I was always taught that the gifts of the Spirit were only for those who have first received the Spirit. The Scriptural justification given was usually an appeal to 1Corinthians 12:13, where in the context of discussing spiritual gifts Paul said, “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free, we were all made to drink of the one Spirit.” Paul went on to compare the church to a human body, arguing that each person has a function in the body of Christ based on His spiritual gifting. It is argued, then, that if one has not received the Spirit, He is not in the body of Christ, and thus does not have a spiritual gift. I think this interpretation is mistaken both exegetically and logically.
Exegetically, Paul does not make the point those who advance this idea claim he is making. He does not argue that one must be in the body of Christ in order to have a spiritual gift. He simply notes that of those who are in the body of Christ because they have received the Spirit have a spiritual gift as well. The only thing we can gather from the text is that having the Spirit is a sufficient condition for having a spiritual gift; we cannot conclude that it is a necessary condition. While all those in the body of Christ have a spiritual gift, that does not preclude anyone who is outside the body of Christ from having a spiritual gift. Having the Spirit may be the norm for those who have a spiritual gift in NT times, but it does not mean there can be no exceptions.
Logically, it is clear that the gifts of the Spirit are not predicated on one’s possession of the Spirit. The OT saints operated in the gifts of the Spirit even though they were not filled with the Spirit. One may counter that the spiritual gifts Paul spoke of are different than what we see operative in the OT, but why should we believe that? How does an OT miracle differ from a NT miracle? How did one’s ability to discern different spirits differ in the OT from the NT? Only two of the nine spiritual gifts are unique to the NT period (different kinds of tongues, interpretation of tongues). The rest were exhibited in days of old, and thus there is no reason to think that one must have the Spirit to have the gifts of the Spirit. Again, that may be the norm during the current dispensation, but there is no good reason to believe it is a hard and fast rule.
Thinking to Believe 
December 20, 2007 at 11:02 am
The OT saints used in prophecy were filled with the Spirit, as were the men who made the tabernacle.
1 Peter 1:10-12 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
Ne 9:30 Yet many years didst thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them by thy spirit in thy prophets: yet would they not give ear: therefore gavest thou them into the hand of the people of the lands.
And as for NT saints, the gifts of the Spirit are a MANIFESTATION of the Spirit which is IN them.
1Co 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
LikeLike
December 20, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Yes, Scripture speaks of the Spirit being in people prior to the New Covenant, but whatever that experience was, it is not the same thing as is described in the New Testament. According to John, during Jesus’ ministry the Spirit was not yet given, and could not be because Jesus was not yet glorified (Jn 7:39). Furthermore, Jesus spoke of the coming of the Spirit as a future event. What some of the OT saints experienced seems more akin to what we call “anointing” than Spirit baptism. It was a temporary situation intended to perform some task.
Jason
LikeLike
December 21, 2007 at 9:56 am
David didn’t seem to think the Holy Spirit in him was temporary. He was afraid the Spirit would be taken away from him because of sin. Why was John the Baptist filled from his mother’s womb? What special event or temporary situation warranted that?
When do you think John thought Jesus was glorified? Acts 2 states Jesus is exalted now that He sits on the right hand of God. The coming of the Spirit was a future event fullfilling the prophecy of Joel. It was an event for ALL believers not just a chosen few. And the Spirit wasn’t sent until Jesus was glorified and taken away from the disciples. Jesus said if he didn’t go the Comforter would not come.
NO Spirit, no gifts.
LikeLike
December 22, 2007 at 7:41 am
Logically, it is clear that the gifts of the Spirit are not predicated on one’s possession of the Spirit. The OT saints operated in the gifts of the Spirit even though they were not filled with the Spirit.
It’s an interesting dilemma. People shouldn’t receive the Holy Spirit before being baptized, but they do. People shouldn’t have the gifts of the Spirit without having the Spirit, but they do. If you judge them by their fruits, certainly the Mormons are the true Christians.
LikeLike
December 22, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Jason,
I think this ties into the discussion we’ve been sharing for quite sometime now. I’ll be thinking about it.
Chad
LikeLike
December 27, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Anonymous,
There is no reason to think David meant anything more than the presence of the Spirit. But there is a difference between the Spirit’s presence in one’s life, and the infilling of the Spirit. The former is external, the latter is internal and results in the regeneration of one’s spirit. Scripture is clear that the infilling of the Spirit is a distinctly New Covenant phenomenon.
As for John the Baptist, I don’t know why He was filled with the Spirit that early, but we know from the OT and from John that the infilling of the Spirit was only a post-glorification of Christ phenomenon, which tells me that John experienced the same thing that all the other OT saints experienced, not what we experience. In fact, that is why Jesus could say that the person who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than John, even though he was the greatest of all the prophets.
Jesus was glorified upon His resurrection.
Jason
LikeLike
December 27, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Arthur,
You said peoplpe “shouldn’t” receive the Holy Spirit before they are baptized, and yet they do. Why shouldn’t they? What is it about baptism and the Spirit that requires a certain order?
Jason
LikeLike
December 27, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Jason,
The only difference I see with the NT church Spirit infilling and that of the OT is in the OT those who received the Holy Spirit prophesied and in the NT they speak in tongues. The wording of ‘came upon’ or ‘put his spirit upon’ or ‘is upon me’ means the same thing. Peter states the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of Christ was IN the holy men of old as does Nehemiah.
Regeneration is by water and Spirit.
Numbers 11:29 And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD’S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!
Luke 1:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
If this is a parallel statement then the presence of the Lord and the Holy Spirit is the same thing. But I don’t believe it is a parallel statement because of the ‘and’ and the words ‘cast away’ and ‘take not’ do not mean the same thing.
Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. Ps 51:11
LikeLike
December 28, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Jason wrote: thus there is no reason to think that one must have the Spirit to have the gifts of the Spirit. Again, that may be the norm during the current dispensation, but there is no good reason to believe it is a hard and fast rule.
I believe one must have the Spirit to have the gifts of the Spirit but God can use anyone who has faith in Christ to heal, to cast out demons, to preach the gospel without that person being Spirit- filled. He did it with his disciples before the day of Pentecost but I wouldn’t equate the authority and power Jesus gave them through his name as being the same as the gifts of the Spirit.
Concerning the church, the body of Christ, those who have been born of the water and the Spirit and are considered to have the Spirit of Christ dwelling within them, then there are gifts given to those with the Spirit as a manifestation of the Spirit which is in them and to edify the body. I can’t see how it is possible the way the gifts of God to the church are described to have a gift of the Spirit without having drunk of that Spirit. 1Cor 12:6-7
As for the prophets of the OT having the Spirit as a temporary indwelling I believe you are arguing from silence otherwise these prophets should not have been considered to be prophets if it was just a temporary anointing. Why did David and the kings of Israel go to inquire of the prophets time and time again if the man who was used in prophecy did not have the Spirit of God abiding in them? And why be called “prophet” if the anointing was temporary? It is possible that they could prophecy one time and be called a prophet?
Carol
LikeLike
December 29, 2007 at 8:39 am
Jason,
From a OP perspective, isn’t Acts 2:38 taken literally as a plan for salvation? It says repent and be baptized, and you will receive the Holy Spirit. If Acts 2:38 were a salvation plan (which I dispute), you should first repent and be baptized, and then (not before) you would necessarily receive the Holy Spirit.
Additionally, all persons who repent and are baptized are promised to receive the Holy Spirit under Acts 2:38. Therefore, if there are OP persons who repent and are baptized but never speak in tongues (and there are), then such persons have the Holy Spirit but do not speak in tongues. (That’s consistent with other Scripture that specifically states that not all have the same gifts and speak in tongues.)
LikeLike
December 31, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Arthur,
We believe Acts 2:38 contains the list of elements involved in conversion. We don’t believe that the elements must be experienced in the order they are listed. Acts 10 makes that clear. Experience reinforces that. Many people receive the Spirit prior to being baptized.
As far as tongues being the initial evidence, that is a side issue from this post, but you can read what I have to say about it here: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/tongues2.htm
Jason
LikeLike
January 1, 2008 at 11:33 am
Arthur,
Regarding your point, “That’s consistent with other Scripture that specifically states that not all have the same gifts and speak in tongues.” In context, Paul, in this verse, “…do all speak with tongues?” (I Cor. 12:30), is not discussing the gift/baptism of the Holy Spirit which always occurs as the initial physical evidence of receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Rather, he is discussing the gift of divers (different) kinds of tongues, which is one of the spiritual gifts given to selected believers subsequent to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
It’s important to keep in mind that the Corinthian believers Paul was writing to had already received the Holy Spirit baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13).
That the gift of the Holy Spirit evidenced by the initial sign of speaking with other tongues is a distinct experience from the gift of divers kinds of tongues can be seen by the following two points:
1) The Holy Spirit baptism is for all believers (Acts 2:39; 5:32; John 3:5; I Cor. 12:13). The gift of divers kinds of tongues is not for all believers (1 Cor. 12:11, 28, 30). That not everyone has the same spiritual gift (e.g., gift of divers kinds of tongues) is evidenced by the fact, “For to one (not all) is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another (not all) the word of knowledge by the same Spirit…to another (not all) divers kinds of tongues…” (1 Cor. 12-8-11). (Emphasis mine).
2) The speaking with tongues in Acts 2, 10, & 19 does not fit the divine order of 1 Corinthians 14:27. God being perfect, would not have given us an imperfect example—He does things right the first time! Acts 2 is God’s pattern for those who receive the gift/baptism of the Holy Spirit for the first time. I Cor. 14:27 is God’s pattern for those who, having previously been Spirit-filled, have received the subsequent gift of divers kinds of tongues. The gift of divers kinds of tongues is to operate by one person at a time, in order, and with an interpretation of each message. In Acts 2, 10, & 19, all believers spoke in tongues at once and no one interpreted.
In short, every believer will speak with tongues when he or she receives the Holy Spirit for the first time. However, not every believer receives the subsequent gift of divers kinds of tongues because not everyone has the same gift of all of the gifts.
John
LikeLike
January 2, 2008 at 12:59 am
Anonymous,
Some of the OT saints who were said to be filled with God’s Spirit were those who worked on the tabernacle. They did not prophesy.
There must be a difference between what happened to some of the OT saints and what happens to the NT saints, and the difference is not just that it was only for some in the OT and for all in the NT, or that they speak in tongues in the NT.
For one, regeneration is a NT work. It was not available in the OT. Regeneration occurs via Spirit baptism. If what we receive in the NT is the same as what they received in the OT, then they too would have experienced regeneration.
Furthermore, John said in John 7:39 that the Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified. What happened on the Day of Pentecost and thereafter was a new thing. It hadn’t happened before. And John wasn’t talking about tongues. He was talking about being filled with the Spirit.
Even the OT spoke of the infilling of the Spirit as a future event. See Ezekiel 36:24-28 for one such example.
Jason
LikeLike
January 2, 2008 at 1:07 am
Carol,
What would be the difference between someone who performs healings without being filled with the Spirit, and someone who performs healings while being filled with the Spirit? A healing is a healing, and the ability to heal is a gift of God. I don’t see any difference at all, and therefore I conclude that those who engage in healings, whether they have the Spirit or not (evidenced by tongues), are operating in God’s gift of healings.
I would agree that everyone who has the Spirit also has a gift, but that does not mean that one must have the Spirit to have the gifts. God can give spiritual gifts to whomever He wants. And like I said, the OT saints did not have the Spirit, and yet clearly they operated in the gifts. Prophecy is prophecy, miracles are miracles, and healings are healings no matter what covenant one is under.
As for the temporary nature of the Spirit-infilling, I am thinking specifically of those like the people whom God is said to have filled with His Spirit to work on the tabernacle. The Spirit-infilling was for a temporary job. And don’t make the mistake of confusing the infilling of the Spirit with the presence of the Spirit. They are qualitatively different. The presence of God’s Spirit can be among many people, even those who are not Christians (as God works with them to lead them to truth), but that does not mean they are filled with the Spirit.
Jason
LikeLike