Genesis 17 focuses on the covenant between God, Abram and Sarai. This is the point where their names are changed to Abraham and Sarah. It is here that the covenant gets put into physical form. God again speaks to Abraham and affirms that there will be many descendants—not just Ishmael but a child that Sarah will bear.
What the lectionaries leave out is the way in which the covenant is marked—circumcision. Abraham is commanded to circumcise all the men of the household. It is a way of marking the covenant with an outward sign. Circumcision was not limited to Abraham’s household but here it takes on theological significance as a sign of the relationships between a particular group of humans and God.
Imagine what happens after God tells Abraham to circumcise all the men in his household. Abraham is the only one who had a conversation with God. Abraham goes out and gathers all the men and boys together in a group and tells them that they are all going to be circumcised. I can’t imagine anyone else being enthusiastic, but they are given a choice: be circumcised or you are no longer a part of this household and no longer a part of God’s people. In a culture where familial connections were so important, it may have felt like there wasn’t a choice. There was probably muttering and head scratching. How did Abraham get so many people to participate in this scheme? Was it enough to say, “God told me to” or did it become a bit of a mob with Abraham and few others performing the circumcision using force? Was there screaming and violence and rage? Did some people leave the household rather than submit? I imagine the blood flowing and colouring the earth. I imagine a scene of horror as the circumcisions happen.
Scripture is full of stories where it seems blood (sometimes human, sometimes animal) is required in order to maintain the God/human relationship. In chapter 22, Abraham will set out to sacrifice his son, Isaac. There are chapters and chapters dedicated to the details of what sacrifices should be made and how. Many of the atonement theologies surrounding Jesus continue in this vein where blood shed by violence is necessary for healing and relationship with God.
But if we believe in a God of wholeness and healing, why do humans insist on grounding that wholeness and healing in a theology of violence and blood? Covenant and relationship with God are necessary for wholeness and marking the covenant is important. It reminds us who we belong to and our commitments to the one who created us. I can’t believe in a God of violence and I can’t believe that God wants us to mark covenant using violence. We need to let go of the belief that God requires someone’s blood in order to be in relationship with us. This belief isn’t God’s command but a human construction which we can choose to keep or not.
Whether we mark covenant with circumcision or baptism or some other ritual, the point is to embody the relationship with God through action. Whatever the ritual, it needs to be meaningful for the people involved and reflect God’s on-going action in our lives and our commitment to live faithfully.