Genesis 32:28, KJV ---> NKJV???

[sevenzedek]

I was wondering if anyone could help me understand what the translators were thinking about the Hebrew when they dealt with Genesis 32:28. There is quite a difference in wording between the KJV and NKJV.

Genesis 32:28 (KJV)
28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

Genesis 32:28 (NKJV)
28 And He said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed.”

Thanks.

 

[nicnap]

I have looked it over and don't see any justification for the KJV's rendering ... ויאמר לא יעקב יאמר עוד שמך כי אם ישׁראל כי שׁרית עם אלהים ועם אנשים ותוכל . Rendered woodenly: "And he said, 'Not Jacob." And said, "Continually your name shall be Israel. For you have persisted/striven with God, and with man and were able to prevail." At least, that's what I get.

Maybe some of the other brother's can figure out the KJV's rendering, but I don't see how even if it were pointed differently (not with the unicode font I supplied, but with BibleWorks) it would be rendered as the KJV.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

The Hebrew word translated "struggled" in the NKJV is the word from which Abraham's wife, "Sarah" gets her new name, and it means "princess". In other words, to wage war and to prevail (like a prince or ruler) is understood in the word, "S-R-H". You can also hear a derivation of this word in Jacob's new name, I S-R ael-- (note the S and the R) one who has striven with God and prevailed, or, one who is a prince with God. This is how the KJV translators saw the term.

 

[CharlieJ]

And, considering that "prince" in KJV English communicated a war leader, not just the son of a royal, it makes sense. If you wanted to bring out the word-play, you could probably even combine them: "For you struggled like a prince with God and with men."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Its possible that two words,

1) שׂר (sar)/ שׂרה (sarah), for prince/princess, and
2) שׂרה (sarah), to strive,​

may well have some common etymology, however, that is not a necessary conclusion. The words may simply be homonyms.

sar, for prince, has over 400 entries in the concordance. sarah, the feminine for princess, has only 5, not counting Sarah's name. This fairly common word probably inclined the KJV translators to employing it in Gen.23:38.

The "as a prince" is infelicitous. The earlier translators basically give a doubled sense to the "kiy" (for/because, as/like) and render שׂרית (sariyt) as a noun. "For/because you have striven" gives us a far better sense, without doubling (or dividing) the force of the causative particle.

There is also a theological point, that may be missed if we eliminate the word "striving" from the explanation. Contra K&D, and others, the name "Israel" does not mean "God's fighter," or "striver with/by God;" but "God strives." Yes, Jacob is given, and takes, the name. And he "won" this little contest (read the masterful treatment of this passage by Calvin in his Commentary). But the point of this little episode is not for people to focus on Jacob, or on HIS accomplishment; but on God--not simply what he has accomplished, but on what he PROMISES to accomplish.

In the very name God gives to Jacob, which is then passed on as a national name to his children, we have a witness to divine salvation. How are we saved? Is it by our striving? Is it because WE have striven with God, and prevailed? Is it because we are princes and princesses? Whose work, whose fight results in salvation?

Jacob's name is not about him, his wrestling-in-prayer, or his accomplishment, but on the meaning of that nighttime conflict. God Strives. This is the name, "Israel." When we think of our collective name, we are not to dwell on ourselves, but on God, and on the Israel-of-One, the Seed of Promise. By him comes ALL our salvation. God Strives, God Fights for us. God gains the victory.

 

[sevenzedek]

Bruce,

How did you come to the conclusion that this text is really communicating that God strives when it is God who says in the text that it was Jacob who was striving? I would just like to understand your thinking. I assume I am missing something.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The short answer is: Because that's what the two words put-together to form the name "Israel" mean: God Strives, at once both the simplest and most theologically profound statement that can be found in the name.

The problem associated with naming and re-naming conventions in the Bible is that, in general, the whole matter is poorly understood. When someone or something is named by another, we tend to assume that the subject who is (re)named is being "described" by this name. While this may be the case, or perhaps will be be the case (because of a divine promise), it is by no means the most significant KIND of renaming.

Consider how place-names are often highly symbolic. They can be descriptive, however they are usually changed to reflect the memory of some significant ACT that took place there. The hamlet Luz is renamed Bethel, not because there was a temple to Jehovah there, before or since, but because of the night of Jacob's Ladder experience nearby, Gen.28. Likewise, in this 32nd chapter, Peniel.

People may also be renamed for the connotations the new name evokes, and not primarily as a personal-description. The truly classic example is Peter. Simon's alternate name is given to him on the occasion of his confession, "Thou art the Christ." Whereupon Jesus calls him "Petros" in recognition of his statement, and indicates by way of explanation that "on this rock" (petra) he will build his church.

While the papists especially have tried to identify the MAN, Peter, as Jesus' main point, that identification misses the centrality of the confession, bypassing it almost entirely. Recognizing the primacy of the confession doesn't mean that we don't recognize that Peter is also honored, or that he rises to the occasion on Pentecost, and plays a crucial role in the early (Jerusalem) church. We simply realize that the name "Peter" is not all, or even mainly, about the man--and its a good thing it isn't, too, and he'd probably be the first to say that.

So, to return to the subject of Jacob/Israel---This re-naming moment is, quite literally, monumental in Redemptive history. The name God gives here is one that is adopted by the whole nation, and that for the rest of the Bible. "Israel," ultimately boils down to One other, specific individual, the One True Israelite: Jesus Christ. He is the embodiment of the whole story; and "the Israel of God" (Gal.6:16) are derivatively those believers (of whatever ethnicity) who are united to him by faith.

So, the name God gives to Jacob is first and foremost, not just for him alone. There's some evidence that he even understands this fact, inasmuch as for the rest of his life, he is called by BOTH names. It's as if he's not willing to have a perfect-identification with the name, because 1) he isn't the Perfect identification; and 2) its a name that needs to be taken up by the whole family, until it is fulfilled. I would argue that Moses (at the very least) wants his reader to understand that Jacob isn't THE Israel, but the father of it, and a signal first-bearer of the name.

As for the text of Gen.32, we have to begin at least as for back as v24, where the first "fighter" is identified. That would be God/Angel/"a Man" who "wrestled with him." So, only to focus on the fact that Jacob is identified as one party who strove ignores the full context. God is clearly one who is striving. I recommended that you (anyone) read Calvin's exposition of this passage. It is masterful; and in it he points out the absurdity of a mere man striving against God. The only way we can survive such a contest is if God fights for us as well. "He comes against us, as it were, with his left hand, while he fights for us by his right hand."

Jacob comes through this experience a further-changed man. He did "strive with God," but is the story ABOUT Jacob? When we find for the stories within the Bible a focus other than the Focus--in other words, if we miss the primary emphasis of any lesser portion of the Bible--we are skewing the overall thrust of the whole Bible. "These are [the Scriptures] that testify about me!" God doesn't give Jacob a name here mainly because he "demonstrated valor," or even as Hosea indicates, because he prayed heroically (Hos.12:4). "How did he survive?" That's the essential question, not "how did he do?"

Is he, and are WE, changed because of personal bravery and boldness? What is the consistent message of Scripture on this topic? Are we saved by works or by grace? Is Jacob's new name a token by which God boasts on his servant before the world, or even before his posterity? Or is this new name a means by which all the rising generations will be reminded, through a standing witness, of God's self-glorification through salvation? Of his monergistic and uniquely effective power to do what man in his creaturely--and worse, his fallen--condition cannot do for himself?

 

[sevenzedek]

Thanks for the responses guys. Very helpful. Very helpful indeed.