Theophany as Type Scene:

A Consideration of Abraham and Jacob

by

Michael Bittle
SID 8943314

From the Beginning: Reading the Book of Genesis

OT 3XE3

Professor: Dr. Paul Evans

July 18, 2010
 1

Introduction

Biblical scholars have traditionally used a number of methods to analyze theophanies in

the Old Testament and, in his book Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative,

Dr. George W. Savran suggests the ‘type scene model’ provides a more useful tool (emphasis

added) for interpreting theophanic narratives than other critical methods.1

Savran uses the term theophany “not in its figurative sense of ‘encounter with the divine’

but, in keeping with the Greek ‘to appear’, it implies the presence of a visual component in

addition to verbal interaction ... Moreover, the term ‘theophany narrative’ applies only to those

encounters in which the narrative framework is apparent.”2 In his use of the term ‘type scene’,

Savran means “a recurrent scene within a story whose repetitions reveal both identity and

difference: identity in the basic plot sequence that is described, and difference in the deployment

of certain motifs in varying fashion.”3

Savran notes that “theophany narratives exhibit a set number of recurrent motifs around

which the story is based: the setting of the scene, the appearance and speech of YHWH, human

response to the presence of the divine [including] the expression of doubt or anxiety, and

externalization of the experience.”4

He goes on to describe four essential indicators common to each type scene of the

‘divine-human encounter’. A fifth indicator, location, is an important component of ‘setting of

the scene’ and will also be included:

Location - Savran notes that the location of a theophany is important if it “is connected to an

aetiological element later in the story in relation to a specific sanctuary (Bethel, Gibeon, Shiloh)

… as the final aspect of the type scene, the creation of structures for the continuation or

extension of the experience.”6

 2

Setting of the scene – “In theophany stories, the primary function of such a mise-en-scène is to

separate the protagonist from family or others in preparation for what, in nearly every case, is a

solitary experience.”5 As Savran goes on to note, “this is a highly private experience, even

though it always has public ramifications. This solitude also increases the sense of mystery and

sanctity surrounding the encounter.”7

Appearance and speech of YHWH – the protagonist experiences a visual manifestation which

precedes the appearance of YHWH;8

Human response to the presence of the divine - responses are characterized by an initial

display of humility or fear, and once the initial shock of the divine encounter has passed, the

protagonist expresses doubt or anxiety;9

Transformation and Externalization - the narrative began with the separation of the

protagonist, so it concludes with the return of that protagonist to the world, but in a transformed

manner.10

This paper will apply and evaluate the ‘type scene model’ as described by Savran against

three covenant narratives in which God appeared and changed the names of two patriarchs: once

involving Abram/Abraham in Genesis 17, and twice involving Jacob/Israel in Genesis 32 and 35.

Each of these three ‘naming’ theophanies will be reviewed to consider the extent to which

Savran’s five type-scene indicators are present: Location, Setting of the Scene, Appearance and

Speech of YHWH, Human Response to the Presence of the Divine, and Transformation and

Externalization.

The purpose of the paper is to determine if all three theophanic events contain the type

scene indicators outlined by Savran and, if not, to determine if Savran’s claim to its usefulness is

warranted.
 3

A. The ‘Naming of Abraham’ Theophany

Savran includes the Genesis 17 event in his list of visual theophanies:11 it describes a

theophanic encounter between God and Abram at Mamre/Hebron in which God reaffirms his

covenant offer of land and descendants, gives Abram a new name, and sets out his expectations

for Abraham and his descendants to live out their part of the covenant.

In Verses 1 and 2, God appears to Abram and says “walk before me”. God then promises

Abram an heir, that he will make a covenant with Abram, and that he will multiply Abram’s

descendants “very much”. In verse 3, Abram fell on his face before God; in verse 4 God says that

Abram will be the “father of many nations”. Then, in verse 5, God declares that he will no longer

be called Abram, but Abraham. Verses 6 to 8 outline God’s commitment to Abraham: Abraham

will be fruitful (v 6); the covenant will apply to Abraham’s descendants (v 7); and Abraham and

his descendants will receive the land of Canaan (v 8). Verses 9 to 14 outline Abraham’s part of

the covenant: Abraham and his descendants will keep the covenant (v 9); every male will be

circumcised (v 10); the circumcision will involve the foreskin (v 11); all newborn males will be

circumcised at 8 days (v 12); circumcision will be a permanent part of the covenant (v 13); and

any male who is not circumcised will not be part of the covenant. In verses 15 and 16, God

changes the name of Sarai to Sarah and says she will bear a son. In verses 17 and 18, Abraham

responds to this news by falling on his face laughing, and questioning God whether Sarah was

too old to have a child (v 17), and asking whether his son Ishmael was not sufficient (v 18). In

verse 19, God states that the new son will be named Isaac and that his covenant will be continued

through Isaac. In verse 20, God affirms that Ishmael will also become “a great nation”. In verse

21, God reaffirms that his covenant will be with Isaac, to be born a year hence. In verse 22, God

leaves. In verses 23 to 27, Abraham has all the males in his household circumcised.
 4

Type-scene Indicators in the ‘Naming of Abraham’

1. Location

While the location of the theophany in Genesis 17 is not explicitly described, Genesis 16

and 18 both take place in Mamre; therefore we may deduce that Genesis 17 occurred in Mamre

as well but the actual location is not clear.12

2. Setting of the Scene

Genesis 17 does not begin with any particular scene or setting to describe Abram or his

location before God’s arrival, other than indicating it was 13 years after the birth of Ishmael and

Abram was 99 years old. Once God arrives, however, a literal interpretation of his command

“walk before me” would indicate that the two of them went off into the desert on a solitary walk.

However, this is not the interpretation that is generally adopted for this phrase. What we do know

for certain is that there is no mention of anyone else being present. Hence, while it might be safe

to assume that for whatever reason, Abram was alone at the time of the theophany, it is not clear

what the setting of the scene actually was.

3. Appearance and Speech of YHWH

God’s initial words to Abram were “I am El Shaddai!13 Walk before me and be perfect;

and I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you very much.” There is

no description of any physical manifestation by El Shaddai, other than he “appeared” to Abram,

so we may assume that he appeared as an anthropomorphic being. As well, given that Abram

appears to be awake and that this theophanic event is not described as a vision or dream, we can

assume that Abram heard God’s voice as one person might normally speak to another, but it is

not clear whether this was the actual situation.

 5

4. Abram’s Response to the Appearance of the Divine

Abram’s initial response was to drop to the ground in worship. We might assume, giving

him the benefit of the doubt, that this was an act of reverence and awe (i.e. fear of the Lord).14

However, when he subsequently heard the Lord’s promise that Sarah would bear a son, his

reaction was clearly one of skepticism (he fell down laughing) and doubt (he tried to bargain

with God that Ishmael was adequate as a son). “Abram has not been anxiously awaiting the

arrival of another son. He would not have seen a need for another son, nor has God informed him

otherwise. In some ways, this news in the theophany is probably perceived not as glad tidings but

as sobering, even deflating news.”15

5. Transformation and Externalization

In describing the term ‘transformation and externalization’, Savran says “As the narrative

begins with the separation from the societal context of the protagonist, so it ends its conclusion

in the return of that protagonist to the world, but in a transformed manner.”16

Two very distinct externalizations can be identified as resulting from this theophanic

encounter. The first concerns circumcision. Whereas circumcision was widely practiced in the

ancient Near East, the proto-Israelites were an uncircumcised people. As one visible aspect of the

covenant, God gave Abraham instructions to circumcise the males in his extended family. Once

God departed, Abraham proceeded to do exactly that, thereby demonstrating his obedience to

God’s command. So, Abraham returns to his world in a transformed, circumcised state.

The second externalization is the immediate adoption of the new name, Abraham. Once

the new name is given, there is no reference in scripture that Abraham ever referred to himself,

or was referred to by others, as Abram. It was a permanent transformation.

 6

B. The ‘Naming of Israel’ Theophanies

There are two distinct chapters which include two distinct theophanic events where Jacob

is named Israel. The first, in chapter 32, involves the wrestling match at the Jabbok and is

covered at great length by Savran. The second, in chapter 35, is an account of God appearing to

Jacob directly, but warrants only a passing reference for Savran (and others).18 For this paper,

both theophanic events are included.

Chapter 32 Theophany

Chapter 32 is a well-known passage in the Old Testament as it includes a unique story –

that of Jacob wrestling with an anthropomorphic being who has been identified variably as a

river demon, as an angel, or as God himself. Of all the theophanic encounters described in the

Old Testament, this is the only time someone engages in hand-to-hand combat with the

Almighty! The chapter begins with a theophanic encounter between Jacob and the “angels of

God” (v 1) whereupon he names the location Mahanaim (v 2). We are not told what, if anything,

transpired between Jacob and the angels other than the sighting, so we will not reflect too deeply

on this encounter other than to acknowledge it occurred.

Verses 3-21 concern Jacob’s subsequent preparations to meet his brother Esau for the

first time in 20 years, and bring us to the night before he meets Esau. In verse 22, Jacob takes his

immediate family away from their camp, and in verse 23 he then leaves them on one side of the

Jabbok River. He is left alone on the other side of the river, and verse 24 simply states that “a

Man wrestled with him until the ascending of the dawn.” This is the only description we have of

the Man but, in verse 25, we are told that the Man was not winning the wrestling match and so he

dislodged a part of Jacob’s hip. Verses 26 to 29 contain the subsequent dialogue between the

Man and Jacob, which climaxes in v 28 when the Man declares “not Jacob, will your name be
 7

said any longer, but Israel.” In response, Jacob renames the location Peniel, which means "I have

seen God face to face, and I am still alive" (v 30).

Verses 31 and 32 conclude the chapter by noting that Jacob walked away with a limp due

to the wrestling match and, as a result of this injury, the people of Israel thereafter refrained from

eating the hip joint of any animal.

Type-scene Indicators in the ‘Naming of Israel’, Chapter 32

1. Location

The location of the main theophany is quite clear: on the banks of the Jabbok River. The

Jabbok is the present Wady es Zerka, flowing from the east towards the Jordan.19

2. Setting of the Scene

At the beginning of this chapter, we are told that Jacob encounters angels (vv 1-2) and

names his camp location ‘Mahanaim’, or Two Camps – one physical and the other spiritual. The

presence and protection of God’s angels must have been very reassuring to Jacob.

Yet, for reasons unknown, when Jacob learns that his estranged brother Esau is moving

towards his camp with 400 men presumably intent on slaughter, Jacob separates himself and his

family from the camp and, by inference, from the protection of God’s angels! For whatever

reason, Jacob wanted to be very alone on the night before he was to meet his brother for the first

time in 20 years. In his analysis of this theophany, Savran comments that “Jacob's aloneness at

the Jabbok is underscored in 32:25 in order to separate him from his family and to accentuate the

heroic aspects of his struggle with the angel.”20 Others might say Jacob was running away in

fear. Whether it was heroism or cowardice, whether he was expecting a man, or a God, or

anyone to show up on the riverbank, we simply do not know why Jacob was alone that night but

it is very clear that he was alone and separated from his family.
 8

3. Appearance and Speech of YHWH

Chapter 32 starts off with Jacob encountering angels, which is reminiscent of his earlier

dream at Bethel (Gen. 28:12) where the appearance of angels prepared Jacob for his dream

encounter with God. The subsequent theophanic encounter at the Jabbok River does not occur

until 24 verses (several days?) later. So whatever the purpose of the angelic appearance in verse

1, we can presume it had little to do with the Jabbok River experience.

When the ‘Man’ does subsequently encounter Jacob at the Jabbok, a number of

significant non-Godlike characteristics must be noted: the individual does not introduce himself

as God, he is not readily recognizable as God, he does not use any of the language normally

associated with God, and certainly does not act in any manner previously displayed by God.

Indeed, many scholars have concluded that the ‘Man’ is not God.21 Two arguments which can be

put forward to claim that the ‘Man’ is God derive from the results of the combat: (1) the ‘Man’

changed Jacob’s name of Jacob to Israel (God's fighter) and this name change was undeniably

later confirmed by God in chapter 35;22 and (2) Jacob named the location Peniel (face of God)

which clearly indicates that Jacob believed the ‘Man’ was in fact God. If the ‘Man’ was indeed

God, the account of the wrestling match conveys very little dialogue and when the ‘Man’ spoke,

it clearly seems to have been in typical human fashion.

4. Jacob’s Response to the Appearance of the Divine

As there are two sets of theophanic encounters in this chapter, there are two sets of

responses. In the first, brief encounter with the angels (vv 1-2), Jacob’s only response that we

know is to name the place ‘Mahanaim’, or Two Camps.

It is the second theophany at the Jabbok River we will consider in more detail.

Notwithstanding the presence of the ‘angelic camp’, we can assume that all during the day
 9

preceding the Jabbok River event, Jacob was in a fearful state. The last time he had seen his

brother Esau, he ran away to escape his wrath and, now, he received what must have been the

very unwelcome news that Esau was coming to him prepared for battle.

In this frame of mind, late one night he found himself along on the banks of the Jabbok

River wrestling with a strange ‘Man’. It would be reasonable to assume that the appearance and

manner of the ‘Man’ would make Jacob apprehensive.

However, since Jacob clearly gained the upper hand during the wrestling match, causing

his opponent to unfairly wound him to gain an advantage, it would seem that whatever emotional

state Jacob was in did not hinder his wrestling abilities. Indeed, Jacob appears so confident that

he would not let the ‘Man’ leave without first demanding a blessing. If Jacob believed this man

was God, this degree of self-confidence in the face of the Almighty is an unusual reaction.

5. Transformation and Externalization

As noted earlier, in response to his encounter with the angels in verses 1-2, Jacob

renamed the camp ‘Mahanaim’.

In response to the encounter at the Jabbok River, there are four distinct externalizations

that can be identified. The first externalization was Jacob’s claim that he had met God face to

face and his renaming of the place as Peniel (v 30).

Very clearly, the obvious second externalization is Jacob’s limp caused by the hip injury

(v 31). Indeed, throughout the balance of the Jacob cycle, there is no indication that this limp was

temporary or permanent.

The third externalization is derived from verse 32, that “the sons of Israel do not eat the

sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket until this day.”

The fourth externalization is, quite naturally, the new name of Israel (v 28). It is
 10

interesting that this should be the most important aspect of this theophany, since from this event

is derived both the name and self-identity of the Jewish people (the Israelites or Israelis) and

their modern country Israel. However, throughout the Old Testament, the man ‘Israel’ is

frequently referred to by his pre-theophany name of Jacob and, indeed, he frequently refers to

himself as such. Even God subsequently calls him ‘Jacob’ (Gen. 46:2).

Chapter 35 Theophany

Chapter 35 is a lesser-referenced passage concerning the theophanic naming of

Jacob/Israel but, as it includes the full pronouncement by God of the Abrahamic blessing on

Jacob, attention equal to the more dramatic encounter in chapter 32 will be given.

Chapter 35 beings with a theophanic command by God to Jacob to leave Canaan (v 1)

and verses 2 to 8 concern the move back to Bethel. In verse 9, God again appears to Jacob,

blesses him and then, in verse 10, confirms that Jacob’s name is now Israel (‘he will rule as

God’). In verses 11 and 12, God pronounces the Abrahamic blessing on Jacob, promising him

land, descendants and nationhood and, in verse 13, God simply leaves. Jacob/Israel then erects a

stone pillar to commemorate the event and anoints it with wine and oil (v 14), and renames the

location Bethel (v 15). Verses 16 to 29 present a very succinct summary of Jacob’s eventual

move back to Mamre and his father’s death.

Type-scene Indicators in the ‘Naming of Israel’, Chapter 35

1. Location

The location of the main theophany is not as clear as it could be: on the one hand, we can

assume it occurs in Bethel, the site of Jacob’s first theophanic encounter 30 years earlier; on the

other hand, verse 9 says that God appeared when Jacob “came out of Padan-aram” which could

imply it occurred before he arrived at Bethel.

 11

2. Setting of the Scene

At the beginning of this chapter, we are told that Jacob has a theophanic encounter with

God, who commands him to leave Canaan, go to Bethel, and build an altar. This is presumably to

require Jacob to fulfill his part of the agreement made with God 30 years earlier at Bethel. Jacob

carries out this command and, in verse 8, we have the strange insertion into Jacob’s story of an

account of the death and funeral of Rebekah’s long-time nurse, Deborah. Immediately following

this, the naming theophany occurs. There have been many attempts to explain the insertion of

this death scene, for example that Deborah was the last aspect of the Canaanite experience to be

buried. It may also be that the death was an occasion for grief and mourning by Jacob for the loss

of a long time family intimate and caregiver; funerals often give rise to introspection and people

often set themselves apart from others in their grief. It may be that if Jacob was experiencing this

type of separation, God used the timing to reaffirm his promises. Otherwise, the text offers no

insight into the actual setting of the theophany other than it was “a place” (v 13).

3. Appearance and Speech of YHWH

Verse 9 simply states that God appears and blesses Jacob. There is no description given

for God’s visual appearance, there is no indication it was a vision or a dream as experienced 30

years previously, and no indication it might have been an angel as suggested by some for the

Jabbok encounter. We are simply told that “God appeared”. God’s speech was very direct and in

many ways parallels Abraham’s theophanic experience promising physical, material and

nationhood blessings described in Genesis 17 above. First, God renamed Jacob as Israel – a

prince of God (v. 10); then, God promised descendants and nationhood to Israel (v. 11); and

then, God promised land to Israel (v. 12). There is nothing to indicate that God’s speech was

anything but a normal, person-to-person style of communication.

 12

4. Jacob’s Response to the Appearance of the Divine

There are two sets of theophanic encounters in chapter 35, and there are two sets of

responses. In the first, God instructs Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar (v. 1). Jacob’s

reaction was obedience: he explained to his family what they were about to do, and why they

were doing it; and he instructed his family that they needed to purify themselves physically and

theologically by burying their earrings, their worship idols, and finally Deborah, to remove all

traces of Canaan. These actions could be interpreted either as stemming from fear or gratitude:

after a 10 year absence, God was once again active in Jacob’s life.

In the second theophany involving the naming/renaming of Jacob/Israel, Jacob’s response

conveys absolutely no indication of Jacob’s emotional state either before, during or after the

theophanic encounter. The text is completely mute on this aspect.

5. Transformation and Externalization

In response to the first theophanic encounter, God instructs Jacob to go to Bethel and

build an altar (v. 1). Jacob’s external response was to do as he was instructed (vv. 2-7).

In the second theophany, Jacob’s first external response was to erect a pillar, to anoint it

with wine with oil, and to (re)name the location Bethel (vv 14-15). The second external response

to this event concerns the use of the renewed name of Israel: even though this is the second time

God has named him as Israel, the Old Testament continues to refer to the patriarch as Jacob. 23

Evaluation of the Type Scene Model

We now turn to a consideration of the three theophanies to identify which, if any, of them

satisfies Savran’s type scene indicators. Considering each of the five type scene indicators, and

applying a descriptor where the presence of the indicator was “very clear” or “not clear” in

evidence during the theophany, we can arrive at the following summary:

 13

Evidence of Type Scene Indicators in Selected Theophanies

Type Scene Indicator Chapter 17 Chapter 32 Chapter 35

1. Location Not clear Very clear Not clear

2. Setting of the Scene Not clear Very clear Not clear

3. Appearance and Speech of YHWH Not clear Very clear Not clear

4. Human Response to the Presence of the Divine Very clear Very clear Not clear

5. Transformation and Externalization Very clear Very clear Very clear

Looking at this chart, it is obvious there are significant differences among the three

theophanies. It appears that the only theophany which satisfies all five of Savran’s indicators is

the Jabbok River event. The other two theophanies both fall very short on almost all of the

indicators.

Savran spends a considerable effort in Encountering the Divine performing an analysis of

Genesis 32: he describes the location and setting in great detail,24 as well as Jacob’s response to

the theophanic experience,25 and the transformation and externalization experienced by Jacob26

and his awareness and gratitude that he survived the ordeal.27 Indeed, Savran goes on to

comment concerning the contextual parallels between Jacob’s ‘ladder dream’ and the Jabbok

River event, reflecting on the synchronic and diachronic aspects of Jacob’s relationship with

YHWH.28 It is clear that Savran accepts the Jabbok River event as an excellent example for the

type scene model.

So why does the type scene model seemingly fail to apply to the other two theophanies?

It might be that they do not qualify under Savran’s framework for consideration as a ‘theophanic

narrative’. Savran states “the term ‘theophany’ … implies the presence of a visual component in
 14

addition to verbal interaction … the visual element is present in some form, though it is not

necessarily the dominant form of revelation.”29 In both the Abrahamic and the second Jacobic

theophanies, the visual element of the divine presence is very weak, whereas it is very strong in

the Jabbok River encounter.

But does this disqualify the use of the type scene method? Savran recognizes that there

may be varieties among theophanic narratives: “While these … motifs are the building blocks of

the theophany type scene, it should be clear that not every narrative develops each of them in

equal fashion.”30 Therefore the visual element, while very important, does not uniquely qualify

or disqualify the type scene model from being applied to a particular theophany.

Savran goes on to suggest there may be significant differences between an initial

theophany which inaugurates the divine-human relationship, and one occurring mid-life for a

human who has more experience encountering the divine such as in our three examples. Since

both Abraham and Jacob were in their mid-life at the time of these particular divine experiences,

and since one of the Jacob theophanies being considered is an excellent example of the type

scene model applied and the other one is not, this ‘mid-life’ distinction does not appear to be

particularly useful for our purposes.

Savran also considers that the presentation of the theophany, either as a stand-alone

chapter or as a section of a chapter, may influence the application of the type scene model:

[t]here are a number of texts that include theophany as a limited

Motif in the larger narrative, without the detailed development of
the appearance of the divine or the human reaction. In these cases,
the theophany does not occur at the beginning of the narrative, but is
subordinated to other matters more central to the story.31

In the Abrahamic story, the theophany occupies the entirety of chapter 17. Yet, the “appearance

of the divine” is not well developed, while the “human reaction” is extremely well-developed. In
 15

both of the Jacobic stories, the theophanies appear as subordinate units of their respective

chapters yet, only one of them prevails under the type scene model. Therefore, this

dominant/subordinate narrative attitude does not appear to be particularly useful either.

Conclusions

An unstated assumption at the start of this paper was that Dr. Savran was correct in his

thesis, and that the type scene model would provide a superior technique for analyzing and

understanding theophanic narratives. As a result of reviewing three such narratives within the

context of the type scene model, it appears that Savran’s thesis cannot be accepted.

Why does the ‘type scene model’ apparently not to apply to all three examples? It may

only be coincidence, but both Chapters 17 and 35 which display only limited type scene

indicators are attributed to the Priestly tradition,32 whereas Chapter 32 which clearly displays all

5 indicators is attributed to the Jahwist tradition.33 Does this type of difference have a significant

impact on the application of the type scene model to theophanic narratives?34

A more thorough analysis is required, (1) applying source criticism to all the theophanic

narratives to identify the source tradition from which each one is derived; then (2) applying type

scene modeling independently to each narrative to identify the degree to which the 5 indicators

appear; and then (3) cross-referencing the results of each study. This would help determine fairly

conclusively the extent to which the type scene model is useful for analyzing theophanic

narratives and add another dimension to our understanding of God’s interaction with humans in

the Bible. Such a study is regrettably outside the scope of the current paper.
 16

Endnotes
1
Savran, Encountering, 13.
2
Savran, Encountering, 6.
3
Savran, Encountering, 12.
4
Savran, Encountering, 13
5
Savran, Encountering, 14.
6
Savran, Encountering, 15.
7
Savran, Encountering, 14.
8
Savran, Encountering, 16.
9
Savran, Encountering, 18.
10
Savran, Encountering, 22.
11
Savran, Encountering, 29.
12
Walton, NIV Commentary, 449. It goes on to comment that “The theophany in Genesis 17
includes the most complete presentation in Genesis of the covenant promises and
expectations as well as additional specific information about Abrams two sons.” Wenham
reports that “Westermann rightly states ‘the chapter is carefully thought out right down to
the finest detail; it is an artistic composition’ ”, in Wenham, Commentary, 18. See also,
Brueggemann, “Genesis 17:1-22”, 55-59. So why is the account so barren of details? See
note 14 below.
13
Walton, NIV Commentary, 632. Waltke notes “To walk before God means to orient one’s
entire life to his presence, promises and demands.” See, Waltke, Genesis, 259. See also,
Kass, Genesis, 311, for a good description.
14
von Rad, Genesis, 197. “Chapter 17 belongs to the Priestly document. But it does not have a
unified structure and continuity. A series of seams can be recognized, from which on
may infer that various Priestly traditions about the covenant with Abraham have been
combined into a large unit. In the first part (vs 1-14) Abraham’s call is essentially parallel
to the Yahwistic report (ch 15.7 ff). But what a difference in the presentation of
essentially the same material! The Yahwist set God’s call in the midst of Abraham’s
human situation, which became psychologically clear in Abraham’s answer and in the
delineation of his fear. The Priestly document, on the other hand, reduces Abraham’s call
to the purely theological, ie, it speaks in vs 1-14 of God only. Not a single word is said
about Abraham, only the gesture of reverence (p 198) in v 3. … How dramatically the
Yahwist told of God’s coming! Here “the Lord appeared” in v. 1 and the “God went up”
in v. 22 are completely ungraphic.” This “ungraphic” aspect points to a serious problem
in the use of the type scene model as it seems to rely on narrative descriptors.
15
Walton, NIV Commentary, 451.
16
Savran, Encountering, 22.
17
Larue, “Religious Traditions and Circumcision”, 4. In practice, this “was a relatively minor
ritual circumcision procedure in which only the redundant end of the foreskin extending
beyond the tip of the glans was removed.” See Peron, “Circumcision: then and now”, 41.
Present-day Jewish ritual male circumcision is much more intrusive.
18
The chapter 35 “renaming” of Jacob is perhaps one of the least studied texts of the Bible.
Several commentaries (von Rad for example) completely omit any reference to it, as if it
simply does not exist! This is surprising, as the content of the text is important to our
appreciation of God’s covenant with Israel. Wenham reports “Jacob was given the new
 17

name of Israel after wrestling with God at the Yabbok. The revelation begins by
affirming his new status embodied in the change of name, but here there is no explanation
of the change. That the new name is left unexplained confirms that the reader is supposed
to know the previous story: this is not an independent account.” See, Wenham,
Commentary, 325.
19
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary, http://www.worldwithoutend.info/start/books/k-d/01-gen/kd-
genesis-32.htm
20
Savran, Encountering, 14. For an insight into Gen. 32 from the women’s point of view, see
Frolov, “The Other Side of the Jabbok”, 41-59.
21
See, for example, von Rad, Genesis, 322.
22
Of course, the other way of looking at this is that in chapter 35, El Shaddai completely ignores
the Jabbok River event since either it did not happen or it was not God who named Jacob
in chapter 32. A source critical analysis would help here.
23
Kass wonders whether this stele was the same one Jacob had used 20 years earlier and offers a
perfunctory explanation for the renaming of Bethel; see Kass, Reading Genesis, 504. The
almost schizophrenic use of Jacob/Israel has encouraged many others to attempt an
explanation. See, for example, Block, “Distinguishing Jacob”, 155.
24
Savran, Encountering, 84-85.
25
Savran, Encountering, 130-133.
26
Savran, Encountering, 187.
27
Savran, Encountering, 195-196.
28
Savran, Encountering, 205.
29
Savran, Encountering, 6.
30
Savran, Encountering, 24.
31
Savran, Encountering, 28.
32
Kuntz, Self-Revelation of God, 129. Also, McKenzie, “You Have Prevailed”, 311.
33
Kuntz, Self-Revelation of God, 130.
34
Waltke notes: “In both (chs 17 and 35) theophanies, God called by the rare term ‘el, not the
usual term ‘elohim’. … After both theophanies, Jacob worships, first by setting up a
pillar to commemorate the experience, then by re-dedicating it, both times in connection
with naming the site. The theophanies are so similar that source critics think they are
different recollections of the same event. However, Jacob I filled with fear after the first
theophany. But not after the second.” Waltke, Genesis, 469-470.
 18

Bibliography

Block, Herbert. “Distinguishing Jacob and Israel.” Jewish Bible Quarterly. 34 (2006) 155-158.

Brueggemann, Walter. “Genesis 17:1-22.” Interpretation. 45 (1991) 55-59.

Felton, Jacob. “El Shaddai.” Dor Le Dor. 16 (1988) 186-191.

Frolov, Serge. “The Other Side of the Jabbok : Genesis 32 as a Fiasco of Patriarchy.” JSOT. 91

(2000) 41-59.

Kass, Leon R. The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 2003.

Keil & Delitzsch Commentary. No pages. Online.

http://www.worldwithoutend.info/start/books/k-d/01-gen/kd-genesis-32.htm

Kuntz, J. Kenneth. The Self-Revelation of God. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967.

Larue, G. “Religious Traditions and Circumcision.” The Truthseeker. July/August (1989) 4-8.

McKenzie, Steven L. "You have prevailed: the function of Jacob's encounter at Peniel in the

Jacob cycle." Restoration Quarterly. 23 (1980) 225-231.

Peron, J.E. “Circumcision: then and now.” Many Blessings. Spring (2000) 41-42.

Savran, George. Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative. London:

Continuum International, 2005.

_______. “Theophany as Type Scene.” Prooftexts. 23 (2003) 119-149.

von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis: a commentary. Trans. by John H. Marks. London: SCM Press, 1961.

Waltke, Bruce. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001.

Walton, John. Genesis: the NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001.

Wenham, G.J. Word Biblical Commentary, vol 2 Genesis 16-50. Dallas: Word Books, 1994.