Analysis of Genesis 32 Verses 22-32 - Essay Example

Analyzing Genesis 32:22-32 22Now he arose that same night and took his two wives and his two maids and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23He took them and sent them across the stream. And he sent across whatever he had. 24Then Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. 25When he saw that he had not prevailed against him, he touched the socket of his thigh; so the socket of Jacob’s thigh was dislocated while he wrestled with him. 26Then he said, “Let me go, for the dawn is breaking.” But he said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” 27So he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” 28He said, “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed.” 29Then Jacob asked him and said, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And he blessed him there. 30So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved.” 31Now the sun rose upon him just as he crossed over Penuel, and he was limping on his thigh. 32Therefore to this day, the sons of Israel do not eat the sinew of the hip which is on the socket of the thigh, because he touched the socket of Jacob’s thigh in the sinew of the hip. (New American Standard Bible) The account of Jacob’s wrestling match at the ford of Jabbok is, admittedly, a rather difficult passage to interpret because of the surrealism of the occurrence: In the middle of the night, Jacob decides to send his wives and children and their possessions over the ford (vv. 22-23); from out of nowhere, a man appears and wrestles with Jacob who, for some reason, is left behind or stays behind on the other side of the ford (v. 24); the match goes on for an extended period, that is, until daybreak (v. 24), and Jacob demands for a blessing when the man tries to disengage (v. 26); right there, Jacob’s name is changed to Israel, and the place is named Peniel as well (vv. 28, 30). On the surface, the meaning of the passage is not made immediately clear, for as one goes through it initially, it reads as though it is a dream sequence. However, there seems to be no concrete reason to suppose such. It seems fairly clear that there was an actual crossing that occurred (v. 22), and that Jacob was physically hurt by the encounter (v. 31b “…and he was limping on his thigh.”). Hence, the passage indicates rather clearly a turning point not only in Jacob’s life, but in the consequent Israelite history, as evidenced by the effects of the nocturnal encounter (v. 32). At any rate, this particular analysis of the narrative focuses on the name changes that are apparent in the text, specifically the change of Jacob’s name to Israel, and the place of the struggle being named Peniel. Such name-changing has been a significant feature in Jacob’s lineage, and such occurrences have signified important historical events and turning points. This is true of Jacob’s renaming as well. The narrative seems to follow this particular structure based on content: The Crossing Over (vv.22-23) The Encounter (vv. 24-25) The Name Changes (vv. 26-30) Jacob’s Crossing (v. 30) Israelite Commemoration (v. 32) This pattern is a standard narrative structure, not just in biblical text but in most secular narratives as well: there is a journey where, along the way, the protagonist faces a major conflict that inflicts permanent changes or marks on the hero, but the conflict itself proves to be a major event that changes the course of history. Limiting the discussion to Jacob’s ancestry, it can be seen that Abram’s lifestyle was essentially nomadic, traveling from Egypt to the Negev, to Bethel, and then Canaan (Genesis 12-13). He encounters God Almighty, and Abram’s name is changed to Abraham (Genesis 17). God’s covenant is recognized by way of the practice of circumcision, and it is a practice that has survived all the way to Christian times. In a larger scale, the above narrative structure is evident in Abraham’s name-change: There is a journey (Genesis 12- 13) There is an encounter (Genesis 17) There is a change in the hero (name-change, circumcision, Genesis 17:5, 24) There is a commemoration (Genesis 17:12-14, 23-27) Abraham’s name-change signals a turning point in subsequent Israelite history and practice, and it is this same pattern that is found in Jacob’s later struggle. The narrative of Jacob’s struggle opens the door to many questions: What could have prompted Jacob to decide to cross the ford at night, considering that he had his family with him along with a sizable amount of possessions? Why would he choose to be left alone at the other side? How can a single touch from the man dislocate Jacob’s thigh? Why didn’t the man reveal his name? The first two questions cannot seem to be answered as concretely as desired, for very little detail and information are available. Hence, speculation is the only recourse at this point. It is possible that Jacob thought that crossing the ford at night could have afforded them a greater amount of security which is, traveling under the blanket of darkness. On the other hand, that point is precisely counter-intuitive. It could actually be less safe to travel at night, considering that they had a lot with them. This latter view might in fact be much more consistent with the idea that they were in fact accosted by a stranger because they chose to travel during the night. However, it is also possible that the author of the narrative used the nocturnal journey as a symbol of traveling without the light of God, hence, the feeling of being alone in the dark (v. 24a). The single touch that dislocated Jacob’s thigh socket seems to imply supernatural powers, but some versions state that “he [the man] struck him on the hip socket; and Jacob’s hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him” (v. 25 NRSV). This version does not entirely rule out the possibility of simple martial prowess to effect a dislocation of a joint. It could be that Jacob unfortunately went up against an experienced hand-to-hand fighter. But perhaps the author of the narrative considered the setting of the struggle as more meaningful for the audience of the times, when God’s will was hard to discern and understand, for it was the time after Judah’s exile to Babylon. In this context, the audience could connect with a story of wrestling, blessing and wounding, where God encountered and blessed those who persevered through the dark night. On the other hand, the narrative may also have been composed in the post-exilic period, using Jeremiah 30:1-13, and the Jacob tradition from Hosea (Hosea 12:2-4,12 [3-5,13]). The author created a story which deals with the tensions felt in the exilic community about the difficult journey home, fears regarding the people living there, and a desire for assurance that God would be with them. The insistence of the unnamed man to remain nameless and unidentified indicates the divinity of the character, as when the Almighty simply states that He is YHWH, a derivation from the verb HAYAH, to be1, and that no man can see Him and live (Exodus 33:20). The Israelite practice of not eating the sinew of the hip (Genesis 32:32) is a commemoration of Jacob’s encounter and subsequent transformation and renaming. It is also a concrete way of affirming the line and connection that they have with their father Israel, hence the affirmation of God’s promise of reconciliation. Jacobian Deception as Context To set the background of this given passage, several areas need to be considered as constitutive of the context. Primary is the immediate setting of the passage. In chapter 25, verse 26 of Genesis, it can be seen that Jacob’s name was given as a result of his coming at the heels of his twin Esau. The literal meaning of the name “Jacob” is “he grasps the heel”. But the figurative meaning of the name is “he deceives”. In tracing Jacob’s lineage to the earlier chapters of Genesis, it can be seen that apparently, sins can be passed on from father to son. Note the repetitive nature of deception as a recurring sin in this family’s generations. In Genesis chapter 12, there is an account of Abram (“exalted father”) going into Egypt to survive famine (v.10). Before entering Egypt, he instructed his wife Sarai to say that she is Abram’s sister, because he feared that the Egyptians will kill him once they learn that she is his wife (vv.12-13). Once again, in verse 2 of chapter 20, Abram, who was now called Abraham (“father of many”), stated that Sarah is his sister when they went to the land of Gerar. Abraham then had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. It can be recalled that Isaac’s line is the one chosen by God to bear an everlasting covenant with Him (ch.17 v.19). However, it is interesting that Isaac should commit the same sin of deception as that of his father Abraham, and on the same place which is Gerar. Isaac had told the men there that Rebekah was his sister, until found out by King Abimelech (ch.26 vv. 7-9). It is noteworthy that before Jacob, there has already been two generations of deception in their family. Thus, Jacob’s name is significant, for he was to play an even more daring act of deception. Isaac had two sons, Esau and Jacob. As mentioned earlier, Jacob was born clutching Esau’s heel, hence his name. But the name has a figurative meaning that becomes meaningful when the two generations of deception are taken into consideration. “He deceives” becomes the literal meaning of the name when Jacob deceives Esau into giving him the latter’s birthright for some bread and stew, (ch.25 vv. 29-34) and later deceives Isaac his own father, into giving him the blessing that was rightfully Esau’s (ch.27 vv.1-29). Esau established this interpretation when he said in verse 36, “Isn’t he rightly named Jacob? He has deceived me these two times: He took my birthright, and now he’s taken my blessing!” (New International Version). What makes the whole affair even more troubling is the fact that deceit seems to have permeated the entire family line. Rebekah, Jacob’s mother, likewise deceived her husband Isaac into sending away Jacob on the pretext that she does not want Jacob to marry a Hittite woman (ch.27 v. 46), when she only wanted to protect Jacob from the anger of Esau. When Jacob reached safety in his uncle Laban’s land, he sought the hand of Rachel in marriage, but was instead deceived into sleeping with Leah, the older sister of Rachel (ch.29 v. 23). He ended up working for Laban for fourteen years, as a result of this act of deception (vv. 18, 30). Eventually, Jacob’s relationship with Laban soured, and when an angel of God appeared to him with instructions to flee Laban, he took his wives and their children and all of their possessions while leading Laban to believe that they were not fleeing. However, Rachel stole her father’s household gods without telling Jacob. When they were overtaken by Laban, she refused to let her father search the camel saddle that she was sitting on by stating that she had her period (ch.31 v. 35). These instances of deception all seem to establish the family as having been negatively contaminated by the sin of deceit and falsehood. It extends even to the sons of Jacob, who, in avenging the rape of their sister Dinah by Shechem, deceived the latter’s people into being circumcised, on the pretext that they will allow intermarriages only after such an operation. While still in pain from circumcision, Jacob’s sons Simeon and Levi “took their swords and attacked the unsuspecting city, killing every male” (ch.34 v. 25). This is indicative of the extent to which sin can be perpetuated through the generations of a family. This sets the stage for a more detailed analysis of Genesis 32:22-32, upon considering that that is the passage where Jacob’s name was changed. Transformation: Allegorical and Literal In the main text of Genesis 32:22-32, Jacob had his family and possessions cross the ford, while he remained at the other side. The account that he “wrestled with a man” can be interpreted in two ways: as an allegory or symbol for something else, or literally, as a physical struggle with another person. In the first sense, Jacob can be seen as struggling, albeit figuratively, with himself or perhaps, with the burden of his deceit. Although there is no explicit reference in the text that this is his struggle, it can be inferred from the changing of his name that perhaps, he will no longer be one who “deceives”. The crossing of the ford signifies a crossing over to a new side, a side of freedom from whatever it is that holds him in bondage, the latter signified by Laban’s hold on him. It takes a “struggle with God” to change himself, hence the new name, Israel (“he struggles with God”). In other words, in the context of an intergenerational sin, Jacob’s wrestling match, the name change, and his crossing over, are symbols of a personal struggle with the past and the consequent freedom from bondage to sin. This notion of personal transformation is made possible only through an encounter, at times a difficult one, with God, symbolized by Jacob’s limp, as a result of his struggle. It enables one to forego deeply ingrained habits that stem from an old, sinful nature. From the Messianic perspective, Jacob’s transformation is an allegory for the transformation that a person can experience through an encounter with Jesus the Christ. A person struggles with a besetting sin, experiences a life-changing encounter with the Savior, and is forever changed. It is as if one undergoes a name change, and thus crosses over from damnation to salvation. If understood in this way, Jacob’s struggle, blessing, and crossing over the ford, all become meaningful in a specific context, interpreted as it were, from an allegorical or symbolic perspective. In the literal sense, Jacob can be understood as having been transformed literally when before wrestling he had no limp, but after the struggle he was forever remembered as being injured in the hip, as evidenced by the Israelite practice of “not eating the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon” (ch.32 v. 32a). Taken as it is, the text offers no alternative interpretation than what is stated at face value. Jacob encountered a being, quite possibly an angel of God, was tested by the latter, and came out victorious. As a result, he was blessed and was changed by that struggle. Other literal transformations include the naming of the place as Peniel, to show that he saw the face of God and lived to tell about it (v. 30). This literal approach is much more consistent with Rudolf Bultmann’s emphasis on demythologizing the text, or perhaps the proper term is re-mythologizing the text, because the text will be understood as a contemporary narrative that eventually acquires the status of myth. The narrative will probably be interpreted as thus: When Jacob was about to cross the ford to join his two wives, he was accosted by a man with whom he had to struggle. Since Jacob was strong enough to fend off his attacker, the struggle continued for an extended period of time, rendered poetic by the metaphor of the struggle reaching daybreak. The antagonist had to use a cheap shot to the hip of Jacob in order to end the engagement, but Jacob still proved too strong, thus the final blessing, a signal of defeat. Because of the difficulty of the struggle, Jacob felt it was as if he “struggled with God”. It can be seen at this point that the text can hold several interpretations, excluding the more technical meanings afforded by other methods and approaches. Jacobian Reconciliation It is worth noting that Jacob, whose name was changed from “he deceives” to “he struggles with God”, named the place of the struggle as Peniel which means “face of God”. What makes this name particularly striking is that in chapter 33 verse 10 of Genesis, Jacob finally meets with his brother Esau and says, “if I find favor with you, then accept my present from my hand; for truly to see your face is like seeing the face of God – since you have received me with such favor” (NRSV). The significant point of this passage is the demonstration that again, several interpretations, both historical and allegorical, appear perfectly legitimate. The symbolic meaning of seeing “the face of God” yet surviving can, in one sense, refer to the fact that Jacob is accepted and embraced by his brother Esau who, for a time wanted to exact vengeance on him for his deceit (ch.27 v. 41). It was the time and place, therefore, where Jacob met with his brother, and lived to tell about it since he was already forgiven by Esau. On the other hand, Esau’s acceptance of Jacob can be understood as symbolic of the reconciliation between God and man, made possible through the coming of the Messiah, Jesus the Christ. In the Esau-Jacob relation, Jacob has done a great misdeed on Esau, but was later to be accepted by Esau, apparently even without any gifts or offerings (ch.33 v. 8-9). In the God-man relation, man has sinned against God, but in God’s great mercy He sent His Son to save mankind. Anyone who accepts Jesus as Savior will be saved, even without offerings because the Christ’s offering of himself is enough (Hebrews 7: 27). Hence, not only did Jacob survive his encounter with God figuratively, he also did so literally. It can be seen that both meanings can be held as legitimate within the theme of reconciliation, both with God, and with one’s fellowman. Conclusion These interpretations would be for the most part consistent with redaction criticism, since the interpretation method employed is one where the author’s manner of putting together the text is examined. Genesis 32:22-32 is more than anything else, an account, a narrative with the specific purpose of providing instruction and not simply providing information, that is, historical data. From the narrative, it can be gathered that while various interpretations do arise, a universal and fixed interpretation of meaning cannot be given once and for all. For although it would seem that such a fact of interpretation might seem to undermine the whole of biblical interpretation, it can be argued that such an undermining of practice need not be the case. In fact, it can be argued that the variety of interpretations and meanings that one can either derive or impose upon the text will contribute to the meaning-fullness of the Scriptures. In other words, the bible becomes, literally, a wealth of truths, and this becomes possible only through the various meanings that cultures will continually give to the texts. While there could be disagreements as to how to properly understand the bible, perhaps there really is no single way by which it is supposed to be read in the first place. As John writes, “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31). In the narrative of Jacob’s struggle at the ford of Jabbok, it can be seen that from whatever perspective one interprets the text, universal truths of transformation and reconciliation through an encounter with God remain true and unchanging. Works cited Schleiermacher, Friedrich. "General Theory and the Art of Interpretation." The Hermeneutics Reader: Texts of the German Tradition from the Enlightenment to the Present. Ed.. Kurt Mueller-Vollmer. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 1988. Montague, George. Understanding the Bible. New Jersey: Paulines Publishing House, 1997. Read More