The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament

Yesterday I joined a women's Community Bible Study. The ladies are going through the books of 1st and 2nd Kings and the minor prophets of that era.

The lady who taught the lesson explained that there are several times in the OT when the author explains a person's behavior and neither approves of it nor condemns it. (No problem with that) She went on the explain that the Kings did things that were wrong partly due to the fact that they were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

So here are my questions: Were Old Testament saints indwelt with the Holy Spirit? I think they were. I don't think they were saved any differently than we are saved today, except we have more revelation and the blessing of being able to look back at history's most significant moments.

And secondly, I am new to this Bible study, basically unknown to the group, and more than likely one of the few Calvinists in the bunch. I am inclined to think that this issue is not worth approaching the teacher about. Would you agree?

First, we can say in general terms that it is the Spirit of God Who regenerates, sanctifies and preserves ALL whom God has determined to save. This is the work of the Spirit in all generations. Without the Spirit, no one can be saved, sustained nor secured unto eternal life in Christ.

Secondly, specifically there are clear OT references to the indwelling Spirit. Here are but a few:

1. The promise of the Spirit in the blessing of Abraham. (Gal 3:14)
2. Joseph is said to have the Spirit of God within him. (Gen 41:38)
3. Moses and the 70 elders were raised up and qualified by the Spirit of God for his commission. (Num. 11:17)
4. Joshua possessed the indwelling Spirit. (Num 27:18; Deut 34:9)
5. The comforting power of the Spirit during the wilderness journey. (Neh 9:20; Isa 63:11, 14)
6. Othniel (Judg 3:10), Gideon (Judg 6:34), Jephthan (Judg 11:29), Samson (Judg 14:19)
7. Samuel was filled with the Spirit. (1Sam. 10:20)
8. All the Prophets had the indwelling Spirit. (2Pet 1:21; Ex 4:16; 2Kgs 9:7; Hos 8:7; Isa 21:11; Zech 11:3)
9. David had the Spirit of God with him. (1Sam 16:13; 2Sam 23:2; Ps 51:11; 139:7; 143:10)
10. Solomon wrote of the indwelling Spirit. (Prov 1:23)
11. Hosea was said to be 'the man of the Spirit'. (Hos 9:7)
12. The OT Church in general had the same 'Spirit of faith'. (Ps 45:7; 68:18; cf. 2Cor 4:13 and Ps 114:10)

That should suffice to show that the Spirit indeed indwelt believers before the coming of Christ.

That's a judgment call. IF the subject of the class is salvation; how it is accomplished and appropriated, then it is more than relevant. For, how could any of the OT be written by inspiration (2Pet 1:21) without the indwelling Spirit and without which there would have been no Gospel? How could anyone before Christ be saved if it was not for the inner working of the Holy Spirit who regenerates the soul and brings sinners to faith in Christ? etc., etc.

IF, however, this subject of the indwelling Holy Spirit in the OT was simply an aside brought up by one of the participants, then perhaps it would be prudent to let it slide.

In His grace,

Thanks for the thorough response, Pilgrim.

Now I am wondering why many Bible teachers have made the claim that OT saint were not indwelt. The abundant references you provided present a very good case. Not to mention your first point about how God redeems his people throughout history.

I suspect that by saying the OT saints were not indwelt somehow supports dispensationalism, but I am not sure how or why that would be the case.

The person who made this statement teaches the large (100+) group of ladies. As I look forward into what we'll be studying for the next 30 weeks I suspect this issue will come up again. And when it does, I will be ready to kindly share a different perspective.

In Christ alone,

Jane

Seems to me we have had this thread before. My understanding is that the Holy Spirit was given to OT saints for a specific call by God on their life, e.g the Prophets, David, Solomon etc. It wasn't until Pentecost that The Holy Spirit was given by Jesus to indwell every believer.In Jn 16, Jesus promises the gift of the Holy Spirit to his disciples when he is no longer with them. Also Jn 14:16 seems to indicate that they did not as yet have the Holy Spirit.
Am I missing something?

Yes, the Holy Spirit was active in the calling of various men to certain offices and functions, e.g., Prophet, Judge, King, etc. And this calling is not only seen in godly men but also in ungodly men, e.g., Cyrus (2Chron 36:23; Ezk 1; Isa 44:28; 45:1) through whom the Lord accomplished His purpose(s). However, the question must be asked, In regard to salvation how did the Holy Spirit work in sinners during the OT administration? More specifically, were the OT saints regenerated, irresistibly draw to faith in the coming Messiah and sanctified? If so, were these things accomplished by something other than the work of the Spirit? Or, if by the Spirit, did the Spirit work externally from them or internally?

I did provide quite a number of passages where many clearly showed that the Spirit dwelt within men. Perhaps it would be profitable for you to read through them and consider what they teach concerning the indwelling Spirit.

Those given to Dispensationalism or its hermeneutical principles (no implication concerning you personally ), to one degree or another, see a great amount of discontinuity between the OT administration and the NT administration, e.g., the bifurcation of Israel and the Church, circumcision and baptism, the visible vs invisible Church, worship, the relationship between law and grace, and some even believing that God was different in the OT from the NT. I have heard/read where some believe that the God of the OT was angry, hard, strict, etc., vs the God of the NT Who is loving, merciful and full of grace. One of the most contentious verses that is often used to prove this radical discontinuity is Jeremiah 31:31 where the prophet speaks of a "new covenant". It is popular today to believe that the word "new" is to be understood to mean, 'totally different' or 'without similarity'. Classic Reformed theology, however, understands the word "new" to mean 'better', 'complete', 'fulfilled', 'mature', etc. In regard to the Holy Spirit we hold that the Spirit's work didn't change in the work of salvation but rather increased; a new universality and knowability.

So, the question that needs to be dealt with here is, Is there a difference in how men were saved in the OT vs the NT? Did the Spirit regenerate the OT saints differently than He does in the NT saints? Were the OT saints sanctified and able to delight in and keep the law, albeit imperfectly, without the indwelling Spirit?

In His grace,

It appears to me that the role of the Holy Spirit is the same today as it always has been.A few examples to bear this out :
1- Job 33:4, Job was conscious that the spirit was his creator ,just as we are.
2- Psalm 39, The Psalmist could enjoy the presence of the spirit,just as we can.
3- Num.27:18, Gen. 41:38, both Joshua and Joseph experienced the indwelling of the spirit ,just as we do.
Neh.9:20, The spirit provided instruction,just as he does still.
He gives us victory over fear the same as He did in the OT,Haggi 2:5.
These are but a few of many ways that the spirit of God does the same as He has always has.

Pilgrim,

Thank you for your clear explanation! I find it facinating that there are so many areas where discontinuity vs. continuity applies.

In my experience, pastors have taught that the church began at Pentecost, but they don't explain why they believe that or explain anything about the OT saints.

Am I correct in understanding that most who believe in greater continuity would say that the church began with Abraham?

Thank you so much, Pilgrim, and Sojourner, for taking the time to explain these topics. A lot of the time I feel like I know just enough to be dangerous, and that's an uncomfortable place to be in.

I agree that the work of the Spirit was the same in OT believers as it is today. The Spirit bringd Illumination and brings us from death to life. There was ,is, and will be only one way of salvation. It is by grace we are saved .
My only question is, if the Holy Spirit indwelt believers in Jesus day, why did he promise the Spirit's coming at Pentecost?
Please help my confusion.

Actually, I and many others would say the Church began with Adam. Was not Adam included with those who believed and who are to be included in final exaltation of God for His salvation in Christ? The "Church" (Gk: ecclesia; called out ones) includes ALL those who have been redeemed in Christ. From Adam to Pentecost and beyond, during the ministry of the Apostles we see the progressive development and organization of the Church; from infancy to maturity. We can even see the distinction between the Church and the world in Cain and Abel and then Seth, no? This too is revealed more and more especially after the calling of Abraham when a distinct nation, a people of God is called apart from the world and further emphasized by both the teachings of Jesus and of subsequent inspired writers of the NT.

In His grace,

Okay, let's first iterate and emphasize that the Spirit's work in salvation is and has always been INTERNAL; regeneration, irresistible calling, in conversion, sanctification and preservation to the end of those who have been saved. There is also the "external" working of the Spirit, if we can describe it that way which can be seen in both those who were of faith and those without faith. One aspect of that work was in the empowering to accomplish a specific task for the purpose of accomplishing the work of God on earth; either known or unknown to the recipient.

This same bestowal of "power" and/or "gifts" was promised to the disciples (cf. Jh 14:26; Acts 1:5,8). The Spirit was "to come upon" them. They were to be "baptized in" the Spirit. It was after this receiving of the Spirit that they would recall all that Jesus had taught them and receive a fuller understanding of it. They would receive power to be witnesses of Christ for the furtherance of the kingdom and much more. In the development of the Church after the ascension of Christ where Gentiles were included en masse as prophesied in the OT writings, the Spirit was instrumental in displaying the reality of their inclusion outwardly through the giving of certain gifts. This working of the Spirit must not be confused with the indwelling of the Spirit which is salvific in nature.

Does that help clarify things for you... just a wee bit?

In His grace,

Pilgim,
Yes, your reply is very clear, thanks. i have always been somewhat confused about the work of the Spirit in OT believers.
Thanks for your wisdom and insight. it really does make sense now

Whew!! That was easy.

Muchforgiven,
Although Pilgrim did a thorough job in describing the work of the Holy Spirit I will offer this analogy that I heard recently that helped me understand this work.
There was a hydroelectric dam scheduled to be built on a river above a cluster of homes that had been in this valley for for several generations.The people that lived in the valley had drawn life from the river in many ways including everything from bathing to food.
After the dam was complete they still had all the benefits they had before and in addition they had electricity which greatly improved their lives and flood control which brought a measure of safety they had never experienced.
The Holy Spirit's ministry was just expanded after Pentecost.

Thanks Sojourner, I like your analogy and I love that the Holy Spirit's work was expanded at Pentecost. How blessed we are to be living in these times. Oh for grace to love Him more!

Hello,
New here but would like to say on the Old/New salvific-

Old Covenant “salvation” is a promissory note
New Covenant “salvation” is cash
“Cash” is easier to understand because we don’t exactly know where the “money” will come from to pay off the “promissory note/debt”.

To me one of the biggest hurdles facing Grace based salvation is when someone tries to turn it into license. Grace does not equal license, but Armenian types are accusatory in this respect. The same grace/license idea snared/snares many. Reality of Grace is that desire to satisfy the will of our Redeemer above any other. Realistically we are growing in grace and if we could hit the mark every time then we would be able of our own accord.

Hi glew,

Welcome to the Highway Discussion Board. I hope you will enjoy your time here and find it to be profitable. Just to note:

Armenian: noun
1 a native of Armenia or a person of Armenian descent.
2 the Indo-European language of Armenia, spoken by around 4 million people and written in a distinctive alphabet of thirty-eight letters.

Armenia—Located between the Black and Caspian Seas—bordered on the north and east by Georgia and Azerbaijan, and on the south and west by Iran and Turkey.

chestnutmare,
See your point, thanks so much. Now I know for sure that I will be enjoying the stay here. While we are on the subject of semantics maybe you could help with another one of my problems?

When the Lord gave the law to Moses the two of them put it in writing. So when the children of Israel caught a guy “working” on the Sabbath why did Moses have to ask the Lord what to do?

Hello glew,

Would you provide the Scriptural reference that you want me to consider so I can consider how to best answer you?

1. Welcome to The Highway Discussion Board.

2. The difference between "Armenian" and "Arminian" is decidedly not a matter of semantics. The former is defined as Chestnutmare graciously provided in her reply. The latter refers to one who in essence holds to the doctrines as espoused by the followers of Jacobus Arminius in their Remonstrance issued at the great Synod of Dordrecht in 1618. (see HERE)

3. I too would like to see the biblical passage(s) you are referring to in regard to Moses asking God for guidance on how to deal with Sabbath breakers. In the meanwhile, I would like to answer your question with another question. When you read the Fourth Commandment (Ex 20:8-11; Deut 5:12-15), do you find anything there that would give any indication as to what consequences would come about if one did not obey it? In fact, when looking at any/all of the Ten Commandments, do you find what consequences would befall those who transgress any/all of them?

In His grace,

Wow,
A new guy makes a one letter obvious misspelling, (how in the world can anyone seriously think that a nationality was in play over theology) and it feels like the stones are getting ready to come out. (Think that am indeed in deep clover.) Really afraid to go further as not sure why so touchy.?. Cannot believe that you guys don’t know where the law was given, it was recorded, the first Sabbath violation stoning took place etc, etc. Hint, somewhere in the Old Testament. Hint, hint, somewhere in the Pentateuch, (hope that this last word is spelled correctly or who knows, maybe I will wake up with frogs in my bed).

Now, now... there is no need to get your knickers in a knot. You obviously have taken our responses in a wrong manner, and that is unfortunate. Let me try and explain somethings to you:

1. We have a wide range of members here who, a) are from various theological backgrounds, [historic Calvinists, Arminians, semi-Pelagians, Roman Catholics, Atheists, sectarians and even occasionally cultists] b) some are biblically illiterate, some are theologically ignorant or untrained, and c) some are even unregenerate. Thus, we cannot take it for granted what a person knows and/or believes. Would you believe that you are definitely not the first to use the word "Armenian" here? And many were of the understanding that this is how "Arminian" was spelled. They were also corrected in the same friendly manner. Most took the correction gracefully and thanked us for it.

2. Perhaps you aren't aware that at Nicea, when the doctrine of the Trinity was upheld against the attacks of Arius and others, that much debate centered around one single letter. Some wanted to use the word homoiousios which means "of like substance" instead of the word homoousios, which means "one substance". But the former was rejected strongly because it denied the place and nature of the Son [Christ] within the Trinity. The latter affirms that God the Son and God the Father are of the same substance or essence. So lending oneself to exactness can be a good thing.

3. Since you are the "new guy" here, it is not overly helpful to get sarcastic in your responses to those whose desire is to HELP you where needed. Trust me, we are very familiar with "where the law was given". What we would like to know is the exact passage which apparently is giving you some trouble in understanding what was written therein. So again, if you would please provide the specific passage which is troubling you perhaps we can be more specific in our answer(s). I have already given you a "hint" toward that understanding with my own question to you. Did that not put some light on the issue for you?

Okay, let's try and begin again and hopefully you will not be so quick to take offense, especially due to misconceptions about some of us here.

In His grace,

Thanks Glew,
Yes, I agree, the other side of the same coin is legalism which we must guard against. I am glad you found the Highway. Welcome

Wow wow,
Such a list of things that are wrong with me gathered in so few postings, (how many now 3 or 4 shorties). Let’s see-
1 Can’t spell
2 Misunderstand others too quickly
3 Probably unlearned
4 Sarcastic
5 Non-specific
6 Inattentive to prior postings
7 Unappreciative to gracious hospitality
8 Unaware of my surroundings
9 Untrusting
10 In need of a lot of help
11 Quick to take offense
Here is one you did not list
12 Unwilling to start again