PP 312
Having sprinkled the altar with the blood of the offerings, Moses "took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people." Thus the conditions of the covenant were solemnly repeated, and all were at liberty to choose whether or not they would comply with them. They had at the first promised to obey the voice of God; but they had since heard His law proclaimed; and its principles had been particularized, that they might know how much this covenant involved. Again the people answered with one accord, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." "When Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood, . . . and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you." Hebrews 9:19, 20. {PP 312.2}

Hi MM,

I believe that Tom’s point is that the COI entered a covenant believing they could keep it and secure a better position with God. Even if the covenant was God’s idea, which I believe it was, it wasn’t God’s intention to offer Israel a covenant where their righteousness would gain them favor with God. His intention was to make them happy and prosperous in front of the whole world as a witness to His goodness.

They were to be God’s evangelists. They misunderstood this and believed that God wanted them to keep the law to earn salvation. So the covenant that God offered wasn’t the one they agreed to. The problem was in their mind!

MM: What do you think they were agreeing to if not to obey the laws of God?

I think they believed that God was offering them a higher position on earth than any other man. They thought God was going to cause the world to serve them, but God was asking them to serve the world! They agreed to God’s terms totally misunderstanding God’s character. Had they known God they would have know that the greatest in His kingdom is the greatest servant of all.

Had they understood this they would have bowed before God and cried, “This is impossible for us Lord! We believe, but save us from our unbelief. We don’t know how to be slaves willingly. We’ve been forced to serve for 400 years and we hate our masters. How can we serve with love in our hearts for our enemies? Save us Lord!”

I really believe that had the COI understood what God was asking them they would have declined! God would have immediately given them the New Covenant written in Jerimiah 31 because their hearts were humble and the bible would have been written much differently as far as Israel goes.

You wrote, "They were to be God’s evangelists. They misunderstood this and believed that God wanted them to keep the law to earn salvation. So the covenant that God offered wasn’t the one they agreed to. The problem was in their mind!"

What do you mean?

The game was over and he didn’t get another shot. I seldom got paid, but almost got in a few fights.

So the covenant that God offered wasn’t the one they agreed to. The problem was in their mind!"

Lol. You say you "seldom" get paid. Did you ever get paid?

Do you disagree with anything I've posted on this thread?

Tom,

Most people have focused in on the wrong point with these statements in Paul. I would like to give this challenge:

Prove your view regarding the two covenants without Paul.

Just as many lean on Ellen White for doctrinal points, many others adhere only to Paul. I believe that the Bible was written in such a manner as to have balance ONLY when taken in concert, without too much leaning toward one particular viewpoint or another. Paul was off balance. For that matter, so were other authors. Jesus only would have been "perfect," yet He wrote none of the books Himself.

There is one book in the New Testament which puts balance to Paul. We can be very thankful for that little book! If it were not for James, I should be lost in confusion right now myself. I do not say Paul was wrong; simply that he did not present the complete picture. He could only present that which was strongest in his own mind.

Paul and James. Here is where nearly everybody quotes the words of James, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" James 2:21. Unfortunately this text is usually quoted as a disparagement of the words of Paul. It seems to be taken for granted that there is a contradiction between Paul and James; and sympathy naturally leans to James, because people like to believe that there is some merit in their own works, and they imagine that this is what James teaches. Indeed, there are some who hold that James wrote for the purpose of correcting Paul's "extreme views" of justification by faith.

We may well throw all such foolish and wicked ideas to the winds. No one need hope to come to an understanding of the Scriptures until he approaches them with the settled conviction that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." The Holy Spirit does not at one time inspire words which must later on be corrected.

Faith Working. The trouble with those who thus read the words of James is that they suppose that the apostle says that Abraham was justified by his own works of faith. "Seest thou how faith wrought?" That is ever the mark of living faith, as the apostle is showing. And that is just the statement of the apostle Paul. The last verse of the third chapter of Romans tells us that by faith we establish the law.

Moreover, the very term "justification" shows that faith performs the requirement of the law. Faith makes a man a doer of the law, for that is the meaning of the term "justification by faith." So in James we read that the works of Abraham simply showed the perfection of his faith. "And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness." The apostle James, therefore, teaches the same kind of justification that Paul does. If he did not, one or the other or both of them would be discredited as apostles. Justification by faith which works is the only kind of justification known in the Bible.

I disagree with the idea that Paul needs James for balance. Here is a comment by Waggoner:

Most people have focused in on the wrong point with these statements in Paul. I would like to give this challenge:

Prove your view regarding the two covenants without Paul.

[31] Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
[32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
[33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jer. 31:31-34)

[3] And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.
[4] Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.
[5]And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child. (Acts 7)

Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. (2 Pet. 3:13)

O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever! (Deut. 5:29)