Hebrews 11:39. 'And all these [O.T. saints] , having obtained a good testimony by faith, did not receive the promise.....'
What promise was it that they did not receive? Why Christ, of course (Acts 13:23, 32-33). He is the accomplishment of all God's promises (Acts 26:6; 1 Cor. 1:20). And the promise came to them by faith - how else? Like Abraham (John 8:58), they were looking forward to Christ (Heb. 11:13) by faith as we now look back. They believed the promises of God, as we receive His testimony in the N.T.
Hebrews 11:40. 'God having provided something better for us.....' The 'better' thing that we have is the fulfilment of the Everlasting Covenant, which is Christ. The contrast here is the promise given and the promise performed. This is why the New Covenant is frequently described as "better" than the Old (or 'first' - Heb 8:6 etc.). We now have a far better view of Christ than the O.T. saints had; they saw Him chiefly through types and promises, whereas we see Him through the acomplishment and fulfilment of them. They looked for a Christ who would come and put away their sins; we see a Christ who has come and put them away.
.... that they should not be made perfect without us.' 'The law made nothing perfect,' but the bringing in of a better hope did. (Heb. 7:19).
The O.T. saints were not saved by keeping the Old Covenant law. It promised no more than long life in the Promised Land, and did not deliver even that because no one kept it perfectly (Acts 15:10). They were made perfect by the blood of Christ, through faith, just as we are. In that respect, and that alone, the O.T. saints were not made perfect without us; we are both made perfect in just the same way.
Otherwise, we end up with Abraham waiting for Christ for 2,000 years in his own bosom! Abraham's bosom is mentioned only in Luke 16:22-23 in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. We really should not draw doctrine from the peripheries of a parable. Lazarus is not asleep in Abraham's bosom, he is being comforted (v.25), no doubt with every tear being wiped from his eye. In John 13:23 KJV, John is described as 'leaning on Jesus' bosom.' This means no more than that he was reclining at the table with his head just below his Lord's (c.f. also Matt. 8:11).
I am in no doubt The O.T. saints were in heaven as soon as they died in Christ. Eccl. 12:7 and Psalm 97:10 apply equally to O.T. and N.T. believers.
Brother Martin,
I agree with much of what you have written, particularly that the Old Testament saints were not saved by keeping the Law, but by the blood of Christ through faith, just as we are.
However, I find myself struggling with the implications of that truth.
Abraham was not merely promised justification at some future date. Scripture says he was justified by faith. David was not merely promised forgiveness; his sins were forgiven. The cross lay in their future historically, but the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice was already being applied to those who believed.
This is where I find myself pondering the discussion with Van, though not in the way he presents it. I see no biblical basis for a postmortem baptism into Christ, nor do I accept soul sleep. Yet I can understand why such ideas arise. They appear to be attempts to reconcile how Old Testament saints could be saved before the historical accomplishment of the cross.
The difficulty is that both solutions seem to run against the broader testimony of Scripture. The saints are presented as truly justified, truly forgiven, and truly accepted by God through faith. Scripture also presents believers as conscious after death and in fellowship with God. Therefore, neither soul sleep nor a later postmortem union with Christ seems necessary.
If Abraham was truly saved, then he was saved by Christ. If he was saved by Christ, then he was saved by Christ's death. If he was saved by Christ's death, then the reality described in Romans 6:3 applied to him no less than it applies to us. The cross was future in history, but not future in its efficacy. The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, and the saving power of that sacrifice was as certain as the God who ordained it.
That is where I find myself wrestling. If salvation was real for Abraham, then it was not a lesser salvation than ours. If he was justified, forgiven, reconciled, and accepted by God through faith in the promised Redeemer, then all of that rested upon the same sacrifice that saves us today.
Therefore, I do not see any need to invent a postmortem baptism into Christ. Abraham was not waiting centuries to become united to the Savior in whom he had already believed. Rather, the saving benefits of Christ's death were being applied to him through faith long before the cross occurred in history.
I agree that the Old Testament saints had not yet witnessed the fulfillment of the promise in history. What I am wrestling with is whether they lacked any of the saving realities secured by that promise. They did not.
Perhaps the distinction is not between efficacy and no efficacy, nor between salvation and no salvation, but between efficacy and fulfillment. The efficacy of Christ's sacrifice extends from the foundation of the world into all eternity. Every person ever saved was saved by Christ and Christ alone. Yet the fulfillment of that sacrifice occurred at a specific point in history when Christ actually suffered, died, rose again, and entered into the heavenly sanctuary as our High Priest.
Thus Abraham was truly saved before Calvary, not because the cross was unnecessary, but because its efficacy was already certain and effective in the purpose of God. What Abraham anticipated by promise was what Christ later fulfilled in history.
The more I reflect on it, the more difficult it becomes for me to divide the redeemed into different classes. There is one Savior, one sacrifice, one salvation, and one redeemed people. The Old Testament saints looked forward in faith to the promised Redeemer; we look back to the fulfilled work of that same Redeemer. But both were saved by Christ alone.
