XI. Theme: The Dinah Affair 15-Aug-04 Genesis 34:1-31 Duguid Chapter 10 Jacob s sons are rightly grieved by the sin against their sister Dinah; however, their retribution does not fit the crime. Key Verses: Gen. 34:25-27 25 Now it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brothers, each took his sword and came boldly upon the city and killed all the males. 26 And they killed Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah from Shechem's house, and went out. 27 The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and plundered the city, because their sister had been defiled. Review Last week we looked at Genesis 33, the reconciliation of Jacob and Esau. It is clear that the reconciliation is an act of God s grace God s grace in causing Jacob to seek reconciliation, and God s grace in causing Esau to accept Jacob in peace. Jacob is fresh from his encounter with God at Peniel, and he is now prepared to face Esau. In an apparent reversal of the blessings of Genesis 27, in Genesis 33 Jacob prostrates himself before Esau and offers tribute to his older brother. In fact, Jacob calls his gifts to Esau his blessing, using the same Hebrew word berakah as is used to describe the spiritual blessings promised to Jacob by Isaac and by God. While Jacob cannot give Esau back the spiritual berakah blessing, because it does truly belong to him, he can share with Esau the temporal blessings that flow out of that spiritual blessing. Esau receives his brother peacefully, apparently a gift of God s grace. However, Esau does not display much interest in the berakah blessing. At first he doesn t receive Jacob s gifts, but ultimately he does accept them at Jacob s urging. While the name of God is always on Jacob s lips, it is strangely absent from Esau s. Esau is firmly grounded in this world; Jacob had seen the host of heaven twice now, and was well aware of the greater spiritual realities. Esau s connection to this world is clearly seen in his offer for Jacob to come live with him in Mt. Seir, outside the land of promise. Although Esau s desire to live with his brother was a good one, for the blessing would flow only through Jacob, he went about it in the wrong way. Esau does not seem interested in joining with his brother and moving back to Canaan. Esau would have had to submit himself to his brother, and he shows no desire to do that. So Esau returns to Mt. Seir where his descendants, the Edomites, will be long time enemies of Jacob s descendants, the Israelites. How different the future might have been had Esau submitted to Jacob rather than going his own way. Meanwhile, Jacob eventually travels across the Jordan River after a sojourn in Succoth and returns to the Promised Land. For unknown reasons, Jacob moves Shechem, just a handful of miles north of Bethel. He should have continued his pilgrimage to Bethel to complete his vow, but instead he buys a parcel of land and settles down. Despite this appearance of incomplete obedience, Jacob does at least one thing right: he establishes a center of worship by building an altar there. He names the altar El Elohe Israel, God, the God of Israel. The Lord is no longer just the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac, He is now the God of Jacob (Israel) too. God had reconciled Jacob to Himself and Jacob and Esau to each other. Each act is the result of God s sovereign grace. And in Jesus Christ, God continues to reconcile sinners to Himself. Genesis III Notes. Doc p. 95 DSB 9-Sep-05
Introduction Today we come to Genesis 34, in many ways the most difficult chapter to understand in our study. It is the story of the rape of Dinah by Shechem, prince of the town of Shechem. In vengeance, the sons of Israel, led by Simeon and Levi, enter into a deceptive covenant with the inhabitants of the town, slaughter the men, and take spoils of the women and possessions. It s not a pretty story. And it poses difficulties in several ways. Why is it here in the first place? It interrupts the flow of the story. Jacob has just left Laban and been reconciled to Esau. He s on his way to Bethel. This story seems like a significant detour from the travelogue. Secondly, what is the teaching of this chapter? Most commentators are horrified when they read Genesis 34, sort of like politicians talking about photos from the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib. Is there any lesson we can learn from this chapter? We can glean a little bit of understanding about the chapter as we look at its position in the structure of the Jacob Cycle. It is paired with Genesis 26, which is the story of Isaac and Abimelech. Wenham points out the similarities: Both chapters involve dealings with the inhabitants of the land: the Philistines in chap. 26, the Shechemites in chap. 34. In 26:7-11, Rebekah is nearly taken by the Philistine king; in 34:1-26, Shechem actually takes Dinah. In both cases the patriarch shows little courage in protecting his wife or daughter, but ultimately he escapes unharmed and not a little richer (26:31, 13; 34:28-29; 35:5). Way back at the beginning of this course, in the first lesson, I made the following comments: One of the big questions that faces God s people is: how do you deal with pagans? How do you deal with the Canaanites? Genesis was first written by Moses for the people of the Exodus generation. They were going to have to deal with this question. How do you deal with the Canaanites? Do you intermarry with them? No you stay separate from them. Regardless of what you do, there will be strife with the world. There is a right way and a wrong way to deal with them. In Genesis 26, Isaac digs wells, representative of the water of life, and makes a peaceful covenant with Abimelech this is a picture of conversion. On the other hand, Jacob s sons use the covenant deceitfully to destroy the Canaanites who violated Dinah in Genesis 34. As we study Genesis 34 this morning, I hope to show you that the outrage of Jacob s brothers is appropriate it is entirely unacceptable that they ally themselves to the pagan Canaanites through marriage. But their means of dealing with the problem is inappropriate. Before we dig into the text, I also want to mention that one of the big themes of Genesis is very prevalent here in chapter 34: the theme of conflict via deception. Let s list the major deceptions in Genesis: 1) Eve deceived by the Serpent Gen. 3; 2) Abraham deceives Pharaoh Gen. 12; 3) Abraham deceives Abimelech Gen. 20; 4) Isaac deceives Abimelech Gen 26; 5) Jacob deceives Esau for the birthright Gen. 25; 6) Jacob deceives Isaac for the blessing Gen. 27; 7) Laban deceives Jacob regarding his marriage Gen. 29; 8) Jacob deceives Laban regarding the increase of the flocks and then his departure Gen. 30-31; 9) The sons of Israel deceive the Shechemites Gen. 34; 10) The sons of Israel deceive Jacob regarding selling Joseph into slavery Gen. 37; 11) Joseph deceives his brothers regarding his identity and Benjamin s guilt Gen. 42-45. There is a lot of conflict in Genesis caused by deception. The question I will leave you to ponder, but will not have time to answer is this: Is all deception in Scripture wrong? Genesis III Notes. Doc p. 96 DSB 9-Sep-05
A. Dinah and Shechem (34:1-4) 1. Dinah (34:1) Some time has obviously passed since Jacob has left Haran. In 30:21, we are told that Afterward she [Leah] bore a daughter, and called her name Dinah. Dinah was born later than her brothers. She probably was born during the final six years of Jacob s sojourn in Haran. If so, she would have only been a little girl when Jacob reached Shechem, depending on how long he stayed first in Succoth. In any event, by the time this event opens, she must be at least a teenager, if not even older. So, some number of years have gone by and Jacob and family have settled down comfortably near Shechem. In fact, this even may actually take place after Joseph s sale to the slave traders. If so, the dischronology is not a problem. The key is understanding the organization of both the Jacob and Joseph Cycles. In the literary structure, this is the appropriate place for this story. Dinah appears to be curious and wants to see how the other half lives. She is drawn by the attractions of big city life. Perhaps she wanted to learn more about the latest fashions, or get some new makeup, or catch up on the gossip of the town. In any event, she goes into the town of Shechem unchaperoned. This turns out to be a big problem, as we will see. Many commentators fault Jacob right away at this point, allowing his daughter to venture into danger. I m not sure if it was Jacob s fault or her brothers fault, but certainly she should not have been unescorted. 2. Shechem (34:2-4) While in town, she catches the eye of the local prince. Like David viewing Bathsheba, Shechem cannot control himself. He is a law unto himself, and he takes Dinah and forces himself upon her. The Hebrew word used here is a strong word which implies humiliation and violence. Shechem s act was outrageous and wicked. However, if anything at all positive can be said about him, it is that his affection for Dinah afterwards was such that he wanted to make an honest woman of her by marrying her. Eveson comments: Instead of despising her, as Amnon did in the case of Tamar (2 Sam. 13:14-19), or being compelled to marry her, as the Mosaic law would later require, Shechem wanted to marry her. Of course, his courtship method leaves a lot to be desired! B. Jacob and Sons (34:5-7) So the news comes to Jacob and his family of the events in the town of Shechem. How do you think they responded? Jacob held his peace until [his sons] came (34:5). Jacob held his peace. He didn t display any emotion. He then receives Hamor, the father of Shechem, who has been delegated to negotiate the bride price for Dinah. Meanwhile, when Jacob s sons came home from a long day s work in the field, they were grieved and very angry (35:7). Why were they grieved and angry? Because [Shechem] had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob s daughter, a thing which ought not to be done (34:7). Jacob s sons show all of the outrage and emotion that Jacob himself does not. Most commentators find Jacob s reaction odd. Eveson writes: Jacob s lack of action may have been diplomatic, but his lack of emotion was unnatural. Ross comments: It is hard to understand Jacob s lack of action. It appears that Jacob was relinquishing his patriarchal leadership. Duguid says: One wonders if Jacob would have responded differently if Dinah had been Rachel s daughter and not Leah s. That s an interesting question. Certainly, when he is presented with the news that Joseph, his favorite son by his favorite wife, has apparently been Genesis III Notes. Doc p. 97 DSB 9-Sep-05
killed by wild beasts, he is stricken with despair and mourning. Is Jacob s reaction (or lack of it) another sign of Jacob s partiality towards his children? Is Jacob getting old and losing his grip on controlling his sons? I don t know. If this event does happen chronologically after Genesis 37, it could help to explain Jacob s reaction. He may have been emotionally numb because he had already lost his favorite child. Another possible factor to help explain Jacob s reaction is that he is not the primary guardian of Dinah. Her brothers are. It is the role of the brothers to be the guardian of the sister. I ve touched on this subject before, and we ll see it play out in just a minute as Hamor begins his negotiation with both Jacob and sons, but quickly Jacob drops out and it is only the sons who are involved. Before we move on, I just want to highlight that the focus of the story is not only on the immediate context of Dinah and Shechem. Did you catch the reason for the sons reaction? Because [Shechem] had done a disgraceful thing in Israel. This was not just a disgraceful thing in Jacob s immediate family. It was a disgraceful thing in Israel. Although Jacob has been renamed Israel, he has not been referred to by that name in the text to this point. I believe that Moses, the writer of Genesis, has the nation of Israel in view here. It is a disgraceful thing in its immediate context, but it is also a disgraceful thing when it happens in the nation of Israel. Thus, the story has a wider viewpoint than just what happened at Shechem. I ll touch on this subject again at the end of class, if we have time. C. Canaanites and Israelites (34:8-24) 1. Offer (34:8-12) Hamor makes the first offer, and then impetuous young Shechem jumps in and offers even more. He is obviously in love with Dinah. But their offer, while couched in the friendliest and most generous of terms, was laced with hidden dangers that the people of God must at all accounts avoid. Duguid sums up the offer well: What Hamor, the father of Shechem, was putting on the table for negotiation was far more than a single marriage proposal: it was the offer of becoming a single community. What Hamor offered Israel was an apparent shortcut to possessing the land through intermarriage. Significantly, the verb he used in Genesis 34:10 ( acquire property ), is related to the word for possession in God s promise of the land to Abraham as an eternal inheritance in Genesis 17:8. It is clear that Jacob and his sons could not accept what Hamor was offering. The land was not to be received through intermarriage with the inhabitants of the land but through God s gift. Shechem s sin could perhaps been forgiven and friendly relationships could have been restored, just as they had been with Esau, but Jacob s family could no more join into a single people with Shechem than they had with Esau. Their calling was to be a distinct community from those who dwelled in the land. Remember when Abraham wanted to buy a burial plot for Sarah in Genesis 23, the sons of Heth offered the land to Abraham for free. Abraham was faced with a similar dilemma. It was a generous offer and sounded good. But Abraham was trusting in God to deliver him the whole of the land in the future; he would not take the shortcut of having Canaanites give him a part of the land now. Likewise, the offer of Hamor and Shechem sounded promising. There was an opportunity to gain land and wealth, and increase their families through intermarriage with the clan of Shechem. The only problem was that God had promised these blessings to Jacob and his family it was His prerogative to give them to Jacob, not the Canaanites. Genesis III Notes. Doc p. 98 DSB 9-Sep-05
2. Counter Offer (34:13-17) Although the Canaanite pitch has been made to both Dinah s father and her brothers, it is only her brothers who respond. Again, this is because they are in the role of guardian or protector for their sister. In fact, you can see them carrying out this role when they refer to their sister as our daughter in verse 17. What is the brothers plan? They cloak their response in their religion. They claim that Shechem and Hamor and the entire town must take upon themselves the covenant sign of circumcision in order for the marriage to take place. On the surface it sounds plausible. Jacob and family had lived in the area for some time. Jacob had his altar, El Elohe Israel where he worshiped the living God. Jacob s faith should have been well known in the region, and likely the sign of his faith was also known. Perhaps Jacob had been witnessing to the people around him, and had been hopeful that some converts, like Ruth and Rahab from a later age, would attach themselves to the covenant community. Would the sons of Israel take this shameful act of Shechem and turn it into a trophy for God by adding the Shechemites to the covenant community? Sadly, the answer to that question is no. All along, they intended to deceive Shechem and Hamor. In verse 13 they spoke deceitfully. The sons of Israel were not interested in the souls of the Shechemites. They were interested in revenging the wrong done on their sister, and were even willing to use religion to deceive their enemy. Notice how the name of God is not mentioned in this offer of circumcision. By implication, the sons of Jacob are offering this to the Shechemites as a cultural custom, not as a religious seal of the covenant. And as such, they are profaning the very meaning of the covenant which is sealed by circumcision. Now, just in the interest of complete disclosure, let me emphasize here one fact that may have had some bearing or influence on the negotiations. While Hamor and Shechem seemed all polite on the surface, they had an ace in the hole. They still held Dinah. Dinah had not been returned to her family. We know that because in verse 26 Dinah is still in Shechem s house. We don t know if she was there willingly or being held against her will. But this much is clear: Shechem still had Dinah, and the brothers did not. Certainly that would have had some impact on the brother s thinking. They were not negotiating from a position of strength but of weakness. 3. Acceptance (34:20-24) Hamor and Shechem go back to town and pitch the agreement to the townsmen. Notice how Hamor s story is slightly different, depending on who he is talking to. When talking to Jacob and sons, he says, The land shall be before you. Dwell and trade in it, and acquire possessions for yourselves in it (34:10). To the Canaanites he says something different: Let them dwell in the land and trade in it. Will not their livestock, their property, and every animals of theirs be ours? (34:21, 23). It seems as if Hamor has been double-dealing; while he has made an outwardly honorable offer, it appears that he really intends for the benefit to be completely on his side. Surprisingly enough, the townsmen agree and are circumcised. Apparently, their greed outweighed their common sense. There is no hint of religious overtones in the circumcision itself. They are not taking upon themselves the covenant sign to join the covenant community and gain spiritual blessings; they are doing so in order to benefit materially from Jacob s wealth. Genesis III Notes. Doc p. 99 DSB 9-Sep-05
D. The Sons of Jacob (34:25-31) 1. Simeon and Levi (34:25-26) On the third day after the circumcision, Simeon and Levi (likely with their servants) come into Shechem and slaughter the men, who are still a bit incapacitated by the ritual. They have accomplished what they set out to do: gain their revenge upon Shechem and the entire town, and rescue Dinah from Shechem s house. It s interesting that Reuben, the eldest, is not involved in this act. Perhaps he had already married and moved away, leaving the second and third brothers Simeon and Levi to uphold the family honor. I think the reference to the third day is a deliberate one and serves to show the wickedness of Simeon and Levi here. The third day in Scripture is one of transition from death to life. On the third day of the journey to Mt. Moriah, Isaac s life is spared when a lamb takes his place. The two spies wait three days with Rahab before escaping the threat of death in Jericho and returning to Joshua. Jonah is resurrected from the tomb of the fish s belly on the third day. On the third day, Queen Esther approaches the king under penalty of death and wins life for her people. And of course, Jesus Christ was raised from the death into life on the third day. There are many other examples in the Scriptures, and so I think this third day is significant. But notice that this is a negative example. On this third day, there is a transition from life unto death. The Shechemites are slaughtered. There are other negative examples of this trend in Scripture, such as the three days of plague following David s census. Thus, I think that this reversal of the normal third day transition from death to life is speaking judgment upon Simeon and Levi. For although the crime of Shechem was clearly heinous, the punishment inflicted by Simeon and Levi did not fit the crime. James Jordan summarizes: The murder of the men of Shechem was in no way a proper act of vengeance. First of all, only Shechem was guilty. Second, he had repented and had offered appropriate restitution. Third, even if he had not repented, murder was an excessive response, as God makes clear later on in Exodus 22:17 and especially in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which describes precisely this case. The reference in Deuteronomy clearly shows what the proper consequence should have been: 28 If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days. Bottom line: Shechem s crime was not a capital crime; neither did his people deserve to die for the sin of their prince. 2. The Other Sons (34:27-29) After Simeon and Levi have finished their dirty work, the other sons of Jacob come behind them on a clean up mission. Or perhaps I should say clean out mission. For they clean out everything of value from the town: 28 They took their sheep, their oxen, and their donkeys, what was in the city and what was in the field, 29 and all their wealth. All their little ones and their wives they took captive; and they plundered even all that was in the houses (Gen. 34:28-29). They are sort of like the Grinch who stole Christmas: they take everything of value out of all the Who s houses, leaving crumbs much too small for all the Who s mouses. Thus, in the end, Jacob and sons have grown wealthier from this Dinah affair. Genesis III Notes. Doc p. 100 DSB 9-Sep-05
3. Aftermath (34:30-31) Finally, Jacob gets an opportunity to express an opinion. I m not sure I understand exactly what Jacob is trying to communicate here; so I will give you two viewpoints. Duguid comes down hard on Jacob: How did Jacob respond to this outrageous behavior on the part of his sons, as head of the family? Not a word of moral outrage passed his lips (cp. 34:30). It was not their sin that he hated and deplored. Rather, it was the possible negative effects that their crime might have on him. He viewed what they had done as a tactical blunder rather than as a sin against a holy God. On the other hand, Jordan sees it differently: Jacob commented that they had caused his witness to stink in the nostrils of all the people round about and had destroyed the effectiveness of his covenantal labors. In Jordan s interpretation, Jacob sees all his potential work in evangelism, through his witness and worship at the altar of El Elohe Israel, as compromised by the actions of his sons. Not only are all his potential converts now dead (!), but also the surrounding pagans will think twice before taking the covenant seal upon them. What is clear is the viewpoint of the brothers: Should he treat our sister like a harlot? (34:31). This is the third moral judgment of condemnation upon Shechem in this chapter. First, in 34:7 because he had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter, a thing which ought not to be done. The second condemnation is in 34:13 because he had defiled Dinah their sister. Shechem s action is viewed as disgraceful and defiling. Conclusion And that s where the story ends. It leaves us hanging. It s not a pretty story. It s not a nice story. But it s a real story. It s a story of conflict and deceit, of love and hate, of treachery and trickery. At the end, the brothers are still defiant, and the father is fearful of the future. They may have wiped out the Shechemites, but the rest of the Canaanites are still in the land. It is not yet their time to be removed. Remember the vision of God to Abraham way back in Genesis 15? 13 Then He said to Abram: Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. 14 And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions. 15 Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age. 16 But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete (15:13-16). The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete. It is not the job of Jacob and sons to be wiping out Canaanites. That s the job of Joshua and company. And even then, Joshua refused to wipe out Canaanites who had entered into covenant relationship with him, even through deception. Remember the Gibeonites of Joshua 9? They lived nearby, but fooled Joshua into believing that their delegation had traveled from a far distance in order to enter into a covenant. Interestingly, Joshua learns about the deception after three days (Jos. 9:16). But unlike the third day in Genesis 34 where life is turned into death, Joshua honors the covenant. Although he had been deceived, Joshua spares the Gibeonites and they pass from a sentence of death unto life. They are added into the people of God and serve honorably as laborers in the tabernacle service. Simeon and Levi were right to despise what happened to their sister. They were morally justified in being outraged at Shechem s behavior. But their response was sinful. Wallace says: Though Simeon and Levi are condemned for their anger and infamous acts of violence, they are not condemned for their indignation over the rape of their sister, or for their zeal in Genesis III Notes. Doc p. 101 DSB 9-Sep-05
seeking to maintain the difference between themselves and the surrounding peoples which they felt to be so important. Once the sons of Jacob had entered into an agreement with the Shechemites, they should have honored it. Especially since their agreement was wrapped up in the covenant of God. Although Simeon and Levi try to justify their actions by pointing out the sin of Shechem, they too are judged. Jacob prophecies in his blessing upon his twelve sons: 5 Simeon and Levi are brothers; instruments of cruelty are in their dwelling place. 6 Let not my soul enter their council; let not my honor be united to their assembly; for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they hamstrung an ox. 7 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 (Gen. 49:5-7). For their deception and violence, Simeon and Levi were passed over in the order of the inheritance (Ross). That honor passes to their younger brother Judah, who becomes head of the kingly tribe. In addition, Simeon and Levi are to be scattered in Israel that is their curse for leading the slaughter of the Shechemites in Gen. 34. Simeon received no real territory in Canaan, and so they were scattered and lived in the midst of Judah (Jos. 19:1-9). But since Judah was more faithful during the Kingdom years than the northern tribes of Israel were, Simeon participated in that blessing (Jordan). Meanwhile, the tribe of Levi redeemed themselves at the golden calf incident in Exodus 32, and thus earned the privilege of becoming God s priestly tribe. They were scattered throughout Israel in special Levitical cities and were given the honor of instructing God s people and guarding God s holiness. Jacob s curse comes to pass, but God in his mercy transforms it into a blessing. Simeon, Levi, and the sons of Jacob were not called to wipe out the Amorites. But their descendants, the children of Israel, did receive that call. I mentioned earlier that Genesis 34 had a wider application than just to Jacob s immediate family. We can see that in Numbers 25, where the people of Israel commit sexual and spiritual adultery with the Midianites at Baal Peor. Israel later avenges this incident in Numbers 31. Wenham points out a number of similarities in the language and events between Genesis 34 and Numbers 31: They slew every male (Num. 31:7; cf. Gen. 34:25); then they slew the Midianite kings (Num. 31:8; cf. Gen. 34:26; Hamor was prince, i.e., local king, according to Gen 34:2). Then Numbers 31:9 repeats Genesis 34:29 almost word-for-word in reverse order: Num. 31:9 9 And the children of Israel took the women of Midian captive, with their little ones, and took as spoil all their cattle, all their flocks, and all their goods. Gen 34:28-29 28 They took their sheep, their oxen, and their donkeys, what was in the city and what was in the field, 29 and all their wealth. All their little ones and their wives they took captive; and they plundered even all that was in the houses. In Numbers 25 vengeance is first taken by Phinehas the Levite, then by all Israel (25:17; 31:4-7), just as Levi s action here (34:26) is followed by his brothers (34:27-29). The actions of Phinehas and the children of Israel are a righteous judgment upon the Midianites. Just as the spoils of the Midianites are reversed from those of Shechem, so there has been a moral reversal from the sin of Levi to the righteousness of his ancestor Phinehas. In conclusion, let me leave you with a few thoughts from Duguid: How do you deal with the problem of sin? The narrative ends with a question that is left unresolved and hanging. Neither Jacob nor his sons have an adequate solution to deal with sin. One way is to massacre Genesis III Notes. Doc p. 102 DSB 9-Sep-05
the sinner, as Dinah s brothers did. Let the whole people die for the sins of its prince. The problem is that it doesn t establish a lasting peace. It doesn t deal with sin in any profound sense; it only obliterates the sinner. However, if Jacob s sons are the moral hardliners on this issue, Jacob is merely pragmatically soft. He would rather avoid dealing with sin because of the messy effects such action may have in his life. Let the sinner go untouched. Neither way solves the problem of sin. One way destroys the sinner; the other way treats too lightly the sin. Is there another way to deal with sin? Is there a way that treats the awfulness of sin with appropriate seriousness yet still reaches out and redeems the sinner? Indeed there is! God s way is for a substitutionary sacrifice to be made. A sinless sacrifice, one without spot or blemish, must be put to death in the place of the sinner. Instead of the people dying for the sins of their prince, as happened at Shechem, the King of kings has died for the sins of His people. That is God s way of dealing with sin once and for all, yet at the same time still saving the sinners. It is a method so complete that it can deal even with the sin of compromised and compromising Jacob and his family. It is a method so complete that it can deal with your sin and my sin too, no matter what you may have done. Close in Prayer. Next week: Lesson 12 Back to Bethel Gen. 35:1-29 (Duguid chapter 11) Genesis III Notes. Doc p. 103 DSB 9-Sep-05