Reconcile this
 

Luke 1:41.. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:..

Luk_1:15.. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Luk_1:67.. And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

John 7:38.. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water...
John 7:39.. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)..


How were these example of people being "filled with the Holy Ghost" prior to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost?

Re: Reconcile this
 

LUKE-ACTS

The Book of Luke starts with the visitation of angels and the working of the Holy Spirit to bring the birth of John and Jesus.

Luke reports that the angel that visited Zacharias says that John would be _filled_ with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb (Luke 1:17).

In that same chapter we see Elizabeth was _filled_ with Holy Spirit and spoke with a loud voice, indicating it was a inspired speech, or prophetic utterance (Luke 1:41-45). This is followed by Mary's prayer that reads like a prophetic speech as well (Luke 1:46-55).

Later in this same chapter, Zacharias was _filled_ with the Holy Spirit and prophesied (Luke 1:67).

In chapter 2, Luke introduces a man called Simeon, who was a devout man, who the Holy Spirit was _upon_ him (Luke 2:25-28). It means this man walked with God, filled with the Spirit. In fact, he gets a revelation from the Spirit about the opportunity to meet the Savior in his lifetime. He is then _moved_ by the Spirit to the Temple at the right time to see Jesus.

To this point, we see Old Testament (O.T.) saints being _filled_ with the Spirit, like a vessel is _filled_ with water. Does that word mean that the Spirit came, and left on these O.T saints? We will answer that by looking at Acts.

Luke himself uses the same phrase in Acts to speak about the manifestation of the Spirit in disciples of Christ that were already _filled_ with the Spirit before.

- "And they _were_ all _filled_ with the Holy Spirit…" (Acts 2:4) Peter was filled with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

- "Then Peter, _filled_ with the Holy Spirit, said to them." (Acts 4:8) Wasn't Peter filled before?

- "And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they _were_ all _filled_ with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness." (Acts 4:31) Weren't these disciples already of Christ filled with the Spirit before?

- "Then Saul, who also is called Paul, _filled_ with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him." (Acts 13:9) Paul was already filled with the Spirit before.

- "And the disciples _were_ _filled_ with joy and with the Holy Spirit." (Acts 13:52) These were disciples already, they had the Spirit.


Luke uses this word to mean a manifestation of the Spirit through a person from within. It could refer to the initial infilling of the Spirit or a later manifestation of his presence and work. In the Gospel of Luke, we see Luke, the writer, using the same word, without technical distinction, to refer to the experiences the O.T. saints had in chapter 1 and 2. The description of the experiences in those chapters do not indicate that the Spirit came and left, and came and left, again and again. In fact, when he introduces Simeon, there is no room to doubt that that O.T. saint was continually in the Spirit. We cannot draw from his writings the conclusion that the Spirit wasn't _in_ them permanently. For Luke, the O.T. saints were _filled_ inside like a vessel with the Holy Spirit as well as the N.T. saints in Acts were. He uses the same terminology.

Later in chapter 11 verse 13, Luke writes that Jesus said: "how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" This encouragement implies the understanding that the Spirit was indeed available to the O.T. saints but having it was somehow rather scarce in Israel.




The O.T. writings are in fact, full of evidences of people being filled with the Spirit, and staying with them, and manifesting himself later on with great power and signs.

The Spirit filled people in the congregation of Israel in the wilderness in order to empower them supernaturally. The empowerment was to perform works related to the building of the sanctuary, where the sacrificial system would take place according to the law (Exodus 31:3, Exodus 35:30-34).

Seventy two people total were filled with the Spirit as well in the wilderness to assist Moses with the ruling of Israel (Numbers 11:25-27). It says that the Spirit _rested_ on them, and that they prophesied, but did not do it again. Prophesying was recognized as the visible sign of the infilling of the Spirit. In fact, there was a young man that could recognize the experience happening in the camp to two more people. The infilling of the Spirit was an identifiable experience for the individual, and at least in this case, there was a noticeable external sign for the people watching. The text does also say that they did not prophesy again, therefore, even though the visible sign was prophesying, the infilling was not to empower as prophet, but as rulers.

It is said also that Joshua was already filled with the Spirit by the time he was called as successor (Numbers 27:18). Joshua was a man of faith and also righteous (Numbers 14:6-9, Joshua 1:8, Joshua 24:14-15).

After Israel took Canaan, God raised leaders called judges to govern over the Israelites and deliver them from their enemies. We see in many instances the Spirit of God _coming upon_ them to empower them supernaturally to perform the task they were called to do (Judges 3:10, 6:34, 14:19).

When Samuel gave Saul instructions, he said that the Spirit of God would come upon him, and he would prophesy and he would be _turned into another man_ (1 Samuel 10:6-7). Then he said that when these _signs_ happened, to do what the occasion demands because God is with him. Basically, the prophesying event was a sign of him being filled with the Spirit, and the _turned into another man_ refers to the empowerment he would receive from thereon to lead the people of Israel. The Spirit _rested_ on Saul.

About David, it is also said that the Spirit _came upon him_ to lead Israel after Samuel anointed him (1 Samuel 16:13). However, before this anointing, we can see David testifying that the Lord gave him victory over beasts (1 Samuel 7:37). We can assume that the Spirit came upon David before to deliver his flock and himself from the lion and the bear with his own hands, but the Spirit coming upon him after Samuel's anointing refers to the empowerment to lead Israel.

During the time of Samuel, we see other prophets as well beside him, that at this point we can say that they were filled with the Spirit as well (1 Samuel 10:5, 19:20). Therefore, the filling of the Spirit was happening in more people than the Bible details.

We can see that Saul received the Spirit with the sign of prophesying, and the Spirit was with him from thereon. We see the Spirit eventually left him because of sin (1 Samuel 16:14). Therefore, there was a continuity, not a _come-leave-come-leave_ situation. The same can be seen in David, it is said that it _came upon_ him from the time the anointing of Samuel, as it were a permanent infilling. And then later on when David sinned, we can see his concern of losing the Spirit of God in his prayer in Psalms 51:11 when he says "do not take Your Holy Spirit from me." The phrase _come upon_ means a specific moment in which a visible manifestation of the empowerment of the Spirit happens to perform a work (like when Luke says _filled_). It does not mean that it comes, and then leaves, and then comes again, and then leaves.

There are many more evidences of the Spirit in O.T. people. In general, seeing the strong link between having the Spirit and prophesying in the O.T., we can assume that the prophets were people filled with the Spirit, e.g. Abraham, Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc…

In none of these writings, including the Gospel of Luke, the authors communicate somehow that the Spirit was _around_ them but not _inside_ them. The Spirit simply _filled_ them, rested in them, and manifested through them later on, and sometimes left them because of their not repented sins.





What is the change regarding the Spirit after the Cross according to Luke? In Luke 24:46-48, Jesus commissioned the disciples to be witnesses of Him, and specifically of his resurrection. Then, in verse 49, Jesus said that they needed to go to Jerusalem, and in there they would receive _the Promise of my Father_, and that was the _power from on high_, that would assist them in the mission to be witnesses of Him. On the day of Pentecost, Peter identified the Spirit coming upon them as that promise of the Father which was given to Jesus, and Jesus had sent upon them (Acts 2:33). Then, Peter explained that it is the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy. Joel's prophecy gave the understanding that there was going to be a change: the Spirit, which wasn't upon all the people of God, would be upon **all** the people of God.

In Luke, we see the people of God according to the flesh (physical descendants of Abraham) gathered in the land of Israel, and a minority of them are filled with the Spirit. In Acts, we see the new people of God being born according to the Spirit from all nations, including Israel herself, **all** filled with the Spirit, scattered among the nations; while the previous people of God defined according to the flesh being rejected. At the same time, we see that the coming of the Spirit is also to empower for the proclamation of the testimony of the Apostles about Jesus' teachings, deeds, crucifixion and resurrection, which points to Jesus as the Son of God, and Lord and Christ. As a clarification note, we also know from other writings that the Spirit not only comes to empower, but it is also necessary to live holy lives.

The covenant of Moses did not provide for the Spirit for **all** the people of God. The covenant in Christ does. The former defined according to the flesh, and the latter defined according to being born of the Spirit. Though, the people of God according to the flesh did not receive the Spirit as a covenant group, individuals did receive it within them as the Biblical evidence reveals. Luke-Acts does not make a distinction in the experience of the O.T individual vs the N.T. individual such as _with_ vs _in_ or _comes-and-leaves_ vs _stays_. There **is** a distinction in the experience, such as the manifestation (e.g., speaking in tongues), and the empowerment purpose, but not in the sense mentioned before.

What happened with people like Mary, who prophesied in Luke 1:46-55, so had the Spirit, but also spoke in tongues in Acts 2 (see Acts 1:14)? Mary needed the anointing of the Spirit for the new empowerment to be a witness of Jesus in the new covenant. Mary needed to speak in tongues. The disciples of Christ were living during a unique period of transition between covenants. If they were already filled with the Spirit before under the previous covenant with the corresponding purposes, they also needed an anointing for the new covenant purposes. The same way, if someone was baptized before in John's baptism, they needed to be re-baptized in Christ (Acts 19:1-5).

What about the doctrine that says that N.T. saints now have the Spirit, hence, the ability to live holy lives, but the O.T. saints were basically on their own without the Spirit? There is no one single passage of the Scripture that stays such thing, in fact, it is an _derived_ doctrine from the interpretation of some passages, but unfortunately, ignoring the overwhelming Biblical evidences indicating otherwise. But really, look around in your congregation. Are they a lot holier than the great men and women filled with the Spirit from the OT? I still see the same Spirit-filled humans, with their victories and their mistakes.

(continuing...)

Re: Reconcile this
 

JOHN

In John 7:38-39, Jesus talks about those that believe in him will receive the Holy Spirit, and John clarifies that it refers to the day of Pentecost and beyond. He exactly says as seen in the Greek: "Holy Spirit was not yet". This presents an apparent contradiction to texts already surveyed like in Luke, and others in the O.T.. How can we harmonize the biblical theology that we see in Luke with that of what we see here in John?

John's writing is concise in many places, for example, he says in 1:33 "I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'". However, John the Baptist did know Jesus, and even recognized his superiority before seeing the Spirit descending upon him: "And John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?" (Mat 3:14). John also wrote things like this: "Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. …'' (1 John 3:6) and "Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God." (1 John 3:9) Those are pretty strong statements, even in the original Greek. However, he also says first in the same letter: "My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." (1 John 2:1). So the saints cannot sin, or can they?

John used terse language in his writings, which is also typical of Semitic poetry. He does not give you a lot of clarification in the text sometimes, expecting the reader to understand his style. The only way to find out is, first, by harmonizing the text with other writings of John to understand the full sense, and second, with the rest of the Bible. But why would John write like that? Perhaps to not only communicate truth but also to communicate a tone. In the case of 1 John, you can understand after reading the letter that "sin" sometimes means to practice sin, and sometimes means to have ever committed sin or have committed sin. But also the blunt expressions do have a rhetorical impact, as it warns the believer that he or she is not expected to sin. In the case of John the Baptist, it has to be that he did not have a confirmed knowledge from God that Jesus was the Christ even though he recognized his amazing piety since they both were relatives and knew each other; however, the realization and confirmation from God that Jesus was indeed the Christ is so significant that it is like if he did not really know Him before. There are sort of _qualifiers_ to those terse statements from John, however, the lack of them is intentional.

Therefore, seeing that the Spirit did work in the O.T., and the writing style of John, it is reasonable to think that the text in 7:38-39 has to mean that the Spirit was not yet in a _specific sense_, not in an _absolute sense_.

Let's start by looking at a couple of passages of what was supposed to be happening with the O.T. saints in the Gospel of John.

John shows an assumed communion between the Spirit and the O.T. saints: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me." (John 6:44-45). It even appears that those that did not have already some communion with God will not be able to _come_ to Jesus.

In John 3:3-15, Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born again of the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom. Notice that according to John 3:10, Nicodemus was supposed to understand this metaphor. You tell me how people like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the Prophets can be saved and be part of the Kingdom of God without the Spirit: "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out." (Luke 13:28)

Let's now look into another passage that brings more light into the "the Spirit was not yet" phrase.

In John 14:16-18, Jesus tells the disciples that the Spirit of truth will abide _with_ them forever. This _with_ in Greek is in the general sense of _after them_, _behind them_, or _supporting them_. Then, Jesus comments that the world cannot receive it because the world does not _see Him_ nor _knows Him_. The Spirit of God cannot be seen, therefore, Jesus is more likely referring to himself as the Spirit of truth. Jesus then says that this _Him_ dwells _with_ them and will be _in_ them. The _with_ in the Greek this time means rather _beside_ in a positional sense. Finally, in the next verse Jesus says _I will come to you_. The interpretation is this: Jesus is telling the disciples that the Spirit of God will come and abide with them, but then he clarifies that basically, the Spirit will be Him. The Spirit is coming in the name of Jesus, or in representation of Jesus, … it is Jesus' presence, and therefore, will manifest the grace of God as seen in Jesus. Jesus was _with_ them in the flesh, but was going to be _in_ them through the Spirit. That's the explanation of how the Spirit of truth was going to be _with_ (_after_ _them_, _behind them_, _supporting them_) forever. This does not negate that the Spirit was filling saints already in the Old Testament. The Spirit of God was the presence and operation of Yahweh in the Old Testament, but it is the presence and operation of Jesus in the New Testament.

Nobody in the O.T. had the saving, delivering, healing power that Jesus had. The grace of God was in Him greatly manifested as never seen before. Beside the emotional side of it, if Jesus left, the fear was that his grace will depart with Him, ... but Jesus comforts them saying that the same Spirit, and specifically all the manifestation of the grace of God seen in Jesus, was going to be within them, empowering them, to do the same collectively (through the different gifts of the Spirit and authority of His Name). In fact, that is what that same chapter says right before: "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; _and greater *works* than these he will do, because I go to My Father_. And whatever you ask _in My name, that I will do_, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything _in My name, I will do it_." (John 14:12-14). Remember the reason why the Spirit was _not yet_? Because Jesus was _not yet glorified_ (John 7:39), which is what Jesus refers to in _because I go to My Father_. So, when Jesus went to the Father, the Spirit finally _was_, and they were able to do the _greater works_. Perhaps, because of the modern development in medicine, and professional medical and mental services, many have lost perspective of how needed and important this was. It was the restoration of life for many, and a little bit of the taste of the life in the future manifestation of the kingdom of God where all reasons for tears and suffering will be completely removed.

Spirit was _not yet_ cannot mean another thing but that the Spirit had not yet come with the full manifestation of grace as seen in Jesus (John 1:14), including his signs (Luke 7:22, John 9:32, John 20:30-31), and the giving of the Spirit by imposition of hands, even to Gentiles (Acts 10:45), which confirms this great Salvation message that the Lord Jesus Christ brought with Him (Hebrews 2:4). Moses brought the law, but Jesus brought a manifestation of the grace of God as never seen before (John 1:14, 17).

Some people argue that stating that the O.T. saints received the infilling of the Spirit and therefore were also assisted in their walk with God is like weakening the work of the Cross. They expect the reader to believe that the O.T. saints were on their own, and that we are a lot holier than them. As we have seen, the Biblical evidence shows otherwise. I could even argue that their position weakens significantly the relevance of the O.T. to us, which was given by the Spirit, and represents 60% of the Bible. This theology does not weaken the Cross. The Cross was necessary for the forgiveness of sin so that souls through out _all ages_ can inherit everlasting life. The Cross is the gate to life, the Spirit helps you walk thru it.

Re: Reconcile this
 

I wrote that in markdown format in my notes hence all those symbols, but there it is :)

Re: Reconcile this
 

The Holy Ghost could not be poured out until Jesus was glorified:

John 7:39 KJV
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

**

In the Old Testament prophecy was under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but they weren't filled with the Holy Ghost.

2 Peter 1:19-21 KJV
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

**

In the New Testament, the Holy Ghost is the earnest of our inheritance, meaning we can't be resurrected to immortality without the Holy Ghost.

Ephesians 1:13-14 KJV
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

2 Corinthians 5:5 KJV
5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

Colossians 1:27 KJV
27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

**

This raises an interesting question. How are the OT saints resurrected to immortality without the infilling of the Holy Ghost?

Re: Reconcile this
 

Amanah,
Perhaps the whole theology that the OT saints didn't have the Spirit filling them is wrong? Perhaps John's words are being misinterpreted?

That's exactly what I answered in my long two posts.

Re: Reconcile this
 

It's hard for me to see how we are misunderstanding the passage.

Here's a literal Greek-to-English translation of John 7:38-39:

*John 7:38*

Ἐκεῖνος πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ, καθὼς εἶπεν ἡ γραφή, ποταμοὶ ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ ῥεύσουσιν ὕδατος ζῶντος.

Literal translation:

"That one believing into Me, just as the Scripture said, rivers out of his belly will flow of living water."

*John 7:39*

τοῦτο δὲ εἶπεν περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος οὗ ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν οἱ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτόν· οὔπω γὰρ ἦν Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐδέπω ἐδοξάσθη.

Literal translation:

"Now this He said concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed into Him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus not yet had been glorified."

Some key Greek words:

- ἐκ (ek) - out of
- κοιλία (koilia) - belly, innermost being
- ῥεύσουσιν (rheusousin) - will flow
- ὕδατος ζῶντος (hydatos zontos) - living water
- Πνεῦμα (Pneuma) - Spirit
- Ἅγιον (Hagion) - Holy
- ἐδοξάσθη (edoxasthe) - had been glorified

This passage emphasizes:

1. Believers' inner transformation through faith in Jesus.
2. The promise of the Holy Spirit.
3. The Spirit's arrival being contingent upon Jesus' glorification.

Re: Reconcile this
 

Here are various literal English translations of John 7:39:

1. NKJV (New King James Version)

"Now this He said concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were about to receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified."

1. NASB (New American Standard Bible)

"This He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified."

1. ESV (English Standard Version)

"Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified."

1. KJV (King James Version)

"(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)"

1. ASV (American Standard Version)

"But this he spoke of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive: for the Spirit was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet glorified."

1. YLT (Young's Literal Translation)

"And this He said concerning the Spirit, which those believing in Him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified."

1. DARBY (Darby Translation)

"But this he said concerning the Spirit, whom those that believed on him were about to receive; for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified."

1. LEB (Lexham English Bible)

"Now he said this concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were about to receive. For the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified."

These translations consistently convey:

- Jesus spoke about the Holy Spirit.
- Believers would receive the Spirit.
- The Spirit's arrival depended on Jesus' glorification.

Re: Reconcile this
 

There seems to be a difference between with you vs in you

John 14:15-18 KJV
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Re: Reconcile this
 

Yup, I addressed those in my posts above.

Re: Reconcile this
 

Bro coksiw

Sounds like you are saying:

OT saints had Holy Ghost version 1.0
NT saints have Holy Ghost version 2.0

Both versions will get you resurrected to immortality via the Cross

Is this a reasonable summary?

Re: Reconcile this
 

The OT expectation for the Messianic Age was that the Spirit would be available to ALL of Israel, not just selected individuals. That was not fulfilled until after the glorification of Christ. Now the Spirit is available to the whole congregation of the Lord.

Re: Reconcile this
 

Before the ascension :

* Mosaic covenant did not provide for the Spirit to those that would join the covenant
* The Spirit was not coming upon the Israel as a whole, as a covenant group.
* The Spirit was available to individuals, and they would prophesy

After the ascension:

* The Christ covenant provides for the Spirit to all that join the covenant
* The Spirit is coming upon all the church as a covenant group, and they speak in tongues
* The Spirit also comes with greater grace not seen in the OT, the same grace of God seen in Jesus: the law came through Moses, but the grace through Jesus. Jesus was seen full of grace and truth.

Yes, the OT saints that walked with God needed the Spirit was well, and was necessary to walk right, and will raise them up in the resurrection.

There are plenty of evidence in the Bible about this. Yet, many err when the stumble with John's passage. Then, with that passage misunderstood, they overturn the entire Biblical abundant evidence that say otherwise. The issue is that many don't go further to understand John's style of writing, which was very terse as you can see in many of his writings, which was done in order to impress force in the statements. "The Spirit was not yet" is not in an absolute sense, but in a specific sense. He details what that means in further passages. I described this in my posts.

Re: Reconcile this
 

People have always been saved by grace through faith, right? Genesis 6:8, Genesis 15:6, Galatians 3:6-8, Ephesians 2:8, Hebrews 11.

Re: Reconcile this
 

In that sense yes. They always needed the grace of God in combination with their obedient faith to be accounted for the future salvation coming with Christ.

Re: Reconcile this
 

Just in case anyone missed this post?

I’ll re post it

:thumbsup

Re: Reconcile this
 

Originally Posted by Esaias:
"The OT expectation for the Messianic Age was that the Spirit would be available to ALL of Israel, not just selected individuals. That was not fulfilled until after the glorification of Christ. Now the Spirit is available to the whole congregation of the Lord."


Yes! Acts 2:1-21 quoting Joel 2:28-32

This is that!


Joel 2:28-32 KJV
28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon ALL flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come.
32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.

Re: Reconcile this
 

Doesn’t get any easier than that. :happydance

Re: Reconcile this
 

What was the criteria for individuals to get it before the new covenant?

Re: Reconcile this
 

Old Testament:

In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit's presence was intermittent and selective. The Spirit would "come upon" or "clothe" specific individuals for specific tasks or periods:

* Judges (e.g., Othniel, Gideon, Samson) - Judges 3:10, 6:34, 14:6
* Kings (e.g., Saul, David) - 1 Samuel 10:10, 16:13
* Prophets (e.g., Isaiah, Ezekiel) - Isaiah 61:1, Ezekiel 2:2

This was often associated with empowerment for leadership, wisdom, or prophetic ministry.

New Testament:

In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit's presence becomes universal:

* Joel's prophecy (Acts 2:17-21) - Peter quotes Joel, emphasizing the Spirit's outpouring on "all flesh" (Joel 2:28-32).
* Jesus' promise (John 14:16-17, 20) - The Spirit would indwell believers forever.

Re: Reconcile this
 

Nope, the biblical evidence doesn't indicate that.


From my post about Luke:

And then Luke, about the OT saints in comparison with NT saints:

What is the criteria to receive the Spirit in the OT then?

Re: Reconcile this
 

One thing that has not been adequately addressed, in my opinion, is the fact that on the one hand only certain of the Old Testament people of God had the Spirit (those classed among "the prophets", since being a "prophet" meant "somebody who has the Spirit of God controlling and empowering them in a unique and often ecstatic sense"), and yet on the other hand those who while not being "anointed" or "among the prophets" would nevertheless still have had an expectation of resurrection unto eternal life in the Age To Come.

So then it seems that under the old covenant (and prior), being assured of a place in the eternal kingdom of God was based upon faith in God, while having the Spirit come upon someone was generally seen as a sovereign move of God for specific individuals and for specific purposes. There is the old testament expectation of a future time when ALL God's people would have the Spirit. This is associated by Joel with inspired and ecstatic utterances and supernaturally sourced knowledge. Whereas it is associated by Ezekiel with entire sanctification (faithful obedience to God and a total repudiation of idolatry, paganism, and any other forms of lawlessness).

Thus, the old testament prophetic expectation of the future work of the Spirit was on the one hand ecstatic empowerment, and on the other hand heart purification and sanctification. The new testament writings seem to continue those two themes, and in fact in the case of Cornelius and the first Gentile Christians, the two streams of thought seem to have been combined (see for example Acts 15:8-9).

But the question remains, what of those old testament saints who while being faithful to God were nevertheless not necessarily "filled with the Spirit" and counted "among the prophets"? (Please note, I am limiting this question to old testament believers, not to people today who may be "believers" but who have not and do not particularly want to be filled with the Spirit in any kind of apostolic Acts-like experience).

Re: Reconcile this
 

Esaias,
I haven’t seen a NT passage that indeed says that the Spirit sanctification process to help you walk with God is an exclusive NT experience. What it is exclusive is the sanctification as a status before God because of the blood of Jesus.

Also, if you look around, are church saints holier than OT saints including people like Mary, or Zacharias, who was said to be a righteous man, living without blame, keepers of the commandment? Luke does not call them two prophets like he did of Anna or Simeon, but he did say they prophesied. You could still not be called prophet but still prophesied in the Spirit.

Another example that comes to mind is Joshua, who is said to be filled with the Spirit but not called a prophet.

Re: Reconcile this
 

Old Testament Sanctification

* Faith: Trusting in God's promises and covenant (Genesis 15:6, Hebrews 11).
* Obedience: Following God's laws and commandments (Deuteronomy 6:25).

New Testament Sanctification

* Faith: Trusting in Jesus Christ and His finished work (Ephesians 2:8-9).
* Internal Transformation: The Holy Spirit writes God's laws on believers' hearts (Hebrews 8:10-12, 10:16).

Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:26-27 prophesied this New Covenant reality, where God's laws would be internally written.

Key Differences

* External vs. Internal: Old Testament sanctification focused on external obedience; New Testament sanctification emphasizes internal transformation.
* Mediation: Old Testament required priestly mediation; New Testament has direct access to God through Jesus Christ.

Both covenants share a common thread: faith. Old Testament saints looked forward to the Messiah; New Testament saints look back to His finished work.

Hebrews 11:39-40 beautifully connects the two:
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Re: Reconcile this
 

[Psalm 119:11 NKJV] 11 Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against You.

[Psalm 143:10 NKJV] 10 Teach me to do Your will, For You [are] my God; Your Spirit [is] good. Lead me in the land of uprightness.

The Spirit always led to those that wanted to walk in the Lord's ways. The law was always to be kept in the heart.

Those verses you cite are about groups in covenant with God. The group according to the flesh, genealogically in the covenant of Moses and its promises, didn't have the Spirit, nor the law in their hearts as a group. The group in the covenant with Christ who are heirs of its promises have the Spirit at birth, hence they are the group according to the Spirit. They have the law in their heart, and the Spirit leads them, because, again, to be in the covenant with Christ, you have to have the Spirit at birth to begin with.

At the individual level, before and after the Cross, it has always been the Spirit leading, and the law in the heart.

I know our Western minds struggle with the distinction of groups vs individuals because the strongly individualistic culture, but it is the Biblical language.



Also, as I mentioned before, there is a distinction in the manifestation of the Spirit of grace in the new covenant:

The Spirit under the new covenant:
* brings healings much more abundantly than the old ("greater works", Jhn 5:20)
* performs healings unique to the Christ's covenant: the blind sees, the lame walks, the mute speaks, the deaf hears (Mat 11:4-5)
* It can be given even by imposition of hands from one saint to a believer, not seen in the OT

[Hebrews 2:4 YLT] 4 God also bearing joint-witness both with signs and wonders, and manifold powers, and distributions of the Holy Spirit, according to His will.

Re: Reconcile this
 

Numbers 11:29
And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!



Love how prophetic Moses is being in this passage.

Re: Reconcile this
 

Yes, but I'm talking about those who are not said to have the Spirit of God (as in all the other OT examples) but who would still be expecting a place in the Age To Come (resurrection). For example, Jonathan? Ezra? And many other unmentioned OT saints?

Re: Reconcile this
 

I believe is reasonable to believe they had the Spirit in their life, because we see OT saints praying to God for the assistance of the Spirit, as if it were something available to them they believed they could have through prayer. And we also see words from Jesus like this:

Luke 11:13 (NKJV)
“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”

The alternative is to think that people don’t really need the Spirit within them to be led by the Spirit, so having the Spirit within is only for empowerment to serve the Lord. If you see it like that, then they had the lead of the Spirit to live victorious lives against sin without the Spirit within them, but just with them, and only a few were filled inside to do the supernatural. If that’s the case, having the Spirit within the believer in the NT is only for ministerial empowerment because having it within is not really a requirement to be victorious in your walk with God.

I believe the former, that they all had it within, from what I can understand from Luke’s terminology.

Just to clarify, I used the word “victorious” to mean being able to keep God’s commandments. Not in the legal sense of being set free from sin charges because of the blood of the lamb.

Re: Reconcile this
 

Bro coksiw.

So, All those in the upper room and in the Streets of Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost had the Holy Spirit, but they received an upgraded version to include tongues?

Re: Reconcile this
 

Well, I wouldn't use terms like "upgraded" or "2.0". That sounds almost like a caricaturizing of a holy thing. My explanation of that is:

There is absolutely a distinction in magnitude of works, and purpose, of the Spirit in the new covenant.

Keep in mind that the Spirit coming has two purposes: to help saints to keep God's commandments (same experience in the OT and in the NT), and to fulfill God's will with manifestation of power (different in the OT and NT). The manifestations of power in the NT is to witness of the resurrection of Jesus, and ultimately that Jesus is Lord and Christ. The manifestation are also unique in comparison with the OT.

Even in the OT, people could have one anointing for something, and then another anointing for something else later. David was supernaturally empowered to defeat the lion and the bear, but was then anointed by Samuel to be king.

Re: Reconcile this
 

Thank you for explaining.

Re: Reconcile this
 

So what is the evidence (from scripture) that the old testament saints all had the Spirit of God within? If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that. Numbers 11 seems to indicate that was not the case, though. The passage you quoted from Luke seems to simply mean that people, capable of moral evil, nevertheless know how to do good and occasionally actually do good, so therefore it is much more likely for the Father to give the Spirit to those who ask Him, since He is infinitely good. I/ do not see how Luke's terminology indicates that all old Testament saints had the Spirit of God dwelling in them.

As for leading vs being filled, Paul says this:

Romans 8:14 KJV
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

And in another place he says this:

Galatians 4:6 KJV
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Which seems to imply that being led by the Spirit is a pre-requisite to being filled with the Spirit (or receiving the Spirit). Which in turn implies that one could be led by the Spirit but not filled with the Spirit, which seems to me to have been the case with the majority of Old Testament saints. Consider this:

John 11:21-24 KJV
Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. [22] But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. [23] Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. [24] Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

Was her expectation simply that Lazarus would rise to face judgment like everyone else? Or that he would rise to the resurrection unto life? What was the basis for her expectation, if it was the latter? There is no indication that Lazarus had the Holy Spirit, as the others in Scripture where it is said they received the Spirit, the Spirit came upon them, they were filled with the Spirit, etc.

Re: Reconcile this
 

My understanding is that only certain individuals had the Holy Ghost in the Old Testament. Anointed to do certain jobs. This was understood and therefore Joel’s prophecy would indicate a time when it would be different. The Holy Ghost at a future time would be imparted upon all who would believe in Christ.

Re: Reconcile this
 

That's my understanding as well.

Re: Reconcile this
 

I had no doubt :highfive

Re: Reconcile this
 

This is a really good discussion. I’d like to chip in a little something for us to consider. We know that the Old Testament sacrifices did not remit sin but only rolled them ahead for one year (I am of course speaking only of the sins committed under the Mosaic law).

Hebrews 10

[4] For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Therefore, if you examine the following passage, it seems to say that only by the shed blood of Jesus were these past sins remitted and that shed blood made them eligible for eternal life.

Hebrews 9

[13] For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
[14] How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
[15] And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Does this shed any light on the discussion?

Re: Reconcile this
 

Not really. I think we have already come to the conclusion that the OT saints needed the assistance of the Spirit to overcome sin, that is, not to remove it legally to become heirs of everlasting life, but to be able to follow God's commandments.

The two things are are sure from the Scriptures is)

1. The OT saints must have been led by the Spirit to be able to keep God's commandments. This is seen it the Psalms, in the testimony the Bible gives itself of them, in the fact that the NT states that you can't walk with God if you don't have the Spirit assisting you.
2. Some OT saints are said to have been filled with the Spirit, and the evidence points to the Spirit actually staying with them.

Now, the NT says categorically that if you don't have the Spirit you are not of God. That could be a statement affecting also the OT saints, or it may be something new of the NT.

Esaias believes the OT saints were led by the Spirit, but not all had the Spirit within them making them prophets.
I say the OT saints had all the Spirit within them, and some had the ministry of prophets, some don't but still could prophesy as we see in the first chapters of Luke.

Then you have passages stating that the Spirit was going to come and cause the people of the covenant to walk in his commandments. I explain that by saying the OT covenant didn't provide for the Spirit, but the NT does, so the people of the covenant went from not having the Spirit as a group to having it as a group. Esaias explains it the same way.

I think both approaches have their merits.

The problem I see with the "they were all led but some were filled" is that: why the Spirit had to fill in the first place in the NT if all it needed to do was to lead in the NT to cause the people of the covenant to talk in God's ways? It is like in order to cause the people to walk in God's covenant needed a filling, not just an external leading. A possible explanation is that the "causing to walk in his ways" is not just from the individual perspective, but from group perspective. Basically, the fact that everyone in the NT is filled the the Spirit, enables all as a group to help one another to walk in His ways, so basically, it is the result of the internal leading + the manifestation of the Spirit in others helping the person. I still have some questions about that understanding but it has its merits. I still think, as Jesus said, the experience of the Spirit was already given by the Father to whoever asked, as it was with the righteous and godly people Luke described.

Re: Reconcile this
 

How does this fit into the discussion?

Matthew 3:11 KJV
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

John declared that Jesus was going to baptise with the Holy Spirit. When Jesus showed up to be baptised by John, John said this:

Matthew 3:14 KJV
But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

Meanwhile, John was filled with the Holy Ghost from the womb:

Luke 1:13-15 KJV
But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. [14] And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. [15] For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

So John was filled with the Holy Ghost, but confessed he needed to be baptised by Jesus, whom He said would baptise with the Spirit. Doesn't John already have the Spirit? Why then does he need to be baptised with the Holy Spirit if he was already filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb?

Re: Reconcile this
 

I think "we" have NOT come to THAT conclusion. I do not believe in "gracious ability", as taught by Arminians and (some) Calvinists, which is the idea that all people have a natural inability to obey God's moral law, and that only through a supernatural or "gracious" impartation of Divine power is a person actually able to fulfill their moral obligations.

1. If a person has a natural inability to obey God, then they are not a subject of moral law, and are not a moral agent, and are not capable of having moral character. Moral law is law that commands what a person OUGHT to do, which necessarily implies that the person COULD do what is commanded. You cannot possibly "ought" to do that which you strictly and naturally "cannot" do.

2. Following from 1, if people are thereby not moral subjects, then there is no moral basis for Judgment. But the Bible everywhere speaks of the Judgment as distinctly moral, it is a matter of "right and wrong". People are judged for not doing what they ought to have done, and for doing what they ought not to have done. They are not judged for what they could not possibly have done.

3. If the only way a person COULD obey God is through a divine impartation of grace, a "gracious ability", a "moving of the Spirit", then all who die sinners do so specifically because God chose not to empower them to be obedient. They would have the ultimate excuse upon Judgment day, and the result is the same as predestination to damnation: God is the cause and enabler of their sin, He ensures they continue in sin, He ensures they do NOT obey, He makes certain they DO sin, precisely because He FAILS to "empower" them to obey.

4. The idea of a gracious ability, or that "people cannot obey God unless the Spirit of God empowers them", confuses natural law and moral law, natural ability and moral ability, and natural inability and moral inability. Moral law concerns voluntary action (choices), and therefore by definition those choices must include a natural ABILITY to make those choices. People do not disobey God because they CANNOT obey, but because they WILL not obey. The moral work of the Spirit is not to impart a natural ability that did not previously exist, but rather to LEAD (motivate) to faithful obedience.

When the Scripture speaks of the work of Spirit in circumcising the heart and causing Israel to walk in God's commandments and statutes and ways, it is not speaking of a supernatural impartation of NATURAL ability, but rather it is speaking of the MORAL work of the Spirit in softening the hearts of His people, leading them into a voluntary faithful obedience to His will.

Sin, and obedience, are voluntary:

Romans 6:16-19 KJV
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? [17] But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. [18] Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. [19] I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

So whatever we are to make of the distinctions between the old testament saints and the new testament saints, one thing is clear - the difference and distinction is not and cannot possibly be one of natural ability to obey God.

Re: Reconcile this
 

Maybe it's an external leading and empowerment in the old covenant vs an internal union and transformation in the new covenant.

Jeremiah 31
31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”