Reconcile this

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Amanah

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:

Nope, the biblical evidence doesn't indicate that.


From my post about Luke:

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.

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

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.

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

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

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.

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).

[coksiw]

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.

[Amanah]

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.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Amanah

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.

[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.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Amanah

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.

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.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

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.

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?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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?

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.

[Amanah]

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?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Amanah

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?

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:

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).

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

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.