The Holy Spirit P2
So in my last post, I opened up the discussion regarding the work of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, and I considered what exactly changed with the resurrection of Christ and the New Covenant in the New Testament.
Specifically, I pointed out how Jesus taught explicitly about the Holy Spirit in John chapter 3, and then rebuked the Pharisee Nicodemus for being a teacher and not understanding these truths (obviously, from the Old Testament alone).
So today, I want to throw a few more questions out there to think on:
Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. – Acts 8:14-17
Here we have people who believed and were baptized in Jesus, but who had not yet had the Holy Spirit fall on them. This raises a few questions:
-Why, in the New Covenant and after Pentecost, had the Holy Spirit not 'fallen' on them?
-If we cross reference Matthew 16:17, we see that Peter verbally acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ. The passage teaches us that He did this not by his own power, but by the power of the Spirit. This is further explained in 1 Cor 12:3 where Paul teaches us that nobody can truly say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.
So, if we are Calvinists, and we believe that man is dead in his sin, and we believe that man cannot do good on his own, and that man cannot repent without the work of the Spirit, then how did these people confess Christ and even go to the length of being baptized without the work of the Spirit?
A Few of My Thoughts:
These people did have the Holy Spirit. In fact, they had the New Covenant/post-Pentecost Holy Spirit in the exact manner as we do today. That is proved by their conversion post-new covenant and post-Pentecost. However, in the above passage, it is noted that Philip was performing signs and great miracles (8:13), and these people were not. Thus, I believe that there is a distinction in the scriptures between the power of the Spirit to do supernatural things (tongues, heal, prophesy), and the indwelling of the Spirit that brings regeneration, faith, etc. Let me explain further:
So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. As for the word that he sent to
Above we see a reference to the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, and an affirmation that beginning with His baptism (the Holy Spirit, if you recall, fell upon Him in the form of a dove), He was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power.
So, we must ask ourselves: did Jesus perform signs and miracles before the baptism of John? No He did not, at least from any record in scripture. So then, was the Holy Spirit absent from Jesus until the baptism of John? Again, I would say no. The Spirit was with Him, being that He had perfect fellowship with the Father and was without sin, but the supernatural power of the Spirit to do signs was not given to Him until His baptism.
Conclusion:
I believe that the supernatural power to perform things such as tongues, prophecy, and healings, was a special pouring out of the Spirit during the time of the Apostles, and that there must be a distinction made between the indwelling of the Spirit, which all believers have, and the power of the Spirit to do wonders. If we read the book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament, we frequently see ‘the power of the Spirit’ being associated with the laying on of hands by the Apostles, or the specific pouring out of the Spirit in response to the Apostle’s teaching.
To back this up, I can point to at least a dozen or so Old Testament passages that speak of the gift of prophesy being given to unbelievers. Saul is one example, Balaam is another. But from these I think a case can be made that the 'power' of the Holy Spirit to perform supernatural things is different than the permanent indwelling of the Spirit promised to believers in the New Covenant.
Thus, I see Pentecost as an aberration of sorts. The Spirit has always been at work in the lives of believers, only now, we have been told that He does not depart from us. But just because He does not depart does not mean that the power to perform supernatural signs has been given for the entire church age. Simply put, I believe it is clear that it has been close to 2000 years since the miraculous gifts have been given to the church (great signs, wonders, healings, have obviously been absent). Just like in the Old Testament in the 400 years of silence, God Himself chooses when to pour out these things, and He has only done it during select times in the history of the world.
10 Exhortations:
"The Spirit has always been at work in the lives of believers, only now, we have been told that He does not depart from us."
The first part of this compound sentence is perfectly true.
The second part makes a completely unwarranted assumption: that the Spirit "departed" at times from Old Testament believers.
I think if you go ahead with your main thesis in this post, then you eliminate the need for that assumption. (i.e. Any "departing" of the Spirit you may point to is either in the case of an unbeliever like Saul, or it is a case of the "wonder-working" power being withdrawn for a time.)
The innovative thing about the New Testament indwelling of the Spirit is the not the fact of the indwelling itself: it is the fact that ALL true covenant members are indwelt (i.e. they are regenerate.)
Thanks for shooting me down, Gordan. :)
This issue with the Spirit is hard to figure out completely. For example, Piper holds to your view, MacArthur holds to mine. Personally, I'm not sure either way. I wrote this post more of a 'this is what I'm studying, correct me' kind of thing.
So, I would take it that in Psalm 51 David was talking about the annointing of the Spirit as on the king of Israel (like Saul)? Makes sense to me. I really can't say I disagree with you, it only appears to me that the 'departing' was the right position based on the language that scripture uses.
Ultimately, I completely agree with your assumption regarding the Spirit in the New Covenant. (I'm a baptist, that is).
SDG
I am sorry if I took a "shooting down" tone there. It was early in the morning, even pre-coffee.
I've thought about it more today and would like to suggest looking at the issue from the standpoint of Total Depravity, and also of Perserverance.
My point is that even once we are converted, we remain people with a nature that gravitates toward sin. The flesh still lusteth against the Spirit and all that.
So, hypothetically, if God was to remove the presence of the Holy Spirit from a genuine believer, the man would quickly become a genuine apostate. I mean that we are "kept saved" by the same thing that regenerates us: the immediate work and Presence of the Spirit. I'm suggesting the evidence is that the only thing that causes a believer to perservere to the end is the preserving, protecting, strengthening presence of God.
Thus, I have to question with vigor the idea that Old Testament saints didn't always have the Spirit abiding in them: how in the world would they remain saints, then?
Again, I'm sorry if my tone before sounded short. I only launch into an effort to change your opinion on a point of theology with a great deal of fear and trembling.
(And, by the way, my mind has also been taken up with trying to sort this stuff out--no easy task--and it was in fact this topic that caused my switch from Presbyterianism to Baptistic belief.)
Then again...we have to deal with all of this stuff that Jesus says about sending the Holy Spirit in John 14-16.
If what I'm reading here is true, then what is it specifically that makes the New Covenant better than the Old? (Compare 2Co 3:7-18, Jer 31:31-34, Joel 2:28-32, and Gal 3.) If you're going to talk about the work of the Spirit in the Old Testament you have to compare and contrast his work in the New Covenant with the purpose of the Law in the Old Covenant.
Jeremy,
Great thoughts! What is it that makes the New Covenant better? The Holy Spirit. You could be a full-fledged member of the Old Covenant just by being born into the right family. Being saved wasn't a part of the Old Covenant (meaning, it wasn't a necessary corollary: many Old Covenant members perished in their unbelief.)
The trouble with the Law as a covenant is that it made demands without supplying the ability to meet up with those demands. The New Covenant comes with the promise of the Spirit's empowering presence to every single member, allowing each one to walk in a manner worthy of the Gospel, in a manner that is truly pleasing to God. (Combine this with the "wonder working" function that Nathan has proposed, and I think John 14-16 is accounted for.)
The run-of-the-mill Israelite under the Old Covenant had no reason to hope for anything like that.
Those are my short answers to your questions at least.
But my point is, if the Holy Spirit was active under the Old Covenant in the same way that he is active now in the New Covenant, what reason is there for a change of Covenants?
In other words, if under the Old Covenant believers were enabled by the Spirit to be saints (specifically a work of the Spirit the New Covenant according to the above mentioned passages I believe) why must Christ inaugurate a New Covenant by his death? (I understand the need for the perfect sacrifice etc., but the question relates specifically to the need for a New Covenant if the Old would have done just as well).
It seems like this statement;
The trouble with the Law as a covenant is that it made demands without supplying the ability to meet up with those demands. The New Covenant comes with the promise of the Spirit's empowering presence to every single member, allowing each one to walk in a manner worthy of the Gospel, in a manner that is truly pleasing to God.
which I totally agree with, contradicts this earlier statement;
Thus, I have to question with vigor the idea that Old Testament saints didn't always have the Spirit abiding in them: how in the world would they remain saints, then?
Jeremy,
My suspicion early on in this discussion is that you and I are largely in agreement, but talking past each other. (Which, most of the time this has happened to me, is my fault for communicating poorly.)
I don't see how my two statements you quoted are contradictory at all. Maybe I need you to be very specific about that.
I am saying they fit together because of what the author of Hebrews says in 8:6 and following (the New Testament commentary on Jeremiah 31.)
Specifically, in answer to your questions, Hebrews 8:7 says that if the first covenant had been "faultless" there would have been no need for a New Covenant. There was a fault indeed. In the next verse it is there plainly: "For he finds fault with them when hi says..."
I'm saying the "fault" of the Old Covenant was a deficiency in the members of the Covenant. That is, they were unregenerate (predominately) and devoid of the Spirit, and the knowledge of God (which is, I think, explained in Hebrews 8:8-12.)
This is precisely why the Law was a ministry of death to them: they were law-breakers.
In the Old Covenant economy, you could be a believer without being a covenant member, and vise versa.
The New Covenant is better in that it promises that each member will know the Lord, and therefore have the Spirit within him.
I believe that is the explicit teaching of Hebrews 8.
The fault was with the people, and the better promises of the New Covenant were made in order to change the sort of people who are covenant members.
Gordan,
I think I may agree with you. Are you basically saying that the difference between the Old Covenant and the New is not the fact that constituents of the NC have the the law written in their hearts. This, in of itself, was not 'new.' After all, members of the Old Covenant had the law written in their hearts also, if they were indeed regenerate. I mean, who could read Psalm 119, and not believe that the law was written on the heart of King David?
Therefore, the novelty of the NC was one of exclusivity: ALL members of the NC have the law written in their hearts whereas in the OC, this was not the case.
And this "writing of the Law in the hearts" is tantamount to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.
Is this kinda' what you are saying, or have I completely missed your point?
David,
I think you've got me basically right. I was thinking it might help if I defined my terms a little bit more succinctly.
Old Covenant "Member": a citizen of ancient Israel, who is instructed to keep the Law of Moses. Historically, the vast bulk of these individuals were not saved. The Law for them was a thing of death, written merely on tablets of stone.
Old Testament "Believer": A regenerate individual before the coming of Christ. In the examples of Rahab and David, we see that membership in the Mosaic Covenant was not a prerequisite for saving faith. David was in the covenant when he believed: Rahab was not when she displayed genuine faith. However, the confusion comes because most of these individuals we see after Moses were indeed Covenant Members as well as Believers. I don't know how more clearly to say this: we get into trouble when we equate the two categories.
And, David, you make a huge, important point about Psalm 19, and 119, and similar places: The Law of God is not, repeat NOT, an instrument of death in the life of one who has been justified by faith. What makes the "holy, just, and perfect" law a bringer of death and condemnation is the sinfulness, the degenerate nature, of the person who receives it.
I think this is the only way to make sense of the fact that the very same law that Paul calls a minister of death, is elsewhere referred to as that which revives the soul (Psalm 19:7) and as a God-breathed thing that is "profitable" to the man of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
It is death to us when it exposes our depravity, and when we seek to be justified by keeping it. But to the redeemed soul who comes to it as to the Word of God, it is sweeter than honey and more valuable than gold. (Psalm 19:10)
Gordan,
Excellent summary! I agree wholeheartedly. The issue of the law within each covenant is something that both dispensationals and New Covenant theologians often completely butcher.
SDG
Post a Comment