In this passage, we discover the founding of the Israelite people, who throughout history, are characterized by violence. However, this violence is rarely represented in the “taking” sense. Violence is rarely used by the Israelite people in order to take something they were not meant to have. Instead, violence is a tool to “receive.” God presents a blessing (be it land, progeny, etc.), but in order to receive it, the Israelite people must use violence to prove themselves worthy. The intention of these actions to receive rather than take from God is what separates vice from virtue.
We see this in the encounter between Jacob and the unidentified assailant. God wants to give Jacob the fruit of his covenant with Abraham (the land, the progeny, and the blessing), but in order for Jacob to receive these gifts, he must prove himself worthy. And Jacob is not worthy. After deceiving his father, stealing from his brother, and abandoning his family out of fear, he has a lot he needs to prove in order to be rewarded in this scenario. That is why God gives Jacob an opponent that is virtually impossible to defeat: Himself. The unidentified figure that Jacob wrestles is God. Though not confirmed, there are a few details that lead to this conclusion. One thing that is consistent about the many appearances of God in the Old Testament is that no one has seen his face. Even Moses, God’s closest prophet, was blinded by the appearance of God and deemed not worthy to see his face. Similarly, Jacob is not able to see his opponent’s face throughout the entire combat. The person is overly eager to leave before the morning sun rises, suggesting that he is trying to prevent his appearance from being revealed by the light. The unidentified assailant’s appearance may be sacred and unviewed by mortals, just like God. Another indication is when the figure changes Jacob name to Israel. First, who besides God has the ability to change other’s names with meaningful derivation? Think back to Abram becoming Abraham because this is clearly reflective of that encounter. Second, there is significance behind the name Israel itself, which translates roughly to “he who has prevailed against God and man.” We know that Jacob prevailed against man when he deceived his father and took his brother’s inheritance. Where does the God part come from? It comes precisely from that night, where he wrestled with God and won. God is not used lightly in the Old Testament. If it were an angel that Jacob fought with, it would not use such an almighty word. It is clear that God Himself fought Jacob, and that Israel prevailed.
Austin's Theology Responses 
I understand your thoughts for using violence to receive. However, I disagree here. I believe that the Israelites did take through violence. They took animal life and beautiful things, specifically women, with violence. They were not part of a peaceful taking. The only way they thought they could have these things was with violence. They needed to rage against mortality. Your points on why his opponent was God were valid. At first, I disagreed but after consideration, I am more obliged to thinking this. However, I am not sure if you can say that Jacob defeated God, because no one can defeat God.
LikeLike
Thank you for giving my argument a consideration. You have a point too that the Israelite’s path of destruction in the “Promised Land” was not pretty. They destroyed everything that was pretty. This is something I have difficulty coming to terms with in the Old Testament. If God is the ultimate source of good, why would he order his people to do this? I could understand if they did it on their own and God merely forgave them afterward. But no, God explicitly ordered this. The idea of “receiving” is the only way I can reconcile this contradictory issue.
About your last point, I agree that no one can defeat God. To say defeat would imply that Jacob is better and that’s definitely not the case. I think prevail is used more in the sense that he successfully defeated God’s test, not Him.
LikeLike
I like how you said that because it’s God, He cannot be seen face-to-face by humans. Would you say that there’s some significance in being so close with God physically but still not seeing Him?
LikeLike
I think that being close to God but not seeing Him takes a lot of trust. The people that have been closest to God like Abraham, Moses, and Elijah are frequently characterized by their trust in God. They had trust that He was who He said He was and not a deception. They had to trust that He had the best interest of their people in mind. And they had to trust that He would guide them to make the best decision. All of this they did without seeing Him.
LikeLike
I think that the point that you bring up about the renaming of Jacob being proof that the entity is G-d is really insightful, and I had not thought of it like that. Do you argue that Jacob won when he wrestled against G_d, despite the fact that he was severely injured?
LikeLike
I think severe is a bit of an exaggeration. Even with the hip injury, he was able to keep fighting and walk away from the combat. I think merely surviving against G-d for an entire night has to count for something. Besides, when it comes to wrestling, victory is determined by the last person to throw in the towel. G-d withdrew from the combat before Jacob did, which points toward Jacob being the last man standing.
LikeLike
You say “there is significance behind the name Israel itself, which translates roughly to ‘he who has prevailed against God and man'”. Would you agree with the statement that it was good for Jacob to take Esau’s birthright? Or does the name Israel simply state that Jacob did it? I wonder what deeper meaning could be going on here.
LikeLike