What Is, "...only together with us would they be made perfect", Talking About?

[makesends]

What is this I highlight here referring to? Hebrews 11: "39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect."

 

[Arial]

What is this I highlight here referring to? Hebrews 11: "39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect."

The best I can do at the moment, and considering all that was said in Chapt 11 before this verse about the faith of OT saints:

If Jesus was incarnate before the NT era, was crucified, raised, and ascended, there would be no us and the elect are chosen and known by God before the foundation of the world. In addition, we will all be resurrected and glorified together--at the same time.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
What is this I highlight here referring to? Hebrews 11: "39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect."

The best I can do at the moment, and considering all that was said in Chapt 11 before this verse about the faith of OT saints:

If Jesus was incarnate before the NT era, was crucified, raised, and ascended, there would be no us and the elect are chosen and known by God before the foundation of the world. In addition, we will all be resurrected and glorified together--at the same time.

I agree completely with that, but by the sentence structure I can't help thinking it is not just because it is at the same time, but that we are with them one body. They are not complete just because individuals, or an OT group, are glorified, but because we are at last one.

Naturally, another aside comes to mind: This to me may even indicate that the individual is not complete, until this unity—this glorification—is done. And in the "already, but not yet" way, it may be part of who the individual really IS.

 

[Arial]

I agree completely with that, but by the sentence structure I can't help thinking it is not just because it is at the same time, but that we are with them one body. They are not complete just because individuals, or an OT group, are glorified, but because we are at last one.

I think you may be right.

Naturally, another aside comes to mind: This to me may even indicate that the individual is not complete, until this unity, this glorification, is done. And in the "already, but not yet" way, it may be part of who the individual really IS.

I can't get my mind to wrap around that. Maybe in the morning after three cups of coffee, I'll give it another go.

 

[atpollard]

What is this I highlight here referring to? Hebrews 11: "39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect."

Faith and Righteousness are good, but there is no GLORIFICATION (being made PERFECT as God is perfect) without Jesus Christ [and His death and resurrection]. Therefore, the OT saints were "commended for their faith" but not saved (justified, sanctified and glorified) by it. The OT saints and the NT saints (us) are both "made perfect" (justified, sanctified and glorified) in the same way ... in the finished work of Jesus, our Lord, High Priest, Mediator and LORD.

Just my best guess.
But what do I know about anything?

 

[fastfredy0]

... according to the MacArthur New Testament Commentary ...

Many of them never received the land. Sometimes they had earthly victory; sometimes they did not. Sometimes their faith saved them from death; sometimes it brought them death. No matter. They knew that God had provided something better.
God has provided this “something better” for us, that is for those under the New Covenant, which is why apart from us they should not be made perfect. That is, not until our time, the time of Christianity, could their salvation be completed, made perfect. Until Jesus’ atoning work on the cross was accomplished, no salvation was complete, no matter how great the faith a believer may have had. Their salvation was based on what Christ would do; ours is based on what Christ has done. Their faith looked forward to promise; ours looks back to historical fact.
Yet, though their salvation was not completed in their lifetimes, these were not second - rate believers. They were believers of the highest order. They courageously struggled, suffered, and counted on salvation. They believed all of God’s Word that they had, which is what counts with Him. How much less faith do we often have, in spite of our much greater light. “Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed” (John 20:29).

Seems that MacArthur agrees with @atpollard

 

[makesends]

Faith and Righteousness are good, but there is no GLORIFICATION (being made PERFECT as God is perfect) without Jesus Christ [and His death and resurrection]. Therefore, the OT saints were "commended for their faith" but not saved (justified, sanctified and glorified) by it. The OT saints and the NT saints (us) are both "made perfect" (justified, sanctified and glorified) in the same way ... in the finished work of Jesus, our Lord, High Priest, Mediator and LORD.

Just my best guess.
But what do I know about anything?

This invokes no, "together with us", mind in me. That is, your take says, "they, and we also", as opposed to, "they with us". It says "both finally made perfect because of what Christ did later (and earlier, in our case)", instead of "they only combined with us as the one body of Christ", which, admittedly, is me adding a "feel" instead of evidence. I could connect the dots, but it would be time-consuming, gap-jumping, and ignoring many things to be brought to bear.

 

[makesends]

... according to the MacArthur New Testament Commentary ...

Many of them never received the land. Sometimes they had earthly victory; sometimes they did not. Sometimes their faith saved them from death; sometimes it brought them death. No matter. They knew that God had provided something better.
God has provided this “something better” for us, that is for those under the New Covenant, which is why apart from us they should not be made perfect. That is, not until our time, the time of Christianity, could their salvation be completed, made perfect. Until Jesus’ atoning work on the cross was accomplished, no salvation was complete, no matter how great the faith a believer may have had. Their salvation was based on what Christ would do; ours is based on what Christ has done. Their faith looked forward to promise; ours looks back to historical fact.
Yet, though their salvation was not completed in their lifetimes, these were not second - rate believers. They were believers of the highest order. They courageously struggled, suffered, and counted on salvation. They believed all of God’s Word that they had, which is what counts with Him. How much less faith do we often have, in spite of our much greater light. “Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed” (John 20:29).

Seems that MacArthur agrees with @atpollard

Ultimately unsatisfying to me. —Too, "time dependent", a definition. That they looked forward to it —that is, that it happened after their time of faith—, and we look back to it —it happened before us— to me is inconsequential as to the nature of that faith. It is necessarily generated by the indwelling spirit for both groups, I think, both groups being under the common condemnation by Adam's guilt imputed, original sin and the dominion of the sin nature, and so the Spirit of God is necessary for both situations. There is no valid faith if they were not regenerated.

Did not mean to get off topic, there. I'm using something I firmly hold to (that regeneration was also necessary in the OT, monergism being necessary to the gospel), for there to be one gospel for all time, as reason to disagree that it is simply this group and that, as it sounds from MacArthur.

However, maybe he meant more (or maybe less) than what I take from what he said.

 

[fastfredy0]

There is no valid faith if they were not regenerated.

Agreed. Regeneration causes faith.

for there to be one gospel for all time

Not sure I agree. It might depend on the detailed explanation of the contents of "the gospel". That being said, even now a list of facts to be believed for salvation is hazy where "hazy" is defined as theologians cannot come to an agreed list of facts to be believed. Now, if the facts to be believed include the death and resurrection of Christ, I doubt those facts were apart of the salvific gospel of say Abraham. (my un-prophetical thoughts .. giggle)

 

[makesends]

Agreed. Regeneration causes faith.

Did not mean to get off topic, there. I'm using something I firmly hold to (that regeneration was also necessary in the OT, monergism being necessary to the gospel), for there to be one gospel for all time, as reason to disagree that it is simply this group and that, as it sounds from MacArthur.

makesends said:
for there to be one gospel for all time

Not sure I agree. It might depend on the detailed explanation of the contents of "the gospel". That being said, even now a list of facts to be believed for salvation is hazy where "hazy" is defined as theologians cannot come to an agreed list of facts to be believed. Now, if the facts to be believed include the death and resurrection of Christ, I doubt those facts were apart of the salvific gospel of say Abraham. (my un-prophetical thoughts .. giggle)

I'm not sure what you are not sure you agree with —that there is only one gospel for all time?

The contents of the pure gospel are the Covenant of Redemption. That we have to understand it all for our faith to be valid is impossible, regardless of the content. What God holds us to, as responsible, is, (at least), shown in Romans 1. The faith is not ours as such, nor as a result of what we know. It is what God does in us in raising us from death to life. We don't have to understand it for it to be valid; we are not the ones who make it valid.

But, that's my way of looking at it. Certainly God holds us responsible to continue with further understanding as the facts become understandable to us. But our knowledge is not the content of the Gospel. Mere words and concepts are not whom we trust, and in whom we live.

 

[fastfredy0]

The contents of the pure gospel are the Covenant of Redemption. That we have to understand it all for our faith to be valid is impossible, regardless of the content. What God holds us to, as responsible, is, (at least), shown in Romans 1. The faith is not ours as such, nor as a result of what we know. It is what God does in us in raising us from death to life. We don't have to understand it for it to be valid; we are not the ones who make it valid.

But, that's my way of looking at it. Certainly God holds us responsible to continue with further understanding as the facts become understandable to us. But our knowledge is not the content of the Gospel. Mere words and concepts are not whom we trust, and in whom we live.

Hard to discuss something we both claim to not understand fully. (giggle)

I've read the following and believe it to be true:

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion: We shall now have a full definition of faith if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ. Faith consists more of certainty than discernment.”

Herman Bavinck – Reformed Dogmatics: There is a danger in reducing the faith to quantitative measurement. Such an arithmetic of belief obscures the qualitative, gracious, person, organic relation to Christ. Faith is trust in the grace of God and not calculable. The content of faith is not reducible to an arithmetic addition of articles. All believers, in principle, share the same knowledge and trust in the grace of God to save.

 

[makesends]

Hard to discuss something we both claim to not understand fully. (giggle)

I've read the following and believe it to be true:

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion: We shall now have a full definition of faith if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ. Faith consists more of certainty than discernment.”

Herman Bavinck – Reformed Dogmatics: There is a danger in reducing the faith to quantitative measurement. Such an arithmetic of belief obscures the qualitative, gracious, person, organic relation to Christ. Faith is trust in the grace of God and not calculable. The content of faith is not reducible to an arithmetic addition of articles. All believers, in principle, share the same knowledge and trust in the grace of God to save.

I agree with the above. But what they say implies exactly what I was saying, that it is because faith is FROM God, or BY God, "generated" by God, it is therefore real. That the numerous facts within it are [even eternally] important does not relegate it to dependence of OUR intellectual knowledge of any fact within it.

That "faith consists more of certainty than discernment" implies that the certainties within it, or by which it consists, are to some degree beyond our discernment". Whether we understand the certainties, does not make it more valid. The certainties it consists of are only known to God himself, in full measure, and it is in him that it is therefore valid.

Now I don't mean to imply that our faith is not under obligation to whatever 'level' of absolute truth we do understand.

 

[fastfredy0]

That the numerous facts within it are [even eternally] important does not relegate it to dependence of OUR intellectual knowledge of any fact within it.

... salvation is not dependent on our knowledge, but our knowledge is indicative of our salvation. For example, my opinion is the if one does not believe Christ is God, then this is indicative of a person who is not saved.
... though, digging deeper, no one knows precisely who God is save Himself. Guess that get you back to the statement: ""faith consists more of certainty than discernment". But even certainty cannot be 100% ...

• "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief" Mark 9:24
• The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith [our ability to confidently trust in God and in His power].” Luke 17:5