That the covenant and promise of God are one and the same thing, is clearly seen from Gal.3:17, where it appears that to disannul the covenant would be to make void the promise. In Genesis 17 we read that God made a covenant with Abraham to give him the land of Canaan--and with it the whole world--for an everlasting possession; but Gal.3:18 says that God gave it to him by promise.

God's covenants with men can be nothing else than promises to them: "Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things." Rom.11:35,36. It is so rare for men to do anything without expecting an equivalent, that theologians have taken it for granted that it is the same with God. So they begin their dissertations on God's covenant with the statement that a covenant is "a mutual agreement between two or more persons, to do or refrain from doing certain things." But God does not make bargains with men, because He knows that they could not fulfil their part.

After the flood God made a covenant with every beast of the earth, and with every fowl; but the beasts and the birds did not promise anything in return. Gen.9:9-16. They simply received the favor at the hand of God. That is all we can do. God promises us everything that we need, and more than we can ask or think, as a gift. We give Him ourselves, that is, nothing, and He gives us Himself, that is, everything.

That which makes all the trouble is that even when men are willing to recognize the Lord at all, they want to make bargains with Him. They want it to be a "mutual" affair--a transaction in which they will be considered as on a par with God. But whoever deals with God must deal with Him on His own terms, that is, on a basis of fact--that we have nothing and are nothing, and He has everything and is everything, and gives everything.

Note the statement which the apostle makes when speaking of the two women, Hagar and Sarah: "These are the two covenants." So then the two covenants existed in every essential particular in the days of Abraham. Even so they do to-day; for the Scripture says now as well as then, "Cast out the bondwoman and her son." We see then that the two covenants are not matters of time, but of condition. Let no one flatter himself that he can not be under the old covenant, because the time for that is passed. The time for that is passed only in the sense that "the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revelings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries." 1Pet.4:3.

Consider the situation: The people were in the bondage of sin; they had no power to break their chains; but the speaking of the law made no change in their condition; it introduced no new feature....

"Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage?"--Not by any means; since He did not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes. That covenant was confirmed in Christ, and, therefore, was a covenant from above. See John 8:23. It promised righteousness as a free gift of God through faith, and it included all nations. All the miracles that God had wrought in delivering the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage were but demonstrations of His power to deliver them and us from the bondage of sin.

Yes, the deliverance from Egypt was itself a demonstration not only of God's power, but also of His desire to lead them from the bondage of sin, that bondage in which the covenant from Sinai holds men, because Hagar, who is the covenant from Sinai, was an Egyptian. So when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already done, and then said, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine." Ex.19:5.

To what covenant did He refer?--Evidently to the one already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's covenant, that is, God's promise,--keep the faith,--they would be a peculiar treasure unto God, for God, as the possessor of all the earth, was able to do with them all that He had promised.

The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon themselves, does not prove that God led them into making that covenant, but the contrary. He was leading them out of bondage, not into it, and the apostle plainly tells us that covenant from Sinai was nothing but bondage.

The same law that was engraved upon the tables of stone is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart. Instead of going about to establish our own righteousness we accept the righteousness of Christ.(PP 372)

Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother Dan Jones, Brother Porter and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother Waggoner has presented. (1888 Mat. 604)

Since I made the statement last Sabbath that the view of the covenants as it had been taught by Brother Waggoner was truth, it seems that great relief has come to many minds.(1888 Mat. 623)

M: Tom, not sinning from now on does not atone for past sins.

T: Of course not. Why are you making this point?

M: Atonement is concerned with past sins.

T: Atonement is concerned with sinners, not sins (except incidentally). The issue is how to reconcile the sinner.

This (above) deals with both covenants, pointing out that they are not a matter of time but of condition.

M: Tom, not sinning from now on does not atone for past sins.

T: Of course not. Why are you making this point?

Because you seem to think past sins can be simply ignored if sinners are at-one with God.

No sceptic will deny that any man has the right and privilege of pardoning any offence committed against himself; then why cavil when God exercises the same right? Surely if He wishes to pardon the injury done Himself, He has the right, and more because He vindicates the integrity of His law by submitting in His own Person to the penalty which was due the sinner. "But the innocent suffered for the guilty." True, but the innocent Sufferer "gave himself" voluntarily, in order that He might in justice to His government do what His love prompted, namely, pass by the injury done to Himself as the Ruler of the universe.(emphasis mine)

Reconciling sinners involves dealing with past sins in both the intrinsic (personal)

and forensic (punitive) sense.

You seem to think if sinners start loving God and stop sinning that everything is okay.

That is, under the OC and the NC obedience to the law(s} was/is required. Under both the OC and the NC animal sacrifices were required. But this requirement was time dated. It pointed to and ended with the cross.

Note the statement which the apostle makes when speaking of the two women, Hagar and Sarah: "These are the two covenants." So then the two covenants existed in every essential particular in the days of Abraham. Even so they do to-day; for the Scripture says now as well as then, "Cast out the bondwoman and her son." We see then that the two covenants are not matters of time, but of condition. Let no one flatter himself that he can not be under the old covenant, because the time for that is passed.(The Glad Tidings)

He "passes by" the injury done to Himself, something He has the right to do.

The law recognizes the justice of God in forgiving sin. There's not two separate issues that need to be taken care of, but one. The issue is how to reconcile the sinner to God.

M: That is, under the OC and the NC obedience to the law(s} was/is required. Under both the OC and the NC animal sacrifices were required. But this requirement was time dated. It pointed to and ended with the cross.

T: I guess you're thinking of the OC when you say "It pointed to and ended with the cross." This looks to be missing the point, that it's not dependent upon condition and *not* on time.

T:He "passes by" the injury done to Himself, something He has the right to do.

MM:I agree with the quote you posted. God earned the right to pardon past sins because Jesus paid our sin debt of death.

Law and justice do not require reconciliation.

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? (Micah 6:8)

Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother (Zech 7:9)

An important clue to Old Testament justice is found in how God responds to wrongdoing. When confronted by sin, God is described as angry, full of wrath, with words that connote heat, heavy breathing; like crime victims, God is understood to be angry. But the real story is that in spite of this wrongdoing, and in spite of the resulting anger, God never gives up. A place is recognized for anger in the face of wrongdoing, but God does not remain there: God moves through wrath to restoration. Restoration, not retribution, is the thrust of biblical justice.

The key is in God's intent for God's people, captured in the word "shalom." Shalom means peace, but more than what we mean by peace. It means people living in right relationship to one another - materially, socially, spiritually. The essence of crime is that it upsets shalom, making right relationships impossible. Crime, in the biblical view, is a wound that needs healing. That is why restitution, making things right, is found so often there. In fact, the word for making things right is the root word for shalom. (http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0499/049910.htm emphasis mine)

The NC required animal sacrifices as well as the OC.

This aspect of both covenants was timed dated. In both cases animal sacrifices ended at the cross. Animal sacrifices were not matters of condition.

It was because of the sinfulness of men that God kept adding more and more laws and ordinances.

When A&E sinned, the law was expanded to meet man in his fallen state. Animal sacrifices were also added. More laws were added after the Flood, and still more laws were added at Sinai. After the cross, some laws were deleted, and other ordinances were added. Animal sacrifices were also deleted. Times have changed, but man is still sinful.

Note the statement which the apostle makes when speaking of the two women, Hagar and Sarah: "These are the two covenants." So then the two covenants existed in every essential particular in the days of Abraham. Even so they do to-day; for the Scripture says now as well as then, "Cast out the bondwoman and her son." We see then that the two covenants are not matters of time, but of condition. Let no one flatter himself that he can not be under the old covenant, because the time for that is passed.

I don't understand why you wouldn't consider this assertion absurd; as if God had to earn the right to pardon sins! Tell me, please, how can you think the Master of the Universe, the Creator of all things, Jehovah God, above all, would need to earn the right to do anything?

My spirit at times is triumphant in God. I see in prospect just before us the eternal weight of glory. We have not earned it. Oh, no, Jesus earned it for us and it is a free gift, not for any righteousness and goodness of our own. Let us, in the few probationary hours left us, walk humbly with God and do the work He has committed to our hands with fidelity. {UL 222.5}
[The Upward Look (1982)]

True, but the innocent Sufferer 'gave himself' voluntarily, in order that He might in justice to His government do what His love prompted.

A propitiation is a sacrifice. The statement then is simply that Christ is set forth to be a sacrifice for the remission of our sins. "Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. 9:26. Of course the idea of a propitiation or sacrifice is that there is wrath to be appeased. But take particular notice that it is we who require the sacrifice, and not God. He provides the sacrifice. The idea that God's wrath has to be propitiated in order that we may have forgiveness finds no warrant in the Bible.

The "revelation of God" can be summed up in John 1:14-15. "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

As to the quotation regarding the appeasement, or non-appeasement of God's wrath, I am not entirely on that same wavelength. I think that I might agree to it in a very strict sense, but if we loosen the definitions just a little (e.g. God's character is represented by the law, therefore the wrath of the law can be considered as God's own wrath), then it can readily be seen that there is "wrath" to be appeased.

I say "wrath", because in reality it is not so much wrath as it is "justice" or "judgment." And as for "us" being the ones to require the sacrifice, no, I think it is not just us, although certainly we are the catalyst. The law is what requires the life of sinners, and by His sacrifice, Jesus fulfilled this law, taking its penalty for us, which now enables us to enjoy a life we did not deserve.