Another opportunity for educating the church membership regarding the 1888 message concerning the covenants was the "Sabbath-School lessons on the Letter to the Hebrews for Senior Classes." They ran from October 5, 1889 to June 21, 1890. Elder J. H. Waggoner had authored the lessons for three quarters. He died of an aneurysm on April 17, 1889 before completing them. So Elder E. J. Waggoner was asked to finish the writing. Ellen White mentioned that E. J. Waggoner was the author of the Sabbath School lessons for the first quarter of 1890.
These lessons were well worth studying. Addressing the Horeb covenant, Waggoner asked: ". . . Wherein must the first [covenant] have been faulty? Ans.-In the promises." Hebrews 8:6, 7. "Therefore the first covenant was a promise on the part of the people that they would make themselves holy." This was an impossibility.
Waggoner continued by asking:
. . . wherein is the great difference between the first covenant and the second? Ans.-In the first covenant the people promised to make themselves holy; in the second, God says that he will do the work for them.
That righteousness covers all past sins, it issues through the life in present good works.
Citing Galatians 4:24, Waggoner pointed out that the old covenant "gendereth to bondage." Man would have to obey the law to be released from "past sins" and walk in liberty. Since he is incapable this, the first covenant where the people promise to obey brings nothing but bondage.
God never made a covenant with the Gentiles (Ephesians 2:12). The covenants were made with the Jews (Romans 9:4). If Gentiles believed in the Redeemer they enjoyed the blessings of the covenant (Ephesians 2:13-20).
If there was no forgiveness of sin under the old covenant, how were they saved? Circumcision was a sign that Israel could enjoy the blessings of God's covenant with Abraham.
This was a covenant of faith, already confirmed by the word and oath of the Lord, in Christ, the Seed, and it was not disannuled by any future arrangement. Gal. 3:15-17.
The old covenant had ordinances and a sanctuary (Hebrews 9:1). "But these were superadditions, not at all necessary to the covenant, but quite necessary as types of the sacrifice and priesthood of the new covenant." They were typical in nature. There was no pardon inherent with them. They were signs pointing to the new covenant. When the people availed themselves of them they expressed faith in the everlasting covenant.
Speaking of the first covenant Waggoner said:
All transgressions committed under that covenant that were pardoned, were pardoned by virtue of the second covenant, of which Christ is mediator. Yet although Christ's blood was not shed until hundreds of years after the first covenant was made, sins were forgiven whenever they were confessed.
God had already confirmed His covenant with Abraham with a promise and an oath.
These "two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie," [Hebrews 6:17, 18] made the sacrifice of Christ as efficacious in the days of Abraham and Moses as it is now.
The old covenant as manifested at Sinai did not exist by itself, since the new, or second, covenant preceded it, and being everlasting, was concurrent with it. Waggoner said:
What is called the "second covenant" virtually existed before the covenant was made at Sinai; for the covenant with Abraham was confirmed in Christ (Gal. 3:17); and it is only through Christ that there is any value to what is known as the second covenant.
After the denomination had been studying the lessons for a full month, Elder Smith published a disclaimer in the Review about them.
To the many inquirers who are writing us concerning the new theological departure in the Sabbath-school lesson, . . . the Bible . . . is our only rule of faith. . . .
. . . It is not necessarily to be understood that the Review. . . indorses all that they may contain. . ..
. . . It is not only the privilege but the duty of those who detect their disagreement with the Scriptures, to reject them without scruple and without reserve.
This is what Smith wrote in response to letters objecting to the Sabbath School lessons that were pouring in from all over the country; including Iowa, Nebraska, Idaho, Michigan, and Indiana.
Dan Jones reported to Elder Olsen that-
Everything is moving along nicely, except in reference to the sabbath-school lessons. I understand there is quite considerable flurry over the covenant question. They are having it up and down in the different teachers' meetings.
Dan Jones taught a Sabbath School class at the Battle Creek Tabernacle. He was very agitated about the lessons that were written by E. J. Waggoner. He wrote to Elder George I. Butler:
I refer, especially, to our late Sabbath-school lessons, in which the covenant question has been presented there has never anything happened in my life that has taken me down like this. I have just felt so thoroughly upset by the whole affair that I have hardly known how to act or what to do. They came on us like a thunder bolt from a clear sky. . . . But by some hook or crook the matter has been wound and twisted in until it is there in all its glory. glory.
Dan Jones reported to E. W. Farnsworth:
. . . The sabbath-school lessons had just come out, and there was a good deal in them that I could not indorse [sic.] on the subject of the covenant question; so I resigned as teacher of the Sabbathschool, and stayed away from the school a couple of weeks.
These lessons were to precipitate the revisiting of the whole issue of the law and the covenants. These points had not been resolved by the denomination in 1888. They would continue to be flash points that would spark tensions again and again. It was like Minneapolis all over again.
The 1888 Minneapolis conference focused on the law, the covenants, and righteousness by faith. The ministers' Bible school, from November 5, 1889 to March 25, 1890, again focused on the covenants question.
In the ministers' school A. T. Jones presented the covenants. A student who was present at the lectures, Elder E. P. Dexter, later (1891) wrote:
Since attending Bro. Jones Lectures I have given the covenants considerable study, and while cheerfully accepting the advanced light which has accompanied his exposition of this subject, I cannot be blind to the fact that this subject is not fully understood by our people. This lack, and want of harmony was exposed in the S.S. lessons on Hebrews. Since then, it has seemed to me, this subject has been avoided.
Unable to stay into the new year, A. T. Jones had to leave for New York City before Christmas of 1889, in order to take up duties with The American Sentinel.
E. J. Waggoner was A. T. Jones' replacement. Dan Jones reported to H. E. Robinson that "it was with considerable reluctance that Dr. Waggoner was secured for the remainder of the term. . . ." E. J. Waggoner taught in the Bible school a course on the Book of Isaiah during the latter part of 1889. But he changed directions at the first of the year and announced he would be teaching the covenants.
Dan T. Jones was in charge of the school in the absence of its principal, Prof. W. W. Prescott. Elder Jones wrote about what happened:
. . . I heard that Dr. Waggoner had announced in his school that he would take up the covenant question the next Monday morning. . . I thought about it a little, and concluded I would go and have a talk with Bro. White and the Dr. in reference to the matter, and try to prevail on them to lay over that question, at least until Prof. Prescott and Eld. Olsen could be here.
Dan Jones felt that if Waggoner had not consulted with the "managing board of the school or the other members of the faculty, it would have caused great dissatisfaction from all quarters."
Dan Jones went first to Elder W. C. White about the problem. Elder White advised him to talk to Dr. Waggoner to work it out. On Friday, Jones talked with Waggoner about holding off on teaching the covenants to the ministers until it could be decided by Prof. Prescott and Elder Olsen. The two men talked for a couple of hours about the problem. Waggoner had already made his plans to begin teaching on Monday and was not about to change his mind.
On Monday around six o'clock in the evening, Dr. Waggoner handed Dan Jones a letter of resignation for the one hour class time when the covenants were to be taught. This threw Jones into confusion about what to do. So on Tuesday he tried to get Dr. Waggoner to reconsider, but neither would compromise on their issues. It was decided between Dan Jones and W. C. White that Uriah Smith should take over the class.
Then Dan Jones and Uriah Smith-
. . . arranged to make a smooth matter of it before the class as we could; by stating that it had been thought best for Bro. Smith to come in with some of his lines of work for the present, and put off the covenant question for the present, as Dr. Waggoner was overworked and needed rest; and it had been expected that Bro. Smith would assist in the Bible-school, and so on. They put it on me to introduce the matter before the class. And after the decision was made we only had ten minutes to go on before the hour Bro. Smith was going to take would begin. So I went over with Bro. Smith, and got there a few minutes before the Dr. closed his class. After he had closed, he [Dr. Waggoner] said: "Sometimes the unexpected happens, and something very unexpected has happened to me. There have been objections made to my teaching the covenant question in this school, very much to my surprise, and I will not take it up for the present. Bro. [D. T.] Jones will explain to you the change that has been made." That upset my little speech completely that I had fixed up; so I could only say that it had been thought best to postpone the presentation of the covenant question for the present at least, and that Bro. Smith would take up the sanctuary question.
It appeared that Dan Jones was less than honest with the students about what had happened precipitating Dr. Waggoner's departure from the classroom.
On Sunday morning, February 16, in the east vestry of the tabernacle, Uriah Smith gave a brief overview of his position on the covenants. Smith traced the plan of salvation through the covenants given to Adam, Abraham and Israel. Smith said that Israel was "under the Adamic covenant; they were under the Abrahamic covenant." If they would "be obedient to him; keep his laws and commandments," then He would make them a great nation. Smith concluded:
So I understand the two covenants were the two dispensations through which God was working to carry out his plan originally made with Abraham. When Dr. Waggoner made his presentation on Monday, February 17, for two hours, Dan Jones noted:
Nothing was presented that Eld. Smith or any one else posted on the covenant question could object to, until near the close of the last session, when Dr. Waggoner drew a parallel between the old and new covenants, showing that each had three objective points: first, righteousness; second, inheritance of the earth, and third, kingdom of priests. But in the first it all depended upon the obedience of the people; in the second, or new covenant, God does it for the people.
Jones objected to the view that the old covenant and the new covenant were two different and distinct covenants.
According to Dan Jones, there was agreement between Waggoner and Smith on the objectives of both covenants: the necessity of righteousness, the restoration of the earth, and all the priesthood of all believers.
Elder O. A. Olsen was present for E. J. Waggoner's presentation on the covenants. He said, "I think that Dr. Waggoner has brought out some very important truth on that subject."
Elder U. Smith continued his formal presentation on Wednesday, February 19, 1890. Edson White made notes of his remarks. Smith said all was in harmony on the matter of justification by faith. He continued:
But on this subject of the covenants, there are some points, some scriptures, where there seems to be a difference of opinion in regard to the application.
. . . I think the promise to Abraham began right there and took in his immediate posterity and ran down through the literal seed, [i.e., the covenant was for the direct descendants] and through the literal seed went on to a wider development of the plan-reaching clear over to the final consummation, the redemption of man, the renewing of the earth, and the final possession of the inheritance. And in the development of that promise I understand God has formed two dispensations, two stages, if we may so speak, in the development of that work. In the accomplishment of that promise which he gave to Abraham there were two stages, two dispensations, and by each of these he was carrying on the same idea, reaching forward to the same end; and both of them were an advance step in the development of the plan: the promise, first, embracing the literal seed, securing to them many of the blessings to be had in the world here, in time, in their mortal state, and many of the privileges to be had in the world; and yet the promise to Abraham being such that all could not be secured in this mortal state, in this present earth in its present condition, and, therefore, involving the final resurrection of the dead, immortality, eternal in the new earth, as the final completion of the promise; but taking in these two stages. Now, we find ourselves able to see the bearing of some scriptures and see the harmony between some statements from the sacred writing that we could not do if we took the promise to Abraham to be simply a promise made to him and then bounding right over to Christ, and dropping all else from him to Christ. It seems to me the promise to Abraham filled up the whole time between him and Christ; and when it struck Christ, of course it took in all that was to be accomplished through him.
Elder Smith implied that the first covenant was a continuation of the Abrahamic covenant to his seed-Abraham's literal descendants.
He explained what God accomplished "in making this covenant with the people in bringing them out of Egypt: first, to carry out as it pertained to that time the promise of Abraham." He saw no distinction between the Sinaitic covenant made with Israel and the Abrahamic covenant. ". . . It seems to me that this covenant is very intimately related with that Abrahamic covenant."
Smith was saying that the Sinai covenant was to preserve the purity of the Israelites from other nations. Christ could then trace his genealogy as Messiah back to Abraham who was given the covenant.
The impression left by Elder Smith was that salvation under the old covenant was only figurative. This was a reflection of Butler's figurative forgiveness of sins but not a reality until Christ should come. The Abrahamic covenant could only point to Christ the reality. Smith explained:
So in Christ were the provisions of the Abrahamic covenant fulfilled, and light and immortality brought to light through the gospel, and conferred upon the people. And finally they would be brought over to the atonement, when sins would be absolutely forgiven, and that not for anybody-not even for Abel-until the atonement is made down here at the atonement of Christ,carrying out to completion the promise made to Abraham and the promise of salvation made to Abraham.
In Elder Smith's view none of the patriarchs who lived by faith received atonement for their sins until Christ actually died. Their forgiveness was only figurative in anticipation of the cross.
It is to be pondered, however, that Moses taught that Abraham "believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). Christ said to the Jews, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56). Surely Moses and Abraham must have known and experienced the blessed assurance of the forgiveness of their sins since by faith they knew Christ.
The apostle Paul stated: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman" (Galatians 4:21). Elder Smith interpreted the law here by saying, "Why certain teachers had come down from Jerusalem troubling their minds, and saying, they must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses."
Uriah Smith said that Paul was talking about a problem with the old covenant that existed in the apostle's day dealing with the Judaizers and Galatian Christians. They wanted to revert back to circumcision in order to be saved like the Israelites were under the old dispensation. Thus, he felt Paul was not speaking negatively of the old covenant during the time of Israel for which it was instituted. It was a good thing which God had ordained for their salvation, but it had no usefulness after the cross. cross.
However, what Paul actually taught was that the old covenant experience persisted to that day with his fellow Jews in Jerusalem. "These are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children" (Galatians 3:24, 25). There were those in Jerusalem in Paul's day who continued in the old covenant experience.
One pastor who participated in the Bible school, S. A. Whittier, assessed the Smith's view of the covenants. He said: ". . . It has not seemed to me that our position on the two covenants was clear."
The president, Elder O. A. Olsen thought it "amusing." He reported-
I have taken occasion to make inquiries of leading brethren in reference to their views on the covenants, and the fact is
. . . that I have not found two that held particularly the same views. This has led me to conclude that our brethren are not clear on the subject, neither have they the full light. . . .
This indicated the state of confusion among brethren regarding the issue of the covenants.
A few days after Elder Smith's presentation, on Monday, February 24, Elder R. C. Porter of the Minnesota Conference spoke. He set forth his thesis in these words: "I understand the Abrahamic covenant to embrace both the old and the new covenants. . . ." He continued: ". . . The old covenant, as it is called, was made to carry out the covenant made with Abraham. . . ." Porter made no distinction between the old and the new covenants. One was but the extension of the other.
Elder Porter made a statement several times that seemed to be responsive to what Dr. Waggoner had been teaching. "The Lord did not expect the people to keep that [old] covenant in their own strength." He made this point several times that God provided divine aid to keep the old covenant. ". . . The promise of divine help was right there given to them, to enable them to carry out the specifications of the old covenant." Waggoner said there was no such promise in the old covenant for divine pardon or aid. Porter was seeking to counter Waggoner on this point.
In Porter's understanding, God provided for the people to be righteous under the old covenant.
. . . The Lord looked for righteousness in that people; and he certainly would not look for righteousness if he had not provided a way by which they could obtain that righteousness for which he would look.
Surely these were points made to rebut Waggoner on his understanding of the old covenant.
And then, as if to completely wipe away the basic premise of Waggoner's understanding of the old covenant as being based on the promises of the people, Elder Porter said: "The conditions on which that [old] covenant was made were that of actual obedience, and not on the promise of the obedience." He was saying that Israel must obey the commandments as a condition of the old covenant. They could obey because God would help them. The old covenant was not the promise of the people to obey. There could not have been a more thorough rejection of Waggoner's message on the covenants.
Finally, Elder Porter asserted his agreement with Elder Smith about the new covenant being a continuation in the new dispensation of the old covenant in the former dispensation. "The Abrahamic covenant is the everlasting covenant; and the two covenants are but the means in the different ages for the carrying out of that plan; . . . ." The Abrahamic covenant is the same as the old and the new covenants. The old and the new covenants are the same means in "different ages" of restoring the sinner "into favor with God."
Waggoner would agree that the two dispensations were different historical periods with different symbols and types of the plan of salvation. But Porter and Smith made the symbols the means of the everlasting covenant, rather than simply expressions of faith in Christ. This was the essence of the old covenant experience which Waggoner was contrasting to the new covenant experience of righteousness by faith. The purpose of any symbol was primarily as an expression of faith in God, who would fulfill His promise in Christ. Christ Himself was the only means, or way, of salvation.
Ellen White's reaction to Porter's presentation was a resounding rejection. ". . . Brother Porter, . . . you are not in the light. Do not be surprised if I, when you are in the darkness, refuse to have an interview with . . . you." His understanding of the two covenants was darkness rather than light.
The trio of Dan Jones, Uriah Smith, and R. C. Porter were united in their opposition to Waggoner's presentation of the two covenants. They were confused about the covenants, but they did not recognize their confusion. They were not open to what Waggoner had to teach from the Bible. Through their leadership they left a lasting impact upon the ministers' institute of 1890. It should be emphasized that they were not malicious in doing this. They sincerely believed that they were upholding God's truth.
Another example of how Dan Jones worked underhandedly to neutralize Dr. Waggoner's influence was when Elder N. W. Allee wrote to him for advice about speakers for an institute in the Missouri Conference. Evidently Allee wanted to arrange for A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner to come as guest speakers, but Dan Jones advised against it. He wrote to Allee:
. . . I do not have very much confidence in some of their ways of presenting things. They try to drive everything before them, and will not admit that their positions can possibly be subject to the least criticism. They say, "It is truth; and all you need to do is to study it as long as I have, and you will see it!" . . . . But our more thoughtful men, Bro. Smith, Bro. Littlejohn, Bro. Corliss, Bro. Gage, and others, -do not agree with them on many positions which they take on . . . the covenants, the law in Galatians. . . . But these things they make prominent wherever they go . . . upon which there is a difference of opinion among our leading brethren. I do not think you want to bring that spirit into the Missouri Conference.
Dan Jones concluded his advice to Allee by characterizing Waggoner's theology as "a highfalutin theory that never has worked and never will work anywhere."
There are those who would look back on Seventh-day Adventist denominational history of 1890 and conclude a victory was achieved. However, Elder J. S. Washburn, who was closer to the events, had a more sober assessment:
I was one of those ordered by the General Conference Committee to attend the Minister's school at Battle Creek, the last winter but was not able to go on account of sickness in the family. But some of the reports from them have made me think it was in a measure "Minneapolis" over again. It seems to me God is just holding over our heads a great blessing, but is waiting for us to be ready for it before bestowing it upon us, and that this blessing is true holiness and that when we shall come up to our duties and privileges in this matter then our work shall go with the "loud cry."
Later that year (May 19, 1890), R. C. Porter was back in Minnesota and received a letter from Dan Jones which continued to feed his negativism toward the covenant message. Jones wrote to him:
I find that the agitation on the covenant question and justification by faith has lost none of its force as it has gone out to different parts of the field, but has rather gathered strength and taken on objectionable features, until they see it now in a much worse light than it really is.
In summary, the ministers' Bible school of 1890 focused on the issue of the two covenants. When E. J. Waggoner attempted to address this subject in the ministers' institute, Dan Jones felt such controversial topics needed approval from the school principal. Waggoner stepped down from teaching at the time which had been allotted to him.
Eventually, when the school principal, Prof. W. W. Prescott, arrived, presentations were allowed from both sides of the question. The evidence indicates that there was confusion in the minds of the pastors as well as some church leaders over the covenant issue.
Ellen White supported an open and fair discussion among the pastors on the covenant question. She indicated her disapproval of Elder R. C. Porter's presentation of the traditional view.
The evidence reveals that among some of the leadership of the General Conference,-namely Dan Jones, Uriah Smith, and R. C. Porter,-there was opposition to E. J. Waggoner and the two covenants. Ellen White said there were underhanded dealings going on. The way Dan Jones tried to discourage the Missouri Conference from inviting A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner as guest speakers indicates a behind-the-scenes maneuvering.