Rosangela,

The covenant that God made with Abraham was very basic, and to the point – “Walk before me, and be thou perfect.... Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” Gen 17:1 and 26:5. The sign of the covenant was circumcision, not an animal sacrifice, but was a type of blood sacrifice. The reward for keeping the covenant was everlasting habitations in Canaan.

Genesis
17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

As time rolls on, the COI end up slaves in Egypt. “And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob…. And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers.” Ex 2:24 and 6:4. So, God purposes in His heart to return them to Canaan. Then follows the exodus. At Mt. Sinai, God reminds them to obey His covenant, which was – “Walk before me, and be thou perfect… Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”

There is no written record of the charge, commandments, statutes and laws that Abraham obeyed perfectly. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that much of what God told Moses to tell the COI is what Abraham practiced. Yes, the sacrificial system was expanded, made more elaborate, but the basic idea remained the same. The big addition involved the ceremonial system associated with the daily and annual temple services. In the NT, the temple and services were changed, replaced and modified, but again, the basic idea is very nearly the same.

So, today, when Sister White says, The covenant that God made with His people at Sinai is to be our refuge and defense, that this covenant is of just as much force today as it was when the Lord made it with ancient Israel, that this is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days - it makes sense, to me, to understand this passage in the context of the Abrahamic covenant, “Walk before me, and be thou perfect… Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”

Tom, in your studies, have you run across anything that explains what the following covenant entailed? “Walk before me, and be thou perfect… Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” What about the animal sacrifices and the priesthood? Also, do you think God would have inaugurated the temple and its daily and annual services had the COI been faithful to the Abrahamic covenant? I've always wondered about these things.

"Yes, White and Waggoner agree. They both agree that the covenant that God made with His people at Sinai is to be our refuge and defense, that this covenant is of just as much force today as it was when the Lord made it with ancient Israel, that this is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days. Their acceptance with God depends on a faithful fulfillment of the terms of their agreement with Him."

Mike, I think you may be confused as to what Ellen G. White is saying. You may prove me wrong by providing some statements from Waggoner which agree with your point of view.

"Tom, in your studies, have you run across anything that explains what the following covenant entailed? “Walk before me, and be thou perfect… Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” What about the animal sacrifices and the priesthood? Also, do you think God would have inaugurated the temple and its daily and annual services had the COI been faithful to the Abrahamic covenant? I've always wondered about these things."

Regarding the covenant cited, it's the same principle Ellen G. White wrote about when she worte that God has made provision whereby all may be made like Christ, and He will accomplish this for all those who do not interject a perverse will and thus frustrate His grace.

The covenant to Abraham was to given him land as an everlasting possession. (Gen 15) That land was the earth made new. (Rom 4:13) In that land would dwell righteousness (2 Pet. 3:13). Rightouesness is received only by faith in Christ. Abraham received the righteousness which God had promised him by trusting in Christ as his personal Savior (egw makes this clear in PP; so does Paul in Romans). True faith always manifests itself in obedience, which is exactly what happened in Abraham's life.

Regarding the second question, egw wrote:

"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."

Here's what Waggoner says:

""Why didn't the Lord bring the people directly to Mount Zion then, where they could find the law as life, and not to Mount Sinai, where it was only death?"

That is a very natural question, and one that is easily answered. It was because of their unbelief. When God brought Israel out of Egypt, it was His purpose to bring them to Mount Zion as directly as they could go. When they had crossed the Red Sea, they sang an inspired song, of which this was a part: "Thou in Thy mercy hast led forth the people which Thou hast redeemed; Thou hast guided them in Thy strength unto Thy holy habitation." "Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of Thine inheritance, in the place, O Lord, which Thou hast made for Thee to dwell in, in the sanctuary, O Lord, which Thy hands have established." Ex.15:13,17. If they had continued singing, they would very soon have come to Zion; for the redeemed of the Lord "come with singing unto Zion," and everlasting joy is upon their heads. Is.35:10; 51:11. The dividing of the Red Sea was the proof of this. See verse 10. But they soon forgot the Lord, and murmured in unbelief. Therefore "the law was added because of transgressions." It was their own fault--the result of their sinful unbelief--that they came to Mount Sinai instead of to Mount Zion.

Tom, if Sister White and Waggoner agree, then that's cool with me. Why do you think the quote I shared disagrees with the one you shared?

In what way was this true of Abraham? "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” What charge, commandments, statutes and laws did he obey perfectly? And what about the animal sacrifices and the priesthood he lived by? When, where and how did it all originate? And why?

Mike, I don't think the quote you shared disagrees with what I shared; I think your understanding of the quote disagrees. I think that because you wrote:

"Tom, you are way off the mark here, brother. Please reconsider what Sister White said"

All I had done was to present Waggoner's view. If you think Sister White is disagreeing with that, then by logic you must be in error. If both are true, and you think they are in disagreement, then either they're not both true, or there's something wrong with your understanding of one or the other's views. That's simple logic.

"In what way was this true of Abraham? 'Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.' What charge, commandments, statutes and laws did he obey perfectly? And what about the animal sacrifices and the priesthood he lived by? When, where and how did it all originate? And why?"

When Abraham believed in Christ, the Law was written in his heart. Righeousness always manifests itself in obedience. In fact, that's what rightouesness is -- obedience to the Law of God. As to what is being referred to, I think it's primarily the moral Law, the 10 commandments, in whatever form God had communicated it to Abraham, most likely via a tradition going back from Adam and Eve.

The sacrifices originated with Adam and Eve and their purpose was to demonstrate that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Thanx. You didn't mention anything about the charge or the statutes. Also, what's the difference between the commandments and the laws?

I think the things talked about were primarily obedience to the moral law. They also included circumcision, the sacrificial offerings and other things which God would have passed down to them through the patriarchs. It doesn't specify them in the Bible, does it? Maybe the Spirit of Prophesy talks about it. I'm not aware of it.

I think the main point is that God wrote the law in Abraham's heart when he accepted Christ, and that's why Abraham was obedient.

Yeah, the Bible is silent, isn't it? But that's why I suspect the Abrahamic covenant and the covenant God made with the COI at Sinai were, at least in principle, basically the same. The laws, the charge, the statutes, and the commandments mentioned in the context of the covenant God made with Abraham are very likely spelled out in more detail in Exodus and Leviticus. Of course, a temple was added and refinements made, but the basic plan remained unchanged. Today, when we covenant with God to obey Him, what exactly does it involve?

Mike, I agree with you in principle, that the COI and Abraham were basically doing the same things. The main difference was one of motivation. Abraham was converted. He accepted Christ as His personal Savior. The COI were trying to establish their own righteousness.

The Old Covenant only existed as a formal covenant because the people did not understand and believe the covenant God made to Abraham, which was the New Covenant. Since the New Covenant existed, and was perfect, there was no need for an Old Covenant, except the unbelief of the people led them to try to establish their own righteousness.