APPENDIX A
The 1888 View of the Two Covenants
NOTES
-
Handwritten letter, March 11, 1891. [return to
study]
-
Daniells said of this book: "It leads us to the very heart of the
great gospel of Christ;" "shows the weakness and folly of the
covenant of works;" "deals with the great question that so
agitated our people at Minneapolis, and so far as I know is the only
masterpiece that has been written on this subject since the Minneapolis
meeting;" "something ought to be done to place a flood of
light in the homes of our people. I know of no better book to do this,
outside of the Bible" (Letter to W. C. White, May 12, 1902). [return
to study]
-
Waggoner cites the "covenant the Lord made" after the Flood of
Noah with "every living creature, ... the fowl, cattle, and every
beast of the earth" with the wry remark that they made no promises
in return. (Genesis 9:9, 10; The Glad Tidings, p. 71). [return
to study]
-
To avoid misunderstanding, we must note that Jones’ and Waggoner’s
understanding of faith was not the egocentric "insurance
policy" idea of "accept Christ." "With the heart
man believeth unto righteousness" (Romans 10:10) — a
heart-melting, ego-subduing appreciation for what God has promised by
His much more abounding grace. [return
to study]
-
According to the view of the opponents, "on God’s part He
promised to give to them life provided that they would obey and
on their part they promised to obey so that they could have that life.
... Then when they did do it and so got the life, how was it ...
that they got the Life? ... They got life by their own works. ... Their
hope of life rested only on their obedience. ... It follows that their
hope of obedience rested only on the virtue of their own promise to
obey. ... God’s everlasting covenant is made to rest on the promise of
His creatures. ... They agreed to
keep the law in order to have righteousness and life. Their
righteousness, therefore, could be nothing else than righteousness by
the works of the law. ... Their own promise was entirely their own
righteousness and not the righteousness of God at all" (A. T Jones,
The Everlasting Covenant of God’s Everlasting Righteousness,
pp. 4, 5, 6, emphasis original). [return
to study]
-
In a graduate thesis on the two covenants (Loma Linda University, 1985)
Robert Van Ornam suggests that Jones’ and Waggoner’s view of the
covenants developed in their minds as a result of the cleansing of the
sanctuary doctrine (The Doctrine of the Everlasting Covenant in the
Writings of Ellet J. Waggoner, pp. 12, 38).
[return to study]
-
This is not to criticize the beloved author of the Bible Dictionary
passage who tried valiantly to emphasize the orthodox doctrine of
obedience. He is not to be blamed for what he could not know inasmuch as
the 1888 message had been "in a great degree kept away from the
world" and "from our people, in a great measure" (1SM
234, 235; 1896). Very likely he had never had the opportunity
to read the Jones/Waggoner material on the covenants. Due apparently to
prejudice against them, their view was publicly rejected in 1907 and
"kept away" from publication thereafter. [return to
study]
-
In Hebrew: "The basic idea is that of perceiving a message or
merely a sound ... ‘to hear’ ... ‘listen to,’ ‘pay attention’"
(Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. II, p. 2411).
Likewise the root meaning of the Greek word often translated
"obey" (hupakouoo) is bend the ear down and listen.
[return to study]
-
This meaning of the verb is evident in many Old Testament passages. [return
to study]
-
As the SDA Bible Commentary makes clear, the reformation under
Ezra and Nehemiah was old covenant (3:78, 433-437). The same could be
said for the reformations under kings such as Hezekiah and Josiah
(2:921; 3:248-249, 273, 309). Almost the entire history of Israel was
old covenant, leading to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple,
the captivity, a works-oriented restoration and eventually the murder of
their Messiah. It all began in Exodus 19 with the faith-plus-works idea
of the people. [return to
study]
-
A few sample statements by Waggoner which he wrote for the Sabbath
School lessons for 1889-1890. It will be seen how his ideas are
virtually identical to what he wrote later in The Glad Tidings:
Let the student note that the promises in the old covenant were really
on the part of the people. ... The first covenant was a promise on the
part of the people that they would make themselves holy. But this they
could not do (January 18, 1890).
Hebrews 9:1 is
a text that hinders many from seeing that all of God’s blessings to
man are gained by virtue of the second [new] covenant, and not by
the first [the old] ... The fact that when men complied with these
ordinances of divine service, they were forgiven (Leviticus 4) seems
to some conclusive evidence that the old covenant contained the gospel
and its blessings. But forgiveness of sins was not secured by virtue
of those offerings; "for it is not possible that the blood of
bulls and goats should take away sins." Hebrews 10:4. Forgiveness
was obtained only by virtue of the promised sacrifice of Christ
(Hebrews 9:15), the mediator of the new covenant, their faith in whom
was shown by their offerings. So it was by virtue of the second or new
covenant that pardon was secured to those who offered the sacrifices
provided for in the ordinances of divine service connected with the
old or first covenant.
Moreover, these
"ordinances of divine service" formed no part of the first
[new] covenant. If they had, they must have been mentioned in the
making of that covenant; but they were not. ... They were simply the
means by which the people acknowledged the justice of their
condemnation to death for the violation of the law which they had
covenanted to keep, and their faith in the Mediator of the new
covenant (February 8, 1890).
A few sample statements from the Third Quarter Sabbath School Lessons,
1907, re the new covenant:
The angels must have lived under the same covenant as man, namely,
"Obey and Live" (Lesson 1). Since harmony can exist only
when all wills, all choices are in accord with one supreme will, it is
apparent that death must be the result to the one who persists in
wrong choosing. Hence, the covenant is "Obey and Live"
(Lesson 2). We have found the condition of the covenant between God
and His creatures to be "Obey and Live" (Lesson 3). The
compact, or covenant, under which Adam began his existence was that
God promised Life only on condition of Adam’s obedience (Lesson 1).
[return to study]
-
Ellen White did not intend in 1904 to contradict what she had published
in Patriarchs and Prophets in 1890 when she said that the old
covenant is based on the principle of "obey and live." See
Section VI. [return to
study]
-
See the 1907 Third Quarter Sabbath School Lessons on the covenants where
the "obey and Live" principle occurs repeatedly. [return to
study]
-
The general absence of the 1888 concepts is sad. Failing to grasp that
the new covenant has always been made with believers (promised to them),
the new covenant is said to have been made dispensationally with
"the Christian church." The old covenant is represented as
initiated by God, rather than prompted by the initiative of unbelieving
Israel. "The chief difference is that the ‘old’ covenant was
made with Israel as a nation, whereas the ‘new’ is made
with individual believers in Christ." In truth, "the chief
difference" is between righteousness by faith and righteousness by
works. "The old covenant was in fact, a temporary arrangement designed
to enable those bound by its provisions to enter into the privileges and
responsibilities of the ‘new’ or ‘everlasting’ covenant."
No recognition is given to the fact that from the beginning the new
covenant was God’s unilateral promise "designed" to be
received by faith by "all
families of the earth." Rather, says the article, God
"designed" the old covenant as "a temporary
arrangement." The timeless application of the two covenants is not
recognized, rather the "dispensational" view (now capitalized
by Dale Ratzlaff and the current Pope) is left on the horizon as logical
and reasonable. In numerous references to the covenants in the
seven-volume Commentary, the essential 1888 idea seldom gets
through. It’s as if the authors had not read the Jones/Waggoner view
which Ellen White had been shown in vision is the true one. The author
of the Genesis comments rightly says, "A correct understanding of
the terms of this covenant [with Abram] will go far toward maintaining a
right relationship between God and the believer today," but then
proceeds to represent it as a covenant based legalistically on the
"contract" model (1:322). Thus the impact is Galatian
faith-plus-work. The comments on Exodus 19:4-8 assume that God imposed
on Israel a covenant of works (1:594). These authors valiantly try to
avoid legalism and are genuinely Christian, sincere to the utmost; but
lacking the sunlit 1888 insights they inevitably leave a murky
impression. The comments on Jeremiah 7:22 again leave confusion (4:389),
as the author is sincerely unable to grasp what Jeremiah meant by the
Lord’s original intentions at Sinai. The eloquent comments on Ezekiel
16:59, 60 (4:632, 633) treat Israel’s sad history of failure as
virtually inexplicable, not seeing the true cause in the
salvation-by-works principle embedded in the promise of the people in
Exodus 19:8. This failure to recognize the significance of the old
covenant leaves Old Testament history implying ineptness in God’s
leading of Israel, whereas the Old Testament history is entirely the
result of old covenant "hardness of heart," unbelief — a
profound lesson to modern Laodicea in the light of our 1888 history.
Ratzlaff claims that he went all the way through the Adventist system of
education from kindergarten to seminary; yet it seems certain he was
never exposed to the 1888 message of
the covenants. However, the comments on the covenants in Galatians are a
refreshing change. This author saw in Paul some of the truths that Jones
and Waggoner saw. But a tinge of the 1888 confusion lingers about
"the Law in Galatians" in the comments on chapter 4:4, 5 where
Christ is represented as redeeming only Jews who were born
"under" the ceremonial law. [return
to study]
|
