# OT Regeneration -- By the Spirit through the hearing of the Gospel?



## Matthew1034 (Apr 30, 2009)

I know there is some debate about OT regeneration, but this question presupposes that the OT saints were born again, alive to God, with a circumcised heart. In presenting the question, I may be covering multiple topics unintentionally but I want to focus on the nature of the Gospel in the OT.

The Gospel is the good news about Christ's perfect sacrifice and the resulting forgiveness of sins and reconciliation to God by grace. But there is a sense in which the new covenant emphasizes _all flesh_ (not individuals, but Jew and Gentile) being reconciled:



Colossians 1:26 said:


> the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints.27 To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.





Ephesians 3:3-6 said:


> how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already,4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ),5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,8 To me this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;



So, the Gospel is the forgiveness of sins through the atonement of Christ, but it seems to also include the promises bless all nations in Christ (the fulfillment of the promises to Israel), and therefore the Gospel is the good news of reconciliation of all flesh in Christ:



Galatians 3:8 said:


> And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."





Zechariah 2:10 said:


> "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst," says the LORD.11 "Many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you.





Isaiah 66:18-20 said:


> It shall be that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and see My glory.19 I will set a sign among them; and those among them who escape I will send to the nations: to the coastlands afar off who have not heard My fame nor seen My glory. And they shall declare My glory among the Gentiles.20 Then they shall bring all your brethren for an offering to the LORD out of all nations,


(God refers to the people of all nations and tongues whom he calls as Israel's brethren -- interesting)

So, I know that's a lot of Scripture, and my question is difficult to articulate exactly, but what was the place of the Gospel in the OT? The Gospel that the Gentiles were to be ingrafted was a mystery in the OT, but they were still saved by grace through faith in the coming sin-bearer but can we say they preached and believed the Gospel? If not, what place did the Gospel have?


----------



## Skyler (Apr 30, 2009)




----------



## Matthew1034 (Apr 30, 2009)

Just for the record, I don't have a position one way or the other yet on this stuff -- but I do believe that OT saints were regenerated.


----------



## OPC'n (Apr 30, 2009)

Romans 9:24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25As indeed he says in Hosea,

"Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,'
and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"
26 "And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,'
there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"

27And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, 28for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay." 29And as Isaiah predicted,

"If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,
we would have been like Sodom
and become like Gomorrah."

Hosea 1:9,109And the LORD said, "Call his name Not My People, for you are not my people, and I am not your God."

10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, "You are not my people," it shall be said to them, "Children of the living God."

Hosea 2:23 and I will sow her for myself in the land.
And I will have mercy on No Mercy,
and I will say to Not My People, 'You are my people';
and he shall say, 'You are my God.'"


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 30, 2009)

OT saints were saved by faith in the Messiah who would come.

The gospel is the "good news of the Messiah" who has come.

The gospel is news of an accomplished fact. It is to be believed unto salvation.

The object of the faith (OT/NT) is the same. The gospel is the NT word of accomplishment. OT saints didn't have a gospel to believe in yet, just "gospel" promises.


----------



## moral necessity (Apr 30, 2009)

Matthew1034 said:


> So, I know that's a lot of Scripture, and my question is difficult to articulate exactly, but what was the place of the Gospel in the OT? The Gospel that the Gentiles were to be ingrafted was a mystery in the OT, but they were still saved by grace through faith in the coming sin-bearer but can we say they preached and believed the Gospel? If not, what place did the Gospel have?



Are you asking if the Jews went out and proclaimed the Messiah to the Gentiles?


----------



## Matthew1034 (May 1, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> OT saints were saved by faith in the Messiah who would come.
> 
> The gospel is the "good news of the Messiah" who has come.
> 
> ...



So the Gospel (now) is the "good news of the Messiah" who _has _come.

And the Gospel (then) was the "good news of the Messiah who _would _come."

The object of their faith was Christ according to the prophetic (Rev. 19:10) shadows/types/prefigures of Him --- so what is it that disallows us from saying they preached and believed the Gospel? Know what I mean?



moral necessity said:


> Matthew1034 said:
> 
> 
> > So, I know that's a lot of Scripture, and my question is difficult to articulate exactly, but what was the place of the Gospel in the OT? The Gospel that the Gentiles were to be ingrafted was a mystery in the OT, but they were still saved by grace through faith in the coming sin-bearer but can we say they preached and believed the Gospel? If not, what place did the Gospel have?
> ...



That is definitely part of my question. Paul said it was a mystery that the Jews and Gentiles would be made one in Christ, but there are still many Scriptures in the OT which speak of God's grace to the Gentiles. They knew God had given his grace to Gentiles (Ninevah, Ruth, Rahab, Nebuchadnezzar, Naaman ...), and its hard to believe they did not preach to them! Perhaps the mystery is narrower than "God turned to the Gentiles" and is that the two peoples are made one in Christ:



Isaiah 9:1-2 said:


> Nevertheless the gloom will not be upon her who is distressed,
> ...
> In Galilee of the Gentiles.
> The people who walked in darkness
> ...





Isaiah 60:3 said:


> The Gentiles shall come to your light,
> And kings to the brightness of your rising.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 1, 2009)

I do think I understand you, and am disagreeing with the premise. I don't know if we are in agreement about the definition of the gospel, or what the gospel of Christ contains.

How can a person believe in the "good announcement" when there's _nothing_ to announce (yet) ?

You're calling "the good announcement" made by the breathless runner coming from the battlefield:
"The victory hasn't happened yet!" I'm sorry, that's not the gospel.

The gospel is a New Testament word of victorious (historic) proclamation.

The gospel is not the promise of it. I'm contending here for the very definition of the term "gospel."


----------



## Matthew1034 (May 2, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I do think I understand you, and am disagreeing with the premise. I don't know if we are in agreement about the definition of the gospel, or what the gospel of Christ contains.
> 
> How can a person believe in the "good announcement" when there's _nothing_ to announce (yet) ?
> 
> ...



Bruce, thank you for the "victory hasn't happened yet!" illustration, I now understand what you mean by the gospel being a NT word of historic proclamation.

I have two questions in response to your reply:

1) Do you agree with the statement, "The OT saints and prophets _did _preach Christ crucified, _but through_ types and shadows, such as sacrifices, holy days, and/or prophecies." If not, what would you change?

2) (I know this thread's context is not Galatians 3's context, but I am only referring to the statement.) How do you reconcile the view that there was no gospel preached in the OT with Galatians 3:8:



God said:


> And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 2, 2009)

1) I believe they preached a suffering even dying (and a triumphant) Messiah, an atoning Messiah, a deliverer from sin and death. I don't think they envisioned Christ being crucified (as to his specific manner of death). They preached a Christ who *would *do these things. Priests proclaimed his death often even when they didn't realize what they were doing.

But I distinguish between the faith in God that a thing is as sure as done because he promises it, and the historic deliverance and accomplishment. For instance: our "blessed hope" (respecting the 2nd coming, and all the events connected to it) is an event for which we have faith, a certain faith based strongly in the deliverances already accomplished. But who hopes for what he already sees (Rom.8:24), that is with the "natural" eye?

OT saints had a deliberately darkened perspective, that they might not be complete without us (Heb.11:40). Jesus' coming was that which would put all the seeming unrelated pieces together, and make coherent what seemed like puzzle fragments. He would explain, as in Jn.4:25: "The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things."

These were people who were groaning, walking in darkness, looking up, hoping, like a woman in labor. The "good news" comes when the child is born (Jn.16:21).



2) The Galatians phrase I understand as a perspectival comment. From Abraham's historic standpoint, the word is a promise pertaining to the gospel. But from Paul's historic standpoint, the Scriptures are proclaiming an accomplished fact even to Abraham, because Paul is living in the accomplishment.

Abraham believes it as though it were accomplished, even though when he dies he has not obtained it. Heb.11:13 "These all died in faith, *not having received the promises*, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth."

Paul reads Genesis with two horizons in view. He understands that Abraham has a horizon, and Paul has his own horizon. Beyond Abraham's horizon is the cross and its results (e.g. all the nations blessed), and the end of time. Paul's history contains the cross, and he is living in the midst of the results. Only the end of time lies beyond his horizon.

Paul reads Genesis, however, the way we should read Genesis, namely as a book written not only for the person of that hour, but simultaneously to us. It is an eternal book. Because we stand there with Abraham, we receive the promise with him. But when we ask what this pertains to, we look backwards, not ahead. It is no less a promise pertaining to the gospel for us than for Abraham, however Abraham would not, indeed _could not,_ have called it "gospel" outside of the prospective of hope. 

They knew what kinds of tidings they were hoping for. Here's the one coming from the life-or-death battle with the victory announcement: Is.52:7 "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, 'Your God reigns.'" It is wonderful that they could speak of the future as though it were happening in front of their eyes. We can speak like that of the hope that awaits us too.

It comes down to this: the promise that{I will bring you good tidings of great joy that will be for all the people}​is not the bringing of those tidings (Lk.2:10).

Good hope is different from good news, however much they are related. From the OT side the faithful treated the promises as though they were attained. They lived as if the promises of the gospel were the gospel itself. From the NT side the faithful treat the OT promises as having been attained. We recognize them as having that much more weight, since they were verified as more than empty words.

There are still promises attached to the gospel message. Those who believe in the historic facts of Christ and their meaning will be saved to the uttermost. We are an already/not yet people.


----------



## Matthew1034 (May 3, 2009)

Reverend Bruce, I appreciate you for fleshing out of your thoughts -- it was more than I was anticipating, such that I have new aspects of the topic and new Scriptures to think about.

I realize that I had not mentioned this prior, but the topic arose from a conversation between Covenant and Dispensational Theology/Soteriology. A Dispensational friend is hung up on this issue -- he believes OT saints were regenerated but has a hard time seeing how it was a result of the gospel, and I ended up wondering myself. It is definitely an important topic since it deals with the nature, extent, and scope of Christ's work.

So, thank you.


----------

