I really like this conversation. Someone felt confused and had questions, and Dan gave high quality answers. Usually the person Dan is replying to appears to be angry or deceptive or both. Not this time. More like this, please.
Yes, I thought the same thing. But the creator was asking questions and pointing out the absurdities of the story, unlike apologists who attempt - and fail - to insist that the stories actually happened, because, Bible. 😂
Seconded, don't get me wrong, fighting the apologists who are usually Christian nationalists is incredibly important but the ones like this are fantastic for just helping people understand.
The fact that Jacob tricked Esau out of his birthright and tricked Isaac into giving him the blessing reminds me a lot of Greek mythology and how heroes often resorted to trickery to get their way.
@@christopherjohnson2422doesn’t his name refer to that? “Heel-grasper?” I know he was grasping Esau’s heel at birth but isn’t it also that he snatches people’s feet out from under them?
I mean, this is true with any kind of literature. You don't have access to the mind of the author, so you have to interpret the meaning of the words and what message it's trying to convey. No matter how seemingly straightforward a line is, everyone who reads it is going to have a slightly different headspace, and so might draw a different meaning from the same text. In extreme cases, there have been authors who explicitly explained what their intent was behind a certain piece of literature, but readers literally disagree with the guy who wrote it and insist it means something else. For example, the people who see the Lord of the Rings as an analogy for the first World War that Tolkien fought in, or as a denouncement of the industrial revolution, and so forth.
@@markcostello5120 I prefer to engage intelligently with important works of literature from the ancient world rather than dismiss it out of hand as "a bad idea"
@@travis1240 My (clumsy) point is that we read the Bible without understanding the reason for the stories. It never occurred to me that this story was intended as an origin narrative for the people of Israel. Dan's explanation reminded me of that quote from Worf.
Loved the “now, this is gonna be uncomfortable for some folks” line. This type of empathetic recognition softens the landing for those newer to critical approaches to the Bible. I’d recommend using lines like this more often in your videos.
The question the creator asks are the ones I got a whipp'n for asking as a child. I was told the word of God was mysterious and I couldn't understand those inspired words until the Holy Spirit conveyed the meaning to me. Hi Dan!
This is so mentally refreshing. Having discussions about the Bible from a critical standpoint fills me with excitement about learning. Being blk and talking about these subjects has been a heartbreaking experience. The way ppl spread misinformation about their bias and harmful interpretation has been challenging for me to even be open. Thank you, Mr. McClellan. Everyone as well
Etiologies! Glad I learned a new word today for this concept! I’ve been realizing more and more that a lot of stories in the Bible are kind of answers to people who must’ve been asking questions like “why is this place called that?” “where did this group of people come from?” “how did we get here?” “why are we rivals with this nation?” etc. etc. and so these stories were created to answer such questions. Nice to know there’s a word for this!
There are so many beautiful stories of this kind in many cultures, mainly explaining how and why the sun, the moon, certain rivers, animals, plants that were important to the culture came to exist. It's a fascinating topic!
You'll find a lot of bigotries and biases once you recognize this. Like, Lot's daughters sleeping with him? They go on to form the Amalakites. Effectively saying that the Amalakites are sons of incestuous wh*res. The Bible is pretty salty sometimes. It's funny, in a petty way.
Anyone else want to see this lady on the Data Over Dogma podcast where she just asks honest questions like this and gets honest answers? Seems like there could be a really good conversation resulting from that.
I love the Bible and I love this discussion! Thank you for continuing to educate us. I know it’s upsetting to many people and their faith but personally I love learning more about the history and getting closer to the original meaning and context. It all starts to make so much more sense! 🙌 OP did a great job in posing questions here too!
I came across the same odd story growing up as a Christian and was also told it was an angel. Years later, I get curious and read through the Hebrew. I eventually came to thinking this story as almost a coming of age story. Jacob proves he is capable on his own terms. He had matured and had wrestled with the challenges of maturing and growing into a capable adult. Thus being able to be G-d’s friend, and not just another person who needs him constantly. (Completely a symbolic analysis - not a hard interpretation or anything of the sort.)
I learned two things today. First, like Esau, I would do almost anything for a pot of good Texas Chili and have also said "Give me some of that red stuff". Second, Jacob was the first to go Super Saiyan, transform into Israel and could've taken on a tag team of God AND the angel Ditka. 😂
I don't quite agree , maybe a little respect and humility on her part would lead to understanding . She also used the F word so brazenly at the beginning .
Yeah, I don't think she was so much asking questions as making declarations 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘥 as questions. That happens when someone doesn't believe and is not really interested in understanding what's behind the stories.
Is it just me that wrestles with God all the time 😢 . I often find myself searching for answers over issues of life and on a few occasions it felt like God relented to accept my argument and opinion . Other times He silences me with a soft gentle word .
Thanks for this video which explains in very clear terms why we set ourselves up for trouble when we view the Bible, or its parts, through twenty-first-century eyes. We also set ourselves up for trouble when we ascribe to the Almighty characteristics such as omniscience or omnipotence. After years of trying to understand and, more importantly, trying to explain so many passages that involve these assumptions, I've given up and find myself unwilling to ascribe ANY characteristics to the Presence. Even the name "God" has too many presumptions plastered on to it for my purposes. Sounds like I'm on a slow train to apophatism.
Answering these questions will help many who also cannot make sense of it. It made more sense to me when I thought of it as a 'Bronze Age' story about the creation of a nation.
Very interesting discussion. And I love that the young lady seeks to inquire and to challenge rather than blindly believe whatever she may have been told to believe.
Well done, gently explaining to this young one answers/plausible meaning to her legitimate queries. Her queries are valid. My knowledge is limited, so I thank you as well. Be well
To me, it makes more sense to read the Bible as a collection of literary works that show how the writers and compilers interpreted life and how they blend their ideas of the divine into their interpretations.
She definitely makes a good argument, if this is the thing your basing your faith on and looking for a moral message that could be useful to a modern reader and fits naturally into the narrative context of modern Christianity. Meanwhile, Dan provides a good insight into the historical context of how it likely got into the Bible and what it most likely meant to it's original target readers. I'm not sure how much that changes the original point she was struggling with or how anyone would stand a good chance of deciphering that without either heavily researching it, being a theologist/historian or having one explain it to you.
One of the most important things I've learned from Dan is that my arguments with the Bible are mostly just arguments with modern Biblical dogma and that it's okay to look past the dogma and really scrutinize the source material.
Read this story for the first time some months ago. I was amused at how BAM!, Jacob and God start wrestling without any lead-in. I was wondering if some nuances in the description had been lost in translation, or if it was intentionally humourous and the original audience would've gotten as much of a chuckle out of it as I did.
Anyone else find it *interesting* that the stranger MUST be gone by daybreak? I wonder if Jacob got a good look at his teeth! Neither she nor Dan mentions that the guy seeks to escape by striking Jacob's thigh, which is probably a euphemism for punching him in the balls...So, God cheats, and STILL can't win! I like to imagine this actually wasn't any sort of supernatural being, but a time-traveler who was just sight-seeing the era, when this wild guy just rolls up on him, starts demanding "blessings" and gets him in a headlock when he politely tries to excuse himself! Only when escaping this nutter and getting back to the present does he realize that he accidentally wrote himself into the Bible...
I think it might have had to do with their powers/domains. Esau and Jacob represented the Sun and Moon moon Elijah and Elisha. Elijah and Esau are described as being hairy or having a lot of hair on them. And are associated with fire or have tempers. Jacob and Elisha are described as being smooth or bald men and are described as being associated with trickery, intelligence, night, death, and/or phases of time. Jacob's powers were most active at night. Its possible that this is when YHWH was transitioning from being a god of the day to a god of the night. Its like he's mostly active at night and wanted to test his strength against Jacob, but lost and so had to cheat to win.
I thoroughly enjoy you going through and explaining this kind of stuff this is so good. I love it so much. I might No longer identify as Christian but I do thoroughly. Enjoy theology like this. I am pagan. I am a daughter Freya and I am working on becoming a God's woman.
Just finished reading the apologists' comments. That's some mighty fine negotiatin' going on here! Lol BTW, does anyone know the name of this creator's channel? I love her take on the Bible. It's refreshing to hear common sense applied to texts that are thousands of years old - long before logic was widely practiced, as science was developed - 😮, yet still held by many as historical truths and a factual explanation for the creation of the universe.
Hello Dan, thanks for your wonderful work! To add: Israel’s popular etymology translates indeed as “let El fight” (approximately). From what i have gathered and understood from elsewhere, this translation is built on a wordplay from the root ś-r-h: to beat, to fight, verb in the third person of the yiqtol imperfect conjugation in the form of the jussive mood (an injunctive therefore, or expressing a wish). But this root is apparently poorly attested in ancient Hebrew. This meaning is probably an intentional theological construction made by the writer of the verses of Genesis (32:22-29) to justify/explain the change of name of Jacob to Israel following a fight with God. Whether this change of name had to be introduced in relation with the "appropriation" of Israel/Samaria by Juda after 722 BCE, following its annexation in the Assyrian Empire and the substantial exodus of Samaritan people to Juda, remains an open question. The name Israel could in reality be built on other much better attested roots (ś-h-r-h, or y-š-r or even ś-r-'r) meaning respectively that El protects, that El is just, that El reigns /imposes itself. This would affect the interpretation of the theological consequences of the name Israel but would not fit the "purpose" of this writer. For more context it could also be interesting to consider the historical shift in what the word Israel denoted: starting with a people, then a territory, then a nation and finally the belonging (in the sense of membership, affiliation) constitutive of an identity. If I am not wrong, the first biblical mention of Israel as a nation and not as a territory, apart from Genesis 34:7 which is apparently widely considered an anachronism or a late gloss, is in Genesis 49:7. The earliest extra-biblical mention of Israel, on the stele of Merenptah (1200 BCE), does not apparently designate a region or a locality but a population living on the heights of Judea. As you say Dan, this section is full of etiologies!
Possible missing context.. In a grappling match, you can refuse to submit (as he appears to when his hip is displaced) and instead submit your opponent
What a wonderful discussion. Loved listening to this. The questions were wonderful, and the answers were very clear and careful. Thank you so very much to both of you for this illuminating presentation. I do have one question. The word ideology is not clear. Is it ideology or etiology? Thank you for the illuminating discussions.
I've seen like four different version of the story that I remember or saw online, one is an old man who might be a prophet, a generic angel, the/a devil, and God irl, also some versions saying that it was a dream/vision.
On a much deeper level this story is an allegory for the ancient mystery tradition everything from the "pillow of stone" (see philosophers stone, mithras born from a stone, Excalibur in the stone etc etc) and the ladder to Heaven is an allegory for the mysteries
It’s true about negotiating with the text. Especially Evangelical seminaries or Bible schools do this - even those where you approach the text inductively. It’s because they hold the preconceptions of biblical inerrancy and the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent nature of God. Thus, one devotes a good bit of energy explaining how and why there “seem to be these contradictions.” For my experience, this passage is explained as a Theophany/Christophany, the idea that God (or his supernatural representative) appeared in human form and interjected key lessons and concepts into humankind’s understanding of his character and plan of redemption. For example, that Jacob overcomes wouldn’t take away from God’s omnipotence. That he sees his face doesn’t take away from the idea that God’s holiness is so pure, no mortal can look on it and live. Instead, this instance is either an angel or an Old Testament era visitation from Jesus. As such, be it Jesus or an angel, the explanation is that they’d limit power and glory in the human form and that would shield other mortals from the deadly aspects of seeing God face to face. Side note: I think it’s cute how Moses was given horns when the old European cathedrals were built because the Hebrew word for “glory” was the same as horn(s). So when Moses came off the mountain after being with God, the Bible reads that his face still shown with glory, which could be interpreted as “horns.” They got it right for the Septuagint, but St. Jerome rendered it back to horns in his vulgate translation. LOL. Always cracks me up when some American tourist asks, “Wait. Why the heck is Satan on the Cathedral?” 😂
Another great video. I was having a conversation with a Christian friend about this very topic last night. Why did God show himself in the Old testament but not in the New testament?? My Christian friends told me that we couldn't answer that. God.. mysterious ways... I shared this video with him. He says he wants to debate Dan. No, he has no formal education in theology, Bible studies or anything. 😫
As baffling as this story is, I've always loved that Israel means "the one who wrestles with God." I come from a liberal Christian tradition, where we indeed wrestle with the Bible and Christian tradition, so this name is very meaningful to me. It's contrary to the fundamentalist "God said it, I believe it, that ends it" perspective. You call it "negotiation," I call it "interpretation," but it amounts to the same thing. And really both of them mean wrestling or fighting with the text/tradition/story - in short, wrestling with God. And it's in wrestling with God that we receive a blessing.
I don't remember where I heard that this story was originally a fight against Shalem, the god of Dusk, and that's why he has to leave before dawn, because his brother Shahar (lit: Dawn) is gonna appear very soon. I don't know if this idea has some academic support.
In Genesis, there are several places where someone sees an Angel Of The LORD and they say that they saw the LORD. For instance, when Sarai is told that she shall give birth when she is presumed too old.
I think there are a few additional subtle tropes and word-plays in Hebrew that influence the Jacob-story cycle writer placing the wrestling story at the Jabbok. Firstly, Jabbok means ‘Pouring out’ (as the river rapidly falls from a great height in the distance) and Jacob is going to be temporarily emptied of all his wealth when he is all alone on one side of the river having sent all he has ahead of him. He started his growth in wealth when he poured out water for Rachel’s sheep. ‘Jacob’ means literally ‘Grabber’ and wrestling involves grabbing your opponent. Jacob started wrestling in the womb and at birth with he grabbed his twin’s heel, as if a wrestling move. Secondly, in Hebrew Jacob and Jabbok are spelt with the same three consonants, but a different order: YKB and YBK. Just as Jacob reversed his disadvantage by swapping birth inheritance, swapping names and the hairiness of his arms, swapping the proportion of the livestock that were speckled and so his portion, and having the sisters Rachel and Leah swapped on him, so God (implies the writer) can easily reverse Jacob’s fortunes at the place where his name letters are jumbled.
I've always felt that if we want a complete understanding of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, we should consult the wisdom and learning of our Jewish brothers and sisters. One viewpoint regarding Jacob's wrestling with an angel (or God or whomever) was that this being wrestled with Jacob to stop him from running away from his fears. The victory (stalemate) gave Jacob courage and his renaming was a mark of his becoming a kind of new man. This struggle may very well have been an internal one with Jacob wrestling with his competing notions of self-will (and independence) and his need to be subservient to G-d's will. The further meaning might very well be an explanatory note as to what the Jewish people would face and experience.
The video's host said that Hosea 12:5 says that Jacob wrestled "to" an angel, which should be "against", but if you look at Jeremiah 1:19 and 15:20, they say that Jeremiah will fight "to" the people and they will not prevail to him. They have different verbs, but they use "to" as "against."
For some reason, this subject turns up a lot in classic art. Examples include Delacroix (1861), Gauguin (1888), and Maurice Denis (1893). Rembrandt also painted the scene in 1659. Gauguin’s is far and away the most adventurous, the most avant-garde, the most complex treatment of the subject-all for reasons that would take too long to explain in a RU-vid comment.
*Laban, Elohim, Edom* The wrestling scene is sandwiched between struggles with Laban and Esau. Jacob/Israel compares seeing Esau’s face with seeing the face of Elohim in Genesis 33:10.
At this time, there are 320 comments, if someone else asked this question and I have missed it, I apologize. But I have 2 questions: In English, "I fight with X" can mean both "against" and "along side with". Plus you have said "Israel" means "fights with G-D" as in against. Is there a separate Hebrew for fighting against and fighting along side? And if Israel mean "fight against G-D", does that mean the Country of Israel was misnamed? Possibly even suggesting that as a name, "Israel" means "Fights against G-D and defeats G-D?" Please advise.
The more untangling of the biblical text I feel like I'm learning but then again getting more frustrated by the cryptic nature of the Bible. It seems it doesn't really say what it says in many instances, long held beliefs are put usunder because of 'negotiating with the text' and outright manipulation with the text over the centuries leaving us with a book that can't be trusted. But it does beg the question why the early followers like Peter be martyred for their faith if they weren't absolutely sure about Christ as Lord and Savior or maybe accounts such as his execution not trustworthy either.
There is much more. Jacob was injured by the angel so he would be humbled before esau. The master of the universe needed to create a power imbalance when he met esau. This was the master's way of influencing the future engagement to promote reconciliation.
Mention of Jacob is found in at least two books. (Are there more? I don't know. I'm too lazy to look it up!) In Genesis we find both 'he' and 'God,' though it's kind of complicated. Many (most?) traditions see this 'God' as being an angel. Also, some interpret the 'face of God' as being angels. In Hosea it is, I think, angel mentioned. The problem, if one can call it that, is that these texts were possibly redacted during the Second Temple Period.
@@monteirolobato6830 i don’t think that the face of God is referring to angels o think that’s modern Cristian interpretation I wouldn’t make sense that in exodus 33:18-22 when Moses wanted to see God that he responds with no one can see my Angel and live if we would say that face here means angel I know a few Jews who believes that this could apply to a literary face of God but without humanlikeness or any ability of imagination since God is above
5:09 I like to think that this could’ve been God’s way of possibly testing the perseverance of Jacob. Jacob wrestled with God and preserved, just as the nation of Israel constantly wrestled with God and (more or less) persevered, (Israel disobeys God but in the end reunites with Him.) It probably has no textual or historical support, but it’s just something I like to think about.
In Genesis 32:25, Did God commits a foul on Jacob!? "When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man."
Oof. If ever there came a moment in my life where I was confident enough to publicly declare some understanding of the Bible, I'd think twice, knowing that Dan would eventually come along to refute any premise and demonstrate just how far off the mark I was. So, I'm going to stay in my lane and not say a thing about anything about anything other than menu items at my favorite restaurants. I got that shit down pat!
It could still be univocal when you consider that Lord Jehovah was like a superhero, having a secret identity as El Shaddai, a mild mannered god who covered his loins with a cloth mantle and blended in with the other gods, the Bene Elohim, but appeared as Jehovah in a minotaur mask to hide his identity but otherwise naked so everyone could see his mighty phallus and know he was the granddaddy of all gods. He had the horns removed from his minotaur mask so he could assault people easier, giving them less to grab onto (maybe learning this when he attacked Jacob). In this way he also attacked Moses, and was going to kill him, holding a knife to his throat while Zipporah circumcised their son. That's why no one could see his face because his secret identity would be discovered. When Moses found him without his mask he ran away covering his face because Moses saw his member and thought: "I know that member. It's Lord Jehovah himself!" So if he saw his face he would be like: "what the...El Shaddai?! OMG! El Shaddai IS Lord Jehovah!" But this wasn't yet allowed.
The biggest problem with her, is that it seems she really wants a literal, explicitly stated meaning to it, taking the story as if she was watching Game of Thrones or something. That's not how it works.
Could "Strives With God" also be translated as "Strives WITH God's Help (Alongside God)" instead of "Strives AGAINST God"? Also, while I get the idea for changing Jacob to Israel, why does God change Abram to Abraham, a barely notably difference?
Changing Abraham's and Sarah's name might have just had to do with regional differences with pronouncing their names and when these different societies were coming together to put all their legends into something somewhat cohesive, thats the story they decided to go with.
I'm no Hebrew scholar, but I have seen this discussed before and it's confusing. ' Israel' can mean many things, to included, from the Second Temple Period, 'a man seeing God.' Israel can also mean 'persevering' or 'prevail.' Maybe even 'reigns (with?).
So if “Israel” means “fights with god” then why does it have Jacob win? Jacob could still fight with god, lose, AND still be called “fights with god”. That way, god does not get clobbered by a mere human and the name still sticks.
Didn't Jacob injure his hip during the bout? And didn't they wrestle all night (if that is what you want to call it)? Maybe that's just the story Jacob told everyone... that he hurt his hip "wrestling" a guy all night, and the guy was very strong, evidently.
