Indwelling of the Holy Spirit: OT versus NT / Pentecost and beyond

[RobertPGH1981]

Hello All,

I am in the process of writing a paper on the indwelling of the holy spirit. I have been reading a book called 'God's Indwelling Presence' by James M. Hamilton Jr. He makes that argument that indwelling didn't occur in the OT and he describes it as the spirit comes upon somebody. There is one main verse that I have found that points to this:

​

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,​

Joh 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.​

However, there have been some passages that appear to say the spirit dwells in OT believers. Below is what the bible hub says on the topic. In my paper I am showing how indwelling was 1.) restricted to leaders in the OT.... or 2.) didn't happen until pentecost.

What is your opinion on the topic? Did the Holy Spirit indwell in the entire OT assembly, a select few in leadership, or did it impact believers in a different way up until Pentecost?

https://bible.org/question/how-did-holy-spirit-operate-lives-ot-saints

1. [The Holy Spirit] was in certain ones. Pharaoh recognized that the Spirit was in Joseph (Gen. 41:38). Likely Pharaoh did not understand this was the Holy Spirit, but later revelation seems to make this clear. The Spirit was in Joshua which is why God chose him (Num. 27:18). The Spirit was in Daniel (Dan. 4:8; 5:11-14; 6:3). In these instances the preposition used is beth, “in.”
2. The Spirit came upon some. The preposition used to depict this is al. A number of people experienced this ministry of the Spirit (Num. 24:2; Judges 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 1 Sam. 10:10; 16:13; 2 Chron. 15:1). These included judges, Saul, and the prophets Balaam and Azariah.
3. The Spirit filled Bezalel. (Ex. 31:3; 35:31). This seemed to be a special enablement to lead the craftsmen as they worked on the tabernacle.
God bless,

Robert
Pittsburgh, PA

 

[zsmcd]

Following. This is something I have been very interested in studying lately. I think this topic has a lot of weight on what we believe concerning the differences between the covenants, promise/fulfillment, etc. I am currently working through covenant theology/baptism and this seems to be a key topic as we consider what the difference is between the old and new covenants.

Would love to read your paper when it is done if you don't mind. What school are you attending?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The Spirit who is required for regeneration was always required for that work. He did not indwell believers in OT times after the same general manner of indwelling the NT knows. That he was ever-present in some sense with and for his saints should not be denied. But we can distinguish 1) between how he was present then vs. now, BC vs AD; and 2) the manner he was with some persons vs. the general body of the faithful.

In the first case, the Spirit was dispensed (in my illustration) in an "eye-dropper" fashion, sparingly not copiously, drips not a downpour.

But in the cases of those men who were endowed powerfully--priests, prophets, and kings--these proto-mediators, types of Christ the Mediator (who had the Spirit without measure) had the Spirit in great measure. "But the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater" than John the Baptist, who is in the first rank of the OT saints. Why? Because he lives in the age of the Spirit.

 

[Peairtach]

Pentecost also marked the beginning of the giving of New Testament revelation.

O. Palmer Robertson says that we (can) have "more" of the Spirit because we have a more full revelation from God, and the Spirit has more "raw material" in the Word to work with.

 

[arapahoepark]

Two books I know address the issue: The Beauty and Glory of the Holy Spirit by the PRTS faculty and The Holy Spirit by Geoff Thomas.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

If Abraham didn't have the Spirit indwelling him as "the father of our faith" then God saves in different ways at different times. We should all become radical dispensationalists. Regeneration, the Spirit's work, and his continued sanctification of an indwelt believer is the same "yesterday, today and forever." The quality of indwelling doesn't change with the time. The extent of the indwelling does, as in the widespread salvation of entire people's in the OT, and Pentecostal outpouring in Acts. See chapter 13 of the 1647 WCF making no distinction concerning "times of sanctification" in the OT and NT.

 

[Peairtach]

Some of the references to the Spirit in connection with individuals like e.g. King Saul, are to special gifts being given to carry out the work of kingship, prophethood or priesthood, etc. References to the Spirit aren't always dealing with what we in NT language/theology would call regeneration and sanctification.

When David says "Do not take your Spirit away" in Psalm 51, some Dispensationalists have argued that unlike NT saints, in the OT, the Spirit could be taken away.

In the light if what we know from the NT, David is experiencing the loss of the felt presence of the Holy Spirit and is afraid that God will take Hifs Spirit away in the context of what he has done, something which, however, is impossible for the believer.

In the light of the NT, the Holy Spirit changed and preserved the hearts of all God's true people in the OT. Only He could "circumcise their hearts" and keep them from losing their salvation.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

 

[Scott Bushey]

Hello All,

I am in the process of writing a paper on the indwelling of the holy spirit. I have been reading a book called 'God's Indwelling Presence' by James M. Hamilton Jr. He makes that argument that indwelling didn't occur in the OT and he describes it as the spirit comes upon somebody. There is one main verse that I have found that points to this:

​

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,​

Joh 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.​

However, there have been some passages that appear to say the spirit dwells in OT believers. Below is what the bible hub says on the topic. In my paper I am showing how indwelling was 1.) restricted to leaders in the OT.... or 2.) didn't happen until pentecost.

What is your opinion on the topic? Did the Holy Spirit indwell in the entire OT assembly, a select few in leadership, or did it impact believers in a different way up until Pentecost?

https://bible.org/question/how-did-holy-spirit-operate-lives-ot-saints

1. [The Holy Spirit] was in certain ones. Pharaoh recognized that the Spirit was in Joseph (Gen. 41:38). Likely Pharaoh did not understand this was the Holy Spirit, but later revelation seems to make this clear. The Spirit was in Joshua which is why God chose him (Num. 27:18). The Spirit was in Daniel (Dan. 4:8; 5:11-14; 6:3). In these instances the preposition used is beth, “in.”
2. The Spirit came upon some. The preposition used to depict this is al. A number of people experienced this ministry of the Spirit (Num. 24:2; Judges 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 1 Sam. 10:10; 16:13; 2 Chron. 15:1). These included judges, Saul, and the prophets Balaam and Azariah.
3. The Spirit filled Bezalel. (Ex. 31:3; 35:31). This seemed to be a special enablement to lead the craftsmen as they worked on the tabernacle.
God bless,

Robert
Pittsburgh, PA

If u are bored...

http://www.semperreformanda.com/theology/pneumatology/the-holy-spirit-in-the-covenant-of-grace-2/

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I'm working on updating a great series by Matthew Mead. He give this little blip about the indwelling Spirit.

"The great blessing of the Spirit, how sparingly was that given out at first, to a very few in number, and that in a small measure, in so much that it is said comparatively, the Spirit was not given. It was not given, that is, in comparison of what was to be when Christ had ascended. For the fullest enjoyment of the extraordinary gifts, and saving graces of the Spirit was reserved until Christ’s ascension, such as the fruit of his exaltation and triumph. So that the Spirit is said to be, “poured out,” in that day; (Joel 2:28). Therefore there is a greater measure of the Spirit enjoyed under the Gospel than ever was before, and let me tell you there is yet behind, another pouring out of the Spirit promised, that shall be greater than any ever yet was."

Quantity, not quality.

 

[RobertPGH1981]

The Spirit who is required for regeneration was always required for that work. He did not indwell believers in OT times after the same general manner of indwelling the NT knows. That he was ever-present in some sense with and for his saints should not be denied. But we can distinguish 1) between how he was present then vs. now, BC vs AD; and 2) the manner he was with some persons vs. the general body of the faithful.

In the first case, the Spirit was dispensed (in my illustration) in an "eye-dropper" fashion, sparingly not copiously, drips not a downpour.

Sorry for the delayed response as I was traveling for work.

I just wrote a research paper on this and have found that most of the words used in Hebrew for Joseph, Saul and David where interpreted as came upon, rested upon, clothed. So it seems like the spirit could not have indwelt the OT believers. The New Covenant promises found in Ezk 36 use words that indicate within, while the former typically means upon. Although I am not a Hebrew scholar and could have gotten this wrong. I did take this interpretation from the Strong's Concordance which I have understood to be reliable.

Another thing that my research lead me was the fact that the Old Testament believers were not fully forgiven until Christs death. They looked forward to a time when they would be forgiven as the sins were Passed-over. They looked forward to a time when they would be redeemed, while the New Testament church looks back upon the works of Christ.

 

[RobertPGH1981]

If Abraham didn't have the Spirit indwelling him as "the father of our faith" then God saves in different ways at different times. We should all become radical dispensationalists.

Regeneration/Circumcision of the Heart appears to be the same event, while the Indwelling presence of the spirit appears to be a New Covenant blessing for the Church. The language used for Abraham, Joseph, Balaam, Saul and David all seem the same. While the New Covenant promised through Ezk 36 appears to be different than before.

 

[zsmcd]

Regeneration/Circumcision of the Heart appears to be the same event, while the Indwelling presence of the spirit appears to be a New Covenant blessing for the Church. The language used for Abraham, Joseph, Balaam, Saul and David all seem the same. While the New Covenant promised through Ezk 36 appears to be different than before.

So in essence, your understanding is that, the promise of the NC is not regeneration/circumcision of the heart but the indwelling of the Spirit?

 

[zsmcd]

And obviously the actual forgiveness of sin through Christ's atonement...

 

[RobertPGH1981]

Regeneration/Circumcision of the Heart appears to be the same event, while the Indwelling presence of the spirit appears to be a New Covenant blessing for the Church. The language used for Abraham, Joseph, Balaam, Saul and David all seem the same. While the New Covenant promised through Ezk 36 appears to be different than before.

So in essence, your understanding is that, the promise of the NC is not regeneration/circumcision of the heart but the indwelling of the Spirit?

It seems that way because the language changes under the new covenant for the spirit. The language for circumcision/regeneration seem to be the same.

 

[timfost]

Saul and David where interpreted as came upon, rested upon, clothed. So it seems like the spirit could not have indwelt the OT believers. The New Covenant promises found in Ezk 36 use words that indicate within, while the former typically means upon.

I think you're making a distinction without a difference.

Another thing that my research lead me was the fact that the Old Testament believers were not fully forgiven until Christs death. They looked forward to a time when they would be forgiven as the sins were Passed-over. They looked forward to a time when they would be redeemed, while the New Testament church looks back upon the works of Christ.

The atonement is not bound by time. I would recommend a study on Abraham's justification. What does justification mean? How was Abraham justified if he wasn't also fully forgiven? What was the ground of his justification? Was he ingrafted into Christ by faith? If not, how is he the father of the faithful?

 

[Goodcheer68]

So you are saying regeneration can happen apart from the H. Spirit indwelling the believer. I would urge you to rethink your use of word studies apart from context and the the whole of Scripture.

 

[timfost]

Saul and David where interpreted as came upon, rested upon, clothed. So it seems like the spirit could not have indwelt the OT believers. The New Covenant promises found in Ezk 36 use words that indicate within, while the former typically means upon.

I think you're making a distinction without a difference.

"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb." (Luke 1:15)

"And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor..." (Luke 4:17-18a)

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I just wrote a research paper on this and have found that most of the words used in Hebrew for Joseph, Saul and David where interpreted as came upon, rested upon, clothed. So it seems like the spirit could not have indwelt the OT believers. The New Covenant promises found in Ezk 36 use words that indicate within, while the former typically means upon. Although I am not a Hebrew scholar and could have gotten this wrong. I did take this interpretation from the Strong's Concordance which I have understood to be reliable.

Another thing that my research lead me was the fact that the Old Testament believers were not fully forgiven until Christs death. They looked forward to a time when they would be forgiven as the sins were Passed-over. They looked forward to a time when they would be redeemed, while the New Testament church looks back upon the works of Christ.

I've not read Hamilton's book (mentioned in your OP), although in general from what I know he's no exegetical slouch, http://jimhamilton.info/ . He's SBTS, Calvinistic, and dispensational.

I think that last commitment has the kind of impact on JMH's theology you would expect, just as one would expect covenant-theology to exercise a degree of control on mine. I don't know if he takes as hard a line as you seem to on the question of "indwelling," or if you are willing to grant some equivocation on the use of the word. But I suppose it would be consistent with dispensationalism if JMH hedged just a bit on OT vs. NT salvation, i.e. not seeing them as essentially one-and-the-same (though significantly related).

Given JMH's Calvinism, I doubt he denies the necessity of the Spirit in regeneration. It is OT theology as much as NT, a thing quite clear given the way Jesus marvels at Nicodemus' ignorance (he being THE teacher of Israel, Jn.3:10). I made it clear I don't think the Spirit in the OT had the kind of powerful-distribution that was a particular promise of the NT condition; but it seems to me like too much of a semantic straitjacket to confine the term "indwelling" to a NT description of his activity only, when I think the NT is describing the abundance of his manner, rather than the nature of his work.

On the question of forgiveness of OT sins, I think you have over-conditioned the temporality factor, and downplayed the faith factor. Honestly, while we have a certain advantage looking back at a completed historical event, we (as much as ever they) must believe that this work is done for us. It is not the case that OT saints had to asterisk* their sense of forgiveness, Ps.32:1; 85:2. Their attitude and behavior toward the promise of God is not essentially distinguishable from ours. Their material sacrifices meant something real, even if they were signs of the reality that had not yet entered history. Their sins were "blotted out" (Ps.51:1,9) not for the sake of the dead animal, but for the sake of the Seed who should be the Lamb of God.

Blessings on your studies.

 

[Mr. Bultitude]

Bruce, your first post seems to conflict with the understanding of the WCF Matthew gives. Am I misunderstanding, or is there actually disagreement there? If there is, do you think you could interact directly with that section of the WCF and how it relates to this topic? I'm definitely sympathetic to the "eye-dropper" view, but Matthew's post has me rethinking that.

 

[RobertPGH1981]

In Hamilton's book it says, 'Luke consistently uses pimplemi with the spirit to indicate inspiration for a particular work-usually proclamation.' So basically it was to enable to perform the works necessary. How would we explain Luke 1:15 in comparison to John 7:37-39

Joh 7:37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.
Joh 7:38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'"
Joh 7:39 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.



In reference to the phrase 'is upon me' its similar to the language in the OT that would refer to hovering, resting or clothing.

 

[Tyrese]

From the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689:

Chapter 8:6 Of Christ the Mediator- Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages, successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed which should bruise the serpent's head; and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, being the same yesterday, and to-day and for ever.

Chapter 13:1 Of Sanctification- They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, are also farther sanctified, really and personally, through the same virtue, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

These statements from our confession are very accurate explanations of what the Bible teaches concerning salvation and sanctification. If you exclude OT believers from these statements, than you have another gospel for OT believers which we know to be false. Dispensationalism is not the answer.

 

[RobertPGH1981]

Thanks Bruce.

It's been a while since I have been in school (10years) and this is one of the first research papers I have written. I probably shouldn't have selected such a hard topic, but I appreciate all the feedback. I am trying to test some of supporting evidence that I found in resources and through my own research.

In reference to Regeneration/Circumcision Hamilton does draw a parallel between the two. He separates the Indwelling as a separate act not related to either. He described the indwelling as an event that gives the ability to write the law on our hearts, and provides additional gifts and blessing not experienced prior.

For the OT forgiveness of Sins William Lane says the following,

“Under the old covenant worshipers never experienced a definitive cleansing. The participle “cleansed” is qualified by “once and for all,” to distinguish a cleansing with finality from an experience of purgation that will have to be repeated. A decisive cleansing of the conscience is a prerequisite for unhindered access to God, and this has been achieved only by the sacrifice of Christ.”[1]

---

[1] Lane, William. World Biblical Commentary: Hebrews. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 261

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Bruce, your first post seems to conflict with the understanding of the WCF Matthew gives. Am I misunderstanding, or is there actually disagreement there? If there is, do you think you could interact directly with that section of the WCF and how it relates to this topic? I'm definitely sympathetic to the "eye-dropper" view, but Matthew's post has me rethinking that.

I'm not sure CMM and I are significantly disagreeing. We seem to agree the H.S. was working the same regenerating work, OT and NT, and that he remained with people to whom he applied the merits of the Lamb's blood (justification) to sanctify them. I can't tell from the shortness of what he wrote if CMM thinks with me that H.S. worked ordinarily in OT times in smaller measures (my "eyedropper" illustration) even with respect to individuals (not merely populations). It would not change the quality of his work to recognize this limited measure.

In my view, the measure of the Spirit's grant corresponds to that Pauline encouragement in the NT for typical believers to "be filled" with the Spirit. In OT terms, I doubt that this could be an "ordinary" summons. It does, however, fit with the enlarged capacity of one of the OT messianic types (prophet, priest, king), inasmuch as they needed to stir up their gifts and exercise them, fulfill their extraordinary callings, make use of the Spirit who was granted them in extraordinary measure; and in general forestall losing that privilege. "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me," Ps.51:11.

If you consider the Mead quote CMM offered in his second post, note the following words:

The great blessing of the Spirit,

how sparingly was that given out at first,
to a very few in number,
and that in a small measure,
in so much that it is said comparatively, the Spirit was not given. It was not given, that is, in comparison of what was to be when Christ had ascended.​

"Few," speaking of number; and "small measure," in reference to the Spirit's vigorous energies. We confess God knows no limits intrinsically; but the Spirit is often represented as acting according to observable capacities. Thus, given two vessels containing a single compound, ceteris paribus a vessel of less capacity contains "potency" equal to that of a greater one in one sense, but not in another. The Spirit's OT restraint is shown, is taught by this sign; so that the wait is properly rewarded when he is unleashed in the New Covenant.

If CMM and I are reading the Mead quote in the same way, he and I are hardly at odds. We don't disagree about the absolute quality of H.S.'s work. We don't think the Spirit worked harder in the OT, just to get one convert from the rocky soil. That's not the nature of his more limited presence in those days. Ordinary OT believers--those not appointed to typological work--weren't directed to seek "filling" of the Spirit in the way Paul seems to direct NT believers. Unless called to extraordinary service, they patiently grew in grace according to their immature capacity, as little children simply grow and hardly ever think about the limits of their powers relative to what they will become.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thanks Bruce.

It's been a while since I have been in school (10years) and this is one of the first research papers I have written. I probably shouldn't have selected such a hard topic, but I appreciate all the feedback. I am trying to test some of supporting evidence that I found in resources and through my own research.

In reference to Regeneration/Circumcision Hamilton does draw a parallel between the two. He separates the Indwelling as a separate act not related to either. He described the indwelling as an event that gives the ability to write the law on our hearts, and provides additional gifts and blessing not experienced prior.

For the OT forgiveness of Sins William Lane says the following,

“Under the old covenant worshipers never experienced a definitive cleansing. The participle “cleansed” is qualified by “once and for all,” to distinguish a cleansing with finality from an experience of purgation that will have to be repeated. A decisive cleansing of the conscience is a prerequisite for unhindered access to God, and this has been achieved only by the sacrifice of Christ.”[1]

---

[1] Lane, William. World Biblical Commentary: Hebrews. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 261

Robert,
I'll grant Hamilton the right to define his own terms. But he is Dispensational, and that stance colors his read of the data in my judgment (I'm sure he would say the same of folks like me who disagree with him). I'm not going to consent to his proposition that indwelling and law-writing (to the heart) are purely "New-covenant" things. Seriously, I have more than a little discontent with the idea that there is any distance between regeneration and sanctification: which is cardio-nomic in the nature of the case, even in the OT.

As to the quote from Lane, I'll only take that so far. In the sense of waiting for fulfillment, true. But I deny that the OT saint could not know himself to be a forgiven child of God. The dynamics are different in the present time and in these NT conditions; but we too must "re-experience" the cleansing-not-to-be-repeated by faith, after we have sinned again (since the last time we were reminded of the cross). Subjectively, I must take advantage of the cross over and over. Not just remind myself when I have sinned: "O... right, no worries."

 

[Pilgrim]

I just wrote a research paper on this and have found that most of the words used in Hebrew for Joseph, Saul and David where interpreted as came upon, rested upon, clothed. So it seems like the spirit could not have indwelt the OT believers. The New Covenant promises found in Ezk 36 use words that indicate within, while the former typically means upon. Although I am not a Hebrew scholar and could have gotten this wrong. I did take this interpretation from the Strong's Concordance which I have understood to be reliable.

Another thing that my research lead me was the fact that the Old Testament believers were not fully forgiven until Christs death. They looked forward to a time when they would be forgiven as the sins were Passed-over. They looked forward to a time when they would be redeemed, while the New Testament church looks back upon the works of Christ.

I've not read Hamilton's book (mentioned in your OP), although in general from what I know he's no exegetical slouch, http://jimhamilton.info/ . He's SBTS, Calvinistic, and dispensational.

I don't have a whole lot to add here, but I thought I'd add my hoping that it might clarify some things.

Despite his position on this issue, Hamilton's theology in general isn't dispensational. He certainly isn't a covenantalist either. Many of the theology profs at SBTS seem to have embraced what they've termed "Progressive Covenantalism", which has a lot of similarities with New Covenant Theology. (It might be fair to say that it is more or less NCT in an academic setting, as most if not all of the early NCT writers were pastors.) I think they pretty explicitly see themselves as a via media between covenant theology and dispensationalism. In other words,, on the law and similar issues, they tend to be much closer to dispensationalism, but dispensationalists and others who teach that there is a continuing significance for national Israel WRT prophecy would say their ecclesiology and eschatology is replacement theology. Evidently Wellum and Gentry's "Kingdom Through Covenant" is the main book on this theology. I think Wellum now has published a volume entitled "Progressive Covenantalism." Some of them are not even premil, although Hamilton is.

(I know you and others here have no desire to misrepresent them and that in its current form it is also basically a new theology that probably wasn't even really formulated when you and others here would have been in seminary. It is a theology which most Presbyterians or even many Reformed Baptists might not have necessarily encountered or interacted with. But I think it is fair to note that to simply say Hamilton and those with similar views are dispensational without any qualification is going to result in a lot of these younger Baptist guys disregarding whatever else one has to say about their theology. To them, if a man is not a pre-tribber and if he doesn't think Israel is going to be restored to the land, etc., he isn't a dispensationalist regardless of whatever his view is on the law, one covenant of grace, etc. )

While I've read some of his material on this issue, I haven't finished that book either. In the beginning Hamilton says that he was surprised to come to the conclusions that he had and that he had expected to agree with the traditional Reformed view. I think his view on the indwelling of the Spirit is similar to Ryrie's on this. If that's true, then on this one particular issue at least it could be said that he takes a dispensational view. So if someone doesn't know much else about him, it's quite understandable to think that "this is a dispensational theologian."

I think that last commitment has the kind of impact on JMH's theology you would expect, just as one would expect covenant-theology to exercise a degree of control on mine. I don't know if he takes as hard a line as you seem to on the question of "indwelling," or if you are willing to grant some equivocation on the use of the word. But I suppose it would be consistent with dispensationalism if JMH hedged just a bit on OT vs. NT salvation, i.e. not seeing them as essentially one-and-the-same (though significantly related).

Given JMH's Calvinism, I doubt he denies the necessity of the Spirit in regeneration. It is OT theology as much as NT, a thing quite clear given the way Jesus marvels at Nicodemus' ignorance (he being THE teacher of Israel, Jn.3:10). I made it clear I don't think the Spirit in the OT had the kind of powerful-distribution that was a particular promise of the NT condition; but it seems to me like too much of a semantic straitjacket to confine the term "indwelling" to a NT description of his activity only, when I think the NT is describing the abundance of his manner, rather than the nature of his work.

You're right about his Calvinism and his view on regeneration. My understanding is that he makes a distinction between regeneration and indwelling. He says the OT saints were regenerated but not indwelt. I'm not sure about this point, but I think that he may say something like there was a presence of the Spirit with the regenerate in those days but that it fell short of the indwelling that began at Pentecost. Of course, Reformed people and others respond that this is an impossibility, that you can't have regeneration without indwelling. Whatever the implications of his view may be, he would dismiss any notion that his position necessarily leads to a "classic" dispensational teaching of two ways of salvation.

I think the issue with many is trying to figure out what is meant in texts like John 7:39, and they have concluded that it must mean that there was no indwelling until Pentecost. I think (as with dispensationalists) Psalm 51 is taken to be a reference to a theocratic or extraordinary OT indwelling seen with not only Saul but various Judges and so on. It is thought that in Psalm 51 that David had God's withdrawal of the Spirit from Saul in mind. Those like Hamilton (as well as thoroughgoing dispensational theologians) deny that one can be regenerate at one time but lose it later on.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Chris,
I appreciate your taking time to offer insight and input. It's important to be fair and accurate, and from my frame of reference JMH bears some of the distinctives of dispensationalism (in your words, has a dispensational view of X) in contrast to my covenant-theology. I would like my proposals regarding the line of thought he represents to be interpreted in light of additional data you set forth.

I'm sure that what looks consistent from the inside, yet from the outside (where I observe it) looks confused and irreconcilable at points. In my opinion, there has yet to be established a stable half-way house someplace between CT and Deut. But, I do say that where JMH gets it right, he is very insightful.

 

[zsmcd]

If you consider the Mead quote CMM offered in his second post, note the following words:




The great blessing of the Spirit, how sparingly was that given out at first,
to a very few in number,
and that in a small measure,
in so much that it is said comparatively, the Spirit was not given. It was not given, that is, in comparison of what was to be when Christ had ascended.



"Few," speaking of number; and "small measure," in reference to the Spirit's vigorous energies. We confess God knows no limits intrinsically; but the Spirit is often represented as acting according to observable capacities. Thus, given two vessels containing a single compound, ceteris paribus a vessel of less capacity contains "potency" equal to that of a greater one in one sense, but not in another. The Spirit's OT restraint is shown, is taught by this sign; so that the wait is properly rewarded when he is unleashed in the New Covenant.

I don't know how helpful this might be, but I am reminded of the contemporary use of the phrase "I am broke" or "I have no money" or even "I am poor." A friend might say "lets go to such and such as a place for dinner." We might respond "sorry, I can't, I am broke." Many times we might use these phrases when, indeed, we have money in the bank or in our wallet, but not much of it and not enough to spend on a $50 Brazilian buffet.

OT believers may have been indwelt with the Spirit in such a capacity that they were able to be regenerated, justified, sanctified and persevere in faith. But this indwelling is much different as compared to the pouring out of the Spirit in these last days (NC/NT), as previously mentioned.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

I just wrote a research paper on this and have found that most of the words used in Hebrew for Joseph, Saul and David where interpreted as came upon, rested upon, clothed. So it seems like the spirit could not have indwelt the OT believers. The New Covenant promises found in Ezk 36 use words that indicate within, while the former typically means upon. Although I am not a Hebrew scholar and could have gotten this wrong. I did take this interpretation from the Strong's Concordance which I have understood to be reliable.

Can you demonstrate this point? You have not given proof but only conjecture. What are some passages that you think would demonstrate your position?

They looked forward to a time when they would be forgiven as the sins were Passed-over.

Just one section should clear this up:

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. (Rom. 4)

Seems to me that you misunderstand greatly what scripture teaches concerning the workings of God. 1) one cannot be justified apart from faith, which we do not have of our own but given by God the Spirit. 2) You deny the immutability of God if you claim the Spirit did not indwell OT believers.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Bruce, your first post seems to conflict with the understanding of the WCF Matthew gives. Am I misunderstanding, or is there actually disagreement there? If there is, do you think you could interact directly with that section of the WCF and how it relates to this topic? I'm definitely sympathetic to the "eye-dropper" view, but Matthew's post has me rethinking that.

I'm not sure CMM and I are significantly disagreeing. We seem to agree the H.S. was working the same regenerating work, OT and NT, and that he remained with people to whom he applied the merits of the Lamb's blood (justification) to sanctify them. I can't tell from the shortness of what he wrote if CMM thinks with me that H.S. worked ordinarily in OT times in smaller measures (my "eyedropper" illustration) even with respect to individuals (not merely populations). It would not change the quality of his work to recognize this limited measure.

In my view, the measure of the Spirit's grant corresponds to that Pauline encouragement in the NT for typical believers to "be filled" with the Spirit. In OT terms, I doubt that this could be an "ordinary" summons. It does, however, fit with the enlarged capacity of one of the OT messianic types (prophet, priest, king), inasmuch as they needed to stir up their gifts and exercise them, fulfill their extraordinary callings, make use of the Spirit who was granted them in extraordinary measure; and in general forestall losing that privilege. "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me," Ps.51:11.

If you consider the Mead quote CMM offered in his second post, note the following words:

The great blessing of the Spirit,

how sparingly was that given out at first,
to a very few in number,
and that in a small measure,
in so much that it is said comparatively, the Spirit was not given. It was not given, that is, in comparison of what was to be when Christ had ascended.​

"Few," speaking of number; and "small measure," in reference to the Spirit's vigorous energies. We confess God knows no limits intrinsically; but the Spirit is often represented as acting according to observable capacities. Thus, given two vessels containing a single compound, ceteris paribus a vessel of less capacity contains "potency" equal to that of a greater one in one sense, but not in another. The Spirit's OT restraint is shown, is taught by this sign; so that the wait is properly rewarded when he is unleashed in the New Covenant.

If CMM and I are reading the Mead quote in the same way, he and I are hardly at odds. We don't disagree about the absolute quality of H.S.'s work. We don't think the Spirit worked harder in the OT, just to get one convert from the rocky soil. That's not the nature of his more limited presence in those days. Ordinary OT believers--those not appointed to typological work--weren't directed to seek "filling" of the Spirit in the way Paul seems to direct NT believers. Unless called to extraordinary service, they patiently grew in grace according to their immature capacity, as little children simply grow and hardly ever think about the limits of their powers relative to what they will become.

Not at odds.

"Everyone born of the Spirit" in the NT or OT is accomplished in the same manner. Christ is exceedingly clear with Nicodemus in John 3 that "everyone" is "everyone". Regeneration/Circumcision of the Heart/Indwelling is the same in the OT as it is in the NT. It's extent is different, not His operation on believers and those entering the kingdom of heaven.

Names of people in the OT don't amass to theological doctrine, nor should they. In the OT or the NT we don't have anyone amassing all the names coming up with some theological idea as a result.
Reading into Scripture that way will get you into all kinds of theological trouble. If I amass a number of Old Testament names of the children of believers, there are all sort of weird and strange theological ideas I could come up with if I rested on those names. Choosing a few and making theological doctrine from them in any way is BAD hermeneutics. Shall we start with Ichabod and say something about the departure of God? Or how about Isaac to prove the doctrine of laughing in the Spirit? Really? No.

THE WCF in chapter 7:
“WCF Chapter 7


5. This covenant [i.e., the covenant of grace] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament."

Essentially, the operation of the Spirit in the Old and New is the same. His extent is not limited to the sprinkling he did in the OT with the Jews. It extends further. Which is Jesus' rebuke to Nicodemus in John 3:10.

If you started with the Gospel of John 14:7, and you listen to Jesus, then listen to him all through that one Gospel. John 3 (Jesus' time) and John 14 (Jesus' time) is not only the same time, but Jesus rebukes Nicodemus for not understanding this in OT times. Same operation.