Holy cow, I can’t believe my last entry. Let me explain my idiotic legal mind which will go into why the concept of humankind setting any part of the covenant is beyond stupid, but why my brain went there.
Most contracts are taken into mind with the concept of “parity”, that is, the state of being equal. My idiocy comes to light immediately, and I am reminded of the very admirable quality of humility.
This would be why the idea of a Divine covenant is actually a promise by the supreme power who really doesn’t have to do anything for us (aside from any obligation a Creator may feel toward the created, but again, that’s *His* decision, not ours) to do something, and hold *Himself* to that promise – we are simply the benefactors of the benevolence.
Now, the idea that we do have a choice to do what He has asked us still holds true, but that being said, most of the covenants created by God have an “if/then” clause – e.g., I will do X. If you follow me and obey my law, then you will gain X. Now, implied in an if/then clause is, if you *don’t* or if you *choose* not to do that, then you will experience the loss of the Divine. Other than Israel, the entity given “son-ship”, the very uncomfortable absence of God is the only consequence. Israel, however, is treated as a parent would treat a disobeying child – with forbearance, patient and loving discipline to bring them back to the right response.
Now, to my way of thinking, this goes back to the covenant made at Sinai, where the people chose that this would be their God, and they would be His people. And while it seems like God’s been fighting an uphill battle for the rest of time as we know it, if we look at God being outside of time, and knowing what the results are, He displays far too much faith in humanity for me to think we always get it wrong. 🙂
So, my apologies to the Divine and promise to keep that legal mind in check, particularly when dealing with matters of divinity, and to remember that humility in the face of the Divine is a desired quality.