“LIGHTENED WITH HIS GLORY”

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE 1888 MESSAGE

Robert J. Wieland

Chapter 5

Questions About The Two Covenants

These have always been confusing to me. What is the difference between the old and the new covenant?

This was a key element of the 1888 message and a controversial one. Simply put, here is the essence of the view of Jones and Waggoner which was so different from the view of the brethren:

The new covenant is the same as “the everlasting covenant,” and is the promise of God to save us, not our promise to obey Him. The Lord made this promise to Abraham and to his descendants in Genesis 12:1-3; 13:14-17; 15:5; 22:16-18.

The promise included (a) the earth for an everlasting possession, (b) everlasting life so they could enjoy it, and (c) righteousness by faith with all its attendant blessings. In short, God virtually promised Abraham the sky. All the latter did in response was to “believe.” The Lord required nothing more of him, and He counted his faith for righteousness (Genesis 15:6). That is the simple story of the new covenant.

The old covenant is backwards from that. Four hundred and thirty years later Abraham’s descendants were gathered at Mt. Sinai, on their way to the promised land. Through Moses, the Lord renewed the promise to them. However, they did not have the faith of Abraham. Instead of responding as he did, they manifested pride and self-sufficiency, making the vain promise, “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do” (Exodus 19:8). That promise of the people is the simple story of the old covenant.

The Lord could not abandon His people at Mt. Sinai. If they would not keep step with Him, He must keep step with them. Therefore in the next chapter of Exodus He came down on Mt. Sinai with thunder, lightning, an earthquake and fire, and spoke the ten commandments and wrote them on tables of stone. Then He instituted the entire Levitical system.

Because Abraham “believed,” the Lord did not have to do that to him; instead, He wrote the law in his heart.

Nevertheless, the Lord maintained a gracious purpose in it for the unbelieving Israelites. “… the law was our schoolmaster [truant officer, disciplinarian] to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith,” as was Abraham (Galatians 3:24). According to Paul’s brilliant insight, the long detour of centuries was needed in order to bring the people to the faith which Abraham exercised in the beginning.

In brief, how does the 1888 idea of the two covenants differ from the common idea held today?

The common idea is that the old and new covenants represent two dispensations in God’s plan. The old covenant was to be valid up to the time of Christ, and then the new covenant would come into force.

But the 1888 messengers saw a deeper truth: the two covenants are not matters of time, but of condition. There were people in Old Testament times who lived under the new covenant, for they had faith in Christ as did Abraham; there are Christians today living under the old covenant, because they do not exercise the faith of Abraham.

Where can we find a clear presentation of the 1888 view of the two covenants?

In chapters 3 and 4 of The Glad Tidings by E. J. Waggoner (Pacific Press, 1900; reprinted, 1972). Ellen White’s view in Patriarchs and Prophets, chapter 32, supports Waggoner’s view. There is also a chapter presenting the same view in Grace on Trial , by this present author.

Did Ellen White comment about E. ]. Waggoner’s The Glad Tidings?

We do not know that Ellen White ever said anything about The Glad Tidings as a book (a verse-by-verse commentary on Galatians); but she made many enthusiastic comments about Waggoner’s studies in Galatians twelve years earlier. His righteousness-by-faith views of Galatians and the two covenants did not change during those twelve years.

Dr. L. E. Froom tells us that Waggoner’s widow took down his Minneapolis talks in shorthand, transcribed them, and that he published them in 1889 Signs articles, Christ and His Righteousness (1890) and The Glad Tidings (1900; see Movement of Destiny, pp. 189-201).

What specific comments does Ellen White make about the 1888 view of the two covenants?

Ellen White firmly supported Waggoner’s view of the two covenants:

I am much pleased to learn that Professor Prescott is giving the same lessons in his class to the students that Brother [E. J.] Waggoner has been giving. He is presenting the covenants. John thinks it is presented in a clear and convincing manner.

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.

I am inclined to think Brother Prescott receives the testimony, although he was not present when I made this statement. I thought it time to take my position, and I am glad that the Lord urged me to give the testimony that I did (Letter 30, 1890).

Night before last, the Lord opened many things to my mind. It was plainly revealed what your influence has been, what it was in Minneapolis. …

You have strengthened the hands and minds of such men as Larson, Porter, Dan Jones, Eldridge and Morrison and Nicola and a vast number of them. All quote you, and the enemy of righteousness looks on pleased. …

You are by your influence doing what other men have done before you, closing the door to your own soul where if God should send light from heaven, not one ray would penetrate to your soul because you closed the door so it should not find access there. …

Do not labor so hard to do the very work Satan is doing. This work was done in Minneapolis. Satan triumphed. This work has been done here [Battle Creek].

Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, 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. When you had received the true light which shineth, you would have not imitated or gone over the same manner of interpretation and misconstruing the Scriptures that [sic] did the Jews. … They handled those things that they could make a means of clouding and misleading minds.

The covenant question is a clear question and would be received by every candid, unprejudiced mind, but I was brought where the Lord gave me an insight into this matter. You have turned from plain light because you were afraid that the law question in Galatians would have to be accepted (Letter to Uriah Smith, 59, 1890).

Why do our Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary and Bible Dictionary follow the view of those who opposed the 1888 message a century ago?

Some of the editors may have been sincerely uninformed about the 1888 view which Ellen White endorsed. There is also evidence that some decidedly opposed the 1888 view.

Does the following comment from Ellen White disagree with E. ]. Waggoner’s view of the two covenants in The Glad Tidings (pp. 71-87)

This is the pledge that God’s people are to make in these last days. Their acceptance with God depends on a faithful fulfillment of the terms of their agreement with Him. God includes in His covenant all who will obey Him (Bible Commentary, Vol. 1, p. 1103; Review and. Herald, June 23, 1904).

Some believe that this does disagree with Waggoner’s presentation. It appears that she is teaching and supporting the old covenant of “obey and live,” which Paul says “gendereth to bondage” (Galatians 4:24). She appears to be endorsing the view of the brethren who rejected Waggoner’s view of the new covenant message, such as Uriah Smith, Dan T. Jones, G. I. Butler, R. C. Porter, R. M. Kilgore, and others (cf. 1888 RE-examined, pp. 45-49). It appears so. However, her view in Patriarchs and Prophets clearly supports Waggoner.

Some of her statements on the nature of Christ also appear superficially to be contradictory and to support the popular view that Christ took only the sinless nature of Adam before the fall. But when studied carefully in context, these apparently conflicting statements are seen to be not self-contradictory.

There are others of her statements on the two covenants that are as clear as sunlight and cannot be misinterpreted or misunderstood. This one becomes clear from a careful reading in context. Will Ellen White contradict what she wrote 14 years earlier? She can hardly build credibility if she does.

Her clearest writing on the two covenants is in Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 370-373, where her position is in full harmony with Waggoner’s. Thus, with three clearly unequivocal statements in support of Waggoner’s view, how shall we understand the 1904 statement which appears to contradict it?

1. Note the context of the 1904 statement. When the Lord says “My covenant” in Isaiah 56:4, He is clearly referring to the covenant He made with Abraham—the “new covenant.” When God makes a covenant, it is always a promise; and it is always one-sided. He never asks us to make promises in return, for He knows we cannot keep our promises. We cannot deal with God on equal terms. Ellen White goes on to say, “This is the covenant spoken of in the following scripture” (Exodus 19:1-8). She is referring to the Lord’s covenant, not the people’s promise. Says Ellen White in 1904:

“Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto Myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed”—in truth, earnestness, and sincerity,— “and keep My covenant . … ”

2. The only covenant which the Lord mentions here refers to His covenant, His promise, to Abraham. Thus it is clear that the Lord was proposing to renew the new covenant or righteousness by faith with the people at Mt. Sinai, not to institute an old one of legalism.
3. The Hebrew word here for “obey” means to “listen,” to “hear, hearken” shamea, cf. any lexicon or Young). The word for “keep” is a cognate word (shamar). It is not the usual word for “obey” or “do.” It has the root meaning of “take heed” or “cherish.” For example, Adam was to “dress and to keep” (shamar) the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:15). He could not be said to “obey or do the Garden,” but to cherish it. The word shamar connotes the beautiful idea of appreciation.
4. Thus what the Lord said to Israel was, “Now therefore, if you will listen to My voice indeed in truth, earnestness and sincerity, and cherish or appreciate the covenant I made with your father Abraham … ,” all these good things will happen and you will be a “kingdom of priests,” etc. All of Abraham’s true descendants were to have the heartfelt faith of Abraham. The Lord never intended them to institute a program of salvation by works. Nor would Ellen White dare to change a righteousness-by-faith text into a legalism one.
5. Her use of the word “pledge” must therefore mean “commitment.” In other words, God desired from the people the same response that Abraham made, a choice to believe the Lord and to cooperate with Him. Yet he made no vain promise as did Israel 430 years later. He gave his heart to the Lord, exercising faith in the Saviour to come. Such a choice to believe and yield the heart is what Ellen White means by “pledge.”
6. Ellen White’s context in her 1904 article is clear: “Christ calls upon the members of his church to cherish the true, genuine hope of the gospel.” Note her unconscious use of the Hebrew idea of shamea —the word “cherish,” which we find in Exodus 19.

It is unthinkable that the inspired prophet should contradict what she said in Steps to Christ, p. 47. Here she tells of the tragic result of living under the old covenant, making promises to God that He never requires, and which drag us into bondage:

Your promises and resolutions are like ropes of sand. You cannot control your thoughts, your impulses, your affections. The knowledge of your broken promises and forfeited pledges weakens your confidence in your own sincerity, and causes you to feel that God cannot accept you; but you need not despair.

Is it true that agape is a prominent element of the 1888 message? Or is this something that modern enthusiasts have added to it?

Waggoner speaks thus about agape:

“Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.” The word here rendered “charity” is often rendered “love,” and is so rendered in this place in the New Version [R.V]. In 1 John 5:3 we read: “This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments;” and Paul himself says that “love is the fulfilling of the law.” Rom. 13:10. In both these texts the same word (agape) is used that occurs in 1 Tim. 1:5. …

God imputes to believers the righteousness of Christ, who was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, so that “the righteousness of the law” might be fulfilled in their lives. And thus Christ is the end of the law. (Bible Echo, February 15,1892; Lessons on Faith, pp. 69-71).

What glory there is in the cross! All the glory of heaven is in that despised thing. Not in the figure of the cross, but in the cross itself. …

“Where’er I go, I’ll tell the story

Of the cross, of the cross;

In nothing else my soul shall glory,

Save the cross, save the cross;

And this my constant theme shall be,

Through time and in eternity,

That Jesus tasted death for me

On the cross, on the cross.”

(The Glad Tidings, pp. 143, 144).

Writing under the special blessing of the 1888 message, Ellen White said:

Since the General Conference of 1888, Satan has been working with special power through unconsecrated elements to weaken the confidence of God’s people in the voice that has been appealing to them for these many years. …

There is one great central truth to be kept ever before the mind … Christ and Him crucified. … The soul palsied by sin can be endowed with life only through the work wrought out upon the cross by the Author of our salvation. The love of Christ constrains man to unite with Him in His labors and sacrifice. The revelation of divine love awakens in them a sense of their neglected obligation to be light-bearers to the world, and inspires them with a missionary spirit. This truth enlightens the mind and sanctifies the soul. It will banish unbelief and inspire faith. It is the one great truth to be constantly kept before the minds of men. Yet how dimly is the love of God understood; and in the teaching of the word it makes but a faint impression (MS 31, 1890; Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, pp. 805, 806).

Read Chapter 6—Questions About Unknown Sin

Articles Index | Robert J. Wieland Index | Lightened With His Glory Index