If the Holy Spirit did not indwell OT believer what did Peter mean by his statement in 1 Peter 1:10-12?

Russ,
That's a good question. 1 Peter 1:10-12 is not speaking of the Holy Spirit's dwelling in every OT saint, but rather the special ministry of the Holy Spirit to the prophets who penned the inspired Word of God that pointed to the Messiah. This is also consistent with 2 Peter 1:21 which says that Scripture is the product of the Holy Spirit moving men to speak. So, 1 Peter 1:10-12 relates to the inspiration of Scripture. According to these verses, the Holy Spirit took up residence within the prophet in order to give His Word. It does not say anything as to the permanence of this residence.

I am currently reading "God's Indwelling Spirit" by James Hamilton Jr. It is outstanding, balanced and very readable. All should pick up this book and read it. It has brought much clarity here.

PS I agree with you Massimo after reading this book, I am in the #3 position (some continuity and some discontinuity) camp.

Although I agree that the Spirit of Christ in them has to do with the prophecy they received, you must confess that they were indwelt by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. That is what Peter says in 1Peter 1:11. Because the context is speaking of the recording of prophecy does not mean you can limit their possession of the Spirit to prophecy. David in Psalm 51 speaks of restoring a new heart and spirit within him. This is New Covenant blessing. The saints in the Old Testament are saved with New Covenant blessings. Because they were in the Old Testament does not restrict them from the New Covenant. They believed in Christ as we do. The difference is that they were before the cross and we are after the cross. Our light is much greater, but their faith was still the same saving faith in Jesus Christ, in whom all the promises of God are yea and amen.

Richard,
Thanks for your response. I’m having trouble seeing where our disagreement lies on 1 Peter 1:10-12 since you say essentially what I say. You said that, “you must confess that they were indwelt by the Holy Spirit.” I’m pretty sure I did confess that when I said, “the Holy Spirit took up residence within the prophet in order to give His Word.” My point is, Peter’s intent is that this indwelling was for the purpose of giving prophecy. Peter does not intend to answer questions about whether or not this ministry of the Spirit was permanent and whether or not it related to those saints who were not prophets. What in the text causes you to think Peter does address these questions?

This text, in my mind, is not a primary text in dealing with the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit since it is contextually limited to prophecy. The texts that we have to go to first are the ones that I mention in the post above—the ones that explicitly discuss its relationship to all believers. Furthermore, if you want to say that 1 Peter 1:11 means OT saints were permanently indwelt by the Holy Spirit, you still have to harmonize that with the texts and reasoning that I put forward in the blog above. So, how would you go about doing this?

Regarding your comments on Psalm 51:10 where David says, “renew a steadfast spirit with me.” I think that is referring to David’s spirit, not the Holy Spirit, so I’m not sure that specific verse contributes to our discussion.

I would emphasize more your statement “Our light is much greater” when it comes to discussing saving faith in the OT. I do not deny that OT saints were justified by faith (i.e. Abraham). However, the promises they were trusting were not as clear. For example, an OT saint living after the writing of Isaiah 53 had much content to their faith that someone living before Isaiah. Abraham had less content to his faith that David, for example. So we have to be careful not to blur the line between testaments too much because there definitely is a line.

You state, “Because they were in the Old Testament does not restrict them from the New Covenant.” I do not deny that that OT saints enjoyed some of similar blessings that New Covenant saints enjoy. However, OT saints were not part of the New Covenant. The OT is clear that the New Covenant was something that would govern God’s relationship with His people in the future. It was not in effect in the OT. Thus, just because there are some similar blessings between OT saints and NT saints, does not mean that the OT saints enjoyed the blessings of the New Covenant. Similarity does not equal sameness. The New Covenant was not inaugurated until the New Testament.

If the OT saints were part of the New Covenant, then what is new about the New Covenant? If you want to believe that OT saints were part of the New Covenant, which texts cause you to believe this? I’m curious also if you have any authors you could recommend that would say OT saints were part of the New Covenant as this position is one I am not familiar with.

comment was removed by user

comment was removed by user

Massimo,
Thanks for the reply.
You wrote "if Scripture does not speak explicitly regarding a specific doctrine, then we should be reluctant to emphasize it. I think this is the case with the question of whether or not the Holy Spirit indwelt OT saints. There is not a single text in the OT or the NT that says the Holy Spirit indwelt OT saints."
I'm not so sure an argument from silence, i.e. the 1 Peter 1 text is speaking only of the prophets (as you indicated "since it is contextually limited to prophecy") is sufficient to build doctrine on the no indwelling view of the Spirit in OT saints.

If one goes with the idea of progressive revelation i.e."The New is in the Old Concealed, the Old is in the New Revealed" the New Testament sheds much light on this topic of the indwelling of the Spirit in His people.

Romans 8 drives me to ask some questions which might help understand whether or not the Spirit indwelt OT believers. I think it sheds much light on the topic.
Did the OT saints belong to Christ? Did Moses, Abraham, and David "walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit"?
Paul states that "those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." (Rom 8:5-8)

Did Abraham live by the Spirit, set his mind on the Spirit, experience life and peace, submit to God's law or was he in the flesh?

Paul gives us only two options, one is positionally in the flesh or positionally in the Spirit. Those who are in the Spirit possess the Spirit or they do not belong to Christ as Paul indicates "You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him." Rom 8:9

Can we live by the Spirit, set our mind on the Spirit, experience life and peace, submit to God's law, or manifest the fruit of the Spirit without the indwelling Spirit?
Did Abraham belong to Christ?
Could Abraham live by the Spirit, set his mind on the Spirit, experience life and peace, submit to God's law, manifest the fruit of the Spirit without the indwelling Spirit?
If he didn't have the Spirit he didn't belong to Christ.

Thanks (both to Mark and Massimo) for some excellent thoughts on this important topic. I believe it's important to affirm that the Spirit was continually present with OT Saints from the moment of regeneration for the purposes of sanctification and empowerment. I think that Russ' point about Romans 8 in this regard stands. However, it's also important to affirm the passages in John and Acts which seem to indicate that there is something new and different that happens when the Spirit descends on the Church at Pentecost.

The language of indwelling (in both the OT and NT) is evocative of Israel's Temple. In two successive Tyndale Bulletin articles (Tyndale Bulletin 56.1 (2005) 73-102. and Tyndale Bulletin 56.2 (2005) 63-90.) GK Beale argues that Pentecost is the inaugurated descent of the Eschatological Temple in the form of the Spirit. What this understanding of Acts 2 seems to indicate is that at Pentecost the Spirit began to indwell the Church just as it indwelt the OT Temple (Ephesians 2:19-22 and 1 Pet 2:4-5). So, the newness of the Spirit that Jesus promised for the New Covenant is not His regenerating/sanctifying/empowering role, it is rather that He indwells each Christian and, corporately, the Church so that it will fulfill the purpose of the Temple which was to spread the Glory of God throughout the world so that it covers the Earth as the waters cover the seas (Is 11:9 and Hab. 2:14).

Russ,
Thanks for the interaction. You make some points that are worth considering. You stated, “I'm not so sure an argument from silence . . . is sufficient to build doctrine on the no indwelling view of the Spirit in OT saints.” Keep in mind that my words were simply a caution about saying something to be true when no explicit text of Scripture teaches it. The “preliminary caution” was simply to lay down some methodological foundation for the problem. I don’t build my understanding of the Holy Spirit’s ministry until the final section. I put forward in the last section my reasoning based on biblical theology and 4 specific texts, so I’m not sure that’s an argument from silence.

You make some interesting points regarding Romans 8. You say regarding progressive revelation that, the New Testament sheds much light on this topic of the indwelling of the Spirit in His people. If I follow you correctly, you say that because NT saints who belong to Christ are indwelt by the Spirit, then OT saints who belong to Christ were also indwelt by the Spirit.

We have to be careful not to reason anachronistically. I don’t doubt that the OT saint had faith in Christ, at least in terms of what had been revealed up to the point when they lived. However, God’s relationship with the OT saint was not governed by the New Covenant, so that is one big reason be slow to read back the NT believers experience into the OT saint. There is a difference, even if both are saved by faith through grace. Another reason to see a distinction between the OT saint and the NT saint is that the OT saint is never said to be “in Christ.” Being “in Christ” seems to be a historically sensitive designation that starts in the NT church with the coming of the Spirit.

I’m not sure if I’m being clear, but in the blog I said that there is no text that says the OT saint was indwelt by the Spirit. I concluded that this position then is, at best, a theological argument, and not exegetical. I think your argument from Romans 8 proves that point. Your argument is mainly theogetical. No matter what theological arguments one has, they still have to deal with the arguments I put forward in the blog, both from biblical theology and from the four texts. In conclusion then, I would understand the Holy Spirit’s OT ministry to be an “abiding with” the saint, but not an “indwelling in” the saint. I base this on John 14:17. Does that make sense?

Beloved brother Massimo,

Is the New Covenet not then the Covenant of Grace?
Did the Covenant of Grace/Mercy not apply since the Fall?

Or is the Covant of Works to be seen as possibe to keep unto salvation, without the Spirit's elablement?

I am confused:
Where Abraham, Noah, Rahab and all those who turned from their evil ways and turned to our Living God YAHWEH (In Repentance and Faith) not saved and sealed unto Salvation by the Regeneration and Indewelling sanctifying power of the Spirt?
If they where not Indwelt was it possible for them to lose their salvation - because they where neither sealed by the Spirit; nor indwelt?
Did their works befit salvation if it where not gifted them by the Spirit?
Or where they left to their seek their own merit unto sanctification?

Is our Triune YAHWEH not the same today, yesterday and foreveremore in His Works of Salvation and Redemption?

I then have the question about why the Hebrew believers received this Gift of our Indwelling Spirit at Pentecost; but the Gentile believers where saved (Regenerated) and then Later received the Gift of the Indwelling Spirit only once the Apostles arrived to affirm the "delayed" Pentecost for Gentiles (As a witness to the Hebrew believers in Messiah)?

I struggle to believe that the Spirit of YAHWEH might have a different role in the Old Testament to that of the New Testament (Understanding that the New Covenant is not fully revealed in the Old Testament; but applied to all Saints of all time).
I furthermore struggle to understand why we should make a distinction between Old Testament works of God to that of the New Testament - because John the Baptizer and Messiah Himself are actually "Old Testament" prophet and THE Fullfillment of the Office of Prophet.

When I consider the Spirit's work in regeneration and salvation I therefore make no such disctictions - Am I wrong?
If I consider the FULLNESS of Christ's ministry revealed in His Person at Pentecost -- is this FULLNESS of His earthly ministry not the key we should be looking at?
That those who where in the Hebrew Scriptures looking for Christ (Even in Moses); could not see the FULFILLMENT of Messiah's ministry nor experience the MEASURE of FULLNESS of the Spirit of grace and truth; because He did not yet FULFILL the mystery in history (Though His atonement and propitiation was applied, once for all - throughout History and Time; being applied in the Covenant of Grace/Mercy).
So that untill a FULL witness was MANIFEST in Messiah's COMPLETED Works on earth as Man; the Spirit could not FULLY witness to His Pesron and Work in ANYONE; therefore the Indwelling we consider is rather in MEASURE amongst beievers?

As for unbelievers having the Spirit active through them, I consider this in a speacial ministry to accomplish the Sovereign Providences of our LORD - through His general grace.
That He does not need to indwell them; but rather apply unto their hearts that inclination, which He has foreordained for His good and perfect will (Whether to accomplish His judgement unto Justice; or wheter to accomplish compassion unto His merciea nd longsuffering.

I have made a note on Marks discussion also, which may explain my thoughts more clearly -
http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4371

Your fellow bondslave by the mercies wrought in Christ Alone for me, gifted by His Spirit freely,
W

Just curious about the nature of indwelling and the misdirection of the term, does indwelling refer to a location? If so, doesn’t this seem a little pedantic? I would suggest that by indwelling we actually do not refer to his location as much as we speak of God’s presence that is manifested in the life of believer so that it produces life transforming, regenerating, faith-giving, illuminating, and sanctifying results. The term "indwelling," while perfectly acceptable, makes me think spatially (a little like children speaking of "asking Jesus into thier heart") instead of considering the significance of the results that describe this the work of the Spirit of God.

Second, the explicit references to the Spirit of God may not seem manifest in the OT, but isn’t Nicodemus’ discussion with Jesus contradictory to your thesis. Jesus rebukes this Teacher of the OT for his ignorance of the Spirit’s work (particularly of regeneration vis-à-vis the “born again/born from heaven”). I assume that Nick was an expert of the explicit texts and therefore he did not see the circumcision of the heart as part of the H.S. work of indwelling.

Just wondering about your take, thanks.

Mark Brock

Just to explain the last line of my post a little more clearly.

The fact that Nicodemus is so unaware of the internal working of the Holy Spirit in regeneration (something I would presume to be "part and parcel" of indwelling), and Jesus' subsequent analogy of the wind and the Holy Spirit seems to argue strongly that although the terms "indwelling" "regeneration" etc., are not explicitly in the OT their concepts implicitly are discussed. If indwelling is not the internal working of God's Spirit on the inner man, then what exactly is it? And if this is what it is, then I think that we must conclude that indwelling was in fact an OT reality since God's Spirit must have worked internally then as now.

In Christ,

Mark

I just came across this blog and have read it with interest. I have some questions and comments to make regarding this subject.
I agree that we can not be dogmatic about what is not explicitly stated in the Bible, however one needs to be very careful not to deny what may be implicit in the Scriptures as well. We all agree that God does not change in who He is, but that He has done things differently in different eras of time in regard to mankind. Some of this discussion revolves around how the three persons of the trinity interact with each other in their actions regarding mankind. In theological terms we call it the economic trinity. Even though much of the inter workings of the persons of the trinity are not revealed to us until the NT does not mean that those interactions changed but only that they were not revealed to us until the NT. This progressing revelation of God to man seems to be more of what is in view in this issue.
Another issue that relates to this is that of time, we live in time and space, and God does not. How do we deal with that issue? The Bible clearly states that Christ was slain before the foundation of the world when in fact (according to our ability to relate) He did not die until He came in human history and died. So, if in God's mind, the act was already done, does that limit Him in applying the effects of the act to mankind? I do not know the answer to that question for sure, but my own thoughts are that God is sovereign and will only do what is consistent with His character, but is not limited in time and space like we are. So, if we agree that regeneration, scantification and enpowerment were accomplished by the Holy Spirit in the OT times, why would He not indwell them as well? It would seem that indwelling is related to ownership or possession and it does seem that the OT Saints did indeed belong to God. We may see a glimpse of that in the case of Job where Satan acknowledged that Job did indeed belong to God and that he could somehow "see" that in some way because of the "hedge of protection" around Job. There is a "world" that we are not able to see around us that is often not talked about or sometimes even acknowledged, but is real and is inhabited by spirit beings of some kind that are involved in some kind of spiritual warfare that affects us more than most of us want to admit. These spirit beings are either good or evil and they are able to know who is on whose side and even which humans are on whose side (either God's or Satan's). I suspect that this is related to the Holy Spirit and His indwelling of believers. Just how is obviously the question that needs to be answered.
A question about the New Covenant comes to my mind. Who was that covenant made with? Wasn't it with Israel? If so, then is what happened on Pentecost a fulfillment of that covenant or only a partial fulfillment of it? Is not the "church age" a time of temporary setting aside of God dealing directly with Israel as a nation? If so then does this covenant apply to us in the church? And if so, how? The church as I view it is something new and different from Israel and only indirectly benefited from promises or covenants made to them. This whole issue is far more involved than has been discussed in the posts that I have read that are available on line. There are far more questions than answers, many of which may only be answered when we get to glory. Of course our own training and backgrounds bring many difficulties through which we must filter through to come to a tentative conclusion on not only this issue, but many others as well. The sin principle that dwells in us also has a negative influence on us that tends to blind us to looking at other points of view on the subject at hand. I have appreciated your approach very much and pray that God will g