Genesis 12 contains the story of Abram visiting Egypt and claiming that his wife was his sister. I don't want to get involved in the morality of his half-lie (for which/in spite of which he was blessed), but rather to look at the reversal of this in the life of Christ.
Abram had a beautiful wife and he claimed that she was his sister so that he would not be killed. Christ had a hideous bride, and she, pining for slavery, claimed that He was her brother (human), not her groom (God). When He would not go along with her lie, she killed him so that she could run off with the Egyptians.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The Bloodless Covenant of Marriage?
O. Palmer Robertson has a book (that we are reading) called The Christ of the Covenants. In it, he defines a covenant as "an oath in blood sovereignly administered", the blood referring both to the gravity of the covenant and to the fact that it is usually accompanied, usually initiated, by a sacrifice.
The point that I want to get to is the covenant of marriage, as it is one of the few "bloodless" covenants in Scripture, or so it is labeled.
In my opinion, this nomenclature is absurd.
One of the points that Robertson raises in this book is that the phrase "to make a covenant" would more appropriately be rendered "to cut a covenant". The first marriage covenant was accomplished by God (the sovereign administration) cutting open the side of Adam and creating the necessary (don't tell the Episcopals) component for marriage. The archetypal marriage--that of Christ and the church--is the same thing: the side is opened, and out flow the two sacraments, the two signs of the church, blood and water. And we refer to marriages as bloodless?
"The life of the flesh is in the blood", and the life of the one flesh union is in the one blood that is shared. If there is no one blood, the union is death and merely joins rotting flesh.
The point that I want to get to is the covenant of marriage, as it is one of the few "bloodless" covenants in Scripture, or so it is labeled.
In my opinion, this nomenclature is absurd.
One of the points that Robertson raises in this book is that the phrase "to make a covenant" would more appropriately be rendered "to cut a covenant". The first marriage covenant was accomplished by God (the sovereign administration) cutting open the side of Adam and creating the necessary (don't tell the Episcopals) component for marriage. The archetypal marriage--that of Christ and the church--is the same thing: the side is opened, and out flow the two sacraments, the two signs of the church, blood and water. And we refer to marriages as bloodless?
"The life of the flesh is in the blood", and the life of the one flesh union is in the one blood that is shared. If there is no one blood, the union is death and merely joins rotting flesh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)