Chapter 34

1 Dinah is ravished by Shechem. 4 He sueth to marry her. 13 The sons of Jacob offer the condition of circumcision to the Shechemites. 20 Hamor and Shechem persuade them to accept it. 25 The sons of Jacob upon that advantage slay them, 27 and spoil their city. 30 Jacob reproveth Simeon and Levi.

1. Dinah. Dinah, as yet the only daughter of Jacob (PP 204), could not have been more than five or six years old when the family left Haran, since she was not born until after Leah’s sixth son (ch. 30:21). She had possibly reached the age of 14 or 15 when the sordid event described in this chapter took place. It is apparent, therefore, that some eight or more years had passed since Jacob’s return to Canaan (see on ch. 33:17). If the events narrated in chapters 34 to 37 are presented in chronological order, as they seem to be, Dinah cannot have been much older than 15 at the time, because Joseph, who was about the same age as Dinah (ch. 30:21–24), was only 17 when sold into slavery by his brothers (ch. 37:2). The fact that she went out unaccompanied would seem to indicate that she was still regarded at home as a child.

The daughters of the land. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions an old tradition to the effect that the Shechemites were engaged in festivities (Antiquities i. 21. 1), and that Dinah wanted to join the girls of Shechem in their round of pleasure. The language implies the paying of a friendly visit, possibly even that Dinah was in the habit of associating with the girls of Shechem.

There is ever great danger in idle association with people of the world. Dinah was curious to know the ways and customs of the surrounding people. This led to unguarded intimacy with them and ended in her disgrace. Her danger came from seeking to be free from parental control and supervision, and from disregarding the admonition to remain separate from idolaters and their evil habits. “Bad company ruins good morals” (1 Cor. 15:33, RSV). The inhabitants of Canaan were to the family of Jacob what the present world is to the Christian. What is called “seeing life” may prove, in many cases, to be flirting with death. Familiarity with sin blunts the senses and increases the danger of temptation.

2. Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite. The Hivites were a Canaanite tribe (see ch. 10:17). From what we know of Canaanite morals, Shechem’s conduct was by no means unusual, and Dinah paid in full the penalty for her unwise independence in associating with wordly youth.

3. Spake kindly unto the damsel. Literally, “he spoke to the heart for the maiden,” that is, he sought to console her for what had happened and to win her affections. It seems that although Dinah had intentionally gone to the city alone, she did not consent to all that happened there. She was now in the house of the Shechem, where she was found when Simeon and Levi sacked the city a few days later (v. 26).

5. Jacob heard. Information concerning Dinah’s experience must have reached her father indirectly, since she herself remained in Shechem’s house (v. 26).

Held his peace. Jacob’s silence was probably due to a combination of sorrow, caution, and perplexity. He had learned to be prudent rather than to act upon impulse. The seriousness of the predicament was certain to affect the interests of the entire household, and called for united counsel and decision. To refuse the marriage proposal would be to incur the illwill of the Shechemites; to accept it would be an open violation of the principle of nonassociation with the heathen (see chs. 24:3, 6; 26:35). Yet Dinah was with Shechem, and how was he to secure her return? Had Jacob foreseen the tragic course of action some of his sons were to pursue upon learning of the affair, he would probably have taken things into his own hands and acted at once. As it was, however, he did better in thus “ruling his spirit” than did his sons when they took the city (Prov. 16:32).

7. The men were grieved. Literally, “made themselves furious.” The second expression, “they were very wroth,” reads literally, “it burned to them greatly.” Their passionate anger was beyond control (cf. 1 Sam. 15:11; 2 Sam. 19:43). How the men must have felt can be understood from the fact that modern Arabs feel more dishonored by the seduction of a sister than by the infidelity of a wife. A man, they say, may divorce his wife, and she is then no longer his, but a sister or daughter ever remains a sister or daughter.

It was therefore proper that they should be grieved and only natural that they should be angry. Their own honor was bound up with that of their sister. They were not so much concerned, however, with the sin committed against God as with the shame that had come upon their family. In this attitude toward the affair lay the source of their great mistake in dealing with it (Gen. 49:7).

Wrought folly. “To work folly” became a standing phrase for crimes involving honor, especially for the sins of the flesh (Deut. 22:21; Judges 20:10; 2 Sam. 13:2; etc.), but for others also (Joshua 7:15).

In Israel. The name Israel is here applied for the first time to Jacob’s household. Later it became the unusual designation for the nation. Some commentators, pointing out that the sons of Jacob were not called either Israel or Israelites until long afterward, think the phrase “in Israel” should be translated “against Israel.” This is grammatically permissible, and would imply that the affair was a crime against Jacob, who had become Israel, “a prince of God.”

8. Hamor communed. Hamor, Shechem’s father, had come to ask Jacob for his daughter (v. 6), but since Jacob’s sons reached home at the same time (v. 7), he spoke to them also. The father and brothers of a maiden were considered her legal guardians (see ch. 24:50).

9. Make ye marriages. The absence of any apology for Shechem’s seduction of Dinah is no indication of her consent, but rather of the low moral standards of the Canaanite prince. He saw in such conduct no particular wrong, at least when his son was willing to marry the girl he had seduced.

10. Dwell with us. Hamor proposed a policy of intermarriage between Jacob’s family and the Shechemites. He was ready, also, to make concessions in regard to the lease of land so that the newcomers might live, move about, and trade freely in the region. Various friendly overtures were made, both by the father as a politician, in favor of intermarriage between the families in general, and by the son as a lover, that he might obtain the girl. To their pagan minds, an exclusive policy in this respect was unthinkable. In the unbelieving spirit of the world they sought to break down what they considered a narrow attitude. The inducements they offered would, under similar circumstances, appeal to them, and all too often such prospects entice the professed people of God into bartering away their sacred scruples.

13. This sons of Jacob. Attractive as the offers of the prince of Shechem were, they were declined by Jacob’s sons, who now took the initiative in discussing their sister’s proposed marriage (see ch. 24:50). To accept the proposals would have been to violate the sacred principles of their call as a family and to sacrifice the promises of God for wordly gain.

15. In this will we consent. Their rejection of Hamor’s proposal was right, to be sure, but their procedure was just as certainly wrong. In plotting murder under the protecting cloak of religious scruples, Jacob’s sons were guilty of hypocrisy and cruelty. Their hypocrisy consisted in professing to accept the proposition of Hamor when they had no intention of doing so, on condition that the Shechemites accept the seal of God’s holy covenant. They knew that if the Shechemites should submit to circumcision it would be a mere form on their part. Their proposal was, finally, conceived in a spirit of cruel revenge.

In later years submission to the rite of circumcision by a non-Jew was considered as indicating acceptance of the Jewish faith and as bringing its recipient under the bond of the covenant, that is, it legally made over a Gentile into a Jew (see Acts 15:5; Gal. 6:12). If acceptance of the sign of the covenant on the part of the Shechemites had meant conversion to the true God, then all objections to intermarriage would of course have disappeared.

20. The men of their city. The condition proposed by Jacob’s sons seemed reasonable to the two suitors, and they were willing to submit forthwith to it. First, however, they went to the gate of Shechem, the place of public assembly, to lay the matter before the men of the town. Their graphic description of the wealth of Jacob and his family, and the advantages which they might anticipate from uniting with them, elicited ready assent to the plan. Generally, the common people can be counted on to follow the suggestions of strong-willed and popular leaders. This was true when Jeroboam inaugurated. This was true when Jeroboam inaugurated the worship of the golden calves at Dan and Bethel. In fact, throughout the history of Israel the people tended to follow the lead of the king. Similarly, when Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed, many Corinthians were likewise converted to Christianity (Acts 18:8).

22. Only herein will the men consent. Prominence was given by Hamor to those considerations that were in early reality secondary, whereas the main point, circumcision, was mentioned incidentally as a trivial condition to which there could be no reasonable objection. The prospect of material gain is ever an effective avenue of approach to worldly-minded men. Any device that might conceivably add to their own wealth appears desirable (see Isa. 56:11). The men of Shechem felt that they were driving a clever bargain, and stood to gain much and exchange for something of no value or importance.

25. On the third day. Inflammation and fever usually set in on the third day. While the Shechemites were thus helpless, two of Dinah’s older brothers set about their bloody work of revenge. This cruel massacre demonstrates how one sin leads on to another, like flames of fire spreading in a dry thicket (Isa. 9:18). Dissipation led to seduction, and seduction to revenge and murder (see James 1:15). The disgrace that had been brought upon one family made widows and orphans of the women and children of an entire city. Indirectly, this narrative testifies to the reliability of Moses as a historian. Himself a Levite, he does not spare the character of his progenitor.

26. Took Dinah. Perhaps Dinah had been detained by Shechem against her own will. On the other hand, his amorous overtures may have led her to remain willingly with him. To free Dinah from her by which it was accomplished were abductor was certainly honorable, but the means by which it was accomplished were despicable in the extreme. Like their ancestors on both sides of the family, the sons of Jacob manifested a strange admixture of religious zeal and carnal passion, of lofty and low craftiness.

30. Ye have troubled me. Jacob administered a stern rebuke for the impulsive deed, stressing the consequences of the crime for himself and his family. Emphasis on this aspect of the affair was calculated to impress his sons with the practical results of rash action. His last word concerning Simeon and Levi (ch. 49:5–7) are evidence of how deeply he abhorred their deed. His fear of reprisal was by no means groundless, and only the mercy of God averted the evil that might have come upon him and his house (ch. 35:5, 6). As for Simeon and Levi, they, like Reuben, forfeited the birthright they might otherwise have enjoyed. Again, warped character stood between men and the possibilities that might otherwise have been theirs.

31. Should he deal with our sister? But Jacob’s sons did not see things as their father did. To them their reprisal seemed fully justified. They not only vindicated themselves but implied that their father was less concerned for his daughter than they had been for her as their sister. The word “harlot,” zanah, signifying prostitution for hire, is here used for the first time in the Bible. This passage shows that prostitution was then existing in Palestine, and that it was considered a dishonorable profession.

This narrative forms a dark chapter in the history of the patriarchs. It teaches that a just cause for anger is not an excuse for rash action. Patience under injustice merits divine approval 1 Peter 2:19, 20; 3:17), for vengeance and retribution belong to God alone (Rom. 12:19). He alone has the wisdom to measure it out with justice and season it with mercy. Under certain circumstances anger may be fully justified, but it is to be directed against the sin rather than against the sinner. It has been stated that the only anger without sin is anger against sin (Eph. 4:26). Anger against one’s fellow men disqualifies the angered person from exercising unbiased judgment (see Matt. 7:1, 2).

Ellen G. White comments

1-31PP 204, 205, 237

1 PP 204

19 PP 238

30 PP 205