Day 8, Wed. 21 February; Genesis 17.1-16f

For all that the Hebrew Scriptures were written in a context long, long ago and far, far away they sometimes achieve startling currency. Within the last day I read a news article on how Iceland plans to legislate to outlaw male circumcision. It's interesting how often deeply held values collide with each other. Western societies, particularly the Nordic ones, are famous for espousing religious tolerance. However,  Circumcision, as practised upon small boys, is regarded as a form of child abuse today whereas in the time of Israel's patriarchs it was the sign par excellence of belonging to God's (male) people. Being a priest with no surgical skills I am very glad that in Christianity circumcision has been replaced by baptism!

If we can get the image of grown men mutilating baby boys out of our minds this passage has much else to give us pause for thought. Primarily it is about covenant. In ancient western Asia covenant was a solemn, binding agreement between two parties, a king and his people, that defined their relationship. The king promised to rule the people for their benefit and not his own, and to defend them in time of war. The people promised to provide the king with what he needed, and to obey him. Each party entered the relationship with rights, obligations and great dignity.

Israel's covenant was with God. 7 or 8 variations on this covenant are found in the bible, the last and greatest of which is the New Covenant made possible by Jesus' death and resurrection. In this passage from Genesis 17, however, the general agreement is spelt out in more than usual detail. It's well-described by Peter Walker in his With Love to the World commentary, which I won't repeat, except to say that (male) circumcision formed part of the covenant; it was a tangible reminder of the solemn, binding promises to God that Israelite males had made.

Probably the nearest arrangement we have in today's western society to the ancient, west Asian covenant is marriage. As is often pointed out the Bible describes a variety of forms of marriage. The form I believe the New Testament subscribed to (since Jesus quoted Genesis 2.24 in Matt. 19.4-6, and Paul did so in Ephesians 5.31) involves a covenant, a solemn, binding promise between two parties, each of whom enters the relationship with rights, obligations and great dignity. The 7th Commandment, "You shall not commit adultery", indicates how seriously the covenant of marriage was intended to be taken.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Day 39, Sat, 24 Mar.: Philippians 2.5-11

I call this passage "The Big Vee".  I'm not comparing it with St George Rugby League team's jersey, with its big red V on a white background. Far from it! In the world of biblical studies the study of who Jesus Christ is and was is called "Christology". Christology plays between the two poles of Jesus' humanity and His divinity. If you consider that Jesus was simply a human being, a man who may have said and done wonderful things and made an impact for good on the world, but ultimately was as the rest of us, you are said to have a "low" Christology. If, on the other hand, you are convinced that Jesus was God, who came to earth in the guise of a human, but was actually a heavenly being, then you are said to have a "high" Christology. Most Christologies situate Jesus somewhere between these two poles, though the differences between the poles seem paradoxical and irreconcilable. "The Big Vee" that this famous hymn describes ...
Read more

Day 35, Tue., 20 Mar.: Psalm 71.1-14

I remember being told that one of the main differences between Asian countries that are not majority Christian and western cultures that are is that the former are shame-based and the latter are guilt-based. To dig a bit deeper, "in cultural anthropology," says Mr Wikipedia, (who continues for some time here, while incurring no sense either of shame or of guilt in the author of this post!) "a shame society, also called shame culture or honour-shame culture, is a society in which the primary device for gaining control over children and maintaining social order is the inculcation of shame and the complementary threat of ostracism. A shame society is contrasted with a guilt society, in which control is maintained by creating and continually reinforcing the feeling of guilt (and the expectation of punishment now or in the afterlife) for certain condemned behaviors, and with a fear society, in which control is kept by the fear of retribution." Shame is a painful, soci...
Read more

Day 16, Thu., 1 Mar.: John 2.13-22

I've lived my life according to the principles of reasonability and moderation. I can't ever becoming so angry that I've made a public spectacle of myself, as Jesus did in this passage. I do have passions. The environment is one; fairness and consideration of each other is another. "What you see depends upon where you stand" is a self-evident, guiding truth for me. Care of children is a third. There is little that enrages me more than the abuse of the powerless and helpless by the powerful, and that takes a poignantly obvious shape in the abuse of children. But although I become angry I've never behaved in such a way that I've been at risk of harm, gaol or even death. I have a friend who, a few years ago, found herself chained to a gate in the Hunter Valley in her effort to prevent trains taking their kilometre long loads of coal to Port Newcastle and out into the world for burning and the release of carbon over against the provision of energy and the r...
Read more