Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Genesis 34:1

GENESIS – CHAPTER THIRTY-FOUR

Verses 1-5:

Dinah was probably at this time about fifteen to seventeen years of age. Some historians place Jacob two years at Succoth, and about eight years in Shechem. If she was born before Joseph, as is implied, she was between five and seven years old when Jacob reached Succoth.

Josephus says Dinah went into the city to take part in a feast of the Shechemites (Ant. 1, 21:1). The language implies this was a habitual practice, and not the first time she had done so. On this occasion, she became the victim of assault. Shechem, son of Hamor the Hivite who was the ruler of the city, saw her and forcibly raped her. It is to his credit that he did not cast her aside after he had satisfied his passion. He “spake kindly,” literally, “spoke to the heart of the damsel,” and offered marriage.

Jacob heard of what had happened to his daughter, likely through some of her companions, for Shechem had detained Dinah in his house. Jacob refrained from making any statement or taking any action until his sons returned home from tending their flocks. He recognized the right of Dinah’s brothers to a voice in settling this important matter.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

1. And Dinah… went out. This chapter records a severe contest, with which God again exercised his servant. How precious the chastity of his daughter would be to him, we may readily conjecture from the probity of his whole life. When therefore he heard that she was violated, this disgrace would inflict the deepest wound of grief upon his mind: yet soon his grief is trebled, when he hears that his sons, from the desire of revenge, have committed a most dreadful crime. But let us examine everything in order. Dinah is ravished, because, having left her father’s house, she wandered about more freely than was proper. She ought to have remained quietly at home, as both the Apostle teaches and nature itself dictates; for to girls the virtue is suitable, which the proverb applies to women, that they should be ( οἰκουροὶ,) or keepers of the house. Therefore fathers of families are taught to keep their daughters under strict discipline, if they desire to preserve them free from all dishonor; for if a vain curiosity was so heavily punished in the daughter of holy Jacob, not less danger hangs over weak virgins at this day, if they go too boldly and eagerly into public assemblies, and excite the passions of youth towards themselves. For it is not to be doubted that Moses in part casts the blame of the offense upon Dinah herself, when he says, “she went out to see the daughters of the land;” whereas she ought to have remained under her mother’s eyes in the tent.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

ISAAC. JACOB AND ESAU

Gen 25:10 to Gen 35:1-29

BEGINNING where we left off in our last study of Genesis, Isaac is the subject of next concern, for it came to pass after the death of Abraham that God blessed his son Isaac, and Isaac dwelt by the well Lahai-roi. But we are not inclined to spend much time in the study of Isaacs life and labors. Unquestionably Isaac holds his place in the Old Testament record through force of circumstances rather than by virtue of character. His history is uninteresting, and were it not that he is Abrahams son and Jacobs father, the connecting link between the federal head of the Jews, and father of the patriarchs, he would long since have been forgotten.

Three sentences tell his whole history, and prove him to be a most representative Jew. He was obedient to his father; he was greedy of gain, and he was a gormand! He resisted not when Abraham bound him and laid him upon the altar. Such was his filial submission. At money-making he was a success, for he had possession of flocks and possession of herd, and great store of servants, and the Philistines envied him. His gluttony was great enough to be made a matter of inspired record, for it is written, Isaac loved Esau because he did eat of his venison, and when he was old and his eyes were dim, and he thought the day of his death was at hand, he called Esau and said,

My son**** take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field and take me some venison and make me savory meat, such as I love, and bring it to me that I may eat, that my soul may bless thee before I die.

Think of a man preparing to sweep into eternity, and yet spending what he supposed to be his last moments in feasting his flesh!

I have no prejudice against the Jew. I believe him to be the chosen of the Lord. My study of the Scriptures has compelled me to look for the restoration of Israel, and yet I say that Isaac, in his filial obedience, his greed of gain and his gluttony of the flesh, was a type. And to this hour the majority of his offspring present kindred traits of character.

Yet Isaacs life was not in vain. We saw in our second study in Genesis that the man who became the father of a great people, who, through his offspring was made a nation, was fortune-favored of God. The greatest event in Isaacs history was the birth of his twin children, Esau and Jacob. It was through their behavior that his own name would be immortalized and through their offspring that his personality would be multiplied into a mighty people. I propose, therefore, this morning to give the greater attention to his younger son, Jacob, Gods chosen one, and yet not to neglect Esau whom the sacred narrative assigns to a place of secondary consideration. For the sake of simplicity in study, let us reduce the whole of Jacobs long and eventful life to three statements, namely, Jacobs shrewdness, Jacobs Sorrows, and Jacobs Salvation.

JACOBS SHREWDNESS.

In their very birth, Jacobs hand was upon Esaus heel, earnest of his character. From his childhood he tripped whom he could.

His deceptions began in the home. This same twin brother Esau, upon whose heel he laid his hand in the hour of birth, becomes the first victim of his machinations. He takes advantage of Esaus hunger and weariness to buy out his birthright, and pays for it the miserable price of bread and pottage. The child is the prophecy of the man. The treatment one accords his brothers and sisters, while yet the family are around the old hearthstone, gives promise of the character to come. The reason why sensible parents show such solicitude over the small sins of their children is found just here. They are not distressed because the transgressions are great in themselves, but rather because those transgressions tell of things to come. In the peevishness of a child they see the promise of a man, mastered by his temper; in the white lies of youth, an earnest of the dangerous falsehoods that may curse maturer years; in the little deceptions of the nursery, a prophecy of the accomplished and conscienceless embezzler.

There comes from England the story of a farmer who, finding himself at the hour of midnight approaching the end of life, sent hastily for a lawyer, and ordered him to quickly write his will. The attorney asked for pen, ink and paper, but none could be found. Then he inquired for a lead pencil, but a thorough search of the house revealed that no such thing existed in it. The lawyer saw that the farmer was sinking fast, and something must be done, and so casting about he came upon a piece of chalk; and taking that he sat down upon the hearthstone and wrote out on its smooth surface the last will and testament of the dying man. When the court came to the settlement of the estate, that hearthstone was taken up and carried into the presence of the judge, and there its record was read, and the will written upon it was executed. And I tell you that before we leave the old home place, and while we sit around the old hearthstone, we write there a record in our behavior toward father and mother, in our dealings with brother and sister, and servant, that is a prophecy of what we ourselves will be and of the end to which we shall eventually come, for the child is father to the man.

Jacob showed this same character to society. The thirtieth chapter of Genesis records his conduct in the house of Laban. It is of a perfect piece with that which characterized him in his fathers house. A change of location does not altar character. Sometime ago a young man who had had trouble in his own home, and had come into ill-repute in the society in which he had moved, came and told me that he was going off to another city, and when I asked Why? he said, Well, I want to get away from the old associations and I want to put distance between me and the reputation I have made. But when he went he carried his own character with him, and the consequence was a new set of associates worse than those from whom he fled, and a new reputation that for badness exceeded the old. It does not make any difference in what house the deceiver lodges, nor yet with what society he associates himselfthe result is always the same.

Parker, who was the real father of the Prohibition movement of Maine, testified that he had traveled into every state of the Union in an endeavor to overcome his drinking habits, and free himself of evil associates, and that in every state of the Union he failed. But, when God by His grace converted him and changed his character, he went back to his old home and settled down with the old associates and friends and not only showed them how to live an upright life, but inaugurated a movement for the utter abolition of his old enemy. If there is any man who is thinking of leaving his city for another because here he has been unfortunate, as he puts it, or has been taken advantage of by evil company, and has made for himself a bad reputation, let him know that removal to a new place will accomplish no profit whatever. As Beecher once said, Men do not leave their misdeeds behind them when they travel away from home. A man who commits a mean and wicked action carries that sin in himself and with himself. He may go around the world but it goes around with him. He does not shake it off by changing his position.

The Jacob who deceived Esau and had to flee in consequence, twenty years later, for cheating Laban and by his dishonest dealings, divorced himself from his father-in-law.

Jacobs piety was a pure hypocrisy. Now some may be ready to protest against this charge, but I ground it in the plain statements of the Word. In all his early years this supplanter seldom employed the name of God, except for personal profit. When his old father Isaac inquired concerning that mutton, Jacob was palming off on him for venison, How is it that thou hast found it so quickly, my son? the impious rascal replied, Because the Lord thy God brought it to me. Think of voicing such hypocrisy! The next time Jacob employed Gods name it was at Bethel.

And Jacob vowed a vow saying, If God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I shall go and will give me bread to eat and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my fathers house in peace, then shall the Lord be my God.

Satans charge against Job would have had occasion had he hurled it against this supplanter instead, Doth Jacob fear God for naught? When the frauds of this man had taken from Laban the greater part of his flocks and herds, and Labans sons had uttered their complaint of robbery, Jacob replied,

Ye know that with all my power I have served your father, and your father hath deceived me, and changed my wages ten times. But God suffered him not to hurt me.

If he said, thus, the speckled shall be thy wages, then all the cattle bare speckled; and if he said thus, the ring straked shall be thy hire, then bare all the cattle ringstraked; thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father and given them to me. What hypocrisy! God had done nothing of the kind. This supplanter, by his knowledge of physiological laws, had enriched himself and robbed Laban, and when charged with his conduct, defended his fortune by the impious claim that God had given it all. I doubt if a man ever descends to greater depths of infamy than he reaches who cloaks bad conduct with pious phrases.

In a certain city a gentleman moved in and started up in business. He dressed elegantly, dwelt in a splendid house, drew the reins over a magnificent span, but his piety was the most marked thing about him. Morning and evening on the Sabbath day he went into the house of God to worship, and in the prayer meeting his testimonies and prayers were delivered with promptness and apparent sincerity. A few short months and he used the cover of night under which to make his exit, and left behind him a victimized host. Some time since our newspapers reported a Jew, who by the same hypocrisy had enriched himself and robbed many of his well-to-do brethren in Minneapolis. We have more respect for the worldling who is a gambler, a drunkard or an adulterer, than for the churchman who makes his church-membership serve purely commercial ends, and whose pious phrases are used as free passes into the confidence of the unsuspecting. It is a remarkable fact that when Jesus Christ was in the world He used His power to dispossess the raving Gadarene; He showed His mercy toward the scarlet woman; He viewed with pathetic silence the gamblers who cast dice for His own coat, but He assailed hypocrisy with the strongest clean invectives of which human language was capable, naming the hypocrites of His time whited sepulchers, a generation of vipers, children of Satan, and charged them with foolishness, blindness and murder. If Christ were here today, hypocrisy would fare no better at His lips, and when He was crucified again, as He surely would be, this class would lead the crowd that cried, Crucify Him! Crucify Him!

But enough regarding Jacobs shrewdness; let us look into

JACOBS SORROWS.

He is separated from his childhoods home. Scarcely had he and his doting mother carried out their deception of Isaac when sorrow smites both of them and the mother who loved him so much is compelled to say, My son, obey my voice and arise; flee thou to Laban, my brother, to Haran; and this mother and son were destined never to see each others face again. One of the ways of Gods judgment is to leave men to the fruits of their own devices. He does not rise up to personally punish those who transgress, but permits them to suffer the punishment which is self-inflicted. The law is Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap. It is a law that approves every righteous act, and bestows great blessings upon every good man, but it is also a law that has its whip of scorpions for every soul that lives in sin. It is on account of this law that you cannot be a cheat in your home and be comfortable there. You simply cannot deceive and defraud your fellows and escape the consequences.

What was $25,000 worth to Patrick Crowe when every policeman in America and a thousand private detectives were in search of him? How fitful must have been his sleep when he lay down at night, knowing that ere the morning dawned the law was likely to lay its hand upon him, and how anxious his days when every man he met and every step heard behind him suggested probable arrest. What had he done that he was so hunted? He had done what Jacob did; he had come into possession of blessings which did not belong to him, and as Jacob took advantage of his brothers weariness and hunger and of his fathers blindness to carry out his plot, so this child-kidnapper took advantage of the weakness of youth, the affection of paternity, to spoil his fellow of riches. It is not likely that either Jacob of old or the kidnapper of yesterday looked to the end of their deception. Greed in each case blinded them, to the sorrows to come, as it is doing to hundreds of thousands of others today. But just as sure as Jacobs deception effected Jacobs separation from mother and father and home, similar conduct on your part or mine will plunge us into sorrows, for he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption.

In His adopted house Jacob encounters new difficulties. It is no more easy to run away from sorrow than it is to escape from sin. The man who proved himself a rascal in Minneapolis may remove to Milwaukee, but the troubles he had here will be duplicated in his new home. The shrewd man of Gerar, when he comes to Haran, is cheated himself. Seven hard years of service for Rachel, and lo, Leah is given instead. At Haran his wages were changed ten times, so he says. I have no doubt that every change was effected by some new rascality in his conduct. At Haran he was openly charged with deception and greed by the sons of Laban, and at Haran also he witnessed the jealousy that was growing up between Rachel, his best beloved, and Leah, the favored of God. So sorrows ever attend the sinner.

The man who comes to you in a time when you are tempted, to plead with you to deal honestly, to do nothing that would not have the Divine approval, no matter how great the loss in an upright course, is a friend and is pleading for your good. His counsel is not against success, but against sorrow instead. He is as certainly trying to save you from agonizing experiences as he would be if pleading with you not to drink, not to gamble, or even not to commit murder, for better is a little with righteousness than great revenues without right.

It is at the point of his family he suffers most. We have already referred to the estrangement that grew up between Rachel and Leah. That was only the beginning. The baseness of Reuben, the cruelty of Simeon and Levi toward the Shechemites, the spirit of fratricide that sold Joseph into slavery; all of these and more had to be met by this unhappy man. A man never suffers so much as when he sees that his family, his wife and his children, are necessarily involved. Jacob expressed this thought when he prayed to God,

Deliver me, I pray thee, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I fear him lest he will come and smite me and the mother with the children.

Ah, there is the quick of human lifethe mother with the children.

I know a man who has recently been proven a defaulter. His embezzlements amount to many thousands of dollars, so it is said, and they run back through a course of twenty years. In a somewhat intimate association with him I never dreamed such a thing possible. He was a sweet-spirited man, an affectionate father, a kind husband, a good neighbor, outwardly a loyal citizen and apparently an upright Christian. I do not believe at heart he was dishonest, and I know that he was not selfish. Since the press published his disgrace, I have been pondering over what it all meant and have an idea that he simply lacked the courage to go home and tell his wife and children that he was financially bankrupt, and that they must move into a plainer house, subsist upon the simplest food, and be looked upon as belonging to the poverty stricken; so he went on, keeping up outward appearances, possibly for the wifes sake and for the childrens sake, hoping against hope that the tide would turn and he would recover himself and injure none, until one day he saw the end was near, and the sin long concealed was burning to the surface, and society would understand. It plunged him into temporary insanity.

Young men who sin are likely to forget the fact that when they come to face the consequences of their behavior they will not be alone, and their sufferings will be increased by just so much as the wife and children are compelled to suffer.

Some time ago I read a story of a young man who had committed a crime and fled to the West. In the course of time he met a young woman in his new home and wooed and won her. When a little child came into his home, his heart turned back to his mother, and he longed to go back and visit her and let her meet his wife and enjoy the grandchild; and yielding to this natural desire, he went back. But ere a week had passed, officers of the law walked in and arrested him on the old charge. Alone he had sinned, but now his sufferings are accentuated a thousand-fold because his innocent wife must share them, and even the bewildered babe must untwine her arms from about his neck and be torn from her best-loved bed, his breast. The mother with the children! Ah, Jacob, you may sin by yourself, but when you come to suffer, you will feel the pain of many lives.

But, thank God, there came a change in Jacob. In finishing this talk I want to give the remaining space to

JACOBS SALVATION.

I believe it occurred at Peniel. Twice before God had manifested Himself to Jacob. But Jacob had received little profit from those revelations. On his way to Haran, God gave him a vision in the night a ladder set up on the earth the top of which reached up to heaven, and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. When Jacob awakened out of his sleep he said, This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven. But not all who come into the House of God, not all before whom Heavens gate opens; not all to whom the way of salvation is revealed are converted. That nights vision did not result in Jacobs salvation. After that he was the same deceiver.

Twenty-one years sweep by and Jacob is on his way back to the old place, and the angels of God met him. And when Jacob saw them he said, This is Gods host. But not every man who meets the hosts of God is saved. Jacob is not saved. But when he came to Peniel and there in the night a Man wrestled with him, it was none other than Gods third appearance, and the Jacob who had gone from the House of God unsaved, who had met the hosts of God to receive from them little profit, seeing now the face of God, surrendered once for all. From that night until the hour when he breathed his last, Jacob the politician, Jacob the deceiver, Jacob the defrauder, was Israelthe Prince of God, whose conduct became the child of the Most High!

His repentance was genuine. Read the record of Gen 32:24-30, and you will be convinced that Jacob truly repented. In that wonderful night he ceased from his selfishness. He said never a word that looked like a bargain with God. He did not even plead for personal safety against angered Esau. He did not even beseech God to save the mother with the children, but he begged for a blessing. He had passed the Pharisaical point where his prayer breathed his self-esteem. He had come to the point of the truly penitent, and doubtless prayed over and over again as the publican, God be merciful to me a sinner. And when God was about to go from him he said, I will not let thee go except thou bless me. That is the best sign of genuine repentance.

In Chicago I baptized a young man who for years had been a victim of drink. For years also he had gone to the gambling house. Often he abused his wife and sometimes he beat the half-clad children. One day in his wretchedness he purchased a pistol and went into his own home, purposing to destroy the lives of wife and children and then commit suicide; but while he waited for the wife to turn her head that he might execute his will without her having suspected it, Gods Spirit came upon him in conviction and he told me afterwards that his sense of sin was such that in his back yard, with his face buried in the earth, he cried for Gods blessing. And I found that I was not so much convicted of drunkenness, or of gambling, or of cruelty, or even of the purpose of murder and suicide, as I was convicted of sin. I did not plead for pardon from any of these acts but for Gods mercy that should cover all and make me a man.

Read the 51st Psalm and see how David passed through a similar experience. His cry was, Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. And Jacobs cry was Bless me. It means the same.

His offer to Esau was in restitution. Two hundred she goats, and 20 he goats, 200 ewes and 20 rams; 30 milk camels with their colts; 40 kine and 10 bulls; 20 she asses and 10 foals; all of these he sent to Esau his brother, as a present. Present, did I say? No, Jacob meant it in payment. Twenty-one years before he had taken from Esau what was not his own and now that God had blessed him, he wanted to return to Esau with usury. It is the story of Zacchaeusrestoring four-fold. And the church of God has never received a better evidence of conversion than is given when a man makes restitution.

Some years ago at Cleveland a great revival was on, into which meeting an unhappy man strayed. The evangelist was talking that night of the children of Israel coming up to Kadesh-Barnea but turning back unblessed. This listener, an attorney, had in his pocket seven hundred dollars which he had received for pleading a case which he knew to be false, won only by perjured testimony, and the promise of $12,000 more should he win the case in the highest court. As the minister talked, Gods Spirit convicted him and for some days he wrestled with the question as to what to do. Then he counselled with the evangelist and eventually he restored the $700, told his client to keep the $12,000 and went his way into the church of God. I have not followed his course but you do not doubt his conversion. Ah, Jacob is saved now, else he would never have paid the old debt at such a price.

Thank God, also, that his reformation was permanent. You can follow this life now through all its vicissitudes to the hour of which it is written,

And when Jacob had made an end of commanding his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and yielded up the ghost and was gathered unto his people.

You will never find him a deceiver again; you will never find him defrauding again. The righteousness of his character waxes unto the end, and Pharaoh never entertained a more honorable man than when he welcomed this hoary pilgrim to his palace. The forenoon of his life was filled with clouds and storms, but the evening knew only sunshine and shadow, and the shadow was not in consequence of sins continued but sorrows super induced by the sins of others.

It is related that when Napoleon came upon the battlefield of Marengo, he found his forces in confusion and flying before the face of the enemy. Calling to a superior officer he asked what it meant. The answer was, We are defeated. The great General took out his watch, looked at the sinking sun a moment and said, There is just time enough left to regain the day. At his command the forces faced about, fought under the inspiration of his presence, and just as the sun went down, they silenced the opposing guns.

Suppose we grant that one has wasted his early years, has so misspent them as to bring great sorrow. Shall such despair? No, Jacobs life illustrates the better way. His youth was all gone when he came to Peniel. But there he learned how to redeem the remaining days.

I saw by a magazine to which I subscribe that in Albemarle and surrounding counties of Virginia there are many farms that were once regarded as worn out, and their owners questioned what they could do with them, when somebody suggested that they sow them to violets. The violets perfumed the air, enriched the owner, and recovered the land. It is not too late to turn to God!

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

CRITICAL NOTES.

Gen. 34:1. To see the daughters of the land.] To make their acquaintanceto pay them a friendly visit.

Gen. 34:3. He loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.] Heb. He loved the damsel and spake to her heart. The idea seems to be conveyed that he endeavoured to comfort her by promising marriage and fidelity.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Gen. 34:1-5

DINAHS DISHONOUR

Illustrates the following truths

I. That there is great danger in a vain curiosity of seeing the world. Dinah was curious to know the ways and customs of the surrounding people. This led to a careless intimacy, which ended in accomplishing her ruin. She ought not to have wandered beyond parental control and supervision, nor disregarded the duty of separation from an idolatrous people, and their manners and habits. Evil communications corrupt good manners. The inhabitants of that country were to the family of Jacob what the present world is to the Christian. It is dangerous to the interests of the soul to indulge in the vain curiosity of knowing the evil ways of the world. What is called seeing life may prove, in many cases, to be but tasting death. Familiarity blunts the sense of things sinful, and increases the danger of temptation.

II. That some sentiment of virtue may remain in those addicted to the worst social vices. Shechem, we are told, loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel. He was willing to make honourable amends, as far as could be, by an offer of marriage. In this he was generous and noble, for lust commonly ends in loathing. Ammon abhors Thamar as before he loved her. But this man desires to cover his fault by marriage, and promises love and fidelity. He had many of the vices of the great and powerful, but was not without some remains of virtue. The conduct of this heathen man is a rebuke to many who dwell in Christian lands.

III. That increasing troubles may fall to the lot of good men. Jacob now suffered one of the most dreadful calamities that can fall upon a householdthe disgrace and ruin of his daughter. When he heard of it, he held his peace, as if stunned by the blow. (Gen. 34:5). He was a man greatly favoured of God. He had seen the open vision of heaven. God had promised to be his God, and to be with him to the end of his days. He had made and performed his vows. He had erected his altar. Here was a man raised in spiritual priviliges above all men, and yet the gathering clouds of adversity surround him, and grow more dark and gloomy towards the close of his life. He had been delivered from foreign troubles, and now domestic troubles fall upon him. The honour of his family was laid in the dust. All sorts of complications of distress fell to the lot of this good man. As a son, servant, husband, father; in youth, manhood, and in old age, he is afflicted beyond the lot of most men. When one difficulty is surmounted, another, and a greater one, arises. No wonder the poor old man sums up his life, at the end, by saying, All these things are against me.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES

Gen. 34:1-2. As her mother Leah, so she hath a fault in her eyes, which was curiosity. She will needs see, and be seen; and whilst she doth vainly see, she is seen lustfully. It is not enough for us to look to our own thoughts, except we beware of the provocations of others. If we once wander out of the lists that God hath set us in our callings, there is nothing but danger. Her eyes were guilty of the temptation; only to see is an insufficient warrant to draw us into places of spiritual hazard. If Shechem had seen her busy at home, his love had been free from outrage; now the lightness of her presence gave encouragement to his inordinate desires. Immodesty of behaviour makes way to lust, and gives life unto wicked hopes.(Bishop Hall.)

By those windows of the eyes and ears sin and death often enter. See to the cinque ports if ye would keep out the enemy. Shut up the five windows if ye would have the house, the heart, full of light, saith the Arabian proverb.(Trapp.)

It seemed an innocent action to go, out of mere curiosity, to see the daughters of the land. But in relalation to morals there are scarcely any actions that are trifling and insignificant.

Gen. 34:3-4.And now he goes about to entertain her with honest love, whom the rage of his lust had dishonestly abused. He will hide her dishonour with the name of an husband. Those actions which are ill begun can hardly be salved up with late satisfactions; whereas good entrances give strength unto the proceedings, and succcess to the end.(Bp. Hall.)

The sequel shows that nothing could retrieve the mischief of the first false step. A willingness to make amends for sin will not avert its legitimate consequences.(Bush.)

Gen. 34:5. It is not meant that he was entirely silent, saying nothing about it in his family, which would have been inconceivable under the circumstances; but that he took no measures in respect to it, he forbore all action. He did not foresee the issue, or he would probably have taken the affairs into his own hands, and acted upon it at once. As it was, however, he did better in thus ruling his spirit, than did his sons who took the city. (Pro. 16:32.)(Bush.)

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

PART FORTY-THREE

THE STORY OF JACOB: INCIDENTS IN CANAAN

(Gen. 34:1 to Gen. 35:28)

The Biblical Account
1 And Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she bare unto Jacob went out to see the daughters of the land. 2 And Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her; and he took her, and lay with her, and humbled her. 3 And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel. 4 And Shechem spake unto his father Hamor, saying, Get me this damsel to wife, 5 Now Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter; and his sons were with his cattle in the field: and Jacob held his peace until they came. 6 And Hamor the father of Shechem went out unto Jacob to commune with him. 7 And the sons of Jacob came in from the fields when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacobs daughter; which thing ought not to be done. 8 And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you, give her unto him to wife. 9 And make ye marriages with us; give your daughters unto us, and take our daughters unto you. 10 And ye shall dwell with us: and the land shall be before you; dwell and trade ye therein, and get you possessions therein. 11 And Shechem said unto her father and unto her brethren, Let me find favor in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me I will give. 12 Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife. 13 And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father with guilt, and spake, because he had defiled Dinah their sister, 14 and said unto them, We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised; for that were a reproach unto us. 15 Only on this condition will we consent unto you: if ye will be as we are, that every male of you be circumcised; 16 then will we give our daughters unto you, and we will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people. 17 But if ye will not hearken unto us, to be circumcised; then will we take, our daughter, and we will be gone.

18 And their words pleased Hamor, and Shechem Hamors son. 19 And the young man deferred not to do the thing, because he had delight in Jacobs daughter: and he was honored above all the house of his father. 20 And Hamor and Shechem his son came unto the gate of their city, and communed with the men of their city, saying, 21 These men are peaceable with us; therefore let them dwell in the land, and trade therein; for, behold, the land is large enough for them; let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters. 22 Only on this condition will the men consent unto us to dwell with us, to become one people, if every male among us be circumcised, as they are circumcised. 23 Shall not their cattle and their substance and all their beasts be ours? Only let us consent unto them, and they will dwell with us. 24 And unto Hamor and unto Shechem his son hearkened all that went out of the gate of his city; and every male was circumcised, all that went out of the gate of his city. 25 And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinahs brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city unawares, and slew all the males. 26 And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechems house, and went forth. 27 The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and plundered the city, because they had defiled their sister. 28 They took their flocks and their herds and their asses, and that which was in the city, and that which was in the field; 29 and all their wealth, and all their little ones and their wives, took they captive and made a prey, even all that was in the house. 30 And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me, to make me odious to the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and, I being few in number, they will gather themselves together against me and smite me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house. 31 And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with a harlot?

35. 1 And God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there: and make there an altar unto God, who appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother. 2 Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the foreign gods that are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments: 3 and let us arise, and go up to Beth-el; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went. 4 And they gave unto Jacob all the foreign gods which were in their hand, and the rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem. 5 And they journeyed: and a terror of God was upon the cities that were round about them, and they did not pursue after the sons of Jacob. 6 So Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan (the same is Beth-el), he and all the people that were with him. 7 And he built there an altar, and called the place El-beth-el; because there God was revealed unto him, when he fled from the face of his brother. 8 And Deborah Rebekahs nurse died, and she was buried below Beth-el under the oak: and the name of it was called Allon-bacuth.

9 And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came from Paddan-aram, and blessed him. 10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel. 11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; 12 and the land which I gave unto Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land. 13 And God went up from him in the place where he spake with him. 14 And Jacob set up a pillar in the place where he spake with him, a pillar of stone: and he poured out a drink-offering thereon, and poured oil thereon. 15 And Jacob called the name of the place where God spake with him, Beth-el.

16 And they journeyed from Beth-el; and there was still some distance to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labor. 17 And it came to pass, when she was in hard labor, that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; for now thou shalt have another son. 18 And it came to pass, as her soul was departing (for she died), that she called his name Ben-oni: but his father called him Benjamin. 19 And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath (the same is Beth-lehem). 20 And Jacob set up a pillar upon her grave: the same is the Pillar of Rachels grave unto this day. 21 And Israel journeyed, and spread his tent beyond the tower of Eder. 22 And it came to pass, while Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his fathers concubine: and Israel heard of it.

Now the sons of Jacob were twelve: 23 the sons of Leah: Reuben, Jacobs first-born, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun; 24 the sons of Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin; 25 and the sons of Bilhah, Rachels handmaid: Dan and Naphtali; 26 and the sons of Zilpah, Leahs handmaid: Gad and Asher; these are the sons of Jacob, that were born to him in Paddan-aram. 27 And Jacob came unto Isaac his father to Mamre, to Kiriath-arba (the same is Hebron), where Abraham and Isaac sojourned.

28 And the days of Isaac were a hundred and fourscore years. 29 And Isaac gave up the ghost, and died, and was gathered unto his people, old and full of days: and Esau and Jacob his sons buried him.
Jacob at Succoth and Shechem: the Narrative Summarized.

Esau, as we have already noted, returned to Seir and Jacob journeyed on slowly to Succoth (Gen. 33:18-20). At Succoth, Jacob seems to have dwelt for some time; he then moved on to Shechem, at last in the land of Canaan. (Shalem, in the A.V., meaning peaceful, secure, named as a place near Jacobs well; it could be that Shalem is not a proper name. The A.R.V. renders it Jacob came in peace to the city of Shechem. The R.S.V. gives it: Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem. Cf. Joh. 4:5-6 : Sychar used to be identified with Shechem. It is now thought to have been about half a mile north of Jacobs well, and a short distance southeast of Shechem). Near Shechem Jacob bought a field of Hamor, the prince of the region, and pitched his tent there and erected an altar. Here Dinah, his daughter by Leah, having mingled with the daughters of the land, was carried off by Shechem, the son of Hamor. The young man wished to atone for his unseemly conduct by marriage, and both he and his father endeavored to propitiate Jacob and his sons. The brethren of Dinah, with guile, agreed to the alliance, but demanded the circumcision of the Shechemites; and on the third day after the ceremony Simeon and Levi fell upon the city, slew all the males, including Hamor and Shechem, took Dinah from the house of the young prince, and carried off the women, children, cattle and all material possessions of the Shechemites. Jacob rebuked his children for this cruel and treacherous act, and remembered it in his death-bed predictions regarding Simeon and Levi (Gen. 33:18-20; ch. 34; also Gen. 49:5-7).

1. The Rape of Dinah, Gen. 34:1-31

The immediate objective of Jacob on his return from Paddan-aram was Shechem in the hills of Palestine, just as it had been that of his grandfather Abraham (Gen. 12:6). He encamped east of the city and bought a parcel of ground from the sons of Hamor (Benei-Hamor) evidently the tribe that had established itself there. Their tribal deity seems to have been Baal-berith; this is how they are known to us in the story of the conquest of central Palestine under Joshua (cf. Jos. 8:33). (Cf. Jdg. 9:46 : it seems that for the Israelites later, on drifting into idolatryin this case as generallymeant drifting into the usual mode of cultural absorption whereby they acquired the name El-berith, El having been to the Hebrews the short form of Elohim, God.) Jacobs purchase of a field is in a certain sense parallel to Abrahams purchase of the field and cave at Mamre (cf. Gen. 23:18 and Gen. 33:19).

The outstanding eventand the most interesting, from various points of viewof the prolonged sojourn of Jacob and his household (clan) in Shechem is the dramatic episode about the treachery of Simeon and Levi, and its backdrop, so to speak, in the rape of Dinah by the prince of Shechem. Speiser comments pointedly on these incidents as follows: The narrative is unusual on more counts than one. For one thing, it is the only account to concern itself with Jacobs daughter Dinah, who is otherwise relegated to two statistical entries (Gen. 30:21, Gen. 46:15). For another, Jacob himself has a minor part, while the spotlight rests on the next generation. For still another, there is a pronounced chronological gap between this section and the one before. There, Jacobs children were still of tender age (Gen. 33:13); here, they have attained adulthood. Most important of all, the history of Jacob has hitherto been in the main a story of individuals. This time, to be sure, personalities are still very much at the forefront of the stage; but their experiences serve to recapitulate an all but lost page dealing with remote ethnic interrelations. The account, in other words, presents personalized history, that is, history novelistically interpreted. And since we have so little evidence about the early settlement of Israelites in Canaan, the slender thread that we find here assumes that much more importance. By the same token, extra caution is needed to protect the sparse data from undue abuse (ABG, 266). Again: The story before us is a tale of sharp contrasts: pastoral simplicity and grim violence, love and revenge, candor and duplicity. There is also a marked difference between the generations. Hamor and Jacob are peace-loving and conciliatory; their sons are impetuous and heedless of the consequences that their acts must entail. The lovesick Shechem prevails on his father to extend to the Israelites the freedom of the landwith the requisite consent of his followers. But Dinahs brothers refuse to be that far-sighted. After tricking the Shechemites into circumcising their males, and thus stripping the place of its potential defenders, they put the inhabitants to the sword. Jacob is mournful and apprehensive. But his sons remain defiant and oblivious of the future (ibid., 268).

This may well be described as the story of a generation gap of the long, long ago.

Note that Dinah is specifically mentioned as the daughter of Leah. Like mother, like daughter. Of Leah it is said, And Leah went out to meet him (Gen. 30:16), and now her daughter went out. She is described as Leahs daughter in order to draw attention to the fact that she was the full sister of Simeon and Levi who avenged her (Gen. 34:25) and whom she had borne unto Jacob is added to indicate that all the brothers were jealous for her honor (SC, 205). Dinah, we are told, went out to see the daughters of the land, that is, she evidently went into the city (Jacob had pitched his tent outside it). And Prince Shechem saw her, and, like the pagan he was, took her and humbled her. The verb always implies the use of force. Although Shechem was a prince of the land, she evidently did not submit of her own free will (SC, 205). Though freed from foreign troubles Jacob met with a great domestic calamity in the fall of his only recorded daughter. According to Josephus she had been attending a festival; but it is highly probable that she had been often and freely mixing in the society of the place, and that being a simple, inexperienced, and vain young woman, had been flattered by the attentions of the rulers son. There must have been time and opportunities of acquaintance to produce the strong attachment that Shechem had for her (Jamiespn, CECG, 219). It is useless to speculate as to whether she was prompted by mere idle curiosity, in this instance, or whether she went without consulting her parents, or whether she even went forth contrary to their wishes. We have no means of knowing to what extent she was at fault, if at all. In any case, it seems she should have known that Egyptians and Canaanites (Gen. 12:15, Gen. 20:2, Gen. 26:7) regarded unmarried women abroad in the land as legitimate prey and should not have gone unattended. Shechem happens to find her. The fact that he is the son of Hamor, a Hivite, prince, seems to make him feel that he especially has privileges in reference to unattended girls. We are not told whether she was pleased with and encouraged his first approaches. At least the young prince was bent upon seduction. This his object was accomplished, whether she resisted or not. If Gen. 48:22 informs us that the inhabitants of Shechem were Amorites, the apparent contradiction seems to be solved by the fact that the general name for the Canaanite tribes was Amorites (Leupold, EG, 897). (Surely our present-day knowledge of the gross immoralities which characterized the Cult of Fertility so widespread throughout the ancient pagan world (cf. Rom. 1:18-32) would cause us to think that Shechem would have had no scruples against seizing and violating the young maiden the first time he ever saw her. We see no point in sugar-coating this plain case of rape, or the acts of presumption, treachery and violence which ensued as consequences of it. The Bible, it must be remembered is a very realistic book: it pictures life just as people lived it.) It should be said, however, in favor of the young prince, that he really loved the maiden: his soul clave unto her (Gen. 34:3). Of course Dinah would have been only one among the many others of his harem, if the marriage had been formalized. It was in some degree an extenuation of the wickedness of Shechem that he did not cast off the victim of his violence and lust, but continued to regard her with affection . . . addressed to her such words as were agreeable to her inclinations (Gen. 34:3, spake to the heart of the damsel) probably expressing his affection, and offering the reparation of honorable marriage, as may be legitimately inferred from what is next recorded of his behavior (PCG, 405).

How old was Dinah when this incident occurred? We suggest the following explanation of the chronological problem here: Dinah was born about the end of the fourteenth year of Jacobs residence in Haran. She was thus about six years old at the settlement at Succoth. The sojourn at Succoth appears to have lasted for about two years. Jacob must have spent already several years at Shechem, since there are prominent and definite signs of a more confidential intercourse with the Shechemites. We may infer, therefore, that Dinah was now from twelve to sixteen years of age. Joseph was seventeen years old when he was sold by his brethren (Gen. 37:2), and at that time Jacob had returned to Hebron. There must have passed, therefore, about eleven years since the return from Haran, at which time Joseph was six years of age. If now we regard the residence of Jacob at Bethel and the region of Ephrata as of brief duration, and bear in mind that the residence at Shechem ceased with the rape of Dinah, it follows that Dinah must have been about fourteen or fifteen years of age when she was deflowered. In the East, too, females reach the age of puberty at twelve, and sometimes still earlier (Delitzsch). From the same circumstances it is clear that Simeon and Levi must have been about twenty (Lange). Again: If Dinah was born before Joseph (Gen. 30:21) she was probably in her seventh year when Jacob reached Succoth (Gen. 33:17); but it does not follow that she was only six or seven years of age when the incident about to be described occurred (Tuch, Bohlen). If Jacob stayed two years at Succoth and eight in Shechem (Petavius), and if, as is probable, his residence in Shechem terminated with his daughters dishonor (Lange), and if, moreover, Josephs sale into Egypt happened soon after (Hengstenberg), Dinah may at this time have been in her sixteenth or seventeenth year (Kurtz). Yet there is no reason why she should not have been younger, say between thirteen and fifteen (Keil, Lange, Kalisch, Murhpy, et alii), since in the East females attain to puberty at the age of twelve, and sometimes earlier (Delitzsch) (PCG, 404). With reference to the statement in Gen. 34:1, Whitelaw comments: it is not implied that this was the first occasion on which Dinah left her mothers tent to mingle with the city maidens in Shechem: the expression is equivalent to once upon a time she went out (Hengstenberg)to see the daughters of the landwho were gathered at a festive entertainment (Josephus, Ant., I, 21, 1), a not improbable supposition (Kurtz), though the language rather indicates the paying of a friendly visit (Lange), or the habitual practice of associating with the Shechemite, women (Bush), in their social entertainment, if not in their religious festivals (PCG, 404).

Gen. 34:2-4. Shechem was captivated by Dinah, the daughter of Jacob; he fell in love with the young girl and comforted her. Accordingly Shechem said to his father Hamor, Get me this young girl, I want to marry her (JB rendering). (Cf. Samsons request, Jdg. 14:2). Gen. 34:5-7 : Jacob somehow heard of the incident, but took no steps to redress the wrong until Dinahs brothersJacobs sons by Leah and probably by Zilpahcame in from the fields. It is interesting to note that the brothers of the daughter had a voice in all important concerns relating to her (cf. Gen. 24:50 ff.). In the meantime Hamor, Shechems father, consulted with Jacob about the incident. When the sons came in from the field, and were told what had occurred, they were very wroth because Shechem had wrought folly in Israel by his act . . . which thing ought not to be done, etc. This idea of folly in Israel seems to have been that of Jacobs sons, though the manner of expressing it seems to have been that of the historian, as usual in his time: folly or wickedness in Israel, where God ought to be reverenced and obeyed. As we know that the Canaanites were steeped in immorality: ought not, etc. refers to Israel: it was repulsive to the house of Israel. (It is a matter of note that this is the first use of the new name in the Old Testament). Folly: this is a standing expression for crimes which are irreconcilable with the dignity and destiny of Israel as the people of God, but especially for gross sins of the flesh (Deu. 22:21, Jdg. 20:10, 2Sa. 13:12), but also for other great crimes (Jos. 7:15). The sons of Jacob were enraged; they burned with anger; it was kindled to them (Gosman, in Lange, 560). In this case the dishonor was a double impurity, because it was an uncircumcised person who had dishonored the maiden. Moreover, Shechems special wickedness consisted in dishonoring a daughter of one who was the head of the theocratic line, and therefore under peculiar obligations to live a holy life.

Gen. 34:8-12 : Hamor, the king, now offers Jacob and his sons the full rights of citizens in his little country. The son offers to fuflil any demand of the brothers as to the bridal price and bridal gifts. The king offers them the privilege of unrestricted movement throughout his domain, with the right of establishing settlements, carrying on trade, and acquiring property. (Perhaps it should be stated here, parenthetically, that we do not know what happened to Dinah after this incident. Dinah was in Shechems house all this time, and although he believed that he could have her by force, being the son of the prince of the land, he spoke thus because he wanted to win her by consent. Scripture does not record what happened to her afterwards; she probably remained a living widow, i.e., unmarried, descended to Egypt with the rest of the family, died there, and her body was brought back by Simeon and buried in Canaan. According to tradition, her tomb is in Arbeel. Sforno suggests that he [Shechem] offered the large dowry and gift as an atonement (SC, 206). Hamor seems to have taken a rather broad view of the matter: in addition to offering to arrange this particular marriage, he proposes an amalgamation of the two ethnic peoples, thinking, apparently, that the advantage to Jacob would be adequate compensation for the offense. His sons offer, obviously, related only to his own private affair with respect to Dinah. (The Hebrew law of compensation for seduction is given in Exo. 22:15 ff. . . . the price paid to the parents (Exo. 22:16-17, 1Sa. 18:25) . . . and the gift to the bride, are virtually distinguished in Gen. 24:53).

The story of the fanatical revenge of the sons of Jacob follows, Gen. 34:14-31. The sons of Jacob answered the king and his son with guile, i.e., with duplicity. As noted above, they were consumed with rage: it burned them greatly (cf. Gen. 31:36, 1Sa. 15:11, 2Sa. 19:43). Michaelis mentions an opinion still entertained in the East which explains the excessive indignation kindled in the breasts of Dinahs brothers, viz., that in those countries it is thought that a brother is more dishonored by the seduction of his sister than a man by the infidelity of his wife; for, say the Arabs, a man may divorce his wife, and then she is no longer his, while a sister and daughter remain always sister and daughter (PCG, 405). Some writers express the opinion that the refusal lay basically in the proposal itself, that is, if they had not refused they would have denied the historical and saving vocation of Israel and his seed. The father, Israel, appears, however, to have been of a different opinion. For he doubtless knew the proposal of his sons in reply. He does not condemn their proposition, however, but the fanatical way in which they availed themselves of its consequences. Dinah could not come into her proper relations again but by Shechems passing over to Judaism. This way of passing over to Israel was always allowable, and those who took the steps were welcomed. We must therefore reject only: (1) The extension of the proposal, according to which the Israelites were to blend themselves with the Shechemites; (2) the motives, which were external advantages. It was, on the contrary, a harsh and unsparing course in reference to Dinah, when Leahs two sons wished her back again; or, indeed, would even gratify their revenge and Israelitish pride. But their resort to subtle and fanatical conduct merits only a hearty condemnation (Lange, 561). (Note that Jacob had scarcely become Israel when the arts and cunning of Jacob appear in his sons, and, indeed, in a worse form, since they glory in being Israel (ibid., 560).

Note that the duplicity of Leahs sons consisted in their utter hypocrisy and accompanying trifling with a divine institution (just as people in our day, and thousands of professings church-members trifle with the institution of Christian baptism. This writer has had parents request of him what they called infant baptism solely for the purpose of acquiring a legitimate birth certificate for the child: a modernized hypocritical form of union of church and state.) These brothers answered deceitfully. The honor of their family consisted in having the sign of the covenant. Circumcision was the external rite by which persons were admitted members of the ancient Church (rather, theocracy or commonwealth: the church is first, last, and always the ecclesia of Christianity and was never a part of the Jewish system). But although that outward rite could not make the Shechemites true Israelites, yet it does not appear that Jacobs sons required anything more. Nothing is said of their teaching them to worship the true God, but only of their insisting on the Shechemites being circumcised; and it is evident that they did not seek to convert Shechem, but only made a show of religiona cloak to cover their diabolical design. Hypocrisy and deceit, in all cases vicious, are infinitely more so when accompanied with a show of religion; and here the sons of Jacob, under the pretense of conscientious scruples, conceal a scheme of treachery as cruel and diabolical as was perhaps ever perpetrated (Jamieson, 221). The demand was made that they [Shechemite males] should circumcise themselves in the belief that they or their townspeople would not consent (Sforno). Although Shechem and Hamor spoke to Jacob and his sons, only the latter answered, Jacob remaining silent because the incident was so disgraceful that he could not speak about it. Jacob and all his sons assented to this guile, either for the reason given by Sforno, or because they thought to take advantage of the resulting weakness to get Dinah out of Shechems house. But only Simeon and Levi contemplated the revenge which was subsequently taken (Nachmanides) (SC, 206). (It seems to me, however, that any person with moral standards of consequence could not possibly excuse Jacobs silence on so flimsy a ground. The fact appears to be that Israel had drifted back into the role of Jacob, despite what may be suggested as a reasonin reality, a pretextfor his failure to act, if for no other purpose than to protect the moral and spiritual image implicit in his theocratic pre-eminence.) The ground on which they declined a matrimonial alliance with Shechem was good; their sin lay in advancing this simply as a pretext to enable them to wreak their unholy vengeance on Shechem and his innocent people. The treacherous character of their next proposal [Gen. 34:15-16] is difficult to be reconciled with any claim to humanity, far less to religion, on the part of Jacobs sons; so much so, that Jacob on his death-bed can offer no palliation for the atrocious cruelty to which it led (Gen. 49:6-7). . . . This proposal was sinful, since (1) they had no right to offer the sign of Gods covenant to a heathen people; (2) they had less right to employ it in ratification of a merely human agreement; and (3) they had least right of all to employ it in duplicity as a mask for their treachery (PCG, 406).

Parenthetically, the question of the extent and design of the practice of circumcision obtrudes itself at this point. It will be noted that when the proposal made by the sons of Leah was presented to the males of Shechem, the primary argument for its acceptance was the material advantage which such an alliance would inevitably secure for them. The appeal of the rulers was in the strongest manner to the self-interest of the Shechemites: Jacobs house was wealthy, and the Shechemites therefore could only gain by the connection: as stated above, a complete amalgamation of the two groups. Hamor naturally says nothing of the personal matter, but dwells on the advantages the clan will derive from union with the Israelites. The men are already on friendly terms with them; the land is spacious enough; and by adopting circumcision they will obtain a great accession to their wealth (Skinner, 420), The ready acquiescence of the Shechemites has with some measure of validity been regarded by some authorities as a proof that they were already acquainted with circumcision as a social, if not religious rite. Knobel notes it as remarkable that the Hivites were not circumcised, since, according to Herodotus, the rite was observed among the Phoenicians, and probably also the Canaanites, who were of the same extraction, and thinks that either the rite was not universally observed in any of these ancient nations where it was known, or that the Hivites were originally a different race from the Canaanites, and had not conformed to the customs of the land (Lange). Murphy thinks the present instance may point out one way in which the custom spread from tribe to tribe (PCG, 408). As a matter of fact According to Herodotus, circumcision was practised by the Phoenicians, and probably also among the Canaanites, who were of the same race and are never referred to in the Old Testament as uncircumcised, as, e.g., it speaks of the unCanaanitish Philistines (Lange, 561); cf. uncircumcised Philistines, 1Sa. 14:6; 1Sa. 17:26; 1Sa. 17:36; 1Sa. 31:4; 2Sa. 1:20; 1Ch. 10:4, etc. Some authorities think that the spread of circumcision was the consequence of the growing awareness of its value as a sanitary measure. That it did exist among the Egyptians, Canaanites, and Hebrews is well established; but not, so far as the records go, among the Greeks, Romans, and Hindoos. At the present time, we are told, it is to be found among all Moslems and most Jewish communities, throughout Africa, Australia, Polynesia, and Melanesia, and, it is said, in Eastern Mexico. It is hardly possible to say what its original distribution was, and whether or not there was a single center of distribution. As to its origin many theories have been advanced. Its character as initiatory is not an explanationall customs of initiation need to have their origins explained. . . . It may be said at the outset that it must have sprung from simple physical need, not from advanced scientific or religious conceptions (Toy, IHR, 69). The simple fact is that for the Hebrews it was specifically appointed a Divine institution, a fleshly sign, to separate Gods people of olden times from the pagan world and at the same time to serve as a symbol of religious faith and moral purity. Circumcision was a divinely appointed sign of the old covenant, much in the same manner, it would seem that the rainbow was appointed a sign of Gods promise (covenant) to Noah and all mankind that He would never bring a universal judgment on the human race in the form of a Deluge, and as the bread and fruit of the vine of the Lords Supper were appointed memorials of the death of Christ for our sins (Gen. 8:20-22; Mat. 26:26-29; 1Co. 11:23-28; 1Co. 15:13, etc.). Surely it is not to be understood that these things came into existence just at the respective times they were appointed signs, memorials, etc. It would be unreasonable to assume that they had not existed from the beginning, that is, from the foundation of the world (Mat. 13:15; Mat. 25:34; Luk. 11:50, Joh. 17:24, Eph. 1:4, 1Pe. 1:20; Rev. 13:8; Rev. 17:8; Heb. 4:3, etc.). With respect to the symbolical significance of circumcision it is said to have originated in phallus worship, but if so this would have no bearing on the Israelite view of the rite. It was practised, say some, because of its medical advantages, as the warding off of disease through ease in cleanliness, or that it served to increase the generative powers, but these can hardly be received as proper explanations, for whole nations not practicing circumcision appear as healthy and fruitful. Nor can the rite be brought into connection with the idea of sacrifice, the consecration of a part of the body for the whole, or even as an act of emasculation in honor of the Deity, that has gradually dwindled down to the mere cutting away of the foreskin. We must rather look for the significance of this rite in the fact that the corruption of sin usually manifests itself with peculiar energy in the sexual life, and that the sanctification of the life was symbolized by the purifying of the organ by which life is reproduced. But, as spiritual purity was demanded of the chosen people of God, circumcision became the external token of the covenant between God and His people. It secured to the one subjected to it all the rights of the covenant, participation in all its material and spiritual benefits; while, on the other hand, he was bound to fulfill all the covenant obligations. It had not, however, a sacramental nature; it was not a vehicle through which to convey the sanctifying influences of God to His people, but was simply a token of the recognition of the covenant relation existing between Israel and God (UBD, s.v., 206). (We must call attention to the fact, however, that the word sacrament derives from the Latin sacramentum, which was the name of the oath of obedience taken by the Roman soldier to his centurion. In this sense, circumcision was indeed a sacrament, the oath of fidelity to the provisions of the Old Covenant by the Covenant-people. We reject the theological corruption of the term in using it to designate some mystical [esoteric] impartation [usually explained as a means of grace] from God to His New-Covenant people.) Circumcision was formally enacted as a legal institution by Moses (Lev. 12:3, Joh. 7:22-23), and was made to apply, not only to the Jewish fathers own children, but to slaves, home-born or purchased; to foreigners before they could partake of the Passover or become Jewish citizens (Cf. Gen. 17:13he that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with money of any foreigner not of thy seed, etc.). In its specific meaning for the Children of Israel circumcision was a seal, a seal in the flesh, as the Old Covenant was a fleshly Covenant, and hence indicative of the relationship designed to obtain between God and His Old-Covenant people, proffered by grace and accepted by the obedience of faith, See my Genesis, Vol. III, 250264, 272282).

During the wilderness journey circumcision fell into disuse. This neglect is most satisfactorily explained as follows: The nation, while bearing the punishment of disobedience in its wanderings, was regarded as under temporary rejection by God, and was therefore prohibited from using the sign of the covenant. As the Lord had only promised his assistance on condition that the law given by Moses was faithfully observed, it became the duty of Joshua, upon entering Canaan, to perform the rite of circumcision upon the generation that had been born in the wilderness. This was done, immediately upon crossing the Jordan, at or near Gilgal (Jos. 5:2-9). From this time circumcision became the pride of Israel, they looking with contempt upon all those people not observing it (Jdg. 14:3; Jdg. 15:18; 1Sa. 14:6, Isa. 52:1, etc.). It became a rite so distinctive of them that their oppressors tried to prevent their observing it, an attempt to which they refused submission (1Ma. 1:48; 1Ma. 1:50; 1Ma. 1:60; 1Ma. 1:62). The process of restoring a circumcised person to his natural condition by a surgical operation was sometimes undergone from a desire to assimilate themselves to the heathen around them, or that they might not be known as Jews when they appeared naked in the games. Against having recourse to this practice, from an excessive anti-Judaistic tendency, St. Paul cautions the Corinthians (1Co. 7:18-19). Circumcision was used as a symbol of purity of heart, in certain instances (Deu. 10:16; Deu. 30:6; cf. Lev. 26:41; Jer. 4:4; Jer. 9:25; Eze. 44:7). Exo. 6:12Who am of uncircumcised lips: By this figure Moses would seem to imply that he was unskilled in public address, as the Jews were wont to consider circumcision a perfecting of ones powers. Circumcision is also figurative of a readiness to hear and obey (Jer. 6:10) (UBG, 207). (For Christian [spiritual] circumcision, see my Genesis, Vol. III, 282290).

Skinner holds that the requirement of circumcision imposed by the sons of Jacob upon the Shechemites was merely a pretext to render them incapable of self-defense (ICCG, 419). Certainly the Scripture account of the transaction contains no hint of anything that would refute this view; if it be true, it renders their duplicity even more perfidious. And even though the rulers of Shechem and their people agreed to the proposaleven though for reasons of expediency (for them no question of morality was involved)Jacobs sons must have rejoiced within themselves that those against whom they sought revenge were so open-minded as to accept a proposal that would render them so completely helpless against the execution of this vengeance. And so we read, that on the third day when they (the Shechemites) were sore (when the inflammation is said, in the case of adults, to be at its height), two of the sons of Jacob, namely, Simeon and Levi took the lead in attacking the unsuspecting city with the sword, killing the males therein, and carrying off the women and children and all material goods as spoils. In this ferocious act of revenge they slew both Hamor and Shechem with the edge of the sword and took Dinah out of Shechems house (Gen. 34:25-26).

Jacobs displeasure (Gen. 34:30-31) seems to have been occasioned by the principle of expediency rather than by considerations of morality or righteousness. The massacre displeased Jacob, the more so since he had few supporters and he was a sojourner who could ill afford enemies (AtD, 92). Jacob rebukes Simeon and Levi, not for their treachery and cruelty, but for their recklessness in exposing the whole tribe to the vengeance of the Canaanites (ICCG, 421). Lange is inclined to be a bit more lenient: Jacob felt that, as the Israel of God, he was made offensive even to the moral sense of the surrounding heathen, through the pretended holy deed of his sons; so far so that they had endangered the very foundation of the theocracy, the kingdom of God, the old-covenant church. Fanaticism always produces the same results; either to discredit Christianity in the moral estimate of the world, and imperil its very existence by its unreasonable zeal, or to expose it to the most severe persecutions (CDHCG, 564). Whitelaw summarizes as follows: That Jacob should have spoken to his sons only of his own danger, and not of their guilt, has been ascribed to his belief that this was the only motive which their carnal minds could understand (Keil, Gerlach); to a remembrance of his own deceitfulness, which disqualified him in a measure from being the censor of his sons (Kalisch, Wordsworth); to the lowered moral and spiritual tone of his own mind (Candlish); to the circumstance that, having indulged his children in their youth, he was now afraid to reprove them (Inglis). That Jacob afterwards attained to a proper estimate of their bloody deed his last prophetic utterance reveals (Gen. 49:5-7). By some it is supposed that he even now felt the crime in all its heinousness (Kalisch), though his reproach was somewhat leniently expressed in the word trouble (Lange); while others, believing Jacobs abhorrence of his sons fanatical cruelty to have been deep and real, account for its omission by the historian on the ground that he aimed merely at showing the protection of God (Gen. 35:5), through which Jacob escaped the evil consequences of their conduct (Hengstenberg) (PCG, 408). Note the sons attempted justification: Should he [Shechem] deal with our sister as with a harlot? That is, She is not a harlot and her wrong must be avenged; so we as her brothers had to do it (SC, 209). But Shechem offered Dinah honorable marriage!

Note Gen. 34:27-29In the sons of Jacob here surely all the sons of Jacob are included. It is inconceivable that only two of them could have massacred all the males of the city. They must have had the help of other males (servants, herdsmen) in Jacobs entourage. Simeon and Levi, however, were the ringleaders. But the other males were surely involved: the prospect of loot becomes to many the primary, rather than the secondary motivation when a mob forms. They who seemed to have scruples or fears about taking part in the slaughter have no compunctions of conscience about taking a hand in the plundering of the city. This act of theirs again does them little credit. The thing that ranked in the bosom of all was that this was the city that had defiled their sister. They are, indeed, largely correct in imputing to the city a share in the wrong done; for the city condoned the wrong and had not the slightest intentions of taking steps to right it. But only the most excessive cruelty can demand such a wholesale retribution for a personal wrong. . . . Then to show how thoroughly Jacobs sons were in the heat of their vengeance the author reports that also all their wealth and all their little ones and their wives were captured, the latter, no doubt, being kept as slaves. Then to produce the impression that the sacking of the city was done with utmost thoroughness the writer adds: and they plundered even everything that was in the houses. By translating thus we remove the necessity of textual changes which the critics regard as necessary (EG, 909). (But can we truly say that the Shechemites did nothing to right the wrong done Dinah? Only if we assume, of course, that their proposal for amalgamation was motivated solely by expediency without any awareness of the moral law which had been violated. But again did they have any notion of moral law whatsoever? Of course, we have no way of obtaining conclusive answers to these questions.) Again: It is almost unbelievable that Jacob should be reproached by commentators at this point for what he is supposed to have failed to say, namely, for not rebuking Simeon and Levi for their treachery and cruelty. Yet such a man as Jacob could not have failed to be in perfect accord with us in our estimate of this bloody deed of his sons, for Jacob was truly a spiritual man, especially in these later years. Nor was the moral issue involved in the least difficult to discern, The chief reason for the writers not mentioning Jacobs judgment on the moral issue is that this issue is too obvious. Furthermore, that judgment is really included in the statement, Ye have brought trouble upon me. Then, lastly, the author is leading up to another matter that specially calls for discussion. Since, namely, the entire Pentateuch aims to set forth how Gods gracious care led to the undeserving people of His choice from grace to grace, the author is preparing to show another instance of such doing and prepares for it by mentioning how greatly Jacob was troubled by this deed. For akhar, which means disturb, destroy, here means bring into trouble. In what sense he means this in particular is at once explained, by causing me to become odious (literally, to stink) to the inhabitants of the land. That surely implies that the deed done was both obnoxious and dangerous. In comparison with the inhabitants of the land Jacob had but a small following, or, says the Hebrew, Men of numbers, i.e., men easily numbered. Had not God intervened, the outcome would inevitably have been as Jacob describes it: they would have gathered together and destroyed him and his family. Though without a doubt the deed of Jacobs sons gave evidence of great courage, it certainly also entailed even greater rashness. The thoughtlessness of young men who rush headlong into ill-considered projects was abundantly displayed by this massacre. . . . We are greatly amazed in reflecting upon the event as a whole that descendants of the worthy patriarch Abraham should almost immediately after his time already have sunk to the level upon which Jacobs sons stand in this chapter. A partial explanation is to be sought in the crafty cunning of their father which in the sons degenerated to the extremes here witnessed. A further bit of explanation is to be sought in their environment; hardly anywhere except in their own home did they see any manifestation of godly life. Then, in the third place, we must attribute a good measure of the guilt of any improper bringing up of these young men to the irregularities of a home where bigamy ruled. All true spirit of discipline was cancelled by the presence of two wives and two handmaidens in the homepractically four wives. Lastly, the chapter as a whole furnishes, a clear example as to how much the critics are divided against themselves in spite of their strong protestations of unanimity (EG, 909912).

Some additional pertinent comments concerning the tragedy of Shechem are in order at this point. For instance, the following: Shechem was inhabited at the time by Hurrian elements; the text (Gen. 34:2) calls Hamor a Hivite, but the LXX identifies him as a Horite. The latter identification is supported by two independent details: (1) The Shechemites are as yet uncircumcised, a circumstance that supplies the key feature of the story; the contrary was presumably true of Semitic Canaanites. (2) Cuneiform records from the region of Central Palestine have shown that Hurrians were prominent there during the Amarna age (ca. 1400 B.C.); they must have arrived prior to that date. There is, furthermore, the fact . . . that Simeon and Levi are depicted here as headstrong, and vengeful. In later sources, Simeon was a rudimentary tribe settled in the south of Judea, a long way from Shechem; and Levi has no territorial holdings whatsoever. Evidently, therefore, a pair of once vigorous tribes had suffered critical losses in their attempt to settle in Central Palestine, losses which they were never able to recoup. Standard tradition retained no memory of that remote event, except for the faint echo in the Testament of Jacob (ch. 49), where the blame is laid, significantly enough, on the two brother tribes themselves. The period in question should thus be dated before the Exodus, and very likely prior to Amarna times (Speiser, ABG, 267). (It should be recalled that there were four other sons of Jacob by Leah, in addition to Simeon and Levi: namely, Reuben, the eldest; then respectively Simeon and Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, There were also two (adopted) sons of Leah, by her handmaid, Zilpah, namely, Gad and Asher. Of all these Simeon and Levi undoubtedly took the lead in pressing and executing vengeance on Shechem). (It is interesting to note that among the Amarna clay tablets in Accadian cuneiform, discovered by a peasant woman in 1886 at Tell el Amarna (mound of the city of the Horizon) about 200 miles south of present-day Cairo, there is mention of events leading to the surrender of Shechem to the Habiru. Apparently, roving bands of these Habiru (Hebrews?) infested the country and menaced the settled communities, adding to the general insecurity during the period when Egyptian hegemony in Palestine was on the wane. These tablets were found to contain correspondence of petty Canaanite princelings with their Egyptian overlords. They date back to about 1400 B.C. (See Chronology, xx., supra). The Habiru appear prominently in the letters of Abdi-Hiba, governor of Jerusalem (Urusalim) to the Pharaoh Akhnaton asking for Egyptian troops to hold off these invaders, who could easily have been the Israelite tribes invading Canaan under Joshua. Among these hundreds of clay tablets there is a letter written by Labayu, ruler of Shechem, to the Egyptian king vehemently protesting his loyalty). The indications in the Bible may imply that the patriarchs were not ordinary nomads, whom an older school of Orientalists liked to compare with the present-day Arab nomads. Even though the latter live exotically in tents and move about, they are quite unsophisticated and detached from the current history of their time. They stand in sharp contrast to the Hebrew patriarchs, who had dealings with Amorites, Canaanites, Philistines (early Caphtorians), Egyptians and, of course, kinglets from all over the Near East. The patriarchs careers seem to lie on the hub of the highly cosmopolitan Amarna Age, or very close to it. . . . Whatever its background in history may be, it is evident that the proto-Aramean strain, represented in the saga of Jacob, is the nomadic element referred to later in the Deuteronomic phrase a wandering Aramean was my father and from this stock of Hebrew and Aramean origin sprang the clans who formed the beginning of a Hebrew settlement in Canaan, at Shechem and Bethel, long before the sojourn in Egypt and the Exodus out of Egypt. G. E. Wright maintains that it has long been realized that Genesis 34 has behind it a tradition of a Hebrew relationship with Shechem which relates to early events not necessarily altered by the Sojourn and Exodus. Even during the Sojourn the city must have been under Israelite control; that is, a mixed Canaanite-Hebrew group of clans may have been united by covenant, worshipping a deity called Baal-berith (Lord of the Covenant) (AtD, 94). (Cf. Deu. 26:5; Deu. 1:10; Deu. 10:22; Gen. 46:27; Jdg. 8:33; Jdg. 9:4; Jdg. 9:27; Jdg. 9:46).

It might be well to note, in this connection, the rather important role played by Shechem in the Old Testament story, as follows: (a) A capital of the Hivites, and as such the scene of the brutal heathenish iniquity, in relation to the religious and moral dignity of Israel; (b) The birthplace of Jewish fanaticism in the sons of Jacob; (c) A chief city of Ephraim, and an Israelitish priestly city; (d) The capital of the kingdom of Israel for some time; (e) The principal seat of the Samaritan nationality and cults. The acquisition of a parcel of land at Shechem by Jacob, forms a counterpart to the purchase of Abraham at Hebron. But there is an evident progress here, since he made the purchase for his own settlement during life, while Abraham barely gained a burial place. The memory of Canaan by Israel and the later conquest (cf. Gen. 48:22) is closely connected with this possession. In Jacobs life, too, the desire to exchange the wandering nomadic life for a more fixed abode, becomes more apparent than in the life of Isaac. [Wordsworths remarks here, after enumerating the important events clustering around this place from Abraham to Christ, is suggestive. Thus the history of Shechem, combining so many associations, shows the uniformity of the divine plan, extending through many centuries, for the salvation of the world by the promised seed of Abraham, in whom all nations are blessed; and for the outpouring of the Spirit on the Israel of God, who are descended from the true Jacob; and for their union in the sanctuary of the Christian church, and for the union of all nations in one household in Christ, Luk. 1:68Gosman] (Lange, 563).

Shechem has a long history Biblically. (1) The name appears once as Sichem (Gen. 12:6, A.V., marginal rendering, Sychar, cf. Joh. 4:5). The town was in Central Palestine. The etymology of the Hebrew word shekem indicates that the place was situated on some mountain or hillside; and this presumption agrees with Jos. 20:7, which places it on Mount Ephraim (see also 1Ki. 12:25), and with Jdg. 9:6, which represents it as under the summit of Gerizim, which belonged to the Ephraim range (UBD, s.v.). (2) Shechem is the first Palestinian site mentioned in Genesis. Abram, on first entering the land of promise, pitched his tent there and built an altar under the oak (or terebinth) of Moreh (Gen. 12:6). The Canaanite was then in the land, i.e. even at that early time; nevertheless, Yahweh revealed Himself to the patriarch there, and renewed His covenant promise (Gen. 12:7, whereupon the patriarch built an altar unto Him. (3) Abrahams grandson, Jacob, on returning from Paddan-aram, came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, and pitched his tent (Gen. 33:18-19; ch. 34) on a parcel of ground which he bought from Hamor, the Hivite prince of the region (Gen. 33:18; Gen. 34:2). When Shechem, the son of Hamor, defiled Dinah, Simeon and Levi led in the massacre of the men of the region (Gen. 34:25-26) and the other sons of Jacob pillaged the town (Gen. 34:27-29), though Jacobthen Israelcondemned the action (Gen. 34:30; Gen. 49:5-7). (4) Here Jacob buried all of his households strange gods under the oak (Gen. 35:1-4) and raised an altar to El-elohe-Israel (God, the God of Israel), Gen. 32:20. This parcel of ground which Jacob purchased he subsequently bequeathed as a special patrimony to his son Joseph (Gen. 33:19, Jos. 24:32, Joh. 4:5); and here the Israelites buried the bones of Joseph which they had brought with them out of Egypt (Jos. 24:32, cf. Gen. 50:25). (5) Joseph as a young man in Canaan sought his brothers who were tending their flocks near the rich pasture lands around Shechem (Gen. 37:12 ff.). (6) In the 15th century B.C. the town fell into the hands of the Habiru as we learn from the Tell-el-Amarna letters (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, J. B. Pritchard, 1950: pp. 477, 485487, 489, 490). The name probably occurs earlier in the Egyptian records dating back to the 19th-18th centuries B.C. (ANET, 230, 239; see Douglas, NBD, 1173). (7) In the course of the Conquest, Joshua as the successor of Moses called for a renewal of the Covenant at Shechem: at this time the Law was again promulgated: its blessings were proclaimed from Gerizim and its curses from Ebal (Deu. 27:11, Jos. 8:33-35). Various features of the typical covenant pattern well known in the East in the centuries 1500700 B.C., may be identified in these Scriptures. (See especially NBD, under covenant.) (8) In the distribution of the land, Shechem fell to Ephraim (Jos. 20:7, 1Ch. 7:28) but was assigned to the Kohathite Levites, and became a city of refuge (Jos. 21:20-21). (9) At Shechem Joshua assembled the people shortly before his death and delivered to them his last counsels (Jos. 24:1; Jos. 24:25). (10) After the death of Gideon, Abimelech, his illegitimate son by a Shechemite woman, persuaded the men of the city to make him king (Jdg. 9:6; cf. Jdg. 8:22-23). In the time of the Judges, Shechem was still a center of Canaanite worship and the temple of Baal-berith (the lord of the covenant). Abimelech proceeded to exterminate the royal seed, but Jotham, one son who escaped the bloody purge, standing on Mount Gerizim, by means of a parable about the trees, appealed eloquently to the people of Shechem to repudiate Abimelech (Jdg. 9:8-15). This they did after some three years (Jdg. 9:22-23), but Abimelech destroyed Shechem (Jdg. 9:45) and then attacked the stronghold of the temple of Baal-berith and burned it over the heads of those who sought refuge there (Jdg. 9:46-49). In a subsequent engagement at Thebez, however, Abimelech was mortally wounded by a millstone thrown down on his skull by a woman, and to save his honor commanded his armor-bearer to end his life (Judg., ch. 9). (11) Evidently the city was soon restored, for we are told that all Israel assembled at Shechem and that Rehoboam, Solomons successor, went there to be inaugurated king of all Israel (1 Ki.,ch. 12): at this same place, however, the ten tribes renounced the House of David and transferred their allegiance to Jeroboam (1Ki. 12:1-20, 2Ch. 10:1-19). Jeroboam restored Shechem and made it the capital of his kingdom (the northern kingdom, Israel) for a time (1Ki. 12:25): later it seems, he moved his capital to Penuel, and his successors still later moved it to Tirzah (1Ki. 12:25; 1Ki. 15:21; 1Ki. 16:6). (12) From that time on, the town declined in importance, but continued to exist long after the fall of Samaria, 722 B.C., for men from Shechem came with offerings to Jerusalem as late as 586 B.C. (Jer. 41:5). The Assyrian king, Shalmeneser (or Sargon?) on taking over Samaria carried most of the people of Shechem into captivity and then sent colonies from Babylon to take the place of the exiles (2Ki. 17:5-6; 2Ki. 17:24; 2Ki. 18:9 ff.). Another influx of strangers came under Esarhaddon (Ezr. 4:2). In post-exilic times Shechem became the chief city of the Samaritans who built a temple there (Sir. 50:26-28; Josephus, Ant., 11, 8, 6). In 128 B.C. John Hyrcanus captured the town (Josephus, Ant., 13, 9, 1). In the time of the first Jewish revolt Vespasian camped near Shechem, and after the war the town was rebuilt and was named Flavia Neapolis in honor of the emperor Flavius Vespasianus: hence the modern Nablus. From the time of the origin of the Samaritans (cf. 1Ki. 16:23-24) the history of Shechem is interwoven with that of this people (the ten tribes having lost their identity by forced amalgamation with foreign colonials) and their sacred mount, Gerizim. It was to the Samaritans that Shechem owed the revival of its claims to be considered the religious center of the land; but this was in the interest of a narrow and exclusive sectarianism (Joh. 4:5 ff.) (UBD, 1008). (For information about archaeological discoveries at Shechem, see especially BWDBA, or any reliable Bible Dictionary, e.g., UBD, NBD, HBD, etc.). Shechem is now generally identified with Tell-Balatah.

A final word is in order here concerning the tragedy of Shechem. Jacob reproved the originators of this act most severely for their wickedness. Ye have brought me into trouble (conturbare), to make me stink (an abomination) among the inhabitants of the land; . . . and yet I (with my attendants) am a company that can be numbered (lit. people of number, easily numbered, a small band, Deu. 4:27, Isa. 10:19); and if they gather together against me, they will slay me, etc. If Jacob laid stress simply upon the consequences which this crime was likely to bring upon himself and his house, the reason was, that this was the view most adapted to make an impression upon his sons. For his last words concerning Simeon and Levi (Gen. 49:5-7) are a sufficient proof that the wickedness of their conduct was also an object of deep abhorrence. And his fear was not groundless. Only God in His mercy averted all the evil consequences from Jacob and his house (Gen. 35:5-6). But his sons answered, Are they to treat our sister like a harlot? . . . Their indignation was justifiable enough; and their seeking revenge, as Absalom avenged the violation of his sister on Amnon (2Sa. 13:22 ff.), was in accordance with the habits of nomadic tribes. In this way, for example, seduction is still punished by death among the Arabs, and the punishment is generally inflicted by the brothers. . . . In addition to this, Jacobs sons looked upon the matter, not merely as a violation of their sisters chastity, but a crime against the peculiar vocation of their tribe. But for all that, the deception they practised, the abuse of the covenant sign of circumcision as a means of gratifying their revenge, and the extension of that revenge to the whole town, together with the plundering of the slain, were crimes deserving of the strongest reprobation. The crafty character of Jacob degenerated into malicious cunning in Simeon and Levi; and jealousy for the exalted vocation of their family, into actual sin. This event shows us in type all the errors into which the belief in the pre-eminence of Israel was sure to lead in the course of history, whenever that belief was rudely held by men of carnal minds (O. v Gerlach) (K-D, 314315).

To sum up: The city of Shechem was overpowered, of course, but Jacob thought it prudent to avoid the revenge of the Canaanites by departing from the region of what must have been to him a great disillusionment. It seems most likely that he returned afterward and rescued from the Amorite with his sword and his bow the piece of land he had previously purchased and which he left, as a special inheritance, to Joseph (Gen. 48:22, Jos. 17:14).

2. Jacob at Bethel, Gen. 35:1-15.

Jacob had allowed some ten years to pass since his return from Mesopotamia, without performing the vow which he had made at Bethel when in flight from Esau (Gen. 28:20-22). However, he had recalled it in his own mind when he was resolving to return (Gen. 31:13), and had also erected an altar in Shechem to God, the God of Israel (Gen. 33:20). He is now divinely directed to go to Bethel and there build an altar to the God who had appeared to him on his original flight to Paddan-aram. This divine injunction evidently prompted him to perform a task which he had evidently kept putting off, namely, to put out of his house the strange gods which he apparently had tolerated, weakly enough, out of misplaced consideration for his wives, and to pay to God the vow he had made in the day of his trouble. He therefore ordered his household (Gen. 34:2-3), i.e., his wives and children, and all that were with him, i.e., his men and maid-servants, to put away all the strange gods they were harboring (and, it may be, concealing), then to purify themselves and wash their clothes. He also buried all the strange (foreign) gods, including no doubt Rachels teraphim (Gen. 31:19), and whatever other idols there were (including, in all likelihood some that were carried off in the looting of Shechem), and along with these the earrings which were worn as amulets and charms: all these he buried under the terebinth at Shechem, probably the very tree under which his grandfather Abraham had once pitched his tent (Gen. 12:8, Gen. 13:3, Gen. 28:19). Bethel was about twelve miles north of Jerusalem and thirty miles south of Shechem. From Shechem to Bethel there is a continuous ascent of over 1000 ft.

Gen. 34:1Because you delayed on the road you were punished by what happened to Dinah (Rashi). Dwell there: You must dwell there a little time before you set up the altar, so that your mind may be duly attuned to the service of God (Sforno, Nachmanides). The purpose of the altar was, according to N, to cleanse himself from his contact with idols, or from the slain; according to S, as a thanksgiving for his deliverance (SC, 209). The command to dwell there (at Bethel) surely signified at least one thing, namely, that the massacre of the Shechemites had rendered longer residence in that region unsafe. The divine injunction here contained an assurance that the same Divine arm which had shielded him against the enmity of Esau and the oppression of Laban would extend to him protection on his future way. Gen. 34:2Put away the foreign gods, etc. Note that the same words were spoken by Joshua under the same tree (Jos. 24:23). These facts would point, it would appear, to the memory of a great national renunciation of idolatry at Shechem in the early history of Israel (Skinner, ICCG, 423). The gods of the stranger included most likely the teraphim of Laban, which Rachel still retained, and other objects of idolatrous worship, either brought by Jacobs servants from Mesopotamia, or adopted in Canaan, or perhaps possessed by the captives (PCG, 411). Cleanse yourselves. The word is that which is used later to describe purifications under the Law (Num. 19:11-12, Lev. 14:4; Lev. 15:3), Change your garments: the directions here given were similar to those subsequently given at Sinai (Exo. 19:10-15), and were designed to symbolize a moral and spiritual purification of the mind and heart (the inward man, cf. Rom. 7:22, 2Co. 4:16). Let us arise and go up to Bethel: evidently Jacob had acquainted his family with the original experience at Bethel. I will make there an altar unto God: El is probably used because of its proximity to and connection with Bethel, or house of El, and the intended contrast between the El of Bethel and the strange Elohim (gods) which Jacobs household were commanded to put away (PCG, 411). Note that the language here, Gen. 34:3, clearly looks back to his Bethel experiences (Gen. 28:20, Gen. 32:9, Gen. 31:9). It ought not to be forgotten that Jacob had now a large band of followerswives, children, domestics, slaves, and shepherds. His tribe, as it may be called, could scarcely have numbered fewer than from two hundred to three hundred persons, old and young. These had all come from Mesopotamia, and most of them had been trained in idolatry. So long as Jacob resided in Mesopotamia it is probable he had not the power to prevent idolatrous practices; but now, having come to another countrya country in which the power of Jehovah had been so signally manifested to himself and his fathershe felt that he might safely and effectually eradicate idolatry from his people (SIBG, 270). Did he not also have a great number of captives from Shechem? (Cf. Gen. 35:29). Note that the purgation followed Jacobs commands, evidently without protest. The foreign gods were handed over and buried, as were also all their earrings, those employed for purposes of idolatrous worship, which were often covered with allegorical figures and mysterious sentences, and supposed to be endowed with a talismanic virtue (PCG, 411). Cf. Jdg. 8:24, Isa. 3:20-21; Hos. 2:13). Tradition has it that these were the teraphim which Rached had stolen and kept until now. The verse may mean that the servants of Jacob had brought their own household gods from their homeland. Jacob compels them to give them up and accept the worship of the God of Israel. Earrings were, and still are, worn in the Orient as amulets or charms against evil. In ancient times they had ritual significance, Jdg. 8:24-27 (Morgenstern). The oak which was by Shechem: Whether the oak (terebinth) under which Abraham once pitched his tent (Gen. 12:6), the one beneath which Joshua later erected his memorial pillar (Jos. 24:26), the oak of the sorcerers (Jdg. 9:37), and the oak of the pillar at Shechem (Jdg. 9:6), were one and the same, we cannot determine with certainty: the probability is, however, that they were. Change your garments: From this we learn that when one goes to pray in a place dedicated to that purpose, one must be clean bodily and in raiment (Ibn Ezra). Lest you have garments dedicated to idolatry (Rashi) (SC, 209). What a lesson here for our generation. A lesson this is, to be commended to our present-day long-haired, female-imitating hippies and to our hip-skirted, fashion-enslaved women (both young and old), indeed to the entire unholy breed of our twentieth-century idolaters! Let them be reminded of one thing; namely, that garishness, rather than modesty, has no place in the conduct or dress of one who presumes to come into the presence of God for divine worship. (Cf. 1Co. 10:31, 1Pe. 3:1-7). Truly he that sitteth in the heavens must laugh at such antics: the Lord will have all such in derision, Psa. 2:4). The burial of the idols was followed by purification through the washing of the body, as a sign of the purification of the heart from the defilement of idolatry and by the putting on of clean and festal clothes, as a symbol of the sanctification and elevation of the heart to the Lord (Jos. 24:23) (K-D, 316).

So Jacob and his household journeyed toward Bethel. And a terror of God was upon the cities round about them and they did not pursue them. Was this simply a great terror literally? Or was it a supernatural dread inspired by Elohim, or a fear of Elohim, under whose care Jacob manifestly had been taken? It seems obvious that we have here another instance of what is designated the numinous revelation of Elohim: that is, a manifestation, and the accompanying awareness, by human beings, of the dreadfulness, the awesomeness of God. (It will be recalled that this is the thesis of the book, The Idea of the Holy, by Rudolph Otto. See infra, pp. 140ff., 171ff., esp. 174). (Cf. Gen. 28:17; Gen. 32:30; Exo. 19:16-19; Exo. 23:27; 1Sa. 14:15, 2Ch. 14:13, Psa. 68:35, Heb. 10:26-31). So Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan (a clause obviously designed to draw special attention to the fact that Jacob had now accomplished his return to Canaan), the same is Bethel, he and all the people that were with him (the members of his household and the captive Shechemites). (Luz, as we have noted, was the ancient name of Bethel, and continued to be the name by which it was known to the Canaanites (Gen. 28:19; Gen. 35:6; Gen. 48:3; cf. Jdg. 1:22-26). Luz was given the name of Bethel by. Jacob (Gen. 28:16-19), after spending the night of his sublime dream-vision near to the city. It was the site of Jacobs sojourn near to the city, rather than the city itself, that received the name Bethel (Jos. 16:2); but this site later became so important that the name was applied to the city as well (Jos. 18:13, Jdg. 1:23) (NBD, s.v.).

Jacob, having arrived safely at Bethel, built an altar, but this time he called the place El Bethel (the God of Bethel) in remembrance of Gods manifestation of Himself to him on his flight from Esau. It will be noted that Bethel marks two significant stages in the course of Jacobs life: the first on his flight from Esau (ch. 28), and now the second on his return trip home, many years later. The name God of the House of God definitely connects the present experience with that of his dream-vision on the journey to Paddan-aram (Gen. 28:16-22). V. 5He had formerly called it Beth-el, i.e., the house of God. Now, to attest his experience of Gods fulfillment of His promises, he calls it, El Bethel, i.e., the God of Bethel (SIBG, 270).

The death of Deborah, Gen. 34:8. Deborah was the same nurse who accompanied Rebekah when she left home (Gen. 24:59). She had been sent by Rebekah to fetch Jacob home in fulfilment of her promise (Gen. 27:45), but she died on the way (Rashi). It is extremely unlikely that it was the same nurse, because she would have been very old by then and hardly fit for such a mission. She was probably another nurse who had remained with Laban after Rebekah left, and then became nurse to Jacobs children. Now Jacob was taking her home with him to look after Rebekah in her old age. But why is this fact mentioned? The Rabbis asserted that we have here a veiled hint at the death of Rebekah herself, this being really the reason why the place was named Allon-bacuth (Nachmanides). As to why Rebekahs death is not explicitly stated, Rashi cites a Midrash that the reason was that the people might not curse her as the mother who bore Esau. Nachmanides holds that it was because very little honor could have been paid to her at the funeral, in view of Isaacs blindness which confined him to the house so that he could not attend it, and Jacobs absence (SC, 210). A Midrash is an exposition of Hebrew Scripture esp. one that was made between 4th Century B.C. and the 11th century A.D.) Morgenstern suggests the following: There could be some confusion here between this tradition of the great tree near Bethel, sacred because of its association with a certain Deborah, and the tradition recorded in Jdg. 4:5 of the sacred palm-tree of Deborah also located near Bethel, because Deborah the prophetess was supposed to have sat beneath it while revealing the oracle to Israel (JIBG). Lange comments: The nurse of Rebekah had gone with her to Hebron, but how came she here? Delitzsch conjectures that Rebekah had sent her, according to the promise (Gen. 27:45), or to her daughter-in-law and grandchildren, for their care; but we have ventured the suggestion that Jacob took her with him upon his return from a visit to Hebron. She found her peculiar home in Jacobs house, and with his children after the death of Rebekah. Knobel naturally prefers to find a difficulty even here. It is a well-known method of exaggerating all the blanks in the Bible into diversities and contradictions (p. 563). Leupold writes: Deborah must have been very old at this time. Since Jacob may have been nearly 110 years old at this time and was born rather late in his mothers life, an age of 170 years for Deborah is not unlikely. But Isaac lived to be 180 years old (Gen. 34:28). But these unexplained and unusual features constitute no reason for questioning the historicity of the event. The confusion of our event and the person of Deborah (Jdg. 4:5) does not lie in these passages but in the minds of the critics. The Deborah of a later date judged and dwelt under a palmtree between Ramah and Bethel. Our Deborah died and was buried under an oak below Bethel. More important to observe is the fact that the Scripture regards the death and burial of this menial worthy of notice; and that fact would lead us to infer, as Luther does, that she was a wise and godly matron, who had served and advised Jacob, had supervised the domestics of the household and had often counseled and comforted Jacob in dangers and difficulties. So the Oak of Weeping became a monument to a godly servant whose loss was deeply mourned by all (EG, 919). This final word, in the present connection: V. 8There Deborah, Rebekahs nurse, died, and was buried below Bethel under an oak, which was henceforth called the oak of weeping [Allon-bacuth], a mourning oak, from the grief of Jacobs house on account of her death. Deborah had either been sent by Rebekah to take care of her daughters-in-law and grandsons, or had gone of her own accord into Jacobs household after the death of her mistress. The mourning at her death, and the perpetuation of her memory, are proofs that she must have been a faithful and highly esteemed servant in Jacobs house (K-D, 316). Skinner is right (ICCG, 425), it seems to us at this point, in saying that the chief mystery here is not concerning Deborah, but the mystery as to how the name of Rebekah got introduced in this connection at all. He adds that it is an unsafe argument to say that a nurse could not have been conspicuous in legend, e.g., cf. the grave of the nurse of Dionysus at Scythopolis, in Pliny, Natural History, 5, 74).

The Renewal of the Covenant Promises at Bethel, Gen. 34:9-15. Gen. 34:9The distinction between God spake and God appeared is analogous to the distinction in the mode of revelation: cf. ch. 12, 1 and 7 (Lange, 563). Whitelaw comments: This was a visible manifestation, in contrast to the audible one in Shechem (Gen. 34:1), and in a state of wakefulness (Gen. 34:13), as distinguished from the dream-vision formerly beheld at Bethel (Gen. 28:12). God appeared to Jacob, and blessed him, that is, renewed the covenant-promise of which Jacob was the heir. Note again the mention of the change of name (cf. Gen. 32:28). At Peniel the name of Israel was given to Jacob; here it is sealed to him; hence, here it is definitely connected with the Messianic Promise. (Murphy suggests also that the repetition of the new name here implies a decline in Jacobs spiritual life between Peniel and Bethel). Not also that God appeared unto Jacob again: Now, at his return when the vow has been paid, as before in his migration, when the vow was occasioned and made (Gen. 28:20-22). After Jacob had performed his vow by erecting the altar at Bethel, God appeared to him again there (again, referring to ch. 28), on his coming out of Paddan-aram. as He had appeared to him 30 years before on his journey thitherthough it was then in a dream, now by daylight in a visible form (cf. Gen. 34:13, God went up from him). The gloom of that day of fear had now brightened into the clear daylight of salvation. This appearance was the answer, which God gave to Jacob on his acknowledgment of Him; and its reality is thereby established, in opposition to the conjecture that it is merely a legendary repetition of the previous vision. The former theophany had promised to Jacob divine protection in a foreign land and restoration to his home, on the ground of his call to be the bearer of the blessings of salvation. This promise God had fulfilled, and Jacob therefore performed his vow. On the strength of this, God now confirmed to him the name of Israel, which He had already given him in chap. Gen. 32:28, and with it the promise of a numerous seed and the possession of Canaan, which, so far as the form and substance are concerned, points back rather to chap. Gen. 17:6; Gen. 17:8 than to chap. Gen. 28:13-14, and for the fulfilment of which, commencing with the birth of his sons and his return to Canaan, and stretching forward to the most remote future, the name of Israel was to furnish him with a pledge. Jacob alluded to this second manifestation of God at Bethel towards the close of his life (chap. Gen. 48:3-4); and Hosea (Hos. 12:4) represents it as the result of his wrestling with God. The remembrance of this appearance Jacob transmitted to his descendants by erecting a memorial stone, which he not only anointed with oil like the former one in chap. Gen. 28:18, but consecrated by a drink-offering and by the renewal of the name Bethel (K-D, 317). Note again the name-change. The reason of the second investiture with the name of Israel seems probably to be that either Jacob himself, or his family, had refrained from using it. Note: Believers, like Jacob and his family, are oftentimes negligent of the use and unmindful of the privilege of the new name. Believers were by nature children of wrath, even as others, Eph. 2:3. But, Behold what manner of love God has bestowed, that they should be called, through faith (Gal. 3:26) the children of God, 1Jn. 3:2 (SIBG, 270).

Note especially Gen. 34:11 : I am God Almighty, etc. This self-applied title of God has the same significance here as it had in the revelation of God for Abraham (Gen. 17:1); there he revealed himself as the miracle-working God, because he had promised God a son; here, however, because he promises to make from Jacobs family a community [assembly] of nations (Lange). The kahal here is significant as it refers to the ultimate complete fulfilment of the promise in true spiritual Israel (Gosman, in Lange, p. 563). Murphy calls attention to the fact that from this time the multiplication of Israel is rapid. In twenty-five years after this time he goes down into Egypt with seventy souls, besides the wives of his married descendants, and two hundred and ten years after that Israel goes out of Egypt with numbering about one million eight hundred thousand. A nation and a congregation of nations, such as were then known known in the world, had at the last date come of him, and kings were to follow in due time (MG, 427). It should be noted that the land, as well as the seed, is again promised. Note here also the repeated items of the Promise. (1) Be fruitful and multiply: Abraham and Isaac had each only one son of promise; but now the time of increase has come (MG, 427). (Cf. Gen. 1:28). (2) A nation and a company of nations shall be of thee: cf. Gen. 17:5, Gen. 28:3. (3) And kings shall come out of thy loins: cf. Gen. 17:6; Gen. 17:16. (4) And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac (cf. Gen. 12:7, Gen. 13:15, Gen. 26:3-4), to thee I will give it (Gen. 28:13), and to thy seed after thee will I give the land (the time of their actual taking possession of the land was specified to Abraham, Gen. 15:12-16).

Note also that this is the first mention of the drink-offering in the Old Testament (Gen. 34:14).

Gen. 34:14And Jacob set up a pillar, etc. It would seem that the former pillar (Gen. 28:18) had fallen down and disappeared. This pillar of stone was to commemorate the interview, God having gone up from him in the place where He talked with him. This setting up of memorial pillars seems to have been a favorite practice of Jacobs. Cf. the first pillar at Bethel (Gen. 28:18), the pillar on Galeed (Gen. 31:45), the second pillar at Bethel (Gen. 35:14), the pillar over Rachels grave (Gen. 35:20). Note that Jacob poured a drink-offering on this pillar of stone, and oil also. This is the first mention of a drink-offering (sacrificial libation) in the Old Testament. Mosaic sacrifices were often accompanied by drink offerings (cf. Exo. 29:40, Lev. 23:13. In Num. 15:3-10 the quantity is prescribed according to the types of blood sacrifice to be presented. Its use was perverted by the Jews who offered it along with their sacrificial cakes to Ashtoreth the queen of heaven (Jer. 44:17). God reproved Israel for offering it to idols (Isa. 57:5-6; Isa. 65:11; Jer. 19:13; Eze. 20:28). The drink offering is symbolic of the outpoured blood of Christ on Calvary (Isa. 53:12, Mat. 26:28, Heb. 9:11-14) and of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon His Church (Joe. 2:28, Act. 2:17-18; Act. 10:45) (HBD, 57). The drink offering consisted of a fourth part of a hin of wine, which was equal to about a third of a gallon (Exo. 29:40). Jacob poured oil on the memorial stone as he had done previously (Gen. 28:18). The holy anointing oil of the Old Testament was always a type of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit (Lev. 8:12, Psa. 45:7, Heb. 1:9, Act. 10:38, etc.).

Gen. 34:15God called the place Bethel (cf. Gen. 28:19). Do we not have a pro-lepsis here, that is, a referring back, by way of explanation for the sake of emphasis, to what had previously been said and done at this place on the occasion of Jacobs dream-vision (Gen. 28:18-22).

Bethel (known originally as Luz, Gen. 28:19) has a long and notable history in the Biblical record. (It is usually identified as the modern Tell Beitin on the watershed route 12 miles north of Jerusalem.) Abram camped to the east of Bethel and there built an altar to Yahweh (Gen. 12:8), at the time of his entrance into Canaan. After his sojourn in Egypt, he returned to this site (Gen. 13:3). For Jacob, Bethel was the starting-point of his understanding of God, who was for him in a special sense God of Bethel (Gen. 31:13; Gen. 35:7). On being divinely ordered to Bethel, on his return from Mesopotamia, he built an altar and set up a memorial pillar, renewing the name he had given the place originally (Gen. 35:1-15). After the Conquest it was assigned to the Joseph tribes who captured it, especially to Ephraim (1Ch. 7:28), and bordered the territory of Benjamin (Jos. 18:13). According to excavated potsherds Bethel began to be occupied as a city in the 21st century B.C. It suffered a severe destruction in the early 14th century B.C.: this is usually referred to as a burning by the tribes of Israel at the time of the Conquest. Later excavations seem to support the view that this destruction was wrought by the Josephites, some time after Joshuas death (Jdg. 1:22-26), and had nothing to do with the actual Conquest. When the Israelites took over after Joshuas death, they called it by the name Jacob had given to the place of his vision instead of calling it Luz (Jdg. 1:23). When it became necessary for Israel to punish Benjamin, the people sought advice as to the conduct of the battle and worshiped at Bethel for the ark . . . was there (Jdg. 20:18-28; Jdg. 21:1-4). It was a sanctuary in the time of Samuel who visited it annually to hold court (1Sa. 7:16; 1Sa. 10:3); hence it obviously was a site of one of the schools of the prophets which were originated under Samuel (2Ki. 2:1-3; 1Sa. 10:10; 1Sa. 19:20; 1Ki. 20:35, etc.). The archaeological remains of this period indicate that it was a time of great insecurity: the settlement was burned twice by the Philistines. Under the early monarchy, the city seems to have begun to prosper again, becoming the center of Jeroboams rival cultus, condemned by a man of God from Judah (2 Ki. 12:28-13:32). Abijah of Judah captured the site (2Ch. 13:19); and Asa, his son, may have destroyed it (2 Chron., ch. 14). Elisha met a group of sons of the prophets from Bethel, and along with them the mocking boys (2Ki. 2:3; 2Ki. 2:23). Amos condemned the pagan rites of the Israelite royal sanctuary (Amo. 4:4; Amo. 5:5-6; Amo. 7:13; cf. Hos. 10:15) and Jeremiah bespoke their futility (Jer. 48:13). (Ashtoreth was the Canaanite mother-goddess of the Canaanites, the goddess of fertility, love and war (1Ki. 11:5): her counterparts were the Syrian Atargatis, the Phoenician Astarta, the Babylonian Ishtar, the Phrygian Cybele, the Egyptian Isis, etc.). The priest sent to instruct the Assyrian settlers in Samaria settled at Bethel (2Ki. 17:28). Josiah invaded all the pagan sanctuaries of both Judah and Israel and restored the true worship of Jehovah in a mighty national reformation (2Ki. 23:15 ff.). Bethel was later occupied by the returning exiles from Babylon (Ezr. 2:28, Neh. 11:31); their worship, however, was again centered in Jerusalem (Zec. 12:2, Isa. 51:22-23). The city grew again during the Hellenistic period until it was fortified by Bacchides about 160 B.C. (1 Macc. 9, 50). Vespasian captured it in A.D. 69, and a little later it was rebuilt as a Roman township (a small political unit). (In this connection, cf. Beth-aven (house of iniquity), which was near Ai and to the east of Bethel (Jos. 7:2 and served as boundary mark for Benjamins allotment (Jos. 18:12). In Hosea (Hos. 4:15; Hos. 5:8; Hos. 10:5), the name may be a derogatory synonym for Bethel, House of the (false) god (NBD, s.v.). Bethel continued to flourish until the time of the Arab conquest. Bethel, specified by Eusebius and Jerome, twelve miles from Jerusalem and on the right hand of the road to Shechem, corresponds precisely to the ruins which bear the name Beitin (UBD, 139). The site is perhaps Burg Beitin to the southeast of Tell Beitin, the shoulder of Luz (Jos. 18:13) (NBD, 143).

3. The Birth of Benjamin and the Death of Rachel, Gen. 34:16-20.

Jacob now left Bethel, evidently not in opposition to the divine command which simply directed him to go there, build an altar, and dwell there long enough at least to perform his vow. In accordance probably with his own desire, if not also Heavens counsel, we find him leaving Bethel and proceeding toward Mamre, no doubt to visit Isaac, (What has happened to Rebekah, in the meantime? When did she die? The Scriptures do not give us the answers, It has been conjectured that her death occurred while Jacob was absent in Paddan-aram, The place of her burial, incidentally mentioned by Jacob on his deathbed (Gen. 49:31), was in the field of Machpelah. The Apostle Paul refers to Rebekah as having been acquainted with Gods purposes regarding her sons even before they were born (Rom. 9:10-12, cf. Gen. 25:23), It seems obvious that Jacob never saw her after his hurried departure for Paddan-aram (Gen. 27:46, Gen. 28:5). Was not this very fact a form of retribution for her deceptive manipulation of events in favor of Jacob, her favorite?)

As they proceeded on their journey southward in the direction of Hebron, Rachel was taken in labor as they entered the vicinity of Ephrath. The text tells us literally that she was suffering hard labor in her parturition, all the more severe no doubt because it had been some sixteen years since her first son, Joseph, was born. In the course of the labor, the midwife told her that this baby was also to be a son, fulfilling a wish expressed by her when Joseph was born (Gen. 30:24). And Rachel dies during the final fulfilment of the strongest wish of her life. Note as her soul was departing (for she died). the term nephesh meaning soul or life. That is, departing not to annihilation, but to another state of being (cf. Luk. 16:22, Joh. 1:18). For she died (Whitelaw calls this a rather pathetic commentary on ch. Gen. 30:1). As Rachel was dying she named the baby Ben-oni, son of my pain. Jacob, however, called him Ben-jamin, probably son of good fortune, according to the meaning of the word jamin sustained by the Arabic, to indicate that his pain at the loss of his favorite wife was compensated by the birth of this son, who now completed the number twelve (K-D, p. 318). The father changes the name of ill omen to Benjamin: son of the right hand, i.e., son of happy omen (JB, 57). With her last breath Rachel names her son Ben-oni; but the father, to avert the omen, calls him Bin-yamin. The pathos of the narrative flows in sympathy with the feelings of the mother: a notice of Jacobs life-long grief for the loss of Rachel is reserved for Gen. 48:7 (ICCG, 426). Joseph buried Rachel on the road to Ephratah, or Ephrath . . . i.e., Bethlehem (bread-house), by which name it is better known, though the origin of it is obscure (K-D, 318). Jacob erected a monument (pillar) upon Rachels grave; the same is the Pillar of Rachels grave unto this day (Gen. 34:20). That is, unto the time of Moses; yet the site of Rachels sepulchre was known as late as the time of Samuel (1Sa. 10:2). There seems no reason to question the tradition which in the fourth century has placed it within the Turkish chapel Kubbet Rachil, about half-an-hours journey north of Bethlehem (Whitelaw, PCG, 417; cf. Robinson, I, 322; Thompson, LB, 644; Tristram, Land of Israel, 404; Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, 149). Bethlehem, or House of Bread, became the birthplace of David, 1Sa. 16:18), and of Christ (Mic. 5:2, Mat. 2:1). This narrative is more than mere history, for the event occurred, and the record was made, to symbolize a greater sorrow that was to occur at Ephrath nearly two thousand years after, in connection with the birth at Bethlehem of that Man of Sorrows in whom every important event in Hebrew history received its final and complete significance (Thomson, LB, 644645). The grave of Rachel was long marked by the pillar which Jacob erected over it; and her memory was associated with the town Bethlehem (Jer. 31:15, Mat. 2:18) (OTH, 105). Nachmanides remarks that the Tomb is about four parasangs from the Ramah of Benjamin, but more than two days journey from the Ramah of Ephraim. Hence, when Jeremiah said, A voice is heard in Ramah . . . Rachel weeping for her children (Jer. 31:15), it must be hyperbole: so loud is her weeping that it can be heard as far as Ramah. Jacob buried Rachel on the way and did not take her body into the nearby city of Bethlehem because he foresaw that it would belong to the tribe of Judah, and he wished her body to lie in the portion of Benjamin (SC, 212). Rachels sepulchre is still a noted spot. Jews and Mohammedans unite in honoring it. It is marked by a small building surmounted by a white dome. It is on the leading road from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, three miles from the former and one from the latter. The original name of Bethlehem appears to have been Ephrath, fruitful. This gave place to Bethlehem, house of bread; which in modern times has given place to the Arabic Beit-lahm, house of flesh (SIBG, 270). Benjamin was the twelfth and last son of Jacob. He was a full brother to Joseph, being born of Rachel, the favorite wife of Jacob. Benjamin alone was born in Canaan rather than Paddan-aram, and his mother was buried on the way to Bethlehem in the region later assigned to Benjamin. He and Joseph were special objects of the affection of Jacob, because their mother was Rachel. In her dying agonies Rachel gave him the name of Benoni, son of my sorrow, but Jacob named him Benjamin, son of the right hand. The peculiar concern of Joseph for Benjamin during the Egyptian episode may be understood by the fact that they were full brothers, whose half brothers looked upon them with envy because of Jacobs special love for them (HBD, 58). In Jer. 31:15-16, the prophet refers to the exile of the ten tribes under Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, and the sorrow caused by their dispersion (2Ki. 17:20), under the symbol of Rachel, the maternal ancestor of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, bewailing the fate of her children, which lamentation was a type or symbol of that which was fulfilled in Bethlehem when the infants were slaughtered by order of Herod (Mat. 2:16-18) (UBD, 907).

Rachel is a figure of great importance in the saga, as Jacobs beloved wife and as the mother of Joseph and Benjamin, who were to constitute the very core of the Israelite state. And so the narrative in Chapter 35 continues with the death of Rachel and the birth of Benjamin, for she died in childbirth. Tradition hails a cupola-topped structure on the road from Jerusalem to Bethlehem as the tomb of Rachel. It was actually erected in the 15th century A.D. over a monolith which marks an ancient grave. It is mentioned by the 7th century pilgrim Arculf. This shrine was frequented by Jewish pilgrims in Palestine until 1948 when the Arab-Israel War of Liberation broke out (AtD, 95). In the time of the sixth-century [?] pilgrim Arculf, the grave was already marked by a monument of some sort, which he calls a pyramid. That probably means a pyramid-topped mausoleum, for these were frequently constructed in Roman times (Kraeling, BA, 88).
4. Reubens Incest. Gen. 34:21-22.

Israel went on his way toward Hebron from Ephrath, after the funeral of Rachel, and spread (i.e., unfolded, cf. Gen. 12:8, Gen. 26:25) his tent beyond the tower of Eder. He that departs from the scene of his sorrow is designated as Israel, as it would seem to indicate that he bore his grief as his better, newer nature helped him to do, and so moved on a chastened but a more seasoned saint of God. But for the present he did not move far. For Migdal-Eder, meaning the tower of the flocks, i.e., a lookout tower for shepherds, was, according to Mic. 4:8, (rightly interpreted), on the southeast hill of Jerusalem on old territory of the tribe of Benjamin (Jos. 18:28, Jdg. 1:21) (EG, 926). Probably a turret, or watch-tower, erected for the convenience of shepherds in guarding their flocks (2Ki. 18:8, 2Ch. 26:10; 2Ch. 27:4), the site of which is uncertain, but which is commonly supposed to have been a mile (Jerome) or more south of Bethlehem (PCG, 416). Such towers would be numerous in any pastoral country; and the place referred to here is un-, known (Skinner, 426). Here it was that Reuben, Jacobs eldest, committed incest (Lev. 18:8) with Bilhah, Rachels handmaid and Jacobs concubine. For this crime he received the dying curse of Jacob and his birthright was taken from him (Gen. 49:4, 1Ch. 5:1). Need we be told the self-evident thing, that Jacob disapproved and was deeply grieved and shamed? We are merely informed that he became aware of what had happened: he heard of it. This prepares us for Gen. 49:4 where his disapproval finds lasting expression for all future time (EG, 927). Another local story, writes Cornfeld, attached to a place called Migdal Eder, is connected with the oldest roots of the Jacob traditions. It concerns Reuben, Jacobs eldest son, and an affair with his fathers concubine, Bilhah. It is of such a scandalous nature that it is reported with characteristic Hebrew conciseness. The biblical storyteller, while not suppressing scandal and frauengeschichten does not lavish time and words on sex and gossip, in line with the Bibles rigid and ascetic social code. This incident, a mere fragment of the vast Jacob saga, is necessary to the Biblical storyteller for an understanding of Jacobs last blessing to his sons, and his paternal curse on Reuben, in Gen. 49:4. But according to the oldest Jewish commentators, Reuben was not motivated by lust, but acted to protect his mother Leah [as in Gen. 30:14?] and defend her interests. Commentators assume that Jacob made Bilhah his favorite after Rachels death, whereupon Reuben seduced her and alienated the patriarchs affection from her. There is more to this than appears in a few short sentences. This motif is part of the epic repertoire of the East Mediterranean and comes up in the Iliad (9:44457), where Phoenix, like Reuben, received a paternal curse and no blessing for seducing his fathers concubine. He also, like Reuben, was not motivated by lust. This goes to prove that the more we study the Bible, the more we have to respect the importance of the mere details which help to piece together and interpret Biblical stones (AtD, 9596). But why was it necessary to try to explain away the content of Gen. 49:4, or also of 1Ch. 5:1? The connection between these passages and Gen. 35:22 is very clear and meaningful. Moreover, there is no real reason for trying to prove that Reuben was too much different from young men of his time, especially in his attitude toward one who was only a concubine? Imaginative reconstructions are entirely unnecessary: the Scriptures in this case, when allowed to do so, speak for themselves. This is equally true of other Jewish interpretations. E.g., Reuben did not actually do this, but removed her couch from his fathers tent, and Scripture stigmatized his action as heinous as though he had lain with her. For during Rachels lifetime Jacobs couch was always in her tent; on her death he removed it to Bilhahs, Rachels handmaid. Reuben resented this, saying, If my mother, Leah, was subordinate to Rachel, must she also be subordinate to Rachels handmaid! Thereupon he removed her couch and substituted Leahs (Rashi, quoting the Talmud). Nachmanides suggests that he did this from the fear that Jacob might have another son by her, as she was still young, and so diminish his heritage (SC, 213). We call attention to the fact that these passages (Gen. 35:22; Gen. 49:4, and 1Ch. 5:1) all make sense when taken together. Why then should anyone resort to utterly uncalled-for and unnecessary flights of the imagination which serve only to create confusion and offer little or nothing that can be substantiated by external evidence. The Scriptures present the story of Reubens incest as fact: the whole story forms a pattern which authenticates itself, Why should any writer have indulged a midrash trying to ameliorate Reubens sin, when as a matter of fact it could hardly be comparable in its heinousness to the massacre of the Shechemites perpetrated by Simeons and Levis thirst for vengeance?

5. The Twelve Sons of Jacob, Gen. 34:22-26.

(1) By Leah: Reuben, Jacobs firstborn, and Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, (Cf. Gen. 29:32-35, Gen. 30:18-20, Gen. 46:8-15; Exo. 1:2-3). (2) By Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin. (Cf. Gen. 30:22-24, Gen. 35:18, Gen. 46:19). (3) By Bilhah, Rachels haidmand: Dan, and Naphtali. (Cf. Gen. 30:4-8). (4) By Zilpah (Leahs handmaid): Gad, and Asher. (Cf. Gen. 30:9-15). Of all these, Benjamin was the only one born in Canaan; the others were born to Jacob in Paddan-aram. We now have the genealogy of the origin of the twelve tribes who later became a people (a nation, the Children of Israel). These verses are anticipatory of the Testament of Israel (ch. 49) and of the establishment of the Theocracy, under the mediatorship of Moses, at Sinai.

6. The Death of Isaac, Gen. 34:26-28.

Jacob came finally to Mamre, unto Kiriath-arba, which is Hebron, where Abraham and Isaac sojourned, Cf. Gen. 13:18, Gen. 23:2; Gen. 23:19; Joh. 14:15; Joh. 15:13, etc. Here Isaac died, being old and full of days, literally satisfied with days. (Cf. the statement about Abrahams death, Gen. 25:8). This chapter closes the ninth of the pieces or documents marked off by the phrase these are the generations. Its opening event was the birth of Isaac (Gen. 25:19), which took place in the hundredth year of Abraham, and therefore seventy-five years before his death recorded in the seventh document. As the seventh purports to be the generations of Terah (Gen. 11:27), and relates to Abraham who was his offspring, so the present document, containing the generations of Isaac, refers chiefly to the sons of Isaac, and especially to Jacob, as the heir of the promise. Isaac as a son learned obedience to his father in that great typical event of his life, in which he was laid on the altar, and figuratively sacrificed in the ram which was his substitute. This was the great significant passage in his life, after which he retired into comparative tranquility (MG, 429). (Murphy, by the term document here has reference to the sections which are introduced by the word toledoth, of which there are nine, not including the use of the word with reference strictly, in Gen. 2:4, to the physical or non-human phases of the Creation. Note the use of toledoth (generations) to mark off the nine sections of the book as follows: the generations of Adam, beginning at Gen. 5:1; of Noah, beginning at Gen. 6:9; of the sons of Noah, at Gen. 10:1; of Shem, at Gen. 11:10; of Terah, at Gen. 1:27; of Ishmael, at Gen. 25:12; of Isaac, at Gen. 25:19; of Esau, at Gen. 36:1; and of Jacob at Gen. 37:2. See my Genesis, I, 4647.)

Isaac did indeed live in relative tranquility throughout most of his life; as a matter of fact, his personality seems not to have been motivated at any time to works of greatness: he was more or less under the domination of his wife throughout his entire married life. Commentators write eloquently of the Saga of Abraham, the Saga of Jacob, and the Saga of Joseph, but never of the Saga of Isaac: Isaacs career never attained such note, such epic proportions, one might well say. The careers of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph, on the other hand, did attain epic proportions.

It is interesting to note also the prominent role played by the women of the patriarchal narratives. For example, Abraham accepted, apparently without any protest whatsoever, the barren Sarahs proffer of a concubine as a substitute bearer of children, and thus acquiesced in her lack of faith and unwillingness to abide Gods own time for the fulfilment of His promise (Gen. 16:1-2). Isaac allowed himself to be victimized by the schemes of the strong-willed Rebekah (Gen. 27:5 ff.). Jacob labored under the spell which his deep love for Rachel seems to have cast over him throughout her life and even after her death (as evinced by the fact that he worked fourteen years to secure her as a wife: cf. Gen. 29:10-11; Gen. 29:30; Gen. 35:16-20; Gen. 37:3; Gen. 44:20-22); it was Jacobs great love for Rachel that sparked his deep affection for Joseph and Benjamin, no doubt to the disgust of his other sons. It has always been true, and we suppose always will be that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Men are frequently made or marred, or even destroyed, by the passionate devotion they give to the women whom they truly love.

Jacob finally arrived at Hebron with his whole entourage of relatives and servants. Hebron was the third notable station occupied by his grandfather Abraham in the Land of Promise (Gen. 13:18). Here also Jacobs father Isaac now sojourned. At the time of Jacobs flight Isaac, we will recall, was resident in Beer-sheba; however, as he advanced in age he seems to have moved to Mamre, probably to be near the family sepulchre. Hebron was a town in the Judean mountains, some 2800 feet above sea level, midway between Jerusalem and Beersheba, and about twenty miles from each. It was named Kiriath-arba (Gen. 23:2; Jos. 14:15; Jos. 15:13), also Mamre, after Mamre the Amorite (Gen. 13:18; Gen. 14:13; Gen. 14:24; Gen. 35:27; Gen. 23:17; Gen. 23:19). Here Abraham entertained three heavenly Visitants on occasion and was promised a son (Gen. 18:1; Gen. 18:10; Gen. 18:14). The cave of Machpelah lay before Mamre, probably to the east of the grove of Mamre (Gen. 23:17; Gen. 23:19; Gen. 25:9; Gen. 49:30-32; Gen. 50:13; Gen. 50:26).

Isaac died at the age of 180 years (cf. Psa. 91:16). The death of this venerable patriarch is here recorded by anticipation, for it did not take place till fifteen years after Josephs disappearance. Feeble and blind though he was, he lived to a very advanced age; and it is a pleasing evidence of the permanent reconciliation between Esau and Jacob, that they met at Mamre, to perform the funeral rites of their common father (Jamieson, CECG, 225). This author would have us think kindly of Isaac, even reverently. He writes: In the delicate simplicity and unobtrusive humility of Isaac, in the quiet, gentle, amiable purity of his life, we have an early type of Christs perfect example. Indeed, his whole character, and the leading events of his history were a foreshadowing of those of the Savior (ibid., 225). It can be said of Isaac truthfully, whatever else might be said in criticism, that he was a man of peace, a man who always sought peace in preference to violence.

The last sentence in this chapter 35 reads like a benediction in itself: Esau and Jacob his sons buried him. Esau evidently arrived from Mount Seir to pay the final service due his deceased parent, Jacob according to him that precedence which had once belonged to him as Isaacs firstborn. The Solemnity of Death: in Gen. 34:29 there comes a haunting echo of an earlier passage: Gen. 25:8-9. Except for the names, the two are identical. Isaac dies, and his sons Esau and Jacob come to bury him. Abraham died, and his sons Isaac and Ishmael came and buried him. In each case there had been bitterness between the two sons. Isaac was the cherished one: Ishmael had been driven out because of Sarahs jealousy for Isaac. So in the next generation also the two sons had been divided by Jacobs crafty trick that stole the birthright and Esaus resulting furious anger. But both times the two sons meet at a fathers funeralthe one thing that after a long separation could unite them. The verses are more than bare records of events. They suggest a deep instinct that runs throughout all the history of Israelthe instinct of family loyalty. Whatever might drive individuals apart, something stronger held them, and would keep them from complete estrangement. Not in word only, but in fact the people of Israel accepted the commandment, Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Obedience to that commandment is one reason why the Jewish race has had such tenacity and toughness of survival. It has honored and protected the family. It has chastened and corrected selfish irresponsibility by putting into the hearts of each generation a sense of duty to the group (IB, 743). History proves beyond all possibility of doubt that when family life goes to pieces the nation falls.

This is the last mention of the living Esau in Scripture. The sentence seems to indicate that Jacob and Esau continued to be on brotherly terms from the day of their meeting at the ford of Jabbok. Stillno mention whatever of Rebekah in her last days! Nothingbut a passing mention, by Israel himself, of her place of burial, the Cave of Machpelah (50:31).

It is interesting to note the chronology involved in the intertwined lives of Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. Jacob was born in the sixtieth year of Isaacs life (Gen. 25:26), and was thus 120 years old when Isaac died (at the age of 180). But later when he (as Israel) was presented before Pharaoh in Egypt he was 130 years old (Gen. 47:9). Of this stretch of time there were seven fruitful and two unfruitful years since Josephs exaltation to power in Egypt (Gen. 41:53-54; Gen. 45:6), and thirteen years between the selling of Joseph and his elevation, for he was sold at the age of seventeen and made prime minister at thirty (Gen. 37:2, Gen. 47:9). Hence we must take twenty-three years from the 130 years of Jacob, to determine his age at the time Joseph was sold: which is thus 107. Isaac therefore shared the grief of Jacob over the loss of his son for thirteen years. In a similar way, Abraham had witnessed and sympathized with the long unfruitful marriage of Isaac. But Isaac could see in these sorrows of Jacob the hand of God, who will not allow that anyone should anticipate him in the self-willed preference of a favorite son (Lange, 571). Leupold presents this problem in a somewhat clearer light as follows: From this time [of Isaacs death] onward Jacob enters into the full patriarchal heritage, having at last attained unto a spiritual maturity which is analogous to that of the patriarch. Coincident with this is Isaacs receding into the background. Consequently Isaacs death is now reported, though it did not take place for another twelve or thirteen years. For shortly after this, when Joseph was sold into Egypt, he was seventeen years old. When he stood before Pharaoh he was thirty (Gen. 41:46). Seven years later when Joseph was thirty-seven, Jacob came to Egypt at the age of 130 (Gen. 47:9). Consequently Jacob must have been ninety-three at Josephs birth and at the time of our chapter, 93, plus 15, i.e., about 108 years. But Isaac was sixty years old when Jacob was born: 108 plus 60 equals 168, Isaacs age when Jacob returned home. But in closing the life of Isaac it is proper to mention his death, though in reality this did not occur for another twelve years. Strange to say, Isaac lived to witness Jacobs grief over Joseph (EG, 929). Whitelaw writes as follows: At this time [of Isaacs death] Jacob was 120; but at 130 he stood before Pharaoh in Egypt, at which date Joseph had been ten years governor. He was therefore 120 when Joseph was promoted at the age of thirty, and 107 when Joseph was sold. Consequently Isaac was 167 years of age when Joseph was sold, so that he must have survived that event and sympathised with Jacob his son for a period of 13 years (PCG, 417). Isaac died at the age of 180, and was buried by his two sons in the Cave of Machpelah (ch. Gen. 49:31), Abrahams family grave, Esau having come from Seir to Hebron to attend the funeral of his father. But Isaacs death did not actually take place for 12 years after Jacobs return to Hebron. For as Joseph was 17 years old when he was sold by his brethren (Gen. 37:2), and Jacob was then living at Hebron (Gen. 37:14), it cannot have been more than 31 years after his flight from Esau when Jacob returned home (cf. ch. Gen. 34:1). Now, since according to our calculation at ch. Gen. 27:1; he was 77 years old when he fled, he must have been 108 when he returned home; and Isaac would only have reached his 168th year, as he was 60 years old when Jacob was born (Gen. 25:26). Consequently, Isaac lived to witness the grief of Jacob at the loss of Joseph, and died but a short time before his promotion in Egypt, which occurred 13 years after he was sold (Gen. 41:46), and only 10 years before Jacobs removal with his family to Egypt, as Jacob was 130 years old when he was presented to Pharaoh (Gen. 47:9). But the historical significance of his life was at an end, when Joseph returned home with his twelve sons (K-D, 320). This means simply that Jacob and his household must have dwelt with, or in close proximity to that of Isaac for some twelve or thirteen years, that is, until Isaac was gathered to his people at the age of 180.

We learn later, from Jacobs last words, that Isaac and Rebekah were both buried in the Cave at Machpelah (Gen. 49:31). However, the Scriptures are completely silent about her life and death, following the departure of Jacob for Paddan-aram at her instigation. It seems only reasonable to conclude that after that departure she never saw her favorite son again.

FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING

John Peter Lange: On the Fanaticism of Leahs Sons

(CDHCG, 564)

The collision between the sons of Jacob and Shechem the son of Hamor, is a vidid picture of the collisions between the youthful forms of political despotism and hierarchal pride. Shechem acts as an insolent worldly prince, Jacobs sons as young fanatical priests, luring him to destruction.
After Jacob became Israel, the just consciousness of his theocratic dignity appears manifestly in his sons, under the deformity of fanatical zeal. We may view this narrative as the history of the origin, and first original form of Jewish and Christian fanaticism. We notice first that fanaticism does not originate in and for itself, but clings to religious and moral ideas as a monstrous and misshapen outgrowth, since it changes the spiritual into a carnal motive. The sons of Jacob were right in feeling that they were deeply injured in the religious and moral idea and dignity of Israel, by Shechems deed. But still they are already wrong in their judgment of Shechems act, since there is surely a difference between the brutal lust of Amnon, who after his sin pours his hatred upon her whom he had dishonored, and Shechem who passionately loves and would marry the dishonored maiden, and is ready to pay any sum as an atonement; a distinction which the sons of Jacob mistook, just as those of the clergy do at this day who throw all breaches of the seventh commandment into one common category and as of the same heinous dye. Then we observe that Jacobs sons justly shun a mixture with the Shechemites, although in this case they were willing to be circumcised for worldly and selfish ends. But there is a clear distinction between such a wholesale, mass conversion, from improper motives, which would have corrupted and oppressed the house of Israel, and the transition of Shechem to the sons of Israel, or the establishment of some neutral position for Dinah. But leaving this out of view, if we should prefer to maintain (what Jacob certainly did not maintain) that an example of revenge must be made, to intimidate the heathen, and to warn the future Israel against the Canaanites, still the fanatical zeal in the conduct of Jacobs sons passed over into fanaticism strictly so called, which developed itself from the root of spiritual pride, according to three world-historical characteristics. The first was cunning, the lie, and enticing deception. Thus the Hugenots were enticed into Paris on the night of St. Bartholomew. The second was the murderous attack and carnage. How often has this form shown itself in the history of fanaticism! This pretended sacred murder and carnage draws the third characteristic sign in its train: rapine and pillage. The possessions of the heretics, according to the laws of the Middle Ages, fell to the executioner of the pretended justice; and history of the Crusades against the heretics testifies to similar horrors and devastation. Jacob, therefore, justly declared his condemnation of the iniquity of the brothers, Simeon and Levi, not only at once, but upon his death-bed (ch. 49) and it marks the assurance of the apocryphal standpoint, when the book Judith, for the purpose of palliating the crime of Judith, glorifies in a poetical strain the like fanatical act of Simeon (ch. 9). Judith, indeed, in the trait of cunning, appears as the daughter in spirit of her ancestor Simeon. We must not fail to distinguish here in our history, in this first vivid picture of fanaticism, the nobler point of departure, the theocratic motive, from the terrible counterfeit and deformity. In this relation there seems to have been a difference between the brothers, Simeon and Levi. While the former appears to have played a chief part in the history of Joseph also (Gen. 42:24), and in the division of Canaan was dispersed among his brethren, the purified Levi came afterwards to be the representative of pure zeal in Israel (Exo. 32:28, Deu. 33:8) and the administrator of the priesthood, i.e., the theocratic priestly first-born, by the side of Judah the theocratic political first-born. A living faith and a faithful zeal rarely develop themselves as a matter of fact without a mixture of fanaticism; the flame gradually purifies itself from the smoke. In all actual individual cases, it is a question whether the flame overcomes the smoke, or the smoke the flame. In the life of Christ, the Old-Testament covenant faithfulness and truth burns pure and bright, entirely free from smoke; in the history of the old Judaism, on the contrary, a dangerous mixture of fire and smoke steams over the land. And so in the development of individual believers we see how some purify themselves to the purest Christian humanity, while others, even sinking more and more into the pride. cunning, uncharitableness and injustice of fanaticism, are completely ruined. Delitzsch: The greatest aggravation of their sin was that they degraded the sacred sign of the covenant into the common means of their malice. And yet it was a noble germ which exploded so wickedly.

This Shechemite carnage of blind and Jewish fanaticism is reflected in a most remarkable way, as to all its several parts, in the most infamous crime of Christian fanaticism, the Parisian St. Bartholomew. [The narrative of these events at Shechem shows how impartial the sacred writer is, bringing out into prominence whatever traits of excellence there were in the characters of Shechem and Hamor, while he does not conceal the cunning, falsehood, and cruelty of the sons of Jacob. Nor should we fail to observe the connection of this narrative with the later exclusion of Simeon and Levi from the rights of the firstborn, to which they would naturally have acceded after the exclusion of Reuben; and with their future location in the land of Canaan. The history furnishes one of the clearest proofs of the genuineness and unity of GenesisGosnian] (Lange, 564). (Cf. Gen. 29:32-35; Gen. 35:22; Gen. 49:3; Gen. 49:5-7, etc.).

Analogies: Jacob and Christ

Gen. 32:24-32; Joh. 14:1-14

A study of the lives of the patriarchs reveals the fact that human nature has been the same in all ages. The Bible is unique and superior in that it reveals men just as they are and have always been. It does not turn aside from its faithful record to cover up a single fault, nor hide an unpleasant incident. It is essentially the Book of Life.

In the biography of Jacob, we will find some very marked weaknesses of character. On the other hand, the remarkable virtues that manifest themselves demonstrate the superiority of his character over that of Esau, his brother, who was willing to sell his birthright for a mere mess of pottage, Gen. 25:29-34, Heb. 12:16. Hence the promise to Abraham, which looked forward to the Gospel, Gen. 12:1-3, Gal. 3:8, was repeated to Isaac, Gen. 26:4, and to Jacob, Gen. 28:14. The names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are inseparably linked together as the fathers of the Jewish people, Exo. 3:6, Mat. 8:11, Act. 3:13, Heb. 11:18-20.

While Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are spoken of as types of Christ, it is not to be understood that they are types in character. That would be impossible, for in this He stood alonegreat in His solitude, and solitary in His greatness in holiness and perfection. We do not desire to become too fanciful in this study, yet there are many circumstances in the lives of these men that are strongly typical. We take up now the analogies between Jacob and Christ.

1. Jacobs vision at Bethel, Gen. 28:10-22.

1. Christs place in the world vision he announced, Joh. 1:51. As Jacob saw in his dream the vision of angels ascending and descending the ladder, so the disciples would see in Christ the connecting link between heaven and earth. Through Christ the heavens would again be opened, and communion between heaven and earth restored, Joh. 14:6, Heb. 8:1-2.

2. Jacob went into a far country to secure his bride, laboring as a servant to secure her, Genesis 29-30.

2. Christ came to the world as a servant, laboring to secure His Bride, the Church. Joh. 1:1-5, Col. 1:16-17, Heb. 1:2-3, Php. 2:5-8, Joh. 8:58.

3. In the far country eleven sons were born, Genesis 29-30.

3. While on earth, Christ called twelve apostles, but one of them fell. Mat. 10:2-4, Joh. 6:70-71, Mat. 27:3-5, Act. 1:25.

4. Jacob was servant of Laban. At the end of his service, they set a three days journey between them. Gen. 30:36.

4. At the end of Christs personal ministry, a three days journey was set between Himself and the world. Joh. 2:18-21, Mat. 16:21, 1Co. 15:1-4.

5. Following the return to Canaan, Benjamin was born, making, the twelfth son. These twelve sons were the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel. Gen. 35:22; Gen. 49:28-29, Exo. 24:4, Lev. 24:5.

5. After Christs return to Heaven, Paul was called to be an apostle, born out of due season, of the tribe of Benjamin. Act. 9:1-43; Act. 26:1-7; Act. 26:16-17, Php. 3:4-6, 1Co. 15:8. The apostles will occupy thrones of judgment and positions of power in the Kingdom, 1Co. 6:2, Luk. 22:29-30, Rev. 3:21; Rev. 21:14. These twelve are now the pillars, or the foundation of the Church, Gal. 2:9, Eph. 2:20.

6. Benjamin was born amidst sorrow and grief, yet was named The Son of the Right Hand, Gen. 35:16-20.

6. Paul was born to the Church in the period of intense sorrow and persecution, yet came to be the greatest of the apostles, Act. 8:13; Act. 26:9-10, 2Co. 11:22-28. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles distinctly, Act. 26:16-18. To him was committed the task of writing a large part of the New Testament.

7. Thy name shall be called Israel, (that is, a prince of God); As a prince thou hast power with God and with men, Gen. 32:24-30.

7. Christ has power with God and with men, Joh. 12:32; Joh. 11:41-42, Heb. 7:25.

It is said that Frederick the Great of Prussia once asked a minister, of whom he was an intimate friend, What do you consider the best evidence of the claims that Jesus is the Son of God, and that the Bible is divinely inspired? The man of God very quickly replied, The history of the Jews. And the supposed unbeliever was silenced.

In studying Gods dealings with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their posterity, we are plainly shown that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men. God is in history, and especially in the history of the Jews. Today they are scattered among all nations, for their rejection of Christ, until the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled. What a warning to Gentiles who refuse to acknowledge Jesus as their Christ, Rom. 11:11-12. When the world is again bathed in sorrows, we may see the light!

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART FORTY-THREE

1.

Name the places that figured in the journey of Jacob and state what important event (or events) took place at each.

2.

What place was the immediate objective of Jacob on his return from Paddan-aram?

3.

What dramatice episode took place at Shechem?

4.

Who was Dinah and what apparently were her relations with the women of Shechem?

5.

What indignity was perpetrated on Dinah by Shechem the prince of the place?

6.

Who was the king of Shechem at this time?

7.

What was the reaction of Jacobs sons to this indignity? Who were the ringleaders in the terrible revenge visited on the Shechemites?

8.

What is the significance of the statement regarding Shechems folly, which thing ought not to be done?

9.

What restitution did the king and prince of Shechem propose for the latters crime? To what extent did this restitution include Jacobs entire tribe or ethnic group?

10.

What was the feature of Shechems act that was to Jacobs sons a special kind of iniquity? Do we see here a taint of national (or ethnic) pride and self-righteousness?

11.

What can we ascertain about Dinahs life following the incident at Shechem?

12.

What fanatical revenge did the sons of Jacob perpetrate on the Shechemites?

13.

In what way did they profane the institution of circumcision in actualizing this vengeance? Did they have any right to propose circumcision to non-Hebrews? Explain your answer.

14.

Of what special kind of hypocrisy were the sons of Jacob guilty?

15.

What was the total vengeance which they imposed on the Shechemites?

16.

What was Jacobs attitude toward this tragedy?

17.

What special character did circumcision have in relation to the progeny of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? How was it related to the Abrahamic Covenant?

18.

Is there any evidence that circumcision had any other meaning to the children of Abraham than that assigned to it as a feature of the Covenant? Explain your answer.

19.

What other suggestions have been offered by anthropologists as to the design of circumcision? Do these suggestions apply to the design of circumcision in the Abrahamic covenant? Explain.

20.

What validity is there in the view that the imposition of Circumcision on the Shechemites was merely a pretext to render them incapable of self-defense? Explain your answer.

21.

What do we mean by the statement that Jacobs displeasure over the tragedy perpetrated by his sons seems to have been occasioned by expediency? Do you consider this charge valid?

22.

Do you consider that parental weakness comes to light in the duplicity of Jacobs sons?

23.

Trace the significant role played by Shechem in the Old Testament story. Where was the place located? How is it related to events in the New Testament?

24.

May the, tragedy of Shechem be rightly called an example of the dangers of religious fanaticism?

25.

Explain, in this connection, the origin of the Samaritans. Why were they so cordially disliked by the Jews in New Testament times? Where in the New Testament do we find this prejudice, clearly revealed?

26.

Why, in all likelihood, did Jacob set out immediately for Bethel after the tragedy of Shechem? What did he do with the people of Shechem?

27.

What did God command Jacob to do, after the incident at Shechem?

28.

What steps did Jacob take to purify his household? What did he do with their foreign gods? Whom may we suppose to have had these gods?

29.

What final purification ceremonies did Jacob enforce? What lessons do we learn from this incident about the importance of cleanliness and modesty of dress when we come into the presence of Jehovah to worship Him?

30.

What was the first thing Jacob did on arriving at Bethel? On this second visit, what name did he give to the place and what was the significance of it?

31.

Who was Deborah? On what grounds can we account for her appearance in the narrative at this point? How had she probably figured in the life of Josephs household? What significance is there in the name Allon-bacuth?

32.

What happened at Bethel with reference to the change of Jacobs name?

33.

In what sense did Jacob perform the vow he had uttered at Bethel on his way to Paddan-aram?

34.

What is the import of the name El Shaddai (God Almighty) as it occurs in this theophany?

35.

What were the items of the Abrahamic Promise which were repeated and renewed to Jacob at this time?

36.

What memorial did Jacob set up at this time? What was the drink-offering and what was its symbolic meaning?

37.

Who was the goddess known as the queen of heaven? Of what cult was the worship of this goddess an essential feature?

38.

What names were given this goddess among various other peoples?

39.

Where did the Israelites bury the bones of Joseph when they came out of Egypt?

40.

What was the usual punishment for seduction among nomadic tribes?

41.

On what ground was the indignation of Simeon and Levi against the rulers of Shechem justifiable?

42.

What great evils were involved in the vengeance which they executed?

43.

Sketch the notable history of Bethel as it is given us in the Old Testament.

44.

Where was Rachels second son born? How did Rachels life come to an end?

45.

What did she name this son? What name did Jacob bestow on him? What did each of these names mean?

46.

Where was Rachel buried? What was her special importance in the patriarchal history?

47.

What crime did Reuben commit? What penalty did he suffer for this crime?

48.

What probably was the original name of Bethlehem and what did it mean? What does the name Bethlehem mean?

49.

What explanations of Reubens act do we find in Jewish interpretations? Is there any legitimate ground for rejecting the truthfulness of the Biblical record as indicated in Gen. 35:22; Gen. 49:4, and 1Ch. 5:1?

50.

Name the twelve sons of Jacob and their respective mothers.

51.

Where did Jacobs journeying finally come to an end?

52.

How old was Isaac when he died? What general characteristic can we apply to Isaacs life?

53.

Where were Isaac and Rebekah buried? How account for the lacuna in the Biblical record with reference to the later period of Rebekahs life?

54.

Why do we say that the last statement in the 29th chapter of Genesis reads like a benediction? With what event does the story of Esaus life come to an end?

55.

Why do we say that Jacob and his household spent some twelve or thirteen years with Isaac at Hebron prior to Isaacs death? Explain the chronology of this interesting fact.

56.

Summarize Langes essay on fanaticism.

57.

List the analogies between the life of Joseph and that of Christ.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

XXXIV.

(1) Dinah . . . went out to see the daughters of the land.Those commentators who imagine that Jacob sojourned only twenty years at Haran are obliged to suppose that he remained two or more years at Succoth, and some eight years at Shechem, before this event happened, leaving only one more year for the interval between Dinahs dishonour and the sale of Joseph to the Ishmaelites. But even so, if Dinah was now not more than fourteen, there would be left a period of only nine years, in which Leah has to bear six sons and a daughter, with a long interval of barrenness, during which Zilpah was given to Jacob and bears two sons. But besides this impossibility, Jacob evidently remained at Succoth only until he was shalem, sound and whole from his sprain, and Dinahs visit was one of curiosity, for she went to see the daughters of the land, that is, she wanted, as Abravanel says, to see what the native women were like, and how they dressed themselves. Josephus says that she took the opportunity of a festival at Shechem; but as neither her father nor brothers knew of her going, but were with their cattle as usual, it is probable that with one or two women only she slipped away from her fathers camp and paid the penalty of her girlish curiosity. But she would feel no such curiosity after being a year or two at Shechem, so that it is probable that her dishonour took place within a few weeks after Jacobs arrival there. So, too, Hamors words in Gen. 34:21-22 plainly show that Jacob was a new comer; for he proposes that the people should let them dwell in the land, and therefore consent to the condition required by them that the Hivites should be circumcised. It would have been absurd thus to speak if Jacob had already dwelt there eight years with no apparent intention of going away.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

THE TLDTH ISAAC (Gen. 25:19 to Gen. 35:29).

THE BIRTH OF ISAACS SONS.

Abraham begat IsaacThe Tldth in its original form gave probably a complete genealogy of Isaac, tracing up his descent to Shem, and showing thereby that the right of primogeniture belonged to him; but the inspired historian uses only so much of this as is necessary for tracing the development of the Divine plan of human redemption.

The Syrian.Really, the Aramean, or descendant of Aram. (See Gen. 10:22-23.) The name of the district also correctly is Paddan-Ararn, and so far from being identical with Aram-Naharaim, in Gen. 24:10, it is strictly the designation of the region immediately in the neighbourhood of Charran. The assertion of Gesenius that it meant Mesopotamia, with the desert to the west of the Euphrates, in opposition to the mountainous district towards the Mediterranean, is devoid of proof. (See Chwolsohn, Die Ssabier, 1, p. 304.) In Syriac, the language of Charran, padana means a plough (1Sa. 13:20), or a yoke of oxen ( 1Sa. 11:7); and this also suggests that it was the cultivated district close to the town. In Hos. 12:12 it is said that Jacob fled to the field of Aram; but this is a very general description of the country in which he found refuge, and affords no basis for the assertion that Padan-aram was the level region. Finally, the assertion that it is an ancient name used by the Jehovist is an assertion only. It is the name of a special district, and the knowledge of it was the result of Jacobs long-continued stay there. Chwolsohn says that traces of the name still remain in Faddn and Tel Faddn, two places close to Charran, mentioned by Yacut, the Arabian geographer, who flourished in the thirteenth century.

Isaac intreated the Lord.This barrenness lasted twenty years (Gen. 25:26), and must have greatly troubled Isaac; but it would also compel him to dwell much in thought upon the purpose for which he had been given to Abraham, and afterwards rescued from death upon the mount Jehovah-Jireh. And when offspring came, in answer to his earnest pleading of the promise, the delay would serve to impress upon both parents the religious significance of their existence as a separate race and family, and the necessity of training their children worthily. The derivation of the verb to intreat, from a noun signifying incense, is uncertain, but rendered probable by the natural connection of the idea of the ascending fragrance, and that of the prayer mounting heavenward (Rev. 5:8; Rev. 8:4).

The children struggled together.Two dissimilar nations sprang from Abraham, but from mothers totally unlike; so, too, from the peaceful Isaac two distinct races of men were to take their origin, but from the same mother, and the contest began while they were yet unborn. And Rebekah, apparently unaware that she was pregnant with twins, but harassed with the pain of strange jostlings and thrusts, grew despondent, and exclaimed

If it be so, why am I thus?Literally, If so, why am I this? Some explain this as meaning Why do I still live? but more probably she meant, If I have thus conceived, in answer to my husbands prayers, why do I suffer in this strange manner? It thus prepares for what follows, namely, that Rebekah wished to have her condition explained to her, and therefore went to inquire of Jehovah.

She went to enquire of the Lord.Not to Shem, nor Melchizedek, as many think, nor even to Abraham, who was still alive, but, as Theodoret suggests, to the family altar. Isaac had several homes, but probably the altar at Bethel, erected when Abraham first took possession of the Promised Land (Gen. 12:7), and therefore especially holy, was the place signified; and if Abraham were there, he would doubtless join his prayers to those of Rebekah.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

1. Dinah Now grown to be a blooming girl of twelve or fourteen years .

Went out to see the daughters of the land Josephus says: “While the Shechemites were observing a feast, Dinah, the only daughter of Jacob, went into the city, looking at the fashion ( , order, or, perhaps here, ornamentation) of the women of the country . ” There is no occasion, however, for the supposition that the abduction was occasioned by any such public meeting of Dinah and Shechem . Jacob’s family had now resided many years near the city, and probably Dinah had formed the habit of free intercourse and friendship with the young women of the place.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And Dinah, the daughter of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.’

Note the stress on her pedigree. She was the chief’s daughter by his primary wife. It was not really wise for her to slip away from the camp alone to mingle with the women of Shechem, but she was young and thoughtless. The story indicates that she was now of marriageable age (twelve or thirteen) so Jacob clearly spent some years at Succoth. She was curious to meet these sophisticated town women, unaware that the morals of the tribe were very different from the morals of cities.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Defilement of Dinah Gen 34:1-31 tells us the story of how Shechem took Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, into his home and defiled her. Because of this wickedness, Simeon and Levi slew the men of the city of Shechem. The Book of Jubilees (30.18-19) tells us that because of Levi’s zeal to execute justice, God appointed him to the priesthood among his brothers and he served them in this office.

Gen 34:7 “he had wrought folly in Israel” Comments – The phrase “he had wrought folly in Israel” is a very strong Hebrew expression describing the consequences of a sin that affect a family and even a nation.

The harlot:

Deu 22:21, “Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel , to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.”

Achan’s thief:

Jos 7:15, “And it shall be, that he that is taken with the accursed thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath: because he hath transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he hath wrought folly in Israel .”

Rape by the men of Gibeah:

Jdg 20:10, “And we will take ten men of an hundred throughout all the tribes of Israel, and an hundred of a thousand, and a thousand out of ten thousand, to fetch victual for the people, that they may do, when they come to Gibeah of Benjamin, according to all the folly that they have wrought in Israel .”

Gen 34:13 Comments – Jacob had been a deceptive person in the past, so his sons naturally followed this vice.

Gen 34:26 “and took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went out” – Comments – After having read this passage, I asked the question, “What was Dinah doing in the house of Shechem?” John Gill gives us the account and manner of the New Testament Jewish custom of betrothing a wife by quoting Maimonides. His comment tells us how marriages during this ancient culture were transacted in a very simple manner by taking a woman into a man’s home without the traditional wedding ceremony:

“Before the giving of the law, if a man met a woman in the street, if he would, he might take her, and bring her into his house and marry her between him and herself, and she became his wife; but when the law was given, the Israelites were commanded, that if a man would take a woman he should obtain her before witnesses, and after that she should be his wife, according to Deu 22:13 and these takings are an affirmative command of the law, and are called “espousals” or “betrothings” in every place; and a woman who is obtained in such a way is called “espoused” or “betrothed”; and when a woman is obtained, and becomes ”espoused,” although she is not yet “married, nor has entered into her husband’s house,” yet she is a man’s wife.” [244]

[244] John Gill, Matthew, in John Gill’s Expositor, in e-Sword, v. 7.7.7 [CD-ROM] (Franklin, Tennessee: e-Sword, 2000-2005), comments on Matthew 1:18.

Deu 22:13, “If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,”

Gen 35:1 Comments – God had given Abraham a command to move to the land of Canaan and dwell (Gen 12:1-3), and He had told Isaac to dwell in this land (Gen 26:1-5); but God told Jacob to move to a particular location named Bethel, unlike the general locations told to his fathers. This was the place where Jacob first encountered the Lord, and where he consecrated his life to Him through the tithe offering. Ministers often have a place where they had a divine encounter with the Lord, a place they often visit to reaffirm their calling and to find renewed strength to continue the lifetime journey in the full-time ministry. I have gone with Bob Nichols, who has pastored in Fort Worth, Texas since 1955, to his place of consecration. There is an empty lot in north Fort Worth where he answered a call to the full-time ministry as a young man. He often visits this location to find strength and encouragement. My place of consecration is the seminary campus in south Fort Worth, where I spent three years of theological studies. Jacob was going to dwell in his place of consecration, and find it a daily reminder of his dedication to the Lord, and remember God’s faithfulness to him during those years of tithing and consecration.

Gen 35:5 Comments – God was fulfilling His promise of protecting Jacob by placing His terror upon the nearby cities.

Gen 35:18 Word Study on “Benoni” and “Benjamin” Strong says the Hebrew name “Benoni” ( ) (H1126) means “son of my sorrow.” Strong says the Hebrew name “Benjamin” ( ) (H1144) means “son of the right hand.” BDB says it means, “son of the right hand.”

Gen 35:18 Comments – Rachel was not saved in child bearing, perhaps due to her unrighteous deed of stealing her father’s gods and Jacob’s curse (1Ti 2:15, Gen 31:32).

1Ti 2:15, “Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”

Gen 31:32, “With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, let him not live : before our brethren discern thou what is thine with me, and take it to thee. For Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them.”

Gen 35:19  And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.

Gen 35:19 Comments – Did the words of Jacob bring this curse upon Rachel (Note Gen 31:32).

Gen 31:32, “With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, let him not live : before our brethren discern thou what is thine with me, and take it to thee. For Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them.”

Gen 35:19 Scripture References – Note:

Mat 2:18, “In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.”

Gen 35:20  And Jacob set a pillar upon her grave: that is the pillar of Rachel’s grave unto this day.

Gen 35:20 “that is the pillar of Rachel’s grave unto this day” – Comments – The pillar of Rachel is recorded in the book of 1Sa 10:2 as still existing in the time of Saul.

1Sa 10:2, “When thou art departed from me to day, then thou shalt find two men by Rachel’s sepulchre in the border of Benjamin at Zelzah; and they will say unto thee, The asses which thou wentest to seek are found: and, lo, thy father hath left the care of the asses, and sorroweth for you, saying, What shall I do for my son?”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Ten Genealogies (Calling) – The Genealogies of Righteous Men and their Divine Callings (To Be Fruitful and Multiply) – The ten genealogies found within the book of Genesis are structured in a way that traces the seed of righteousness from Adam to Noah to Shem to Abraham to Isaac and to Jacob and the seventy souls that followed him down into Egypt. The book of Genesis closes with the story of the preservation of these seventy souls, leading us into the book of Exodus where we see the creation of the nation of Israel while in Egyptian bondage, which nation of righteousness God will use to be a witness to all nations on earth in His plan of redemption. Thus, we see how the book of Genesis concludes with the origin of the nation of Israel while its first eleven chapters reveal that the God of Israel is in fact that God of all nations and all creation.

The genealogies of the six righteous men in Genesis (Adam, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) are the emphasis in this first book of the Old Testament, with each of their narrative stories opening with a divine commission from God to these men, and closing with the fulfillment of prophetic words concerning the divine commissions. This structure suggests that the author of the book of Genesis wrote under the office of the prophet in that a prophecy is given and fulfilled within each of the genealogies of these six primary patriarchs. Furthermore, all the books of the Old Testament were written by men of God who moved in the office of the prophet, which includes the book of Genesis. We find a reference to the fulfillment of these divine commissions by the patriarchs in Heb 11:1-40. The underlying theme of the Holy Scriptures is God’s plan of redemption for mankind. Thus, the book of Genesis places emphasis upon these men of righteousness because of the role that they play in this divine plan as they fulfilled their divine commissions. This explains why the genealogies of Ishmael (Gen 25:12-18) and of Esau (Gen 36:1-43) are relatively brief, because God does not discuss the destinies of these two men in the book of Genesis. These two men were not men of righteousness, for they missed their destinies because of sin. Ishmael persecuted Isaac and Esau sold his birthright. However, it helps us to understand that God has blessed Ishmael and Esau because of Abraham although the seed of the Messiah and our redemption does not pass through their lineage. Prophecies were given to Ishmael and Esau by their fathers, and their genealogies testify to the fulfillment of these prophecies. There were six righteous men did fulfill their destinies in order to preserve a righteous seed so that God could create a righteous nation from the fruit of their loins. Illustration As a young schoolchild learning to read, I would check out biographies of famous men from the library, take them home and read them as a part of class assignments. The lives of these men stirred me up and placed a desire within me to accomplish something great for mankind as did these men. In like manner, the patriarchs of the genealogies in Genesis are designed to stir up our faith in God and encourage us to walk in their footsteps in obedience to God.

The first five genealogies in the book of Genesis bring redemptive history to the place of identifying seventy nations listed in the Table of Nations. The next five genealogies focus upon the origin of the nation of Israel and its patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

There is much more history and events that took place surrounding these individuals emphasized in the book of Genesis, which can be found in other ancient Jewish writings, such as The Book of Jubilees. However, the Holy Scriptures and the book of Genesis focus upon the particular events that shaped God’s plan of redemption through the procreation of men of righteousness. Thus, it was unnecessary to include many of these historical events that were irrelevant to God’s plan of redemption.

In addition, if we see that the ten genealogies contained within the book of Genesis show to us the seed of righteousness that God has preserved in order to fulfill His promise that the “seed of woman” would bruise the serpent’s head in Gen 3:15, then we must understand that each of these men of righteousness had a particular calling, destiny, and purpose for their lives. We can find within each of these genealogies the destiny of each of these men of God, for each one of them fulfilled their destiny. These individual destinies are mentioned at the beginning of each of their genealogies.

It is important for us to search these passages of Scripture and learn how each of these men fulfilled their destiny in order that we can better understand that God has a destiny and a purpose for each of His children as He continues to work out His divine plan of redemption among the children of men. This means that He has a destiny for you and me. Thus, these stories will show us how other men fulfilled their destinies and help us learn how to fulfill our destiny. The fact that there are ten callings in the book of Genesis, and since the number “10” represents the concept of countless, many, or numerous, we should understand that God calls out men in each subsequent generation until God’s plan of redemption is complete.

We can even examine the meanings of each of their names in order to determine their destiny, which was determined for them from a child. Adam’s name means “ruddy, i.e. a human being” ( Strong), for it was his destiny to begin the human race. Noah’s name means, “rest” ( Strong). His destiny was to build the ark and save a remnant of mankind so that God could restore peace and rest to the fallen human race. God changed Abram’s name to Abraham, meaning, “father of a multitude” ( Strong), because his destiny was to live in the land of Canaan and believe God for a son of promise so that his seed would become fruitful and multiply and take dominion over the earth. Isaac’s name means, “laughter” ( Strong) because he was the child of promise. His destiny was to father two nations, believing that the elder would serve the younger. Isaac overcame the obstacles that hindered the possession of the land, such as barrenness and the threat of his enemies in order to father two nations, Israel and Esau. Jacob’s name was changed to Israel, which means “he will rule as God” ( Strong), because of his ability to prevail over his brother Esau and receive his father’s blessings, and because he prevailed over the angel in order to preserve his posterity, which was the procreation of twelve sons who later multiplied into the twelve tribes of Israel. Thus, his ability to prevail against all odds and father twelve righteous seeds earned him his name as one who prevailed with God’s plan of being fruitful and multiplying seeds of righteousness.

In order for God’s plan to be fulfilled in each of the lives of these patriarchs, they were commanded to be fruitful and multiply. It was God’s plan that the fruit of each man was to be a godly seed, a seed of righteousness. It was because of the Fall that unrighteous seed was produced. This ungodly offspring was not then nor is it today God’s plan for mankind.

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. The Generation of the Heavens and the Earth Gen 2:4 to Gen 4:26

a) The Creation of Man Gen 2:4-25

b) The Fall Gen 3:1-24

c) Cain and Abel Gen 4:1-26

2. The Generation of Adam Gen 5:1 to Gen 6:8

3. The Generation of Noah Gen 6:9 to Gen 9:29

4. The Generation of the Sons of Noah Gen 10:1 to Gen 11:9

5. The Generation of Shem Gen 11:10-26

6. The Generation of Terah (& Abraham) Gen 11:27 to Gen 25:11

7. The Generation Ishmael Gen 25:12-18

8. The Generation of Isaac Gen 25:19 to Gen 35:29

9. The Generation of Esau Gen 36:1-43

10. The Generation of Jacob Gen 37:1 to Gen 50:26

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Calling of the Patriarchs of Israel We can find two major divisions within the book of Genesis that reveal God’s foreknowledge in designing a plan of redemption to establish a righteous people upon earth. Paul reveals this four-fold plan in Rom 8:29-30: predestination, calling, justification, and glorification.

Rom 8:29-30, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

The book of Genesis will reflect the first two phase of redemption, which are predestination and calling. We find in the first division in Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:3 emphasizing predestination. The Creation Story gives us God’s predestined plan for mankind, which is to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth with righteous offspring. The second major division is found in Gen 2:4 to Gen 50:25, which gives us ten genealogies, in which God calls men of righteousness to play a role in His divine plan of redemption.

The foundational theme of Gen 2:4 to Gen 11:26 is the divine calling for mankind to be fruitful and multiply, which commission was given to Adam prior to the Flood (Gen 1:28-29), and to Noah after the Flood (Gen 9:1). The establishment of the seventy nations prepares us for the calling out of Abraham and his sons, which story fills the rest of the book of Genesis. Thus, God’s calling through His divine foreknowledge (Gen 11:27 to Gen 50:26) will focus the calling of Abraham and his descendants to establish the nation of Israel. God will call the patriarchs to fulfill the original purpose and intent of creation, which is to multiply into a righteous nation, for which mankind was originally predestined to fulfill.

The generations of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob take up a large portion of the book of Genesis. These genealogies have a common structure in that they all begin with God revealing Himself to a patriarch and giving him a divine commission, and they close with God fulfilling His promise to each of them because of their faith in His promise. God promised Abraham a son through Sarah his wife that would multiply into a nation, and Abraham demonstrated his faith in this promise on Mount Moriah. God promised Isaac two sons, with the younger receiving the first-born blessing, and this was fulfilled when Jacob deceived his father and received the blessing above his brother Esau. Jacob’s son Joseph received two dreams of ruling over his brothers, and Jacob testified to his faith in this promise by following Joseph into the land of Egypt. Thus, these three genealogies emphasize God’s call and commission to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their response of faith in seeing God fulfill His word to each of them.

1. The Generations of Terah (& Abraham) Gen 11:27 to Gen 25:11

2. The Generations Ishmael Gen 25:12-18

3. The Generations of Isaac Gen 25:19 to Gen 35:29

4. The Generations of Esau Gen 36:1-43

5. The Generations of Jacob Gen 37:1 to Gen 50:26

The Origin of the Nation of Israel After Gen 1:1 to Gen 9:29 takes us through the origin of the heavens and the earth as we know them today, and Gen 10:1 to Gen 11:26 explains the origin of the seventy nations (Gen 10:1 to Gen 11:26), we see that the rest of the book of Genesis focuses upon the origin of the nation of Israel (Gen 11:27 to Gen 50:26). Thus, each of these major divisions serves as a foundation upon which the next division is built.

Paul the apostle reveals the four phases of God the Father’s plan of redemption for mankind through His divine foreknowledge of all things in Rom 8:29-30, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Predestination – Gen 1:1 to Gen 11:26 emphasizes the theme of God the Father’s predestined purpose of the earth, which was to serve mankind, and of mankind, which was to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth with righteousness. Calling – Gen 11:27 to Gen 50:26 will place emphasis upon the second phase of God’s plan of redemption for mankind, which is His divine calling to fulfill His purpose of multiplying and filling the earth with righteousness. (The additional two phases of Justification and Glorification will unfold within the rest of the books of the Pentateuch.) This second section of Genesis can be divided into five genealogies. The three genealogies of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob begin with a divine calling to a patriarch. The two shorter genealogies of Ishmael and Esau are given simply because they inherit a measure of divine blessings as descendants of Abraham, but they will not play a central role in God’s redemptive plan for mankind. God will implement phase two of His divine plan of redemption by calling one man named Abraham to depart unto the Promised Land (Gen 12:1-3), and this calling was fulfilled by the patriarch. Isaac’s calling can also be found at the beginning of his genealogy, where God commands him to dwell in the Promised Land (Gen 26:1-6), and this calling was fulfilled by the patriarch Isaac. Jacob’s calling was fulfilled as he bore twelve sons and took them into Egypt where they multiplied into a nation. The opening passage of Jacob’s genealogy reveals that his destiny would be fulfilled through the dream of his son Joseph (Gen 37:1-11), which took place in the land of Egypt. Perhaps Jacob did not receive such a clear calling as Abraham and Isaac because his early life was one of deceit, rather than of righteousness obedience to God; so the Lord had to reveal His plan for Jacob through his righteous son Joseph. In a similar way, God spoke to righteous kings of Israel, and was silent to those who did not serve Him. Thus, the three patriarchs of Israel received a divine calling, which they fulfilled in order for the nation of Israel to become established in the land of Egypt. Perhaps the reason the Lord sent the Jacob and the seventy souls into Egypt to multiply rather than leaving them in the Promised Land is that the Israelites would have intermarried the cultic nations around them and failed to produce a nation of righteousness. God’s ways are always perfect.

1. The Generations of Terah (& Abraham) Gen 11:27 to Gen 25:11

2. The Generations Ishmael Gen 25:12-18

3. The Generations of Isaac Gen 25:19 to Gen 35:29

4. The Generations of Esau Gen 36:1-43

5. The Generations of Jacob Gen 37:1 to Gen 50:26

Divine Miracles It is important to note that up until now the Scriptures record no miracles in the lives of men. Thus, we will observe that divine miracles begin with Abraham and the children of Israel. Testimonies reveal today that the Jews are still recipients of God’s miracles as He divinely intervenes in this nation to fulfill His purpose and plan for His people. Yes, God is working miracles through His New Testament Church, but miracles had their beginning with the nation of Israel.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Genealogy of Isaac The genealogies of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have a common structure in that they open with God speaking to a patriarch and giving him a commission and a promise in which to believe. In each of these genealogies, the patriarch’s calling is to believe God’s promise, while this passage of Scripture serves as a witness to God’s faithfulness in fulfilling each promise. Only then does the genealogy come to a close.

We find in Gen 25:19 to Gen 35:29 the genealogy of Isaac, the son of Abraham. Heb 11:20 reveals the central message in this genealogy that stirs our faith in God when Isaac gave his sons redemptive prophecies, saying, “By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.” As Abraham’s genealogy begins with a divine commission when God told him to leave Ur and to go Canaan (Gen 12:1), so does Isaac’s genealogy begin with a divine commission predicting him as the father of two nations, with the elder serving the younger (Gen 25:23), with both nations playing roles in redemptive history, Jacob playing the major role. The first event in Isaac’s genealogy has to do with a God speaking to his wife regarding the two sons in her womb, saying that these two sons would multiply into two nations. Since his wife Rebekah was barren, Isaac interceded to God and the Lord granted his request. The Lord then told Rebekah that two nations were in her womb, and the younger would prevail over the elder (Gen 25:21-23). Isaac, whose name means laughter (Gen 21:6), was called to establish himself in the land of Canaan after his father Abraham, and to believe in God’s promise regarding his son Jacob. During the course of his life, Isaac’s genealogy testifies of how he overcame obstacles and the enemy that resisted God’s plan for him. Thus, we see Isaac’s destiny was to be faithful and dwell in the land and father two nations. God’s promise to Isaac, that the elder will serve the younger, is fulfilled when Jacob deceives his father and receives the blessings of the first-born. The fact that Isaac died in a ripe old age testifies that he fulfilled his destiny as did Abraham his father. Rom 9:10-13 reflects the theme of Isaac’s genealogy in that it discusses the election of Jacob over Isaac. We read in Heb 11:20 how Isaac expressed his faith in God’s promise of two nations being born through Rebekah because he blessed his sons regarding these future promises.

Gen 12:1, “Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:”

Gen 21:6, “And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me.”

Gen 25:23, “And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.”

Gen 25:19  And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son: Abraham begat Isaac:

Gen 25:20  And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah to wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padanaram, the sister to Laban the Syrian.

Gen 25:20 Comments – The story of Isaac taking Rebekah as his wife is recorded in Gen 2:1-25.

Gen 25:21  And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.

Gen 25:22  And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.

Gen 25:22 “And the children struggled together within her” Comments – Hos 12:3 says that Jacob entered two struggles in his life.

Hos 12:3, “He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God:”

1. At his natural birth in the womb with his brother:

Gen 25:26, “And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau’s heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.”

2. At his “spiritual” birth with an angel:

Gen 32:24, “And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.”

Gen 25:22 Comments – Any mother who has given birth to children understands the importance of the child’s continual kicks within her womb. Although painful at times, these kicks serve to assure the mother that the baby is alive and healthy. When these kicks cease for a few days a mother naturally becomes worried, but in the case of Rebekah the very opposite was true. There was too much kicking to the point that she besought the Lord in prayer. It was her beseeching God rather than her husband because a pregnant mother is much more focused upon these issues.

Gen 25:22 Comments – Why did Jacob and Esau struggle within their mother’s womb? One pastor suggests that they were struggling for the birthright by becoming the firstborn, which struggle was played out during the course of their lives.

Gen 25:23  And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Gen 25:23 “and the elder shall serve the younger” Comments – F. F. Bruce tells us that it is not so much the individuals that are prophetically referred to here in Gen 25:23 as it is the two nations that will descend from Jacob and Esau. The Scriptures reveal that Esau himself never served Jacob during their lifetimes. However, during the long stretch of biblical history, the Edomites did in fact serve the nation of Israel a number of times.

In the same sense, the prophecy in Mal 1:2-3 is not so much about the two individual sons of Jacob as it is a prophecy of two nations. In other words, God loved the nation of Israel and hated the nation of Edom.

Mal 1:2-3, “I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.”

Bruce goes on to explain that the Hebrew thought and speech is making an extreme contrast of love and hate in these passages for the sake of emphasis. He uses Luk 14:26 to illustrate this Hebrew way of saying that someone must love God far more than his earthly family. [227]

[227] F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1963), 46-47.

Luk 14:26, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”

This is exactly what the parallel passage in Mat 10:37 says when Jesus tells us that we must love Him more than our parents or children.

Mat 10:37, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

Thus, God was saying that He loved Jacob far more than He loved Jacob’s closest blood kin. This statement is meant to place emphasis upon the immeasurable love that God has for His people.

Gen 25:23 Comments The genealogy of Isaac begins with a divine commission promising Isaac that he would father two nations, one mightier than the other, and both playing important roles in redemptive history. Gen 25:23 records this divine commission to Isaac and Rebecca, which is the first recorded event of the Lord speaking to Isaac or his wife.

Gen 25:23 Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament – Note that the phrase “and the elder shall serve the younger” is quoted in the New Testament.

Rom 9:11-13, “(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger . As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

Gen 25:23 Scripture References – Note a reference to Jacob’s favour over Esau in Mal 1:1-3.

Mal 1:1-3, “The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.”

Gen 25:24  And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.

Gen 25:25  And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.

Gen 25:25 Word Study on “red” Gesenius says the Hebrew word “red” ( ) (H132) means, “red, i.e. red-haired.” This word occurs three times in the Old Testament. This same word is used to describe David (1Sa 16:17; 1Sa 17:42).

1Sa 16:17, “And Saul said unto his servants, Provide me now a man that can play well, and bring him to me.”

1Sa 17:42, “And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance.”

Gen 25:25 Word Study on “Esau” Strong says the Hebrew name “Esau” (H6215) means “hairy.”

Gen 25:25 Comments – Esau was a hairy man, while Jacob was not (Gen 27:11).

Gen 27:11, “And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man:”

Gen 25:26  And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau’s heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.

Gen 25:26 Word Study on “Jacob” Gesenius says the Hebrew name “Jacob” “Ya’aqob” ( ) (H3290) means, “taking hold of the heel, supplanter, layer of snares.” Strong says it means, “heel-catcher, supplanter.” Strong says it comes from the primitive root ( ) (H6117), which means, “to seize by the heel, to circumvent.” One Hebrew derivative ( ) (6119) means, “heel, (figuratively) the last of anything.”

One pastor suggests that Jacob’s name means “hand upon the heel” because this is what his parents saw when he was born. He uses the Hebrew word “yod” ( ) as a symbol of a hand, with the root word ( ) meaning “heel.”

Gen 25:26 Comments – We know that Jacob and Esau struggled together in the womb. Why did Jacob grab his brother’s heel? One pastor suggests that he was trying to stop Esau from crushing his head. He refers to Gen 3:15 as the prophecy to explain this suggestion. The seed of woman was going to crush the head of Satan. We know that according to Jewish tradition Cain, who was of the evil one, struck Abel on the head and killed him. So it appears that Satan was trying to reverse this prophecy by crushing the head of the woman’s seed. Perhaps Esau was trying to crush the head of Jacob while in the womb.

Gen 25:27  And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents.

Gen 25:27 Word Study on “plain” Strong says the Hebrew word “plain” ( ) (H8535) means, “pious, gentle, dear,” being derived from the primitive root ( ) (H8552), which means, “to complete, to accomplish, to cease.” The Enhanced Strong says it is used 13 times in the Old Testament, being translated in the KJV as “perfect 9, undefiled 2, plain 1, upright 1.”

Gen 25:27 Comments – There will eventually arise between Esau and Jacob a similar competition that took place between Cain and Abel. Esau did eventually attempt to kill Jacob, but was protected by divine providence.

Gen 25:28  And Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison: but Rebekah loved Jacob.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures