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?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

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.

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?