The Rape of the Savior (Joshua)

This all starts with Dinah’s curiosity concerning the culture of the land. She goes out to seek communion with the daughters of Israel’s peaceful neighbors. Some offer the suggestion that Jacob is at fault regarding her safety and protection, and there may be some measure of responsibility to that, but the narrative begins with the exclamation of her own heart. This is why the best way for fathers to protect their children is to speak to the hearts of their children with educational love instead of overshadowing them with guardianship (1Jn.5:21; Jude 21). The heart must learn self-control. It must be taught to keep itself in the love of God. Therefore, if Jacob failed, it was in showing her how to use good discernment. But ultimately, it comes down to Dinah’s own heart. Therefore, as we consider the evil in her defilement, according to the holy standard (in Israel), we must consider that she was not innocent of her own defilement. It is right to charge Shechem with the rape of her innocence, but it is equally wrong to leave Dinah guiltless of her curious lust (Pr.6:27).  

While there is always violence in the nature of sin against the holiness of God, which is not a violence in the nature of two sinners that mutually agree, let’s not behold the words “violated her,” “seized her,” and “lay with her” in that light. There is a great passion here between the two youths who are curiously drawn together by a mutual passion of lust. Dinah truly is the weaker vessel of this lust, but the “force” used here is what was welling up in her own soul from the beginning. She was looking to be “taken away” by the beauty of this land. Therefore, in this violent passion, she was “humbled” by the leading headship of the power of Shechem, who does (shoulder) the consequence of this passion with his life, for the “testimony” says that he “loved her” and “spoke affectionately” to her. Therefore, the violence was not against her person but against her covenant with the God of her father. 

We are not told how the town received its name, Shechem, anywhere in Scripture because it is referred to as Shechem even in the days of Abraham. But this is written from the view of Moses, who is giving the narration of these events. But is it any coincidence that the son of Hamor, whose name is Shechem, why the town is called Shechem from the Hebrew perspective? We are not told what the city was called from the perspective of the Canaanites and Hivites, nor how it received its name. But again, this name has theological implications for the narrative of Christ and the promise to the land in typological and symbolic form as a shadow of what was to come (2Tim.3:16).

It is also interesting that the name means “shoulder” in application to both the town as the gateway into the promised land and the description of Dinah’s rape and defilement by Shechem. Truly, this is the birthplace of the soul and spirit of the land according to the blessing and the cursing of Israel’s Law (Dt.11:29; 28). But this medium has no life without the Spirit of the Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ (Jn.6:53, 61-63). The burden of this blessing and cursing must be shouldered by someone who is not a citizen of the promise, someone set apart for destruction so that the land can be sanctified and incorruptible through communion with the holiness of God (Heb.13:11-13; Rev.20:9). 

Therefore this rape is a baptism of the land in a typological form in preparation for the Law that will enter through “Joshua” when the blessings and the cursings are given as “the Mediator” through the sacrificial symbolism of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection (Mk.3:37-30; Matt.12:27-30). But this requires a new birth of “purity” in the land of promise (Ezk.36:26). Therefore, it requires both the Law and the Testimony to illuminate the description of this new birth that must enter the land through a new covenant (Jer.31:31-37). We receive a shadow of it here in the darkness of this event as a light that would come, but it requires a pure virgin to see the defilement of the human condition (Matt.1:21-23). Christ is that pure virgin, and Christ is the only innocent sacrifice that would produce this new birth as (the shoulder) and substitute for the land (Isa.9:6-7).    

Now where would these “foreign gods” have come from if not from the recent captivity and plundering of the house of Shechem?

Also, why are they called “foreign gods” if there is no such thing as “gods” in the house of God (Ex.20:1-3; Ps.82; Jn.10:34-38; Dt.10:17; Jos.22:22; Ps.136:2; Dan.2:47; 11:36; 2Thess.2:3-4)?

Why were the “earrings” removed as well, since what it means to be a god in Israel is to be adopted as a “free” person?

Therefore, how were the “persons” treated as gods of the covenant of God if not by giving them full rights of sonship in Israel? Isn’t that what made the “foreign gods” foreign since they do not exist in the mind of God in the land of the living?

“unclean”

This “defilement” would have rendered her worthless under the cultural standards of their values, rendering her economically useless. But how is God using this as a standard for all men to recognize as being under a curse before being reconciled to God as “clean” in His sight (Gal.3:13)? The Law was not given yet, but the tradition was very much already in practice (Dt.22:28-30)!! Therefore, such a defilement, if it is a true defilement, requires the death penalty to keep the land “pure” and righteous (Ezk.36:17; Jer.3:9; Lev.18:24-29). Therefore, how does this incident require substitution for Israel (Num.35:33-34)? Therefore, how is the gospel being displayed on this occasion?

This should have been a sufficient atonement, and I personally presume to believe that it was (in God’s sight), for the Spirit is not ashamed to subtlety retain the name Shechem as the gateway and birthplace of the nation Israel, even though justice was administered to the man Shechem to satisfy the wrath of “Israel.” Therefore, Shechem is a savior of the land and a guardian of the promise (1Tim.6:20). This is not imputed to the land because the Law had not been given yet (Rom.5:13; Gal.3:19), but the brothers would not have been permitted to take justice into their own hands if the Law had been instituted in the land. But the Law could not enter her until she became the land of the living (Jn.3:3-6). Therefore, the Law was drawn as a consequence of this birthmark of the land of the promises (Jer.23:6-8; Ezk.32:32; Ps.116:9). She had to be made alive to her misery before she could be made alive to the promise of her cleansing. 

Therefore, how ironic is it that the sons of Israel are guilty of murdering those who were at peace with them and sowed into Israel the seed of bankruptcy and the cry for regeneration (James 2:6-13; 5:4-6; Rev.3:17-19)? Does the Law that comes later treat her like a harlot under the actions and conditions he was willing to come under? No. This was ignorance on the part of Israel’s sons. Therefore, this is not a testimony of Israel’s righteousness but a picture of the gospel working on both sides of the opposing parties. Shechem truly shouldered the salvation of his people as they were adopted into Israel’s house through his death and retained his name in God’s house (Jn.8:5-7, 23-24, 31-36; Gen.35:22). Therefore let us not be “hearers” of the Word only but be doers of God’s righteousness (Rom.2:13; James 1:22-23, 25; 4:11). Therefore, since you see it as your house, make it as your house. But until then, it is my house like it was Canaan’s house before it was the house of Israel (Dt.21:10-14).  

6031 [ʿanah /aw·naw/] v. A primitive root [possibly rather ident. with 6030 through the idea of looking down or browbeating]; TWOT 1651, 1652; GK 6700 and 6701; 84 occurrences; AV translates as “afflict” 50 times, “humble” 11 times, “force” five times, “exercised” twice, “sing” twice, “Leannoth” once, “troubled” once, “weakened” once, and translated miscellaneously 11 times. 1 (Qal) to be occupied, be busied with. 2 to afflict, oppress, humble, be afflicted, be bowed down. 2a (Qal). 2a1 to be put down, become low. 2a2 to be depressed, be downcast. 2a3 to be afflicted. 2a4 to stoop. 2b (Niphal). 2b1 to humble oneself, bow down. 2b2 to be afflicted, be humbled. 2c (Piel). 2c1 to humble, mishandle, afflict. 2c2 to humble, be humiliated. 2c3 to afflict. 2d4 to humble, weaken oneself. 2d (Pual). 2d1 to be afflicted. 2d2 to be humbled. 2e (Hiphil) to afflict. 2f (Hithpael). 2f1 to humble oneself. 2f2 to be afflicted.11 

James Strong, Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (Woodside Bible Fellowship, 1995).

Is God adding anything new here? How is this the same revelation that began in Bethel before he went to Padam Aram and returned to Esau?

Why does it seem that God is silent but reminding him of what was already promised?

Therefore, is this just the formalization of all that has been said to him until this point by the signification of sacrifice?