Genesis

A CAREFUL comparison of passages shows that Jacob’s stay at Succoth and Shechem must have extended over several years. Bethel and his vow (Gen 28:22) were evidently forgotten or ignored. The pastures at Succoth and Shechem were attractive, his possessions had so largely increased that movement was difficult, circumstances were perhaps conceived of as having changed, making the realization of the vow almost impracticable. And so Jacob settled down to ordinary life, having either put off or else put aside the fulfilment of his promise. He was not prepared for the upheaval that a move to Bethel would involve. Full of resource whenever danger threatened, he seemed to be "settling on the lees," content with his favored position in Shechem and with his profession of religion as indicated by the altar (Gen 33:20).

"A spiritual experience that is separated from your present by twenty years of active life, by a foreign residence, by marriage, by the growing-up of a family around you, by other and fresher spiritual experiences, is apt to be very indistinctly remembered. The obligations you then felt and owned have been overlaid and buried in the lapse of years. And so it comes that a low tone is introduced into your life, and your homes cease to be model homes" (Dods, Genesis, p. 313 The Expositor’s Bible).

And this is the man who has seen the Face of God! This is the man to whom the special Divine revelation of grace had been given! This is the man whom God’s goodness and mercy had followed all the days of his life! He it is who is on this low ground of unfaithfulness, of spiritual declension, and who has to suffer for it bitterly. So it is always; spiritual leakage means spiritual loss, a lower tone, a cessation of power, a discontinuance of testimony, and, not least of all, an unrest of soul and untold trouble of heart and life. Let us now observe some of the sad effects of Jacob’s unfaithfulness.

It seems clear that the choice of Shechem was largely conditioned by its favorable position for his family and flocks. Jacob pitched his tent "before the city," in close proximity to the people and the place, in the neighborhood of which he could find society and protection, with pasturage for his flocks. The choice of a home or of a school today is not seldom regulated by the same considerations. A professing Christian man is retiring from business, and determines to reside in the country. Where shall he go? What are his requirements? Healthy surroundings, of course. But also a neighborhood where his young people will be able to enjoy the advantages of good society, where they can mix easily and freely on good terms with the "best people," where social intercourse and entertainment abound, and where the family will soon take its place as one of the recognized centers of social influence. All very attractive and delightful; but does it ever occur to the man who is thus choosing his home to inquire as to the spiritual opportunities of the place? What sort of church has it? Ts the Gospel preached there? Is Christ lifted up? Or is it a fashionable church where either formalism or mere intellectualism rules? But, says the man, "You cannot have everything you want; you must do the best you can with your opportunities, and hope for the best." Be it so; and spiritual trouble will be the result. Unless a family is deliberately going into a spiritually destitute neighborhood to witness for Christ and to win people to Him (in which case they will not be allowed many social advantages by their neighbors!), the first and supreme factor of choice of a new home should be, "What will it do for our spiritual life?"

Or it may be that parents have to choose a school for their boys and girls. They are able to send them to the very best known of private schools, and they quite naturally desire for their children the best opportunities, educational and social. But there are well-grounded reports that these particular schools, though socially advantageous, are morally disadvantageous, and attended with risk. What will the father and mother do? Will they take the risk? Or will they definitely make themselves familiar with the religious life of the school before sending their boy? Or will they not rather send him to a less known school, where all is well religiously, and sacrifice the social advantages of the other school for the sake of moral and spiritual safety? On the answer to these questions much will turn. Jacob chose to live near Shechem, with all the risks involved thereby, and no one ever follows his example without suffering quite as definitely, in some way or other.

The inevitable result of living near Shechem was soon seen. Dinah, the only daughter of Jacob (Gen 30:21), "went out to see the daughters of the land." It was a perfectly natural thing for a young, inexperienced girl to do. The thought of visiting "the daughters of the land," was at once novel and interesting. We wonder, however, what Jacob and Leah were doing to allow it. Why did they not warn Dinah of the danger, and prevent her going? Was this inaction due to their lowered moral tone? Did they argue that there was "no danger" and that "we must not be too particular or strait-laced"? In any case, she was allowed to go, with the result that is well known. The sin of Shechem was, of course, in every way inexcusable, for it was against the youth of the girl, as well as against all known laws of hospitality. And yet in view of the fact that he and his people were people of the land, and not followers of the one true God, it would not be regarded by him and his in the same light of heinousness as it was regarded from Jacob’s side. It is very striking that the word rendered "defiled" (Gen 34:5; Gen 34:13; Gen 34:27) means "desecrated," and is used later to describe the defilement or desecration of the Temple (Psa 79:1-13). "The dishonor of womanhood and the desecration of the Holy of Holies are regarded with the same feelings and described by the same word" (Strahan, Hebrew Ideals in Genesis). Thus does the Book of God regard personal purity, and denote and denounce the sin that dishonors it. But while we fail not to point out the sin of Shechem, we may not forget the weakness and unfaithfulness of Jacob that made possible his daughter’s shame.

Shechem proceeded to make the only possible reparation. He had evidently become genuinely attached to Dinah and wished to make her his wife. He thereupon requested his father to take the necessary steps to this end according to the custom which made it the parents’ business to obtain wives for their sons (Gen 24:4; Jdg 14:2).

Jacob soon heard the terrible news of his daughter’s fall, and as his sons were not then at home he "held his peace." We wonder why? Was it because of sorrow and shame as he thought of his daughter and of the circumstances that gave opportunity for it? Was conscience stirring within him, reminding him of Bethel? Or was it a case of real indecision, not knowing what to do, and therefore leaving the matter to be settled by Dinah’s brothers? It is true that brothers seem to have had a great deal to say concerning their sister’s life (Gen 24:50 f.), but at the same time Jacob’s silence and inaction, as head of the household, are somewhat difficult to understand. The "silence" does not seem to have been in connection with the proposed marriage, but with reference to the sin and shame.

At length the brothers heard of it, and at the same time came Hamor’s request on behalf of his son. The proposal for marriage was suggested as an opportunity for the beginning of a general amalgamation of the two families and peoples (ver. 9, 10). Shechem was also prepared to give whatever "dowry" they asked, the "dowry" being not a gift to the bride, in the modern sense, but a price paid to the parents for their daughter (Exo 22:16 f.; 1Sa 18:25).

These proposals are significant on several grounds. They show clearly the value set by the Canaanites on union with Jacob’s family. It was not the first, and it has not been the last occasion when people of the world have thought it advantageous to be united with the people of God. Godliness, even of the kind then shown by Jacob, has promise of attractiveness and value for men of the world. Then, too, we cannot help noticing the true nobility of character shown by Shechem. In spite of his sin, or at least after it, he stands out well by comparison with the rest of the actors here mentioned. And it is a striking testimony to the candour of the Book that it depicts both this Canaanitish prince and the sons of Jacob so faithfully. The frankness of the Bible is not the least proof of its truthfulness and authenticity.

The request and proposals of Hamor and Shechem were regarded by Dinah’s brothers as impossible unless one particular condition were fulfilled. They took up the ground that it would be intolerable to allow an uncircumcised man to become the husband of one who was within the covenant of God, but they were quite ready to agree to the marriage if the Canaanites would agree to all their males receiving the sign of the covenant. Not only so, they would be prepared to enter into other marriages and to become "one people" with the Canaanites.

And this sounded quite fair and straightforward. It was taking up a perfectly intelligible attitude, and one that, if based on right motives, would have been not only necessary and justifiable, but would have brought about the best possible ending to the trouble concerning their sister. But it was the absence of the right motive that condemned their proposal. They had no idea of these men entering the covenant on religious grounds. They were proposing to use the sign of the religious covenant as the means of a purely human agreement. Circumcision without faith in the covenant God could not be anything but carnal and earthly. And, worse still, they were about to employ the solemn seal of the Divine covenant for the purpose of wreaking their vengeance on these unsuspecting men. Their suggestion was therefore nothing more than a pretext to cover treachery. There was the appearance of piety with the reality of intended murder. Could anything be more truly terrible? What a light it sheds on the state of Jacob’s home life! And why was Jacob silent during all these proposals? True, he could not know the contemplated treachery, but his entire silence is remark. able. Had he no part or power in the matter of his daughter’s life? Or was he weak and irresolute, conscious of his own unfaithfulness?

The requirements of Dinah’s brethren were at once welcomed by Hamor and Shechem. The latter was prepared for instant acquiescence, so genuine was his love for Dinah. The proposals were also set before the men of the city, and their acceptance urged by Hamor and Shechem. They pointed out the peaceable character of Jacob and his family, and the size of the land as sufficient for them all to live in and trade together. It was also shown that amalgamation would prove advantageous in the acquisition of fresh possessions, since all would be as one in the event of marriages between the two races. The proposals thus ably urged were accepted, and the men of Shechem submitted to the condition laid down by Jacob’s sons. And apart from any consideration of personal advantage urged as one of the reasons for acquiescence, it is impossible not to see the peaceable and trustful attitude of the Canaanites in the face of Jacob and his sons. The "heathen" show up well by contrast with those who were professedly the people of God.

Very soon the true object of Dinah’s brethren was revealed. Their apparently religious requirement was seen to be the cloak of vengeance, and at a convenient moment the trusting Canaanites were massacred, including Hamor and Shechem. Then, after taking their sister home, they returned to complete their fell task by sacking the city and capturing all the women, children, and flocks they could find. Thus they avenged sin by greater sin. It is sometimes said that this was all the result of "religious fanaticism," and that in it we have the first example of that Jewish fanaticism for religion which caused the Jews so much trouble (Dods, p. 314 The Expositor’s Bible). It does not, however, appear clear that there was anything of religion in it, but only sheer cruelty and vindictiveness exercised under the guise of a religious rite. The men who could plot and wreak such vengeance did not possess one grain of religion, even of a fanatical kind. The story is one of unrelieved savagery. If only they had been actuated by true motives their sister’s shame would have been covered, so far as it could be, by subsequent marriage; but as it was, she was robbed of that refuge, and had to live her life and end her days under the cloud of disgrace, due first to herself and then to her brothers’ vengeance. And all this in the family of the chosen patriarch! Could anything be sadder or more disappointing? Could Divine grace overrule these awful troubles? Yes, it could and did, though they still stand recorded in all their hideousness, "written for our learning."

At last Jacob speaks, having "held his peace" far too long. He rebuked his sons for their action, but the character of the rebuke is very noticeable. Jacob-like, the patriarch looks at the matter solely from his own point of view.

"Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants…and I being few…they shall gather…against me and I shall be destroyed, I and my house."

Could anything be feebler or more unworthy? No blame for the sin committed, only for the danger involved. He was afraid for his life, his home, the land he paid for, the possessions he enjoyed. Trouble comes through unfaithfulness, and then circumstances are blamed. Children bring trouble on parents, and perhaps the fault is originally and largely the parents’ own.

Weakness and timidity are here as plainly marked as ever, showing clearly the low tone of the man through long-continued unfaithfulness to God. His apprehensiveness of danger shows that there was no spiritual satisfaction or assurance of safety. He had quite forgotten the Divine promise of protection (Gen 28:14 f). People who live on the borderland between Church and world are like those who lived in the old days on the borders between England and Scotland-they are never safe.

The sons have the last word, and justify their action in words that partake of the nature of a suppressio veri, and therefore of a suggestio falsi. They omit all reference to the action of Shechem by which he would have done reparation and prevented Dinah from living all her days under the shadow of her sin. Their father allows them to have the last word, not that he admits the truth of their position, but perhaps because argument with such men would be useless, and possibly because he is conscious that his own choice of Shechem for a home was contributory in great measure to what had happened. When, however, the end of his life comes, the old man shows that he had not forgotten their action (Gen 49:6-7), for he stamps it in its true colors as disreputable and wrong in the sight of God.

The one lesson that stands out from all the rest is that which is associated with the life and character of Jacob at this time. It is the fact and danger of worldliness.

1. Worldliness is a real spiritual peril.

It is doubtless difficult to define "worldliness," and on this account it is easy to ridicule the idea and put it down to narrowness, straitlacedness, and censoriousness. But in all ages, under a variety of phases, the fact and force of "worldliness" have been felt and acknowledged by all spiritually-minded people. Does not Church history show a difference in the spiritual life of the Church in the second and third as compared with the fourth and fifth centuries? What was the explanation? Three words sum it up: Constantine, patronage, worldliness. We see it again and again in churches and congregations where sensational or other unworthy methods have been used to attract people, with the result that the ministry is robbed of power, prayer meetings and Bible classes yield to concerts, "the hungry sheep look up and are not fed," and souls are not saved. We see it also in the individual lives of those who once "ran well," but who have yielded to pressure and have lowered the standard of holiness for fear of being thought too "narrow" or "too particular." Yes, worldliness is hard to define, but it is very easy to feel, to detect, and to describe. It is an atmosphere, enervating, lowering, poisoning, deadening; and whenever individuals and churches are under its sway, the result, however long delayed, is as inevitable as it is disastrous to the soul and dishonoring to God.

2. Worldliness prevents spiritual blessing.

Not only did Jacob’s worldliness lead to danger and disaster to himself and his household, it necessarily hindered him at the same time from bearing witness to God. "The Canaanite was then in the land," and, like Lot before him, there was no real testimony, because there was no real difference between him and them. What cared they for his altar, so long as he lived with them and did as they did? What good could the altar do in the face of his life day by day as one of themselves? So it is always. Worldliness lowers tone and prevents testimony. The banner is not displayed, because the life is not true. The standard is not maintained, and blessing is not obtained. There never has been a case where the adoption of worldly methods has justified itself by spiritual blessing. In the Middle Ages the Pope boasted to Thomas Aquinas, as he showed that great scholar the treasures of the Vatican, "The Church cannot now say, `Silver and gold have I none.’" "True," said Thomas, "and neither can it say, ‘In the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.’ "

3. Worldliness can only be prevented by separation.

The Master in His High Priestly prayer (John 17) gives us the true (sevenfold) attitude of the believer and the Church to the world, and thereby reveals the safeguard against this insidious peril. We are given to Christ "out of the world" (Joh 17:6) ; we are "in the world" (Joh 17:11) ; we are "hated by the world" (Joh 17:14) ; we are "not of the world" (Joh 17:14) ; we are "not to be taken out of the world," but "kept from" its evil (Joh 17:15), and we are "sent into the world" (Joh 17:18) to witness to it as our Master did, "that the world may know" (Joh 17:23) who and what He is. All this can only be realized through true spiritual separation, and, however difficult it may be to define exactly the limits of separation, the fact and necessity of it are undoubted. The principles, ideals, and methods of Christianity cannot possibly be mixed with those of the world without contamination; and if only we abide in Christ and continue in His love we shall live in an atmosphere of purity and power which will be our constant safeguard and our sufficient warning. One thing is perfectly clear: no one can read and study the teaching of the New Testament as to "the world" without becoming conscious at once of the danger and of the safeguard, of the enemy and of the protection, of the warfare and of the secret of perpetual victory.