Jacob and the Hivites (draft)

The Jacob Cycle - Part 13

Jacob was protected in Haran, given children and wealth, and brought back to Canaan. He has just marked out his space in the land by buying land, settling, and building an altar (Prinsloo, Prinsloo: 172). On the verse of complete fulfillment to God’s and his promises and vows, another threat emerges.

As with Genesis 26:6-33 where Isaac settled in Gerar, we have an interruption in the story with Genesis 34. We’ll find parallels between these stories. There are also parallels with Genesis 17 where Abram is renamed to Abraham and the practice of circumcision is established (Wenham: 308), and perhaps with the stories of the “sons of gods” in Genesis 6 and Babel in Genesis 11. Generally, what we find are instances where other nations present a threat to the chosen seed of the woman.

Note: it’s difficult to not read our cultural context into this story, so interpretation must be done with care.

The debasement of Dinah Genesis 34:1-4

In Genesis 30:21, Dinah was born to Leah, Jacob’s unloved wife. We noted how it’s unusual for the birth of a daughter to be mentioned. The reason for Dinah’s call-out is revealed in chapter 34. The root word behind Dinah means “judgment/vindication.” In the immediate context of Genesis 30, that meaning punctuated Leah’s feeling of triumph for having more children. In Genesis 34, there’s another story of judgment and vindication surrounding Dinah (Wenham: 247).

Dinah goes out to see the daughters of the land. In chapter 30, Isaac settled with one of the nations of the land, the Philistines. Here, Jacob’s family interacts with another of the nations, the Hivites. The Hivites are listed of descendants of Canaan in Genesis 10:17.

We see the formula of “see” and “take” again. He saw Dinah, took her, lay with her, and humiliated her. The word translated “lay,” sh-k-v is the same word used for Jacob laying with Leah after she hired him with Reuben’s mandrakes. We noted then that the word is associated with people being taken advantage of sexually. Jacob is made an object by Leah. Dinah is made an object by Heman. “Humiliated” could indicate the consequences of what Heman did. Dinah, and, in the context of an honor/shame culture, her family, are shamed (Prinsloo, Prinsloo: 165).

“Took, lay, humiliated” is contrasted by “drawn, loved, spoke tenderly” (Sarna: 234). Heman is infatuated with Dinah and desires her more. He calls Dinah a “child” which perhaps accents her youth and vulnerability. Wanting her as a wife is what creates a broader threat to the chosen line, which is elaborated on later.

While Genesis 34 isn’t a wife-sister scene, it’s relation to the wife-sister scene in Genesis 26 invites comparison between them. In the Abraham and Isaac stories, we saw the patriarchs using their wives as shields to protect themselves, and in doing so threatening the chosen line. In Genesis 34, Heman debasing Dinah serves as a catalyst for the proposal for Jacob’s family to essentially become Hivites and lose their identity as God’s chosen, Israel. This is another threat to the chosen line. A contrast here is that there’s no patriarch present. Dinah leaves Jacob’s camp apparently alone. The lack of concern the patriarchs showed for their wives in the wife-sister scenes perhaps suggests Jacob having a lack of concern for Dinah. This is reinforced by the narrator recalling that Dinah is the daughter of Leah, his unloved wife, and that Dinah is often left out when Jacob’s children are listed. For example, when Jacob returned to Canaan, his 11 children are mentioned in Genesis 32:23; Dinah isn’t even counted (Prinsloo, Prinsloo: 170).

“daughters of the land” benoth ha arets - Gen 34:1 “daughters of man” benoth ha adamah - Gen 6:1

Negotiations Genesis 34:5-19

Genesis 34:5-7 - The relationship of Jacob and Dinah is stressed. What will a father do for her daughter who was just taken, debased, and humiliated? He literally “kept silent” until his sons returned from the field. This is in stark contrast to how he relates to his favorite son Joseph later in Genesis (Wenham: 318). He doesn’t express concern about her honor or even his family’s honor. It’s also in contrast to the reaction of Jacob’s sons. The narrator seems to join his opinion about the situation with Jacob’s sons’ opinion. What was done was wrong and warrants a reaction. Jacob’s old name is contrasted with his new name. The new Israel should be indignant, but it’s the old Jacob that’s silent. Furthermore, using Israel as a national name (anachronistically) reflects that Jacob’s entire family is shamed, not just Dinah (Wenham: 310). It also points ahead the regulations about intermarriage. As we discussed with Esau marrying women of the land, a primary issue with intermarriage was the temptation to begin following the gods of the nations.

Genesis 34:8-12 - Hamor’s proposition would be reprehensible in our cultural context, but in the ancient Near East where women were second-class citizens at best and there was a strong desire to reduce communal shame, allowing Shechem to marry Dinah would have restored some equilibrium and honor. See Exodus 22:16-17 (Sarna: 235).

Hamor skirts acknowledgement of the crime and appeals to greed in an attempt to mollify Jacob’s family (Ibid.) He proposes full intermarriage with the Hivites. This might have been enticing as after his long stay in Haran, Jacob was essentially an immigrant without security in Canaan. However, this is directly forbidden in Deuteronomy 7:3-4 (Wenham: 312). Hamor suggests that wealth could be obtained by agreeing to the proposal. The root of “acquire property” (‘hz) is the same root as “grasping, holding” in Genesis 25:26. It’s as if Hamor is saying “Come, Jacob, return to your old ways and seize the blessing for yourself at the expense of your daughter and honor!”

“Bride price” is a formal term for a payment made by a prospective husband in return for a bride. “Gift” could correspond to a ceremonial gift made to the bride’s family (Ibid.) Shechem asks Jacob’s family to name their price for Dinah, further appealing to greed.

Genesis 34:13-17 - Jacob’s sons respond “deceitfully,” echoing Isaac’s words to Esau in Genesis 27:35, “Your brother came deceitfully and took your blessing.” We’re reminded that they’re addressing the person who “defiled” their sister, which perhaps softens their intention to deceive. Nevertheless, this isn’t good news for God’s nascent people. Jacob’s sons are following in his footsteps of trickery.

So they lie, saying that Shechem may marry Dinah if the Hivites are circumcised. If they had been sincere, it’s possible this would have been an invitation to join the community of Yahweh’s people (see Genesis 17:11-14 and Exodus 12:48.) Instead, as we’ll see, they’ll echo Laban’s deception of Jacob. “We’ll take our sister” likely implies a forceful retrieval, so their true intentions are perhaps hinted at (Wenham: 312).

Genesis 34:18-24 - Shechem’s infatuation with Dinah is evident through his quick agreement and action. He uses his social influence to convince his city to agree to Jacob’s sons’ terms. Hamor and Shechem’s description of the agreement is twisted to sound most compelling to the men of the city. They’re either double dealing or being dishonest with one group. Whatever the case, their statement that Jacob’s “livestock, property, and other animals” would become theirs sets up a later reversal (Wenham: 314). The men of the town are convinced and are circumcised.

Simeon and Levi’s revenge Genesis 34:25-31

Genesis 34:25-26 - We’re reminded that Simeon and Levi are Dinah’s brothers. Their brutal revenge stemming from their care for their sister is set in contrast to Jacob’s silence about her debasement. We’re invited to wonder how things might have turned out if not for Jacob’s favoritism.

Genesis 34:27-29 - The brothers’ slaughter of the men in the town occurs when they’re “in pain” and “unsuspecting.” This description likely serves as a negative judgment on the brothers’ actions rather than to sweeten the story of revenge for the reader. Simeon and Levi Nevertheless, we learn only now that Dinah had been in Shechem’s house, perhaps as hostage. As with most of the scenes in the story of the life of Jacob, no one is innocent (Wenham: 314), except perhaps for Dinah.

The rest of Jacob’s sons plunder the town. This is likely intended to be seen as a greedy action. However, there’s a deliberate link between this story and the story of Israel executing God’s judgment on Midian in Numbers 31 after Israel had turned to the gods of Moab and Midian in Numbers 25. The overall structure of the stories are the same and they share many of the same key words, but, in Numbers, the war against Midian is viewed positively and commanded by Yahweh (Wenham: 315). We won’t be able to resolve this tension fully, but some things become clear when the stories are compared.

For one, Yahweh commends or commands the actions against the Midianite and Moabites in Numbers 25 and 31. In Genesis 34, the words “God” and “Yahweh” are completely absent. While God is certainly working invisibly to protect Jacob’s family through the situation, no one is looking to Yahweh. In contrast, “take” appears 9 times in Genesis 34. Everyone is acting to take what they selfishly want. Also, in Numbers 31, Moses rebukes the leaders of the army for bringing the Midianite women back with them because they had led Israel to worship other gods. In Genesis 35, Jacob instructs his household to get rid of their foreign gods; it’s likely they got them from the Hivite women they took. This again shows that the danger of intermarriage comes from its tendency to cause God’s people to turn away from him (see 2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

The description of plunder in verse 28 is similar to the description of wealth Abraham gained while in Egypt in Genesis 12:16. Even though God’s people are acting sinfully, God still blesses them, and those who curse God’s people are cursed.

In Genesis 26:8, Abimelech looking out a window (root hll) when he sees Isaac and Rebekah together. The root for the word “pierced, slain” in Genesis 34:27 is the same as the root for “window.” After Simeon and Levi killed all the men of the city where Dinah’s abuser lived, they “came upon the slain (hll)” and took all the things and survivors from the city. Abimelech looks through the window (hll) but doesn’t take what isn’t his.

Genesis 34:30-31 - Jacob chastises Simeon and Levi, but he makes it obvious his only concern is for himself (Wenham: 316). He uses 7 pronouns for himself and then tags on “household” almost as an afterthought. The final judgment is on Jacob, however. Jacob’s lack of concern for Dinah is a primary reason for the conflict in chapter 34. Simeon and Levi call her “our sister,” as if to say “You may not want her as a daughter, but she’s our sister, and we won’t stand for someone treating her this way” (Ibid). After this point Jacob’s influence declines in favor of his children (Prinsloo, Prinsloo: 172).

The invincibility of God’s promise is again shown. God’s plan will succeed in spite of human grasping, selfishness, and scheming (Wenham: 308). After all, if God can’t work through sinful behavior, there’s little hope for things to be set right (Walton:634).

Bibliography

Reineth Prinsloo, Gert Prinsloo, “Family as Lived Space: An Interdisciplinary and Intertextual Reading of Genesis 34.” Constructions of Space V: Place, Space and Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean World.