Abraham and the two kings

Genesis 14 contains a short passage about war between various small kingdoms in the Holy Land, some three to four thousand years ago. It's a passage of great importance.

The background is that, after having been subjugated by the King of Elam for twelve years, five small kingdoms declared their independence, including the city state of Sodom.

The King of Elam prepared his revenge. Two years later, he and his three allies defeated the rebellious five kings. As Genesis 14:9 says, a war of four kings against five.

In the course of the war, the King of Elam captured Abraham’s nephew, Lot, who lived in Sodom. Perhaps he was going to sell Lot as a slave, perhaps he was going to hold him hostage.

But Abraham conferred with three other tribal chiefs and they went in pursuit. They had a small force but were triumphant (a familiar theme both in Scripture and in modern Israel!) He freed Lot and recaptured the people and booty taken by the Elamites.

Then Abraham is approached by the mysterious Melchizedek, King of Salem. The King offers a sacrifice of bread and wine to God, and blesses Abraham. Recognising the King as a priest of God and a precursor of the Messiah, Abraham gives him an offering, a tenth of his possessions.

Melchizedek was king of the city called Salem, now called Jerusalem. Reflecting on the Hebrew meanings of these words, Hebrews 7:2 tells us that says, the name 'Melchizedek' means 'king of righteousness'; then also, 'king of Salem' means 'king of peace.” And, as a ruler of peace, Melchizedek did not participate in the conflict between the nine kings.

For those interested in numerical patterns, he can be regarded as the tenth king, as the king who received a tenth of Abraham's possessions, and as a person reminding us of the ten commandments of God.

After his encounter with Melchizedek, Abraham is approached by another king. The king of Sodom asks Abraham to return the people taken from Sodom and suggests that Abraham keep the spoils taken from the city.

But Abraham refuses. He will not accept anything for himself (though he will accept spoils for his allies). In fact, he had taken a solemn vow that he would accept absolutely nothing.

Did Abraham realise the iniquity of Sodom? Is this why he refused to accept the king’s offer? Perhaps the passage is meant to contrast how we should venerate the King of Righteousness and have no part in the King of Unrighteousness?

If Abraham realised Sodom's iniquity, we can see an extra edge in his later bargaining with God on the city's behalf (Genesis 18). Perhaps he realizes the sinful nature of the city but still seeks God’s mercy for it. And, realising its iniquity, he seeks to expand God’s mercy proportionately.

(Until he comes to the requirement that there be ten just men. Numerically, this may remind us of the commandments and to stipulate the minimum compliance that a society needs to survive.)

Another point. We’d have expected that the king and people of Sodom people would be deeply grateful to Abraham, particularly those who had been taken as captives. So reflect on the viciousness of the people of Sodom when they later attack Lot, although they knew that he was the closest kinsman of their benefactor, Abraham (Genesis 19:9).

(By the way, I've referred to Abraham, but at this stage he was still called Abram. Later God gave him a new name to his part in Salvation History: see Genesis 17:5.)

Peter Singer receives top Australian honour

Today, June 11, Australia has been celebrating the birthday of our monarch, Queen Elizabeth. It's a tradition dating from the first British settlement in Australia, back in 1788. Quaintly, we don't actually celebrate Her Majesty's actually birthday, which is 21 April, but instead celebrate an "official birthday" in June.

To mark the occasion, the Queen's representative in Australia (the Governor-General) announces various honours that have been awarded to leading citizens. Honours typically go to retired policians, judges, generals, and worthy scholars who have received the Nobel Prize or have otherwise distinguished themselves.

Except that this year, the highest honour, Companion of the Order of Australia has gone to Peter Singer, an professor who has instead distinguished himself by his attacks on traditional human values. While promoting animal rights, he sees nothing wrong with killing human babies after birth.

As an Australian Government's website says, "Honours help define, encourage and reinforce national aspirations, ideals and standards by identifying role models".

So presumably Peter Singer is now to be regarded as embodying Australian ideals and standards. The Australian community has moved yet further from the idea that there's anything specical or "sacred" about human life.

And, yes, one step closer to the extermination of anyone who doesn't fit the national aspirations. Look out if you're disabled, too old, or can't pass as a bronzed Aussie sportsperson!

To put it another way, the mainstream has again shown its contempt for traditional ideas and human values.

As an aside, people will criticise the Australian Government about this, so let's look at the actual process. The political head, the Prime Minister, effectively appoints members of the "Council for the Order of Australia". (Actually, the Prime Minister asks the Governor-General to appoint them, and this request is always accepted.)

The Council is an independent body and prepares the nominations for awards direct to the Governor-General. So the Australian Government is not responsible for the award to Peter Singer. Merely for creating the body that made the decision.

What is your favourite book of the Bible?

Of course, there are some stock answers. If you say the Epistle to the Romans, then you're probably a narrow Protestant (and I invite you to ponder whether the Gospels might be more important than St Paul's commentaries, profound and beautiful though they are).

Or, if you choose the Book of Revelation, then you may well be a rather apocalyptic Protestand. And if you choose Daniel, then you're almost certainly an apocalytician.

By contrast, choosing the Psalms suggests that you're on the opposite end of the spectrum, that you aspire to the monastic life and are into the Divine Office (aka the Liturgy of the Hours.)

I've been asking friends this question. There's been an interesting range. Several nominated St John's Gospel, because it's so spiritual.

After that, the answers tended to diverge, with people selecting books that have a personal meaning for them. For example, one woman chose the Book of Esther and another chose Tobit.

And my choice? Well, I like Genesis, which sets out the beginnings of it all, and I like Revelation, which gives an overview of Salvation History. Perhaps it indicates that I'm a big picture guy! (My favourite gospel is St Luke, mainly because of his narrative of the Christmas events.)

Anyway, what's your favourite book of the Bible and what does this say about you?

Of course, if you don't have a favourite book of the Bible, perhaps that's an indication that you need to immerse yourself in Holy Scripture a bit more.

And, in conclusion, perhaps we should remind ourselves to spread our reading. While it's probably desirable to have a favourite book, we should also read, ponder and pray about the other books from time to time.

On history repeating itself

It's a common theme that history repeats itself. Common but mistaken, and Mark Twain accurately corrected it to say that "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

Less entertainly, and less accurately, Santayana said that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

(It's not worth quoting George Bernard Shaw, "If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience". Except to contrast his laboured effort with Chesterton's effortless paradoxes.)

Anyways, this post is to report a nice variation on the theme:
"Every time history repeats itself the price goes up" (per Anon).

Source:
Jewish World Review, August 31, 2011
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com/

The Oslo murders

So what motivated Breivik?

When a friend told me about the Oslo murders, my reaction was to ask if Muslim terrorists were responsible.

On being told the perpetrator was a "fundamentalist Christian", I thought this didn't seem likely. While some Christians have attacked abortion workers, Christians have not gone in for indiscriminate massacres.

What's the basis for this report? It comes from the Norwegian police, who noted that the murderer, Anders Breivik, had described himself as a "fundamentalist Christian".

As this description fits liberal sentiments, it's been widely disseminated. But, unsurprisingly, the story is more complex.

First, while Breivik identified culturally with Europe's Christian past, particularly with the crusaders, there is no evidence that he had a deeper faith.

In particular, there's no mention of him having attended a church, whether regularly or not.

Also, Breivik was apparently a mason. This is not to propose deep conspiracies, but simply to indicate that there's room for characterizing him in other ways.

In sum, like many people on the fringes, he had a jumble of ideas. And they did not include the Gospel message of redemption.

So how should we react?

Let's pray for the victims, for the repose of their souls or for their recovery.

Let's also pray for familes and others traumatized by these events.

But let's also pray for Anders himself. May he move beyond the cultural trappings of western Christianity and find salvation in Christ.

Something else to bear in mind

I used to occasionally speculate on how bad things would need to become, in order to justify taking violent action.

I discontinued this in 1996, after watching the movie, The Rock.

In the film, a group captures a nuclear weapon, to force the US Government into recognizing their concerns. The Government calls their bluff, but some of the activists reject the group's leadership and try to launch the weapons. (Only to be foiled by an ageing Sean Connery ...)

It got me thinking. Suppose someone with more enthusiasm than judgement (and I knew people like that) told me that he had just assassinated an objectionable politician, media person, or bishop? Might I be partly responsible?

In short, academic discussions about civil disobedience can have consequences. May I suggest an appropriate circumspection on this point.

Evaluating novel exegesis

Associating with fundamentalists, charismatics and traditionalists means that you encounter creative instances of scriptural exegesis (ie interpretations of what the Bible means).

My favourite is the Catholic charismatic who, refering to the creation of man on the sixth day, said this means that the Lord created all human souls in Paradise and that conception merely involves the incarnation of a pre-existing soul.

Though recognising his originality, I pointed out that Origen had also taught this back in the third century and that his theory had been condemned by the Church. But this cut no ice. My interlocuter merely said that we're bound by the clear teaching of Scripture ...

And the other day, a friend relayed an exciting exegesis that she had heard from a visiting preacher.

After thinking about it and other such novelties, I now offer Felix's first law of hermeneutics:

The plausibilty of a novel exegesis is inversely proportional to the excitement with which it is proposed.

Four Senses of Scripture

Aliens in This World (link below) has a discussion on a mediaeval rhyme about the four senses of Holy Scripture.

Here's the Latin:

Littera” gesta docet,
Quod credas “Allegoria”,
“Moralia” quod agas,
Quo tendas “Anagogia.”

And here's my suggested translation.

The Literal tells about the deed,
The Allegory about the creed.
The Moral tells you what to do,
And Anagogy what's in store for you.

Link: http://suburbanbanshee.wordpress.com/