Latest / Reformed Thinking / How were Old Testament Saints Justified? | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

How were Old Testament Saints Justified? | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

0:00
When you look at a really old photograph, at first glance it
0:04
just looks like a static landscape.
0:06
You know, a field, some trees, maybe a distant hill.
0:09
Yeah, you just kind of assume you're seeing everything there
0:12
is to see. Right, but then somebody hands
0:14
you a magnifying glass and you start looking at the shadows.
0:16
And that changes everything. It really does.
0:19
You realize those are not just trees.
0:20
There are actual figures standing there.
0:22
Wow. Yeah.
0:23
Suddenly this flat, distant landscape turns into a crowded
0:28
room, and the central figure of the whole scene has just been
0:31
staring right back at you the entire time.
0:34
Welcome to reformed thinking. That sudden shift in perspective
0:37
is well, it is what happens when you read a specific theological
0:43
treatise by the 18th century thinker Jonathan Edwards.
0:46
Yes, the piece is titled How were Old Testament Saints
0:49
justified? And he looked at the ancient
0:51
Hebrew Scriptures and asked a question that frankly changes
0:55
the entire landscape. He asked how did people who live
0:58
centuries before the physical birth of Christ actually secure
1:01
peace with God? Edwards is tackling a massive
1:04
historical puzzle here. Because, I mean, we tend to
1:07
assume those ancient believers were operating a completely
1:10
different religion. Right.
1:11
We picture them following a strict legalistic system.
1:14
We think they were hoping that if they sacrificed enough
1:17
animals and kept enough rules, well, maybe God might accept
1:20
them. But Edwards proves that
1:22
assumption is totally false. He really does.
1:25
He demonstrates they had a highly developed understanding
1:28
of a pre Incarnate Christ. Yes.
1:30
They were interacting with him directly, and the mechanics of
1:33
their salvation were identical to the mechanics of salvation
1:37
for anyone living today. The mission of our evaluation
1:40
today is to uncover the precise nature of that interaction.
1:44
OK, so where do we start? We need to look at how they
1:46
recognize this pre Incarnate figure.
1:49
Like how did they structure their physical worship around
1:51
him? Yeah, and how could a system
1:53
involving the blood of bulls and goats actually provide them with
1:57
genuine piece of conscience? If you are listening to this
2:00
right now and you have ever read the ancient Hebrew texts and
2:04
wondered what those early believers actually knew about a
2:06
Messiah, this deep dive will completely reframe your
2:10
understanding. It really will.
2:12
Edwards starts his argument by identifying a specific person
2:16
who shows up repeatedly in the earliest texts.
2:19
Right, the text calls in the Angel of the Lord or the
2:21
messenger of the covenant. So when you hear the word Angel,
2:24
you usually think of a created being with wings, like Gabriel
2:29
for instance. Sure, that is the common
2:31
picture, but the Hebrew word translated as Angel simply means
2:36
a messenger. So it just means one who is
2:38
sent. Yes, and Edwards first major
2:41
assertion is that the person who went before the Israelites in
2:44
the wilderness, the one who dwelt in the Holy of Holies, was
2:47
not God the Father. Wait, really?
2:49
Not the father. Right, it was the pre Incarnate
2:51
Son of God acting as the Father's messenger.
2:53
OK, that is a huge claim. What is his evidence for that?
2:57
He points to Exodus chapter 23 to prove this.
3:00
God is speaking to Moses. What does he say?
3:03
He says, Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the
3:07
way. OK, but that could just be a
3:09
regular Angel. Right, it could, but the
3:12
critical detail follows immediately after that.
3:14
God says beware of him and obey his voice and provoke him not,
3:19
for my name is in him. Ah, my name is in him.
3:24
That is a very specific phrase. It is.
3:27
If the Israelites knew this Angel was sent from the Father,
3:30
this phrase is how they knew this was not just a standard
3:33
created being. It sounds to me like an ancient
3:36
corporate arrangement. How so?
3:38
Well, maybe akin to a royal ambassador who arrives in a
3:41
foreign province. He carries the King's signet
3:44
ring. Yeah, I like that.
3:45
He acts distinctly from the king, but he wields the
3:47
absolute, unmitigated authority of the throne.
3:50
That ambassador analogy captures the dynamic dynamic really well,
3:53
particularly the aspect of the signet ring.
3:56
Because the signet ring represents the King's actual
3:58
identity. Yes, when God declares my name
4:01
is in Him, He is making a definitive statement about
4:04
essence. Essence as in nature.
4:06
Right. In ancient Hebrew theology, the
4:08
name of Jehovah is inseparable from the nature of Jehovah.
4:11
So to possess the name of God within yourself is to possess
4:15
the divine nature. Precisely, the Father in heaven
4:18
sustained the rights of the Godhead.
4:21
He acts as the chief in the administration of the Kingdom.
4:24
So this specific Angel acts as a messenger sent from the Father.
4:28
Yes, but because the divine name is in Him, He shares the total
4:33
uncreated essence of the Godhead.
4:35
And the ancient Israelites actually understood this
4:37
distinction. They did.
4:39
We see this play out mechanically in Joshua Chapter
4:41
5. Oh, right.
4:42
Joshua has camped outside Jericho preparing for a siege.
4:45
Yeah, and he encounters a man standing with a drawn sword.
4:49
Joshua challenges him, right? He asks if he is for them or for
4:53
their adversary. He does, and the figure
4:55
identifies himself as the captain of the Lord's host.
4:58
And how does Joshua react to that?
5:00
When Joshua hears this, he immediately falls on his face to
5:03
worship. Which is a big deal because you
5:05
are not supposed to worship angels.
5:06
Spot on. We must pay close attention to
5:09
the captain's response here. Does he accept the worship?
5:12
He tells Joshua to take off his shoes because the ground he is
5:15
standing on is holy. Oh wow, that is the precise
5:18
instruction Jehovah gave to Moses at the burning Bush.
5:21
Yes, a standard created Angel always rejects worship in the
5:27
biblical text. Right, like in Revelation when
5:29
John tries to worship the Angel. Yes, and beyond that, a created
5:33
being cannot make the ground holy simply by standing on it.
5:37
So the Angel is instructing Joshua to render him full divine
5:41
respect. Absolutely.
5:44
The ancients recognized this messenger as a distinct divine
5:48
person. So if they understood this
5:49
figure was a distinct person carrying the divine essence,
5:53
they must have possessed a specific vocabulary for him.
5:56
They could, I mean, they could not just call him the messenger
5:58
in their daily prayers, you know?
5:59
Right, they needed proper titles.
6:01
Edwards highlights the titles they used, and they are
6:03
fascinating. Because they sound highly
6:04
abstract to modern ears. Right.
6:06
Very abstract titles like the word, the name, the glory, the
6:09
Strength and the honor. Yeah, modern readers, we view a
6:12
phrase like the name of the Lord as a figure of speech, like a
6:15
synonym for God's reputation. Sure, but Edwards argues that
6:19
the ancients used it to reference a literal person.
6:22
A literal person. When the text says God will
6:25
place his name there in the sanctuary, it means the physical
6:28
residence of this mediator. Oh, so God causes his name to
6:32
inhabit a physical location? Yes, Edwards pulls a quote from
6:36
the theologian Van Maastricht. He noted a common doctrinal
6:40
phrase among the ancient Hebrews.
6:42
What was the phrase? It goes He himself is his name,
6:45
and his name is himself. Wow, OK, that completely alters
6:49
the reading of the Psalms. It really does.
6:51
Yeah, Think about how David writes.
6:53
Yeah, when David writes, save me by thy name or the name of the
6:56
Lord comes from afar, burning with his anger.
6:58
Right, he is not asking an abstract concept to save him.
7:01
No, because an abstract concept does not travel from afar with
7:04
lips full of indignation. That is right, he is asking a
7:08
specific pre Incarnate divine person to step in and execute
7:12
justice. He is actively calling upon the
7:14
mediator. Yes, and this interpretation was
7:17
widespread. Edwards references Philo the
7:20
Jew. He was a Hellenistic Jewish
7:22
philosopher, right? He was, and Philo documented how
7:25
his contemporaries understood these categories.
7:27
What did he say? Well, Philo referred to this
7:30
figure as the Word and the name of God.
7:32
So he used those specific titles.
7:34
He did. He described him as the active
7:37
instrument through which God created the universe.
7:40
That sounds a lot like the Gospel of John.
7:42
It is identical theology. Furthermore, this person is
7:45
repeatedly called God's strength and God's glory.
7:49
And there is a linguistic connection in the Hebrew
7:52
language regarding this, right? Yes.
7:54
The text points out that the root words for bright beams and
7:57
horns are connected. Oh this is fascinating.
8:01
I have always wondered about this one specific thing in
8:03
classical art. What is that?
8:05
Like Michelangelo's famous sculpture of Moses, it depicts
8:09
Moses with literal horns protruding from his head.
8:12
Yeah, it looks really bizarre to modernize.
8:14
It does. Does this linguistic root
8:16
explain that artistic choice? It actually does.
8:19
When Moses came down from Mount Sinai after speaking with this
8:22
divine person, the text says his face shone.
8:25
Like it was radiating light. Right, but because the Latin
8:28
Vulgate translation of the Bible interpreted the Hebrew word for
8:32
radiating beams of light using his alternate meaning of horns.
8:36
Artists like Michelangelo literally sculpted horns onto
8:39
Moses. Yes, but the theological reality
8:42
is that horns and bright beams were symbols of this divine
8:46
person's strength. And glory.
8:48
So it was a physical manifestation of the Mediator's
8:51
presence. Precisely when the Israelites
8:54
lost the Ark of the Covenant to the Philistines in battle, the
8:57
text states that God delivered his strength into captivity and
9:01
His glory into the enemy's hand. Oh, so they were not speaking
9:04
poetically about leasing a battle?
9:06
No, they were Speaking of the physical departure of the token
9:10
of this specific divine person. The Father dwelt in heaven, but
9:13
His glory, His name, His strength dwelt on earth among
9:16
the people. So we have these abstract,
9:19
majestic titles like Name and Glory.
9:22
But if this Mediator actually lived among them, did they view
9:25
Him simply as a distant, terrifying force?
9:28
Not at all. The ancient texts utilize
9:30
incredibly intimate relational titles as well.
9:33
Like what? We see the titles Son of God and
9:35
Israel's Prince. So the category of a second
9:38
divine person specifically recognized as the Son was well
9:42
established back then. It was Proverbs.
9:45
Chapter 30 poses A theological Riddle regarding the Creator.
9:48
How's it go? It asks what is his name and
9:51
what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
9:53
Wow, that implies a known theological category among the
9:57
whys of that era. It does, and we see this
10:00
manifested physically in the book of Daniel.
10:02
Oh, right, King Nebuchadnezzar. Yes, he throws 3 Israelite men
10:06
into a blindingly hot furnace. And when he looks inside, he
10:10
sees a fourth figure walking in the fire.
10:12
Right, and he specifically identifies the form of the 4th
10:16
as being like the Son of God. Wait, a Babylonian king
10:20
recognizes the visual profile of the Son of God?
10:23
Yes, that means the concept had bled into the surrounding
10:25
cultures. It had bled into the surrounding
10:27
cultures because, as Edwards outlines, every surrounding
10:30
nation adhered to a system of tutelary deities.
10:33
Tutelary meaning protective gods, right?
10:35
Yes, they believed local or regional protective gods were
10:39
assigned to them for their salvation.
10:40
OK, so the Persians had a Prince.
10:42
And the Greeks had a Prince, but the Israelites were assigned
10:45
Michael. Which the text explicitly calls
10:49
the Prince of Israel. Right.
10:50
And this Michael was the pre Incarnate Son of God.
10:53
So the ancients understood that the first person of the Deity
10:56
had committed them to the exclusive care and charge of
10:59
this specific Angel of his presence.
11:01
They did let me push back on how the Israelites viewed this
11:05
arrangement, though. OK, go ahead.
11:07
If every nation had a local protective deity, the Israelites
11:11
might have just viewed Michael as their particular regional
11:14
manager. Regional Manager.
11:16
That is an interesting way to phrase it.
11:17
Yeah, like did they actually comprehend the magnitude of who
11:21
is protecting them or the depth of his affection for them?
11:25
The textual evidence shows they comprehended it fully.
11:29
They routinely mocked the heathen nations for trusting in
11:32
inferior created deities. Really.
11:34
Where do we see that? Moses states in Deuteronomy
11:38
their rock is not as our rock, even our enemies themselves
11:41
being judges. So they knew their protector was
11:43
vastly superior. Yes, they knew the Son of God
11:46
was the Excellency of Jacob. He was transcendently dear to
11:49
the Father, the absolute delight of heaven.
11:51
And yet he chose them. He did.
11:55
The texts use intense marriage covenant language to describe
11:58
his disposition toward Israel. So he willingly chose to become
12:02
their husband. Yes, the prophet Malachi calls
12:06
this Messenger of the Covenant the one whom ye delight in.
12:10
And there is that specific name given to Israel later on, right?
12:13
Yes, when Israel is restored, she is given the name Hepzibah.
12:17
Which translates to my delight is in her.
12:20
Spot on. They knew the literal heir of
12:23
the cosmos loved them. OK, so if they knew this divine
12:27
Prince loved them that intimately, how did that
12:30
knowledge shape the physical mechanics of the temple worship?
12:34
It shaped everything about it. Because the sacrificial system
12:36
seems incredibly bloody and severe.
12:38
If the mediator was already there and loved them, why
12:41
construct this massive daily slaughterhouse?
12:43
Well, the entire architecture of the temple was built to
12:46
facilitate their interaction with this mediator.
12:48
OK, so it was all about him. Yes, he resided over the Ark of
12:51
the Covenant in the Holy of Holies.
12:52
And it was through his active mediation that they gained
12:56
acceptance with the father. Precisely.
12:59
Edwards clarifies the specific function of the mercy seat to
13:02
explain this. What does he say about it?
13:04
Well, the Greek word used in the Septuagint is Hellisterian,
13:08
which translates the Hebrew Kapoorith.
13:12
And what does that mean literally?
13:14
It means the place of propitiation.
13:17
That linguistic distinction is critical, I think, because the
13:20
standard visual for most people is God the Father sitting on the
13:24
Ark of the Covenant. Right, like he is using the
13:27
mercy seat as a throne to hand down judgments.
13:29
But Edwards explicitly separates the Persons of the Trinity.
13:33
Here the Father is in heaven, and the Son is on the mercy
13:36
seat. The.
13:37
Separation of stations is his primary point regarding the
13:39
temple. OK, so the Hallisterian was not
13:42
a chair for God the Father. No, it functioned as as an
13:44
altar. It was a movable chariot of the
13:46
Cherubims specifically for the Mediator.
13:49
So the Father's fixed throne is the High Court of Heaven.
13:52
And the propitiatory on earth is the local station of the
13:55
mediator, where atonement is actively presented.
13:58
Let's frame it like a legal defense team.
14:00
OK, let's hear it. The Chief Judge presides in the
14:02
High Court up in heaven. Right.
14:04
The mediator, acting as the defense attorney, is stationed
14:07
locally on Earth at the mercy seat.
14:10
I like this analogy. So the defense attorney does the
14:13
groundwork, gathers the appeals and formally sends them up to
14:16
the High Court so the chief judge can issue an acquittal.
14:20
That legal framework mirrors the mechanics of the temple
14:23
perfectly. Does Edwards have scriptural
14:26
proof for the separation? He proves this by pointing to
14:29
Solomon's prayer dedicating the temple in First Kings chapter 8.
14:33
What does Solomon say? Solomon repeatedly asks God to
14:37
here in heaven when the people pray toward the earthly temple.
14:42
Why would you pray toward a building in Jerusalem if God is
14:44
in heaven? Yes, you pray toward the temple
14:46
because the mediator is physically stationed there.
14:49
The local defense attorney receives the petition and makes
14:51
it acceptable to the Father in heaven.
14:53
Yes, Daniel operates the same way in his famous prayer in
14:56
Chapter 9. He asks the Father to shine his
14:59
face on the desolate sanctuary, Right.
15:01
Yes, and he specifically says for the Lord's sake.
15:05
Oh, so he is asking the Father to act for the sake of the Son
15:08
who resides there. That is right.
15:10
So if the mediator was doing all the heavy lifting to secure
15:13
their forgiveness, we really need to re evaluate the physical
15:17
animal sacrifices. We definitely do.
15:19
Because the common assumption today is that an ancient
15:21
Israelite sinned, killed a goat, and the goat's blood paid the
15:26
fine. Right, like a simple
15:27
transaction. Yeah, the transaction was
15:29
complete and they went home with a clean slate.
15:31
Edwards dismantled that assumption completely.
15:34
How so? Well, the Old Testament Saints
15:36
were not naive. They understood the physical
15:39
mechanics of a dying animal could not satisfy infinite
15:42
divine justice. Because the blood of bulls and
15:45
goats is fundamentally useless for removing moral guilt, Yes.
15:49
The believers were waiting for the mediator to physically
15:52
Incarnate and make a final, complete atonement.
15:56
And Edwards sites several psalms to demonstrate this was common
15:59
knowledge. He does.
16:01
In Psalm 50 God says I will take no Bullock out of thine house.
16:04
If I were hungry, I would not tell thee, for the world is
16:07
mine. So God explicitly states he
16:10
requires no animal sacrifices for their own intrinsic value.
16:14
Right, and in Micah chapter 6, the prophet asks if God will be
16:18
pleased with thousands of Rams or 10 thousands of rivers of
16:22
oil. And the answer is clearly no.
16:24
Yes. Yeah, so we need to understand
16:26
how the blood actually interacted with the mercy seat.
16:28
Yeah, if the animal's blood was not paying the fine, what was
16:31
happening on the Day of Atonement when the high priest
16:34
sprinkled it on the hallisterium?
16:36
The blood functioned as a physical barrier and a
16:38
placeholder. A barrier.
16:40
Think about what was inside the Ark of the Covenant.
16:42
It was the stone tablets of the broken law.
16:45
OK. And.
16:45
Above the ark between the cherubim resided the holy gaze
16:49
of the Mediator. Right looking down at the broken
16:52
law. So the sprinkled blood covered
16:53
the lid, creating a barrier between the broken law and
16:57
divine justice. But because it was just animal
16:59
blood, it only suspended the judgment, right?
17:01
The believers understood their guilt was being held in trust by
17:04
the mediator awaiting a future permanent resolution.
17:09
So if you are a listener right now, think about this.
17:11
The ancient worshipper bringing a lamb is not purchasing
17:15
forgiveness, no. They are bringing a placeholder.
17:17
They know the lamb is essentially an IOU.
17:20
That is a great way to think of it.
17:23
Edwards references the prophet Daniel regarding the prophecy of
17:26
the 70 weeks. What does that prophecy say?
17:29
Daniel predicts a specific future timeline to make an end
17:33
of sin and to make reconciliation for iniquity.
17:37
The necessity of a future timeline proves that an end to
17:41
sin had not yet been accomplished.
17:42
Yes, despite centuries of daily temple sacrifices, that makes a.
17:46
Lot of sense. Edwards also highlights
17:48
Zechariah chapter 3, which promises that God will remove
17:52
the iniquity of that land in one day.
17:54
The phrase in one day is the lynchpin there.
17:57
It really is. They anticipated A singular
18:00
historical event that would render the entire sacrificial
18:02
system obsolete. They knew a permanent fix was
18:05
coming. They did.
18:06
But that raises a significant logical question.
18:09
OK, if they knew the mediator was going to Incarnate to solve
18:12
the sin issue permanently, did they actually know he was going
18:15
to suffer and die to achieve it? Edwards posits that the ancient
18:19
Saints fully expected the Messiah to suffer and die.
18:22
Really. Because a divine Prince bleeding
18:25
out seems, well, highly counterintuitive for an ancient
18:29
warrior culture. It might seem that way, but the
18:32
scriptural evidence available to them was massive and undeniable.
18:36
Give me some examples. Daniel Chapter 9 states plainly
18:39
that the Messiah will be cut off, but not for himself.
18:43
OK, a clear reference to his death.
18:45
Yes. Then Zachariah chapter 13
18:48
predicts the striking of the shepherd.
18:49
It talks about the sword awakening against the man that
18:52
is my fellow. Meaning God's equal.
18:54
Right, And then you have the hyperspecific details of Isaiah
18:57
chapter 53. The Suffering Servant passage.
19:00
Yes, it describes A servant who is wounded for our
19:03
transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, and who makes his
19:07
soul an offering for sin. So the pious Israelites who
19:10
meditated on these texts could not miss the reality of a
19:13
suffering mediator. They really could not.
19:15
It was right there in plain text.
19:16
I have to raise a historical counter argument here.
19:19
Go for it. If the text was so glaringly
19:21
obvious about a dying Messiah, why were the religious leaders
19:25
in the 1st century so appalled by the concept?
19:28
That is a fair question. I mean, when Jesus began
19:30
predicting his own death, even his closest disciples rebuked
19:34
his Why did the religious establishment reject a suffering
19:38
savior if it had been established theology for
19:41
centuries? Edwards addresses that
19:43
historical shift directly. He argues that by the 1st
19:46
century, the religious establishment had become
19:48
intensely carnal and politically motivated.
19:51
Because they were suffering under Roman occupation.
19:53
Yes, their theology morphed to fit their political desires.
19:58
They wanted a military conqueror to break the yoke of Rome, not a
20:02
suffering servant to atone for sin.
20:04
So their interpretation of Scripture conformed to their own
20:06
pride. It did, and Edwards notes a
20:09
fascinating development among later Jewish scholars.
20:12
What did they do? Realizing the undeniable clarity
20:14
of texts like Isaiah 53, they actually invented the concept of
20:18
two messiahs. Wait, really?
20:20
They invented a second Messiah just to avoid the suffering
20:23
aspect. Yes, they theorized 1 suffering
20:26
Messiah which they called Messiah and Joseph.
20:28
And the other one. A second separate conquering
20:30
Messiah called Messiah Ben David.
20:33
That is incredible. They did this because the texts
20:35
detailing A suffering servant were too blatant to ignore or
20:40
explain away. Right, but the ancient pre
20:42
corruption Saints understood it was 1 mediator who had
20:46
accomplished both salvation and conquest through his own
20:49
suffering. OK, that explains the blindness
20:51
of the 1st century establishment.
20:53
But Edwards goes even further than that, does he not?
20:55
He does, he claims of this early patriarchal theology of a
20:59
suffering divine son was so widespread that it corrupted
21:03
into the mythologies of surrounding nations.
21:05
This part is wild. How does Edwards trace the
21:08
corruption of these ancient prophecies into Egyptian or
21:12
Greek myths? He looks back to the original
21:14
prophecy in Genesis chapter 3. Where God promises that the seed
21:17
of the woman will crush the head of the serpent.
21:19
Yes, but in the process the serpent will bruise his heel.
21:23
Which is the primal promise of a divine son coming down to
21:26
suffer, fight a monster, and secure salvation.
21:28
Spot on. Over centuries, as human
21:31
populations dispersed, that core prophecy degraded.
21:34
Like a massive game of theological broken telephone.
21:38
Yes, we see this degraded echo in the Persian traditions of the
21:43
combats of Mithras. And we see it in the Egyptian
21:46
myth of the murder and resurrection of Osiris.
21:48
I do. But I think we see the exact
21:50
mechanics of it most clearly in the Greek tales of Hercules.
21:53
Oh, absolutely. Think about the parallels.
21:55
You have the Son of the High God who comes down to earth, suffers
21:58
intensely and fights monsters. He literally fights the hydra.
22:02
A multi headed serpent and then he dies due to poisoned blood
22:07
and eventually ascends to Olympus.
22:08
It is a corrupted, distorted vision of the Suffering Servant
22:12
crushing the serpent's head. The parallels are just
22:15
undeniable when you lay them out like that.
22:17
Edwards argues these myths are not random fiction.
22:20
They are the degraded memory of a real prophecy passed down from
22:24
antiquity. So the heathen nations retained
22:27
the fractured shell of the story.
22:29
Yes, but the ancient Israelites maintained the pure written
22:32
revelation of the mediator. So, having established that the
22:35
ancient Saints possessed a clear understanding of a suffering
22:38
mediator, we have to evaluate the final piece of the puzzle.
22:42
The actual mechanics of salvation.
22:44
Yes. How did this knowledge apply to
22:47
their personal standing before God?
22:49
What was the exact mechanism of an individual acquiring
22:53
justification back then? Edwards establishes that the
22:56
Saints were justified purely by faith in the mediator.
22:59
And their sacrifices. They were symbolic
23:01
representations of their faith, not the meritorious cause of
23:04
their justification. Edwards relies heavily on the
23:07
concept of forensic justification to explain this.
23:10
When Edwards talks about forensic justification, he is
23:12
pushing back against rival theological views of his own
23:15
era, is he not? He is.
23:17
He is insisting that justification is a legal
23:19
declaration of righteousness, not a gradual process of moral
23:23
improvement. Right justification means
23:25
receiving an acquittal from a judge.
23:27
It is an immediate legal status. And Edward specifically notes
23:31
that this declaration is entirely disconnected from human
23:34
performance or works of the law. And he clarifies that the term
23:38
works refers to all works, both good and evil.
23:41
He cites Romans Chapter 9 verse 11 regarding Jacob and Esau to
23:45
prove this. The text points out that God's
23:47
electing purpose stood before the twins were born right.
23:50
Yes, before they had done any good or evil.
23:54
Therefore, justification cannot be based on the ceremonial
23:58
Jewish laws or personal moral achievements.
24:01
We need to define the exact mechanics of faith in this
24:04
context, because faith can often be treated as a vague mystical
24:08
feeling. But Edwards is describing a
24:10
highly active legal mechanism. Let's look at the worshipper in
24:13
the temple again. When the ancient worshipper
24:15
walked up to the altar and laid his hands heavily on the head of
24:18
the goat, what was actually happening?
24:20
Well, he was not hoping the goat's inherent goodness would
24:23
save him. No, he was acting out a legal
24:25
proxy form. The laying on of hands was the
24:28
physical manifestation of imputation.
24:30
The worshipper was transferring his guilt to the animal.
24:33
Which served as the stand in for the mediator, but it was a
24:36
double transfer. How so?
24:39
By faith, the worshipper was actively choosing and appointing
24:42
the mediators future perfect sacrifice as his own.
24:45
Edwards describes faith as having a natural suitableness.
24:48
Right? He does.
24:49
It is the active movement of the soul coming to the sacrifice,
24:53
resting in it, and legally committing one's cause to the
24:56
advocate. They were legally binding
24:58
themselves to what the Messiah would accomplish in the future.
25:00
Yes, and Edwards points to Abraham as the ultimate example
25:05
of an Old Testament believer possessing precise, saving faith
25:09
in the future work of the mediator.
25:11
He highlights the account where Abraham is commanded to
25:13
sacrifice his son Isaac. He does.
25:16
But how does that specific, terrifying test Abraham's faith
25:21
in a future mediator? Well, the New Testament
25:23
explicitly states that Abraham received Isaac back in a figure
25:28
or as a parable. Meaning Abraham received the
25:30
anti type of Christ, slain and risen in the type of his son
25:34
Isaac. Yes, when Abraham saw the ram
25:36
caught in the thicket provided by God as a substitute for his
25:39
son, he was looking directly at the mechanism of the atonement.
25:43
That was the moment Abraham saw Christ stay and was glad.
25:46
He possessed saving faith in the future work of the Mediator,
25:49
understanding substitutionary death and resurrection through
25:52
the physical symbol provided on that mountain.
25:54
When you synthesize the massive scope of Edwards arguments, the
25:57
conclusion rewrites our basic assumptions.
26:00
It really does. The ancient believers were not
26:02
practicing a primitive works based religions centered on
26:07
animal blood. No, they were saved precisely
26:09
the same way later believers were by trusting in the divine
26:13
Son of God. He was the mediator whose
26:15
physical presence they oriented their worship around.
26:18
And whose future suffering they anticipated through symbolic
26:21
sacrifices. It is a totally unified system
26:24
of salvation. From start to finish.
26:26
The object of faith was always the same mediator.
26:29
Only the vantage point in history changed.
26:31
The ancient Saints look forward to the cross through shadows and
26:34
types, while modern believers look backward to it through
26:37
historical record. But the legal mechanism of
26:40
imputation remains identical. Listeners think about the sheer
26:44
volume of clues the ancient believers possessed.
26:46
It is staggering. If they were able to look at a
26:49
cloud settling in a Tabernacle or a wooden box covered in gold
26:53
and clearly perceive the pre Incarnate Son of God stepping
26:56
into advocate for them, What are you missing when you casually
26:59
read those ancient texts today? That is a great question.
27:02
We started this evaluation talking about a blurry
27:05
historical photograph. We assume it is just a flat
27:09
landscape of ancient laws and strange bloody rituals.
27:13
But if you look closer through the lens of what these ancient
27:16
Saints actually believe, the picture comes alive.
27:18
Is it possible that the central character of the entire story is
27:21
hiding in plain sight on every single page, waiting for you to
27:25
finally notice him?