• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Remembering: Jacob Returns to Bethel: Genesis 35:1-15

sealchan

Well-Known Member
This is what is called a 'lag' in communication!
Anyhow, thanks for answering so fully. I guess we are approaching things differently, but I'm sure there is an opportunity to enjoy, and learn from, the differences.
I have arrived at my present 'assumptions' after a number of excursions down what can only be described as 'cul-de-sacs'. As I now see it, an omniscient and omnipotent God does not leave salvation to chance. But that still leaves room for a scripture in its time and for its time!

You say, 'I think we can both agree that the Bible is like a field with rich soil where thoughts, like plants, can root deep. Surely this is inspired literature, but can we be certain of our conclusions? Or is the very process of discussion and speculation meant to be the experience of God's blessing in and of itself?'
In response I would ask, Doesn't scripture [God] encourage us in study? Surely He does, and I have no doubt that the process of discussion and speculation in study can be a great blessing. My point of caution is over 'vain philosophy', which has the effect of sowing seeds of doubt rather than seeds of faith. The beauty of scripture to me is that it is wholesome and trustworthy. In it I find Truth - or as I understand it, the Holy Spirit of Christ.
I cannot be certain of my own conclusions, which is why I look for God's answers rather than my own. This requires an approach to the study of scripture that takes away private interpretation and, instead, allows the Lord to lead one by the hand to the place of his choosing.

Scripture does encourage study in at least two ways...it explicitly promotes study and it invites discussion, debate and argument by how its stories are crafted. That latter, I believe, is well-known in Jewish circles and the Jews would be the authorities on that Jewish Testament and its original function and intent. Christians, I've noted, often are not aware of this fact. The New Testament has a much different character and is not so much written to inspire debate and discussion expect, perhaps, the parables of the Jew Jesus.

I have a concern when someone raises the spectre of "vain philosophy". This often has the impact of devaluing a person's own thinking and feeling. To me a teaching is useless if the individual cannot at least grapple with their own personal understanding. Everyone should have room to "be wrong" for the sake of experiencing the truth or falsity of that so far as everything short of force and threats are sincerely used to argue against their wrongness. The subjective understanding of a person is precisely AND the ONLY thing that is saved if anything so we must embrace everyone's "vain philosophy" or set about learning how to program "good robots" to take our place IMO.

My experience of the Holy Spirit in scripture and in life is that it has more to do with sustaining the personal spirit in times of suffering undertaken willingly than it has proving any specific teaching. It is as if in our suffering and willing vulnerability we are compensated with a feeling of love and/or strength and/or ecstasy that is "unworldly" or unexpected if we think of ourselves as merely small beings alone in creation. It is, as a Buddhist might say, when we are practicing Right Effort and, aside from our personal strengths or weaknesses, because we are correctly oriented and making effort we are met with an army of angels (so to speak).

Now conclusions always have a lifetime anyway. My experience of God's truth does not teach me that I am an ever-growing master of any kind of dogma, but rather that I am currently walking in the path that God wanted ME to walk because I seem to be occasionally upheld by the spirit as I do at times when I might not be so certain. But then that coming into the presence of the Holy Spirit shows me that my uncertainty and fear has been resolved.

Of which of the beatitudes is one ensured, in a worldly way, that one is walking the right path as the world throws rocks at you? It is only after suffering experienced has been reached that one can feel saved. But suffering always brings with it doubt but holding firm against the doubt seems to me to bring with it the kingdom.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
I think that in my conversation with Redemptionsong we have shown that Bethel, in Genesis so far, significantly links Jacob's journey with God back to Abraham's. The mention of Bethel occurs frequently in this particular section of scripture as, perhaps, a way to help ensure that one is reminded of Bethel as being significant.

Then there is the curiosity of verse 7 which states:

There he built an altar, and he called the place El Bethel, because it was there that God revealed himself to him when he was fleeing from his brother.
(from Genesis 35:7 There he built an altar, and he called the place El Bethel, because it was there that God revealed himself to him when he was fleeing from his brother.)

El Bethel? Now growing up in proximity to usage of the Spanish language I at first dismiss this as some Spanish as follows "The (el) House of God (Bethel)" but that is a somewhat unthinking association. What this really says is "God('s?) House of God".

Does this strike anyone else as curious? Why has Jacob renamed this place from Bethel to El Bethel? Why is it, then, never referred to thereafter as El Bethel?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Sealchan, I respect what you say, and the way that you express yourself so eloquently. Maybe I should explain my position a bit more clearly.
In Colossians 2:8 we find the words, 'Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.'
People at the time of Christ were very familiar with the Greek philosophers, and St Paul spent time in Athens. He even commented on the inscription at an altar that read, 'To the Unknown God'. He then went on to say 'him I declare unto you'. Paul also said, 'For in him we live, and move, and have our being'.
I believe I also live, and move, and have my being in Him too. But reaching that point was not through reason alone. Reasoning is an inductive process that becomes vain when you think it's the only way to know God. In truth, you cannot know God through the inductive method, as most philosophers will tell you. Only deduction (revelation) can provide Truth, and reasoning is not a deductive process. We poor humans have limited knowledge and intelligence. As scripture reminds us, 'For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?' (Romans 11:34)
So if we cannot reason our way to Truth, how are we to know God? Well, we use reason to convince ourselves of his existence and then we step out in trust, or faith. Now we wait on Him to reveal to us the Truth of his will and spirit. The scripture is in my opinion a perfect Word that makes known the perfect Spirit. It's then down to us to live that life of obedience to His spirit. We must suffer, but as you say, that helps us to grow more.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Sealchan, I respect what you say, and the way that you express yourself so eloquently. Maybe I should explain my position a bit more clearly.
In Colossians 2:8 we find the words, 'Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.'
People at the time of Christ were very familiar with the Greek philosophers, and St Paul spent time in Athens. He even commented on the inscription at an altar that read, 'To the Unknown God'. He then went on to say 'him I declare unto you'. Paul also said, 'For in him we live, and move, and have our being'.
I believe I also live, and move, and have my being in Him too. But reaching that point was not through reason alone. Reasoning is an inductive process that becomes vain when you think it's the only way to know God. In truth, you cannot know God through the inductive method, as most philosophers will tell you. Only deduction (revelation) can provide Truth, and reasoning is not a deductive process. We poor humans have limited knowledge and intelligence. As scripture reminds us, 'For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?' (Romans 11:34)
So if we cannot reason our way to Truth, how are we to know God? Well, we use reason to convince ourselves of his existence and then we step out in trust, or faith. Now we wait on Him to reveal to us the Truth of his will and spirit. The scripture is in my opinion a perfect Word that makes known the perfect Spirit. It's then down to us to live that life of obedience to His spirit. We must suffer, but as you say, that helps us to grow more.

Sure, we don't want our faith to be purely philosophical. Philosophy sometimes gets a bad rap as it seems like something you only do in a book, but it can be more than that. Many don't go in for thinking about things in an analytical way in any case. But for those that do it can be a vital gateway to their religious experience. So as long as "vain philosophy" = some philosophy espoused for selfish reasons and that gets you off the hook for a real experience and not philosophy in general like that which Socrates was reputed to practice, then I would agree.

I think for a faith to be meaningful it needs to have solved a deeply personal problem. It needs to be an experience that has impacted the person in a way that nothing else has. It needs to be personal and that means it has its indefensible, subjective qualities that are deeply inspiring to the individual who professes that faith.

I would say that for some people reason comes first, then faith or the experience of faith. But for people like me it is first experience which compels faith, then reason about that experience.

I don't see how you are saying revelation is related to deduction. Deduction is the use of logic to propose a rational truth that is more specific from a more general truth. Induction is the use of logic to propose a more general truth from specific observations. Revelation is an experience which is first and foremost irrational. Irrational truths are simply simple statements of fact such as "that car is red". They are not deduced or induced rationality, they are merely statements of what "is". Bare facts. Of course there is corrupted rationality that is also popularly referred to as "being irrational" due to emotional influences usually.

Irrational truths are founded on our sensory awareness and on our intuition. We may perceive the sensory qualities of the world and the configuration or logistics of our reality as sensory, and we may perceive patterns "behind the scenes" and other often spiritual truths through our intuition. At least this is how I use such terms and how I unpack them (along the lines of the psychologist Carl Jung).
 
Last edited:

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Sorry to keep adding more, but you might appreciate this one.
In Judges 9:6 it says that Abimelech was made king 'by the plain of the pillar that was in Shechem.' Another reading of this is 'by the oak of the pillar' or 'by the oak of the garrison which is in Shechem.'
This is possibly the same tree as in Genesis 12:6 and 35:4.

Ah yes, and this particular king was about to be condemned by Jotham.

Again, in Joshua 24:26, a great stone is set up by Joshua under an oak, by the sanctuary of the LORD. Is this not the very spot where Abraham and Jacob had sacrificed and worshipped?

Again yes, here Joshua makes the same use of an (the?!) oak at Shechem where everyone is agreeing to set aside their old gods...

But note the warning in Deuteronomy 16:21, 'Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the LORD thy God, which thou shalt make thee.' Why would God issue this command if groves of trees were not associated with idol worship?

Thank you for these. I greatly appreciate this research. Given my own time constraints I have chosen to not look ahead in order to focus on treating the scripture as it were a story being revealed to a reader. But I think that in the above you have helped to make my idea seem more valid. It is interesting that Shechem is a kind of holy place for the LORD but really a kind of anti-holy place where bad things are brought to focus and then disposed of for His sake.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
In response to the questions, 'Why has Jacob renamed this place from Bethel to El Bethel? Why is it, then, never referred to thereafter as El Bethel?' I would refer you back to Genesis 31:13, where it says, 'I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointeth the pillar, and where thou [Jacob] vowedst a vow unto me:'
In Genesis 28:20 we are told all about the vow, which ends in Jacob's promise 'then shall the LORD be my God'. In other words, Jacob makes a vow that he will make the Lord his only God if the Lord, in return, will bring Jacob safely back to his father's house.
So, we can find in scripture the threads that make up the picture. In this case, the threads indicate that Jacob renamed Bethel on his return journey from Padan-aram (Haran). He did so in response to the promise he had made on his way to Padan-aram (Genesis 28:20). One would assume, therefore, that from the point at which he renames Bethel as El-Bethel Jacob must have made the Lord his only God. Interestingly, it is at this exact point (Genesis 35:4) that Jacob decides to bury the false gods.
It also appears that the name change from Jacob to Israel , whilst first mentioned by the Lord at Peniel (Genesis 32:28), only takes effect once Jacob has set a pillar upon Rachel's grave. Is it that Rachel, who had stolen the false gods (Genesis 31:19) from her father, Laban, was now suffering the consequences? And the death of Deborah, her nurse, made matters worse, for now Rachel was without her nurse in childbirth. In her dying breath, Rachel calls her baby Benoni, meaning 'the son of my sorrow', until Jacob renames him Benjamin, meaning 'son of my right hand'.
I see in all these early stories a repeating 'type' of Christ. God's revelation is a steady and continuous unfolding of the truth, which finds its fulfilment in Christ. So even the name El-Bethel is a pointer to Jesus Christ, for he is the only true temple - He being a temple made without hands.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Sealchan, you say, 'I don't see how you are saying revelation is related to deduction. Deduction is the use of logic to propose a rational truth that is more specific from a more general truth. Induction is the use of logic to propose a more general truth from specific observations.'

What you describe as 'a more general truth' is what in logic is described as a 'Universal'. What you describe as 'a more specific' truth is described as a 'Particular'. A universal can be called 'all', whilst a particular is 'some'. God, to my understanding is THE Universal. We are the particulars. All attempts by the particulars to understand the Universal are inductive. Any revelation of the Universal to the particular, if revealed through faith, becomes a proof.

This is why St. Paul is able to say, 'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.' ['evidence', elegchos, gk, is proof or conviction]

This is also the reasoning behind a faithful prophet being the channel for God's word. I can trust the Bible because the men to whom the word was entrusted were men of faith.
 
Last edited:

sealchan

Well-Known Member
In response to the questions, 'Why has Jacob renamed this place from Bethel to El Bethel? Why is it, then, never referred to thereafter as El Bethel?' I would refer you back to Genesis 31:13, where it says, 'I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointeth the pillar, and where thou [Jacob] vowedst a vow unto me:'
In Genesis 28:20 we are told all about the vow, which ends in Jacob's promise 'then shall the LORD be my God'. In other words, Jacob makes a vow that he will make the Lord his only God if the Lord, in return, will bring Jacob safely back to his father's house.
So, we can find in scripture the threads that make up the picture. In this case, the threads indicate that Jacob renamed Bethel on his return journey from Padan-aram (Haran). He did so in response to the promise he had made on his way to Padan-aram (Genesis 28:20). One would assume, therefore, that from the point at which he renames Bethel as El-Bethel Jacob must have made the Lord his only God. Interestingly, it is at this exact point (Genesis 35:4) that Jacob decides to bury the false gods.
It also appears that the name change from Jacob to Israel , whilst first mentioned by the Lord at Peniel (Genesis 32:28), only takes effect once Jacob has set a pillar upon Rachel's grave. Is it that Rachel, who had stolen the false gods (Genesis 31:19) from her father, Laban, was now suffering the consequences? And the death of Deborah, her nurse, made matters worse, for now Rachel was without her nurse in childbirth. In her dying breath, Rachel calls her baby Benoni, meaning 'the son of my sorrow', until Jacob renames him Benjamin, meaning 'son of my right hand'.
I see in all these early stories a repeating 'type' of Christ. God's revelation is a steady and continuous unfolding of the truth, which finds its fulfilment in Christ. So even the name El-Bethel is a pointer to Jesus Christ, for he is the only true temple - He being a temple made without hands.


Thank you again for this insightful response. Once again I feel like someone who has had their homework done for them. And your knowledge extends beyond my own so I am most appreciative.

Your speculation on the reason behind the timing of Jacob being referred to Israel (as I see now lower down in chapter 35) I think is probably spot on. I will return to this in my next study of Genesis after this one (as I move slowly forward). I expect your conclusion will be a strong guiding light.

I googled El-Bethel and found a couple of published sermons which made similar conclusions that this latter name is Jacob's recognition, upon his return to Bethel that his relationship to God has risen to a wholly new level and that in recognition now of his more conscious understanding of who that god was that confronted him on the way to Paddan Aram, he has altered the old name of the location to fit this higher understanding.

I suspect you are right re: Christ as well. I am working through the gospel of Matthew but will keep all of this in mind for future consideration.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
'Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.' (Psalm 19)
'Til we meet again!
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
The last question...are verses 14 and 15 of Genesis 35 telling of what is currently happening or are they recalling the past? To me it seems interestingly ambiguous...

On the one hand when the previous altar raising was described in Genesis 28, verse 18 only says oil was poured. In Genesis 35 it is oil and drink so this seems like it is describing a current event that is slightly different than the past event. But just a few verses back, in verse 7, Jacob calls the place El Bethel. Now in 35:15 it is just Bethel as it was called by Jacob before (Genesis 28), so this seems like it is recalling events of Genesis 28.

Is this sloppy writing or intentional ambiguity?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Hi sealchan,
Since God created the heaven and the earth, I understand that we should look for both the earthly and heavenly in all God's words. We are told that when Jesus spoke he used parables; (which are 'para', beside, 'bole', to place) in other words, Jesus was placing ideas side-by-side for the purpose of comparison. What was he placing side-by-side? Well, that which is earthly with that which is heavenly. So, I think we should look for the same throughout the scriptures.

In Genesis 35:14,15 we get a return to the use of the name 'Bethel', but the clue here might well be in verse 13. In verse 13, it says 'And God went up from him in the place where he talked with him.' This must be significant, because El-Bethel is so-called because 'there God appeared unto him'. Now God has gone up and is no longer appearing to him, so the name reverts back to Bethel.

This all has huge significance because we are talking about the 'house of God'. God is happy to take up a temporary dwelling place in the buildings of man (Bethel), but His permanent residence is a spiritual temple (El-Bethel). It's a spiritual temple where men meet with God in communion (Ephesians 2:21). In New Testament parlance, it would be called the BODY OF CHRIST!

I don't believe there is anything sloppy in God's word! Occasionally we have to grapple with transcription mistakes, but on the whole the word is intact. Thank God.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Hi sealchan,
Since God created the heaven and the earth, I understand that we should look for both the earthly and heavenly in all God's words. We are told that when Jesus spoke he used parables; (which are 'para', beside, 'bole', to place) in other words, Jesus was placing ideas side-by-side for the purpose of comparison. What was he placing side-by-side? Well, that which is earthly with that which is heavenly. So, I think we should look for the same throughout the scriptures.

In Genesis 35:14,15 we get a return to the use of the name 'Bethel', but the clue here might well be in verse 13. In verse 13, it says 'And God went up from him in the place where he talked with him.' This must be significant, because El-Bethel is so-called because 'there God appeared unto him'. Now God has gone up and is no longer appearing to him, so the name reverts back to Bethel.

This all has huge significance because we are talking about the 'house of God'. God is happy to take up a temporary dwelling place in the buildings of man (Bethel), but His permanent residence is a spiritual temple (El-Bethel). It's a spiritual temple where men meet with God in communion (Ephesians 2:21). In New Testament parlance, it would be called the BODY OF CHRIST!

I don't believe there is anything sloppy in God's word! Occasionally we have to grapple with transcription mistakes, but on the whole the word is intact. Thank God.

The more I read these last verses the more I am able to convince myself that Genesis 35:9-15 was a description of another and current encounter with God at Luz/Bethel/El-Bethel. I think that I stitched verses 6 and 7 and verses 9 and 10 together as if it were describing a single event with verse 8 inserted awkwardly into the middle of it. Verse 9 and 10 seem to be referring to the time when Jacob wrestled the angel because of that scripture in Genesis 32 these verses could be seen as looking back to that time. However, the immediately following verses describe God also saying, slightly differently, what God had said in Genesis 28...so I guess this breaks that link and what we have is God restating his promise in the current time. But then we have Jacob erecting another pillar and calling this place Bethel.

The temptation to bleed together the events in the chapter probably comes from reading modern works. This ancient scripture is very terse and it moves forward when many modern texts might be moving back into a reminiscence.

However, now we have the minutiae of there being an El-Bethel place and a Bethel place (and also an oak outside Bethel place visited in-between). Either these are two distinct locations, which the "intrusion" of the scene at the "oak outside Bethel" might help us to see because it implies a movement between the previous and the latter scene. OR we are looking at two descriptions of the same place and a kind of return of the name of the place from Bethel to El-Bethel to Bethel. Maybe there needed to be an explanation for why Bethel was called Bethel after Jacob named it El-Bethel.

Although I understand your interpretation of this as an analogy of the body of Christ, I don't personally hold to Genesis being a "God's eye view" of what would be revealed after the completion of the Jewish Testament. I think that unless you can make this case within the scope of the Jewish Testament and its author's and audience's understanding, then this might be Monday morning quarterbacking, so to speak. Still i do not discount that there are mysteries in the Old Testament that Jesus and the authors of the New Testament can shed new light on. But I believe that given the precision and consistency of Genesis, we should look first and foremost to the Jewish Testament for the closest and most relevant context for understanding this passage.

I am now undecided as to whether El-Bethel and Bethel are two places or one. I think either interpretation has its merits. is it possible that the authors of Genesis meant for this to be ambiguous?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Although I understand your interpretation of this as an analogy of the body of Christ, I don't personally hold to Genesis being a "God's eye view" of what would be revealed after the completion of the Jewish Testament. I think that unless you can make this case within the scope of the Jewish Testament and its author's and audience's understanding, then this might be Monday morning quarterbacking, so to speak. Still i do not discount that there are mysteries in the Old Testament that Jesus and the authors of the New Testament can shed new light on. But I believe that given the precision and consistency of Genesis, we should look first and foremost to the Jewish Testament for the closest and most relevant context for understanding this passage.

Hi Sealchan,
I believe you are quite right to look at the closest and most relevant context first. But there are plenty of Hebrew scriptures that look forward to future times, not least in the promises made to the Patriarchs. Take this one, for example:
Genesis 17:7,8. 'And I will establish my covenant between me and thee [Abraham] and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.'

This divine promise is a pathway stretching into the future, along which the narrative is compelled to move. We follow the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and the Israelites, then Joshua - and find ourselves in the Promised Land. But the story cannot end there. The promise given by God is of an everlasting covenant, and an everlasting possession.

The New Testament illuminates the whole of scripture; for when Jesus entered the world he brought light! (John 1:4,5) Or as the saying goes,
'The New is in the Old concealed,
While the Old is by the New revealed.'

These two scriptures highlight the difference between the temporal and everlasting.
'This is the book of the generations of Adam.' (Genesis 5:1)
'The book of the generation of Jesus Christ,' (Matthew 1:1)
 
Last edited:
Top