The One-Sided Covenant(s)

Tonight I want to consider a strange but essential idea that can be seen in a few places throughout the Old Testament and all through Paul's writings in the New Testament. It's the idea of the 'one-sided covenant'. I will be considering specifically Genesis 13 - 15 and Romans 5.

A little background first on what's going on:

Genesis 13 begins soon after Abram and his family have finally come to live in the land God had promised to give to Abram's descendants. Abram and his nephew Lot (the son of his dead brother who Abram had charge over and had raised from a boy), had become very rich in livestock, Abram among the wealthiest and most powerful in the land. They decided to part ways because they had outgrown the ability to stay together. Their servants were fighting with one another daily and Abram grew tired of the squabbles. Abram gave Lot his pick of the land and Lot chose the fertile Jordan valley, where the towns Sodom and Gomorrah happened to be. After Lot and his family and possessions move on, Abram received a visit from God who confirmed again that He would give Abram and his descendants all of the land he could see. Abram went to settle near Hebron. 

In very brief summary (of extremely important events), Sodom and Gomorrah became involved in a war and the citizens of Sodom were carried off as P.O.W.'s, including Lot and his family. Abram heard about it, got pissed, and sent his fighting men (yes, he had a personal army) to rectify the situation. Abram's army routed five kings and their armies (I told you he was powerful) and brought Lot and the other citizens of Sodom home. Abram was met at the battlefield by Melchizedek, the priest of God Most High and king of Salem (Jeru-Salem?) who told him he was blessed of God Most High and gave him bread and wine. Abram gave Melchizedek a tenth of all of the plunder of the five kings (interestingly, that tenth, or tithe, was Abram's entire portion of the plunder, so while it was a 'tithe' of the entire expedition, Abram gave 100% of his share). 

When Abram returned to Hebron, he was met there by God who reassured him that he would have a child and that he would inherit the entire land of Canaan (now Israel). God wanted to make a covenant with him. Abram cut some 3 year old animals in half and laid the halves across a path from each other. Then he waited. A long time. So long that he had to drive the buzzards away that had come to snack on the dead animals. At nightfall, Abram fell into a deep, unnatural sleep. In his sleep, he was filled with terror. God reiterated his promise to Abram, foretold a 400 year slavery in a foreign land, and then "there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between" the animal halves (Genesis 15:17). This sounds an awful lot like the pillar of fire and pillar of smoke which led the Israelites out of Egypt several centuries later. 

So what's the big deal? What's with all the blood an gore? Why the animal halves? What's a covenant anyway? A covenant can be loosely defined as a promise of mutual action between two individuals. Examples of these mutual covenants abound in the Hebrew scriptures. The giving of the Law in Deuteronomy and the calling out of the blessings and curses from the two mountains is a good one. The people agree to behave in certain ways and God agrees to bless them. If the people disobey, God agrees to curse them. Abram will later make a covenant with his servant Eliezer in which he makes Eliezer place his hand on Abram's "thigh" (you can let your imagination run with this one) that he will not allow Isaac to marry a Canaanite woman, but will get a wife for him from Abram's hometown. 

 These days, we shake hands. In those days and handshake was not enough. Covenants were always made in these rather threatening and somber ways. In the most common type of covenant, the parties would cut animals in half, lay the halves facing each other on opposite sides of a path or road, and then both would pass through the middle of them, symbolizing what would happen to either party if they were to break the covenant and not do as they had promised to do. Abram was quite familiar with this bloody practice. He had probably done it several times before. 

In this instance, however, the important thing is that God puts Abram to sleep before he can walk through the midst of the gored animals. Instead, God alone (in the form of a flame of fire and a column of smoke) passes through. So what does it mean that only one of the two parties consummated the covenant? It means that only one of the two parties is responsible to keep it, that party being God. Abram had no part in this covenant. God made a promise to bless Abram's descendants and give them the land of Canaan, and that Abram would have a son through his wife Sarai. Abram had no role to play, and no covenant to keep. It is an unconditional covenant and does not depend at all on what Abram does or does not do.

Moving on to Romans 5, we see the language of a second one-sided covenant (or maybe the true fulfillment of the first?). Romans 5:6 says, "For while we were still helpless, Christ died for the ungodly." The sacrifice of the Messiah (on the same mount that Abram almost sacrificed his son Isaac) for lost sinners is this same kind of covenant. "While we were still helpless" is a great way of describing Abram in his deep supernatural sleep. He could not walk through the midst of the broken animals if he wanted to, just as we are helpless to have any say in Christ's cleansing sacrifice for us. Jesus' body, broken for us (see the connection? broken body?), did not require our vote. God did it alone, while we were still sinners. There is nothing we can do to earn what God has done. We have no part to play in this one-sided covenant. All we can do is accept His grace and mercy as Abram did and receive the blessings that He wants to give us. 

The covenant has been made. God wants to bless you richly. Will you let Him?

Proverb of the day - 2/22/20125

Proverbs 22

This set of proverbs is made up of couplets, the standard of Hebrew poetry, that regard all sorts of different topics. They are individual wise sayings from 'the teacher' to his pupils. The poetic format is to enhance memorization; it is easier to remember poetic lines than it is to remember prose. You will never forget, "Roses are red, violets are blue" but you just might forget, "Roses are generally colored a shade of vermilion red, although they can be other colors as well. Violets, on the other hand, tend to be a purplish-blue color, much like that of a royal robe." That is the logic behind the format. Ease of remembrance is a huge step in the teacher's strategy to train up his pupils (probably sons, maybe others) in wisdom so that they remember the words and follow the advice. 'Proverbs' of yesterday might be referred to 'aphorisms' today.

A few key verses that stood out to me on this read-through:

Proverbs 22:2 - "The rich and the poor have a common bond, The Lord is the maker of them all."
This regards the rich and the poor, and talks about their commonality. How often do you hear this logic, especially in the 99% world we live in today? What with the 'Occupy' movement and slogans against the rich, one might never stop to consider the similarities between the rich man and the common man. The likeness that the teacher points out is that both the rich and the poor have the same maker. That doesn't mean much in our context, however, if you look back at the record of creation (Genesis 1-2) you will find that God made man in His own image. When asked if a Jew (who is responsible to the government of God and the temple first and foremost) should pay taxes to Caesar, Jesus looked at a Roman coin and asked whose picture (image) was on it. He then said, "Render unto Caesar's the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's" (Luke 20:21-26). He makes the distinction here that all people, no matter their race, skin color, religious affiliation, wealth or poverty, they all belong to God and bear His image. Your value comes from that fact, not from your social status or your accumulated belongings.

Proverbs 22:4 - "The reward of humility and the fear of the Lord are riches, honor and life."
I think that the quintessential example of this might be someone like Mother Teresa. This is a mathematical formula: humility + the fear of the Lord = riches + honor + life. Was Mother Teresa humble? The answer to this question (my wife poured over her autobiography and letters) is undeniably "yes". Did she fear the Lord? Absolutely, and loved Him like a husband. Was Mother Teresa rich? That depends on what you mean by "riches". The teacher doesn't say "wealth", but "riches". Mother Teresa was as poor as the people she served because she gave everything she had to them. Monetarily, she had no riches. However, she did a great job of living out Matthew 6:20, "store up for yourselves treasures in heaven", so while she may have been the poorest of the poor on earth, in heaven, "the first will be last, and the last will be first" (Matthew 20:16). Was she honored? Greatly. People were incredulous at her pious life in a world that served itself, not others. Will she be honored in heaven? Once again I infer Matthew 20:16. Was she given life? Well, beyond the fact that she lived 87 years, I would argue that this 'life' is in regard to what comes after this life. She enjoyed a very close relationship with her Lord, and the life she now lives (having died in 1997) will never end.

Proverbs 22:13 - "The sluggard says, 'There is a lion outside; I will be killed in the streets!'"
This is a play on a missing opposite. The reader is left to fill in the blank of what the diligent person would say (which would be just as opposite as 'diligent' is from 'sluggard'). In this case, a diligent person would say, "There is a lion outside, I must protect my family!" and would get his weapon straightaway. Notice how the sluggard thinks only of himself, and is a victim of his circumstances. This tells volumes about the personality we are dealing with. The diligent opposite, we are left to imagine, would take the reigns of the situation and change it. King David (Solomon's father) might be an example of this (1 Samuel 17:34-35).

Proverbs 22:24-25 - "Do not associate with a man given to anger; or go with a hot-tempered man, or you will learn his ways and find a snare for yourself."
Be very careful who you associate with. Did you know that no matter how hard you try, your body naturally correlates itself with those around you? Even the menstrual cycles of women will correspond if they spend enough time together. If you cannot control how your body reacts to your close company, what makes you think you can control the habits you will pick up from them, the quirks, the philosophies, the attitudes. The list is endless. Make sure your close friends and associates are those who are what you want to be, because you will become like those you spend the most time with whether you like it or not.