# OT saints vs NT saints



## MSH (Apr 26, 2017)

What are the shared benefits of both OT & NT saints?

What are the advantages that NT saints have over their OT brothers and sisters?

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Apr 26, 2017)

Well for one the NT saints are indwelt with the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 26, 2017)

You are saying that the OT saints weren't indwelt with the Holy Spirit then? 

How then were they saved?


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Apr 26, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> You are saying that the OT saints weren't indwelt with the Holy Spirit then?
> 
> How then were they saved?



The same way we are today via regeneration. Even though they were regenerated by the HS that does not imply a permanent indwelling of the HS.


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 26, 2017)

Romans 8:9 - "Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him."

Here are some good articles by David Murray that covers the subject in some depth.

http://headhearthand.org/blog/2011/09/14/did-the-holy-spirit-indwell-ot-believers/
http://headhearthand.org/blog/2011/...ievers-experienced-the-holy-spirit-in-the-ot/
http://headhearthand.org/blog/2011/09/19/a-sponge-a-dropper-and-a-pressure-washer/
http://headhearthand.org/blog/2011/09/20/two-mistakes-in-bible-interpretation/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Apr 26, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> Romans 8:9 - "Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him."
> 
> Here are some good articles by David Murray that covers the subject in some depth.
> 
> ...



But then why did Jesus talk about the HS coming in John 14-16 if the HS had already some? Also thanks for the lins i will definitely read them.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 26, 2017)

The NT believer's indwelling mirrors our Lord's anointing of the Spirit in his baptism (which _anointing _is yet one more argument for pouring/effusion as sign-mode of baptism). In John 14-16 he promises to ascend to his Father, and pour out what had been effectively concentrated in himself for his earthly messianic ministry. This would coordinate with the OT promises of the coming age of the Spirit. He ascends on high, and gives gifts to men.

None of that would preclude the persistent presence and _slight _indwelling of the H.S. among the OT saints. (I have for a long time used the "eyedropper" vs. "bucket" analogy, a form of which is used in one of the links above.) We are also aware of the Spirit's presence with _great power _in certain saints of the OT. These were invariably potent types of the Christ-to-come. These were prophets, priests, and kings/judges all foreshadowing the One who should combine all those anointed offices and fulfill them.

So, with reference to the days of John the Baptist, Jesus puts him in the front rank of OT figures. He was filled with the Holy Spirit for his role as prophetic forerunner of the Christ. Yet, there is something to the Holy Spirit possession of the NT believer that actually makes his condition "greater." The least in the kingdom of heaven--by virtue of his providential setting in the days of grace and the Spirit's general outpouring--sees even more of the Spirit's gift in the church, in his own understanding, in his life than John could apprehend in this life.

Understand what it meant to live in the typological OT days, to be relatively impoverished (compared to the "poor" of the NT) but able to see in various types the promise of the future; to know that your descendants of faith would have generally more blessed conditions than you enjoyed. Realize, dear reader, that you have that blessing today. You have the SAME Holy Spirit they knew of in the OT; but you have him more and better. Because he is distributed according to the victory of the Fulfillment of OT hope.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Jack K (Apr 26, 2017)

In regard to the opening question, I wonder if it's better to think in terms of degree rather than what we share with Old Testament believers and what we don't. For example, they saw the glory of Christ in the ceremonies of the law, but we see him more fully now that he has come and completed his work of redemption. They had God with them in the glory cloud, but we have God's presence in the Spirit poured out. Offhand, I can't think of a single blessing we have that they did not have in some form, at least as a preview of what was to come. And of course, one day we will all share every blessing in a still greater measure.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MSH (Apr 26, 2017)

Is it true that NC saints have both a greater desire and ability to obey the Law than OC saints? 

This seems to be what was being said by a recent sermon I heard on Hebrews 8:10. 

What are the differences, or as Jack said degrees, between the OC and NC saints as described in Jer. 31 and Heb. 8? 

I was getting a little lost in the details of the sermon. It seemed on one hand things were virtually identical and the NC wasn't really new, but on the other hand it was? Didn't OT saints need to have their heart of stone removed too? 

Thanks for the input! 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 26, 2017)

People who don't have as much water as we typically do in our modern, western context tend to make _more _of the little water they have.

I don't think it's a fair judgment to say that we have more desire today than, say, David--to whom it is common to attribute Ps.119 (though it is not titled _of David)--_an entire Psalm concerning passion for God's law. We have more gift of the Spirit's presence in the general way, so that it should be we ought to be better keepers of the divine law-standard in the NT age. But, as I indicated in the opening sentence, I'm not sure we (on the whole) do according to the availability of the help supplied.

Anyway, I don't think we gain a lot by the comparison of our "law-keeping" to theirs, when our obedience is still no more to our credit than "filthy rags." We don't do nearly what we ought to, and this after all the pressure of the Mosaic legal demands were lifted away, "a yoke neither our fathers nor we were able to bear," Act 15:10. Easier or not (and I don't care to prove the one or the other), we don't have anything to be proud of.

We also need to define terms clearly. The "old covenant" was delivered at Sinai. Abraham is not, strictly speaking, "old covenant," just because he's Old Testament. Not when Paul is so keen on describing New Covenant believers as his proper offspring. So, he's the Covenant of Grace archetype believer. The New Covenant is the fulfillment-administration of the pre-NC promissory administrations of the same. We can just as properly call the present era the Christic covenant, after the manner of the former names: "Noahic," "Abrahamic," "Mosaic," and "Davidic."

Moses, the Sinai covenant, "the Law given 430yrs after" did not change the nature of the promise-covenant; but was temporary and transient and pedagogical in its outward exhibit (while still administering the promise-covenant within). It is Moses in its outward emphasis that Jeremiah _contrasts _with the ascendancy of the spiritual and inward emphasis, returning to the fore in the NC era (an emphasis that Abraham knew, see Heb.11).

The chief distinction is that we are in possession of that which the previous ages waited, being promised these things, hoping for their realization. Abraham is considered a giant of faith, in large part because he has so much less revelation on which to rest his hope. He has no Exodus paradigm of deliverance. He has no Davidic rescue of the nation. He is among the first _enactors _of the divine drama of hope, by which future generations will have more preliminary confidence than at the beginning.

So, these OT believers had great faith; it was in more obscure elements of revelation; but it was in true revelation, and they were kept by the power of God in that confidence. Yet, they lived their lives under clouds and shadows and dim light. They lived by spare, reserved distribution of the Spirit and his gifts. So that, even in the Land it was akin to life in the wilderness. Comparatively, we of the NT are IN the Land of milk and honey! We have the Spirit poured out like a river upon the thirsty ground, to turn the wilderness into a garden.

Of course, the greater reality is that we (even as they knew their time) are also still in the parched wilderness, away from home, exiles, strangers and pilgrims in the earth. We are not HOME yet. This world is still too dry for us. We have water from the Rock, but make too careless use of it/him (1Cor.10:4). He is the Bread from heaven, but we complain about the provision. Still, we look for the home beyond Jordan, bewail our sins, and look to the gifts of the Spirit to sustain us while we pilgrim.

It is already, and not yet. And for the OT saints--who yes, did need their hearts changed--it was also already, and not yet; just different proportions than in our case.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MSH (Apr 27, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> People who don't have as much water as we typically do in our modern, western context tend to make _more _of the little water they have.
> 
> I don't think it's a fair judgment to say that we have more desire today than, say, David--to whom it is common to attribute Ps.119 (though it is not titled _of David)--_an entire Psalm concerning passion for God's law. We have more gift of the Spirit's presence in the general way, so that it should be we ought to be better keepers of the divine law-standard in the NT age. But, as I indicated in the opening sentence, I'm not sure we (on the whole) do according to the availability of the help supplied.
> 
> ...



Excellent! Thank you sir! 

I often see Covenant and Testament used synonymously. Though, I suspect what you indicated above about them being different to be true. 

In what ways are they similar/connected?

In what ways are they different?

Thanks! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 27, 2017)

The same Greek word stands behind both NT terms, differently translated. The "testamentary" concept brings death and inheritance into high relief. "Covenant" lays emphasis on the relationship God sets up with man, and guarantees by his Word, alluding to various continuities (which may be investigated to find where and to what limits) with previous covenant administrations.

My main point from the previous post is that we should have a care not to make the literary body known as the Old Testament synonymous with a reference to the "old covenant," which thing Jeremiah clearly defines as that arrangement instituted when Israel was brought out of Egypt. That era of administration post-dates Abraham, has a distinctly legal character; and Paul just as clearly states (Gal.3:17) that it had no modifying effect upon the unilateral and promissory nature of the earlier covenant engagement, Gen.12/15/17.


----------



## MSH (Apr 28, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The same Greek word stands behind both NT terms, differently translated. The "testamentary" concept brings death and inheritance into high relief. "Covenant" lays emphasis on the relationship God sets up with man, and guarantees by his Word, alluding to various continuities (which may be investigated to find where and to what limits) with previous covenant administrations.
> 
> My main point from the previous post is that we should have a care not to make the literary body known as the Old Testament synonymous with a reference to the "old covenant," which thing Jeremiah clearly defines as that arrangement instituted when Israel was brought out of Egypt. That era of administration post-dates Abraham, has a distinctly legal character; and Paul just as clearly states (Gal.3:17) that it had no modifying effect upon the unilateral and promissory nature of the earlier covenant engagement, Gen.12/15/17.



So, when in Jeremiah 31 it mentions that the covenant is different it is referring only to the outward elements of the mosaic covenant? 

When it says that," I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts," this is essentially the same as done for all of Abraham's descendants of both Testaments? Is the NC basically the renewed Abrahamic Covenant? 

Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 28, 2017)

"I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt...," Jer.31:31f.

So a "new" covenant, as correlated to what? What earns the label "old," according to Jeremiah; and by extension the author of Hebrews (who uses the very term, 8:13)?



MSH said:


> When it says that," I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts," this is essentially the same as done for all of Abraham's descendants of both Testaments?


Unquestionably. No unrepentant sinner loves God. There is no spiritual benefit accessible to anyone, until the Lord correct the disposition within. And this is nothing less than restoring spiritual life and the image of God to man. That entails knowledge of the will of God; it is love to God, love being the fulfillment of the law.

Jeremiah makes use of the powerfully symbolic quality of the Mosaic administration, its outward appeal to the senses in numerous ways and the visible glory thereof, and its patent legal characteristic _exhibited in letters _(Rom.2:29; 7:6; Col.2:14)_--_613 separate commands, by the traditional rabbinical count. Clearly there were many persons, over many generations, who did not penetrate through the thick glory-overlay and outward connection to said law, to obtain the hidden manna within.

God promises, in respect to the New Covenant, to teach relation to him in a manner that in those days dispenses with the sign-heavy pattern instituted at Sinai. Not the removal of all signs and symbols, as we know; so the language of the prophet cannot be absolute, but rather comparative. And, we argue, _restorative _to the primarily spiritual hope of Abraham.

The NT repeatedly emphasizes that Abraham did not have vision limited to the earthly horizon. He looked beyond the earthly city, understanding that the tangible expectation of fulfillment was itself symbolic, and served the purpose of bringing the expected Seed into the world. Abraham is, properly then, a _spiritual man, _and not a legal-man. Moses (who was also profoundly spiritual) is set in contrast to Abraham as the legal-man.

So, the New Covenant is the _fulfillment _of Abraham's (and Moses') spiritual hope.


----------



## MSH (Apr 30, 2017)

When Jeremiah says," They will not teach again, each man his neighbor, and each man his brother, saying, Know the Lord,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them....," is he talking about the doing away of the Levitical Priesthood ( being the Man teaching referred to in the verse), and that all people (Elect) will enjoy a more direct fellowship with God not having to go through a human mediator any longer? In the NC does every believer become an antitype of sorts for the old priesthood? We, as believers, "from the least to the greatest," are a priesthood in the NC era in the sense that we now have a direct line to God.

Am I close?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 1, 2017)

It's clear, isn't it, that with reference to the age of the NC we're _not_ talking about doing away with teaching _in toto_ or abolishing the teaching office? Some qualification of an absolute reading is in order.

Some see in Jeremiah's words the eschatological, final fulfillment, the arrival of what is still "not yet." That is, the conclusion--in the life to come when there are no unbelievers--is spoken of in terms indicating it has already come. But while we live in NC reality, still we aren't in heaven yet. Not every Messianic hope happened all at once when Christ came the first time; certain prophesied aspects of his reign were deferred until his return. The "interlude" was not seen clearly from the standpoint of the disciples prior to the cross, resurrection and ascension.

The writer to Hebrews clearly wants to connect the fulfillment by Christ of the priest's role in every respect, to the promise of the NC in Jeremiah. This role includes the teaching office. (cf. Is.30:20-21; where מוריך I suppose to be singular "Teacher" for the Lord himself). So, the Levitical priests are going away, and this text indicates as much; but this only means that Christ himself will teach his people, and he still uses those whom he calls for this service in a primary way.

Israel of old was a kingdom of priests, so I don't think we are to see the NT church as "fulfillment" of the old priesthood. We are the heirs of the OT people of God.


----------



## MSH (May 2, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> It's clear, isn't it, that with reference to the age of the NC we're _not_ talking about doing away with teaching _in toto_ or abolishing the teaching office? Some qualification of an absolute reading is in order.
> 
> Some see in Jeremiah's words the eschatological, final fulfillment, the arrival of what is still "not yet." That is, the conclusion--in the life to come when there are no unbelievers--is spoken of in terms indicating it has already come. But while we live in NC reality, still we aren't in heaven yet. Not every Messianic hope happened all at once when Christ came the first time; certain prophesied aspects of his reign were deferred until his return. The "interlude" was not seen clearly from the standpoint of the disciples prior to the cross, resurrection and ascension.
> 
> ...



Thanks Rev. Buchanan! 
I appreciate your input! I profit greatly from your contributions to this forum!


----------

