Genesis 34:24-31

2009.Jun.15 14:00

Revenge

And all the people who went out of the town gate listened and heeded what Hamor and Shechem said; and every male was circumcised who was a resident of that town. But on the third day [after the circumcision] when [all the men] were sore, two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's [full] brothers, took their swords, boldly entered the city [without danger], and slew all the males. And they killed Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword and took Dinah out of Shechem's house [where she had been all this time] and departed.
(Genesis 34:24-26, AMP)

Simeon and Levi avenge the raping of their sister Dinah. Plus some. Plus a lot. Their action is extreme, punishing the whole town for the act of Shechem and its acceptance by Hamor. Certainly, it is more than required for simply rescuing Dinah.

This might be a useful time for me to get on my soapbox about not following blindly political leaders. It gets people killed. That is all.

[Then the rest of] Jacob's [eleven] sons came upon the slain and plundered the town, because there their sister had been defiled and disgraced. They took their flocks, their herds, their donkeys, and whatever was in the town and in the field; All their wealth and all their little ones and their wives they took captive, making spoil even of all [they found] in the houses.
(Genesis 34:27-29, AMP)

Now, the other nine brothers (Benjamin not yet born), enter the town and take the spoils. It’s not clear whether the whole is coordinated, or if the other nine are simply taking advantage of Simeon and Levi’s actions. Regardless, this whole situation works out pretty good for them, at least in the immediate. I acknowledge that’s a cynical comment, but I can’t believe the motiviation of avenging Dinah alone could have justified this wholesale slaughter. On another hand, the men of the town were deceived by the promise of the same sort of riches and plunder that Jacob’s sons now experience.

And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, You have ruined me, making me infamous and embroiling me with the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites! And we are few in number, and they will gather together against me and attack me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my household. And they said, Should he [be permitted to] deal with our sister as with a harlot?
(Genesis 34:30-31, AMP)

It’s up to Jacob to point out the downside: they may have made many more enemies. After all, the locals will wonder if it’s not better to get rid of these foreigners as soon as possible, and form an alliance amongst themselves to ensure utter victory. Simeon and Levi are not having it. They respond that their actions were appropriate to defend Dinah’s honor.

And where is the middle ground? To me, killing Hamor and Shechem would have been justifiable. But it would have been less likely to subject them to the “pre-emptive” attacks of others. Yes, there would have been new difficulties with that action. Would the townspeople attack in response? If not, does Jacob become the de-facto leader of this town? And so on. An argument in favor of the sons’ actions would be that these Canaanites currently in the area are probably the same that Yahweh will lead Israel against after the Exodus. However, there’s no record of Yahweh approving this particular attack.

Anger unchecked often results in an excessive response that causes unnecessary and undeserved suffering.

Genesis 34:13-17

2009.May.29 10:00

Deception

Read Genesis 34:13-17 | Full Chapter

But Jacob's sons answered Shechem and his father Hamor with deceit, because he had defiled Dinah their sister.
(Genesis 34:13, NASB)

Fabulous question: Are lies ever not sin? Commandment no. 9 is, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." (Exodus 20:16, NASB) , not explicitly a prohibition on all lying (I’m sure there are other relevant passages here, which might clarify my forthcoming rambling). So what of lying in a defensive situation? It’s probably not really applicable here anyway, as, other than getting Dinah away from Shechem’s home, the brothers’ intentions are principally murderous. But it remains a valid question. On the other hand, how much does that answer matter to me? Because the number of situation I am likely to be in where it’s even a useful question are minimal. Hopefully, zero. And what of just plain diplomacy? Talking nice while looking for a stick and all that?

If I’m trying to make a point here, it’s twofold. First, it’s worth remembering that a black/white approach to considering every issue is woefully inadequate; even where I am certain of the righteousness or sinfulness of an action, I must remember that there may be additional elements to the story that need to be also considered when viewing the actions of others. This doesn’t change the nature of the action, but can affect how I react.

Second is that most of the time these edge case questions, while interesting, don’t matter that much. If I am consistently obedient in the clear cases, I will have an easier time being and seeking to be obedient in instances with more gray. In the narrative of Genesis, there’s not much evidence that Jacob made a significant effort to teach his sons to live consistently obedient to Yahweh.

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."
(Genesis 34:14-17, NASB)

The strategy of Dinah’s brothers is clever. They take advantage of Yahweh’s commandment that all males of their family be circumcised. They’re betting on the painful recovery to allow them an offensive advantage. Without making any theological judgement, I personally disapprove of this strategy, and in general of using my religious obligations to hurt another.

Genesis 21:1-8

2007.Nov.13 01:04

The birth of Isaac

Read Genesis 21:1-8 | Full Chapter

Then the LORD took note of Sarah as He had said, and the LORD did for Sarah as He had promised. So Sarah conceived and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the appointed time of which God had spoken to him. Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him, whom Sarah bore to him, Isaac.
(Genesis 21:1-3, NASB)

God fulfills a promise. Years after hope no longer makes sense, Sarah and Abraham have the child they’ve desired. And Yahweh takes another step in fulfilling his promise of creating from these two a great nation, because of their faith. Not only does God fulfill this promise, he does so just when he said he would. Isn’t he great?

I can’t help but consider, though, if the last chapter is in sync chronologically, whether Yahweh healed, as it were, Sarah’s barrenness (or Abraham’s infertility? Well, I suppose he was fertile once before, anyway…) at the same time as doing so for Abimelech’s wife and servants. I don’t know that there is any valuable point to be made about that, but it strikes me as neat.

Perhaps the reason this possibility strikes me is because of a mental constraint I tend to put on my understanding of Yahweh: I often think of God’s actions as being purely practical. He does such and such with the goal of bringing people to him, picking whichever option is best towards that end. Now, that may not be at all accurate anyway, but that is the way I tend to think about why he does things. So inclined, it strikes me particularly when he does something that seems to me primarily aesthetic. Did God create rainbows principally because they made a striking symbol of his promise, or did he create them because he thought they were beautiful, then used them as a symbol? Is that actually a sensible question? Probably not. But I need to remember that Jehovah does seem to like beautiful things, and to not try to restrict him to “the practical”.

Then Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him. Now Abraham was one hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him. Sarah said, “God has made laughter for me; everyone who hears will laugh with me.” And she said, “Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? Yet I have borne him a son in his old age.” The child grew and was weaned, and Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned.
(Genesis 21:4-8, NASB)

So, what do the happy parents do in response to this. They largely forget about Hagar and Ishmael, apparently, but that’s for next entry. Aside from this unhappy point, Abraham and Sarah obey and celebrate. Abraham circumcises Isaac as God had previously commanded him, and they have a feast on Isaac’s, erm, weaning-day? And Sarah laughs.

I think that’s a good way to respond to Yahweh’s fulfilled promises: obedience and celebration.

Genesis 17:22-27

2007.May.21 02:49

A Family Obeys

Read Genesis 17:22-27 | Full Chapter

God finished speaking to Abraham and then left. On that same day Abraham obeyed God by circumcising Ishmael. Abraham was also circumcised, and so were all other men and boys in his household, including his servants and slaves. He was ninety-nine years old at the time, and his son Ishmael was thirteen.
(Genesis 17:22-27, CEV)

Here, Abraham does the kind of thing that helps explain why Jehovah has so blessed him and made a covenant with him and his descendants: he obeys. He has a bit of a crazy thing to obey, too. He must be circumcised and so must all the males of his household. And he does it, because Jehovah told him too. And all the males in his household go along. I don’t know, but I like to think it is because Abraham has led them effectively and kindly and so they trust him when he tells them what God has commanded. Then again, maybe he didn’t give them much choice. But in either event, they too obey.

Part of me just wants to leave this entry there. The value of obedience to God. Because it’s often a hard thing to get through our stubborn minds. Even more, immediate obedience. Even more, immediate obedience that you know is going to cause yourself and people you care for physical pain.

But I also want to consider something this is not. This is not Abraham creating a little cult to worship him and having half the cult members engage in self-mutilation to show their loyalty. Although it kind of reads that way. I’d say the first thing that demonstrates that Abraham is doing this for God rather than himself is that he is obedient to God’s command on his own body. More importantly, Abraham does not add anything to Jehovah’s command. This is a sign of the covenant between Jehovah and Abraham and his family. Abraham could have abused the opportunity by requiring additional obedience of his household to him–Abraham–but he doesn’t. Just as obedience should not take away from the command, neither should it add to the command. That doesn’t mean Jehovah has to be explicit on all points, but rather that we should not–even through our “reason”–add to ourselves or others additional commandments which God never gives.

It is also nice to note that Abraham is not using circumcision to create/embellish class distinctions. His family, his slaves, his servants, all his household, is part of this covenant (in my opinion, women included–earlier thoughts on that). And Abraham avoids such pitfalls because his focus–judging from his actions–is on obedience to Jehovah.

Genesis 17:9-14

2007.Apr.28 00:26

Circumsion

Read Genesis 17:9-14 | Full Chapter

I’m not interested in discussing at this point the applicability of circumcision in the “New Covenant”–there’s plenty of discussion about this in the Bible itself. When I started this entry, I wasn’t particularly interested in exploring why Jehovah chose the particular action of circumcision as the sign of this covenant. As you will see, I changed my mind. However, I do so with caution, as such discussions can distract from the reality that Jehovah would ordain such a generational covenant affirming act at all.

Last entry, I looked at how, in Genesis 17:7-8, Jehovah explicitly extended his covenant with Abraham, formerly Abram, to his descendants. I am particularly struck by the wording in The Message version, when God refers to circumcision as “the covenant that pulls in all your descendants”. There is to be a physical reminder to all of Abraham’s descendants of this covenant, that this land is their’s not by the power of their flesh but by the decision and power of God.

Okay, I am going to explore a little why circumcision in particular. This is the only time that I know of that God calls for anything that might be considered self-mutilation. Significantly, this permanent change of the flesh is particularly apparent during sex. This means that circumcision does not have (intimate) consequences just for males, but also for most of the females of Abraham’s descendants. This point is important because there is nothing that implies to me that the covenant is with men only, but even the covenant act of circumcision includes women.

Additionally, this could be seen as a metaphor for Christ’s sacrifice. As God "gave His only begotten Son" (John 3:16, NASB) , Abraham’s male descendants were called to give a part of themselves that…erm…participates in the begetting process. And as we are called to "take up [our] cross" (Matthew 16:24, NASB) and "present [our] bodies a living and holy sacrifice" (Romans 12:1, NASB) , and so have an experience of Christ’s sacrifice in our covenant with him, the women descended from Abraham also are called to experience the circumcision of their husbands within the marriage covenant.

And now I must take a moment and acknowledge that Christians may sometimes go overboard in trying to find metaphors for Christ in the OT. If the previous paragraph so qualifies, please ignore.

I want then to reiterate and highlight that Jehovah has placed before this people a continual covenant, and has ordained a generational reminder for it, within the covenant act of circumcision. This covenant is extended to all levels of society, including foreign slaves, because God’s promise is not dependent on some social strata. Instead, it is a reminder that we all are dependent on him.

« 1 »