Gen 34-35 Overkill

[AndyF]

The man who raped Dinah had no conscious. He fails to see
the insult he caused to Dinah by his raping her, and brushes his sin aside and offers to marry her. Perhaps though, this was a compensation of sorts, and seeing now that he really loved her, he meant well in that perhaps he felt he could make amends in marriage.

His tribe the Hivites should have known better than to side with him on this issue. But all the same that is as far has it goes for the tribe as far as their culpability for them goes. There was no co-conspiracy in the rape drama, so they are not guilty of the whole rape.

Jacob sees an opportunity. Goaded partly by his vengeful sons, they set out to scheme greater rewards than the justice meted out to this young man is warranted. Not only a scheme, but what is missed by all to date is they used a sacred Jewish ritual in a lie as part of the plan for their own ends. They tricked all of the Hivite men to circumcise themselves who they believed were doing something in compensation for the crime. In this weakened state which was Jacob’s plan, they can now take advantage of the Hivites. That speaks well of the Hivites, as they were willing to go to this end to help through agreement as they believed one of their own who was a sinner, at the same time, settling with their accuser and offering compensation that is demanded.(Mat).

The equivalent would be to convince a group of Muslims that if they received communion, that would settle a social dispute, but really it’s intent is to have them gather in one place in front of a Church so they could be massacred.

What is surprising is that all this is shrugged aside for the sake of the chosen Israelites. All tradition, common sense, level headed, non lynch mob reasoning is set aside to show that not even moral standards will stand in the way of this friendship.

So we start with a rape by one person, and end up with whole tribes of women and children being slaughtered and households being torn apart.

Later we will find that when the moral standards are breached by their side, much watering down and under the rug treatment occurs for the same loyalty. David actually sets up a person to die at the front so he can be killed so that he may have his wife. What is the result here? You say David’s loved ones get sold into slavery?, his sons get slaughtered.? Possessions get pillaged? Read again. At the very least a recognition that he is guilty of treason and he no longer deserves kingship of his people and army should be the result.

Read again. The one-way saga continues.

Andy

 

[thistle]

The man who raped Dinah had no conscious. He fails to see
the insult he caused to Dinah by his raping her, and brushes his sin aside and offers to marry her. Perhaps though, this was a compensation of sorts, and seeing now that he really loved her, he meant well in that perhaps he felt he could make amends in marriage.

His tribe the Hivites should have known better than to side with him on this issue. But all the same that is as far has it goes for the tribe as far as their culpability for them goes. There was no co-conspiracy in the rape drama, so they are not guilty of the whole rape.

Jacob sees an opportunity. Goaded partly by his vengeful sons, they set out to scheme greater rewards than the justice meted out to this young man is warranted. Not only a scheme, but what is missed by all to date is they used a sacred Jewish ritual in a lie as part of the plan for their own ends. They tricked all of the Hivite men to circumcise themselves who they believed were doing something in compensation for the crime. In this weakened state which was Jacob’s plan, they can now take advantage of the Hivites. That speaks well of the Hivites, as they were willing to go to this end to help through agreement as they believed one of their own who was a sinner, at the same time, settling with their accuser and offering compensation that is demanded.(Mat).

The equivalent would be to convince a group of Muslims that if they received communion, that would settle a social dispute, but really it’s intent is to have them gather in one place in front of a Church so they could be massacred.

What is surprising is that all this is shrugged aside for the sake of the chosen Israelites. All tradition, common sense, level headed, non lynch mob reasoning is set aside to show that not even moral standards will stand in the way of this friendship.

So we start with a rape by one person, and end up with whole tribes of women and children being slaughtered and households being torn apart.

Later we will find that when the moral standards are breached by their side, much watering down and under the rug treatment occurs for the same loyalty. David actually sets up a person to die at the front so he can be killed so that he may have his wife. What is the result here? You say David’s loved ones get sold into slavery?, his sons get slaughtered.? Possessions get pillaged? Read again. At the very least a recognition that he is guilty of treason and he no longer deserves kingship of his people and army should be the result.

Read again. The one-way saga continues.

Andy

Do you have a question or a point to make??

 

[AndyF]

Do you have a question or a point to make??

I need do nothing, the facts acquit or condemn on their own merits.

Andy

 

[Christy_Beth]

So, why bring this up? Did you just want to rant, or do you have a point to make?

 

[thistle]

I need do nothing, the facts acquit or condemn on their own merits.

Andy

If you don’t have a question or point to make then why open the thread? This is a discussion forum. If you simply want a monologue you should set up your own website.

 

[Spirithound]

Perhaps our friend is implying that we should discuss why some people who are indeed revered as Patriarchs of the faith would have abused their own sacred rite. Maybe even a side-foray into general massacring in the OT?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hmmm … this thread makes me wonder why the names Jacob, Tamar, and Dinah are all lit up in red in my browser wherever I see them on the forums … Is anybody else seeing this or is it just my computer?

On the subject of Dinah…
Rather than retype – I have commented on these passages before, and their contexts show that perhaps the one way dialogue – and quasi-facts needs to be re-examined in light of what the scriptures Actually Say.
The FACTS stand for themselves, but one must have the FACTS.

…
Which was avenged by her brothers, you may recall. Obviously, they didn’t consider this kind of behaviour to be normative. Indeed, after the fact, when Jacob Israel saw all the dead bodies and asked them why, they said, “Shall our sister be treated like a harlot?” Obviously, the buying of women for marriage was considered a form of prostitution (as well it should be).
…

Surely dinah wasn’t really a prostitute or a harlot was she?

Exodu 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
Exodu 22:17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

And as a side note, within his own tribe – his action might not have been considered rape as the Kings Son he could choose whomever he wanted for a wife. What was it that Dinah was doing in the Hivite territory???
It is quite possible the rapist didn’t realize she wasn’t fair game.

As to the “lie” and the comparison with “Muslims” – that is a FAR stretch of the imagination. Circumcision is the cutting off of a “head” – notice to whom it was first given (Abraham?) for doing what (having sex with a woman not really his wife?). The de-hooding and be-heading of a serpent is a natural response to having been bit – those who are like the serpent are to be handled like a serpant.

The problem is that the Hivites didn’t ask what “circumcision” meant.
Again, the Muslim thing is a far stretch – it is more likely that we would baptize them if we wanted them dead – just like the Egyptians… A “lie” comes from the serpant.

Also, Didn’t God allow the angels of death to kill King David’s firstborn … the child who was by a woman not YET his wife – but allow Solomon the full kingdom?

I find your opening post – ahhh – confusion.

 

[AndyF]

Huiou Theou:

I find your opening post – ahhh – confusion.

Then you confuse me. How are you able to find answers to a post you find confusing.?

But all the same, thanks for responding.

Again, the Muslim thing is a far stretch – it is more likely that we would baptize them if we wanted them dead – just like the Egyptians… A “lie” comes from the serpant.

But my awkward attempt at analogy was still understood by you as you were able to correct the point I was trying to make ???.

On the subject of Dinah…
Rather than retype – I have commented on these passages before, and their contexts show that perhaps the one way dialogue – and quasi-facts needs to be re-examined in light of what the scriptures Actually Say.
The FACTS stand for themselves, but one must have the FACTS.

Ok, I get the message.

• his action might not have been considered rape

My NAB opens this chapter with “The Rape of Dinah”, and in case
the reader misses the meaning, it defines it, “seized her and lay with her by force”. So since we are discussing facts, are the facts out of your interpretation, or Scripture’s.? Since I’m taking Scripture verbatim, that makes mine more factual, or is that also
incorrect?.

the Kings Son he could choose whomever he wanted for a wife. What was it that Dinah was doing in the Hivite territory???
It is quite possible the rapist didn’t realize she wasn’t fair game.

good point

The problem is that the Hivites didn’t ask what “circumcision” meant.

In 22 their tribe is at a meeting, I doubt they would talk about something they had no understanding of.

Also, Didn’t God allow the angels of death to kill King David’s firstborn … the child who was by a woman not YET his wife – but allow Solomon the full kingdom?

You find equal justice the taking of one child and the handing down kingship by inheritance to a person in the same tribe, compared to the killing countless woman and children, some first borns, and sacking their city where the enemy becomes ruler?

Thanks again.

Andy

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huiou Theou
Then you confuse me. How are you able to find answers to a post you find confusing.?

Well Touche! – I didn’t say I found your post confusinging
Confusion is one of the signs that a devil is in the work.

By the way, andy, I am ANDREW. How come your a mere nick namer?

But all the same, thanks for responding.

Still?

But my awkward attempt at analogy was still understood by you as you were able to correct the point I was trying to make ???.

No, ibid.

Ok, I get the message.

some of it, perhaps?

My NAB opens this chapter with “The Rape of Dinah”, and in case
the reader misses the meaning, it defines it, “seized her and lay with her by force”. So since we are discussing facts, are the facts out of your interpretation, or Scripture’s.? Since I’m taking Scripture verbatim, that makes mine more factual, or is that also incorrect?.

Cute, but as your original post says “Read again” I suggest you take your own advice.

Besides – The NAB commentary is NOT SACRED SCRIPTURE.

good point

Its a start anyway.

In 22 their tribe is at a meeting, I doubt they would talk about something they had no understanding of.

Sure, what’s the point of that remark? That they were omniscient?
I didn’t say they were totally “clueless” – partial ignorance is just as bad…

You find equal justice the taking of one child and the handing down kingship by inheritance to a person in the same tribe, compared to the killing countless woman and children, some first borns, and sacking their city where the enemy becomes ruler?

How did you get that idea? I didn’t say it.
Read again.

Thanks again.
Andy

Sure, Andy, any time.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

This “meeting” of non Jewish non Catholic religious opponents you allude to –
is it “analogous” to this modern example of such an event?
(note the source is likely to make fun of Catholics… so I don’t recommend them, but hey – that’s what’s funny about pagans… )

(I am not assuming this, just asking…)

http://www.fanboy.com/images/Fishtown-by-Kevin-Colden.jpg

 

[thistle]

Genesis 34 - D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

GENESIS - Chapter 34

CHAPTER XXXIV.

Ver. 1. Country, when a great festival was celebrated. (Josephus, Antiquities i. 18.) Dina was urged by curiosity to see and to be seen. Let others take example from her, and beware of associating with infidels, and of opening their hearts to pleasure at fairs and nocturnal meetings.

Ver. 2. Virgin. Hebrew and Septuagint, “He humbled or afflicted the virgin.” It is well if she made all the resistance she was able, and resented the indignity; as she seems to have done, though Sichem tried all means to comfort her. (Haydock)

Ver. 5. Heard this, perhaps, from Dina’s companion. (Menochius)

Ver. 7. In Israel, or against the honour and peace of their father and all his family. — An unlawful act, which some nevertheless commit without scruple, and even dare to represent as a matter of small consequence if they marry afterwards!

Ver. 10. Command, or you are at liberty to purchase and till it as you please. (Haydock)

Ver. 12. Dowry for Dina. — Gifts for her parents and brothers, chap. xxiv. 53. (Calmet)

Ver. 13. Deceitfully. The sons of Jacob, on this occasion, were guilty of a grievous sin, as well by falsely pretending religion, as by excess of their revenge. Though, otherwise their zeal against so foul a crime was commendable. (Challoner) — In this light it is viewed by Judith ix. 2. Simeon and Levi spoke on this occasion, Septuagint, as they were afterwards the chief actors, ver. 25. There were commissioned by their father to speak for him; but Jacob was ignorant of their deceit. (Haydock)

Ver. 14. Abominable. To be uncircumcised, was a reproach among the Hebrews. Yet there was no law forbidding to marry such. Laban was of this description, and the Chanaanites also; whose daughters the sons of Jacob themselves espoused, at least Juda and this very Simeon, as the Scripture assures us.

Ver. 17. Our daughter, the only one of our father; who, it would hence appear, was detained by Hemor, ver. 26. (Calmet)

Ver. 19. The greatest man, (inclytus) perhaps associated to his father in the government of the town. Yet he is willing to submit to this painful operation. (Haydock)

Ver. 20. Gate. Here judgment was given, the markets held, &c. They endeavoured to convince the people, that the conditions offered would be for their interest. (Menochius)

Ver. 23. Ours, by mutual commerce. The Rabbin pretend the Sichemite designed to circumvent Jacob and his family. But their conduct seems to screen them from any reproach of this kind, and Jacob throws the blame upon his own sons, chap. xlix. 6. If Hemor said more than he was authorized by them to do, this will not palliate their injustice and sacrilegious perfidy. (Calmet) (Menochius)

Ver. 25. Greatest. On that day a fever and inflammation likewise often take place. See Hippocrates on fractures, Valesius sac. (Phil. xii.) (Menochius) — Brothers of Dina by Lia, and both of a fiery temper. They were assisted by some servants, (Menochius) and afterwards the other children helped to pillage the city. (Theodot. ap. Eus. ix. 22.)

Ver. 29. Captive. No doubt Jacob would force them to restore such ill-gotten goods. (Calmet) — They had acted without authority, and even contrary to the known disposition of their father. They rashly exposed him to destruction, which would inevitably have taken place, if God had not protected him, chap. xxxv. 5. (Haydock)

Ver. 31. Should they, &c. This answer, full of insolence, to a father who was as much hurt by the indignity offered to Dina as they could be, heightens their crime. Sichem was the only one among the citizens really guilty, unless perhaps some of his servants might have given him assistance; and Hemor, the king, might contract some stain by not causing a better police to be observed, and by not punishing his son with greater severity, and not sending Dina home, &c. But why are the harmless citizens to be involved in ruin? unless

Quicquid delirant Reges, plectuntur Achivi. (Haydock)

Procopius says Hemor also abused Dina; but the plural is here used for the singular, and this author builds upon a false supposition. Calmet)

 

[thistle]

next chapter…
Genesis 35 - D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 1. God dissipates Jacob’s well-grounded fears, and sends him to perform his vow, chap. xviii. 13. (Haydock)

Ver. 2. Strange gods, which his servants had reserved in the plundering of Sichem; perhaps he had also been informed of Rachel’s theft. (Du Hamel) — Garments; put on your cleanest and best attire, to testify the purity with which you ought to approach to the service of God. (Menochius) — See Exodus xix. 10; Leviticus xv. 13.

Ver. 4. And the ear-rings. Hebrew, hanezamim; such as had been consecrated to some idol, and adorned the ears of those false but gaudy deities. (Menochius) — Men and women used them likewise, as phylacteries or talismans, to which many superstitious virtues were attributed. (St. Augustine, ep. 73, ad Posid. 9, iii. in Gen.; Ezechiel xvi. 12; Proverbs xxv.; Exodus xxxv.; Judges viii. (Calmet) — The turpentine tree; or “an oak tree,” as the Hebrew haela means also. Septuagint adds, “and he destroyed them till this present day;” which seems intended to refute the story of their being found and adored by the Samaritans, or employed by Solomon when he built the temple. Jacob buried them privately. (Calmet) See Deuteronomy vii. 5.

Ver. 5. Terror of God. A panic fear, which the pagans thought was sent by Pan. (Calmet) — God can easily make the most powerful flee before a few. St. Augustine, q. 112.

Ver. 6. Chanaan, to distinguish it from another. Judges i. 26, (Menochius) or because Moses wrote this in Arabia. (Calmet)

Ver. 7. To him. Hebrew literally, “He called that place the God of Bethel, because there God (or the angels) appeared to him.” Haelohim, with a verb plural, generally refers to angels; when it is applied to God, the article is omitted, and the verb is singular. (Calmet)

Ver. 8. Debora. The Rabbin say she had been sent to urge Jacob’s return. (Menochius) — Perhaps she was come to see him and the daughters of Laban, for whom she would naturally have a great regard, as she lived with Laban. — Weeping. This shews the great respect they had for this good old servant. (Haydock)

Ver. 10. Israel. This name signifies one that prevaileth with God; (Challoner) and is more honourable and expressive than that of Jacob. God confirms what had been declared by his angel, chap. xxxii. 28.

Ver. 12. And to, &c. And is often put by way of explanation. Chanaan was possessed by all the twelve sons of Jacob. Those of the handmaids are not excluded, as Ismael had been. (Worthington)

Ver. 14. Set up either a fresh altar, or restored the stone which he had formerly used for sacrifice. (St. Augustine q. 116.) — Drink, wine. — Oil. Theophrastus, speaking of a man addicted to superstition, says, “he adores every anointed stone.” (Calmet)

Ver. 16. Spring. Hebrew, cibrath. Septuagint leave it untranslated, Chalratha, though they render it horse-race, (Ver. 19.) and join both together, chap. xlviii. 7. The word occurs again, 4 Kings v. 19; and St. Jerome translates it the spring, or the finest time of the earth. Others suppose it signifies the high road, (Ver. 19.) or horse-course, or a mile, &c. as if the place, where Rachel died, and not the season of the year, were designated. Calmet concludes, she died about the distance of an acre (sillon, furrow or ridge) from Ephrata. But there seems to be no reason why we should recede from the Vulgate. (Haydock)

Ver. 18. That is. These etymologies are given by St. Jerome. (Du Hamel) — Right hand, (jemini) as he is often styled in Scripture. Jamin has the same meaning; though it may also signify of the south, with respect to Bethel and Sichem; or of days and old age, chap. xliv. 20. 1. (Calmet) Jacob chooses to give his son a more auspicious name; as the other would have reminded him too sensibly of his loss. (Haydock)

Ver. 20. A pillar; or sepulchral monument, about 500 paces north of Bethlehem, (Haydock) which was called Ephrata afterwards, from Caleb’s wife. (Calmet)

Ver. 21. Tower. Hebrew, Heder, about a mile to the east of Bethlehem, where the angels appeared to announce the birth of Christ. St. Helen built a temple there in honour of the angels. (Tirinus) — Shepherds had such places to keep watch. (Calmet) — There was a tower of this name near Jerusalem. (Micheas iv. 8; St. Jerome, q. His.)

continued…

 

[thistle]

continued…

Ver. 22. The concubine. She was his lawful wife; but according to the style of the Hebrews, is called concubine, because of her servile extraction. (Challoner) — Ignorant of; and therefore, to mark his displeasure, he deprived him of the birth-right, chap. xlix. 4. Jacob approached no more to Bala, as David had no farther commerce with the wives whom Absalom had defiled, 2 Kings xvi. 22. (Menochius) — The Septuagint add, and it appeared evil in his sight; an omission which the Hebrew editions seem to acknowledge, by leaving a vacant space. (Kennicott)

Ver. 26. Syria, all except Benjamin. (Calmet) — All frequently means the greatest part. (Haydock)

Ver. 29. Spent. He lived 42 years, after he had blessed Jacob. — His people, in the bosom of Abraham, in limbo. — Full of days, quite satisfied. Cedat uti conviva satur. (Hor.[Horace?] Sat. i. 1.) He was one of the brightest figures of Jesus Christ, on account of him miraculous birth, name, willingness to be sacrificed, marriage with a woman sought at a great distance, &c. (Calmet) — Esau, who had always shewn a great regard for his father, joins his brother in rendering to him the last rites of burial. (Haydock) — Rebecca was probably dead. (Menochius) — The death of Isaac is mentioned out of its place, that the history of Joseph may not be interrupted, as it happened when Joseph was in prison, in the year of the world 2288. (Calmet)

 

[AndyF]

Thanks all for the interesting discussion so far.

Thistle, thanks for the info, I can only say, WoW!

Huiou Theou, food for thought, thanks!.

I touched on one last issue, and that was my comparison with David’s sin which I thought was has sever. (I know, it may not be.) No special singling out of David, it’s the one that stands out in my mind. I saw the difference has a special handling, or as some may say a double standard.

In a nutshell, How come there seems to be a pattern generally that favors the Hebrews with less sever punishment when dealing with appropriate punishment to apply to them.?

Any further thoughts.?

Andy