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.