Genesis 34 tells the story of the rape of Dinah, and the revenge taken for this by her brothers Simeon and Levi. It is certainly not one of the more uplifting stories told in the Old Testament, nor does it immediately appear to have deep theological significance, nor is itlikely to be considered widely as a topic for fruitful spiritual meditation. However, it is a story with some interest, as will hopefully be seen in part here, and it has far-reaching consequences for Simeon and Levi, which make it very relevant to the larger story of the Pentateuch. Moreover, in the context of a terrible crime this story raises controversial questions of vengeance and justice within the family of Israel itself. It is this aspect of the story that will be examined here, and an attempt will be made to find answers to some of these questions from the text of Scripture.

The general structure of Genesis 34 falls roughly into five parts. The first section, verses one through seven, relates the occasion of the rape of Dinah, and the subsequent reactions of Jacob and his sons. The second section, covering the next five verses, gives the marriage offer made by Hamor and Shechem in response to the situation. The third section, verses thirteen through seventeen, contains the conditions given by the sons of Jacob for the acceptance of this offer. The fourth section, verses eighteen through twenty-four, concerns the fulfillment by Hamor and Shechem and their people of these conditions. The fifth and final section, from verse twenty-five through verse thirty-one, tells of the revenge taken, particularly by Simeon and Levi, on the town of Hamor and Shechem, and Jacob's reaction to this revenge. Breaking the chapter down a little further, it seems to fall into a loosely chiastic structure which, although the content of the chapter often seems focused on other issues, begins and ends with the emphasis on the crime against Dinah:

A-Rape of Dinah and follow-up (34:1-4)
B-Jacob's reaction to rape (34:5-6)
C-Jacob's sons' reaction to rape (34:7)
D-Hamor's offer of intermarriage (34:8-12)
E-Jacob's sons' conditions (34:13-17)
D'-Hamorites' agreement to terms (34:18-24)
C'-Jacob's sons' execute revenge (34:25-29)
B'-Jacob's reaction to revenge by his sons (34:30)
A'-Explicit condemnation of rape of Dinah (34:31)

The story of Genesis 34 itself is relatively simple, as can probably be seen from the structure given above. The tragedy of the story begins in verse two, when Dinah goes out among the people of the land, and attracts the attention of Shechem, son of Hamor, the prince of he land. Shechem "seized her and lay with her and humbled her."[1] It is said so quickly that if one reads too quickly one could almost miss the key event of the whole chapter, the shameful crime that leads to everything else: the rape of Dinah.

Immediately after this act, we hear of Shechem that "his soul was drawn to Dinah . . . he loved the maiden and spoke tenderly to her."[2] It does not need to be mentioned that this is obviously a perverted form of love, in view of what Shechem had just done. However, Shechem wants to marry Dinah, and this will result in negotiations between Hamor and Shechem on one side and Jacob and his sons on the other.

Before those negotiations ever begin, however, the text mentions Jacob's reaction to the violation of his daughter: "Now Jacob heard that he had defiled his daughter Dinah; but his sons were with his cattle in the field, so Jacob held his peace until they came.[3] Explicitly, this only mentions what could be interpreted as simple prudence on Jacob's part: he waits for his sons, because they should have a hand in dealing with their sister's violation, and perhaps because they will give him more strength on his side in their numbers and in their youth. However, Jacob appears to have held his peace, not only until his sons returned, but even after his sons returned. There is no mention of any outrage from Jacob at what has been done. In fact, this reaction of Jacob to the rape of his daughter near the beginning of the story is the last that is heard from him until his reaction to actions of his sons near the end of the story. All the speech and action on behalf of Dinah that is given between these two points comes from the sons of Jacob.

The reaction of the sons of Jacob is closer to what presumably would be expected in such circumstances. They "were indignant and very angry, because he had wrought folly in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter, for such a thing ought not to be done."[4] In view of this justifiable anger, and the fact that intermarriage with the Canaanites is previously seen in Genesis as something to be avoided, it is not to be expected that the sons of Jacob would accept proposals that follow in the story, either the proposal of marriage from Shechem, or the broader proposal made by Hamor and Shechem of intermarriage and sharing between the two peoples for material gain. However, they claim to accept it on the condition of circumcision, in order to deceive the other people to be circumcised. The weakness after circumcision will later provide the opportunity for an attack on the city of Shechem.

This deception of the sons of Jacob, using the sign of the covenant, is the first and perhaps the most serious thing for which they could be criticized in this story. There does indeed seem to be a problem here in the use of this sign, which seems at the very least inappropriate, although circumcision in itself was practiced among some of the Canaanites at this point. An attempt could also be made to criticize the aspect of deceit in itself, but this is complicated by the fact that they are already responding to people who have basically made themselves an enemy people through the violation of Dinah, and are now trying to arrange a peaceful settlement as if nothing wrong has been done. This in itself is not an entirely honest approach, and it is also possible that, in addition to the most serious shamefulness of the action of rape, some deceit was used in the action, as may be implied in a passage from Judith which will be examined later.[5]

In any case, the sons of Jacob deceived Hamor and Shechem, and Hamor and Shechem were taken in by the deception, and persuaded all the men of their town to be circumcised on the basis of the material gain that may come from it.[6] Shortly afterwards, vengeance struck. "On the third day, when they were sore, two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brothers, took their swords and came upon the city unawares, and killed all the males. They slew Hamor and his son Shechem with the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went away."[7] This is the primary vengeance for the rape of Dinah, and it should be considered separately because it is the only thing in the story that is attributed exclusively to Simeon and Levi. This will be important later in light of Jacob's reaction against Simeon and Levi. It is also slightly amazing that Simeon and Levi alone could have accomplished so much against an entire town, even with all the men at such a disadvantage. There is one other particularly relevant point here: Dinah was still in the house of Shechem. Her brothers would naturally consider it imperative to remove her, and in order to do this it presumably will be necessary to kill Shechem. Also, it is not likely that the men of the town would simply have allowed them to kill Shechem, so killing the other men also served a practical purpose. This is not to suggest that Simeon and Levi would not have killed Shechem and all the other men anyway to revenge the violation of their sister, but merely to indicate that there was also a practical side to it in the process of removing their sister from the town.

After the killing, the sons of Jacob plundered Shechem, taking the animals, material wealth, women, and children. Here again we there is something which seems at least morally ambiguous, and in a way perhaps even less understandable than the killing. However, there is also a certain brutal justice here, as the text itself points out, in that they "plundered the city, because their sister had been defiled."[8]

Now, Jacob gives his opinion on the events which have taken place, and says to Simeon and Levi "You have brought trouble on me by making me odious to the inhabitants of the land . . . my numbers are few, and if they gather themselves against me and attack me, I shall be destroyed, both I and my household."[9] In the end, Jacob seems concerned only with the practicalities of his own well-being. Given this statement of Jacob, it does not seem entirely unfair to read his reaction near the beginning of the story in light of his reaction here near the end, especially since these are his only explicit points of involvement in the story. By reading the chapter in this way, one is led to wonder if Jacob was only being prudent in a good sense at the beginning, or whether he was not as struck by the evil done to his daughter as he should have been. Dinah, after all, was a daughter by Leah, a wife whom he married more or less against his will. It would not be unprecedented for Jacob to show far less regard than he should for his children by Leah, since he previously risked their lives inappropriately in a confrontation with Esau, which can be seen in Genesis 33.[10] If this is the case, then perhaps Jacob, when he "held his peace" at the beginning, was only calculating with a base and purely worldly prudence, as he appears to be in responding to the actions of Simeon and Levi.

Since the only action Simeon and Levi took alone was the killing, that is presumably what primarily angered Jacob. He was not concerned with the morality of the situation, and he does not even mention the deception which preceded the slaughter or the plundering which followed it, both of which seem to have involved his other sons as well. Furthermore, he is not concerned with the central issue of whether this was an appropriate response to the violation of his daughter by Shechem. What would Jacob have done in response to this crime? If he was unwilling to make enemies, as he implies, how could he have responded appropriately? Was his own physical safety more important to him than the safety and honor of Dinah? It is difficult to answer such questions because Jacob says little and does nothing in the story. However, it is not encouraging that in his only speech in a story about the rape of his daughter, he does not even mention his daughter.

This story ends with the response of Simeon and Levi to their father's rebuke: "Should he treat our sister as a harlot?"[11] In this context, this question almost appears to be a rebuke to their father for ignoring Shechem's treatment of their sister. It is certainly their only justification for their slaughter of the men of Shechem, and it is not a weak justification. Their position is simple. From their point of view, they have enforced justice, and they will not apologize or repent for doing so. It seems possible that Moses in writing this sympathized with their position, since they are given the last word in the story. Closing with their defiant condemnation of the rape of their sister emphasizes, without explicitly contradicting the patriarch Jacob, that the real issue in the story should be concern for Dinah, not concern for Jacob.

Although Simeon and Levi are given the last word in this story, Jacob does not forget their actions. A long time afterwards, when Jacob is near death, and the time comes for him to bless his sons, he passes over Simeon and Levi for the blessing of the first-born, and clearly refers back to this incident as the reason. Instead of blessing them, he curses them: "Simeon and Levi are brothers; weapons of violence are their swords. O my soul, come not into their council; O my spirit, be not joined to their company; for in their anger they slay men, and in their wantonness they hamstring 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."[12]

This raises again the issues of Genesis 34. Jacob's criticism has changed, as he attempts to take a moral rather than a practical tone here. However, he is still angry with them for killing in their anger, and he assumes that the killing was not in any way justified, as Simeon and Levi clearly thought it was. Who is in the right? If Simeon and Levi sinned gravely in the slaughter they committed in response to the rape of their sister, then certainly Jacob is right to curse them. However, if they were justified in their great anger and their killing, then the curse is unjust, even if Jacob does not understand it to be so. Thus, the fundamental question about the story of Genesis 34 becomes: will Simeon and Levi be punished, and do they deserve punishment?

In relation to the justice of the curse on Simeon and Levi, it is important to examine the way in which this curse is or is not fulfilled in the history of these men and the tribes descended from them, since it is ultimately God who must bring about the fulfillment of curses in history. In one case, that of Levi, the curse is fulfilled in a very clear way, but it accomplishes the exact reverse of what presumably was Jacob's intention. The tribe of Levi is in a sense divided in Jacob and scattered in Israel, since they do not have any land of their own in the Promised Land.[13] However, while Jacob presumably intended by this to doom the descendants of Levi to insignificance, in reality this was part of a great honor for them. The reason the tribe of Levi has no land is because it is the tribe that is chosen to serve in the liturgy of the nation of Israel, and the priestly line is chosen from among the Levites. "They [the Levites] shall have no inheritance among their brethren; the Lord is their inheritance, as he promised them."[14] Furthermore, this is not just any great privilege, but a great privilege that had previously been associated with the first-born.[15] Levi was not the first-born of Jacob. However, it has already been mentioned that because of the curse of Jacob he was one of the three who were passed over for the blessing normally given to the first-born. This lack of this blessing would not necessarily have taken the priesthood from Reuben, the original first-born, but it may be significant that the honor given to Levi through the curse is one previously reserved for the first-born. In any case, it hardly needs to be said that one could hardly imagine a greater privilege and responsibility for a tribe of Israel than to be chosen specifically for assisting in the worship of the God of Israel.

In the case of Simeon, the fulfillment of the curse is not as simply seen, and does not come until after the choosing of the Levites. For a time, all seems well with the tribe of Simeon, and it is apparently distinguished very little for either good or evil. When the number of the Simeonites is given from the census near the beginning of the time in the wilderness, the number is relatively large, as one would expect from the second oldest son. Only two tribes are larger.[16] However, when the number of Simeonites is given again in Numbers 26:14, after another census and all the time in the desert, the count is less than half what it was in the first census.[17] Further, when Moses blesses all the other tribes at the end of his life, before they enter the Promised Land, Simeon alone does not receive any blessing.[18] This is certainly a punishment of some kind, but it is not as easy to see in what way the tribe of Simeon could be said to be scattered in Israel. However, when the Promised Land is divided among the tribes of Israel, the Simeonites get land, but rather than a separate part of their own, such as all the other tribes except Levi receive, they are given their land within the territory belonging to Judah.[19] For the Simeonites, then, one does not find an unexpected blessing contained in the fulfillment of the curse, as there is with Levi. It seems to doom the tribe to insignificance, just as one would expect.

The contrast between the fates of Simeon and Levi in this respect raises an obvious question: why should the curse have two such entirely different results, particularly since no distinction is made between Simeon and Levi in the story in Genesis 34, or in Jacob's curse in Genesis 49. If the curse was just, one would think that it should simply have its evil effect on both tribes. If it was unjust, then one would probably expect God to bring some good out of it for both tribes. However, the distinction between Simeon and Levi is not at all arbitrary. There is an implied testing of each of these two tribes, in the broader context of the testing of Israel in the Exodus and the time in the wilderness.

After the golden calf incident, in Exodus 32:25-29, when Israel has fallen in practically the most serious way imaginable, it is the Levites who respond to Moses' call "Who is on the Lord's side?" They then follow his order in killing three thousand men, this time from among their own people. Moses explicitly sees this as the event that puts the Levites in a special place before God among the tribes of Israel: "Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of the Lord."[20] It has already been mentioned that this ordination, which will mean that they have no part in the land, seems to be the fulfillment of Jacob's curse. It is presumably not coincidental that the action by which the Levites come to the honor of the liturgical service is strikingly similar to the action for which Levi was cursed, and it even corresponds to part of Jacob's condemnation: "weapons of violence are their swords . . . in their anger they slay men."[21]

The trial of the Simeonites comes near the end of the time of Israel in the wilderness. There is another incident of idolatry in Israel, this time following Baal of Peor. This is seen as a result of the fact that "the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab," a problem which will remind one who is studying Genesis 34 of Simeon and Levi's question: "Should he treat our sister as a harlot?"[22] The reaction of Moses on behalf of God to this is similar to his reaction to the golden calf incident, when he directed the Levites to the killing of three thousand men. In this case, he orders the judges to slay the "men who have yoked themselves to Baal of Peor.[23]" Unfortunately, the Simeonites are not found on the side of the Lord, as the Levites were previously. The one man who is specifically said to have been killed for publicly bringing in a Midianite woman, presumably for the purpose of fornication, is Zimri, a Simeonite. It is shortly after this that we find that the numbers of the tribe of Simeon have been cut in half, apparently through the killing by the judges and a plague from God.[24] The fact that their losses are so disproportionately greater than the other tribes probably indicates the extent to which they were involved in this period of idolatry. Not too long after this devastation, the Simeonites, who are now the smallest tribe, will receive by lot their inheritance in the Promised Land, which, as has been said, will only be a part within the land given to Judah.

The issue of the differing results of the curse on Simeon and Levi is now clearer. The words of Jacob have an effect in both cases, because the curse cannot be ignored. However, the effect of the curse for each tribe depends on their subsequent faithfulness to God, not on the original actions of Simeon and Levi. This calls into question the justice of the curse itself. The implication seems to be that there is nothing wrong with Simeon and Levi being zealous on behalf of their sister, even in punishing Shechem with such great violence for violating her. However, one must also be willing to be zealous on behalf of the Lord, as the Levites were in response to the call of Moses. On the other hand, it is a mere hypocrisy to punish another so violently for treating one's sister as a harlot, if one is only going to lead the way in the harlotry of Israel, as the tribe of Simeon did (literally, and also figuratively through idolatry).

Curiously, there is another passage much later in the Old Testament that seems to refer to the revenge taken by Simeon and Levi. It comes in the Book of Judith, and it is all the more striking for appearing as praise of the violence of Simeon, who later fell, rather than that of Levi.[25] Judith prays to God as follows before setting out on her plan to deceive and kill Holofernes of the Assyrians:

O Lord God of my father Simeon, to whom thou gavest a sword to take revenge on the strangers who had loosed the girdle of a virgin to defile her, and uncovered her thigh to put her to shame, and polluted her womb to disgrace her; for thou hast said "It shall not be done"--yet they did it. So thou gavest up their rulers to be slain, and their bed, which was ashamed of the deceit they had practiced, to be stained with blood, and thou didst strike down slaves along with princes, and princes on their thrones, and thou gavest their wives for a prey and their daughters to captivity, and all their booty to be divided among thy beloved sons, who were zealous for thee, and abhorred the pollution of their blood, and called on thee for help.[26]

This not only does not condemn the actions of Simeon in Genesis 34, but actually praises them. Even the plundering after the slaughter is justified here, as part of the punishment for a terrible crime, the seriousness of which is put very much in view here. The previous deceit used by the sons of Jacob is not mentioned, but Judith is no doubt aware of it, especially since it makes the story even more applicable to her own situation, in which she will deceive Holofernes through her beauty and with basic truths about the God of Israel and His relationship with His people.[27] Also, this prayer sees the Hamorites themselves as being deceitful, which is an aspect of the story that is not made explicit in Genesis. This changes somewhat the perspective on the deceit of the sons of Jacob. Furthermore, Judith speaks of the sons of Jacob calling on God for help. Moreover, this call is seen as having been answered, because God himself is said to have given the sword to Simeon, and thus the work done is attributed throughout to God alone.

Perhaps the most important point in the prayer of Judith is the heavy emphasis on the great evil that was done by Shechem. In view of this evil, why should not at least the attack on the town of Shechem be seen as in some way the work of God? This attack was not the result of an ordinary crime. An uncircumcised Canaanite raped a daughter of God's Abrahamic promise. If anything could bring down the vengeance of God, might it not be this? The original account in Genesis 34 does not seem to emphasize the extent of the outrage that was committed against Dinah, perhaps out of respect for Jacob's attitude toward the situation, an attitude that seems questionable in this light. Whatever the reason for this lack of emphasis on that point in the original story, it is possible as a result that in a casual reading of the text the reader might not center on the gravity of the offense of Shechem. If the reader does not do so, he might be inclined to assign undue blame for the devastating punishment inflicted, and thus assume that Jacob's criticism and curse are fully justified. With this approach, it would then be easy to overlook the fact that Levi is blessed through the curse, and Simeon only punished through it after a subsequent grave offense. One might also overlook any parallels between the story of Genesis 34 and the situations resulting in the blessing and the punishment of Simeon. It is then very unlikely that the reader would even look for any justification of the actions of Simeon and Levi later in the Old Testament itself. However, if one can only move past the curse of Jacob and the superficial emphasis on the violence of Simeon and Levi in Genesis 34, then the events of this unfortunate story can be seen in the context of all these points. In this light, this violence can be seen, not as the deceitful savagery of hot-tempered men, but rather as the result of the zealous and righteous anger of brothers on behalf of a sister who has suffered an unspeakable offense.

Bibliography

The Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version. Catholic Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1966.

Maher, Michael. Genesis. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1982.

Vawter, B. "Genesis." A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. Edited by Reginald Fuller. New York: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1975.

Notes

[1] Genesis 34:1-2 RSV, Catholic Edition.

[2] Genesis 34:3.

[3] Genesis 34:5.

[4] Genesis 34:7.

[5] Judith 9:3.

[6] Genesis 34:18-24.

[7] Genesis 34:25-26.

[8] Genesis 34:27.

[9] Genesis 34:30.

[10] Genesis 33:2.

[11] Genesis 34:31.

[12] Genesis 49:5-7.

[13] Michael Maher, Genesis (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1982), 196. Joshua 13:14.

[14] Deuteronomy 18:2.

[15] Numbers 3:41.

[16] Numbers 1:21-43.

[17] Numbers 26:14.

[18] Deuteronomy 33.

[19] Joshua 19:1,9.

[20] Exodus 32:29.

[21] Genesis 49:5-6.

[22] Numbers 25:1-3.Genesis 34:31.

[23] Numbers 25:5.

[24] Numbers 25:6-9,14-15.

[25] B. Vawter, "Genesis," A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Reginald Fuller (New York: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1975), 200.

[26] Judith 9:2-4.

[27] Judith 11.