Reconcile this

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by coksiw

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.

Thank you for explaining.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

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.

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.

[Evang.Benincasa]

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.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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.

That's my understanding as well.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

That's my understanding as well.

I had no doubt

[Tithesmeister]

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?