Interplanner
Well-known member
The prophets pretty much uniformly said that when Messiah comes, the Spirit of God would be active on earth--"poured out on all flesh." Not only did this contrast to isolated or incidental cases from the OT, it was also placed on a condition: that the person would have had the righteousness of God/Christ imputed to them. When Paul uses David as an example of imputation in Rom 4, part of the reason for that illustration is to show a person upon whom the Spirit of God came and expressed things, in spite of the failures of the person.
This was not to facilitate an existential 'holiness' or 'Pentecostal' experience. It was to expedite the message of the Gospel to the nations, and--more subtly--to help Jews see proof that this actually was the age spoken of by the prophets so that they would not follow the machinations of the 'son of perdition'--a figure who would deceive Israel into a rebellion that would ruin the country. That person was due to arrive pretty much at the same time as Messiah.
Of course the Spirit did come because the Gospel was being explained to the nation with the intention of it going to the other nations. The Acts 2 moment was the kick start of that, and any other time we see the manifestation of the Spirit as tongues it is partly to demonstrate to Jews in the audience that the age is here. Of course, the Gospel is put forth.
So when we read the particular question in Gal 3 about that group and the Gospel, the Spirit and the Law, we are actually seeing the question: what gave you the idea that closer adherence to the law was going to help further the Gospel through another unusual manifestation of the Spirit? He's not trying to get them to be charismatic, although the manifestation might seem that way. He is opposed to Judaizers: "They want to alienate you from us, so that you are zealous for them." And of course the masterful play on words: "Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth?"
So much for mid-staged gospels and all that amateur thinking. It is true that the Spirit could not be given until the Son was glorified, but that giving of the Spirit started with the 'seminar' between the resurrection and the day of Pentecost. Even though they had seen all the events from the front row, the disciples were exactly like Paul: they thought of them 'kata sarka' and needed to see that all was fulfilled in Christ. It has to be taught and the concepts have to be built on each other so that when God makes his Spirit work, it is all ready to go and is properly explained as in Acts 2. That was the same Gospel as Paul's, with an emphasis on the Spirit at work as envisioned by the prophets.
That is why the question about the theocracy in Israel was such a loser. It was completely off target, as can be seen from the rest of Acts. Anyone who can not see that the mission of the Gospel entirely supplants the restored Israel question in Acts simply does not know what they are looking at.
Finally, it should be clear that the idea of the Spirit's work for an individual, private, ecstatic experience should be out of the question. There is nothing of the sort in the NT until the isolated case of Corinthians (which mimicked a nearby pagan ritual) and which Paul minimized, and considered non-communicative, and directed back to the Isaiah passage about the Cornerstone and about how actual tongues would prove to Jews that the Messiah's mission age was here.
This was not to facilitate an existential 'holiness' or 'Pentecostal' experience. It was to expedite the message of the Gospel to the nations, and--more subtly--to help Jews see proof that this actually was the age spoken of by the prophets so that they would not follow the machinations of the 'son of perdition'--a figure who would deceive Israel into a rebellion that would ruin the country. That person was due to arrive pretty much at the same time as Messiah.
Of course the Spirit did come because the Gospel was being explained to the nation with the intention of it going to the other nations. The Acts 2 moment was the kick start of that, and any other time we see the manifestation of the Spirit as tongues it is partly to demonstrate to Jews in the audience that the age is here. Of course, the Gospel is put forth.
So when we read the particular question in Gal 3 about that group and the Gospel, the Spirit and the Law, we are actually seeing the question: what gave you the idea that closer adherence to the law was going to help further the Gospel through another unusual manifestation of the Spirit? He's not trying to get them to be charismatic, although the manifestation might seem that way. He is opposed to Judaizers: "They want to alienate you from us, so that you are zealous for them." And of course the masterful play on words: "Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth?"
So much for mid-staged gospels and all that amateur thinking. It is true that the Spirit could not be given until the Son was glorified, but that giving of the Spirit started with the 'seminar' between the resurrection and the day of Pentecost. Even though they had seen all the events from the front row, the disciples were exactly like Paul: they thought of them 'kata sarka' and needed to see that all was fulfilled in Christ. It has to be taught and the concepts have to be built on each other so that when God makes his Spirit work, it is all ready to go and is properly explained as in Acts 2. That was the same Gospel as Paul's, with an emphasis on the Spirit at work as envisioned by the prophets.
That is why the question about the theocracy in Israel was such a loser. It was completely off target, as can be seen from the rest of Acts. Anyone who can not see that the mission of the Gospel entirely supplants the restored Israel question in Acts simply does not know what they are looking at.
Finally, it should be clear that the idea of the Spirit's work for an individual, private, ecstatic experience should be out of the question. There is nothing of the sort in the NT until the isolated case of Corinthians (which mimicked a nearby pagan ritual) and which Paul minimized, and considered non-communicative, and directed back to the Isaiah passage about the Cornerstone and about how actual tongues would prove to Jews that the Messiah's mission age was here.
