - often did things with God backing them up on it.....and it being unable to be reversed. To others, seeing Noah curse Ham ( Genesis 9:24-27 ) is taken as a sign that all of the people descended from him the Lord forever punished/hated - and others going so far as to say others in Africa descended from Ham are forever cursed (and justifying slavery)....but that seems off to me when seeing how blessed the descendants of Ham have been and the many used of the Lord to do amazing things. Abraham had no reservations about going to Egypt, the land of Ham (Psalms 78:51; 105:23, 27; 106:22) when there was a famine in Canaan (Genesis 12:10-20) - with God noting directly that Egypt would be his people ( Isaiah 19:24-25 )/using them multiple times to redeem others. Abraham and Sarah have any qualms about using Hagar, an Egyptian, as a surrogate mother so they could have an heir (Genesis 16). Moses was married to a Cushite (the Hebrew word for the peoples living south of Egypt whom the Greeks called Ethiopians, a word meaning literally, "burnt faces") and while Miriam and Aaron spoke out against her, the context shows that they were really protesting Moses' exclusive authority to speak for God (Numbers 12). Moses accepted instruction from his Cushite father-in-law, Jethro, in the administration of justice with the Israelites (Exodus 18:13-27). And, the prophet Amos likens Israel to the Ethiopians to make the point that the distant and different Ethiopians were just as near and dear to God as the covenant people (Amos 9:7, 8a).

Thus, it doesn't seem that the curses uttered by Noah (although prophetic to some degree) were ever meant to be seen as absolute.

And the same thing goes for Jacob, who many assume was perfect in his actions when he cursed his sons for what they did in avenging their sister.

Proverbs 26:2​

Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow, an undeserved curse does not come to rest.​

​

​

Prophecys/declaring blessings in scripture are truly POWERFUL - AND it's interesting how the Lord works around things at times.

In example, Simeon and Levi had a sister who was raped--and given up in marriage to the rapist when he later came to love her. That's not something to easily get over. Surprisingly, Jacob was silent initially (Genesis 34:5-8)-and waiting for his son's reactions. Although Dinah had been defiled by the rape, in theory her honor and the family's honor could be restored if the man married her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)...but this would be complicated by the prince of Shechem having a Hivite identity. When Jacob accepted the marriage proposal, Jacob's sons, showing their true heritage, answer decietfully as Jacob did in Genesis 27:25....with the sons becoming tricksters by proposing circumcision as their condition for acceptance....and when the men of Shechem were in pain from the procedure, they went up/murdered the entire town of Shechem due to their sister's defilment ( Genesis 34:24-26/Genesis 34:29-31Genesis 34 ), causing the entire nation of Israel to have to move/take another journey....a journey that Rachael would not survive after giving birth to Benjamin. Jacob already had a strong distaste for his sons by Leah--and it's possible that what Levi/Simeon did only highlighted that further.

But what's clear in the text is that he was furious about the violence they did toward an entire nation. He noted to them how the attack was foolish since it would cause Israel to be in bad rapport with other nations around them....and Jacob was fearful because of how small Israel was.

Levi and Simeon, however, were not concerned. For they were Leah's children and as such are responsible for their sister Dinah. They chose to exact revenge and rescue Dinah. Although the brothers despoil the city, their brutality served to restore the family's honor, but is unwise.....and yet they didn't care since they felt as if they did justice--and so, just as they weren't concerned about the dangers that could come upon a nation so few in numbers (Israel), so Jacob later cursed them with being without a nation at all...scattered amongst the others.

Genesis 49:4-6
7 Cursed be their anger, so fierce,
and their fury, so cruel!
I will scatter them in Jacob
and disperse them in Israel.
​

It's fascinating to consider some of the reasons Jacob cursed them on his deathbed--and some have actually noted where it was a curse meant to not only punish them...but to restrain them from ever having alot of power since they were so violent. Perhaps Jacob felt that scattering them would prevent another occurrence like Shechem from happening again. But the curse itself seemed to be reversed for good on some parts later. The tribe of Simeon was eventually absored into Judah, from where the Kingly/Messianic line would come forth. Situated at the brink of the Negeb desert and entirely surrounded by Judah, there is no trace of boundary descriptions for them in the time of Joshua's giving out territories. All they were given were certain towns--and Simeon's towns were listed in two districts, which are closely related to the second part of Judah's first district, the northern Negeb around Beer-sheba ( Joshua 19:1-3 / Joshua 19 )..and even more closely related to the Simeonite towns in I Chronicles 4:28-32. Although they had no benefit of having their own extensive territory, they were protected at all times by one of the greater nations---and included with them through eventual adoption..

With Levi's line, what's even more fascinating is seeing how the Lord worked it out--as he took a curse placed upon them and made it to be where the Levites would have the HIGHEST position in the community--with some of the greatest leaders in Hebrew History (Moses, Exodus 2:1-3 and Aaron, Exodus 4:13-15 ) leading and the Levites scattered throughout Israel as the landless tribe of priests/holy men ..ushering in the very prescence of the Lord/being the nearest to Him ( Numbers 2:32-34 /Numbers 2, Numbers 3, Numbers 4, Numbers 8 , Numbers 16:7-9/ Numbers 16, Numbers 17:7-9 , Numbers 26:58-60, Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 27:8-10 , Joshua 8:32-34 , Joshua 13:32-33 , Joshua 18:6-8 , 1 Chronicles 15:14-16 , 1 Chronicles 23:13-15 ). Whereas Levi himself wasn't holy/set apart, the Lord ensured that his descendants would be otherwise...and while not revoking all aspects of Jacob's curse, He seemed to work around it for his benefit.


Interestingly enough, with the Levites, it was not the case that they didn't necessarily walk in the same violence as did their ancestor Levi---for with the Golden Calf issue, it has always amazed me to see what occurred when they were given power again:

Exodus 32:27-29
28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”
​

And Moses prophetically blessed the Levities before he died in Deuteronomy 33:6 , giving them a glorious destiny (counter to what Jacob said on his deathbed).

It seems that there is a bit of "cause and effect" with prophecies/blessings---and there are other examples besides what occurred with Simeon or Levi. One can also study what occurred with Esau when his father blessed him..or they can study Ishmael in what occurred in that situation...and many more. All of that is noted for the simple fact of again emphasizing that it's possible for men to make choices that affect others negatively---and although those choices are mistakes, it's possible for others to reverse them in differing ways/turn them into blessings. With Reuben, I have to wonder if perhaps that was the case somehow...

To give more thoughts, on what occurred with Simeon's fate, there was a book I read earlier years ago (recommended by another Messianic Jew) entitled "Arabs in the Shadow of Israel: The Unfolding of God's Prophetic Plan for Ishmael's Line" by Dr.Tony Maalouf, it was very insightful studying up on the bloodlines that the scriptures note---and showing how many of them blended (such as Ishmael's line and Easu's as well, for example) and why they often did so through the act of adopting members into the tribe....and making them one of the people just as it often occurred in Middle-Eastern/African culture. More on what he said on that can be seen here, including discussing where other tribes from the Israelite culture adopted others/blended for the sake of survival (as what occurred with the line of Simeon).

And with Levi/Simeon being redeemed by the Lord later, I was pondering with my family on how it's possible that what Levi/Simeon did was the correct action with taking vengence upon those damaging Israel---a precursor to others like Phineas, Aaron's son, recorded in Numbers 25:7-13 and how Phinehas is praised for his zeal for righteousness/God's glory....much as the Zealots did during the rise of Hasidim....and with the Lord seeing Jacob being displeased with them/cursing them, one of family members brought up how perhaps the Lord saw what was injustice..taking it to heart and redeeming them later on by exalting them later despite that curse.

In the case of Levi/Simeon, what they did wasn't the most politically sound move to make--but in many ways, if they didn't respond, their sister would've have been connected with a people that the Lord may've never desired His people to be connected with--and it could've been the case that the impression given by Israel was that they would tolerate certain things/be pushovers. Also, as one of my family members noted, the people of Shechem may've been concerned with trying to get ahold of Israel's resources and wanted to make an "alliance" that seemed generous---but would ultimately harm the people. With the sons recognizing that the Lord was with Israel and that Jacob should have done something rather than trying to play it safe, it's possible they felt they did what would honor the Lord.

Jacob should have been the most upset out of all of his family, seeing what happened to his own daughter---but as he seemed like he was too concerned with being a "people pleaser"/maintaining the status quo with the neighboring people and getting along to get along, his sons would have felt like they were doing what their father should've done.

And as there would be no doubt that they'd be cursed for their actions by their father, it seems they were willing to risk it just to maintain honor.

just some thoughts to consider.....

 

[sevengreenbeans]

The cartoonist, Jason Salas, for the illustration in EasyG's post, is a friend of a friend. He lives not too far from our town. He came to our Torah study group last year for a visit and our family now owns one of his books. It's called "In the Way, Forty Funnies, A Messianic Comic Strip". He is genuinely a nice guy, very funny, and he knows his Torah.

Ha... I just had to plug the guy... if you get a chance, and enjoy indulging in the lighter side now and then, look him up, the cartoons are excellent. Only those who are Messianic will "get" the humor.

This was not meant to be a derail... apologies, EG...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The cartoonist, Jason Salas, for the illustration in EasyG's post, is a friend of a friend. He lives not too far from our town. He came to our Torah study group last year for a visit and our family now owns one of his books. It's called "In the Way, Forty Funnies, A Messianic Comic Strip". He is genuinely a nice guy, very funny, and he knows his Torah.

Ha... I just had to plug the guy... if you get a chance, and enjoy indulging in the lighter side now and then, look him up, the cartoons are excellent. Only those who are Messianic will "get" the humor.

This was not meant to be a derail... apologies, EG...

That's cool you know the man who makes the hilarious pics . Not a problem, by the way, in mentioning as you did

 

[sevengreenbeans]

Shimon and Levy went above their father's head of authority. It was Dinah's father and Shechem's father who made an agreement and as the terms were being fulfilled, Shimon and Levy acted outside of this agreement, thus nullifying Jacob's word and affecting his reputation. Shimon and Levy caused their family to wander. Their actions contributed to the many disrespectful acts committed against Jacob by his children. Sometimes, we, as children, don't see our parents as having sound judgment - operating outside of our parents' authority. This is out of order, it is haughty and rebellious. Jacob was following Torah. (I believe the laws of the Torah have existed from the foundation of Creation.) If a virgin is captured, but the captor wishes to marry her, there are steps he must take to compensate for this virgin. Since all the males agreed to circumcision, this was a very serious submission to the authority of Israel. For... IF the people decided to be unfaithful to the terms of this alliance, to take over resources, or to make a claim against Israel, all Israel would have had to do to prove they were one people is "pull their pants down". I don't believe Shimon and Levy were justified for breaking Torah - not honoring their father, their father's word or his decision for his daughter. How do you marry off a daughter who can offer no proof of virginity? (One must understand this point of view from a cultural standpoint, and also from the perspective of the Torah.) She becomes a liability. The bride price was the compensation to a family. Dinah is always mentioned alone, like extra baggage. So, really, her brothers added to her shame.

Upon showing true repentance, teshuva, the curse can turn to blessing. In each of your examples, this is the case. As for Pinchas, he was doing exactly what he should have. He was submitted to the authority of YHWH and was swift in exacting justice. What Shimon and Levy did was the opposite - they were not submitted, but only to their own will.

Even if our Creator is silent, we must submit to what He says is right. And His ways are not our ways. The office of 'Parent' follows this example and what they say is right must fall into the guideline of the Torah. This is the only case where we do not listen to parents - when we are asked to do something against Torah. Honoring Torah is first.

 

[mercy1061]

Shimon and Levy went above their father's head of authority. It was Dinah's father and Shechem's father who made an agreement and as the terms were being fulfilled, Shimon and Levy acted outside of this agreement, thus nullifying Jacob's word and affecting his reputation. Shimon and Levy caused their family to wander. Their actions contributed to the many disrespectful acts committed against Jacob by his children. Sometimes, we, as children, don't see our parents as having sound judgment - operating outside of our parents' authority. This is out of order, it is haughty and rebellious. Jacob was following Torah. (I believe the laws of the Torah have existed from the foundation of Creation.) If a virgin is captured, but the captor wishes to marry her, there are steps he must take to compensate for this virgin. Since all the males agreed to circumcision, this was a very serious submission to the authority of Israel. For... IF the people decided to be unfaithful to the terms of this alliance, to take over resources, or to make a claim against Israel, all Israel would have had to do to prove they were one people is "pull their pants down". I don't believe Shimon and Levy were justified for breaking Torah - not honoring their father, their father's word or his decision for his daughter. How do you marry off a daughter who can offer no proof of virginity? (One must understand this point of view from a cultural standpoint, and also from the perspective of the Torah.) She becomes a liability. The bride price was the compensation to a family. Dinah is always mentioned alone, like extra baggage. So, really, her brothers added to her shame.

There was never an agreement between Jacob and Hamor; Jacob could not sell Dinah at the "virgin" bride price because she was not a virgin. Jacob remained silent; while Simeon and Levi spoke to Hamor and Shechem.

Gen 34
15 We will enter into an agreement with you on one condition only: that you become like us by circumcising all your males. 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. 17 But if you will not agree to be circumcised, we’ll take our sister and go.”


Levi and Simeon deceitfully required circumcision, Levi and Simeon did not teach them to teach their children "circumcision on the 8th day" which would have saved their lives. Shechem and Hamor were pleased that they could become circumcised and be apart of the family of Israel. Abraham circumcised every male in his house, but Isaac he circumcised on the 8th day. I am unsure if Simeon and Levi had the legal authority to sell their sister to foreigners.

Gen 34:18
Their proposal seemed good to Hamor and his son Shechem.

Upon showing true repentance, teshuva, the curse can turn to blessing. In each of your examples, this is the case. As for Pinchas, he was doing exactly what he should have. He was submitted to the authority of YHWH and was swift in exacting justice. What Shimon and Levy did was the opposite - they were not submitted, but only to their own will.

Levi and Simeon established a false "peace agreement" with their enemies; as it was illegal for them to marry Cannanites. Abraham forbid jews from marrying Canaanites. Consequently Jacob could not honor Hamor's request for his son.

Even if our Creator is silent, we must submit to what He says is right. And His ways are not our ways. The office of 'Parent' follows this example and what they say is right must fall into the guideline of the Torah. This is the only case where we do not listen to parents - when we are asked to do something against Torah. Honoring Torah is first.

Jacob is silent for good reason. Jacob can not give his daughter in marriage, but maybe perhaps Jacob wishes to find some kind of peaceful remedy with his enemies; there may have been none in this case.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

There was never an agreement between Jacob and Hamor; Jacob could not sell Dinah at the "virgin" bride price because she was not a virgin. Jacob remained silent; while Simeon and Levi spoke to Hamor and Shechem.

Gen 34
15 We will enter into an agreement with you on one condition only: that you become like us by circumcising all your males. 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. 17 But if you will not agree to be circumcised, we’ll take our sister and go.”


Levi and Simeon deceitfully required circumcision, Levi and Simeon did not teach them to teach their children "circumcision on the 8th day" which would have saved their lives. Shechem and Hamor were pleased that they could become circumcised and be apart of the family of Israel. Abraham circumcised every male in his house, but Isaac he circumcised on the 8th day. I am unsure if Simeon and Levi had the legal authority to sell their sister to foreigners.

Gen 34:18
Their proposal seemed good to Hamor and his son Shechem.



Levi and Simeon established a false "peace agreement" with their enemies; as it was illegal for them to marry Cannanites. Abraham forbid jews from marrying Canaanites. Consequently Jacob could not honor Hamor's request for his son.

Interesting to consider the fact that it was indeed Levi/Simeon who negotiated the agreement rather than Jacob - and on the issue, I remember another noting that trying to unite to them was NEVER God's heart since he called them to be seperate - and thus, the plan to have intermarriage would have been damaging in the long run had it gone through....and thus, regardless of intention, Jacob would have been making a very BIG mess. Seeing how Issac and his mother were grieved over the Cannanite women that their son Esau married ( Genesis 28:7-9 /Genesis 27:45-46 ) and how Abraham indeed forbid marriage from occurring (at that time) with the Cannanites in Genesis 24, it is not a small issue that Jacob was willing to marry his people to others who were not what God desired.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

Dinah would not have been "given" in marriage in the traditional sense in this situation. Shechem saw Dinah among the daughters of his land, took her captive, defiled her, then asked his father to get her as his wife.

Dinah is given the opportunity to turn down the marriage proposal according to custom. (Though not recorded, this is the custom.) An unmarried daughter making a vow is under the authority of her father - if her father speaks against her vow, it does not stand, if her father is silent regarding her vow, then it stands.

Shechem requests that Jacob name his price, and even increase it if he sees fit, as he is willing to pay whatever he is required. Shechem was described as being more honorable than all the house of his father in Genesis 34:19. He wasted no time going through with the circumcision.

Yet, Simeon and Levy said Shechem was dealing with Dinah as a harlot. They removed her from Shechem's home. She would not have been in his dwelling at that point, unless a marriage contract had been agreed upon. (As was the custom.)

 

[bibledoctor]

I can't really tell for sure ... "God" is a very vague and ambiguous concept.

 

[mercy1061]

Dinah would not have been "given" in marriage in the traditional sense in this situation.

Well considering that Shechem sought Dinah's father for approval, he asks his own father to give to him as wife. I think her parent and his parent have some authority (in those days) whom their children marry.

Shechem saw Dinah among the daughters of his land, took her captive, defiled her, then asked his father to get her as his wife.

This is the key fact, why I do believe this was NOT a first degree rape; as many suppose when reading this ancient story. It is my oppinion the jewish author calls Shechem's actions as "rape" from a jewish prospective. It is almost like Dinah traveled to New Orleans during Mardi Gras, and her church family says that she has been raped to save her reputation among her religious family. I do believe that in those days, this would be considered "rape" or "prostitution" from a jewish prospective, but not in a foreign country during a special festival or season.

Dinah is given the opportunity to turn down the marriage proposal according to custom. (Though not recorded, this is the custom.) An unmarried daughter making a vow is under the authority of her father - if her father speaks against her vow, it does not stand, if her father is silent regarding her vow, then it stands.

If Dinah is "raped" as the author proposes; then we would have to presume that she made no vow. Hence, she is still required to get her father's approval for marriage; Jacob remains silent on the issue. Dinah is a free woman not a slave.

Shechem requests that Jacob name his price, and even increase it if he sees fit, as he is willing to pay whatever he is required. Shechem was described as being more honorable than all the house of his father in Genesis 34:19. He wasted no time going through with the circumcision.

How does circumcision cover "rape" or "fornication"? The principle of circumcision teaches "cutting away" or "putting away" from the body NOT being brought together in marriage. If Shechem understood that circumcision meant "division" or "seperation"; the unclean foreskin is forever seperated from the body, then he would not have agreed to those deceptive terms from Levi and Simeon.

Yet, Simeon and Levy said Shechem was dealing with Dinah as a harlot. They removed her from Shechem's home. She would not have been in his dwelling at that point, unless a marriage contract had been agreed upon. (As was the custom.)

Shechem thought he could pay for her after she has been defiled. The lamb must be perfect without spot or blemish. Now if Levi and Simeon claim that Dinah was treated like a harlot, then we know it could not have been rape; although Levi and Simeon was not there to see what happened. Dinah never claimed that she was raped and there were no witnesses of this alledged rape, although Dinah was at a public festival where this rape supposedly occurred. I never knew a public rapist to seek after the father for approval for marriage of the mistress he has raped.

 

[yedida]

Shimon and Levy went above their father's head of authority. It was Dinah's father and Shechem's father who made an agreement and as the terms were being fulfilled, Shimon and Levy acted outside of this agreement, thus nullifying Jacob's word and affecting his reputation. Shimon and Levy caused their family to wander. Their actions contributed to the many disrespectful acts committed against Jacob by his children. Sometimes, we, as children, don't see our parents as having sound judgment - operating outside of our parents' authority. This is out of order, it is haughty and rebellious. Jacob was following Torah. (I believe the laws of the Torah have existed from the foundation of Creation.) If a virgin is captured, but the captor wishes to marry her, there are steps he must take to compensate for this virgin. Since all the males agreed to circumcision, this was a very serious submission to the authority of Israel. For... IF the people decided to be unfaithful to the terms of this alliance, to take over resources, or to make a claim against Israel, all Israel would have had to do to prove they were one people is "pull their pants down". I don't believe Shimon and Levy were justified for breaking Torah - not honoring their father, their father's word or his decision for his daughter. How do you marry off a daughter who can offer no proof of virginity? (One must understand this point of view from a cultural standpoint, and also from the perspective of the Torah.) She becomes a liability. The bride price was the compensation to a family. Dinah is always mentioned alone, like extra baggage. So, really, her brothers added to her shame.

Upon showing true repentance, teshuva, the curse can turn to blessing. In each of your examples, this is the case. As for Pinchas, he was doing exactly what he should have. He was submitted to the authority of YHWH and was swift in exacting justice. What Shimon and Levy did was the opposite - they were not submitted, but only to their own will.

Even if our Creator is silent, we must submit to what He says is right. And His ways are not our ways. The office of 'Parent' follows this example and what they say is right must fall into the guideline of the Torah. This is the only case where we do not listen to parents - when we are asked to do something against Torah. Honoring Torah is first.

I have to agree with you in this. There is nothing honorable in what those two did - it was pure malicious pre-meditated murder of a whole nation. An atrocity!

 

[yedida]

Well considering that Shechem sought Dinah's father for approval, he asks his own father to give to him as wife. I think her parent and his parent have some authority (in those days) whom their children marry.



This is the key fact, why I do believe this was NOT a first degree rape; as many suppose when reading this ancient story. It is my oppinion the jewish author calls Shechem's actions as "rape" from a jewish prospective. It is almost like Dinah traveled to New Orleans during Mardi Gras, and her church family says that she has been raped to save her reputation among her religious family. I do believe that in those days, this would be considered "rape" or "prostitution" from a jewish prospective, but not in a foreign country during a special festival or season.






If Dinah is "raped" as the author proposes; then we would have to presume that she made no vow. Hence, she is still required to get her father's approval for marriage; Jacob remains silent on the issue. Dinah is a free woman not a slave.



How does circumcision cover "rape" or "fornication"? The principle of circumcision teaches "cutting away" or "putting away" from the body NOT being brought together in marriage. If Shechem understood that circumcision meant "division" or "seperation"; the unclean foreskin is forever seperated from the body, then he would not have agreed to those deceptive terms from Levi and Simeon.





Shechem thought he could pay for her after she has been defiled. The lamb must be perfect without spot or blemish. Now if Levi and Simeon claim that Dinah was treated like a harlot, then we know it could not have been rape; although Levi and Simeon was not there to see what happened. Dinah never claimed that she was raped and there were no witnesses of this alledged rape, although Dinah was at a public festival where this rape supposedly occurred. I never knew a public rapist to seek after the father for approval for marriage of the mistress he has raped.

It sounds like it could be that she went to this place, the two kids meet up and over the day(s) things got a bit heavy. Now Dinah has a major problem. The son has a major problem on his hands too.
Back in the day, marriages were arranged by the father but the girl had the final say (most of the time, but nnt always). So Jacob is approached and he says nothing, hence, leaving it up to Dinah, not Levi or Simeon.
I thnk possibly the gentile Christian translators chose the word "rape" because it saves face for Jacob. We could really use Yonah's expertise in this right about now....

 

[mercy1061]

It sounds like it could be that she went to this place, the two kids meet up and over the day(s) things got a bit heavy. Now Dinah has a major problem. The son has a major problem on his hands too.
Back in the day, marriages were arranged by the father but the girl had the final say (most of the time, but nnt always). So Jacob is approached and he says nothing, hence, leaving it up to Dinah, not Levi or Simeon.
I thnk possibly the gentile Christian translators chose the word "rape" because it saves face for Jacob. We could really use Yonah's expertise in this right about now....

I never saw Jacob's silence as a way to allow Dinah to speak. Interesting concept, because Dinah and Jacob are both silent.

 

[yedida]

I never saw Jacob's silence as a way to allow Dinah to speak. Interesting concept, because Dinah and Jacob are both silent.

Well, if we look at it as an event where things got a little too heavy, and it wasn't "rape" and "kidnapping" in the sense of our 2012 understanding of the terms (kidnap could simply mean she was there without permission or something), then perhaps her simply still being there is her speaking (that this is where she wants to be???). I realize this is all purely speculation, but the terms could be something different, kwim?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Seeing some of the comments, it is necessary to address the following issue: Is rape always meant to be punishable by death?

Scriptures to go by are Deuteronomy 22:24-26 /Deuteronomy 22:27-29

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 34 &version=NIV

Genesis 34
[ Dinah and the Shechemites ] Now Dinah, the daughter Leah had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the women of the land. When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and raped her. His heart was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob; he loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. ...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 34 &version=NIVhttp://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 34 &version=NIV
​

There are varying interpretations on what "rape" actually was about..although there are good reasons to consider that a real rape situation is not necessarily out of the picture. It has happened before in history where someone will take advantage of another in a moment of passion - violating them - and yet come to love them/like them later on. Happens often for anyone keeping up with the accounts of what those with power have done to the powerless, like SLAVE masters sleeping with their slaves and the slaves being folks the master came to love...or men treating girls like objects and calling them all manner of names and yet those men had a relationship with them. Happens in many parts of Hip Hop culture - where women play a dual role as objects of desire when the party’s going good, and as a sort of security blanket, or comforting companion, when times are tough.


In the story, Shechem, the son of a local king falls in love with Dinah, daughter of Jacob, sleeps with her and asks his father to request her hand for him. His father, King Hamor, paid a ceremonial visit to Jacob’s house, where he offered peaceful coexistent with the new immigrants: “Please let my son marry your daughter, and let us marry each other; give us from your daughters and take from ours. And the land shall for you to settle, to trade and to posses.” (Genesis 34:8). Shechem also made the customary and lawful offer: “Please let me pay the required Mohar (dowry) and marry your daughter” (Genesis 34:12). Whether the Law of Moses is divine or just a codification of local customs, it specifies that one must offer a Mohar after sleeping with an available woman, and then he must marry her. This is all described in Exodus 22:15, and is subject to acceptance by her father. (If he refuses, he will just take the money). Indeed, the only other mention of Mohar in the whole Bible is in the story of Shechem and Dinah. It is as if the story was made to illustrate the concept of peaceful resolution to pre-marital sex.

And yet, that doesn't justify choosing to sleep with someone as Shechem did - and even if he made restitution, the precedence of the story was that Cannanites were not allowed to be married to the Hebrews, as seen in the example of Abraham forbidding his children from marrying such.

Thus, was Jacob justified in marrying off his daughter and allowing intermarriage to occur? Moreover, as both Simeon and Levi were blessed later on, how does one address that?

 

[mercy1061]

Seeing some of the comments, it is necessary to address the following issue: Is rape always meant to be punishable by death?

You make some excellent points. A short answer to your question: yes, especially in this situation where marriage is not allowed. Notice the writer calls Shechem's actions as "rape" since he can never make peace or retribution for his actions. Perhaps if he was a hebrew it would not be called "rape", and he would be able to marry her. That is something to consider.

Scriptures to go by are Deuteronomy 22:24-26 /Deuteronomy 22:27-29

There are varying interpretations on what "rape" actually was about..although there are good reasons to consider that a real rape situation is not necessarily out of the picture. It has happened before in history where someone will take advantage of another in a moment of passion - violating them - and yet come to love them/like them later on. Happens often for anyone keeping up with the accounts of what those with power have done to the powerless, like SLAVE masters sleeping with their slaves and the slaves being folks the master came to love...or men treating girls like objects and calling them all manner of names and yet those men had a relationship with them. Happens in many parts of Hip Hop culture - where women play a dual role as objects of desire when the party’s going good, and as a sort of security blanket, or comforting companion, when times are tough.


In the story, Shechem, the son of a local king falls in love with Dinah, daughter of Jacob, sleeps with her and asks his father to request her hand for him. His father, King Hamor, paid a ceremonial visit to Jacob’s house, where he offered peaceful coexistent with the new immigrants: “Please let my son marry your daughter, and let us marry each other; give us from your daughters and take from ours. And the land shall for you to settle, to trade and to posses.” (Genesis 34:8). Shechem also made the customary and lawful offer: “Please let me pay the required Mohar (dowry) and marry your daughter” (Genesis 34:12). Whether the Law of Moses is divine or just a codification of local customs, it specifies that one must offer a Mohar after sleeping with an available woman, and then he must marry her. This is all described in Exodus 22:15, and is subject to acceptance by her father. (If he refuses, he will just take the money). Indeed, the only other mention of Mohar in the whole Bible is in the story of Shechem and Dinah. It is as if the story was made to illustrate the concept of peaceful resolution to pre-marital sex.

And yet, that doesn't justify choosing to sleep with someone as Shechem did - and even if he made restitution, the precedence of the story was that Cannanites were not allowed to be married to the Hebrews, as seen in the example of Abraham forbidding his children from marrying such.

Yes indeed. Considering that the law of Moses also required the damsel to scream aloud when she was raped, Dinah never cried out for help or complained to her father. Levi and Simeon then concluded that Shechem treated her as a harlot when he tried to pay for her after she has been defiled. Interesting though, harlotry was also punishable by death. So the safe resolution would be to call it "rape" and murder all the heathen witnesses immediately after circumcision, so that Dinah's life could be spared.

Thus, was Jacob justified in marrying off his daughter and allowing intermarriage to occur? Moreover, as both Simeon and Levi were blessed later on, how does one address that?

Well, Israel was commanded later to subdue or destroy the inhabitants of Canaan. However Levi and Simeon did this after a so-called "peace-agreement" or conversion attempt; it is often said "No peace in the middle east". King David does this same evil deed with Uriah the Hittite.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

And yet, that doesn't justify choosing to sleep with someone as Shechem did - and even if he made restitution, the precedence of the story was that Cannanites were not allowed to be married to the Hebrews, as seen in the example of Abraham forbidding his children from marrying such.

The marriage arrangement was bypassed in this case. Arrangement ahead of time, that is. The situation had to be dealt with in a different way by different rules. (see previous posts)

Thus, was Jacob justified in marrying off his daughter and allowing intermarriage to occur?

I'm sure it was not how he imagined his daughter would be married.

Moreover, as both Simeon and Levi were blessed later on, how does one address that?

Try to track down (if it is recorded in the text) where they showed signs of teshuva. They or their descendants.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The marriage arrangement was bypassed in this case. Arrangement ahead of time, that is. The situation had to be dealt with in a different way by different rules. (see previous posts)

.

Doesn't really deal with anything, if trying to advocate that the Mosaic principles were in place at the time - since that would mean the entire deal would be off due to the fact that they were from amongst the people the Israelites were already told NOT to marry. That's an elephant in the room that cannot be avoided nor ignored - and knowing who to marry to was a big deal, as mentioned in previous postings already ( and here in #58 /#63 ).

I'm sure it was not how he imagined his daughter would be married.

I agree, although how he imagined his daughter would be married and how he chose to marry her isn't the same as addressing whether or not it was even Biblical to be giving his daughter to one the Lord already said marriage shouldn't occur with in the first place.

Try to track down (if it is recorded in the text) where they showed signs of teshuva. They or their descendants

Focusing on signs of teshuva is pulling the cart before the horse, as that is not what blessing is always dependent on to begin with - and it's assuming before verifying in the text that they needed to be repentant (as well as their descendants) of what happened in order for God to reverse what Jacob said/prophesied on them, as if he was infalliable in his judgements or actions while the sons were not.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You make some excellent points. A short answer to your question: yes, especially in this situation where marriage is not allowed. Notice the writer calls Shechem's actions as "rape" since he can never make peace or retribution for his actions. Perhaps if he was a hebrew it would not be called "rape", and he would be able to marry her. That is something to consider.

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver.[c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
​

Considering that rape was not simply deemed as being something other than rap if one could make peace/retribution, it'd be incomplete to stop there. For even in the Law, a Jewish man who raped another was worthy of death - specifically in the event that a girl was to be married. If the girl chose not to scream during the act and alert others (thus showing willingness), she and the man were to die - but if in the country side where there's isolation and the man rapes her (with screaming being of no avail), the man was to be put to death. And in the event of a single girl, the man was required to marry her/pay a heavy fine.

In all of those events, the people dealt with were the Hebrews rather than Non-Hebrew people who had no concern for their laws....and thus, focusing in on the marriage laws alone with rape for the Dinah situation is not consistent since Shechem was not bound by those laws and it was a big deal.

Yes indeed. Considering that the law of Moses also required the damsel to scream aloud when she was raped, Dinah never cried out for help or complained to her father. Levi and Simeon then concluded that Shechem treated her as a harlot when he tried to pay for her after she has been defiled. Interesting though, harlotry was also punishable by death. So the safe resolution would be to call it "rape" and murder all the heathen witnesses immediately after circumcision, so that Dinah's life could be spared.

I think one would be leaving a lot of details out of the situation by reading more into the text than what's present. For the text does not always give full mention of many realities - and because it doesn't mention where Dinah screamed doesn't mean she did not do so anymore than it means that she did not physically hurt after being defiled because the text didn't say so (even though that's common with women after sleeping with a man for the first time). Some things are simply not in focus - and the text makes plain that the girl was raped/the action was neither justified or appropriate

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. 6 Then Shechem’s father Hamor went out to talk with Jacob. 7 Now 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.
​

And to drive home the point of how dangerous the situation was, the author noted that the actions of Shechem were calculated to be beyond a mere love relationship. For it placed the Israelites in a bad position for compromise due to the fact that it opened the door for possible intermixing with people the Lord never desired to be connected with the Israelites...and people who WANTED to take advantage of the Israelites.

Genesis 34:17
Their proposal seemed good to Hamor and his son Shechem. 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. 20 So Hamor and his son Shechem went to the gate of their city to speak to their fellow townsmen. 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. 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. 23Won’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.”

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.
​

There was a very real threat of attempts at DOMINANCE over the Hebrews occurring and people consenting to the deal made by Levi/Simeon due to their greed - with the actions of Levi/Simeon being calculated to trap them since they knew the real intentions behind wanting intermarriage with the Israelites and that offering them something that appeared to be a marriage contract would be immediately taken because of what others wanted in the long term.

Well, Israel was commanded later to subdue or destroy the inhabitants of Canaan. However Levi and Simeon did this after a so-called "peace-agreement" or conversion attempt; it is often said "No peace in the middle east". King David does this same evil deed with Uriah the Hittite.

Indeed.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

In the verse listed above, how do you prove the text is only talking about Hebrew Israelites?

It specifies "a man".

These verses are the verses which umbrella the sexual abuse of a female, as well, because the word used here for virgin and girl literally means from infancy through adolescence. This is the time she is the responsibility of her father.

By all accounts, we are left to assume Dinah was not pledged/betrothed to another man. Her situational category fell under verse 29. It becomes a legal transaction. Most certainly, it would have been part of a written legal document, the ketubah, where the legalities would have been laid out - such as "never to be divorced". This meant that the Law provided for the father of the girl, being that he was compensated for having his daughter "stolen", and the Law provided for the girl, being that the man could never divorce her. She would always be provided for, for her whole life. A ketubah is a weighty legal document held by the woman and her family of origin.

Shechem stated he would pay more than what was required of him, and for Jacob to name his price. According to the Law, Jacob would not have been required to give these people any of his wealth or material possessions, nor would he have been required to take the daughters of these people for his sons. That might have been the covenant the people of this region wished to enter into with Jacob, but this was not necessarily reciprocated by Jacob.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

In the verse listed above, how do you prove the text is only talking about Hebrew Israelites?

It specifies "a man".

And the audience spoken to are the Hebrews - with the other laws specifically noted to be for them. No way to prove otherwise that it was Law given for all cultures surrounding them.

These verses are the verses which umbrella the sexual abuse of a female, as well, because the word used here for virgin and girl literally means from infancy through adolescence. This is the time she is the responsibility of her father.

By all accounts, we are left to assume Dinah was not pledged/betrothed to another man. Her situational category fell under verse 29. It becomes a legal transaction.

Nonetheless, it also is a category of marrying an unbeliever and one who didn't follow the GOD OF Israel - and that was NOT allowed to be present amongst the people due to compromise. There's no way around that, as that precedent is what determines the validity of the marriage dynamic...and to avoid that, again, is pulling the Cart before the horse.

For more information, something to consider is that Shechem deserved Death. Many interpreters seem to have concluded that what Simeon and Levi did was altogether appropriate, even honorable. There were good reasons to think so. To begin with, the tribe descended from Levi was later singled out for a special honor: the Levites became the priestly tribe, the one from which Aaron and all subsequent priests were said to descend (as well as the tribe of Aaron's brother Moses, greatest of the prophets). If Levi were being condemned for his hot temper in the story of Dinah as well as in Jacob's reference to him in Gen. 49:6, why was not the priesthood given to some other tribe? What is more, Shechem's crime was heinous. It just did not seem reasonable that the point of this whole story was the overreaction of Simeon and Levi. Certainly the chief villain was Shechem himself. And so, despite Jacob's words in Gen. 49:5-7, most early interpreters were naturally inclined to view Simeon and Levi's action as basically praiseworthy.

Another obvious factor that pushed interpreters to take Simeon and Levi's side was the fact that they were, after all, Jacob's sons, Israelites, while Hamor and Shechem were foreigners. It was a clear case of us-against-them, and even if the story itself is presented in rather neutral terms, interpreters quite naturally supposed that its point was to condemn the "them" and praise the "us."

Of course, a fundamental problem nonetheless remained: were the brothers right to kill Shechem? After all, the crime of rape, however hateful, is not normally punishable by death. Indeed, elsewhere in the Bible, the penalty prescribed by God is clearly far less severe:

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty pieces of silver, and she shall be his wife as a result of his having violated her; he may not divorce her all his days. - Deut. 22:28-29
​

The case described in this law seems strikingly similar to that of Shechem and Dinah. For in both, a man rapes a young woman who is neither married nor engaged. In fact, the two texts use nearly identical terms to describe the crime-"seize," "lie with," "violate." Yet the law in Deuteronomy says that the man in such a case should be treated rather leniently. He is simply required to pay a fine and to marry the young woman himself, and he must remain married to her "all his days." Familiar with this law, interpreters could not help wondering why Shechem had been condemned to death. After all, he wanted to marry Dinah, just as the law prescribed; he even wanted to pay her father an extravagant amount of money (Gen. 34:12), doubtless far in excess of the fifty pieces of silver required by the law. Why then did not Jacob and his sons accept the offer?

One possible answer was obvious: Shechem was a foreigner. The only difference between him and the perpetrator in Deuteronomy is that he was "the son of Hamor the Hivite" (Gen. 34:2), that is, a Canaanite, a foreigner living in the land that God had given to Jacob and his descendants. Perhaps that was why Scripture, after mentioning Shechem's crime, went on to describe it as a "disgrace in Israel" (Gen. 34:8)-as if the national honor itself had been violated--and to stress repeatedly that Shechem had in fact "defiled" Dinah (Gen. 34:5, 13, 27).

And so, it is not surprising to find that interpreters highlighted Shechem's foreignness in retelling the story:

And you, Moses, command the children of Israel and warn them not to give any of their daughters to the foreigners and not to marry any foreign women, because that is abominable before the Lord. For this reason I have written for you in the words of the Torah everything that the Shechemites did to Dinah. . . Israel will not be free from uncleanness while it has a one of the foreign women or if anyone has given one of his daughters to any foreign man. - Jubilees 30:11-14
​

When Shechem . . . being now enamored of her, asked his father to take the girl for his wife. Hamor, agreeing, went to Jacob to request that Dinah now be legally joined to his son Shechem. Jacob, having no way to gainsay because of the standing of the person asking, still thought it unlawful to marry his daughter to a foreigner, and asked permission to hold a council on the subject of his request. - Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1:337-338
​

For such interpreters, it was not just that foreigners were somehow not nice, or not deserving of mercy. Rather, the matter turned on the whole issue of intermarriage between Jews and other peoples. A great many biblical texts suggested that marriages between the people of Israel and the other peoples living in Canaan were disapproved of by God, indeed, strictly forbidden:

You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons. . . For you are a people holy to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth. - Deut. 7:3-6
​

Later biblical books make it clear that, at a certain point after the Jews' return from exile in Babylon, marriages between Jews and non-Jews became a major concern. The book of Ezra thus relates how Ezra discovered with grief that some of his fellow Jews had taken foreign wives-he mentions by name, in addition to Canaanite women, "Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Amorites" (Ezra 9:1) -and goes on to report a solemn undertaking (covenant) that was made with regard to such marriages:

[Shecaniah confesses to Ezra:] "We have broken faith with our God and have married non-Jewish women from the peoples of the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. Therefore, let us make a covenant with our God to divorce these women along with their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God. Let it be done in accordance with the Torah. Arise, for it is your task, and we are with you; be strong and do it:' Then Ezra arose and made the leading priests and Levites and all Israel take an oath that they would do as had been said. And they took the oath. - Ezra 10:2-5
​

The book of Ezra then goes on to list individually all those who had taken foreign wives and who were required to divorce them. Nor did the matter 0f intermarriage slip into obscurity after this episode. Many postbiblical writings likewise stressed that marriages between Jews and non-Jews are a grave sin - specifically when the foreigners are serving OTHER Gods apart from the Israelites

Against such a background, the biblical story of Dinah-and, in particular, the violent reaction of Simeon and Levi-took on a new dimension. Surely a foreign prince who had not only raped Jacob's daughter, but had then subsequently tried to marry her, was an arch villain, as much (or more so) for his marriage proposal as for his original crime....and the people themselves accepting the offer of the Israelites by noting "Won't all of their stuff become ours??!! So let's marry them so we can have their flocks and women and families for our own." And to drive home the point of how dangerous the situation was, the author noted that the actions of Shechem were calculated to be beyond a mere love relationship. For it placed the Israelites in a bad position for compromise due to the fact that it opened the door for possible intermixing with people the Lord never desired to be connected with the Israelites...and people who WANTED to take advantage of the Israelites.

Genesis 34:17
Their proposal seemed good to Hamor and his son Shechem. 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. 20 So Hamor and his son Shechem went to the gate of their city to speak to their fellow townsmen. 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. 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. 23Won’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.”

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.
​

There was a very real threat of attempts at DOMINANCE over the Hebrews occurring and people consenting to the deal made by Levi/Simeon due to their greed - with the actions of Levi/Simeon being calculated to trap them since they knew the real intentions behind wanting intermarriage with the Israelites and that offering them something that appeared to be a marriage contract would be immediately taken because of what others wanted in the long term.







For this reason some interpreters further specified that the marriage proposed by Shechem was actually prohibited:

If there is a man in Israel who wishes to give his daughter or his sister to any foreigner, he is to die. He is to be stoned because he has done something sinful and shameful within Israel. - Jubilees 30:7
​

Jacob, having no way to gainsay [the proposed marriage] because of the standing of the person asking, still thought it unlawful to marry his daughter to a foreigner, and asked permission to hold a council on the subject of his request. - Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1:337-338
​