Testament is another word for covenant. The Old Testament represents God’s previous covenant with Israel made on Mount Sinai, which is one we are no longer obligated to keep. Therefore we can hardly begin by assuming that the old covenant should automatically be binding on us. We should assume, in fact, that none of its stipulations (laws) are binding on us unless they are renewed in the new covenant. That is, unless an Old Testament law is somehow restated or reinforced in the New Testament, it is no longer directly binding on God’s people (cf. Rom 6:14–15). There have been changes from the old covenant to the new covenant. God expects of his people—us—somewhat different evidences of obedience and loyalty from those he expected from the Old Testament Israelites. The loyalty itself is still expected. It is how one shows this loyalty that has been changed in certain ways.

How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Third Edition, 167.

My question is: If the previous covenant was made with Israel then when were we (i.e., the Church) ever obligated to keep it?  Isn't that what's implied by the phrase "no longer"?

B"H

Introduction

Against the backdrop of biblical literature there are many varied and colorful characters. For many of these characters we have a plethora of information while information on others remains clouded and even mysterious. Among the pages of the Bible comes one of the most mysterious of these figures, the pries-king Melchizedek.

Background of Melchizedek in the Old Testament

Genesis

Melchizedek appears in the book of Genesis for three short verses (18-20) in chapter fourteen. He comes upon the scene out of nowhere to receive tithes from Abraham as he is returning from defeating the kings who came against Sodom and Gomorrah. Essentially all we learn from these verses is that Melchizedek: was a king (of Salem), brought Abraham gifts (bread and wine), blessed Abraham, and that he received tithes from Abraham.

Psalms

We do not meet up with Melchizedek again until Psalms one-hundred ten in verse four. It is here, in this high-priestly psalm that a Jewish king is referred to as being a “priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” It is hard to tell from this lone Biblical reference to Melchizedek outside of Genesis, how prominent a place Melchizedek held in the life of the Israelites during the Old Testament times.

One can only surmise from so few references that while Melchizedek was a known figure, he was not a major figure in the life of a Jewish individual and family. Nothing in the entire Biblical record is heard of Melchizedek again until we reach the epistle of Hebrews.

Melchizedek Outside the Bible

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
It is quite interesting to study the person of Melchizedek and the life that this character has taken on in extra-Biblical literature. In fact, “A great range of speculation developed in early Jewish, Christian, and Gnostic groups. It might be said that the interpretive imagination devoted to Melchizedek in extra biblical sources stands in inverse proportion to the sparsity of data found in the Bible about him.” (Michael E. Stone. Biblical Figures Outside the Bible. Trinity Press Int. Harrisburg Pennsylvania 1998 p. 176, 182)

The list of people and things that cover Melchizedek is an impressive one. The person of Melchizedek receives substantial coverage by Philo of Alexandria, the Jewish historian Josephus, as well as the book of Second Enoch written in the first century B.C. He is the subject of two, and possibly three, texts from Qumran. The most important of these is the text 11QMelch. “This text…leaves no doubt as to the angelic, semidivine status of Melchizedek, presented as a heavenly warrior and high priest virtually identical with the archangel Michael. He is even referred to in the text as ‘God’”

The Person of Melchizedek in Hebrews

When one reads the epistle of Hebrews it becomes readily apparent that the author is urging the recipients to go on to maturity as believers and not to return to the old law covenant after having been set free from those things through Christ. The author urges them toward maturity by showing Christ’s superiority to the old ways. He shows how Christ is superior to: the prophets, angels, Moses, the Aaronic priesthood, the Old Testament sacrifices, the tabernacle, and the Mosaic Covenant.

One of ways in which the author urges the recipients of the letter to go on to maturity is by showing them that Christ is the high-priest of the redeemed believer. No longer was the Aaronic priesthood, which was tied into the Mosaic covenant, the means by which those of faith would approach God. Now each believer was a priest, with Jesus Christ acting as the high priest over all who believe.

Hebrews shows that Christ as a high priest is superior to Aaron, and those who followed him as high priests, by explaining that Jesus is a high priest like Melchizedek, not Aaron. The author uses Melchizedek as a basis for the high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ by showing two reasons why a change of priesthood was necessary, and two reasons why the Melchizedekian priesthood of Jesus Christ was superior to the Aaronic priesthood.

Use One: To show the people their own lack of maturity 5:10-14

Melchizedek first appears in Hebrews in chapter five. The author is making the point in chapter five that Christ is the perfect high priest. To support his claim in 5:5-6 he quotes Psalms 110:4 and draws the comparison to Jesus being a “Priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.” He uses the phrase “according to the order of Melchizedek” again in verse 10 to further drive home his point.

This repetition is important because of what follows. The author has much to say about Melchizedek, but it will be hard for him to explain since the recipients of the letter had become “dull of hearing.” The author wishes to talk about Melchizedek more, but he is somewhat restricted because the people had not matured to the point that he thought they should have reached.

The people should have been teachers themselves by this time, but they had not matured past the elementary principles of the faith. The author uses Melchizedek’s priesthood to expose the recipients of the letter of Hebrews to their own lack of maturity. The fact that this would be hard for them to explain proves his point that they were not mature and needed to continue in the faith toward maturity. This is “a reference here to the way that Melchizedek prefigures Christ. They [letter’s recipients] ought to be in a different condition. The readers of the epistle were not naturally slow learners but had allowed themselves to get lazy.” (Leon Morris. Hebrews: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Volume 12. Zondervan Publishing House Grand Rapids MI 1981 p. 51)

Use 2: To Show Superiority of Melchizedekian Priesthood through Perpetuity

At the end of chapter five the author leaves his discussion of Melchizedek momentarily to deal with the problem of the believer’s lack of maturity and slackness. After warning the recipients of the consequences of their immaturity, he returns to the subject of Melchizedek in 6:20.

The reason why the Melchizedekian priesthood of Christ is superior to that of Aaron is that it is a perpetual priesthood. The author opens the lengthy discussion of the Melchizedekian priesthood by once again stating that Christ is a “priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” This concept, that Jesus is “priest forever,” will serve as the basis for the author’s point that the Melchizedekian priesthood is superior because it goes on forever.

Melchizedek appeared to Abraham as “king of Salem, a priest of the Most High God.” He blessed Abraham and received tithes of the spoils that Abraham brought back from the battle. The author makes sure to draw several parallels making sure that the reader understands that Melchizedek was a king of righteousness and king of peace, further strengthening his comparison between the two.

A positively messianic slant is given to this description, as the writer cites etymologies which interpret the name ‘Melchizedek’ and the title ‘king of Salem’ as ‘king of righteousness’ and ‘king of peace’ respectively. Commentators have long noted that righteousness and peace are qualities which have strongly messianic connotations and such associations would explain why the writer drew attention to these etymologies in the context of an exposition concerning Jesus: Melchizedek is being presented as an earthly type (or antitype) of the heavenly Son of God, the Messiah, who like Melchizedek will be a king of righteousness and peace. (Deborah W. Rooke. Jesus as Royal Priest. Biblica 81 no. 1 2000. p. 81-94)

Verse three of Hebrews seven is probably one of the most interesting and debated verse in all of scripture, which is interesting because the exact meaning matters very little, so long as one understands the point that the author is trying to get across to the reader. The debate centers as to whether verse three teaches that Melchizedek was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ or that there were merely similarities in their appearances/priesthoods.

I believe that the author is not teaching that Melchizedek was Christ, but merely that Melchizedek’s origins are a type of the origins of Christ. Melchizedek appeared in the book of Genesis with not explanation of his family origins. We know nothing from the Biblical record pertaining to his lineage, his age, or his death. It is because of this that he continues on as a priest.

The author of Hebrews will drive home the point in verses twenty-three through twenty-eight that Christ is a superior priest because He will not die as the Aaronic priests, this is exactly the point of verse three. Melchizedek continues on as a priest because no one replaced him when he died as far as we know, for we do not even know when he died. “It [verse 3] has to do with the description God uses in setting Melchizedek before us…It was not that he was like the Son of God in essence, but made like Him in description and consequent typical significance.” (Newell, p. 216) Jesus Christ exists as a priest the same way. The pre-existent person of Christ had not beginning or end of days, there is no claim to the priesthood by a genealogy, but rather as a priest appointed by God He can and will exist as a priest forever.

Use 3: To Show Superiority of Melchizedekian Priesthood through Abraham’s Blessing

Not only was the Melchizedekian priesthood superior to the Aaronic because of its perpetuity, but also because of the superiority of the person of Melchizedek to Abraham and thus Levi and Aaron as well.

The writer of Hebrews views Melchizedek’s priesthood as better than Aaron’s because of the fact that Abraham, Aaron’s ancestor, paid tithes to Melchizedek. The reasoning is that the lesser always pays tithes to the greater. “The basic principle seems to be that the status of the recipient determines the status of the giver, because the recipient is always superior to the giver.” (Donald Guthrie. Hebrews: Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England. 1983. p. 158) The writer’s entire argument rests on this fact, and he is so sure of its logic that he states “without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.”(v.7) Thus, because Aaron would come from Abraham’s loins, in a sense he paid tithes to Melchizedek, making Melchizedek greater than Aaron through Abraham. “When Abraham paid Melchizedek a tithe, the author sees Levi as paying it, for ‘Levin was still in the body of his ancestor’…Levi was thus included in the payment of the tithe (and, of course, all the priests who descended from him and who the Hebrews esteemed so highly). The author wants his readers to be in no doubt about the superiority of Christ to any other priests and sees the mysterious figure of Melchizedek as powerfully illustrating this superiority.” (Morris. P. 65)

Use #4: To show the people that Christ’s priesthood could bring them to maturity

In the four uses of Melchizedek in Hebrews the first and fourth serve as necessary bookends of the two. The two points in-between the bookends show the superiority of the Melchizedekian priesthood, both of the bookends show the necessity of the Melchizedekian priesthood.

The first time (in verses 5:10-14) the author used Melchizedek was to show the recipients the necessity of the new priesthood because of their own immaturity. The last time the author makes reference to Melchizedek it is to show the people the necessity of the new priesthood because only through the Melchizedekian high-priesthood of Christ could they truly come to maturity.

The author makes his case that the Levitical priesthood could not bring one to perfection or maturity. His point is that if the law and Levitical priesthood could have brought someone to maturity then there would have been any need for a different priesthood. Because the priesthood needed to be changed then “of necessity there takes place a change of law also.”(v. 12) “The Levitical system was a special provision by which the imperfect could approach God by means of vicarious offerings. It did not possess within it the power to effect perfection in the worshippers. Law had no mandate for such a positive aim…The law could in fact do no more than reveal man’s shortcomings. The need for a successor to Melchizedek thus rests on the inability of the order of Aaron to produce perfection.” (Guthrie, p. 160-161)

The real crux of this discussion is that a Jewish audience would automatically object to Christ being any sort of high priest for He was born of the tribe of Judah rather than that of Levi. There had never at any time been any priest from the tribe of Judah. An audience comprised mostly of Jews would also remember the judgment of Saul (A Benjamite) for officiating a sacrifice when he was ineligible (I Samuel 13). If Christ is going to be the high priest then there must be some sort of way around the Levitical priesthood, this is where the priesthood of Melchizedek comes in. A Jewish audience must be shown that God was instituting a new law, a new covenant, and a new priesthood all in unison.

Jesus, according to the author of Hebrews, was qualified to be a priest, not because of his lineage, but because of His resurrection which the writer calls “an indestructible life.” (v.16)

Jesus is said to have obtained his priesthood not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent but by the power of an indestructible life. In the context of the argument of Heb 7, this is an exegesis of the phrase ‘for ever’ in Ps 110:4. The writer takes the phrase to imply that the person upon whom the Melchizedek priesthood is bestowed must be immortal or, as he himself says, indestructible (aakatalutos), since that person is to be a priest ‘for ever.’ Jesus fits this criterion perfectly, since by his resurrection he has been shown not to be subject to the normal processes of mortality and destructibility. Hence, the phrase ‘power of an indestructible life’ is a reference to his resurrection and perpetual life, which is presumably accomplished by the power of God…Jesus’ priesthood ‘by the power of an indestructible life’ (Heb 7:16) can therefore be seen as an alternative expression of the concept of priesthood by the power of the Spirit, so that in this respect too there is an important correspondence between the nature of the ancient royal priesthood and the messianic priesthood of Jesus as portrayed in Heb 7 (Rooke, p. 91)

The author makes his case that the old covenant was “weak and useless.” Jesus has been made a priest according to the order of Melchizedek and He has brought with Him a new covenant and a better hope.

I picked up this book today and started reading it with great anticipation. Nicholas Perrin is a current Assistant Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College and was formerly the research assistant for our dear Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright. The book is entitled Lost in Transmission? What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus and is aimed at Bart Ehrman's best seller Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (My chapter by chapter review of Misquoting Jesus can be found here). 

I will be sure to give a full review of Perrin's new book in the near future. As for now I wanted to post this quote from the introduction to the book because I found it both truthful and profound. I also believe that it can be applied not only the issues of textual criticism and the historical veracity of the Gospels, but also in current discussions on ANE literature and the Hebrew Bible. 

While talking about evidence that confronts the beliefs of Christians, Perrin writes:

If following Jesus means anything, it means living a life of integrity and therefore also a life that steadily refuses to participate in the obstruction of truth. But people can be tempted to suppress the truth when they feel something precious will be lost if the truth comes out. That is why, in the trafficking of ideas, we must be wary of the faux pearl of great price, the sense of stability that accompanies the delusive conviction that we have thoroughly and decisively made sense of the world. When people succumb to that temptation of ignoring challenges to their faith, they are in the end demonstrating that they are more committed to the feeling of having a lock on the truth than to the truth itself. When Christians succumb to the same temptation, there is the added temptation of justifying their intellectual disengagement by appealing to faith or the Holy Spirit or something like that. Not only does this rationale shut down a discussion that is probably worth having; it also usually has more to do with intellectual laziness or megalomania than anything remotely biblical or divine. No one should be readier than the Christian to explore the truth... (Lost in Transmission, xxi, emphasis mine).

I've been feeling a bit frazzled this week, anxious about a few things even though I'm sure God will work them out. I've been praying about them, but the waiting to see God work them out has stressed me.

Monday's post on the Captured by God blog, "Seek God First," reminded me how we can slip into desiring what God will do more than desiring Him for who He is. Praying about it this morning, my thoughts kept circling. How can I come back to that intimacy with God as God, and leave my concerns in His hands?

The harder I try, the harder it gets. But as I was telling Him how helpless I am to do this, a verse from the other day came to mind: "This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us - whatever we ask - we know that we have what we asked of him." (1 John 5:14-15, NIV)

That stopped me. Lots of times I'm not sure if what I want to ask is His will, but this is a no-brainer. He wants me to come to Him like a child, in trust and confidence, just to be with Him. That's what the Gospel is about: restoring relationship with God.

So I've asked, and I can be confident it's His will. And I can trust that the Holy Spirit is interceding where my words aren't enough.

My spirit is still, hope has returned, and I feel better already just from the stillness and the promise that God will draw me back to Himself.

Yesterday I was praying to see glimpses of God taking care of me, so I wouldn't feel overwhelmed. Today I just want to see glimpses of Him - just to know He's near.

Father, I love You. Thank You for Your grace, Your love and Your mercy to your scatter-brained and easily-distracted child. Draw me close to You.

This week's song (and my prayer) is Draw Me Close, by the group Kutless:

*New International Version (NIV) Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of majesty on high... (Heb. 1:3, RSV)

Here's a nice little nugget from Theodore of Mopsuestia:

Indeed, there is a great deal of similarity [between the opening of John's Gospel and] the apostle's statement. After Paul calls him "the brightness of his glory," he adds, "the very stamp of his nature." With great care he turns from a statement of their distinction to an indication of their perfect likeness.

ACCS: Hebrews, 11.

What I love so much about this statement is that he thinks Paul is the author of Hebrews!!!  How do you not love that?!!  But I also appreciate the fact that he sees the distinction and likeness of the Father and the Son in this verse (although I'd be hard pressed to see anything else).

B"H

Consider: It's an honor to have God's Spirit living inside. Do I take good care of His temple or do I let it get run down?

Since Jesus said he did not come to overturn the Law of Moses, this may seem like a contradiction. However, Jesus also said he came to 'fulfill' the law. Logic dictates that if something is 'fulfilled' it will no longer need to be done.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

As we learned in another post, there are different 'parts' to the law. There are commandments, statutes, judgments and ordinances. The 'ordinances' are the part of the law that Jesus nailed to his cross, ending the ritualistic worship system that had been a central part of the Jewish faith for thousands of years. This meant the ordinances would no longer need to be done and that the Jewish people would be 'free' from this part of the law.

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross."

These 'temporary' rituals were imposed upon the Jewish nation until the Messiah arrived, who would be the final sacrifice for sin and usher in the 'new' covenant, a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.

Rituals in and of themselves do not do anything for a person. God, who knows all things, knows this! He had a good reason for imposing these rituals upon the Jewish people, which will become clearer as you study the Bible. For now, understand that God is looking for one thing from you.

"Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part you shall make me to know wisdom."

Truth is the basis of worshipping God, not rituals. God is concerned about a person's heart (brain), which determines the condition of a person's spirit. Since God is a Spirit, your spirit is the part of you that 'communicates' with God.

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

People can go to church regularly and perform all sorts of religious rites to convince God they love Him. But God cannot be fooled.

"Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near to me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men."

It is the commandments of God -- not the rituals -- that teach people how to change their brains, which is what the word repentance means. God wants us to change from the inside out. Changing our thinking has nothing to do with our intelligence level; it has to do with our obedience level to God's commandments.

"Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby you have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will you die, O house of Israel?"

For this reason, Jesus taught people to keep the commandments of God. He told his disciples if they love him, to keep his commandments. This is what circumcision of the heart is all about -- a person decides to 'cut away' the evil thinking from their brain. This process involves replacing 'bad' information' implanted by the world since birth with 'good' information contained in the Bible.

This is why the Jewish apostles determined that the Gentiles did not need to be physically circumcised: Keeping the commandments of God is sufficient without physical circumcision. If a person is willing to do the commandments of God, their heart is going in the 'right' direction. It is the heart that determines a 'true' Jew and 'true' child of God.

"For circumcision verily profits, if you keep the law: but if you be a breaker of the law, your circumcision is made uncircumcision.

Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge you, who by the letter and circumcision do transgress the law?

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

"What advantage then has the Jew? Or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."

When the Gentiles decided to believe in the God of Israel, they began the process of circumcising their brains, which meant willingly changing their mentality and behavior, something portrayed in the story of Abraham -- a man who leaves his home and all that is familiar to him to follow the Lord.

-Jo

Bible passages: Matthew 5:17-18, Colossians 2:14, Psalm 51:6, John 4:24, Isaiah 29:13, Ezekiel 18:31, Romans 2:25-29, Romans 3:1-2

However, this paper may relate to James since James thrice uses the word ANOTHEN 'from above' in contexts that have to do with spiritual birth (James 1:17-18; 3:6, 15-18)...

Sadnes, Karl Olav. 2008. "Birth ‘Anothen' (John 3:3-8): Epistemology and Christology in John's Gospel." Paper presented at the General Meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas; Lund, Sweden, July 29 - August 2.

Baker, James. 2008. "The Epistle of James: An Overlooked Friend for Emerging Churches." Paper to be presented at the Evangelical Theological Society 60th Annual Meeting; Providence, RI, November 20.

Cooper, Derek. 2008. "Salvaging the Strawy Epistle: The Protestant Recovery of James after Martin Luther." Paper to be presented at the Evangelical Theological Society 60th Annual Meeting; Providence, RI, November 19.

Cox, Steven. 2008. "A Reconsideration of the James Ossuary." Paper to be presented at the Evangelical Theological Society 60th Annual Meeting; Providence, RI, November 19.

Lewis, Kerry Lee. 2008. "A New Perspective on James 2:14-26." Paper to be presented at the Evangelical Theological Society 60th Annual Meeting; Providence, RI, November 19.

Answer:  These are great questions!  The chasm that divides OT and NT isn’t as wide as some make out.  To be sure, there are differences between the two “dispensations” (a “dispensation” is a fancy word that describes the mode and means of how God operates at different points in redemptive history), but the differences are largely superficial and do not affect the foundational truth of Scripture that a person is justified by faith (Genesis 15:6). 

So to answer your first question (the difference between OT and the NT regarding the Holy Spirit), in the OT you see the Holy Spirit coming upon people and leaving people.  Two prime examples of this concept are Samson and Saul (the first king of Israel).  In Judges 13-16 we see the tragic story of Samson.  Three times we read the phrase “the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon [Samson]” (Judges 14:6, 19; 15:14).  During these times, Samson was imbued with great physical strength and was able to perform mighty deeds and defeat the enemies of the Lord.  However because Samson was basically a profane man, when he allowed Delilah to cut his hair (Samson was under the Nazarite vow, which prohibited from cutting his hair, among other things), that was the “last straw” for God and we read these words:  “And [Delilah] said, ‘The Philistines are upon you, Samson!’ And he awoke from his sleep and said, ‘I will go out as at other times and shake myself free.’ But he did not know that the Lord had left him” (Judges 16:20).

We see the same thing with King Saul.  In 1 Samuel 10, we see Samuel telling to Saul saying that the Spirit of the Lord “will rush upon him” and he will prophesy (1 Samuel 10:6, 10).  We also see early in Saul’s reign the Spirit of the Lord coming upon him and enabling him to raise an army to defeat the Ammonites (1 Samuel 11:6).  After Saul’s disobedience regarding the Amalekites, we see the Spirit of the Lord departing from Saul (1 Samuel 16:14).

Both of these examples demonstrate that the Holy Spirit was not a permanent indwelling influence in the lives of God’s people during OT times.  The Spirit enabled people to accomplish God’s will, but it was always temporary, and it didn’t always enable faithful people either (e.g., Saul).  This is in stark contrast to the NT doctrine of the Holy Spirit.  At Pentecost, we see the Spirit coming upon the people of God and permanently indwelling them.  Peter, during his Pentecost sermon, sees this phenomenon as a fulfillment of the OT prophecy (Joel 2:28-29).  The NT epistles flesh this out more.  Paul says the church is the temple of God and his Spirit dwells within us all (1 Corinthians 3:16).  Later in the same epistle he says that each believer is a temple for the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19).  Paul writes in Ephesians that we are sealed in the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit is the guarantee of our inheritance (Ephesians 1:13-14).

So regarding the ministry of the Holy Spirit we see a big difference between the OT and the NT.  The OT times belong to an older dispensation in which God mediated his sovereign will differently than in the NT.  For example, God mediated his will through the nation of Israel and the Mosaic covenant.  However, as we read in Galatians, this older dispensation was never meant to be permanent.  Paul argues that the law was a guardian until the time of Christ (Galatians 3:24).  Paul further argues in Colossians that the law is a shadow and Christ is the substance (Colossians 2:17).  That is why all of redemptive history centers on the person and work of Jesus Christ:  Everything in the OT points forward to Christ and everything in the NT points back to Christ.  Even in the OT God was hinting that a “new” way was coming when the Spirit and Law would no longer be external, but internal (Ezekiel 36:26-27; Jeremiah 31:31-34).

The answer to your second question (regarding faith and salvation in the OT) is similar to the first question.  The linchpin to dispensational teaching is the progressive nature of God’s revelation.  God revealed his will “piecemeal” if you will throughout history (Hebrews 1:1-3).  What this means is that we cannot hold OT saints to the same standards as NT saints.  We have the final revelation of God’s will in Jesus Christ, so for us salvation is a matter in placing our faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ.  However, an OT saint would know nothing about Jesus.  God, being gracious and merciful (Psalm 103:8), only expects people to respond to the light that is available to them.

Now the bedrock of salvation is, and has always been, faith (Genesis 15:6).  Paul uses this argument in Romans 4 to show that Abraham was saved by faith and not by works of the law.  The only thing that Abraham placed his faith in was the promise of God regarding the everlasting covenant he made with him (Genesis 12:1-3).  The same would apply to every OT saint.  No one would put up a serious argument that King David was “saved.”  Why was he saved?  Because David was a man after God’s heart (1 Samuel 13:14).  It wasn’t anything David did, but the content of his character (to borrow a phrase from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.).  David had a heart of obedience even if his actions always didn’t bear that out.  When he committed his sin with Bathsheba and was confronted with it, he repented immediately.  When Saul committed sin and was confronted with it, he became defensive and tried to rationalize.  I believe that a heart of faith toward God and a heart of obedience to God’s revealed will would be enough to save any OT saint.

Originally answered for GotQuestions (www.gotquestions.org) on April 15, 2008.

Welcome to Week 1 of Steeping in James. This week Meg and I focused primarily on gaining an introduction to the Book (Letter) of James as well as background information. We also looked at James 1:1. The following are some things I gathered and made note of in my study and hence made the discussion between Meg and I. I largely relied on Carson and Moo's on An Introduction to the New Testament for the information gathered here.

• The Letter of James can seem like an un-orderly collection of spewage.
• Luther described it as "throwing things together...chaotically."
• Authorship
  • There are four candidates typically considered as to who wrote the Letter of James:
    • James the son of Zebedee, brother of John, one of the twelve.
    • James the son of Alphaeus, also one of the twelve.
    • James the father of Judas.
    • James the brother of Jesus - whom plays a leading role in the Jerusalem church.
  • The most likely of all of these is #4, James the brother of Jesus. Carson and Moo do a nice job of laying out the foundations supporting this position.
• Date
  • The Letter of James was likely written from Jerusalem while James was leading the Christian church there.
  • Carson and Moo argue for a dating in the 40s - between Paul's conversion (AD 33) and the Jerusalem Council (AD 48-49).
  • There argument here seems to revolve around saying that James has not yet met Paul and hence it must have occurred before the Jerusalem Council.
• Original Recipients
  • The original recipients of the letter would have been Jewish Christians.
  • Perhaps James is trying to communicate with those who have scattered from Jerusalem due to persecution (see Acts 11:19).
• Genre
  • James is categorized as a "general epistle" which simply means that it is a letter written to someone (or group of someones) other than a particular church. Other general epistles in the New Testament include Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, 1-3 John, and Jude.
  • Some classify James as wisdom literature.
  • Carson and Moo call it a homily or a series of homilies put into a letter in order to address Christians at a distance from their "pastor."
• 1:1
  • As James opens his letter, we see him open in a way very similar to how Paul opens some of his letters, specifically as a "servant" or "bond servant" of Christ (compare James 1:1 to Romans 1:1).

There wasn't a lot of deep discussion this week and no real application questions, but this week was crucial for us to understand the context of the letter.  Next week we'll look at 1:2-18 and take up the topic of steadfastness.

Here's what I'm saying, friends.  Please listen carefully.  God is looking for disciples who will live for Him sacrificially. People who love their enemies.  People who do good to those who persecute them.  People who love those who hate them. And here's the most amazing thing about it all: As much as God loves this wonderful couple, He loves their persecutors -- He loves their daughter's murderer! -- to the very same degree.  I'll put it plainly: If you do not love the enemies of Christianity, you are not my brother.  That's because you are not a Jesus-follower.  If you are not willing to be martyred to share Jesus' love with the persecutors of Jesus, you are not a Christian.  Don't tell me about your church membership.  Don't tell me about your tithing.  Don't tell me about your perfect Sunday School attendance.  Do you love Muslims? (This is not a rhetorical question.  Please answer yes or no.)  Do you love Iraqis?  Do you love Iranians?  Do you love Hispanics?  Do you show it?  Do you prove it by your deeds?  I write in my forthcoming book The Downward Path of Jesus:

Radical disciples of Jesus embrace those on the other side of the dividing walls of hostility in our world, even including our "enemies." Christianity transcendsall boundaries – cultural, racial, political, geographical, natural, even national.

Do you really believe that?  If so, while you are praying for this precious couple in Jesus as well as for their persecutors, it might also be a good time for you to remove those idolatrous American flags from your sanctuaries and get real about the Body of Christ. Friends, Jesus is not an American. He's not a Democrat or a Republican.  He's a foot washer.  Are you? Am I?

This is some serious stuff.  We Americans know and understand little what real persecution is - to us persecution might be a boss who won't adjust our schedule for church or something.  Do we even know what it means to "love our enemies?"  I wonder because too often we struggle enough to "love one another." I think we hardly even know what that means too, loving one another.  

As I have shared before I am reading through Philip Comfort, Jason Driesbach's The Many Gospels of Jesus (Tyndale, 2008), which has all four Gospels in it to compare with other gnostic and non-canonical Gospels to figure the real story of Jesus.  I am continually amazed at how the new updated NLT renders things.  Here is the passage from the "Sermon on the Mount" about loving our enemies: 

“You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy.  But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you!  In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike.  If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that?  Even corrupt tax collectors do that much.  If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else?  Even pagans do that.  But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect."

This has to be one of the more challenging parts of Jesus teachings for me than most others - when I know someone has a problem with me, in the sense of being an enemy - I really have a hard time getting along with them or even wanting to make the effort to work things out or continue to relate to him or her despite the tension - a really hard time.  Yet, what is Jesus challenging me to do?  He calls us to live for him sacrificially.  Why?  Because it is not about me or what I want - it is about the Kingdom and pursuing the purposes of God in both my life and in the life of others.  Are we willing to live the life God has called us to live?  It is up to us, it is up to you.