I’m spending some time again this morning reading from Bible.org. I am quite fascinated by how a non-Mormon reads the New Covenant, Old Covenant, and Abrahamic Covenant. In reality, the reading at Bible.org and elsewhere is very similar to the Book of Mormon view. For example, the Law of Moses was a lesser law, but it came after the higher law of the Abrahamic Covenant (and the New Covenant is re-establishing it). Also, the Law of Moses was not just foreshadowing the sacrifice of Christ, but it is dependent upon the sacrifice of Christ to make any sense. It assumes the work of Christ in its structure and logic. This sounds very much like the Book of Mormon! I’m feeling a bit sheepish that I didn’t know non-Mormon Christians had this same idea. 🙂
Also, I’m curious about the point being made at Bible.org that the covenant with Abraham was made with an oath, and the promise that Christ was a high priest forever was made with an oath, but that the Law of Moses covenant was not made with an oath. Also, there seems to be the idea that a covenant made with an oath is unconditional, but a covenant made without an oath is conditional. But then, I think that implies that if you don’t follow through with a covenant that is conditional, you simply don’t get the blessings. You and God are both off the hook, as it were. But, a covenant that is unconditional, implies that if you break the covenant, then there are real serious consequences (such as D&C 84:41 But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come).
I want to keep thinking about oaths & covenants further, but I think these articles I’m reading might be on to something!