Genesis in John
Then he said, “Let me go, for the dawn is breaking.” Genesis 32:26a NASB
Dawn– There are a lot of strange verses in the story of Jacob’s encounter with the “man” at the brook Jabbok. If you’ve read Crossing,[1]then you know just how odd the story really is. Recently I read a comment by Michael Wyschogrod that provides another clue to this puzzling account. He wrote:
“wrestling with the unknown man in the dark, who, with the appearance of the dawn, begged to be released, apparently because he could not exist in the light.”[2]
That made me think of a verse in John’s gospel. “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19). Perhaps there’s something happening in the wrestling with the “man” that needs John’s clarification.
In my book, I pointed out that the Hebrew šaḥar (translated “dawn”) is also the name of a pagan god.
Some have taken a clue from the Ras Shamra texts in which šḥr refers both to the common noun “dawn” and to the name of a deity, Dawn. Šaḥar, along with šalim, is born to a woman who has been impregnated by the god El (UT16: Text no. 52). The suggestion is then that there are (veiled) references to this Canaanite deity in the ot, albeit in a demythologized fashion.[3]
Of course, this idea gets even more traction when we realize that šaḥar is the word used in Isaiah 14:12 concerning Lucifer (hêlēl ben šaḥar—“star of the morning”).
Let me connect a few dots for you. Suppose that the “man” is, as I have argued in the book, Jacob himself, or the psychological projection of Jacob as he was after his sojourn in Mesopotamia with Laban. That Jacob is quite familiar with pagan household gods, as Laban’s pursuit demonstrates. That Jacob has accommodated himself to the worldview of these deities, using some sort of magic to produce the flocks he now possesses. The current Jacob is wrestling with the man he was, the man he built of himself over those years. And now he has to make a choice. Will he continue to be that man, or will he submit to God’s call to enter the land of YHVH?
If this is correct, then we can see why the “man” is afraid of the dawn. As Wyschogrod remarks, it is the light that terrifies him, the light that will shine on deeds done in the dark, on those choices made under the banner of the gods of Mesopotamia. The “man” will be exposed, something that none of us who have this kind of inner man of dark deeds really wants to be in the light. That kind of man cannot exist in the light. No wonder he is terrified of the dawn.
To suggest that Jacob is wrestling with God (or the pre-incarnate Jesus) makes this verse unfathomable. God isn’t afraid of the dawn. But the “old man Jacob” might very well be terrified of either 1) the returning pagan god of the dawn, or 2) the exposure that light will bring upon this old self-constructed personage. And if the second explanation is the right one, then we know exactly what this is all about. All those things done in the dark when God wasn’t around.
Topical Index: Jacob, Jabbok, wrestling, šaḥar, light, dawn, Genesis 32:26a
[1]See https://skipmoen.com/books-audio/crossing-the-struggle-for-identity/
[2]Michael Wyschogrod, Abraham’s Promise, ed. and trans. R. Kendall Soulen (Eerdmans, 2004), p. 124.
[3]Hamilton, V. P. (1999). 2369 שָׁחַר. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 917). Chicago: Moody Press.
Sounds very much like the man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12
Do not let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and who exalts himself over every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits down in the temple of God, proclaiming that he himself is God.
Skip wrote, “But the “old man Jacob” might very well be terrified of either 1) the returning pagan god of the dawn, or 2) the exposure that light will bring upon this old self-constructed personage.” Perhaps it is because I am not as educated as Skip that I may be deemed as “superstitious” in my Supernatural Worldview or that I am simple-minded in my literal reading of Scripture, but I choose Door #1 and do not take Door #2, the psychological interpretation, as Skip does. I am glad that Skip is educated and has devoted his life to reseaching and writing, sharing insights from Biblical scholars, such as Michael Wyschogrod, Richard Nisbett and C.H. Gordon, yet does not force his Point of View upon us, but gives us a choice and leaves the interpretation up to the reader, no matter our (strong) biases, (lack of) education or (archaic) POV. And, just as important, he allows us to voice our occasional disagreement, differences and dissent. Thanks Skip. The Canaanite deity šḥr may not appreciate the bright light emanating from your words written on an Italian hillside, a Jakarta slum, an African jungle, a Louisana bayou, (or wherever you happen to be today), but we do.
Man “loved the darkness” Yeshua said.
Darkness provides cover.
Any adherence to sinful tendencies or
dispositions looks to keep that secret,
and well hidden in the dark where no one
can see it. Even the individual involved
wishes, deeply, not to see it.
Light exposes.
It also shouts to the lost soul the “obviousness”
that God has a better way, albeit a tough way, to
experience life. Tough, because something has to give.
When man gives up the fight, the touch of the Lord
transforms the blinding light to a living light that
enters in to enlighten, overwhelm and renew.
“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will
guide you into all truth.”
The “man” will be exposed, something that none of us who have this kind of inner man of dark deeds really wants to be in the light. Bulls eye. Stripping away the old putting on the new thank you Skip and brothers??Shabbat Shalom
It’s a little funny that people can start out from their own emotional paradigm – from their own worldview – but, invariably, it seems we tend to end up ascribing that view to God: we force Him through our own paradigm. Jacob undoubtedly had his own paradigm – his lens that he saw the world through – as we have ours (through which we are peeking at his). But WHY do we have to put YHVH through that lens? I think we are no closer to knowing the reality of the mysterious protagonist using this method than when we started.
I find the better way for me to understand is to judge by the fruit. This includes interpretation. What is the fruit of this interpretation? If I take this new lens and look at the rest of the Word, does it get clearer or muddier? Does it explain the rest of Scripture or do I find myself ‘needing’ further explanation of what seemed clear before? This is a rather simple test, but it works so well for me I keep using it.
Looking through this lens of Jacob fighting himself (yes, I do think the years I fought God I was, like Saul, kicking against the goad, too), can we then conclude that that was ALL he was doing? Does this clear up the rest of Scripture, or does it muddy what seemed clear before? What I want to ask is, if Jacob fought himself, then he had to have renamed himself, too. Well, hmm.