by Wilhelmus a Brakel
Thus far we have considered the state of the church during the Old Testament in general terms. Presently we shall consider the state of believers in particular, as there are various opinions among the Reformed concerning this. We shall present them in an orderly fashion by dealing with some questions pertaining to 1) the Surety and 2) Old Testament believers. In this chapter we shall speak of the nature of this Suretyship.
Conflicting Views Examined
The following questions need to be considered: Did the Lord Jesus take upon Himself and fully remove from Old Testament believers their guilt and punishment? Did He do so by obligating Himself before God, in accordance with His will, to make satisfaction for them? Or did these believers remain subject to their guilt and punishment by consequence of God reserving for Himself the authority, right, and liberty to punish their sins in them until the Surety would have made satisfaction?
These are the main issues as well as the reason for the subsequent differences of opinion. The very honor of the Lord Jesus is at stake. First we shall consider the various types of sureties, then a few matters in which the opposing parties agree, followed by their differences.
First, civil law knows of three sureties.
(1) The first is called Fide-jussor, under benefit of ordinis et excussionis; that is, one person becomes surety for another person, the condition being that the debtor retains his debt, being first obliged to pay as much as he is capable of. Should the debtor come up short, the surety will make satisfaction for the remainder until the full sum has been paid.
(2) The second is called Fide-jussor, with renunciation of the benefit of ordinis et excussionis; that is, the surety places himself on the same level as the debtor. This means that the creditor may file a claim and demand payment of whomever he wishes, be it the debtor or the surety; both remain under obligation. Thus, if the claim is initially filed against the surety, and he is not able to render full payment, the debtor has to make restitution for the remaining sum—or if the claim is initially filed against the debtor and he is not able to render full payment, the surety is required to make restitution for the remaining sum.
(3) The third type of surety is called an Expromissor, who, with the concurrence of the creditor, assumes the debt as being his own in order to personally pay it. The debtor is thus released from all debt, is no longer under obligation, and can never be held accountable again—even if the surety were to be remiss and would neither be willing nor able to pay.
These three types of sureties only play a role in settling monetary debts between individuals; therefore, these cannot be transferred and applied in all particulars to the suretyship of the Lord Jesus. For relative to that suretyship, God comes to the foreground as Judge, executing justice upon the defendant in both the sentencing and carrying out of this sentence. We are dealing here with a debtor who is worthy of death; therefore, either he or the Surety must die. Payment cannot be made jointly in this case. This Surety is both God and man and is capable of bearing and fully exhausting the punishment. Since the three types of suretyship are really not applicable here, we shall neither dwell upon these words nor shall we get involved in any disputes over those things one may wish to extract from them. If, however, we would be compelled to use one of these terms, then we maintain that Christ neither is, nor can be, a surety Fide-jussor , for this would be to imply imperfection in the surety or his suretyship. Such a surety would neither be of any benefit to a sinner nor could he render any comfort. Rather, we say that Christ is a Surety Expromissor who has taken upon Himself both guilt and punishment as being His own, and has given Himself in the place of the sinner. The Father ordained this to be so. He Himself sent the Surety, and was satisfied and well-pleased with the suretyship of His Son. Whether He would, or actually had made satisfaction, was equally certain with God. The future is with God as if it were in the past. Secondly, the matters in which there is agreement are the following:
(1) Old Testament believers were taken into heaven immediately upon their death, there enjoying eternal bliss.
(2) They were not saved apart from the satisfaction of God's justice.
(3) They were saved solely on the basis of the suffering and death of the promised Messiah, who at the appointed time would pay for their sins.
(4) God has decreed from eternity never to punish the sins of the elect in themselves personally, but solely and in no other way than in the Surety Jesus Christ.
(5) After the fall, God established only one covenant of grace with man. This commenced with the first promise in Paradise, and is and remains immutable until Christ's coming unto judgment. It is by way of this covenant that Old Testament believers were and New Testament believers are saved.
(6) Thus, God has only one church upon earth, which is and remains the same in essence from Adam until the judgment.
In these points there is agreement, and one is mutually opposed to those parties who challenge any of these truths. Both sides consider all those, who in any of these points lean toward such opponents, to be opponents as well.
Thirdly, the difference of opinion consists in this: The common sentiment among the Reformed is that the suretyship of the Lord Jesus in the Old Testament was identical to that of the New Testament. We believe that He took upon Himself and removed all the sins of all the elect (and thus also of all Old Testament believers) in order to pay for them by His suffering and death. Old Testament believers have thus been as free from guilt and punishment as are New Testament believers. Others maintain, however, that in the Old Testament the Surety did not take upon Himself the guilt of His people in an absolute sense. Rather, He would only have been an assisting, helping Surety who obligated Himself only upon the condition that it would please God to punish their sins in Him and not in them. They would thus remain subject to guilt and punishment while God retained the authority, right, and liberty to punish their sins in themselves until such a time when the Surety would render payment in full. In the event the Surety would fail to do so, and would either be unable or unwilling to render payment, they would then eternally be punished themselves. If one wishes to define the difference in terms of the various suretyships, then the commonly understood difference is this: Christ has been Expromissor in both the Old and New Testaments, whereas others maintain that in the Old Testament Christ was only a Fide-jussor rather than an Expromissor. If anyone asks how the latter proposition harmonizes with the propositions posited in the above (to which both parties subscribe), I answer that I neither know nor am able to tie them all together. I leave that to those who propose both to be true.
The Lord Jesus Was Surety in the Old Testament in the Absolute and Full Sense of the Word.
That the Lord Jesus was such an absolute and vicarious Surety in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament is proven as follows:
Proof #1: There is one single covenant of grace which is and remains the same from Adam until Christ's coming unto judgment—a covenant in which all partakers have an equal portion and the same rights, and of which Jesus Christ is Surety (Heb 7:22). Since there is but one covenant and one Surety, and all the partakers of the covenant have equal rights and partake of this covenant in the same way, Christ must also be the same Surety at all times, and His suretyship must be of the same efficacy both before as well as after His actual satisfaction.
Proof #2: The apostle states in express terms that Christ was the same Surety in the Old Testament as He was in the New Testament: "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb 13:8). Yesterday pertains to the past; that is, the days of the Old Testament when those were alive of whom the apostle states in verse 7 that we should follow their faith and consider the end of their conversation. Today pertains to the present time, that is, the days of the New Testament. The thrust of the apostle's argument is that we should no less put our trust in Christ and have no less expectation of a good outcome than did the believers in the Old Testament, since the Lord Jesus is the same now as He was then. Thus, in respect to His Person He is the eternal and unchangeable God, and in regard to atonement and the meriting of all redemption and salvation, His Suretyship in the New Testament is of the same efficacy as previously in the Old Testament. He is presently as much our altar (vs. 10) as He was then, and He presently sanctifies His people with His own blood as He did then, they being one and the same people (vs. 12). Furthermore, He is not only given to be the atonement for the transgressions of those who were under the first Testament, but also is given as the atonement of New Testament believers. Therefore the apostle desires that we would strengthen our hearts with grace and not cleave to external things. Since the apostle derives the foundation of comfort and confidence from Christ as He was for His people in the Old Testament, in order to strengthen us in the New Testament, it is therefore a certainty that Christ was as efficacious a Surety in the Old Testament as He is in the New Testament. Since Christ is one and the same in both the Old and New Testaments, and since in the New Testament Christ is a vicarious Surety in the absolute sense of the word, then He has also been so in the Old Testament.
Proof #3: The nature of Christ's suretyship in the Old Testament accords with His assumption of that suretyship in the covenant of redemption or the eternal Counsel of Peace, and as He has been in the execution of that suretyship. Since in this counsel and in the execution of His suretyship He has been a vicarious Surety in the absolute sense of the word, He has necessarily also been a vicarious Surety in the absolute sense of the word in the Old Testament.
(1) That He has given Himself as a vicarious Surety in the eternal Counsel of Peace is self-evident in light of God's wisdom, truth, and other attributes. God's objective was the salvation of the elect in the absolute sense of the word. He chose them in Christ to the praise of His glorious grace (Eph 1:5); God gave them to Christ in order that He would save them (John 17:6); and Christ has written them in His book (Rev 21:27). There is not the least contingency. How could God oblige the elect to pay for their sins when He had decreed from eternity not to punish sin in the elect, but only in the Surety? To what purpose would God, in the covenant of redemption, keep the elect subject to eternal condemnation? Did God not trust His Son? Was He not sufficiently powerful? Did the Son of God have need of guarantees, so that in the event that He would fall short, men would then assist Him and pay the remainder? Or did the Son commit Himself upon the condition of rendering payment if the Father were pleased to lay hold of Him rather than the elect—and not know this until He would enter the world in the fullness of time—so that it could have happened that He would not have had to suffer and render payment? Or else would God deal with His elect in this time state in a manner differing from His original intent, and thus think and act differently? As you see, all these absurdities show that the true, omniscient, and all-wise God could only deal with the Son in a way whereby He ordained Him to be a vicarious Surety for all the elect in the absolute sense of the word—and thus without treating the one elect person differently from the other. The Son could do no differently than to give Himself to be a vicarious Surety to the fullest degree for all the elect on equal terms.
(2) Just as the Surety has been ordained in God's eternal purpose to be a vicarious Surety in the absolute sense of the word, Christ has also executed His suretyship as such a Surety. He has rendered payment in full for the one as well as for the other. Without any reservation or condition, He has taken the place of all the elect, doing so upon equal terms. "But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him ... the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and He was afflicted" (Isa 53:57). The prophecies were to the benefit of the people who were living during that time period, and to whom they were proclaimed. Thus, the believers of that time understood the Surety to have taken their sins upon Himself, and that He would make satisfaction for them at the appointed time. Therefore, He executed His suretyship in agreement with His eternal appointment as Surety. It is in this way alone that He could be presented as the object of faith, for the object of faith must necessarily be true. It is therefore incontrovertible that Christ has been a vicarious Surety in the Old Testament in the absolute sense of the word.
Proof #4: To believers in the Old Testament, Christ was held forth in no other way than as a vicarious Surety in the absolute sense of the word—as a Surety who took their place, and who took their sins from them upon Himself in order to make satisfaction for them. This is evident for the following reasons:
(1) The sacrifices were types of Jesus in His making satisfaction by way of suffering and dying. When a sinner came to the temple with a sacrificial animal, surrendering it to the priest for sacrifice, the sinner would lay his hands upon the sacrificial animal, signifying thereby that he laid his sins upon the future Messiah who was typified by that sacrificial animal. That animal would then be put to death in the place of the sinner, and consequently he would go home justified. By way of the sacrifices there was an absolute transfer of sins to the Messiah. Here faith was exercised in the Messiah—it being a certainty that He would render payment. Here justification by faith occurred—faith which must have truth as its object. Thus, in the Old Testament, Christ was a vicarious Surety in the absolute sense of the word.
(2) Furthermore, Old Testament believers either did or did not know that they were still subject to guilt and the punishment of eternal condemnation. They also either did or did not know that God would not punish their sins in themselves, but rather that He willed and would punish them in the Surety. Had they understood
that they were still subject to guilt and punishment, while not knowing that God willed and would punish their sins, not in them, but in the Surety, they would not have been able to believe in the future Messiah, since there was not a sure promise which faith necessarily requires. They would still have been and remained subject to guilt. Thus, having had no faith, they would not have been saved. If they indeed did have faith, however, which they certainly did, there had to be an absolute promise; consequently, there had to be a vicarious Surety in the absolute sense of the word. If, in fact, they did not know that they were and remained subject to guilt and punishment, the implication would be that God had hidden their obligation to bear the punishment themselves in His secret counsel, and not made this known to them. Had they actually known, however, that God willed and would punish their sins in the Surety, they could only have considered Christ as being a vicarious Surety in the absolute sense of the word, and thus believing in Him, they could be at peace and consider themselves as being free from guilt and punishment. Otherwise the concern would remain that the Surety would come short, or that His payment would be insufficient and that they, being the primary debtors, would therefore have to render either a full or partial payment. What a dreadful thing it is, however, to think of God and of the almighty and faithful Jesus in such terms! He would not even have been a perfect Surety. If, however, He became Surety with the Father's approbation, then, upon the debt having been transferred, the justified debtor could never be held accountable for his debt again.
(3) If one maintains that these believers indeed knew that Christ alone, and not they themselves, would render payment, but that God, nevertheless, made known to them that He reserved the right and the authority to punish sin in them rather than in the Surety—then I answer that it is contradictory to know on the one hand that Christ would most certainly render payment, and to know on the other hand that God is at liberty not to require payment from the Surety, but rather to punish them. God cannot command faith in contradictory matters. It thus remains a certain fact that Christ has been a vicarious Surety in the Old Testament.
Proof #5: Old Testament believers were saved and translated into heaven immediately upon their death. This is not a point of contention. However, either they were in heaven while yet subject to guilt and punishment until Christ died; or they were fully justified from all guilt and punishment, and declared to be heirs of the eternal salvation they already possessed. If they were still subject to guilt in heaven, they would also have to fear that the moment would arrive when subjection to punishment would yet be required, and that it would be possible for them to be expelled from heaven and be cast into hell. These are contradictory matters indeed: to be saved in heaven while yet being subject to guilt and punishment, fearing the possibility of expulsion. If they were fully justified, this occurred either without total satisfaction of God's justice—which is impossible—or by virtue of the perfect suretyship of the Messiah who, though He had not yet rendered payment, had in the absolute sense of the word removed their sins from them and taken them upon Himself in order to render payment for them at the appointed time. If the latter is true by virtue of the satisfaction of Christ, then Christ, in the absolute sense of the word, was in the Old Testament a vicarious Surety to believers after their death. Thus, relative to this suretyship, future payment and actual payment are of equal efficacy. If Christ is the vicarious Surety of believers subsequent to their death, He is also such prior to their death. They are the very same elect; God does not change toward them, and Christ did not change relative to His suretyship each time a believer died. Thus, in the Old Testament the Lord Jesus was a vicarious Surety in the absolute sense of the word.
Proof #6: Old Testament believers had the benefits of reconciliation with God, the adoption of children, true saving faith, full justification, peace with God, etc. We shall prove this to be true in what follows. They could not be partakers of those benefits except by way of a perfect, vicarious Surety. The Lord Jesus was therefore such a Surety in the Old Testament.
Objections Answered
Objection #1: If the Surety were to be remiss, would believers in the Old Testament have been saved? The justice of God would not permit this, and therefore the fathers of the Old Testament had to remain subject to guilt until the Surety had in actuality made satisfaction.
Answer (1) Then those believers who had the promise prior to Sinai would be in one and the same state as those who lived subsequent to Sinai. However, the opposing party exalts the state of the former far above the state of the latter.
(2) Would the souls of the just made perfect then be expelled from heaven if the Surety would prove to be remiss?
(3) It is a dreadful thing to believe, let alone to say, "if the Surety would prove to be remiss." God cannot lie, the counsel of the Lord will stand, and the Lord Jesus is both obedient and faithful. Thus, what room is there for such a foolish argument? Objection #2: If Christ were to have taken the guilt of the elect upon Himself in the absolute sense of the word, He would then have to render payment for His own guilt, and believers would then be redeemed by having their guilt assumed, rather than by satisfaction.
Answer (1) One could maintain the same thing by positing Christ to be only a promising Surety—one whose suretyship is contingent upon conditions.
(2) Christ has rendered payment for the sins of the elect, whose guilt He took upon Himself in order to make satisfaction for them in their stead.
(3) The same would be true in the New Testament.
Objection #3: "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins" (1 Cor 15:17). This proves that one had to render payment himself if the Surety proved to be remiss. Thus, Christ was not a vicarious Surety in the Old Testament; instead, believers remained subject to guilt until the Surety had rendered payment.
Answer (1) In using the word "you" and "ye," the apostle is speaking of the New Testament period, stating the condition believers would be in had Christ not risen. Would one then conclude thereby that Christ is but a Fide-jussor in the New Testament—that is, a supporting and assisting Surety who will step in when man cannot render payment? Or are we to conclude that if God were to require restitution from either or both of the parties, that New Testament believers would yet be subject to guilt and punishment?
(2) The apostle declares it to be an impossibility that Christ, being God and man, would not have arisen from the dead. He establishes with certainty that our faith is not in vain and that we are not in our sins.
(3) He proves the resurrection of the dead, which some denied, by the resurrection of Christ, proving that Christ had arisen by stating the absurdities which would follow had Christ not risen. It is therefore not the apostle's objective to teach what the consequences are of Christ not having risen, but rather what absurdities and impossibilities follow from such a position.
(4) The subject under consideration is neither the state of Old Testament believers nor the notion that they, for fear that Christ would be remiss, would have remained subject to guilt and punishment until Christ had rendered payment. Conditio impossibilis nihil ponit in esse: An impossible condition does not establish anything. It was impossible that Christ would not perfectly execute everything required by His suretyship. It is therefore foolishness to imagine certain matters which would follow if there were no satisfaction.
Objection #4: Since payment had not been rendered for guilt, it remained until full payment had been made.
Answer: What sort of conclusion is this? Is Christ therefore not a vicarious Surety? One denies this, insisting that Christ is a vicarious Surety. This means therefore that Christ was a vicarious Surety who at the proper time would make satisfaction. Believers did not remain subject to guilt; the Surety had taken it upon Himself. It had not been paid as yet, but the infallible One would make satisfaction for it.
Objection #5: For Old Testament believers, the handwriting against them had to be rescinded daily (Col 2:14). Hereby they obligated themselves to render payment; thus Christ was not a vicarious Surety.
Answer: It is not true that believers obligated themselves daily to render payment for their sins. The word "handwriting" does not imply this. Rather, it signifies that the sacrifices could not remove their sins, but that their sins would most certainly be paid for by the Surety who had taken their guilt upon Himself. Of this the sacrifices assured them. This handwriting was in some way not entirely against them, as the promised Messiah neither had come as yet nor had made satisfaction for everything. This did not weigh them down, however, nor result in less assurance concerning the payment by the Surety.
All errors in this matter arise from comparing God and His doings with man and his doings—which conflicts with Isa 55:8—and from comparing the Surety Jesus Christ relative to death and the righteous judgment of God, as Judge, with the functioning of human sureties relative to monetary debts. We have refuted this, and have confirmed that Jesus Christ as Surety, as to method and efficacy, is the same in both the Old and New Testament; that is, in having taken both the guilt and punishment from the elect upon Himself. It thus follows that in regard to the essence of the matter, Old Testament believers have been in the same state of reconciliation, sonship, peace, and friendship with God as have New Testament believers. We shall discuss this subject in the next chapter.
----
Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service