I consider this to be one of the most difficult subjects of the Bible. The more I study it, the less I seem to reach a final conclusion.
But both the Bible and EGW confirm that there are some differences between the old and the new covenant:

"Under the new covenant the conditions by which eternal life may be gained are the same as under the old--perfect obedience. Under the old covenant there were many offences of a daring, presumptuous character for which there was no atonement specified by law. In the new and better covenant Christ has fulfilled the law for the transgressors of law if they receive Him by faith as a personal Saviour. . . . Mercy and forgiveness are the reward of all who come to Christ trusting in His merits to take away their sins. In the better covenant we are cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ. . . . The sinner is helpless to atone for one sin. The power is in Christ's free gift, a promise appreciated by those only who are sensible of their sins and who forsake their sins and cast their helpless souls upon Christ, the sin-pardoning Saviour. He will put into their hearts His perfect law, which is 'holy, and just, and good' (Rom. 7:12), the law of God's own nature" (That I May Know Him, 299).

"The terms of the 'old covenant' were, Obey and live: 'If a man do, he shall even live in them' (Ezekiel 20:11; Leviticus 18:5); but 'cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.' Deuteronomy 27:26. The 'new covenant' was established upon 'better promises'--the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. 'This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more.' Jeremiah 31:33, 34. (PP 372)

I think it's not difficult at all, Roseangela. I don't know if you had the opportunity to read the Waggoner links I posted. I'm going to post a little bit here to make it easy. A quick summary of the two covenants is that God does not want us to make vain promises to Him (this is the Old), but to believe His promises to us (the New).

"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."

Tom,

I really consider the subject difficult. I still couldn't examine the links but I have examined Waggoner's materials about this in the past. I would also like to call attention to the fact that when Ellen White agreed with a certain person's view on a given subject, this means she agreed with the general view, not that she agreed with every detail. For instance, although she agreed with the general presentation of Waggoner at Minneapolis about righteousness by faith, she wrote the following on November 1, while the conference was nearing its close:

"Some interpretations of Scripture given by Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as correct. But I believe him to be perfectly honest in his views, and I would respect his feelings and treat him as a Christian gentleman. ... The fact that he honestly holds some views on Scripture differing from yours or mine is no reason why we should treat him as an offender, or as a dangerous man, and make him the subject of unjust criticism. ... It would be dangerous to denounce Dr. Waggoner's position as wholly erroneous. This would please the enemy. I see the beauty of truth in the presentation of the righteousness of Christ in relation to the law as the doctor has place it before us" (Ms 15, 1888, quoted in the Ellen G. White biography, vol. "The Lonely Years", p. 401).

As to the Waggoner's quote you cited, she counterbalances it by saying:

"The recollection of these glorious triumphs inspired all Israel with fresh hope and courage, and they immediately sent to Shiloh for the ark, 'that when it cometh among us,' said they, 'it may save us out of the hand of our enemies.' They did not consider that it was the law of God which alone gave to the ark its sacredness, and that its presence would bring them prosperity only as they obeyed that law. While they talked of the 'ark of the covenant of the Lord,' they ignored the real significance of the title. A covenant is an agreement between parties, based upon conditions. If Israel would obey the divine law and thus fulfill the conditions of their covenant with God, he would verify his promises to them. But what presumption for them to expect a blessing while they were violating the conditions upon which alone it could be bestowed!" (ST, December 22, 1881).

"God's people are justified through the administration of the 'better covenant,' through Christ's righteousness. A covenant is an agreement by which parties bind themselves and each other to the fulfillment of certain conditions. Thus the human agent enters into agreement with God to comply with the conditions specified in His Word. His conduct shows whether or not He respects these conditions" (Manuscript Releases, vol. 1, p.110).

I would say we can't promise to comply with God's conditions, but we can manifest our sincere wish to do so.

[ December 03, 2004, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: Rosangela ]

There are some things still unclear to me.
The position of the church in general (SS lesson, etc.) seems to be that the eternal covenant of grace was made with Adam, renewed with Abraham, renewed with Israel at Sinai, and at last committed to the Christian church. The problem with Israel is that they perverted the covenant, transforming it in the “old” covenant. But although the new covenant is called a “better” covenant, there is no difference between its basic elements and those of the old covenant (SS lesson, March 4, 2003).
What I see in Ellen White’s writings, however, is that the eternal covenant was made with Adam, renewed with Abraham, and committed to the Christian church. With Israel God made another compact, called the old covenant (PP 371). And although the conditions are the same (That I May Know Him, 299), the terms of these two covenants are different (PP 372). [Both texts are quoted in full in my post of December 02, 2004 06:32 PM, above.]
Although both the abrahamic and the sinaitic covenants are pre-cross and sacrifices were required at that time, the new covenant is described as "better" than the old, but not "better" than the abrahamic. And this is not because of the attitude of the people. This is because the terms and promises of the new covenant are "better" than those of the old covenant (but not better than those of the abrahamic covenant).

As I see it, perfect obedience to the law of God, the moral law of 10 commandments, is required whether we are talking about the old or the new covenant. This being true, it would appear that the main difference between the two covenants is the means and methods whereby atonement and eternal life are made available. But in reality, the type and antitype are one and the same thing, if received by and through faith in Jesus Christ. Every covenant ever made between God and man, and there have been a few, are all rooted upon the perfect life and death of Jesus, and the conditions of eternal life are based upon obedience to the law of God.

Rosangela, welcome aboard, and you're right. The Abrahamic covenant is the New Covenant. They're one and the same. The Sinai covenant was a different animal.

Mike, I agree with you too, except the wording of one thing where I bet you meant something different.

quote:

---

it would appear that the main difference between the two covenants is the means and methods whereby atonement and eternal life are made available.

---

Don't you mean to say the ordinances associated with each covenant? The means by which atonement and eternal life are made available has always been one thing, and one thing only, for all men in all ages: Jesus' sacrificial death and subsequent temple ministry.

"The plan of saving sinners through Christ alone was the same in the days of Adam, Noah, Abraham, and in every successive generation living before the advent of Christ, as it is in our day."
{BEcho, July 15, 1893 para. 7}

The two women, Hagar and Sarah, represent the two covenants. We read that Hagar is Mount Sinai, "bearing children for slavery." Just as Hagar could bring forth only slave children, so the law, even the law that God spoke from Sinai, cannot beget free men. It can do nothing but hold them in bondage. "The law brings wrath," "since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Romans 4:15; 3:20. At Sinai the people promised to kept the given law. But in their own strength they had no power to keep the law.

Mount Sinai "bore children for slavery," since their promise to make themselves righteous by their own works was not successful and can never be.

Consider the situation: The people were in the bondage of sin. They had no power to break their chains. And the speaking of the law made no change in that condition. If a man is in prison for crime, he does not gain release by hearing the statutes read to him. Reading to him the law that put him there only makes his captivity more painful.

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.

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." Exodus 19:5, KJV. 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, keep the faith, and believe God's promise, they would be a "peculiar treasure" unto God. As the possessor of all the earth, He was able to do for 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 had led them into making that covenant.

If the children of Israel who came out of Egypt had but walked "in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham" (Romans 4:12, KJV), they would never have boasted that they could keep the law spoken from Sinai, "for the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." (Romans 4:13, KJV). Faith justifies. Faith makes righteous. If the people had had Abraham's faith, they would have had the righteousness that he had. At Sinai the law, which was "spoken because of transgression," would have been in their hearts. They would not have needed to be awaked by its thunders to a sense of their condition. God never expected, and does not now expect, that any person can get righteousness by the law proclaimed from Sinai, and everything connected with Sinai shows it. Yet the law is truth and must be kept. God delivered the people from Egypt "that they might observe His statutes, and keep His laws." Psalm 105:45, KJV. We do not get life by keeping the commandments, but God gives us life in order that we may keep them through faith in Him.

The apostle when speaking of Hagar and Sarah says: "These women are two covenants." These two covenants exist today. The two covenants are not matters of time, but of condition. Let no one flatter himself that he cannot be bound under the old covenant, thinking that its time has 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, lust, excess of wine, revelings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries." 1 Peter 4:3, KJV.

The difference is just the difference between a free woman and a slave. Hagar's children, no matter how many she might have had, would have been slaves while those of Sarah would necessarily be free. So the covenant from Sinai holds all who adhere to it in bondage "under the law," while the covenant from above gives freedom, not freedom from obedience to the law, but freedom from disobedience to it. The freedom is not found away from the law but in the law. Christ redeems from the curse, which is the transgression of the law, so that the blessing may come on us. And the blessing is obedience to the law. "Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord." Psalm 119:1. This blessedness is freedom. "I shall walk at liberty; for I have sought Thy precepts." Psalm 119:45.

The difference between the two covenants may be put briefly thus: In the covenant from Sinai we ourselves have to do with the law alone, while in the covenant from above we have the law in Christ. In the first instance it is death to us, since the law is sharper than any two-edged sword, and we are not able to handle it without fatal results. But in the second instance we have the law "in the hand of a Mediator." In the one case it is what we can do. In the other case it is what the Spirit of God can do.

Hi, John! Thanks for the welcome. I was visiting the forum and this discussion caught my attention. I tried to discuss this subject at VOAF once but nobody seemed able to understand my point.

Mike,
The differences go beyond the distinction between type and antitype. Let's examine the text again:

"The terms of the 'old covenant' were, Obey and live: 'If a man do, he shall even live in them' (Ezekiel 20:11; Leviticus 18:5); but 'cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.' Deuteronomy 27:26. The 'new covenant' was established upon 'better promises'--the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. 'This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more.' Jeremiah 31:33, 34. (PP 372)

Who can obey perfectly? None of us, of course. This means that under the old covenant all were cursed and no one was entitled to life. (See Gal. 3:12-14 and Heb. 9:15.) No wonder that "the only means of salvation is provided under the Abrahamic covenant" (ST, September 5, 1892).
Where is the promise of forgiveness of sin in the old covenant (in the five books of Moses)? It simply doesn't exist. No wonder that the new covenant has better promises.
Besides, there was no atonement specified in the law for transgressions such as murder, adultery, blasphemy, idolatry and others. The penalty was death - no exceptions allowed.