# How was the OT saint justified?



## matthew11v25 (Apr 19, 2005)

how was the OT saint justified? 

I understand by grace through faith, but how does it relate to Covenant Theology? In other threads the lines seem to be drawn around understanding the Covenant of Grace in relationship to the "New" Covenant. 

So how is the OT saint justified?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 19, 2005)

I'm not sure if this is the issue you're getting at with your question, but how Old Covenant believers' faith is viewed in the grand scheme of Covenant Theology and the Covenant of Grace is that it was a faith in a Redeemer _foretold_, whereas the faith of New Covenant believers is a faith in a Redeemer Who has now _fulfilled_ what was being foreseen in the Old section of the Covenant of Grace. In other words, while it is the same means of the same grace through the same faith in the same Redeemer saving the believers of both the Old and New parts of the Covenant of Grace, the former was a faith looking toward the future at something still gray, and the latter is a faith looking back into the past at something less gray and more clear.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 19, 2005)

The same blood that justified the NT saint, justified the OT saint. In other words, the blood of Christ was spilled inside of time, but its efficacy was outside of time. The only thing that occured at the cross was that the reality, i.e. Christ dying _in time_; other than that, the efficacy is the same, no matter what era.

[Edited on 4-19-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 19, 2005)

Romans 4.


----------



## Robin (Apr 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by matthew11v25_
> how was the OT saint justified?
> 
> I understand by grace through faith, but how does it relate to Covenant Theology? In other threads the lines seem to be drawn around understanding the Covenant of Grace in relationship to the "New" Covenant.
> ...



Matt,

Without delay, read the entire book of Hebrews. That is why it was written....to explain the covenant OT salvation tie-in with Christ.



R.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 19, 2005)

Galatians 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached _the gospel_ to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."

Hebrews 4:2 For indeed _the gospel_ was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.


----------



## Ivan (Apr 19, 2005)

Excellent answers to the question!


----------



## matthew11v25 (Apr 19, 2005)

Thanks Guys.

Chris,
you are getting at what I was asking. Thanks.

Scott,
Interesting points. These are the kind of answers I was looking for. 


THanks everyone for the input.


----------



## Theological Books (Apr 19, 2005)

From the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 (see also WCF), Chapter XI:

VI. The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.[18]

18. Gal. 3:9; Rom. 4:22-24


----------



## matthew11v25 (Apr 19, 2005)

Let me think this out...please critique.


Christ is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Although his literal sacrifice was in time at calvary.

OT saints are saved by grace through faith.

OT saints, although saved (in life or at death?), continue to make sacrifices that can never fully atone for sin, but are a shadow of Christ's sacrifice.

NT saints are saved in the same way as OT saints. But Christ is fully revealed and the ceremonial law is no longer needed.

I guess I am still wondering why the the laws of sacrifice were needed if man always was and always will be atoned for by Christ's blood? Were they only a reminder of sin?


----------



## turmeric (Apr 19, 2005)

They were a catechetical tool - and without sacrifices their sins would have had no covering before God, since Jesus hadn't died yet. No, I can't explain that, but it seems that something had to be done or it would have seemed as if God didn't mind sin all that much.


----------



## Robin (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by matthew11v25_
> Let me think this out...please critique.
> 
> 
> ...



It's simple: the OT saints look forward (faith) in what was not seen to them; the NT saints look backward (faith) what happened in the past.
Check-out what Simeon says to Joseph/Mary at Christ's circumcision. He's an OT saint--living to see his "Salvation." He has been living in faith/hope of it.

The OT rituals looked forward in hope of the promise; the NT sacraments are signs-seals-reaffirmations of the promise fulfilled. Christ is the center.

R.

[Edited on 4-20-2005 by Robin]


----------



## pastorway (Apr 20, 2005)

The OT sacrifices were a shadow of the substance, Christ. And just as a saved OT saint participated in those sacrifices, we now in the NT understand that the once for all sacrifice has been made, and we remember it by observiing the Lord's Supper!

The sacrifices of bulls and goats did not save OT saints. Neither does the Supper save us now, but both "ceremonies" proclaim the reality of the once for all sacrifice of Christ for His people.

Phillip


----------



## matthew11v25 (Apr 20, 2005)

I am understanding the use of "faith". But I am still hung up Christ's atonement. If the shedding of blood is needed for the remission of sin, and Christ is the perfect sacrifice, then his sacrifice, though taking place in NT, would seem to be effectual in the OT. Is Christ's blood is shed "in time" but effectual "out of the boundries of time"? I wonder how OT saints were Atoned for...I think I am still misunderstanding the CoG.


----------



## Augusta (Apr 20, 2005)

Matthew the OT believer believed in the coming messiah. We also believe in the messiah Christ and are saved. The shed blood was to cover all of the sins of the elect that were known since before the creation of the world. The elect were in mind in the garden when God said "the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent." 

God had planned how the sacrifice of Jesus was to come about and who for. The sacrifices were a type and shadow for our benefit and the OT believers benefit of the penalty of sin and why Jesus had to shed his blood. So we can now look back and understand. The whole temple was also a copy of a heavenly temple where Christ now does his High priestly work on our behalf. We know what it means for him to be our High priest because we have the OT picture to show us.

Jesus had to come in the fullnes of time so that he would be born of the root of Jesse and fulfill all of the prophecies. He had to live the righteous life on our behalf too. The positive righteousness that we needed in addition to the negation of our sin.


----------



## turmeric (Apr 20, 2005)

But now _I'm_ puzzled - what did those sacrifices actually do? They were typical, obviously, but how did they cover sin? Obviously, the blood of bulls & goats can't remove sin, but it did something. What? Was a typological enactment enough until Christ came? Just thinking out loud. Don't let me wander into Dispie-tude or heresy, guys!


----------



## matthew11v25 (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Matthew the OT believer believed in the coming messiah. We also believe in the messiah Christ and are saved. The shed blood was to cover all of the sins of the elect that were known since before the creation of the world. The elect were in mind in the garden when God said "the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent."
> 
> God had planned how the sacrifice of Jesus was to come about and who for. The sacrifices were a type and shadow for our benefit and the OT believers benefit of the penalty of sin and why Jesus had to shed his blood. So we can now look back and understand. The whole temple was also a copy of a heavenly temple where Christ now does his High priestly work on our behalf. We know what it means for him to be our High priest because we have the OT picture to show us.
> ...



Augusta,

would you agree that the very nature of Christ's atonement was effectual for the elect in the OT? Eventhough he had not yet been crucified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I am getting at:

1.OT/NT saints saved by grace through faith.

2."without the shedding of blood there is no remission" (heb 9:22)= OT saints (as the BCF says) were cleansed by same blood as NT saints. So how could an OT saint be saved (at that moment in time of the OT) if not atoned BY Christ's blood? Is this the understanding of "the lamb slain before the foundation of the world"? 

TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE COVENANT IN Christ'S BLOOD WITH COVENANT OF GRACE.

Christ's future sacrifice covered the sins of OT saints ...but his literal sacrifice brought forth the New Covenant in his blood.


I am still thinking...


----------



## Robin (Apr 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> But now _I'm_ puzzled - what did those sacrifices actually do? They were typical, obviously, but how did they cover sin? Obviously, the blood of bulls & goats can't remove sin, but it did something. What? Was a typological enactment enough until Christ came? Just thinking out loud. Don't let me wander into Dispie-tude or heresy, guys!


 
Don't worry, Meg...you're onto something....

Blood was a sign/seal to ratify the covenant imposed by God. The OT Temple ritual was a foretelling that God would shed "His Own" blood to secure the redemption of His people. It is not merely a symbolic ritual -- it is a SIGN of the Promise (Gospel.) YHWH slays the animals to use the skins to cover Adam and Eve. The blood sacrifice ALSO is used by YHWH to invoke the "self-maledictory" (self-cursing) oath-promise, that "I will be your God and you shall be My people." (Gen. 15 -- 17)

The blood did not cover sin --- it pointed to the ONE whose blood would. The saints in the OT, having faith as they participated in the covenant, looked forward and trusted in the ONE to come. Their obedience (in Faith) demonstrated they indeed had faith. (Hebrews 11)

R.

(In fact....read all of the book of Hebrews. It is right there. Get to know that book!)


----------



## Augusta (Apr 21, 2005)

Matthew, I have tried a few times to explain it but Robin did a better job of it. It is so many things pointing to so many things it's hard to condense. I know that circumcision was a sign/seal we have circumcision of the heart but they also talk about that in the OT. The sacrifices were to show that it takes a blood sacrifice to atone for sin. That is why Christ had to have a bloody sacrifice. 

It's kind of freaky sounding to outsiders all this blood and gore. Like when God was about to kill Moses presumably because his son was not yet circumcised and Zipporah grabs a sharp stone and cuts the son's foreskin and throws is at Moses feet and basically says he serves a bloody God. It's in Exodus 4:24-26. 

The law and the sacrifices were a picture of the holiness of God and that any infraction or mis-step meant death or a blood sacrifice to atone for it. Any lack of reverence was punished immediately like with Nadab and Abihu. 

Maybe someone can explain it more eloquently. Or they may have a passage from a good book on the subject.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 21, 2005)

The sacrifice of the OT temple system pointed to the sacrifice of Christ in the same way that the promised land of Canaan to Israel typified our promised land in heaven with the Lord. The OT saints still looked forward to that rest with the Lord in heaven, they were not just depending on a plot of land here on earth.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by matthew11v25_
> I am understanding the use of "faith". But I am still hung up Christ's atonement. If the shedding of blood is needed for the remission of sin, and Christ is the perfect sacrifice, then his sacrifice, though taking place in NT, would seem to be effectual in the OT. Is Christ's blood is shed "in time" but effectual "out of the boundries of time"? I wonder how OT saints were Atoned for...I think I am still misunderstanding the CoG.



Christ is the Representative (Rom. 5:12-21) of all His people. Before His sacrifice was accomplished in time, He was our Surety (heb. 7:22). He pledge to the Father to make atonement for sin and God accepted His pledge and acted on it (kinda like credit- Rom. 3:25-26). 

As for the necessity of animal sacrifices, as everyone has pointed out thus far they were typical. But they also secured you public status within Israel. Sacrifices of all sorts were requied to provide for all sorts of sins and uncleaness to restore one in society and allow them to participate in worship activities. But as Hebrews points out, these sacrifices neer dealt with sin absolutely, because they had to be repeated. If they were truly effectual, then they would not have to be repeated. 

The point? To weary them of their sin. To teach them how all-encompassing sin is in every aspect of their life. And yet at the same time, they saw how all-encompassing the forgiveness that God provided was. In the OT sacrifices, Christ was being preached to the OT saints. They saw their huge burden of sin, and the fact that God alone could provide for the means to cleanse from sin, and they could see that God would impute their sin to another. They had to embrace the whole system by faith, trusting God to be their Redeemer, not the goat or sheep. Was this understood by them? Well, some of them got it according to Hebrew 11. David and Abraham understood imputation to some degree (Rom. 4). The picture became clearer in the Prophets. The Spirit enabled them to look through the types and shadows to the God of their salvation. Hope this helps.


----------



## Robin (Apr 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Maybe someone can explain it more eloquently. Or they may have a passage from a good book on the subject.



Hey Augusta,

Run - do not walk - to get "The Christ of the Covenants" by O. Palmer Robertson; "The Unfolding Mystery" Edmond Clowney.

There's so much...for now...these are stellar! Especially the Robertson book. 

Also, these free MP3 by Upper Register about Klines "Structure of Biblical Authority" http://www.upper-register.com/mp3.html

I just finished a study with Tremper Longman about how covenant comports with "God being the Divine Warrior"...which ties into all of this. (Each time the covenant was betrayed, YHWH engages in "holy war" to defend His honor/Word.) Uh, oh....this could spark remarks...but the upshot is the Christian religion is about blood! Fascinating!!!



Robin

[Edited on 4-24-2005 by Robin]


----------

