Genesis 12:1-3
Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."
What does 'blessing' mean? It contrasts so obviously with 'luck', which is the usual channel by which expect to receive good things. Blessing indicates that God is the source of good things. But it is also an act of speaking, not merely showering good things upon the person. A blessing is a promissory note, or, perhaps, an invocation of the goodness of God. It is something said, as well as something done.
Blessing all the families of the earth is the point of God's election of Abram. His purpose in selecting is to include; though this is not without its exclusionary impact either. In this key passage, Abram is singled out not only for blessing but that he might 'be a blessing', through the making great of his name. The greatness of his name seems to be part of the blessing, but also the means by which the blessing goes out to ... well, whom? God will 'bless those who bless him'. Reactions to Abraham as the holder of the divine promise and the bearer of the divine favour are a signal of how it may go for a person vis a vis the Lord.
But here, already, is an apparent tension between the universal scope of the blessing to be introduced through Abram, and the fact that not all will accept it. Through Abram, all of the families of the earth will be blessed. But, there will indeed be some who curse him, who God will curse in turn. This is, of course, a part of the blessing to Abram - his protection and vindication against his enemies. The blessing is not without its cursing: it is universal, but not all-inclusive.
Showing posts with label Genesis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Genesis. Show all posts
Monday, July 07, 2008
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Safety and the City
In the Scriptures, the promise of protection is necessary foil to the promise of provision. As soon as man steps outside the Garden, he is unsafe. Abel was not safe from the jealousy of his brother; Cain in his turn was not safe from the possibility of vengeance as a wanderer on the earth and needed protection. It is this wandering nomad, in fear for his life because of his own bloodguilt, who becomes the founder of the city of Enoch, named after his son (Gen 4:17). Though civilization shows the evidence of human flourishing – the beginnings of farming and tool-making and music – it is also begun out of fear of reprisal. The city is as much fortress as it is forum. Far from bringing anarchy, the turn of humankind away from God (and the revelation of their wickedness, 6:5) results in a collaboration amongst human beings that is ambivalent. The mission of mankind to fill the earth, renewed in 5:1, is hampered by the rather sullen insistence of people that they ought to collect together for fear of the murderous intentions of other beings.Yet, it is too simplistic to read the Tower of Babel as merely a tale of pride gone wrong. The desire which drives the massive collective exercise of its construction (using bricks!) is not merely arrogance. The proposed city is to have a ‘tower with its top in the heavens’, granting a heavenly perspective on the earth; and it will be the occasion of the making of name for themselves (Gen 11:4). But there is also a note of fear in the motivation given: ‘otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth’. What was so unappealing about being scattered in this way?
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Abraham's Test and the Providence of Yhwh
Genesis 22:1-19 tells the story to which Israel looked back for the revelation of Yhwh Yireh - ‘Yhwh the provider’. It was the story of Yhwh’s trial (nissah) of Abraham, too. At the outset, a word comes from God that makes Abraham’s experience of God to this point baffling (22:1). He cannot see the pattern of the divine plan. He cannot make sense of this command according to some rational scheme; or according to some morality to which he imagines that God is subject like everyone else; or, by dint of some hermeneutic strategy lately learned, hear something other than what he has heard. He does not even begin to doubt his own sanity. There is the semblance of cruelty in the request, even: God reminds him that he, Abraham, loves his son (22:2).
With what attitude does Abraham set out on his journey? In the other pieces we have of his story, we have presented to us a fearful doubter. In Egypt he presents his wife as his sister; in the disastrous begetting of Ishmael, he is seen (with Sarai) as attempting to foreshorten the gap between the divine promise and its realization in his life. In those tests he stumbled; here now, he silently presses on towards the mountain. He cannot see what is ahead, but rather only possesses the promises of the God who called him. As he says to Isaac, ‘God himself will provide the sacrifice’. That is the perspective that to which he clings.
At the climax of the story, the angel stays Abraham’s hand; and the ram – a superior sacrifice? – is found caught in the thicket. This provision of God of course is not merely a result of his action as a supreme being – if it were, then this whole episode would certainly be an exercise in divine sadism of the hapless human subject. However: this is not the God that Abraham encounters here; he proceeds on the basis of the God who has previously revealed himself to him, and meets at his journey’s end the Yhwh Yireh. Abraham receives the provision of a ram as a demonstration of God’s determination to be the Lord of the covenant with his people in its concrete history.
With what attitude does Abraham set out on his journey? In the other pieces we have of his story, we have presented to us a fearful doubter. In Egypt he presents his wife as his sister; in the disastrous begetting of Ishmael, he is seen (with Sarai) as attempting to foreshorten the gap between the divine promise and its realization in his life. In those tests he stumbled; here now, he silently presses on towards the mountain. He cannot see what is ahead, but rather only possesses the promises of the God who called him. As he says to Isaac, ‘God himself will provide the sacrifice’. That is the perspective that to which he clings.
At the climax of the story, the angel stays Abraham’s hand; and the ram – a superior sacrifice? – is found caught in the thicket. This provision of God of course is not merely a result of his action as a supreme being – if it were, then this whole episode would certainly be an exercise in divine sadism of the hapless human subject. However: this is not the God that Abraham encounters here; he proceeds on the basis of the God who has previously revealed himself to him, and meets at his journey’s end the Yhwh Yireh. Abraham receives the provision of a ram as a demonstration of God’s determination to be the Lord of the covenant with his people in its concrete history.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
An anthropology of temptation?
A couple of posts ago I buried in a piece of verbosity a suggestion that I thought might interest some people: namely, that temptation is part of being human in a very fundamental way. Jesus needed to undergo temptation in order to identify with us, to be like us in every regard. Which sends back to thinking about the garden...
There is but one restriction: the notorious tree. The restriction stands as a reminder to the creature of his creatureliness – for man of all creatures was most likely to forget this about himself and to believe in his own independence from God and his Word. And yet, as Bonhoeffer writes ‘innocence means clinging to the Word of God with pure undivided hearts’.[1] That is why the Tempter, when he comes, comes armed with the Word of God; and concealing his true nature.[2] The beauty of the lie he told the woman and the man was that it was not completely a lie. In fact, it was close to the truth. ‘Did God really say’ he whispered, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden’? (Gen 3:1)
There had been a command, true, and it had been about trees and eating. But the woman is able to put aside this first suggestion: God in fact had said ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die’ (Gen 2:16-17); only one tree was off limits. Far greater was their freedom than their restriction. But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’ (Gen 3:4-5). God really doesn't have your best interests at heart, but is only protecting himself; God doesn't want you to have a power that you deserve but that only he has; God has lied about what will happen if you disobey him; without God you can be your own moral arbiter: these were profoundly attractive – indeed, tempting – lies. They are an attack on the Word of God itself: on the very God-ness of God. Adam’s ingratitude at the extraordinary liberty in the task offered to him and his failure to imagine his task as sufficient for his needs are part of his deafness to the voice of God, his lack of response to his call.
The temptation has three aspects: first, one that relates to the flesh and its lusts – the allure of the fruit is matched by the hunger of the man and woman. Then, secondly, there is their sheer disbelief – their lack of faith in the Word of God about himself and about them. There is also, thirdly, a challenge to the power and authority of God involved: that his rule is not as absolute as it appears: the scent of revolution is in the air. Adam is tempted in his flesh, his faith and his allegiance to God.[3]
[1] Bonhoeffer, Temptation, p. 15
[2] ‘The voice of the tempter does not come out of an abyss only recognized as ‘Hell’. It completely conceals its origin. It is suddenly near me and speaks to me…Indeed there is no sign of the origin of the tempter in fire and brimstone. The denial of the origin belongs to the essence of the seducer.’ Ibid.
[3] Bonhoeffer applies this triad to Jesus, but doesn’t read it back into Adam’s (and Israel’s) temptation as I have here. Ibid., p. 18-21
There is but one restriction: the notorious tree. The restriction stands as a reminder to the creature of his creatureliness – for man of all creatures was most likely to forget this about himself and to believe in his own independence from God and his Word. And yet, as Bonhoeffer writes ‘innocence means clinging to the Word of God with pure undivided hearts’.[1] That is why the Tempter, when he comes, comes armed with the Word of God; and concealing his true nature.[2] The beauty of the lie he told the woman and the man was that it was not completely a lie. In fact, it was close to the truth. ‘Did God really say’ he whispered, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden’? (Gen 3:1)
There had been a command, true, and it had been about trees and eating. But the woman is able to put aside this first suggestion: God in fact had said ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die’ (Gen 2:16-17); only one tree was off limits. Far greater was their freedom than their restriction. But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’ (Gen 3:4-5). God really doesn't have your best interests at heart, but is only protecting himself; God doesn't want you to have a power that you deserve but that only he has; God has lied about what will happen if you disobey him; without God you can be your own moral arbiter: these were profoundly attractive – indeed, tempting – lies. They are an attack on the Word of God itself: on the very God-ness of God. Adam’s ingratitude at the extraordinary liberty in the task offered to him and his failure to imagine his task as sufficient for his needs are part of his deafness to the voice of God, his lack of response to his call.
The temptation has three aspects: first, one that relates to the flesh and its lusts – the allure of the fruit is matched by the hunger of the man and woman. Then, secondly, there is their sheer disbelief – their lack of faith in the Word of God about himself and about them. There is also, thirdly, a challenge to the power and authority of God involved: that his rule is not as absolute as it appears: the scent of revolution is in the air. Adam is tempted in his flesh, his faith and his allegiance to God.[3]
[1] Bonhoeffer, Temptation, p. 15
[2] ‘The voice of the tempter does not come out of an abyss only recognized as ‘Hell’. It completely conceals its origin. It is suddenly near me and speaks to me…Indeed there is no sign of the origin of the tempter in fire and brimstone. The denial of the origin belongs to the essence of the seducer.’ Ibid.
[3] Bonhoeffer applies this triad to Jesus, but doesn’t read it back into Adam’s (and Israel’s) temptation as I have here. Ibid., p. 18-21
Monday, October 02, 2006
'Order' in Genesis 2 - 3
I am teaching a class in Moore's Introduction to the Bible.
This week we are looking at one of my favourite sections: Genesis 1-11.
But there is a strange comment in the notes about the order of creation and its reversal in the fall. That is, in Genesis 2 you have a hierarchy of man, woman, creature; in the fall the problem is the woman listens to the creature and the man listens to the woman; and then in judgment, the right order is restored as God addresses man, woman, creature. I have heard this preached in sermons, read it in books and heard it bandied about as evidence of the order and the sin which is at root the upsetting of this order.
Only: in Genesis 2 we don't EVER see order established in this way! In fact, the creatures are made it seems before them both... It is a curious logic indeed.
This week we are looking at one of my favourite sections: Genesis 1-11.
But there is a strange comment in the notes about the order of creation and its reversal in the fall. That is, in Genesis 2 you have a hierarchy of man, woman, creature; in the fall the problem is the woman listens to the creature and the man listens to the woman; and then in judgment, the right order is restored as God addresses man, woman, creature. I have heard this preached in sermons, read it in books and heard it bandied about as evidence of the order and the sin which is at root the upsetting of this order.
Only: in Genesis 2 we don't EVER see order established in this way! In fact, the creatures are made it seems before them both... It is a curious logic indeed.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Smacking: some summary thoughts
Well: thankyou everyone for the discussion! I thought I would just post a concluding reflection, trying to draw the threads together somewhat. I offered the debate without claiming to be a particularly successful or expert parent: I think I am just as frustrated and bewildered and delighted as everyone else by the whole experience!
I guess I knew already that this would be a controversial issue. Almost anything to do with parenting is. I think this is partly to do with the universality of the issue – we have all experienced the parenting of our parents, and many people are or are potentially parents. But also, it is because of the dearth of guidance available as to how to do the really difficult job of parenting. We could add to this the fact that we have so much of ourselves invested in our children: our whole vision of what it is to be a human being, or ought to be. And, we do love them, and we don’t want to think we have erred in bringing them up. It is even more sensitive than sexuality, I venture to say.
It is worth saying that this is true of this issue in the wider community, and not just amongst Christians. If you check the pages of parenting magazines you will find some of the most passionate and articulate debate about what it means to be human going around.
I raised the issue of smacking. We don’t do it, though I am not opposed to smacking per se. For me, it was a practical as much as philosophical decision. (I need to add that none of the opinions expressed in this blog are necessarily those of my wife!) I think that the following debate was marked by some confusion, because some of the proponents of smacking equated non-smacking with non-disciplining. This is far from the case: however imperfect our system might be, we certainly do discipline and rebuke our children.
The issue of the bible was raised: smackers claimed that there was ‘clear biblical evidence’ in favour of smacking and noted how little scripture was forwarded by the other side. There certainly are some strong statements in Proverbs about discipline that appear to relate to corporal punishment, for example:
Proverbs 13:24 24 He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.
Proverbs 23:13-14 13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die. 14 Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.
However, it was in my view rightly answered that the verses refer to discipline per se and not necessarily to the method of discipline. Further, to take the verses literally would mean investment in rods, which pro-smacking parents haven’t seem by and large to have done. On the other hand, there is no missing the very strong affirmation of the value of discipline for the child here. So: I think that corporal punishment is permitted, but not demanded at this point. (Which I think was all you were arguing for CraigS, right?)
This lack of biblical evidence leads me to another observation. On many issues on which people are looking for direct guidance, the Bible offers little or piecemeal advice. The bible is not meant to be comprehensive in these matters. But our tendency is sometimes to overstate the advice the bible gives. I think this is true on gender issues – we just don’t get that much information on being a man or a woman in the Bible, but we keep looking for it. Sure there is some guidance: but not as much as you would think, given the way we keep talking about it. Within the Bible’s teaching there are many many ways to be a man or a woman.
Likewise with parenting. One of the worst things about some Christian parenting manuals is the way in which what amounts to practical wisdom is given a quasi-scriptural authority - you know, ‘this is growing children God’s way’ and all that. You’d think Genesis was actually all about routine feeding of babies. Strangely, it isn’t. One of the worst examples of this is the way in which the life of Israel is used as a direct example for the life of Christian families without any differentiation in terms of the gospel. The notion of covenant is particularly misused in this regard.
Christians ought to be good at life wisdom, and do have the foundation for knowing all sorts of things about the world that secular people might be blind to see: but wisdom is a broad and flexible category of knowledge about the world. (This is why Solomon’s botanical manuals didn’t end up in the Bible, I imagine… though a piece of his erotica did, didn’t it?)
Which is all by way of saying: there just isn’t that much information about the issue of smacking in the Bible on which to make a dogmatic statement about it.
However: it does seem to me that a number of theological/philosophical/ethical issues have been raised by our discussion that would definitely feed in to a discussion of parental discipline.
1 - There seemed to be some differences as to what the point of parenting should be and then the role of discipline within that.
2 – Coupled to that: was childhood a thing to be enjoyed for its own sake, or is it to be seen as a preparation for adulthood mainly? Is the exuberance of childhood to be celebrated or curbed?
3 – What is the relationship between anger and punishment in the parent-child relationship? In fact, what IS punishment?
4 – What is violence? Is smacking violent?
5 – How does all this relate to the character of God the Father and his chastisement of Christians for their good? I am thinking of Hebrews 12:7-11 :
7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? 8 If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! 10 Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. 11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it
I guess I knew already that this would be a controversial issue. Almost anything to do with parenting is. I think this is partly to do with the universality of the issue – we have all experienced the parenting of our parents, and many people are or are potentially parents. But also, it is because of the dearth of guidance available as to how to do the really difficult job of parenting. We could add to this the fact that we have so much of ourselves invested in our children: our whole vision of what it is to be a human being, or ought to be. And, we do love them, and we don’t want to think we have erred in bringing them up. It is even more sensitive than sexuality, I venture to say.
It is worth saying that this is true of this issue in the wider community, and not just amongst Christians. If you check the pages of parenting magazines you will find some of the most passionate and articulate debate about what it means to be human going around.
I raised the issue of smacking. We don’t do it, though I am not opposed to smacking per se. For me, it was a practical as much as philosophical decision. (I need to add that none of the opinions expressed in this blog are necessarily those of my wife!) I think that the following debate was marked by some confusion, because some of the proponents of smacking equated non-smacking with non-disciplining. This is far from the case: however imperfect our system might be, we certainly do discipline and rebuke our children.
The issue of the bible was raised: smackers claimed that there was ‘clear biblical evidence’ in favour of smacking and noted how little scripture was forwarded by the other side. There certainly are some strong statements in Proverbs about discipline that appear to relate to corporal punishment, for example:
Proverbs 13:24 24 He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.
Proverbs 23:13-14 13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die. 14 Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.
However, it was in my view rightly answered that the verses refer to discipline per se and not necessarily to the method of discipline. Further, to take the verses literally would mean investment in rods, which pro-smacking parents haven’t seem by and large to have done. On the other hand, there is no missing the very strong affirmation of the value of discipline for the child here. So: I think that corporal punishment is permitted, but not demanded at this point. (Which I think was all you were arguing for CraigS, right?)
This lack of biblical evidence leads me to another observation. On many issues on which people are looking for direct guidance, the Bible offers little or piecemeal advice. The bible is not meant to be comprehensive in these matters. But our tendency is sometimes to overstate the advice the bible gives. I think this is true on gender issues – we just don’t get that much information on being a man or a woman in the Bible, but we keep looking for it. Sure there is some guidance: but not as much as you would think, given the way we keep talking about it. Within the Bible’s teaching there are many many ways to be a man or a woman.
Likewise with parenting. One of the worst things about some Christian parenting manuals is the way in which what amounts to practical wisdom is given a quasi-scriptural authority - you know, ‘this is growing children God’s way’ and all that. You’d think Genesis was actually all about routine feeding of babies. Strangely, it isn’t. One of the worst examples of this is the way in which the life of Israel is used as a direct example for the life of Christian families without any differentiation in terms of the gospel. The notion of covenant is particularly misused in this regard.
Christians ought to be good at life wisdom, and do have the foundation for knowing all sorts of things about the world that secular people might be blind to see: but wisdom is a broad and flexible category of knowledge about the world. (This is why Solomon’s botanical manuals didn’t end up in the Bible, I imagine… though a piece of his erotica did, didn’t it?)
Which is all by way of saying: there just isn’t that much information about the issue of smacking in the Bible on which to make a dogmatic statement about it.
However: it does seem to me that a number of theological/philosophical/ethical issues have been raised by our discussion that would definitely feed in to a discussion of parental discipline.
1 - There seemed to be some differences as to what the point of parenting should be and then the role of discipline within that.
2 – Coupled to that: was childhood a thing to be enjoyed for its own sake, or is it to be seen as a preparation for adulthood mainly? Is the exuberance of childhood to be celebrated or curbed?
3 – What is the relationship between anger and punishment in the parent-child relationship? In fact, what IS punishment?
4 – What is violence? Is smacking violent?
5 – How does all this relate to the character of God the Father and his chastisement of Christians for their good? I am thinking of Hebrews 12:7-11 :
7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? 8 If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! 10 Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. 11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Creation 'Science' and Calvin
I have to say that Creation 'Science' makes me hopping mad (and perhaps it is too easy a target for hopping and not many of my readers will demurr, though I could be wrong)... so forgive the lack of balance in what follows. I know it comes from an often godly desire to uphold the authority of the Bible, but as such it is a human attempt and actually serves to diminish its authority. It is bad science, but - worse - it is bad exegesis and bad theology. Though well intended, it is apologetically disastrous.
I always think it is weird how the 'Creation' 'Science' people like Answers in Genesis put lists of qualified scientists on their website. On the one hand, 'Creation' 'Science' urges us to mistrust secular science and the academy; on the other, they plead for credibility from the very thing they repudiate. Which is to be? Further, though apparently we can't trust non-christian scientists to date the earth, we can trust them to come up with life-saving drugs... There seems to be a real confusion here.
Interestingly Calvin in his fabulous Institutes II.14-16 has a very high view of the capacity for 'secular' human science within its prescribed limits:
'if we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonour the Spirit of God. For by holding the gifts of the Spirit in slight esteem, we contemn and reproach the Spirit himself.'
I always think it is weird how the 'Creation' 'Science' people like Answers in Genesis put lists of qualified scientists on their website. On the one hand, 'Creation' 'Science' urges us to mistrust secular science and the academy; on the other, they plead for credibility from the very thing they repudiate. Which is to be? Further, though apparently we can't trust non-christian scientists to date the earth, we can trust them to come up with life-saving drugs... There seems to be a real confusion here.
Interestingly Calvin in his fabulous Institutes II.14-16 has a very high view of the capacity for 'secular' human science within its prescribed limits:
'if we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonour the Spirit of God. For by holding the gifts of the Spirit in slight esteem, we contemn and reproach the Spirit himself.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)