>Wouldn't 613 commandments that were later added be conditions Paul said 
>couldn't happen to a ratified covenant?  If the >later 613 commandments 
>weren't covenant "conditions" then why were they supposed to be obeyed as 
>conditions of the >covenant

The "conditions" of any covenant are the details of what constitutes the 
blessings and curses of the covenant.  In the Mosaic, "do this and live" 
were the conditions of the covenant.  I'm not sure by "added later"... if it 
means commandments that were added during the time of Moses, I think it is 
myopically splitting hairs with chronology (the giving of the law in all of 
its fullness took place over 40+ years.  While the giving of the law at 
Sinai occurred in a Sinaitic event, that event was one of many "events" and 
Sinai is thus a representation of the giving of the law, not the exhaustive 
explanation of it).  The entire Penteteuch is the revelation of the Mosaic 
covenant and its stipulations (this is why the commandments, the covenant, 
and its conditions are repeated in Deuteronomy... the conditions of the 
"book of the covenant" cover everything in between the first giving at Sinai 
and Moses last sermon.  If it's commandments that were adding following the 
time of Moses, we can presume that the addition in no way violated God's 
mandate that nothing be added.

Pastor Chad Richard Bresson
Clearcreek Chapel
Springboro, OH
http://breusswane.blogspot.com/