"Land Promise" debate (Another ref. confirming Till)
Bruce Monson errancy@infidels.org
Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:35:02 -0600 (00930184502, 1.5.4.32.19990623193502.00a7e7fc@pop.pipeline.com)
Ok, this is ridiculous!
Based on the strong conviction in which Mr. Smith has challenged Mr. Till's
assertions regarding the failed land promise (based on the premise that the
covenant with Abraham was "unconditional" and NOT subject to obedience), I
really thought it was going to be a formidable task to find supporting
documentation for Till's position. I was mistaken! Not only is Till's take
on the "land promise" and "covenant of circumcision" being independent of
each other NOT unique, but it appears this view is *standard* to biblical
scholars be they conservative or liberal. In my previous post I cited the
OXFORD COMPANION TO THE BIBLE, as clear evidence to this effect. But now I
have found *another* source that confirms the same:
PROPHECY STUDY BIBLE, Editor John Hagee (Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1997)
(p.24)
GOD'S COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM
"God's covenant with Abraham was UNCONDITIONAL [my emphasis], depending
solely upon God who obligated Himself in grace. The unconditional character
of the Abrahamic covenant is indicated by God's declarations "I will" that
repeat throughout (Gen. 12:2,3) without corresponding "you must" demands on
Abraham."
(p.90)
GOD'S COVENANT WITH MOSES
"Unlike the Abrahamic covenant, God's covenant with Moses was CONDITIONAL
[my emphasis]: 'If you will indeed obey my voice . . . then you shall be a
special treasure' (Ex. 19:5). God's covenant with Moses did not deal with
how to enter a relationship with the Lord. The Abrahamic covenant had
already established who the chosen people were. The Mosaic covenant spelled
out terms for fellowship with God."
Again, I can't imagine that any "reasonable" person would continue to
challenge this issue.
Regards,
Bruce Monson