Objection #6: “And for this cause He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15). Here the apostle shows that those sins which had been committed during the Old Testament were first atoned for by the death of Christ; that is, at the time when Christ died. If they were then first atoned for, they were not previously atoned for, but constituted an outstanding debt charged to the account of believers who did not have the forgiveness of sins; their sins were only bypassed.
Answer: (1) We state once more that Scripture does not differentiate between paresis and aphesis, or between forgiving and overlooking something. God’s righteousness does not permit the one any more than the other. If He can bypass sin by overlooking it, He can also forgive sin—yes, to forgive and to bypass are one and the same thing. If the sins of the Old Testament believers had not been atoned for because the actual satisfaction had not yet been made, then Old Testament believers would have had no forgiveness whatsoever. No matter how one wishes to express this, they would then have lived and died in an entirely unreconciled state, and consequently would have gone lost. Since they were saved, however, they were therefore also reconciled, and thus their sins had been forgiven them.
(2) We must make a distinction between the act by which the atonement was merited and the efficacy of this act. The act by which the atonement was merited occurred only once; it was accomplished at the time of Christ’s suffering. In the Old Testament the act of atonement had not been performed as yet. Christ had not yet come into the flesh, and had neither suffered nor died. This is a known fact, admitted by everyone. However, the efficacy of the act of atonement does not only pertain to the New Testament and to sins which had not occurred but would be committed. Rather, it also pertains retroactively to the sins of Old Testament believers since the time of Adam. One will have to admit that the bearing with and the bypassing of sin in the Old Testament occurred by virtue of the efficacy of this act, and that believers by reason of this atoning act have been saved. This means that Christ’s atoning act was already efficacious several thousand years prior to its actual occurrence. If it was efficacious unto the overlooking of sin and unto salvation, it was efficacious unto atonement and forgiveness.
(3) The text itself shows that Old Testament believers did have the atonement and forgiveness. It states very clearly that the death of Christ was for the redemption of the transgression of those who were under the first testament. Believers were therefore partakers of this redemption in the Old Testament. Or is it true that Old Testament believers first received redemption at the time of the death of Christ? Did those who were called not receive the promise of eternal inheritance until Christ’s death; and did they only then enter heaven? Were they, prior to Christ’s death, imprisoned in limbus patrum, a fabrication of popery? Did Christ only remove them from there after His death? Indeed not! They have received the promise of eternal inheritance already after their death. They have entered heaven—as the opposing party admits and acknowledges—by reason of the redemption of their transgressions through the death of the Mediator, who is here declared to be the cause of their receiving their inheritance. To have been in heaven and enjoyed a complete salvation while yet being unreconciled; to have enjoyed perfect communion with God for several thousand years, and not to have received redemption until thereafter—consequently to have obtained the forgiveness of sins while in heaven—is altogether contradictory.
(4) That Christ is called the Mediator of the New Testament is of no support to the opposing party, for they themselves admit that Christ was also Surety and Mediator during the Old Testament era. The covenant of grace is one and the same covenant since Adam and will continue unchanged until Christ returns unto judgment. This testament is called “new” relative to its administration. Upon the coming of the Mediator, who is the embodiment of the shadows, the entire ceremonial worship ceases, and the more excellent administration of this Mediator begins—and thus He is called the Mediator of the New Testament.
Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1995), 471–72.
RESOURCES
- Resources On The Limbus Patrum
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Heidelblog
The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
More by Heidelblog ›