# Greater Measure of Grace in the New Covenant: Thoughts?



## JTB.SDG (Jul 14, 2017)

Am studying the differences in administration between the old and new covenant manifestations of the Covenant of Grace. Probably my last will be on this aspect but it's the aspect I understand the least. This is partly connected (or doesn't have to be) with the aspect of mostly Jews in the OT to all nations in the NT, but it's more than that.

Some describe this as the gifts of the Spirit and the application of grace were like drops of water in the OT but a fountain in the NT. I think I understand gifts better than grace. In general I understand that it wasn't a common thing that "the Spirit of the Lord came upon ___" and he "___" in the OT. Didn't happen much. What I'm having trouble with is understanding how that relates to things like justification and regeneration. We would not say there was a lesser degree of the grace of of justification in the OT compared with the NT, right? Or that a believers regeneration in the OT was "not quite as strong as it were" than in the NT? Do you get me? Please help me understand what this really means.

Also, Calvin doesn't appear to deal with this in his normal section for differences in administration in the Institutes (2.11.1-13); does he deal with it anywhere else (is this what he's talking about in 2.9.1-2?)


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 14, 2017)

This should be helpful, as there are various viewpoints regarding the role of the Spirit in the Old Covenant with the saints.
http://jimhamilton.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/them30-1.pdf


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 14, 2017)

Justification is an absolute state, death-to-life (regeneration) is a binary. The Spirit is required for these things, and always has been; Jesus seems to fault Nicodemus for being obtuse in this.

The Spirit in the OT was like water in the desert. God provided it in full measure, as much as Israel needed while they wandered; but it was neither indiscriminately provided, nor was it found in "overflowing" measure. I can imagine Israel had to drink and for necessity (it was needed in the Tabernacle); but not so's all could take a bath whenever.

Those who were mediatorial types were given the Spirit in greater measure. They had the Spirit for the performance of their duties, foreshadowing the Christ who had the Spirit without measure for his service. David pleads, "Take not thy holy Spirit from me," as Saul lost what grace of God was his temporarily, because of his sin.

As part of his reward for suffering, Christ takes his place above; then pours out his Spirit in a flood. So that all who are his possess the Spirit in ways analogous to the prophets of old, Jol.2. John the Baptist is in the first rank of OT figures; but the least in the Kingdom of heaven enjoys privileges that not even he could fully appreciate.

Hope this is helpful in your further thoughts on the topic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 14, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Justification is an absolute state, death-to-life (regeneration) is a binary. The Spirit is required for these things, and always has been; Jesus seems to fault Nicodemus for being obtuse in this.
> 
> The Spirit in the OT was like water in the desert. God provided it in full measure, as much as Israel needed while they wandered; but it was neither indiscriminately provided, nor was it found in "overflowing" measure. I can imagine Israel had to drink and for necessity (it was needed in the Tabernacle); but not so's all could take a bath whenever.
> 
> ...


Was the Holy Spirit indwelling all believers under the Old Covenant, or just those who had assigned tasks, such as prophets, priests, and Kings?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 14, 2017)

I think the answer to your question depends on what definition you place on "indwelling."

If you equate the term with the Spirit's presence for regeneration and maintenance of the spiritual estate, then you must say they were. It's beyond my conception how God could renew a human heart at any time in history, and then leave the man to fend for himself the rest of his days. How could he not fall straight into hell, if left on his own? Might as well say that an infant left exposed could grow up.

If by "indwelling" you mean the Spirit's special exhibit of power for exercises of gift and grace; and in particular to enable the worshipper to stand approved and near before the incandescent holiness of God--then no. The barriers to closeness were real and meaningful. I suppose to be near to God in the way priests were allowed _required _that they be fortified by the Spirit of holiness.

Those who were so anointed (priests, prophets, kings) had _privileges _associated with the endowment; and the highest privilege was _access _to God. But no one has ever come to God without a mediator, and ultimately not without the Mediator. So, if you are a mere-human OT mediator, how is your own need for mediation met? You will need some more of the strengthening and provision of the Spirit.

I have since January been preaching the opening chs. of Genesis. Just got done with the flood, ch.8. It might reward some study considering the way Moses uses "ruach" (spirit; also breath, wind) in these chs.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 15, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think the answer to your question depends on what definition you place on "indwelling."
> 
> If you equate the term with the Spirit's presence for regeneration and maintenance of the spiritual estate, then you must say they were. It's beyond my conception how God could renew a human heart at any time in history, and then leave the man to fend for himself the rest of his days. How could he not fall straight into hell, if left on his own? Might as well say that an infant left exposed could grow up.
> 
> ...


So you would agree that while the OT believers were regenerated in same fashion as we now have been, they would not have the exact same application of that as we do today, as in having direct access to God and having all spiritual blessings as we do now?


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jul 16, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Justification is an absolute state, death-to-life (regeneration) is a binary. The Spirit is required for these things, and always has been; Jesus seems to fault Nicodemus for being obtuse in this.
> 
> The Spirit in the OT was like water in the desert. God provided it in full measure, as much as Israel needed while they wandered; but it was neither indiscriminately provided, nor was it found in "overflowing" measure. I can imagine Israel had to drink and for necessity (it was needed in the Tabernacle); but not so's all could take a bath whenever.
> 
> ...



Bruce, is any author/systematic especially helpful here?


----------



## py3ak (Jul 17, 2017)

B.B. Warfield's article on this is both stirring and illuminating:
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/spiritot.html

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 17, 2017)

Does Ferguson deal much with the Spirit in the OT in his book "The Holy Spirit?"


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 17, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> Calvin doesn't appear to deal with this in his normal section for differences in administration in the Institutes (2.11.1-13); does he deal with it anywhere else (is this what he's talking about in 2.9.1-2?)



Calvin deals with this in his commentary on Hebrews 8. First, in v6, Calvin states that the difference between Old and New was just regarding the degree and character of revelation.


> the comparison made by the Apostle refers to the form rather than to the substance; for though God promised to them the same salvation which he at this day promises to us, yet neither the manner nor the character of the revelation is the same or equal to what we enjoy.



But later, in v10, he wrestles a bit. First he says the text is referring to regeneration, but then he says Jeremiah was not denying that OT saints were regenerate. Rather, he says, Jeremiah just means that the Spirit is "put forth more fully" in the New Covenant. However, he then wrestles with the example of Abraham, whose faith exceeds ours. He concludes that the true solution to the question is the Abraham received the grace of the New Covenant.


> *10 *_For this is the covenant that I will make, etc._ There are two main parts in this covenant; the first regards the gratuitous remission of sins; and the other, the inward renovation of the heart; there is a third which depends on the second, and that is the illumination of the mind as to the knowledge of God. There are here many things most deserving of notice.
> 
> The first is, that God calls us to himself without effect as long as he speaks to us in no other way than by the voice of man. He indeed teaches us and commands what is right but he speaks to the deaf; for when we seem to hear anything, our ears are only struck by an empty sound; and the heart, full of depravity and perverseness, rejects every wholesome doctrine. In short, the word of God never penetrates into our hearts, for they are iron and stone until they are softened by him; nay, they have engraven on them a contrary law, for perverse passions rule within, which lead us to rebellion. In vain then does God proclaim his Law by the voice of man, unless he writes it by his Spirit on our hearts, that is, unless he forms and prepares us for obedience. It hence appears of what avail is freewill and the uprightness of nature before God *regenerates* us. We will indeed and choose freely; but our will is carried away by a sort of insane impulse to resist God. Thus it comes that the Law is ruinous and fatal to us as long as it remains written only on tables of stone, as Paul also teaches us. (2 Corinthians 3:3.) In short, we then only obediently embrace what God commands, when by his Spirit he changes and corrects the natural pravity of our hearts; otherwise he finds nothing in us but corrupt affections and a heart wholly given up to evil. *The declaration indeed is clear, that a new covenant is made according to which God engraves his laws on our hearts, for otherwise it would be in vain and of no effect.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 18, 2017)

Here are a few references from Calvin, on the unity of the covenant; but also the increase of blessing through Christ.
_
Institutes_ IV.16.6


> 6. Scripture gives us a still clearer knowledge of the truth. For it is most evident that *the covenant, which the Lord once made with Abraham, is not less applicable to Christians now than it was anciently to the Jewish people, and therefore that word has no less reference to Christians than to Jews*. Unless, indeed, we imagine that Christ, by his advent, diminished, or curtailed the grace of the Father—an idea not free from execrable blasphemy. Wherefore, both the children of the Jews, because, when made heirs of that covenant, they were separated from the heathen, were called a holy seed, and for the same reason the children of Christians, or those who have only one believing parent, are called holy, and, by the testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters. Then, since the Lord, immediately after the covenant was made with Abraham, ordered it to be sealed in infants by an outward sacrament, how can it be said that Christians are not to attest it in the present day, and seal it in their children? Let it not be objected, that the only symbol by which the Lord ordered his covenant to be confirmed was that of circumcision, which was long ago abrogated. It is easy to answer, that, in accordance with the form of the old dispensation, he appointed circumcision to confirm his covenant, but that it being abrogated, the same reason for confirmation still continues, a reason which we have in common with the Jews. Hence it is always necessary carefully to consider what is common to both, and wherein they differed from us. The covenant is common, and the reason for confirming it is common. The mode of confirming it is so far different, that they had circumcision, instead of which we now have baptism. Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed is taken from us, the consequence will be, that, by the advent of Christ, the grace of God, which was formerly given to the Jews, is more obscure and less perfectly attested to us. If this cannot be said without extreme insult to *Christ, by whom the infinite goodness of the Father has been more brightly and benignly than ever shed upon the earth, and declared to men*, it must be confessed that it cannot be more confined, and less clearly manifested, than under the obscure shadows of the law.



_Commentary on the Harmony of the Gospels,_ Mt.5:17


> God had, indeed, promised a New Covenant at the coming of Christ; but had, at the same time, showed, that it would not be different from the first, but that, on the contrary, its design was, to give a perpetual sanction to the covenant, which He had made, from the beginning with His people. 'I will write My law, (says He,) in their hearts, and l will remember their iniquities no more' (Jer. 31:33,34). By these words He is so far from departing from the former covenant, that, on the contrary, He declares, that it will be confirmed and ratified, when it shall be succeeded by the New. This is also the meaning of Christ's words, when He says, that He came to fulfill the law: for He actually fulfilled it, by quickening, with His Spirit, the dead letter, and then exhibiting, in reality, what had hitherto appeared only in figures.



_Commentary on 2Corinthians,_ 3:6-9


> It is asked, however, whether God, under the Old Testament, merely sounded forth in the way of an external voice, and did not *also speak inwardly to the hearts of the pious by his Spirit*. I answer in the first place, that Paul here takes into view what belonged peculiarly to the law; for although *God then wrought by his Spirit*, yet that did not take its rise from the ministry of Moses, but from the grace of Christ, as it is said in John 1:17, "The law was given by Moses; but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." True, indeed, *the grace of God did not, during all that time, lie dormant*, but it is enough that it was not a benefit that belonged to the law. For Moses had discharged his office, when he had delivered to the people the doctrine of life, adding threatenings and promises. For this reason he gives to the law the name of the _letter,_ because it is in itself a dead preaching; but the gospel he calls _spirit,_ because the ministry of the gospel is _living,_ nay, _lifegiving. _
> I answer secondly, that these things are not affirmed absolutely in reference either to the law or to the gospel, but in respect of the contrast between the one and the other; for even the gospel is not always spirit. When, however, we come to compare the two, it is truly and properly affirmed, that the nature of the law is to teach men literally, in such a way that it does not reach farther than the ear; and that, on the other hand, the nature of the gospel is to teach spiritually, because it is the instrument of Christ’s grace. This depends on the appointment of God, who has seen it meet *to manifest the efficacy of his Spirit more clearly in the gospel* than in the law, for it is his work exclusively to teach effectually the minds of men.
> . . . . . . . . . .
> 
> ...


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jul 18, 2017)

Thanks all.

It seems that at times Calvin is speaking of a difference between the old and new covenants, but other times seems to be speaking more of the distinctions between law more strictly speaking and gospel, which is a bit different, right? 

Is this particular administrative difference the same thing as saying gospel ministry in the new covenant is "more effectual" as it were than in the old covenant? Not many believed in the OT in comparison with the NT. Is this how most Presbyterians in particular would view Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8? Or would we see it as a combination of ALL the many differences in administration (clarity, substance vs. shadows, greater freedom, etc etc)? Thanks again.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 18, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> Thanks all.
> 
> It seems that at times Calvin is speaking of a difference between the old and new covenants, but other times seems to be speaking more of the distinctions between law more strictly speaking and gospel, which is a bit different, right?
> 
> Is this particular administrative difference the same thing as saying gospel ministry in the new covenant is "more effectual" as it were than in the old covenant? Not many believed in the OT in comparison with the NT. Is this how most Presbyterians in particular would view Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8? Or would we see it as a combination of ALL the many differences in administration (clarity, substance vs. shadows, greater freedom, etc etc)? Thanks again.


The New Covenant would be a better one now instituted between God and man, based upon surer and better promises. The author of Hebrews details this out to us in a precise and inspired fashion.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 18, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> It seems that at times Calvin is speaking of a difference between the old and new covenants, but other times seems to be speaking more of the distinctions between law more strictly speaking and gospel, which is a bit different, right?


I see him utilizing the latter to help explain the former. The issue is the _character _of Sinai's legally tinged administration versus the character of Christ's generously Spirit-effused administration. The earlier administration was not bereft of Spirit or gospel; the subsequent (New) administration will, at times, be an "odor of death unto death." But the law by its own nature is simply death to sinners; and the gospel in its own nature is the power of God unto salvation unto every believer.


JTB.SDG said:


> Is this particular administrative difference the same thing as saying gospel ministry in the new covenant is "more effectual" as it were than in the old covenant? Not many believed in the OT in comparison with the NT.


It's of immense significance that we appreciate the benefits of the _good _(the God-commended) typological mediators of the OT. More private individuals in Israel were _saved _when living under good judges, commended kings, faithful priests, and diligent prophets--i.e. when the word of the Lord was *not rare* (cf. 1Sam.3:1)--than when they were not.

We cannot say what percentage that might have been in those generations, but we might compare those generations to the generation that led the way into the wilderness, which was characterized (not to the last man, but still...) as perverse and unbelieving. But Moses preached _effectively _to the rising generation, and they led the way into the land: a believing host (again, not to the last man).

These select individuals had the Holy Spirit in quantity, and the people were _blessed _because of them. God was pleased to regenerate (the Spirit's work) numerous people drawn near to be affected by their ministries. Whole generations were affected in this way. But he did not make the Spirit a _general gift to the lot of individuals _at any time in the OT.

You might be a regenerated person, but the Spirit is not upon you (ordinary guy) to affect the people around you. But your job is mainly to point to godly mediators, "Go to them, and receive what I received!" Then these too would have the spiritual-connection established, permanently fixed in one's heart. Israel was a "priestly nation" to the world of nations, comparatively. But within the nation, they were always telling their neighbors to "know the Lord!" What is this? That was a call to go to the priest, who by mouth and by sacrifice would teach the people (Dt.24:8; 2Chr.15:3; cf. Mic.3:11) to know the Lord. Really knowing him was having the law heart-inscribed.

God had so constituted Old Covenant affairs prior to Christ (in order to point to Christ!) that dependency upon his mediators would be woven into the life of the nation. The OT believer would still be relying on the Spirit, still be united in the Spirit to Christ. But his spiritual life was vastly more complicated because of additional intermediaries, because of divine deliberate emplacement of obstacles and barriers to His Holiness--all of this part and parcel of God's centuries-long "sermon illustration" to prepare the world for Christ's entrance.

For most OT folk, the way to enjoy the _power _of the Spirit in everyday terms was to be as close to the mediators of Israel as often and as much as possible. Compare that to what the NT tells us has been accomplished by the victorious Christ pouring out his Spirit. In the first place, we still come to a (THE) Mediator. Then, we are all endowed with the enjoyment of the _power_ of the Spirit, without having to organize our lives around closeness to others who possess what we lack. The NT individual's power to affect the people around him spiritually is greater than in OT days for ordinary folk (but less-different in comparison to the powerfully led few).

But we also know, that not being in heaven yet, there are still aspects of fulfillment that await the 2nd Coming and the consummation. We still know the need to be _taught, _and we come to various widely dispersed worship locations to experience the means of grace. Listen to Paul, 1Tim.4:16, "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt *both save thyself, and them that hear thee*." I can't help but hear the echo of the duty of Old Covenant mediators in this thoroughly New Covenant directive for NT ministry, in service which does not mediate the same as before; but still it is *salvation*. Christian ministry still has the primary appointment to proclaim the gospel, and to spiritually affect great numbers.

Turning back to the Old Covenant era--I think you can see what was so terrible about failure by the typological mediators. The result must be: spiritual devastation among the people. The saints aren't going to lose their salvation. But those not saved are less likely to be so (I speak according to ordinary means, and not of election). And a generation will immediately arise having less desire for what the mediators were given to supply them in Israel. The kings go, and almost overnight the whole northern portion of Israel is benighted. Judah hangs on, and under godly kings they make strides against the dark. But corruption is growing; and the priesthood and prophets are also affected. Till Jeremiah seems like one lonely voice in the dimness.


----------

