Different perspectives—Genesis 31:42-43

Depending on God for vindication

What we see sometimes depends on the lens through which we view reality. What is right in our eyes may be wrong (Prov 3:7; 12:15; 26:12, 16; 28:11; 30:12); what matters is how things appear in God’s eyes, for his standard is truth (Deut 6:18; 2 Chron 16:9; Ps 34:15; Prov 5:21; 15:3). As Proverbs 21:2 declares, “Everyone’s path looks straight and right to them, but the Lord evaluates human hearts.”

Jacob had labored hard and Laban had cheated him. In their culture, Jacob could count on their mutual relatives to value a sense of fairness (31:37). Laban, however, insists, “All that you see is mine” (31:43), as if Jacob is the one who has taken what belongs to Laban (31:1). Genesis is plainly on Jacob’s side, although not approving of everything he did. But whereas Laban emphasizes “all that you see,” Jacob appeals to what God has seen—Jacob’s affliction (31:42). Jacob’s appeal is right; in the end, it is ultimately God who vindicates Jacob.

Sometimes we are too ready to believe what others think of us, whether good or bad. People also can wrongly accuse or excuse themselves (cf. Jer 17:9; Rom 2:15). But God is the righteous judge, and we can entrust our way and our vindication to him.

(This is part of a series of posts on Genesis; see e.g., Sodom; floodcreation; fall; God’s favor.)

Be careful whom you trust—Genesis 34:1-3

The narrator of Genesis tells the story of Jacob and the Shechemites partly to remind Israel that they had a history earlier in the land than the conquest, and partly to warn them against trusting Canaanite morality. That Jacob bought land near Shechem (33:19) reminds Israel, as had Abraham’s earlier purchase (23:16-20; repeated in 49:30; 50:13), that their people had a legal foothold in the promised land.

Canaanite morality comes to the fore, however, through the rape of Dinah. Although Jacob had other daughters (37:35), Genesis specifies only Dinah (30:31; 46:15) because only her story is narrated (34:1-26) and the twelve tribes are named for the male patriarchs. The narrator notes that Dinah was spending time with young women her age (34:1), probably to let us know that, even by the stricter standards of the ancient Middle East, she did nothing to attract the royal rapist’s attention. Rape should never be blamed on the victim, but even those inclined to cruelly blame some victims would not find reason to blame Dinah.

That Jacob came “in peace” to Shechem (33:18) may mean that God had protected him on his way (from both Laban and Esau); “peace” often appears with leaving unharmed (e.g., 26:29, 31; 28:21; 44:17). Conversely, it might emphasize that he initially settled in Shechem peacefully; conflict began there only with Shechem’s rape of his daughter. But once violated, such peace became elusive. Hamor and his son Shechem supposed that all of Jacob’s people were at peace with them (34:21)—unaware of the plans of Simeon and Levi against them.

Rape was a serious issue in antiquity as it is today (e.g., Deut 28:30; Judg 19:25; 2 Sam 13:14), so much so that the law of Moses treated it specifically (Deut 22:25-29), comparing a rape victim to a murder victim (22:26) and presuming her innocence in the absence of reasons to the contrary (22:27).

While the narrative evokes horror with its depiction of this rape, however (cf. Gen 34:7, 31), the narrator may be less interested in warning about just one gender than warning about the sexual values of some non-Israelites. A non-Israelite wickedly rapes Jacob’s daughter (34:2), just as later a non-Israelite tries to exploit the enslaved Joseph sexually and then falsely accuses him of raping her (39:7-18). (The writer seems keenly aware that usually society’s power dynamics favor men, but Genesis also depicts women’s influence, sometimes behind the scenes. Thus Rebekah works behind the scenes in favor of Jacob; Sarah urges Abraham to sleep with her servant and later demands the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, backed by God; Leah cuts a deal with Rachel so that Jacob must sleep with her that night; and so forth.)

Shechem, the local prince who also bore the city’s name, was the most honored member of his father’s household—yet he raped Jacob’s unsuspecting daughter. Shechem’s evil behavior (34:2) suggests the depraved sexual standards of most of Canaan’s inhabitants, as did potential Philistine threats to Rebecca in 26:10. Not only were Canaanite men not to be trusted sexually; Canaanite women were likewise dangerous (26:34-35; 27:46; 28:1, 8).

Stereotypes are dangerous, but members of societies often do reflect their societies’ prevailing values. Out of concerns for such values, then, Genesis warns Israelites against liaisons with non-Israelites. For ancient hearers of the Torah, intermarriage with Canaan’s residents was the greatest danger posed by their presence (Deut 7:3). This was not, however, a matter of ethnicity in any genetic sense, but stemmed from the danger of such unions enticing God’s consecrated people to worship other, false gods (Deut 7:4). (Thus Ruth, although a Moabitess, becomes part of Israel as she embraces the Israelite people and their God [Ruth 1:16], despite Deut 23:3.)

The principle today would be avoiding intermarriage with those who reject the values of one’s faith, such as fear of the LORD and the honoring of sexual purity. Because Jesus is the most important person in a genuine believer’s life, the deepest connection comes on the level of our faith. To digress for a moment on a pastoral level, I believe we should show grace and understanding in some settings I have witnessed, where Christian women outnumber Christian men two to one, or men believers outnumber Christian women two to one. But there are definite reasons for these biblical warnings (cf. 1 Cor 7:39). There are people who do not share our faith who nevertheless do share many of our values and can be respectful toward our faith; these people are a far cry from characters such as Shechem or Joseph’s accuser. Some are better spouses than those professed Christians who prove abusive, unfaithful, or the like; those who are respectful to faith are often open to it as well, given good reasons and experiences. But spiritual companionship is also an important element of marriage. Marriage is not the only place where it can be found, but as the most intimate of relationships marriage offers a unique opportunity for developing spiritual intimacy. In pastoral situations I have known some who regretted their marriages outside the faith; once the marriage exists, however, the believer in Christ is obligated to seek to make it work (barring circumstances such as abuse, etc.); spiritual incompatibility is not grounds for a Christian to dissolve his or her marriage (1 Cor 7:12-14).

But—leaving the digression—what would happen if some Canaanites were prepared to embrace Israel’s faith and values? In Genesis 34, Jacob’s family almost had the chance to find out. Some of Jacob’s sons, however, squander this opportunity, leaving it to Joseph, later in Genesis, to honor Israel’s God among the Gentiles.

(This is part of a series of studies on Genesis; see e.g., Sodom; floodcreation; fall; God’s favor.)

Jacob’s wives agree with his plan—Genesis 31:14-16

In Jacob’s culture, husbands held the final say. Further, God has spoken, and since Jacob has heard him, Jacob must do what God has commanded. Nevertheless, Jacob carefully presents the case to his wives. Jacob’s wives then weigh in as if he is consulting them in 31:14-16.

Why does Jacob consult them? On one level, he needs their support; he wishes to depart without Laban’s knowledge, and if his wives are not supportive it will be difficult to keep the secret from Laban.

Nevertheless, he presumably also values their support because they are his wives. This would fit a pattern in Genesis: the patriarchs often heeded their wives on matters that involved them (e.g., Gen 16:2; 21:12; 30:3-4, 9, 16). Although parents arranged marriages, even a future wife who was probably in her early teens might nevertheless be consulted on some details (24:5, 8, 57). Sometimes no consultation is mentioned, such as when decisions had to be made quickly (e.g., Gen 32:7-8, 22-23; 33:1-3). But the clearest exception to this pattern in Genesis contravened what God had spoken: the elder would serve the younger (25:22-23). Here Isaac favored Esau over Jacob, forcing Rebekah to resort to subterfuge (27:8-10), so Esau would serve Jacob (27:29, 37, 40). Yet Rebekah was the one who had heard from God in that case.

I am among those who find in the New Testament a countercultural call to mutual submission (Eph 5:21—6:9, esp. 5:21; 6:9). Nevertheless, even Christians who disagree with this reading of the New Testament would concur that the greatest is the servant (Matt 23:11; Luke 22:26), so that all of us are called to serve. Surely this should include, at the least, listening and seeking to build consensus wherever possible. After all, it is not only in war that decisions are made more safely after gathering the perspectives of different counselors (Prov 11:14; 15:22, 31; 20:18; 24:6; cf. 10:17; 18:13). Sometimes the way that seems obviously right to us is misinformed (Prov 14:12; 16:25; 21:2), requiring others’ input (12:15).

Today we do not live in a patriarchal culture. I believe that Genesis suggests, however, that even in a patriarchal culture, a husband is wise who consults his wife (or in Jacob’s case, his wives). In any culture, a work undertaken together is undertaken most effectively when undergirded with voluntary commitment.

(This continues a series of studies on Genesis; see e.g., deceiver; traveling; creation; fall.)

Evangelical means different things

Some writers in the media have identified evangelicals more as a political movement than a spiritual one, and demeaned evangelicals as blind followers of Donald Trump.

This is an unfair caricature, and for one thing grossly underestimates the movement’s diversity. I offer further thoughts in

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-s-keener/evangelical-subculture-ve_b_9295550.html