Greater Measure of Grace in the New Covenant: Thoughts?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JTB.SDG

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

Bruce, is any author/systematic especially helpful here?
 
Does Ferguson deal much with the Spirit in the OT in his book "The Holy Spirit?"
 
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.

The second particular refers to the gratuitous pardon of sins. Though they have sinned, saith the Lord, yet I will pardon them. This part is also most necessary; for God never so forms us for obedience to his righteousness, but that many corrupt affections of the flesh still remain; nay, it is only in part that the viciousness of our nature is corrected; so that evil lusts break out now and then. And hence is that contest of which Paul complains, when the godly do not obey God as they ought, but in various ways offend. (Romans 7:13.) Whatever desire then there may be in us to live righteously, we are still guilty of eternal death before God, because our life is ever very far from the perfection which the Law requires. There would then be no stability in the covenant, except God gratuitously forgave our sins. But it is the peculiar privilege of the faithful who have once embraced the covenant offered to them in Christ, that they feel assured that God is propitious to them; nor is the sin to which they are liable, a hindrance to them, for they have the promise of pardon.

And it must be observed that this pardon is promised to them, not for one day only, but to the very end of life, so that they have a daily reconciliation with God. For this favor is extended to the whole of Christ’s kingdom, as Paul abundantly proves in the fifth chapter of his second Epistle to the Corinthians. And doubtless this is the only true asylum of our faith, to which if we flee not, constant despair must be our lot. For we are all of us guilty; nor can we be otherwise released then by fleeing to God’s mercy, which alone can pardon us.

And they shall be to me, etc. It is the fruit of the covenant, that God chooses us for his people, and assures us that he will be the guardian of our salvation. This is indeed the meaning of these words, And I will be to them a God; for he is not the God of the dead, nor does he take us under his protection, but that he may make us partakers of righteousness and of life, so that David justly exclaims, “Blessed are the people to whom the Lord is God (Psalm 144:15.) There is further no doubt but that this truth belongs also to us; for though the Israelites had the first place, and are the proper and legitimate heirs of the covenant, yet their prerogative does not hinder us from having also a title to it. In short, however far and wide the kingdom of Christ extends, this covenant of salvation is of the same extent.

But it may be asked, whether there was under the Law a sure and certain promise of salvation, whether the fathers had the gift of the Spirit, whether they enjoyed God’s paternal favor through the remission of sins? Yes, it is evident that they worshipped God with a sincere heart and a pure conscience, and that they walked in his commandments, and this could not have been the case except they had been inwardly taught by the Spirit; and it is also evident, that whenever they thought of their sins, they were raised up by the assurance of a gratuitous pardon. And yet the Apostle, by referring the prophecy of Jeremiah to the coming of Christ, seems to rob them of these blessings. To this I reply, that he does not expressly deny that God formerly wrote his Law on their hearts and pardoned their sins, but he makes a comparison between the less and the greater. As then the Father has put forth more fully the power of his Spirit under the kingdom of Christ, and has poured forth more abundantly his mercy on mankind, this exuberance renders insignificant the small portion of grace which he had been pleased to bestow on the fathers. We also see that the promises were then obscure and intricate, so that they shone only like the moon and stars in comparison with the clear light of the Gospel which shines brightly on us.

If it be objected and said, that the faith and obedience of Abraham so excelled, that hardly any such an example can at this day be found in the whole world; my answer is this, that the question here is not about persons, but that reference is made to the economical condition of the Church. Besides, whatever spiritual gifts the fathers obtained, they were accidental as it were to their age; for it was necessary for them to direct their eyes to Christ in order to become possessed of them. Hence it was not without reason that the Apostle, in comparing the Gospel with the Law, took away from the latter what is peculiar to the former. There is yet no reason why God should not have extended the grace of the new covenant to the fathers. This is the true solution of the question.
 
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.
. . . . . . . . . .

Let us now briefly examine those attributes of the law and the gospel. Let us, however, bear in mind, that he is not speaking of the whole of the doctrine that is contained in the law and the Prophets; and farther, that he is not treating of what happened to the fathers under the Old Testament, but merely notices what belongs peculiarly to the ministry of Moses. The law was engraven on stones, and hence it was a literal doctrine. This defect of the law required to be corrected by the gospel, because it could not but be brittle, so long as it was merely engraven on tables of stone. The gospel, therefore, is a holy and inviolable covenant, because it was contracted by the Spirit of God, acting as security
From this, too, it follows, that the law was the ministry of condemnation and of death; for when men are instructed as to their duty, and hear it declared, that all who do not render satisfaction to the justice of God are cursed (Dt.27:26), they are convicted, as under sentence of sin and death. From the law, therefore, they derive nothing but a condemnation of this nature, because God there demands what is due to him, and at the same time confers no power to perform it. The gospel, on the other hand, by which men are regenerated, and are reconciled to God, through the free remission of their sins, is the ministry of righteousness, and, consequently, of life also.
Here, however, a question arises: As the gospel is the odor of death unto death to some (2Cor.2:16), and as Christ is a rock of offense, and a stone of stumbling set for the ruin of many (Lk.2:34; 1Pet.2:8), why does he represent, as belonging exclusively to the law, what is common to both? Should you reply, that it happens accidentally that the gospel is the source of death, and, accordingly, is the occasion of it rather than the cause, inasmuch as it is in its own nature salutary to all, the difficulty will still remain unsolved; for the same answer might be returned with truth in reference to the law. For we hear what Moses called the people to bear witness to — that he had set before them life and death (Dt.30:15). We hear what Paul himself says in Romans 7:10 — that the law has turned out to our ruin, not through any fault attaching to it, but in consequence of our wickedness. Hence, as the entailing of condemnation upon men is a thing that happens alike to the law and the gospel, the difficulty still remains.
My answer is this: that there is, notwithstanding of this, a great difference between them; for although the gospel is an occasion of condemnation to many, it is nevertheless, on good grounds, reckoned the doctrine of life, because it is the instrument of regeneration, and offers to us a free reconciliation with God. The law, on the other hand, as it simply prescribes the rule of a good life, does not renew men’s hearts to the obedience of righteousness, and denounces everlasting death upon transgressors, can do nothing but condemn.
Or if you prefer it in another way, the office of the law is to show us the disease, in such a way as to show us, at the same time, no hope of cure: the office of the gospel is, to bring a remedy to those that were past hope. For as the law leaves man to himself, it condemns him, of necessity, to death; while the gospel, bringing him to Christ, opens the gate of life. Thus, in one word, we find that it is an accidental property of the law, that is perpetual and inseparable, that it killeth; for as the Apostle says elsewhere (Gal.3:10), "All that remain under the law are subject to the curse." It does, not, on the other hand, invariably happen to the gospel, that it kills, for in it is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith, and therefore it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth (Rom.1:17,18).
It remains, that we consider the last of the properties that are ascribed. The Apostle says, that the law was but for a time, and required to be abolished, but that the gospel, on the other hand, remains for ever. There are various reasons why the ministry of Moses is pronounced transient, for it was necessary that the shadows should vanish at the coming of Christ, and that statement, "The law and the Prophets were until John," (Mt.11:13) applies to more than the mere shadows. For it intimates, that Christ has put an end to the ministry of Moses, which was peculiar to him, and is distinguished from the gospel.
Finally, the Lord declares by Jeremiah, that the weakness of the Old Testament arose from this — that it was not engraven on men’s hearts. (Jeremiah 31:32,33.) For my part, I understand that abolition of the law, of which mention is here made, as referring to the whole of the Old Testament, in so far as it is opposed to the gospel, so that it corresponds with the statement, "The law and the Prophets were until John." For the context requires this. For Paul is not reasoning here as to mere ceremonies, but shows how much more powerfully the Spirit of God exercises his power in the gospel, than of old under the law.
So that they could not look. He seems to have had it in view to reprove, indirectly, the arrogance of those, who despised the gospel as a thing that was excessively mean, so that they could scarcely deign to give it a direct look. “So great,” says he, “was the splendor of the law, that the Jews could not endure it. What, then, must we think of the gospel, the dignity of which is as much superior to that of the law, as Christ is more excellent than Moses?”
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top