Latest / Reformed Thinking / How Old Testament Saints Were Justified by Faith in Christ? | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

How Old Testament Saints Were Justified by Faith in Christ? | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to reformed thinking. Glad to be here for this.
0:03
Yeah, so imagine standing in a massive, dusty courtyard under
0:08
the, you know, the blistering Middle Eastern sun.
0:10
Oh man, it would be intense. Right.
0:12
The air is just thick. It's almost choking you with the
0:14
smell of burning animal flesh, and there's that metallic Tang
0:19
of spilled blood everywhere. Plus these heavy clowns of
0:23
incense. Just a total sensory overload.
0:26
Totally. You are watching priests in
0:29
these linen garments slaughtering bulls and goats day
0:33
in and day out. It's a very visceral scene.
0:35
It is, and you are told this brutal, visceral system is how
0:39
you reach God. Which is hard to wrap your head
0:41
around today. Right.
0:43
But as you stand there in the noise and the smoke, do you
0:46
actually know who you are reaching?
0:47
That is a big. Question.
0:49
Yeah. I mean, do you understand the
0:50
mechanics of how this blood covers your guilt, or are you
0:53
just like, going through the motions?
0:56
Hoping a distant deity is set aside, right?
0:59
Blindly hoping so, have you ever wondered how people living
1:02
centuries before the New Testament were saved?
1:04
It's something a lot of people struggle with.
1:06
Did they just follow strict purity laws and hope their
1:08
obedience was good enough? Well, we look back at the
1:11
ancient Israelites and it is so easy to assume their religion
1:14
was completely different from what we practice today.
1:16
Oh for sure, we might picture them just checking boxes on a
1:20
legalistic list. Yeah, like waiting for a savior
1:22
they knew absolutely nothing about.
1:24
But today we are going to do a deep dive into an extensive
1:28
analysis of a really fascinating essay by Jonathan Edwards.
1:32
I love this essay. Me too.
1:34
The title of the essay asks a massive question.
1:39
In what sense did the Saints under the Old Testament believe
1:41
in Christ to justification? That is the core issue right
1:45
there, and it strikes at the very heart of how we understand
1:48
the Bible as one unified story, right?
1:51
Because from a Reformed theological perspective,
1:54
adhering to the Westminster Confession, we hold that
1:57
salvation has always been by grace alone, through faith alone
2:00
in Christ alone. There are not 2 separate ways of
2:03
salvation. No, not at all.
2:04
You do not have one system for the ancients based on animal
2:07
works and keeping the law, and a second system for us based on
2:11
grace. That would make zero sense.
2:13
Right, there is only one covenant of grace.
2:15
It spans all of human history since the fallen Eden.
2:18
So the premise we are analyzing today, which is rooted in the
2:21
historical and biblical proofs Edwards lays out, is that the
2:24
Old Testament Saints did not possess A vague, fuzzy,
2:28
undefined hope. No, they had a clear distinct
2:32
understanding of the pre Incarnate Christ.
2:34
They were interacting with him directly.
2:36
Yeah, relying on him, specifically the.
2:38
Claim Edwards makes right out of the gate is staggering if you
2:41
really think about it it. Really is.
2:43
His first major point is that the God who espoused Israel, the
2:47
one who led them out of Egypt, who guided them through the
2:50
wilderness in the pillar of cloud.
2:52
The one who actually dwelt between the Cherubim in the Holy
2:56
of Holies. Right, that was specifically the
2:58
Son of God. Yeah, he is arguing that the
3:00
ancient believers knew they were dealing with the second person
3:03
of the Trinity. And he brings a massive amount
3:05
of scriptural evidence to back that up.
3:07
He really does. He points out how the Old
3:09
Testament explicitly distinguishes this specific
3:12
divine person from God the Father.
3:15
Like they knew the difference. Right.
3:16
The ancient Hebrews understood that the Father, the one who
3:19
maintained the supreme rites of the Godhead in heaven, had sent
3:23
a distinct person to act as his direct representative.
3:26
A primary text for this is found in Exodus chapter 23, verses 20
3:30
through 24. Oh.
3:31
That's a great passage, yeah. God the Father is speaking to
3:34
Israel, and he says, Behold, I send an Angel before thee to
3:38
keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which
3:41
I have prepared. But then he adds A stunning
3:44
qualifier. Right, he says, Beware of him
3:47
and obey his voice. Provoke him not, for he will not
3:50
pardon your transgressions, for my name is in him.
3:54
That phrase for my name is in him carries so much weight.
3:58
It's not just a passing comment, is it?
4:00
No, it is the hinge of the entire passage.
4:03
Wow. To understand it you have to
4:04
look at the Hebrew context. The word translated as Angel is
4:07
malak, which simply translates to messenger.
4:11
OK, that makes sense. We have been conditioned by
4:13
Renaissance art to think of an Angel as a created being with
4:16
white wings playing a harp on a cloud.
4:19
Yeah, like a little baby cherub. Right, but this is the messenger
4:22
of Jehovah. It's a huge distinction.
4:24
Furthermore, the ancient Israelites understood that the
4:26
name of God, the Shem, represented the very nature,
4:30
essence and absolute authority of God.
4:33
So for God to declare my name is in him, that meant this distinct
4:37
divine person possessed the full uncreated nature of Jehovah.
4:41
Precisely this messenger had the prerogative to pardon or not
4:45
pardon transgressions. Which is an authority that
4:47
belongs to God alone. Right.
4:49
The people were fully aware that this messenger was a divine
4:52
person, distinct from the Father in heaven.
4:55
Yet carrying the full weight of the Godhead to lead them through
4:58
the wilderness. Yeah, and Moses and the people
5:00
seem to grasp this entirely. Later on we see the story in
5:04
Joshua chapter 5 verse 13. Oh I love this story.
5:07
It's so good. Joshua's standing near the city
5:09
of Jericho. He is about to lead a massive
5:12
military campaign. High stakes, very high stakes,
5:15
and he looks up to meet a man standing opposite him with a
5:18
drawn sword in his hand. Just waiting there.
5:20
Yeah. And Joshua walks up to him and
5:22
asks, are you for us or for our adversaries?
5:24
A fair question. Totally.
5:26
And the man replies, Nay, but as captain of the host of the Lord,
5:30
am I now come? And Joshua immediately falls on
5:33
his face to the earth and worships.
5:34
And then the captain tells him to take off his shoes because
5:37
the ground is holy. That is a direct parallel to
5:40
what Moses experienced at the burning Bush.
5:42
Yeah, Joshua recognized that this was not a standard angelic
5:46
being. Created angels in the Bible
5:48
universally reject worship. Right.
5:51
Whenever a human tries to bow down to a created Angel in the
5:54
scriptures, the Angel immediately stops them.
5:57
Warning them to worship God alone.
5:59
But this figure with the drawn sword accepts the workip.
6:03
And demands the reverence do only to the Almighty.
6:06
Joshua understood this was the same divine messenger who had
6:09
been leading them all along. Edwards points out that this
6:11
person had the specific charge of the church.
6:14
He united himself to them. Yeah, he was known as the Angel
6:17
of God's presence, the messenger of the covenant.
6:19
Wait, so when the Israelites followed the pillar of cloud by
6:22
day and the pillar of fire by night, they understood it as a
6:26
specific, distinct divine person?
6:29
That's the argument, yes. It makes me think of a military
6:31
analogy. OK, let's hear.
6:33
It Imagine a king ruling a fast empire sitting on a throne in
6:37
his capital city. A war breaks out on the frontier
6:42
and instead of sending a regular general, the king sends his own
6:45
royal son as the commanding officer to lead the troops.
6:49
I see where you're going with this.
6:50
The soldiers on the ground know the general is the King's son.
6:54
He is distinct from the king sitting back in the capital, but
6:58
he operates with the King's full, unquestionable authority.
7:01
Right. The troops Revere him just as
7:04
they would the king himself. Because the royal blood, the
7:06
name is in him. Yeah.
7:08
When the son gives an order, it is as if the king himself gave
7:11
it. That analogy perfectly captures
7:14
the dynamic. And this helps me visualize it
7:16
better. The Israelites understood that
7:18
the divine Person going before them in the cloud of glory was
7:21
that royal sun. The cloud was the visible
7:23
manifestation of His presence. Edwards notes that this same
7:27
pillar of cloud later came and rested on the Tabernacle, taking
7:31
up its abode in the Holy of Holies.
7:33
So. It's the same person.
7:34
Yes, the glory of the Lord that appeared in the cloud was the
7:37
specific symbol of the presence of the divine person dwelling in
7:41
the temple. The Jewish nation maintained
7:43
this notion of a distinction of persons in the Godhead.
7:46
We see it clearly in Zechariah chapter 2.
7:49
Where a manifest distinction is made between Jehovah who sends
7:53
and Jehovah who is sent and dwells in the midst of the
7:55
people. Exactly.
7:56
Wait, if they are following this specific divine person, this
8:00
royal son, what titles did the ancient people actually use for
8:04
him? That is a great point to bring
8:07
up. Most people assume the phrase
8:09
Son of God was invented in the New Testament.
8:12
Like first spoken by the Angel Gabriel to Mary maybe?
8:16
Or perhaps by Peter when he made his confession.
8:18
Right. But Edwards shows this title was
8:20
known centuries before Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
8:23
Look at Proverbs chapter 30, verse 4.
8:25
Such a key verse. The writer asks a series of
8:28
rhetorical questions about the Creator of the universe who hath
8:32
ascended up into heaven or descended.
8:34
Who hath gathered the wind in his fists?
8:36
Who hath bound the waters in a garment?
8:38
Who hath established all the ends of the earth?
8:40
And then comes this astonishing question.
8:43
Yeah, what is his name and what is his son's name, if thou canst
8:47
tell? That verse in Proverbs is
8:49
remarkable when you consider the historical timeline.
8:52
It really is. It indicates the ancient
8:54
believers knew of a divine person distinct from the Father.
8:58
And they knew him specifically by the title son.
9:01
To understand why they use this title, we have to look at the
9:04
Hebrew idiom regarding sonship. Yes, in their language they
9:08
frequently called someone a son to denote their character, their
9:11
nature, or what they produced. Like a valiant, courageous man
9:15
was a son of valor. Or a wicked, destructive man was
9:18
the son of Belial. Even in the New Testaments, the
9:21
apostles James and John were called the sons of Thunder
9:24
because of their zealous nature. When the.
9:26
Ancient believers saw this divine messenger who possessed
9:29
the glory, majesty and uncreated beauty of God.
9:32
Projecting the invisible God to mortalize.
9:35
They naturally called him the Son of God.
9:37
He was the perfect exact image and representation of the
9:40
Father's nature. Yes, and even outside of Israel,
9:43
this concept had spread into the surrounding cultures.
9:46
Edwards points out that Nebuchadnezzar Pagan King
9:49
recognized this figure. Oh, the fiery furnace account.
9:53
Yeah, when he threw Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego into the
9:56
fiery furnace, he looked in and saw four men walking around in
9:59
the fire, unharmed. And he said the form of the 4th
10:03
is like the Son of God. That is in Daniel chapter 3.
10:07
The fact that Nebuchadnezzar uses that phrase reveals
10:09
something massive about the ancient world.
10:11
How did a Pagan Babylonian king know about the Son of God?
10:15
It shows the dispersion of ancient truth right following
10:18
the flood, the Noahic Covenant and the earliest revelations of
10:22
God were passed down orally. As nations scattered, they took
10:25
fragments of this truth with them.
10:27
They knew there was a supreme Creator and they retained the
10:30
knowledge that there was a divine being who appeared in
10:33
glorious human like form. Presenting that supreme God.
10:36
Nebuchadnezzar was drawing on this widespread, albeit
10:39
fractured, ancient tradition when he looked into the flames.
10:42
Wow, that makes so much sense within Israel.
10:45
However, this relationship was not just theological trivia, it
10:48
was highly intimate. Edwards brings in the concept of
10:52
the spiritual husband. The Old Testament Saints
10:54
understood that this divine person had espoused.
10:57
Them Malachi chapter 3 verse one calls him the messenger of the
11:01
covenant, whom you delight in. He was the desire of their eyes.
11:04
Haggai Chapter 2, verse 7 calls him the desire of all nations.
11:08
They viewed him as their protector, their head, their
11:11
husband. This marital language is
11:13
everywhere in the prophets. God.
11:15
Constantly refers to Israel as his bride.
11:17
And the ancient believers understood that the one who
11:20
entered into this covenant with them at Sinai was the messenger,
11:23
the sun. This specific relationship
11:26
provides the context for how they viewed angelic beings as
11:30
well. Daniel refers to Michael as the
11:32
great Prince which standeth for the children of thy people.
11:35
In the ancient world, every nation had their tutelary
11:38
deities, supposed spiritual protectors.
11:40
The surrounding Pagan nations looked to their false gods or
11:43
demonic forces to defend them. But God had not given Israel a
11:47
created being or a false idol. He gave them his own son.
11:51
The name Michael translates to Who is like God.
11:54
The ancient Saints understood Michael to be this pre Incarnate
11:58
Christ fighting for them. Standing against the demonic
12:01
Princess of Persia and Greece mentioned in Daniel Ted.
12:03
He was their uncreated specific defender.
12:06
If they are married to a holy God and he's their specific
12:11
defender, that brings up a massive, terrifying problem.
12:14
OK, what is that? What happens when the people
12:17
break the covenant? Yes.
12:20
A holy God cannot dwell with a sinful people without destroying
12:23
them. That is the big tension in the
12:25
Old Testament. If the bride is unfaithful to
12:27
the spiritual husband, that covenant is broken immediately.
12:31
Yes. How do they bridge that gap
12:33
without instantly facing divine wrath?
12:36
How do they approach a holy God when they have sinned?
12:39
That question introduces the absolute necessity of mediation,
12:43
right? The Old Testament Saints looked
12:45
to this specific divine person as their mediator to secure
12:48
forgiveness from the Father in heaven.
12:50
This. Is where we see the covenant of
12:51
Grace operating so clearly. They did not just slaughter an
12:54
animal, throw it on a fire and think, well, the deity is
12:57
appeased now I bought my way out of trouble.
12:59
Understood. They needed a person to stand
13:01
between them and the supreme judge.
13:03
If we look at how prayers in the Old Testament were formulated,
13:06
we see this mediation requested constantly in Daniel.
13:10
Chapter 9, Verse 17 Daniel is praying a prayer of deep
13:14
repentance for the nation. And he says Now therefore, O our
13:18
God, hear the prayer of thy servant and his supplications,
13:22
and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate
13:25
for the Lord's sake. Notice that phrase for the
13:29
Lord's sake. He is asking the Father to show
13:32
mercy based on the merit of the Son.
13:34
David does the exact same thing in Psalm 25.
13:38
He asks for pardon for thy name's sake.
13:41
We established earlier that the name was a specific title for
13:44
this divine messenger. They were invoking the merit of
13:47
the son. And Edwards connects this
13:49
directly to the physical layout of the temple.
13:51
Sacrifices were not valid just anywhere.
13:53
You could not just build an altar in your backyard.
13:55
No, they have to be offered at the specific place where God
13:57
recorded his name. The architecture of the temple
14:00
was like an interactive theological textbook.
14:02
The entire structure was designed to teach the mechanics
14:05
of mediation. The sacrifice is taking place
14:07
out in the open courtyard were only acceptable because of what
14:11
was happening inside the pitch black Holy of holies.
14:13
Where the glory of the Lord, the Angel of the Covenant, resided
14:16
over the ark. The High Priest acted as a type,
14:19
A shadow of this ultimate mediator.
14:22
The entire system was designed to show that acceptance with the
14:25
Father in heaven was entirely dependent on the mediation of
14:28
the divine person dwelling on earth in the temple.
14:31
I have to ask about a specific detail regarding the Holy of
14:34
Holies, because Edwards makes a massive point out of.
14:37
It sure was it. He insists that our English
14:39
phrase mercy seat is a highly flawed translation.
14:44
Why does he push back on that term so hard?
14:46
It comes down to the original languages and the precise
14:49
theology they carry. OK, the Hebrew word used for the
14:52
lid of the Ark of the Covenant is Kapoor if right, and the
14:55
Greek equivalent used in the Septuagint and later by the
14:59
Apostle Paul is Hellisterian. Both of these words mean
15:02
propitiatory or instrument of atonement.
15:04
Yes, the English phrase mercy seat gives the impression of a
15:09
comfortable royal chair where God sits and casually dispenses
15:13
forgiveness because he feels generous.
15:16
But that is not what was happening in that room.
15:19
Not at all. I was thinking about this and it
15:20
makes me think of a hospital operating room.
15:23
Oh, that's an interesting way to put it.
15:24
You do not call the surgical table a comfort bed, no.
15:28
Definitely not. You call it an operating table
15:31
because that is where the vital bloody life saving procedure
15:35
happens, right? The propitiatory was the
15:38
instrument where the transaction of atonement occurred.
15:41
The blood of the sacrifice was brought in and sprinkled right
15:43
there. It was a site of execution and
15:46
substitution. Edwards points out that this
15:48
location was sometimes called the Chariot of the Cherubims.
15:51
It was viewed as a spiritual vehicle carrying the mediators
15:54
intercession up to the Supreme Judge in heaven.
15:57
That operating table analogy captures the severity in the
16:00
function perfectly. It does.
16:02
The Saints knew that the physical blood of bulls and
16:05
goats could not actually take away human sin.
16:07
The prophets are exceptionally clear on this point.
16:10
Psalm 50 and Micah Six are explicit.
16:13
God says he does not desire thousands of Rams or rivers of
16:17
oil. He says, I will take no Bullock
16:19
out of thy house, nor he goats out of thy folds, For every
16:23
beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand
16:26
hills. The.
16:27
Blood of an animal has no inherent value to satisfy the
16:30
infinite justice of a holy God. The ancient believers knew that
16:35
the guilt of their sin was essentially parked with the
16:37
Angel over the propitiatory. The animal sacrifice was a
16:40
promissory note. It was a visible IOU waiting for
16:43
a final permanent payment. So if the animal blood is just a
16:47
placeholder, A promissory note, they must be waiting for the
16:50
real payment to arrive. Edwards argues that the Saints
16:53
knew the Messiah would be God Incarnate and, crucially, that
16:55
he would suffer. We see the incarnation predicted
16:58
in Isaiah Chapter 9 verse 6. For unto us a child is born,
17:02
unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his
17:05
shoulder. And his name shall be called
17:06
Wonderful Counselor, the mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the
17:10
Prince of Peace. And Jeremiah chapter 23 verse 6
17:14
says his name will be Jehovah or righteousness.
17:17
They understood that the one they called the name, the one
17:20
who led them through the wilderness, was going to take on
17:23
human flesh. And they knew he was coming to
17:26
deal with sin permanently. Daniel Chapter 9, verse 24
17:30
promised a specific time designated to make an end of sin
17:35
and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in
17:38
everlasting righteousness. Zechariah chapter 3 verse 9
17:42
features God promising I will remove the iniquity of that land
17:45
in one day. The removal of sin was not going
17:49
to be an endless daily chore of slaughtering animals forever.
17:52
No, it would happen in one single definitive day of cosmic
17:55
consequence. And the mechanism for how he
17:57
would remove that sin was shockingly clear.
17:59
Isaiah 53 reads like an eyewitness historical account,
18:03
but it was written centuries before the cross.
18:05
Surely He had borne our griefs and carried our sorrows, yet we
18:08
did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
18:11
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised
18:14
for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace
18:17
was upon him, and with his strikes we are healed.
18:19
It even says God would make his soul an offering for sin.
18:22
Yeah, it is so explicit. It is entirely explicit, and it
18:26
was understood as such by the ancient scholars.
18:28
Edwards points out that early Jewish writings outside the
18:31
Bible acknowledged A suffering Messiah who would bear the sins
18:35
of the people. For example, the Targums right
18:38
Targum is an ancient Aramaic translation or paraphrase of the
18:41
Hebrew Bible. Because after the Babylonian
18:43
exile, many Jews forgot Hebrew and only spoke Aramaic.
18:47
So the scholars created these paraphrases, and they often
18:51
inserted theological commentary right into the text.
18:54
The Targum of Jonathan, written before the time of Christ,
18:57
explicitly applies the suffering servant passages of Isaiah 53 to
19:02
the Messiah. Furthermore, you have figures
19:04
like Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher.
19:07
Writing extensively about the Logos, a divine mediator figure.
19:11
This knowledge was widespread. Even surrounding Pagan myths
19:14
carried distorted echoes of this ancient truth.
19:17
You see stories in Persian, Egyptian and Greek mythology.
19:20
Like Mithras, Osiris or Hercules.
19:22
Of a divine son who suffers, dies, or engages in a great
19:25
conflict to defeat monsters or were evil.
19:28
These are fractured remnants of the original prophecy given to
19:31
humanity in Genesis 3.15. The proto evangelium about the
19:35
seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head and having his
19:38
own heel bruised in the process. Right, I have a pushback here.
19:42
OK, let's hear it. If the prophecies in Isaiah and
19:45
Zechariah were so clear about a suffering Messiah, and even
19:49
ancient commentators understood it, why were the disciples so
19:53
shocked when Jesus actually died?
19:55
That was a very fair question. When Jesus started talking about
19:58
going to Jerusalem to suffer and be killed, Peter pulled him
20:01
aside and rebuked him. Yes, he did.
20:03
When Jesus was arrested, they all scattered in terror.
20:06
If it was common knowledge in the Old Testament, how did the
20:09
New Testament guys miss it completely?
20:11
The answer lies in the historical gap between the
20:14
ancient prophets and the 1st century.
20:16
OK, break that down for me. We have to differentiate between
20:20
the ancient Saints, like the truly pious believers of the Old
20:23
Testament era, and the general population of Israel by the time
20:26
Christ arrived. By the 1st century, the nation
20:29
had become intensely corrupt in its religious principles.
20:32
They were at a brutal Roman occupation, right?
20:33
Yes, and their desires had become entirely political and
20:37
carnal. They wanted a military conqueror
20:40
to crush Rum, kick out the Gentiles, and set up an earthly
20:44
Kingdom. Because of this political
20:46
obsession, they had blinded themselves to the prophecies of
20:49
suffering. They found the idea of a
20:51
humiliated, crucified savior highly offensive.
20:55
The later generations of rabbis even went so far as to invent
20:58
the idea of two separate messiahs.
21:00
Oh wow. Yeah, Messiah Ben Joseph, who
21:02
would suffer and die, and Messiah Ben David, who would
21:05
conquer and rule. Just to avoid the reality that
21:09
the Son of God had to die on a cross.
21:11
But the true ancient Saints, living centuries prior,
21:15
understood the theological necessity of the atonement.
21:18
How does all this cosmic theology save the regular
21:20
Israelite? That is the $1,000,000 question.
21:23
Understanding the necessity of this future sacrifice leaves
21:26
directly to how the individual believer was justified.
21:29
Which brings everything together around the Reformed doctrine of
21:32
justification. Edwards is arguing that the Old
21:34
Testament Saints were justified identically to how Christians
21:37
are today. By faith in the substitutionary
21:40
sacrifice of Christ. Let's look at Hebrews Chapter
21:43
11, the Great Hall of Faith. Yes, where the writer of Hebrews
21:46
discusses Abraham offering his son Isaac on Mount Moriah.
21:50
He says that Abraham received Isaac back in a figure or as a
21:54
type. The Greek word implies A parable
21:57
or a physical symbol pointing to a spiritual reality.
22:01
Abraham and the other Saints understood that their animal
22:04
sacrifices in these historical events were symbolic
22:08
representations. They were not placing their
22:10
trust in the shadows. No, they were trusting in the
22:11
future reality, the anti type which was the sacrifice of the
22:15
Son of God. Edwards leans heavily into the
22:18
Westminster focus here, noting that justification is a forensic
22:22
term. And that distinction is
22:23
paramount. Forensic refers to a court of
22:26
law. Justification is not a process
22:28
of God slowly making us into better people so he can
22:31
eventually tolerate us. No, it is a judicial decree.
22:34
It is a judge slamming the gavel and declaring the defendant
22:37
legally righteous and acquitted of all charges.
22:40
The Old Testament believers were seeking this legal acquittal.
22:43
Isaiah chapter 45 verse 22 says Look to me and be ye saved all
22:49
the ends of the earth. They were looking to the
22:51
mediator to provide the righteousness they lacked.
22:54
Knowing their own obedience could never satisfy a holy
22:57
judge. Edwards addresses some arguments
22:59
from groups he calls the latitudinarians and theologians
23:02
like Crelius. Who were these guys and why did
23:05
Edwards feel the need to argue against them?
23:07
They tried to argue that when Paul says we are not justified
23:11
by the works of the law, he only meant the ceremonial Jewish laws
23:15
like circumcision or dietary restrictions.
23:17
Oh, I see. They tried to say that good
23:19
moral works still contribute to our justification.
23:22
Johannes Krelius was a prominent 17th century Sicilian
23:26
theologian. Sicilianism was a rationalist
23:28
movement that denied the Trinity right.
23:30
Yes, and completely rejected the doctrine of penal
23:32
substitutionary atonement. And what about the
23:34
latitudinarians? They were English clerics who
23:37
wanted a very broad, inclusive theology, often downplaying
23:41
strict reformed doctrines like justification by faith alone.
23:45
So they argued that works of the law just meant the Jewish
23:47
ceremony. Yes.
23:49
So your good moral behavior still counted toward your
23:52
salvation. Edwards fought this fiercely
23:55
because these ideas were beginning to infiltrate the
23:58
church, and they essentially turned faith into a work.
24:02
Edwards dismantles their argument using Romans Chapter 9,
24:06
verse 11. Where Paul is talking about the
24:07
twins Jacob and Esau. And he specifically says that
24:11
before the children were even born, neither having done any
24:14
good or evil, God's purpose of elections stood.
24:18
Not of works, but of him that calleth.
24:21
Notice Paul says any good or evil.
24:23
The Apostle Paul excludes all good works, any moral action
24:27
whatsoever, from the basis of our justification.
24:30
It is strictly by faith. Let's talk about the nature of
24:32
that faith. Edwards makes a very specific
24:34
distinction here that I want to bring to light.
24:36
OK, go ahead. He says faith does not justify
24:38
us because it has moral sickness, but because it has
24:41
natural suitableness. That is a brilliant way to frame
24:45
it. I was trying to wrap my head
24:46
around this concept and I came up with an analogy.
24:48
Let's hear the analogy. Imagine a beggar starving on the
24:51
street. A wealthy man walks by and
24:55
throws a heavy bag of gold coins to him.
24:57
OK, the beggar reaches out with an empty hand and catches the
25:00
bag. Now the beggar's hand has no
25:03
moral fitness to purchase that gold.
25:05
Right, none at all. The hand itself possesses no
25:08
currency, no intrinsic value, no merit to earn the money.
25:12
It's only suitableness is the fact that it is open, empty, and
25:17
capable of receiving the gift provided entirely by someone
25:20
else. Taking that analogy a step
25:21
further, if faith had moral fitness, it would mean our act
25:25
of believing is a good work that we offer to God as payment for
25:29
our salvation. It would mean the beggar's hand
25:31
is somehow made of of gold itself.
25:32
It would turn faith into a currency.
25:35
But faith has no merit in itself.
25:37
It's natural suitableness lies in the fact that it unites us to
25:40
Christ. It is a passive instrument.
25:42
It is the empty hand that simply receives the righteousness of
25:45
the mediator. The Old Testament Saints
25:47
extended that same empty hand. They recognize their own
25:50
spiritual bankruptcy. They knew the blood of bulls and
25:52
goats was insufficient, and they looked entirely to the Angel of
25:56
the covenant, the Son of God. To provide the atonement they
25:59
desperately needed. To summarize the massive scope
26:02
of this discussion, the Old Testament Saints were not
26:06
participating in a different religion.
26:07
No, they were not. They were not hoping that
26:09
following a set of archaic rules would earn them a spot in
26:13
heaven. They were interacting with the
26:15
pre Incarnate Son of God. They knew him as the Angel of
26:18
the Covenant, the captain of the Lord's host.
26:20
The son. Spiritual husband and their
26:23
mediator. They understood the necessity of
26:25
his future suffering to deal with their sin permanently.
26:29
And they were justified by faith in his work alone.
26:34
Looking forward to the cross, just as we look backward to it.
26:37
The Covenant of Grace arches over all of human history.
26:40
It really does. As we consider all of this, I
26:42
want to leave you with a final thought to chew on.
26:45
All right, lay it on us. The Old Testament Saints
26:47
possessed only shadows, types, and prophecies.
26:51
They lived in an era of physical animal blood, dark temples, and
26:54
burning incense. Yet their faith in the coming
26:57
Savior was incredibly precise. So precise.
27:01
They pierced through the thick veil of those physical rituals
27:04
to see the Son of God waiting to suffer for them.
27:06
Wow, if they could trust Him so thoroughly while standing in the
27:09
shadows. What is our excuse for doubting
27:12
Him now that we stand in the blazing daylight of the
27:14
completed New Testament?