We've been having a discussion of the Covenants on another thread, which prompted me to think that a disucussion as to the nature of the Old Covenant might be helfpul in understanding the issues.

The Old Covenant was formalized at Sinai, but it has existed in principle since the fall and will continue to exist in principle until Christ comes again. The priniciple of the Old Covenant is to trust in the flesh. It's the flesh rather than the Spirit; works-rightouesness rather than righteousness by faith; following rules rather than the law written in the heart; the traditions of man rather than the commandments of God; fig leaves intead of the covering provided by God; Sunday instead of the Sabbath.

Shortly after the fall, Cain decided to bring an offering of vegetables to the Lord instead of the sacrifice God had requested, a type of Christ's sacrifice. Cain's desire was to go his own way, and the spirit of those who disregard God's instructions was immediately shown when he murdered his brother.

God promised to Abraham a son through whom all the nations of the world would be blessed. This son was to be a gift from above, born of the Spirit. Eventually God fulfilled His promise, when Abraham and Sarah believed, but before this happened Abraham attempted to fulfill the promises of God by the flesh. This is the Old Covenant in principle. This is why Paul uses Hagar as an example of it. The reason why the Old Covenant leads to bondage (Gal. 4:24) is because the works of the flesh cannot but lead to bondage. When Abraham believed, he ceased his dependence on the flesh, and circumcision was a sign of the righteousness he had by faith, and of the fact that he was not depending on the flesh.

At Sinai the COI manifest the same spirit. In their unbelief they sought to fulfill God's promises by the flesh, just as Abraham had done. God formalized that covenant, and there are many good things about it, but the principle of the Old Covenant is that of unbelief, of depending on the flesh. The Old Covenant in principle is not a matter of time, but of condition. It neither began at Sinai nor ended at the cross. It is just as possible for us to be under it now as it was for the COI -- if we trust in the flesh rather than in the promises of God, we are under the Old Covenant.

When we understand the principle of the Old Covenant, we see how it would have been impossible for the Lord to have initalized it. He has never induced anyone to trust in the flesh. But if we insist in trusting in the flesh, He is gracious, and will patiently work with us until we are ready to trust in the Spirit and be justified by faith.

bump

Apparently my bump didn't work. I'm trying to keep this from falling off the cliff, especially before Roseangela gets back.

Would you say, Tom, that God, being the respecter of the Two Major Precepts("Freewill" and "No Forcing") had to use what we gave Him to use? Like making lemon-ade from lemons, instead of letting us die of dehydration? Could this explain His "winking at" polygamy, slavery, nation building through killing, wanting to be like other nations and a progressive host of other "immature" human qualities?

Adam and Eve understood and obeyed the law before they ate the forbidden fruit. God made a covenant with our first parents which promised pardon and salvation conditional on obedience and animal sacrifices. The covenant was based on righteousness by faith in the promised Messiah. The conditions of the covenant were gradually forgotten as they were handed down from generation to generation. God finally chose Abraham to preserve the covenant. Circumcision was added as a sign.

In Egypt, the COI largely lost sight of the covenant, and what remained was so distorted that it was necessary for God to restore it at Sinai. To help protect the covenant from future perversion it was greatly expanded. It was also tailored to accommodate Israel’s new status as God’s chosen people and nation. Laws were added to regulate societal, judicial and ceremonial requirements. The sanctuary and priesthood was established. But the basic principles and conditions of the covenant remained unchanged. They were still based on righteousness by faith in the promised Messiah.

The covenant became known as the old and new covenants. These terms are somewhat misleading in that the new is actually older than the old covenant. The new, even though it was established years before the old, wasn’t ratified by the blood of Christ until years after the old, which is the only reason why it is called the new covenant. At Sinai, the old covenant was ratified by the blood of animals, which symbolized the new covenant. The old covenant was an elaborate method, added by God, to protect and preserve the new covenant.

The new covenant is, therefore, based on better promises, a better sacrifice, and a better priesthood. But the old covenant was never given to replace the new covenant. Not at all. Rather, the old covenant was established to protect and preserve the new covenant. But it was a complex and complicated system that made faith and works burdensome. It is so much easier, under the new covenant, to experience righteousness by faith. In fact, if Abraham and the COI had been faithful and true to the new covenant, circumcision and ceremonies would never have been added to it.

But the new covenant, when it was first given to mankind, required animal sacrifices, which was also a burden. Of course, it was not as burdensome as the old covenant, but when compared to the Communion Service, even the original terms of the new covenant was a burden. Again, it is so much easier, so much less tedious and tiresome, to exercise faith in Christ and Him crucified. I am so glad we are no longer required to observe the daily and annual ceremonies associated with the sanctuary.

Ikan, yes, I agree with what you said.

Mike, the Old Covenant is attempting to gain the favor of God through the works of the flesh. Note in Gal. 4 Paul refers to Hagar as the Old Covenant, and this was hundreds of years before Sinai. Note also that the Old Covenant leads to bondage. God is not responsible for any of these things (that is, attempting to gain His favor by works of the flesh, or leading us into bondage). God would have us be justified by faith.

PP 364
If man had kept the law of God, as given to Adam after his fall, preserved by Noah, and observed by Abraham, there would have been no necessity for the ordinance of circumcision. And if the descendants of Abraham had kept the covenant, of which circumcision was a sign, they would never have been seduced into idolatry, nor would it have been necessary for them to suffer a life of bondage in Egypt; they would have kept God's law in mind, and there would have been no necessity for it to be proclaimed from Sinai or engraved upon the tables of stone. And had the people practiced the principles of the Ten Commandments, there would have been no need of the additional directions given to Moses. {PP 364.2}

I'm not sure why you quoted that paragraph from PP. That supports what I've been saying. If the people had responded to God's manifold promise by faith instead of unbelief, then there would have been no need for the formalized Old Covenant.

Waggoner ("truth", "clear and convincing") expresses the concept here:

quote:

---

What are the two covenants?--The two women, Hagar and Sarah; for we read that Hagar is Mount Sinai, "which gendereth to bondage." That is, just as Hagar could not bring forth any other kind of children than slaves, so the law, even the law that God spoke from Sinai, can not beget freemen. It can do nothing but hold them in bondage. "The law worketh wrath:" "for by the law is the knowledge of sin." The same is true of the covenant from Sinai, for it consisted merely of the promise of the people to keep that law, and had, therefore, no more power to make them free than the law itself had,--no more power than they already had in their bondage. Nay, rather, it "gendered to bondage," since their making it was simply a promise to make themselves righteous by their own works, and man in himself is "without strength."

Consider the situation: The people were in the bondage of sin; they had no power to break their chains; but the speaking of the law made no change in their condition; it introduced no new feature. If a man is in prison for crime, you can not release him by reading the statutes to him. It was the law that put him there, and the reading of it to him only makes his captivity more painful.

"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. That covenant was confirmed in Christ, and, therefore, was a covenant from above. See John 8:23. It promised righteousness as a free gift of God through faith, and it included all nations. All the miracles that God had wrought in delivering the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage were but demonstrations of His power to deliver them and us from the bondage of sin. Yes, the deliverance from Egypt was itself a demonstration not only of God's power, but also of His desire to lead them from the bondage of sin, that bondage in which the covenant from Sinai holds men, because Hagar, who is the covenant from Sinai, was an Egyptian. 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.

Further, if the children of Israel who came out of Egypt had but walked "in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised" (Rom.4:12), the law would never have been spoken from Sinai; "for the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith" (Rom.4:13). Faith justifies, makes righteous; if the people had had Abraham's faith, they would have had the righteousness that he had; and then there would have been no occasion for the entering of the law, which was "spoken because of transgression." The law would have been in their hearts, and they would not have needed to be awakened by its thunders to a sense of their condition. God never expected, and does not now expect, that any person can get righteousness by the law proclaimed from Sinai; and everything connected with Sinai shows it. Yet the law is truth, and must be kept. God delivered the people from Egypt, "that they might observe His statutes, and keep His laws." Ps.105:45. We do not get life by keeping the commandments, but God gives us life in order that we may keep them. ("These are the Two Covenants" from The Glad Tidings)

---

Here's a question for you Mike. The Spirit of Prophesy tells us that the reason the opponents of Waggoner's view of the Covenants opposed him was because they knew if they conceded that Waggoner was correct on the covenants, they would have to concede he was correct regarding the law in Galatians. Why?

That is, what's the connection between Waggoner's view of the Old Covenant and the law in Galatians? Why would accepting Waggoner's view on the covenants lead one to believe that the law in Galatians is the moral law?

You seem to be of the opinion that Ellen G. White was not really endorsing Waggoner's view of the Covenants, but just selected parts of it. Meaning that her endorsement doesn't count if Waggoner's view is different than yours. It only counts where you agree with Waggoner. So the point I'm making is that EGW specifically said that Waggoner was correct and his opponents were wrong regarding a specific point of the Two Covenants, and this point would have lead Waggoner's opponents to concede that Waggoner was correct regarding the law in Galatians being the moral law.

Certainly EGW's endorsement would have to, by logic, cover this specific point, right? If not, her statement is meaningless. So what was this specific point? What specifically was EGW endorsing about Waggoner's view of the covenant, bearing in mind:
1) It's something Waggoner held which was different than what his opponents held.
2) Accepting this contoverted point would lead on to accept that Waggoner's teaching on the law in Galatians was correct.

In case you're interested, here's the SOP statement:

quote:

---

The covenant question is a clear question and would be received by every candid, unprejudiced mind, but I was brought where the Lord gave me an insight into this matter. You have turned from plain light because you were afraid that the law question in Galatians would have to be accepted. (MR9 329)

---

What was it that made the old covenant a form of bondage? Sinfulness and selfishness. Plain and simple. These things turn even the grace of God, under the new covenant, into lasciviousness. Obedience preserves the integrity of any and every covenant.

Jude
1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

I believe Sister White taught God added the old covenant requirements to protect and preserve the new covenant. God gave them and required that they be obeyed along with the moral law. Again, plain and simple.

PP 363, 364
Therefore when the Lord brought them forth from Egypt, He came down upon Sinai, enshrouded in glory and surrounded by His angels, and in awful majesty spoke His law in the hearing of all the people. {PP 363.2}

He did not even then trust His precepts to the memory of a people who were prone to forget His requirements, but wrote them upon tables of stone. He would remove from Israel all possibility of mingling heathen traditions with His holy precepts, or of confounding His requirements with human ordinances or customs. But He did not stop with giving them the precepts of the Decalogue. The people had shown themselves so easily led astray that He would leave no door of temptation unguarded. Moses was commanded to write, as God should bid him, judgments and laws giving minute instruction as to what was required. These directions relating to the duty of the people to God, to one another, and to the stranger were only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified and given in a specific manner, that none need err. They were designed to guard the sacredness of the ten precepts engraved on the tables of stone. {PP 364.1}

Concerning the law in Galatians, Sister White wrote:

1SM 174, 175
Then the question was asked whether I thought the matter had better drop where it was, after Brother Waggoner had stated his views of the law in Galatians. I said, "By no means. We want all on both sides of the question." {3SM 174.2}

The remark was made, "If our views of Galatians are not correct, then we have not the third angel's message, and our position goes by the board; there is nothing to our faith." {3SM 174.3}

I said, "Brethren, here is the very thing I have been telling you. This statement is not true. It is an extravagant, exaggerated statement. If it is made in the discussion of this question I shall feel if my duty to set this matter before all that are assembled, and whether they hear or forbear tell them the statement is incorrect. The question at issue is not a vital question and should not be treated as such. {3SM 174.4}

1SM 233
I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. What law is the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ? I answer: Both the ceremonial and the moral code of ten commandments. {1SM 233.1}

Mike, I don't know why you quoted the things you did. Do you know what the issues were that the brethren were discussing? It looks to me like you have no idea, but I could be wrong, so I'll give you a chance to present your thoughts on this.

Do you understand that Waggoner was correct on his views, and those opposing him were incorrect? Do you know what Waggoner's view on the controverted points was? Do you know what his opponent's views on these points were?

If you don't know the answers to these questions, then no conclusions you could make regarding these points could be correct (except by luck) could they?