By way of continuing our discussion about the relationship of the Old Covenant saints to the New Covenant gift of the Spirit, I’d like to put forth a modified version of a comment I made to R. Fowler White in the previous thread.The structure of our Bibles leads us to believe that the history of redemption is divided into two main periods: the time before Christ and the time after Christ. To put this in covenantal terms, we should think of God’s dealings with his people under the rubric of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. However, our traditional covenant theology proposes an additional (and more systematic) paradigm, which divides history in terms of the covenant of works (which was operative before the fall) and the covenant of grace (which has been in effect from Gen. 3 onwards).
The big question, it seems to me, is whether an overemphasis on the latter paradigm can result in a minimizing of the distinction between the saving experience of God’s people before and after the coming of Christ. Another way to put it is, Does the historical accomplishment of redemption have any practical effect upon the subsequent application of that redemption?
Concerning the issue of whether the OT saints were regenerate—by which I mean they participated in the age to come by virtue of the indwelling Spirit of the risen Christ—my tentative answer has been “No.” Dr. White then asked why saving blessings like justification and forgiveness were experienced by OT saints while regeneration was not, and this was my response:
“… forgiveness and justification do not affect Christ in any ontological way, which is why they can be proleptically enjoyed by OT saints. But I would maintain that it’s different with something like the indwelling of the Spirit of the risen Christ. If Jesus’ mission entailed his assuming and then glorifying human flesh, resulting in the Father’s creating in Christ a new man with Jesus as Head and we as members of his mystical body whose end is to say, ‘In my flesh I shall see God’ (Job), then it seems to follow that this re-creation cannot begin in the members until it has begun in the Head. We’re not the firstfruits or the forerunner, Jesus is.”
This is why John says of the Holy Spirit that he “was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified,” why Jesus told his disciples that the Spirit “is with you, and shall be in you,” and why Jesus said of John the Baptist that though he was the greatest of all men born of women, “yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”
This is why John says of the Holy Spirit that he “was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified,” why Jesus told his disciples that the Spirit “is with you, and shall be in you,” and why Jesus said of John the Baptist that though he was the greatest of all men born of women, “yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”
Thoughts?
Jason,
ReplyDeleteJohn means that the Spirit had not yet been given *without measure* -- for Christ gives the Spirit without measure. (John 3:34) He does not mean that the Spirit was absent from the people of God under the Old Covenant, or that they could have living faith without being regenerate by the Spirit. No one [in the Old Covenant] could have faith in Christ [by anticipation] except by the Spirit. (1 Cor. 12:3) And no one out-loves God. Where there was love for God [in the Old Covenant], there was the Holy Spirit, for He draws near and dwells within those who love Him. They too had the indwelling of the Spirit; they had agape. The difference is the measure. "But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift." (Eph 4:7) We have grace and the Spirit according to the measure of Christ's gift, which was veiled in times past, but has now been revealed fully in Christ. With the fullness of the revelation of God through Christ, comes the fullness of the outpouring of the Spirit of Christ. How could all those OT saints have love for God, with no ontic change? Is not love in the heart? How could they all be dead in sins, and have only a forensic declaration, and yet live in faith and holiness? A dead tree does not produce fruit.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteIf you read my previous posts as well as the comments, I think you'll see that I never said that the OT saints were devoid of the Spirit. Whatever Spirit-wrought influences they needed to truly love and trust God, they had. But the NT is also clear that there was something they did not have, but we do. My argument is that this is the permanent indwelling of the Spirit of the risen Christ.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteOk, thanks. I didn't catch the 'permanent' part, but your comment clears it up.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
JJS:
ReplyDeleteThis whole subject is worth considerable time and effort, and I appreciate the need for and value of interaction on this interesting and challenging topic, not least because it has ramifications, as you've suggested, for what we believe and teach about salvation, Christ, and the Spirit and the history of redemption.
I appreciate Bryan's reference to John 3.34. We all accept that it's necessary to place the exegesis of John 7.37-39 in the context of the whole of the apostle's assertions about the Spirit. Given your comments to Bryan, it seems clearer that, in a sense, what your questions center around is, if it is only after Christ's coming that the Spirit is given without measure, then in what measure was He given before Christ's coming? Answers to this question can be maximalist or minimalist. In other words, did Abraham our father have a lesser measure of the Spirit than his seed who lived after Christ's coming?
Granted this frame of reference, I wonder if you could explain your claim that forgiveness and justification do not affect Christ in any ontological way.
Let me try to focus the discussion. As I understand you so far, you want to urge that regeneration is a new covenant blessing different from justification and forgiveness because regeneration is correlated with Christ's glorification and so it does affect Christ "in an ontological way." It occurs to me to ask: isn't it the case that justification/forgiveness also affect Christ in an ontological way? That is, isn't it the case that justification/forgiveness correlate with His resurrection, not to mention His incarnation and death, thus affecting Him in an ontological way?
Fowler,
ReplyDelete… it seems clearer that, in a sense, what your questions center around is, if it is only after Christ's coming that the Spirit is given without measure, then in what measure was He given before Christ's coming? Answers to this question can be maximalist or minimalist. In other words, did Abraham our father have a lesser measure of the Spirit than his seed who lived after Christ's coming?
Yes, that’s pretty much what I’m asking.
Granted this frame of reference, I wonder if you could explain your claim that forgiveness and justification do not affect Christ in any ontological way…. Isn't it the case that justification/forgiveness correlate with His resurrection, not to mention His incarnation and death, thus affecting Him in an ontological way?
I would say that yes, all the saving blessings of the covenant “correlate” with the mission of Christ, including his incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. But when it comes to the final end of man, i.e., our becoming “like Jesus, for we shall see him as he is,” there is something far greater going on than a mere “correlation” with Christ.
Let me try to put this another way (and I appreciate your questions because they’re forcing me to wrestle though this and find the best way to defend it): There seems to be something unique about our union with the risen Christ through the Spirit that sets it in distinction from justification and forgiveness. Justification and forgiveness are declarative, they don’t in and of themselves change us into new creatures. What does ontologically change us, on the other hand, is our regeneration via the indwelling of the Spirit of the risen Christ. And further, that which we are changed into by the Spirit is the very image of Jesus. This does not mean we are changed into the image of the eternal Logos, but rather we are being changed into the image of the God-Man who has assumed our nature (and not that of angels) so that he could suffer in it, glorify it, and bring it with him into heaven as a preview for the angels of what is to come (which things the angels long to ponder).
So that which affects us ontologically does so only because the Son himself has been ontologically affected. But if he is the archetype into whose image regeneration changes us, then it makes no sense for us to display that image before he himself does. Thus it makes sense that only after Jesus’ ascension the Spirit was given to the church as a permanent, indwelling possession.
Now, this is all just a bunch of systematics. I am also putting forth some biblical passages that seem to necessitate something similar to what I am saying. Why was John the Baptist the best human in the whole world, but less than the least among the citizens of the kingdom of heaven? Why did Jesus say to his disciples that the Spirit is with them, and shall be in them? And why does John say that the Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified?
Pastor Stellman
ReplyDeleteIt appears to me you are trying to think of regeneration the same way Gaffin views resurrection in his book Resurrection and Redemption.
The way I interpret Gaffin he believes resurrection makes adoption possible and regeneration is the fruit of adoption.
Dean B
JJS:
ReplyDeleteIf I'm able, I'll hope to comment on the questions you've posed above. For the moment, let me just state that I agree with you that the question(s) you and I have discussed are about the organic, systemic relation of the blessings of redemption. I absolutely agree on the need to study at the additional questions you've mentioned.
At the same time, I think it's useful to keep in mind that the initial question you raised is itself a systemic-organic question arising from questions about how to put together the assertions made in several texts, in the OT as well as the NT.
By the way, I don't presently have access to Sinclair Ferguson's book on the Holy Spirit. What does he contribute on this topic, if anything?
All Jesus is saying when he said “yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" was that he's greater (as the Messiah) than the one who pointed to him. Counterintuitive, because typically a prophet who picked up the mantle of the previous prophet was not "greater" than his predecessor.
ReplyDeleteThus not sure it has direct bearing on the particular point of this post.
Wait, so you think Jesus' "he" is referring to himself?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo. Jesus is referring to himself as the one who came after (i.e., "the least") the Baptist. The apprentice is not greater than the master, except in this case.
ReplyDeleteFurther reflection may be in order: The reason Jesus speaks of John so highly (and then make him least in the kingdom) is because the Baptist preceded and heralded the watershed of history, the Great Divide between the old covenant and the new. The era of Law that gave way to the era of Grace. The era of the Prophets that opened into the era of the Messiah. John stood just shy of the summit and proclaimed the coming of the king.
ReplyDeleteSo it has bearing here, just not directly.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteAlong the lines of what Dean said above and my gut feeling (if I'm picking up what you're laying down) is on the matter...
Is that perhaps the outpouring of the Spirit is different from quantity or permanence. Rather it is the Spirit of adoption, or in Paul's terms "Christ's Spirit" in us. So that in the OT it was merely the Holy Spirit, or God's Spirit. NOW however, we have "Christ's Spirit" inside of us calling out "Abba, Father." We have the Spirit of adoption.
Along similar lines, what if we're thinking too hard about this? What if Jesus is merely referring to the outpouring of the Spirit to the Gentiles, instead of just the Jews? Thus why now in Christ there is no Jew, Greek, male, female, etc., and there was before.
Which would simply emphasize the importance of Pentecost in the reversal of the curse mankind received at the tower of Babel. The Spirit has come to all tongues, tribes, and nations instead of just one typological nation.
Just 2 more of my cents.
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteIs that perhaps the outpouring of the Spirit is different from quantity or permanence. Rather it is the Spirit of adoption, or in Paul's terms "Christ's Spirit" in us. So that in the OT it was merely the Holy Spirit, or God's Spirit. NOW however, we have "Christ's Spirit" inside of us calling out "Abba, Father." We have the Spirit of adoption.
Yes, but even if we say that, the question is still open of whether or not having “Christ’s Spirit” indwelling us entails something above and beyond that of the OT saints.
There’s the issue of indwelling—Jesus says to the disciples, “The Holy Spirit is with you, and shall be in you,” thereby suggesting that indwelling is something new. Then there’s the issue of John and why he was considered less than the least among the citizens of the kingdom. And additionally, there’s the issue I raised with Fowler of whether an OT saint could have been united to a body of which Jesus was not yet the glorified Head (which John 7 seems to deny).
Along similar lines, what if we're thinking too hard about this? What if Jesus is merely referring to the outpouring of the Spirit to the Gentiles, instead of just the Jews? Thus why now in Christ there is no Jew, Greek, male, female, etc., and there was before.
This ignores the questions I am asking, which I don’t think are examples of “over-thinking” the issue.
Which would simply emphasize the importance of Pentecost in the reversal of the curse mankind received at the tower of Babel. The Spirit has come to all tongues, tribes, and nations instead of just one typological nation.
This is surely true, but it doesn’t go far enough in my opinion.
Pastor Stellman
ReplyDelete"There’s the issue of indwelling—Jesus says to the disciples, “The Holy Spirit is with you, and shall be in you,” thereby suggesting that indwelling is something new."
I find it curious that in Numbers 11:24-29 and other OT passages repeatedly refers to the Spirit resting ON rather than IN. However, I normally think of the HS in the OT as dripping and in the NT as being poured out.
"And additionally, there’s the issue I raised with Fowler of whether an OT saint could have been united to a body of which Jesus was not yet the glorified Head."
Your thoughts reminds me of the subject of eternal justification in WCF 11.4. Do you see a similarity between the teaching that justification can not be applied by the HS simply via election, and that the benefits of regeneration could not be applied by the HS until after Christ secured the benefits in time and space?
Dean B
JJS:
ReplyDeleteI have several thoughts to add to our discussion. Because of their length, I'll have to split them up into several posts. So here goes ....
Let me emphasize again my appreciation for both the value and the challenge of this topic. I certainly am not approaching this conversation with a full set of answers that will satisfy the questions that you or I or others have raised.
1. To the extent that your proposal gives an account that makes good sense of several NT passages, it is, in my opinion, a good working hypothesis. The reservation that I have about your proposal is that I haven’t yet seen your hypothesis consider enough of the relevant evidence, particularly from the OT, about believers before Pentecost/Christ’s ascension-glorification. I also don’t see the biblical basis for defining the term “regeneration” as “indwelling by the Spirit.” Yes, we agree that it is the Spirit who regenerates and indwells. It remains, though, those activities by the Spirit are textually stated and commonly treated as distinct and, as a result, it looks to me that you are zeroing in on indwelling, not regeneration. I’m persuaded that you’d sharpen your point and increase the force of your argument if you dropped the term “regeneration” and spoke instead about “indwelling.” It seems to capture and communicate your exact point more accurately; allow me for the sake of this post to use the term “indwelling” below.
2. Your point that justification-forgiveness is declarative and indwelling-regeneration is internally transformative is well taken. Your proposal to account for limiting indwelling-regeneration to the post-ascension era by connecting it to the personal history of God the Son (from incarnation through ascension-glorification) is a good hypothesis.
To be continued ...
JJS:
ReplyDeletecontinued from 1. and 2. above ...
3. Earlier you acknowledged that indwelling-regeneration, like justification-pardon, affects Christ in an ontological way. You have clarified (augmented) this earlier acknowledgement with the observation that you have in mind an ontological change in Christ that affects an ontological change in us. You make this thought provoking statement: “that which affects us ontologically does so only because the Son himself has been ontologically affected. But if he is the archetype into whose image regeneration changes us, then it makes no sense for us to display that image before he himself does.”
Fair enough. Here’s why I balk at your statement: I don’t see how your claim reckons with the evidence from the OT texts where we’re told that believers before Christ’s ascension were ontologically changed. As we’ve already discussed, the OT text tells us that believers were given were given a heart/spirit that was new, clean, circumcised, inscribed-with-God's-law. We’ve also agree that OT believers could know forgiveness, which, the text tells us, involves a cleansed conscience. We also have to incorporate the fact that Paul states that all Abraham’s (true) seed are, like Isaac, “born according to the Spirit” (Gal 4.28-30). To my mind, then, there is ample OT testimony of ontological change in believers before Christ’s glorification, and so it does make sense after all to say that believers displayed Christ’s image before Christ Himself did. The open question that remains is the measure – full or something less? – of that ontological change in pre-ascension believers (in other words, believers before Pentecost0.
As you rightly point out, it all seems to come down to whether it isn’t best to say that pre-ascension believers were regenerated but not permanently indwelt by the Spirit. Given that there is evidence that the Spirit temporarily indwelt some, we have to reckon with the assertions made in texts like Ezek 36-37, where the prophet speaks of ontological changes in the people, including not only new hearts but also the Spirit “in” them. The conclusions we draw from a passage like this would seem to turn on the exegetical questions: when the prophet speak of the Spirit "in" the people, does he mean permanent indwelling by the Spirit in the individual or the Spirit's general permanent presence among the people? Also, did the believing remnant in Ezekiel’s audience experience what Ezekiel describes in Ezek 36-37, or was this prophecy as a prediction of post-Pentecost blessings that flow from Christ’s enactment of Ezekiel's “covenant of peace” and His subsequent glorification?
To be continued ...
JJS:
ReplyDeletecontinued from 1.-3. above ...
4. In a September 1995 article in Kerux, entitled “Pentecost: Before and After,” Richard Gaffin offered a few key observations that I found compelling. (Italics are original.)
4.a. He wrote: “The soteriological ‘newness’ of Pentecost is not, at least not in the first place, anthropological-individual-experiential but christological and ecclesiological-missiological: 1) The Spirit is now present, at last, on the basis of the finished work of Christ; he is the eschatological Spirit. 2) The Spirit is now "poured out on all flesh" (Acts 2:17), Gentiles as well as Jews; he is the universal Spirit.”
I think we already agree about the ideas in that quotation.
4.b. Gaffin also said: “It is clear to me, though, that there is one experiential difference — a profound, indeed eschatological one — … not to be missed. The blessings of salvation that the New Testament believer enjoys — regeneration, justification and all the rest — flow from and are tied to union with the exalted Christ. That cannot be said of Abraham and the rest of the remnant according to grace during their pilgrimage on earth. Our union-privilege, I take it, is at the heart of the ‘something better’ planned by God for old as well as new covenant believers, 'so that only together with us would they be made perfect' (Heb. 11:40).”
This citation seems to capture much of what you’re concerned to express. The preceding words addressed almost directly your good questions about Jesus’ comment about John the Baptist, about the Spirit “will be in you,” and about the Spirit “not yet given.”
4.c. Finally, I find wisdom in these concluding thoughts from Gaffin: “Differences there no doubt are, experientially, between our union with Christ, now exalted, and the covenant bond in terms of which they [i.e., the OT saints] were regenerated, justified and otherwise blessed. But, so far as I can see, Scripture is not particularly concerned to spell them out. Such differences resist neat, clear categorization and can only be loosely captured by terms like ‘better,’ or ‘enlarged,’ ‘greater,’ ‘fuller.’ But, for all that imprecision, they are no less real, nor is our privileged New Covenant experience of the Spirit somehow diminished.”
I hope all this helps advance the discussion. I apologize for the length of these last three posts.
Dean,
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts reminds me of the subject of eternal justification in WCF 11.4. Do you see a similarity between the teaching that justification can not be applied by the HS simply via election, and that the benefits of regeneration could not be applied by the HS until after Christ secured the benefits in time and space?
Hmm, I’m not sure. My main point about the fullness of the Spirit’s work is that it, unlike justification, also entails a change in Christ (he is now the glorified God-Man, the Head of a mystical body into which we are baptized). This means that certain elements of the historia salutis—like the resurrection and ascension—needed to occur before we could experience them ourselves.
With justification, though, there doesn’t seem like there’s any reason why a OT saint couldn’t receive that proleptically, since it changes neither Jesus nor us.
Fowler,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to interact so thoroughly on this issue. I’ll respond with separate comments for each of your points.
1. To the extent that your proposal gives an account that makes good sense of several NT passages, it is, in my opinion, a good working hypothesis. The reservation that I have about your proposal is that I haven’t yet seen your hypothesis consider enough of the relevant evidence, particularly from the OT, about believers before Pentecost/Christ’s ascension-glorification. I also don’t see the biblical basis for defining the term “regeneration” as “indwelling by the Spirit.” Yes, we agree that it is the Spirit who regenerates and indwells. It remains, though, those activities by the Spirit are textually stated and commonly treated as distinct and, as a result, it looks to me that you are zeroing in on indwelling, not regeneration. I’m persuaded that you’d sharpen your point and increase the force of your argument if you dropped the term “regeneration” and spoke instead about “indwelling.” It seems to capture and communicate your exact point more accurately; allow me for the sake of this post to use the term “indwelling” below.
Fair enough. Could you point me to a few OT texts that seem to mitigate against my proposal?
I’m not so much “defining regeneration as indwelling” as I’m saying that regeneration involves a participation in the age to come by virtue of the indwelling Spirit of the risen Christ. I root this in Jesus’ only usage of palingenesia, which he understands as the age to come (“In the regeneration, such and such will occur…”). So if the age to come had not dawned or become in any sense “already” until Jesus emerged from the grave as firstfruits of the resurrection harvest, then any participation in it on the part of OT saints was only by way of hope for the future, rather than a mystical union that makes the not yet already.
Fowler,
ReplyDelete2. Your point that justification-forgiveness is declarative and indwelling-regeneration is internally transformative is well taken. Your proposal to account for limiting indwelling-regeneration to the post-ascension era by connecting it to the personal history of God the Son (from incarnation through ascension-glorification) is a good hypothesis.
Thanks. It’s just so easy to lose the dynamic shift from Old to New amid our systematic covenant of works/grace formula. I realize it’s necessary, but I think we give it undue emphasis sometimes.
Fowler,
ReplyDelete3. … Here’s why I balk at your statement: I don’t see how your claim reckons with the evidence from the OT texts where we’re told that believers before Christ’s ascension were ontologically changed. As we’ve already discussed, the OT text tells us that believers were given were given a heart/spirit that was new, clean, circumcised, inscribed-with-God's-law. We’ve also agree that OT believers could know forgiveness, which, the text tells us, involves a cleansed conscience. We also have to incorporate the fact that Paul states that all Abraham’s (true) seed are, like Isaac, “born according to the Spirit” (Gal 4.28-30). To my mind, then, there is ample OT testimony of ontological change in believers before Christ’s glorification, and so it does make sense after all to say that believers displayed Christ’s image before Christ Himself did. The open question that remains is the measure – full or something less? – of that ontological change in pre-ascension believers (in other words, believers before Pentecost0.
Good points. But if I am conceding that OT saints experienced effectual calling as well as whatever other spiritual influences needed to exercise saving faith, does this not alleviate the problem?
I’m not sure I take Gal. 4’s “born according to the Spirit” to be referring to regeneration. Instead I see it as a part of Paul’s larger allegory, according to which Ishmael represents Sinai and present-day Jerusalem, and Isaac represents Zion and the church. But this is just a side point.
As far as OT saints undergoing an ontological change, could we draw a distinction between the kind of internal change that is purely creaturely and human on the one hand, and a change that hinges upon something external (and even deifying) on the other? Let me put it this way: Before the incarnation, man was human and the Son was divine. After the incarnation, the Son is no longer only divine, he is divine and human, the God-Man. The purpose of his assuming our nature was to glorify it in order that we his adopted brethren may exist forever as—and here I hesitate, with John, to describe what we shall be other than to echo his statement that we will be “like Jesus.” It’s this latter change—something greater than just forgiveness or justification—that we often seem to be missing. This change could not take place in us until it first happened in Jesus, any more than the pioneer can be last to show up at the scheduled destination or the firstfruits of the harvest can be reaped last.
A related question, one that gets into territory that’s much more speculative than I am usually comfortable with, is whether the incarnation was truly necessary if this ontological element were not a part of the salvation package. I recently read a quote by someone who asked it this way:
“If mere covenantal (and not ontological) union were our eschatological end, such that we are not made partakers of the divine nature, then Christ did not need to take on human flesh. If we were not called to partake of the divine nature, Christ would not have needed to partake of our human nature. Given the Reformed notion of imputation, all that is needed for salvation is a double imputation. For example, instead of sending Christ, God could have created another group of humans equal in number to the elect, made no promise of reward to them, monergistically ensured their just obedience to God, and then imputed their obedience to the elect, and imputed the sins of the elect to them. From the divine point of view, it would just be another form of supralapsarianism, except without the incarnation. Of course the notion is far-fetched, but the point is that if man is not ordered to a supernatural end, then Christ did not need to become incarnate.”
I have obvious problems with this hypothetical arrangement, but it’s still thought-provoking.
Fowler,
ReplyDelete4. In a September 1995 article in Kerux, entitled “Pentecost: Before and After,” Richard Gaffin offered a few key observations that I found compelling. (Italics are original.)
4.a. He wrote: “The soteriological ‘newness’ of Pentecost is not, at least not in the first place, anthropological-individual-experiential but christological and ecclesiological-missiological: 1) The Spirit is now present, at last, on the basis of the finished work of Christ; he is the eschatological Spirit. 2) The Spirit is now "poured out on all flesh" (Acts 2:17), Gentiles as well as Jews; he is the universal Spirit.”
I think we already agree about the ideas in that quotation.
Yes, provided his language is not taken to present an either/or.
4.b. Gaffin also said: “It is clear to me, though, that there is one experiential difference — a profound, indeed eschatological one — … not to be missed. The blessings of salvation that the New Testament believer enjoys — regeneration, justification and all the rest — flow from and are tied to union with the exalted Christ. That cannot be said of Abraham and the rest of the remnant according to grace during their pilgrimage on earth. Our union-privilege, I take it, is at the heart of the ‘something better’ planned by God for old as well as new covenant believers, 'so that only together with us would they be made perfect' (Heb. 11:40).”
This citation seems to capture much of what you’re concerned to express. The preceding words addressed almost directly your good questions about Jesus’ comment about John the Baptist, about the Spirit “will be in you,” and about the Spirit “not yet given.”
I guess I’m not seeing the “profound experiential difference” between the OT saints’ relation to the Spirit and ours today as united with the “exalted Christ.” It seems like Gaffin is giving something but then taking it back. I’ll have to think on it more.
4.c. Finally, I find wisdom in these concluding thoughts from Gaffin: “Differences there no doubt are, experientially, between our union with Christ, now exalted, and the covenant bond in terms of which they [i.e., the OT saints] were regenerated, justified and otherwise blessed. But, so far as I can see, Scripture is not particularly concerned to spell them out. Such differences resist neat, clear categorization and can only be loosely captured by terms like ‘better,’ or ‘enlarged,’ ‘greater,’ ‘fuller.’ But, for all that imprecision, they are no less real, nor is our privileged New Covenant experience of the Spirit somehow diminished.”
These are wise words, provided we are indeed willing to go as far as the Bible will take us.
Thanks, Fowler!
JJS:
ReplyDeleteHaving read your responses to my comments, I'm sitting here thinking, "With a nickel's width of difference between us, I don't know how much I can say that is really worthwhile!" Still, I'll offer just a few leftovers.
Regarding the relevant OT texts that need to be discussed, I had in mind passages like Ezek 36-37. I could itemize more but it’s best for reasons of time for me just to say, see if you can’t read (if you haven’t already) something like the recent essays of James Hamilton, a prof of Biblical Theology at SBTS, who finished his dissertation on "He Is with You and He Will Be in You" under Schneiner in 2003. I don’t necessarily agree in all details with Hamilton, but he surveys the biblical ground and the discussion among the commentators from the early fathers to the present day. For convenience, the following are relevant excerpts of his dissertation published separately.
a. http://jimhamilton.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/godwithmenintorah.pdf
b. http://jimhamilton.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/god_men_prophts_art_typst-232.pdf
c. http://jimhamilton.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/them30-1.pdf
d. "Old Covenant believers and the indwelling spirit: a survey of the spectrum of opinion," Trinity Journal ns 24.1 (Spring 2003): 37-54.
On using the term “regeneration,” I think I understand what you’re saying. Nevertheless, given the biblical and theological ground we’ve already covered, I can’t agree that “any participation in it on the part of OT saints was only by way of hope for the future, rather than a mystical union that makes the not yet already.” For example, to say "any participation ... was only by way of hope" sounds like absolute discontinuity between us and them to me. Can't go there.
On your comments about the OT saints experience of effectual calling and of whatever other spiritual influences are needed to exercise saving faith, it appears that, at bottom, you want to us to be careful to affirm that the redeemed are appointed to be made like Jesus, to be made partakers of the divine nature. I share your concern and affirm that truth (despite, as you say, the obvious problems arising in the mistaken but thought-provoking citation). We have to say, it seems to me, that one purpose of the incarnation was to bring human nature, inner man as well as outer man, to the state of glory. We’d agree that the change of the outer man awaits the return of Christ. It seems pretty clear to me that we have to say that, before that state of glory appears, there is a change in the inner man from the state of sin to the state of grace and that any such change is the result of the supernatural work of God the Spirit.
Regarding Gaffin’s comments about the “soteriological ‘newness’ of Pentecost”, you are exactly right that this is not an either/or; that’s what I took to be the importance of his words “at least not in the first place.”
Regarding Gaffin’s attempt to articulate the profound experiential difference between OT saints and us, I understand your reservation. I took it that his point was that our experience of union with the exalted Christ is better than their experience of union with the pre-incarnate, pre-exalted Son, and their experience of union was lesser due to the fact that their faith was informed by the pre-NT shadows through which they knew Christ. In any case, I intend to seek clarification from him about this point. Meanwhile, you can read all his !omments in context here: http://www.kerux.com/documents/KeruxV10N2A1.asp.
Again, good topic for discussion.