Why is the Holy Spirit so important today?

“Without the Spirit we can neither love God, nor keep His commandments.”  

The doctrine of the Holy Spirit is like any other mainline doctrine, both saturated with variety and overflowing with controversies. The Holy Spirit, being God, makes a rather unruly subject matter in that He is too incomprehensibly vast for us to tackle with full authority, especially in the brevity of this paper. As Clark Pinnock writes,

In fact, of the themes of theology, the Spirit may be the most elusive of all. How does one speak at all of the power that enables us to know God? How can one put the Spirit-breath into a conceptual bottle? Yet, the graciously given presence of the Spirit is surely the most wonderful thing one experiences and that which brings God unspeakably close. 

Yet scripture provides both a reasonable description of what the Holy Spirit’s interaction with His creation is, and what we might have as a standard expectation for our own understanding and teaching. 

Regarding our own understanding of the Spirit, the question exists: Were Old Testament believers permanently indwelt, or were they momentarily empowered for specific tasks? 

We examine the etymology of the Biblical words for Spirit. Then discuss the occasions where the Holy Spirit is shown to be interacting with individuals personally. 

Thirdly, we contrast New Testament occurrences of the Holy Spirit with Old Testament occurrences to see if there is a clearly identifiable difference. 

Finally, we will attempt to provide a reasonable conclusion about whether or not the Spirit indwelt Old Testament believers. This research will be founded on the assumption that the Holy Spirit is God, one with the Father and the Son, and though spoken of distinctly, He is in no way separate from the fullness of who God is. Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Holy Spirit's place therein will be assumed.

To define our terms at the outset, the term "indwelling" will refer to the permanent state of a believer being filled fully and irrevocably by the Spirit of God. 

The other side of the argument would suggest that believers in the Old Testament were not permanently filled with the Holy Spirit, but that the Spirit of God came upon men and women to perform specific tasks, or to provide a leader in a specific role, and was only granted for the duration of that task or role. 

This would also be to state that at any time before or after said task/role, the Old Testament saints were not filled with the Holy Spirit regardless of their salvic position. While a “task” is to be defined as work that is of limited duration according to a specific need, we will also define the term “role” as a task that is semi-permanent due to the consistent need for work towards such task. 

Such an example would be Samson having a momentary surge of supernatural strength (task) as opposed to David being empowered by the Spirit for the duration of His life as King (role). The terms “task” and “role” are both used with the assumption that the work of the Spirit for such a task or role is temporary and revocable (in contrast to being indwelt).

Questioning the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit

This controversy surrounding how God has interacted and intervened with believers in the Old Testament is summarised best by Robert V. McCab,

Did Old Testament believers, as a necessary part of their sanctification, experience the Spirit’s permanent indwelling ministry? This has been answered in two antithetical ways: The Spirit either indwelt Old Testament believers or he did not. 

Authors such as Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Arthur W. Pink believe that saints have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit across every age. Kaiser expresses the belief that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was not the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as an unprecedented act, but simply an empowerment of gifts to those who were already indwelt. Kaiser accepts that there was an outpouring of gifts not readily available to people before Pentecost, yet he rejects a “new-indwelling” theology; Kaiser expresses this conflict in his book saying, 

To be sure, there was general agreement on the Spirit’s work in an individual’s regeneration, for the incident of Nicodemus in John’s gospel, chapter 3, seemed to easily secure that conclusion, especially since it took place in a time before the death, burial and resurrection of Messiah. Where the agreement stopped, however, was over the question as to whether the Old Testament believer had an abiding experience of the Holy Spirit’s presence in the believer’s life. 

Kaiser also asserts that to live a life of faith towards God, even before Christ, believers must have been indwelt by the Spirit, corresponding well with 1 Corinthians 2:14,

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Arthur W. Pink also brings this issue to light, 

But how shall men be sanctified to be suited unto the presence of an infinitely pure God? By nature, they are utterly without holiness: they are “corrupt, filthy, and unclean things.” They have no more power to make themselves holy than they have to create a world. We could tame a tiger from the jungle far more easily than we could our lusts. We might empty the ocean more quickly than we could banish pride from our souls. We might melt marble more readily than our hard hearts. We might purge the sea of salt more easily than we could our beings of sin. “For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before Me, saith the Lord God” (Jer. 2:22). 

The concern is fair. If the Spirit gives spiritual life, which we must receive to gain entrance to God’s Kingdom according to Jesus' own words in John 3, how could the Old Testament saints have walked in faith without Him? John Piper also holds to the view of Kaiser and Pink saying, 

This means that all the saints of the OT who trusted God and followed his ways in the obedience of faith were born again by the Spirit and indwelt by the Spirit. For example, Numbers 14:24 says of Caleb, "My servant Caleb, because he has a different Spirit and has followed me fully, I will bring into this land." And Numbers 27: 18 says, "And the Lord said to Moses, 'Take Joshua the son of Nun, in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand upon him.'" The OT believers were saved the same way we are: they were born of the Spirit, they trusted in God's promises, and they followed his commandments in the obedience of faith. 

Hebrew Etymology of Spirit

Studying the Hebrew etymology for Spirit will provide grounds for further study into whether or not Old Testament saints were indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The first occurrence of the Spirit appears in Genesis 1:2, “but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.” The Hebrew word for “Spirit” here is ruwach, which means primarily spirit, breath, or wind. Strong’s definition for this word is as follows,

rûwach, roo'-akh; from H7306; wind; by resemblance breath, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively, life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension, a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions):—air, anger, blast, breath, × cool, courage, mind, × quarter, × side, spirit(-ual), tempest, × vain, (whirl-) wind(-y). 

The Biblical usage of the word also points back primarily to God in its other forms. The Blue Letter Bible’s Lexicon presents the various forms of the word usage, including breath (including the breath of God), wind (including wind of heaven), and then as spirit, which is further categorised into several sections, including spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and animals) as gift, preserved by God, God's spirit, departing at death, spirit (as the seat of emotion), spirit as the seat of mental acts or moral will, and finally as the Spirit of God, the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son, as inspiring ecstatic state of prophecy, as impelling prophet to utter instruction or warning, imparting warlike energy and executive and administrative power, as endowing men with various gifts, as energy of life, as manifest in the Shekinah glory, and as never referring to as a depersonalized force (emphasis added). 

The specification of the Spirit never being “referred to as a depersonalised force” is a powerful statement in binding this word to the Holy Spirit as its origin. Of course, in Genesis 1:2 it specifically states that the ruwach is the ruwach of Elohiym, being the plural form of Elowahh, meaning Supreme God. As we see in the following passages, Elohiym is shown to speak forth creation. In this narrative, the Spirit of God is seen as active and ready, waiting to participate in the act of creation, as the phrase “moving over the surface of the water” in Genesis 1:2 suggests. Christopher Wright also emphasises the active power of the Spirit in creation, saying,

Wind blows; it does not “hover.” So we are not just being told that it was a bit windy back at the beginning. Rather we are being told that the powerful Spirit of God was hovering, poised for action. The word “hovering” in Hebrew is used of an eagle hovering in the sky, poised, alert and watchful, ready for instant action to catch its fledglings. In Deuteronomy 32:11 it is a metaphor for God watching over his people. 

The next direct account of the Spirit doesn’t appear again until Genesis 3:8, where God is seen moving about “at the breezy time of the day.” Here, ruwach is being translated as wind (breezy), but it is possible to translate ruwach differently; another possible translation would be that God “was moving about the garden in the Spirit that day,” rather than “moving at the breezy time of the day.” For the translation, “moving about” does not inherently imply “walking” as other translations may use, but simply the idea that Elohiym was moving, halak, in some sense.  Also, ruwach, meaning breath, spirit, wind, must be translated according to its available definitions, as well as the context of the passage, the paired subject matter, and in relation to the other words within the scripture. 

So, whether God was actually “walking about in the breezy part of the day” (implying Him there in physical form), rather than “moving about… in the Spirit that day,” could be debatable. This example shows possible complications in the translation of ruwach, unless specifically paired and addressed in context, such as the “Spirit of God,” ruwach ‘elohiym. 

It may not hold much importance to the reader whether God was moving in the Spirit or walking through in the breeze of the day; however, the way a text is translated can change the reader’s perspective on a passage. For example, James Montgomery Boice, in his commentary on Genesis 3:8, suggests that God’s walking in the coolness or breeze of the day, rather than coming at night, depicts His soft fatherly discipline even amid the human fall.

God sometimes speaks in judgment; then the voice is terrifying. But this was not the case in Eden. Everything in God’s manner was as before. He came into the garden rather than descending from heaven in some spectacular show of displeasure. He was walking, not running. He arrived in the cool of the day, the most pleasant time, rather than in the heat of the afternoon or in the dark of night, when all human fears seem doubly fearful. 

This interpretation is contrasted in perspective to a proposed translation from J.J. Niehaus, who studies this passage, considering the Akkadian word umu, which is derived from the Hebrew word yom, 

But a second umu in Akkadian means “storm” and appears often in divine epithets. The God Minurta is referred to as “the great storm [umu rabu] …” Akkadian umu is often used with theophanic overtones. What if the same were true of Hebrew yom II, “storm”? 

Such an interpretation understands the enigmatic phrase… to mean not “the cool of the day,” but “in the wind of the storm.” The storm wind is the advancing presence of Yahweh. He advances in terrible theophany, in judgment, just like the gods Minurta, Assur, or Bel in the Akkadian literature. 

In Niehaus’ view, God is not pictured as taking an afternoon stroll through the orchard, but as coming in a powerful windstorm to confront the man and woman with their rebellion. In this case, the “sound of the LORD” could, according to Niehaus, refer to God’s thunderous roar. 

Adam’s fear being directed at his nakedness (vs. 10) rather than God’s terrifying presence might deter us from the “storming through the garden” view, but at the very least, we see the struggle found in the interpretation of ruwach and how it might affect our view of a passage. Anthony C. Thiselton writes concerning the variety of the Hebrew word ruwach on page 19 of his book, “A Shorter Guide to the Holy Spirit.”

In the same way, the Hebrew rûaḥ, like the Greek pneuma, may denote either the Spirit of God or the spirit within human beings. Van Pelt counts 387 occurrences of rûaḥ in the OT, and comments, “Since ruach has such a broad range of meanings, it is difficult to capture its semantic breadth with a single term or phrase.” Some refer to the latter as the “anthropological” meanings of spirit. Clearly, the OT uses both meanings, and they easily cause confusion and debate.

Ruwach is not the only term used to identify the Spirit of God; however, Ruwach, in referring to the Spirit, can also mean breath or wind, and in Genesis 2:7, “the LORD God formed the man from the solid of the ground and breathed in his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” The words for “breathed” and “breath of life” are naphach, to breathe or blow, and nĕshamah, breath or spirit (either of God or man). 

So, while naphach and nĕshamah themselves do not exclusively hold a divine connotation, the context may show, as in the above-quoted verse, that they mark not just air, but the life-giving power of God’s Spirit. So, we see a correlation of ruwach and nĕshamah as breath, or spirit (breath of life), which is defined more specifically in context.  Another example would be in Genesis 6:17, where God destroys everything with the “breath (ruwach) of life in them.” 

Ruwach, in this context, points back to the spirit of life within mankind rather than the full Spirit of God. When we speak of the Spirit of God acting in, on, or through people, however, the implication of whose spirit is being spoken of tends to be identified in context and is therefore less ambiguous.

Holy Spirit and the Old Testament Figures

The following section will look at the cases in which Ruwach is used specifically as God’s Spirit in relation to human interaction to find if the Holy Spirit indwelt Old Testament believers, as Kaiser, Pink, and Piper believe, or if the Holy Spirit was granted as a temporary empowerment for specific tasks. 

In Genesis 41:38, quite some time after the garden episode, there is the first mention of God’s Spirit residing in someone. After the interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream by Joseph, and his advice to Pharaoh to appoint a man of wisdom over such matters, Pharaoh spoke, “Can we find a man like Joseph, one in whom the Spirit of God is present?” This is the first time someone has been spoken of as having God’s Spirit within him. What does Pharaoh mean when he says that the Spirit of God is present in Joseph? 

Allen P. Ross writes that because Joseph was identified as Hebrew, being used by God for a task that was otherwise unanswerable, it pointed Pharaoh back to the God of Joseph and proved that He was active in Joseph's life and sovereign over the events of history,

If the ruler of Egypt had the dreams and obtained their interpretation through God's servant, then he would know for sure that God was sovereignly controlling his land and that Joseph was God's spokesman. 

Ross also writes,

Pharaoh recognised immediately that this was the man to use, for the "Spirit of God" (ruah elohim) was in him (v. 38). He could conclude only that since God had revealed all this interpretation to Joseph, there was none who was as discerning and wise (nabon wehakam) as Joseph. Pharaoh thus decreed that Joseph would be in charge of the affairs of Egypt; only Pharaoh himself would be over him... To signify this new status, Pharaoh gave Joseph a new name, which has generally been interpreted to mean, "God speaks and lives." 

Though Ross sheds light on the interpretation of "Spirit of God," he does not make mention whether or not Joseph is indwelt in a permanent state. James Montgomery Boice, on the other hand, may be implying his opinion on the matter by referring to the Spirit as "coming upon" Joseph,

This is the first mention in the Bible of the Holy Spirit’s coming upon a man. Later it occurs a great deal (cf. Exod. 31:3-5; 35:30-31) and comes to a climax in God’s pouring out his Spirit upon all believers at Pentecost in fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 (cf. Acts 2:1-21). Here the Holy Spirit comes upon Joseph to enable him to govern the greatest of nation of his time. 

Furthermore, Kretzmann only touches the subject briefly, simply stating, "[Pharaoh] acknowledged the divine illumination, supernatural understanding, and wisdom of Joseph."  In Kretzmann's sole comment for this verse, he points only to a divine illumination, not an indwelt state. And finally, Keil and Delitzsch phrase the situation more specifically, defining Pharaoh's use of the term "Spirit of God" to refer specifically to "the spirit of supernatural insight and wisdom."  Whether or not Joseph was indwelt or situationally inspired is not supported well enough by the passage or the surrounding context for us to make a conclusion. 

Though Joseph is alone in Genesis as one being empowered directly by God’s Spirit, there are several others past Genesis who are shown to experience the presence of God's Spirit in some way. Following the narrative, no other prophet is seen within Israel until the time of Moses. After fleeing Egypt to the land of Midian, God called to Moses from a burning bush as Moses was shepherding (Ex. 3:1-4:17). 

There, God commanded Moses to go back and be His spokesman both to Pharaoh and to all the people of Israel. At the time of God’s calling and imparting of authority to Moses, he became a prophet, but the scriptures never point to, or directly state, that Moses ever received the Spirit of God within Him, nor that He had any relationship to the Spirit beforehand. 

There is, however, the statement that God makes in Exodus 3:12 saying, “Surely I will be with you…” In addition to this statement, God shows Moses His power and His plan to do signs and wonders in accordance with Moses’ obedience by turning his rod into a snake, making his hand leprous and then whole again, and promising to turn water into blood (Ex. 4:1-9). 

All these things happened as God spoke to Him through an external appearance, and these signs were done by God with Moses as a chosen bystander, yet in all these things, there is no indication of the Spirit indwelling Moses.

It is not until the Israelites have entered the wilderness led by Moses that any claim is made of Moses at least having God’s Spirit on or with him (as God said, “I will be with you”). 

The first occurrence of this is in Numbers 11:17, where the Lord says to Moses concerning his elders, “Then I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take part of the spirit that is on you and will put it on them…” (emphasis added). 

So, we see that the Lord acknowledges that Moses has the Spirit, but specifically that the Spirit is on him, and that the Spirit that is on him will rest on the others. Even in the imparting of the Spirit to the elders, we see men who were already God’s people, and already elders, being given the Spirit to rest upon them for a specific duration of time that they might fulfil a specific task: to guide the people with supernatural wisdom. This does not come with great signs and wonders done by their hands, nor do they become prophets crying out in the wilderness; they receive impartation to fulfil a role. 

The power of the Spirit was not readily available before this moment, nor was it available to the whole body; it was specific and limited. Baruch A. Levine seems to agree with a limited empowerment rather than a permanent indwelling as well, writing,

In Numbers 11, the charismatic principle is prominent, and although it is not limited to Moses, it is controlled by him nonetheless. Here, the elders are the group from which the leaders are chosen. The seventy are to be selected from a larger group of elders. They are, in effect, the elders whom Moses considers to be the true leaders of the people (Num. 11:16). He registers their names, and the spirit of YHWH invests only those whose names were registered by Moses (Num. 11:26). 

This is aided by Num. 11:26, stating that after prophesying when the Spirit of the Lord fell upon the elders, they "never did so again." Moses’ own words become a witness too, when he says that he wishes that “all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them” (Num. 11:29). Moses’ desire for all people to have the Spirit upon them would seem to paint a clear picture that it was simply not the case. Levine further exegetes Numbers 11 as follows,

Is the conferral of the spirit, expressed by the verb nuah, conceived as permanent or ephemeral? Num. 11:25 informs us that the elders did not continue to experience prophetic ecstasy, but clearly, the spirit withdrawn from Moses and conferred on them had altered their status permanently. The spirit that had settled on them endowed them with the continuing capability of sharing responsibility with Moses in governing the people. Their ecstasy was a passing experience, but their status, and presumably their new competence, were permanent. 

In Exodus, there are others who are recorded as being specially gifted by the Spirit of God. In Exodus 28-35, the word ruwach appears four times (Ex. 28:3, 31:3, 35:21, 35:31), and all but one (35:21) use the phrase “filled with the Spirit.” 

In Ex. 28:3, God describes men who have been filled with the “Spirit of wisdom” to create the priestly garments, and in Ex. 31:1-11 God describes filling Bezalel and Oholiab with the “Spirit of God” for the sake of wisdom, skill, and craftsmanship to fulfil the specific building and crafting requirements for the Tabernacle. Finally, Ex. 35:31 repeats the account of Bezalel and Oholiab. Concerning this special filling of God's spirit, George Bush writes,

It is clearly intimated, however, by the connected phrase, 'whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom,' that the epithet implies more than the mere native gifts and endowments which might be possessed by any in this line. Whatever mechanical skill might be evinced by any of the people, yet here was a work to be executed which required something still higher, and therefore God was pleased to impart a special inspiration to endow them with the requisite ability. 

Bush's interpretation that God was imparting a special inspiration also matches the emerging theme that God empowers only a few specific leaders to provide the works necessary for His people to live and worship strictly. It is also important to note that God only empowered as many of His servants as were necessary. As the work of God grew, He would then take the impartation from one and bestow it on others to share in the work and leadership. This points to a task-oriented bestowal of God's Spirit.

Also, Numbers 14:24, which Piper quoted earlier, does say that Joshua "had a different spirit on him." However, Levine tells us that ruah here "often means 'a feeling, or frame of mind.’ Compare ruah qin'ah 'a feeling of envy in Num. 5:14 and 30. A 'spirit' or attitude is said to be 'with' a person (1 Sam 19:9)."  

This interpretation or ruah as attitude may be the same concept attached to Num. 27:18, which states, "Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is such a spirit." Since verse 28 refers to a specific work of leadership and obedience stated in verse 26-27, it is likely that “attitude” is what is referred to by ruwach. In verses 26-27, the Spirit of God was never mentioned, which would be necessary for the words "such a spirit" to link to if it was referring to the Holy Spirit. 

It is also stated in Deut. 34:9 that Joshua was full of the Spirit of wisdom, "for Moses had placed his hands on him.” This language tracks with the other Old Testament accounts referring to a specific gifting of the Spirit (for a task/role), and it establishes that Joshua was filled with the Spirit after Moses’ impartation, not before.

Later, working through the Book of Judges, it is written six times that the Spirit of the Lord “came upon” or “came mightily upon” the Judges, enabling them to fulfil impossible tasks. It is also in Judges that we are given clear evidence of the Spirit departing from an individual, namely Samson, who, after having his hair cut, attempted to battle the Philistines and “did not realise that the Lord had left him” (Judges 16:20). 

This same pattern is seen in Saul, who was filled with the Spirit upon being anointed as king. In fact, it says that, “the spirit of the Lord will rush upon you and you will prophesy with them. You will be changed into a different person. ”  According to Joseph Benson’s commentary, being 'changed into a different person' meant that Saul was, suddenly endowed with another spirit, filled with skill in divine things, with courage, and wisdom, and magnanimity, and other qualifications befitting thy dignity. 

This being filled with the Spirit was an identity-altering experience, as Levine alluded to with the elders, but just as it had been with the other Old Testament figures, as soon as Saul’s role was no longer applicable to him, the Spirit left him. In 1 Samuel 13, the Spirit anointing David as king was marked by having to leave Saul simultaneously in verse 14, thus showing it to be a special, limited anointing. Levine also tells us,

It is significant that the verb nuah 'to rest, alight upon' is never used in the heroic biblical tradition to describe the settling of the divine spirit on a human being. The verbs employed in Judges and Samuel to describe such seizure are salah ‘to fall upon,' labas 'to clothe, envelop,' or simply hayah 'al 'to come upon." 

Further on, he writes,

The seizure usually precedes some particular feat or episode, and the spirit leaves the hero. Regarding David, we are told, 'from that day forward.' This is a way of saying that, having been duly anointed as king by the prophet Samuel, David would permanently retain his charismatic powers as God's elect hero. 

This permanent retention that David is said to have is permanent only in the sense that his role as king continues until his death. David, who stayed in God’s grace as king all his days, was never stripped of his role, and therefore continued in the Lord’s anointing until he died (in which the end of his role as king coincides).

We see the same pattern of the Spirit acting according to roles in the lives of Elijah and Elisha, who both serve in the role of prophets. Elijah, who had the Spirit of the Lord upon him, continued until he was carried away in a chariot of fire in 2 Kings 2. Before his ascension, 

Elijah said to Elisha, ‘What can I do for you, before I am taken away from you?’ Elisha answered, ‘May I receive a double portion of the prophetic spirit that energises you?’ Elijah replied, ‘That’s a difficult request! If you see me taken from you, may it be so, but if you don’t, it will not happen’ (2 Kings 2:9-10).

Elisha did see Elijah ascend, and once Elijah was gone, Elisha took on the role of prophet in his stead, thereby receiving the necessary empowerment to fulfil that role. This shift from one leader to the next continues to verify a limited empowerment over a permanent indwelling. Elisha was a faithful follower of the Lord and of Elijah, but the Spirit did not rest upon him until the appropriate time, and only for the appropriate duration of his role as prophet. 

In the cases of Saul to David, as well as Elijah to Elisha, the Holy Spirit empowered one leader at a time for their specific role. The Spirit would then depart from one delegate to rest upon the next as the role changed hands. Therefore, the empowerment was limited (specific people; only as many as necessary), and temporary (started at the inception of the role; ending with the withdrawal of the role). 

The conclusion then is that the Holy Spirit did not indwell Old Testament believers in an indefinite manner. Contra Piper, Pink, and Kaiser, it seems that the filling or resting of the Lord’s Spirit was not a uniform experience across the body of Israel, but was reserved for special tasks and roles, including priests, prophets, special leaders, and kings. Furthermore, we have evidenced that the Spirit appears to come and go from saints in the Old Testament, which, paired with Moses own wish for all people to have God’s Spirit upon them, gives us a strong case for a limited and temporary indwelling of God’s Spirit before Pentecost. 

New Testament Work of the Spirit

The Holy Spirit’s interaction in the New Testament may also, by contrast, provide ground for arguing against an Old Testament indwelling. The text, shifting from Hebrew to Greek, now uses the word pneuma for the basis of the word spirit, but is used almost identically to the word ruwach; while translated in the context of wind, the human spirit, and divine spirits, the main New Testament usage of the term pneuma is used in reference to the Holy Spirit.  The New Testament also seems to be much clearer with its use of pneuma, providing an easier examination of the text. 

While the Old Testament has shown a limited resting rather than a permanent indwelling, the New Testament consistently points to an indwelling of the Spirit, first as a future promise, and then (after Pentecost) as a reality needing to be lived out. In Matt. 3:10, John the Baptist, who is called the greatest of all prophets (Matt. 11:11), is baptising those who are confessing their sins and repenting in anticipation of the Kingdom. John declares that while he baptises with water, Christ will come and baptise with the Holy Spirit. 

This word for baptize means to cleanse, submerge, and overwhelm.  John assures his listeners that the Messiah would cleanse, submerge and overwhelm them with an inward baptism; a baptism in His own Spirit. Joseph Benson writes about this baptism, saying,

Baptism in Christ grants access of new life. The Holy Ghost has that gracious truth for us, whatever the words meant to John the Baptist. Through Christ, the spirit of God is poured down upon us. We have not only a purging of the old nature, but the gift of uncreated life. 

However, Jesus appears in the narrative soon after to be baptised by John, yet as the story follows Jesus, He baptises no one during His ministry, neither by water, nor by Spirit. Jesus does, however, refer to this baptism and future work of the Spirit several times. 

In John 4, Jesus stops and meets a Samaritan woman at a well in Sychar. While there, Jesus begins to ask this woman for a cup of water, and a debate on worship ensues. Jesus claims to be able to give this woman water that “will become in [her] a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (John 4:14). 

As this conversation continues, the woman brings up the topic of worship (for the Jews and Samaritans worshipped in separate locations) and Jesus replies, “but a time is coming—and now is here—when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers” (John 4:23). Jesus discloses that there is in effect a shifting of worship. 

No longer will it be in the flesh, bound to a physical centre or to a specific body of people, as was the Old Testament worship system, but it will be a new form of worship done in “spirit and truth.” While Jesus may seem to be referring to the Holy Spirit, James Montgomery Boice makes another suggestion,

Many persons have been led astray, thinking that when Jesus spoke of “spirit” in this verse he was speaking of the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that this is the case. There is a sense, of course, in which we only come to worship God after the Holy Spirit has been at work in our hearts moving us to do so. But in this verse, Jesus is not speaking of that. He is speaking of spirit generally (without a definite article), not the Holy Spirit, and he is teaching that in the age he was inaugurating by his death and resurrection, the place of worship would not matter, for a man or a woman would not worship merely by being in the right place and doing certain right things. He would worship in his spirit, which could be anywhere. 

While Boice affirms that a change in worship is to take place, he disregards any connection to the outpouring of the Spirit as the subject of Jesus’ words. However, the phrase, “but a time is coming,” implies that such worship in the Spirit was not previously able to be performed. If it is true that all Jesus implies here is that men and women will be able to worship in their own spirit rather than in the Holy Spirit, it seems Jesus' words are out of place. 

The Old Testament is riddled with accounts of faithful men and women worshipping God apart from the Levitical system, yet being accepted because of their hearts. David offers sacrifice in a barn (2 Sam. 24:21-24), dances before the Lord with all his might in a linen ephod (2 Sam. 6:14), and places the ark of the covenant in his own tabernacle to worship (1 Chron. 16:1). 

Likewise, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all have moments where they build altars and worship God in their spirit aside from any Levitical law or designated religious location (Gen. 12:7; 26:25; 35:7). There are many examples of people, before and after the giving of the law, worshipping this way in their own spirit and not being condemned. 

This seems to offset Boice’s idea that this new idea of worship is simply in our own Spirit. If Jesus pointed only to separation from the temple, he would have a great deal of Old Testament examples to point back to and expound on, as He frequently does with other subjects. 

In John 7, Jesus makes another reference to living waters in connection with the Holy Spirit. While attending a Jewish feast, Jesus stood and announced that if anyone came to Him, “just as the scripture says, ‘from within him will flow rivers of living water’” (John 7:38). 

The Apostle John then gives us insight into Jesus’ words in verse 39, saying, “Now he said this about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were going to receive, for the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (emphasis added.) In this verse, John plainly states first that the Spirit would be received (future tense), and even more clearly that “the Spirit had not yet been given” at the time of this feast. 

If the people in Jesus’ day had not yet received the Spirit (other than those specifically noted, such as John the Baptist), then it would suffice to say that all those before this time were likewise without the Spirit. Furthermore, though Boice would dissuade us from a connection to the Holy Spirit in John 4, here the apostle gives us an undeniable linking of the “living waters” to the Holy Spirit. 

For reasons unknown, in his commentary on John 7:37-39, Boice makes no comment on John’s identifying Jesus’s word to the Holy Spirit, or the implications thereof.  In Elmer Towns’ commentary on John 7, Towns describes how this flow of living waters connects to themes in the Old Testament.

In Exodus 17:6, the word translated ‘out of it’ shares a common root with the word here translated ‘innermost being.’ The word used to describe the abundant waters from this rock (Num. 20:11) is very similar to the Greek expression here translated ‘rivers of living water.’ The verb ‘shall flow’ recalls a similar Old Testament form, ‘will come out’ (ex. 17:6). In all probability, Jesus’ reference to the scriptures here was a reference to the rock that supplied water in the wilderness. Although the Old Testament speaks of two occasions when Moses produced water from the rock in two different locations, Jewish tradition held that the rock was a kind of theophany that travelled with the nation in the wilderness so that, in fact, it was the same rock that produced water on both occasions. 

This concept is affirmed by 1 Co. 10:4 which states, “For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.” While Christ was prophetically pictured as a rock providing physical nourishment in the wilderness, Jesus points to a time when the Spirit will flow out of all believers proving spiritual nourishment wherever one may be. C. Marvin Pate also makes this connection,

The source of that living water- the Spirit- is Christ, something the Old Testament predicted (see Ezek. 47:1-12; Zech. 14:8), but which is now applied to Jesus, not to the eschatological temple. On this reading, Jesus is the New Temple prophesied by Ezekiel and Zechariah, from whom living water flowed to quench the Spiritual thirst of all who come to him. 

In sections of New Testament scripture specifically relating to the Holy Spirit, Jesus makes consistent remarks concerning the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as one who is to come and one the disciples must wait for. In John chapters 14-17, Jesus focuses heavily on the Holy Spirit to prepare the disciples for a shift in how they relate to Him. 

In these three chapters, Jesus uses phrases like “I will send,” “when I send,” “when He comes,” and “He will” (all future tense) about the Holy Spirit over 20 times. This includes His pointed statement in John 14:17, “[The Spirit] resides with you and will be in you.” Jesus even points to Himself leaving as a requirement for the Holy Spirit to come, “For if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you” (John 16:7). 

Even after His resurrection, the apostles are commanded to wait longer; It is not until Pentecost that Jesus’ promise is finally fulfilled. In Acts 1:4-5, Jesus tells his disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Father, which is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that would occur “not many days from now.” It is then Peter himself who points to this baptism at Pentecost as both the fulfilment of Christ’s promise and the fulfilment of Joel 2, saying,

So then, exalted to the right hand of God, and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you both see and hear, and, despite what you think, these men are not drunk, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning. But this is what was spoken about through the prophet Joel… 

The New Testament scriptures follow the outpouring of the Spirit with the narrative of a new body of people (not of nationality, but of Spirit) called the Church. This group of people, baptised in the Holy Spirit, are witnessed in the book of Acts and commanded throughout the epistles to worship in the Spirit, pray in the Spirit, be filled with the Spirit, preach in the Spirit, prophecy and speak in tongues by the Spirit, while doing many other signs and wonders by the same Spirit.

The outpouring at Pentecost, fulfilling prophecies of both the Old Testament and of Jesus, sustains the argument that believers were not indwelt before Pentecost.

There is no hint in Scripture that Spirit baptism was operative before Pentecost, but only after Pentecost. Spirit baptism has two aspects: judicial and experiential. 1 Corinthians 12:13 reflects both of these aspects. 

The judicial aspect involves an identification with the body of Christ: “For by one Spirit we were all baptised into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free.” The experiential aspect primarily involves the Spirit’s work in granting gifts to every member of his body for effective ministry: “we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” The giftedness of each member of the body of Christ is in contrast to the Old Testament, where only select individuals were endowed with gifts for theocratic purposes. 

These New Testament scriptures inform us that Jesus’ payment and resurrection were the requirements for the Holy Spirit to be poured out, thereby excluding all Old Testament believers from having participated in such a promise. 

It may be safe to conclude then that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is tied to the New Covenant. David Baker also lists the indwelling and outpouring of the Spirit as being dependent on the New Covenant writing,

The prophets look forward to a renewal of the people of God. After judgment will be restoration ( Jer. 29:14; 30:3; Ezek. 16:53; Zeph. 3:30). The nation will be exiled but a remnant will return (Isa. 7:3; 10:20– 22; Jer. 23:3; Mic. 2:12; Zech. 8). They will take part in a new exodus (Isa. 4:5; 10:24– 27; 35; 51:9– 11; 52:12; Hos. 11:10– 11; Zech. 10:8– 11), a new covenant will be made (Jer. 30 – 33; cf. Isa. 55:3; Ezek. 16:60; 34:25– 31) and God will give them a new spirit (Ezek. 11:19; 36:26; 37:1– 14; Joel 2:28; cf. Isa. 11:2; Ezek. 18:31; Hos. 6:1– 3).15 

For the New Covenant to come to pass, the old paradigms of worship must also change. This is seen in the shift from God dwelling in the temple to God’s people being indwelt as His temple (1 Corinthians 3:16). After the day of Pentecost, salvation is inseparable from the gift of the Holy Spirit.

From this point on in Acts, the gift of the Spirit became a normative concomitant of becoming a Christian believer (2:38). The expression of this differs; in 9:17, Saul is said to have been “filled” with the Spirit, as here. Sometimes this experience is described as a “baptism” in the Spirit (1:5; 11:16). 

In other instances, the word “poured out” is used (2:17f.; 10:45) or “came upon” (8:16; 10:44; 11:15) or simply “receive” (2:38; 10:47). All these instances refer to new converts and point to the Spirit’s coming in various ways, not always signified by tongues, as a permanent gift to every believer. This should be distinguished from other references to “filling,” where the Spirit comes upon one who is already a believer in a time of special inspiration and testimony to the faith (cf. 4:8,31; 7:55; 13:9). 

Understanding the Spirit as synonymous with the New Covenant harmonises with Old and New Testament witnesses of separation from God before Pentecost (Ex. 19:12; Col. 1:21-22) and the oneness with God after Pentecost (marked by the tearing of the veil in the temple; Matthew 27:50-51). In addition to being synonymous with New Covenant, Kärkkäinen also finds it agreeable to say that the Spirit of God is synonymous with the Kingdom of God as a whole,

In one of the most unique—even astonishing—statements about the Holy Spirit, Maximus names the Spirit as the kingdom of God: “The kingdom of God, the Father who subsists essentially, is the Holy Spirit. Indeed, what Matthew here [in The Lord’s Prayer] calls kingdom another evangelist elsewhere calls Holy Spirit: ‘May your Holy Spirit come and purify us.’” 

This insight is related to the cosmic presence of the Spirit in the created order, particularly in all intelligent beings. What is remarkable about this teaching is that it links together the Spirit’s presence in nature as the principle of life; the Spirit’s work as the basis for distinctively human life, including intelligence and morality; and the Spirit’s deifying work. 

Furthermore, James Montgomery Boice writes that this baptism, which is called a seal, down-payment, and guarantee of salvation (NKJV) in Eph. 1:13-14, is binding and extends into the afterlife. “Sealing with the Holy Spirit answers to all our needs. It assures us of God’s favour. It shows that we belong to him. It renders our salvation certain.”  

In a work dedicated to the theology of the Holy Spirit, Jürgen Moltmann connects this seal of the Spirit not only as a guarantee of salvation, but as a deposit of the Kingdom power in this life in preparation for the next.

That is why the Holy Spirit is called the pledge or down-payment of glory (Eph. 1.14; II Cor. 1.22). So what begins in the Holy Spirit here will be completed and perfected in the kingdom of glory there. The kingdom of glory does not come unexpectedly and without any preparation. It is already heralded in the kingdom of the Spirit, where it already has power in the present. 

If Moltmann, Polhill, Boice, and Kärkkäinen are all correct, then the outpouring of the Holy Spirit not only marks the transition from a task-related empowerment to a permanent indwelling but should help interconnect our understanding of subjects such as the New Covenant, the Kingdom of God, charismatic gifts in the Church, and eternal security.

Faith in the Old Testament

The final question to answer is whether the Old Testament saints were indwelt, and how they could have lived a life of faith without the Spirit’s help. This question is the basic concern for Pink, Kaiser Jr, and Piper. The New Testament seems to indicate that there is a work of inspiration done unto faith that is distinct from the baptism/outpouring of the Spirit. Regardless of the viewpoint, McCab ensures us that the work of the Holy Spirit cannot be seen as absent in the Old Testament,

In what sense had the followers of Christ not been “given” the Spirit? Based upon the hermeneutical principle analogia scriptura, orthodox interpreters agree that this text cannot mean either that the Spirit did not exist before Jesus’ glorification or that the Spirit did not work salvifically in the Old Testament. 

In John 3, Jesus verifies that the inspiration of faith is both dependent on the Holy Spirit, yet separate from the future baptism/indwelling of the Spirit. 

After Nicodemus comes to speak with Jesus, the Christ tells him that he must be “born from above.”  In this idea of being “born from above,” Jesus refers to the Spirit, saying, “what is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:6), and further on by saying, “so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8). 

Likewise, the word we translate into “above,” in “born from above”, is the Greek word anõthen (ἄνωθεν), which can be translated as “again” or, more appropriately here, as “from above.” James Montgomery Boice provides insight in his commentary on the Book of John,

In the first place, anõthen can be translated “from above.” This is the meaning of the word in John 3:31 that says, “The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all.” “Above” points to heaven. So when the Bible uses anõthen instead of palin in the first part of the chapter, it is suggesting that the new birth is supernatural and has its origin in God. Then, too, there is an even finer distinction that also bears this out. Palin, as I have said, refers to the repetition of an act. Anõthen also refers to the repetition of an act, but it also involves one additional detail, the fact that the repetition of the act has the same source as the first act. 

When Nicodemus replies in verse 9, “How can these things be?” Jesus responds in verse 10, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you don’t understand these things?” 

Jesus’ response indicates that this being “born from above” is not referring to a future event, like the baptism in the Spirit is, but is an experience that Nicodemus could have understood from Old Testament scripture. 

“The assumption that Nicodemus should have known is probably based on several Old Testament passages that teach the doctrine of regeneration (Ps. 143:10-11; Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 36:26-28).”  It is also evidenced that being “born from above,” is not dependent on the baptism of the Spirit, since the baptism does not occur until Pentecost, while the inspiration of faith that brings spiritual life, a.k.a. being born from above, is a work that the Spirit has done across all ages. 

The new birth is mandatory for one to see the kingdom. Because this statement is an imperative, it divides humankind. All people will fall into one of two classifications- those who have been born again or those who have not been born again. 

The inspiration of the Holy Spirit unto faith should thus be seen as a work of God that is not dependent on the indwelling of the Spirit. 

Seeing the gifts of inspiration and indwelling as independent from one another (though happening simultaneously post-Pentecost) breaks the assumption that a man or woman of faith in the Old Testament must have been indwelt to be inspired. 

It seems that the Holy Spirit was able to grant faith to Old Testament believers while working as an external force. This would also reconcile the concern of Piper, Kaiser, and Pink, who seem to have tied their Old Testament view of salvation to a New Covenant paradigm.

Conclusion

According to this study of scripture and sources, I conclude the following: First, Old Testament saints were not indwelt by the Spirit. Rather, the Holy Spirit was among those people who believed to act, inspire, and at times rest upon them for God’s will to be fulfilled. 

In these occasions, there is both a beginning and an end to the Spirit’s resting upon them. These beginnings and ends are marked by the start and finish of specific tasks or roles. The resting of the Spirit is then both limited to specific persons and temporary in duration. Secondly, the New Testament shows a clear distinction in paradigm after Pentecost. 

Contrary to the Old Testament accounts, after Pentecost, believers are sealed indefinitely by the indwelling of the Spirit. Furthermore, this indwelling is not limited to person, rank, or nationality, but is given to all who authentically believe. Likewise, the indwelling is not temporary, but happens at the point of faith in Christ, and guarantees acceptance into God’s eternal Kingdom. 

This paradigm shift also marks a transition in how God’s people are defined as a whole, as well as how they are able/expected to worship Him. Finally, it is concluded for the sake of clarification that the New Testament promise of the Spirit is separate from the inspiring work of faith, and that Old Testament believers were able to be born from above in faith, independently from any permanent indwelling of God’s Spirit. 

 

Works Cited

Baker, David L. Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. InterVarsity Press, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=3316573.

Benson, Joseph. Joseph Benson’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments. https://Biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/1_samuel/10.htm.

Blue Letter Bible. www.blueletterBible.org.

Boice, James Montgomery. Ephesians: An Expositional Commentary. Baker Books, 1998.

Boice, James Montgomery. Genesis, Vol. 1. Baker Books, 2002.

Boice, James Montgomery. Genesis, Vol. 3. Baker Books, 2002.

Boice, James Montgomery. The Gospel of John, Vol 1, The Coming of the Light, John 1-4: An Expositional Commentary. Baker Books, 1999.

Boice, James Montgomery. The Gospel of John, Vol. 2, Christ and Judaism, John 5-8: An Expositional Commentary. Baker Books, 1999.

Boice, James Montgomery. Psalms, Vol. 2. Baker Books, 2002.

Bush, George. Notes on Exodus. James Family, 1979.

Hipponensis, Aurelius Augustine. “Homilies of the Gospel of John,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. 7. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/npnf107/cache/npnf107.pdf.

Hübner, Hans. “The Holy Spirit in Holy Scripture,” Ecumenical Review, vol. 41. July 1989, pp. 324–338. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.1758-6623.1989.tb02585.x.

Kaiser Jr., Walter C. “The Indwelling Presence of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament,” Evangelical Quarterly, vol. 82, no. 4. Oct. 2010. EBSCOhost, schreiner.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rlh&AN=54739054&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. Spirit and Salvation: A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World, Volume 4. Eerdmans, 2016. EBSCOhost, schreiner.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1431066&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Keil, Carl F.; Delitzsch, Franz. Commentaries on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch, Vol. 1. Eerdmans, 1971.

Kretzmann, Paul E. Popular Commentary of the Bible: Old Testament Vol. 1. Concordia, 1923.

The Interpreter’s Bible: Volume 1. Arlington-Cokesbury Press, 1951.

Levine, Baruch A. "Numbers 1-20," The Anchor Bible. Double Day, 1993.

McCab, Robert V. “Were Old Testament Believers Indwelt by The Spirit?” DBSJ 9. Detroit Baptist Seminary, 2004.

Moltmann, Jürgen. Source of Life: The Holy Spirit and the Theology of Life. Fortress Press, 1997.

Niehaus, Jeffrey J. God at Sinai: Covenant Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near East. Zondervan, 1995.

Pate, C. Marvin. The Writings of John: A Survey of the Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse. Zondervan, 2011.

Pink, Arthur W. The Doctrine of Sanctification. Reiner Publishing, 1975. 

Pinnock, Clark. "The Recovery of the Holy Spirit in Evangelical Theology," Journal of Pentecostal Theology, vol. 13, no. 1. Oct. 2004. EBSCOhost, schreiner.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=24587174&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Piper, John. “How Believers Experienced the Spirit Before Pentecost,” DesiringGod.org. https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/how-believers-experienced-the-spirit-before-pentecost.

Polhill, John B. The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. B&H Publishing, 1992.

Ross, Allen P. Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis. Baker Book House, 1988.

Thiselton, Anthony C. A Shorter Guide to the Holy Spirit: Bible, Doctrine, Experience. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=4859070.

Towns, Elmer. John: Believe and Live. Scofield Ministries, 2002.

Wright, Christopher J. H. Knowing the Holy Spirit Through the Old Testament. InterVarsity Press, 2006.