The Present Sabbath-School Lessons
By Editor
We have received a copy of the leaflet, sent out from Battle Creek, with the title “God’s Everlasting Covenant: Remarks Made by Alonzo T. Jones, in the Battle Creek Sanitarium Sabbath-school, July 20, 1907.” On reading it we find it to be a very severe criticism of the lessons now being studied in the senior division of our Sabbath-schools, and an attempt to prove that “the Seventh-day Adventist denomination has absolutely abandoned the true Seventh-day Adventist ground as tested by the writings of the spirit of prophecy,” and also “the true Christian ground as tested by the plain facts and plain words and the universal thought of the Holy Scriptures.” This is certainly a serious accusation to make against a body of professedly Christian people. One who presents such an indictment as this ought surely to have the most plain and positive evidence upon which to rest it. We would not expect that one who declares that “for this awful fact no one can possibly be more sorry than” he, would treat the lessons unfairly, or would by technical arguments attempt to make them say what by any fair construction, and taken as a whole, they do not say, in order to establish the “awful fact.” Has this been done? We shall be better able to answer this question after considering the charge, the proof adduced, and the actual teachings of the lessons. We will first quote the charge made:— As the central proposition of this whole Lesson Quarterly as to God’s everlasting covenant is that it is “Obey and Live,” let us look at this on its own merit. This says that to Adam and angels God promised life “only on condition of obedience;” and this was a “compact,” an agreement, a contract, upon a “condition” or proviso, between God and his creatures. . . . According to these lessons, then, 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 life. Then when they had promised to do it, so that they could have life, and had to do it before they could have the life, then when they did do it and so got the life, how was it in fact and in truth that they got the life? There is only one possible answer, and that answer is perfectly clear: it is that they got the life by their own works. . . . As the lessons teach, this covenant was the creatures’ agreement or compact, and their promise was that they would obey the law of God, the ten commandments, in order that they might have righteousness and life. . . . Further: the Lesson Quarterly says that “righteousness and life go together.” This is the truth. But in this connection see what it is made to tell: as Adam and angels, all could have life only by their own works, in fulfilment of their own promise to obey; and as righteousness and life go together, it is positive and plain that they got righteousness by their own works in fulfilment of their own promise, and so this righteousness was absolutely and exclusively their own righteousness. And since their promise of obedience must be fulfilled before God’s promise of life could come in or be of effect, it also follows that the righteousness of their own works upon their own promise was entirely their own righteousness, and not the righteousness of God at all. It was absolutely righteousness by works, and not by faith; it was exclusively their own righteousness, by their own works, upon their own promise, and not in any sense the righteousness of God, which is by faith. [Italics as in the leaflet.] There is much more of this same kind, accompanied by a somewhat painful exhibition of solicitude in behalf of the people who, it is alleged, have thus apostatized from the truth, but this is certainly sufficient to make clear what the charge is against these lessons and this denomination. This charge is based upon the following quotations from the notes appended to different lessons in the Lesson Quarterly:— The angels must have lived under the4 same covenant as man; namely, “Obey and Live.” 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.” We have found the condition of the covenant between God and his creatures to be, “Obey and Live.” The compact, or covenant, under which Adam began his existence was that God promised life only on condition of Adam’s obedience. We pass by, as unworthy of any serious attention, that substitution of logic for good sense by which the paragraph last quoted is made to prove that the writer of the lessons taught that Adam “entered into that agreement before he existed,” and inquire whether it is true that “these lessons are fundamentally wrong and inculcate ultra and destructive error; error that is subversive of souls, in that it is subversive of God’s everlasting covenant of grace, and the free gift of life and righteousness.” It is true that the quotations are all found in the Lesson Quarterly. It is true that when they are taken out of the connection in which they stand in the lessons, and apart from the other positive and clear statements in the lessons as a whole, they can be made by due process of manipulation to teach that the everlasting covenant is “a covenant into which the angels and Adam entered ‘without Christ,’ and therefore itself a covenant without Christ,” and may thus be made to furnish an apparent basis for the somewhat tragic exclamation, “Oh, oh, oh, my soul! Oh, people saved by the Lord! what awful thing is this that God’s everlasting covenant shall be made to be a covenant without Christ!” But it is not true that this series of lessons, when fairly and justly treated, justify any such conclusions. Let us now consider these quotations in their proper connection. The one upon which the charge is most persistently rung, and which is made to furnish the foundation for a lengthy and somewhat involved argument, is the one last quoted: “The compact, or covenant, under which Adam began his existence was that God promised life only on condition of Adam’s obedience.” This is one of several conclusions drawn by the lesson writer at the end of the first lesson. The questions in the lesson with which it seems to be directly connected are these: “How did God impart life to man? Gen. 2:7. Upon what condition was this life to be continued? Gen. 2:17.” This last text reads thus: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” One of the other conclusions drawn from the same lesson and printed in the same list with the one which is selected for manipulation is this: “His continued existence was dependent upon his choosing in harmony with God’s will.” When thus taken in the connection in which it appeared in the Lesson Quarterly, it will be clear to any one who is not looking for an opportunity to make an accusation against the denomination that this paragraph, much italicized and much capitalized in the leaflet, means that the continuance of life to Adam depended upon his obedience to the commandment of God that he should not eat of the forbidden tree. The provision made in Christ “before the world began,” by virtue of which man created in the image of God could be obedient, is not mentioned in the second chapter of Genesis, neither is it mentioned in the first lesson of this series, but it is presented in other parts of the Bible and in other places in these lessons. The “destructive error, error that is subversive of souls,” appears to us to consist more in the unfair manipulation of the lesson than in the lesson itself. The other expression which is taken out of its connection and handled with much acumen is the phrase, “Obey and Live.” This is found first in the first lesson, and in the paragraph immediately following the one which we have already considered. It is plainly intended to be the condensed form of the previous statement that man’s “continued existence was dependent upon his choosing in harmony with God’s will,” or of that other statement that “God promised [continued] life only on condition of Adam’s obedience.” The same statements which have already been made with reference to these other paragraphs are therefore applicable to this phrase. The meaning of these several paragraphs, as found in their connection in the lessons, not as found in the leaflet, will be clear enough not to cause confusion to the man who reads them in their proper connection without putting into them what they do not by any fair construction contain. At the same time we are perfectly free to say that more care might have been exercised to avoid those expressions which make it possible to do just what has been done in this leaflet—by selection and manipulation to make the lessons teach what they do not really teach. If the same method of treatment employed in this leaflet should be applied to the sayings of Jesus, he also could be made to teach salvation by works. To the inquiry of the young man, “What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” he replied, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,” and by quoting several of them he showed that he meant the ten commandments of the decalogue. Now apply the logic of the leaflet: “As certainly then as life was promised him only on a condition, so certainly he did not already have life; and not having life, he agreed [or would have agreed, had he accepted the condition imposed by Jesus] to obey in order that he might have it; as it was ‘only’ on that ‘condition’ that he could have life.” “It is a fault for either angels or men ever to enter into a compact of ‘Obey and Live,’ or to offer to God obedience as the satisfaction or ‘condition’ upon which ‘only’ they can secure the promise of life. And this for the reason that under such a ‘compact’ and upon such a ‘condition’ their obedience, and therefore their righteousness, would be only of themselves and of the law. And self-righteousness is no more true righteousness, and no more acceptable to God, in a heavenly angel than it is in an earthly Pharisee.” This kind of logic applied to one of the sayings of Jesus, taken apart from the general tenor of his teaching, demonstrates that he inculcated self-righteousness, righteousness by the law, and that if his instruction was followed, it would simply make Pharisees. We protest against such rabbinical methods. But now let us inquire whether there are any positive statements in this series of lessons which make it clear that they do not teach that the everlasting covenant is a covenant of bondage, as is charged in this leaflet, or a covenant without Christ. We quote the following paragraphs from the notes:— God says he will give Christ for the covenant of the people [referring to Isa. 42:6], that is, Christ would furnish the people’s part of the covenant. God requires of the people perfect righteousness, but all have failed, so Jesus came to stand in our stead and furnish what we have failed to furnish, and thus to renew the broken covenant in himself, and with the people in him.—Lesson IV, note 2. Since man fell by a disobedience which was the outgrowth of a lack of faith in God, it must be evident that man can be reinstated only by an obedience which is the outgrowth of faith in God.—Lesson V, note 2. The steps of a man in entering the new covenant are: . . . (b) Faith in Christ as expressed in God’s appointed way, and thereby receiving the righteousness of God. . . . On God’s part, the steps are: . . . (b) Writing his law in the man’s heart by the Holy Spirit so that the man can keep his commandments.—Lesson V, notes 5 and 6. The bondage is sin or transgression of the law. Christ alone can save the sinner, and make him righteous or obedient. When a man assumes by his own works to make himself righteous, he is taking upon himself an obligation that he can never bear. The more one seeks to justify himself by his own acts, the more he becomes entangled in the yoke of bondage, or sin. Any theory or system which seeks righteousness by works is but a yoke of bondage.—Lesson VII, note.5 These are the better promises [God’s promises previously quoted, to write the law in the heart, etc.] upon which the second is established, and they are all good, for they are the promises of God. All we have to do is to accept them, and we find them to be yea and amen in Christ Jesus.—Lesson VIII, note 4. The Jews were trying, by their own works, to establish their own righteousness, and like all others who trust in morality for justification, they were too proud to acknowledge their own helplessness, and to submit to receiving righteousness by simple faith in Jesus, and so they stumbled.—Lesson IX, note 1. We have found that the new covenant centers in Christ, and to accept him by faith is to keep the new covenant.—Lesson X, introductory note. By these texts [the texts referred to in the previous lesson] it will be clearly seen that Christ, in counsel with the Father, offered himself as a substitute for man, that God accepted this offer, and thus the new, or renewed, covenant was confirmed of God in Christ by promise; Christ bringing to man the righteousness man failed to furnish, and meeting the penalty which man had incurred by sin.—Lesson XI, note 1. Would the unprejudiced reader of these notes come to the conclusion that “these lessons make God’s everlasting covenant to be a covenant of bondage”—“a covenant into which the angels and Adam entered ‘without Christ,’ and therefore itself a covenant without Christ”? Are these notes printed in the same series of lessons and in the same Lesson Quarterly from which the quotations are taken in the leaflet?—They are. Are any of these quotations quoted or referred to in the leaflet?—They are not. Do the quotations made in the leaflet give a correct idea of the true teaching of the lessons from which they are taken, or of the series of lessons as a whole?—They do not. What, then, is the explanation of such a severe arraignment of these lessons and of the denomination, thus publicly made and printed to be sent out to the people? Toward the close of this remarkable leaflet, after the charge has been made that the General Conference “administration” never did accept the message of righteousness by faith which was presented at the Minneapolis Conference in 1888, we find the following:— And now at last in the Sabbath-school lessons in this Lesson Quarterly, senior division, third quarter, 1907, that spirit and that element [of opposition to the message of righteousness by faith] have most signally triumphed, in having got not only the “administration,” the “organization,” and the “denomination” committed body, soul, and spirit, to the covenant of “Obey and Live,” but, so far as in their power lies, have actually committed the created universe, and even the Creator himself, to that same covenant of bondage of self-righteousness. And this after fifteen years of religious liberty and righteousness by faith!! . . . And because by never a hair’s breadth would I yield to the demands of that element, to compromise or modify—that is, to abandon—the sure ground of that eternal truth, I have been held as only an unreasonable extremist—until they could endure it no longer, but, upon deliberate action taken, must publish broadcast concerning me that— “We hereby declare that he does not now properly represent this denomination before the public,” and that he is “no longer authorized to do so.” I bless the Lord for that. Since it is true that against the plain facts and plain scriptures, and against the plain writings of the spirit of prophecy, these Sabbath-school lessons, originated and issued by the denomination, commit the denomination, and even God himself, to a covenant of bondage, to a covenant “without Christ,” then it is the happiest thing that ever came to me from this earth, that “this denomination” itself should officially notify the world that I do not properly represent them. Such a statement of the case as this in this immediate connection is certainly very suggestive. For reasons which were stated in the action itself, but which were not quoted in the leaflet, and which did not relate to the question of righteousness by faith, the General Conference Committee deemed it necessary to make a statement concerning the relation of the denomination to the one who prepared this leaflet; then in due time this leaflet appears in which an attempt is made to show that the whole denomination has “absolutely abandoned the true Seventh-day Adventist ground,” and “the true Christian ground,” but that he himself has “by never a hair’s breadth” yielded to the pressure brought to bear upon him to abandon the eternal truth, and that when “they [there is no antecedent to this pronoun] could endure it no longer,” they made the public announcement quoted above, for which he blesses the Lord. We grant that it is possible that the whole denomination should apostatize from the truth of the gospel, and that there should remain only this one champion of the truth, but we are not convinced that such is the case by the proof set forth in this leaflet, after examining the lessons themselves. On the contrary, we are compelled to regard this leaflet as an answer to the action of the General Conference Committee, a deliberate attempt to prove apostasy upon the part of the whole denomination as the basis for personal exultation over the action of the Committee. Setting the Denomination Right
The leaflet closes with this appeal:— Will “the administration” and “the organized work” now undo this wrong that has been done, and set the denomination right by presenting the true and everlasting gospel of God’s everlasting covenant in truth? Or will they refuse to do this, and leave this blessed work for others to do? and then themselves defend the awful error of the lessons, and charge with “apostasy” and with “warring on the denomination” all those who preach the true and everlasting gospel of God’s everlasting covenant in truth? Which will they do? Which will you do? As for me, I will now go everywhere, preaching to every creature the everlasting gospel of the unsearchable riches of Christ in God’s everlasting covenant as that everlasting covenant is in “the Truth.” This is apparently an outburst of zeal for the truth, but it appears to us to contain something more than this. If the “administration” does not respond to this scathing exhortation to “set the denomination right,” but leaves “this blessed work for others to do,” who is so well prepared to do that work as he who “never by a hair’s breadth” has swerved from the path of eternal truth? And what better justification could there be for a campaign in the field to “set the denomination right” than the alleged fact so fully set forth in this leaflet that the denomination “has absolutely abandoned the true Seventh-day Adventist ground”? We do not wish to surmise any unworthy motives for such a solicitude for truth, or to attribute any purpose which is not apparent, but when the millstone is set up on edge, it is difficult not to look through it. We have not been appointed to speak in this matter in behalf of the “administration,” but from our own standpoint we are not convinced that it is necessary to recall these lessons, and “tell to all the people who have studied the lessons that the lessons are fundamentally wrong.” We are willing to admit that they might have been improved in the form of statement. We hope that all our Sabbath-school lessons will grow better and better. We do not profess to have attained to the standard of absolute perfection, but we still have faith that the denomination has not gone over to righteousness by works, body, soul, and spirit, and we shall seek to do what we can to prevent any such catastrophe. It will be our purpose to teach to this people the everlasting gospel, and to set forth in its true light any effort to confuse them or to lead them away from the message which has called them out from the world and set their feet in the path to Zion. While we may not dwell constantly upon the technical side of the question of righteousness by faith, yet we shall hope to help this people into the genuine experience as defined by the spirit of prophecy: “What is justification by faith?—It is the work of God in laying the glory of man in the dust, and doing for man that which it is not in his power to do for himself.”