Language, Culture, and Mythology Concerning Jacob Wrestling with an Elohiym

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 easy but this exercise is helping.