We find out in the
book of Joshua that Israel failed to keep this covenantal requirement during
their years in the wilderness. They
failed to continue their expression of gratitude to the grace shown them by
their supreme patron, thus dishonoring themselves. Should we not find
this to be quite odd? This was God’s covenantal requirement, and Israel had
clearly seen their covenant God acting on their behalf, fulfilling His age-old
promises, in both their deliverance and their time in the wilderness before
re-entering their Promised Land. Yet they failed to exercise this
requirement that would have been quite basic to their honor-and-shame-defined
world. Perhaps they were waiting to see if the God that rained down
plagues on the Egyptians, led them in pillars of cloud and fire, parted the Red
Sea, delivered manna daily, and made water flow from rocks, could actually
bring them into the place that He had for them? If He managed that, then
they could trust Him, and then, they would express their gratitude by
re-engaging in this covenant requirement, showing their God that they were
willing to once again trust Him and accept His covenant.
It seems as if there
might very well have been an underlying attitude that they were doing God a
favor by fulfilling and then continuing the practice of circumcision as a sign
of covenant. That attitude appears to be well reflected in the fact that,
rather than look to the requirement as a sign and symbol of gratitude to their God
for His demonstration and extension of grace, mercy and faithfulness to them as
children of Abraham, it became a source of pride and a basis for excluding
other peoples from the blessings associated with the covenant. God had
told Abraham that through him, and then through his descendants as well, all
nations would be blessed; and part of Israel’s charge was to be a light to the
nations. Israel, however, held up the very thing that symbolized a
covenant that was designed to extend His blessings to all peoples, and pointed
to it as the sign of their God’s favor on them and them alone. They were not actively seeking to extend the
honor of their patron by loudly sharing about His good deeds, which would be
the standard practice of grateful clients.
Israel, not unlike we
find through the history of Christendom through this very day, took a gift of
God and used it to build walls of separation, so as to keep God’s blessing all
to themselves (as if the covenant God was ever going to bless Israel---or
anyone else for that matter---in its maintaining of exclusionary
practices). Rather than seeking to expand their patron’s clientele and
the implied kinship group of their patron, which would have been customary,
they acted to limit the influence and honor of their patron, whilst limiting
his roster of clientele. The sign of the
covenant became a tradition that basically served to indicate that they were
graciously choosing to be God’s people, and by extension, that the God owed
them His blessings. It seems as if
Israel accepted the premise that their God was limited, that the things with
which He could bless them were a limited good, and that the honor that could be
gained by being in His patronage was a limited good, so they had to protect
their own interest by limiting who could participate in their God’s circle of
grace.
Circumcision, the
symbol of God’s covenant faithfulness, and the mark that served to indicate
recognition of the Creator God as one’s patron, was also meant to consistently
remind God’s people of their responsibilities in accordance with that covenant,
which included extending the covenant family of their patron, and the
associated blessings, to include all the peoples of the world. If the
responsibilities were forsaken, then the symbol itself was pointless. The
one that has been brought into the covenant, and then proceeds to shrink back
from the covenantal duties to be the light that extends God’s blessings,
instead throwing up walls and barriers and exclusionary principles, brings
shame and dishonor to both himself and his patron, and might as well not even
bear the marks of covenant. God said to Abraham that “Any uncircumcised
male…will be cut off from his people---he has failed to carry out My
requirement” (Genesis 17:14). This is very
strong “shaming” language.
Making an application
then, if we find ourselves falling into patterns of separation that keep us
from being covenantal people in line with God’s covenantal purposes, which is
the continued extension of the Christ’s kingdom through the preaching of the
Gospel that goes forth with Resurrection power for eternal life (here and now)
for all who believe; but instead, find ourselves withdrawing into the walls of
our churches in a supposed fostering of holiness as we await the “end times,”
or making and keeping Christianity a private and eminently personal matter
between us and God that is almost entirely concerned with getting and staying
saved so that we can simply escape earth and spend eternity in heaven, or
encouraging a mentality of “us against the world,” we dishonor our patron and
fail as His clients. It is likely that God
would see that as nothing less than a failure to carry out what He requires
from His chosen people, and a dishonoring slap in the face to Him. God’s
warning to us is that such a person is not part of His covenant people---they
are cut off.
No comments:
Post a Comment