The Law in Galatians Controversy
and the Covenant Concept
In the year 1886, E.J. Waggoner was the
editor of the Adventist paper, The Signs of the Times. Beginning
in the July eighth issue, he wrote a series of articles in response to
one written by 0.A. Johnson in the April thirteenth issue of the Review
and Herald. Johnson had claimed that the law in the third chapter of
Galatians was the ceremonial law. Waggoner took exception and maintained
that the law in Galatians referred to the moral law. Through an
interesting series of events, George I. Butler, then the General
Conference president, published a pamphlet entitled, "The Law in
the Book of Galatians." Butler opposed Waggoner's view and
supported Johnson's interpretation. Waggoner countered with a pamphlet
significantly named, "The
Gospel in the Book of Galatians."
This debate between Butler and Waggoner
was the first in a series of conflicts over certain subjects and issues
that would bring forth a message that Ellen White would label the
beginning of the loud cry and latter rain; the message of righteousness
by faith.33
The issues in this encounter obviously involved the proper
identification of the law in Galatians. However, the underlying
arguments reveal that both men were dealing with the covenants. Waggoner
was to develop his views of righteousness by faith from this exchange,
changing little until his death in 1916. In reviewing Waggoner's
writings, it will be necessary to compare Butler's beliefs to clarify
the, presentation. Furthermore, Ellen White's assessments of the whole
situation will also be referred to since they reveal what was truly at
stake in the debate.
First, it is important to establish
what points Butler and Waggoner did agree upon. Both men believed that
man was to be a keeper of all the commandments of God, including the
seventh-day Sabbath.34
Neither man disagreed that God had made a covenant with Abraham, which
defined the terms of salvation for all men.35
Even though the two held different views of the old covenant, there was
a mutual understanding that God's remedy for sin had been offered to the
Jews and anyone who chose to accept its terms was eligible for the
blessings given to Abraham.36
Both men believed that God desired a people who would rightly represent
Him on this earth and be the base for the evangelism of all nations.37
Although it was not forthrightly said, neither man would have ventured
to state that God had made a mistake in making any covenant. Their whole
arguments would not tolerate such a notion. Any fault must be attributed
to the people of Israel. From these points of agreement, one can see
that the conflict over the identification of the law in Galatians
chapter three would have to center around such issues as the meaning and
purpose of the old covenant, and its relationship to the new covenant.
It would also include the relationship of law to the gospel and the
application of these subjects to present experiences of the church.
Butler's purpose for disagreeing with
Waggoner on the law in Galatians was to protect the church's argument
for the need to observe the seventh-day Sabbath. It had not been a part
of those ceremonial laws that had been nailed to the cross.38
But Waggoner also believed the Sabbath was to be kept as a part of the
Decalogue. Then, why was Butler so opposed to Waggoner's view? Surely,
part of the discussion was due to misunderstandings and emotions that
had been strained by improper communication on both sides. Waggoner had
not followed proper channels in presenting his view in open forum in the
Signs. Butler had been fostering a "kingly" attitude in which
he sought to mold the work to his particular mind.39
This, however, does not account for the actual content of the two
presentations.
Butler was convinced that the
ceremonial law was connected with the old covenant and the ten
commandments were connected with the new covenant, which was the common
Adventist position at the time.40
Judging from the statements he made such as,
The errors in the Galatian church
which Paul was so vigorously combating, were not merely the
theoretical view that they were justified by their obedience to the
moral law and hence needed not a Saviour; but they practices which
really undermined the truth of the gospel, those connecting it with
circumcision, the symbol of all laws particularly Jewish.41
and,
Before we close this argument, we
wish to impress point more fully, to convince our friends, if
possible, who hold the opposite view, that this question of
circumcision in the apostolic church was not one of minor importance,
but in its effects upon the progress of Christianity and the
presentation of gospel truth, was equal in the apostles's mind to even
the much-vaunted doctrine of justification by faith. As we have said,
we hold to the latter to be a very important doctrine. But the special
thing with which the apostle had to contend in his work among the
Gentiles, was to show the proper relation between his work and the old
system that was passing away.42
The issues involved the proper
relationship of law to the covenants. Butler was arguing that Waggoner
was being too theoretical with the "much-vaunted doctrine of
justification by faith," and not seeing the importance of
"practices" or works or obedience to the law of God. Waggoner
was arguing that Butler was too much of a legalist, in danger of making
the same mistake as the Israelites at Mt. Sinai.
|
