34:1–7 In addition to his sons Jacob has at least one daughter by Leah, named Dinah (v. 1; cf. 30:21). Dinah goes out to see the “women of the land,” that is, the young women who live in Shechem. The vav-consecutive imperfect construction suggests this may be a single visit rather than a recurring habit, but one visit is all it takes. We are not told what prompts this visit; presumably she is curious to meet other young people of her own age. As her father, Jacob should have anticipated the potential for trouble and protected her from herself. Instead, Jacob is absent or passive in this process, as he is throughout this entire chapter. He is not involved in the choices his daughter makes, and, as a result, this seemingly innocent act of curiosity ends in disaster.

Instead of seeing the women of the land, however, Dinah is seen by one of the men of the land, Shechem, the son of the ruler of the city (34:2). Just as in the first sin of Adam and Eve (3:6), so here “seeing” leads quickly to desiring and taking the forbidden fruit; the language is similar also to Genesis 6, in which the sons of God see and take the daughters of men in marriage (6:2). Shechem takes Dinah and lies with her and violates her, a sequence of three verbs whose rapid succession mirrors the rapidity of the events they describe. “Humiliated” (34:2; or, “violated”) can cover a variety of sexual sins, from rape (2 Sam. 13:14–15) to willing premarital sex on the part of the woman (Deut. 22:28–29); what all such encounters have in common is that the man, as the primary actor, shames the woman and her family. Here it appears that Shechem takes her by force.461

Often such a sexual encounter would be followed by the rejection of the young woman, as in the case of Amnon and Tamar (cf. 2 Sam. 13:14–15). Yet Shechem becomes emotionally attached to the girl and speaks kindly to her (Gen. 34:3 could be rendered “He spoke to the heart of the young woman”),462 even asking his father to seek her hand in marriage on his behalf (v. 4). Shechem’s proposal of marriage to a girl he has just raped may seem bizarre to us, with our modern views of courtship and marriage. What self-respecting woman would be willing to undertake a relationship under those circumstances? However, in a culture in which marriage provided the only means of security for a woman, Dinah would have been regarded as “damaged goods.” Even a marriage contracted under such an initial cloud would be viewed as superior to the alternative of being left forever in the socially perilous position of an aging single woman.

Shechem’s proposal shows that at least he wants to make some kind of reparation for his actions, in a manner that his society recognizes (cf. Deut. 22:28–29). Yet, on the other hand, Shechem’s tone with his father is as peremptory as his previous actions (Gen. 34:4); as the crown prince of the city, he seems to regard himself as entitled to take whatever he wants for himself. When he asks his father to get her for him, she is simply “this girl” (Hb. yeldah suggests she is still quite young at this point); her name is of no account to him (v. 4).

When Jacob hears of Dinah’s defilement, he fails to respond outwardly to the news; instead, he waits passively until his sons return from the fields (v. 5). In part this delay makes sense, given the weakness of his position. However, as the chapter unfolds it is clear that this is not merely a wise pause on Jacob’s part to wait for reinforcements before acting but rather flows from a greater desire for peace than honor.463 One wonders whether Jacob would have responded more forcefully if Dinah had been Rachel’s daughter rather than Leah’s.

Jacob’s lack of reaction to Dinah’s defilement contrasts strongly to the reaction of his sons, who are filled with great fury at the offense against their sister. They come in from the fields as soon as they hear the news (v. 7).464 Such a thing is disgraceful and ought not be done in (or against) Israel, they say (v. 7).465 In fact, Shechem’s act is an offense not only against the law codes of Israel (not yet written down at this point) but against most of the law codes of the ancient Near East. Yet Jacob and his family are still a seminomadic family with no citizenship in the community. It is not immediately clear what power they have to enforce punishment, especially on a prince of a city-state.

34:8–12 The aftermath of Shechem’s sin begins to unfold when Hamor, the father of Shechem, arrives with a formal marriage proposal (v. 8). There is no explicit admission of Shechem’s sin, though it is perhaps hinted at in the offer of an enhanced bride-price in verse 12. Hamor stresses his son’s genuine affection for Dinah (“The soul of my son . . . longs for your466 daughter”; v. 8), and his offer extends far beyond a simple marriage proposal; it is the offer of union as a single community. The Israelites and the Shechemites would live together as one people,467 intermarrying and sharing a common destiny. The language that in Genesis 13:9 was the precursor to the division of two families (“Is not the whole land before you?”) here becomes the precursor to the potential union of two families (“The land shall be open to you”; 34:10). Not only would the Israelites become part of the Shechemite community, but they would in this way inherit the Promised Land. Significantly, the verb used in 34:10, ʾakhaz (“acquire property”), is related to the word for “possession” in God’s promise of the land to Abraham as an eternal inheritance in 17:8 (ʾakhuzzah). In other words, Hamor is offering Jacob a shortcut to receive as a gift from a Canaanite (cf. 14:21–23) the inheritance that God has promised him.

Shechem himself then approaches Jacob and Dinah’s brothers and asks that he might find favor in their eyes and make appropriate restitution for his offense (Gen. 34:11–12). That was the right response according to ancient Near Eastern law codes, which, along with the Bible (Ex. 22:16–17; Deut. 22:29), specified that the offender should pay an enhanced bride-price for his actions.468 The fact that such forgiveness and favor is exactly what Jacob had sought and received from Esau (Gen. 33:10) would add weight to his words.

In the light of the larger story Jacob and his sons cannot be bought off with Hamor’s offer, however. The land is to be received not through intermarriage with its inhabitants but through God’s gift. Shechem’s sin against Dinah and the honor of her family could perhaps be forgiven and friendly relationships restored, as with Esau, but Jacob’s family can no more join into a single people with Shechem than they could have with Esau. Their calling is to be a distinct community—Israel—separated from those dwelling in the land, whom they will ultimately drive out for their accumulated sin. Israel and his family should therefore decline Shechem’s advances courteously, explaining clearly the reasons for their decision and inviting Shechem to become a worshiper of their God and be incorporated into his people by faith. Although God’s people were not to intermarry with pagans, the door was always open for pagans to leave their prior allegiances and become part of God’s people, as the examples of Rahab (Joshua 2) and Ruth later demonstrate.

34:13–19 What actually happens is something quite different. Jacob’s sons take charge of the negotiations, leaving him still silent (Gen. 34:13). But instead of offering a plain and straightforward response, they answer deceitfully. Just as Jacob deceived (Hb. bemirmah; 27:35) his father in order to steal his brother’s birthright, so now Jacob’s sons deceive (bemirmah; 34:13) Hamor in order to massacre the unsuspecting citizens of Shechem. They have learned well from their father. Their initial response is true enough: “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one who is uncircumcised, for that would be a disgrace to us” (v. 14). But, instead of calling Shechem and its inhabitants to faith in the God of Israel as a prerequisite for marriage,469 they ask merely for an external change: every male member of the community should submit to the covenant sign of circumcision, thus becoming like Israel.

The practice of circumcision was not unique to Israel; some other ancient Near Eastern cultures also practiced it, typically as a rite of puberty. It was what the sign meant as a marker to Israel of its call to be a holy people, dedicated to the Lord, that mattered, not the bare sign in itself. There is a distinct irony in applying the painful sign of circumcision to the part of Shechem’s anatomy directly involved in his sin with Dinah!470 However, Shechem participates eagerly, not because he is enamored of Israel’s God but simply because he is enamored of Dinah (v. 19). Indeed, he is as quick to be circumcised as he was to defile Dinah in the first place.

34:20–24 Shechem must still convince the rest of the male inhabitants of the city to undergo the painful ritual, so he gathers them to the gate of the city, the place where important community decisions were made by the elders (v. 20).471 It helps his cause that he is the most honored son of his family (v. 19). But the most convincing argument involves the economics of the proposal. Intermarriage would result in the assimilation of Jacob’s significant flocks and herds into the possessions of Shechem (v. 23); Hamor conveniently omits to mention the right to acquire property in Shechem that he has offered to Jacob’s family (cf. v. 10).472 The only condition is this family’s trifling religious quirk of circumcision, a mere formality that need not affect their lives in any way (v. 22). Perhaps the greatest irony is Shechem’s statement that Jacob and his family “are at peace with us” (Hb. shelemim hem; v. 21), which shows how utterly he has been deceived by Jacob’s sons. In the previous chapter Jacob arrived at Shechem in peace (shalem; 33:18), but the result of his coming will be anything but peace for the inhabitants of the city.

Neither side takes seriously the preciousness of the covenant sign of circumcision. That is what might be expected of pagans, but it is a sad commentary on the spiritual state of Jacob and his family. They use the religious form of circumcision to give themselves an unfair advantage, so that Simeon and Levi can more easily massacre the unsuspecting inhabitants of Shechem. Circumcision is supposed to be a mark of Israel’s covenant separation from the nations; here, however, Israel offers to become one nation with the Canaanites, not on condition that the Canaanites share their faith but merely on condition that they share Israel’s religious practices.

34:25–31 On the third day, while the men of the city are still recovering, Simeon and Levi—Leah’s sons and thus Dinah’s full brothers—take advantage of the situation to massacre the unsuspecting inhabitants (34:25). They killed not only the guilty party, Shechem, and his father, Hamor, but all the men of the city, who are faultless in the matter (vv. 25–26). While the other sons of Jacob do not participate directly in the massacre, they join in plundering the city and its surrounding fields and carrying off the women and children (vv. 27–29).473 The hypocrisy is staggering. Jacob’s sons are outraged at the defilement Shechem commits against Dinah but not at all concerned at the defilement they inflict on themselves by stripping the corpses (v. 27). They are angry that Shechem took Dinah, but along with the flocks, herds, donkeys, and other wealth of Shechem they take the women and children (v. 29).474 Shechem’s initial sin of forcibly taking one woman is returned in kind but in multiplied form. Certainly, the Israelites demonstrate that they are in no way morally better than the previous inhabitants of the Promised Land.

Meanwhile, when Jacob becomes aware of his sons’ actions, there is no word of condemnation for their sin; he is as passive now as he was when he learned of Shechem’s earlier transgression (v. 30; cf. v. 5). All he says is, “You have brought trouble on me by making me stink to the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites. My numbers are few, and if they gather themselves against me and attack me, I shall be destroyed, both I and my household” (v. 30). The pronouns I, me, and my occur no fewer than eight times in this one verse, showing that Jacob’s sole concern is for his own welfare, not for justice or for the offense such sin causes to a holy God.

It is the brothers who raise the ethical question in their own defense: “Should he treat our sister like a prostitute?” (v. 31). This question is where the chapter ends, with Jacob once again silenced. It is true that Shechem’s sin has set these events in motion, and a case could perhaps be made that Shechem himself should have been executed for his offense. Yet this justification for the elimination of an entire city ignores all Shechem’s efforts at reconciliation and restitution. Is the sin of one man, for which he attempts to make some restitution, however inadequate, a sufficient reason for the extermination of a community? The brothers have not been appointed as agents of divine judgment, as later Israel would be in the conquest of Canaan.475 Indeed, their harsh treatment of Shechem is the exact opposite of the forgiveness and welcome they received from Esau, despite Jacob’s history of sin against him.

Jacob will eventually declare judgment upon Simeon and Levi when it comes time to give his family his final blessing in Genesis 49. It will then be clear that he has not forgotten their behavior at Shechem, and he pronounces God’s punishment upon them for their crime (49:5–7). But justice delayed often serves to embolden the offenders (Eccles. 8:11). It is obvious that Jacob’s control over his own sons is slipping, which will have devastating consequences, first for those around him and finally for his own family as the story unfolds.