# The Holy Spirit indwelling to not in OT



## Matthew1344 (Jun 17, 2016)

> Rivers of Living Water
> 
> 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. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” 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.*
> 
> ...



Here is a question for the people that believe the Holy Spirit indwelled OT saints ( I lean to this camp ). What do you see this verse to be saying?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 17, 2016)

It has to be taken in a non-absolute sense. The OT mentions the H.S. in some sense "given" (or else how can he be "taken" ala Ps.51:11?). And see Is.63:11; Hag.2:5. Jn.7:39 has to refer to a particular "giving," and not to H.S.'s timeless work especially of regeneration and sanctification.

So the sense is surely comparative, and the subject focus is the future Resurrection/Ascension/Pentecost hour fulfilling Joel 2:28-29, & etc. We've said before that the greatest degree of H.S. presence in the OT was demonstrated by the typological mediators, e.g. Dan.4:8; but with the dawning of the NT age comes a general outpouring, "all flesh." Just as that statement obviously does not mean every last human being receives the H.S. (and thus universal grace/salvation), we understand the sense of a particular passage is conditioned by the fullness of revelation.

Jn.7:37-39 has Jesus confirming or underscoring the looming prophetic fulfillment of his victorious accomplishment and its promised results. The general blessing is bound to come as a sign the Messianic age is arrived. The H.S. could not "flow" from a heart (whose? "anyone's?" Jesus'? interpretations vary) copiously before the appointed time.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Jun 17, 2016)

Thank you for your response! You are one of my favorite contributors on the board. 

I really want to understand what you are saying, so forgive me, but i have a couple questions. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> It has to be taken in a non-absolute sense. The OT mentions the H.S. in some sense "given" (or else how can he be "taken" ala Ps.51:11?). And see *Is.63:11; Hag.2:5*. Jn.7:39 has to refer to a particular "giving," and *not to H.S.'s timeless work especially of regeneration and sanctification.*



First, we see that in the OT passages referenced that God in his scriptures is speaking about the Holy Spirit dwelling with Israel, not actually indwelling the hearts of the people. Right?

Secondly, Are you saying that Jesus, in John 7, is not referring to the Holy Spirit being given as our indwelling seal? If so, can you speak a little more on what Jesus was meaning the role of the Spirit would be in the believers life after he died?

Here is how i am reading it...

On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, â€œIf anyone thirsts (poor in Spirit), let him come to me and drink (believe). Whoever believes in me (believes), as the Scripture has said, â€˜Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.â€™ (The Holy Spirit Indwelling)â€ 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 (has not indwelled yet), because Jesus was not yet glorified (ascended).

**Obviously the red is me**

(John 7:37-39 ESV)

But the way i am seeing it, totally contridicts the doctrine of Total Depravity. How could anyone before the ascension be saved, fight sin, be sanctified, life by faith, etc, apart from the Holy Spirit conforming the inner heart by taking residence in the inner heart. But i don't want to be a systematic theology guy, i want to be a bible guy.




Contra_Mundum said:


> We've said before that the greatest degree of H.S. presence in the OT was demonstrated by the typological mediators, e.g. Dan.4:8;



Are you saying that the Spirit only dwelled in the "types" but not in the rest of the believers and Pentecost is when the Holy Spirit started indwelling all believers.



Contra_Mundum said:


> The H.S. could not "flow" from a heart (whose? "anyone's?" Jesus'? interpretations vary) copiously before the appointed time.


What do you mean? Sorry, can you say it another way? I think you are saying that The Holy Spirt didn't take residence in the heart of a man until the messianic era.


----------



## timfost (Jun 17, 2016)

Thanks, Bruce. Below is my thought process on the issue. Please correct me if I am wrong. 

*1.* The miracles that accompanied the apostles and apastolic times were unique.

Heb. 2:4:



> God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will..."



2 Cor. 12:12



> Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds.



*2.* We cannot say that believers _now_ have the Spirit _in the same way as_ the apostles did, since we don't exercise these particular miracles of attestation.

Acts 14:3



> "...speaking boldly in the Lord, who was bearing witness to the word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.



*3.* The work of the Spirit that was prophesied was manifested at Pentacost, poured out on "all flesh" was likewise different from both OT believers and those living now after God's written Word was finished.

Acts 1:8:



> But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.



*4.* These miracles were consistent with the OT mandate that a prophet was to show a sign. The sign was a demonstration of the validity of the prophet _only_ when the prophet's testimony was consistent with the Word.

Deut. 13:1-3:



> If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.



*5.* Therefore, John 7:37-39 (quoted in the OP) is to be understood in the context of the _particular manifestation_ of the Spirit in the NT as it related to God-given authority of the apostles and the completion of the canon of scripture.

Thoughts?


----------



## zsmcd (Jun 17, 2016)

> Are you saying that the Spirit only dwelled in the "types" but not in the rest of the believers and Pentecost is when the Holy Spirit started indwelling all believers.


I think what he is saying is that the Spirit indwelt believers in the OT but indwelt with more _fullness_ in the types (mediators, priests, prophets, kings, etc.). In the NC age, the Spirit indwells all believers in the fullness, if not more, that the types held. (Joel 2) I cannot remember the book, but I remember one reformed author speaking of the Hebrews 8 quote of Jeremiah 31 as showing that in the NC _all_
believers "know the Lord" in the way the OT priests would have, in that we are able to "draw near" to him and know him in much more fullness as the priests would have. Hope this helps.


----------



## timfost (Jun 17, 2016)

Matthew1344 said:


> But i don't want to be a systematic theology guy, i want to be a bible guy.



Ideally, a "systematic theology guy" _*is*_ a "bible guy."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 17, 2016)

Matthew1344 said:


> First, we see that in the OT passages referenced [*Is.63:11; Hag.2:5*] that God in his scriptures is speaking about the Holy Spirit dwelling with Israel, not actually indwelling the hearts of the people. Right?


My first response would be to point out that there's your original question, and Jn.7:37-39 adduced as if it might present a challenge of some kind (as some feel this way) to the idea that Spirit-indwelling is not an exclusively NT/post-Pentecost phenomenon. What I did was highlight the specific terms of v39 and compare them to specific terms of the OT, in order to prove there's no _prima facie_ case from Jn.7 establishing that Spirit-indwelling IS an exclusively NT/post-Pentecost phenomenon. Plain language does not support that conclusion, but is a _theological_ conclusion for the meaning of this text based on prior convictions (perhaps the idea that "given" and "indwelling" are synonyms? not an obvious inference from Jn.7 alone).

Second, what does it mean that the H.S. dwelt with/among/in the midst of Israel in the OT as the prophets claim; and does that meaning _preclude_ the idea of personal indwelling or make it _more plausible_? A non-nuanced comparison would simply take the prophets' statements and John's, and put them at odds: i.e. the Spirit was already given and the Spirit was not yet given. Since all sides rule out the contradiction, clearly Jn.7 needs the benefit of theological interpretation. It's terms do not decide the challenge posed.

So yes, the prophetic texts speak of Israel as a singular, collective body possessed of Holy Spirit's presence; and do not address individual personal members. A thing predicated of a whole is not necessarily true of each part separately; neither something of a part that is (in exactly the same way) true of a whole. Still, certainly individual OT Spirit-presence cannot be denied on the basis of those texts; and in fact they supply a portion of the basis for analogous individual OT Spirit-possession.

How was the Spirit present in the OT corporate body? Did he hang over the land or its population as a "fog," or was he only "carried" by certain individuals? How much of a dichotomy should be set up between the Spirit's external and internal workings on individuals in the OT? Remember too that Jn.3:5-10 is spoken to an OT instructor of OT theology, and Jesus rebukes Nicodemus' dullness respecting the doctrine of the Spirit's work.



Matthew1344 said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > Jn.7:39 has to refer to a particular "giving," and *not to H.S.'s timeless work especially of regeneration and sanctification.*
> ...



Let's distinguish between 1) what Jesus says, and means; and 2) John's commentary on the words of Jesus.

Jesus makes a self-referential declaration in v37 (an abbreviated hypothetical syllogism containing a twofold invitation). I think he identifies himself with the rock that gave relief to the Israelites in the wilderness, see 1Cor.10:4; cf. Ex.17:6. v38 sets forth a promise, the most natural read of it (to my mind) being that the water from the rock that was formerly all outside shall be found within (not ultimately _sourced_ within); meaning the one possessing of it would never thirst again, cf. Jn.4:10,14; Ezk.47:9. In this case the abundance of the flow is noteworthy, indicating the believer becomes an overflowing dispensary of God's good gifts. The reference to Scripture is a general allusion to the rich benefits of the Kingdom, see Is.58:11; cf. 12:3. The figure found in the promise depends on proper understanding of the figure in the declaration. Christ is the original rock that slaked the people's thirst; apart from faith-union with him there is no blessing that will come forth from the life of the believer.

John then comments upon Jesus' declaration and promise. He explains how the full appreciation of Jesus words is understood truly and best in the aftermath of the outpouring of Pentecost. On the day Jesus spoke, he had more in mind than the blessings available that day, and to those limited numbers who could hear him "cry out." He would needs ascend and be glorified post-resurrection in order to fully realize this gift.

As you colorize your understanding of Jesus' words and John's explanation, I observe how you 1) make "coming" and "drinking" one thing, rather than perhaps seeing in the _drinking_ of Christ the life arising from faith-union with him; and 2) "believing" is made a synonym of the previous act(s), "water" is _identified as_ the "Spirit," and "flowing" is _understood_ as "indwelling." To my mind, none of that is very precise; but you assign John's commentary-term "Spirit" a specific value from Jesus' speech (water); I simply don't think that was the intent. Spirit-indwelling produces godly fruit, produces godly words, supplies blessing (a distinction between the Worker and his works); but none of these things of genuine quality have EVER come from any other Source even in OT times.

What I'm driving at is this: I recognize you want to be a "Bible-guy;" that's a good thing. Catch yourself, then, in assumed connections. I could also be wrong about your connections, but think with me: "flowing" is the text and "indwelling" is your explanation--do those terms convey the same basic notion? There is a natural effort at "systematization" going on all the time in the head. Some pattern in your mind, some prior conviction has led you, unreflectively perhaps, to associate these ideas in this context and in a particular way. Perhaps they are related, but could they be related in another way from what your instinct told you? But they definitely are not the same term.

I wouldn't be so wary (skeptical?) of the safeguards that good ST erects to help us filter our interpretations. Better the ST you are self-conscious of than our unacknowledged assumptions. "Spirit not yet given" probably means something other than He was not indwelling believers in the OT; or if you must consider "indwelling" as a more technical NT, post-Pentecost term; you will need some other expression that does justice in describing OT saints and what they had and knew of divine grace and enablement.




Matthew1344 said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > We've said before that the greatest degree of H.S. presence in the OT was demonstrated by the typological mediators, e.g. Dan.4:8;
> ...


I'm saying that "the least in the kingdom of heaven" knows a form of NC blessings that those in the first-rank of OT saints had but a foretaste of. Prophets, priests, and kings of Israel had giftings of the Spirit for the performance of their duties that far exceeded the ordinary possession of lay-saints. This was in order to prefigure the Son who had the Spirit without measure. The same Son has now poured out his Spirit, so that the saints generally are enriched. To illustrate, think of how most poor westerners have running water and electricity in their homes, with appliances that would make many kings and nobles of old time green with envy.

I'm saying that possession is one thing, lack of possession is another; and that wealth is a largely relative measure. OT lay-saints as a class and OT mediators as a class had different measures of the H.S. from each other; and somewhat different measure of H.S. presence generally then (OT) than the measure generally now (NT). But the same H.S.



Matthew1344 said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > The H.S. could not "flow" from a heart (whose? "anyone's?" Jesus'? interpretations vary) copiously before the appointed time.
> ...


No, I'm saying that some people interpret Jn.7:38, pronoun "HIS" (belly), as reference to Jesus' "me" rather than the "believer" in the beginning of the v. I think "believer" is the best antecedent for the pronoun; but you can't really appreciate what this means until you have seen that v37 implies that Jesus is the rock from which interior flowed the life-saving water. I see v38 expressing the forthcoming reality, when run-of-the-mill believers will stand out as imitators of the true Rock.

And I'm saying that the life of Christ/Spirit which OT saints did have was generally of such a small measure there was little to overflow unto others, unless one was THE Rock, or a type of the Mediator who was to come, to whom saints resorted for new blessings. Like all water in the desert, it needed conservation. But now, such is the nature of the Pentecostal gift that the water (which I would more define as blessings of covenant/Spirit than H.S. himself) is abundantly present now. Believers conserve it less because it is so plentiful.


Hope these thoughts are helpful.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 17, 2016)

timfost said:


> 5. Therefore, John 7:37-39 (quoted in the OP) are to be understood in the context of the particular manifestation of the Spirit in the NT as it related to God-given authority of the apostles and the completion of the canon of scripture.
> 
> Thoughts?



Tim, 
I'm not convinced that Jesus _*outcry*_ in the Temple (presumably) was meant to convey reference solely to Pentecost proper and to the unique apostolic gifting for them and on that occasion.

Your observations on the other texts appear to be good ones, I agree with the tenor of them regarding the unique ministry of the Apostles, their gifts, the reason for signs, etc.

I just don't think Jesus means to concentrate the promise referred to on the inception of the NC age (Pentecost) or the first (Apostolic) era; but it is generally true for the Messianic Kingdom age.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Jun 18, 2016)

Thanks guys!


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 18, 2016)

I don't mean to detract or distract from Rev. Buchanan's excellent handling of the matter; but I want to point out that we should always remember that the Holy Spirit is omnipresent, and is always fully present everywhere. Thus, when the figurative language of "indwelling," "pouring out," etc. is used, we ought to remember that it is just that--figurative. Metaphysically speaking, the Spirit is no more present in believers that he is in unbelievers, or rocks, or trees, or chimpanzees. What is meant by such language of "indwelling," then, must be an _effectual presence,_ by which believers are gifted and equipped in particular ways.

The figurative usage may be illustrated in this way: If a man is preparing for combat of some sort, he may say to those around him, "Who is with me?!" He is not to be understood as saying, "Who is in my presence?" but "Who is on my side, and willing to aid me?"


----------

