I'm seeing a problem here, that we're being asked to interpret EGW through the lens of what Waggoner taught. It should be the other way around. EGW's writings are inspired, not Waggoner's. The passages Rosangela posted above show *very* clearly, if English language can have any clear meaning at all, that God initiated the Old Covenant with the children of Israel. I don't know how it could be stated any plainer by words put on paper. (Or computer screens, as the case may be!)

If God tells us through His prophet that He has given us a message, shouldn't we heed the prophet?

quote:

---

The message given us by A. T. Jones, and E. J. Waggoner is the message of God to the Laodicean church, and woe be unto anyone who professes to believe the truth and yet does not reflect to others the God-given rays. (1888 Mat. 1052)

---

The message God gave to Jones and Waggoner was given to Jones and Waggoner. If we want to avoid the "woe" mentioned, we need to go to Jones and Waggoner, to whom God gave the message.

God gave truth to E. G. White, but He did not limit Himself to her as the only source by which He would communicate truth to the world. God has told us as clearly as can be told that he gave a message to Jones and Waggoner. This is hardly a "problem."

She stated herself that God gave them a message and a gift He did not give to her. She stated that they could teach righteousness by faith more clearly than she could. She said she would be as a little child to gather up all the rays of light that God had to give.

The problem there is, that you're misconstruing the message God gave to Jones and Waggoner; taking it beyond what it actually was, and carrying EGW's endorsement into areas where it was never intended to go.

Tom,

What Waggoner says is:

“’Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage?’--Not by any means; since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes. … So when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, and then said, ‘Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.’ Ex.19:5. To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, that is, God's promise,--keep the faith,--they would be a peculiar treasure unto God, for God, as the possessor of all the earth, was able to do with them all that He had promised. The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary. He was leading them out of bondage, not into it, and the apostle plainly tells us that covenant from Sinai was nothing but bondage.”

You interpret this as meaning that the people initiated the covenant, but does the text really need to be interpreted in that way, or he is just saying that the response of the people was wrong?

What I see in EGW’s writings is that God initiated the covenant (that one that was ratified), and the people just accepted it. This is what Waggoner must be saying in order to be in agreement with EGW.
“Bravely did the Israelites speak the words promising obedience to the Lord, after hearing His covenant read in the audience of the people. They said, ‘All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient’ (Exodus 24:7). Then the people were set apart and sealed to God. A sacrifice was offered to the Lord. A portion of the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled upon the altar. This signified that the people had consecrated themselves-- body, mind, and soul--to God. A portion was sprinkled upon the people. This signified that through the sprinkled blood of Christ, God graciously accepted them as His special treasure. Thus the Israelites entered into a solemn covenant with God.” Ms 126, 1901, pp. 15-17. ("The Giving of the Law," December 10, 1901.) {1MR 115.1}
“[Exodus 24:4-8 quoted]. Here the people received the conditions of the covenant. They made a solemn covenant with God, typifying the covenant made between God and every believer in Jesus Christ. The conditions were plainly laid before the people. They were not left to misunderstand them. When they were requested to decide whether they would agree to all the conditions given, they unanimously consented to obey every obligation. They had already consented to obey God's commandments. The principles of the law were now particularized, that they might know how much was involved in covenanting to obey the law; and they accepted the specifically defined particulars of the law.” {1MR 114.2}

"The problem there is, that you're misconstruing the message God gave to Jones and Waggoner; taking it beyond what it actually was, and carrying EGW's endorsement into areas where it was never intended to go."

How do you figure that, John? She endorsed their message over a thousand times, in the strongest possible language. She specifically endorsed Waggoner's teaching on the Covenants, the subject on this thread, calling it "truth" and "clear and convincing" and said those who opposed this teaching as "wasting their investigative powers."

How could she have endorsed this any more clearly?

Rose: (is that ok?)

In Ex. 19, God spoke to the COI of the covenant He had established with Abraham, the everlasting covenant, which had everything the people needed. The did not understand this, and, seeking to establish their own righteousness, they made promises to God when God was intending that the believe His promises to them. I hope this makes sense so far. This is what Waggoner was saying, and EGW too in PP.

In Ex. 24 the people had already responded negatively to the Everlasting Covenant, so God gave them a Covenant along the lines they had in mind, which He graciously called His Covenant.

The confusion is coming in mixing up what happened in Ex. 24 with what happened in Ex. 19.

Regarding Waggoner's comments

quote:

---

"’Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage?’--Not by any means; since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes. … So when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, and then said, ‘Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.’ Ex.19:5. To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, that is, God's promise,--keep the faith,--they would be a peculiar treasure unto God, for God, as the possessor of all the earth, was able to do with them all that He had promised. The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary. He was leading them out of bondage, not into it, and the apostle plainly tells us that covenant from Sinai was nothing but bondage.”

---

1. God did not lead the people in bondage (which the Old Covenant does)
2. God did not induce the people to make the covenant they made with Him ("induce" is parallel to "initiate")
3. The Covenant with Abraham had everything the people needed.
4. There was no need for another covenant (since it was sufficient for all purposes)
5. God referred to the Covenant He had made with Abraham.
6. The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary.

Again, Waggoner is being very clear here. I think if you bear in mind that the circumstances were different in Ex. 24 and Ex. 19 that will help clear things up.

Tom,

Sorry for this long post, but I there were some EGW extracts I wanted to quote in full.

I used to think that there was a difference between the covenant of Ex. 19 and the covenant of Ex. 24, but I’m no longer sure of this. The covenant seems to be one and the same: obedience to the law brings eternal life and all the other blessings.

quote:

---

“When the Lord gave His law to the children of Israel encamped at the foot of Mount Sinai, the people with one accord promised, ‘All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient’ (Exodus 24:7). In return for their loyalty, the Lord promised to bring them safely into the promised land and to prosper them above all nations. … During the forty years of wilderness wandering, the Lord was true to the covenant He had made with His people. Those who were obedient to Him received the promised blessings. And this covenant is still in force. Through obedience we can receive heaven's richest blessings. {1MR 311, 312}

---

Since the new (abrahamic) covenant was in force at the time of the COI, there was really no need to make another covenant. But the COI had lost the knowledge of the principles of this covenant. So God made another covenant with them to teach them, in simple terms, what the abrahamic covenant (salvation by faith) was all about. He wanted to teach them about their sinfulness and their need of a Savior. He gave them the tangible, so that they could understand the intangible – the law in stone, so that they could achieve the experience of the law in the heart through an indwelling Savior; the sacrifices, so that they could understand that the Savior’s sacrifice would provide forgiveness for their sins. The problem was that they became attached to the tangible and to the letter – which could never save – and never discerned in them the Savior, who was their only hope. They never discerned that it was impossible for them to perfectly obey the law and that therefore they were under its curse and thus condemned to death.

quote:

---

The holy law of God is both brief and comprehensive; for it is easily understood and remembered; and yet it is an expression of the will of God. Its comprehensiveness is summed up in the following words: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. . . . Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." "This do, and thou shalt live." "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.". . . If the transgressor is to be treated according to the letter of this covenant, then there is no hope for the fallen race; for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. The fallen race of Adam can behold nothing else in the letter of this covenant than the ministration of death; and death will be the reward of everyone who is seeking vainly to fashion a righteousness of his own that will fulfill the claims of the law. (ST Sept. 5, 1892). {6BC 1095.4}

---

quote:

---

He [Paul] says, "If the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away; how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory." 2 Cor. 3:7-9.
The law of God given in awful grandeur from Sinai was the utterance of condemnation to the sinner. The transgressor died without mercy. The proclamation of that law and the repetition of it in the holy mount was so sacred and so glorious that upon the face of Moses was reflected a glory which the people could not look upon without pain, so that Moses covered his face with a veil.
"Much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth." Verses 9, 10. It is the province of the law to condemn, but there is no power in the law to pardon. The glory that shone upon the face of Moses was the righteousness of Christ in the law. He saw to the end of that which was to be abolished when type should meet antitype in Jesus Christ. In consequence of the transgression of the law of God, death was introduced into the world. The slain lamb typified the Lamb of God that was to take away the sin of the world. The full significance of the typical offerings pointing to Christ was unfolded to Moses. Death came in consequence of sin. Sin was the transgression of the law. Christ revealed in the gospel was the propitiation for men's sins, the transgression of the law. His perfection of character was placed in man's behalf. The curse of the law Christ took upon Himself. It was the seeing to the end of that which was to be abolished, that which brought to light the plan of salvation in Christ, -- it was this that illuminated the face of Moses.
If the typical sacrifices which were done away were glorious because Christ was revealed by them as the sin-pardoning Saviour, much more that which remains is glorious. The moral law was bondage and death to those who remained under its condemnation. The law was ordained to life, that those who were obedient, walking in harmony with its claims, should have the reward of the faithful--eternal life.
Moses saw that only through Jesus Christ could man keep the law of God. Paul says, "The commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death" (Rom. 7:10), death to the sinner. The types and ceremonies, with the prophecies, gave ancient believers a veiled or indistinct discovery of the mercy and grace to be brought to light through the revelation of Jesus Christ to our world. The law itself would have no glory were it not that Christ is embodied in it. The revelation of Jesus Christ cast its glory back into the Jewish age. The law had no power to save. It was lustreless, only as Christ was represented in the law as the One full of righteousness and truth.
And when Christ was revealed in His advent to our world, and died man's sacrifice, type met antitype. Then the glory of that which is not typical, not to be done away, but which remaineth, God's law of ten commandments, the standard of righteousness, was plainly discerned as immutable by all who saw to the end of that which was abolished.
Paul would have his brethren discern that Christ, pointed out in types and shadows, had come, and the greater glory of a sin-pardoning Saviour gave significance to the entire Jewish economy. Without Christ, the law of itself was only condemnation and death to the transgressor. It has no saving quality,--no power to shield the transgressor from its penalty. The full penalty of the law will be executed upon the transgressor if he does not receive Christ as his atoning sacrifice and personal Saviour. {BEcho, August 4, 1902}

---

quote:

---

Without the grace of Christ it is impossible to take one step in obedience to the law of God. … Without Christ there can be only condemnation and a fearful looking for a fiery indignation, and final separation from the presence of God. {1SM 371.2}

---

quote:

---

In Christ we are as if we had suffered the penalty we have incurred. In Christ I am as if I had obeyed, and rendered perfect obedience to the law, which we can not perfectly obey without Christ imparts to us His merits and His righteousness. {PUR, September 4, 1913 par. 3}

---

What does this all mean I wonder while reading your different posts...

quote:

---

Galatians 4
8Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9But now that you know God–or rather are known by God–how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

12I plead with you, brothers, become like me, for I became like you. You have done me no wrong. 13As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you. 14Even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself. 15What has happened to all your joy? I can testify that, if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me. 16Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?

17Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may be zealous for them. 18It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always and not just when I am with you. 19My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, 20how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!
21Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.

24These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written: “Be glad, O barren woman,
who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud,
you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”[b]

28Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30But what does the Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son.”[c] 31Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

Galatians 5

1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

7You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? 8That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9“A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” 10I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. 11Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

13You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature[a]; rather, serve one another in love. 14The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 15If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
Life by the Spirit
16So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and selfcontrol. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

---

/Thomas

I really appreciated this from Rosangela's last post here:

quote:

---

Since the new (abrahamic) covenant was in force at the time of the COI, there was really no need to make another covenant. But the COI had lost the knowledge of the principles of this covenant. So God made another covenant with them to teach them, in simple terms, what the abrahamic covenant (salvation by faith) was all about. He wanted to teach them about their sinfulness and their need of a Savior. He gave them the tangible, so that they could understand the intangible – the law in stone, so that they could achieve the experience of the law in the heart through an indwelling Savior; the sacrifices, so that they could understand that the Savior’s sacrifice would provide forgiveness for their sins. The problem was that they became attached to the tangible and to the letter – which could never save – and never discerned in them the Savior, who was their only hope. They never discerned that it was impossible for them to perfectly obey the law and that therefore they were under its curse and thus condemned to death.

---

The fault wasn't in any of "the covenants."

The fault was, and still is, in the people, even with the New Covenant, as people today do not even understand the workings of the New Covenant.

Why do so many people not have the assurance of salvation? It is because they do not really understand the New Covenant.

Rose: Since the new (abrahamic) covenant was in force at the time of the COI, there was really no need to make another covenant. But the COI had lost the knowledge of the principles of this covenant.

Tom: This is demonstrated by their response when God proclaimed His covenant (the everlasting Covenant) to them.

Rose: So God made another covenant with them to teach them, in simple terms, what the abrahamic covenant (salvation by faith) was all about. He wanted to teach them about their sinfulness and their need of a Savior. He gave them the tangible, so that they could understand the intangible – the law in stone, so that they could achieve the experience of the law in the heart through an indwelling Savior; the sacrifices, so that they could understand that the Savior’s sacrifice would provide forgiveness for their sins. The problem was that they became attached to the tangible and to the letter – which could never save – and never discerned in them the Savior, who was their only hope. They never discerned that it was impossible for them to perfectly obey the law and that therefore they were under its curse and thus condemned to death.

Tom: I think what you wrote here is very good, as long as we understand that it was the people who initiated the Covenant, and not God. That is, God "made" a Covenant with them in the sense that he agreed to what they wanted, which was a rules-based system. It was not God's intention to give them a rules-based system, since He knew that would never work. But if they wanted a rules-based system, He would give them the best possible rules-based system.

Remember that the Old Covenant:
1) Leads to bondage
2) It is based on faulty promises
3) It is a system of works-rightoueness

These three points bear out that it was not initiated by God.

Another point to keep in mind which has not been addressed I don't think, although I've made it repeatedly, God proclaimed the same Covenant to Jeremiah as He did to the COI. Jeremiah understood that God was speaking a promise to him and responded appropriately, "Amen!" (This is also how Abraham responded. "Amen" in the Hebrew means "I believe.")

Also a couple of EGW quotes relating to the 10 commandments:

quote:

---

"The ten commandments, Thou shalt, and Thou shalt not, are ten promises, assured to us if we render obedience to the law governing the universe" (Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 1, p. 1105).

---

quote:

---

"There is not a negative in that law, although it may appear thus. It is DO and live" (idem).

---

quote:

---

"The terms of the 'old covenant' were, obey and live. . . . The ‘new covenant" was established upon ‘better promises'—the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 372)

---