Christ In The Old Testament

[No Nicolaitans]

Luke 1:5-6

5   There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

6   And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

 

There is a comma that separates  "And they were both righteous before God" and "walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless".  The comma separates two clauses and two independent thoughts...

 

Clause #1 - And they were both righteous before God (God saw them as righteous)

 

(Comma)

 

Clause #2 - walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. (Man saw them as blameless in their keeping the law and ordinances of God)

 

Remember that Paul claimed the same thing for himself...

 

Philippians 3:4-6

4   Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

5   Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

6   Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

 

Yet, this same Paul made it clear that the law couldn't save anyone or make anyone righteous in the sight of God...he even quoted two Old Testament passages when making this argument...

 

Galatians 3:11-12

11   But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith¹.

12   And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them².

 

¹Habakkuk 2:4

²Leviticus 18:5 and Ezekiel 20:11

 

In almost every instance; in which, the word "blameless" is used in the entire Bible (15 times), it's being used in relation to man being blameless in the eyes of other men.  Of those 15 times that "blameless" is used, only twice does it "appear" to refer to being blameless before God...

 

1 Corinthians 1:8

Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

1 Thessalonians 5:23

And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

However, these verses don't stand alone.  When taking all of 1 Corinthians into view...with all of the trouble they had in the church of Corinth...I think Paul was trying to encourage them to live blamelessly in the eyes of others UNTO the end (or the day of our Lord Jesus Christ).  It was probably hard to find ANYONE in the church at Corinth who could be referred to as being blameless.  Also, the verse from 1 Thessalonians doesn't stand alone.  In the preceding 11 verses of 1 Thessalonians 5, Paul is giving instructions to the church on how to act and treat their fellow believers...so that they will be blameless UNTO the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

We all (as children of God) should strive to live blamelessly in the eyes of others...

 

Philippians 2:15

That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

 

We still sin, we still fall short, yet we should try to live as blamelessly as possible...so as not to bring reproach on Christ.

[JerryNumbers]

Those verses are wonderful truths. Of course faith is a requirement tom please God, no one is suggesting it isn't. The main issue so many in this thread are defending is not even the issue. In fact, I honestly believe that most just post knee jerk reactions to what they perceive has been said, but in reality has not been said. 

 

I have not said any one has been saved by works. I have however said very plainly that OT persons had righteous standing before God apart from a belief in Jesus Christ. And I quoted scripture, not my opinion about it, that men had a righteousness before God because the WALKED IN HIS COMMANDMENTS, so what do men here do? They quote a verse as if that portion of the scripture undoes what another portion. !!?? 

In fact I posted Luke 1:6 that said as much in plain 6th grade english. 

But of course, instead of commenting on Luke 1 or Philippians 3 or Duet 32, people simply post other verses as if they can disavow what the BIble says. 

The Bible does not contradict it self. Only men make contradictions about it. 

The failure to rightly divide and recognize that God's dealings with men have in fact changed from time to time is crucial to understanding the BIble. 

Without recognizing the divisions, or dispensations or administrations or stewardship of God, one falls into silly doctrines like, 

sons of God always means a born again believer. Or men looked forward to the cross and were saved by that. Or men called upon the name of the Lord to be saved, when no such verse exists that says what they called upon him for or what the result was of that calling. 

 

OT persons got saved. They did so because of their righteousness before God through obedience to His word. 

 

Your argument is not with me, it's with the author of that book, 

 

God bless, 

calvary

 

No, it isn't a knee jerk action, its a Bible truth that your denying. While using Scriptures out of context to try & prove people can be saved in different manners.

 

The Bible is about Jesus the only Savior of mankind from beginning to end.

 

I'm surprised at your stand on this issue. And it seems you've made up you mind.

[Ukulelemike]

It seems to me that there are a lot of words in this thread that are to little effect.  My question is: Does it matter? Seriously, does it matter?

 

Since we no longer live in the Old testament, and, if saved, the old covenant no longer applies, Jesus having fulfilled the law, being the end of the law for us.

 

We spend a lot of time fighting and passing hidden slights back and forth at things that just don't matter. NO matter what conclusion we come to, even if we somehow miraculously ALL came to one accord, thw fact is, we are to spend our time on preaching the NEW covenant.  Why strive about words to no profit? The OT is there for our ensample, so we might see how the Lord dealt with those who have come before us.

 

We know the law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. We know no one was justified by the law. We know that if one wants to follow the law, he must follow the whole law or be cursed. So we know that law could not bring salvation-it was designed to point us to faith-when faith CAME, (implying it was not in force before the way it is after Christ), then the schoolmaster was no longer needed.

 

Anyways, just my own two cents worth. Carry on.

[DaveW]

Your wrong Mike. They are not hidden. At least not very well.

[JerryNumbers]

Not so.

 

The sacrifices did not save them.  It was a repentant heart that saved them,  see psalm 51.

 

24  By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter;

25  Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

26  Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

 

Moses knew of Jesus.  He renamed Oshea the son of Nun as Jesus. 

 

Nu 13:16  These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jehoshua.

 

Amen. Some people leaves out God's mercy & grace by saying, "they had to obey the law and perform the sacrifices & if they didn't they would go to Hell.

[heartstrings]

........I am the way the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me.....

Jesus is God. He has always been. He is the "I Am". The Alpha and Omega. He didn't become the "The way" at some later time..... He always has been.

[JerryNumbers]

........I am the way the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me.....

Jesus is God. He has always been. He is the "I Am". The Alpha and Omega. He didn't become the "The way" at some later time..... He always has been.

 

Amen!

 

Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

[Calvary]

Brother Mitchell,

 

 

Yet is not Romans 3:10-ff quoted from the Old Testament Scriptures, which would then make the statement of Romans 3:10 an Old Testament truth equally as well as a New Testement truth?

 

Furthermore, does not Romans 3:19-20 speak concerning "them who are under the law" (which would include the Israelites in the time of the Old Testament, from Moses forward), saying, "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.  Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh [no, not even one] be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

 

Finally, are we to understand from Luke 1:6 that Zacharias and Elisabeth were savingly justified before God because they walked obediently " No. In fact I drew no such conclusion. The responses I've read seem to me to be from those that lack reading comprehension, or at least are deficient in reading comprehension. With all due respect to you pastor, I would say as well,m you are presenting a defense against something I have not said. in all the commandments of the Lord blameless"?  Are we to understand that the Lord our God imputed their obedience "in all the commandments of the Lord" unto their eternal account for righteousness?  Again, you are jumping to a conclusion that no post of mine allowed. I am merely stating that righteousness in the OT is not the same as righteousness in the New. In addition I stated plainly that Jesus Christ's righteousness was imputed to OT saints, but not until He rose from the dead,. My position is that it is impossible to have born again saints in the OT, there simply was no regeneration, thereby making the line of teaching that "men looked forward" to the cross and absurd doctrine. Are we to understand that they actually walked "in all the commandments of the Lord" with absolutely perfect blamelessness, continuing perfectly without any failure whatsoever "in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them"?

You are equating sinless perfection with right standing before God and they are not the same since 1. There is no sinless perfection in this body, New Testament or Olt, and 2, you are assuming that I am teaching salvation by works. Typical knee jerk reactions due to a failure to actually read what I am saying. 

 

Consider Galatians 3:10-12 -- "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.  But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.  And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them."

 

I don't need to consider this passage as having any bearing on my posts, it does not. I have only stated that a saint in the OT had a righteousness that made him accepted before the Lord, until such time that Christ shed his blood (Romans 3:25 is sufficient to see that).

The idea that men in the OT could not be right before God unless they kept the law, and then, since they could not, no one was ever right before the Lord is a false teaching. 

 

Consider also James 2:10 -- "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

 

See above. 

Paul says all are guilty before God. Why? Because they did not keep the law? If that was true, then I would be innocent as the law was never given to me and has no bearing on my culpability before God. It's my standing in Adam that condemns me. Not my law breaking. I honestly believe most of you, yourself included do not really think it out before you begin to respond, because all of you post scripture that proves salvation is in Christ and I have never indicated it isn't. 

 

Oh well. Argue to your hearts content. You are debating straw men of your own devices. Quote me where I have said an OT saint is saved because he kept the law. 

 

God bless, 

calvary

[ASongOfDegrees]

Romans 10:5-  

 

For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

 

Romans 3:21-  

 

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

 

Philippians 3:6,9-

 

[6] Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

 

[9] And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

 

A man could be righteous under the law but it was not enough to justify him before the throne of God because the law was a two-sided sword. It had the laws and precepts for a man to follow so he could be righteous but also at the same time it revealed his sinful nature. Therefore he ultimately needed Christ's imputed righteousness. But under the law a man could still be considered righteous. Just not God's righteousness which comes by the faith of Jesus Christ.

 

Bro. Mitchell is right in that people aren't reading the posts. They are just responding.

[ASongOfDegrees]

It seems to me that there are a lot of words in this thread that are to little effect.  My question is: Does it matter? Seriously, does it matter?

 

Since we no longer live in the Old testament, and, if saved, the old covenant no longer applies, Jesus having fulfilled the law, being the end of the law for us.

 

We spend a lot of time fighting and passing hidden slights back and forth at things that just don't matter. NO matter what conclusion we come to, even if we somehow miraculously ALL came to one accord, thw fact is, we are to spend our time on preaching the NEW covenant.  Why strive about words to no profit? The OT is there for our ensample, so we might see how the Lord dealt with those who have come before us.

 

We know the law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. We know no one was justified by the law. We know that if one wants to follow the law, he must follow the whole law or be cursed. So we know that law could not bring salvation-it was designed to point us to faith-when faith CAME, (implying it was not in force before the way it is after Christ), then the schoolmaster was no longer needed.

 

Anyways, just my own two cents worth. Carry on.

Yes, it does matter unless you only want a partial understanding of the word of God. Many heresies come out of misapplication of passages in the gospels where the OT is still in play. 

[ASongOfDegrees]

........I am the way the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me.....

Jesus is God. He has always been. He is the "I Am". The Alpha and Omega. He didn't become the "The way" at some later time..... He always has been.

Find in the OT where Jesus said he was the "way, the truth and the life". If this were the case he shouldn't have had to explain it to the apostles. The fact is that statement from Christ was a new revelation.

[ASongOfDegrees]

Brother Mitchell,

 

 

Yet is not Romans 3:10-ff quoted from the Old Testament Scriptures, which would then make the statement of Romans 3:10 an Old Testament truth equally as well as a New Testement truth?

 

Furthermore, does not Romans 3:19-20 speak concerning "them who are under the law" (which would include the Israelites in the time of the Old Testament, from Moses forward), saying, "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.  Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh [no, not even one] be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

 

Finally, are we to understand from Luke 1:6 that Zacharias and Elisabeth were savingly justified before God because they walked obediently "in all the commandments of the Lord blameless"?  Are we to understand that the Lord our God imputed their obedience "in all the commandments of the Lord" unto their eternal account for righteousness?  Are we to understand that they actually walked "in all the commandments of the Lord" with absolutely perfect blamelessness, continuing perfectly without any failure whatsoever "in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them"?

 

Consider Galatians 3:10-12 -- "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.  But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.  And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them."

 

Consider also James 2:10 -- "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

The righteousness of the law could not get a man into heaven but it was enough to get a man into Abraham's Bosom until the time Christ's righteousness came along to get him into heaven. 

 

Read and comprehend this verses:

 

Romans 3:24-26

 

[24] Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
[25] Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
[26] To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

A man in the OT still needed to keep the righteousness of the law to be in the place to receive future justification through Christ. Until Christ shed his blood there was no justification for him. Under the law his sins were only temporarily remitted and his righteousness was his own according to the law (Hebrews is clear about this). Christ's righteousness could not be imputed to him until the time Christ shed his blood on the cross. This is why the OT saints resided in Abraham's Bosom. If they were saved like us then there would be no need for them to reside there and there would be no need for sacrifices which temporarily purged sin under the law.

 

As far as James 2:10 that's what the sacrifices were for.

[rancher824]

The righteousness of the law could not get a man into heaven but it was enough to get a man into Abraham's Bosom until the time Christ's righteousness came along to get him into heaven. 

 

Read and comprehend this verses:

 

Romans 3:24-26

 

[24] Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
[25] Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
[26] To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

A man in the OT still needed to keep the righteousness of the law to be in the place to receive future justification through Christ. Until Christ shed his blood there was no justification for him. Under the law his sins were only temporarily remitted and his righteousness was his own according to the law (Hebrews is clear about this). Christ's righteousness could not be imputed to him until the time Christ shed his blood on the cross. This is why the OT saints resided in Abraham's Bosom. If they were saved like us then there would be no need for them to reside there and there would be no need for sacrifices which temporarily purged sin under the law.

 

As far as James 2:10 that's what the sacrifices were for.

Did anyone, even one single soul, get cast out of Abraham's Bosom and into hell, or did they all go to heaven??

[Ukulelemike]

Did anyone, even one single soul, get cast out of Abraham's Bosom and into hell, or did they all go to heaven??

Actually, the question would be, did anyone keep the righteousness of the law, by faith and actions until the end, then turn away at the end, and go to hell?

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Brother Mitchell,

 

Finally, are we to understand from Luke 1:6 that Zacharias and Elisabeth were savingly justified before God because they walked obediently " No. In fact I drew no such conclusion. The responses I've read seem to me to be from those that lack reading comprehension, or at least are deficient in reading comprehension. With all due respect to you pastor, I would say as well,m you are presenting a defense against something I have not said. in all the commandments of the Lord blameless"?  Are we to understand that the Lord our God imputed their obedience "in all the commandments of the Lord" unto their eternal account for righteousness?  Again, you are jumping to a conclusion that no post of mine allowed. I am merely stating that righteousness in the OT is not the same as righteousness in the New. In addition I stated plainly that Jesus Christ's righteousness was imputed to OT saints, but not until He rose from the dead,. My position is that it is impossible to have born again saints in the OT, there simply was no regeneration, thereby making the line of teaching that "men looked forward" to the cross and absurd doctrine. Are we to understand that they actually walked "in all the commandments of the Lord" with absolutely perfect blamelessness, continuing perfectly without any failure whatsoever "in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them"?

You are equating sinless perfection with right standing before God and they are not the same since 1. There is no sinless perfection in this body, New Testament or Olt, and 2, you are assuming that I am teaching salvation by works. Typical knee jerk reactions due to a failure to actually read what I am saying. 

 

First, please take note that in the three questions concerning Luke 1:6, I did not make claims on your position, but asked questions concerning your position.  In your post #35 you referenced Luke 1:6 (as well as Deuteronomy 6:25 and the case of Job).  Concerning Luke 1:6 you provided only the following comments:

 

Luke 1 is still OT.  But Romans 3:10!!!! There is none righteous, no not one!

Therein lies the difference between how the OT uses the word righteous and how the NT uses it. 

For the good brethren that say righteousness under he law is the same as it is under grace don't know what they're saying. 

 

I myself do not understand how Luke 1:6 teaches a particular difference between the Old Testament and New Testament usages of the word "righteousness."  Therefore, in order to understand your position more fully, I asked questions concerning Luke 1:6 and concerning your position in relation to it.  I did not make claims on your position, since you really did not provide that much revelation of your position in relation to it.  (Brother, just as you challenged me to check my knees for any jerking reactions, I would request that you might check your knees also.)

 

Then in your post #35, after making a reference to Deuteronomy 6:25, you stated:

 

But that is not the case in the OT where there was no new birth. In the OT salvation is a combination of personal faith in what God told that man to do and the works are the proof of his belief (Abraham was justified by works! - say James) (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

 

Since I had noted your recognition from Ephesians 2:8-9 that salvation is indeed, for both Old and New Testament time periods, by God's grace through individual faith, this statement was quite confusing to me.  Do you believe that salvation in the time of the Old Testament was by a combination of faith and works, or by grace through faith alone? 

 

As a practice, it is my approach to seek understanding of another individual's position, in order that we might recognize those areas wherein we actually have agreement and precisely those areas wherein we have disagreement.

 

Concerning your answers to my three questions in relation to Luke 1:6 --

 

Finally, are we to understand from Luke 1:6 that Zacharias and Elisabeth were savingly justified before God because they walked obediently "in all the commandments of the Lord blameless"?   No.

 

Herein we are in agreement.

 

Are we to understand that the Lord our God imputed their obedience "in all the commandments of the Lord" unto their eternal account for righteousness?  I am merely stating that righteousness in the OT is not the same as righteousness in the New. In addition I stated plainly that Jesus Christ's righteousness was imputed to OT saints, but not until He rose from the dead,. My position is that it is impossible to have born again saints in the OT, there simply was no regeneration, thereby making the line of teaching that "men looked forward" to the cross and absurd doctrine.

 

Herein we have some agreement and some disagreement.

 

1.  I am still not exactly sure in what way you think the "righteousness" in the Old Testament is different than the "righteousness" in the New Testament.

 

2.  We are in agreement that the righteousness of God through Jesus the Christ must be imputed to Old Testament saints in order for them to be eternally saved before the Lord our God.

 

3.  We are not in agreement that the righteousness of God through Jesus the Christ was not imputed until after Christ rose from the dead.

 

4.  We are not in agreement that spiritual regeneration did not occur during the time of the Old Testament.  (However, I recognize that I am in a significant minority concerning this matter in relation to many non-calvinistic Fundamental Baptists.)  (Note #1 -- The position of calvinistic soteriology somewhat requires regeneration in the Old Testament since it indicates that regeneration precedes and is necessary for faith.  Yet I myself do not hold to the position of calvinistic soteriology; therefore, I have not formulated my position through their premises.)  (Note #2 -- My position concerning spiritual regeneration in the Old Testament is not the reason that I argued (in that other thread) for the phrase "sons of God" in Genesis 6 to be a reference unto human individuals.  For I myself do not believe that the Biblical idea of "sons of God" in the context of the Old Testament is equivalent to a regenerate individual, as would be the case in the context of the New Testament.)

 

5.  I would agree that believers in the context of the Old Testament did not precisely "look forward to the cross" or to the details that are bound up with the crucifixion.  However, I would contend that believers in the context of the Old Testament did "look forward" with faith in God's promises toward the coming Christ (which by interpretation is the Messiah), toward the coming of the divinely-appointed Savior (although not by the name Jesus, since that detail was not yet revealed).

 

Are we to understand that they actually walked "in all the commandments of the Lord" with absolutely perfect blamelessness, continuing perfectly without any failure whatsoever "in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them"?

You are equating sinless perfection with right standing before God and they are not the same since 1. There is no sinless perfection in this body, New Testament or Olt, and 2, you are assuming that I am teaching salvation by works.

 

Although my question did indeed equate "sinless perfection" with a "right standing before God" (that is -- being justified before God), I myself do not equate the two in my personal system of belief.  The question actually (as has been indicated above) was intended to discover your position on the matter.  So then, herein we are in agreement that there is no sinless perfection by any human individual, believer or unbeliever, in the context of the New Testament or Old Testament. 

 

Again, I am assuming nothing concerning your position.  Rather, I am asking questions about your position.