In which we discuss the Old Testament people of faith; the cosmology of Sheol; the plague of self-righteousness; the promise of land to Israel; the folly of a rebuilt temple; the idea of “being saved;” the afterlife.

Tim: Shifting our paradigm is never easy and breaking with tradition is always a challenge. We are exploring the thesis that we no longer live by faith, but we live by sight. When Paul said that “…we walk by faith and not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7), he was writing as a futurist, looking ahead to something that Christ was going to historically bring to an end in his lifetime. The New Testament writers believed this event was going to be “soon,” and that the end was “at hand” or “near.” If the event they were looking ahead to in their future took place in history, do we not see these things by sight instead of having to rely on faith? It does indeed change everything!

We are in Hebrews 11 which is called by some the “Roll Call of Faith.” Perhaps all the saints who lived after AD 70 should be written about as the “Roll Call of Sight.” Since this passage is the “Roll Call of Faith,” how do we approach this? How do we who live by sight regard those before Jerusalem’s destruction who lived by faith. And what do we glean from them to understand this whole chapter?

I want us to start at the end of Chapter 11, particularly verses 39 and 40. The history of these Old Testament Saints is very brief. We get a synopsis of their lives in just one or a couple of verses and what we are told about these people was that it was all done by faith.

The author summarizes their faith and declares what they all had in common:

³⁹ And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive ^[aa]what was promised, ⁴⁰ because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

The word “receive” in Greek refers to money that has been “held for safekeeping and then eventually collected.” So, the idea is that, going back to Abel, Enoch, Noah and all the others, they gained approval through their faith, but the promises were being held in reserve and they did not receive them in their lifetime. The promises made by God, but even at the time of the writing of Hebrews, they were still in holding.

This word “promise” is also interesting. There are fifty verses in the New Testament where this word appears and thirteen of those are in the book of Hebrews. So, of all the times this word is used in the New Testament, one fourth of those uses are found in Hebrews. It’s a major theme in this letter and it is essential to understand what the writer is saying since, even though these Old Testament saints gained approval through their faith, they did not gain the promise.

This brings us to some questions: If they never received the promises, and if the saints of the first century never received the promises, does that mean that nobody has received the promises? Does that mean that the people alive today have not received the promises? Some might argue that this puts the integrity of God in question since he has not fulfilled what he has promised.

Valori: Also, in verse 40 there is a timing statement because it says, “…something better for us, so that apart from us, they would not be made perfect.” Since he’s addressing his readers, that makes that a timing statement.

Tim: Exactly. Who is this “us?” A lot of people today will interpret that as, “Well that’s us who are reading the New Testament on this day in the 21^st century, so this us is actually us today. God had something better for us.” Of course, we all know this was written to an audience in thefirst century and so the us is intended to be the first century readers, not us in the modern day. It’s the first century generation that preceded the destruction of Jerusalem.

Ty: I must point out something here, please. The Jews had a concept of Sheol which really doesn’t fit in with our modern-day thinking. They believed that when they died, they really did not see themselves as going to what we call “heaven.” But they also knew that when they died, they didn’t go into the earth and perish. They went to Sheol, which was a holy place until God came to bring them up from the grave. Isn’t this just another example of that fitting into the concept of Sheol that Paul is talking about? They had a promise, but the promise of life after Sheol is for us after AD 70.

Tim: If I understand what you’re saying, the cosmology of Sheol is still operative at the time of the writing of Hebrews, correct? So, you have The Old Testament people who died, and even though they gained approval, they went to Sheol.  The way into the holy place had not yet been opened while the first tabernacle was still standing (Hebrews 9:8). We think that the “first tabernacle” was the temple of their day.

While that temple stood, the way into the true holy place, the “heavens not made with hands,” was still not revealed. In the cosmology of Sheol, they are still in the holding place, where the faithful rest in the bosom of Abraham and the unrighteous in the fiery pit separated by a chasm. You can read this in greater detail in “An Extract Out of Josephus’ Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades” (The Works of Josephus).

Ty: I want to point out that this speaks about the completeness of things for the Jews and life, things that were not complete in their relationship with God. Paul is talking about the same thing. He’s explaining that there is going to be a completeness that is coming and will benefit in ways they had not had before.

Tim:  Let’s get back to our original discussion. God had promised something better for the audience of his day. Dwight brought up the question, “What was the promise?” We can generalize that and say that the promise was Christ himself. The promise was that God would send his son, and in the context, we should expand on that. He says “…God had provided something better for us (the first century Christians), so that apart from us (again, the first century Christians) they (the Old Testament saints) would not be made perfect.”

Remember, the word “better” is used multiple times in Hebrews. The word “better” is used nineteen times in the New Testament and thirteen of those show up in Hebrews. That’s around 70% of the uses of the word “better” showing up in this book. So, when we go back and look at this whole thing where he says God has provided something “better” for us, let’s review how the author uses the word “better” in his writing.

In the context, the word “better” is always a comparative in contrast to the Old Covenant and everything attached to that Old Covenant. As we go back through Hebrews, Jesus is always better than these things. His word was better than the word of angels. His work as a mediator was better than that of Moses. His priesthood was better than that of Aaron. His sacrifice was better than the sacrifice of bulls and goats. The promised New Covenant was better than the Old Covenant. And the promises of the New Covenant are better than the promises attached to the Old.

For example, angels in the Old Testament were the messengers of God to speak from God to men. There is some debate as to whether they are heavenly beings or actual men. In the story where Abraham was visited by two angels, sometimes the text uses the word “angels” and at other times it says “men.” Still the point was that they were going to deliver a message to Abraham about Sodom and Gomorrah. Angels delivered a variety of messages. Sometimes of warning, sometimes of promises. Not all the messages brought hope and grace. I think that’s why the word of Jesus in the Gospel is considered as better.

Ron: When the angels delivered their message, it was like a partial message from the Old Testament or a partial truth. Jesus brought in the fullness. He brought in the whole story instead of just parts of it.

Tim: I think it’s fair to look at it that way. It’s like what Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 13, where he says “…we see through a glass darkly.” While the words of angels and prophets were relevant and necessary for the times, they were still incomplete. One of the most profound principles I had learned concerning prophecy was from Moses Stuart who said, “…some … prophecies have a meaning which is so concealed and obscure, that it can never be discovered until the events take place to which they refer” (Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy).

The author of Hebrews is telling us that when you heap up all the words of angels and the prophets that have come in the past, the words of Jesus are better! I think this fits into our discussion of the promises. The promise is that we’re going to hear the words spoken in the person of Jesus Christ and this is going to finally bring about the ultimate revelation from the father. In the Old Testament times, the words were partial, and they were weak. They needed a time where the word of God was final and powerful; that’s the word of Christ that is better.

Ron: But he kind of just put it all together, the messages from the Old Testament? Or did he? Did he change it a little to make it better?

Tim: He changed it radically. Debbie and I were discussing this on the way over and she was reading some passages from David out of the Psalms. There were some where he gets to waxing eloquent about how he hopes that God would wipe out his enemies. He wanted God to obliterate them because they hate God and destroying them was the solution David saw. While he was an inspired writer of the Old Testament times, he was also a product of his times.

He was a product of the Old Covenant worldview, so it’s not surprising to see David slip into a bit of self-righteousness and violent vindictiveness. He lives in the Old Covenant system observing the ritual of the Tabernacle. He’s dependent on making sacrifices, worshiping through Sabbaths, rituals, and the priesthood. These are all the things that the author of Hebrews says will soon be obsolete. That’s the world that shapes David’s thinking.

The disciples of Jesus were no different. When they were snubbed by one town they asked Jesus if they could call down fire from heaven. They were not that different from David in that respect. Of course, Jesus rebuked them.

That kind of thinking is hard to shake, and I think we all understand that self-righteousness is not easily overcome. We have often used the illustration of Peter receiving the revelation to visit Cornelius and the household of uncircumcised men. Peter was reluctant to go. After a visit, he finally comes to the realization of God’s purpose. He realizes that God is no respecter of persons.

Even his fellow Jewish Christian friends call him out and he has to explain all that happened. Then, in the presence of the Judaizers in Galatia, he starts backsliding. So, we all understand that self-righteous thinking is hard to shake off. So when we look at David’s times and understand that he had to gain approval through faith, we can see he was still thinking in the terms of an Old Covenant worldview.

Valori: There wasn’t just approval through faith between them and God, it was approval through acts of faith before other people. David was pretty much a dumpster fire when you look at what he did with Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite. It was a horrible thing! He handled it with humility and brokenness, but this was the word he was listening to in that day. He had these flashes of messianic vision to look ahead and see things that we’re going to happen in the future, but in his day he was stuck with this idea of living and hearing God’s speaking through the types and shadows. Having the completed word of Christ is far better than what David had!

Dwight: It seems like today’s church is focused on the promise of land to Israel. We can go back and show from the scripture that those promises were already fulfilled. Even if we don’t, here it says forget about the old promises because we have something better given to us now. Why do we focus on the old things when we have something better?

Tim: Well, on that subject we see “…Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance…” (v. 8). It says he lived as an alien in the land of promise as in a foreign land dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob.

When we jump down to verse 13, we are told that “…all these died in faith without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth, for those who say such things make it clear that they were seeking a country of their own, and indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out they would have had opportunity to return, but as it is, they desire a better country, that is a heavenly one.”

How do preachers miss that today? The message today is more like, “Israel’s got to get the country back, but they must kill all the Palestinians first and drive them out of their homes and destroy their homes and rebuild new ones. That’s how we know the end is near!” How did they miss it when it plainly says the country his people were looking for was a heavenly one whose foundations are built by God

Valori: They’ve already forfeited that other country.

Tim: Exactly right. This speaks to what Ron brought up regarding the radical nature of the word of Christ. Think about this! Here is the word of Christ in the Gospel bringing about an idea that the true temple, the dwelling place of God, is going to be the gathering of people, (not a building). It was going to be a spiritual temple that was built on living stones, which they were in that day and we are today. How radical is that?

It is a tremendous contrast compared to the word under which the people of the Old Testament lived. Remember, David wanted to build a temple for God and God wouldn’t let him. I think God had him hold off because what he had in mind is a community where the temple was people and where he would dwell among his people, not in a building. This would be radical to a people who had a history of living with a tabernacle in their midst, having carried it around in the wilderness for forty years.

Consider the history, that Solomon built a temple for God which was destroyed by the Babylonians. Then it was rebuilt with much suffering under Ezra and Nehemiah. There were decades of remodeling under Herod and then the word of Christ comes along and says the unthinkable, that not one stone of this temple will be left upon another, that it will all be destroyed. Jesus was going to tear it down and build a new and better temple that was made-up of living stones where God would dwell. That’s radical!

Valori: It’s the only way to remove all of man’s worship of a physical temple to do it a different way.

Tim: One had to be torn down for the other to be built. One had to die for the other one to come to life.

Ron: Radical! We have to give Valori the respect of being part of the temple as they did back then. She is one of the living stones and it would be wrong to keep her out of her place in the temple.

Tim: When he says that the word of Christ is better than the words of angels, this is an astounding statement when we think about our part in the promises. Do modern Christians believe that the words of Christ 2,000 years ago are better than any mystical revelation they received today? Debbie was reading an article about the upcoming eclipse and how it’s impacted the different religions and people of the day. It pointed out that the eclipse would pass through seven towns named Salem, and of course there will be those who say that it is a sign that Jesus is on his way.That’s just stupid and idiotic. Come on, people! Here we go with yet another “end of the world.”

Then there are those who are looking for what they call “a fresh word from God.” It’s sad that people look for a fresh word from God when the greatest word that has ever been uttered took place in Christ. Why do we need a fresh one? There is the expression that “there is nothing new under the sun.” That is correct! I don’t think I have found anything fresher and more invigorating than going back and reexamining what we have seen in the first century Gospel of Christ.

If we are looking to understand the “better promises” that they received in the first century, then we have to understand the word of Christ compared to the word of angels and the prophets in the Old Testament. Let’s comment on the better high priesthood of Christ than Aaron. In Hebrews, he’s talking about a better high priest that was after the order of Melchizedek. I think modern Christians have missed that the high priesthood of Christ actually finished the sacrificial work so there is no longer need to rely on repetitive rituals and a dying priesthood that defined the Old Covenant worship. The author makes it plain that it is the repetitive reminder of sin that was the weakness of that old worship.

Year after year, the priest would go in and the priest would come out. It was a beautiful picture, but Israel would gather the next year to watch it again. And again, the next year. Futurists who are looking for a rebuilt temple make me wonder. Why do they think we need a temple rebuilt and why would they want to reinstate animal sacrifices after Christ? It makes no sense whatsoever, but I guess it’s the fact that they think the Jews are going to be saved in a different way than Christ.

Ty: It’s interpreted that way because the Jews rejected Christ in the first century and Jesus has to improve on his word for the salvation of the Jews. The Jews didn’t have enough faith then, so they’re going to have a better faith now.

Tim: That’s not too far off. The futurist theology of rebuilding the temple has been going on for years. I think you can go to a website by The Temple Institute, which is a group in Israel. They are working hard to get the temple rebuilt, even trying to breed the perfect red heifer for an offering.

Valori: So, here’s a hypothetical question: What if they actually did rebuild the physical temple? How would that change things in light of our present beliefs?

Hal: It would be World War III because they’d have to do away with the Mosque of Omar.

Tim: Not a single thing would change with me. I’ve heard all kinds of interpretive gymnastics defending a rebuilt temple. For instance, if we were to ask, “If Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, why do we need more sacrifices in the future?” The answer was that they would be “memorial sacrifices.” Really? Why? A memorial sacrificial system would be less than perfect. Would these sacrifices remind us of how weak and useless they were?

The “something better” that was provided in the completed work of Christ was that he was a high priest who actually accomplished what the Old Covenant priest merely pictured. Instead of the sacrifices repeated year after year, Jesus entered the holy place, presented his own blood for sins, and then came out once for all times. That high priesthood is better. It did not have to be repeated over and over again. It was done, completed, finished, and effectual.

Ben: Tim, modern day language here, but what then, must we do to be saved? Let me ask that and I know the answer before you answer.

Tim: You have to get out of Jerusalem when you see the armies surrounding it.

Ben: I’m talking about today with this new and better promise that we have received. What do we need to do to be saved? Nothing. There is no requirement of man at all. I know that. It’s amazing that even the churches like John MacArthur’s, that preach grace, still say there’s more to do.

Hal: There are things you need to do.

Tim: I would say if we must do something, then it is to be liberated from that old bondage that is the legalistic Old Covenant. There is nothing left to do other than what Christ has done for us to be liberated.

Ty: But that is because you believe that Christ has already done it. The crux of the problem is that people still don’t believe that Christ has completed his work. They believe in Christ, but his works are still incomplete. I think he gave them a clue when he said that the stones of the temple had to be completely torn down and taken away. They don’t take into account that he fulfilled that prophecy and they are looking at him like the Jews would a prophet that has failed and should be put to death.

The thing that is hard for me to fathom is that Christian leaders today do not look at that. They also miss Peter’s statement where he said that for thousands of years they have not been able to bear up under the burden of keeping the law. You can’t have both Christ and the law. Christ is better than the temple and he’s better than the old high priest. He’s better than the Old Covenant promises because he fulfilled the things that the Old Testament demanded.

Ron: Well, the question to Ben, “Do you think everyone that’s born receives salvation?”

Ben: At this point, yes. And I realize that when you look at the current condition of the world you would ask, “How could that be?” But at the same time, what’s missing here? When we go back to our evangelical roots it goes something like this: “If you do not receive Christ you’re going to hell.”

Simply put, “…you must do something or you’re not going to make it.” What really occurs here is that Christ has given us everything in redeeming us. His Kingdom has delivered us from everything and just like being born in our flesh, I don’t think we have to ask for what has been bestowed upon mankind.

What people are missing is not the salvation, but the joy and pleasure and happiness that comes from being in the Kingdom. Our message should be telling them what they’re missing. This is what God has done through his son.

Ron: Well, then, you win the discussion! It’s an Old Testament thing that you must believe in Jesus to be saved, but it’s not after Jesus has risen and completed his work. You don’t have to even believe in Jesus to be saved now to receive the gifts, I guess.

Ben: I just come back to the belief that it’s our ignorance. This brings about problems of all kinds when we are left to our own devices where we will do all kinds of horrible, boneheaded things like war. But God has made the provision for us and his love covers all.

Chuck: We need to redefine things with this new viewpoint and the idea of being saved is one of them. Tim said that we’ve hashed over all this before, but being saved back then does not mean the same thing that the modern church or evangelicals mean by being saved. We’re not being saved from hell, it’s more of a liberation, like Tim said, so it’s not really being saved, it’s being liberated from the old way, the Old Covenant.

Debbie: So, when we say it is being saved from the “wrath to come,” which was about to come upon them in that day, they were being saved from that, from the destruction of Jerusalem.

Tim: There’s validity in that and there is always more to this debate. When I was an emerging Calvinist, there was the debate between the Arminians and Calvinists. The argument was based upon the extent of the atonement. The Arminians believed that God died for everyone, but he only saves those who respond. So, they believed that even though God provided salvation for everyone, not everyone would be saved because of the lack of response.

The Calvinists would argue that, “,,,if Jesus died for everyone, then he actually failed to save anyone since it was dependent upon man’s response.” So, theoretically, Jesus could have died for the world, but all would perish without any response. This would have rendered Christ’s sacrifice as useless and a failure.

The Calvinists would say that Jesus died for his elect and that his elect will be infallibly saved by his irresistible grace. The universalists would say that Jesus died for everyone, therefore, everyone is going to be saved. The puritan John Owen observed that whatever you may say about the universalists, they at least believed that God in his power actually accomplished what he set out to do, which would be an agreement with the Calvinist in the salvation of his elect. The Calvinist would say that he set out to save his elect and he did so effectually.

The point they share is that God victoriously accomplished what he set out to do. He did not fail. It was a victorious work that he intended to do, and he actually accomplished that victory. So, our views agree that God accomplished what he planned.

 Ron: So, is there a passage in the Bible that says either everyone born is saved or is it who believe, because I know there’s a passage that says God will draw near whom he wants to draw near?

Valori: Well, it was contextual. Back in that day, they were being saved from an eminent threat.

Ron: Right, I’m trying to get past the Old Testament trying to look after Jesus’ accomplishment.

Valori: We’re trying to look at today.

Ron: Where that leaves us now, Ben says, is, “Everybody’s saved.” I was always with an opinion that you had to believe to be saved.

Tim: Well, what is “saved?”

Ron: To me, “saved” is going to heaven after death. Basically, let’s put it down to that instead of going to nowhere or going to the fire or wherever the unbelievers go.

Chuck: We have to make a distinction. Back then they had to be saved from being attacked and killed by the Romans.  What I’m saying is that today there is no one saved in that way.

Ron: You’re saying that word “saved” should not even be used.

Ty:  But you’re arguing about two different things. I would argue that both John the Baptist and Jesus preached a repentance because the kingdom of God was near. Jesus had more detail about the Kingdom than John. John’s basic interest was that the people would repent of whatever practices they were practising that was keeping God from taking the next step. He wasn’t interested in what that next step would be.

Christ defines what that next step as if you’re in progress. If you’re in the Kingdom, you are going to love one another. So, there’s two different steps.

I don’t think those that the reading of the Bible or the preaching of the Bible looks at the completeness of all those things, because our modern-day preachers really are either blinded or they’re ignorant, or they’re caught up in the repentance step, they’re not looking at the at the Kingdom step of the people being in God’s Kingdom with them.

Chuck: There are more things that need to be redefined. I agree totally.

Tim: Well, let’s go back to Ron’s point. It’s a good question to ask because the basic theology is that if we are saved, when we die, we go to heaven. We have taken a different route in seeing all things fulfilled so we are in a position where we need to reinterpret Revelation 21-22 differently from the futurists. This is the new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven. Futurists will interpret that as heaven, the afterlife. This is where we will go when we die, and others will note it will be the material world after the second coming.

They will see the afterlife as the streets of gold, the flowing river, and the trees that are for the healing of the nations. One problem they have is to explain why there are still the wicked sitting outside the gates. How do you explain that this is the place for them after they die? How is it that in the heavenly afterlife, there are still the wicked sitting outside the gates?

If we see these chapters as being fulfilled in the 1^st century, then we have the task of going back and reinterpreting all those images as a reality for today. We have interpreted heaven as meaning the presence of the father and that by being in Christ, you’re in the loving presence of the father. This is the spiritual reality for us today. We see reality as us being a people dwelling in his presence now. The futurists say this reality is only in the afterlife. For us after death, that heavenly presence just keeps going on. I would say that the work of Christ was intended to bring us into this unbreakable bond of love with the father that is maintained by God and not by ritual works of religion.

This vast love is available to us now and that we don’t have to wait for death to know that love. I think that defines heaven, both now and in the afterlife. I believe this is why Christ could tell some of the disciples that some of them would not die and that some would never die.

So, as Chuck said, there is a necessity to go back and redefine things and challenge the traditional views. We must go back and redefine what it means to have faith in Jesus. Tradition has told us what to believe for centuries, but there comes a time when we need to go back and question that tradition.

Our gatherings have been devoted to doing the same thing with concepts like “sin” and “Satan.” We have gone back and reexamined things based upon the first century culture, the language of that day, and the language of Jesus in the Ancient Middle East. Studying history has caused us to reevaluate the timing statements in the New Testament and we’ve seen a total renovation of our understanding. For the better, I believe.

Ron: So, now we need to renovate our understanding of who is loved by God and the idea of heaven on earth. And the idea of weeping and gnashing of teeth and people outside of heaven. So, here’s me personally: The more I see that what the Bible promises in Christ are ours now, the less I know about the afterlife.

Tim: I’ve come to a place where I’m claiming to be agnostic about the afterlife. That’s just saying that I know a lot less about the afterlife than I did 22 years ago. The tradeoff is that I know a lot more about living in the now. I know the afterlife is eternal. Ron, I guess that, as Ben continues to remind us, if we are going to err, I think we should err on the side of love.

When we meet people that most evangelicals would look at and say, “They’re going to hell,” I would rather err on the side of the love of God for them. I don’t want to condemn them. When I meet them and converse with them, I want them to go away knowing about the love of the father, not about judgment. I want them to know what it’s like to live in the presence of the father, we must have a message that “there is no condemnation in Christ,” no fear and guilt in the Kingdom. If I must err, let it be in that direction. It is not our place to judge who is going to be in the heavenly neighborhood after death, but I figure that God is able to run a pretty good HOA there.

Valori: We must look at the gates of the New Jerusalem as being always open, but yet there’s still people out there gnashing their teeth, so they must have been separated at some point in time. I’m guessing when Jerusalem was destroyed. And that’s when those people went out there because they could never enter that Kingdom because they believed in the Old Covenant.

Tim: Certainly something to think about. We probably ought to close right now.