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

sevengreenbeans said:

Even if the audience were Hebrews, "a man" does not necessarily mean a Hebrew man.

Click to expand...

Nonetheless, the Law already makes clear that foreigners were often treated RADICALLY different than those in the land - with the Law given specifically to the Hebrews directly/talking multiple times on their interactions with each other...and already noting where marriages with foreigners not serving Israel's God was already forbidden. Again, one cannot try to focus on laws of marriage for Dinah/SHECHEM without addressing that glaring issue on how the law was already violated by the marriage in the first place and was no small issue..


Of course, if it was forbidden for Dinah to be given in marriage to a foreigner, then why didn't Jacob and his sons simply say so? For they tricked all the men of Shechem into undergoing circumcision and then, with the town's defenders thereby incapacitated, Simeon and Levi entered the town and killed them ill at swordpoint. Not only was this an apparent case of collective punishment, but the brothers had clearly lied to achieve their ends. The Bible does not hide from the facts:
Some interpreters, however, rose to the defense of the brothers even in this matter. True, the Bible says "deceitfully." But if intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews was forbidden, then what the brothers were saying-at least the part cited above-was hardly deceitful; it was the plain truth. Perhaps, then, "deceitfully" really meant something more like "cleverly" or even "wisely":




Thus, in the view of many interpreters, the brothers were quite right to have killed Shechem for his crime, and even their earlier statement about being unable to permit their sister to marry an uncircumcised man was, in itself, no deception but simply a statement of fact.

Still, the brothers did more than execute the rapist; they also killed his father, Hamor, and all the men of the town. What was their crime? At first glance, this seemed like an egregious case of collective punishment, slaughtering a whole city for a crime committed by one of its citizens. The issue apparently troubled ancient interpreters. Most concluded, however, that if the entire city had been punished, it must in some fundamental way have shared in Shechem's guilt. And here, on close examination, the Bible itself offered ancient interpreters some confirmation. Although elsewhere it is quite specific about Shechem acting alone, in one verse toward the end of the story, the Bible seems to include others in the crime against Dinah:
The use of the plural in this verse suggested to interpreters that the city was in some sense guilty of the crime; all its men had played a role.


Other early retellings seem to suggest that the Shechemites were punished no specifically for their complicity in the rape of Dinah, but because it was only the latest incident in a series of crimes stretching back for generations. They and the other Canaanite tribes had always mistreated strangers and taken advantage of the defenseless-perhaps, indeed, that was why it was proper that they all be destroyed:




Some of the above passages specify that Simeon and Levi were merely instruments of divine justice, that it was God Himself who had decreed the death of the Shechemites, not for purposes of revenge, but as a punishment. Yet, as was observed earlier, the story itself is actually narrated with studied neutrality. There is no indication that God even approved of the violence, never mind that He ordered it. Whence this idea? Interpreters bent on finding some opening, however slight, in the narrative's neutrality eventually turned their attention to that moment in the story when Jacob's sons first hear of the rape:


Why does the biblical narrative add this last phrase? In context, it seems to be what literary critics call «implied direct speech." That is, the text, in reporting the brothers' reaction, presents what they said to one another-«Shechem has committed a disgrace in Israel by lying with Dinah; such a thing ought not to be done!"-without going to the trouble of saying «this is what they said:' instead simply stating their thoughts as if from the narrative's own point of view.

Viewed from a certain angle, however, these same words can take on (or be purposely given) a different meaning. For if the Bible adds, «and such a thing ought not to be done:' might one not conclude that these are God's own words? After all, they are not specifically attributed to the brothers; could they not be in the nature of an “editorial comment" outside the narrative itself? There may even be a hint of such an interpretation in the Septuagint translation of this same verse. The Hebrew phrase (which might be rendered still more literally «and it ought not to be done thus") comes out in the Greek:


The wording “and it shall not be thus" might suggest, a touch more in the Greek than in the Hebrew, some sort of editorial comment about future policy, or indeed about the subsequent events, rather than merely the implied direct speech of the brothers.

In any case, other authors clearly presented the idea that Gen. 34:7 contains God's own statement about the Shechem affair-“let it not be done thus."

sevengreenbeans said:

Shechem and his people were not aware of the way the Israelites lived.

Click to expand...

There's nothing in the scriptures showing that Shechem and his people were not aware of how the Israelites lived and the God that they served. Jacob had a reputation that went before him..and regardless of how much they were aware, there is no escaping the fact that the PEOPLE of Jacob already were aware of how marriage to Cannanites was NOT allowed due to the culture. To allow it was disobediance - and Jacob's silence and willingness to support such was just that, just as it was when he decieved his father and struggled with other things as well. When the sons realized that their father was going to go through with it rather than speak against it in accordance with what he knew of his parents/their desires to not marry Cannanites, it was a matter of choosing to appear as if Levi/Simeon would support it while intending to essentially do the extreme in preventing intermarriage/not allowing mess to occur. Jacob experienced the same when it came to his own father, Issac, knowing what God had declared with Jacob being chosen to lead and yet having his older brother favored by his father - with the father planning to bless Easu rather than Jacob regardless and the mother (wrong as it may've been) telling Jacob to devieve his father/take matters into his own hands to ensure that what God wanted to occur would happen instead of letting the stubborness and disobediance of his father play out. Jacob's sons seemed to have the same reality with their father, who also seemed to have the same issues of being stubborn with avoiding doing what should have been done - and thus, as they were also tricksters, they did the same as their dad.

I believe there was effort on their part to rectify the situation with Dinah. To move forward. The sin had already been committed, there was no going back, and not even Simeon and Levy's actions fixed anything.

It only added to the complexity of the situation for Jacob.

Click to expand...

Actually, Simeon and Levi's actions prevented compromise from occurring in union with people the Lord already made plain that marriage was not to occur in. And as said before, one must be selective with the text in speaking on trying to rectify situations with Dinah when ignoring where there was a pragmatic reality to why they wanted the marriage to begin with:

As said before, people WANTED to take advantage of the Israelites and there's no escaping the plain reality that 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.

That's my opinion.

Click to expand...

Of course

mercy1061 said:

Dinah is still required to publicly complain or "scream" for help. I do not see either case present in this situation. Torah requires Dinah provide the burden of proof, considering her father Jacob and Dinah are silent on the marriage proposal. Torah requires Dinah and Shechem are to be put to death..

Click to expand...

That instruction for screaming came centuries after the entire event - thus making it a bit of a moot point talking on how she was possibly at fault for not screaming for help. THat is in addition to the fact the fact that there's no record of Dinah not screaming ..and thus, it is an argument from silence to assume she didn't because nothing was said.

mercy1061 said:

Levi and Simeon propose "blood circumcision" to make peace. The principle of circumcision teaches "seperation" and the Canaanites (as many do today) understood circumcision as making the two nations one. There must be bloodshed for the Dinah's rape or fornication, "blood circumcision" for the men would be the just punishment for their sin. In this way Levi and Simeon may save Dinah's life.
.

Click to expand...

All circumcision requires blood, M. There is nothing in scripture or culture remotely advocating that a blood circumcision is even required for restitution for bloodshed in rape or fornication - and it doesn't do good in making things up that were not present.

Let us hear Pharisee Paul whom is an expert in legal matters:

Romans 2
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)




There is such a law called "international law" or "universal law". If Shechem is not bound by those laws written in Torah why does he try to pay a high price to make things right? The only law that Shechem is not familiar with is the secret law that Abraham gives his family; they were not to marry the Canaanites; the son of Ham that Noah the patriarch cursed. I think we should be careful to denote that Canaan did nothing wrong to Noah, but it was Ham whom uncovered Noah's nakedness. Yet Canaan is cursed for illegal worship of angels or giants/nephilim.

Click to expand...

One, again, would have to be selective in not realizing that universal law/understanding of things doesn't imply universal application. It's understood by many, for example, that murder is wrong - and yet it's also the case that sexual immorality/oppression of women is practiced in many cultures acknowledging that murder is wrong...WITH full awarenss. The claim that Shechem didn't know on the Israelites being forbidden to marry Canaanites has no bearing on the fact that JACOB and the Israelites did know - and should have told them on it in the event that they didn't know. If they didn't tell them IMMEDIATELY what God required in marraiges to foreigners and Jacob kept silent, it would have been grievious sin...and with Simeon and Levi aware of their father going with the situation/choosing SILENCE on the matter just as other men in their line did, they went with it in appearance while also seeking to stop the marriage/union from occurring in the long run.

Who told Jacob that Dinah had been defiled? Jacob sons were out in the field with his livestock, so Jacob sons could not have told their father. It is very important "who" tells you something

Click to expand...

Seeing that no one at any point said it was Jacob's sons who told him on the rape, that's inconsequential to the discussion. What matters is that Dinah was raped and Jacob heard about it - most likely from someone else in the Hebrew camp (or even possibly from a messenger from the town she was raped in. And the sons came to learn of it later on AFTER Jacob had already heard on it/chose to wait with the news.

Well this was a kind gesture on the part of the Canaanites, they were willing to accept Israel as a "package deal" unlike the Egyptians.

Click to expand...

That's reading into the story apart from what was there, seeing that there were other examples of such in the scriptures where the Canaanites were concerned with getting ahold of Israel's supplies and having that as reasons for connection.

Egypt would not allow Israel to bring their livestock into their cities. frThe Canaanites understood that when they married the hebrews they would be required to care for their animals. Notice the Cannanites said that Israel would living among them possibly as citizens.

Click to expand...

Seeing that Egypt made room for the Israelites to raise their flocks on the best land in Goshen, it wasn't really a lost for the Israelites - and Jospeh ensured that. Living amongst the Canaanites was something the Israelites would have been aware of and knowing the costs of doing so.

The Israelites were foreignors or aliens; the land still belonged to Canaan. In fact it was Dinah whom intermingled with the girls of the land which caused this strange thing to happen.

Click to expand...

Indeed...and Dinah should have had supervision.

sevengreenbeans said:

I believe the Torah existed from the foundation of the earth, from the beginning of Creation. We find altar building in the time of Adam and knowledge of unclean and clean animals from the time before the Flood in Noah's time, so who's to say these instructions were not given before the Flood, as well?

Click to expand...

Seeing that we also have things present in the time of Adam/Noah that were NOT present in the Mosaic law, again, one must be selective on the issue of saying that all things in the Mosaic Law were ever meant to apply to all situations in the OT. By the logic you're using, everyone was in sin for marrying cousins/siblings even though the Law forbade it - and the same thing goes for a myriad of other things.

One does not need to look at the actions of what would be sin according to ADDITIONAL LAW through Moses, nor even our modern views of right and wrong. A reason for considering this is because there was discrepancy between the common views (interpretations) concerning Abraham and Sarah, and statements made about them in scripture itself. Without going into detail concerning various scripture and what brought me to this APPROACH to Genesis, I will sum it up instead. I believe Genesis is a book showing "faith", "The law of faith", as it operated in a certain time in history, the beginning. What this approach does is leaves off the normative ideas of cause and effect. Namely, things we perceive as sin, being the cause of "problems" later on. Such is the case with Sarai, Abraham, and Hagar. Many look at all that they perceive as "problems" being the result of not having faith. Yet many only see it as sin because they find polygamy repugnant. But nowhere is polygamy a sin in scripture. And nowhere does scripture say Sarai, or Abram acted in faithlessness. Scripture says they were faithful according to Hebrews 11.

The actions we clearly find "WRONG", Somehow are made acceptable if we do not acknowledge them as binding on Abraham etc. But, ALL ACCEPT JUST THAT WHEN ABRAHAM OFFERED ISAAC UP AS A HUMAN SACRIFICE. We do not fear, that somehow we today need to think of this as anything than what it was. DISTINCT for its own purpose, distinct for its own time, distinct for an idea. You certainly may disagree with this approach, and it may even be wrong. But so far I have not found it to be so. Instead of looking for "SIN" in Genesis, I look for faith in the actions of these individuals. For sin is not reckoned to them, and faith was. Which faith there was no law against. So what do I do with LYING, etc? The same thing you all do with HUMAN SACRIFICE. What was Gods purpose in it, in a DISTINCT TIME, WITH DISTINCT INDIVIDUALS, FOR A DISTINCT PURPOSE?


There are multiple other examples of this.... polygamy BEING one of them. As it concerns the subject of polygamy, its error for others trying to say others were "wrong" for condoning it. It was a cultural practice of the time, as it still is in some nations like West Africa for example. Even in the time of the Mosaic Law, it was not explicitly condemned except in the case of those who were kings...and even that had exceptions at times. God made rules for polygamy just as he did with divorce, as seen in Deuteronomy 21:14-16. ..and others with the Law still did so ( Judges 8:29-31 , 1 Samuel 1:1-3 , 1 Samuel 25:42-44 , 1 Samuel 27:2-4 , 1 Samuel 30:4-6, 2 Samuel 2:1-3, 2 Samuel 12:7-9 , 2 Samuel 19:4-6 , 1 Chronicles 4:4-6, 1 Chronicles 14:2-4 , 2 Chronicles 13:20-22 , 2 Chronicles 24:1-4, etc ). Though Jesus says that God's best/ideal was ONE spouse (Matthew 19:1-14) as Genesis 1, he still made clear God allowed it to occur.

Another example would be prostitution. Scripture RECORDS events that may not always be an indication of something being right. That'd be like one reading of what happened with Judah marrying the daughter of a Canaanite man in Genesis 38:1-2 was "God's Best" since God still blessed his inheritance/the fruit of his loins and tribe----never mind that there was already NUMEROUS instances where the Canaanites were not favored by the patriarchs and told to be AVOIDED in marriage (Genesis 24:1-14, Genesis 26:34, Genesis 28:1-3, Genesis 28:6-9, etc). For all of the times where God told His people to avoid mixture with the Canaanites, its interesting enough already how the very Sons of Judah were mixed in with that already....and the line continued with them in it (I Chronicles 2:3-

It is from here that the story of Judah/Tamar in Genesis 38 (Genesis 38:1-20) is relevant...as it concerns assuming that the methods Tamar used to gain a son through her father-in-law and God blessing the birth was all justified. Indeed, there's a law in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 about marrying a widow in the family...with the purpose intended to ensure that a childless widow would have a son who would recieve her late husband's inheritance and who, in turn, would care for her. Judah's sons were killed by the Lord for wickedness....and at one point, Judah would not give up his son to Tamar to have children. Because Judah's son (Tamar's husband) had no children, there was no family line through which the inheritance and the blessing of the covenant could continue. Judah lacked SUBSTANTIAL integrity when examining how he went to prostitutes....and then tried to discuss how his daughter was in "sin" for showing up pregnant. Its amazing seeing how Judah was so open about his relations with a prostitute, yet ready to execute his daughter-in-law for being one (Leviticus 21:9, Deuteronomy 22:21-22). Some of the dynamics are due to culture, of course. For in the land of Canaan, a woman's most important function was bearing children who would perpetuate the family line. To ensure that children belonged to the husband, the bride was expected to be a virgin and the wife was expected to have relations only with him. If a wife committed adultery, she could be executed. Some women, however, did not belong to families. They might be shrine prostitutes supported by offerings or common prostitutes supported by the men who used their servuces. Their children were nobody's heirs...and men who hired them adulterated nobdy bloodlines.

Judah saw no harm in hiring a prostitute for a night....but he was ready to execute Tamar because if she was pregnant as a result of prostitution, his grandchild would not be part of his family line. Sadly, the question of sexual immorality never entered Judah's mind as his concern was for keeping his inheritance in the family. ...

Ironically, it was TAMAR, not Judah, who acted to provide him with legal heirs. By seducing him, she acted more in the spirit of the law than he did when he refused to send his third son to her. The story in no way winks at prostitution since throughout scripture, prostitution is condemned as a serious sin. But it does show how even mistakes can be utilized of the Lord as apart of his plan. Incidently, Judah and TAMAR are listed as direct descendants of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:1-6). The same kind of dynamic occurred with Bathsheba....forever noted in the lineage of Christ that she was the wife of Uriah rather than David's wife due to what occurred with David's actions (II Samuel 11, 2 Samuel 12:23-25, 1 Kings 1). For her son, Solomon, became exceedingly great and used of the Lord with David's Blessing...but in NO way was it appropiate how he came into being.

As one being born out of wedlock myself, I've often had conversations with others on whether its ever the case where God sees a life born as a "mistake". My mindset is that even if the 16yr daughter of a pastor chooses to sleep around and gets pregnant, that situation may not be apart of God's best...but nonetheless, the child is not a mistake (Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1:1-11). That child's life is given by God---and as has happened many times in scripture, it can be paradoxical realizing that all of the events surrounding the existence of that child were somehow ordained even as the making of that child may've been error.....just like it was for Ishmael/Hagar when the Angel of the Lord came to her to assure her that He had a plan for her son....despite ANYTHING surrounding his birth that may've seemed like a mistake. They were right on time even when things were set back in some ways...

And this same dynamic applies to what occurred with Simeon and Levi in what occurred with them.

We must be consistent with scripture and the context it developed in.

Besides all of this, the screaming or not screaming has no bearing on the situation at all. Dinah's type of situation fits the following verse from Deuteronomy 22:
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 her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

This verse does not specify whether the man is a Hebrew Israelite, Hivite, Cushite, Egyptian, Syrian, etc., etc., regardless of who the audience might be.

Click to expand...

It nonetheless has NO bearing on the fact that the same book already makes plain that other Hebrews were NOT to seek marriage with foreigners - regardless of any attempt to either minimize that, avoid it or act as if it's not there.

The Torah made plain that Hebrews were marry those who served God as they did and that those doing so were in grave sin. Trying to take the verse on Deuteronomy 22 to apply it to Dinah is baseless when avoiding what the text says later on foreigners....and the reason it doesn't specify a Hebrew Israelite is because it was already noted by Moses at the very beginning of His speech that his words were addressed to the people of God/their context. Period.

Until the scriptures on marrying foreigners being forbiden is addressed, one is simply pulling the cart before the horse in regard to Dinah/her situation - and more on that issue was discussed in-depth earlier here in #20. This all goes back to what was noted earlier with Ezra 9-10...as it concerns the priests/people intermarrying. Since the time of the judges, Israelite men had married heathen women and then adopted their religious practices (Judges 3:5-7), Even Israel's great King Solomon was guilty of this sin ( I Kings 11:1-8). Although this practice was forbidden in God's Law (Exodus 34:11-16, Deuteronomy 7:1-4), it happened in Ezra's day and again only a generation after him (Nehemiah 13:23-27). Opposition to mixed marriages was not a racial prejudice, because Jews and non-Jews of this area were of the same semitic background. The reasons it seems were purely spiritual.....for one who married a heathen spouse was inclinded to adopt that person's heathen practices. If the Israelities were insentive enough to disobey God in something as important as marriage, they couldn't be strong enough to oppose their spouses's idolatry.

One can go to the NT to see a similar principle when it notes that believers should not marry non-believers (II Corinthians 6:14)....

But with Ezra, in Ezra 10:3, it has always been interesting to see how the people were commanded by the scribe to DIVORCE their wives and leave their children. Although the measure was extreme, I've heard that others say the intermarriage to heathens was already forbidden---with even the priests and the Levities intermarrying. The equivalent would be a Christian marrying to a devil worshipper. Some have noted that Ezra's strong act was necessary to preserve Israel as nation committed to God. For some of the exiles of the Northern Kingdom of Israel had lost both their spiritual and physical identity through intermarriage...and their heathen spouses caused them to worship idols (I Kings 16:29-34, I Kings 21, II Kings 17, II Chronicles 18, II Chronicles 22-24, II Kings 11-12, etc).

mercy1061 said:

Who told Jacob that his daughter has been defiled?

Click to expand...

Who told is inconsequential to the fact that his daughter had been defiled as the text makes plain. Again, to ignore that simple reality is to ignore the scripture.

sevengreenbeans said:

I do believe it is forbidden to marry siblings. .

Click to expand...

Nonetheless, the OT already had it multiple times where such occurred - and it was not an issue, Pre-Mosaic Law.

I also believe the text is misinterpreted regularly. The case of Abraham and Sarah, for instance. She was not his "sister" as in our Westernized/modern interpretation. The Hebrew word for "sister" can be very broad, just meaning female with common relatives. I believe Sarah was Abraham's niece. I do not believe that Cain married his sibling. I have stated my position on another thread, so I won't re-hash it here.

Click to expand...

THat's understood, although there's no real evidence saying that Cain married others who were not siblings nor is there evidence that Sarah was Abraham's neice. And even if it was the case, again, that would be counter to Mosaic Law.

Dinah did not seek marriage with a foreigner. Jacob did not seek a foreigner for his daughter.

This was not a pre-arranged marriage. Dinah was taken for the purpose of sexual relations. This changed the game, so to speak.

Click to expand...

[/quote]Doesn't matter, as a marriage proposal was presented and it was accepted. Seeking something out has zero bearing on whether or not it is allowed, as marriage to a foreigner is marriage to a foreigner. And it didn't matter whether or not a marriage was pre-arranged or not. You were simply not allowed to marry foreigners from THE Cannanites under any circumstances - unless they fully followed the God of Israel.

Would you provide a quote about foreigners which fits Dinah's situation to a 'T' the way Deut. 22 does?

Click to expand...

It was already noted earlier - multiple times - when it came to what the Lord already made clear about the Israelites neither seeking out foreign marriages or allowing them to occur. That is what sets the stage for other situations, thus making it inconsistent to claim that Deut 22 was meant to apply to Dinah.

mercy1061 said:

If you do not wish to answer the question, does not mean it is inconsequential. I have not ignored anything, I think you are ignoring to answer my question.

Click to expand...

The question was answered - and in logical debate, there's the principle of misleading questions that assume more than what is in focus. You do get to ignore where a rape occurred and then shift onto focusing on who brought up to Jacob that his daughter was defiled since the focus was that RAPE occurred. It does not matter who told him - and seeing that you claimed His sons told him, it's inconsistent with the text since it makes clear that his sons found out when they got home (even though Jacob was aware of it).

No need to dodge, Bruh.