What happens to people who die without having believed in Jesus?

[Andre77]

I've heard Calvinists try to explain why they also believe all babies are saved, but they fail miserably.

Basic mistake. Unwarranted assumption that people that call themselves "Calvinsists" hold identical view on all issues. If you disagree, please provide proof.

 

[RDKirk]

Basic mistake. Unwarranted assumption that people that call themselves "Calvinsists" hold identical view on all issues. If you disagree, please provide proof.

Sorry, but it is you who have made an erroneous assumption.

I made zero assumptions. I know nothing about you; I said nothing about you. You apparently assumed I was talking about you or you apparently assumed I was talking about all Calvinists.

I stated an experiential fact about specific instances I have heard people who called themselves Calvinists attempting to explain why all dead babies are saved.

Or are you saying that I lied and have never heard someone calling himself a Calvinist attempting to explain why all dead babies are saved?

 

[Andre77]

God was not willing to destroy Ninevah until they had had a witness of Him because He considered them ignorant.

And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand -- Jonah 4:11

Thanks for the comprehensive response. Sorry about the delay in responding. I however tried to objectively assess your response and research it a little.
Your argument in this instance seems somewhat flawed as God did not justify not to destroy Nineveh because of their ignorance as it is clear that they repented and hence sparing them. They were not ignorant and therefore “let off the hook. “
Jon 3:5 And the men of Nineveh believed in God, and they called a fast and put on sackclothes, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.
Jon 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way. And God was compassionate over the evil that He had spoken to do to them, and He did not do it.

In the Mosaic law, atonement for guilt was not necessary until one gained knowledge of his guilt. If he never gained knowledge of his sin, atonement was not necessary.

And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty; When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation. Leviticus 4:13, 14

You come to a conclusion which is not clearly stated nor necessarily implied, but based on your preferred interpretation.
It basically means that when they become aware of a sin of which a person was ignorant, they must repent and ask for forgiveness. It does not state or imply that sin did not exist. To the contrary “sin through ignorance” indicates that sin exists, not that knowledge of sin makes you guilty.

Whether they knew it was a sin or not, does not make it less of a sin, or less in need of forgiveness. If ignorance was an excuse, there was no need for repentance, as there was no sin according to your interpretation.
But apart from this logic, Leviticus itself contradicts your statement. To name a few:

Lev 4:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:
Lev 5:17 And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.
David also ask for forgiveness for sins that was hidden:
Psa 19:12 Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.

And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty; Or if his sin come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. -- Leviticus 4:27, 28

When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty; Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish -- Leviticus 4:22, 23

Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. -- Leviticus 5:4

Same answer. Note that he acknowledge that he has sinned.

Lev 5:5 And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing:

Those without the ability to know what is right are not held accountable for what they do not know.

Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. -- John 9:41

Thank you for this.
This is one of the many benefits of forums such as these – to make one consider your beliefs in the light of "opposing" points of view. It is not to seek justification for your point of view but assess it properly. In view of this specific text, I had to do quite a bit of research.
From my perspective, one should read it in context. The Pharisees claimed they “can see”, but being blind their sin remained as they rejected God. If they however confessed their blindness ,they would see. (See the previous verse "For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.)
Arthur Pink expresses it better "If you were sensible of your blindness and really desired light, if you would take this place before Me, salvation would be yours and no condemnation would rest upon you. But because of your pride and self-sufficiency, because you refuse to acknowledge your undone condition, your guilt remaineth." How strikingly this confirms our interpretation of verse 6 and the sequel. The blind man made to see illustrates those who accept God’s verdict of man’s lost condition; the self-righteous Pharisees who refused to bow to the Lord’s decision that they were "condemned already’’ (John 3:18), continued in their blindness and sin.”

Or maybe somewhat (?) accountable, but knowledge is certainly factored into the severity of the penalty, with the explicitly stated conclusion being that the Master factors the level of knowledge into His judgment:

And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. -- Luke 12:47,48

Now, there are also two examples of condemnation because of knowledge:

And Rahab said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you.

For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed.

And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.

Now therefore, I pray you, swear unto me by the LORD, since I have shewed you kindness, that ye will also shew kindness unto my father’s house, and give me a true token: -- Joshua 2:9-12

Jericho was condemned because they knew the truth of the Lord, but only Rahab acted on her knowledge.

This also applied to Sodom:

And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: -- Genesis 19:1

And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly;

And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds -- 2 Peter 2:6-8

Lot generally doesn't get the credit due him from reading only the Genesis account. But scripture concludes its judgment of Lot saying he was a righteous man, and as a judge at the gates of Sodom, was vexed enough at the evil in that city to provide sufficient witness to condemn it.

The only people who are totally ignorant are infants who die. Everyone else is at least accountable for how they responded to the existence of God and His virtuous nature as revealed in creation. But clearly God factors in their level of knowledge in His judgment.

Job is the example of a man saved without benefit of revelation and without knowing the name of Jesus. Jonah is not of the lineage of Abraham, so he is not saved by that covenant. He does not know the name of Jesus. But as we can see by his plea for a mediator who can lay hands on both him and God, Jonah knows he needs Jesus even without knowing the name of Jesus, because Hebrews tells us that Jesus is that mediator.

Yes, it is evident that the measure of light will have implications in judgement and penalty. However, it is also evident that it is no excuse – but still need to receive forgiveness of sin. It is only through the blood of Christ that we receive this.
I agree with much that you say, although as far as infants are concerned, it seems they are under the same “conditions” as we are. There is however a difference of opinion on this as it is not clearly articulated in Scripture and hence my position that I would not like to express a specific view on this other than to state that I trust in the love, mercy and righteousness of God.
Scripture that would suggest infants etc are sinners and thus condemned apart from the grace of God (underserved merit)
Rom 5:18 : In like manner therefore, because of the offense of the one there was a guilty verdict to all the children of men.
David laments:
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.
Barnes comments He looked at his, sin, and he looked back to his own origin, and he inferred that the one demonstrated that in the other there was no good thing, no tendency to goodness, no germ of goodness, but that there was evil, and only evil; as when one looks at a tree, and sees that it bears sour or poisonous fruit, he infers that it is in the very nature of the tree, and that there is nothing else in the tree, from its origin, but a tendency to produce just such fruit.
If this is the case, and none can claim innocence, the same principle of the grace of God is bestowed on “whom He wills” and we should be the last to claim that He has no right to do that.
A seemingly contrary position is expressed but sin is not imputed where there is no law — Rom 5:13 For sin was in the world until Law, but sin is not charged where there is no law;
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comments on this “There must therefore have been a law during that period, because sin was then imputed”; as is now to be shown.
For until the law sin was in the world — that is during all the period from Adam “until the law” of Moses was given, God continued to treat men as sinners.
but sin is not imputed where there is no law — “There must therefore have been a law during that period, because sin was then imputed”; as is now to be shown.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I must however conclude that on the basis of careful evaluation of your expressed views, I cannot agree with them as Scripture in its totality (and we have obly scratched the surface) make all men guilty.
The reason why I initially indicated that I do not wish to express judgment on the issue of foetuses, young children, intellectually handicapped etc is that there is insufficient information for me to make a clear case, and must subsequently come to conclusions based on human wisdom (which is allways dangerous).

Regards
Andre

 

[Andre77]

Sorry, but it is you who have made an erroneous assumption.

I made zero assumptions. I know nothing about you; I said nothing about you. You apparently assumed I was talking about you or you apparently assumed I was talking about all Calvinists.

I stated an experiential fact about specific instances I have heard people who called themselves Calvinists attempting to explain why all dead babies are saved.

Or are you saying that I lied and have never heard someone calling himself a Calvinist attempting to explain why all dead babies are saved?

No, I was not suggesting you lied, just stating the fact that the term "Calvinists" covers a host of individuals that do not necessarily all subscribe to exactly the same doctrine on all issues. There is at least the difference between hyper-Calvinists , Neo-Calvinists, Afrikaner Calvinists, New and Old Calvinists etc.
Thus to conclude that the view expressed by one person is representative of a "Calvinist" point of view, or representative of Calvinism is an error and an assumption that cannot be justified by evidence.

 

[Andre77]

"After being made alive, he went and preached to the spirits in prison-- to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water"
1 Peter 3v19-20
Even though only eight people were saved from the great flood,Jesus later announced the gospel to those that perished in that flood.

"You seem to suggest that those that have never been exposed to the Gospel will be "pardoned" as they "did not know"?

I did not say that .What I did say is that God will give everyone a fair chance to either accept or reject Jesus based on the fact that he gave another chance to those that perished in Noah's flood.
After all,we are not saved by our good deeds but through Jesus Christ we are given the chance to escape the consequences of our bad deeds.

"He is the savior of all men particularly of those that believe."
1 Tim 4:10

Thanks, I think I understand that you say - God gave those people another chance and thus He will (should) do the same with everybody else.
I agree, this is a difficult text as it seems to indicate something which does not agree with anything else in Scripture. There is no indication whatsoever that anybody will be given a "second chance"
But a contrary position is expressed here:
Heb 9:27 And as it is reserved to men once to die, and after this, Judgment;
Joh 5:28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming in which all those in the tombs will hear His voice.
Joh 5:29 And they will come out, the ones having done good into a resurrection of life; and the ones having practiced evil into a resurrection of judgment.
There is but no reference or even a hint throughout the Bible that there is a "second chance".
For a different view to yours (and at least as valid as yours ) is expressed in Wesley's commentary:
1 Peter 3:19
By which Spirit he preached - Through the ministry of Noah. To the spirits in prison - The unholy men before the flood, who were then reserved by the justice of God, as in a prison, till he executed the sentence upon them all; and are now also reserved to the judgment of the great day.
Of course Barnes, Matthew Henry and others comment on this, but their comments are much more technical (and much longer!)

I do not know whether you read your Bible from cover to cover or just listen to what are you being taught by whoever. It is good for all of us to be a " Berean" - to test what people tell us:
Act 17:11 And these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the Word with all readiness, daily examining the Scriptures if these things are so.

My friend, you will not get another chance. Jesus would have been less than honest (actually dishonest) if He did not give even the slightest hint that there is "another chance".

 

[RDKirk]

Remember that we don't have a need to know anything we don't need to know to perform the mission we're given. Scripture does not go beyond what we need to know, and the silence of scripture on any given subject does not assert anything about it.

For instance, scripture says nothing about life on other planets--it's silence on that subject is not an assertion there is no life on other planets. It says nothing about thermonuclear reactions--it's silence on that subject does not assert thermonuclear reactions do not occur.

We are commissioned to carry the gospel to everyone. We do not need to know what Jesus will do with those we fail to reach.

 

[Andre77]

Remember that we don't have a need to know anything we don't need to know to perform the mission we're given. Scripture does not go beyond what we need to know, and the silence of scripture on any given subject does not assert anything about it.

For instance, scripture says nothing about life on other planets--it's silence on that subject is not an assertion there is no life on other planets. It says nothing about thermonuclear reactions--it's silence on that subject does not assert thermonuclear reactions do not occur.

We are commissioned to carry the gospel to everyone. We do not need to know what Jesus will do with those we fail to reach.

100%. Absolutely true. Like you, I trust in God's absolute righteousness and know that there are many things in respect of which I do not have a clear cut answer.
What is a concern to me is that we have become like the world and it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a "Christian" and non-Christian. When we are to be the light of the world, be cannot blend in with the darkness (to make us acceptable to the world) and still shine as a light.
What are your views on this?
Kind regards.
Andre

 

[Blade]

Father forgive me...

For me the word hell is a awful word. If you have two of your babies in front of you now pick up just one and toss it in the fire for ever. We speak it so easy yet the Father is not a man nor thinks like one.

When I was young I asked Him "how can you send all these people to hell?" He answered "for God so loved the world, everyone gets a choice"

Jesus said if you were blind you would have no sin but since you say you see your sin is still there.

There is so much going on we never see. Jesus rose from the grave and then walked with the 12 for 40 days? Yet all the people in the world at that time that did not know Jesus as lord are lost? Hehe...not even

Kind of hard to judge someone on the truth when they never heard it. So have faith He is not going to lose one if He has any say about it.

So me.. I dont care. I mean.... He is GOD I am not. I know what I would do for my two boys so ..He is NOTHING like me and when I fall and goof up He never leaves is always there always helps always hears and I cant even think of what kind of things He does to make sure one will see and find Him. Other then YOU and ME.

We are still here for a reason. To SHOW this world He is alive and YOU are the only one that can do what He has for you.

 

[Messy]

The Visions of Sadhu Sundar Singh of India

 

[RDKirk]

What is a concern to me is that we have become like the world and it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a "Christian" and non-Christian.

When we are to be the light of the world, be cannot blend in with the darkness (to make us acceptable to the world) and still shine as a light.
What are your views on this?
Kind regards.
Andre

There is a verse in Revelation that I had trouble with for a long time:

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

I've heard a lot of preaching on this verse, but all of it focused on "being hot" and how being "hot for Jesus" was better than being cold. I've heard teaching, too, that the "hot" are people who are saved while the "cold" are people who are unsaved, and that people who are unsaved at least are still salvageable, while the people who are lukewarm are apostates.

None of that made sense to me. Jesus is saying that being hot is just as good as being cold. Why would He "rather" someone be unsaved when He could have said "I'd rather you all be hot?" Why was being cold just as good as being hot? Jesus said being cold was good--He would have kept the cold in His mouth just as well as the hot. Nobody could tell me why being cold was good.

When I first went overseas in the military to the Far East back in the 70s, I found out what that verse meant.

It was my first day there. My "sponsor"--a troop who had been there a while--took me off base to a small restaurant for lunch. The place was empty of customers, and we sat at a table for some time without seeing a waiter.

After a bit, I got antsy, thinking we were in a hurry. There was a table set with sliced meats and bread like a sandwich buffet ("American style"). I suggested we serve ourselves from the buffet.

He said, "Oh, noooo! You don't want to do that! You don't know how long that meat's been sitting out there. It might be been sitting there since last Thursday!"

Then he said, "Let me tell you about eating in these Third World countries. If they take it right off the fire, you can eat it. If they take it right off the ice, you can eat it. But if it's room temperature, spit out out. It'll kill you!"

At that moment, I understood the verse in Revelation.

Keeping food hot keeps it edible. Keeping food cold keeps it edible. But if you let food sit at ambient temperature for even a day, it will spoil and make you sick. People have known that for thousands of years, even in Jesus' time.

John's audience would have known immediately what he meant, but in our day of packaging and preservatives, we've forgotten it.

Both cold food and hot food are equally edible--but food won't remain either cold or hot unless you do something to it. You have to apply energy, effort, work, attention to the food...or it will come to the same temperature as its surroundings and become spoiled.

If Jesus had only said "be hot," that would not have said what He meant: Be different. It's the factor of difference that He was emphasizing.

This is what Jesus was talking about--the same thing God had said from the beginning: Do not become like your surroundings. Be different, be "peculiar:"

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people -- 1 Peter 2

 

[intojoy]

n/p = no post. None necessary

 

[intojoy]

What happens to people who die without having believed in Jesus?

They die without the declarative statement and the declarative act of having been justified and are found guilty of breaking God's laws and are destined for eternal torment in the lake of fire.

 

[RDKirk]

They die without the declarative statement and the declarative act of having been justified and are found guilty of breaking God's laws and are destined for eternal torment in the lake of fire.

Does that include Job?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Nope - Job Died in FAITH - that his redeemer lived.

 

[intojoy]

Nope - Job Died in FAITH - that his redeemer lived.

Thank you brother Bob, I was startled for a moment, thought I was going to have to use my brain for a second, very well done indeed.

 

[intojoy]

Does that include Job?

First of all thank you for the military work sir.
I believe you are assuming that Job wasn't saved? Or perhaps you feel that Job had to believe in the cross for his salvation. Well, Job was a contemporary with Abraham and is one of a couple of non Hebrew saints (saved persons) of that time. Shem lived to see the call upon Abe's life, Melchizadek and Job are three non Jews important enough for scripture to mention as having obtained salvation. Their salvation was by grace alone, thru faith alone, ... ... In what had been revealed to man by God up to that point in history. To assume that those saints believed in Yeshua is a blanket "over simplification" that can and should be avoided. Just what was their required content of faith for salvation? The protoevangelion, the Adamic Covenant, the Noahic Covenant and at least in both Shem and Melchizadek's cases the Calling of God upon Abe's life. I hope this is sound doctrine in your thinking.

 

[intojoy]

Abraham, Issac, and Jacob each died without believing in Jesus.

Or did they? It all depends on what we define "believing in Jesus" to mean. More importantly, how does God define it?

I think we get hung up on theology and all the "necessary" details about Jesus' life we imagine are imperative to know for salvation to take place. But folks in the OT times were "saved" simply by having faith in a God who was capable of bridging the gap between Himself and Mankind.

I'm beginning to wonder if that is the key. That belief in Jesus is really just our Christian understanding of the real truth, which is belief in the Grace of God which wipes away all the guilt of our sins. They say that there are a billion Christians on the planet, but we all know that many of them do not "believe in Jesus" correctly. Is it head knowledge that they have incorrect, or perhaps something spiritual (like a healthy understanding of Grace) that keeps them struggling against sin in the hopes of pleasing God through good works?

Yeshua died not only for the sins that were committed after His death, but also for the sins committed prior to His death. He died not just for the sins of New Testament saints, but also for the sins of Old Testament saints. God could have judged the Old Testament saints immediately , but He deferred their judgment until the cross. Then that judgment fell upon the Messiah as their substitute as well as the substitute for New Testament believers. In that way, their sins were removed.

This is taught by Acts 17:30: The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commands men that they should all everywhere repent: ...

He made the same point in Romans 3:25: ... whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; ... Again, he pointed out that the sins committed before the death of the Messiah could have been judged immediately , but they were deferred, temporarily overlooked or "passed over," until the death of the Messiah as their substitute.

In Hebrews 10:4, the writer said: For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.

Animal sacrifice did not and could not remove the sins of the Old Testament saints; it merely covered them temporarily . Once the Messiah died, only then were their sins removed as well.

 

[RDKirk]

First of all thank you for the military work sir.
I believe you are assuming that Job wasn't saved? Or perhaps you feel that Job had to believe in the cross for his salvation. Well, Job was a contemporary with Abraham and is one of a couple of non Hebrew saints (saved persons) of that time. Shem lived to see the call upon Abe's life, Melchizadek and Job are three non Jews important enough for scripture to mention as having obtained salvation. Their salvation was by grace alone, thru faith alone, ... ... In what had been revealed to man by God up to that point in history. To assume that those saints believed in Yeshua is a blanket "over simplification" that can and should be avoided. Just what was their required content of faith for salvation? The protoevangelion, the Adamic Covenant, the Noahic Covenant and at least in both Shem and Melchizadek's cases the Calling of God upon Abe's life. I hope this is sound doctrine in your thinking.

Your previous statement seemed to exclude Job. However, I would not say that Job was necessarily of "only a couple." I would say that Job was an archetype of person such as Paul spoke of in his speech to the Athenians on Mars Hill and also such as the "covenant of one" he spoke of to the Romans.

I don't think such people are in the majority at all--people of true faith are not and will not be in the majority. But I think Job is the scriptural archetype of the man who acknowledges God in creation and responds to God's intent to "seek after Him and perhaps find Him," and I think that God has "winked" (temporarily closed His eyes) at their ignorance of the name of Jesus.

 

[bushinoki]

I'm going to add this much:
Every mentally capable adult has the basic ability to tell right from wrong, in general. When I define right and wrong generally, I define right as more selfless (without regard to self-preservation), and wrong as selfish (going beyond the necessities of self-preservation). To forswear those that have had no reasonable chance to know the Gospel of Christ is to usurp His Judgment. Those who had every reasonable chance to hear the Gospel and reject it suffer in Hell. Those that live only for their own selfish desires with no regard for their brothers and sisters suffer in Hell. Those are the only two absolutes you get from me on who goes to Hell.

 

[intojoy]

Your previous statement seemed to exclude Job. However, I would not say that Job was necessarily of "only a couple." I would say that Job was an archetype of person such as Paul spoke of in his speech to the Athenians on Mars Hill and also such as the "covenant of one" he spoke of to the Romans.

I don't think such people are in the majority at all--people of true faith are not and will not be in the majority. But I think Job is the scriptural archetype of the man who acknowledges God in creation and responds to God's intent to "seek after Him and perhaps find Him," and I think that God has "winked" (temporarily closed His eyes) at their ignorance of the name of Jesus.

That's a good natured guess. I mean there are 11 chapters of revelation that span from the garden of Eden to the flood to Abraham. From the 12th chapter of Gen thru the end of Revelation we are shown that God has elected to reveal His will to man thru the Jewish Covenants. Job and Melchizadek seem to appear as followers of Jehovah apart from Abraham's influence. I used to imagine that many many people were always being saved during that dispensation. I've come to accept that actually very few were actually saved.

Yeshua died not only for the sins that were committed after His death, but also for the sins committed prior to His death. He died not just for the sins of New Testament saints, but also for the sins of Old Testament saints. God could have judged the Old Testament saints immediately , but He deferred their judgment until the cross. Then that judgment fell upon the Messiah as their substitute as well as the substitute for New Testament believers. In that way, their sins were removed.

This is taught by Acts 17:30: The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commands men that they should all everywhere repent: ...

He made the same point in Romans 3:25: ... whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; ... Again, he pointed out that the sins committed before the death of the Messiah could have been judged immediately , but they were deferred, temporarily overlooked or "passed over," until the death of the Messiah as their substitute.

In Hebrews 10:4, the writer said: For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.

Animal sacrifice did not and could not remove the sins of the Old Testament saints; it merely covered them temporarily . Once the Messiah died, only then were their sins removed as well.