 The Status of Old Covenant Believers John G. Reisinger
Hebrews 11:39, 40 are verses being thrown around in three or four different directions. I think a discussion of them would be very helpful in understanding New Covenant Theology. Let's look at these two verses and ask and answer some very obvious questions. I confess that when I started to answer these questions myself I began to realize that these were very important texts of Scripture as they pertain to New Covenant Theology. In one sense, these texts get to the very heart of New Covenant Theology. Let's first print out the two verses:
Our first question is this: To whom does "these all" refer in these two verses? All agree this is referring to those who, before Christ, savingly believed the promise that he would come. The only discussion among commentators is whether the writer is referring to all of the believers in the Old Testament Scriptures or all of the believers mentioned in the 'Hall of Faith' in Hebrew 11:1-38. The context seems to imply that the "these all" are the same as the "great cloud of witnesses' in Hebrews 12:1. If so, then the writer is referring to those mentioned in Hebrews 11 as representative of all believers prior to the coming of Christ. We know some things for sure about these pre-Christ believers. They were children of God who had been born into God's family. They were justified believers. They are all 'commended' not only for the fact they had believed the gospel, but that they had also persevered in faith in spite of severe trials even "unto death." The writer of Hebrews makes a similar statement earlier in this same chapter. He is talking about Abraham's faith, as well as the other believers mentioned, and says:
These people had a hope of heaven because of their faith. They indeed "had the gospel preached to them" (Heb. 4:2), and had believed that gospel and were saved. Their life and witness were clear testimony that they had a sincere hope of seeing the face of God in peace, but they nonetheless "did not receive the promise" in their lifetimes. They lived and died in faith, which faith is commended to us, and yet they died without seeing the fulfillment of the thing promised. They lived and died in hope without seeing that hope fulfilled. An apparent problem arises when we compare Hebrews 11 with earlier statements in Hebrews.
Here Abraham is said to have "obtained the promise" while Hebrews 11 twice states that he did not receive the promise. Hebrews 6:15 is obviously referring to the birth of Isaac, and Hebrews 11 is referring to something else. This is one of those instances where we have a double fulfillment of a promise. This text helps with our understanding of how to interpret prophecy. Abraham obviously understood that the birth of Isaac was a clear fulfillment of God's promise that he would have a son. He also believed that there was a greater Son who would be the Messiah. "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad" John 8:56. The same thing is true of the land. Abraham knew and believed that God was going to give him the specific land promised in Genesis 15:15-18. However, even while Abraham's feet were standing in the promised land (Heb. 11:8-10) he viewed himself as in a strange land looking for a heavenly city. Abraham clearly understood the land to be a physical type of the true spiritual promise. That brings up the next logical question, in what specific promise did the believers before Christ hope, but never see fulfilled? This cannot be referring to salvation or any of the things essential to true conversion since those people were truly saved individuals. We are talking about people who sincerely believed the gospel of grace. These were people that had been 'justified by faith' (see Romans 4) the same as we are today. They were not waiting in hope that they might get forgiveness when the Messiah came. They knew they were already forgiven (Psalm 32:1-5). Most commentaries agree that the promise is Christ, the promised Messiah himself, come in the flesh. I think that is correct. Like David, these people went into the grave with the assurance that one of David's sons would come and conquer sin, death, and the grave. These people "loved not their life even unto death" because of their faith in the promise of God. They were people that had a testimony before God and a clear witness before men. In fact, it was because their testimony was so clear that they were so violently persecuted and killed. A.W. Pink has fairly well caught the meaning of "received not the promise."
An Exposition of Hebrews, Vol. II, by A. W. Pink, Bible Truth Depot, 1954, Swengle, PA., p. 390.
Covenant Theology's "Flat" Total Continuity View. Covenant theology "flattens" out the Bible and turns it all into "one unchanging covenant of grace with two administrations." It confuses God's unchanging purpose of grace with a mythical covenant of grace. Those who hold this view will speak of "the new covenant" but in the same breath will insist the new covenant is not really a new "covenant" but only a new "administration" of the one unchanging covenant of grace. The new covenant is not new "in substance" but is the "same gracious covenant that God made with Israel at Sinai." The one unchanging covenant of grace is now administered differently than it was under Moses. The difference in two administrations is not in the substance or nature of the covenant but in the manner of its administration. Covenant theology cannot contrast the old covenant made at Sinai with the new covenant made in Christ as two actually different covenants. The only way they can have two totally new and radically different covenants is to, (1) invent a covenant with Adam before he fell and call it "the Covenant of Works", and then (2) invent a second covenant supposedly made with Adam after he fell and call it "the Covenant of Grace". Scripture never mentions either of these two mythical covenants but does constantly compare the "old covenant" at Sinai with the "new covenant" made in Christ, and the contrast always (1) presents the new covenant as radically different than the old covenant, and (2) the new covenant as totally replacing the old covenant. Likewise, Scripture never once speaks of "two administrations of one covenant of grace." Covenant theology sees Israel and the church as being the same thing. They will speak of the "Jewish" church and the "Christian church", but they are only two names for the same thing. The only differences between the Christian church and the Jewish church are the different ceremonies and worship system, and the fact that the Christian church includes Gentiles. Basically the Christian church is the Jewish church with Gentiles added to it. Baptism takes the place of circumcision but the meaning and purpose are the same. In both cases it is the sign of the same unchanging covenant. Covenant theology will insist on a "one on one" relationship between the Church and Israel, with everything in the Church having a counterpart in Israel. Israel enjoyed every blessing we enjoy today but in most cases to a lesser degree. Some covenant theologians insist that there is nothing truly new. Anything that does not have its roots in the OT Scripture will then be misunderstood. Any newness is purely a question of degree of appreciation but not new in actual substance. Believers living under the old covenant experienced every blessing that those who live under the new covenant experience. Actually that last sentence should read, "Believers living under the old administration of the one unchanging covenant experienced every blessing that those who live under the new administration of the same covenant experience." This position is set forth clearly in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Below are two quotations from two sections in that confession. The first deals with the doctrine of adoption and the second with liberty of conscience. We believe these two articles totally distort the biblical relationship between the old and new covenants, and, consistent with covenant theology's view of "one covenant with two administrations," effectively denies that there really is a new and different covenant with new and unique experiences under that new covenant. Please do not twist what is being said. Like covenant theology, we insist that all old covenant believers were indeed justified in the same way that we are today. There are not two ways to be saved. However, as long as the old covenant believers were under the law as a covenant they did not, and could not, enjoy all of the liberties that we enjoy under the gospel age. There are some specific blessings that had to await the coming of Christ and the Day of Pentecost. That is what Hebrews 11:39, 40 are all about. Old covenant believers were "children under age," and, as such, were treated accordingly. One of the great new covenant liberties is access into the most holy place (see Heb. 9:8 and Eph 2:11-18). The words in Eph. 2:11-18 could never have been written before the Day of Pentecost. There was nothing a true believer living under the old covenant could "understand and believe" that would enable him to "come boldly" into the Most Holy Place behind the veil. That blessed experience awaited the sacrifice that effectively tore that veil in half and opened up the way into the presence of God (cf. Heb. 10:19-22). Likewise, old covenant believers did not "receive the spirit of adoption' until the Day of Pentecost, nor were they "sealed [into the Body of Christ] to the day of redemption." They were truly regenerated by the Holy Spirit and just as justified and secure in their salvation as we are today, but they had not come into the experience of being "son-placed" until Pentecost. Paul's doctrine of adoption does not deal with us coming into the family of God (as covenant theology depicts it), but with immature children who, by having the pedagogue (the law) dismissed and their consciences set free, are now being treated as adults. This experience is peculiar to a new covenant believer. Old covenant believers were truly the "children" of God under a pedagogue but they were not "adult sons." They were heirs of an inheritance they could not receive because they were under "tutors and governors until the time set by the Father" (Gal. 3:23 - 4:7). Points [a] and [c] below confuse the new birth (coming into God's one true family) with adoption as sons. The first is true of all believers, but the second is true of only new covenant believers. Point [d] is a clear contradiction of both the Old and New Testament Scriptures. Item [m] is stating the exact opposite of Hebrews 11:39,40. All of this confusion is due to "flattening" out the Bible into "one unchanging covenant with two administrations" and refusing to let "new covenant" really mean new covenant. Chapter 12, Section 1 - WCF Adoption 1. All those that are justified, God vouchsafeth, in and for his only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption: [a] by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of the children of God; [b] have his name put upon them, [c] receive the spirit of adoption; [d] have access to the throne of grace with boldness; [e] are enabled to cry, Abba, Father; [f] are pitied, [g] protected, [h] provided for, [i] and chastened by him as by a father: [k] yet never cast off, [l] but sealed to the day of redemption, [m] and inherit the promises, [n] as heirs of everlasting salvation. The second quotation (below) grows out of the first one. Here the WCF totally confuses the old and new. When the confession talks about the "liberty" that has been purchased "for believers under the gospel," it is dead right. When it insists that all of these new covenant blessings which they list were "All common also to believers under the law," they very badly contradict Scripture and apply logic to their "one covenant and two administration" system. The one thing an old covenant believer did not, and could not, possibly have was a conscience set free from the law. No old covenant writer could ever say to an Israelite, "You are not under the law, but under grace" and mean what Paul did in Romans 6:14, nor could anyone under the old covenant ever say what Paul said in his interpretation of Sarah and Hagar (see Gal. 4:19-31). When this section speaks of "under the gospel" it is referring the new covenant age. The key statement is [e], "All which were common also to believers under the law." The things mentioned in [a] and [b] are true of old covenant believers. Item [c] dismisses the fact of the veil shutting men out of God's presence. Point [d] is half true but ignores the clear contrast Paul makes between old and new covenant worship. Point [e] is just plain incorrect. Point [f] reduces the goal of the death of Christ to enable new covenant believers to eat bacon with their eggs. Points [g] and [I] clearly state the basic error of covenant theology on this subject. Israel is said to have had every single blessing that we have, but we just have it a little more fully. This is like saying, "The veil was only opened a small crack before Christ came but now it opened wide." Chapter 20, Section 1 - WCF Of Christianity, and Liberty of Conscience. 1. The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel, consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; [a] and in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin, [b] from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation; [c] as also in their free access to God, [d] and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love, and willing mind. [e] All which were common also to believers under the law; [f] but under the new testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected, [g] and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, [h] and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of. There is no question that Abraham, David, and Rahab were justified by faith. The foundation of their justification was exactly the same as ours. God does not have two kinds of justification any more than there are two gospels. The righteous foundation of an old covenant believer's justification before God was the blood and righteousness of Christ. This is possible because Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" in the mind and purpose of God. Having said that, however, we must also insist that an old covenant believer did not have all of the benefits growing out of justification that we have today. For instance, an old covenant believer did not have the Book of Romans or the Book of Ephesians. The extent of his understanding and the personal experience of his salvation were limited to what he could get from the priests, the sacrificial system, and the covenant under which he lived. If he sinned, he could not use Romans 5:1-3 to help him believe in forgiveness and security. He could not use the Book of Ephesians to theologically reason his way to assurance. He could not see himself as "dead, buried, raised, and ascended with Christ" since those truths had not yet been revealed. Covenant theology would have us believe that the prophets of Israel taught the people the Westminster Confession of Faith and all of the Jews had a copy of John Murray's "Redemption Accomplished and Applied." We must insist that a believer's knowledgeable experience cannot exceed the revelation given to him up to that point in history. We cannot read the New Testament back into the Old Testament the way covenant theology does. We must not build our understanding of an old covenant believer's experience upon the logical conclusions of a pre-conceived system of theology and then force the OT Scriptures to conform to our theological system. In our next article we will answer these questions:
|