Lessons from The History of How the True Light on the Covenants Was Established
1888 – 1900

Lesson 2

Massive Opposition To The Light

Introduction

In the immediate era after the Minneapolis General Conference Elder Uriah Smith was the editor of the church’s most influential paper, the REVIEW. His publisher, who was absolutely loyal to his theological positions, was a certain Captain Eldridge in the Review office.

Notwithstanding the fact that Sis Ellen White had received a vision regarding the covenants on March 6, 1890 and had communicated this to him by letter on March 8, Elder Uriah Smith remained unmoved in his determination to hold to his own concepts and to oppose Waggoner.

Elders Uriah Smith, G. I. Butler and W.C. Wales were busy developing concepts on the two covenants to oppose Waggoner’s position.

The Opposing Theories

Exactly one month after being told by Sis Ellen White that he was wasting his time trying to find any other position than the one presented by Elder E. J. Waggoner, Elder Smith wrote the following statement in the Review & Herald, April 8, 1890:

“God can never approach man with offers of blessing through Jesus Christ, without putting in the very fore front of every such transaction his own law, the transcript of his will, harmony with which is the indispensable condition of every favor to be bestowed; for what blessings could God confer, or promise to confer, upon men as individuals, families, or nations who would not yield to him their hearts, and seek to obey him?... In the formation of the covenant, this condition must therefore first appear, as it does; ‘If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant.” Ex. 19:5. When the people assented to this, then God could proceed to enter upon the covenant proper. And the outward symbol of that covenant… must consist of its terms… including the promise of the people to obey God’s law on the moral plain of action…” RH April 8, 1890.

Elder U. Smith held to his position that the Old Covenant was God’s covenant requiring strict obedience on the part of the people. He believed that it was alright for them to promise obedience to the Ten Commandments. As far as Elder Smith was concerned no one could come to Christ except through law obedience.

When asked about Paul’s allegory in Galatians 4:21-31, Elder Smith’s thesis was that at the time God gave the Old Covenant to Israel it did not “gender to bondage.” Smith’s view was that only after Christ’s death did the Old Covenant become a bondage. He wrote:

“…They have wondered how such a covenant could all the while gender to bondage; … we do not understand Paul to say that it did, at that time, gender to that kind of bondage of which he speaks in the allegory. He was speaking from the standpoint of circumstances then present, to correct evils then existing, and to guard against dangers to which they were then exposed.”

“Now Paul takes these circumstances to illustrate a condition of things that existed at the time he wrote this epistle to the Galatians, touching the relation of the old covenant to the new, and the Jews to the Christians.” RH April 8, 1890.

Although Smith recognized the historical basis for Paul’s use of the Abraham story, he never seemed to grasp the essence of Galatians 4:23-26.

“But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from 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. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” Galatians 4:23-26.

Waggoner explained that the historical typology (prolepsis) of the Hagar-Ishmael event ran from the time of Cain, it ran through the historical experience of “mount Sinai” right up to the present Jerusalem. That was the Old Covenant “which gendereth to bondage” classically illustrated in the story of Abraham’s union to Hagar. Abraham had lapsed into unbelief concerning God’s promise of a son and tried to fulfill it through his own works.

The same was true at Sinai. The people did not believe God’s renewed offer of the Abrahamic new covenant. God gave them the law not for them to promise obedience, because, even if they could have obeyed the law, that is not how the inheritance is obtained. The inheritance is to be received as a free gift by the believer who exercises faith in the obedience of the Redeemer. God gave them the law to show them their need of the Redeemer. Rom. 4:13-17; 4, 5; Gal. 3:16-18.

So when the people promised to obey they were really telling God that they could earn the inheritance, i.e. fulfill the promise, by their own works. That committed them to bondage under the law because all have sinned and no one can be justified by his own obedience even if he could perfectly obey! This was Waggoner in full cry!

Another problem Elder Smith had, which was based on his concept that the covenants were dispensational, was that he could not see that the New Covenant was in effect during the time of Abraham. Smith’s view was that” “Salvation was only a figurative anticipation before Christ and not yet a reality.” (Quoting from Paul E Penno page 176).

Waggoner, on the other hand, said that the everlasting covenant was the New Covenant. In the Sabbath-School Lessons on the Letter to the Hebrews for Senior Classes, Jan. 4 March 29, 1890 Waggoner wrote on page 20:

“What is called the ‘second covenant’ existed before the (first) 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.”

Historian P. E. Penno says that this was a fundamental concept of the covenants as taught by E. J. Waggoner.

According to Penno’s historical account, Elder Smith did not let up but kept pouring on the opposition pressure through the columns of the REVIEW.

G. I. Butler joined Smith in the attack on Waggoner through the REVIEW. Butler intensified the issue by a two-part series in the Review in April 1890, called “God’s Covenant.” In that series Butler introduced the “three covenant” concept that was to impact on Adventist covenant theology ever since. He wrote:

“The Lord made a covenant with Abraham … called an ‘everlasting covenant! …”

“The old covenant was made between God and the children of Israel at the foot of Sinai. This continued until superseded by the ‘new covenant’ …, which went into effect when Christ’s blood was shed …”

Obviously Butler was determined and stubborn in his rejection of the light on the covenants. Elder Butler, the former General Conference president, whose presidency ended in 1888, was considered a theological heavy-weight in the denomination. His understanding of the covenants was not only dispensational but legalistic, he plainly asserted that God’s covenant with Abraham was based on Abraham’s perfect obedience of a perfect law. Then he went on to say that the new covenant, which, according to him, only became effectual after the cross,

“Is no exception … the condition on God’s part upon which He will enter into covenant relations is obedience to His covenant, the Ten Commandments.” G.I. Butler: “God’s Covenant” RH (67),16, April 22, 1890.

Even though Elder Butler admitted at the end of his articles that:

“Man often proves false to the promises he makes, and breaks his covenant vows. Such mutual agreements pass away when man violates his promises to keep the condition of them.” Ibid.

According to Waggoner’s logic, had Butler thought this idea through he would or should have seen that it would be impossible for man to enter God’s covenant through obedience. Man is incapable of keeping his promises to God in the context of obtaining salvation or victory over sin.

As noted already E. J. Waggoner had written in the Sabbath School lessons of the first quarter (1890) that:

“It is to the ‘new covenant’ that the term ‘everlasting covenant’ refers” E.J. Waggoner, Lesson 16, Jan 18, 1890.

The rebuttal to this statement came out in the Review in June. W.C. Wales wrote:

“The Ten Commandments are called God’s covenant. The blood of Christ is not alone the blood of the old covenant, not the blood alone of the new, but the blood of the everlasting covenant; that is the covenant which belongs alike to both dispensations … the covenant violated by every sinning Jew, by every godless antediluvian or modern gentile.” W.C. Wales, RH (67),23(1890-06-10).

Elders Butler, Smith, Wales had now fully developed the 3-covenant error which many still hold even today. They asserted that the old covenant spanned from Sinai to the Cross. The new covenant spans from the cross onwards. But the everlasting covenant (which they defined as the ten commandments) spans both dispensations!

E. J. Waggoner, on the other hand, stated clearly that the everlasting covenant is the new covenant which originated in eternity past, became functional when Adam fell, was given to Adam in the Genesis 3:15 promise, was renewed to Abraham and ratified by Christ’s blood on the cross. Whereas the Sinai old covenant was the promise of the people to obey the law in order to earn what can only be received as a free gift through faith in the Redeemer’s obedience and sacrifice. This was the light endorsed by the Holy Spirit.

Endless Opposition

History researcher P. E. Penno says that the evidence clearly indicated that the editorial policy of the denomination’s leading Journal, after Ellen White’s endorsement of Waggoner’s understanding of the covenants on March 8, 1890, was to oppose and refute Waggoner’s teaching on the covenants at every point!

You can imagine how disturbing and confusing all of that was to the average church member who had been reading all the various opposing views.

Elder Smith was adamant and was not backing down. When Waggoner proved one of Smith’s theories to be wrong, Smith looked for other theories to justify his position.

Divine Intervention Again

It was November 25, 1890. The theological war had reached an almost unbearable level. It was time for God to directly intervene yet again!

Sis E. G. White wrote to Elder Smith about his peril:

“During the night season again and again have I been shown your position has been a dangerous one.

“You have virtually said ‘I have not confidence in the message sister White bears.’

“I have been compelled to meet your influence in Minneapolis and since that time, everywhere I have been; and now the year 1890 is nearly closed, will you fall on the rock and be broken?

“You were a man like Elder Butler – would not confess a wrong step but would make many more wrong steps to justify your first wrong step.” E.G.W Letters to Uriah Smith, November 25, 1890 (EGW 1888 pp 732,733).

The Reaction To The Divine Intervention

Elder Smith received the message full and clear. He knew full well that Ellen White stood with Waggoner on the covenants. Her book Patriarchs and Prophets was now in circulation and the chapter on The Law and the Covenants presented the Waggoner view, the true light. Would Elder Smith repent? No! He introduced a new strategy. He charged that sis White was being “influenced.”

Sis E. G. White answered this charge. She wrote him on December 27, 1890:

“When you have stated that Sis White was influenced by W.C. White, A.T. Jones, and E.J. Waggoner you have planted in hearts infidelity that has been nourished and has borne fruit… they will say, ‘O, Sis White is influenced. Someone has told her these things. If Elder Smith who knows all about the testimonies says it is only her opinion and her own judgement, and he does not accept the teachings of the testimonies, and he is such a good man, I will follow his example and I will risk it.’ My brethren have trifled and caviled and criticized and commented and demerited, and picked and chosen a little and refused much until the testimonies mean nothing to them. They put whatever interpretation upon them that they choose in their own finite judgement and are satisfied.” (EGW 1888 pp 796-300) Letter of EGW to U Smith Dec 27, 1890.

One of those who was influenced by Elder Smith was a certain E. P. Dexter of Topeka, Kansas. He asked her a question about Patriarchs And Prophets. He wrote:

“Shall I understand the quotation to be dictated by the Spirit of Inspiration or has the idea been suggested by investigation?” Letter of E. P. Dexter to EGW March 11, 1891.

By the end of 1890, Elder Smith was immovable. He was completely opposed to the message and its messengers. Elder Smith and his opposition “gang” remained intransigent.

Elder Smith Falls On The Rock. But How?

On Tuesday, December 30, 1890, Sis E. G. White arrived in Battle Creek having returned from Washington D.C. She was in “agony” over Elder Smith (EGW “Diary Entry” EGW 1888 p. 862).

She had written a letter to him but kept if for a few days. Elder Smith came by to visit her the following week. He requested a special meeting with a certain individuals. Before the meeting Sis white gave him the letter:

“The feelings cherished by yourself and Elder Butler were not only despising the message, the messengers … You write that you have said that you have not [sic] controversy with Sr. White. Better, far better, have had this controversy openly than under cover, for this controversy has been and there has not been harmony between us since the Minneapolis meeting. You have been exceedingly stubborn, ….” Letter EGW to U. Smith, Jan. 6, 1891.

The next day Wednesday, January 7 Elder Smith read her letter before the few gathered at the special meeting.

“Then Bro. Smith, with tears, made a full and free confession for the wrong course he had pursued.” EGW, “Diary Entries” EGW 1888 p. 873.

Taking her hand he said:
“ Sis White, will you forgive me for all the trouble and distress that I have caused you? I assure you this is the last time if the Lord will pardon me. I will not repeat the history of the past three years. Ibid. p. 863.

She wrote:
“ He had fallen on the Rock and was broken. I cannot describe to you my joy.” Ibid. p. 863.

On Sabbath, January 10, Elder Smith again made confession going back to 1888 Minneapolis and confessed that “in their boarding places in Minneapolis they made light of the truth and of those who advocated the truth.” Ibid., p. 875.

However by January 22 Sis E. G. White cautioned:
“ There is a nominal assent to truth but its deep meaning is not understood. We have for years been waging war with spiritual idolatry.” Ibid., p. 887.

On February 27, 1891 she wrote in her diary:

“When strong-minded men once set their will against God’s will, it is not easy for them to admit that they have erred in judgment. It is very difficult for such men to come fully into the light by honestly confessing their sins; for Satan has great power over the minds of many to whom God has granted evidence sufficient to encourage faith and inspire confidence. Many will not be convinced, because they are not inclined to confess. To resist and reject even one ray of light from heaven because of pride and stubbornness of heart, makes it easier to refuse light the second time. Thus men form the habit of rejecting light.” EGW 1888 p. 895 (Diary entries).

Elder Uriah Smith had confessed the sin of having a wrong spirit at Minneapolis and even subsequent to Minneapolis. But he could not straighten out his mind on the 1888 message, his thoughts on the covenants and on righteousness by faith remained warped and erroneous. How sad.

At P. E. Penno puts it, Sis Ellen White was desperately trying to save Elder Smith for usefulness in the cause of God. God could bless such a talented man with keen analytical powers and writing skills. But he had to make the decision to advance in the truth. At that late stage in the game he was so far behind, it would be difficult if not impossible, to make up the difference between where he was and where he could be at that time.

“Ellen White spoke at the General Conference of March 5-25, 1891, at Battle Creek. Elder Smith was in the audience. She spoke well of his talents and keen intellect. She went on to say to all: ‘In rejecting the message given at Minneapolis, men committed sin. They have committed far greater sin by retaining for years the same hatred against God’s messengers, by rejecting the truth that the Holy Spirit has been urging home. By making light of the message given, they are making light of the word of God.” E G White, “Article read in the Auditorium of the Battle Creek Tabernacle to a large assembly, at the General Conference of 1891.” EGW 1888, p.913.

“God sends messengers with truth that the Holy Spirit may direct attention to the precious rays of light in the Scriptures. To reject the truth and hate the messengers is to reject the Holy Spirit. This is an everlasting principle fully illustrated in the crucifixion of Christ.

“By rejecting the light given at Minneapolis the enemy had been able to shut out further light coming to the church especially through leadership. Elder Smith had experienced a loss from which he could not fully recover. He was currently at a loss (1892).” (Calvary at Sinai, P. E. Penno Jr. P. 187).

Sis. White wrote to Elder Smith:
“ The message given us by A.T. Jones, and E. J. Waggoner is the message of God to the Laodicean church, and woe be unto anyone who professes to believe the truth and yet does not reflect to others the God-given rays…. But the first position you took in regard to the message and the messenger has been a continual snare to you and a stumbling block….

“The enemy had prepared a long chain of circumstances, the links in a chain, that you might be prevented from standing where you should have stood. You have lost a rich and powerful experience, and that loss, resulting from refusing the precious treasures of truth presented to you, is still your loss. You are not where God would have had you, and you have missed the providential links one after another in the chain, so that now it is hard for you to see the mysterious connections in the endless chain of providence in His special work.” Letter E.G. White to U. Smith, September 19, 1892, North Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia, ‘The Message of 1888; An Appeal for Unity; The Need for the Indwelling Christ.” EGW 1888, pp. 1052, 1053.

She later wrote to Williams Ings:
“ But if such men as Elder Smith, Elder Van Horn, and Elder Butler shall stand aloof,…they will be left behind…. These brethren have had every opportunity to stand in the ranks that are pressing on to victory, but if they refuse, the work will advance without them.

“… And if they refuse the message, …. These brethren, … will meet with eternal loss, for though they should repent and be saved at last, they can never regain that which they have lost through their wrong course of action.” Letter E G White to William Ings, January 9, 1893, Melbourne. EGW 1888, p. 1128.

The validity of Sis White’s warnings was confirmed when in 1892 Smith continued to write his views in the REVIEW & HERALD. Asked to explain Galatians 4:24, 25, what are the two covenants, Smith answered:

“The old covenant was made with Israel. The New Covenant was made with the disciples as representatives of the Christian church.” Uriah Smith: In the Question Chair. The Two Covenants, R&H (69) 21, May 24, 1892 p. 329.

This was blatant dispensationalism.

He continued his erroneous statements:
“ In both cases the covenant consisted of mutual promises, based on mutual conditions between God and the people.” Ibid.

Then he added:
“ The old Covenant did not exist before it was made at Sinai.”

Waggoner answered clearly that the Old Covenant consisted of promises on the part of the people to obey God. The New Covenant consisted of God’s promise to meet the condition of the covenant. God’s new covenant was not based on the people’s promise.

Meanwhile in the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Sis. E. G. White had since 1891 been writing statements in support of Waggoner’s views.

“The terms of this oneness between God and man in the great covenant of redemption were arranged with Christ from all eternity. The covenant of grace was revealed to the patriarchs. The covenant made with Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the law was spoken on Sinai was a covenant confirmed by God in Christ, the very same gospel which is preached to us. ‘The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.’ The covenant of grace is not a new truth, for it existed in the mind of God from all eternity. This is why it is called the everlasting covenant. The plan of redemption was not conceived after the fall of man to cure the dreadful evil; the apostle Paul speaks of the gospel, the preaching of Jesus Christ, as ‘the revelation of the mystery, which hath been kept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is make known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith.” Rom. 16:25. (Revised Version). E G White, “Christ Our Hope,” ST (August 24, 1891). Emphasis added.

In another statement dealing with the covenants she said:
“ For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received that Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” The spirit of bondage is engendered by seeking to live in accordance with legal religion, through striving to fulfill the claims of the law in our own strength. There is hope for us only as we come under the Abrahamic covenant, which is the covenant of grace by faith in Christ Jesus. The gospel preached to Abraham, through which he had hope, was the same gospel that is preached to us to-day, through which we have hope. Abraham looked unto Jesus, who is also the Author and the Finisher of our faith.” E G White, “Words to the Young,” The Youth’s Instructor (September 22, 1892).

These were Christ-centred statements of the covenant. She clearly identified the “Abrahamic covenant” as the “covenant of grace.” Abraham was saved by faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. He was not saved figuratively. He did not have to wait in his grave for Christ to die on the cross before he could be forgiven. He was verily saved the day he believed.

The sacrificial system was dispensational. The covenants were not dispensational. The ceremonial law pictured the gospel in the pre-cross era and came to its end at Calvary. The covenant of grace was just as effective for Abraham as it is for us today. Likewise, the “spirit of bondage” engendered by “legal religion” is an error that is just as much alive and well after the cross as it was in the days of ancient Israel. It is the error of the old covenant whereby the sinner sought to earn salvation by his own obedience. The old covenant is rampant among so-called believers in Christ today. Waggoner pointed out that the first symptom of the old covenant condition is the creature making promises to the Creator.

The new covenant produces genuine obedience to the law by giving the believer the free gift of God’s righteousness and eternal life! Hallelujah!

Conclusion

“But faith is in no sense allied to presumption. Only he who has true faith is secure against presumption. For presumption is Satan's counterfeit of faith. Faith claims God's promises, and brings forth fruit in obedience. Presumption also claims the promises, but uses them as Satan did, to excuse transgression. Faith would have led our first parents to trust the love of God, and to obey His commands. Presumption led them to transgress His law, believing that His great love would save them from the consequence of their sin. It is not faith that claims the favor of Heaven without complying with the conditions on which mercy is to be granted. Genuine faith has its foundation in the promises and provisions of the Scriptures.

Often when Satan has failed of exciting distrust, he succeeds in leading us to presumption. If he can cause us to place ourselves unnecessarily in the way of temptation, he knows that the victory is his. God will preserve all who walk in the path of obedience; but to depart from it is to venture on Satan's ground. There we are sure to fall. The Saviour has bidden us, "Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation." Mark 14:38. Meditation and prayer would keep us from rushing unbidden into the way of danger, and thus we should be saved from many a defeat.” D.A. 126.

“The birth of a son to Zacharias, like the birth of the child of Abraham, and that of Mary, was to teach a great spiritual truth, a truth that we are slow to learn and ready to forget. In ourselves we are incapable of doing any good thing; but that which we cannot do will be wrought by the power of God in every submissive and believing soul. It was through faith that the child of promise was given. It is through faith that spiritual life is begotten, and we are enabled to do the works of righteousness.” D.A. 98.

“Nothing but the righteousness of Christ can entitle us to one of the blessings of the covenant of grace. There are many who have long desired and tried to obtain these blessings, but have not received them, because they have cherished the idea that they could do something to make themselves worthy of them. They have not looked away from self, believing that Jesus is an all-sufficient Saviour. We must not think that our own merits will save us; Christ is our only hope of salvation. "For there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12. D.A. 431.

Next in the series: Waggoner On The Subject Of Promises

Appeal

“This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” 1 John 1:5 – 7.

<-- Previous

Articles Home

Next -->