Ever since I was a little boy, I have been plagued by canker sores.1 Much to my chagrin, I typically get a number of large sores at a time. This past week, I had a terrible time with several canker sores lining my throat. Talk about ruining your week! To make matters worse, on Monday I woke up with two, small cuts on the corners of my mouth. I had no idea what had happened. I wondered if maybe I had opened my mouth too wide, the morning before when I was preaching, or if I had cut myself with my razor, shaving too close to my mouth. I didn’t know what was going on. Over the course of the week, these cuts turned into cold sores that grew in size. As the week progressed, I found myself battling both canker sores and cold sores. The painful lesson that the Lord has been teaching me is this: Compromise is like cold sores. Both start small and can grow rather large. Furthermore, compromise and cold sores can bring a whole lot of pain. Through his own compromise, Jacob discovered this stark reality.
In Genesis 34, we come to an awful chapter—not only in the book of Genesis—but also in the history of mankind. Now, we know that the Bible was not written as chapters. Rather, chapters were added later for ease of use. But we do know that in this entire account (which makes up this chapter), God’s name is absent. It is made worse by being the only chapter in the Bible, outside the book of Esther, where the name of God is not even mentioned. However, throughout the book of Esther we see the fingerprints of God. This is not the case in Genesis 34. In this passage, we do not see God’s name or His influence. This is a passage filled with sin, excess, and godlessness. Yet, this story serves to warn us of the high price of compromise. The tragedies that take place in this chapter are the result of Jacob’s failure to be obedient to God’s command to return to Bethel (28:21; 31:3, 13). That single act of compromise cost his daughter dearly and put the rest of the covenant family of God at risk. What a chilling reminder that half-hearted obedience can be just as deadly as disobedience.
Our story begins in 34:1: “Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the daughters of the land.” Dinah is in her early teens and she is Jacob’s only daughter (30:21).2 You would think she would be spoiled and pampered by her dad. However, the narrative reminds us that Dinah is “the daughter of Leah”—the “unloved” wife of Jacob (29:31, 33). Therefore, it is likely that Jacob paid little attention to Dinah. This apparently led her to explore other avenues for attention and affection. This is supported by the fact that 34:1 is written in a matter-of-fact way, giving the indication that this is not Dinah’s first trip into the city. Most likely, Dinah hung out with the daughters of the land and their male counterparts. Yet, in biblical times, girls of marriageable age were not permitted to leave the tents of their people to go about visiting without a chaperone.3 Interestingly, the Hebrew word translated “went out” (yatsa) also bears a sense of impropriety.4 Like many teenage daughters down throughout time, it would appear that Dinah went out on the town behind her parents’ back.5
Was Dinah naive, rebellious, or just plain ignorant of the ways of the world? Why was it so important that she get to know the women of the land, and why didn’t her mother advise her and somebody dependable accompany her on her sightseeing trip? (Her brothers were out in the field with the flocks.) Where are her parents? Where is Jacob? They know that Shechem is a corrupt and godless place. How could they allow their teenage daughter to wander the streets of such a wicked city? Three reasons stand out:
1. Jacob was a man of compromise. He should not have been tarrying in this pagan neighborhood and deliberately endangering his family. He should have been at Bethel leading them closer to the Lord.6 If Jacob had fully obeyed God and traveled to Bethel instead of stopping short in Shechem, this would not have happened. Are you a man of compromise? If so, how is it currently hurting your family? What will you do about it?
2. Jacob wasn’t a very strong spiritual leader in the home. There is no mention of Jacob instructing his children in the Lord. Due to his continual lapses in faith, it is certain that Jacob was not the father he should have been. Dad, you are to be the spiritual leader in your home—that is your responsibility. Whether you’re a dad, a mom, or a single parent, you are your child’s primary teacher/discipler. If you don’t watch out for them, who will?
3. This past week, Joshua and I went on a long walk. Since he has a broken humerous bone, we kept him indoors for several days after the injury. We wanted to protect him from further injury. But he was getting a little stir-crazy inside the house so I took him out for some exercise. As we were walking along, there were a few times that he almost tripped. Of course, if he fell to the ground, he could do permanent damage to his shoulder…and I would never be able to explain this to his mother. So while we were walking, I urged him to stay on the street and not get tangled in the stickers or ivy patches. I was his chaperon. I protected Joshua from himself and those obstacles that would seek to trip him up. Parents, this is what God has called you to do.
4. Jacob was a man of blatant favoritism. Could it be that if Jacob had loved Dinah the way God intended, this would not have happened? Parents, be careful to not favor one child over another. Spend equal time with each of your children. If you don’t spend time with your children now, they will take your time later.7 We need to invest in all of our children when they are young. We must teach them and discipline them. We should be asking, “Does the town I want to live in have a good church? Can my children find spiritual companionship? What kind of Christian service can I have in this city?” Above all else, we must be asking, “Is this where the Lord wants me? Is this where I can best serve Him?”8
In 34:2-4, Moses records this disturbing account: “When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her,9 he took her10 and lay with her by force.11 He was deeply attracted to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke tenderly to her.12 So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, ‘Get me this young girl for a wife.’”13 Now, don’t be confused here, Shechem is the name of the city in which they live. It is also the name of the son of Hamor, who is the prince, the leader of that part of the world. As Hamor’s son, Shechem was probably very powerful. He could have had whatever he wanted, any of the daughters of Hamor that he wanted, any of the daughters of Shechem that he wanted, but when he saw Dinah, she was the one he wanted. Unfortunately, in his lust, he raped her.
After his rape of Dinah, something very unusual happened—he genuinely fell in love with her. This is the opposite response of Amnon’s rape of Tamar when, afterward, Amnon despised his victim (2 Sam 13:15). In the course of two verses, we see the two sides to Shechem’s personality. In 34:3, Moses writes that Shechem loves Dinah and speaks tenderly to her; in 34:4 he orders his father to get him this young girl. He sounds like the cartoon caveman: “Me want woman!” It would seem, like most rapists, that Shechem has a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde type personality.
In 34:5-6, we will see the reactions of Jacob and his sons to the rape of Dinah. “Now Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter; but his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob kept silent until they came in. Then Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him.” These verses kill me because they show the passivity of Jacob. The natural and expected response would be anger or rage; but Jacob “kept silent.” He appears too indifferent or confused to act decisively. Why isn’t Jacob more outraged? Why doesn’t he act in behalf of his daughter? Again, he is guilty of the sin of favoritism (cf. Jas 2:1). Consider his passionate love for Joseph and Benjamin and his distress at their misfortunes. If it had been Rachel’s daughter who had been violated, he would have acted differently.14
In keeping silent, Jacob was the precursor for another biblical character. When King David’s daughter, Tamar, was raped, David was furious. However, like Jacob he also did nothing (2 Sam 13:20-21). Consequently, his son Absalom took matters into his own hands and inappropriately poured out his wrath (2 Sam 13:22). Likewise, instead of taking control of a dangerous situation, Jacob let Dinah’s brothers handle things. Jacob’s refusal to do what was right in this situation not only allowed evil to triumph, but also created an enormous leadership vacuum in the family, which was immediately and sinfully filled by his angry sons. Edmond Burke once said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
In 34:7, Jacob’s callous indifference toward Dinah and her brothers fueled his sons’ fury. “Now the sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it; and the men were grieved, and they were very angry because he had done a disgraceful thing in Israel15 by lying with Jacob’s daughter, for such a thing ought not to be done.” Apparently, Jacob does not view the travesty as important enough to send word to his sons.16 But when they do finally hear about it, they are steamed! The word for “grieved” (atsab) is found elsewhere only for God’s reaction to human wickedness (Gen 6:6). These proper emotions are assigned to the brothers, not to Jacob.17 The brothers express a righteous indignation. Amidst their fury, Jacob’s sons responded properly to the demeaning of Israel as well as Dinah. They understood that because Jacob had become Israel at Peniel, the rape of his daughter was a crime against Israel, as a people, seeing that the relationship of Israel to God had been ignored and abused. Tragically, their father, Jacob, had neither stood up for his daughter or his God!18
Many Christians say that we cannot get angry. We CAN get angry (Eph 4:26). Grief and fury are appropriate emotions, if they are in response to what angers God. The problem is we get angry over things we shouldn’t and then we don’t even raise an eyebrow over things that should make us angry. Furthermore, I love the editorial comment that Moses adds at the end of 34:7: “for such a thing ought not to be done.” Moses is not a moral relativist. He knows his Bible…and he should because he’s writing it. There is no question here about right or wrong. The Bible says rape is a thing which “ought not to be done.”
Rape is sin and it has affected the lives of countless ladies, some whom you and I know personally.19 If you are reading this sermon and you have been sexually assaulted or molested, you have been sinned against horribly. On behalf of godly men, I express my anger and grief over what happened to you. My heart breaks for you. Nevertheless, there are many other ladies who have been through this horrific ordeal and such a woman can comfort you (2 Cor 1:3) and, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, help you to overcome this violation. Please share this with someone today and seek to experience healing.
In 34:8-12, we will see the reactions of Hamor and Shechem. “But Hamor spoke with them, saying, ‘The soul of my son Shechem longs for your daughter; please give her to him in marriage. Intermarry with us; give your daughters to us and take our daughters for yourselves. Thus you shall live with us, and the land shall be open before you; live and trade in it and acquire property in it. Shechem also said to her father and to her brothers, ‘If I find favor in your sight, then I will give whatever you say to me. Ask me ever so much bridal payment and gift, and I will give according as you say to me; but give me the girl in marriage.’”20 Hamor and Shechem both do not offer an apology. Apparently, they assume that the offense is no big deal. After all, this is how Shechemites behave. In essence Hamor says, “No hard feelings. Let’s all get married, and be one, big, happy family.”21 Hamor offers an alliance between the two peoples. To include intermarriage, trade, and land deals. Yet, despite his peace treaty, Hamor asks Jacob and his sons to agree to something that is expressly unbiblical (Deut 7:3; Josh 23:12; Ezra 9:14; 2 Cor 6:14-16; 1 John 2:15-17).22 God wants His people to only marry other godly people. Do you share this conviction?
Since Jacob was not going to be talking, “ Jacob’s sons answered Shechem and his father Hamor with deceit, because he had defiled Dinah their sister. They said to them, ‘We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one who is uncircumcised, for that would be a disgrace to us. Only on this condition will we consent to you: if you will become like us, in that every male of you be circumcised, then we will give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters for ourselves, and we will live with you and become one people. But if you will not listen to us to be circumcised, then we will take our daughter and go’” (34:13-17). As was customary in their culture, Jacob’s sons took an active part in approving their sister’s marriage (34:13; cf. 24:50). They were correct in opposing the end in view: the mixing of the chosen seed with the seed of the Canaanites. Yet they were wrong in adopting the means they selected to achieve their end. Moses says, the boys answered “with deceit.” Now, where do you suppose these sons learned how to be so deceitful? Deceit has been a problem in the patriarchal family right from the very start. Deceit runs deep in this family, and nobody knows it better than Jacob. And now his sons are just “chips off the old block.” Hence, the description “Jacob’s sons” rather than “Dinah’s brothers.” The sons are just following in their father’s deceitful footsteps (34:13). Jesus will later articulate this, “A disciple is not greater than his teacher, but everyone when fully trained will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40 NET).
The sons mix truth and deceit in order to exact their revenge against the Shechemties. The truth relates to circumcision. Circumcision was an outward symbol of an inward commitment to the covenant of God (17:10).23 This sign was of great importance for the people of the covenant. Any uncircumcised male of Israel is cut off from the covenant. Yet Jacob’s sons are deceptive in not explaining the real reason why they want the Shechemties to be circumcised (cf. 34:25-31).24
Here, Jacob’s sons play the religion card. Few sons are more despicable than pressing the sacred into service for profane use.25 But Simeon and Levi, feeling justified by the violation against Dinah, prostituted the symbol of God’s covenant in order to take advantage of the men of Shechem. However, Jacob’s silence is even more evil than his sons’ schemes. His sons proposed intermarriage with the Canaanites only as a means to induce them to be circumcised so that they could be overcome more easily. Jacob silently and passively accepted the agreement with the people of Shechem, fully expecting to carry it out. Jacob planned to allow his descendants to intermarry with the Canaanites, but his sons had no such intention. Jacob, in comparison with his sons, is even guiltier than they! Jacob’s willingness to intermarry with the Canaanites is not only contrary to the purposes and promises of God in the Abrahamic covenant, but it is also a direct violation of the instructions, which his father had given him (28:1-4). Compromise can be deadly!
In 34:18-24, Moses continues the story. “Now their words seemed reasonable to Hamor and Shechem, Hamor’s son. The young man did not delay to do the thing, because he was delighted with Jacob’s daughter. Now he was more respected than all the household of his father. [If Shechem is the most honored in Hamor’s house and Hamor was the founder and leading citizen of Shechem, that tells us something about the utter depravity of the place!] So Hamor and his son Shechem came to the gate of their city and spoke to the men of their city, saying, ‘These men are friendly with us; therefore let them live in the land and trade in it, for behold, the land is large enough for them. Let us take their daughters in marriage, and give our daughters to them. Only on this condition will the men consent to us to live with us, to become one people: that every male among us be circumcised as they are circumcised. Will not their livestock and their property and all their animals be ours? Only let us consent to them, and they will live with us.’ All who went out of the gate of his city listened to Hamor and to his son Shechem, and every male was circumcised, all who went out of the gate of his city.” The men of the city were convinced on financial grounds. Circumcision was a small price to pay if it resulted in a huge financial windfall.
In 34:25-29, when the men of Shechem are weak and vulnerable, Jacob’s sons take matters into their own hands.26 “Now it came about on the third day, when they were in pain, that two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, each took his sword and came upon the city unawares, and killed every male. They killed Hamor and his son Shechem with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah from Shechem’s house, and went forth. Jacob’s sons came upon the slain and looted the city, because they had defiled their sister. They took their flocks and their herds and their donkeys, and that which was in the city and that which was in the field; and they captured and looted all their wealth and all their little ones and their wives, even all that was in the houses.” Simeon and Levi are two of eleven redneck farmers. Both boys are in their 20’s and they love to fight. So they go door-to-door killing all the men. After this genocidal spree, the remaining brothers swooped in “like vultures descending on lifeless corpses.”27 The rape of Dinah was a disgraceful, evil act; but the wholesale murder of the men of Shechem, the looting of the city, and the imprisonment of the women and children of the city was inhumanly excessive.28 The punishment clearly did not fit the crime. The ancient law of lex talionis (“an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”) had been trampled by Simeon and Levi. There had been no equity here, only exponential revenge.29 Two wrongs never make a right, nor does might make right.30
Harry Emerson Fosdick said, “Hatred is like burning down your own house to get rid of a rat.” They are much worse off now than they were even after the rape of Dinah. If the sons of Jacob could only have brought themselves to forgive Shechem of his sin, none of this would have happened.31 A little forgiveness goes a long way in healing hurts. Hatred has no place in our lives, folks, even when people do despicable things to us. Treachery has children, and when we respond to treachery with treachery, we give birth to those children. Let’s make sure we show forgiveness and not hatred because hatred destroys us as much as it destroys anybody.32
Our story closes in 34:30-31 with this tragic account: “Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, ‘You have brought trouble on me by making me odious among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites; and my men being few in number, they will gather together against me and attack me and I will be destroyed, I and my household.’” All Jacob can think of is his own reputation.33 His ego has been hurt, and he thinks only of his lowered standing among the local inhabitants. His selfish response is highlighted by his use of “me,” or “my,” and “I” no less than eight times in the NASB. Never mind the fact that his daughter has been raped, his sons abused the rite of circumcision or breached a contract, or that every male citizen of Shechem has been slaughtered, or that the city itself had been plundered, or that its women and children had been taken captive, or that Jacob’s sons had degraded and dehumanized themselves by committing acts of unspeakable wickedness.34 His concerns are tactical and strategic, rather than ethical.35
Men, when you become a father, you need to be a godly man that cares more about your children than yourself. There’s no indication that Jacob ever talks to Dinah. He just rebukes his sons for sinning when the mistake is his. Jacob is concerned about what people will think. He’s saying, “Look what you’ve done to me.” So many men worry about their image, business, income, investments, hobbies, safety, etc. Yet, they do not spend adequate time worrying about their children…especially their girls.
One would hope that Jacob would confess his sin and the story would close. After all, the rape, the desecration, the genocide, and the disgrace were all due to his disobedience.36 But Jacob doesn’t repent.37
The logic of the story implies the importance of keeping one’s vows. Jacob fails to keep his vow to build an altar at Bethel and then almost loses his household. One cannot worship God as one pleases.
Jacob builds an altar but in the wrong place (cf. 33:20). Because he is not in the place where he is supposed to be, he brings a sword, not a blessing to the nations.38
Our story ends with these words: “But they said, ‘Should he treat our sister as a harlot?’” (34:31). It is interesting that Simeon and Levi referred to Dinah as “our sister” rather than as Jacob’s daughter, which would have been appropriate in addressing Jacob. This implies that, since Jacob had not showed enough concern for Dinah, her blood brothers felt compelled to act in her defense. Simeon and Levi may have been zealous to a fault, but at least their concern was for Dinah as a sister, implying that Jacob had not cared for her as a daughter.39
Despite the atrocity of their genocide, the sons had assumed the moral high ground. Jacob was silenced. The response of Jacob’s sons may be directed at both Shechem and Jacob. To do nothing about the rape and then to be willing to accept gifts after the event is to act like a pimp.40 Jacob committed sins of omission. Sin is not only what you do, but what you don’t do! Jacob sinned by living in Shechem, letting his girl go out into the city, and not devising a plan.
This story demonstrates the sovereign control of God. While the story in this chapter operates at a level of family honor and the brothers’ concern for their ravaged sister, the story nevertheless also carries along the theme that runs so clearly through the Jacob narratives, namely, that God works through and often in spite of the limited, self-serving plans of human beings. The writer’s purpose is not to approve these human plans and schemes but to show how God, in His sovereign grace, could still achieve His purpose through them.41
God demands complete obedience. He disdains cold-sore-like compromise. When we compromise, He will discipline us and allow us to experience the consequences for our actions. But the good news is this: God is faithful in spite of our sinfulness. He is a sovereign God who is able to accomplish His purposes in and through us despite ourselves.
1 Copyright © 2005 Keith R. Krell. All rights reserved. All Scripture quotations, unless indicated, are taken from the New American Standard Bible, © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1975, 1977, and 1995 by The Lockman Foundation, and are used by permission.
2 Dinah’s name likely means “justice.” This will come into play as our passage progresses.
3 Rebekah and Rachel going to a well owned by their clan (cf. 24:15-16; 29:6) is quite different from going out unchaperoned among the Canaanites. Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 461.
4 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50, Vol. 2: WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1994), 310.
5 R. Kent Hughes, Genesis: Beginning & Blessing (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), 412.
6 Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Authentic: Genesis 25-50 (Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor, 1997), 63.
7 R.T. Kendall, All’s Well that End’s Well: The Life of Jacob (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1998), 155.
8 James Montgomery Boice, Genesis 12-36 Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985 ), 830.
9 Dinah had been freely mixing in Shechem and she was probably flattered by the attention of the ruler’s son. However, she certainly didn’t want to be raped. No woman ever wants this crime against her.
10 The same sequence “saw…took” is used for the sexually unrestrained tyrants in Gen 6:2 (cf. 3:6). Waltke, Genesis, 462.
11 HALOT defines the Hebrew term shakab as “to do violence…to rape a woman” (Gen 34:2; Judg 19:24; 20:5; 2 Sam 13:12, 14, 22, 32; Lam 5:11). Some commentators believe that this was consensual, premarital sex. The Hebrew word can have this flexibility.
12 This is the opposite response of Amnon’s rape of Tamar when afterward Amnon despised his victim (2 Sam 13:15).
13 Interestingly, in Exod, chapter 22:16-17, if a man seduced a virgin, he was to marry her, unless, of course, the father refused, in which case an appropriate bridal gift would be given.
14 The truth is, Jacob never cared for Leah, and his attitude trickled down to her daughter and six sons. Indeed, Leah’s less-loved sons would be at the forefront of selling his favorite son, Joseph, into Egypt. Hughes, Genesis: Beginning & Blessing, 413.
15 Moses used the name “Israel” here for the first time, as a reference to God’s chosen people (34:7). The family of Jacob had a special relationship to God by divine calling, reflected in the name “Israel” (prince with God).
16 Waltke, Genesis, 463.
17 Waltke, Genesis, 464.
18 Hughes, Genesis: Beginning & Blessing, 413.
19 Sixty-two percent of college students say they’ve been sexually harassed, according to what’s being called the most comprehensive research to date regarding sexual harassment on college campuses. The study, conducted by Harris Interactive for the American Association of University Women, found that 32 percent have been touched or grabbed against their will, but only seven percent of students have reported sexual harassment to a faculty member. H.B. London Jr., The Pastor’s Weekly Briefing Vol. 14, No. 5 (Feb. 3, 2006).
20 Wenham writes, “Marriage was always preceded by betrothal, in which the bridegroom’s family paid a mhd ‘marriage present’ to the bride’s family (1 Sam 18:25). In cases of premarital intercourse, this still had to be paid to legitimize the union, and the girl’s father was allowed to fix the size of the marriage present (Exod 22:15-16 [16-17]; limited by Deut 22:29 to a maximum of fifty shekels)…Here it seems likely that Shechem is offering both a ‘marriage present’ to Jacob and ‘a gift’ to Dinah.” Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 312-313.
21 Hughes, Genesis: Beginning & Blessing, 413.
22 The law of Moses said that Israel was not to intermarry with the Canaanites or make treaties with them but was to destroy them because they posed such a threat. This passage provides part of the rationale for such laws, for it describes how immoral Canaanites defiled Israel by sexual contact and attempted to marry for the purpose of swallowing up Israel.” (cf. 9:25-27).
23 Sailhamer notes, “In chapter 17 the rite of circumcision was a sign (17:11) of the unity of the covenant people and their separation from the rest of the nations. Circumcision was not limited to the seed of Abraham but was rather given as a sign of one’s participation in the hope of God’s promises to Abraham. It was, in fact, a sign of the covenant promise that Abraham would become the father of ‘a multitude of nations’ (17:5) But the way the sons of Jacob carried out the request that these Canaanites be circumcised was a curious reversal of God’s intention. They offered circumcision as a means for the two families to become ‘one people’ (34:16). The Canaanites were not joining the seed of Abraham; rather, the seed of Abraham was joining with the Canaanites. The importance of this point is stressed when Shechem repeated it to his countrymen: ‘Won’t their livestock, their property, and all their other animals become ours?’ (34:23).” John H. Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1996), 201.
24 Barry C. Davis, Genesis (Portland, OR: Multnomah Biblical Seminary unpublished class Notes, 2003).
25 Ronald F. Youngblood, The Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 237.
26 If the husband or father doesn’t lead, there is a vacuum of leadership and someone will lead. This is what happened with Eve and Sarah. Here it happens with eleven brothers.
27 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 18-50: NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 370.
28 Numbers 25 tells the story of Phineas, a descendant of Levi, killing a Midianite princess and a descendant of Simeon during the act of intercourse. He runs the man’s head through with a spear.
29 Hughes, Genesis: Beginning & Blessing, 415.
30 Youngblood, The Book of Genesis, 237.
31 What should you do if you have suffered injustice in this life?
· Don’t take things into your own hands (Rom 12:17-21).
· Confront the sin biblically (Matt 18:15-17).
· Report criminal matters to the governing authorities (Rom 13:1-5).
· Entrust yourself to God who judges justly (1 Pet 2:21-23).
See also Bob Hallman, Violated In Shechem (Genesis 34:1-31): http://www3.calvarychapel.com/kauai/teachings/genesis_pdf/gen_34_notes.pdfhttp://www3.calvarychapel.com/kauai/teachings/genesis_pdf/gen_34_notes.pdf, 9.
33 This story shows Jacob’s old nature reasserting itself, a man whose moral principles are weak, who is fearful of standing up for right when it may cost him dearly, who doubts God’s power to protect, and who allows hatred to divide him from his children just as it had divided him from his brother. Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 318.
34 Youngblood, The Book of Genesis, 237-238; Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 316.
35 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 18-50: NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 371.
36 Hughes, Genesis: Beginning & Blessing, 417.
37 While he did not repent, at the end of his life, Jacob saw Simeon and Levi for who they were (Gen 49:5-7), but he rebuked them far too late in life and failed to provide them with a reliable model of a godly life. As a result of this sin, Jacob passed over Simeon and Levi for the primary blessing and gave it to Judah instead.
38 Waltke, Genesis, 468.
39 Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 317. Waltke notes that the zeal of the priest Phineas (from the house of Levi) used properly, wins him a better inheritance (see Num 25). Waltke, Genesis, 467.
40 Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 317.
41 John H. Sailhamer, Genesis: EBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), Electronic ed.