Evidence of the Indwelling Spirit in the First Testament?

In his article, The indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, Dr. Walter C. Kaiser Jr, argues for a renewed understanding of the New Covenant promises based upon the occurrence of the indwelling presence of the Spirit in the Older Testament. In the article, he expounds upon the work of Geoffrey Grogan and James Hamilton in regard to biblical evidence for individuals in the Old Testament being filled with the Holy Spirit. He makes this claim over and against the argument that the indwelling presence of the Spirit was the sign of a new covenant between God and His people. Beginning with Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus in John chapter three, Kaiser makes the argument that there is biblical plausibility for the indwelling presence of the Spirit along with regeneration that is pre-death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of the Messiah. Kaiser denies the popular theory that the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament was merely temporal empowerment or anointing and posits that the manifestations were of an abiding and indwelling nature.

Using logos appeal, Kaiser asks the necessary question “How could all of these old covenant persons have believed and been enabled to live sanctified lives if the Spirit did not dwell in them?” From the outset, Kaiser seeks to provide an answer to this question by dismantling theological notions of post-resurrection restrictions on this particular manifestation of the Spirit. He cites examples like Enoch, Abraham, Joseph, Bezalel, David and Noah in the Old Testament along with John the Baptist, Elizabeth and Zechariah in the New. By listing these individual’s exploits of faith, prayer and blamelessness (all of which are impossible apart from the work of the Spirit within) Kaiser proposes that these are evidence of indwelling, not temporarily endowment.

The pre- incarnation and pre-resurrection time frame of these examples supports His argument to remove the unnecessary and unbiblical restrictions on this type of activity of the Spirit. In an effort to be nuanced, Kaiser points to two texts that seem to support the theory he seeks to refute: John 7:36 and John 16:7 which seem to say that the giving of the Spirit was to take place after the death and resurrection of the Messiah. He acknowledges this position and does well to answer it by defining the indwelling presence as:

The indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit is defined as the abiding and ongoing work of the Holy Spirit of God, in which he resides within the believer to bless or to judge each, as determined by the standard of God’s will and covenant and will.

For Kaiser, it seems, the indwelling presence is not to be made synonymous with the promise of the New Covenant but that the promise is related to the giving of the Spirit of Truth and the Baptism of the Spirit. Since the majority of the features in the new covenant can be found in the old, the covenant initiated by Jesus is a renewed covenant as opposed to a replacement. Kaiser’s attention to the detail regarding the coming of the Spirit being a visible event is appreciated and evincing. However, there are many loose ends in his argument. For example, Kaiser equates Jesus promise of streams of living water flowing in the believer with Joel’s prophecy of the outpouring of the Spirit and this is a reach. One does not typically think of a torrential downpour when one envisions a stream. This comparison is not helpful as an illustration of his point. On the other hand, Kaiser’s argument that the New Covenant speaks about a baptism more than an indwelling is a strong one. To focus on the prophecy of Joel alone as an example that the New Covenant would come visibly and forcibly would have been a better route to take. This aspect makes room for the reconsideration of restrictions and where they apply. It does seem upon an investigation of the biblical text that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was unquestionably a futuristic promise that would take place after the resurrection of Messiah. This is clearly observed in Jesus mandate for the disciples to wait for the promise in Acts 1:8. Unfortunately, Kaiser spends no time at all addressing this nor does he give any treatment to Jesus’ breathing the Spirit into the disciples at the end of John’s gospel.

For this reason, the argument for pre-resurrection abiding and indwelling is found wanting in light of a non-treatment of this passage. How does one explain this?

All in all, Kaiser makes important arguments and raises necessary questions with regard to the new covenant and the presence of the Holy Spirit. The reader walks away with the understanding that the indwelling Spirit (the Spirit in us) spans the covenants while the Spirit baptism (us in the Spirit) is experienced corporately and inaugurates the New Covenant.