115. Chapter 5: The State of Old Testament Believers
------------ CHAPTER FIVE ------------ The State of Old Testament Believers
Between Old and New Testament believers there are significant differences in regard to the measure of light, faith, comfort, and various other matters -- a few eminent saints being the exception. However, as far as the essence of the matter is concerned, there are no differences. They have the same Spirit, the same faith, the same justification and forgiveness of sins, the same peace of conscience, and the same sonship. There are some, however, who maintain that the difference does not pertain to the measure of application, but rather to the essence of this application and to their state as such. Several questions need to be addressed concerning this issue.
Old Testament Believers Enjoyed the Full Forgiveness of Sins
Question: Were Old Testament believers, prior to Christ’s coming, reconciled with God, fully justified by a true, saving faith, and did they have the full forgiveness of sins; or were they in an unreconciled state, not justified by faith, and without the full forgiveness of sins?
Answer: These matters are interrelated and pertain to the true essence of the state of believers. The confirmation of the one matter will at once confirm the other. We have therefore joined them together and answer the latter part of the proposed question negatively, and the first part affirmatively. There are others, however, who have denied the first and maintained the second. Such propositions appear at first glance to be entirely Socinian, and those who adhere to such propositions will have a considerable task in refuting the Socinian. Nevertheless, we do not accuse them of Socinianism. We declare the wise and stable among them, based upon their explanations and declarations, to be free of Socinianism.
We deal with them as brothers, albeit as weak brothers who in some respects are in error. The radicals who know not what they are saying and affirming, we shall let fend for themselves; they are not esteemed by either party. The one party maintains that in the Old Testament Christ as Surety was not a vicarious Expromissor, but rather a promising, supporting, and assisting Fide-jussor. They maintain that God made known to the Old Testament saints that one day there would come such a Surety, who at the appointed time would make satisfaction for their sins, and that they had to view the sacrifices as types -- and thus had to believe in Him in that manner. However, as long as the Surety had not rendered payment, they, as the primary debtors, would remain subject to guilt. Thus, they were also subject to the curse and wrath, since God reserved the right and authority to pour this wrath out upon them, even though He neither wanted to, nor actually did so.
They maintain that God tolerated them until the Surety had paid; that is, even though He did not forgive their sins, He bypassed them. He closed His eyes to their sins and overlooked them as if He did not see them, for He Himself knew that one day the Surety would render satisfaction. This passing by they express with the word paresis, insisting that this word is the antonym of the word aphesis. They relate the first word to the Old Testament and the latter to the New Testament. During the time of my youth and academic studies, when these sentiments initially surfaced and began to get a foothold, there were intense arguments about the words aphesis and paresis, but later on those with clearer understanding came to realize that on the basis of these words a distinction cannot be maintained between forgiveness in the Old and New Testaments. Thus, they discontinued the debate about these words, but nevertheless preserved a distinction within the matter itself, and made use of these words only to express their understanding of the issue.
We believe that we have hereby clearly expressed the very nature of the difference. We shall now proceed to prove our viewpoint, and thereafter consider the thrust of the arguments advanced for the contrary views.
Proof #1: It is evident from the suretyship of the Lord Jesus that Old Testament believers have been reconciled with God, have been fully justified by a saving faith, and have had the full forgiveness of sins. If in the Old Testament the Lord Jesus has been a vicarious Surety in the absolute and complete sense of the word, then those believers have been in the state as just described. And whereas Jesus has been such a Surety in the Old Testament, believers were indeed in that state. The first premise is a certainty, and we believe that none will deny or argue the premise. If all sins have been fully and forever removed from believers and have been imputed to the Surety, and if these sins have been taken upon Himself upon the command and with the consent of God as the Judge of heaven and earth, they are then not liable for anything, and all the merits of the Surety are their portion. In Him they are righteous before God, reconciled, and have complete forgiveness. The second premise is equally certain, as has been shown and confirmed in the previous chapter. The conclusion is thus a certainty as well.
Proof #2: We derive this proof from clear texts of Scripture which not only state expressly that Old Testament believers have been reconciled and justified, and have had the forgiveness of sins, but which express these matters in those very terms -- terms which are identical to those whereby reconciliation, justification, and the forgiveness of sins of believers are expressed in the New Testament. There being too many, we shall only present a few.
(1) Kipper “... when they give an offering unto the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls” (Exodus 30:15); “... to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11); “The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers” (2 Chronicles 30:18-19); “Iniquities prevail against me: as for our transgressions, Thou shalt purge them away” (Psalms 65:3). The New Testament uses this same word to express reconciliation on the basis of the actual payment of the Surety. “Seventy weeks are determined ... to make reconciliation for iniquity” (Daniel 9:24).
(2) salach “... pardon our iniquity and our sin” (Exodus 34:9); “And the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them” (Leviticus 4:20); “For Thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive” (Psalms 86:5); “Who forgiveth all thine iniquities” (Psalms 103:3). David speaks of himself, praises God for the benefits bestowed upon him, and rejoices in the enjoyment of them. Forgiveness in the New Testament is, however, expressed with the same word: “I will forgive their iniquity” (Jeremiah 31:34). Everyone concurs that this prophecy pertains to the New Testament era.
(3) nasa “... forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (Exodus 34:7); “Pardon, I beseech Thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of Thy mercy, and as Thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now” (Numbers 14:19); “Thou wast a God that forgavest them” (Psalms 99:8). This same word is found in Psalms 32:1-2 : “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity.” The one party insists adamantly that this is a prophecy relating to the New Testament. Let us assume that this is so. We then conclude on the basis of their own testimony that forgiveness expressed by the word nasa is the forgiveness bestowed upon Old Testament believers. However, such forgiveness as expressed by the word nasa is the forgiveness granted to Old Testament believers. This is evident from the texts quoted above, as well as many others. Thus, Old Testament believers had the same complete forgiveness as did New Testament believers. We do deny, however, that this text only pertains to the days of the New Testament. David speaks of himself and applies this forgiveness to himself to his own comfort. “I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin” (Psalms 32:5). He presents this benefit bestowed upon him as an encouragement for everyone to seek the Lord when He is to be found (vs. 6). The apostle quotes this text in Romans 4:6-8 -- however, not as a prophecy, but as proof for his proposition that man is freely justified, without the works of the law. It is noteworthy that the apostle translates the word nasa with aphienai. Thus, Old Testament believers had aphesin; he shows that such forgiveness already occurred in the Old Testament at the time of Abraham, prior to circumcision. In Romans 4:9 he asks: “Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also?” He answers in Romans 4:10 that Abraham was a partaker of this blessedness, consisting in the forgiveness of sins, when he was still uncircumcised: “How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.” In the New Testament it is stated expressly that in the Old Testament, and antecedent to Christ’s incarnation, believers had the satisfaction and forgiveness expressed by the word aphesis: “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22). John the Baptist preached “the baptism of repentance unto the forgiveness (aphesin) of sins” (Mark 1:4). The Lord Jesus taught His disciples already prior to His death and resurrection to pray: “Forgive (aphes) us our debts” (Matthew 6:12). He said to the palsied man: “
Proof #3: We derive this proof from justification by faith, of which Scripture speaks expressly in respect to the Old Testament believers. That they did have true saving faith is evident from Romans 4:3 : “Abraham believed God.” Yes, he is even called the father of New Testament believers: “... that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also” (Romans 4:11). David believed: “I believed” (Psalms 116:10); “I have believed Thy commandments” (Psalms 119:66). Daniel believed: “... because he believed in his God” (Daniel 6:23). In Hebrews 11:1-40 Paul gives a long list of Old Testament believers from Abel onward. To believe is to accept, surrender to, lean upon, rely upon, and entrust one’s self to Jesus in order to be justified, sanctified, and glorified. By this faith, Old Testament believers have been justified. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness” (Romans 4:2-3; cf. James 2:23). Justification is a work of God as righteous Judge. If God is to justify anyone and pronounce the sentence of acquittal, there must be a perfect righteousness -- a righteousness no one had of himself in the Old Testament, even as none have it in the New Testament. Therefore, if anyone is to be justified, the righteousness of the Surety must be applied to him -- from God’s side this happens on the basis of suretyship by way of imputation, and from man’s side by way of the acceptance by faith upon the basis of the divine offer. There is no room here for a turning away, overlooking, or passing by of something as unnoticed. God’s judgment is righteous and in truth; one is either guilty or righteous. If God did indeed justify Old Testament believers -- which He most certainly did, as we have shown from the justification of Abraham -- then the full righteousness of the Surety has been applied to them, and they have thus been fully acquitted from their sins and have been declared the heirs of salvation.
Proof #4: This proof we derive from the covenant of grace. Those who are in actuality in the covenant of grace are in actuality reconciled with God and have their sins forgiven. Since, however Old Testament believers have truly been partakers of the covenant of grace, they have in actuality been reconciled with God and have had forgiveness of sin. The first premise is self-evident, for the covenant of grace encompasses the deliverance from all evil, participation in all good, and particularly also the forgiveness of sins; that is, the removal of all guilt and punishment. “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord ... I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jeremiah 31:33-34); “And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity ... and I will pardon all their iniquities” (Jeremiah 33:8).
Evasive Argument: These texts speak of the days of the New Testament, so that one cannot draw a conclusion about forgiveness in the days of the Old Testament.
Answer: These promises pertain to the benefits of the covenant of grace, and not to the manner of its administration. The New Testament was neither before nor during the days of the Old Testament. Rather, it came thereafter and in its place. If, however, these promises were only in force during the days of the New Testament -- and thus by virtue of the New Testament rather than by virtue of the covenant of grace, which, as all concur, has remained unaltered from Adam and will be so until the Day of Judgment -- then Old Testament believers would not have been privy to these benefits, among which is the forgiveness of sins. The following promise would also not have pertained to Old Testament believers: “I ... will be their God, and they shall be My people” -- a promise found in both Jeremiah 31:33 and Jeremiah 32:38, and placed on the same level as the forgiveness of sins. But was God not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Was not this the express promise of the covenant of grace made with Abraham and his seed in Genesis 17:8? However, since God was the God of Old Testament believers by reason of the immutable covenant of grace and not by virtue of the New Testament (which did not exist during the Old Testament), Old Testament believers also had the forgiveness of sins -- not by virtue of a new administration, but by virtue of the covenant of grace itself. The two promises mentioned in this text, “I ... will be their God,” and “I will forgive their iniquity” Jeremiah 31:33-34, are benefits of one and the same covenant, called a new covenant due to its new administration. I ask, “Is not the Old Testament the covenant of grace?” If not, then God is not the God of believers. Then believers do not have the forgiveness of sins by reason of the covenant of grace, but by reason of another covenant which did not commence until the days of the Lord Jesus, and did not exist previous thereto. Then Old Testament believers did not have God as their God, since there was no covenant. If the Old Testament is the covenant of grace, then Old Testament believers who truly were in the covenant of grace have been partakers of all the benefits of this covenant -- and thus also of these promises: I shall be their God; and I shall forgive their unrighteousness, and remember their sins no more. The covenant is called new here by reason of its new administration and not relative to its essence.
Proof #5: We derive this proof from the state of Old Testament believers prior to, and after their death. Prior to their death they were God’s regenerated children and God was their reconciled Father. They did indeed have assurance of their blessed state, did indeed have peace with God in their conscience concerning their justification, and did indeed rejoice in God. We shall demonstrate this in our response to the questions which follow. After their death they were taken into heaven -- into eternal bliss and glory. Concerning these facts both parties concur. If, therefore, Old Testament believers enjoyed salvation in the fullest sense of the word after their death, then they were completely justified, had the complete forgiveness of sins, and were completely sanctified. The souls of the dead believers are “the spirits of just men made perfect” (Hebrews 12:23). No one can enter heaven except it be upon the foundation of being fully justified before God, the righteous Judge. To be in heaven enjoying perfect communion, perfect joy in God, and perfect felicity, while yet being in an unreconciled state, subject to guilt and punishment, and unjustified, are contradictory matters which cannot coexist. Likewise, not having a perfect holiness and to be reconciled are mutually exclusive matters. Justification and sanctification cannot be separated. Those whom He has justified, He has also glorified (Romans 8:30). Also the reverse is true: Those whom He has glorified were also predestinated, called, and justified. From all this it is certain and sure that Old Testament believers were not in a state wherein they were unreconciled, not justified, and laden with guilt and punishment. Instead, they were fully reconciled with God, were fully justified by God, and had the complete forgiveness of sins. In justification there are no degrees. Either one is fully and completely justified, or he is not justified at all.
We shall now consider and respond to the objections of those who are of a different persuasion.
Ten Objections Refuted
Objection #1: “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God” (Romans 3:25). The Old Testament is here called the time of God’s forbearance. Wherever forbearance is exercised, there is neither reconciliation nor forgiveness. Both curse and wrath are and remain in effect. Sins are only overlooked and bypassed. This is the reason why the word paresis is used, which stands in opposition to aphesis. The latter constitutes forgiveness in the true sense of the word, and only takes place in the New Testament.
Answer #1: We admit that the word “forbearance” signifies a time frame: the time of the Old Testament. This is all the more evident since the apostle, speaking of the same matter, calls this time the time of the Old Testament. “... for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament” (Hebrews 9:15). We admit that the word paresis is found here, and is translated as “to forgive.” We deny, however, that the conclusion drawn from this is valid.
(1) “To forbear” neither signifies to leave unreconciled and unforgiven, nor does it mean to overlook curse and wrath. Rather, “to forbear” is to refrain from punishing sin, and to postpone judgment. One can observe this in Romans 2:4, “Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness and forbearance?” and also in Romans 9:22, “What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?” God neither overlooks the sins of the unconverted nor does He shut His eyes and pass them by. He only postpones His punishment and by His forbearance gives them space to repent. God also tolerated sin in the Old Testament in this manner. He postponed His judgments upon the unconverted. He did indeed punish Israel, but He did not eliminate this ungodly nation. Rather He bore with them until after Christ’s ascension. Then He punished them with total destruction. God did also bear with the sins of believers; that is, He did not punish them immediately. He postponed the punishment, but not to leave their sins unpunished. God’s justice would not permit this. If he did, we would have no need for Christ. Rather, He would punish them at the appointed time -- not in themselves, for then they would have been eternally lost. Instead, their sins would be punished in the Surety Jesus Christ at the appointed time, who as Expromissor, as vicarious Surety, had removed the sins of the elect by taking them upon Himself. The forbearance of which the apostle speaks here has reference to the Jewish nation which was in a covenant relationship with God, and was the church of God. She was ungodly and tempted God; however, God did not want to eliminate her. He bore with her until the appointed time of her total destruction. This is what is meant by the time of forbearance or longsuffering of God. Thus, it is incorrect and contrary to the text to maintain that forbearance applies to a forgiveness of sorts, a closing of the eyes, an overlooking, or a bypassing of the sins of God’s elect.
(2) The word “forbearance” can neither be connected with “forgiveness of sins,” nor with “remission of sins that are past.” Rather, it is connected with “to declare His righteousness.” God has declared His righteousness during the time of His forbearance in the Old Testament by forgiving sins for the sake of the merits of Christ, received by faith. This is evident from the apostle’s objective in this chapter, which is to show that man is not justified by works, but upon the basis of the atonement -- through the merits of Christ, embraced by faith. (cf. Romans 3:20-22
Answer #2: The proof derived from the word paresis, that is, forgiveness, no longer is valid.
(1) This word stands here entirely by itself; it is found nowhere else in the Bible. The word aphesis is found neither in this verse, this chapter, nor in the entire letter to the Romans. Only in Romans 4:7 the verb aphethesan is found. Thus, there is not the least evidence that the word “to forgive,” here only expressed as paresis, is being contrasted by the apostle with forgiveness expressed by aphesis, the former only occurring in the Old Testament and the latter in the New Testament.
(2) Furthermore, paresis does not mean “to pass by,” or “to close the eyes,” or “to overlook.” Rather, it means “to loosen,” or “to release.” If one were to apply the word paresis to the time of the Old Testament, it would not support the above sentiment in the least. It would signify that God in forgiving sin in the Old Testament dispensation, loosed and released people from sin -- just as forgiveness is expressed by a variety of expressions, such as: to remove, to blot out, not to remember, to cast into the depth of the sea, not to impute, to forgive, to atone, etc. All these expressions signify a complete, real, and actual acquittal from guilt and punishment.
(3) The words aphesis and paresis are never contrasted with each other. Rather, they are used indiscriminately in the Bible (the word paresis being found but once and without comparison or contrast), as well as by the Greek translators of the Old Testament and the Greek writers.
(4) In Scripture the forgiveness of sins by way of aphesis is generally attributed to Old Testament believers. This we have proven above.
(5) The apostle Paul, speaking of forgiveness in the Old Testament in the identical circumstances as in the text posited here, expresses forgiveness in Hebrews 9:22 (combined with Hebrews 9:15) with aphesis--just as he does here with paresis.
(6) The text itself shows that the word paresis is expressive of a forgiveness which is both absolute and complete. The apostle speaks of such a forgiveness by which the righteousness of God is manifested. However, the shutting of the eyes to sin, the overlooking of, and the blind passing by of sin does not manifest the righteousness of God in the least -- neither in the punishment of sin in the Surety, nor by the forgiveness of sin due to the satisfaction of the Surety. This righteousness is only manifested in complete forgiveness.
Objection #2: “For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law” (Romans 5:13). Here the apostle establishes two facts: 1) Sin was in the world prior to Christ’s coming, and beginning at Adam, remained upon believers until the actual satisfaction of Christ occurred; 2) the sin of the golden calf and other sins were not imputed as a result of the giving of the ceremonial law; that is, these sins were silently overlooked, payment was not required on account of them, and believers were not blamed for them. However, the sins committed after that time were imputed to believers; that is, they were held accountable for them, and were under and remained under obligation to pay for those sins. Thus, they neither had atonement nor forgiveness, but remained subject to guilt, wrath, and curse.
Answer (1) The apostle is not speaking here of either Old or New Testament believers, nor of those who lived either prior to or after Moses. Rather, he is speaking of all men as they have sinned in Adam and must die due to sin. This he had declared in the previous verse; consequently, this text does not apply at all to the controversy pertaining to the state of believers.
(2) To impute is to charge a person with, to hold him guilty, and to treat him as such. “If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account ... I will repay it” Philemon 1:18-19. Not to impute is the opposite; that is, a person is not charged with sins, and is thus considered free of guilt and sin. “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity” (Psalms 32:1-2). The one party insists that this text is prophetic, declaring what the state of New Testament believers would be. They refute themselves, however, by insisting that Romans 5:13 is applicable to the state of believers prior to Moses. These believers would then have had forgiveness and the non-imputation of sins such as New Testament believers have (since nonimputation in the New Testament means full acquittal and complete forgiveness), even though Christ had not made satisfaction as yet.
(3) The apostle speaks neither of the ceremonial law, or of the sin of the golden calf, nor does he imply a change from better to worse in the believer’s state after that time. It is therefore entirely erroneous to infer such a change from this text.
(4) In this chapter the apostle contrasts Adam and Christ -- Adam as the cause of sin, and Christ as the cause of justification. He ascertains that sin has come upon all men through the fall of Adam (Romans 5:12). In Romans 5:13-14 he deduces this from the fact that death has reigned since Adam. “For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Where there is death, there is sin.
Evasive Argument: Where there is no law, there is no transgression. There was, however, no law prior to Moses, for the law was given by him.
Answer: The apostle states that there was indeed a law, for there was judgment upon sin, and thus there was sin. When there is sin, there is also a law. Prior to Moses, the moral law was impressed upon man’s nature. Furthermore, there were ceremonial laws governing the making of altars, sacrifices, and the objects to be sacrificed. Upon the giving of the law at Sinai, sin has been more clearly defined; but sin, the punishment of sin, and death had previously existed.
(5) Even if one insisted that this text pertains to believers -- this being the point of contention -- it obviously would contradict the text which speaks of all men and even of small children who have no actual sins as yet. Thus, no other conclusion could be drawn than that believers did sin prior to the giving of the law at Sinai; but their sins were not imputed to them because the Surety had already taken all their sins from them upon Himself in order to make satisfaction for them.
Objection #3: “And by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:39). Here it is declared that no one in the Old Testament could be justified, sin not having been punished and atoned for. Rather, it states that justification takes place subsequent to Christ’s satisfaction.
Answer: Such a conclusion is in direct conflict with the text. The apostle is not speaking of either a time prior to or after Christ, nor is he speaking of either the Old or New Testament. Rather, he is speaking of the cause of justification, which could not be accomplished by either the law of Moses, the moral law, or the ceremonial law. It could not be the moral law, for having been transgressed, it is incapable of rendering man righteous. It could not be the ceremonial law divorced from the antitype; for then the ceremonial acts would be divorced from the exercise of faith in the antitype. These laws neither did nor were capable of rendering a ransom unto God. The only thing he posits here is that Christ is the sole cause of justification to all who believe in Him -- be it in the Old Testament where believers believed in Christ by means of the types, or in the New Testament.
Objection #4: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross” (Colossians 2:14). The ceremonies were a code of obligation, requiring the payment for incurred guilt. By participating in the ceremonies, the Israelites would daily concur in this. God could therefore require from them the punishment of sin -- which indeed He did by rebuking them for their sins and keeping them subject to guilt, curse, and wrath. It is thus very evident that Old Testament believers did not have the forgiveness of sins.
Answer (1) Everyone will admit that this text uses figurative speech. It is not a document which is under discussion, but rather animals which were killed and sacrificed. The ceremonial law, that is, the ceremonial procedures themselves are referred to as “handwriting,” rather than anything believers presented to God. They did not present these ceremonies as they were not ceremonies instituted by them. Instead, it was God who had given them these laws and institutions. In sacrificing, believers did not obligate themselves to anything. They did not obligate themselves to render payment; nothing was further from the truth. The sacrifices pointed them to the fact that a Surety would come at His appointed time -- a Surety who had obligated Himself to render payment. The sacrifices sealed the forgiveness of sins to the believers through the satisfaction of the Surety. In that respect the handwriting was as a receipt, but not an obligation for which they were responsible. The nature of these divine institutions (the ceremonial laws) was such that in some measure they were a handwriting, declaring that payment would have to be rendered, and the repetition of those sacrifices indicated that the payment for that guilt had not been rendered as yet. Upon having rendered payment, the Surety Jesus Christ did remove the handwriting (the ceremonial institutions), having nailed them to the cross. He thereby terminated them as having been completed and having served their purpose. In that sense the ceremonies were as a handwriting, and it is evident from what is stated in the text that believers did not present a signed statement obligating themselves to the payment of their sins.
(2) When the apostle states that the handwriting was against us, he indicates thereby that it was not against Old Testament believers, but against the Gentiles. He states: “which was contrary to us” -- hypenantion; that is, there is something obscure there, something which is hidden and which is contrary. It means that as long as the ceremonies were in force, the Gentiles were deprived of the true religion. Thus, the ceremonial worship distinguished and separated the church from the Gentiles. The congregation of Colosse consisted primarily of Gentiles: “And you, that were sometime alienated ...” (Colossians 1:21). These converted Jews wanted to lead the believing Gentiles to the Jewish ceremonies. The apostle opposes this, showing in this text that the ceremonies were no longer of any benefit, having served their purpose by reason of the coming of Christ, who was the embodiment of the shadows.
(3) If one wishes this handwriting to be applicable to the Jewish church, then there was indeed also something in the shadows which was contrary to them. Aside from the fact that the ceremonies led them to Christ and sealed to them the forgiveness of sins, they would confess that the Surety had not yet come. They had not yet received the fulfillment of the promise of Christ coming into the flesh, for which they so yearned. Thus, they were deprived of the glorious state of the church, not then being permitted to behold that state. That is the meaning of this text.
Objection #5: “Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin” (Hebrews 10:18). Thus, when there are offerings, there is no forgiveness of sins. In the Old Testament there were offerings, and thus there was no forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament.
Answer (1) If this conclusion were valid, there would be neither aphesis nor paresis in the Old Testament. There would have been no forgiveness whatsoever, nor any overlooking of sin. The sacrifices of that time were neither able to remove sins nor to cause them to be overlooked. God’s justice would neither permit sin to go unpunished nor grant the sinner admittance into heaven, since the sacrifice of Christ had not been accomplished in actuality. Besides, the Scriptures know of no distinction between aphesis and paresis; it makes no difference whether the one or the other word is used. By reason of such a conclusion, one would have to join the Socinians.
(2) This text states a general truth, which is dictated by logic, and neither is nor can be denied by anyone. When there is forgiveness of sins, there is no longer a need for a satisfying sacrifice. What purpose would it serve? That which it would accomplish has already been accomplished. It is very poor reasoning to conclude from this text that there was no forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament because there were offerings. Indeed, these sacrifices did not render satisfaction, but only typified the one perfect sacrifice of Christ -- that sacrifice which is of one and the same efficacy relative to the forgiveness of sins prior as well as subsequent to His actual sacrifice. He is the same yesterday and today.
(3) The apostle is not dealing here with the manner of forgiveness in either the Old or New Testament. Rather, he is speaking of the cause of forgiveness; that is, which sacrifice was efficacious to that end: either the ceremonial sacrifice or the sacrifice of Christ. The apostle contrasts these two, showing that the ceremonial law could never remove sin, but that Christ with one sacrifice has perfected forever them that are sanctified. He proved the ineffectiveness of the first by its continual repetition. That which needs to be repeated time and again is not a complete work. That which needs to be repeatedly sacrificed has neither made satisfaction for nor removed sin. Since Christ’s sacrifice has made full satisfaction, however, it can no longer be repeated, for where there is forgiveness, there is no longer a purpose for a sacrifice. Since full satisfaction has been made through the sacrifice of Christ, the ceremonial sacrifices of the Old Testament no longer need occur; they have served their purpose.
(4) This text, therefore, neither speaks of the sacrifices of the Old Testament nor of the sacrifice of Christ. Rather, it declares the general truth that upon satisfaction for and removal of sin, a sacrifice no longer serves a purpose. There can no longer be any room for the performance of a sacrifice, for what the repeated sacrifices sought to accomplish has been accomplished. By this argument the apostle shows that the sacrifice of Christ, which had fully removed sin, could not be repeated, and that the typifying sacrifices of the Old Testament had served their purpose.
Objection #6: “And for this cause He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance” (Hebrews 9:15). Here the apostle shows that those sins which had been committed during the Old Testament were first atoned for by the death of Christ; that is, at the time when Christ died. If they were then first atoned for, they were not previously atoned for, but constituted an outstanding debt charged to the account of believers who did not have the forgiveness of sins; their sins were only bypassed.
Answer (1) We state once more that Scripture does not differentiate between paresis and aphesis, or between forgiving and overlooking something. God’s righteousness does not permit the one any more than the other. If He can bypass sin by overlooking it, He can also forgive sin -- yes, to forgive and to bypass are one and the same thing. If the sins of the Old Testament believers had not been atoned for because the actual satisfaction had not yet been made, then Old Testament believers would have had no forgiveness whatsoever. No matter how one wishes to express this, they would then have lived and died in an entirely unreconciled state, and consequently would have gone lost. Since they were saved, however, they were therefore also reconciled, and thus their sins had been forgiven them.
(2) We must make a distinction between the act by which the atonement was merited and the efficacy of this act. The act by which the atonement was merited occurred only once; it was accomplished at the time of Christ’s suffering. In the Old Testament the act of atonement had not been performed as yet. Christ had not yet come into the flesh, and had neither suffered nor died. This is a known fact, admitted by everyone. However, the efficacy of the act of atonement does not only pertain to the New Testament and to sins which had not occurred but would be committed. Rather, it also pertains retroactively to the sins of Old Testament believers since the time of Adam. One will have to admit that the bearing with and the bypassing of sin in the Old Testament occurred by virtue of the efficacy of this act, and that believers by reason of this atoning act have been saved. This means that Christ’s atoning act was already efficacious several thousand years prior to its actual occurrence. If it was efficacious unto the overlooking of sin and unto salvation, it was efficacious unto atonement and forgiveness.
(3) The text itself shows that Old Testament believers did have the atonement and forgiveness. It states very clearly that the death of Christ was for the redemption of the transgression of those who were under the first testament. Believers were therefore partakers of this redemption in the Old Testament. Or is it true that Old Testament believers first received redemption at the time of the death of Christ? Did those who were called not receive the promise of eternal inheritance until Christ’s death; and did they only then enter heaven? Were they, prior to Christ’s death, imprisoned in limbus patrum, a fabrication of popery? Did Christ only remove them from there after His death? Indeed not! They have received the promise of eternal inheritance already after their death. They have entered heaven -- as the opposing party admits and acknowledges -- by reason of the redemption of their transgressions through the death of the Mediator, who is here declared to be the cause of their receiving their inheritance. To have been in heaven and enjoyed a complete salvation while yet being unreconciled; to have enjoyed perfect communion with God for several thousand years, and not to have received redemption until thereafter -- consequently to have obtained the forgiveness of sins while in heaven -- is altogether contradictory.
(4) That Christ is called the Mediator of the New Testament is of no support to the opposing party, for they themselves admit that Christ was also Surety and Mediator during the Old Testament era. The covenant of grace is one and the same covenant since Adam and will continue unchanged until Christ returns unto judgment. This testament is called “new” relative to its administration. Upon the coming of the Mediator, who is the embodiment of the shadows, the entire ceremonial worship ceases, and the more excellent administration of this Mediator begins -- and thus He is called the Mediator of the New Testament.
Objection #7: “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year” (Hebrews 10:1-3). Since in the Old Testament there was made an annual remembrance of sins, and believers were conscious of their sins, there was no forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament.
Answer (1) We fully concur that the ceremonial sacrifices did not remove sin, nor were they capable of doing so. We agree that the ceremonial law did not have the substance itself, but only the shadows, and the repetition of the sacrifices was proof that these were not capable of removing sin and purifying the conscience.
(2) When the apostle speaks of having conscience of sin, he is thereby not denying that believers had peace of conscience by reason of the forgiveness of sins. Rather, he states that this peace could not be obtained by means of the sacrifices, for he says that the law could never make “the comers thereunto perfect.” The sacrifices could therefore not remove the consciousness of sin. He speaks here of the sacrifices and their efficacy, contrasting them with the sacrifice of Christ. He denies that the sacrifices have any efficacy to remove sin, to cleanse those who sacrificed, and to purify the conscience from sin of those who participated in the ceremonial service. He attributes that efficacy to the sacrifice of Christ and states in verse 14 that with one sacrifice He has perfected forever them that are sanctified. In Hebrews 9:14 he states that Christ has purged the conscience from dead works. This sacrifice of Christ was not only efficacious subsequent to His death, but also prior to His death, that is, in the Old Testament. He was Surety in the same measure then as He is presently in the New Testament; He is the same yesterday and today. By virtue of that sacrifice Old Testament believers were delivered from punishment, sanctified, and saved in just the same measure as are New Testament believers. Thus, there is no denial here of the matter to be addressed more comprehensively below, but a denial that these blessings were due to the efficacy of the sacrifices.
(3) When the apostle states, “But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year,” he is only expressing that upon the Day of Atonement (the day he has in view) it was demonstrated and confessed that the act whereby sin would be removed, that is, the atoning sacrifice of Christ, had not yet occurred, but was anticipated in faith, and that all the ceremonial sacrifices could not remove sin. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). The apostle immediately joins these words to the preceding passage, proving by way of the words “remembrance again made of sins every year” the impotency of the sacrifices, and that their repetition in the Old Testament taught that the sacrifices neither removed nor atoned for sin, but that the promised Mediator would do so. By His efficacy believers would become partakers of the atonement and not by any efficacy the typical sacrifices would have.
Objection #8: “For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jeremiah 31:34). Here we have a pronounced contrast between the Old and New Testaments. In this contrast the forgiveness of iniquity and the not remembering of sin any more are solely and uniquely ascribed as belonging to the New Testament. This forgiveness is expressed by the word aphesis (cf. Hebrews 8:12; Hebrews 10:17). Thus, Old Testament believers did not have complete forgiveness -- yes, they did not have forgiveness in the sense of aphesis. Instead, God remembered their sins; they continued to be unatoned for before the countenance of God; God continually upbraided them for their sins.
Answer (1) For the exegesis of this passage, and the defense of it, refer to chapter 2 of this appendix.
(2) The forgiveness promised here is expressed by the word salach -- the identical word whereby forgiveness of sins is referred to in the Old Testament (cf. Exodus 34:9; Leviticus 4:20; Psalms 103:3; Psalms 86:5). Thus, believers in both testaments have been partakers of the very same forgiveness.
(3) In the Old Testament they also had the benefits of the covenant of grace promised here to the church in the New Testament. The comprehensive summary of this is, “I shall be your God, and you shall be My people” (Jeremiah 31:33). This is promised to New Testament believers, and believers already had the benefits thereof in the Old Testament. The opposing parties do not deny this, but rather admit it -- a fact which could otherwise be proven from a multitude of texts. Therefore, that which is promised to the New Testament church has been equally promised in the Old Testament.
(4) The non-remembrance of sin which is here promised to the New Testament church was already a reality in the Old Testament and is expressed with the same word zakhar: “Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions” (Psalms 25:7); “O remember not against us former iniquities” (Psalms 79:8); “But thou hast not called upon Me, O Jacob ... thou hast wearied Me with thine iniquities. I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for Mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins” (Isaiah 43:22
(5) God promises to establish the covenant of grace in the New Testament, even though both parties agree that it has existed without change from Adam until the times of the Messiah, and will remain so until the coming of Christ unto judgment. Just as one cannot deny the existence of the covenant of grace in the Old Testament, because it was promised in the New Testament, the reality of the forgiveness of sins and a not remembering of sins in the Old Testament can likewise not be denied simply because it has been promised to the New Testament church. From all this it can be clearly deduced that whatever is promised to the New Testament church in this text, already existed in the Old Testament church. The contrast does not pertain to the matter itself, but to the manner of administration and the degree of application. The agreement lies herein: The covenant of grace and all its benefits are as much a reality in the New Testament church as they have been in the Old Testament church.
Objection #9: “And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect” (Hebrews 11:39-40). Since Old Testament believers did not witness the fulfilment of the promises, the ransom had not yet been paid, and they had not yet been made perfect; and whereas New Testament believers have received better things, Old Testament believers did not have the complete forgiveness of sins, and were deprived of all the benefits which flow forth from the complete forgiveness granted in the New Testament.
Answer: The promise, which Old Testament believers did not and New Testament believers did receive, does not pertain to the forgiveness of sins, but rather to the incarnation of Christ, whereby He fulfilled all the prophecies and types, paying the ransom for the sins of all the elect by His death. The better thing which New Testament believers have is the fulfillment of God’s promises in the long-promised Savior Himself. He had not yet come in the Old Testament, although He was promised. However, to have the thing itself is better that the promise; “to have” is better than “shall have.” The better thing having come, the administration is also better. It is without shadows, and there is more spirituality, light, faith, hope, love, holiness, peace and joy in the conscience. If we apply the phrase “that they without us should not be made perfect” to the church in general, then the Old Testament church was not complete as far as membership was concerned; the church was anticipating the addition of more children. All the elect had not been gathered in and New Testament believers still had to be added before the church would be complete as far as her membership was concerned. It is in this sense that the congregation is called Christ’s body, “the fulness of Him that filleth all in all” (Ephesians 1:23). If one applies this passage specifically to believers, it states that Old Testament believers were not made perfect without that fulfillment of the promise which we enjoy: the actual satisfaction made by Christ in the flesh. The text does not deny perfection in the Old Testament. Rather, it states expressly: They have been made perfect. The phrase “without us” does not imply that New Testament believers render Old Testament believers perfect. It also does not imply that Old Testament believers did not attain perfection until the New Testament era, having been imperfect in heaven until that time. In heaven there is no room for that which is sinful, impure, and imperfect. Rather it states that they were perfect by virtue of the satisfaction of Christ, who had not accomplished the act of atonement in their days, but did so during our days in the New Testament. “The promise” is to be understood as referring to the Messiah; “the better things” as referring to the execution of His suretyship upon which a better administration followed; and “they without us should not be made perfect” as referring to Christ’s atonement, which is equally efficacious in both testaments (even though the act of atonement transpired in the New Testament). There is thus no proof for an incomplete forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament -- a forgiveness distinguished from and contrasted with the forgiveness of sins in the New Testament.
It is evident from Hebrews 11:39 that all these matters are as we have stated them to be: “And these all, having obtained a good report through faith.” What was the object of their faith? None other than Christ, who had then been promised and who now had come. Abel’s eye was upon Christ when he sacrificed, for thereby he obtained witness that he was righteous. This could not have occurred in any other way but by a faith which looked unto Christ (Hebrews 11:4). The faith of Enoch, who was taken up, looked unto Christ (Hebrews 11:5). Abraham’s faith looked unto Christ, the promised seed, and thereby he was justified (Hebrews 11:12 cf. Romans 4:11-22; Galatians 3:16). Moses looked unto Christ, whereby he esteemed the reproach of Christ the greatest of all riches (Hebrews 11:26). For this Christ they all yearned, and even though they did not receive Him in the flesh, they nevertheless saw Him from afar, believed in Him, and embraced Him (Hebrews 11:13).
Since these two matters are facts (and in our estimation it has been clearly shown that they are facts), namely, that the Lord Jesus has been the same perfect vicarious Surety in the Old Testament as He is in the New Testament, and that Old Testament believers have been as fully reconciled with God and have received as complete a forgiveness of sins as New Testament believers, the following questions will be more readily answered.
Old Testament Believers Had the Spirit of Adoption
Question: Did Old Testament believers have the Spirit of adoption? Answer: Some neither deny that Old Testament believers have been partakers of God’s Spirit and of regeneration nor that they were indeed children of God. They posit that believers generally had less light, less assurance, and less comfort, etc. In these two matters there is agreement. Some insist, however, that Old Testament believers did not have the Spirit of adoption, which would enable them to approach unto God as their Father with liberty and a childlike heart, to address Him, “Abba, Father!,” and to serve and obey God as a reconciled Father with a free and childlike disposition. They maintain that only New Testament believers have this, claiming that Old Testament believers have always gone their way with a troubled heart, with dread and fear, and as a slave who fears a beating and is compelled to do his work out of fear. They claim that the Spirit inclined their hearts to yield to slavish bondage and to submit their shoulders to the yoke of the ceremonies. They were subject to the slavish dominion of angels, priests, principalities, and devils, who as rulers compelled them to perform their work. Moreover, these insist that this spirit of bondage did not exist prior to, but only from the golden calf incident until the New Testament. They also claim that the unconverted did not have this spirit of bondage. This only occurred in believers, and this spirit worked in them compliance with God’s instituted form of worship and its observance by faith.
What poor faith and sonship this is! We completely deny these claims to be true. We acknowledge instead that they had the same Spirit of faith, the same Spirit of the adoption of children, the same access, the same childlike disposition, and the same childlike obedience. The evidence for this is as follows:
First, as Christ was a vicarious Surety in the Old Testament who fully removed all guilt from believers, having taken their guilt upon Himself in order to make satisfaction for them at the appointed time, and since they had the complete forgiveness of their sins as much as we do, they also had a childlike disposition of the heart, and thus the Spirit of adoption. There is nothing which separates God and man, preventing God from manifesting His fatherly favor and love, except sin. When God removes sin, He embraces the soul in love: “Thou hast in love to my soul delivered it ... for Thou hast cast all my sins behind Thy back” (Isaiah 38:17). Christ was, however, their vicarious Surety, and God forgave them all their sins. This has been proven in the previous chapter, as well as earlier in this chapter. Consequently, they had a childlike disposition of heart and the Spirit of adoption.
Secondly, both Old and New Testament believers possessed and exercised faith, and whenever faith is lively and active, there will also be this childlike disposition -- the Spirit of adoption. That they did indeed exercise saving and justifying faith is evident throughout the entire eleventh chapter of Hebrews, as well as in 2 Corinthians 4:13 : “We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed.” They trusted in God: “But I trusted in Thee, O Lord: I said, Thou art my God” (Psalms 31:14). Whenever faith is in exercise, however, there is also the Spirit of adoption: “But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name” (John 1:12). Whenever faith is in exercise, there is also peace: “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1). Whenever faith is in exercise, there is also joy: “In whom, though now ye see Him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory” (1 Peter 1:8). Whenever faith is in exercise, there is an intimate walk with God: “Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God” (James 2:23). The Lord Jesus likewise calls His believing disciples His friends: “I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of My Father I have made known unto you” (John 15:15). It is thus a certainty that they had a childlike disposition and the Spirit of adoption.
Thirdly, that Old Testament believers had the Spirit of adoption -- that is, that God made known to them that He accepted them as His children and begat a childlike disposition in them -- is evident from the manner in which He led His children.
(1) God made known to them that He was their God: “I am the Lord thy God” (Exodus 20:2).
(2) He called them His children: “Is Ephraim My dear son? is he a pleasant child?” (Jeremiah 31:20); “Surely they are My people, children that will not lie” (Isaiah 63:8).
(3) He loved them and made known to them that He loved them: “Since thou wast precious in My sight, thou hast been honorable, and I have loved thee” (Isaiah 43:4); “Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee” (Jeremiah 31:3).
(4) God showed His fatherly compassion to them in their distresses, and they acknowledged this as such: “Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him” (Psalms 103:13).
(5) The Lord refreshed them by His presence and gave to them, upon their prayers, the desires of their soul: “The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon Him, to all that call upon Him in truth. He will fulfil the desire of them that fear Him: He also will hear their cry, and will save them” (Psalms 145:18-19).
(6) The Holy Spirit taught and guided them: “Teach me to do Thy will; for Thou art my God: Thy spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness” (Psalms 143:10).
(7) The Lord Jesus dealt with them in a loving manner. He kissed them with the kisses of His mouth Song of Solomon 1:3, and He called them His love (Song of Solomon 5:2). When considering all these and other similar dealings of God with Old Testament believers, then I would ask whether God deals differently with New Testament believers. Are there indeed any different expressions in the New Testament? Does He who deals thus with believers give them the spirit of bondage rather than the Spirit of adoption? Truly, if one were to ignore all these dealings and insist that the Old Testament believers had a wretched, slavish disposition, does one then do justice to the workings of God’s Spirit in His children? If one speaks in such terms, would he then not offend the generation of God’s children? We conclude, therefore, from all these fatherly dealings of God that Old Testament believers did have the Spirit of adoption.
Fourthly, consider also the description of the disposition of God’s children in the Old Testament.
(1) “Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers” (Acts 3:25); “Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants” (Romans 9:4).
(2) They had the same Spirit of faith which New Testament believers have (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:13).
(3) They were assured of God’s fatherly heart and love toward them, and put their full trust in Him: “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. ... Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort me” (Psalms 23:1
(4) They had free access to the throne of grace: “Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation; and uphold me with Thy free Spirit” (Psalms 51:12); “Nevertheless I am continually with Thee” (Psalms 73:23).
(5) They addressed God with the name Father -- just as the Lord Jesus taught His disciples in (Matthew 6:9). Elihu said: “My desire is that Job may be tried” (Job 34:36). [Note: The Statenvertaling reads: “Mijn Vader! Laat Job beproefd worden tot het einde,” that is, “My Father! let Job be tried to the end.”] Believers spoke as follows: “Doubtless Thou art our Father” (Isaiah 63:16); “But now, O Lord, Thou art our Father” (Isaiah 64:8). The Lord put the word “Father” into their mouth: “Wilt thou not from this time cry unto Me, My Father, Thou art the guide of my youth?” (Jeremiah 3:4).
(6) They found delight and joy in the Lord and His service: “The joy of the Lord is your strength” (Nehemiah 8:10); “My meditation of Him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the Lord” (Psalms 104:34); “Serve the Lord with gladness: come before His presence with singing” (Psalms 100:2).
Let us consider all the things mentioned together: Those who have Jesus as their vicarious Surety; those who have complete forgiveness of sins; those who have an active faith in God through Christ which engenders peace and joy; those whom God calls His friends and children, dealing with them in a familiar manner as one would with children; those who address God in Christ with the name Father; and those who have fellowship with God as their Father in a familiar, sweet, soul-satisfying manner, and delight themselves in Him -- those most certainly have the Spirit of adoption. Old Testament believers had all these, however, and thus they did not have a slavish disposition, but a childlike disposition and the Spirit of adoption.
Objection #1: “For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father” (Romans 8:15). Here the spirit of bondage is contrasted with the Spirit of adoption, and the fruits of the one with the fruits of the other -- which are to fear, and to cry, “Abba, Father.” The “spirit of bondage again to fear” is divorced from the New Testament and attributed to the Old Testament, which generally is designated as having been a period of bondage, whereas the Spirit of adoption and the crying of “Abba, Father” is attributed to the New Testament church and denied to the Old Testament church. Therefore, the spirit of bondage was only to be found in the Old Testament, and the Spirit of adoption was only found in the New Testament.
Answer: First, we categorically deny that what is spoken of here even remotely pertains to the Old and New Testaments. Furthermore, we deny that a distinction is made here between believers of both testaments, and that the spirit of bondage is attributed to the Old Testament and the Spirit of adoption is attributed to the New Testament -- and thus that they feared in the Old Testament, whereas they cried “Abba, Father” in the New Testament. Until we draw all arguments together, we have herewith sufficiently responded to the objection.
Secondly, the very opposite is proven by the text itself.
(1) Neither in this verse, in the previous verses, nor in those which follow is there a single reference to either the Old or New Testament, or anything that even suggests a distinction between believers in both testaments. To suggest this is only conjecture. If one states that the words “bondage again to fear” and “have received the Spirit of adoption” are indicative of any distinction, we reply that this is petitio principii; that is, this is the very principal point itself, which is here denied. Thus, these words do not support the objection at all. This is all the more evident when considering that Old Testament believers had the Spirit of adoption, and they did cry, “Abba, Father.” This we have proven with four arguments. Moreover, there is also fear in the New Testament: “Afterward shall the children of Israel ... fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days” (Hosea 3:5); “Let us therefore fear” (Hebrews 4:1); “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Php 2:12).
(2) The apostle does not speak in this verse of various persons -- some belonging to the Old Testament and others to the New Testament. Rather, he speaks of the very same persons: the members of the congregation at Rome as they presently dwelt there. The text says: “... ye have not received ... ye have received.” If there were but the least possibility that this was so, it would first of all have to be proven that this congregation solely or primarily consisted of Jews. Furthermore, it would have to be proven that these Jews, prior to believing that Jesus was the Messiah, had been believers and converted persons. The disputants state resolutely that the unconverted in the Old Testament did not have the spirit of bondage, but that only believers had the spirit of bondage again to fear. This argument does not even have a semblance of validity, for the church had already been transferred to the Gentiles. God had already deserted Jewry, the godly had in principle already moved elsewhere, and the destruction of Jerusalem was imminent. One thing is certain: The church of Rome consisted of converted Gentiles. This can be observed in Romans 1:5-6
Evasive Argument: The apostle does indeed speak of the same persons and of converted Gentiles. However, he says concerning them that they were not brought into the state in which the Jewish church had been of old; namely, having the spirit of bondage again to fear, and with fear of heart being subject to the ceremonies. Rather, they were in a much better state -- an evangelical state.
Answer: We deny that there is such a difference. Moreover, would it make any sense for the apostle to speak to converted Gentiles about the state of believers who lived in a very distant land during a period long gone by -- of whose form of worship they had no knowledge and which had already been done away with? Would it make any sense for him to say that they had not come into the state in which the Jewish church had been of old?
Thirdly, the spirit of bondage again to fear is a spirit of fear. “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind” (2 Timothy 1:7). Whenever there is fear, there is the inclination to subordinate and subject one’s self to the will of those who threaten and inflict suffering. The world, the enemies of God, persecuted the church very fiercely during that time. To confess and experience Jesus was to make oneself a prey of the persecutors who robbed believers of their possessions and their lives. This method was very capable of making men’s hearts faint with fear, and causing them, by way of this fear, to depart from the faith and the practice of religion. It was against this threat that the apostle sought to bolster the believing Romans by stirring them up to be steadfast in the faith and in godliness -- even if they were to become subject to physical suffering. That he spoke of a fear for suffering, which caused an inclination to forsake the pathway of godliness and to subject themselves to the bondage of the will of the persecutors is evident in the following passage: “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (Romans 8:17-18). However, (thus speaks the apostle) you are children, for you are partakers of the Holy Spirit and have received the Spirit of adoption which cries, “Abba, Father!” You are therefore the heirs of God. You should not fear suffering, for it will not rob you of your eternal inheritance. That inheritance incomparably transcends all the suffering and whatever else could supposedly be gained upon earth if you were to forsake the truth due to fear of suffering. The Spirit you have received is a Spirit of power (2 Timothy 1:7); He is a free Spirit (Psalms 51:12).
(1) Natural men seek their portion, peace, and delight in visible things. They are slaves to earthly possessions, fearing all that might rob them of those possessions. However, you, being converted, have not received this spirit, this disposition of bondage -- the spirit of the world 1 Corinthians 2:12 -- so that again you would fear the loss of earthly possessions as you did before. You have received the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of adoption. This spirit does not engender bondage to earthly possessions; it does not cause fear again as before, but instead gives a free, childlike, and bold disposition to address God as a reconciled Father -- to endure all suffering for Christ’s sake in anticipation of the heritage of the children of God.
(2) The spirit of bondage again to fear is a bondage of fear -- a being in bondage to earthly, visible things. The converted Gentiles in Rome did not receive again the spirit of the world, the spirit of bondage which formerly made them fearful of all those things which could deprive them of their earthly belongings. Rather, they had been delivered from this bondage. They had now become the children of God and had received the Spirit of adoption which gave them liberty to address God by the name of Father. They had the hope of glory. By way of this argument the apostle stirs them up to godliness and not to succumb because of suffering, but rather that they might glory with him, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us” Romans 8:35
Objection #2: “To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father” (Galatians 4:5-6). In verse 3 the state of the church is defined as being one of bondage, in verse 1 as being the state of a servant, whereas verse 5 states that Christ delivered them by His coming. The apostle contrasts this with the state of the New Testament church, consisting in the adoption of children, which causes them to call upon God as “Abba, Father!” Thus, Old Testament believers did not have the Spirit of adoption.
Answer (1) Let us put it this way: In the Old Testament was the spirit of bondage, during which period the Holy Spirit worked regeneration, faith, and sanctification in believers. In the New Testament there was the Spirit of adoption. The apostle contrasts the two. And then what? One could at the very most conclude a difference in measure rather than of essence, for also in the New Testament the Holy Spirit works through fear. Paul persuades men to faith by way of the terror of the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:11); Jude admonishes to “save some with fear” Jude 1:23; and conversion wrought fear in the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 7:11). Paul himself had fightings without and fears within. Moreover, Old Testament believers had the Spirit of adoption and bold access to the throne of grace, crying out, “Abba, Father!” We have demonstrated this in our proof. They also had peace and joy as we shall show below, and thus the distinction can only be one of measure -- with which we fully concur.
(2) The apostle does not speak here of the Spirit of adoption, but of adoption itself. If it were to be construed as a contrast between the Old and New Testaments, the adoption of children as having occurred in the Old Testament would have to be completely denied, for it is connected here with the New Testament in comparison with the Old Testament. However, that is contrary to both Scripture and their own sentiments.
(3) The apostle here demonstrates the benefits and efficacy of Christ’s suretyship among the Gentiles -- which the Galatians were prior to their conversion, having been idolaters. “Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods” (Galatians 4:8). We do not have here a contrast between church and church, but rather between nation and nation. Formerly only the Jews enjoyed the benefits of the covenant of grace, but presently the Gentiles do likewise. They presently also receive the adoption of children.
(4) The sending forth of the Spirit of His Son into the hearts of believers and the crying out, “Abba, Father,” flow forth from their sonship: “... and because ye are sons,” etc., rather than out of the state of the church in either the Old or New Testament. Since no one is a child of God, God sheds forth the Spirit of His Son, who cries out, “Abba, Father.” However, since New Testament believers are as much God’s children as they of the Old Testament, God has bestowed the same blessings upon them, and vice versa.
(5) Understand it to be as follows: There being a contrast here between the Old and New Testaments, it is not one of essence, but rather of degree -- as between immature and mature children. They both are children, both have a childlike disposition, and both cry out, “Abba, Father.”
Old Testament Believers Enjoyed Peace of Conscience
Question: Did Old Testament believers have peace of conscience and spiritual joy in God, or did they live with continual fear in their conscience? Did they live with continual fear and an anxious spirit because they were in an unreconciled state, being accused of sin, being subject to the curse and wrath of God, to which they would remain subject until the Surety had paid -- and being in a slavish bondage to the ceremonies?
Answer: Some respond to the latter question in the affirmative (however, not in the manner as the ungodly would experience this), and claim that it was God’s will not to pour out His curse and wrath upon them unto their perdition. However, we answer negatively upon this question. These believers did have peace of conscience and joy in God. They were not in such a wretched state. We confirm this as follows:
(1) We have previously proven that in the Old Testament the Lord Jesus was a vicarious Surety in the full sense of the word; that Old Testament believers did have full justification by faith and the forgiveness of sins; and that they were adopted as children and had the Spirit of adoption. When such is the case, there is neither curse, wrath, nor a being accused of unpaid debt; instead, there is peace and joy in God. However, Old Testament believers had all these benefits. Thus, etc. [Note: à Brakel obviously assumes here that the reader can complete the argument himself.]
(2) There are clear texts. Consider, among others, the following: “Thou hast put gladness in my heart. ... I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for Thou, Lord, only makest me dwell in safety” (Psalms 4:7-8); “Truly my soul waiteth upon God” (Psalms 62:1); “Nevertheless I am continually with Thee ... God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever. But it is good for me to draw near to God” (Psalms 73:23
He who considers these spiritual frames will be incapable of having such dismal thoughts of Old Testament believers. Are there expressions anywhere in Scripture to indicate that the frames of New Testament believers are more spiritual, familiar, and joyful than those of Old Testament believers? Furthermore, although Christ had not actually paid for the sins of Old Testament believers, did they not have perfect peace, joy in God, and communion with God in heaven? If the unpaid debt was no obstacle to prevent them from having perfect joy after their death, why then could this be a reason for their state on earth to be a wretched one? We thus conclude that Old Testament believers have had the same peace and joy in God as did New Testament believers. That there was generally a difference in measure was not ascribed to unpaid debt, but to the wisdom of God.
Objection #1: Old Testament believers were subject to wrath. “Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15). This law is the ceremonial law, which demonstrated that satisfaction for sin had not yet been made. The ceremonial law accused Old Testament believers of sin and indicated to them that they were still subject to divine wrath, and that the curse still rested upon them. The apostle contrasts this with the state of New Testament believers and posits that the ceremonial law ceased upon Christ having rendered satisfaction; consequently there was no longer any transgression which was not atoned for.
Answer (1) Such sentiments are very erroneous; they are therefore to be fully rejected.
(2) Even though the transgression of the ceremonial law also merited the wrath of God, the apostle is not referring here to the ceremonial law, but to the moral law. He speaks of the law which stands in contrast to faith; however, the ceremonial law is not contrary to faith. In this as well as the previous chapter, the apostle contrasts justification by the law with justification by faith, declaring that man cannot be justified by the works of the law, since that law engenders wrath. He states that if man is to be justified, it is to be by faith. He posits that Abraham was not justified by the works of the law, but by faith (Romans 4:1-5). It follows that all who seek their justification in the works of the law will not obtain it, but will remain subject to God’s wrath, since man is a transgressor of the law and has a curse pronounced upon him. If God had given no law to man, he would not have been capable of sinning, since he then would have been neither commanded nor prohibited anything. He would thus also not have been subject to punishment. Since, however, God has given man a law, and man has transgressed the law, the violated law provokes to wrath and therefore cannot justify man. This does not constitute a difference between the state of Old and New Testament believers.
(3) The apostle does not say that New Testament believers are without the law, nor does he say that they are free from transgression. They have both: law and transgression. It is indeed true that they do not sin against the ceremonial law, as it is no longer in force. However, they do have the moral law and sin against it. Being without transgressions is not to be without atonement, but rather to be without sin.
Objection #2: Old Testament believers were subject to the curse. “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse” (Galatians 3:10). Old Testament believers were under the law, but New Testament believers are not. “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14).
Answer (1) This argument does not pertain to the unconverted, but to Old Testament believers. The former are under the dominion of sin, whereas the latter, having been regenerated, are not. The former are under the curse, and the latter are under grace and not under the curse. Had Old Testament believers been under the curse, they would not have been under grace nor have obtained salvation.
(2) The apostle, speaking of justification in Galatians 3:1-29, shows that it does not proceed out of the law -- neither the moral nor the ceremonial law. The Jews at that time mingled the ceremonial laws with the moral law. They separated them from the antitype, expecting to be justified by their actions, that is, by works. Of such the apostle declares that they are far from being justified, and renders them subject to the curse. In the very same verse he adds the following as an argument for his proposition: “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them” (Galatians 3:10). By contrast, he shows that justification transpires by faith, and faith stands in opposition to the law in justification, stating immediately thereafter in verse 11: “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, the just shall live by faith.” Thus, the apostle does not speak here of Old Testament believers and of their state -- which is the point of contention -- but of the unconverted, who strive to be justified by the law and to whom Christ has thus become of no value.
(3) Concerning the passage in Romans 6:14, there is not the least mention made of any contrast between Old and New Testament believers, for the apostle says that sin has no dominion over those who are under grace. The dominion of sin pertains to man being under the power of sin. Sin then compels man to commit all manner of sin, even to obey it in the lusts thereof -- as he says in verse 12 [Romans 6:12]: “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof” (Romans 6:12). Had the apostle considered Old Testament believers to be under the law, he would have said that sin did have dominion over Old Testament believers. However, this cannot be -- for to be regenerate, to be a believer, and yet to be under the dominion of sin are contradictory matters. Thus, the apostle, when contrasting man as being under the law and being under grace, is not referring to the Old and New Testaments, but to the unregenerate and regenerate states of man, whoever he may be. To be under the law is to be subject to the power of the law -- this being the case in either the Old or New Testament -- whereby one is either justified by the law if it is perfectly obeyed, or condemned by transgression against it. The law points out man’s duty; it promises and threatens. Hereby man is convinced that in his natural state he is in direct opposition to the law, that he does nothing but sin, and that the law can neither justify, change, nor sanctify him. To be under grace is to have Christ unto justification and sanctification. He who is under grace, having the blood and Spirit of Christ, is a partaker of the divine nature, and cannot be under the dominion of sin. By virtue of this argument, the apostle admonishes believers to fight earnestly against sin, and exhorts them to the practice of holiness; they have God’s seed in them and have received Christ unto justification and sanctification.
Objection #3: Old Testament believers did not enjoy peace of conscience, for they were still conscious of sin. “For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins” Hebrews 10:19 Peace of conscience is for New Testament believers -- for those living subsequent to the satisfaction made by Christ. “How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Hebrews 9:14). Only subsequent to Christ have believers had freedom to approach unto God. “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh; and having an high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience” (Hebrews 10:19-22). Peace of conscience was reserved for New Testament believers. “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God” (Hebrews 4:9).
Answer: In Hebrews 10:2 the apostle does not say that Old Testament believers had any remembrance again of sins; that is, that they had terror or trembled due to committed and unforgiven sins. Rather, the apostle speaks of the efficacy of the sacrifices of the Old Testament as contrasted with the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ. He denies the sacrifices of the Old Testament had the efficacy to pacify the conscience, as they were not capable of removing sin; rather, he ascribes that efficacy to the sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 10:19-22). That is the very argument of the apostle in that chapter (cf. Hebrews 9:13-14). However, His sacrifice had the same efficacy prior to His actual atoning sacrifice as thereafter, for as Surety He had taken sin upon Himself prior to this. Christ is the same yesterday and today -- and thus believers in both dispensations have enjoyed the efficacy and fruits of His death, which also include peace of conscience. We have proven this to be true (cf. pp. ###474-475). Hebrews 4:9 does not speak of the rest of the New Testament, but rather of the rest of heaven (cf. vol. 3, chapter 6).
Objection #4: Old Testament believers continually lived in the fear of death. Their continual wish was to have a long life. This is to be observed in David (Psalms 6:1-10 and Psalms 30:1-12), Heman Psalms 88:1-18, and Hezekiah Isaiah 38:1-22. Paul states this expressly in Hebrews 2:14-15 : “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” Paul speaks of the Jews, for this letter is addressed to the Hebrews. He states that they were subject to bondage -- a being in bondage under the ceremonies. They were in fear of death, and were so all their lifetime.
Answer (1) Death is unnatural; it is the king of terrors. All Old and New Testament believers would, with Paul, rather be clothed than unclothed (2 Corinthians 5:4). Thus, fear of death was not only peculiar to the Old Testament, for in the New Testament believers are sometimes very fearful of death. Why else did other believers, who were called to martyrdom, yield? And why would Old Testament believers have been more fearful of death? Was this due to the weakness of their faith? That is possible. Was it because they had such a love to be of service to God’s people, to make God’s name known among the people, and to worship and glorify Him? This would have been laudable. Was it because they would then come short of Canaan? How foolish! Would he who had received the matter itself be fearful of having lost the earnest of it -- that is, if Canaan was indeed an earnest, which supposition we deny? Or was the earth more dear to them than heaven?
(2) In Hebrews 2:15 Paul is neither speaking of the Old Testament nor of the bondage under the ceremonies, even though he is speaking to the Hebrews. The Word of God -- and thus the entire covenant of grace -- had been proclaimed to the Hebrews. Does this therefore only pertain to the Hebrews? Rather, he speaks of the fear of death as being a punishment upon sin -- a punishment that had been threatened in Genesis 2:17 and had come upon all men (Romans 5:12). All men fear this death. The one banishes this fear by reason of his base ignorance, not knowing what follows thereafter; the other does so in proud presumption in order to have glory among men; others do so by considering death to be an unavoidable fate; others have the false notion that they will thereby be delivered from their misery; and some do so by entertaining an unfounded hope of salvation. The apostle, however, shows the true cause whereby one can be delivered from the fear of death -- the death of the Lord Jesus received by faith. Through sin man has become captive to the power of the devil, having believed and obeyed him. Thus, to be subject to the power of the devil and to the fear of death and bondage are the results of the sins which have come upon all men, who are all by nature children of wrath. Since man has become subject to the power of the devil through sin, he is in bondage to the devil, is in his snares, is captive to his will 2 Timothy 2:26, and desires to do the lusts of the devil. Christ delivers His children from this wretched state, and to that end He has bruised Satan’s head, according to the promise made in Genesis 3:1-24. In delivering His own from the power of the devil, He also delivers them from the accompanying evil: bondage to the devil and its resultant consequence, the fear of death. This is evident from the text itself. Those who during their entire lifetime have been subject to this bondage in fear are said to be delivered from it. However, when and whereby are believers delivered from it? This would not be during their lifetime, since, according to the opposing view, they would have to be subject to it until their death. Were they delivered from this bondage when Christ died? Then they also would have been subject to the fear of death in heaven, a matter which is a contradiction in itself. Or were they delivered from the fear of death by reason of their own death? This would be in conflict with the text, which declares that they have been delivered from the power of the devil and the fear of death by the death of Christ. Thus, these words cannot be understood to refer to this fabricated fear of death in the Old Testament, but as referring to deliverance from the power of the devil and the fear of death to which man by nature is subject and from which he is delivered by the death of Christ. Man becomes a partaker of this benefit at regeneration by faith. Prior to that he, along with all men, is subject to the power of the devil and to the fear resulting from being in bondage to the devil and sin. It is just like saying that a man who is born blind, but later receives his sight, has been blind his entire lifetime. One does not understand this to mean until his death, but rather until the moment he received his sight. Likewise here, “all their lifetime” is equivalent to saying, “as long as they were unconverted -- until the time of regeneration and faith in Christ.”
Old Testament Believers Did not Live in Grievous Bondage Question: Did Old Testament believers live in grievous bondage to governors, priests, angels, and devils?
Answer: Some answer affirmatively, and we answer negatively. They did indeed have many tribulations in this present life -- as do New Testament believers. They were obligated to obey principalities, and listen to the priests and the prophets, just as we are to do in the New Testament. They were subject to the assaults of Satan, just as we are in the New Testament. However, such grievous dominion and slavery as is suggested we fully deny.
(1) Old Testament believers did have Christ as their vicarious Surety; they therefore also had a true, saving faith, complete justification and forgiveness of sins, the Spirit of adoption, peace of conscience, and joy in God -- which has previously been proven. Who shall lay any charge against the elect of God who are in such a state? They cannot be subject to such grievous bondage.
(2) To whom were believing governors and priests then to be subject? -- to other governors and priests? Did they become violent toward each other? Was the tribe of Levi lord and master over the other tribes? And did the governors rule over religious affairs and church people in an ecclesiastical sense? These and similar absurdities follow from such assumptions, proving that these propositions themselves are absurd.
(3) Did such dominion by governors, priests, angels, and devils pertain to the body or the soul? It neither pertained to the soul, the conscience, nor to religious practice; these are only subject to God, and one is to be obedient to God alone in these matters. If it pertained to the body alone, it was either a punishment or a chastisement. It was not a punishment, for sin having been forgiven, no punishment remains. If it were a fatherly chastisement, it would not pertain to the point of contention.
Objection #1: “Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world” (Galatians 4:1-3). The apostle is here speaking of the Old Testament church, declaring that it differs nothing from a servant or from a slave, but that it is the same as being under bondage -- under tutors and governors, which are the angels, governors, and priests.
Answer (1) Why are devils not mentioned along with these? Furthermore, some governors and priests were thoroughly ungodly people. Wretched child who is subject to such tutors and guardians!
(2) The text consists of an analogy and its application. The analogy is in the first and second verses, and the application is in the third verse. It is a known fact that every analogy is not true in every detail, but only insofar as the objective of the analogy is concerned. This is very evident here, for tutors and guardians are appointed over those children whose fathers are deceased; however, the Father of the church is the God who lives forever. A child who is subject to tutors differs much from a servant. He is clothed better, eats better, is raised in a more relaxed setting, is served, and is not assigned to do slavish labor, etc. The analogy here only pertains to the enjoyment and use of the possession of which the child is the proprietor. The child has no more of this than the servant. However, what benefit did the Old Testament church not possess? It was Christ who had been promised to them in the flesh, but who had not come as yet. The Old Testament church did indeed partake of Him, but they did not actually possess Him as far as His coming was concerned. This is evident in verse 4 which follows immediately: “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.”
(3) Who were the tutors and governors? Were they angels, authorities, or priests? This is absolutely not the case; the text itself states who they were: the elements of the world, the ceremonies. By these they were, so to speak, led by the hand to Christ. These preserved them from errors in religious worship, doctrine, and life. These ceremonies were the foundational principles -- the ABC’s whereby they became acquainted with Christ, although they differed much from the matter itself: Christ in the flesh. To these ceremonies they were in bondage. In this way they worshiped -- not the ceremonies, for that would be idolatry -- and served God by means of this divinely instituted service. These ceremonies were the parameters for their religious worship, and directed them to the exercises of faith in Christ. Thus, there is nothing to be found in this text in support of such a grievous state of Old Testament believers. On the contrary, it describes their blessed state, showing how they had been provided for by God so well; that is, in accordance with the time in which they lived, prior to Christ’s coming.
Objection #2: “And having spoiled principalities and powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it” (Colossians 2:15). The principalities and powers are the angels, authorities, and priests in the Jewish church. They were as a garment behind which Christ, the eternal King, was hidden. However, Christ by His coming has laid them all aside as a garment and deposed them from their offices, so that they no longer have any authority in the New Testament.
Answer: The principalities and powers mentioned here are neither angels nor earthly authorities and priests. These principalities were enemies of Christ, of whom He has made an open show (Greek: stripped of everything), as is done to a conquered enemy. The garment implied here is not placed between Christ and those powers which conceal Christ. Rather, it refers to the garments worn by the enemies which were removed from them. If these were the garments of the ceremonies, they would have been the garments of Christ and Christ would have removed Himself. Christ triumphantly led about the enemies -- as was customary during that era. The conquered enemies were led about as captives in bonds and made a public display for everyone to see when the general triumphantly made his entry. Angels and principalities were, however, not the enemies of Christ, and thus they cannot be intended here. Even the angels were not types of Christ, and the principalities and priests did not make up the garments of Christ. Instead, the principalities and powers are the devils; they carry this name. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12); “... according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2). The Lord Jesus bruised their head and destroyed them in His death (Hebrews 2:14-15); He made an open show of and triumphed over them.
Objection #3: “For unto the angels hath He not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak” (Hebrews 2:5). The law has been given by angels (cf. Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2). Thus, by way of the giving of the law, they have been established as masters and gods over the Old Testament church. However, He has not put the New Testament church in subjection to them. Therefore, by denying subjection to angels in the New Testament, their dominion in the Old Testament can be concluded.
Answer (1) The fact that the law was given into the hands of Moses by means of the angels does not vest them with the least dominion over the church. No less does the fact that they were the first messengers of Christ’s birth and resurrection give them dominion over the New Testament church. In both cases, the angels were but ministering spirits.
(2) The text is a comparison between angels and Christ -- not between the Old and New Testaments. The apostle hereby wishes to display the eminent glory of the Lord Jesus -- just as he does in the previous chapter by comparing Him to angels. “Being made so much better than the angels. ... For unto which of the angels said He at any time ...” (Hebrews 1:4-5). So it is here: He did not bring the world to come into subjection to the angels, but to the Son, of whom He speaks in the following verses.
(3) To conclude from the negation that since the world to come has not been put into subjection to the angels, and therefore the world of the past -- the Old Testament church -- had been put into subjection to the angels, is selfcontradictory. It would then follow that the church from Adam to Moses, as well as after the giving of the law (and thus prior to the sin with the golden calf, which the disputants focus on), would have been subject to the angels, a supposition they themselves deny. The Old Testament church also existed during that era. There is no evidence whatsoever that the angels were given more dominion over the church subsequent to the incident with the golden calf than was given beforehand.
(4) The conclusion is invalid, for otherwise it would also be evident that whatever does not apply to the world to come is applicable for the past world. This would mean that since the world to come is subject to Christ, the world of the past was not; and since in the New Testament the angels are not crowned with honor and glory, they necessarily were in the Old Testament. What other absurdities could we then deduce by way of such a conclusion? However, the texts speak of a comparison between Christ and the angels in order to demonstrate the excellency of Christ, rather than of a display of the power of the angels in the Old Testament and the reduction of that power in the New Testament.
Objection #4: “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but He for our profit, that we might be partakers of His holiness” (Hebrews 12:9-10). The “fathers of the flesh” were the priests and the elders of the people. They compelled the people to observe the ceremonial laws, and punished them according to their whim.
Answer (1) To be delivered from such fathers of our flesh would be good indeed! It is our wish that we may continue to be delivered from them and that we shall not have such fathers of the flesh again who would chastise us according to their whim. What a sad state of affairs that would be!
(2) We readily admit that the authorities in the Old Testament governed the people and punished those who disobeyed God and the government. The priests taught the people, guided and directed them in the way of godliness, and exercised ecclesiastical discipline. We also admit that the people were obliged to have respect for them. Thus did matters transpire then, and this is how they must transpire in the New Testament. Both parties -- that is authorities and subjects, as well as priests, elders, and members of the church -- must do all things according to the precepts of God’s Word, rather than establish their own will as a law in both government and obedience.
(3) We fervently deny, however, that the apostle is here speaking of the Old Testament or of the authorities and priests in those days. There is nothing whatsoever here to indicate that. We deny that the authorities and teachers of the Old Testament have ever been referred to as fathers of the flesh. Let any proof for either proposition be presented.
(4) Rather, “the fathers of the flesh” refer to natural parents; this is the reason why their children are called “children of the flesh.” “They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God” (Romans 9:8); “But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh” (Galatians 4:23). The text in question only shows that as the primary meaning of “fathers of the flesh,” one is to understand natural parents who chastise their children as it pleases them in order to raise them well. We must adhere to this literal meaning, unless a valid reason presents itself to deviate therefrom -- which is not at all the case here. The apostle hereby encourages the believing Hebrews to be patient in their suffering for the faith, by using as an argument the manner in which natural parents chastise their children for their benefit. He applies this to the spiritual, saying that God is exalted above all and thus pursues a superior objective with His chastisements. We must therefore with patience submit to the Father of spirits. He is referred to as such not in contrast with the Old Testament, but rather in contrast with the soul and body of man, whose body is of the flesh from the seed of the parents, and whose soul is created immediately of nothing at the moment of its generation.
Objection #5: “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death” (Revelation 12:9-11). Here is spoken of a battle in heaven (Revelation 12:7) -- heaven being understood to refer to the church. The devil was conquered and expelled from the church at the occasion of Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension. Consequently, it follows that Satan previously resided in the church and had power to instill terror and fear in believers due to their unrequited guilt.
Answer (1) We deny that heaven is to be understood to mean the church. John was in the Spirit; a prophetic vision is recounted here. As long as it cannot be proven that heaven is to be understood as referring to the church, the entire argument is without foundation.
(2) How was the devil in the church? As a member? If so, was it as a common member, or as an elder? Choose either; it is foolishness, no matter what! One cannot be part of the church in any different way; nevertheless, the objectors say that the devil was in the church, since there was a battle in heaven and the devil was cast out. We admit that he, not being in the church, assaults the church from without in both the Old and New Testament dispensations. However, this cannot support their sentiments.
(3) The casting down of and triumphing over the devil is here ascribed to believers; that is, to faithful martyrs who, for the cause of Christ, had no regard for their lives -- even unto death. They have overcome the devil by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony. This indicates that this did not occur during the time frame of Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension.
(4) The event that transpired here did not occur until three hundred years later when the persecutions by the heathen emperors came to an end under the emperor Constantine the Great. We shall prove this later on when discussing this chapter Revelation 12:1-17. The Ceremonies were a Divine Blessing Rather than a Judgment Imposed in Response to the Golden Calf Episode
Question: Were the ceremonies of the Old Testament blessings from God, or were they a punishment imposed in response to the golden calf?
Answer: Some maintain the latter; we adhere to the former. As time progressed, God caused His church to grow. In this respect we may distinguish between three phases as far as age is concerned: The time from Adam to Abraham is childhood; the time from Abraham to Christ constitutes youth; and the time from Christ until the judgment is manhood -- even though these occurred under varying circumstances. By reason of Christ’s coming, the church increased in the light, and the closer the coming of Christ approached, the clearer the prophets revealed this mystery. Those who consider the church prior to Sinai to be more eminent than after, and that God penalized them for the sin of the golden calf by imposing a yoke and the servitude of a multitude of ceremonies upon them, are in error. The fact is that the church continually grew and increased; and the ceremonies, being part and parcel of the precious and saving gospel, were and remained singular blessings. We shall show this to be true as follows:
First, that which is a privilege, of eminent glory, and to the benefit of a people cannot be a punishment imposed upon them for a given sin. The ceremonies and the ceremonial service, however, were a privilege of eminent glory and of benefit to Israel after the time of Moses; thus they were not a punishment imposed upon them because of the sin of the golden calf. The first premise is so very obvious to human reason that none will deny it. The second premise is confirmed by the apostle. “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way” (Romans 3:1-2); “Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises” (Romans 9:4); “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron” (Hebrews 5:4). Thus, the conclusion is firm: The ceremonies are not judgments, but are blessings.
Secondly, the Israelites recognized the entire ceremonial worship in all its particulars, not as a punishment, but rather as a peculiar blessing.
(1) They made a show of and boasted of the ceremonies. “Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law. ... Thou that makest thy boast of the law” (Romans 2:23).
(2) They were grieved and had sorrow when they had to miss this blessed service (cf. Psalms 79:1-13
(3) They longed greatly for the exercises of the ceremonial service. “As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after Thee, O God. My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?” (Psalms 42:1-2); “One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to inquire in His temple” (Psalms 27:4).
(4) From the ceremonial service they derived the joy and strength of their soul. “To see Thy power and Thy glory, so as I have seen Thee in the sanctuary” (Psalms 63:2).
(5) They delighted themselves in the ceremonies and could not get enough of it. “They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of Thy house” (Psalms 36:8); “We shall be satisfied with the goodness of Thy house, even of Thy holy temple” (Psalms 65:4).
(6) They rejoiced exceedingly when they had the privilege of serving in the temple. “I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord” (Psalms 122:1).
(7) They thanked and glorified God for it. “Praise ye the Lord: for ... He showeth His word unto Jacob, His statutes and His judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for His judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the Lord” (Psalms 147:1
Thirdly, the gospel is a blessing, not a punishment. However, the ceremonies and all that was ceremonial constituted the gospel. The ceremonies declared to the people that Christ would come; they taught them how Christ would pay for their sins; they sealed to them the forgiveness of sins, received through Christ by faith. Thus, rather than a punishment, they were a blessing.
Fourthly, the state of the church after Sinai and subsequent to the sin with the golden calf was more eminent than the state of the church prior to Sinai. Thus, the laws given them at Sinai were not judgments to make the church more wretched than before. “The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day” (Deuteronomy 5:2-3); “These are the words of the covenant, which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which He made with them in Horeb” (Deuteronomy 29:1). God had solemnly established the covenant of grace with Israel. This is stated to be a blessing whereby they excelled the fathers. God renewed that very same covenant in a solemn manner in the fields of Moab. Moses even elevated the state ensuing from this event above the state of Israel at Horeb, having in addition to the first transaction the repetition and solemn confirmation of that very same covenant. If the ceremonial worship had indeed been a judgment relative to the golden calf, then a solemn repetition of that covenant which had been made prior to the incident of the golden calf could not have taken place. Instead, God would have removed Himself further and would have maintained more of a distance from them.
Fifthly, the greater part of the ceremonial laws had been given prior to the sin with the golden calf, and therefore they cannot be a judgment upon that sin. These pertained to the sacrifices, the distinction between clean and unclean cattle, circumcision, the Passover, the firstborn, the washings, the priests, the feast days, and the entire tabernacle along with the altars, the ark, and the sacrifices. All of these had already been instituted and given prior to the sin with the golden calf. Thus, the ceremonies cannot be a judgment upon that sin. Was the gospel transformed into a judgment after this sin? Absolutely not! To suggest this cuts a tender and godly person in the heart, and does injustice to the goodness of God.
Objection #1: “Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live” (Ezekiel 20:25). God is the Giver of these laws. These laws were not the moral law, for they were unto life for those who did them (Ezekiel 20:11
Answer: First, far be it from the Almighty to be unrighteous; far be it from the holy God to give unrighteous and evil laws! All the laws which God has ever given were good and unto life; this is true for the moral law and the ceremonial laws. “Thou ... gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments” (Nehemiah 9:13); “To keep the commandments of the Lord, and His statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good” (Deuteronomy 10:13). In substance the ceremonies and sacrifices consisted of the flesh and blood of animals; the apostle therefore calls them carnal commandments. The ceremonies were given in order to be united with the antitype, Jesus Christ, and constituted the gospel by which Christ was both proclaimed and offered. However, they were not given to exist and to be performed independently -- that is, divorced from the antitype -- and in order thereby to bring about atonement. They were too weak and ineffectual to accomplish that. They did not have the inherent ability to make alive; else it would have been unnecessary for Christ to have died. United with the antitype, however, they were both necessary and beneficial. We deny that these laws which were not good are to be understood as referring to the ceremonial laws. This cannot be proven. Those laws which were not good pertained to the sacrificing of their children by causing them to pass through the fire -- and thus pertained to a fabricated worship of idols, as is confirmed in the next verse (Ezekiel 20:26).
Secondly, the reason for the giving of these laws was not the sin with the golden calf. This is not even mentioned in this chapter -- yes, there is not even one word or argument which would lead one’s thoughts in that direction. Therefore, to introduce the golden calf here and to propose it as being the cause of the giving of the ceremonial laws is nothing but a fabrication. This is furthermore evident from the fact that the ceremonial laws already had been given prior to the incident with the golden calf; consequently, this cannot be the cause for the giving of these laws. Other sins are delineated here as being the cause for the giving of these laws, namely, the entire sequence of the sins of the people of Israel from their residence in Egypt until the time of Ezekiel. Among them is even mentioned the transgression of the ceremonial laws, such as the desecration of the sabbaths, which pertains not only to the Sabbath of the seventh day, belonging to the moral law, but to the several sabbaths which belong to the ceremonies. Therefore, the reference here is neither to the ceremonies nor to the calf.
Thirdly, God is said to have given these evil laws, not by way of command, but by way of permission, punishing sin with sin. This is very evident in the following verse (Ezekiel 20:26): “And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb.” Just as God polluted them by way of the commission of sin, so He likewise gave them evil laws. Both occurred by way of permission, that is, by giving them over to themselves. Such a manner of speech occurs frequently in God’s Word. “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections” (Romans 1:26); “Because the Lord hath said unto him, Curse David” (2 Samuel 16:10); “So I gave them up unto their own hearts’ lust: and they walked in their own counsels” (Psalms 81:12). The judgment God executed upon the sin with the golden calf is described by Stephen: “And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven” (Acts 7:41-42). The meaning of this text Ezekiel 20:25 is as follows: Since Israel was so ungodly, and persisted so stubbornly and rebelliously in sin, God departed from them and gave them over to all manner of dreadful idolatry by permitting them to fabricate their own religion and to make laws accordingly. These were not good and thereby they would not live; whereas by virtue of the keeping of God’s laws they would have lived. However, these laws which they themselves had fabricated would be unto death for them.
Objection #2: “... to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” (Acts 15:10); “... and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (Galatians 5:1). A yoke, the yoke of bondage, is a judgment. The ceremonies are a yoke, however, and thus they are a judgment.
Answer (1) What mention is made here of the golden calf? Such would have to be the case, would it not? Thus, it cannot be concluded from this text that the ceremonies are a judgment in response to the golden calf.
(2) Circumcision is the point of discussion here, as it belonged to the ceremonial service. Circumcision had already been instituted several hundred years prior to the incident with the golden calf. Was circumcision therefore also a judgment upon Abraham? How then could it have been the seal of the righteousness of faith? How can a sacrament of the covenant of grace be a judgment?
(3) The gospel is also referred to as a yoke, albeit an easy yoke (Matthew 11:29-30). Thus, one cannot deduce a judgment from the word “yoke.” God wills that His children be not licentious. Instead, He sets boundaries and subjects them to Himself -- that is, to His laws which He imposes upon them as a yoke so that they might be of service to Him. Is being of service to God -- being under His yoke -- a judgment?
(4) A yoke implies bondage; however, a yoke that is unbearable does not imply judgment, but rather difficulty and distress. A matter is either impossible in and of itself -- such laws the righteous God has not imposed upon anyone -- or a matter is unbearable due to the weakness of man, a weakness into which he has brought himself. This is true for the moral law which sinful man cannot keep. The very best among men daily offend in many things. Since the moral law is an unbearable burden for sinful man, does that mean therefore that it is a judgment? The same also applies to the ceremonial laws. They were demanding and difficult, and even in an outward sense it was difficult to observe them without becoming defiled in some way. It does not follow, however, that they were a greater judgment than the moral law. They were nothing but blessings, even though they were demanding for the flesh. If someone must journey several miles to hear a sermon, it is indeed inconvenient; however, it is not a judgment, but a blessing, for by way of this difficulty he may still receive the Word.
Objection #3: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgression” (Galatians 3:19). Was the ceremonial law (this is the law of which the apostle speaks) added to the promise because of the transgression? Then it is a judgment upon sin.
Answer (1) Once again, no mention is made of the calf, which is the issue being disputed. This renders the objective to use this text invalid.
(2) We deny that the apostle here has the ceremonial law in view. That would have to be proven. It is just an assumption, and whoever does not wish to believe this is free in this.
(3) The ceremonial laws were already partially in existence when Abraham received the promise. Therefore, the apostle cannot have them in mind. The fact that something is more or less true does not change the nature of a matter.
(4) Even though we do not wish to exclude the ceremonial laws from this chapter, it is nevertheless evident that the apostle has the law of the ten commandments in view. He speaks of that law which brings a curse upon the person who is subject to that law (Galatians 3:10); by the works of which no one can be justified (Galatians 3:11); which is contrasted with faith (Galatians 3:13); and which by angels has been placed in the hands of the Mediator (Galatians 3:19). This law is not the ceremonial law, but the law of the ten commandments.
(5) Paul does not ask why or for what reason the law has been given, but rather for what purpose, to what end, and for what use it has been given. Since the inheritance is not by the law but by the promise, he asks whether the law has then been given in vain. Does the law then have no purpose? “Yes, it does indeed,” so states the apostle; “it has been added to the promises charin [for the purpose of], or charin ton parabaseon [to the end], that is, ’because of the transgressions.’” The purpose was that one would know his transgressions by means of the law, and thus be drawn away from his own righteousness as a means unto justification by seeking the promise in the law. Its purpose is that one would seek to obtain the inheritance by faith in Jesus Christ. Observe this in the following verses: “But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Galatians 3:22-24). The apostle shows this to be the purpose in Romans 5:20 : “Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound.” Thus, the phrase “because of transgressions” does not relate to the cause of the giving of the law, as if the giving of the law were a judgment upon sin; rather, it speaks of the purpose for which the law was given: to know sin.