), and implying that the "faces" of God, Jacob, and Esau were all the same. Armstrong argued that by facing his brother, Jacob confronted the "face" of God, but also confronted himself. Jacob came to terms not only with his wronged brother, but with Jacob's inner Esau, the alter ego that Jacob hated and had tried to discard. Armstrong concluded that only by confronting the subconscious aspects of his personality that filled his waking self with fear and disgust could Jacob heal his internal conflict and experience God's healing power. Kselman cited the identification of the adversary as Divine as the chief difficulty with the story of Jacob wrestling with a mysterious adversary in . Kselman suggested that at an earlier level of the story, the opponent may have been some Canaanite god attempting to keep Jacob from entering the land. But Israel's monotheism did away with the possibility of supernatural adversaries to God. So the resulting text enigmatically has God both originate the quest of returning to Canaan in and 13 and the oppose the quest in . Everett Fox argued that the wrestling scene in both symbolized and resolved beforehand Jacob's meeting with Esau in , much as William Shakespeare's prebattle dream scenes did in his plays Julius Caesar, Richard III, and Macbeth. The struggle motif, introduced in , returned in , but Fox argued that Jacob's whole life and personality were at stake, as despite his recent material successes, they were still under the pall of Esau's curse in . Fox concluded that the name change in was central, suggesting both victory in the struggle and the emergence of a new power. Ephraim Speiser read the eerie encounter at Penuel in to teach that no one may grasp God's complete design, which remains reasonable and just no matter who the chosen agent may be at any given point. Genesis chapter 34 Noting the similarity between the actions of Simeon and Levi in , on the one hand, and the instructions in for killing the men but taking the women and livestock captive, on the other hand, James Kugel observed that it is almost as if Simeon and Levi were obeying the Deteronomic law before it was given. Kugel reported that some modern interpreters deduced that the editor responsible for inserting the Dinah story in Genesis was particularly connected with Deuteronomy or at least familiar with its laws.