Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are saying that the OT saints weren't indwelt with the Holy Spirit then?
How then were they saved?
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/
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.
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.
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.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?
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.