----- Original Message -----
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
