I feel constrained to comment on this because it may give the impression that EGW was not in agreement with what Waggoner taught, which would be twisting EGW on her ear (is that the right expression?)

Waggoner had a logic involved in the study of Paul's use of the law in Galatians, as did Butler. Butler's study relied on the presumption that Galatians was dealing with the law in a dispensational form, that the passages in Galatians, particularly Galatians 3, were saying that the law was doing something until Christ came, and then after Christ came, it no longer is doing that thing.

Waggoner had a different point of view. His point of view was that the law does something in relation to the unconverted sinner until that person is converted. Once the person is converted, the law has done its job. If the person gets out of line, the law will come back into the picture, to convict the person of his sin, and drive the person to Christ.

In regards to one particular verse, the one about the law being a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, EGW saw a secondary sense in which this particular verse could be applied to the ceremonial law.

Here's the EGW comments:





The first statement deals how the moral law convicts us of sin. This is the point EGW made. For example:



Here Waggoner deals with the dispensation idea:



I've had the same objection to this interpretation. For example, here's Gal. 3:24, 25:



The law served a purposed so that we could be justified by faith. If this is speaking of a specific point in time, such as the death of Christ, then before that time one could not be justified by faith.

Regarding the other EGW statement, it's worthy of note that she refers to the ceremonial system, starting at the time of Adam. This foreshadowed the death of Christ, which purpose of the law also allows us to be justified by faith, and is also not dependent upon time. We are just as free to study the sacrificial offerings and learn of Christ, by whom we may be justified by faith, as those who lived in Paul's time.

GC, I think you've misunderstood Scott, so I'm going to but in, and see if I can help (Scott, please correct me, if I misspeak for you).

Scott isn't saying the law itself was done away with, as if it were no longer binding, but that the revelation of the law has been surpassed by Christ. The law reveals our sin to us as a transcript of God's character. After Christ came in the flesh, we have an even clearer revelation of God's character. The law served to help us understand God's character until Christ came, who revealed it in splendor and glory. The revelation of Christ is so brilliant, it's like how Moses' face glowed, being so bright that the children of Israel had to turn away.

The whole OT was about Christ. But the COI had a veil over their heart, so they didn't see this. Instead of learning about our wonderful God through Him, being led to repentance by God's mercy, compassion, gentleness, kindness, graciousness, patience; His goodness and love revealed by Christ, they were fixated on their traditions. This veil is removed when Christ is seen. Then the OT is seen, as a whole, including the whole law, as speaking of Christ.

Regarding the covenants, I'm interested in your thoughts on a couple of things, but I'll cover this in a separate post.

GC, here are a couple of quotes, one from the SOP, and the other from Jeremiah:






Both Jer. and EGW contrast two covenants, one called (by her) the "old" and the other the "new." Jeremiah also refers to two covenants, one which had been made, and another which would be made. In the one which would be made, the law is written in the heart. This is the one EGW calls "new." The other one is called "old."

Now these are clearly different covenants. In one covenant (the old), one seeks to establish one's own righteousness. In the other (the new), one accepts the righteousness of Christ. In one (the old), the law is written on tablets of stone. In the other (the new), the law is written in the heart.

I agree with your assertion that God has but one covenant. However, the covenant based upon man's establishing his own righteousness, where the law is not written in the heart, was not God's idea, but man's. As Scott wrote:



By the way, GC, we have two threads on the covenants. I think this particular thread cannot be seen by everyone, but the other one can be, so Daryl bumped the other one. If you would respond on the other thread, that would be great. Then anyone coming to this forum could see your comments (and the rest of our comments as well).

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.

Now, having said all that, to the Law...

1) The law was binding before Christ.
2) The law is still binding after Christ.
3) The law was nailed to the cross.

What is meant by the "law nailed to the cross?" How can it be both binding and abolished at the same time? Many people have tried to cast the law aside for one reason: Guilty conscience. They seek to allay their conscience by reasoning that the law no longer "binds" them. Such reasoning is the very essence of self-deception.

The real truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle. Here is the real truth. Paul was right. So was Jesus, when He said "I came not to destroy the law." How can they both be right?

They are speaking of TWO separate aspects of the law. 1) The principles/laws themselves. These were what Jesus referred to. 2) The PENALTY of the law. This is what Paul referred to.

It was Christ's death on the cross that removed from us the PENALTY of the law. It never removed the law itself. Jesus came to FULFILL the law, not to abolish or destroy it. The law demanded death for every sinner. "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." In that one verse you have both sides of the equation.

You cannot hope, nor expect, to have life while living in disobedience to God's law. That law proclaims death to every sinner. Adam was told that the day he ate the fruit, he would die. Jesus spoke of the Pharisees as being living dead--filled with dead men's bones. We can be physically alive, while spiritually dead. Such is the case of every sinner.

But Jesus came to give us life, and to give it more abundantly. He said "He that believes on the Son has everlasting life."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I agree with the thoughts you've expressed here in this post. Yes, I understood that Scott was saying the entire Old Testament was equal to the Old Covenant, and that the Old Covenant had passed away. His statements more or less said as much. I am hopeful that this simply was a misunderstanding.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I didn't realize there was a topic already on the Covenants. As I suggested earlier, our discussion had diverged to a new topic which deserved its own consideration. If these posts dealing only with the covenants can be moved, that's fine with me.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

MM: Do you have inspired insights to back up your assertions?

The ceremonial system was made up of symbols pointing to Christ, to His sacrifice and His priesthood. This ritual law, with its sacrifices and ordinances, was to be performed by the Hebrews until type met antitype in the death of Christ, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Then all the sacrificial offerings were to cease. It is this law that Christ "took . . . out of the way, nailing it to His cross." Colossians 2:14. {PP 365.1}

Many in the Christian world also have a veil before their eyes and heart. They do not see to the end of that which was done away. They do not see that it was only the ceremonial law which was abrogated at the death of Christ. They claim that the moral law was nailed to the cross. Heavy is the veil that darkens their understanding. {1SM 239.2}

What I am suggesting is that Jesus is the one who commanded Moses to stone to death the guy caught gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Do we agree on this point? If not, then I suppose there is no reason for us to continue studying this together.

Numbers
15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
15:33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
15:34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Not at all. I was commenting on this passage because you posted it in the context of Jesus nailing the law to the cross. What I am suggesting is that both the law of God and the law of Moses help lead people to Jesus, to embrace Him as their personal Savior. Jesus becomes our schoolmaster, our supervisor. Once we are in Christ, He can empower us to fulfill the righteousness of the law unto the honor and glory of God our Father. In this new and better way, the law continues to serve as our guide. In Christ, the law is the standard of righteousness.

Romans
8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Scott, I am beginning to feel that studying with you makes me a glutton for punishment. If you cannot reign in these kinds of comments, I will be unable to continue studying with you. What do you say? Can we call a truce and get back to the business of studying the truth as it is in Jesus?