The "Man" with whom Jacob Wrestled (Genesis 32:24)

In consideration of this passage of Scripture, Beza, with no particular explanation, simply states that the identity of the man with whom Jacob wrestled was God, “That is, God in the form of a man.” Gill, on the other hand, notes various interpretations of this man’s identity, listing them as follows: “not a phantasm or spectre, as Josephus calls him; nor was this a mere visionary representation of a man, to the imagination of Jacob; or done in the vision of prophecy, as Maimonides; but it was something real, corporeal, and visible: the Targum of Jonathan says, it was an angel in the likeness of a man, and calls him Michael, which is not amiss, since he is expressly called an angel, (Hosea 12:4); and if Michael the uncreated angel is meant, it is most true; for not a created angel is designed, but a divine Person, as appears from Jacob's desiring to be blessed by him; and besides, being expressly called God, (Genesis 32:28,30); and was, no doubt, the Son of God in an human form.” While Gill demonstrates that some have commented that this was either a vision or interaction with simply an angelic being, he comes to the same conclusion as Beza in that this “man” is God, yet more specifically identifies Him as the Son of God.
Henry, as Gill, observes more than one possible answer to the question of the identity of this “man,” however, he does not indicate which of these possibilities he believes. He states, “Some think this was a created angel, the angel of his presence (Isa. 63:9), one of those that always behold the face of our Father and attend on the shechinah, or the divine Majesty, which probably Jacob had also in view. Others think it was Michael our prince, the eternal Word, the angel of the covenant, who is indeed the Lord of the angels, who often appeared in a human shape before he assumed the human nature for a perpetuity; whichsoever it was, we are sure God’s name was in him, Ex. 23:21.” While Henry seems to make a distinction between these two possibilities, being either an angel in the order of cherubim, a protector of the Glory of God (e.g. consider the cover of the Ark of the Covenant), or the Son of God (as Henry calls Him, the eternal Word and the Lord of the Angels), MacArthur points out that these are likely one in the same individual. He comments that, “The angel, who delivered the Israelites from Egypt, was none other than the Lord Himself (Ex 14:19; 23:20-23; 33:12,14,15; Nu 20:16). He is sometimes identified as the Angel of the Lord.” As stated earlier, Gill indicates that this was not merely a vision. Henry elaborates on this point by commenting that, “It was not only a corporal [sic], but a spiritual, wrestling, by the vigorous actings of faith and holy desire; and thus all the spiritual seed of Jacob, that pray in praying, still wrestle with God.”[3]
As a final commentator, MacArthur, like Beza, has short and direct comments to the identity of the “man” with whom Jacob wrestled. Unlike Beza, MacArthur uses two specific evidences to support his conclusion, one from the text and one from a later reference to the event: “The site name, Peniel, or ‘face of God’ given by Jacob (v. 30) and the commentary given by Hosea (Hos 12:4) identifies this man with whom Jacob wrestled as the Angel of the Lord who is also identified as God, a pre-incarnate appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ.” With this statement, MacArthur leaves no ambiguity to his conclusion of the man’s identity.
Considering the various points of these commentators, it is my conclusion that this is a theophany, or more specifically a Christophany, that is, that the “man” with whom Jacob wrestled was the preincarnate Christ. Several evidences point me to this conclusion (some of which have already been raised). First, the context of Hosea 12:4 shows that God is sometimes referred to as an angel, not that it was merely an angel that wrestled with Jacob. Second, the “man” had the supernatural power to alter Jacob’s anatomy so as to cause a permanent limp with a simple touch. Third, the “man” exercised divine authority in renaming Jacob as God had done earlier with Abram and Sarai. Fourth, the meaning of this new name given Jacob (“Israel”: he who strives with God; or God strives) shows that his wrestling and striving was with God Himself. Fifth, the name of the place given by Jacob where these events occurred (“Peniel”: the face of God) affirms this “man” was God Whom Jacob saw face to face. Sixth, the sons of Israel no longer eat the sinew of the hip which is on the socket of the thigh as a sort of holy reverence for this event, further supporting that God is the reason this touch merited such reverence, not that it was merely the touch of a man. Finally, the characteristics given in this passage are descriptive of only one other individual in Scripture: The Angel of the Lord, or the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, an identification confirmed by the evident deity, character, deeds, and power of this “man.”

Bibliography
Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on Genesis 32". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible". www.searchgodsword.org/com/gsb/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=032>. 1599-1645.
Gill, John. "Commentary on Genesis 32:24". "The New John Gill Exposition of the
Entire Bible". apter=032&verse=024>. 1999.
Henry, Matthew. "Complete Commentary on Genesis 32". "Matthew Henry Complete
Commentary on the Whole Bible". . 1706.
MacArthur, John F. The MacArthur Study Bible. Thomas Nelson: La Habra, 2006.

The Sons of God (Genesis 6:2)

To answer the question of the identity of the sons of God in Genesis 6, it seems that most of the older theologians agree that they were the “godly.” That is, men who were followers of the one true God as opposed to the world around them. Beza comments simply that the sons of God were, “The children of the godly who began to degenerate,”[1] while leaving the daughters of men to be, “Those that had wicked parents, as if from Cain.”1 Gill agrees with this conclusion as his own statements are that, “those ‘sons of God’ were not angels either good or bad…nor the sons of judges, magistrates, and great personages…but rather this is to be understood of the posterity of Seth, who from the times of Enos, when then began to be called by the name of the Lord, (Genesis 4:25) had the title of the sons of God, in distinction from the children of men.”[2] Not only does Gill identify who he believes the sons of God to be, but he also identifies who he believes they are not: Angels or great personages.
Continuing in the same fashion as these two men, Henry indicates that the sons of God are, “the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name.”[3] Henry further establishes the details of these unions when identifying them as mixed marriages, noting that, “The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done, both for the preservation of their own purity and in detestation of the apostasy. They intermingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain.”3 This is an important point as the language of Genesis 6:2 indicates that, “they took wives for themselves;” that is, this is not simply an act of fornication with ungodly women, but rather becoming yoked unequally with them in marriage (2 Corinthians 6:14) prior to having sexual relations with them (Genesis 6:4).
As a last representative of this group of older theologians, we come to Calvin. His remarks regarding the situation as a whole, rather than specifically commenting on the identity of the sons of God, are the following: “For marriage is a thing too sacred to allow that men should be induced to it by the lust of the eyes…Therefore our appetite becomes brutal, when we are so ravished with the charms of beauty, that those things which are chief are not taken into the account. Moses more clearly describes the violent impetuosity of their lust, when he says, that they took wives of all that they chose; by which he signifies, that the sons of God did not make their choice from those possessed of necessary endowments, but wandered without discrimination, rushing onward according to their lust.”[4] In spite of specifically stating their identity, Calvin does indicate through his comments that he too believes that the sons of God were “godly” men. There is also clarification brought beyond Henry’s comments about the nature of the union, even to the motivation of the union itself: Lustful desire.
Moving beyond the general consensus of men such as Beza, Gill, Henry, and Calvin, we come to MacArthur. His argument identifies the sons of God as fallen angels. MacArthur states, “The sons of God, identified elsewhere almost exclusively as angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), saw and took wives of the human race. This produced an unnatural union which violated the God-ordained order of human marriage and procreation (Ge 2:24). Some have argued that the sons of God were the sons of Seth who cohabited with the daughters of Cain; others suggest they were perhaps human kings wanting to build harems. But the passage puts strong emphasis on the angelic vs. human contrast. The NT places this account in sequence with other Genesis events and identifies it as involving fallen angels who indwelt men (see notes on 2Pe 2:4,5; Jude 6). Matthew 22:30 does not necessarily negate the possibility that angels are capable of procreation, but just that they do not marry. To procreate physically, they had to possess human, male bodies.”[5] MacArthur makes several points that help to support his argument: First, the sons of God are identified almost exclusively as angels; second, the New Testament seems to confirm this conclusion based upon two passages of Scripture (2 Peter 2:4,5 and Jude 6); and third, Matthew 22:30 only dictates that angels in heaven cannot marry.
In spite of these arguments, Davis points out that, “the concept of sonship, based on God’s election, is common to the Old Testament (cf. Exod. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; 32:5, 6, 18, 19; Hos. 1:10; Isa. 1:2; 11:1; 43:6; 45:11; Jer. 31:20; Ps. 73:15).”[6] This means that, while the particular term “sons of God” refers primarily to angels, the concept of being a son of God does not. Davis also indicates that, “As for the passage in Jude, Keil argues that it is not referring to the passage in Genesis 6:1-4; Jude 6, 7 are concerned with fornication, Genesis 6:2 with marriage.”[7] It seems from the text of Jude that this could be understood either way, as “in the same way as these” could refer to either the cities surrounding Sodom and Gomorrah, or perhaps the fallen angels. Addressing MacArthur’s third point, while it is true that, “Matthew 22:30 does not necessarily negate the possibility that angels are capable of procreation, but just that they do not marry,”5 it is also true that angels, not having physical bodies, are in fact incapable of said procreation.
Considering the variety in commentary over the issue, I agree with Davis that, “It seems to this author [Davis] that the third view [dynastic rulers in the Cainite line] is the least likely, and that either of the first two [angels and the godly line of Seth, respectively] is credible, given the evidence currently available.”[8] Because of the context of Genesis 6:1-4, God’s design revealed in Genesis 1 (“after their kind”) and Genesis 2:24, the straightforward hermeneutic of Matthew 22:30, the possible interpretation of Jude 6,7, and the context of 2 Peter 2:4,5, I believe the identity of the sons of God in Genesis 6:2 to be the godly line of Seth. I hold this view with reservations, because of MacArthur’s arguments, particularly the possible interpretation of Jude 6,7, coupled with 2 Peter 2:4,5 (particularly the use of “Tartarus” for Hell). Further, MacArthur holds this view in the only manner I see able to remain consistent with orthodoxy: “To procreate physically, they had to possess human, male bodies.”5 That is, because fallen angels are incorporeal beings incapable of producing their own physical bodies (this seems to be possible only in the case of the preincarnate Christ as the Angel of the Lord or angels in association with the will and ministry of God [cf. Genesis 19:1-11 with Scripture references to the Angel of the Lord]), the only way for them to be identified with the sons of God in Genesis 6:4 would be through demonizing (possessing) men.

[1] Theodore Beza, Commentary on Genesis 6, The 1599 Geneva Study Bible, . 1599-1645.
[2] John Gill, Commentary on Genesis 6:2, The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible, . 1999.
[3] Matthew Henry, Complete Commentary on Genesis 6, Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible, . 1706.
[4] John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis – Volume 1, Translated by Rev. John King, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2008. [5] John F. MacArthur, Genesis 6:2 notes, The MacArthur Study Bible (Thomas Nelson: La Habra, 2006), 24.
[6] John J. Davis, The Degeneration of Man, Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis (Sheffield Publishing Company: Salem, 1998), 113.
[7] John J. Davis, The Degeneration of Man, Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis (Sheffield Publishing Company: Salem, 1998), 112.
[8] John J. Davis, The Degeneration of Man, Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis (Sheffield Publishing Company: Salem, 1998), 114.

The Desire of Woman (Genesis 3:16)

The desire that the woman has for her husband, according to John Gill, “is to be understood of her being solely at the will and pleasure of her husband; that whatever she desired should be referred to him, whether she should have her desire or not, or the thing she desired; it should be liable to be controlled by his will, which must determine it, and to which she must be subject.” Quite simply, this statement communicates a position of subjection from the woman to her husband. It would seem that because the woman did not refer the matter of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil to her husband (who failed as well as he was there with her and did nothing), she was punished by means of further subjection to her husband who would thus rule over her.
Matthew Henry agrees with this position, but he also adds an important point about the response of wives to this subjection. He states, “The whole [female] sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority, 1 Tim. 2:11, 12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, and is not sui juris—at her own disposal, of which see an instance in that law, Num. 30:6-8, where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife…Those wives who not only despise and disobey their husbands, but domineer over them, do not consider that they not only violate a divine law, but thwart a divine sentence [emphasis in original].” Henry hints at the fact that while the desires of a woman are subjected to the authority of her husband in the bonds of marriage, the desire itself is not necessarily to subject herself but rather to attempt to rule over her husband. This seems reasonable as the Scripture reiterates that in spite of this desire, the husband will rule over his wife.
This brings us to the comments of John MacArthur. Regarding the desire of woman, MacArthur has this to say: “Sin has turned the harmonious system of God-ordained roles into distasteful struggles of self-will. Lifelong companions, husbands and wives, will need God’s help in getting along as a result. The woman’s desire will be to lord it over her husband, but the husband will rule by divine design (Eph 5:22-25). This interpretation of the curse is based upon the identical Heb. words and grammar being used in 4:7 (see note there) to show the conflict man will have with sin as it seeks to rule him [emphasis in original].” While MacArthur concurs with the conclusions of Gill and Henry, he further demonstrates the intent of the Hebrew language which, perhaps, is lost a bit in translation. In Genesis 4:7, God is telling Cain that doing well lifts his countenance, while not doing well leads to mastery by sin. The same English words “desire is for” are used in both Genesis 3:16 and 4:7. Understanding the Hebrew helps the reader to comprehend that the desire of the wife for her husband is the same as the desire of sin for Cain: To master him. Just as the husband will yet rule over the wife in spite of her desire, so God exhorts Cain to master the sin which desires him.
Finally, in answer to the question of what the desire of woman refers, it is the want of mastery over her husband, which is yet subjected to his headship given by created order and divine decree, and exacerbated by the judgment of The Fall.

Bibliography
Gill, John. "Commentary on Genesis 3:16". "The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire
Bible". . 1999.
Henry, Matthew. "Complete Commentary on Genesis 3". "Matthew Henry Complete
Commentary on the Whole Bible". . 1706.
MacArthur, John F. The MacArthur Study Bible. Thomas Nelson: La Habra, 2006.

The Value of Human Life in the Evolution/Creation Debate

In consideration of the value of human life and how this issue relates to both an evolutionary and creationistic worldview, we come to the case of Carrie Buck. Becoming pregnant at the age of 17, Carrie was committed by her foster parents to the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded on the grounds of feeblemindedness, incorrigible behavior and promiscuity (although her pregnancy occurred after having been raped by her own foster parent’s nephew). Carrie’s mother, Emma, had likewise been committed to the Virginia Colony for the Epileptic and the Feeble-minded after being accused of immorality, prostitution, and having syphilis. It seems apparent that the sexual deviancy so commonplace in our contemporary society was grounds in the early 20^th century to label one as insane, mentally retarded, or “feeble-minded”, regardless of if this deviancy was a forced act by another. Sadly, to make certain the family did not reproduce, Carrie’s younger sister Doris was secretly sterilized after being hospitalized for appendicitis. Doris was unaware of this procedure having occurred, until the 1980’s, after many years of attempted child-bearing with her husband. Amazingly, US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. had this to say in 1927 regarding Carrie Buck:

“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Later in life, and after actual investigation, there was an obvious consensus that Carrie was a woman of normal intelligence. Additionally, her daughter Vivian (the child she bore from the rape) was an average student who excelled in deportment (behavior).

Looking at this background from the practice of sterilization in support of eugenics, it seems Justice Holmes gives a common response from those in favor of evolutionary thought: That it is “better for all” if we prevent those we deem “unfit from continuing their kind” from ever giving birth at all. We see this in the racist sentiments of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, who said, “It is said that a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.” Interestingly, the placement of Planned Parenthood clinics in poor, ethnic minority neighborhoods and the comparable ratios of abortions amongst ethnic minorities (particularly blacks) to those of whites only serve to further support the racist hatred of such individuals as Sanger. We also see the common response of Justice Holmes in the tens of millions of abortions performed in the United States since the US Supreme Court decision regarding Roe v. Wade in 1973, especially with regard to the higher percentages of abortions performed upon children with debilitating disease and mental/physical disabilities. Considering all these things, when our presupposition is that all life originated through random mutation, natural selection, and other evolutionary processes, our conclusion can only necessitate a eugenic of sterilization for the weak, the destruction of human life at will (to include abortion, euthanasia, and genocide), and any other means to promote the survival of the fittest.

Opposing all these points, the Biblical view of Creation gives value to human life and necessary order in the world. First, we must understand that there is a hierarchy to Creation. This hierarchy includes human relationships in the family and Church (Genesis 2:21-23, Genesis 3:16, 1 Corinthians 11:7-9, 1 Timothy 2:11-14) as well as the distinguishing of man above the rest of Creation for the purpose of dominion and fruitful multiplication of the human race (Genesis 1:26-28). In light of these Scripture passages, we can also understand that human life has value because murder is a direct assault against the image of God, hence God Himself. This is supported by the existence of the sixth commandment in Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17. If human life has value as the express image of God, if our existence has a hierarchical order in which we relate to one another and the rest of the created world, and if the destruction of human life is always a sin (whether by means of abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, etc.), than that value which is inherent in human life only comes from a Creator. This view must therefore be diametrically opposed to a meaningless existence grounded in random chance, making certain that the evolutionary and creationistic views of the value of human life are, just as their theory of origins, mutually exclusive from one another.

What is Man?

In spite of all the effort to develop theories of anthropology from those holding a secular or non-Christian worldview, none have accurately addressed the definition and purpose of man as demonstrated by the Bible. Considering this, there are several points one can come to understand regarding the doctrine of man as represented in Scripture. First, due to sin, all men are primarily and absolutely depraved (Romans 3:23, Jeremiah 17:9). This being true, we can in no way please God in and of ourselves: We are not spiritually injured, but spiritually dead (Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:10-18). An important point to understand about how centrally and completely man is fallen is by considering how holy, perfect, and gracious our God is (1 Corinthians 1:25, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 5:8). Understanding the nature of man and how man is comparable to God his Creator, Biblical anthropology is a two-sided coin which also addresses the fact that man is the crown of God’s creation, having been made in His image (Psalm 8:4-5, Genesis 1:26-27). Realizing how God has created man and how man has demonstrated his capacity and tendency toward sin, this completed picture should cause sinful man to properly view himself in light of a holy God. When this realization is accomplished, man begins to understand his need for a Savior in Jesus Christ and purpose in life to accomplish the plan and will of God for him (Luke 13:3, Romans 6:23, John 14:6, Romans 8:28, 12:2). So then, man is defined by sin, yet redeemed and able to fulfill his purpose in and by obedience to Christ.