"Land Promise" debate [reference confirms Till is right]

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Dear Mr. Till, Mr. Obidos and Mr. Smith,

I have been following the details (that is the 'pertinent' details
interspersed among all the bantering and personal attacks) of the "land
promise" debate with much interest, and I think I have found a pertinent
reference to the issue.  However, I would first like to make two quick
observations:    

When I read Mr. Till's original article (Yahweh's Failed Land Promise), and
his subsequent rebuttals to Obidos objections, I must confess I thought his
argument was both thoroughly researched and convincing.  Furthermore, based
on all the subsequent posts in opposition, it appears that he had been
equally candid in his original composition toward the presentation of the
*alternate views* for "conditional" bible verses, and he explained those in
a sensible fashion which I found both reasonable and easy to grasp.  

I also noticed that Mr. Till is constantly being accused as being a
"Fundamentalist" or "Bible Literalist" by his opposition.  I find this
perplexing given that it appeared obvious enough to me (I have only been on
the NG for about three days so I am only pointing out what I have observed
to this point) that he is neither a fundamentalist nor a bible inerantist,
but rather he "assumes such roles" for the sake of making a point.  He
himself points out that he "does not" believe in the Bible, but rather
demands that those who believe the Bible, LITERALLY, back it up when he
points out "literal" interpretive problems.  I also do not get the
impression (at least from what I have seen) that Mr. Till "fails to
comprehend," conceptually (as has been implied), when an opponent applies an
"allegorical" interpretation to a verse in which there actually does exist a
specific contradiction when the verse is taken "literally".  In this
respect, Mr. Till has been demonstrably consistent in his intent and
presentation.         

IN REGARD TO THE DEBATE ITSELF:  

According to the OXFORD COMPANION TO THE BIBLE, by Metzger and Coogan
(Oxford Univ. Press, 1993), Mr. Till isn't the only one who considers the
promise to Abraham and the covenant of circumcision to be entirely separate
issues:

(p.139)  Bear with me while I repeat the passage. 

"The covenants between God and the people are all covenants of divine favor
or grace.  They express God's gracious commitment and faithfulness and thus
establish a continuing relationship.  They differ from one another
theologically at the point of whether the accent falls upon God's loyalty,
which endows the relationship with constancy and durability, or upon the
people's response, which is subject to human weakness and sin.

[my separation into new paragraph] The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants
belong to the type of the "everlasting covenant", for they rest upon divine
grace alone and are not conditioned by human BEHAVIOR [my emphasis].  On the
other hand, the Mosaic covenant, set forth classically in the book of
Deuteronomy, has a strong conditional note, for its endurance depends on the
people's obedience to the covenant commandments.

Furthermore, all of God's covenants with Israel include divine promises, as
well as human obligations, though they differ as to which is emphasized.
The Abrahamic covenant is primarily a promissory covenant.  In it GOD
IMPOSES NO CONDITIONS [my emphasis] (circumcision is a sign, not a legal
condition of the relationship) but rather GIVES PROMISES [my emphasis]:  the
land as an everlasting possession, numerous posterity, and a special
relationship between God and the descendants of Abraham and Sarah
(Gen.17:7-8).  

[my separation into new paragraph] Similarly, the Davidic covenant, perhaps
on the analogy of royal grants of the ancient Near East, does not impose
legal conditions, but offers a gracious promise of an unbroken succession of
kings upon the throne of David (2 Sam. 7).  Although unfaithful kings will
be chastised if they behave badly in office, God will not abrogate the
covenant promises of grace made to David (Ps. 89).

[my separation into new paragraph] The Mosaic covenant, however, like the
suzerainty treaties of the ancient world, is a covenant of obligation,
subject to the sanctions of blessings and curses (Deut.30:15-20).  If the
people are unfaithful and disobey the covenant stipulations, they will be
punished for breaking the covenant.  Carried to the extreme, this covenant
could even be annulled, so that no longer would Israel be God's people (Hos.
1:9).  The renewal of the covenant, in this view, would be based solely on
God's forgiving grace (Exod.34:6-9; Jer.31:31-33; Ezek.16:59-63)."


If this isn't confirmation of Mr. Till's previous assertions, for which Mr.
Obidos and Mr. Smith must certainly recognize as convincing, then I don't
know what is.  I can't imagine that a reasonable person would continue to
challenge this issue.   

Furthermore, I have one more observation of my own on this matter which I
don't think anyone has really touched upon.  

We are all well aware of what a royal pain in the ass the Israelites were
being for Moses, with all of the bellyaching about what a drag it is out
here in the middle of friggin nowhere instead of being back in Egypt (the
evil, oppressive, Egypt mind you), and how pissed off God was getting over
their bantering and ungratitude.  And, as Mr. Till pointed out already, if
the "land promise" was actually conditional to "obedience" by the
Israelites, then God would've just slammed the door in their face right then
and there (maybe then God would have gone back to Egypt and adopted "them"
as his "chosen people," particularly considering that the Egyptians were
practicing circumcision long before the alleged Israelites came along).

The thing I was contemplating though, is the possibility that maybe the
reason God is so angry is not because his "chosen people" are screwing up
(God already knew that) but rather because he knows he has to keep the
promise he made to Abraham, and now he's *kicking himself* for making that
promise in the first place.  Basically it was a slap in his face, given that
the Israelites were demonstrably unworthy of this great gift, but he had to
pay up anyway.

Regards,

Bruce Monson

• Previous message: Planck's Constant (was something else)
• Next message: "Two Birds" so far...
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]