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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments