Jesus of Nowhere (Luke 1:26)

Where were Joseph and Mary living when the Angel foretold Jesus’ birth? Nazareth

The Gospel of Luke records that the angel Gabriel has the honor of delivering Jesus’ birth announcement (Luke 1:26). Not surprisingly, the first human to receive the good news is the child’s mother, Mary (Luke 1:26-38). The location of the Annunciation, however, was likely shocking to Luke’s original audience. It happens in Nazareth.

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. (Luke 1:26-27 NASB)

Jesus puts Nazareth on the map. At the time of his birth, the town was largely unknown and those who were familiar with it were not overly impressed (John 1:46). Prior to its association with Christ, Nazareth was nowhere. It was hardly the place one would expect an earthshattering announcement to be made.

Nazareth is situated in Galilee, a small region in northern Israel. It is a long way from Jerusalem, the nation’s religious epicenter. If an ancient traveler trekked at the standard pace of fifteen miles per day it would take four or five days to reach Jerusalem form Nazareth.

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) introduces:

Nazareth was the village of Jesus’ youth in lower Galilee (Matthew 2:23; Luke 1:26, 2:4, 39), not far north of the Jezreel valley. It is about equidistant from the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean (only fifteen miles from the former). It is identified in the Gospels as the village of Mary and Joseph (Luke 2:39, 51), an identification few have disputed, since Nazareth is not a name one would pick out of the air to be the hometown of a messianic figure. Only four miles away was the capital city, rebuilt by Antipas [20 BCE-39 CE] in 4 B.C., Sepphoris, “the ornament of all Galilee” (Antiquities of the Jews 18.27), but a city predominantly Gentile in character, in a region ringed by Greek city-states (Tyre, Sidon, Scythopolis) and principalities (Gaulanitis and Samaria)...Nazareth seems to have been uninhabited after the Assyrian invasion in 733 B.C. until the second century B.C. It was during the rule of John Hyrcanus (134-104 B.C.) that the city was finally resettled by Jews, for the region of Galilee was reconquered by this Hasmonean ruler. (Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account)

Though inconsequential, Nazareth is close enough to a major city to not be deemed backward or remote. Walter L. Liefeld (b. 1927) and David W. Pao (b. 1966) situate:

It was off, though not totally inaccessible from the main trade routes. Its close proximity...to the major city of Sepphoris...reminds us that Nazareth was not exactly isolated from the wider cultural world. Its relatively insignificant size contrasts with Jerusalem, where Gabriel’s previous appearance had taken place. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Luke~Acts (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary))

The text describes Nazareth with the Greek pólis (Luke 1:26). This word is customarily translated as “city” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, RSV), “town” (CEV, HCSB, NIV, NRSV) or “village” (MSG, NLT). Though city is an accurate rendering of the Greek, Nazareth certainly does not comply with modern connotations of this term.

Bruce J. Malina (b. 1933) and, Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) clarify:

The Greek word here translated “town” (polis) is the common Hellenistic term for “city.” Yet Nazareth in Jesus’ day could hardly be described in that way. It was a small village of a few hundred people, perhaps under the administrative control of the nearby city of Sepphoris. (Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 227)

John T. Carroll (b. 1954) comments:

Polis (city) in Greek...[is] perhaps reflecting Luke’s own social world more than the size of this small Galilean town. On Luke’s preference for the term polis, even for towns and villages such as Nazareth, Nain (Luke 7:11), and Bethsaida (Luke 9:10), see Richard L. Rohrbaugh [b. 1936], “The Pre-Industrial City in Luke-Acts: Urban Social Relations” 125-26; Douglas E. Oakman [b. 1953], “The Countryside in Luke-Acts” 170. Luke uses polis 39 times in the Gospel (cf. Mark’s 8 times) and kōmē (village) only 12 times (cf. 7 in Mark). (Carroll, Luke: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 38)

The city’s name has several variant spellings in the New Testament. Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) surveys:

The form of the name of the town varies much, between Nazareth, Nazaret, Nazara, and Nazarath. Karl Theodor Keim [1825-1878] has twice contended strongly for Nazara (Jesus of Nazara, English translation ii. p. 16, iv. p. 108); but he has not persuaded many of the correctness of his conclusions. Brooke Foss Westcott [1825-1901] and Fenton John Anthony Hort [1828-1892] consider that the evidence when tabulated presents little ambiguity (ii. App. p. 160). Ναζαράθ is found frequently (eight out of eleven times) in Codex Δ, but hardly anywhere else. Ναζαρά is used once by Matthew (Matthew 4:13), and perhaps once by Luke (Luke 4:16). Ναζαρέθ occurs once in Matthew (Matthew 21:11) and once in Acts (Acts 10:38). Everywhere else we have certainly or probably Ναζαρέτ. Thus Matthew uses the three possible forms equally; Luke all three with a decided preference for Nazaret; while Mark and John use Nazaret only. This appears to be fairly conclusive for Nazaret. Yet Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener [1831-1891] holds that “regarding the orthography of this word no reasonable certainty is to be attained” (A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, ii. p. 316); and Henry Alford [1810-1871] seems to be of a similar opinion (I. Prolegomena, p. 97). Bernhard Weiss [1827-1918] thinks that Nazara may have been the original form, but that it had already become unusual when the Gospels were written. (Plummer, St. Luke (International Critical Commentary), 21)

The name’s origin is also disputed. Charles R. Swindoll (b. 1934) speculates:

The name Nazareth most likely derives from one of two Hebrew terms. Netser is the Hebrew word for “branch” or “shoot,” which forms a wordplay for Isaiah (Isaiah 11:1) and Matthew (Matthew 2:23). Just as likely is the Hebrew word natsar, which means “to watch.” Nazareth rested in a bowl-shaped depression 1150 feet (350 meters) above sea level. This made it a perfect place to keep watch over the vast Jezreel Valley (a.k.a. the Plain of Esdraelon, the Valley of Megiddo, Armageddon), roughly one thousand feet below. (Swindoll, Insights on Luke, 43)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) relays:

It has been suggested by Paul Barnett [b. 1935] that the name Nazareth derives from the Hebrew word netzer (branch), indicating that it was resettled by those of Davidic ancestry (see Isaiah 11:1 about the branch and the root of Jesse). The connection between the word netzer and Nazareth seems apparent in texts like Mark 10:47 and Luke 18:37-38. Mary and Joseph, if of Davidic descent, may have found this a natural place to settle at some point. (Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account)

What is not debated is Nazareth’s insignificance, which is apparent when Luke supplies the qualifying phrase “a city in Galilee called...” (Luke 1:26). Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) researches:

Called Nazareth [is]...literally, “the name of which was Nazareth.” Though this phrase is lacking in manuscripts D and the Vetus Latina, it is otherwise attested by the best Greek manuscripts. (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (The Anchor Bible), 343)

The narrator further identifies the locale with the descriptor “in Galilee”. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) notes:

The description της Γαλιλαίας (Luke 4:31) is added for the benefit of non-Palestinian readers who would probably never have heard of so insignificant a village as Nazareth (Luke 2:4, 39, 51, 4:16, Acts 10:38). The name is variously spelled, modern editors preferring Ναζαρέθ (see Paul Winter [1904-1969], ‘“Nazareth” and “Jerusalem” in Luke chapters 1 and 2’, New Testament Studies 3, 1956-57, 136-42). The site of Nazareth in the Galileean hills has long been known, but only recently has inscriptional evidence been found (Jack Finegan [1908-2000], 27-33). (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Greek Testament Commentary), 64)

The audience’s incomprehension is assumed. This is reasonable as there would be no cause for someone outside of the region to know of Nazareth. The obscure locale simply does not have much to commend it.

David A. Neale briefs:

Nazareth...is so obscure that it is never mentioned in the Old Testament, or in Josephus [37-100]’ list of fifty-six towns in the Galilee. Neither is Nazareth mentioned in the Talmud, which lists sixty-three towns there. “From Jewish literary texts, then, across almost one thousand five hundred years, nothing” (John Dominic Crossan [b. 1934] 1991, 15). This utter obscurity is in itself a literary motif; Jesus a “nobody” from a town no one notices, rises to prominence on the center stage with Jerusalem, albeit tragically so. (Neale, Luke 1-9: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary), 56)

Jonathan Marshall (b. 1978) explores:

Work on Nazareth tends to conclude that it was predominantly a peasant Jewish village with no political importance or conclusive evidence of Hellenization or Romanization before A.D. 40. Following the growing consensus ...on the ethnicity of Galileeans in general, Jonathan L. Reed [b. 1963] and John Dominic Crossan [b. 1934] argue that the people of Nazareth were most likely “Hasmonean colonizers or Jewish settlers” who had arrived within the last two centuries before the common era. Material evidence confirms the picture of a small, Jewish village of approximately 5 hectares and 400 persons. (Marshall, Jesus, Patrons, and Benefactors: Roman Palestine and the Gospel of Luke, 71)

David E. Garland (b. 1947) encapsulates:

The town of Nazareth receives no notice in Scripture, intertestamental literature, Josephus [37-100], or rabbinic literature. This means that the story moves from sacred temple space [Luke 1:8-25] and Judea to farflung nowheresville in Galilee. (Garland, Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 78)

Nazareth is so insignificant that it took centuries to discover it in the archaeological record. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) informs:

The existence of this insignificant Galileean hamlet is known...from a Hebrew inscription found in 1962 at Caesarea Maritima which, though now fragmentary, listed the twenty-four priestly courses...and the villages or towns where they were resident. It locates the eighteenth course, Happizzez (I Chronicles 24:15), at Nsrt, “Nazareth.” The inscription dates from the end of the third to the beginning of the fourth century A.D. See Michael Avi-Yonah [1900-1974], “A List of Priestly Courses from Caesarea,” Israel Exploration Journal 12 (1962) 137-139; “The Caesarea Inscription of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses,” in The Teacher’s Yoke: Studies in Memory of Henry Trantham [1882-1962] (editors E. Jerry Vardaman [1927-2000] and James Leo Garrett, Jr. [b. 1925]; Waco, TX: Baylor University, 1964) 46-57. The later prominence of the town is the result of the Christian gospel tradition; for ancient descriptions of it, see Donato Baldi [1888-1965], Enchiridion Locorum Sanctorum § 1-42. (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (The Anchor Bible), 343)

Jonathan L. Reed (b. 1963) expounds:

Excavations under several churches have found dwellings dug into bedrock and around caves. Silos, olive and wine presses, as well as storage jar receptacles are indicative of the village’s agricultural base. Evidence for a necropolis helps determine the extent of the 1st-century ruins, which correlate to a population of well under 500...A 3rd-century C.E. synagogue mosaic inscription from Caesarea locates one of the Jewish priestly courses at Nazareth after the destruction of the temple. It is doubtful that a priestly connection can be retrojected into the 1st century, but it does indicate that Nazareth was acceptable for Jewish priests to settle. (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], “Nazareth”, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 951)

The detour to Nazareth marks a major departure. Joel B. Green (b. 1956) tracks:

Zechariah’s encounter with Gabriel takes place at the center of the Jewish world, the Holy Place, only a veiled doorway from the presence of God’s glory [Luke 1:5-25]. But Gabriel travels to Mary, far away from the temple mount in Jerusalem, to Nazareth in Galilee — insignificant, despised unclean...The geographical focus has shifted north, from Jerusalem and the Judean hills, to Nazareth in Galilee. The narrative has departed the socio-religious culture center, the temple. Gabriel holds these scenes together as God’s spokesperson [Luke 1:19, 26]. (Green, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 84-85)

This geographical shift likely jolted Luke’s original audience. R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) characterizes:

The setting of the Annunciation drew amazement from first-century Jewish readers because Gabriel ignored Judea, the heartland of God’s work through the centuries, and came to Galilee, a land that was the subject of abiding Jewish contempt because of its mongrelized population. Even more, the angel not only bypassed Judea for Galilee, but the city of Jerusalem for the village of Nazareth. Nazareth was a “non-place.”...Nazareth, a shoddy, corrupt halfway stop between the port cities of Tyre and Sidon, was overrun by Gentiles and Roman soldiers. When guileless, straight-talking Nathaniel mentioned Nazareth, he said, “‘Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?’” (John 1:46), implying that it was miserably corrupt. By consensus, Nazareth was not much. (Hughes, Luke, Volume One: That You May Know the Truth (Preaching the Word), 29)

Mary is not presented as being any more exceptional than her town of origin. F. Scott Spencer (b. 1956) observes:

Unlike Zechariah’s profile [Luke 1:5-7], Mary’s introduction elicits little expectation of spiritual acumen. She appears as an unremarkable young engaged woman, with the most common Jewish female name of the period, from a small, no-account Galilean village called Nazareth...Her husband-to-be comes from a promising lineage (“the house of David”), but is otherwise undistinguished. Gabriel pays Mary a special visit in her home hamlet, not in the Jerusalem temple, and there is no indication that she has been praying or seeking divine guidance. The angel’s appearance and annunciation are acts of pure grace. (Spencer, The Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles (Interpreting Biblical Texts), 104)

Though Nazareth is insignificant, God’s use of it is very significant. God could have positioned Jesus anywhere and yet chooses to place him nowhere. This gives hope to all who stem from humble roots. Jesus’ rearing in Nazareth is a reminder that Christ did not come just for the rich, the religious and the important. As his name indicates, Jesus comes to save all.

Of all of the places in the world, why did God implant Jesus in Nazareth? How do you picture Nazareth? What contemporary location would you equate to ancient Nazareth? Who do you know of who came from nowhere? Who has put their hometown on the map?

Luke’s narrative will revisit Nazareth. Ju Hur notifies:

The geographical settings in the prologue anticipate those given in the rest of the Gospel: desert (Luke 1:80), Judea (Luke 1:39, 65, 2:4), Galilee or Nazareth (Luke 1:26, 2:4, 39, 51) and Jerusalem (Luke 2:22, 25, 38, 41, 45; cf. Bethlehem: Luke 2:4, 15). (Hur, A Dynamic Reading of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts, 197)

Jesus will not only return to his hometown (Luke 4:16-30) but will forever be known as “Jesus of Nazareth” (Luke 4:34, 18:37; Acts 10:38, 26:9). Robert F. O’Toole (b. 1936) educates:

More than any other New Testament writer, Luke writes of Jesus’ being from Nazareth...Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and people later use the name of this town to identify him. The annunciation to Mary occurred in Nazareth (Luke 1:26); and since Jesus was from the house of David, Joseph and Mary leave from there to go to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4), but they return with Jesus to Nazareth (Luke 2:39; cf. Luke 2:51) to live...Even evil spirits address him as “Jesus of Nazareth” (Luke 4:34), and by the time of Acts 24:5 the Christians are described as the sect of the Nazarenes. The ordinary people (Luke 18:37) and the disciples refer to Jesus “of Nazareth” (Luke 24:19)...During his earthly life and after his resurrection, both friend and foe knew him as Jesus of Nazareth. (O’Toole, Luke’s Presentation of Jesus: A Christology, 8-9)

Jesus is still remembered as Jesus of Nazareth, a designation to which he never seems to object. Christ’s lowly origins serve as a constant reminder not to overlook anyone no matter how insignificant they may appear to be on the surface.

How do you think that being raised in Nazareth shaped Jesus? Do you think, in modern terms, that Jesus’ hometown represented a “p.r. nightmare”? Where are you from? How does the perception of your hometown shape your image?

“The person you consider ignorant and insignificant is the one who came from God, that he might learn bliss from grief and knowledge from gloom.” - Khalil Gibran (1883-1931)

Shepherds Kept Their Watching (Luke 2)

Which gospel tells of the visit of the shepherds to the manger? Luke (2)

The Christmas story is one of the most familiar in all of the world. Though one of the standard features of the nativity is the visit of the shepherds, these important witnesses appear only in Luke’s gospel (Luke 2:8-20).

Immediately, after Jesus’ birth in a manger (Luke 2:1-7), Luke shifts the scene to a nearby field (Luke 2:8).

In the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night. (Luke 2:8 NASB)

Though the shepherds seemingly come out fo nowhere, this is not the case. Joel B. Green (b. 1956) explains:

Though their introduction may seem abrupt, they have been anticipated in implicit ways by the continued mention of David (shepherd-cum-king — I Kings 16:11-13; cf. Luke 1:27, 32, 69, 2:4 [2x]) and of the lowly (Luke 1:52). This account is also tied to the preceding material by geographical (“in that region” — Luke 2:8) and temporal (“this day” — Luke 2:11) markers. (Green, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 130)

While the shepherds are going about their business, the sacred enters the profane with the emergence of an angelic visitor (Luke 2:9). The scene is set at night which heightens the drama and accentuates the contrast between the darkness of the night sky and the startling appearance of the unexpected visitor. The angel, eventually accompanied by an angelic host, is the bearer of good news: the Savior of the world has been born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:9-15).

After hearing this proclamation, the shepherds rush to confirm the angelic account (Luke 2:15-20). Outside of his own family, the first witnesses to Jesus are lowly, anonymous night shift shepherds.

Justo L. González (b. 1937) interjects:

The story about the inn, the manger, and the shepherds has been told so often that it is difficult for us to see its full poignancy. This is not a mellow, bucolic story about some shepherds tending their sheep with little or no care beyond the possibility of a wandering wolf. This is not the setting in which Luke presents the story...The setting of the shepherds keeping their flocks at night is much less tranquil and romantic. They live out in the fields, suffer all kinds of deprivations and even dangers, in order to protect their flocks...It is in that scene, perhaps silent, but not as peaceful as we tend to depict it, that an angel suddenly appears before the shepherds. (González, Luke (Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible), 33-34)

Since the time of Constantine (272-337), Christmas has been celebrated in December, initially to coincide with a pagan feast called Saturnalia. Many attempts to pinpoint the precise date of Jesus’ birth have been made based upon the account of the shepherds’ visit.

Walter L. Liefeld (b. 1927) comments:

That the shepherds were out in the fields at night does not preclude a December date, as the winter in Judea was mild. But, of course, the text says nothing about the time of year. The traditional date for the nativity was set, long after the event, to coincide with a pagan festival, thus demonstrating that the “Sol Invictus,” the “Unconquerable Sun,” had indeed been conquered. December 25 was widely celebrated as the date of Jesus’ birth by the end of the fourth century. (Liefeld, Luke (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 51)

Despite much speculation, none of the theories offering a more precise birthdate are definitive.

Though not reflected in most translations (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), the Greek text informs that the shepherds are literally “keeping watches” (MSG, YLT), meaning that they were taking shifts (Luke 2:8).

The text also suggests that the shepherds lived outside. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) explicates, “The participle agraulountes means that the shepherds made the open fields (agroi) their house (aulē). (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (The Anchor Bible), 409).”

William Barclay (1907-1978) speculates:

These were in all likelihood very special shepherds...In the Temple, morning and evening, an unblemished lamb was offered as a sacrifice to God. To see that the supply of perfect offerings was always available the Temple authorities had their own private sheep flocks; and we know that these flocks were pastured near Bethlehem. It is most likely that these shepherds were in charge of the flocks from which the Temple offerings were chosen. It is a lovely thought that the shepherds who looked after the Temple lambs were the first to see the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. (Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Daily Study Bible Series), 27-28)

Leon Morris (1914-2006) adds:

It is not unlikely that the shepherds were pasturing flocks destined for the temple sacrifices. Flocks were supposed to be kept only in the wilderness (Mishnah, Baba Kamma 7:7; Talmud, Baba Kamma 79b-80a), and a rabbinic rule provides that any animal found between Jerusalem and a spot near Bethlehem must be presumed to be a sacrificial victim (Mishnah, Shekalim 7:4). The same rule speaks of finding Passover offerings within thirty days of that feast, i.e. in February...As a class shepherds had a bad reputation. The nature of their calling kept them from observing the ceremonial law which meant so much to religious people. More regrettable was their unfortunate habit of confusing ‘mine’ with ‘thine’ as they moved about the country. They were considered unreliable and were not allowed to give testimony in the lawcourts (Talmud, Sanhedrin 25b). There is no reason for thinking that Luke’s shepherds were other than devout men, else why would God have given them such a privilege? But they did come from a despised class. (Morris, Luke (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 93)

As Morris discusses, shepherds were not looked kindly upon, especially in a later era. Their occupation required them to perform activities that would designate them as “unclean” and also kept them away from the temple to remedy the predicament.

William R. Herzog II (b. 1944) expounds:

Much has been made of the shepherds as members of a despised profession because they were considered unclean in the eyes of Pharisees and other Temple authorities and dishonest in the eyes of tribute collectors. The reason is that shepherds had movable assets, so when news spread that the tribute collector would be arriving in a village, the shepherds could drive some of their flock into the Judean wilderness where they might escape detection. Trees, vineyards, and crops cannot be moved and so will be taxed fully, but sheep and other livestock are a different story. This practice may explain the expression, “as dishonest as a Judean shepherd.” Of course, this would reflect the tribute collectors’ evaluation of shepherds, who would more likely be viewed as heroes in their villages. Shepherds were, no doubt, considered unclean by Temple authorities or political factions like the Pharisees, who emphasized a purity agenda, but this was true of all peasants alike, not just shepherds. (Herzog, Ann M. Svennungsen [b. 1955], Timothy Shapiro & Marilyn J. Salmon [b. 1948], New Proclamation Year C, 2006-2007: Advent Through Holy Week, 45)

If Luke views the shepherds as thieves, the gospel is incorporating poetic symmetry as Jesus would have spent both his birth and his death in the company of criminals (Luke 23:32-43).

Others respond that though shepherds might have had a bad reputation outside of the Bible, this is simply not the case within its pages. Shepherds often symbolize all who care for God’s people including God (Psalm 23:1; Isaiah 40:11; Jeremiah 23:1-4; Ezekiel 34:23; Hebrews 13:20; I Peter 2:25, 5:2). In many psalms attributed to David, the king relates God’s connection to humanity as that of a shepherd to sheep (Psalm 23:1, 28:9, 100:3). There are also many prominent examples of godly Old Testament shepherds, e.g. Abel (Genesis 4:2-4), Jacob (Genesis 31:3-13); Joseph (Genesis 37:2-9), Moses (Exodus 3:1-6), David (I Samuel 16:11-13), Amos (Amos 1:1, 7:14).

Whatever their reputation, of all of the people in the world, God chooses shepherds to be the first witnesses to Jesus’ birth. Luke actually stresses this facet.

Keith F. Nickle (b. 1933) clarifies:

Luke’s narrative emphasis falls not on the birth itself but rather on the angelic announcement of that birth to the shepherds and their response to it...In sharp contrast to the simplicity of the account Luke had given the birth itself, the shepherds experience an angel vision, an extraordinary message, the chorusing of the angelic legion! (Nickle, Preaching the Gospel of Luke: Proclaiming God's Royal Rule, 24)

Shepherds fulfilling the role of witness is in many ways apropos. Eduard Schweizer (1913-2006) critiques:

Shepherds play a role in Hellenistic birth narratives, but David was also a shepherd in the vicinity of Bethlehem (I Samuel 17:15, 16:4, 11; cf. Psalm 78:70-72). Later rabbis looked for the birth of the Messiah, the Shepherd of Israel, at the “tower of the flock” (Micah 4:8) near Bethlehem (Micah 5:1-2)...This notion may be in the background here rather than the later rabbinic attitude that looked down on shepherds. (Schweizer, The Good News According to Luke, 49)

Fred B. Craddock (b. 1928) adds:

They belong in the story not only because they serve to tie Jesus to the shepherd king, David (II Samuel 7:8), but also because they belong on Luke’s guest list for the kingdom of God: the poor, the maimed, the blind, the lame (Luke 14:13, 21). And so the shepherds go to the city of David. The shepherds and the scene are described with some of Luke’s favorite words, words he has used before: wondering, pondering in the heart, making known the revelation, praising and glorifying God. The stable is bare, but the glory of God floods the story. (Craddock, Luke (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 36)

Robert C. Tannehill (b. 1934) concurs:

The shepherds fit the setting of Jesus’ birth. They are ordinary folk who work with animals. Although some interpreters appeal to later rabbinic writings to argue that shepherds were viewed as sinners, it is doubtful that this view is assumed in this scene...Probably there is a connection between the shepherds and the repeated reference to Bethlehem as the “city of David” (Luke 2:4, 11). David was a shepherd before being anointed king (I Samuel 16:11), and later is told, “It is you who shall be shepherd of my people Israel” (II Samuel 5:2). Ezekiel speaks of a future David who will be shepherd over Israel (Ezekiel 34:23), and Micah, in speaking of the ruler who will come from Bethlehem, says that he will “feed his flock in the strength of the LORD” (Micah 5:4). The figure of the shepherd has the same ambiguous quality as a royal baby in a manger. A shepherd is an ordinary fellow who would not feel out of place in a stable. A shepherd is also a symbol of kingship. (Tannehill, Luke (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 65)

The fact that shepherds, ordinary people doing an ordinary job on a presumably ordinary day, are the first witnesses to Jesus’ birth is significant. Luke’s story stands in stark contrast to the visitors in Matthew’s account, the only other canonical telling of Jesus’ birth, which features the more prestigious magi or wisemen (Matthew 2:1-12).

Sharon H. Ringe (b. 1946) notices:

No scholars or court officials visit the baby in Luke’s version of the story. Instead of the magi bearing lavish gifts that Matthew describes (Matthew 2:1-11), in Luke only some shepherds come (Luke 2:8-20). Shepherds...were among the poor, and by the standards of the most religiously meticulous people, they were outcasts. They lived a hard life out in the fields, far removed from the comforts and leisure that would allow them to follow the rules for food preparation, purification, and other aspects of religious practice. They lived a life wrapped in danger as they tried to protect the animals from both human marauders and various wild beasts (see John 10:1-18 for sketch of the shepherd’s life). (Ringe, Luke (Westminster Bible Companion), 42)

The shepherds and the types of people they represent are important to Luke. Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) interprets:

The testimony to Jesus’ birth from the angelic host to shepherds is significant in scope. Creation has no more mysterious and exalted beings than angels, who represent the testimony of the heavens to what is occurring. Moreover, there are no more “normal Joes” in ancient culture than shepherds. They represent the lowly and humble who respond to God’s message, for their vocation is seen positively in Scripture (Matthew 18:12; Mark 6:34; Luke 15:4; John 10:1-18; Ephesians 4:11; Hebrews 13:2; I Peter 2:25). Thus, heaven meets and greets the average person through the angelic announcement to these pastoral figures. Jesus’ birth is more than a family affair. The announcement of “good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (Luke 2:10) indicates that God desires to speak to every person about the coming of Jesus, since all humanity is impacted by his coming. (Bock, Luke (The NIV Application Commentary), 84)

The shepherds serving as witnesses corresponds to Luke’s central theme. Charles H. Talbert (b.1934) connects:

This good news...is for “all people” (Luke 2:10), outcast as well as in-group. In Luke’s time shepherds were often considered outside the law. Their testimony was considered invalid because of their reputation for dishonesty (b. Sanhedrin 25b). Yet it was to such as these the angel announced the good news of the Savior’s birth (Luke 2:8-11). This can only be regarded as a foreshadowing of the subsequent theme of God’s grace shown to sinners that runs throughout Luke. The messianic Lord is the friend of sinners (e.g., Luke 5:29-32, 7:36-50, 10:30-37, 15:1-2, 17:11-19, 19:1-10). It is to sinners Jesus promises good news (e.g., Luke 18:9-14, 15:11-32). The news that Jesus’ birth signals the benefit of peace is intended for all the people. This is cause for great joy. (Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel, 35)

The shepherds are just the first of many marginalized people depicted in Luke-Acts where the gospel spreads from the bottom up. Ronald J. Allen (b. 1949) traces:

Luke uses the announcement to the shepherds to make an important point: the realm will renew the entire social world. By the end of the book of Acts, the good news that comes first to shepherds (at the bottom of the social pyramid) has made its way to high officials in the Roman Empire and even to Rome itself (Acts 21:17-28:31). All who repent..are welcome in the realm. (Allen, The Life of Jesus for Today, 32)

Bruce Larson (1925-2008) theorizes:

There is an old saying that “war is too important to be left to the generals.” I suggest peace is too important to be left to the diplomats. The professionals have messed it up again and again. In giving this message to the shepherds God bypassed the professional peacemakers. He gave the message and its interpretation to amateurs. We need amateur peacemakers. The great diplomats and ambassadors of two thousand years ago, the councils that met and the peace treaties that were signed are mostly forgotten. But the world still reverberates with the peacemaking message of a group of amateur preachers and peacemakers like the apostle Paul and Luke himself. (Larson, Luke (Mastering the New Testament), 51)

Often lost in the familiarity of the nativity is that the first witnesses to Jesus’ birth are humble shepherds. The shepherds’ presence accents the fact that the Savior of the world was born in a manger. The shocking thing about the shepherds’ presence, given this setting, is that it is not shocking at all.

Why are shepherds the first witnesses to the birth of the long awaited Savior, as opposed to priests and scribes who would presumably have had a higher appreciation for the event? When has God broken into the ordinary affairs of your life? Have you ever met God on the job? When have you been the first to hear good news? What newborn baby have you rushed to see? Do you know who was present the day that you were born?

The shepherds were placed in a situation that they could not possibly have been prepared for. David Lyle Jeffrey (b. 1941) construes:

That the doxa (“glory, beauty”) of the Lord should shine around humble shepherds on a Judean hillside is an event of enormous portent and hugely counterintuitive to normative religious thinking. The shepherds are understandably unprepared, as would anyone be in their place, for they can only relate what they see to the bright Shekinah glory of God’s holy presence in the tabernacle (Exodus 16:10; Psalm 63:2; Isaiah 40:5; Ezekiel 1:1-28). How should such a presence be borne by unhallowed men? (Jeffrey, Luke (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 40)

The response of the shepherds, however, demonstrates that they were the right people for the job. They immediately run to Jesus, a suitable reaction to most any situation.

Max Lucado (b. 1955) observes:

It wasn’t enough to see the angels. You’d think it would have been...But it wasn’t enough to see the angels. The shepherds wanted to see the one who sent the angels. Since they wouldn’t be satisfied until they saw him, you can trace the long line of Jesus-seekers to a person of the pasture who said, “Let’s go...Let’s see”. (Lucado, Just Like Jesus: Learning to Have a Heart Like His, 154-55)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) lauds:

The shepherds have the type of response any of us should have as we contemplate these events. Their curiosity leads them to go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened. As they see God’s word honored in the presence of the sign, they come to testify to God’s work and tell the story of the child...The audience to the shepherds’ report were amazed. Their response exemplifies the awe that should fill anyone who hears Jesus’ story...In addition, there is the shepherds’ glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen. The birth is no mere arrival of new life, as poignant as each such event is. The story is not told so that hearers can identify with the new mother and father or enjoy a story of hope, of a touching birth in humble surroundings. The birth has value because of whose birth it is. The shepherds have found that the angel’s words were true, that events have transpired just as they had been told. God’s word is coming to pass; his plan is again strategically at work. They break out in praise to God because he has sent Jesus, the Savior, Lord and Christ. (Bock, Luke (IVP New Testament Commentary), 56-57)

How do you respond to Jesus’ birth? What does Christmas mean to you?

“Maybe Christmas”, he thought, “doesn’t come from a store.”
“Maybe Christmas... perhaps... means a little bit more!”
— Dr. Seuss (1904-1991), How the Grinch Stole Christmas (1957)

The Lord Will Provide (Genesis 22:14)

What did Abraham call the place where he had gone to sacrifice Isaac? The Lord will provide (Genesis 22:14)

In one of the Bible’s most troublesome passages, near the end of his faith journey, God asks Abraham to sacrifice his beloved son, Isaac (Genesis 22:1-2). Remarkably, Abraham complies, ascending a mountain to do the deed (Genesis 22:3-10). Before his hand can complete the act he is stopped by an angel (Genesis 22:11-12). His eyes are then averted to a ram in a thicket which will take his son’s place (Genesis 22:13). The grateful patriarch commemorates the event by naming the locale in honor of God’s provision (Genesis 22:14).

Abraham called the name of that place The LORD Will Provide, as it is said to this day, “In the mount of the LORD it will be provided.” (Genesis 22:14 NASB)

In christening the location, Abraham coins a phrase that was still proverbial at the time that Genesis was compiled.

Naming a site is a common response when one has experienced something so uncommon. Abraham himself had previously named Beersheeba (Genesis 21:31).

Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) informs:

The naming of the place, which Abraham now does, was an important matter for the ancients; for a place where God appeared in so special a fashion was consecrated for all future generations. Here God will receive the sacrifices and prayers of coming generations, i.e. the place becomes a cultic center. It is strange, to be sure, that the narrator is unable to supply the name of a better-known cultic center. He gives no place name at all, but only a pun which at one time undoubtedly explained a place name. (Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 242)

As Von Rad suggests, most modern translations render the place name “The LORD Will Provide” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV). The name is less awkward in Hebrew, which is why some translations retain the moniker Jehovah-jireh (ASV, KJV, NLT).

As is often the case, the name Jehovah-Jireh entails some ambiguity. The verb included in the appellation, ra’ah, is a key term in the Abraham narrative. Though “provide” is not inaccurate, it most commonly means “see”.

W. Sibley Towner (b. 1933) comments:

The name aptly sums up the moral of this story. As is so often the case with biblical names, the meaning assigned it in the story is only one of several possible interpretations. The same words also mean “Yahweh sees.” The popular or editorial explanation of the name that follows can also mean “On the mountain Yahweh is seen,” or “there is a vision.” Puns abound! (Towner, Genesis (Westminster Bible Companion), 188)

John H. Walton (b. 1952) deciphers:

The verb translated “provide”...in Genesis 22:8, 14 is simply the verb “to see.” This usage approximates one of the idiomatic uses of the verb “to see” that we also have in English. When we say “I will see to it that the report is done on time” we are using the verb “to see” to convey that the details will be taken care of. But the idiom also suggests by nuance a supervisory role rather than an active one. Hebrew uses the verb this way in Genesis 39:23, where the warden did not have to “see to” anything under Joseph’s care. Abraham is convinced that the Lord will work out all of the details (Genesis 22:8), and when he does, Abraham names the place accordingly “(Yahweh Yireh,” i.e. “The Lord will Provide”). (Walton, Genesis (The NIV Application Commentary), 511)

In light of this, the Message paraphrases the verb as “Sees-to-it”.

Similarly, theologian Karl Barth [1886-1968] linked the term to the Latin provideo, “to see before,” “to see to,” “to see about.” which connects “see” and “provide” (Church Dogmatics III, 3, pp. 3, 35). In fact, Barth draws upon this text as the foundation for his entire understanding of the doctrine of providence.

Bill T. Arnold (b. 1955) argues that the layered term ra’ah summarizes the entire episode:

The dictum itself, “On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided,” introduces the passive of “see,” and is therefore more likely “On the mount of Yahweh, he/it is seen.” In other words, a word play is introduced at this point in the narrative, playing on the active voice “provides” and the passive “be seen,” albeit using the same Hebrew verb. Moreover, this passive “be seen” is the term used several times in Genesis for “appear” in divine disclosure at times when God makes himself known in revelatory communications...Thus this well-known maxim in the narrator’s days was something like “On Yahweh’s mount He appears,” or “He is revealed.” Perhaps this connection in Genesis 22:14 hints at the meaning of the entire bizarre episode in Genesis 22:1-19, in that God’s provision is also God’s self-disclosure. God is revealed in his act of providing. The mount of Yahweh’s revelation is the spot where he providentially provided for the ancestral family and the continuation of the promised line. (Arnold, Genesis (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 207-208)

There is further ambiguity in the expression associated with the name as the subject of the verb is unclear. Robert Alter (b. 1935) explains:

The place-name means “the Lord sees.” The phrase at the end means literally either “he sees” or “he will be seen,” depending on how the verb is vocalized...It is also not clear whether it is God or the person who comes to the Mount who sees/is seen. (Alter, Genesis: Translation and Commentary, 106)

Rabbi Benno Jacob (1862-1945) sees profundity in the vagueness:

On the mount of the Lord it will be seen. There everything is revealed. “God sees” is the essence of religion. To see God is the deepest longing of a soul that is kindred to God...It will be seen; the subject is intentionally not mentioned. Everything stands revealed there; both the character of the man who goes there as well as the essence of the divine. (Benno, Genesis: The First Book of the Bible: Augmented Edition, 146-47)

The location continued to have significance. Moriah would serve as the future the site of the temple (II Chronicles 3:1) and quite possibly the crucifixion. John Goldingay (b. 1942) chronicles:

This mountain is located in the area of Moriah. While we do not know the actual origin of the name, it resembles words for “seeing,” so the name itself would remind people that this is the place where God “saw” in that connection. And if Moriah or “Yahweh’s mountain” is the mountain where the temple was, this is the place that people know as one where they and their needs are seen and attended to. Outside of the context, one might translate the phrase as denoting that “On Yahweh’s mountain he is seen.” This is where God appears, where you can meet with God. (Goldingay, Genesis for Everyone, Part 2: Chapters 17-50, 52)

Allen P. Ross (b. 1943) sees the phrase Jehovah-jireh as foundational to Israel’s theology:

This is the basis of a truth often repeated in the Old Testament: the Lord was to be worshiped in His holy mountain by the nation...The Lord would see the needs of those who came before him and would meet their needs. Thus in providing for them He would be “seen”. (Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis, 65)

The name harkens back to an earlier conversation between Abraham and his confused son as they made their trek up the mountain (Genesis 22:7-8). When asked about the absence of an animal to be sacrificed, Abraham cryptically responds, “God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son (Genesis 22:8 NASB).”

Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) notes:

This incident reminds Abraham of his reply to Isaac’s question (Genesis 22:7ff). He had foretold better than he realized at the time. In accordance with patriarchal practice, the site of a revelation becomes sacred and receives a name somehow reminiscent of the occasion. (Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary), 154)

Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) interprets:

Genesis 22:13-14 mirror[s] the earlier dialogue of father and son concerning the sacrificial victim (Genesis 22:7-8). The timely presence of the entangled ram answers the boy’s earlier perplexity, “Where is the lamb” (Genesis 22:7). Abraham interprets the appearance of the animal according to his response in Genesis 22:8, “God will provide” [’ēlohîm yir’eh], in naming the place “The LORD will provide” (yahweh yir’eh, Genesis 22:14). The opportune moment of the suddenly seen substitute implies the obvious–the Lord is responsible for the appearance of the surprising ram. (Mathews, New American Commentary: Genesis 11:27-50:26, 297)

Gordon Wenham (b. 1943) concludes, “Whether his ‘God will provide’ (Genesis 22:8) should be taken as hope, prayer, or prophecy makes no difference...he has proved that the Lord does provide (Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (Word Biblical Commentary, 111).”

There is debate regarding the tone in Abraham’s voice when he designates the name. Claus Westermann (1909-2000) hears jubilation:

“It is part of the ancient grandeur of the passage that no cry of joy is heard”...But this is to misunderstand the plain and simple meaning of Genesis 22:14a: ראה’ הוה’ sings the praise of God. When Abraham gives this name to the place where the narrative has taken place, he includes in it his reaction to what he has experienced. Herman Gunkel [1862-1932] alone among commentators has understood this: “Abraham remembers with gratitude what he had said to his child in his hour of deepest anguish.” The author is not thinking of a place that can be determined geographically. The name is his expression of joy at his release from the depths of anguish; the praise of God in the Old Testament is a cry of joy directed to God. Genesis 22:8 confirms that...lament is turned about. (Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Continental Commentary, 362)

R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) agrees:

In ecstasy “Abraham called the name of that place, ‘The Lord will provide’...His initially ambiguous, “God will provide” (Genesis 22:8) had now been fulfilled more perfectly than he had ever dreamed. Abraham’s declaration of faith — “God will provide” — as he and Isaac ascended toward sacrifice had now become the story’s end. We see that the God who tests is also the God who provides — the Tester is the Provider. Both truths are actual fact, but they must be appropriated by faith. When God tests you, he will provide for you. (Hughes, Genesis: Beginning and Blessing (Preaching the Word), 304)

Even at this late stage, Abraham is making fresh discoveries about God’s character. Abraham ascends the mountain thinking that it was to be a place of death and descends it confident that God provides. Though commonly taken for granted, this is one of the great revelations of Scripture and it has inspired worship for centuries. For instance, the famed hymn writer John Newton (1725-1807) used the verse as a refrain for his hymn “The Lord Provides”, still found in the Primitive Baptist Hymnal (#440).

It is when Abraham reaches a place of total surrender that he receives provision. Jim Logan (b. 1958) sees a spiritual principle, not a coincidence:

After God tests us, He often reveals aspects of His character we would have never known if we hadn’t gone through the test. Just ask Abraham. If Abraham had failed the test in the offering of Isaac on Mount Moriah, he would have never known God as Jehovah Jireh. (Logan, Reclaiming Surrendered Ground: Protecting Your Family from Spiritual Attacks, 168)

Many have taken heart in this provision. Elmer L. Towns (b. 1932) and Charles Billingsley (b. 1970) relay:

The China Inland Mission was the first great Faith Foreign Mission Board. Some of the greatest and godliest missionaries evangelized inland China without a guaranteed salary, trusting God to supply all their financial needs. Over the door to their headquarters in England was written their motto, “Jehovah-jireh.” (Towns and Billingsley, God Laughs: & 42 More Surprising Facts about God That Will Change Your Life, 74)

When has God surprised you by providing an alternative you did not foresee? Do you believe that God will provide for you? What about cases, like that of Jepthah’s daughter (Judges 11:1-40), when God does not provide a substitute? What is the “it” that will be seen? What tone do you hear in Abraham’s voice when he names Jehovah-jireh? Who or what is your residence named after? Can you think of any locations named for divine encounters?

Abraham shows faith throughout his ordeal. This is especially seen in how he commemorates the location. Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) commends:

Appropriately Abraham names this place Yahweh-yireh, “Yahweh sees (or provides).” He does not call this site “Abraham-shama” (“Abraham obeyed”). The name does not draw any attention to Abraham’s role in the story. Thus his part in the story is not memorialized; rather, it is subordinated to that of Yahweh. The name highlights only the beneficent actions of Yahweh. The reader will come away from this story more impressed with God’s faithfulness than Abraham’s compliance...This emphasis is borne out by the fact that the following phrase, and even today it is said, lifts the event out of Abraham’s time and projects it into the time of the narrator. Thus the phrase gives to the entire narrative a certain timelessness. It witnesses to the gracious provisions of God. (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 113-114)

Abraham’s affirmation that God meets the needs of those who trust is profound and the faith required to make it rivals the faith necessary to scale the mountain. Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) expounds:

The narrative begins with the testing by God [Genesis 22:1]. But the narrative ends with God providing. That statement may be taken for granted. But it is no less problematic. It is no less an act of radical faith on the part of Abraham to concede the last statement than to accept the first statement. To assert that God provides requires a faith as intense as does the conviction that God tests. It affirms that God, only God and none other, is the source of life. Abraham’s enigmatic statement (Genesis 22:8) and the conclusion (Genesis 22:14) confess that the alternate ram did not appear by accident, by nature, or by good fortune (Genesis 22:13). They mean, rather, that the same God who set the test in sovereignty is the one who resolved the test in graciousness. In a world beset by humanism, scientism, and naturalism, the claim that God alone provides is as scandalous as the claim that he tests. (Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation : A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 191)

Which act demonstrates more faith: the willingness to perform the act or the confession after the reprieve? How would you have responded to this crisis after it was over? Who receives more glory for your successes, you or God? What location would you dub the Lord Will Provide? As God’s hands and feet, what can you be providing in the Lord’s name?

“Depend upon it. God’s work, done in God's way, will never lack God’s supplies.” - J. Hudson Taylor (1832-1905) quoted by Mary Geraldine (Guinness) Taylor (1865-1949), The Story of the China Inland Mission, Volume 1, p. 238

Wrestling: Who’s The Man? (Genesis 32)

With whom did Jacob wrestle? An angel (Genesis 32:24-32)

The patriarch Jacob was involved in the Bible’s most famous wrestling match (Genesis 32:24-32). Jacob, a natural heel (“bad guy” in wrestling parlance, Genesis 25:26 pun intended) was caught between a rock and a hard place as he was fleeing from his feud with his uncle Laban (Genesis 31:20) and running towards his oldest rival, his brother Esau (Genesis 27:41). Having exhausted his flight options, Jacob chose to return home and face the brother he had defrauded twenty years earlier. (The Bible knew how to build to a match). Jacob sent his family away and spent his last night before the meeting alone at the ford of the Jabbok (Genesis 32:22-24). A mystery man emerged (from “parts unknown”) and the two grappled throughout the night. Just before dawn (the opponent’s “time limit”), Jacob set the purse - naturally a “blessing” (Genesis 32:26). Though no falls were scored, Jacob secured his blessing (Genesis 32:29) and a permanent injury (Genesis 32:25, 31-32). Jacob was forever changed and received a new gimmick: Israel - “he who wrestles with God.” (Genesis 32:28).

The tale is shrouded in mystery and part of the puzzle is the ambiguity around who Jacob is wrestling. The text identifies the opponent as “a man” (Genesis 32:24) but in blessing Jacob the man informs him that he has “striven with God and with men” (Genesis 32:28 NASB). The fact that the opponent refuses to identify himself has been traditionally read as an indication that the nocturnal wrestler is not human. At the end of the bout, Jacob says “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved (Genesis 32:30).” (That is putting your opponent over.) From this exclamation it has been inferred that Jacob’s wrestling match is an encounter with the divine. The traditional reading of the text claims Jacob wrestled an angel (Hosea 12:4) though Genesis never refers to the assailant as anything other than a man. There are three contenders as to who was Jacob’s opponent: the natural (a human being), the supernatural (God or an emissary), and the psychological (an internal struggle within Jacob himself).

With whom did Jacob wrestle? Who is “the man”? (In keeping with wrestling jargon, the obvious answer is “Big Van Vader”.) Does the man represent an external or an internal force? With whom or what do you wrestle?

The traditional reading is that Jacob battled a supernatural opponent. Suggestions range from an angel to the pre-incarnate Christ. The most traditional view of angel is cemented in Hosea which reads “he [Jacob] wrestled with the angel and prevailed (Hosea 12:4 NASB).”

Using the supernatural reading, French literary critic, Roland Barthes (1915-1918) analyzed the story of Jacob’s wrestling through the lens of folklore’s hero cycle. The story follows a standard pattern as the Hero (Jacob) is sent on a Quest (to return home) by the Originator of the Quest (God) when an Opponent (the man) obstructs the Hero. The expectation is for the Originator to help or send a Helper so the Hero can complete the Quest. Here, however, the Originator and the Opponent are revealed to be the same character. (Barton, Reading the Old Testament: method in biblical study,116-119.)

Others opt for a more natural reading and speculate that the opponent was a human. The assault is administered by an ’iysh (Genesis 32:24), a word almost always rendered “man.” The text makes no reference to any “angel” (mal’ak). If Jacob battled a man, the most likely suspect is his own brother. Jacob and Esau were literally born wrestling (Genesis 25:26) and Esau had motive as he would be contesting his loss of the birthright/blessing (Genesis 25:28-34, 27:30-41). The man acts like Esau as like a hunter (Genesis 25:27), he is comfortable out in the woods at night and physically overpowers Jacob. The fact that “blessing” is at stake also fits their situation as Isaac’s blessing was at the heart of the enmity between the brothers. Using this interpretation, the silence of the competitor in relation to his name represents Esau’s shame as he could not force Jacob into submission. When Jacob finally meets Esau, he greets him with the suggestive words “for I see your face as one sees the face of God” (Genesis 33:10 NASB) mirroring his claim of his opponent on the previous night (Genesis 32:30). The context clearly permits the reader to identify Jacob’s attacker as Esau. In this reading, Jacob would have finally dueled his brother to a draw and legitimized his claim to Isaac’s birthright and blessing.

Many have gained insight into viewing the event as a psychological encounter. Jacob faced his dark night of the soul alone as the bout came at a time of transition in Jacob’s life in which in modern terms, he lost his job, was trying to relocate, and was preparing to face his old foes and sins. As such, it is easy to read the story as an internal battle within the overwhelmed Jacob.

Using this slant, the opponent is Jacob’s shadow side and the story brings into the open what he had experienced subconsciously. Jacob’s feeling undeserving having had to cheat to gain the birthright bubble to the surface. He knows he has deceitfully gained blessings and needed to legitimize himself in his own mind. After the match, Jacob has an inner transformation in which his personal identity and moral autonomy are changed. Jacob, the deceiver, becomes “Israel” who can now openly struggle to fulfill his divine destiny.

This battle is a picture of the human experience of wrestling with God, an opponent whom humans cannot fully understand and certainly cannot control. Joan Chittister (b. 1936) explains, “God is not a puppeteer and God is not a magic act. God is the ground of our being, the energy of life, the goodness out of which all things are intended to grow to fullness. Yet it is a struggle…How can we possibly deal with the great erupting changes of life and come away more whole because of having been through them than we would possibly have been without them? To do that takes a spirituality of struggle.” (Chittister, Scarred by Struggle, Transformed by Hope, 16)

Regardless of which interpretation the reader prefers, Jacob encountered God and is transformed by the event. Battles with family, friends, enemies, and our own demons can all result in encounters with God, or in Jacob’s terms seeing God “face to face”.

Does it matter whom Jacob fought? If so, why does Genesis fail to mention it? Why does Jacob experience this wrestling match alone? To what extent do Jacob’s experiences wrestling mirror your own encounters with God?

“To be the man, you got to beat the man!” - Wrestling great “Nature Boy” Ric Flair (b. 1949)