Part Two

John G. Reisinger

This is the second article on Hebrews 11:39, 40. We previously noted that this is a very important verse in the ongoing discussion of the relationship between the Old and New Covenants. This text clearly asserts that there is a definite continuity and unity between the Old and the New Covenants while at the same time maintaining a radical newness in the experience of the New Covenant believer. Two mistakes to avoid are (1) reading the new experiences of a New Covenant believer back into the Old Testament times, as covenant theology does, or (2) denying the unity of the one true people of God in all ages, as classical Dispensational theology does.

Covenant theology is forced to 'flatten out' the Bible in order to maintain its idea of "one covenant with two administrations." Classical Dispensationalism must divide the Bible in such a way as to create a gulf between the Old and New Testament in order to maintain its idea of a total distinction between Israel and the Church in all ages.

It is clear that God's people who lived before the coming of Christ were just as saved, or truly justified, as we are today. They were a part of the one true family of God. We must immediately add that they were saved in the same identical manner as we are today. They were given a new heart, which enabled them to believe the one unchanging Gospel. They were saved "by grace through faith" just as we are. Texts like John 1:17, "The law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ," cannot mean there was no grace given or known by the people of God before Christ came. If it could mean that then it would mean also that no truth was made known before Christ came. Psalm 119 would be double talk when it extolled the precious truth of God's Word. The Old Testament is just as much the "truth of God" as is the New Testament.

We are told, "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord" (Gen. 6:8). It is clear that there was both truth and grace in the Old Testament Scriptures, just as there are objective laws given in the New Testament Scriptures. John 1:17 probably means the same thing as II Cor.3:7-11 (especially verse 10). Paul, in extolling the glory of the New Covenant in comparison to the Old Covenant, declares that it was as if the old had no glory at all when compared to the new, even though he has just declared that the Old Covenant had a glory. John, in 1:17, is saying, "Yes, there was grace and truth revealed under the covenant of law, but when that grace and truth is compared with the glorious grace and fullness of truth revealed under the New Covenant it is as if there were no grace or truth at all under the old."

We insist that true believers living prior to Christ rejoiced in the knowledge of forgiveness of sins. If this were not true the Psalmist could not say,

Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. 2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile. Psalm 32:1, 2

It is significant that Paul quotes these same verses in Romans 4:6-8 when he is teaching "justification by faith." Paul uses David to prove that biblical justification has always been on the same grounds. The way of salvation has always been "by grace through faith" in the promise of God. After quoting Psalm 32:1,2, Paul raises the real question:

Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. Romans 4:9

This is a very important point. Paul's argument in this passage is vital to the discussion of the relationship of the Old Covenant to the New. Basically Paul is asking, "Is this blessing of justification by faith only for the Jews?" His answer is, "No, this justification is also for the Gentiles and on the same grounds. Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way." The 'blessedness' of which Paul speaks is the assurance of justification before God. Do the Jews, the circumcision, receive the blessing of forgiveness of sins in one way and Gentiles, the uncircumcision, in another way, or is there a total unity in God's way of salvation for all men in all ages? The answer to the question is clear and emphatic. Justification is not just for Jews who believe but also for all, without exception or distinction, who believe the gospel of grace (see verses 9-12 and 24-25).

The above is vital but it is not the whole story. Paul's argument is not just intended to prove there is only one way of salvation, namely, "by grace through faith." He is just as concerned to prove that receiving that salvation has nothing at all to do with your heritage or religious rites. This blessedness came on Jews and Gentiles alike, but it never came to anyone just because he was a Jew or just because he was circumcised. Not only that, justification came to the worst of guilty sinners in spite of their sin.

Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised. Therefore, wearing the "sign of the covenant" has absolutely nothing to do with salvation before God. Neither circumcision nor baptism can put anyone into a "saving covenant relationship" with God. Likewise, Abraham was not an Israelite at the time of his justification. He was a pagan idolater. Experiencing God's grace in justification has absolutely nothing to do with being part of the nation of Israel or being born into a Christian home. That is what the fourth chapter of Romans is meant to prove.

Why is David so important in this discussion about justification? Why did the Holy Spirit pick him out of all the many pre-Christ saints to prove his point? If Abraham proves beyond question that justification before God has nothing to do with being a Jew or with being circumcised, then David is a classic example that shows two things:

(1) Just as Abraham was justified before he was circumcised, he was also justified before the law was given at Sinai. David however, lived 'under the law' at the time that he was justified. Romans 4:23-25 is addressed to you and me who live after the law has been fulfilled and put away. Romans, chapter four, is meant to show that before the law, under law, and after the law, all justification is still on the same basis. It is "by grace through faith."

(2) David's justification also proves that God's justifying grace is shown to the worst of sinners. David is a classic example of Romans 4:5. Justification comes to those who do not work to earn it, but are in themselves the epitome of godlessness. Here is a murderer and an adulterer being deliberately used by God as an example of full and free justification. Here is a man guilty of two of the worst sins possible being used by Paul as an example of the power of grace to bring the blessing of assurance of salvation to the very worst of sinners. Salvation is not because of family birth, religious ceremonies, our good deeds, or our obedience to the law. It is by God's unconditional electing grace regardless of who our parents are, what nation we were born in, or how deep we are in sin.

The fourth chapter of Romans establishes an unbreakable continuity between the Old and New Covenants as well as the Old and New Testament Scriptures. There can be no question at all that the "better things," referred to in Heb. 11:39, 40, that New Covenant believers enjoy, cannot be either justification or anything at all that has to with a person being a true child of God. Abraham and David, and every other believer living before Christ came, experienced the same forgiveness that we experience today and they did so in the same manner, namely, "by grace through faith."

I hear someone saying, "John, are you not contradicting what you said in the first article? Are you not stressing continuity to the place there is no discontinuity?" No, I am not doing that at all. The above is not the whole story. There can be no doubt at all that David and Abraham are being used in Romans four as patterns of justification in every age. They were justified "by grace through faith" exactly as we are today. That fact alone proves a clear continuity between the Old and the New in some sense. However, it is not an absolute sense. It is not, as the Westminster Confession of Faith states, "one on one" continuity. Let me demonstrate this in two quotations, one from the WCF and the other from John MacArthur.

The WCF lists the privileges that justified believers have 'under the Gospel'. These privileges specifically include having "access to the throne of grace with boldness…free access to God." The Confession then insists these same blessings or privileges "were common also to believers under the law." (See the first article in our last issue.) Old Covenant believers are said to have had "access to the throne of grace with boldness." This is the logical and necessary conclusion to their "one covenant with two administrations" theology.

Notice how John MacArthur says just the opposite:

One of the key theological themes in Hebrews is that all believers now have direct access to God under the New Covenant and, therefore, may approach the throne of God boldly (4:16; 10:22). One's hope is in the very presence of God, into which he follows the Savior (6:19, 20; 10:19, 20). The primary teaching symbolized by the tabernacle service was that believers under the covenant of law did not have direct access to the presence of God (9:8), but were shut out of the Holy of Holies. The book of Hebrews may be summarized in this way: Believers in Jesus Christ, as God's perfect sacrifice for sin, have the perfect High-Priest through whose ministry everything is new and better than under the covenant of law. The MacArthur Study Bible, by John MacArthur, Word Publishing, 1997, p. 1895

MacArthur is dead right in asserting that "access" into the Most Holy Place, or immediate presence of God, is a blessing peculiar to the New Covenant believer. The WCF is wrong in asserting the privilege is the same under both Covenants. The WCF's claim that the Old Covenant believer had the same access as a New Covenant believer, but our privilege is merely a greater degree of boldness than theirs is like saying the veil in the Temple was only opened a little bit before Christ came, but it is now opened much wider. MacArthur's use of Heb. 8:9 is correct. This is a crucial text that the WCF simply ignores on the one hand and actually contradicts on the other hand.

I cannot emphasize too strongly that "access into the Holiest of Holies" is the great New Covenant blessing. It was clearly promised and eagerly anticipated by Old Covenant saints but not personally experienced until the New Covenant was established. This blessing is tied up with liberty of conscience. The conscience must be set free from the fear of the law before we can come boldly into the presence of a holy God. It is tied up with realizing that we are robed in the perfect obedience of Christ and therefore perfectly acceptable in God's sight. If, before Christ came, you could have somehow removed the veil in the Tabernacle, the believer could still not have entered. Something inside of him would have reminded him that he had no right to approach the thrice-holy God. The believer's conscience could not be silenced until the terms of the covenant in the Ark of the Covenant had been met. The conscience cannot be set free until the Spirit of Adoption, given at Pentecost, enables the believer to say, "Abba Father."

Let us look again at David's justification and its resulting experience in comparison to the experience of a believer under the New Covenant. Romans 5:1, 2 are quite clear that our justification gives us both "peace with God" and "access" into the presence of God. Hebrews 4:14-16 extols our privilege to not only come into the Most Holy place but to do so "boldly." The question that must be asked and answered is this: Did David's justification afford him that same privilege? In other words, because David was a truly justified believer, did that give him the right to ignore the veil and go into the Most Holy Place?

Did David's justification give him the "access" that Rom. 5:2 and Heb. 4:14-16 are talking about? We should all realize that the answer is "no." We should say, "The 'new and living' way described in Hebrews 10:19-22 that New Covenant believers enjoy had not yet been opened up, nor could it be opened up, as long as the law covenant was still in force (Heb. 9:8)." The once-for-all sacrifice that was essential to fulfill the covenant terms written on the Tablets of the Covenant in the Ark of the Covenant had not yet been met in the "doing and dying" of the Surety of the New Covenant. David was indeed justified by grace through faith and was just as saved as we are today but he still lived and worshiped under the Old Covenant. There was nothing he could believe or do that would free either his conscience or his day-to-day life from the binding authority of the Old Covenant. He was a true child of God but was of non-age and was under the rules and regulation of the law covenant. As respects salvation, David was under grace. In respect to his conscience and legal worship, he was under the law.

David was just as eternally secure in his faith as we today, but living under the Old Covenant he had no way of knowing that security. When David sinned he did not have Romans 5, Romans 8, and Ephesians 2 to use to theologically maintain assurance. David could not see and realize what it means to be "dead, buried, and raised with Christ." He could not believe, as we can, that he was "seated in heavenly places" at the right hand of God in heaven. The historical facts upon which these glorious truths rest had not yet taken place nor were these things detailed in the Old Testament Scriptures. They were not made known to Old Covenant believers. David did not have the New Covenant Scriptures. A believer's experience in any dispensation cannot normally (I use that word 'normally' deliberately) exceed the revelation of God under which he lives at the time. We dare not read the experiences that grow out of a knowledge of the New Testament Scriptures back into the experience of an Old Covenant believer. Those believers had true salvation but had neither a Scofield Bible nor a WCF.

Heb. 9:8 is quite clear concerning the message of the veil. Once it was put in place (Ex. 40:21) it said, "Stay away! No admittance!" For 364 days of each year, not a single soul was allowed into the Most Holy Place. The primary purpose of the whole system of Judaism was to teach Israel that God was holy and they were sinners, or as MacArthur stated, "The primary teaching symbolized by the tabernacle service was that believers under the covenant of law did not have direct access to the presence of God (9:8), but were shut out of the Holy of Holies." Nothing did that any more effectively than the veil with its "Stay Out" message.

Likewise, Heb. 10:18-22 clearly explains the symbolic meaning of the rending of the veil the very moment that Jesus gave up the ghost. That event proved that the new and living way into the true Most Holy Place was now opened to all who come in the blessed name of our High Priest.

Does this mean that no one living under the Old Covenant could come before God in worship or prayer as long as the veil was in place? I think the answer to that must be a 'yes" and a "no." First of all, we must take Hebrews 9:8 seriously. The Holy Spirit was teaching a specific lesson in the whole system of Tabernacle worship, especially with the veil. There was no admittance into the Most Holy Place as long as the veil shielded the Ark of the Covenant. Leviticus 10:1-3 was neither a joke nor an exception to the rule. It was the fate of any and all who disobeyed the "no admittance" sign. There really was no entrance into the Most Holy Place, and the Most Holy Place symbolized the immediate presence of God.

Having accepted this clear fact, how then do we explain some of the worship in the Psalms? David's personal fellowship with God seems to not only equal anything we have experienced today but in some cases seems to greatly excel the best of our worship. I do not at all profess to have the whole answer to this. On the one hand, I refuse to ignore what Hebrews and the rest of the New Testament Scriptures say, namely, that there was no admittance into the Most Holy Place, and on the other hand, I refuse to dismiss the obvious personal and intimate relationship that David enjoyed in God's presence. Obviously the presence of God symbolized by the cloud and fire over the Most Holy Place is not the same as the actual presence of God himself. It is hard to tell where type and reality often begin and end in the OTS. Perhaps the following will help a little bit.

David committed adultery and murder. God dealt with his conscience and finally sent Nathan to directly confront David with his sin (2 Sam. 12:7). Psalm 51 is David's recorded repentance before God. How can all of this help us in our present discussion? In Psalm 51, David did indeed enter into the holy presence of God—and he entered with a load of sin and guilt on him. David could not enter the Most Holy Place in the Tabernacle nor could he get Aaron to make a sacrifice for him. We need to carefully study Psalm 51. When David cried out, "Sacrifices and offering Thou wouldest not" he was living in the days when sacrifices were required. David had no sacrifices to bring! There was no sacrifice for either murder or adultery. "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy" (Heb. 10:28). David could have been stoned to death. There was not an ounce of help for him from either Aaron or the whole system of Old Covenant worship. David by-passed both Aaron (the priesthood) and the law and cried out directly to the God that he knew as a shepherd boy. God heard him and forgave him. This must be seen as an exception to the rule. It does not mean that David did not have to continue in the normally required forms of worship. It just means that he was an exceptionally godly man whose personal experience transcended the theological knowledge of his day. It does not contradict Heb. 9:8; it is merely an exception. Exceptions prove that rules are not absolutes. The rule was still "no admittance" into the Most Holy Place.

We need to emphasize one last thing. There is no question that we today live in the era of fulfillment. However, we also, even as the Old Covenant believer, still must live by faith. We are still looking for the fulfillment of many of our Lord's promises. Nowhere does Scripture teach that the Old Covenant believers lived by faith and we live by sight. We live by faith equally as much as they did. The big difference is that we have "prophecy made more sure" (II Pet. 1:19) because of the many prophecies that have been fulfilled. We see a lot of what Old Covenant believers hoped in but never saw, but we also hope in a lot that we have never seen. Phillip Hughes has caught this truth very clearly:

Ours is therefore the era of fulfillment. And yet it is still an era of faith. That is one of the main emphases of this epistle. The faith of those who belonged to the former era is set before us as an example to emulate. For the Christian era is comprised of both the "now" and the "not yet" of fulfillment. God had indeed achieved every purpose of blessing in the mediatorial work of his Son and our High Priest Jesus Christ. In him, the blessings of the New Covenant are a reality here and now. With him the believer is raised to newness of life and experiences the exaltation of heavenly bliss (Eph. 2:6; Col. 3:1ff). At the cross, our redemption has been accomplished once for all. But there is still an interval between this fulfillment and the final consummation. We still await the renewal of all creation, the redemption of our bodies (Rom. 8:2-25), the swallowing up of what is mortal by life (2 Cor. 5:1-4; 1 Cor. 15:42ff.), the disclosure of the new heaven and the new earth in which righteousness is unchallenged (2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1-5). And so, in our pilgrimage through this still groaning world (Rom. 8:22 ff), it is inevitable that we too should endure suffering and hardships and required that we too should overcome by faith, our gaze fixed intently on him who is the goal and prize of our ultimate and eternal perfection. This is precisely the lesson which our author is now about to press home: as in faith we persevere and endure, our inspiration, to a degree far surpassing that of the heroic witnesses of old, is preeminently Jesus himself, who was known to the former believers only by expectation but is known to us in fulfillment (12:1ff.). Our greater privilege is also our greater responsibility. A Commentary on the Book of Hebrews, by Philip Hughes, Eerdman's, 1977, p. 51

Let's review the parts of the two verses we are discussing.

1. The people described in Hebrews 11:39,40 were true believers who lived before the coming of Christ.

2. These believers had a good testimony before God and before men. Their profession of faith was not an empty intellectual assent to the truth. They were committed heart and soul to the promises of God. They lived and died in genuine faith.

3. In spite of their steadfast faith, they never experienced during their lifetime what had been promised and in which they had hoped. This obviously has something to do with the actual physical coming of Christ in the flesh in the incarnation. Simeon, in Luke 2:25-32 would illustrate this fact. Simeon was waiting for the "consolation of Israel." When he picked up the baby Jesus he said, "I have seen the fulfillment of God's promise."

4. The "something better" God planned for us cannot refer to Christ himself simply because nothing could possibly be better than him. He is the best possible gift of God. Likewise, we cannot make this mean that "Believers today have Christ but Old Covenant believers did not have Christ" even though there is one real way that we have Christ, in the flesh and fulfilling every promise, that they did not except by way of promise and expectation. We must avoid the error of Covenant Theology's use of texts like John 8:56. Abraham did not live in and enjoy the immediate presence of Christ. Abraham did indeed see the day of Christ coming, and rejoiced in that expectation and promise, but he never lived to experience that coming. We dare not read all of the New Covenant blessings back into Abraham's experience. Likewise, we dare not deny that Abraham clearly understood the spiritual and eternal things involved in the physical promises (Heb. 11:8-10:13-16).

5. Hebrews 11:40 is totally ignored by nearly every commentator. Whatever this "better thing" is that is peculiar to the New Covenant, the Old Covenant believer now experiences it along with us as New Covenant believers. Actually, it is the other way around. It is not that they join us in "being made perfect," but we join them. The text says, "So they are not made perfect without us." What ever this "better thing" is, it is ultimately and equally appreciated and experienced by all believers of all ages.

6. The phrase "made perfect" is obviously a key idea in these verses. We must understand, (a) exactly what 'made perfect' means, and (b) why it was impossible for this to take place before the coming of Christ.

Before attempting to answer these questions, let me put down a couple of stakes and draw some lines that will help us 'keep in bounds'. I always do this when I wrestle with a difficult subject. For instance, when I first struggled with the absolute sovereignty of God and the free will of man, I put one stake down and said, "If any text of Scripture appears to make God anything less than totally sovereign, I must not understand the true meaning of that text. If I go past this stake I am out of bounds." I put another stake down and said, 'If any text seems to make God the guilty author of man's sins or infers that man is not totally responsible for every sin, it means I do not understand that text. If I go there I know I am out of bounds in the opposite direction. The truth must be somewhere between these two stakes."

Let's put down some stakes concerning our present subject to help keep us in bounds. We may very well wind up far more sure of what these verses do not mean than understanding what they actually do mean. Our first stake is this: we can be sure that Old Covenant believers did not experience, in the sense of knowledgeable experience, all of the blessings of the New Covenant. To follow the WCF's view of "one on one" is simply to contradict the Book of Hebrews. Our second stake at the other side is this: we cannot allow whatever "better things" the texts are talking about to include anything that pertains to true salvation. In other words, we must maintain both a true and real continuity and a true and real discontinuity between the experience of believers living under the Old and New Covenants. This really is not nearly as difficult as most theologians maintain. The theological 'systems' that get in the road of learning the Scriptures are the main problem. Let's state some sure facts that clearly fall between our two 'out of bounds' stakes.

ONE: Heb. 11:39,40 must be understood as one of the crowning examples proving the main thesis of the Book of Hebrews. The writer is again showing the great superiority of the New Covenant, which has established the Christian religion, to the Old Covenant and the religion of Judaism. Arthur Pink is correct when he says, The dominant theme of Hebrews is, The immeasurable superiority of Christianity over Judaism (An Exposition of Hebrews, by A.W. Pink, Bible Truth Depot, Swengle, PA. Vol. II, p. 389).

John MacArthur is even clearer:

The epistle to the Hebrews is a study in contrast, between the imperfect and incomplete provisions of the Old Covenant, given under Moses, and the infinitely better provisions of the New Covenant offered by the High-Priest, God's only Son and the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Included in the "better" provisions are a better hope, testament, promise, sacrifice, substance, country, resurrection. Those who belong to the New Covenant dwell in a completely new and heavenly atmosphere, they worship a heavenly Savior, have a heavenly calling, receive a heavenly gift, are citizens of a heavenly country, look forward to a heavenly Jerusalem, and have their names written in heaven. The MacArthur Study Bible, by John MacArthur, Word Publishing, 1997, p. 1895

TWO: The "better things" in Hebrews 11:39,40 must be seen as consistent with the whole book of Hebrews and its emphasis on "better" things.

THREE: Even as we make the radical comparison between the old and the new, we must insist that the very specific new things that are so superior to the old were clearly predicted and anticipated by the prophets writing before Christ came. In other words, just as we must (1) see a totally new and different covenant taking the place of an old and obsolete covenant, we must (2) also see that the very New Covenant that has replaced the Old Covenant was anticipated and predicted in the Old Testament Scriptures. We must see a definite promise/fulfillment relationship of the old and the new.

FOUR: Just as we reject the flattening out of the Bible, so we must reject chopping it in half where never the twain shall meet. We must see promise (unfulfilled) / and same promise (fulfilled). We reject the promise / postponed idea of classical Dispensationalism, and we also reject the promise (experienced) / same promise / (experienced a little more) idea of Covenant Theology.

FIVE: If we are speaking about covenants and comparing the New Covenant to the Old Covenant then we have 100% discontinuity. The New Covenant totally and forever replaces the Old Covenant. A radically new and totally different covenant has replaced the old and obsolete covenant. However, if we are talking about God's one eternal, unchanging, sovereign purpose of grace in all ages, then we have 100% continuity. Nothing but confusion can occur when we interject into the discussion the unbiblical phrases "covenant of works with Adam" and "covenant of grace with Adam." It is the use of these purely theological phrases, as if they were texts of Scripture, that has created the confusion. In reality, the covenant theologian really means "one way of salvation" when he talks about a "covenant of grace." We agree that there is only way of salvation and it is "by grace through faith." We agree that God has one eternal purpose of grace and that is to save his one elect people, but nowhere does Scripture call that a "covenant of grace." The Bible calls that "the gospel." (Gal. 3:6-9)

Copyright 2004 John G. Reisinger