Let's
begin with a general question: Why do we bother to read the
OT Historical Books?
Most
of would say in order to look at the human actions for moral lessons.
Positive
Lessons from OT History
We
are encouraged to do so in the NT. After listing all the heroes of
the faith, the author of Hebrews says:
“Therefore,
since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also
lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us
run with perseverance the race that is set before us...”
Hebrews 12:1
Negative
Lessons from OT History
“God
was not pleased with most of them, and they were struck down in the
wilderness. Now these things occurred as examples for us, so that we
might not
desire evil as they did.” I Corinthians 10:5-6
The
problem comes in trying to figure out whose actions to follow and
whose to avoid. And that is especially difficult in today's lesson.
“Within
a firm moral framework sure of what constitutes right and wrong, the
narrative hints at the multidimensional aspects of conduct, at the
mixed motives that make it impossible either to condemn any of the
actors absolutely or to exonerate them entirely.” Gordon
Wenham, Genesis
16-50,
p. 317
The
characters in the Bible are not
two-dimensional cardboard cut-outs. So although I know we could have
a very lively discussion on the pros and cons regarding the various
actions of Jacob and Esau in ch. 33 without reaching any firm
conclusions, I would like to save some time to look at the generally
neglected following chapter 34. Because there is another way to view
the history books of the Bible.
Look
at God's actions for theological lessons.
This
can also be harder to do, especially in chapters 33-34 where God does
not even appear as a character in the stories. In cases like this,
one thing you can do is to look for patterns in biblical history that
demonstrate that God is ultimately in charge of what happens, often
in spite of human actions. Let's start with the combined story of
Isaac and Jacob.
Isaac/Jacob
Cycle
A.
Births (25:19-34)
B.
Interlude with gentiles (26:1-35)
C.
Jacob and Esau (27:1-28:9)
D.
Encounter with God (28:10-22)
E.
Jacob and Laban (29:1-30:21)
F.
Joseph is born
(30:22-24)
E'.
Jacob and Laban (30:25-
31:55)
D'.
Encounter with God (32:1-32)
C'.
Jacob and Esau (33:1-19)
B'.
Interlude with Gentiles (34:1-31)
A'.
Deaths (35:1-29)
This
section contains exactly 14 examples of the reassuring phrase “God
is with you.” Working from the outer sections inward, we see that
births are balanced by deaths; there are disagreeable encounters with
Gentiles; Jacob and Esau work through their uneasy relationship with
one another; Jacob has supernatural encounters with God when he
leaves and enters the borders of the promised land; and Jacob and
Laban take turns scheming against one another. At the center of this
structure is the birth of Joseph, preparing the reader for the last
major narrative section. And the similarities between B and B', C and
C', etc. are even closer than this outline indicates, as we will see
in a minute.
I
often stress how precisely ordered the accounts in the Bible are, but
more important is the fact that it demonstrates how God has precisely
ordered the actual historical events themselves.
Genesis
as Theology
The
second way we can look for God's actions behind the scenes is to
consider how the events lead to accomplishment of the overall goals
that God had in mind for the people of Israel.
“The
apparently petty and insignificant family stories that occupy the
bulk of the book are in fact of cosmic consequence, for God has
chosen these men so that through them all the nations of the earth
should be blessed.” Gordon Wenham, Genesis
1-15,
p. 10.
Regarding
Genesis
33 specifically, Gordon Wenham says, “This account is tense and
dramatic; it is also puzzling and enigmatic.” We will point out
some of the enigmatic features.
Genesis
33:1-4
1-2
What do you think about the order in which he has his family face
Esau? This
type of blatant favoritism will come back to bite him in the Joseph
story. We
will reserve final judgment
on Jacob's other actions until the whole story is told.
3
In verse 3, Jacob bows down seven times to Esau. This was
a proper act of respect for a vassal to his overlord. Jacob was
trying to undo his act of deception by purposely reversing his
father's final blessings in which Isaac said that Esau was going to
bow down to Jacob.
4
Then
we get to Esau's
response in verse 4. The Baptist Quarterly says, “Because
Jacob approached his brother with a contrite spirit, Esau responded
with kindness.” Do
you agree? In
my mind, Esau appears to have been ready to accept Jacob anyway. Note
that the text says, “but,” not “therefore.”
Commentators
are divided on how to view Jacob's actions.
Jacob's
position in front indicates a changed character: new courage v. 3a,
new humility v.3b, and new generosity v. 10-11. (Victor Hamilton,
Handbook
on the Pentateuch,
p. 126)
Wenham
agrees with Hamilton by saying that this chapter “shows the new
Israel triumphing over the old fear-dominated Jacob.”
Allen
Ross (Creation
& Blessing,
p. 564) gives a more mixed review: “Jacob
is truly a comic figure, for he stumbles through life by his wits –
and yet it works out. But Jacob was sensitive enough to know that God
was in it.”
Here
is an even more negative interpretation: “Jacob
is the guilt-haunted supplicant, humorously overprepared for the
meeting.” Dictionary
of Biblical Imagery,
p. 713
Do
you note any similarities to a story in the NT where a guilty party
returns to his family humorously overprepared for the meeting?
The return of the prodigal son. In both cases, a younger son takes
his father's inheritance and goes to a distant land leaving his
estranged brother behind with their father. The major difference is
that here it is the older brother who acts the part of the loving
father ready to forgive the prodigal no matter what he may have done.
And
there are even similarities between the verbs used in each story.
And
Jacob lifted
up
his eyes and saw
...But Esau ran
to meet him, and embraced
him, and fell on his neck and kissed
him, and they wept.
Luke
15:20
And he got
up
and came
to his father. But while he was yet at a distance, his father saw
him and had compassion, and ran
and embraced
him and kissed
him.
The
only caveat regarding Esau here comes from the ancient Jewish scribes
called the Masoretes who carefully preserved the Hebrew text over the
centuries. They specially marked 15 passages in the OT where they
felt there was a possible problem, and they marked every consonant of
the word “kissed” in Genesis 33:4. That may mean that they felt
that Esau was not being sincere when he kissed Jacob. Sort of like
Judas when he kissed Jesus to betray him. But the rabbis always went out
of their way to defend the actions of OT “heroes” like Jacob and
make their enemies look bad so we can't really rely on their opinion.
Genesis
33:5-7
Interestingly,
Jacob
uses the word “favor” rather than the more usual word “bless”
in verse 5. Why would he do that? Probably to avoid bringing up the
touchy story of how he got the blessing in the first place.
Next
Esau comments on the caravans of gifts that Jacob gave him.
8
Esau said, “What do you mean by all this company which I met?”
Jacob answered, “To find favor
in the sight of my
lord.”
9 But Esau said, “I have enough, my
brother;
keep what you have for yourself.” 10 Jacob said, “No, I pray you,
if I have found favor
in your sight, then accept my present from my hand; for truly to
see your face is like seeing the face of God,
with such favor
have you received me. 11 Accept, I pray you, my gift that is brought
to you, because God has blessed
me, and because I have enough.” Thus he urged him, and he took it.
Note
the way they address each other (in bold). “Now that they are
reunited, Esau desires a fraternal relationship, but Jacob is unable
to move beyond a formal relationship.” (Victor Hamilton, Genesis
16-50)
Jacob
makes an allusion (in italics) to the events of the previous chapter
where he saw the face of God. He was
reconciled
with God and now he is reconciled with his brother. The two ideas are
often closely associated with one another in Christian teaching, and
this is usually justified. But you should be careful how you use this
principle in practice. For one thing, if your relationship with an
acquaintance or family member is not the best, that does not
automatically mean that your own relationship with God needs healing.
Another
caveat to keep in mind is in regard to the good advice that a
restored relationship with God (such as Jacob experienced in Genesis
32) should lead to attempts on your part to restore any broken
relationships with your fellow man (such as Jacob practiced in
Genesis 33). I have seen this principle taken a step too far
involving a woman who had had a number of sexual relationships with
married men before she was saved. Her spiritual mentor told her she
needed to apologize to them for her part in the relationships, which
she did. But then she seriously considered apologizing to their wives
also, which might have brought her peace but would have done
irreparable damage to a number of marriages.
In
verse 11, after using the word “favor” multiple times, Jacob at
last uses the key word “bless” in his
explanation of the gift,
hinting at restitution of the material blessing he stole.
Genesis
33:12-17
Jacob
makes two rather flimsy excuses why he can't follow Esau immediately
and doesn't need Esau's men as escorts, but he promises to follow
Esau to Edom as soon as he can. All of this sounds quite innocent
until you look at a map and follow
the movements of the two brothers. Instead of heading south, Jacob
makes a beeline due west and enters Canaan.
Jacob's
motives at this point have been debated by scholars and it is
unlikely that we can add much to the discussion today. Here are some
examples of differing opinions:
Pro
There
was a theological reason for Jacob not following Esau to Seir – he
had been told by God to return to Canaan (31:3,13; 32:10).
New
Bible Commentary
“Jacob
referenced God three times while Esau never mentioned God at all.
Sensing their differences, Jacob made sure he established boundaries
so there would be no other unnecessary conflicts between the two
brothers.” Explore
the Bible
The fact that Esau lived in Edom and had married a Hittite would
have been enough evidence to show that already, so again I have to
disagree with the Baptist quarterly on this point.
“The
narrative shows by their separation that reconciliation need not
result in communal living – they
can go their separate ways in
peace.” (Allen Ross(
That
comment would only make sense if Esau had
agreed to their separation,
which he hadn't.
Con
Jacob
had no intention of following Esau, probably out of fear. Remember
that Esau had vowed to kill
Jacob once their father Isaac had died
(Gen. 27:41-42). Dictionary
of the Pentateuch
“He
had no wish to put himself into Esau's power” International
Bible Commentary
“These
verses, especially v. 14, however, indicate that post-Peniel Jacob is
not above making false promises and offering misleading expectations
to Esau.” (Victor Hamilton) They also demonstrate that Jacob was
unwilling to trust in God's promises to him.
The
story ultimately ends up well in an eventual reuniting of the
brothers when they jointly bury their father. Since Esau did not seek
revenge on Jacob at this point, it indicates that the reconciliation
was sincere on both sides.
Genesis
33:18-20
18
And Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of
Canaan, on his way from Paddan-aram; and he camped before the city.
19 And from the sons of Hamor, Shechem’s father, he bought for a
hundred pieces of money the piece of land on which he had pitched his
tent. 20 There he erected an altar and called it El-El′ohe-Israel.
The
altar celebrates Jacob's new name, Israel, as he returns to Canaan.
The
land he purchased
later
became Joseph's burial site. So whatever the motives of Jacob
and Esau were, the events brought
Jacob back to the Promised Land.
Verse 19 is also important since it introduces Hamor and his son
Shechem, who will figure in the following chapter.
Earlier
in the lesson, I mentioned that there are several parallels between
this story and the earlier interactions of Jacob and Esau. In ch. 33
there are variations on the same themes, in both cases Jacob
practices deceit, he is afraid of Esau, people try to please each
other, and Jacob reverses his movements away from and toward the
Promised Land.
C.
Jacob and Esau (27:1-28:9)
1.
Isaac deceived
2.
Fear of Esau
3.
Jacob leaves the land
4.
Esau tries to please Isaac
C'.
Jacob and Esau (33:1-19)
2.
Fear of Esau
4.
Jacob tries to please Esau
1.
Esau deceived
3.
Jacob settles in the land
Moving
on to ch. 34, you can see that it
also
has similarities with its earlier paired chapter in which Isaac's
wife Rebekeh was taken by the Philistine king Abimelech.
B.
Interlude with Gentiles (26:1-35)
1.
Deception
2.
Disagreement
3.
Covenant with gentiles
4.
Family discord
B'.
Interlude with Gentiles (34:1-31)
2.
Disagreement
3.
Covenant with gentiles
1.
Deception
4.
Family discord
Genesis
34:1-4
Quickly
summarizing the rest of the story: Hamor
then proposes to Jacob to pay a large bride price for Dinah, but he
waits until her
full brothers
Simeon and Levi come back. The brothers agree to the marriage if
Hamor and all his clan become circumcised. Hamor gives a sales pitch
to his people stressing the mutual good that can come from the
situation if they join forces with Jacob's clan. They agree, but
while the Hivites are recuperating from the operation, the two
brothers kill all of them and the twelve tribes then plunder all
their goods. At this point, Jacob bawls the two brothers out for
their rash actions, but the brothers reply that justice warrants
their actions.
This
story, which is featured in feminist Bible scholar Phylllis Trible's
book Texts
of Terror,
seems
to be fairly black and white on the surface. Let's take the
characters in the order in which they appear:
Dinah
– the helpless victim
Shechem
– the spoiled son and rapist
Hamor
– the doting father who wants to satisfy
all parties and bring peace to the situation
Jacob
– the prudent and moral patriarch
Simeon
and Levi – seeking true justice by the only means possible
But
the actions of the characters are seen to be several shades of gray
when they are examined further. for example, Shechem seems to
genuinely love Dinah and wants to do the right thing by marrying her.
Hamor
– Look at the subtle
differences in Hamor's description of his offer:
v.
10 settle-trade-acquire land – to Jacob's family (stressing the
advantages for Jacob's clan)
v.
21 settle-trade – to townsmen (pointedly
leaving out the fact that the Jews would acquire land)
v.
23 take their property – to townsmen (sweetening the offer by
saying that the Hivites could
eventually own all of Jacob's goods)
Calvin:
“But it is a very common disease, that men of rank who have great
authority, while making all things subservient to their own private
ends, feign themselves to be considerate for the common good, and
pretend a desire for the public advantage.” In other words, Hamor
is the consummate politician, telling people only what they want to
hear.
Jacob
– What was Jacob doing during all this? He seemed to show no grief
or concern for Dinah's welfare; after all she was the daughter of his
less favored wife Leah. He also holds his tongue until his sons
return, and even then
he
doesn't even respond to Hamor but lets his two sons do all the
negotiating. Simeon and Levi even call Dinah their daughter in v.
17, indicating that they are taking the responsibility that Jacob was
unwilling to take as her father. When he does speak up it is only to
chew out his sons for putting his own life in danger.
“We
also find the inept, bumbling father of popular literature in the
Bible. Sometimes we find moments in which fathers seem to be
incapable of any better response than passive anger while events
transpire that are contrary to their will.” Dictionary Of Biblical
Imagery
Simeon
and Levi
– In Genesis 34:13
the word “deceit” is applied to them, the same one used in regard
to Jacob in Genesis 27:35 and Laban in 29:25. It runs in the family.
Jacob's two sons had learned well from their father's actions. What
is wrong with this ruse? Wasn't it a clever way to get justice for
their sister? Problems: The use of sacred ritual in this manner is
not only a dirty trick (a lie) but also sacrilege. Notice the
similarity between this and Jacob's earlier invoking the sacred name
Yahweh in order to fool his father. It not only put the whole family
in potential danger, as Jacob points out, but it was a case
of
going far beyond the principle of an eye for an eye – a law
designed to limit blood feuds. In his final blessings on his sons,
Jacob will later condemn Simeon and Levi for being bloodthirsty and
cruel.
Dinah
– It has been estimated that Dinah would have been about 14 years
old at the time.
Dinah
follows
the example of her mother Leah who “went out” to allure Jacob
(30:16). The targums (early
Jewish
commentaries) translate “cult prostitute” as “one who goes out
in the countryside.” At the
least,
her associating with pagan women was unwise.
Genesis
34:1 suggests the possibility that she had sneaked out of the house
since young women rarely went
out unaccompanied in those days.
Concerning
verses 2 and 5, several commentators feel that it should not be
interpreted as rape at all
merely
shaming or being defiled (due to the fact that Shechem was
uncircumcised). Elsewhere the
word
only applies to forbidden sexual contacts, not rape. One verb that is
noted for its absence in this
story
is translated “force/overpower,” which occurs in another rape
story in the Bible.
We
also learn from Genesis 34:10 and 26 that
Dinah
was still staying with Shechem during all the
marriage
negotiations, whether she was willing or not is not known.
Theological
Lessons
Are
there any important theological lessons we can learn from this rather
sordid story? I think there
are. In the first place, consider the
relationships between the Israelites and the neighboring Canaanites.
In Chapter 33, Jacob's separating from Esau removed his clan from the
influence of the surrounding
Edomites and the family of Esau's
Hittite wife.
In
Chapter 34, the threatened intermarriage between the Israelites and
the Hivites didn't take place as
proposed. Also, as Jacob points out
in v. 30 the actions of his sons caused a permanent rift between
them
and the Canaanites and Perizzites. In that way, the purity of their
faith could be preserved.
Secondly,
look at the two other prominent occasions of women being raped or
taken advantage of in
the Bible.
Dinah
and Shechem (Gen. 34) -- War
with Gentiles
Levite's
Concubine and Benjamites (Judges 19-21) -- Inter-Tribal
War
Tamar
and Amnon (II Samuel 13) -- Intra-Tribal
War
Levites
are actually responsible for the first two wars. Notice how the
violence against one person in each case leads to more widespread
violence, and how this violence becomes more and more internal each
time.
There
are specially strong literary correspondences between the first and
third of these incidents.
In
both cases, the father (David in the II Samuel episode) does nothing,
leaving it to one of Tamar's full
brothers to get revenge later
on,
using trickery just as Simeon and Levi had.
Also,
look at the similarity in wording found in these two stories:
“Such
things ought not to be done.” (Genesis 34:7)
“For
such a thing is not done in Israel.” (2 Samuel 13:12)
He
lay with her and
had
intercourse with her. (Genesis 34:2)
He
had intercourse with her and he lay with her (2 Samuel 13:14)
David
Noel Freedman (Divine
Commitment and Human Obligation,
I, pp. 485-495) says, “...both
stories...belonged to the same
literary work, forming bookends or the two parentheses around the
story
of Israel from the time of the patriarchs until the
establishment of the united kingdom by David.”
Finally,
there is perhaps the most important theological lesson we can get
from these stories involving
Dinah and Tamar, and that involves the
passing on of God's blessing. Here are Jacob's children with the
birth order in parentheses.
Leah
Reuben
(1) Simeon
(2) Levi
(3)
Judah
(4)
Issachar
(9)
Zebulun (10) Dinah
(11)
Zipah
(Leah's Servant) Gad
(7) Asher
(8)
Bilhah
(Rachel's servant) Dan
(5) Naphtali
(6)
Rachel
Joseph
(12) Benjamin
(13)
Genesis
35:22 says that Reuben had sexual relations with Jacob's concubine
Bilhah so Jacob passed
him over
for
the blessing. Read Jacob's last will and testament in Gen. 49:3-7; he
curses Simeon and Levi for their violent cruelty in killing the
Hivites. This sets the stage for Judah to come to the forefront. And
he, not Joseph, is really the focus of the last major story in
Genesis because the Messiah will come from his line. However, in
terms of material blessings, Jacob goes way down the line and chooses
Joseph to get the double share usually reserved for the oldest son.
Fast
forward to David and his family. Here is the birth order of his
children. It doesn't include the unnamed child of David and Bathsheba
who died in infancy.
Amnon
rapes his sister and is killed by Absalom
Kileab
dies young
Absalom
kills Amnon, rebels against David and sleeps with his concubines
Adonijah
attempts to take over the throne while David is dying.
Shephatiah
Ithream
Shimea
Shobab
Nathan
(son of David),
Solomon
God's
Control Over History: Passing Down the Blessing
In
both Jacob's and David's families:
1.
Only one daughter is identified by name.
2.
The three oldest sons are removed from consideration by their
actions:
a.
premeditated murder due to the rape of a sister
b.
sleeping with their father's concubine
c.
attempt to supplant the father
3.
The eleventh son, and twelfth child mentioned, is chosen for the
blessing.
This
last fact fits in with the observation that elsewhere in the Bible,
the number 12 symbolizes God's
chosen people: 12 tribes, 12 judges,
12 apostles, etc.
And
in the case of Solomon, Jesus will come from his line to bless not
only the Jewish people but the
whole world.
Posts
