The classical view of confessional Reformed theology is that during the period of the Old Testament, believers then had assurance of salvation and forgiveness of sins through faith in the promised Redeemer, Jesus Christ.
“...from the holy gospel, which God Himself first revealed in Paradise; and afterwards.” (Heidelberg Catechism, LD 7, Q. 19)
It is true that during the New Testament, believers had a more full view of the promised salvation than was had under the OT. Nonetheless, believers under both time periods had the same faith, the same gospel, and the same salvation.
The First Promise of Salvation
Right after man’s fall into sin, God promised the coming Redeemer: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” (Genesis 3:15)
Elements elsewhere in the book of Genesis show their faith in God, such as Eve’s trust in the promise of the seed (Gen. 4:1, 25). Adam and Eve raised their descendents to know the Lord. Abel was called a “righteous man” (Matthew 23:35; 1 John 3:12; Hebrews 11:4). During Seth’s lifetime, people began to “call upon the name of the Lord” (Genesis 4:26).
OT believers also trusted in the coming Messiah through the types given to them through the animal sacrifices, which foreshadowed Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice and atonement for the sins of His people. These animal sacrifices were anticipated by God’s provision of clothing from animals to cover their shame (Genesis 3:21). It was clear that animal sacrifices were for atonement (Exodus 30:15; Leviticus 16; 17:11).
Noah’s ark and the flood was also a type of Christ’s salvation. During that time, the ark was the only way of salvation and peace (Genesis 6:22; Isaiah 54:9).
Faith in Christ Amongst the Hebrew Patriarchs
The promises of God to Abraham are well-known. One such promise is that Abraham, i.e. his offspring, will inherit the promised Land (Genesis 12:1). Though Abraham died without actually coming into this land himself, the Lord was still faithful to His covenant promises (Genesis 26:24; 28:13), showing that this promise was not merely referring to land here on earth, but to a heavenly heritage (Hebrews 11:13-16). John Calvin rightly said ““They would have been more stupid than blocks of wood to keep on pursuing the promises when no hope of these appeared on earth, unless they expected them to be fulfilled elsewhere” (Institutes, 2.10.13).
The Lord promises to bless Abraham (Genesis 12:2), something which involved things other than material ones, since Abraham did not experience the direct and physical fulfillment of these promises during his lifetime. Joel Beeke says “The core of God’s blessing is the restoration of sinners to his favor and presence (Num. 6:22–27; Pss. 5:12; 67:1)”. Paul agrees when he views the Abrahamic blessings (Galatians 3:8-9, 14).
The binding of Isaac on Mount Moriah (Genesis 22) demonstrated a couple of important things about Abraham. After God had provided the ram to be sacrificed in the place of Isaac, Abraham named the place “The Lord will provide” (Gen. 22:13-14). Abraham also believed in the hope of resurrection from the dead (Genesis 22:5; Hebrews 11:17-19).
Faith in Christ under the Mosaic Law
Moses foretold the coming Christ as Prophet in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 (cf. Acts 3:22-23), adding that Israel’s salvation depended on whether or not they listened to Him.
Israel’s salvation, particularly from slavery in Egypt, wasn’t based on anything in them, but rather on God’s grace (Deuteronomy 9:6-7; Joshua 24:14).
As was noted earlier, the sacrificial system was a type of Christ. Many Israelites understood that these animals could not give atonement beyond the external aspects (1 Samuel 15:22; Hebrews 10:1-4). Augustine said that they celebrated these sacrifices looking ahead to Christ, “the true Sacrifice” (Expositions on the Book of Psalms, 40.12).
The Suretyship of Christ Under the Old Testament
“But the common opinion of the orthodox (with whom we agree) is that the sponsion of Christ from the time it was made, had not only the relation of fidejussion (fidejussionis) but of expromission (expromissionis), by which for that very reason the fathers were truly freed from the punishments due to them.” (Francis Turretin)
Here are a few arguments that support this view:
[1]. Part of the nature of Christ’s suretyship is that it is the absolute and immutable will of Christ, thus it follows that there was a real transference of debt to Him.
“In this he truly performed the office of an expromissor, who takes another's obligation upon himself so that the payment is demanded and expected from him alone, the original debtor no longer remaining bound. He so bound himself to the payment by his agreement that from him alone it could be demanded.” (Francis Turretin)
[2]. Isaiah 53:5-6 says this quite clearly, namely that God “laid on him the iniquity of us all, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.”
[3]. “The nature of the thing itself demands this, whether God (to whom the sponsion ought to be made) is considered or the surety (who was bound to make it) or the elect themselves (for whom he agreed) or the nature of the security itself is attended to. As to God, his justice demanded a true expromissor and not a mere fidejussor. As it could not look for payment from the first debtors, so it could only acquiesce in the absolute sponsion of the Son, nor was it agreeable to him that Christ at the same time with the elect should remain bound by the same decree, since for this very reason he was given as a surety to them that on this very account they might be set free.” (Francis Turretin)
Did OT Believers Enjoy the Full Forgiveness of Sins?
Some theologians have taught that during the Old Testament, believers did not enjoy full, true, and complete forgiveness of sins (aphesin), but rather their sins were merely “overlooked” or “passed-by” by God (paresin). The semantic distinction between the Greek words aphesin and paresin is a key part of this particular debate.
Before we move further, we should note that the debate is not about the subjective sense of spiritual peace, consolation, and assurance which believers had in the Old Testament. It is granted that this was increased in the New Teestament period, and that the spirit of bondage and fear was present in the OT period. Rather, the issue is whether on this account it can be said that the OT believers were under the curse of the law and the wrath of God, and thus did not have a true remission of sins (aphesin), but rather a mere passing-over (paresin).
Psalm 32:5 uses the Hebrew term nasa when it speaks of David’s sin being forgiven - “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord, and you forgave (nasa) the iniquity of my sin”.
Paul cites this text in Romans 4:6-8 and translates “forgave” with aphienai. Thus, David (who is obviously an Old Testament believer) had aphesin.
John the Baptist preached “the baptism of repentance to the forgiveness (aphesin) of sins” (Mark 1:4). Prior to His death and resurrection, the Lord Jesus taught His disciples to pray “Forgive (aphes) us our debts” (Matthew 6:12).
These things show that such a sharp distinction between paresin and aphesin is without any solid foundation.
The idea that the OT believers only had paresin, and not aphesin, is not consistent with the nature of the covenant of grace. Part of the covenant of grace is God’s bestowal of all spiritual blessing (cf. Eph. 1:3) on those who are in covenant with Him, which would include a true and real forgiveness of sins. If they only had paresin and not aphesin, then either they must have not been members of the covenant of grace, or justification and salvation are spiritual states which can coexist with the guilt of sin and the curse of the law, which is absurd.
No comments:
Post a Comment