Restoring Jacob’s Daughter:

There is this strange chapter in Genesis that talks about Jacob’s daughter. You might think he only had one daughter, Dinah, for she is the only one ever mentioned. On the other hand, the only reason Genesis mentions women is when there is some special reason to mention them. That does not make the women and daughters unimportant. It means that they played no role in advancing the plot of the majority of these narratives, from their patriarchal perspective.

Genesis chapter 34 is one of those exceptions. We find that Jacob indeed did have daughters. They just had not been named for us at the time of their births. Now, however, she suddenly becomes important because of the aftermath of what is done to her. She is raped. While we might think of rape from the standpoint of the harm and trauma brought upon Dinah, the brothers would likely have been more concerned with the economic damage done to the family, as her bride price would be greatly reduced. Shechem’s father, however, takes that concern off the table, offering whatever Jacob might ask as a bride price. On the other hand, they were as likely concerned with questions of honor, as they addressed their sister having been treated as a prostitute.

Two of the brothers, her full-blood brothers, decide to recover what had been stolen from them. They resolve to negotiate with the town over her bride price, including in it the requirement that all the men of the town be circumcised. This was ostensibly due to their disgust and religious requirements they would make of anyone marrying one of Jacob’s daughters. Instead, it is subterfuge to enable the two brothers to enter the town after all the men are sore and recovering from circumcision, that they might kill all the men of the town. The two brothers followed up on their plan of revenge. Then the rest of Jacob’s sons joined them to pillage the entire town, capturing the women and children as prizes of war, as well.

Jacob seems to become aware of these actions only after the fact. He confronts the two brothers with with the likely consequences the family will face as a result of their treachery. Their response is essentially, “Should we have done nothing in response to the rape of our sister?”

There is a lot of daylight between doing nothing and slaughtering an entire town, enslaving its women and children, and pillaging all its good. The brothers try to make it sound like theirs was the only possible response. It is a justification that anyone should be able to see through.

Their actions did not turn back the clock on Dinah’s rape. They did not erase the loss of her virginity. They did not alleviate any aspect of her trauma. Their actions were not directed to the individuals responsible for the transgression at hand. They did not follow the principle of limiting revenge behind the concept of “one eye for one eye.” If anything, their response is textbook for violent overreaction. It resolved nothing. It extended a series of violent responses completely out of proportion to the very real harm done to Dinah. It did not and could not restore the perceived damage to their honor.

Revenge is simply incapable of making restitution. It is powerless to resolve damage, trauma, pain, grief, or any other harm. It cannot turn back the clock. It cannot restore what is lost or damaged. Even so, it seems we reflect far too little upon the limitations of revenge, just as these brothers.

This narrative is a call to reflection upon revenge and retaliation. We are presented no solution. We are just shown one unjustified attempt to redress a wrong, and this premeditated plan of revenge is completely out of proportion to the crime. Numerous other options were all on the table, yet none of them seems to have been discussed or considered.

Simeon and Levi have become the test case for considering the principle behind “one eye for one eye, and one tooth for one tooth,” the concept of limiting retaliatory justice. With reflection, we can find better ways to resolve conflict, injustices, harm, and violence. The question is whether we will take the time to actually reflect on what it would mean to achieve restoration, redemption, reconciliation, or even rehabilitation. Revenge and retaliation do not resolve anything in the long term, as much as we may feel compelled to wield them as the only tool available to us.

This narrative has been resurfacing in my mind at least daily since we heard of recent attacks on Israel by Hamas. At one point, we were hearing that Hamas had killed upwards of 1,200 people in Israel, while Netanyahu’s response had claimed upwards of 14,000 lives in Gaza, about half of them being children. The question is not, “Should we have done nothing?” The question to ask is, “How do we resolve our differences that we might live in peace?”

But, yes, there is a major problem with that. Netanyahu’s goal is not peace any more than it is the goal of extremist elements within Hamas. There is no road-map to peace while the actors making decisions do not have peace, justice, or reconciliation in mind.

I may want peace. You may want peace. Palestinians may want peace. Israelis may want peace. God may want peace. That does not mean the principles in the conflict are amenable to peace. The tools we use to resolve conflict define the possible outcomes. That’s kind of what Jacob told Simeon and Levi, akin to, “We have to live with the results of your mess.”

It is said fighting dogs can be stopped by throwing cold water on them. The point is to distract them from the fight. It is to redirect their attention. It is to shift the focus of their attention off the reactionary instinct levels of the brain to the more rational centers attempting to process the unexpected cold water and what it means.

Reflection is necessary. Thinking through options is necessary. Addressing what outcomes we are seeking is necessary to achieving them. Do we need to be shocked by a bath of cold water to redirect our attention and bring us to our senses? Rarely, if ever, is there only one option available to us. Doing nothing is not the only alternative to the first response that comes to mind.



— ©Copyright 2023, Christopher B. Harbin 



http://www.sermonsearch.com/contributors/104427/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Gospel Is Not Conservative

Image
Fundamentalism and conservativism are intrinsically averse to change. They are tied with conserving a status quo or moving back to a former era. They seek a safe place, a respite from change and transformation in the world around them. They are threatened by new ideas. They fear that the foundations on which they base their lives will be uprooted, causing their view of reality to fall apart. Growth depends on change. Life requires change. Survival depends on responding to changes in our environment. It requires new ideas. It requires new answers to old questions, as well as new questions with even newer answers. Jesus was by no means conservative. Jesus challenged the status quo. He fought against the groundwork of much of the religious thought around him, as well as the structures erected to empower its values. He called out those who benefited from social, religious, and political power. He demonstrated God's love, forgiveness and grace to those deemed una...
Read more

God in the Hands of Angry Sinners

Image
Jonathan Edwards’ famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” set a very poor direction for much of Christianity in the Colonies. His Puritan tradition presented God as an essentially angry deity whose desire was to condemn and torture. Grace or mercy existed simply in regard to how long God waited until calling down judgment upon sinners. That is not good news. It never was. Such is not the message of Jesus whom the gospel writers claim as good news. They echo the words of the celestial messengers declaring Jesus’ birth as good news of great joy to all peoples. Rather than look to Jesus as the clearest example of God’s identity, character, and will, that tradition surrounding Edwards began with an altogether different understanding that could not account for what Jesus actually taught. The Puritan perspective began with angry sinners and projected that upon God. Anger begins with fear, uncertainty, discomfort, and the inability to control one’s environment, ot...
Read more

Our Language of Choice

Image
I woke up this morning and decided to be a woman. I really like the idea of earning less money on the job. I like the idea of being passed over for promotions. I like that I will be held more accountable for the care of my home and familial responsibilities than any of the men around me. I’m looking forward to having my expertise ignored. I like that I’ll more likely be treated as a lower-level assistant to male colleagues than an actual colleague. It should be a good experience to live as more of a target for domestic violence and abuse. It will be so freeing to let go of my bodily autonomy and place it in the hands of men who will not understand me. With so many voices in our society shifting back toward the attitudes of 70 years ago, I am really looking forward to setting aside all trappings of male privilege and power to live as a second class citizen whose voice and opinions are essentially irrelevant. Just look at all the advantages women have! They get t...
Read more