Genesis 32 records the wrestling match and the renaming of Jacob on the borders of the land by the Jabbok River ford.[1] Our question is: What does the account tell us about the meaning of Jacob’s new name.
D. Wessner observes that Jacob is alone when he meets his opponent.[2] The solitary nature of the encounter is emphasized — Jacob is as it were “stripped bare” of all he owns and all his pretensions; this is a life and death struggle. He meets his opponent in the dark and can only guess at his identity — is it perhaps his brother Esau? The encounter with Esau in the next chapter plays on this solitary struggle “face-to-face” (Gen 32:30). J. Miles suggests that the opponent was indeed Esau. His arguments are interesting, particularly because Esau personifies and embodies Jacob’s life-struggles up to this point. It is certainly possible that Esau blessed Jacob and renamed him Israel; and that behind his wrestling and the face of Esau, Jacob perceived the face of God and his own resistance to divine discipline.[3] However, the touching of Jacob’s thigh causing the dislocation of his hip points to a supernatural encounter.
Why did Jacob’s opponent wish to leave before the dawn? This has had various unconvincing explanations by scholars. The simplest explanation however is also the most satisfying – his opponent wanted to keep his identity secret.[4] It seems that his supernatural opponent deliberately wished to leave Jacob in a state of uncertainty — had he been wrestling a stranger…or Esau….or …? This explains why no extraordinary power was used until Jacob had wrestled his opponent to a draw — a remarkable feat. The narrator has purposely left the reader in suspense until this point in the story — for like Jacob we are unsure who is represented by the “two camps” or who is the opponent. Jacob the deceiver is cheated of his victory by a supernatural touch. Suddenly, the identity of the opponent becomes clear to both Jacob and to the reader. But still Jacob will not let go — devious Jacob — now made crooked in his body as a reminder, holds on for dear life, weeping and begging for the blessing. He is now a wrecked and wretched man as all his emotions pour out in the realization that he has actually been wrestling God all his life. It is at this point of total surrender and submission to God’s will that he becomes the victor — he overcomes his old nature and is renamed — Israel — God will rule.
At this point it is crucial that we examine the meaning of “Israel”. Scholars have suggested many different meanings but any meaning that simply treats the naming as an aetiological outcome or an exercise in etymology without regard to the contextual setting will fail to grasp the author’s (or redactor’s) intent. The change of name reflects a change of nature or relationship. Jacob’s defeat was simultaneously also his victory.
The prophet Hosea (Hos 12:2-5) has, “He [Jacob] had power with God” but the RV mg. renders this as, “He strove with God” ….and prevailed”. Once again the context is determinative: “He [Jacob] wept, and made supplication unto him” (Hos 12:5) — a strange kind of victory. A. P. Ross suggests that the confusion between the meaning “God strives” (fights/contends) and “God rules” is due to different pointing,[5] but even this difference of meaning fits the contours of the narrative, for the acknowledgement of God ruling in Jacob’s life is a consequence of God contending with him. The elasticity of the pointing and translation fit the text.
We must add that Hosea understands Jacob’s opponent as God (Elohim) despite the use of the covenant Yahweh name in Hos 12:5, which refers to Jacob’s memorial at Beth-el, rather than his wrestling. Wessner adds; “Therefore, despite the elaborate attempts of some scholars to explain verse 5a [in Hosea 12] as parallel to events in Jacob’s life other than his wrestling at the Jabbok (e.g., Gen 30:8), Hosea is simply referring to Jacob’s physical struggle with [elohim] and is as ambiguous about the identity of his assailant as is the narrator of the Genesis account. For Hosea, the [elohim] with whom Jacob contended is not to be understood as God himself but rather as corresponding to [malak], that is, a messenger sent on behalf of God”.[6]
The comments made by Alter on the change of Jacob’s name are worth citing:
“Abraham’s change of name was a mere rhetorical flourish compared to this one, for of all the patriarchs Jacob is the one whose life is entangled in moral ambiguities. Rashi beautifully catches the resonance of the name change: ‘It will no longer be said that the blessing came to you through deviousness [‘oqbah, a word suggested by the radical of “crookedness” in the name of Jacob] but instead through lordliness [serarah, a root that can be extracted from the name Israel] and openness.’ It is nevertheless noteworthy – and to my knowledge has not been noted – that the pronouncement of the new name has not been fulfilled. Whereas Abraham is invariably called “Abraham” once the name is changed from “Abram”, the narrative continues to refer to this patriarch in most instances as “Jacob.” Thus, “Israel” does not really replace his name but becomes a synonym for it – a practice reflected in the parallelism of biblical poetry, where “Jacob” is always used in the first half of the line and “Israel,” the poetic variation, in the second half”.[7]
The meaning, “to rule, be lord over”, is the meaning allocated to “Israel” by Alter’. However, as he notes, “names with the el ending generally make God the subject, not the object, of the verb in the name”.[8] The meaning of Israel is sometimes given as “Prince (or ruler) with God” [God is here the object] instead of “God is ruler” or “God will rule” [God is here the subject of the verb]. However, just as “Daniel” means “God will judge” [God is the subject of the verb] and not, “Judge with God”, so too “Israel” means “God will rule”.
In conclusion, the story of Jacob, the progenitor of the twelve tribes, is also the story of the nation. Steve McKenzie observes;
“The chiastic structure of the Jacob cycle is significant in terms of the theme and purpose of the cycle as a whole. At the structural centre of the chiasm lies the story of the birth of Jacob’s children, the founders and namesakes of the twelve tribes of Israel. As various scholars have observed, the individuals, Esau and Laban, here represent the political entities of Edom and Aram, respectively. The Jacob cycle tells how the nation of Israel, represented in its ancestors Jacob and his sons, contends with Edom and Aram, represented in their ancestors Esau and Laban. It further describes how Jacob/Israel prevailed over all opponents and gained control of the land. The specifying of the children of Jacob, the fathers of the tribes of Israel, lies at the centre of the narrative both structurally and functionally. The Jacob cycle is the story of the perseverance and prevalence of Israel”.[9]
A comparison between the two Bethel accounts (in Genesis 28 and 35), when Jacob leaves the land and then returns some 20 years later establishes that the very real events in the lives of the individual patriarchs were understood as pre-figuring the actions of the tribes and were therefore prophetic of future behaviour (Gen 49:1-4, 27). The Semitic sense of community and federalism dictated that current historic realities are interpreted as a consequence of past behaviour. This is particularly true of the prophets where Jacob functions as a type of the nation.
[1] Steve McKenzie comments; “The names ya’aqob and yabboq form a lovely word play with the verb ye’aqeb, “he wrestles” in verse 25”, “You Have Prevailed, The Function of Jacob’s encounter at Peniel in the Jacob Cycle”, Restoration Quarterly 23, (1980): 225-31(226).
[2] Mark D. Wessner, “Toward a Literary Understanding of ‘Face to Face’ in Genesis 32:23- 32”, Restoration Quarterly 42 (2000): 169-177 (177).
[3] When Jacob finally meets Esau face-to-face, Jacob greets his brother with the altogether exceptional statement: “To see your face is like seeing the face of God” (Gen 33:10). The wordplay with Gen 32:30 is extremely suggestive, especially if we recall that these lines, spoken half-tauntingly to Esau, are also spoken in the hearing of God; see J. Miles, “Jacob’s Wrestling Match, Was It an Angel or Esau?” http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/Peniel.htm, [cited online Jan 2008].
[4] R. Alter remarks, “The folkloric character of this haunting episode becomes especially clear at this point. The notion of a night spirit that loses its power or is not permitted to go about in daylight is common to many folk traditions, as is the troll or guardian figure who blocks access to a ford or bridge…”, Genesis, (New York: Norton, 1996), 181. Alter himself, however, stresses that the reason for the reluctance to face the dawn was that the opponent resisted identification. Alter comments; “Appearing to Jacob in the dark of the night, before the morning when Esau will be reconciled with Jacob, he is the embodiment of portentous antagonism in Jacob’s dark night of the soul. He is in some sense a doubling of Esau as adversary, but he is also a doubling of all with whom Jacob has had to contend, and he may equally well be an externalization of all that Jacob has to wrestle within himself.”, ibid., 181.
[5] Allen P Ross, “Studies in the Life of Jacob, Part 2: Jacob at the Jabbok, Israel at Peniel” Bibliotheca Sacra 137, (1980): 223-40 (346).
[6] “Face to Face”, 175.
[7] Genesis, 182.
[8] Genesis, 182.
[9] “You Have Prevailed”, 228.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One