A Refined/Strict Dispensational Look at the Holy Spirit's Ministry of Indwelling (2)

Did It Actually Take Place in the OT?

The last article in this series discussed the purpose of the Holy Spirit’s ministry of indwelling. There we saw that it was primarily for the purpose of progressive sanctification of the believer. As we examine the OT texts in question, we will see if they fit into the purpose as laid out in the NT.

In relation to the OT, the doctrine of the Spirit’s ministry of indwelling is not taught. At best it is only intimated which might lend the idea that so called Spirit indwelling in the OT is completely different from the NT concept. Starting with the supposition that there is a distinction in the language of the OT in using “in” & “upon” (though these prepositions may be seen later as being synonymous), we will examine 4 examples of the Spirit supposedly indwelling in the OT.

1) In Gen. 41:38, Pharaoh declares that a divine spirit was in Joseph. Yet this is to ignore the fact that Pharaoh was a polytheist. His knowledge of the God of Israel was very limited. He neither knew of the Holy Spirit much less of His indwelling ministry. The phrase may be an equivalent to saying someone is demon-possessed or has a mystical nature about them.

2) In Num. 27:18, Moses records that the Spirit was in Joshua. To examine this properly, it must be compared and contrasted next to what is taught in the NT of Spirit indwelling. At this point in Numbers, Moses was passing the torch of leadership. Joshua was being given the task of leading Israel into the promised land and conquering the enemies in the land. This indwelling of the Holy Spirit seems to be for a specific task/duty and not for sanctification. This does not stand up in light of the NT concept of Spirit indwelling.

3) Daniel is a similar case as Joseph. In Dan. 4:8, 9, 18, 5:11 & 14, Heathen Kings of Babylon declared that a spirit of the gods was in him. Both Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were claiming to believe in polytheism at the time by using terms like “the gods.” Neither knew of the Holy Spirit nor the indwelling at this time (though Neb may have been saved later in his life).

4) The last example of OT indwelling comes from the NT – 1 Pet. 1:11. The prophets mentioned here (especially the writing prophets) are said to have the Spirit of Christ within them. Here again we see that the purpose of the Spirit being in them was not for sanctification, but to fulfill prophetic duties. For the writing prophets, this indwelling was to fulfill the task of writing God’s Word. No mention of sanctification is mentioned here as a reason for the indwelling.

To summarize the examples given in the OT, the Spirit being “in” a believer is only recorded happening on a few occasions. The purpose for indwelling in the OT is extremely different for indwelling in the NT. NT indwelling is done for sanctification whereas OT indwelling is done to fulfill a task or job. This seems to be a large part of the Holy Spirit’s ministry in the OT. When He is “in”, “upon”, or “filled” someone, He is empowering that person to perform a task that needs special spiritual power. Since His ministry of indwelling in the OT is to fulfill a task, it must be a temporary enablement on the part of the Holy Spirit until the task is completed. Therefore there is not permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the OT.

-

Over and over again the cases of Spirit indwellment in the OT do not meet up with the criteria for the NT concept of Spirit indwellment. In fact, it is probably reasonable to assume that the Holy Spirit being “in” and “upon” a saint in the OT is not a separate but synonymous thought since the purposes of both are the same. If this is the case, the indwelling in the OT is not permanent for other reasons. In 1 Sam. 10:10, the Spirit came upon Saul. In 1 Sam. 16:14, the Spirit departed from Saul. In Psalm 51:5, David indicates that it was possible for the Spirit to leave him. All this is to say that it seems very unlikely that the Holy Spirit actually did perform His ministry of indwelling in the OT (according to the NT definition and criteria for Spirit indwelling).

-

Timothy L. Decker

Biblical Absolutism (2)

There are discernable differences between biblical Christianity and every other religion. Therefore defending an exclusive claim in an inclusive world will necessitate a Herculean effort. Nevertheless, the Bible unashamedly claims that truth is absolute. All that the world proposes the Bible opposes. For example, just to name a few, the Bible claims that God created this universe and man is also a direct creation of God (Gen. 1:1; 27). The Bible further claims that man should not kill, steal, commit adultery, lie, serve any other gods, and honor their parents (Ex. 20). These are some of the absolutes that Christians must live by. They are not up for discussion because they are “absolutely” essential to the Christian faith. Unfortunately ever since God wrote the Ten Commandments, legislators had written thousands of other laws so that man can practice the ten.

One of the many reasons often given to prove that there are absolutes in this world is the morality of man. While it is a known and accepted fact that man is a depraved being that does not mean man cannot do good deeds. For example, a man may have just stolen from his workplace and goes home and turn on his television to watch the evening news but he gets really angry at the pedophile for raping the little girl. It may seem ironic but it’s not! The thief knows there is something wrong with the pedophile. He innately knows that rational people don’t abuse kids. Where did he get that knowledge? The writer of Ecclesiastes answer that question for us by stating, “He hath set the world (eternity) in their heart” (Ecc. 3:11). Man is able to ponder but also since man was created in the image of God, man is still God-conscious. Therefore when man reacts morally to another he is not only proving that a supreme creator exists; namely God, but he is proving that there are absolutes. Christian apologist C.S Lewis further solidify the point by saying that man doesn’t call a line crooked unless he knows what a straight line is.

Probably the best argument in defense of biblical absolutism is the effect of the world’s relativity. In other words, one only need to be an unbiased observer to realize what the masses are saying are ridiculous because it is having a devastating impact on the society. Like Marxism, Nietzscheism, and Darwinism, what has relativism taught and given to us? It has given to us hedonism in the form of casual sex, (this results in a massive strain of the medical resources of the economy), it has given to us no truth, it has given to us a warp idea of unity in diversity where people are told to celebrate their differences, it has given to us tolerance and compromise or what someone called the “hermeneutics of humility.” This is simply a retreat from God’s absolute.

What has biblical absolutism in the form of Christianity given to us? It has given us absolute truth. It has given us the ability to love the unlovely but also to pronounce judgment on the wicked. It has given us a better quality of life devoid of STDs because God’s people are to refrain from this hedonistic lifestyle. Furthermore, it gives us a Savior who loves us so much that He died for us. The gulf that exists between biblical Christianity and the world’s relative standards are clearly visible. The results speak for themselves. When man is left to do his own thing, he becomes like a dumb sheep, but when he submits himself under the leadership of God he is able to enjoy life within the perimeters that God has set up. God’s Word alone is truth because He is the truth. Therefore although the world is opposed to absolutes, even they live it out every day. Relativity is more an ideal than a reality. It is absolutely impossible for everything to be relative.

Dexter Kirby