Bible Study, Part 17

Creation of Light (אוֹר)
By Gustave Doré

Genesis, Chapter 17 |
Sunday – October 18, 2026

Justifiable reasons brings us to ask why Yahweh (יהוה) allowed Abram (אברם), later Abraham (אַבְרָהָם), to live such a long life, granted we put the increase of mutations aside? Well, this was a subject that I covered in part 6 of this series, but again putting that aside, we may actually accept the invitation that Abram was simply destined by the hand of God, Yahweh in this context, and as such he lived because Yahweh was not finished with him in this world, in the world. Yes, certain people are chosen by God, for they are elect to see the light, and this was surely the case for Abram, and the first generations. Of course, by the time of Abram, the world had already begun to develop further and further away from its origin, from its primordial body, with the interruption of the great flood and the elimination temporarily of disease, yet this elimination would prove not capable of resolving the original sin.

    Now, allow me to not get ahead of myself here and really get ahead of the Bible, because we are early still, at least in the context of the Bible, although it could be argued that we are fairly late still, but this is a point for further clarification elsewhere, read "The Great North". Of course, the Bible is often argued to be a political document rather than a historical document, and of course both of these positions are perfectly preposterous if you actually cared to understand divine law, but as most moderns have no interest in this I have no hope for a more enlightened understanding of either the Bible or any other sacred scriptures.* Now, I do not want to get bogged down on this point, but it is worthwhile considering the effects of this kind of thinking on the course of the development of most political institutions, because this tension between literalism and political dogma is getting very painful, not for me and hopefully not for you, but for the people involved, and perhaps they would be better of attempting to escape this fallacy? Well, only time can tell...

    As usual I have found the need to make certain aspects of this series clear, and as this is the 17th part of this series, I call on you to read each proceeding part of this series in chronological order before you attempt to read this part, as each part of this series constitute a link in a chain, a chain that will be unable to transmit any kind of meaning and knowledge without the proper context, and a context that may only be attained through studying. This is why I will also link to the first part of this series here. If you have read no previous part, part 1 is the best start followed by part 2 and part 3, etc. I will also link to the previous part (part 16). Now, if you still decide to not read this series in a strictly chronological order, then you will be responsible for any failure of receiving the knowledge propagated by the meaning of each word in not only the Bible but in this series, which is why I must remind you that this series is not merely a recitation of the Bible, and if you indeed wish to only read the Bible, then you may do so without involving yourself in this series, again this choice is yours and I have no control over it, but any misunderstanding and/or confusion when you read this series "out-of-context" will be fully your own fault, because these can often be quite complicated and even esoteric concepts, and perhaps you are simply not ready to receive any transmissions of this kind, only God can tell.

    Apart from that crucial information, I must also and again, explain that I rely on certain rules in this series, and those will mostly revolve around how I refer to God and how I will quote the Bible, depending of course on the publication of the Bible at hand. Now, I should also add that I can understand that there are many opinions in regards to this matter, and I have received some complaints about this, but I will not change my mind on these points, and thus far this is final. This does not mean that I can never change my mind, but in that event I will clarify that I have changed my mind. I should also again assert that this is not so much about my mind as it is about the will of God, read "Dreaming". Now, as I have alluded to above, I will refer to God in the context of the Old Testament or the Tankah (תָּנָ״ךְ), more specifically the Torah (תּוֹרָה), as Yahweh, because the Old Testament must be understood from the point of view of the covenant between Abram (the Jews) and Yahweh (ברית בין הבתרים), covered in part 15, and in this context it is only in keeping with doctrinal prudence and fidelity to refer to the Creator as Yahweh or Jehovah (יהוה), as opposed to simply the Lord or God.† This is why it is necessary for me to substitute the titles The Lord and God with Yahweh in all passages of the Bible that I quote on this page, and this substitution will be made apparent by my usage of two brackets, [Yahweh]. Any substitution that I engage in will be indicated by two brackets. Then there is a special form of substitution, where I will find it necessary to substitute one or multiple verses of the Bible with three dots, [...]; this typically happens with passages in the Bible that have no relevance in the context of this series, and the three dots works to indicate some missing scriptural sequence. Another substitution that may happen is me substituting the political neologism humankind for mankind.

    Then there is the current and present circumstance of me relying on a certain and specific publication of the Bible, namely the Catholic New Revised Standard (NRSV-CE). I do not rely on this publication of the Bible for any specific doctrinal reason. The main reason why I rely on this publication of the Bible is because I have found it to be the most subtable publication for quotations, and because it is somewhat clear of Protestant confusions and individuation, although this can always be debated.‡ I should also mention that I rely on other publications of the Bible in parallel while studying the Bible; this is merely the most appropriate publication to quote for a variety of reasons. It may come a time where I find it necessary to rely on a different publication of the Bible in my quotations, something I will make clear when and if that time comes.

    Yet again, before we can proceed with the study at hand: if you have complaints about anything that I have written and asserted, then you are free to post them in the comment section below this post. I have received a few complaints so far on the official email attached to this page (etherealinsight@protonmail.com), but my policy is to only handle complaints in the comment section, as I have largely reserved other channels of communication for discussions of a more private nature, such as readers sending forward letters containing privileged information, etc. What this means is that I am unlikely to respond to an email complaint as I simply do not have time to handle them, nor do I have time to connect each complaint to each relevant post; simply using the comment section is the best and most straightforward option. This is not a hard rule, but it is a recommendation if you actually want me to respond; I also call on you to refrain from using offensive words in your comments. I should also mention again, that it is my intention of creating a separate page that will take care of all of the possible confusions and other important information to be considered in this study; that page is still not finished, and when it is finished I will simply link each post to that page in order that can skip having to reiterate all of this information in each of these posts, as I mentioned above.

✠ The Sign of the Covenant ✠
Genesis 17:1 – 8:

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, [Yahweh] appeared to Abram, and said to him, 'I am [Yahweh] Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless. And I will make my covenant between me and you, and will make you exceedingly numerous.' Then Abram fell on his face; and [Yahweh] said to him, 'As for me, this is my covenant with you: You shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the ancestor of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be [Yahweh] to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding; and I will be their [Yahweh].'

Abram was now transfigured and the covenant between Yahweh and Abraham was complete and sealed in blood, for Abram was no longer known by that name, he was now transformed above the earth and the material and his new name and title as a great patriarch was Abraham, a great man of many nations, and the primordial body in the course of history to follow, and not only in the Land of Canaan (כְּנַעַן) but far beyond, really this is the memory of Abraham, a still living, though fading, memory. We must also understand the profound importance of legitimacy when we approach this passage, and by legitimacy I am of course referring to lineage and bloodline: would the son of a slave, Ishmael (יִשְׁמָעֵאל), really be considered an appropriate heir to this great patriarch, to this man imprinted on history? Of course, we will return to this issue later, but I believe that this is worth thinking about as you proceed with Genesis (בְּרֵאשִׁית) and the rest of the Torah. Then there is the larger point about hierarchy to mention here as well, and a man in good standing with Yahweh should perhaps not allow himself to not ensure the next generation, something that indeed Yahweh makes clear, Abraham not only will be a great patriarch, he must be a great patriarch.

    In light of this you must push aside any notions of age: when Yahweh commands Abraham to become a great patriarch he is simply left without choice, and the trials leading up to this moment is surely what this all has been about, and any modern notions of parenthood as some kind of function of time, of age really, are nothing but cultural mutations that simply do not belong in scriptures. There is then the issue further with inheritance revolving around land and the division of the land into smaller strips of land, an issue that we should have time to return to later as well.

    It can be argued that history is quite linear, and at any rate this is the modern and "progressive" view of history, but of course the Bible teaches us that history is quite cyclical, and no man except he who is chosen to be so by God almighty (Yahweh) is destined. Ultimately, man's role as a bottom dweller is the default, and any higher attainment requires some kind of activity that can result in a heightened quality, read "Qualification"; indeed, a man has to be qualified to earn his rank, and this is surely the case with Abraham.

Genesis 17:9 – 14:

[Yahweh] said to Abraham, 'As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.'

The symbolism of the circumcision (בְּרִית מִילָה) represents an ancient and perhaps tribal ritual as well as a covenant with Yahweh, and to be clear: this is perhaps also a precursor to a kind of collective identity, sealed in the blood of the removed skin, and the removed skin itself should also be understood to represent a cut off from the rest of humanity, a sign that they the Jews, the Hebrews, were no pagans and no infidels and wretched unbelievers in the eyes of Yahweh and traditional Judaism, and this was marked with the circumcision, an important barrier against the multitude of people claiming to know time better than the Jewish people. What pagan, what infidel would allow himself to get circumsized, unless he too entered into a sacred covenant with the Creator?§ It is also somewhat significant that slaves should be circumcised, which could, from a humanitarian point of view, be argued to be a sign of some kind of progress, some kind of egalitarianism. Of course, the natural explanation of this is of course that slaves must be circumcised too because they were not distinguished from the tribe, even if they were traded for, and any idea that this distinction should exist would be another modern fallacy, another confusion of the modern world superimposed on the Biblical narrative, for these modern concepts of a grounded and sedentary people simply cannot fit into the narrative of the Jews, read "The Census". Conversely, any male who is not circumcised should be cut off, for that man may as well be an infidel and an unbeliever, a man without standing, not worthy of the status of a slave, such is the case with men who breaks the covenant with Yahweh, that man has damned and polluted the tree of life. Understand as well, that Abraham is the new primordial body, from which every principle must proceed in the new world, and this includes the development of the course of history, it must all be traced back to this point in history, thus the profound importance yet again of lineage and bloodline. For you to cure disease, you must cut it off from the tree of life.

Genesis 17:15 – 22:

[Yahweh] said to Abraham, 'As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall give rise to nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.' Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, 'Can a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Can Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?' And Abraham said to [Yahweh], 'O that Ishmael might live in your sight!' [Yahweh] said, 'No, but your wife Sarah shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; I will bless him and make him fruitful and exceedingly numerous; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year.' And when he had finished talking with him, [Yahweh] went up from Abraham.

This is the first time in Genesis where we encounter the name of Isaac (יִצְחָק), the true heir of Abraham, the son born to Sarah. Of course, Sarai was also called Sarah by Yahweh, also in order so that she should be transfigured, which means that the transfiguration, again taking lineage into account, was transferred directly to Isaac as opposed to the slave son Ishmael, perhaps a reflection of Cain and Abel. Again, we must also confront the question of age: can a 99 year old man and a 90 year old woman bear a child? Of course, most modern people would find this question and in the Bible assertion completely preposterous, and here I am again compelled to warn people against strict literalism and exoteric dependance, for these matters have little to do with the materialism of a man's age, and after all it would be perfectly appropriate for Yahweh to disregard this fact, and a fact that he never directly addresses, for it is completely material in scope, that is beneath Yahweh. Of course, Ishmael is also made a patriarch and a father of nations, and this point is also the center of a dispute within the so-called Abrahamic tradition, where some would argue that Ishmael was the true heir of Abraham, and particularly this is the position of many Islamic scholars, but this dispute can also not be contained within the scope of this post or indeed this series.‖

Genesis 17:23 – 27:

Then Abraham took his son Ishmael and all the slaves born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as [Yahweh] had said to him. Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And his son Ishmael was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. That very day Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised; and all the men of his house, slaves born in the house and those bought with money from a foreigner, were circumcised with him.

Again, this last passage can perhaps be understood as an annex to the previous chapter about circumcision, but it is still important as a historical note, for Abraham was moved by the will and the commands of Yahweh; this action was not merely a form of preference. Action requires thought and thought requires agency, and in this case the agency of Yahweh. Let this day in history be the starting point of the Biblical narrative in the course of modern time, and let this moment be signified by each circumcised man.

    You have reached the end of this part of the Bible, or rather my examination of the Bible. For more on this series, follow the label "Bible Study series". If you are interested in me, read my "About me" page and my "Who Am I?" post.

Reginald Drax (AKA, M. C. Dutt) – October 18, 2026.

Footnote(s)

* I keep bringing up this issue and I keep needing to refer to other posts, as I simply cannot develop these claims further here. If you are interested in finding out more, read: "My Views on Fundamentalism", "The Hypocrisy of the Pious", and "The Puritan Fallacy". Other posts worth reading in this context would be "The Archean Eon" and "The Universe".

† Now, this is another issue that I keep returning to in this series as well, and if you wish to find out more about this issue, then you should read my posts: "Yahweh Elohim" and "Proof of the Name of Yahweh", as they will cover this subject in greater detail.

‡ While this topic continues to also be disputed, I have no intention of actually engaging in this dispute here. If you are interested in finding out more, then I direct you to all my posts about Protestantism, read especially "The Problem with Protestantism".

§ Note in this connection that we are solely dealing with one and only one revealed tradition and that this sign in the context of that tradition sets the Jews and their slaves apart from other people, thus this can be said to be the first step towards a truly Jewish nation. Note nation not in the colloquial sense, for more on this read "The Problem with Nationalism".

‖ This argument is also the basis for the claim that Ishmael is the father of what is today the Arabs and that Isaac is the father of the Jews. Whatever the case, it is clear that Abraham is the father of the Jews and that this was transferred to Isaac, regardless of the status of Ishmael. Again, we need to understand the importance of lineage and bloodline.