THE WORK OF THE SPIRIT:
Old Testament Revelation of God’s Plan for Mankind
Karl Snow
October 20, 2020
Table of Contents
What does the Spirit of God desire and whom has he chosen?. 1
The Spirit of God is the unseen that created that which is seen. Mankind dwells in the seen creation, however the depths of man are also unseen. This is where Spirit dwells, in the thoughts and the depth of man’s heart. This study will attempt to accurately draw from the active agency of the Spirit of God from the Old Testament narrative, while connecting it to the current Testament which has been given new life by the Spirit through Christ. From this study, the Old Testament characters will be brought from the depths of history into the now breathing creation called humanity, and a correlation will be drawn between the “not yet” and the “now”. It will also attempt to shed light on the “seen” and the “unseen” through the lens of the covenant treaty established by the Spirit of God himself throughout the earth for the sake of mankind’s redemption and his own glory revealed.
What does the Spirit of God desire and whom has he chosen?
(Exodus 35:30-36:1; cf. 31:1-6)
35:30-36 And Moses said to Israel’s sons, “See, the Lord has called by name Bezalel son of Uri son of Hur of the tribe of Judah. And filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom in understanding, and in knowledge, and in every good work, and to devise plans, to work in gold and in silver and in bronze, and in carving stones for settings, and in carving wood, in order to be able to do every task of devising. And to teach he has placed in his heart—he and Oholiab son of Ahisamach of the tribe of Dan. He has filled them with heart-wisdom in order to do every work done by a carver, and designer and embroiderer in blue, and in purple, in crimson material and in linen, and by a weaver—those who are to do every work and devisers of plans. 36:1 And Bezalel, along with Oholiab, and every wise-hearted man to whom the Lord has given wisdom and understanding in these matters to know how to do every work for the ministry of the holy place, shall do everything that the Lord has commanded.
Bezalel, from the tribe of Judah and Oholiab son of Ahisamach, from the tribe of Dan are the first biblical characters of the Old Testament recorded as being “filled” with the Spirit of God. Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, makes note that the Exodus text, (31:1-6; 35:30-36:1) emphasis’s their willingness, and God’s lack of sovereignly choosing the donors. Hamilton observes that there are no consequences for nonparticipation from the children of Israel in the collection of materials for the temple. Bezalel and Oholiab desired to give of themselves and their possessions to the plan of God.[1] When the Spirit of God filled them, there was an impartation of wisdom in understanding, knowledge, and heart-wisdom for crafting and devising for the work of ministry. Hamilton further draws a distinction between the wise men of the Pharaoh (Exodus 7:11), and the God-given wisdom imparted to lead Bezalel and Oholiab to use gratefully and artistically the skills God has given for the sake of the larger community. Hamilton describes this distinction of wisdom giving, when pertaining to the Pharaoh, as a wisdom from below; then toward Bezalel and Oholiab as a wisdom from above.[2] Hamilton also points out that nowhere throughout Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy is Moses ever described as wise. Moses oversaw the temple construction, but Moses didn’t build any of it. The assignment of wisdom was upon Bezalel, Oholiab, and every wise-hearted man who the Lord gave to do every work for ministry. It is clear through this text that the infilling of the Spirit of God, into mankind, began as a provisional impartation toward accomplishing practical hands on work and logistical planning within the nation of Israel for the common good.
Bezalel was the master craftsman that oversaw the building of the tabernacle, inside and out, and the arrangement of the priestly vestments. Oholiab, from the tribe of Dan, labored alongside Bezalel in all the building and planning. Concerning Oholiab’s lineage, Hamilton helps identify the significance of the tribe of Dan by observing that Dan was the firstborn of Jacob, and later Dan begets a son named Samson, who was one of the most famous judges of Israel. Dan’s lineage also participates in the building of Solomon’s temple (II Chronicles 2:13-14).[3] The infilling of the artisans launched a genealogy designated to establish a tangible participation in a God-people relationship in Israel. It is interesting to observe God’s decision for infilling ordinary people in this way and is curiously described differently from famous leaders such as Moses and Aaron. Bezalel carried a sacred call that paired equally with the divine call of Moses the liberator and Aaron the supreme priest, per Hamilton.[4] The story in Exodus begins a theme of how God thinks, which doesn’t respect people the way we do, but rather holds relationship as the standard for engagement with humanity. Remember it was the willingness of Bezalel and Oholiab that brought them to his attention. Most likely they already attained skill sets that he decided to utilize through this willing relationship offered to him.
Moses, Jesus, and Jeremiah
The opening text described ordinary, willing people that were chosen by God to receive the infilling of his Spirit within them, empowering them to do great things. Even though Moses was never described as wise, he was described in another, more opulent manner. (Exodus 7:1), “And the Lord said to Moses, “See I have made you god to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother will be your prophet.” Hamilton’s understanding of this text disagrees with the formal interpretations that places “like” before “god”. He states that there is no preposition attached to “god,” such as one finds in (Genesis 3:5) that states that we are made like God. In this text it is just (ʾĕlōhim).[5] Hamilton establishes that the Septuagint and the Vulgate are almost the same as the Hebrew text for this passage. It is interesting to note that Josephus (Ant.3.7.7-180) refers to Moses as a “divine man” (theios aner), per Hamilton. It is also interesting that (nabhi) prophet, referring to Aaron, holds the active meaning of “one who invokes God.”[6]
Hamilton admits that it is abnormal for a mere human to be called (ʾĕlōhim), however there are two designations assigned to Moses as an (ʾĕlōhim)by God (Exodus 4:16; 7:1). So, what questions does this information cause us to ask? We know that Moses was described as a very humble man, more humble than anyone on earth.[7] When Moses came down from the mountain as his face shown with a brilliance of light, Moses wasn’t even aware or concerned with his disposition until he noticed that it concerned the people.[8] Our immediate interpretation of what a man-(ʾĕlōhim)should be is also brought in for review because if we look at how Pharaoh responded to Moses, we don’t see a person in great awe before a god but quite the opposite. Then what is a man-(ʾĕlōhim)?We do know that from this text it appears that a man-(ʾĕlōhim) would be one that is humbled before God to a point of great submission, bold with God to remind him of his covenant, and willing to obey as he commands. The sub-narrative of these text appears to reveal a man-(ʾĕlōhim) and a Spirit filled individual as one who is a willing and an obedient vessel at the Lord’s behest.
When modern Christianity considers the concept of a man-(ʾĕlōhim), they think of Jesus, not Moses. So, what do Jesus and Moses share in common? (John 10:22-39) describes Jesus at the feast of the dedication as he walked into the temple in Solomon’s porch. Many Jews gathered around him, beseeching him to make it clear if he was the Christ. Jesus chastened them with his words, saying that he had told them, but they refused to hear him because they were not his sheep. He then stated that he gives eternal life to his sheep, and no one is able to pluck them from his Father’s hand, and he finished his statement saying, “I and my Father are one.” They immediately took up stones to throw at him. Jesus responded by asking which of his good works are they stoning him for. They answered by saying, “not for any good work, but for blasphemy; and because you, being a man, make yourself God”. Jesus’s final statement of appeal was for them to believe on the works if they didn’t believe on him, and believe that the Father was in him, and him in the Father; to no avail.
These are hard and powerful words to the mind of mankind. It stirs thoughts of envy, jealousy, and rage. How can this person be one with God, a man-(ʾĕlōhim)?Does he think he is better than us? Christianity today would say that, of course, Jesus was a man-(ʾĕlōhim), but what do they say about Moses? There are many correlations between Moses and Jesus. Humility and obedience are shared descriptions in both Testaments. (Exodus 34:28) tells of Moses abiding with God in the wilderness forty days and forty nights, without food and water. (Matthew 4:1-11) describes the same wilderness fast in the life of Jesus with the Spirit of God. (Exodus 8:32) Pharaoh hardened his heart against the will of the Lord to set people free, (Mark 3:5) after Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath, breaking human traditions to set a person free, was distressed at the Pharisees stubborn and hardened hearts. Hamilton draws an interesting conclusion between these two narratives and notes that the Greek words for “Pharaoh” and “Pharisees” are close to each other (Pharao, Pharisaios).[9] Both Pharaoh and the Markan Pharisees shared a common position, which is a stance against God’s plan to set people free. It is also interesting to note that both nemesis groups were key elements that God utilized to reveal his glory and usher his agenda into high gear. The Moses and Jesus descriptions express a relational bond of trust with the Father that resulted in a higher divine agenda being accomplished through man while facing opposition from man. Hamilton asserts that “God”, designated to Moses is the closest parallel in the First Testament for “God” applied to Jesus in the New Testament, referencing (Exodus 4:16;7:1) and (John 1:17). Hamilton states that considering the scriptural interpretation, Jesus is emphatically linked to Moses, as a Moses/god and Jesus/god in their connection.[10]
William L. Holladay, Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observations, proposes that Jeremiah was a prophet just like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:18). Holladay draws these hypothesis conclusions when comparing the verbal parallels between Jeremianic poetry and the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32).[11] Jeremiah’s text ties Israel’s covenant with God into the language of the “bride” and the “bridegroom” on four occasions (7:34; 16:9; 25:10; 33:11), as a prototype. Jeremiah is stated “I am called by thy name” (Jeremiah 14:9), which Holladay concludes that Jeremiah understood himself to have been called in covenant by Yahweh just as much as Israel. This covenant describes Jeremiah’s “marriage” to Yahweh.[12] When comparing the phrase “Behold, I have put my words in your mouth” (Jeremiah 1:9), and when God promised Moses that he would put his words in the prophet’s mouth (Deuteronomy 18:18), a correlation appears suggesting that the scroll that touched Jeremiah’s lips contained God’s words mediated through Moses, and now this mediation was passed to Jeremiah.[13] One of the most interesting observations from Holladay states that (Jeremiah 4:4) “we see Jeremiah’s insistence that the interpreters of the law had found a way to preserve the letter without the spirit”, which from this statement joins Jeremiah into the (Pharao, Pharisaios) comparison shared by Moses and Jesus.[14] From Holladay’s journal, Jeremiah is described as a recipient of the anointing of Moses, filled with the same spirit words as Moses, focused on the marriage relationship of oneness with Yahweh, and described as one who stands against the (Pharao, Pharisaios) of his day. With these correlations drawn, the argument can be made that there is another instance of a Moses/god, Jesus/god, and now Jeremiah/god scenario. This theological theme of a man-(ʾĕlōhim) is beginning to expand.
Who is Man?
Walter Brueggemann, Genesis: Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, tackles the beginning narrative description of mankind in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Brueggemann notes that there is almost no historical particularity, no concrete identification of historical persons, groups, movements, or institutions presented in these chapters. Only unity in creation where humanity operates in authority, power, and the reality of order and freedom in human life, designed by God.[15] Brueggemann takes a firm position that mankind has been specifically designed to fulfill a purpose of responsibility. The Genesis narrative consistently describes God’s call to a faithful response and glad obedience to his will from his children.[16] It describes a creation loved by God and the freedom of creation is taken seriously by the creator, who is faithful, patient, and concerned for us. The picture unfolding from Genesis doesn’t describe a God bent on totalitarian obedience and a need to be fearfully worshiped, but rather as being relational and long suffering with those that he loves. There must be something that God has in mind for humanity that requires responsibility of them, while supporting them with familial supervision. (Genesis 2:19) describes how God formed the beast and the fowl, then brought them to Adam to see what he would name them. Once Adam named them, Adam’s decision stood with authority. It appears that God had established an environment in which humanity could be molded through responsibility and through the consequences of their decisions. Importantly, Brueggemann notes that creation is not left to its own devises, never abandoned, nor given free rein for its own inclinations.[17] The creator loves, respects, and participates with his children.
The question that must be considered deeply then, is what God’s completed plan for humanity is, and what does that look like. William C. Williams, They Spoke From God: Survey of the Old Testament, describes God as one who is outside of time that speaks to creation and can be reached by creation.[18] (Hebrews 11:3) states that the world was created by that which is not visible. This unseen God has created that which is seen and has a direct connection with the heart of man which is also unseen. Williams delineates that the “Spirit of God” is apparent through God’s active agency, such as in the Book of Judges where God’s Spirit “comes upon” the judges to enable them to do the task at hand.[19] Again the agency of God is described as coming upon David and leaving Saul (I Samuel 16:14-16). Williams defines the Old Testament Spirit of God as “living and full of power”, and the New Testament Spirit of God as “manifesting a distinct personality and office”.[20] These descriptions of God’s interaction with humanity suggest that God desires to intimately abide within mankind. There is an “entering in” description as God connects with those willing to know and trust him. This “entering in” is a description of “oneness” as Jesus taught.[21] Jesus, the son of man, having taken on the plight of humanity in human form was described as having the whole fullness of deity dwelling bodily.[22] Then the Apostle Paul challenges the church in Corinth to remind themselves that they, collectively and individually, are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in them.[23]
Williams makes an important observation of the Genesis text which describes mankind as “theologically human”, as bearing the image of God. This (imago dei) denotes the symbolic as well as the tangible relation between God and humanity.[24] The (imago dei) is a marriage between God and humanity, which is reflected consistently throughout the Old Testament and New Testament text. This descriptive analogy excellently describes how God desires an intimate interaction with humanity. Williams makes a compelling observation of the Apostle Paul’s description of Christ as the “image of God” (II Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15, I Corinthians 11:7). It’s by “clothing ourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 13:14), that we become more like him.[25] How much more should we be compelled in our understanding of God’s plan than when we wrestle with these pointed and direct words from Paul? Jesus was the image of God, and if we cloth ourselves with the teaching and example of Christ, then “we” become more like the image of God. There is a theme unfolding as we engage the ancient text that declares that God’s intention from the beginning was to initiate the man-(ʾĕlōhim). Williams describes this man-(ʾĕlōhim) understanding as comparable to a suzerain-vassal treaty. The covenant relationship between God and Israel is an example of a suzerain-vassal treaty (Exodus 19-24; Leviticus 17-27; Deuteronomy), that served as a testimony to what God wanted for all of humanity, per Williams.[26] The Suzerain treaty is described as a treaty between two unequal parties. The suzerain is the more powerful party while the vassal is the less powerful party. Some examples are a father and a son, or a lord and a servant.[27] From this definition of treaty, the Moses/god and Jesus/god comparison becomes clearer, for both Moses and Jesus were humble, obedient vessels for the more powerful Spirit of God.
Further expounding on this theological schema, George Mendenhall makes the observation which (Exodus 31:13; Leviticus 20:8; 21:8; 22:32) clarifies that only God is holy, and anything else can be holy only if it is granted a proper relationship with God.[28] This analysis of the Exodus and Leviticus text, by Mendenhall, remains congruent with the Suzerain treaty model. It is the suzerain (Lord), partnered with the vassal (servant), that brings inequality into equal unity. The vassal isn’t superior, yet the vassal receives equality through treaty. It appears that this is the man-(ʾĕlōhim) model that God intended from the very beginning; the (imago dei) fulfilled. Therefore, it could be said that we live “from” his grace, not “for” his grace because his grace has always been available to those who are willing to seek him. The covenant is upheld by God’s superiority, and the treaty is accessible to all who are willing. With all covenant treaties come responsibilities and privileges, that are held in tacked through a life committed relationship. Jesus’s own words confirm this suzerain treaty between him and the Father. (John 14:28) I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. Yahweh the father, and Yeshua the son, are brought into unity through a covenant aggregable to both sides. Nikolaevich Sergeaei Bulgakov, The Lamb of God, described the Antiochene Christology’s characterization of the humanity of Christ as the “unity of the God-Man”. [29] Bulgakov describes how early Alexandrian theology and Antiochene theology would struggle to reconcile the humanity in the God-Man, and how they could understand the union between the two essences (divinity-humanity) which suggested the absorption of the one, or the illusoriness of the humanity. Bulgakov notes that the struggle swirled around the dialectical relationship in which neither could be accepted without, at the same time, accepting of the other. Bulgakov states that when these two natures are taken in isolation, they are equally false theories, and only become dialectically true when conjoined with each other.[30] Bulgakov describes this dialectical conjoining in this way, “He makes Him one person with Himself by virtue of the unity to which He raises Him. He communicates to him all primacy. He willed by good will to accomplish all things through Him; the judgment, the trail of the whole word, and His own coming.”[31]
The man-(ʾĕlōhim) appears to be God’s designated plan from the beginning and his son as the human avatar for all humanity to draw upon. Mendenhall, when referencing the succession of the prophets which was designated by God through the lineage of Moses, as God’s plan to inhabit all of humanity.[32] William Dyrness, Themes of the Old Testament Theology, describes the experiences of the Old Testament prophets, such as Jeremiah and Isaiah, as personally experiencing a “present realization” of being filled but also a future hope, which is an “already” and a “not yet”.[33] This “already” and “not yet” can be described through the concept of a maturation process. God said it himself that he intended to stop hiding his face from Israel anymore, but rather he was going to pour out his Spirit upon them (Ezekiel 39:29). This outpouring of God’s Spirit was not only for the house of Israel, but for all flesh that would result in widespread prophecy (nabhi), and a Spirit leading through dreams and visions for all people (Joel 2:28-29). God speaks of a unified humanity in which he will put a “new spirit” within them (Ezekiel 11:19). Dyrness states that, “from the very variety of expressions the prophets use—a new heart, a new spirit, a new covenant—it becomes clear how thorough and complete will be this (worldwide) transformation that God intends to work by his Spirit.”[34]
Conclusion
The first record of God’s Spirit filling the interior of a man (mankind), was not the most elect but rather the willing. Bezalel and Oholiab were anointed to master their work gloves and steel toed boots, if you will. This precedent set by God should be considered as widely significant toward the larger agenda derived by God himself. It indicates that what we esteem is not what God esteems, nor what we find worthy to be what God is actually looking for. The schema within the narrative suggest that God is looking for a marriage relationship, a suzerain-vassal treaty, a covenant between himself and humanity which is agreed upon in unity of intention. Moses, not mentioned as filled with wisdom by the Spirit, still fulfilled the mantel of God’s authority before Pharaoh, Egypt, and Israel. Moses was honored with the image of God. Aaron, even after his blatant building of the golden calf, was still entreated with the title of spokesman and high priest. Jerimiah received unto himself the mantel of Moses, which was an expression of the active Spirit of God speaking through his lips to the nations. Abraham, flawed by poor judgment and reoccurring doubt and fear, still entered into this treaty and was described as the friend of God. David, who fell to the depths of deceit and murder, was known as a man after God’s own heart.
Jesus, when approached by a certain ruler who called Jesus “good master”, instantly corrected that ruler’s understanding of Jesus by saying, “Why callest me good? None is good, save one-God”.[35] Even Jesus himself was the lesser vassal who willing entered into the suzerain-vassal treaty, achieving unity with the greater. Jesus made this plain through his own words saying, If you love me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I”.[36] The way of Jesus was the correct way which was willingness, obedience, and a proper understanding of God’s requirements for covenant. The truth found in Jesus was the man-(ʾĕlōhim) image presented to the world. Jesus was unified with the one-God that was good and Jesus’s life was a reflection of that truth in action. Jesus made this truth from the one-God clear by saying, “he that has seen me has seen the Father”.[37] The life of Jesus was the expression of God’s life in unity with Jesus. It was real life, secure life, a God-life. Jesus made it clear to us that no man can unto the Father, as Jesus had, apart from how Jesus did it.
The Apostle Paul declares us as Christ’s ambassadors (nabhi), declaring the image of God in Christ, and if we cloth ourselves with the teaching and example of Christ, then “we” become more like the image of God (imago dei), man-(ʾĕlōhim), suzerain vassals treaty members in this covenant offered from a holy and benevolent God who loves us. This promise of oneness is offered to “all flesh”, and perhaps this is why God said that the creation of mankind was good. Mankind was the vessel through which God’s goodness would enter in and be displayed for all to see.
Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.
Bulgakov, Sergeæi Nikolaevich. The Lamb of God. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2007.
Dyrness, William A. Themes in Old Testament Theology. Exeter, U.K.: Paternoster, 1998.
Hamilton, Victor P. Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2011.
Holladay, William L. 1966. “Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observations.” Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1): 17–27.
Thompson, J. A. The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and the Old Testament. London: Tyndale Press, 1964.
[1] Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2011), 600.
[2] Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 601.
[3] Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 521.
[4] Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 521.
[5] Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 111.
[6] Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 111.
[7] Num. 12:3 (NIV).
[8] Ex. 34:29 (NIV).
[9] Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 112.
[10] Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 113.
[12] William L. Holladay, “’Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observations,’” 24.
[13] William L. Holladay, “’Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observations,’” 25.
[14] William L. Holladay, “’Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observations,’” 27.
[15] Walter Brueggemann, Genesis: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 11.
[16] Walter Brueggemann, “Genesis: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, 13.
[17] Walter Brueggemann, “Genesis: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, 13
[18] William C. Williams; Stanley M. Horton, They Spoke From God: Survey of the Old Testament, (Springfield, Missouri: Logion Press/Gospel Pub. House, 2003), 11.
[19] Williams and Horton, They Spoke From God: Survey of the Old Testament, 71.
[20] Williams and Horton, They Spoke From God: Survey of the Old Testament, 71.
[21] John 14:11 (KJV).
[22] Col. 2:9 (KJV).
[23] I Cor. (ESV).
[24] Gen. 1:26-27 (ESV).
[25] Williams and Horton, They Spoke From God: Survey of the Old Testament, 92.
[26] Williams and Horton, They Spoke From God: Survey of the Old Testament, 267.
[27] J.A. Thompson, The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and the Old Testament, (London: Tyndale Press, 1964), 58.
[28] George E. Mendenhall, Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition, The Biblical Archaeologist, 17, no. 3 (1954): 304.
[29] Nikolaevich Sergeaei Bulgakov, The Lamb of God, (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2007), 33.
[30] Bulgakov, “’The Lamb of God,’” 34.
[31] Bulgakov, “’The Lamb of God,’” 37.
[32] George E. Mendenhall, Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition, The Biblical Archaeologist, 17, no. 3 (1954): 692.
[33] William A. Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology, (Exeter, U.K.: Paternoster, 1998.), 207.
[34] Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology, 208.
[35] Luke 8:19 (KJV).
[36] John 14:28 (NIV).
[37] John 14:9 (NIV).
Thesnomanreport 