Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Is the Elohiym of Genesis 32 Malicious?

Your thoughts on possibly a theophany??

There are several theophanies in Genesis (chapters 2-3, and 18 being the most obvious). All are J-Writings. Theophanies are a particular characteristic of J’s style. In these episodes, Yahweh (God) is never identified as iysh (man), he is always identified as Yahweh. He is only once characterized like a man (‘enowsh, Genesis 18) but only because Abraham looks up to see 3 “men” (‘enowsh) two of which are identified as angels. Indeed the passage begins “Yahweh appeared” and then we read” three men” were there. The word is seldom used in the singular and then only in poetry of the post-Exilic writings.

Now Hosea lived 740–725 BCE. Just two hundred or so years after the J-writer wrote the prophet writes:

“The LORD hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; according to his doings will he recompense him. He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God: Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed:” (Hosea 12:2-4)

At least Hosea believed it to be an angel and not Yahweh (God).

V.23 says that he sent all his family, and all his possessions over the river, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. Why send all of your help and support over, and not at least cry out for help. Even at night, someone should have been able to come back across to help him had he so desired.

We do not know how far away Jacob was from the rest of the encampment. We do not know if Jacob actually desired help from his servants or family.

About the wrestling match, is this a battle of the physical only, or also a battle of the will? My questions are because of the following:V25 states that the man simply touched the socket of the hip and wrenched it. The hip is the hardest joint in the body to wrench. It is surrounded by the biggest strongest muscles in the body, and to "wrench" one is rare. To "wrench" someone else's is VERY rare, and nigh on to impossible. Such power suggests that Jacob shouldn't have been able to overcome a mere physical battle by strength.

Yet Jacob did prevail in the wrestling match until almost morning. The elohiym was only able to make headway thru a physical act of “touching” hip bone.

The man tells him in v28 that his name shall not be "deceiver" anymore, but "he struggles with God", or "Israel". This suggests not only a theophany, but also more than a mere struggle of the flesh, but also of the will.

The word used here for “god” is elohiym. It can designate either Yahweh “God” or “god” (as in Baal) or “gods” or “goddess” or “godlike” or “ruler” or “angel.”

For example:

“And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress [it] first; for ye [are] many; and call on the name of your gods [elohiym] , but put no fire [under].” (1 Kings 18:25)

In V.29 Jacob asks the man his name and the man says Why do you ask my name? This implies that Jacob shouldn't need to ask.

No, it doesn’t. Pure speculation. And even if the elohiym’s question did mean “You shouldn’t have to ask,” that still doesn’t signify why Jacob shouldn’t need to ask.

Could it be that he has been struggling with this same person all of his life and has finally worn it down to a physical confrontation being necessary?

Is there any evidence that it does mean that?

Which he lost.

That’s just the point. He did not lose. He won! That is clear in the story in Genesis 32 and in Hosea’s interpretation in Hosea 12:2-4.

The request for Jacob to let him God is not a desperate cry of "oh my the sun is coming up and I'll melt, let me go", it seems a gentle command of I could force you as I just proved, but it's time this battle ended, and this was for you and I alone, we must settle this. Again, possibility of a theophany, and more than a physical battle.

The elohyim asks Jacob to let him go.
Jacob tells him he shall do so on 1 condition: that he be blessed.
The battle ends on Jacob’s terms and not the elohyim’s.

This scenario would be odd even if Yahweh was explicitly referenced. It would be even odder given Jacob’s humble prayer to Yahweh in the previous verses 33:9-12. It would be a complete turn around of Jacob’s character arc in his relationship to Yahweh.

V. 30 states that Jacob called the place Peniel ("face of God") because he said he "saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.". Again, this suggests a theophany and more than a physical match up. Especially since after NOT being told the man's name, Jacob states that he wrestled with God. One could dismiss this as a misunderstanding, except for he finishes with "and lived to tell the tale" suggesting he knew his opponent and how serious a confrontation it had been.

The word used here for “god” is elohiym. It can designate either Yahweh “God” or “god” (as in Baal) or “gods” or “goddess” or “godlike” or “ruler” or “angel.”

Let’s reconstruct this:

If Jacob was wrestling with Yahweh then he did not have know until after verse 29. In verse 28 the elohiym states: “Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.” If Jacob realizes here that he is wrestling with a supra-human being, he doesn’t know for sure it is Yahweh because in verse 29 he wants the elohiym to tell his name. Why would he want the person to tell him his name? He already knew it. Regardless, the elohiym does not give his name. In verse 30 we read this: “And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen a god face to face, and my life is preserved.” Even here Jacob does not state the name “Yahweh” if he believes it, only the generic term elohiym.

You're correct to rule out Esau, because immediately AFTER this, he looks up and Esau is approaching. If he had just wrestled him, Esau would have been right there. He had not yet faced his brother for his deceptions against him.

Yes, but see below.

Why assume that the "man" is trying to prevent Jacob from fulfilling God's promise? That is never stated, and it's not as if the text says that Jacob was held back. It says he remained alone(indicating on purpose), and a man wrestled with him.

“Good Angels” do the will of God. The “wrestling angel” would have been doing the will of God. But the angel actually bends to the will of Jacob and not the intention of his own. It ends on Jacob’s terms and not the “angels.”

If this is the case, then Jacob has not bent himself to God’s will. He has done just the opposite! In all the previous scenes he has obeyed God. There is nothing in the text that suggests he isn’t obeying God now or that there is a negative consequence to the disobedience of usurping the will of God via the “angel”.

Jacob out-wrestles the “angel”. The “angel” then dislodges the hip bone. Jacob still prevails. The “angel” tells Jacob to let him go. Jacob replies that he will only if he is given a blessing. The “angel” agrees. Jacob gets his blessing and lets the “angel” go. Really, how could Jacob beat a “good angel”? (See the angels in Sodom at Genesis)

However, if the elohiym had been against God’s will, then it should not be surprising that Jacob defeats the elohiym because he IS doing God’s will.

All of this suggests that the elohiym is not doing God’s will. Thus, a “fallen” elohiym.

So then what is the elohiym’s purpose?


1) Edge of promise land

The wrestling match occurs at the outer edge of the Jabbok river. The river is a well-known natural boundary which separated the tribes of Israel from the people of Ammon (Num 21:24; Deut 2:37, 3:16; Josh 12:2). On the western side of the river is the “promise land”. Jacob has already received the promise of the land from Isaac (instead of Esau) who received it from Abraham. God promised the land to Abraham. Jacob flees Esau because he stole the “blessing” but goes to his kinsmen and finds wives and has children (children of his kinsmen who will receive the blessing from Jacob). Esau, on the other hand, has found wives among the Canaanites (Gen 28:8), displeasing his family (foreign wives and that sort of thing). Now Jacob has the blessing, he has the family, but he does not yet have the land. Therefore, Yahweh tells him to go home but that he will be with Jacob (31:3). He journey’s back to the land of the promise dreading his confrontation with Esau. Now Jacob has been seeing visions for quite a while now.

In Gen 28:11-16 at Bethel, still inside the land, Jacob has a dream about the angels and the ladder, in which Yahweh promises the land to him.

“And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I [am] the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;” (Gen 28:13)

Again in a dream in Gen 31:11, Jacob gets a vision of an angel which explicitly recalls the Bethel incident at Gen 28:11-16, telling him about the land to be acquired.

Now when he enters the area right before the Jabbok river he sees more angels.

“And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him. And when Jacob saw them, he said, This [is] God's host [or camp]: and he called the name of that place Mahanaim [meaning two camps].” (Gen 32:1-2)

Now Jacob is about to pass over the river Jabbok and into the promise land and confront Esau. He sends his family into the promise land before him.

“And he rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two women servants, and his eleven sons, and passed over the ford Jabbok. And he took them, and sent them over the brook, and sent over that he had. And Jacob was left alone.” (Gen 3:22ff.)

So now Jacob is alone outside the promise land and about to confront his brother to claim his blessing that God has already given him.


2. Connection with Esau

I do think there is a definite connection between the elohiym and Esau. And not just because of the wrestling and the struggling. Look at the next chapter and verse 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.”

The writer is making a connection here but I am not sure which. I know that some scholars think that the elohiym is Esau’s “guardian angel”. I am not prepared to go that far, though the idea does have some later precedence in the NT (see Acts 12:12-15).


3. Blessing

Another connection with Esau is mention of the “blessing.”

Jacob has struggled with Esau to receive a blessing.
Jacob struggles with the elohiym to receive a blessing.

In both situations, Jacob prevailed.

This is the prophet Hosea’s interpretation:

“The LORD hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; according to his doings will he recompense him. He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God: Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed:” (Hosea 12:2-4)

This is the character of the elohiym’s interpretation:

“And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with a god and with men, and hast prevailed.” (Gen 32:28)

This is the character of Jacob’s interpretation:

“And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen a god face to face, and my life is preserved.” (Gen 32:30)

Thus, the connection with Esau suggests that both struggles are concerned with that of THE blessing. The evidence for such an interpretation is strengthened by the placement of the struggle just outside the border of the “blessing” (the promise land).

This is why I hold to the position that the elohiym is malicious.

It sounds as if your main two lines of argument are that 1) it sounds malicious to you, and 2) Canaanite mythology. But why enter mythology into the picture, and I've already asked about the "malicous" part.

The book is full of Canaanite mythology. The whole Bible is full of Canaanite myths. Usually, the writers are either refuting a pagan notion or showing God’s power over the pagan religion. Since Esau is considered the ancestors of the Edomites, and since a significantly identifiable amount of the Edomites worshipped pagan Canaanite gods (El, Baal, Asherah, and probably Chemosh), it shouldn’t be surprising that the J-Writer is mentioning a Canaanite “god” in order to show its impotence at the will of Yahweh.

Jacob has known all of his life that everything he had he had obtained by deceitful means, this would haunt me, and I imagine it would him as well. Being raised to believe in the One True God as he was, it would be understandable that he would recognize him when he met him, and would indicate purpose in him desiring to be blessed outside of trickery for once. It seems this was a dogged determination of Jacob finally realizing he couldn't go forward to the promised land without God being on his side. Again, desiring a blessing.

And that’s the point. He still gets a blessing thru trickery. He grabs an elohiym and doesn’t let go until he gets a blessing.

Jacob knew God was on his side the entire journey and stated as such.


Although I can definitely see your reasoning, I still disagree with the demon being as opposed to an angel. In response to 1a) I don't think the elohiyim was preventing Jacob from fulfilling God's promise, but rather the elohiyim is wrestling with Jacob b/c Jacob is not trusting God (see Jacob's prayer and follow up fearful actions in regards to seeing Esau)in the promise God has already made hence the "you have wrestled with God and man"...ie the fact that Jacob is overly fearful of Esau...this especially echoes a good interpretation given the previous verses leading up to the WWE wrestling match. I agree with 1b, it is a spirit=angel. 1c gives good proof that the elohiyiim was in fact an angel...if the elohiyim was a "fallen" angel or demon, why wouldn't Hosea read that way (if one holds to Scripture interprets Scripture, this is quite substantial evidence)?

Hosea would not have known about demons or fallen angles in the NT sense. That idea was not revealed to the Israelites and Jews until well after the exile. For Hosea to call in an angel is not wrong; just not complete. Sort of like how the book of Samuel has David call for the census but Chronicles mentions that the Satan tempted him. Neither is wrong but the Chronicles is a latter version reflecting greater revelation.

If it was an angel in the sense of being a “good angel” then why did neither Jacob or the author say as much? Angels have appeared throughout the narrative from Abraham onward. Jacob himself has seen angels on 3 different occasions (Gen 28:11-16; Gen 31:11; and also just before in Gen 32:1-2). He even spoke with one in Gen 31:11. In all these other occasions, the angels are identified by the author. In all the relevant occasions, Jacob knows that he is seeing angels. Whatever he saw in Genesis 32:30 was something far different from what he had previously experienced.

In response to 2a, the scene is dark and I believe Jacob really doesn't realize who he is wrestling with....furthermore, angels are unique in the way they look and Scripture does seem to portray them looking like men. In response to 2b, see 1a response above...it was God's bidding to have the angel wrestle with Jacob b/c of Jacob's distrust in Yahweh. In a sense, God is teaching Jacob a lesson...a lesson that will be remembered for generations (hip). In response to 2c, the goal of the angel wasn't to overpower Jacob...furthermore, even if the elohiyim was a demon, you still have the same argument to deal with...how could Jacob overpower a spirit demon?

That could be God’s purpose with the Smackdown, but such an intention does not necessarily negate the idea that the elohiym was malicious. Yahweh could have allowed the malicious “angel” to wrestle Jacob in order to teach Jacob a lesson. But I do not see anything in the prior episodes that warrant this lesson by Yahweh or any evidence that it was such a lesson. There is nothing in this episode which suggests that Jacob learned any lesson from this incident – surely nothing that made him turn further to Yahweh. Indeed, he reflects upon the episode in light of what he has experienced and not his relationship with Yahweh.

How could Jacob overpower a spirit demon? Again, if Jacob is acting according the will of Yahweh, then I would more likelier believe he would defeat a demon spirit than if he defeated an angel that was doing God’s will. Given the option, I choose Jacob’s success over the evil spirit. Anyway, Jacob “struggled” with Esau who was far stronger and powerful than himself and won.

Lastly, see above for response to 3a, 3b, 3c. 3d helps both of our arguments the same. 3i I agree with, although it helps both the same. 3ii and 3iii are on your side, I agree....however, the Hosea text, which is inspired, says angel which I think outweighs any mythology. Furthermore, your points against can be handled as seen above.

See above. A “fallen angel” is an “angel” none the less.

Lastly, thanks for the info on names and blessings...this was very insightful. Interestingly, I did notice that there was not one case of a demon or malicious spirit blessing or renaming...only other men, God, or angels. If one holds to the demon theory, one would have to say that this is the only case of a demon blessing and changing a name and the name of the Father of the Jewish nation mind you...this would not sit well with Pat Robertson (smiles).

It would be the only case of an “angel” wrestling with a man. It would be the only case of connection between an “angel” and a man (Esau) (Acts 12 just states that this was a belief and not that the belief is a reality).

Sorry, I do not catch the Pat Robertson joke. Disp(s)ensationalism?

A very insightful discussion! I learned quite a lot.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Robertson joke refers to his support of anything Israel...if your theory is true than the great nation of Israel was named by a demon possibly making Israel a "demonic" state or nation. The people that are zionist or pro-Israel probably wouldn't like Israel being named by a demon
T

Nicolas Gold said...

Yes, Robertson's favourite British Prime Minister is Benjamin Disraeli.

(I say that joke with good humoured love that I am sure Robertson would appreciate.)

In terms of a "demon" naming another. "Moses" is an Egpytian name. The early Church fathers recorded that the term "Christian" was first given to followers of Jesus by pagan Gentiles. Only later on in the second century was it accepted with honor by Christians.

Of course, the nation of Israel was not named by a "demon". The nick-name of Jacob was given to him by a "demon" which he soundly beat in a fight. The nation of Israel is named after the nick-name of a descendent who soundly beat a "demon" in that fight.

It's a badge of honor.

Really, I only believe the "malicious elohiym" theory because I think it best fits the evidence from the text. If I had my way, I would have preferred it be Esau but that is not how the events took place and that is not want the J-Writer wanted to convey. Believe me, I love the J-Writer but he occasionally includes the most baffling (if not teasing) events.

Other Examples:

The Nephilim (Genesis 6:4)

"Jacob's Latter" (Genesis 28:10-17)

Moses almost kills Moses (Exodus 4:24ff.)

If I am wrong about the "malicious elohiym", I do hope I learn otherwise. Regardless, if I ever teach on the subject, I will acknowledge to my students that my opinion is in the minority among evangelicals and then give the reasons why most people reject it; reasons which you so excellently stated.

This discussion has truly been a thrill. I have so enjoyed it. My understanding of the story and Genesis as a whole has deepened. Not to mention other corollary issues.

Anonymous said...

all in all, whatever wrestled with Jacob really doesn't affect our lives so, in essence, it is not really that important...although, it has been fun to dialog about. We will agree to disagree which is cool...more of this needs to happen in evangelical circles. We can argue our interpretive points, but in the end love each other and respect each other's reasoning and interpretation. Obviously, there are certain doctrines that are "bullet" doctrines, meaning I would take a bullet in the head for certain truths (such as the resurrection of Jesus, Jesus is the Way, etc.) but certainly this is not a "bullet" issue.

We should never be afraid to challenge each other's thinking and those that are afraid, in a sense, have an identity crises for we find our true identity in Christ who surely isn't afraid of anything.
Travis

Anonymous said...

Your thoughts on the following regarding the 'elohiym?

As far as I'm aware, there are only 4 ways 'elohiym is used: 1)as meaning God - the God of Israel (YHWH), 2) meaning the god or gods that were the false idols and statues, 3) as an angel, or 4)a man with the status of judge, who has been given God's authority to exercise judgement here on earth.

#4 is easily ruled out simply due to the text and context. #2 is ruled out by the fact that any man who would wrestle with a statue all night is crazy, and to be injured by it is just sad. To say that the "god of that statue" would be his competitor, you would first have to show evidence that Jacob believed there actually existed any other gods that were not man-made. We know this to be the opposite as Jacob claims many times to follow the God of his fathers Abraham and Isaac. This is YHWH.

This leaves us with two possible answers. #1, the 'elohiym is YHWH, or #3, the 'elohiym is an angel.

Being that we first look to scripture for interpreting scripture, we would need to see what three key passages say.

First, we have Gen. 32:28-30. The 'elohiym claims that Jacob has striven with "God and men", Jacob names that place Peniel-Face of God- because he had "seen God face to face, yet [his] life had been preserved

(This would not have been a concern had he simply seen an angel or demon. While many biblical characters fell down as dead men in fear upon seeing an angel, there was no reason to assume you were lucky to be alive after the fact. Why? because the angels always started with "fear not" and gave a mission to do. The ONLY reason for Jacob to be thankful his life had been preserved is because for sinful man to see YHWH face to face they believed meant death. This is echoed throughout scripture, especially the OT.)

This passage gives us our first hint that Jacob would believe he had seen YHWH not an angel, certainly not a malicious one, but it's not enough to conclude....

Next we must look in Gen. 48:15-16

"He blessed Joseph, and said, 'The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked (meaning YHWH), the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, (meaning YHWH), The angel who has redeemed me from all evil,'"

The Angel here is synonymous with the previous mentionings of YHWH. Why would Jacob have reason to say an Angel had redeemed him from anything? Because he had striven with that Angel (used here meaning the same as YHWH) back in Gen. 32. In Hebrew the term is: hammal`'ak used in conjunction with 'elohiym being used for YHWH. This is the second time we get the impression that Jacob meant YHWH, but it still needs one more...

Hosea 12:2-5 "the LORD (YHWH) also has a dispute with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; He (YHWH) will repay him according to his deeds. In the womb he took his brother by the heel, and in his maturity he contended with God (YHWH). Yes, he wrestled with the angel (the disputed term) and prevailed; he wept and sought His (from the text this is YHWH ref in Hebrew)favor. He found Him (YHWH) at Bethel and there He (YHWH) spoke with us, even the LORD (YHWH), the God of hosts (YHWH), the LORD (YHWH)is His (YHWH)name.

Now so far, we've had the hint it COULD be YHWH from Gen. 32, we've had Jacob himself interpret this as YHWH from Gen. 32 and Gen 48, and now Hosea will add his own interpretation.

Hosea is in the middle of the passage talking about YHWH's disposition towards Jacob and his descendents, and in comes the word, 'elohiym, into the mix. Now if it stopped there, we might be left wondering, but Hosea tells us who this 'elohiym is in 2 big ways.

First he uses the same Hebrew as in Gen 48 and in conjunction with 'elohiym being used for God (YHWH) uses mal`ak. This is the same wording, and right in the middle of a discussion about God (YHWH) and Jacob. But then Hosea qualifies his comment on 'elohiym by vv 5: "Even the LORD, the God of hosts, the LORD is His name."

Taken together we have little conclusion other than the use of 'elohiym referenced in Gen. 32 is in reference to YHWH. Not an idol, a man, or an angel, and certainly not a malicious angel.

One last point to make is that if what you say is correct about the mythology, then you would be arguing that anyone who has tried to interpret Genesis without a thorough understanding of Canaanite mythology would be wrong due to ignorance. This would make centuries worth of brilliant men and women, and brilliant preachers, theologians, and expositors, wrong.

Also, it would be a flawed hermeneutic which you wouldn't continue using into the NT. Or would you? Would you tell me that I couldn't understand the book of Romans properly if I didn't fully understand the Roman pantheon? The message has nothing to do with the pantheon or the legends associated with it, it has everything to do with the gospel of Christ.

Mythology has never been needed to understand scripture, and doesn't in this case any more than any other. Of course mythology was rampant in that day. That's why God had the Israelites drive out the pagan "idolotrous" nations when they cleansed the land. But just because the pagan nations believed in and worshipped the idols, doesn't mean that Jacob did, or would have even considered that catching an evil spirit would grant him wishes. Nonsense! Jacob followed YHWH as did Abraham and Isaac his fathers. To claim differently, you really need to prove differently.

Nicolas Gold said...

Travis, I agree with you completely. This issue is a minor detail at best and it's probably less than that.

I love such discussions over the Faith, theology, ethics and Biblical studies. I have yet to tire of the topic. Quite wonderful!

Nicolas Gold said...

Your thoughts on the following regarding the 'elohiym? As far as I'm aware, there are only 4 ways 'elohiym is used: 1)as meaning God - the God of Israel (YHWH), 2) meaning the god or gods that were the false idols and statues, 3) as an angel, or 4)a man with the status of judge, who has been given God's authority to exercise judgement here on earth. #4 is easily ruled out simply due to the text and context. #2 is ruled out by the fact that any man who would wrestle with a statue all night is crazy, and to be injured by it is just sad.

There are other ways in which this term is used. But even within these 4 there are various meanings.

Elohiym is a generic term for “god”. It can refer to the true god (Yahweh) or to false gods (Baal, Astarte, Dagon, etc.). It can also be used to refer to “angels” that are often called “sons of God”.

Thus we could divide these particular brands of elohiym into two groups: “good elohiym” (“angels” if you will) and “bad elohiym” (“angels” or “demons” if you will).

For instance, in Job 1:6, “there was a day when the sons of god [ben 'elohiym] came to present themselves before the LORD, and the Satan came also among them.”

The Satan is probably of the same kind as the “sons of god” bit quite malicious.

Another instance is in Genesis 6:1-7, where “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose …There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

The result of this inter-deistic coupling is the Flood to cleanse the earth.

And just as “good elohiym” (“angels”) are not necessarily tied to specific places and objects so also “bad elohiym” (“demons”).

Now the context of Genesis 32 is in the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) idea of
“pagan gods” and “false gods”.

The way in which Canaanite (ANE) idolatry worked is that the idol was an object by which people could petition their gods. Not all pagan gods were connected to idols and even those that were connected to idols were not always with the idol.

Recall 1 Kings 18 when Elijah and the prophets of Baal went to Mt. Carmel to petition their respective gods. There was nothing there except an altar to Baal and an altar to Yahweh.

“High places” were hills and mountains (there are a lot of them in Palestine) where pagans went to sacrifice to various members of the Baal pantheon.

Worship of Yahweh worked in a similar way but the meaning was far different. People also went to high places to commune with Yahweh (Mt. Carmel, Sinai, Zion, etc.) The Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple were objects and places where the Israelites went to commune with Yahweh. God was not tied to these objects (any more than he is tied to Jerusalem of the Jewish people in general) but they were places that helped people of the time commune with him. A modern version of this is the local church.

One notable difference is that making an idol with image of Yahweh was strictly forbidden.

All this is to say that Jacob could wrestle with a malicious elohiym and it not be an idol. It could be a bad “son of God” (“fallen angel”, “demon”), like the ones from Genesis 6, Job 1, or even one possessing another human (like the demons possessing the man and then the swine herd of Matt 8, Mark 5, Luke 8).

To say that the "god of that statue" would be his competitor, you would first have to show evidence that Jacob believed there actually existed any other gods that were not man-made. We know this to be the opposite as Jacob claims many times to follow the God of his fathers Abraham and Isaac. This is YHWH.

One can mistakenly believe in existence of other gods and still follow the one true God Yahweh.

Again, the term elohiym used to refer to gods (little “g”) is a generic term that applies to all supra-human beings (angels, “demons”, pagan gods, and the one true God, Yahweh). In our terminology it is equivalent to the term “spiritual being”.

I myself believe in one true God who is a spiritual being, but I also believe in the existence of other spiritual beings (angels, demons, the Satan, cherubim, seraphim, etc.). I also believe that these various spiritual beings can take a physical form and a part from idols. This does not contradict my belief that there is one true God, Yahweh.

Do men make idol gods? Yes. Do men recognize as gods those malicious spiritual beings that pose as gods? Unfortunately, yes.

This leaves us with two possible answers. #1, the 'elohiym is YHWH, or #3, the 'elohiym is an angel.

Again, a fallen angel is an angel none the less.

Being that we first look to scripture for interpreting scripture, we would need to see what three key passages say. First, we have Gen. 32:28-30. The 'elohiym claims that Jacob has striven with "God and men", Jacob names that place Peniel-Face of God- because he had "seen God face to face, yet [his] life had been preserved (This would not have been a concern had he simply seen an angel or demon.

Again, elohiym can mean “God” or “god”. Context makes the determination.

While many biblical characters fell down as dead men in fear upon seeing an angel, there was no reason to assume you were lucky to be alive after the fact.

True, both Abraham and Lot did not fall down having seen angels in Genesis 18 and 19. Of course, Abraham did not fall down when he met and talked with Yahweh face to face in Gen 18.

Why? because the angels always started with "fear not" and gave a mission to do.

They do not always say “fear not” (Genesis 18-19).

The ONLY reason for Jacob to be thankful his life had been preserved is because for sinful man to see YHWH face to face they believed meant death.

Nope, Genesis 18 proves you wrong.

This is echoed throughout scripture, especially the OT.) This passage gives us our first hint that Jacob would believe he had seen YHWH not an angel, certainly not a malicious one, but it's not enough to conclude....

If he had indeed seen Yahweh and believed it to be true then it is odd that he did not say “Yahweh.” Everywhere else in Genesis where God takes physical form he is referred to as “Yahweh” and not just “God”. Furthermore, Jacob has seen angels several times already, including earlier in the seen, yet he does not refer to the person as either “Yahweh” or “angel”.

Next we must look in Gen. 48:15-16 "He blessed Joseph, and said, 'The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked (meaning YHWH), the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, (meaning YHWH), The angel who has redeemed me from all evil,'" The Angel here is synonymous with the previous mentionings of YHWH. Why would Jacob have reason to say an Angel had redeemed him from anything? Because he had striven with that Angel (used here meaning the same as YHWH) back in Gen. 32. In Hebrew the term is: hammal`'ak used in conjunction with 'elohiym being used for YHWH. This is the second time we get the impression that Jacob meant YHWH, but it still needs one more...

And that is the thing: Genesis 32 does not call the elohiym either “Yahweh” or “angel”.

But it is interesting and an example of what I am stating: not every use of the word “angel” designates a typical “angel” as “Son of God” and not every use of elohiym designates either “God” or “good angel”.

If Jacob (or the writer) meant “angel of the Lord (Yahweh)” neither of them said it. If they meant ha-malak elohoym (“angel of God”), then they still didn’t say it. We know Jacob knows about ha-malak elohoym (“angel of God”) because he uses it in the prior chapter in Genesis 31:11: “And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream.”

No, both Jacob and the writer know that this figure was neither Yahweh nor “good angel”, but something quite vicious.

Hosea 12:2-5 "the LORD (YHWH) also has a dispute with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; He (YHWH) will repay him according to his deeds. In the womb he took his brother by the heel, and in his maturity he contended with God (YHWH). Yes, he wrestled with the angel (the disputed term) and prevailed; he wept and sought His (from the text this is YHWH ref in Hebrew)favor. He found Him (YHWH) at Bethel and there He (YHWH) spoke with us, even the LORD (YHWH), the God of hosts (YHWH), the LORD (YHWH)is His (YHWH)name.

Okay, first this is Hosea using the character of Jacob (Israel) to speak about his contemporary Israelite generation. Hence, verse 4: “he found him [in] Bethel, and there he spake with US.” Hence, verse 2: “The LORD hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; according to his doings will he recompense him,” which refers to the divided kingdom of Judah and Israel during the time of Hosea. “Jacob” is often a poetic name for Israel used by the writing prophets and points back to the historical and literary figure of the Jacob of Genesis. This is what Hosea is doing here (see Hosea 11:12).

Now the text:

“He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God:” (Hosea 12:3)

Okay, all good here. Jacob wrestled with Esau and got the birth right with power from God.

“Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed:” (Hosea 12:4)

Again, Hosea identifies the figure as an angel and not Yahweh. But really, how could Jacob prevail over Yahweh?

“and showed pity [chanan] unto him:” (Hosea 12:4)

How can Jacob show prevail against Yahweh and then show Yahweh pity? No.

Sorry, the behavior of the elohiym in Genesis 32, including Jacob’s response, and Hosea’s description of the event shows that it really, really cannot be Yahweh.

Now so far, we've had the hint it COULD be YHWH from Gen. 32, we've had Jacob himself interpret this as YHWH from Gen. 32 and Gen 48, and now Hosea will add his own interpretation. Hosea is in the middle of the passage talking about YHWH's disposition towards Jacob and his descendents, and in comes the word, 'elohiym, into the mix. Now if it stopped there, we might be left wondering, but Hosea tells us who this 'elohiym is in 2 big ways. First he uses the same Hebrew as in Gen 48 and in conjunction with 'elohiym being used for God (YHWH) uses mal`ak. This is the same wording, and right in the middle of a discussion about God (YHWH) and Jacob. But then Hosea qualifies his comment on 'elohiym by vv 5: "Even the LORD, the God of hosts, the LORD is His name." Taken together we have little conclusion other than the use of 'elohiym referenced in Gen. 32 is in reference to YHWH. Not an idol, a man, or an angel, and certainly not a malicious angel.

Yes, sorry. See all above.

Remember there are not divisions in the Hebrew sentences and paragraphs. These are interpretations by contemporary translators. Just as Hosea 11:12 should go with Hosea chapter 12 so also verse 3a “he met him at Bethel” starts a new paragraph.

Need proof?

“Therefore turn thou to thy God: keep mercy and judgment, and wait on thy God continually. He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand: he loveth to oppress.” (Hosea 12:6-7)

Obviously, verse 6 is about God and verse 6 is not. Here is the next example.

“And Ephraim said, Yet I am become rich, I have found me out substance: in all my labors they shall find none iniquity in me that were sin. I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt will yet make thee to dwell in tabernacles, as in the days of the solemn feast.” (Hosea 12:8-9)

Again, obviously, verse 8 is about Ephraim/Israel/Jacob and verse 9 is not.

Context, context, context. Yahweh does not lose “battles” and no one shows “pity” upon him.

It is because Yahweh was with Jacob that the latter prevailed over Esau and the elohiym. It is because of Yahweh that Jacob could show “pity” to the malicious angel.

This chapter in Hosea shows that early interpreters of the Genesis 32 story understood the elohiym to be something or someone other than Yahweh.

One last point to make is that if what you say is correct about the mythology, then you would be arguing that anyone who has tried to interpret Genesis without a thorough understanding of Canaanite mythology would be wrong due to ignorance. This would make centuries worth of brilliant men and women, and brilliant preachers, theologians, and expositors, wrong. Also, it would be a flawed hermeneutic which you wouldn't continue using into the NT. Or would you? Would you tell me that I couldn't understand the book of Romans properly if I didn't fully understand the Roman pantheon? The message has nothing to do with the pantheon or the legends associated with it, it has everything to do with the gospel of Christ. Mythology has never been needed to understand scripture, and doesn't in this case any more than any other. Of course mythology was rampant in that day. That's why God had the Israelites drive out the pagan "idolotrous" nations when they cleansed the land. But just because the pagan nations believed in and worshipped the idols, doesn't mean that Jacob did, or would have even considered that catching an evil spirit would grant him wishes. Nonsense! Jacob followed YHWH as did Abraham and Isaac his fathers. To claim differently, you really need to prove differently.

Let me ask you: have you ever changed your interpretation of a Scriptural passage after you learned a little bit about the culture in which the passage was written?

Why do we have newer translations? We are continually finding better manuscripts which give us a better idea of what the original document stated.

Brilliant men and women, and brilliant preachers, theologians, and expositors are often wrong. Take Augustine: he had a bad translation of Romans 5 and developed a particular but incorrect view of original sin which is still held by most of the Christian world.

Heck, for 1300 years almost all of Christendom held to the ransom view of the atonement. Now almost no one believes that view is correct.

Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Edwards, Moody, Graham, and every other great Christian leader have been wrong with some things and we are no different. Everyone always is getting some theology wrong. By grace, we are given enough of the right theology in order to be saved and grow as a Christian.

But with regards to ANE mythology, one does not need to know the local, historical mythology to understand the point of the passage: Jacob has struggled with men and gods and has prevailed. One does not have to know that the “Sons of God” are “angels” to know that they are spiritual beings. One does not have to know that an elohiym can also be interpreted as a “bad angel” to understand that the “god” here is malicious. However, if one does not Hebrew then they are at the mercy of the errant translator: “Do I interpret elohiym as ‘God’, ‘god’, ‘angel’, ‘judge’, ‘idol’ or ‘gods’?”

One does have to know Hebrew to interpret Genesis, right? I mean, the story was written in Hebrew. We have to know Hebrew in order to understand it. Thankfully, God has raised people up throughout history to learn the language and translate it into various languages (Greek, Latin, Middle English, German, and modern English, etc.). Anyone who reads the original Hebrew and does not have the best knowledge of it will be wrong due to ignorance, right? Again, Augustine had a bad translation of Romans 5 and developed an incorrect view of original sin.

Not “wishes”, but a “blessing”. “Blessing” is a specific act like that of “curse”. One can bless another and curse another. One can bless man and God just as one can curse man and God.

I am not claiming that Jacob, Isaac or Abraham did not follow Yahweh (though Abraham did follow false gods in his former life). Again, the belief in the existence of other spiritual beings does not exclude the sole worship of the one true God, Yahweh.

Do you believe in the existence of angels, demons, the Satan, cherubim and seraphim? If you do not then it doesn’t make you an apostate believer or unfaithful to God. I know lots of believers who think that angels and demons are mythological and not based in reality. I disagree but understand how and why they think so.

This has been a very good and helpful discussion for me. I am currently reviewing my Hebrew grammar. It's not very ease but this exercise is helping.