----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 4:33
PM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Tearing Down?
Bill wrote: "And it came about when the sun had set, that it was very
dark, and behold, there appeared
a smoking
oven and a flaming torch which passed between these
pieces" (v. 17). Two parties passed through the pieces, but neither of them was Abraham. It is my
contention (i believe that it is our contention) that these were two of the
members of the Trinity: the Father and the Son. The Father representing his end of the covenant
and the Son representing
Abraham's. This is the Father saying to
Abraham through the Son that God would honor his promise. And this is the Son
saying to the Father on behalf of Abraham, I will honor Abraham's
responsibilities. Of course Abraham, and his descendants,
would fail to keep the covenant -- his descendants, that is, excepting one:
Jesus the Christ, the one with whom the
covenant was cut. And so we see that the covenant with
Abraham was fulfilled not by Abraham but by his Representative, Jesus Christ, and in this the covenant is unilateral in
that God's promise was contingent upon God's fulfillment of the covenant --
enter Emanuel. Bill
jt: So Bill are you saying that God made a Covenant
with Himself?
bt: No, Judy, I believe the covenant was between
himself and Abraham. What I am saying is that at the crucial point of
ratifying the covenant, it was not Abraham but the Son (who represented
Abraham) who passed through the pieces. From the beginning it was Abraham's
Seed (sg) who would fulfill the covenant.
This reminds me of the time the Mormon fellow who ran a
Used Bookstore in town and who liked to converse with customers brought to my
attention the fact that if Jesus was God when he hung on the cross, then he
was talking to Himself when He cried out to the Father from the cross - and he
had a valid point.
bt: I can see how if one's view of God is that of a
solitary monad, he or she could be confused as to whom the divine Son was
calling. I can also see how the Mormon fellow (with his poly-view) might
himself be confused about the nature of the Christian
God: indeed, in the Church today many -- dare I say most? --
Christians classify God in this monistic way. Their view of God is more
on the order of Allah, a single, nonrelational entity, than the God of the
Bible. That is not my view of God. God has always been triune. He is
one by way of untiy. From my view, there is nothing confusing about the Father
and the Son doing something in unison, just as there is nothing strange about
the Son praying to the Father.
jt: <snip> What persuades you
to believe that two people passed through the pieces and the
Covenant was basically between Jesus and God the Father?
bt: Let me clarify: the covenant was "basically"
between God and Abraham. Now let me answer your question: Because it takes two
to ratify a covenant. Abraham did not pass through the pieces. How then was
Abraham's side of the covenant ratified? It was ratified by the Son, who
passed through the pieces on Abraham's behalf, as his
representative.
Weren't there conditions that Abraham had to
meet?
bt: We are all aware of Abraham's life. At times he
showed great faith and faithfulness; at other time's his actions showed a lack
of faith and faithfulness. It is in those times of little faith that, were he
the one who had passed through the pieces, the covenant would have been
broken. Yet God knew that Abraham would fail; that is why God sent his Son.
Oh, by the way, it is also why the Son had to die -- in
part -- to pay the consequence of Abraham's failures. Yet, because the Son had
not himself failed to fulfill the covenant, death could not hold him;
hence the resurrection!
Thank you for the reply, Judy. I see from your post to
Slade (and me) that some of this is beginning to resonate. That excites me
very much. Let's praise the Lord together!
Bill
