By and large those who had such saving faith before Christ were of Israel. Of course, many in Israel did not have saving faith, but by and large it was within Israel that saving faith was uniquely found. When Paul writes that the whole world was a prisoner of sin before Christ came, he refers to the whole world in its natural state, the world bringing on itself a deserved condemnation. Yet, saying this, Paul does not overlook the fact “the gospel was announced in advance to Abraham,” as well as to others of the race of Israel, Israel being God’s chosen and unique people.
That Israel was God’s chosen people—saying of them before the times of Christ that “You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth”—recalls the concept of imprisonment and of the pleasure and authority that some were pardoned, released and forgiven, while others remain “incarcerated” deservedly. While the whole world was a prisoner of sin, it was as it were, that in a sense God uniquely placed Israel on parole and gave them out of his prerogative the privilege of knowing him—of being his family. No other people in the world could claim to be in his family. God chose not to include in his family many others in the world outside Israel. Was it not his pleasure to do so?
As King of the universe he had the right to pardon whom he would, with the chance that there could be those who would be released and forgiven. Faith was not to nullify the wonder of it all; since it pleased God to reveal himself to some, faith was then given to them so that they would be released and forgiven. The assuring word of a pardon inspired the human object of God’s favor to trust him and then made the release and pardon sweet.
A remnant of Israel was forgiven and released, but surprisingly some Gentiles became the object of God’s mercy and were also released and forgiven—the Old Testament makes this plain. We say “surprisingly some Gentiles” . . . because (to reiterate) the majority of those released and pardoned at the time were of Israel. Many in ancient Israel did not have saving faith, but that some Gentiles did at the time does not obscure the fact that God chose Israel to reveal himself comprehensively to the exclusion of passing over most in the rest of the world.
If such exclusion is evident, then it suggests unsurprisingly that once Christ came, God would continue to offer pardon and forgiveness according to his prerogative and pleasure. Although this thought may seem to be countered by claiming God merely revealed himself to Israel so as to have a nation from which Christ would come—a nation that came into existence merely to serve as a preparation for Christ—it overlooks the fact that the world outside of Israel was passed over by God and was not the object of his saving grace before Christ. Even in Israel herself there was a considerable number who hardened their hearts towards God and became the objects of his anger. In Hebrews the writer says that those of ancient Israel had the gospel preached to them (Hebrews 4:2), which means that outside of Israel in ancient times by and large most of the Gentiles did not have the gospel preached to them. Paul in writing the letter to the Romans tells us that apart from the gospel the heathen have no excuse for not believing in God, in the same letter telling us that God, according to his prerogative, hardens whom he wills and has mercy on whom he wills (Romans 9), even with the coming of Christ.
We have noted in passing that when Paul refers to the whole world once being a prisoner of sin, he does not mean exhaustively that not a single person was an object of both God’s pleasure and prerogative, and that none therefore had failed to gain pardon and forgiveness “before the time.” So we have seen that the reference to “the whole world is a prisoner of sin” was a blanket expression and it ought to caution us against shrouding the term “the whole world” to mean every individual the world over every time that the Scriptures employ the term, or has a term similar to it.
This short book explores what the New Testament teaches about the extent of Christ’s atoning death, the very atonement that provides the means by which we have forgiveness in the eyes of God. It seeks to view forgiveness through Christ in terms of God’s pleasure, power and prerogative. It seeks to clarify in conjunction with God’s pleasure and prerogative what is meant by such terms as “all”, “the world”, and “many”—the “all”, “the world”, the “many” for whom Christ died . In short, it endeavors to make plain the scope of God’s forgiveness.
We speak of God’s forgiveness for eternal salvation. There are two forms of divine forgiveness that ought to be taken into account when we endeavor to make clear what is meant by divine forgiveness for eternal salvation, as forgiveness can either embrace the passing over of a blameworthy action without censure and punishment, or freeing a person of the consequence of his or her guilt.
An example of God passing over a blameworthy action without censure or punishment is cited in Psalm 78:38. Modern translations render the verse in a way that speaks of God being merciful and atoning for Israel’s iniquities when they rebelled against him in the desert, while the Authorized Version rendered it –
“But he, being full of compassion,
Forgave their iniquity,
and destroyed them not.”
The excusing by God of Israel’s iniquities was tantamount to forgiving them. A careful reading reveals that he merely overlooked their evil conduct. He overlooked it in the sense that he did not destroy Israel as a nation, but allowed her to move on in the desert. He restrained himself and did not stir up his full wrath (v. 38 again); if he had have stirred up his full wrath, the nation would have been destroyed. Therefore there is an overlooking that may pass as forgiveness. Another example of this is on the cover of a book written by a Holocaust survivor: “I Forgive Hitler.” The sins of Hitler are being overlooked by the survivor, though we may be sure that God has not forgiven Hitler in the sense of freeing Hitler of the guilt of his sins and their consequences.
Then there was the kind of divine forgiveness that showed itself in freeing a condemned person of the guilt of his sin before Christ came, when the gospel was known in advance. In one of his confessional psalms—Psalm 32—David tells us of the blessing that could be known in the forgiveness of transgression, in sins being covered, the kind of covering whereby the Lord did not count David’s sin against him. David, upon acknowledging his sin before God and refusing to cover it up, found the Lord forgave the guilt of his sin. This kind of forgiveness stood in great contrast with that forgiveness God exercised towards his grumbling nation in the wilderness. It is not said that Israel was blessed when God forgave her, but that Israel merely did not suffer God’s full wrath. It is not said that God forgave them of the guilt of their sin, but simply that he did not destroy them. It is not said Israel confessed her sin so as to secure God’s forgiveness to the banishment of their guilt—to the contrary, Israel went on to flatter God with their mouths and lie with their tongues to him instead. When the nation was not faithful to God’s covenant, it was a forgiveness that merely overlooked their evil and spared the nation of being exterminated.
In the following chapter “Forgiveness through the Eyes of Israel” we see that the Old Testament also makes plain that God has a purpose of ultimately making Israel a holy nation, as well as bringing forth from among her people the person of Christ who was not only destined to be Israel’s Savior but the Redeemer of Gentiles as well, all hinging on the prerogative and pleasure of God to forgive, thus encouraging the Early Church initially in believing that at least the Gospel with its message of forgiveness and freedom from condemnation was for them the Jews.
Forgiveness through the Eyes of Israel (1)
When debate has ever arisen over the New Testament terms such as “all” and “the world” and “many” with regard to the redemption and forgiveness found in Christ, the Jewish perspective is rarely considered. In times past it has been called on at times as a witness to the meaning of “all” and “the world” and “many” whenever the court has been in session about the terms, but even then the Jewish perspective was not fully appreciated, when in fact it plays a significant
