"Two Birds" so far...
Farrell Till errancy@infidels.org
Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:52:00 -0700 (00930189120, 2.2.32.19990623205200.00914850@midwest.net)
At 05:09 PM 6/23/99 +0800, you wrote:
>From: Paul Smith
>To: inerrancy@egroups.com
> errancyn@softhome.net
>ps5900424@hotmail.com
>Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 5:10 AM
>Subject: [inerrancy] "Two Birds" so far...
>
>Till has produced 9 postings totaling about 84k
>that were, IMO, a colossal waste of his time
>to write, and my time to read. Since we are in
>the middle of a debate about a very singular
>and specific issue, I will submit MY examples and
>definitions of "Red Herrings", "Smokescreens"
>and "Diversions" as currently employed in
>Till's last 84k of typing on this matter.
>
>Despite this, the current topic remains the
>following, and nothing but the following:
>"Yahweh's land promise could not be both
>conditional and not conditional". I maintain my
>claim that the promise never was unconditional
>as Till asserts, and reject Till's claim that he
>has shown otherwise.
>
<snip>
TILL
This posting from errancyn was forwarded to Errancy by Sparrow, who still
apparently labors under the impression that I will try to keep members of
Errancy from seeing Smith's comments on the land-promise thread. If he is
even following my replies to Smith, he should know by now that I am
answering Smith's postings point by point as time permits and then posting
my replies on both errancyn and Errancy. Everyone on this list will see in
due time my reply to the latest Smith posting that Sparrow has forwarded to
Errancy, so I will direct the rest of my comments in this posting to Sparrow.
Those on errancyn who have had the patience to wade through the maze of
ambiguities that Sparrow has posted there know that his initial responses to
me consisted almost entirely of web-site articles that he cut and pasted
(often without any comment at all from him). I would assume, then, that he
considers that the posting of quotations is at least an effective way to
rebut an opponent, so I am going to use his own tactic and post the
quotation from Metzger and Coogan that Bruce Monson sent to errancyn. As a
member of that group, Sparrow will have already seen it, but members of
Errancy will be seeing it for the first time.
******************************
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).
*****************************
TILL
By forwarding Smith's posting, I assume that Sparrow agrees with Smith that
the land promise "never was unconditional," so maybe Sparrow will be kind
enough to consider and reply to the following comments. If the land promise
was so unconditional, I wonder why scholars as widely respected as Metzger
and Coogan couldn't see it. Sparrow's cut-and-paste jobs sent in reply to
me on errancyn many times consisted of stuff that he had cut from web sites
that had no force of scholarship behind them. He seemed to think that if
something was on a web site that disagreed with me, the mere reposting of it
was sufficient to refute my arguments. In the case of Monson's quotation,
however, we have quotations from the works of two very respected biblical
scholars, so I'll be interested in seeing him explain why that two scholars
of their reputation were unable to see what Sparrow apparently contends is
obvious.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net