Restoration Quarterly 42.3 (2000) 169-77.

Copyright 2000 by Restoration Quarterly, cited with permission.





OF "FACE TO FACE" (MyniPA-lx, MyniPA)

IN GENESIS 32:23-32



Prince George, B.C.


1. Background


Were those who saw the face and heard the voice of Jesus of Nazareth

during the first century CE the first (and only) people to encounter God

himself in person?1 Hundreds of years earlier, and recorded in five OT

passages, the Lord is said to have encountered humanity MyniPA-lx, MyniPA,

that is, face to face.2 Surprisingly, given the vast amount of existing material

on the OT theophanies, scholars have yet to discover the theological richness

of these specific encounters.3 Therefore, with the use of certain textual,

literary, and historical tools, this essay explores the four central elements

inherent in the ancient Israelite understanding of their Lord's face to face

interaction with his people. In the process, it also touches on how this con-

cept affected the ancient Israelite understanding of God, of themselves, and

even of the great patriarchs of their faith.

The study of the Lord's intimate presentation of himself in OT literature

is central to understanding the nature of God's relationship with his chosen

people, and it is within the context of the Lord's self-revelation that MyniPA-

lx, MyniPA is selectively used in five separate passages, one of which is Gen


1 That the doctrine of Jesus' fully human-divine nature has been repeatedly

challenged and defended by scholars from a wide variety of theological traditions

is well known. The purpose of this study, however, is not to analyze the nature of

the NT Jesus, but rather to develop a deeper understanding of the OT Lord.

2 Gen 32:31; Exod 33:11; Deut 34:10; Judg 6:22; Ezek 20:35.

3 The absence of previous research provides both the wondrous opportunity for

new biblical exploration as well as the daunting task of fresh and original research.

Consequently, the application of critical analysis to the five passages is done hand

in hand with the investigation of ancient interpretations and insights (the Samaritan

Pentateuch, the Septuagint, the targumim, etc.).



32:31: "For I have seen Elohim face to face (MyniPA-lx, MyniPA )." This Hebrew

phrase is reserved for encounters between the human and the divine, and

although MyniPA-lx, MyniPA is used in specific circumstances and with certain

parameters, it is not limited to use in a single book or a major division of the

OT. Those involved in seeing God face to face include Jacob, Moses,

Gideon, and the Israelites in exile. The Genesis 32 encounter on the shores

of the Jabbok is explored on its own terms, and all the findings are united to

form a comprehensive understanding of the multidimensional nature of

MyniPA-lx, MyniPA interaction. Specifically, the four inherent elements are (1) divine

initiation, (2) profound intimacy, (3) intentional solitude, and (4) super

natural verification.

Although the textual source for this study is the Masoretic Text (MT) as

presented in BHS (4th ed.), other sources are carefully considered as well.

The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) not only sheds valuable light on the text of

the Hebrew Bible, but, more importantly, it also presents an ancient

understanding of the text. For example, given the conservative nature4 of the

Samaritans, it is quite noteworthy5 when the SP attests a different text from

the MT in the MyniPA-lx, MyniPA passages. Likewise, the Septuagint is a valu-

able aid in both the study of the textual history of the Hebrew Bible and the

study of Jewish thought in the pre-Christian era. Finally, the paraphrastic

Targums (Onqelos, Neofiti, and Jonathan) and the Syriac Peshitta have the

same tendency as the Samaritan Pentateuch in that they, too, transcenden-

talize6 God throughout the text and, therefore, provide helpful interpretive



2. Jacob and God "Face to face"


Perhaps no other OT narrative has evoked a wider range of under-

standing than that of Jacob as he wrestled with a mysterious opponent at the

Jabbok River in Gen 32:23-337 (with the identity of Jacob's assailant the


4 See R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Tyndale,

1969) 222.

5 "[The] Samaritan Pentateuch transcendentalizes the concept of God; e. g.,

wherever in the MT God is said to deal directly with man without a mediator, or to

descend to earth, the Samaritan Pentateuch substitutes `the angel of God."' Bruce

Waltke, "Samaritan Pentateuch" ABD 5.938.

6 "These more or less paraphrastic targums are of more value in understanding

the way Jewish people understood their OT than for textual criticism." Bruce

Waltke, "Textual Criticism of the Old Testament and Its Relation to Exegesis and

Theology" NIDOTTE 1.59. See also Bernard Grossfeld, "The Targum Onqelos to

Genesis" TAB 6.19, and Martin McNamara, "Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis" TAB IA.


7 In the discussion of Genesis 32, the verse numbering of the MT will be used

unless indicated otherwise.



most controversial). Not surprisingly, previous research has identified

Jacob's exclamation "I have seen Elohim face to face!" as central to the

passage although face to face seems to have been lost in the theological

shadow of Elohim. Consequently, since the nature of MyniPA-lx, MyniPA inter-

action cannot be separated from the identity of those doing the interacting,

both elements are explored, albeit the former issue naturally receives more

attention than the latter.


3. Genre and Form


One of the first OT scholars to suggest that verses 23 and 33 form the

correct textual limits of this passage was Samuel Driver,8 and his

conclusions have been repeatedly confirmed.9 In addition, both the previous

and the following pericopae deal with the relationship between Jacob and

Esau, whereas the story of Jacob at the Jabbok omits any reference to Esau

and instead focuses on Jacob and his mysterious assailant.10 Both the text

itself and the content indicate that Gen 32:23-33 stands apart from the

surrounding text as a distinct pericope.

With regard to the genre of this passage, it is evident that the prohibition

in verses 32-3311 and the name changes in verses 29 and 3112 are primarily

etiological in nature. If the formula "until this day" in verse 33 is also

considered, the best conclusion is that the entire pericope functions as an

etiological folk story13 in which the precise nature of Jacob's MyniPA-lx, MyniPA

encounter at the Jabbok acts as the supporting evidence for the central


8 He noted that the previous pericope ends with "lodged that night," but v. 23

starts with "he rose up that night," thereby indicating that a new unit has begun.

Samuel Driver, The Book of Genesis (London: Methuen, 1904) 294.

9 Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 266; Claus

Westermann, Genesis 12-36, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985), 512; Gerhard von Rad,

Genesis, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 314; Hermann Gunkel, Genesis,

(Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997), 347. (The MT also seems to suggest these

limits in that both 32:23 and 33:1 start open D paragraphs).

10 This distinction is further elaborated in 4. Literary Context.

" For example, see von Rad, Genesis, 318; George Coats, Genesis (FOTL;

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 230; and Brueggemann, Genesis, 270. Also,

although it is never repeated anywhere else in the OT, this dietary prohibition is later

re-affirmed via Maimonides' Law # 183 (12th cent. CE).

12 See Gunkel, Genesis, 353; and E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB;New York:

Doubleday, 1964) 256-57.

13 See Westermann, Genesis 12-36, 51. He also suggests that 32:23-33 can be

described as a local story because what is narrated leads to the naming of the place

and "no memorial stone is erected at the end to mark the place out as holy; it is

therefore not a cult story" (ibid., 514).



element:14 the name change from Jacob to Israel. In effect, the face to face

encounter serves as a supernatural "stamp of approval," as is expanded upon

later in this essay, not as a Jacob-initiated victory over a local god or spirit

as is suggested by some.15


4. Literary Context


Traditionally, the book of Genesis has been divided into two main

sections, chapters 1-11 (primeval history) and chapters 12-50 (patriarchal

history), with the Jacob narrative placed in the latter. Prior to the events of

Jacob's life, the patriarchal families (i.e., Abraham and Isaac) had been

seminomadic and had not yet fully occupied the promised land16 of Canaan.

Jacob's encounter at Penuel took place as he, with caution, was about to re-

enter Canaan from Paddan Aram, where he had previously fled because of

the anger of his brother, Esau. It was a homecoming filled with nervous


Brueggemann suggests that within the larger Jacob narrative is a chiastic

structure in which the two main themes of the entire narrative are announced

--the mysterious birth of Jacob and Esau and their intense interaction.

Brueggemann's chiastic analysis,17 presented below, identifies not only that

the births are the centre of the narrative, but more importantly, that the

events of Jacob's MyniPA-lx, MyniPA struggle at Penuel correspond to Jacob's

previous dream of God at Bethel.


Conflict with Esau (25:19-34; 27:1-45; 27:46-28:9)

[Human-Divine] Meeting at Bethel (28:10-22)

Conflict with Laban (29:1-30)

Births (29:31-30:24)

Conflict/Covenant (30:25-31:55)

[Human-Divine] Meeting at Penuel (32:22-32)

Reconciliation with Esau (33:1-17)

Closure and Transition (33:18-36:43)


14 See 4. Literary Context.

15 For example, von Rad writes, "How close our story is to all those sagas in

which gods, spirits or demons attack a man and in which then the man extorts

something of their strength and their secret" (Genesis, 316). Sharing the same

thought, Gunkel states that this story about Jacob is "closely related to those legends

and fairy tales that tell of a god compelled by a human through deceit or force to

leave behind his secret knowledge or something else divine" (Gunkel, Genesis, 352).

16 Promised to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3), Isaac (Gen 26:3-5), and Jacob (Gen


17 Brueggemann, Genesis, 213. He also theorizes that the previous Abraham

narrative is preoccupied with the concept of promise and the Jacob narrative with

that of blessing (ibid., 206).



Within the smaller pericope of Gen 32:22-32 is another chiasm evident as

well. The alternating speech between Jacob and his adversary, presented

within the literary framework of seven rm, (and he said), draws the reader

to the central point (the fourth rm, of Jacob's own name, as shown below.

Adv.: "Let me go for the dawn is rising." (v. 27)

Jacob: "I will not send you away unless you bless me." (v. 27)

Adv.: "What is your name?" (v. 28)

Jacob: "Jacob." (v. 28)

Adv.: "Your name is not called Jacob anymore but Israel, for. ..."

(v. 29)

Jacob: "Please tell me your name." (v. 30)

Adv.: "Why do you ask my name?" (v. 30)


Finally, a survey of the repetitive literary texture of Gen 32:23-33 in

comparison to its immediate context highlights several features of the text

itself. The most noteworthy is the complete absence in verses 23-33 of every

element except the characters of Jacob and Myhilox<. While Jacob's posses-

sions and his fear of his brother dominate the text before verses 23-33,

Jacob's concern about the members of his immediate family are his primary

concern in the subsequent passage. As shown in the summary18 below, the

solitary19 events that took place between verses 23 and 33 dramatically

changed Jacob's priorities.


bqofEya Myhilox< vWAfe family20 possessions21

32:1-22 9 3 9 3 24

32:23-33 7 2 0 0 0

33:1-17 3 3 6 15 5


By means of the repetitive texture within the surrounding text, Jacob is

intentionally portrayed as being completely separated from all of his posses-

sions and family; the human-divine MyniPA-lx, MyniPA encounter is between

Jacob and Myhilox< alone. There is no one present (friend or foe) either to

witness Jacob's profound struggle or to verify the change of his name and



18 This table is a summary of the full analysis given in Wessner, Face to Face:

Panim 'el-Panim in Old Testament Literature (Theological Research Exchange

Network, #048-0211, 1998), 109.

19 Jacob's removal and distance from everything else in his life is further

emphasized at the end of v. 24 by means of the phrase Ol-rw,xE, which refers to all

that Jacob had. In addition, the beginning of v. 25 makes Jacob's separation even

clearer by the use of ODbal; bqofEya rteUAyiva (and Jacob was alone).

20 Includes "mother, children, descendants, Rachel, Leah, Joseph, women."

21 Includes "cattle, donkeys, flocks, camels, ewes, rams, goats, hulls, herds,

servants, people."


5. Biblical Context


Interestingly, the events of Jacob's encounter at Penuel are never

directly quoted in the OT although the momentous occasion of Jacob's name

change to Israel is referred to in two passages. In Gen 35:9-15, Jacob

returned to Bethel, where God blessed him and renewed his covenant

promise to him. In verse 10 God essentially repeated the words of 32:29:

"And God said to him, ... no longer shall your name be called Jacob, but

Israel shall be your name. And he [Elohim] called his name Israel." The

second reference to Jacob's name change is in I Kgs 18:30-38, during the

Israelites' dramatic and pivotal change of heart. According to verse 31,

Elijah stated that the Lord himself had previously spoken to Jacob, saying,

"Israel shall be your name," showing that, like the two passages in Genesis,

the changing of Jacob's name to Israel was ultimately, if not directly,

accomplished by God.

The concept of "God and man," as used in Gen 32:29, is used elsewhere

in the OT, with some scholars seeing it as an expression of totality22 rather

than as referring to two separate entities (i.e., the identification of Myhilox< as

a representative rather than as a distinct individual). For example, Judg 9:9,

13 seem to indicate that "gods and men" is used inclusively and that neither

the "gods" nor the "men" are treated individually. If Westermann's analysis

is correct, the words of Jacob's assailant, "you have struggled with God and

with men," may be representative of Jacob's whole life rather than a specific

reference to an individual event (e.g., the crossing of the Jabbok) during the

course of his life.

Even though Gen 32:23-33 is never directly quoted elsewhere, there is

a significant (and necessary) allusion to it in Hos 12:4-5,23 which states that

Jacob contended with Myhilox< and also struggled with a j`xAl;ma (angel). This

text, which looks back to various events throughout Jacob's life, is divided

into three separate bicola. The first bicolon shows both syntactic and seman-

tic parallelism B;, perfective verbs, tx,), while both the second and third have

syntactic parallelism (two imperfective verbs with an object in each line and

imperfective verbs and object suffixes in each line, respectively).

In this passage, Douglas Stuart notes that the bicolon in verse 4 is the

first half of a quatrain that includes verse 5a, thereby uniting the first two

bicola under one theme24--Jacob's struggle25 with his adversary. In fact, this

four-line unit also has an inherent chiastc structure of its own, as shown in


22 Westermann, Genesis 12-36, 518.

23 As in Genesis 32, the verse numbering in Hosea 12 will follow the MT.

24 Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah (Dallas: Word, 1987) 190.

25 hrAWA in v. 4 and either rUAWA (a by-form of hrW) or rraWA in v. 5.



the text below, further clarifying the intentional correspondence between

j`xAl;ma and Myhilox<.

a In the womb he grasped the heel of his brother

b and in his strength he contended with Elohim.26

b' He ruled over/struggled with an angel and prevailed

a' he wept and he pled for grace with him.27


Therefore, despite the elaborate attempts of some scholars28 to explain verse

5a as parallel to events in Jacob's life29 other than his wrestling at the Jabbok

(e.g., Gen 30:8), Hosea is simply referring to Jacob's physical struggle with

Myhilox< and is as ambiguous about the identity of his assailant as is the

narrator of the Genesis account. For Hosea, the Myhilox< with whom Jacob

contended is not to be understood as God himself but rather as corre-

sponding to j`xAl;ma, that is, a messenger sent on behalf of God.


6. Other Ancient Literature


Although the story of Jacob's wrestling at the Jabbok has no biblical

parallels, it does have a loose connection with other Ancient Near Eastern

accounts, and its apparent association with other ANE river-deity encounters

is well documented.30 Ronald Hendel, however, is careful to say that

"Jacob's adversary is neither a night demon nor a river-god; Jacob names

him in v. 31 as Elohim. Nonetheless there are thematic continuities in the

Penuel encounter with traditional images of other conflicts and other

gods."31 Hendel also sees YHWH's adversarial role evident in other OT

passages such as when YHWH seeks to kill Moses (Exod 4:24-26) and when

he tests Abraham (Genesis 22). Quite possibly, the narrator of Genesis may

have had such a parallel in mind, although he did not mimic it exactly. For

example, Jacob was not completely victorious (he left with a physical limp),

and although he received a blessing, the focus of the text seems to be on the

changing of his name.


26 Myhilox< can refer to God, divine beings (Zech 12:8) or ghosts (1 Sam 28:13),

and even Moses was given the title by the Lord himself (Exod 7:1).

27 Cf. Gen 33:4, 8.

28 Francis Anderson and David Noel Freedman, Hosea (AB; New York:

Doubleday, 1980) 608-14.

29 For example, nowhere else does the OT record Jacob weeping or pleading

with an angel.

30 For example, see John Scullion, "The Narrative of Genesis" ABD 2.952,

Westermann, Genesis 12-36, 515; and Gunkel, Genesis, 352.

31 Ronald Hendel, The Epic of the Patriarch (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987)

105. He gives the example of a 7th-cent. BCE Phoenician incantation of the god

Sasam that says, "The sun rises 0 Sasam: Disappear, and fly away home."



Since it is generally accepted that the ancient Samaritan Pentateuch

systematically avoids any anthropomorphic presentation of God, it is

significant that the Genesis 32 pericope does not reflect any variant from the

text of the Masoretes. This could indicate that 1) the passage was "over-

looked" in the translation/interpretation process (which is unlikely, given the

thousands of variants elsewhere); 2) the Samaritans were not offended by

God's personal encounter with Jacob (also unlikely considering the prev-

alence of transcendentalization throughout the text); or 3) the Samaritans did

not consider the recorded events as portraying a physical and direct

encounter between God himself and an earth-bound man. Clearly, the third

option is the most logical because the Samaritans likely understood that

Jacob's statement "I have seen Elohim face to face" was not blasphemous

since Jacob's adversary was not actually YHWH in person, but rather was

someone with God-sent authority.

With regard to the Genesis 32 pericope, the Septuagint reflects the same

textual nuances as the MT, especially in two significant elements. Similar to

the Hebrew Myhilox<, the Greek term qeo<j used in verse 31 ("I saw qeo>n face

to face") does not necessarily refer exclusively to God, but can also refer to

a man, as in Exod. 7: 1. Of prime importance to this study, however, is the use

of "face to face" (pro<swpon pro>j pro<swpon) in the Septuagint text of

verse 30. In his speech, Jacob declared, "I saw (o[ra<w, 2d aorist active)

qeo>n face to face" reflecting the corresponding Hebrew syntax of "I have

seen (hxr, Qal) Myhilox< face to face." In both texts, Jacob (the subject)

asserted himself to be acting as the active agent in the face to face encounter,

a role that the Biblical narrator reserves exclusively for God or his agent in

the four other OT passages.

Written hundred of years later, Targum Onqelos, Targum Neofiti, and

the Peshitta all reflect significant variations from the Hebrew text sur-

rounding the phrase MyniPA-lx, MyniPA in Genesis 32. Since the nature of these

writings is to paraphrase and interpret freely during the process of transla-

tion, it is not surprising that Jacob's adversary is clearly identified in the

texts as an angel.32 By the time of the targumim and the Peshitta, there is

little room for misinterpreting the identity of Jacob's opponent at Jabbok; he

is clearly understood as an angelic being representing the Lord.


7. Conclusion


The Genesis text unquestionably says that Jacob physically saw some-

one face to face, but that someone was neither an ordinary man nor God

himself,33 as is often assumed, but rather a messenger acting on behalf of


32 Targum Neofiti goes even further by actually naming the angel as Sariel (v. 25).

33 As for other instances of the seemingly intentional blurring of the distinction



God. Not only does the text itself suggest this conclusion by the intentional

use of Myhiilox</qeo<j, but the earliest readers also understood that Jacob's

adversary was a divine messenger (cf. Hosea, Targum Onqelos, Targum

Neofiti, and the Peshitta).

As in all five biblical occurrences of MyniPA-lx, MyniPA, the four inherent

elements of divine initiation, profound intimacy, intentional solitude, and

supernatural verification are clearly evident in Gen 32:23-33. For example,

Jacob's wrestling match was caused by the sudden appearance and unex-

pected attack of the heavenly sent "man" during the night. Ironically, Jacob

had spent the previous day preparing for a dramatic encounter, but he was

expecting to meet his brother Esau, not the powerful messenger who was

declared to be Myhilox< not only was Jacob's encounter physically intimate,

but it also involved the very essence of his identity-the identification and

the change of his name. The physical touch, the name change, and the

personal blessing all serve to portray the profound intimacy experienced

between Jacob and the divine messenger.

As well, the Hebrew text of the pericope presents Jacob's complete

solitude quite effectively not only by stating that "he sent across [the

Jabbok] all that he had" and he "was left alone," but also by the complete

absence of any terms of possession or family in verses 23-33. Therefore, the

divinely initiated MyniPA-lx, MyniPA interaction, including the supernaturally

induced limp (and possibly the prohibition), served as a God-sent physical

"sign" to verify and legitimize the primary (and private) event of the

pericope, that is, the change of Jacob's name to Israel. Both the personal and

theological significance of his encounter required some type of verification

from God himself (cf. Moses and the pillar of cloud, Gideon and the

sacrifice consumed by fire) if his unique encounter was to be taken seri-

ously. His was no mere spiritual or illusory encounter that could easily be

dismissed by his contemporaries: it was a physical encounter with the divine.



between a man, the Lord, and an angel, one need look no further than other passages

such as Genesis 16 (Hagar), Genesis 18-19 (Abraham), or Judges 13 (Manoah).



This material is cited with gracious permission from:

Restoration Quarterly Corporation

P. O. Box 28227

Abilene, TX 79699-8227

Please report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: