Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral Covenant?

[Bill Taylor]

----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 10:11 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral Covenant? Bill Taylor wrote: I will go with what Lance and Slade have written. They handled it quite nicely. DavidM replies: They did?  Lance took several emails to finally say that he would characterize Abraham as an active participant.  Slade did not answer the question directly, but seems to indicate that active might be his answer, depending on how I might understand that word.  Now John S. has considered switching his answer from passive to active, but I'm not sure he has done that.       David, I explained to you why I was willing to go with Lance and Slade's response; furthermore, and this too I said, it was to expedite the process. Now let's be serious: Don't you think we all know the process by now? You toss us an either/or bone. We latch on to it. And then you get to spank us for being so spirituality obtuse. Take, for example, your reply to Slade: "Paralyzed?  Do you get that from the text somewhere? A deep sleep came upon Abraham so that his flesh became inactive.  The text tells us, however, that Abraham's spirit became very active while his body was sleeping.  So if one looks at the Torah carnally, one might view Abraham as inactive, but if one looks at it spiritually, one might perceive that Abraham became more active at this point."   Come on, David. Must one be carnally minded to recognize that even the paralyzed may still be able to think? You pondered the significance of an apparent reluctance on our part to answer a "simple, but important question." Is it dawning on you now that our "avoidance" may be of the questioner and not the question? The reason I am reluctant to engage you in one of your either/or questions is because I do not trust your motives. If I need to be more blunt, that translates into, I do not trust you. And why is it that I do not trust you? Because you continually demonstrate the same kind of treat-and-beat tactics. Abraham's mind/spirit may well have been quite active -- the text indicates they were -- but the point of significance is that his body was completely inactive: He expected to pass through the pieces himself, a practice that was very common in his culture. Yet he had been rendered immobile. At least part of the activity of his mind at this point of bodily paralysis (and can you think of a better word to explain it?), was wondering what God was attempting to communicate to him about the significance of this covenant.   Abraham dare not have passed through the pieces! Think about it: We see that in response to Abram's request for reassurance of the fulfillment of the promises, God told Abram to prepare for a formal blood covenant. As I will gladly demonstrate if I should so need, Abram would have been very familiar with the ritual, but what must have spoken volumes to him was the number of animals God asked him to sacrifice: a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtle dove, a young pigeon. Any one of these would have been sufficient to enact a blood covenant; the sheer number of animals stressed the importance of what was being covenanted. Yet at that crucial point of cutting or enacting the covenant God disabled Abraham (Abram) from participating -- that is, from walking with God through the pieces. If we can take any imaginative license at all, we may know that Abraham was getting the picture: this thing is too big to place the weight of its fulfillment upon my shoulders! Again, I know that Judy had some concern about this, but it is not that only one party passed through the pieces; nor is it a solitary monad striking an agreement with himself -- a thought, I agree, that would be as nonsensical as you suggested. A covenant demands the participation of two members -- Abraham knew this; he knew it better than we know it -- and at that crucial point of ratifying the covenant, TWO MEMBERS passed through the pieces. David, I'll ask you one of those stupefying questions that you ask us: Do you believe in the Trinity--yes or no? If you do, and I fully expect that you do, then the significance of the furnace and the flame passing through the pieces, while Abraham is down for the count, ought to begin to compute: Abraham is thinking WOW, THIS IS SIGNIFICANT! -- IF THE FURNACE FAILS TO KEEP THE COVENANT, THEN GOD MUST DIE; IF THE FLAME FAILS TO KEEP THE COVENANT, THEN GOD MUST DIE: THIS COVENANT IS IMPORTANT! AND IT IS GOING TO WORK!   David, is it not astounding to you that both the flame and the furnace did keep the covenant; yet one of them went to the cross for and on behalf of Abraham and all who could not? You've admitted to a deficiency in atonement theory. Why not take this opportunity to ponder the significance of Representation as it relates to at-onement. Had Abraham passed through those pieces the covenant would have collapsed shortly thereafter -- if not via Abraham himself then through his offspring. God did not treat the covenant like one might win a debate -- His was not a set up. God's intent was to covenant with his people -- Yes, that they might actively engage him. And in order for that to take place, he would have to address the human condition. That he did in and through his Son Jesus Christ.   Bill