APPENDIX A
The 1888 View of the Two Covenants
III. WHAT WAS THE JONES/WAGGONER VIEW
OF THE
COVENANTS?
Sources
for the following are articles and editorials published before 1888, The
Gospel in Galatians (1887) distributed to the delegates at the
1888 Session, articles after 1888, the Sabbath School Lessons of 1890
(in clear harmony with the later books), Waggoner’s The Glad
Tidings and The Everlasting Covenant (1900). There was no
significant change throughout in their basic position on the covenants. The
Everlasting Covenant was written largely in 1896, and published
serially in the British Present Truth. 2 Briefly stated,
this was Waggoner’s and Jones’ idea:
- The "everlasting" or
"new covenant" was never a "contract" in the sense
of covenants of the ancient Near Eastern lords and vassals. It was
always initiated as a one-sided promise on the part of God. With this in
mind, when referring to the new covenant, Paul’s definition of
"covenant" is "promise," not "contract"
(Romans 4:13: Gal. 3:17, 18). 3 It is His covenant totally, not
ours; He gives, and all we can do is receive.
- Since His covenant is not a
"contract," when God made His promises to Abram He did not ask
him to make any promise in return. Abram’s sole response was to
"believe" — faith, which God endorsed (Genesis 12:1-3;
13:14-17; 15:4-6). When one believes and appreciates God’s promise, he
cherishes, treasures it in his heart. This is the sense in which we
"keep His covenant."
- Because of this faith exercised by
Abraham, he became "the father of all them that believe"
(Romans 4:11, 16, etc.). Under the terms of the new covenant, God has
never asked us to make promises to Him. All He wants from us is the
response of Abraham — to believe. 4
- When, 430 years later, Israel came out
of Egypt, God proposed to renew to them His new covenant promises made
to Abraham (His original plan, Exodus 19:4-6). His intention was not to
institute another "old" covenant to replace permanently or
temporarily, or add to, the one He had made with Abraham for his
descendants. God wanted them to focus on His mighty deliverance for them
"that they might realize their utter helplessness, their need of
divine aid" (PP 371).
- Fresh out of slavery, the Israelites
did not have the faith of Abraham. Their minds were darkened by legalism
(self-centeredness, self-righteousness, fear). Misunderstanding God’s
new covenant, they took the initiative to institute the old
covenant by assuming that the "new" was a "contract"
(the view embraced today by many). Hence their promise, "All that
the Lord hath spoken we will do" (vs. 8), a promise
that Abraham had never made. They repeated the promise twice more
(Exodus 24:3, 7). They felt "able to establish their own
righteousness" (PP 372).
- Not only is making promises to God not
required, it is actually detrimental because it is the essence of
self-righteousness. Whoever makes the promise is automatically the
source of the righteousness. Hence the fundamental principle of the
old covenant is making promises to God, and to add the proviso
"with God’s help" is little better for it is then the
faith-plus-works idea which is still mired in legalism. Properly
understood, man’s part in the new covenant is solely Abraham’s
response of faith — which is always "faith which
works." 5
- Israel’s unbelief required the Lord
to follow an alternate plan, that is, to come down on Mt. Sinai with
fire, lightnings, and earthquake to cause the people to
"tremble" as He spoke the words of the ten commandments with
the voice of thunder and wrote them in stone. God had done none of this
for Abraham — He wrote those same ten precepts in the patriarch’s
heart — the same plan He has for every one who is a child of Abraham
"by faith." God did not want Israel to make their promise,
else He would be seen as a party to their continued spiritual bondage.
"The word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed
with faith in those who heard it" (Hebrews 4:2).
- Thus was instituted a long detour of
many centuries for God’s people, made necessary solely by their
unbelief. The ten commandment law became our "schoolmaster" or
pedagogue (jailer, disciplinarian "with a stick"), the
function of which was to lead us eventually back to where Abraham was
"that we might be justified by faith" (Galatians 3:24). It is
possible that Paul was the first in history (aside from Jesus) to
understand clearly this function of the law, or at least to articulate
it so clearly. But when Waggoner also correctly articulated it, the
opposing brethren were alarmed. 6
- The old covenant never brings
salvation or deliverance to "Israel." Rather, it
"gendereth to bondage" (Galatians 4:24). The sad story of old
covenant resolutions and promises stretches from Sinai all the way
through Malachi, and on into the history of the Jews’ crucifixion of
Christ. Adventism’s detour down the old covenant road is painfully
evident in our own history. To teach the commandments of God without understanding
"the faith of Jesus" (not merely mouthing the words) is the
essence of old covenant experience.
- The old and new covenants are not
dispensational, or matters of time, as is commonly understood. It is not
correct to teach that children and youth should go through the old
covenant experience before graduating into the new (many who do so never
find their way back to the new covenant!). The covenants are conditions
of the heart. One could, in Old Testament time, live under the new
covenant (as did Abraham when he believed), and we today can live under
the old covenant, if our
understanding is legalist.
- It is impossible for a church to be
new covenant oriented and at the same time be lukewarm.
- Understood in this light, "the
third angel’s message in verity" is the gospel in the light of
the new covenant.
|
