The Dinah Incident

Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite violated Dinah the daughter of Leah. But is said his soul was very attracted to her, that Shechem loved her and spoked kindly to her. (Genesis 34:2-3) Is the violation of Dinah a situation of premarital sex (fornication) or non-consensual (rape)? By soul it sounds spiritual, but how Shechem took to her immediately seems more physical being lustful. Says nothing about how she felt and or reacted, did women have any right to reject a man or was it not expected being left in all cases between a man and the father/brothers? (Genesis 34:4)

The brothers Simeon and Levi deceived them, falsely promising circumcision of the flesh would be enough. But the fact is what Shechem did was unforgivable to them, not changing what happened or who him and his father Hamor are to them. (Genesis 34:13-15) Both Simeon and Levi believe their sister Dinah was treated as a harlot. Something that deserved punishment even death. They drew their swords against all the men who had agreed to circumcise themselves to become one people. (Genesis 34:31, Genesis 34:25) What they did put their father Jacob in a difficult situation with the other inhabitants of the land. (Genesis 34:30)

Though Shechem and his father were shown not to be godly men, didn't the brothers do the same? Since they falsely promised by God, using the sign of the covenant between Him and His people? Making it difficult not only to for Jacob but God too?

Greg J. said:

It is interesting to sort through all the things that must be considered to understand the morality of various deeds in this chapter. This happened before the Law was given, but what would be revealed by the Law was already God's nature, although he doesn't judge people by what they don't know (although the wages of sin nevertheless come upon then). Do the morals of the Hivites, Hamor, or Shechem matter (what they believe in their hearts about right and wrong)? Do the morals of Jacob, Simeon, Levi, and Dinah matter? Does it matter how Dinah was affected—how immoral she thought it was, and on and on. Remember this was a tribal culture.

In my opinion, because God's nature is revealed through nature, no one is without excuse for doing what God calls evil. So Shechem did evil when he raped Dinah, no matter what anyone believed or felt about it.

But did Jacob's family do evil when they intentionally deceived Hamor's family? Did Simeon and Levi do evil when they destroyed the male Hivites and took everything left for themselves? Should one man's evil be paid back to a whole city? (Perhaps the one sin was a symptom of widespread evil.) Did it matter what God promised to Abraham or what he would command about taking over the land in the future (already in his nature) and destroyed all kinds of people to do so?

A simple perspective is that after the rape, Jacob had the right to kill Shechem—but he did other things and, from our point of view, made the morality of events following the rape less clear cut.

Click to expand...

Morality of people does matter when trying to understand their motives. Also how it leads
to either the blessing or cursing of others. Well, that's for the Lord I guess, knowing what's
in their hearts and what's right or wrong. But it does help if it's to discern What God's intentions
are for us. From this perspective it's clear Shechem violated Dinah, he hadn't gone to Jacob for
his blessing as the father or waited respecting his daughter. As children of God we're all sons and
daughters of Him, we're to honor Him and each other accordingly. In Genesis God gave his blessing for procreation, but also after was the one who brought Adam and Eve into union as one flesh. So it was established in the beginning what was good and evil (ex: fruitful, helpful, union, selfless etc.)

More difficult to answer if considering God's perspective and not my own. Immediately my reaction is
to say it's evil orignating from vengance in their hearts. Simeon and Levi didn't have good intentions
but only to deceive and kill being offended (ex: deceitful, murderous, unforgiving etc.) This is where
the differences of Old and New Testaments can be confusing. Before Jesus the wages of sin was death, again in Genesis God warned Adam and Eve not to eat of the forbidden fruit (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). The price for doing so would be death. But it was spiritual and natural death, God sent them away and couldn't eat from the tree of life (eternal life). Though they were cursed for their sin and ever since man has suffered the consequences.

I don't think Jacob had the 'right' least when it concerns God. As I remember God to this point only commanded life for life, His Covenant with Noah and his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth. But before when Cain had killed Abel, God marked him not to be killed by others; Cain was exiled and others warned not to kill else be cursed. My opinion is this means we're not to take judgment and condemnation into our own hands. It's for God to decide what's good and evil, when His judgment is to be done He'll let us know when and who (ex: proper authorities).

Doctor.Sphinx said:

To me, I believe it fits somewhere in between. The scripture doesn't say she cried out (a requirement for a case to be considered rape according to the law later on), but it does call it rape, and it does indicate Shechem wanted to marry her, so it seems (to me) he wanted to try to make it right. Maybe she was too young and naive to know to resist or call out?

Is it ungodly to try to make restitution for a sin you or your son commits? I agree Shechem was ungodly (as we all are), but it seems as if he tried to make amends.

They received a punishment for it. Maybe a strange blessing.

Genesis 49:5 - 7
“Simeon and Levi are brothers;
weapons of violence are their swords.
Let my soul come not into their council;
O my glory, be not joined to their company.
For in their anger they killed men,
and in their willfulness they hamstrung oxen.
Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce,
and their wrath, for it is cruel!
I will divide them in Jacob
and scatter them in Israel."

Click to expand...

Even to this day the question of rape is complicated. How a man should get consent or what's enough for a woman to give it. So it was considered rape but not yet by law (God's or man's)? If Shechem was repentant, it makes more sense what's said about him personally (ex: soul's attraction and loving her etc.) He was willing to circumcise him after coming to Jacob and his sons. Also that he was the most honorable among his father and the men. But his actions regardless of how he felt were inconsiderate and selfish, confusing his desires for righteousness (ex: wanting her for himself for sex and marriage).

Depends whether it's done with good or evil intentions. Shechem and his father Hamor were willing to be circumcised but they had their own motives. You could say the same about any of today. We're all sinful needing forgiveness. But Dinah being raped seems to raise the severity of his sin, and less so was Hamor mentioning that as one people all the things of Jacob's people would be there's too. I guess to God none of that would matter, if either man was rependant and willingly to make amends. Ultimately only God knows what's in people's hearts (possibly Hamor was just trying to convince his people?).

@mark kennedy too, thanks for the verses. Seems I'm least somewhat on the correct path understanding they gone about it wrong. That even people of God are flawed and the people we least expect could have evil in their hearts, including people in the Bible like Simeon and Levi.

Greg J. said:

Btw, you might be clear on this, but just in case: the wages of sin are always death, including after Jesus, because that is how the spiritual world works (Romans 5:12-14). Whether God counts a sin against someone or not, depends on what the person had in their hearts (Romans 2:12-15). The Law was given so that we might know what was hurting us.

Click to expand...

I had Romans 6:23 in mind that faith in Jesus frees us. If we're repentant coming to him believing he's our Lord and Savior sent by God, then our sins are forgiven having eternal life. He died on the cross for our sins and gave his life for us, by his faith in God and as the Son of God he was lead then raised in the Spirit by God his father.

Above is how I understand it, but only God knows for certain. Especially when it concerns the law(s) in the two Romans chapters and verses you referenced. Examples are Romans 5:13 and Romans 2:14-15, it seems to be saying the law as written isn't necessary itself or to be known about. Meaning if people have God's word in their hearts having good intentions, then their conscience is enough and also for discernment among people.

Given Romans 5:13 I assume this is about the legalism of the law (Mosaic/ceremonial law?) which judged sin and showed people self-righteous, but didn't forgive sin and make people truly righteous. But I doubt the moral law as written is thrown away, it's God's word of what's good and evil. Just a matter of taking it to heart considering his intentions and purposes for it.

mark kennedy said:

Even Judah had those issues with Tamar. At the height of Israels history Ephiriam would emerge as the leading tribe, sometimes used synonomously with Israel. That was one of Josephs sons by an Eqyptian wife.

At any rate, I dont think she was taped, I think they fell in love and the family didnt approve of the union. Slaughtering everyone in the town was excessive, it cost them later.

Click to expand...

The Bible sure is interesting. Don't think I've read about Judah and Tamar yet. Still trying to consistently read through the Old Testament from beginning to end. Definitely want to learn more about the Tribes and Israel, so I'm hopefully lol.

Yeah, it doesn't certainly say if it was raped. But if his soul was drawn to her, it sounds more spiritual and loving with how he treated her aside from the act itself. So it makes more sense if it wasn't rape but fornication (sin) and then repentance (circumcision of the heart).