Genesis 32:29 – 34:31 Bible Teaching

Welcome

Lots of heartache in the world – even in our small community, folks. Let’s pray.

Danny’s son Jeremy in Texas
Scott Myers barely hanging in
Cathy Hansen’s son
David’s incarceration

Prayer
Song
Silence

Okay we left off last week with a biggie dive into the deep end where we used the event of Jacob being renamed Israel to show how the Nation of Israel was to be – powerful of God and Man and dominate – and then we talked about how True Israel would be thereafter – powerful in God but not among Man, not esteemed, not a threat..

So, we left off with the messenger and Jacob still in each others presence and so let’s read from verse 29 to verse 32.

Genesis 32:29 – 34.1-31 The Dinah Story
May 21st 2023
29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: (The face of God) for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
31 And as he passed over Penuel the sun rose upon him, and he halted upon his thigh.
32 Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh in the sinew that shrank.

Alright back to 29:

29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.

This is interesting and it is believed that Israel was asking the name of the angel so that he could appeal to him or it in the future.

It is also believed by many Rabbi’s that the angel refuses to tell him his/her or its name because that could easily lead to idolatry.

We will see this very human predilection to embrace idols really quickly unfold as we continue to study together.

Interestingly, if this was the preincarnate Christ as many believers suggest, and if they are right, then we have biblical evidence that the very name of Jesus (post incarnation or after) was NOT to be shared with Man in this day, refuting the LDS claim that Jesus name was known from the beginning.

Something to consider.

In any case, the messenger refuses to supply Jacob with his name but instead blesses Jacob (now Israel) right then and there as Jacob demanded.

30 And Jacob called the name of the place Pen-oo-ale: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
31 And as he passed over Pen-oo-ale the sun rose upon him, and he halted upon his thigh.

The God face to face line we have addressed at least a half dozen times but to remind you, I believe that when someone has engagement with one of God’s messengers they believed that that was synonymous with having an engagement with God.

Now, some suggest that when the sun rose upon him that Israel’s thigh was healed and they appeal to a passage in Malachi 4:2 to support this view where we read

“Unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings?”

Could be. Then we get a little added flavor from what appears to be Moses saying

32 Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh in the sinew that shrank.
Now, this sinew is called the “G?? hanN?še, and it literally means, the “forgotten sinew” or is often translated as “displaced tendon” and appears to be the Hebrew term for sciatic nerve in Judaism.
It may not be eaten by Jews according to Halacha (Jewish Law) and the rules for this are found in chapter 7 of what is called, the prohibition of gid hanasheh in the Tractate Chullin.
The verse in Hebrew best reads
“Therefore the Israelites do not eat the displaced nerve (gid ha-nasheh) on the hip joint to this very day.”
One interpretation of why (and this is comes from what is called, the Zohar) (which is Jewish Kabbalism) explains that the thigh is the root location of sexual desire.
While most evil urges can be overcome, there is one lust that is so strong that it overpowers even great men – the gid ha-nasheh.
Its very name nasheh means “forgetting” (cf. Genesis 41:51), because once this desire has been aroused, we forget all rational thinking and moral scruples.
The only way to win this battle is to completely distance ourselves from it. For this reason, the gid ha-nasheh is not eaten at all but entirely avoided.
However, another more moderate Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook argues that the prohibition of eating gid ha-nasheh speaks to the principle that, while humans may need to slaughter animals for sustenance, they should not seek to subjugate other creatures, be they human or animal, to their will via pain.
To this end, the Torah prohibits eating the sciatic nerve, a nerve which is the nerve that enables an organism to stand upright comfortably.
We are now going to read through chapter 33 and stop as we read to hit the highlights.

Genesis 33:1 And Jacob lifted up his eyes, and looked, and, behold, Esau came, and with him four hundred men. And he divided the children unto Leah, and unto Rachel, and unto the two handmaids.
2 And he put the handmaids and their children foremost, and Leah and her children after, and Rachel and Joseph hindermost.
3 And he passed over before them, and bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother.
4 And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept.

5 And he lifted up his eyes, and saw the women and the children; and said, Who are those with thee? And he said, The children which God hath graciously given thy servant.
6 Then the handmaidens came near, they and their children, and they bowed themselves.
7 And Leah also with her children came near, and bowed themselves: and after came Joseph near and Rachel, and they bowed themselves.
8 And he said, What meanest thou by all this drove which I met? And he said, These are to find grace in the sight of my lord.
9 And Esau said, I have enough, my brother; keep that thou hast unto thyself.
10 And Jacob said, Nay, I pray thee, if now I have found grace in thy sight, then receive my present at my hand: for therefore I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God, and thou wast pleased with me.
11 Take, I pray thee, my blessing that is brought to thee; because God hath dealt graciously with me, and because I have enough. And he urged him, and he took it.

12 And he said, Let us take our journey, and let us go, and I will go before thee.
13 And he said unto him, My lord knoweth that the children are tender, and the flocks and herds with young are with me: and if men should overdrive them one day, all the flock will die.
14 Let my lord, I pray thee, pass over before his servant: and I will lead on softly, according as the cattle that goeth before me and the children be able to endure, until I come unto my lord unto Seir.
15 And Esau said, Let me now leave with thee some of the folk that are with me. And he said, What needeth it? let me find grace in the sight of my lord.

16 So Esau returned that day on his way unto Seir.
17 And Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and built him an house, and made booths for his cattle: therefore the name of the place is called Succoth.
18 And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padanaram; and pitched his tent before the city.
19 And he bought a parcel of a field, where he had spread his tent, at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for an hundred pieces of money.
20 And he erected there an altar, and called it Elelohe-Israel.

Okay, lets go back and read and talk

Genesis 33:1 And Jacob lifted up his eyes, and looked, and, behold, Esau came, and with him four hundred men. And he divided the children unto Leah, and unto Rachel, and unto the two handmaids.

Why the four hundred men? Hard to say. Perhaps Esau was just being prepared. But we see that Esau was anything but warlike with his brother

2 And he (Israel) put the handmaids and their children foremost, and Leah and her children after, and Rachel and Joseph hindermost.

This plainly looks like Jacob was putting the least favorite family members first and the favorite last but we cannot be entirely sure.

3 And he passed over before them, and bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother.
4 And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept.

Esau turned out to be quite a man, right? Humble, sincere and magnanimous! He appears to have buried all his resentment, and openly receives his brother with love and affection.

Where it reads that Esau kissed him the Masoretic Bible, which is a manuscript created around the 9th Century AD that serves to help know how to pronunciate Hebrew words and interestingly the word Kissed therein has special markings over every letter to show how emphatic and real Esau’s love for Jacob was.

5 And he (Esau) lifted up his eyes, and saw the women and the children; and said, Who are those with thee? And he (Israel) said, The children which God hath graciously given thy servant.
6 Then the handmaidens came near, they and their children, and they bowed themselves.
7 And Leah also with her children came near, and bowed themselves: and after came Joseph near and Rachel, and they bowed themselves.
8 And he (Esau) said, What meanest thou by all this drove which I met? And he (Israel) said, These are to find grace in the sight of my lord.
9 And Esau said, I have enough, my brother; keep that thou hast unto thyself.
10 And Jacob said, Nay, I pray thee, if now I have found grace in thy sight, then receive my present at my hand: for therefore I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God, and thou wast pleased with me.
11 Take, I pray thee, my blessing that is brought to thee; because God hath dealt graciously with me, and because I have enough. And he urged him, and he took it.

Apparently, Israel could not be sure that he had found favor with Esau if the gift had not been accepted and tradition says that in accepting it Esau became his friend.

12 And he (Esau) said, Let us take our journey, and let us go, and I will go before thee.
13 And he (Israel) said unto him, My lord knoweth that the children are tender, and the flocks and herds with young are with me: and if men should overdrive them one day, all the flock will die.
14 Let my lord, I pray thee, pass over before his servant: and I will lead on softly, according as the cattle that goeth before me and the children be able to endure, until I come unto my lord unto Seir.

We will see that this plan was apparently well intended and did not happen this way. Verse 15

15 And Esau said, Let me now leave with thee some of the folk that are with me. And he said, What needeth it? let me find grace in the sight of my lord.

What seems to be said here is Esau offers to leave some men with Israel, probably as a means to protect them as they were men of war, but Jacob seems to reject that by saying we have received enough from you in the grace you have extended us.

16 So Esau returned that day on his way unto Seir.
17 And Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and built him an house, and made booths for his cattle: therefore the name of the place is called Succoth (which means booths)
18 And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padanaram; and pitched his tent before the city.

The word, Shalem is really unknown as a place but appears to mean, shalom as in peace. It is believed to be the place to actually be Shecham which is near to Samaria. (verse 19)

19 And he bought a parcel of a field, where he had spread his tent, at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for an hundred pieces of money.

Interestingly, there is a debate on if this was 100 lambs or 100 pieces of money or 100 pieces of money with a lambs picture inscribed on it.

Can’t say.

20 And he erected there an altar, and called it Elelohe-Israel. (which means, God the God of Israel)

And we have yet another altar built. And this brings us to chapter 34 which we will also read entirely.

As we read, I want you to remember that Jacob has been renamed Israel because he had power with God and Man. He was a man of God first who directed His actions with Man in prevailing.

We are about to read where some of his sons, now carrying the name Israel in their fathers namesake BUT in what we are about to read are going to act to prevail and impress Man but not God – which will be a problem with the Nation of Israel in years to come.

So let’s read

Genesis 34:1 And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.
2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.
3 And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.
4 And Shechem spake unto his father Hamor, saying, Get me this damsel to wife.
5 And Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter: now his sons were with his cattle in the field: and Jacob held his peace until they were come.

6 And Hamor the father of Shechem went out unto Jacob to commune with him.
7 And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob’s daughter; which thing ought not to be done.
8 And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you give her him to wife.
9 And make ye marriages with us, and give your daughters unto us, and take our daughters unto you.
10 And ye shall dwell with us: and the land shall be before you; dwell and trade ye therein, and get you possessions therein.
11 And Shechem said unto her father and unto her brethren, Let me find grace in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me I will give.
12 Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife.
13 And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father deceitfully, and said, because he had defiled Dinah their sister:
14 And they said unto them, We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised; for that were a reproach unto us:
15 But in this will we consent unto you: If ye will be as we be, that every male of you be circumcised;
16 Then will we give our daughters unto you, and we will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people.
17 But if ye will not hearken unto us, to be circumcised; then will we take our daughter, and we will be gone.

18 And their words pleased Hamor, and Shechem Hamor’s son.
19 And the young man deferred not to do the thing, because he had delight in Jacob’s daughter: and he was more honourable than all the house of his father.
20 And Hamor and Shechem his son came unto the gate of their city, and communed with the men of their city, saying,
21 These men are peaceable with us; therefore let them dwell in the land, and trade therein; for the land, behold, it is large enough for them; let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters.
22 Only herein will the men consent unto us for to dwell with us, to be one people, if every male among us be circumcised, as they are circumcised.
23 Shall not their cattle and their substance and every beast of theirs be ours? only let us consent unto them, and they will dwell with us.
24 And unto Hamor and unto Shechem his son hearkened all that went out of the gate of his city; and every male was circumcised, all that went out of the gate of his city.
25 And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.
26 And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went out.
27 The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister.
28 They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which was in the city, and that which was in the field,
29 And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house.
30 And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.
31 And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?

I want to spend the rest of our time together talking in general about this tale because there are a couple of things that we might do well to consider relative to it.

Let me explain here and now that some of what I will say will be disturbing but we cannot give a pass to what disturbs us, can we?

Now, the narrative, at first glance, appears to tell the story of Dinah, but in reality, she is barely present in this chapter. Typical, right?

We do not hear her speak; she acts only once (in verse 1) after which she is referred to only as an object and never as a subject from there on out.

This is not unusual for a great percentage of ancient scripture relative to women.

After her brothers arrive on the scene she is only mentioned by name once between verses 6 and 25 and then after this she will appear again in Genesis 46:15 by way of genealogy.

Now, most readers, Hebrews included, suggest that this is the tale of Dina being raped. In fact, many English Bibles that offer up summary headings for chapters have, “The Rape of Dinah” proceeding this chapter.

We take for granted that the wrong in the story is Dinah being raped. However, there is ancient evidence that this is more of a modern perspective taken from our English readings.

Unfortunately, but honestly, the historical context of ancient Israel proves that the focus of this story would not have been on the heinous act of sexual violence perpetrated against a young woman—if that is even what the story assumes which we will discuss in a moment but it focuses MUCH MUCH more on the practical and social consequences such an act would have on the girl’s father and household.

That was the culture.

So, whether it was the rape of or the seduction of an unmarried woman this would have made it hard for the father to marry her off and this would mean the impossibility of him collecting the full price for the bride.

Again, the culture.

Remember we said that dowry’s changed over time but back in this day the dowry was paid to the family not to the groom.

Also, if her loss of virtue became known publicly, would be an insult to his honor, and, by extension, to the honor of (that’s right) the men in her family.

As an FYI, biblical Hebrew does not have a word for “rape” but the Bible is aware of the fact that women could be forced into sex.

We see this most clearly from the law relative to adultery with “an engaged woman” in Deuteronomy which distinguishes between a sexual encounter in the city, which is presumed to be consensual (since no one hears the woman in an occupied location screaming) verses “one in the field,” which is assumed to have been forced, since she probably screamed, but no one heard.

This is how rape is described indirectly in the scripture.

The Hebrew terms used in cases of force or coercion is “to grab hold of and lie with.”

Now, the man’s crime is the same in both instances (adultery) and listen – consent is only relevant to determine whether the woman is liable for punishment or not.

The point about sexual force and coercion in the law has a clear parallel for the case in the Dinah story, as it says in Deuteronomy 22:28 -29:

“If a man comes across a non-betrothed or not engaged virgin and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, the man who laid with her pays the father 50 shekels, and she becomes his wife, she whom he debased (‘innâ), he can never send her away.

In the previous law referred to, the woman was already betrothed so the father was not going to lose his bride-price and the woman was not going to lose her husband.

But an “unbetrothed virgin” was a different story, and the primary concern of the law was her decreased value upon the loss of virginity and the difficulty the father will have in marrying her off.

The law therefore steps in and solves these problems by forcing the man to marry the woman, with no option for divorce, along with the payment of the full bride price.

A similar law appears in Exodus relative to a seducer, which can also be seen as a parallel to the Dinah story if Dinah was merely seduced and by the way, the Dinah story never says she was forced.

Exodus 22:15-17 says

“If a man seduces a virgin for whom the bride-price has not been paid, and lies with her, he must make her his wife by payment of a bride-price. If her father refuses to give her to him, he must still weigh out silver in accordance with the bride-price for virgins.”

Now, in our day, these things sound so cold, material and insulting to a woman.
But I suspect they were not seen as such then.

Anyway, in this case, which is described as seduction, the man must still marry the maiden and pay the bride price, though the father is given the right to refuse the marriage.

In both cases the primary concern is for the father’s finances and the girl’s future on a practical and social level.

This is the point. Compared to today where some snot nosed hormone filled teen can seduce or take a daughter and have his way and no payment or responsibility is expected, the Law tends to do more to honor women and their place and future than not.

Additionally, these views and practices are not unique to the COI, but similar practices appear in the Middle Assyrian Laws along with other people groups.

Note – neither Deuteronomy nor Exodus expresses any concern with the woman’s emotions or any potential trauma.

This is NOT to day the men or mothers were indifferent to the pain and plight. But ever pragmatic, the Jews dealt with issues by laws and rules and emotions have little to do with such and the intention of these laws was to restore the social order through which an “undesirable” woman would get married, her father would get reimbursed for the loss of her virginity (with the full bride price she would have brought him), and these acts would preserve the honor of the family for (listen) for not being able to protect her virginity.

We begin to see the importance of virginity of a girl in the culture of these ancient peoples – along with a disregard for her feelings or heart if it was lost but a complete regard to the law for recompense.

Considering this context, we might ask, why do the brothers refuse Shechem’s offer to marry Dinah?

His offer is exactly what the Bible thinks he ought to do and what an injured Hebrew family should want and accept?

I am not saying that Jacob and family were beholden to the laws in Deuteronomy or Exodus (they were a long way off from appearing) but rather that these laws reflect the social convention of the time.

If a man were to have sex with a single woman, under any circumstance, because she is available (meaning she is not married or engaged), they would be married by culture or tradition.

That is the fact of the matter – then. And it is from this position that Jesus speaks on relative to marriage in His day.

In the face of all of this, the story of Dinah is about how the brothers handled the debasing of their sister when the perpetrator was . . . “da,da,da, daaaa – “a non-Israelite.”

In this case, the possibility of marriage to the rapist or seducer would need to be forfeited and therefore revenge was made according to Man.

According to Genesis 34, Israelites simply do not marry Hivites, circumcised or not. The story, therefore, reflects a super strong “cautionary tale” against intermarriage, which is echoed later in Deuteronomy 7, and where the prohibition of specifically marrying Canaanites is found.

This then finds its full expression in the broader stance after the exile of intermarriage with any non-Israelite being okay.

The story of Dinah shows how the brothers overcame the need for Dinah’s “social recovery” by taking a violent stand against intermarriage—at least with Canaanites—when they slew Shechem and his people.

It seems difficult for the modern reader to process the fact that Jacob and, by extension, the brothers were considered the primary injured party in the biblical narrative, and not Dinah!

We tend to read the story with Dinah being the victim. And she may have been. But what might be even more troubling is there is a possibility that Dinah, who we readily see as the victim, as instead being at least partially blamed for what happened.

Here is the thinking from some Hebrew scholars. Take it for what its worth as the very first verse says

“And Dinah, daughter of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.”

Notice that the words do not say that Dinah went out to see the daughters of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob but instead, she went out to see . . . “the daughters of THE LAND.”

To several Hebrew scholars, including some female Hebrew scholars, the phrase “to see the daughters of the land” implies that she went to see how the Hivite women dressed or acted, perhaps even to consort with them.

There is no new thing under the sun and is this not the very thing our young daughters might seek when they venture out to the mall or rave or whatever.

The accusations in this sense against Dinah are similar to the contemporary accusations against victims of sexual assault where people will say things like, “Well, she shouldn’t have been there; she shouldn’t have worn that; she shouldn’t have been drinking…”

And therefore we mitigate the harm by putting some of the blame on the victim.

Whether this is the meaning of the verse or not, many Rabbis interpret the first verse as a criticism of Dinah, and have even take this criticism of her much further, by noting two key phrases in the opening verse:

“And Dinah, daughter of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob, went out….”

Ladies, don’t shoot the messenger, but many Rabbis note that because Dinah is described as “daughter of Leah” and not “daughter of Jacob” casts some indirect shade upon her.

Then they point out that Leah her mother is also said to “go out,” to Jacob in search of sexual relations as we read in Genesis 30:16 which says

When Jacob came home from the field in the evening, Leah went out to meet him and said, “You are to sleep with me, for I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes.” And he lay with her that night.

In the early first century, a Rabbi contended in his Genesis Rabbah 80:1 that in this particular case, “a lewd mother will have a lewd daughter,” and he offers the following as proof, saying:

For it is written, “And Leah went out to meet him.” She went out bedecked with jewels like a harlot, therefore, “Dinah the daughter of Leah went out.”

Jacob Neusner in his comment on the midrash, wrote,

“The verb ‘go out’ when associated with a woman carries the sense of her having gone ‘awhoring’.”

Similarly, Midrash Yelamdenu (ca. 5th cent. C.E.), commenting on the Mishnah (Shabbat6:1) which lists what jewelry women may not wear when going out on the Sabbath (to avoid violating the prohibition of “carrying” burdens), makes his own connection to the Dinah story, saying:

“Dinah daughter of Leah went out”—“A woman may not go out [on Shabbat] with a city of gold, or a choker, or nose rings” (m. Shabbat 6:1)—even on a weekday it is forbidden for her to go out into a public place wearing these, so as not to cause herself trouble. For Dinah the daughter of Jacob, since she would often be out by herself, caused herself this trouble. This is what is written: “And Dinah daughter of Leah… and Shechem saw her.”

These midrashim, which are cited by no less an authority than Rashi, a well respected French commentator of the Torah, are cruel and frankly blame Dinah for what happens to her.

What they actually underscore however is how ancient readers understood the text as being about the violation of the honor of Jacob’s family with Dinah’s involvement being at best tertiary and her emotional state not even considered even if her entanglement was not consensual.

The text never tells us how she felt about Shechem or about her brothers’ revenge, or even what happened to her after she was rescued.

In fact, the text never actually tells us if she consented to the sex or not.

Interpretations of this liaison run the gamut from rape, to statutory rape, to consensual encounter, to teenage love affair.

The verb used in Gen 34, “take” is ambiguous, and often refers to taking a woman as a wife (Eg. Genesis 11:29, 25:1, 28:9, etc.).

However, the Septuagint does admit that shecham “humbled her” (??? ??????????? ?????), and in that of the Latin translation of The Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo (8:7), it reads, “And he debased her.”

The debasement in this case is a reference to the insult that the sex act offers to the woman and her family and is not focused on consent or the violence done to her.

To me, after consulting the Hebrew, and their scholars and the culture, it seems to me that this was not a rape, but it was a violation.

We might see Dinah like we would see many young teenage girls. She got dressed up, she went to the Hivitte Mall to see what the latest fashions were, she was spotted out by Shechem, she winked at him, and he called her bluff.

Trying to be cool, she played along and was interested and attracted. In response, this prince of the Hittites, used to getting what he wanted, took her to his tent and one thing leads to another.

Perhaps she resisted, perhaps not entirely and where what Shecham does in our day would certainly be rape, what he does here was he humiliated her as a young girl.

Unfortunately, she was probably blamed, at least in part for the event, but Shecham and his people would lose their lives – for being uncircumcised was unacceptable to Israel whose continuity as a whole was far more important than the individual feelings of one typical teenager.

We will wrap this story up next week.

Comments/Questions

Danny’s son Jeremy in Texas
Scott Myers strength
Cathy Hansen healing
David grace power compassion change
Erick sustenance
Laura abiding force
Families – believers unbelievers
Nation
State
Seekers