And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard [it]: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob’s daughter; which thing ought not to be done.
7. wrought folly ] The word neblah denotes “senseless wickedness,” an offence against honour and morality: cf. the use of the word in Deu 22:21; Jos 7:15; Jdg 19:23-24; 2Sa 13:12.
in Israel ] The addition of these words (as in Deu 22:21; Jdg 20:6; Jdg 20:10; Jer 29:23) is of course an anachronism, when put into the mouth of Jacob; and indicates a time of authorship when this phrase had become proverbial.
ought not to be done ] See notes on Gen 20:9, Gen 29:26.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 7. He had wrought folly in Israel] The land, afterwards generally called Israel, was not as yet so named; and the sons of Jacob were neither called Israel, Israelites nor Jews, till long after this. How then can it be said that Shechem had wrought folly in Israel? The words are capable of a more literal translation: beyisrael, may be translated, against Israel. The angel had said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob – not only Jacob, but Israel. It was this that aggravated the offence of Shechem; he wrought folly against Israel, the prince of God, in lying with the daughter of Jacob. Here both the names are given; Jacob, whose daughter was defiled, and Israel, the prince of God, against whom the offence was committed.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Because he had wrought folly; that is, wickedness; which howsoever vain men many times esteem their wisdom, by the sentence of the all-wise God is accounted and commonly in Scripture called folly, as Deu 22:21; Jos 7:15; Jdg 19:23; 20:6, &c.
In Israel, or, against Israel; either,
1. Against the person, and in or against the family of Israel, a person near and dear to God, and highly honoured by him, and in covenant with God; who therefore esteems the injuries done to Israel as if they were done to himself. See Gen 12:3; Exo 23:22; Zec 2:8. Or,
2. In or against the church of God, which then was in a manner confined to that family, and which is oft called by the name of Israel. See Deu 22:21; Jos 7:15. And Moses may here vary the phrase from what was used in Jacobs time to what was usual in his time, the sense being in both the same, and therefore not altered by such a change.
Which thing ought not to be done; Heb. shall not be done, i.e. should not, &c. But in the Hebrew language words of the future time oft signify duty and decency, as Mal 1:6; 2:7.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
7. the men were grieved, and . . .very wrothGood men in such a case could not but grieve; but itwould have been well if their anger had been less, or that they hadknown the precept “let not the sun go down upon your wrath”[Eph 4:26]. No injury canjustify revenge (Deu 32:35;Rom 12:9); but Jacob’s sonsplanned a scheme of revenge in the most deceitful manner.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the sons of Jacob came out of the field, when they heard [it],….. Either by a messenger Jacob sent to them, to acquaint them with it, or by some other hand: however, be it as it will, as soon as they heard of the abuse of their sister, they immediately left their flocks to the care of their servants, and came to their father’s tent:
and the men were grieved and were very wroth; they were grieved for the sin committed against God, very probably, as well as for the injury done to their sister, and they were wroth against Shechem the author of it:
because he had wrought folly in Israel, in lying with Jacob’s daughter; all sin is folly, being a transgression of the law of God founded in the highest wisdom, and particularly uncleanness, and that branch of it, deflowering a virgin; and this action being committed on Jacob’s daughter, whose name was Israel, is said to be “in”, or rather “against” Israel h, to his grief, and to the reproach of him and his family: though these words may be rather the words of Moses, than of the sons of Jacob; or however are expressed not in the language used by them, but in what was in use in the times of Moses, when Israel was the name of a nation and church, whereas it was now but a personal name, and at most but the name of a family; and though this was done to one of the family, yet not in it, but in the house of Hamor or Shechem:
which thing ought not to be done; being against the law and light of nature to do such an action by force and violence, and against the law of nations to suffer it to go with impunity.
h “contra Israelem”, Junius Tremellius, Piscator, Calovius so Ainsworth.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
7. And the sons of Jacob came out of the field. Moses begins to relate the tragic issue of this history. Shechem, indeed, had acted wickedly and impiously; but it was far more atrocious and wicked that the sons of Jacob should murder a whole people, to avenge themselves of the private fault of one man. It was by no means fitting to seek a cruel compensation for the levity and rashness of one youth, by the slaughter of so many men. Again, who had constituted them judges, that they should dare, with their own hands, to execute vengeance for an injury inflicted upon them? Perfidy was also superadded, because they proceeded, under the pretext of a covenant, to perpetrate this enormous crime. In Jacob, moreover, we have an admirable example of patient endurance; who, though afflicted with so many evils, yet did not faint under them. But chiefly we must consider the mercy of God, by which it came to pass, that the covenant of grace remained with the posterity of Jacob. For what seemed less suitable, than that a few men in whom such furious rage and such implacable malice reigned, should be reckoned among the people and the sons of God, to the exclusion of all the world besides? We see certainly that it was not through any power of their own that they had not altogether declined from the kingdom of God. Whence it appears that the favor which God had vouchsafed unto them was gratuitous, and not founded upon their merits. We also require to be treated by Him with the same indulgence, seeing that we should utterly fall away, if God did not pardon our sins. The sons of Jacob have, indeed, a just cause of offense, because not only are they affected with their own private ignominy, but they are tormented with the indignity of the crime, because their sister had been dragged forth from the house of Jacob, as from a sanctuary, to be violated. For this they chiefly urge, that it would have been wickedness to allow such disgrace in the elect and holy people: (119) but they themselves, through the hatred of one sin, rush furiously forward to greater and more intolerable crimes. Therefore we must beware, lest, after we have become severe judges in condemning the faults of others, we hasten inconsiderately into evil. But chiefly we must abstain from violent remedies which surpass the evil we desire to correct.
Which thing ought not to be done (120) Interpreters commonly explain the passage as meaning, “it is not becoming that such a thing should be done;” but, in my judgment, it applies more properly to the sons of Jacob, who had determined with themselves that the injury was not to be borne. Yet they wrongfully appropriate to themselves the right of taking revenge: why do they not rather reflect thus; “God, who has received us under his care and protection, will not suffer this injury to pass unavenged; in the meantime, it is our part to be silent, and to leave the act of punishing, which is not placed in our hands, entirely to his sovereign will.” Hence we may learn, when we are angry at the sins of other men, not to attempt anything which is beyond our own duty.
(119) “He had wrought folly in Israel.” Ainsworth says, “Or against Israel.” “Israel being put for the posterity of Israel.” Professor Bush says, “Rather, ‘Because folly had been wrought in Israel,’ (the active for the passive).” But perhaps Ainsworth’s translation is to be preferred. “This is the first instance on record where the family of Jacob is designated by the distinguished patronymic title of ‘Israel,’ which afterwards became the dominant appellation of his posterity.” — Bush in loc. — Ed.
(120) Et sic non fiet. “And so it may not, or shall not be done.” The sense given in the English translation is that which Calvin rejects, though he allows it to be the common meaning attached by commentators to the expression. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(7) He had wrought folly in Israel.The great anger of Jacobs sons agrees as completely with the general harshness of their characters as the silence of the father with his habitual thoughtfulness; but it was aroused by a great wrong. The use, however, of the term Israel to signify the family of Jacob as distinguished from his person belongs to the age of Moses, and is one of the proofs of the arrangement of these records having been his work. In selecting them, and weaving them together into one history, he would add whatever was necessary, and in the latter half of this verse we apparently have one such addition.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
7. Came heard grieved wroth Jacob had silently meditated the matter before his sons came, (Gen 34:5,) and probably felt all the dangers, shame, and trouble necessarily arising from the rape, but hesitated what to do . But his sons, with all the passion and daring of youth, feeling the deep disgrace incurred, allowed their sense of wrong to generate in them the darkest purposes of revenge .
Wrought folly in Israel This is the language of the writer, not of Jacob’s sons . He speaks as one would naturally do after the name Israel had become national and historic .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And when they heard it the sons of Jacob came in from the countryside. And the men were very grieved, and they were furiously angry because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob’s daughter, which thing should not be done.’
When the news reached the sons of Jacob their anger reached fever pitch. In their eyes what had been done was unforgivable. It was a grievous sin. They came in from the countryside bent on doing something about the situation.
“They were furiously angry because he had wrought folly in Israel.” The phrase ‘wrought folly in Israel’ refers to what is seen as the most grievous of sins. It usually has in mind sexual sin of the worst kind but is also used of Achan’s sin in retaining what was devoted to Yahweh (see Deu 22:21; Jdg 20:6; Jos 7:15). The word for folly is nebala, seemingly an expression for what is basically sacrilege.
It has been suggested that the reference to ‘Israel’ might suggest that the last part of the sentence was a note appended later to emphasise the depth of the sin in order to explain why the brothers behaved as they did, and that may be so. On the other hand the brothers had fresh in their minds the dedication of the altar to ‘God, the God of Israel’, which could explain the use here with the tribe having a new sense of their identity as ‘Israel’. In other words they saw the sacrilege committed on Dinah in the light of the recent dedication of the tribe as Israel and it made the sin even more heinous. They had become established under a new name in the eyes of their God and now almost immediately this slight on the new name had occurred. Shechem had taken that which was devoted to Yahweh. Thus the phrase ‘folly in Israel’ may well have arisen from this incident.
(That the use of the name Israel is now fairly regular comes out in Gen 35:21-22; Gen 37:3. Thus its use here when the setting up of a permanent altar to ‘God, the God of Israel’ has recently taken place is to be expected, especially in a context referring to sacrilege).
“Which thing should not be done.” This re-emphasises the awfulness of the crime. It was clearly felt very bitterly.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Gen 34:7 And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard [it]: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob’s daughter; which thing ought not to be done.
Ver. 7. The men were grieved, and very wroth. ] A pair of unruly passions, when combined, especially: they ride one upon the back of another, as kine do in a strait passage; and will make an Alexander kill his best friends, such as he would afterwards have revived, with the best and warmest blood in his own heart.
“Qui non moderabitur irae,
Infectum velit esse, dolor quod suaserit, et mens.”
– Horat.
Because he had wrought folly in Israel.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Israel. The first Occurance in a collective sense.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
were: Gen 46:7, 2Sa 13:21
wrought: Exo 19:5, Exo 19:6, Deu 22:21, Jos 7:15, Jdg 19:22-25, Jdg 20:6, 2Sa 13:12, 2Sa 13:13, Psa 93:5, Pro 7:7, 1Pe 2:9
thing: Gen 20:9, Lev 4:2, Lev 4:13, Lev 4:27, Deu 23:17, 1Co 6:18, 1Co 10:8, Eph 5:3, Col 3:5, 1Ti 5:13, Heb 13:4, Jam 3:10
Reciprocal: Gen 31:36 – was wroth Jdg 19:23 – do not this folly 1Ch 21:8 – I have done Psa 85:8 – folly Ecc 7:9 – anger Ecc 7:25 – know Joh 4:18 – is not
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gen 34:7. He had wrought folly All sin is folly: but some sinful actions are attended with such circumstances of ignorance and thoughtlessness, and are so inimical to our temporal as well as eternal interests, that they peculiarly merit the name of folly. Shechems sin is termed folly in Israel, according to the language of after-times; for Israel was not yet a people, but a family only.