KnightWhoSaysNi

J.F. Till and Jason Gastrich have agreed to transfer their ongoing debate from Inerrancy.com on Biblical prophecies to IIDB Formal Debates. The debate can be viewed here.

The topic of the ongoing debate is the following:

"The Yahwistic land promise to the descendants of Abraham was fulfilled in all of its details."

Jason Gastrich will take the affirmative while J.F. Till will oppose. The prior interactions and parameters of this debate can be seen here as well.

The debate is currently on Round 3, which will go to Round 4 after J.F. Till responds.

Jason

RED DAVE

I find a certain unreality to this debate given all the recent archaeological evidence that the Exodus and conquest of Canaan never took place.

RED DAVE

CJD

This debate is already a failure. But there are a few points worth mentioning. One is recognizing the utter inability of certain people to see what the opposing view is arguing. Gastrich's response to the statement "I find a certain unreality to this debate given all the recent archaeological evidence that . . . conquest of Canaan never took place" might be, "No shit, sherlock. As the conditions of the covenant were not fully met, the conquest never fully occurred." But I suspect this is no match for blind revulsion.

While Gastrich points out some important hermeneutical principles, he has failed to mention how the land promise is--at least in one sense--"unconditional." I put the word "unconditional" in quotes because it is an oxymoron to call a covenant "unconditional." Till should take note and reassess his verbiage. "Covenants," by definition, have sanctions. Without a sanction there is no covenant. The land promise is indeed conditional--conditional, that is, upon YHWH's utter faithfulness to his promise. In Genesis 15, it is YHWH and YHWH alone that passes through the animal halves (v. 17). Symbolized by a smoking oven and a burning torch (signifying God's presence with Israel during the Exodus [Ex. 13:21; 19:18; 20:18]), God passes between the carcass pieces (which signified the punishment due those who would break the covenant). Jer. 34:18 indicates this, and other ANE texts also describe this kind of covenant ritual. In other words, there is valid historical imagery here. The treaty between God and Abram closely parallels other ANE treaties royal land grants made by kings to loyal servants and their descendents in perpetuity.

The reason why this debate is failed is because the "unconditional" aspect of the Abrahamic covenant can only be reconciled Christianly through the Messiah. As this often comes across as theological ad hoc, to argue for this as some kind of substantial "proof" is useless. If I were an orthodox Jew, I would simply be still waiting for YHWH to fulfill his land promise to the remnant of Israel. But as a Christian, that land promise was fulfilled in the Messiah, as he was the "seed" through whom people from every nation would be blessed. His utter faithfulness to the covenant on our behalf enabled him to become the perfect sacrifice (remember the animal halves!), one who bore the curses of the covenant, again, on our behalf. This is global in its effect. Thus, the inheritance of the land actually becomes the inheritance of the earth. The reader will already feel their stomach turning, as there is nothing conclusive about any of this from your perspective.

One thing Gastrich does get right is the conditional nature of the promise. But he misses (as of yet) the fact that it was generationally conditional. That is, while a certain generation could break the covenant and face the prospect of never owning the land, the long term prospect was that the promise was a sure thing--as Till rightly notes (however, basing its "unconditionality" entirely upon Abe's obedience to Yahweh’s voice is a mistake. That might have been the catalyst, but YHWH is clear in Genesis 15 that the "unconditional" nature of the covenant is based on his utter faithfulness to it).

The crux of the debate, I think, is in the following: History shows that the land promise made to Abe has not been entirely fulfilled--even with the formation of the nation of Israel in 1948 (?). The Tanak portrays a people who played the harlot with foreign gods throughout most of their existence in the land. History shows that these people often met with exile, which, by the way, is a clear fulfillment of the land promise's curse. If the other texts that Gastrich cites--texts that do point to the conditional nature of the land promise--are taken seriously, then his argument is partially right. But so is Till's. Gastrich is seemingly headed for a dead-end. How will he be able to reconcile the "uncoditional" aspects of the covenant without getting into Christian theology? He won't be able to; and if he does, then he's gone about it wrong. But will Till recognize that the text warrants a generationally conditional aspect of the covenant? If he does not, then his motivations become suspect, because I am sure he knows better. In the end, both arguments will smack of disingenuity.

Regards,

CJD

CJD

Speaking of Genesis 26:1–6, Till writes: "This is the passage where Yahweh after Abraham was dead renewed the land promise to Isaac and said that the promise was being made because Abraham obeyed Yahweh's voice and kept his charge, his commandments, his statutes, and his laws. My argument is that if Yahweh made the promise after Abraham’s death and said that he was making the promise because of Abraham’s fidelity but attached to the promise no behavioral conditions on the part of Abraham’s descendants, then the promise was predicated only on the behavior of Abraham. Yahweh couldn’t later “change his mind” or add conditions without reneging on his promise."

— This is only partially right. Before this verse, YHWH had already redefined the promise. Genesis 22:18 reads: ". . . and all nations of the earth will be blessed through the seed of you, since consequently (e kev) you hearkened to the voice of me" (roughly literal translation). All this does is serve to underscore the certainty of the covenant (which Till points out, but wrongly attributes it to Abe's faithfulness alone). This promise, the very promise [in part] mentioned in Genesis 15 and 26, was previously grounded solely in the will and purpose of YHWH (cf. Genesis 15). But now it is transformed so that it is grounded both in the will of YHWH and in the obedience of Abe (see also 17:9, where God turns to Abe and demands he fulfill his obligations to the covenant, a covenant that was initiated divinely, but must be confirmed by the one with whom the covenant was made. i.e., Abe). Note that 17:9 also demands that Abe's offspring keep the covenant, too. What does this do to Till's rather static reading of 26:5?

In Till's "favorite" pericope, we see this same recipe: "consequently Abraham hearkened to my voice and he kept charge of my commandments, statutes and laws" (26:5).

Till reads a bit too far into this, I gather. He rightly reads it in an idiomatic fashion, i.e., "because" = "because of," but he wrongly deduces that the covenant is predicated solely on Abe's (and not his offspring's) obedience. The word e kev I translated "consequently" so there would be no doubt as to what "because" meant. But the wording itself serves to remind Isaac (in 26:1–6) that his participation in the blessing is conditioned upon his obedience. The promise was re-defined earlier when Abe obeyed (22:18), why not now when Isaac is charged with the same promise? What did Isaac do in the very next verse (6)? He stayed. In faith, Abe went out (12:4). And in faith, Isaac remains. Just as Abraham, Isaac meets the conditions of blessing. Plausible? If not, why not?

It seems to me that this debate should not have gone on until the two debaters came to a conclusion on Till's pivotal pericope.

Regards,

CJD

Prince Vegita

Honestly I can't believe that anybody is giving Gastrich the time of day. He's been a running joke over on the Atheist Network ever since he popped up on InfidelGuy's radio show a while back.

KnightWhoSaysNi

Jason Gastrich has submitted his next response, moving into round 4 of the ongoing debate.

Jason

KnightWhoSaysNi

J.F. Till has returned from vacation and his formal debate with Jason Gastrich has resumed.

Nightshade, FD Moderator

CJD

This time around, Mr. Till smacked Mr. Gastrich upside the head with the surrounding context of the passages in question. If Mr. Gastrich truly argued that Joshua 21:43 only speaks of the territories described in chapter 21, then he is out of line contexually, as Mr. Till has shown.

Since I am not an inerrantist of the fundy-stripe, I am much more concerned with what the text is trying to convey as opposed to figuring out historically, etc., how to make all the pieces "fit," which brings me to the few nits I have regarding Mr. Till's argument:

1. Given Till's basic understanding of the surrounding context of the passages in question, it is no small wonder how he continues to find value in his argument that the land-promise is unconditional based on the reasons he gives. Frankly, it is elementary and fails entirely to take other surrounding portions of the text into account (which I have already pointed-out in my preceding post). It is by far the worst portion of his argument, and I am embarrassed for him.

What does he make Gen. 12:3 in relation to, for example, Josh. 23:13? While the validity of the land promise is no way dependent on human cooperation, the promise will nonetheless NOT benefit those who reject the grace of God. This has always been a clear provision within the promise from the very beginning (cf. 12:3).

2. Everyone that can clearly read can see that the author/editor intended to write in 21:43 that God was faithful to his pledge to Abe, Isaac and Jacob. This is the surrounding context of the entire book. The cataloguing of the division of the land among the tribes (13:1–21:45) is just a literary means to that end. It would help Mr. Till's argument to explain why the author/editor chose to speak of the conquest in this manner. If it requires a theological answer, and if Mr. Till acknowledges that, then maybe he will also see why "inerrancy" is not the issue at all.

This forces us to deal with the author/editor's motives for describing the conquest as complete (10:40–42; 11:23; 21:43–45; 23:1, 14) and as incomplete (13:1–7; 15:63; 17:12–13; 18:3; 23:5). Redaction criticism clearly does not offer a sufficient explanation. We either have a later editor blatantly contradicting what was previously written, or we have a later editor trying to say something theological for his audience (the exilic community). What they need to hear? That God is utterly faithful to his covenant. It's really that simple. Contradiction isn't even the issue, because inerrancy isn't even the issue. Modern fundamentalists have made it thus, and modern atheists have been more than willing to challenge them with their own criterion. Any atheist who thinks their work in this matter actually does damage to historic, orthodox Christianity is, as Mr. Solo put it, "suffering from delusions of grandeur." I am far more worried about fundamentalists and civil religionists like GW than the atheists who show them their inconsistencies. Sorry about that tangent.

One final question it seems to me that Mr. Till must answer is: Can a country not be officially defeated and occupied before every part of it ceases resistance?

Regards,

CJD

tadsurf777

Besides the promise being completely conditional. (you can only possess that which you receive, in full or in part)

Till's argument appears to hinge on Joshua 21:43 "and they possessed it" and he emphasizes possessed. He appears to interpret this as meaning total and completely fulfilled possession when the Hebrew word yarash used here is in the imperfect tense which expresses an action, process or condition which is incomplete.

No?

td

B. H. Manners

CDJ writes:

"While Gastrich points out some important hermeneutical principles, he has failed to mention how the land promise is--at least in one sense--"unconditional." I put the word "unconditional" in quotes because it is an oxymoron to call a covenant "unconditional." Till should take note and reassess his verbiage. "Covenants," by definition, have sanctions. Without a sanction there is no covenant. The land promise is indeed conditional--conditional, that is, upon YHWH's utter faithfulness to his promise."

BH: In other words, it is conditional on YHWH not being a liar.

"In Genesis 15, it is YHWH and YHWH alone that passes through the animal halves (v. 17). Symbolized by a smoking oven and a burning torch (signifying God's presence with Israel during the Exodus [Ex. 13:21; 19:18; 20:18])"

BH: In Genesis 15 we have a smoking oven and a burning torch. In the Exodus passages we have a pillar of cloud, pillar of fire, and smoke “went up like the smoke of a kiln“---not a smoking oven itself or a burning torch like in Genesis. I fail to see the parallel you claim is there.


" God passes between the carcass pieces (which signified the punishment due those who would break the covenant). Jer. 34:18 indicates this, and other ANE texts also describe this kind of covenant ritual. In other words, there is valid historical imagery here. The treaty between God and Abram closely parallels other ANE treaties royal land grants made by kings to loyal servants and their descendents in perpetuity."

BH: I agree with you here regarding the carcass pieces. Jeremiah portrays the slave owners as having slain an animal and passed between its pieces as a “covenant” to God promising freedom to their slaves which they later renege on. I agree that the symbolism upfront appears similar, yet the covenants made are different.

One, slaves were to be freed after the sixth year according to the law of Moses. The masters willfully had neglected to follow this command and the cutting up and passing through of the carcass was a covenant with God that they would follow through with something they should have done anyway. Look a little before this in the same chapter of Jeremiah and you will see that God commends their repentance at the time but scolds them for going back on what they had originally done right.

The cutting up of the carcass and YHWH making a furnace and torch pass through the parts is similar ritual yet there is an important difference. YHWH is the one making the promise here, not men. No where does he say to Abraham that his side of the “deal” is off if Abraham’s desendants should fall into a lapse. There is nothing about the covenant that forbids on God’s part punishment of the descendants if they should lapse, but this punishment could be done in a manner that still respected the promise regarding land given to Abraham: that his descendants (a great nation) would receive it after the fourth generation.

Just out of curiosity, could you pm me examples of other ANE treaties involving similar practices such as above?

"The reason why this debate is failed is because the "unconditional" aspect of the Abrahamic covenant can only be reconciled Christianly through the Messiah. As this often comes across as theological ad hoc, to argue for this as some kind of substantial "proof" is useless. If I were an orthodox Jew, I would simply be still waiting for YHWH to fulfill his land promise to the remnant of Israel. But as a Christian, that land promise was fulfilled in the Messiah, as he was the "seed" through whom people from every nation would be blessed. His utter faithfulness to the covenant on our behalf enabled him to become the perfect sacrifice (remember the animal halves!), one who bore the curses of the covenant, again, on our behalf. This is global in its effect. Thus, the inheritance of the land actually becomes the inheritance of the earth. The reader will already feel their stomach turning, as there is nothing conclusive about any of this from your perspective."

BH: An Orthodox Jew no doubt would consider this hogwash considering the fact that many goyim have converted to the faith of Abraham. Was Rahab the harlot, the Roman Centurian whose servant Jesus healed, Ruth the Moabitess not to mention other converts not blessed through Abraham’s relationship with God?


"One thing Gastrich does get right is the conditional nature of the promise. But he misses (as of yet) the fact that it was generationally conditional. That is, while a certain generation could break the covenant and face the prospect of never owning the land, the long term prospect was that the promise was a sure thing--as Till rightly notes (however, basing its "unconditionality" entirely upon Abe's obedience to Yahweh’s voice is a mistake. That might have been the catalyst, but YHWH is clear in Genesis 15 that the "unconditional" nature of the covenant is based on his utter faithfulness to it)."

BH: God told Abraham in Gen 15:16 that his descendants would in the fourth generation come back to the land promised. Nowhere was a condition put on this promise or anywhere else in Genesis as you claim.

"The crux of the debate, I think, is in the following: History shows that the land promise made to Abe has not been entirely fulfilled--even with the formation of the nation of Israel in 1948 (?). The Tanak portrays a people who played the harlot with foreign gods throughout most of their existence in the land. History shows that these people often met with exile, which, by the way, is a clear fulfillment of the land promise's curse."

BH: I am glad you admit the land promise has not been fulfilled. However, where is Abraham told in Genesis that his desendants would lose the land if they sinned?


"If the other texts that Gastrich cites--texts that do point to the conditional nature of the land promise--are taken seriously, then his argument is partially right. But so is Till's. Gastrich is seemingly headed for a dead-end. How will he be able to reconcile the "uncoditional" aspects of the covenant without getting into Christian theology? He won't be able to; and if he does, then he's gone about it wrong. But will Till recognize that the text warrants a generationally conditional aspect of the covenant? If he does not, then his motivations become suspect, because I am sure he knows better. In the end, both arguments will smack of disingenuity."

BH: We shall see as the discussion progresses, won’t we?