No Confidence in the Flesh
This morning I was discussing with my wife her morning Bible study with her mentor. The two of them were able to discern an amazing connection that occurs in Genesis that I have meditated on all day. It has to do with the concept of circumcision, and what that meant for the Jews of ancient times and what it means for us today.
In Philippians 3:3, the apostle Paul gives framework: "...For we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh..."
What is circumcision? We know the literal answer- chop chop, hello collared shirt. But in Biblical concept, it has much deeper meaning. In Genesis 17, we're introduced to circumcision when the LORD comes to Abram and establishes a covenant with him. God says that Abram's offspring and descendants will be a multitude of holy chosen people, and Abram, renamed Abraham, accepts the covenant by being circumcised. The text reads:
As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you...Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised." -Genesis 17:4-10
Paraphrased:
God: Abram, I'm going to give you lots of kids, and I'll always protect them. I just need you to do one thing for me. I want you to get circumcised.
Abraham: Sure thing, G! I'd be happy to. Just one question- what does 'circumcised' mean?
I had always wondered why the sign of the chosen people, the Jews, was circumcision. It's obviously a very personal thing, and not something that can be flaunted. The people could be identified, but only in a very intimate and personal way. Why that particular cut? Couldn't a pierced ear or a tattoo sufficed?
The answer is, probably not. Two things stand out: 1) circumcision had likely never been done before, so it was clearly a unique sign. God marked his people out by a unique unprecedented sign that was not likely to be voluntarily replicated (b/c I mean, who would do that just for kicks?). 2) The progression of the covenant reveals everything. Abraham is 99 years old. He is well past child bearing age, as is his wife, Sarah. Abraham actually laughs at God when He tells him that he will bear many children. God had promised him many offspring in the past, and Abraham's steadfast hope in that was credited to him as righteousness, and here it is presented and formalized in covenant form. So the covenant for offspring comes first- essentially, you are going to have lots of kids. However, it is then followed by God's order for Abraham to, well, cut off part of his manhood. We probably can't imagine what Abraham must have been thinking- first, he knows that he's well past child bearing age, but yeah, God could probably work that out, but now God wants to take away the thing that, you know, is kind of important for the whole act of impregnation too? Of course we know that isn't what circumcision really is, but for someone who lived thousands of years ago and had no idea what it was, it's understandable that he was probably terrified at the thought. Yet it was necessary for him because God had to demonstrate to him that Abraham's faith had to go beyond what he could see with his own eyes. God wanted Abraham to see that he could put no confidence in his own flesh, even though that flesh was important to God's fulfillment of His covenant.
The amazing thing is that Abraham did know this, at least intellectually, and we know he knew this because of how he addressed God before the covenant was given- as El Shaddai. God is first acknowleged in scripture as Elohim- Creator, in Genesis 1:1. God is next referred to in Genesis as Adonai, which was the verbal and written substitute for Yahweh, the holiest name of God which was not allowed to be written or spoken aloud. Adonai means Lord and master. And now, in Genesis 17, we are presented with El Shaddai, which means 'All Sufficient One.' In commonspeak, Abraham addresses the Lord as his all sufficient one, and God says he will bless him with many descendants, and he's going to do it but only if Abraham acknowleges His promise, takes a leap of faith, and get circumcised. In essence, God says, "You call me your sufficiency. Now I am going to ask you to prove to me that it is both belief in your heart as well as your head." We then see Abraham embrace the LORD, getting circumcised with the rest of the men in his household. After this, Abraham probably realized that the act did not harm him in the way he thought it would (and in many ways benefits him and his descendants), and increased his faith accordingly. It is this act of faith necessary to prepare Abraham for his next test, which is a willingness to trust God once again with the sacrifice of the son God promised him, Isaac. As we later find out in that text, even though Abraham knew that he would be called to sacrifice his son, he also had complete confidence that somehow, his son Isaac would be spared or resurrected. In many ways, this test of sacrifice mirrors the circumcision test- refusing to put confidence in his own flesh and blood, and instead trusting God's promises, despite the superficial obstacles that, to his own eyes, would derail God's plan and covenant.
Which brings us back to Phil. 3:3. "We are the true circumcision...and put no confidence in the flesh." This passage takes new meaning in light of how circumcision began. Circumcision was a direct result of Abraham putting no confidence in his own flesh, and putting his complete faith on El Shaddai, his All Sufficient provider. I draw strength in Abraham's faith, because I know that my own physical limitations will never be an obstacle for God's purpose in me.
6 Comments:
re: it was brand new
Circumcision was commonly practiced by the pagan priests of ancient Egypt. I do not know which Egyptian dynasty first started it, or from where they got it from, but if they were doing, it might have been a common practice for other regional religions.
re: why do it for kicks?
Many religions involve rituals which we would consider sadomasochistic - Mayan priests sticking sting rays into their penises, dancing with rattlesnakes, female genital mutilation in Africa, voodoo rituals injecting toxins to feign comatose and then "resurrect" from death, etc...
re: Abraham was beyond child bearing years
If human lifespans in Genesis are to be taken as literal, then the constants of the universe were broken or the Earth had a different solar orbit (and hence much smaller years). As mentioned, Abraham was 99 years old. Methusalah lived to be over 900. Humans, as we know them today, cannot live to be 70 without:
1. modern medicine
2. proper food and nutrition during one's lifespan
3. no manual labor
Even in the Roman times, the oldest people lived (the aristocracy who were tended to by slaves) to maybe 70-80. Thus, I find it highly suspect that nomads, who had to constantly search for their food or tend the fields, with all the natural parasites of the land, etc....could live to be so old.
Thus, either Genesis is wrong and neither Abraham nor Methusalah lived to those crazy times. Or, people aged quite differently than they do today. If the latter, then to try to say that Abraham was beyond child bearing years is completely speculative.
Thanks for the feedback. My point was to make a good theological supposition (not state fact) and understand doctrine better, and your points will help me strengthen it.
Regarding:
1) I should have known better than to make a statement like that, not having researched the history of circumcision. While the pre-dating of it by almost 4000 years certainly weakens the position that Abraham didn't know what it was, it doesn't destroy it either since there was know way of knowing whether Abraham knew what circumcision was or not. And since my theory is based on supposition anyway, there isn't any way to verify or validate. I'll do further research and then modify my thesis to make it more sound.
2) I DO know better than to look through ancient culture with modern western eyes, and I did it anyway, and you busted me on it. ;-)
3) You raise interesting points, but ultimately the age of Abraham is moot. If you decide that he didn't exist at all, then there's no sense in breaking down the rest of the thesis. If he did exist and the age is in question, the length of lifetime could be explained by fewer diseases, use of a different calendar, etc. Or, he and his predecesors may actually have been able to live longer, up until God puts a limit of 120 years on the lifespan of humans. Regardless, that too is moot because the real point is that Abraham himself says he's past child-bearing age. So whether he's 30, 50, or 100, he knows that he physically isn't supposed to be able to have kids, and yet he still chooses to enter into the covenant.
If you have any more thoughts on these or on the point of the thesis itself; i.e. why was circumcision the sign of the covenant; I'd love to hear it.
thanks
-a.
re: the age of Abraham
I dont mean to be beleager (sp.) this, but I don't buy your view that we must assume Abraham is beyond child bearing years.
I think you make an assumption that is very similar (and yes, understandable) to the assumptions that non-biologically inclined people make about Creation week. IF God created lions and tigers and whalruses and hindgut fermenting bacteria in a literal happy koombaya Garden of Eden 6-7 k years ago, then those animals were NOT the animals that we know today. Adam supposedly walked amongst the animals and the animals neither harmed him, nor the other animals. Thus, there were no carnivores. If lions and tigers were not carnivores, then what did they eat? If it's a perfect system (as it is declared in Genesis), then there must be energy and mass flowing through the animals. Thus, they had to eat.
The simple answer is that they ate grass, not other animals. If this occurred, then they must have been a completely different species. Take a look at the differences between lions and say a deer. Many anatomical differences are attributable to either chasing prey or escaping predators, we'll discount those for now. But what differences do you see in the facial structures? ALL herbivores have enlarged muscles on their cheeks, called masseters. Look at deer, horses, etc..., you'll see large cheek muscles. Carnivores, by contrast, have reduced masseters, but enlarged temporalis muscles. These muscles are large muscles behind and below the eyes.
Why is this relevant? Combine this with the different shape of the jaws/teeth of the animals and you'll create two vastly different systems - one optimized to eating grasses (deer) and the other optimized to eating meet (lions).
This also plays into digestive system. Deer, cows, giraffes, etc...all have various pouches in their stomach to accommodate large masses of bacteria. Why? Because plants have cell walls and animals do not have the enzymes to break down the cells walls. Lions do not have these. Thus, if they were to eat grasses and actually get nourishment from them, at the very least, they would need a vastly different structures in their jaw/tooth/facial muscles/digestive system. If that is the case, then we have a creature that is not a lion at all.
Similarly, the people of Genesis (Abraham and Methusalah) could NOT be biologically the same kind of people we're accustomed today. Simply "capping off human lifespans at 120 years" does not solve the problem. For lack of a better term, human bodies are genetically programed to begin to decay at 30 or so. By 70, without modern medicine, one will have a range of problems simply by wear and tear on the body. "Capping human lifespans at 120" does nothing because, if people in Genesis time are like the people of today, then no one would reach it.
Additionally, where is it stated that God allowed people to live longer?
Thus, you in order for Genesis to be accurate, Abraham and Methusalah were NOT like the people of today. They aged at different rates than what we're accustomed to. That is the only logical explanation. Since we dont know how people aged then, it is completely speculative to assume that Abraham, at 99 was beyond child-bearing years.
On a side note, men today can sire children very late in life. I know of men doing it well into their 80s, but their 90s - I haven't heard one way or the other.
But of course, Sara the wife most likely was past menopause.
I'll entertain the rest of argument about circumcision at some point. But honestly, I think the books of Genesis and Revelation should be taken out of the Bible on similar grounds to the Apocrypha.
When Constantine wanted the books of the Bible put together, they did on the basis "internal consistency." I don't know what they were thinking with Revelation because that book is not consistent in style nor substance with any other book of the Bible.
As for Genesis, the literary style is far too exagerative. Creation week, Noah's Flood, the Tower of Babel, Soddom and Gommarah, Methusalah reaching 1000 years old - reading those stories is like reading Gilgamesh or Beowolf. How those stories be true when they don't make any sense?
You have my thoughts on most of those, but what about the Tower of Babel. Huh? What?
OK, I'll assume that people are crazy enough that they think they could reach God by building a large tower. But what would this offend God? Why would He care? When the Sears Tower was built, he didn't strike the builders down.
What about causing confusion through creating languages? This makes no sense at all. If the people were as determined to build the tower, making them speak in different languages would not stop them. Manual labor does not require a lot of in-depth communication. Whoever's in charge just needs to point to a brick and point to where you want it. You don't need to speak the same language. The idea is ridiculous.
Then, are we supposed to believe that all the languages of the world emminated from there? That the tower of babel led to the creation of the Aztez, Japanese, Aborigini languages? That all these people then beamed themselves elsewhere in the world? Ridiculous.
As for Noah's Ark - there is absolutely no way that a literal world-wide flood could have occurred in the last couple thousand years. One only needs to look at the Amazon rain forest or the geology of the world to realize that is crazy.
As for Abraham being 99, maybe he was. Most likely, he wasn't. A far more rational explanation is that the extreme age of Abraham and Methusalah is simple literary exageration. EVERY culture of the world exagerates the humanity of their historical icons. Look at King Arthur, look at Homer's exageration of the battle of Troy, watch "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and see the superhuman skills as the fly in the air. If their characteristics were exagerated, does that mean that King Arthur, the battle of Troy, and Abraham did not exist? Of course not. No one can to prove they did not exist. It's just when you're dealing with stories 1000s of years old and written down 1000s of years after they occur, you must be extremely skeptical about the details. Logic demands that.
My thesis - literal interpretation of Genesis is an affront of logic. it's become too much of a distraction. Christianity would be better served if it removed the entire book.
Why should this be allowed? How can we dare remove book from the Bible simply because we don't like them? Well, look at Constantine's Bible group. They put books of the Bible together simply because they liked them. It's the exact same principle, except in reverse. That doesn't mean that they got it right. At the time, they had no reason to discount the creation week - to them, it was literally true and they had no way of knowing otherwise. Now, 1700 years later, it's a vastly different story. We should have a different understanding of what's logical. Neither Genesis nor Revelation are logical.
Aside from the fact taht I'm not sure if Abraham spoke what we know as Hebrew or even Biblical Hebrew, and hence used the equivalent of "you are my sustenance," i guess your overall point makes sense. Or, at least, is logically consistent with your assumptions.
Still, if I have any male children, they will NOT be circumsized. I don't see the relevance. If you have any theories on why it's relevant nowadays, I'd like to hear it.
verse 13. And the Lord sayethed unto Abraham, "update your freaking website, beeeeeaccccch."
Post a Comment
<< Home