God the Father has an eternal plan, God the Son accomplished the means for that plan to be fulfilled, and God the Spirit completes and perfects that plan directly in the world. Bringing harmony to creation, revealing God’s plan to his people, and special empowerment of unique leaders of God’s people at significant points in the outworking of that plan all involve how the Holy Spirit brings the plan of God into order.

One of the Holy Spirit’s primary works has been to give revelation to key leaders of God’s people in the progress of God’s redemptive history, culminating in Holy Scripture, which was written by men who were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
But the Holy Spirit also gave some of these same leaders special empowerment in addition to direct revelation. For example, the Old Testament describes the Holy Spirit being “upon” Moses and the elders of Israel, Joshua, judges such as Gideon and Samson, and prophets such as Elijah and Micah. He also uniquely came upon Israel’s kings, Saul and David.
Theocratic Anointing
This Spirit empowerment gave individuals a variety of special abilities primarily so that they could lead God’s people. This is why such special empowerment is sometimes called “theocratic anointing.” In fact, often the prophecy itself was given as a sign that these individuals were chosen and empowered by the Spirit for such leadership.
For example, as ruler of Israel (Acts 7:35), Moses had a special anointing of the Spirit (Nm 11:17). God confirmed that anointing in the sigh of the people through the miracle of changing Moses’s staff into a snake (Ex 40:30–31). Later, Moses “took some of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. And as soon as the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied. But they did not continue doing it” (Nm 11:25). The special empowerment by the Spirit was so that the elders could “bear some of the burden of the people” as rulers alongside Moses, and they prophesied as confirmation that they were to share the burden of leadership.
That leadership passed on to Joshua as Moses’s successor, who then is described as “full of the Spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands on him” (Dt 34:9). God specifically told Joshua, “Just as I was with Moses, so I will be with you” (Jo 1:56). And God confirmed Joshua’s leadership of the people with the crossing of the Jordan river on dry ground (Jo 4), a supernatural miracle that would have immediately brought to mind Moses’s miracle of crossing the Red Sea (Ex 14:31). The result was that Joshua was confirmed as ruler of the people: “On that day the Lord exalted Joshua in the sight of all Israel, and they stood in awe of him just as they had stood in awe of Moses, all the days of his life” (Jo 4:14).
Four judges of Israel, are described as having this special Spirit anointing: Othniel (Jgs 3:10), Gideon (Jgs 6:34), Jepthah (Jgs 11:29), and Samson (Jgs 15:14). It is not a stretch to assume that this theocratic anointing came upon all of the judges whom God appointed as leaders of his people.
When leadership of Israel moved to a monarchy, so did the theocratic anointing of the Spirit. After Samuel anointed Saul as king of Israel (1 Sm 10:1), “the Spirit of God rushed upon him, and he prophesied among them” (1 Sm 10:10). The same happened later to David: “Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers. And the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David from that day forward” (1 Sm 16:13). Likewise, Solomon’s prayer for wisdom was, in effect, a request for the same special empowerment from the Spirit (1 Kgs 3:9). The first result of the empowerment given to him by the Spirit was his ability to wisely judge the case of the two women fighting over the death of one of their babies. This exercise of divine empowerment confirmed Solomon as leader of God’s people: “And all Israel heard of the judgment that the king had rendered, and they stood in awe of the king, because they perceived that the wisdom of God was in him to do justice” (1 Kgs 3:28).
Prophets, too, appear to have had a special empowerment from the Spirit, though perhaps this would not necessarily be called theocratic anointing since they were not rulers. Yet the purpose of such empowerment was similar: to confirm them as messengers of God. For example, the Spirit was known to carry Elijah to places unknown (1 Kgs 18:12), and Micah declared of himself, “I am filled with power, with the Spirit of the Lord, and with justice and might” (Mic 3:8). Indeed, as we have already noted, Spirit empowerment and direct divine revelation went hand in hand.
So this empowerment was primarily given by the Spirit to equip leaders of God’s people, often resulting in unique wisdom, physical strength, and revelation from God, to bring God’s people into order with God’s plan and purposes. And the miraculous works performed by these individuals as a result of the Sprit’s anointing were for the purpose of confirming them as rulers and messengers of God in the sight of the people.
This act of the Holy Spirit was never permanent. The Spirit left Samson after Delilah cut his hair, for example, causing him to lose his special strength (Jgs 16:20). The most notable illustration of this is when “the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul” after his sin (1 Sm 16:14). Just prior to that, Samuel had anointed David as the new king of Israel, “and the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David from that day forward” (1 Sm 16:13). This also explains why David prayed that God would not take his Holy Spirit from him after his sin with Bathsheba (Ps 51:11). David wasn’t afraid that he would lose the indwelling presence of God’s Spirit that brings salvation—once we are saved, we never lose the Spirit in that sense (Eph 1:13–14). Rather, what David feared was that the Spirit would remove his special anointing empowerment given to him as king of Israel.
This special Spirit empowerment was even applied to non-believers on occasion. King Saul is, of course, an example of this. Though God anointed him as king of Israel and gifted him with special empowerment from the Spirit, his actions revealed that he was not a true follower of Yahweh. Likewise “the Spirit of God came upon” Balaam and caused him to bless Israel, though Balaam’s desire was to curse Israel (Nm 24:2).
What is clear, then, is that this empowerment by the Spirit is not related to other works by the Spirit that are given to all believers. This empowerment is unique gifting by the Spirit to leaders of God’s people and prophets in order that he might work his plan among them.
This fact alone reveals the unique nature of Spirit empowerment—it is not intended for every believer, or even just those who are especially holy. Rather, the Spirit empowered very specific individuals who were especially chosen by God to deliver his revelation or otherwise order the people and plan of God at significant stages in redemptive history. Between those significant transitional stages, such empowerment is not ordinary or necessary.
Read More
Related Posts:

The best way to combat the forces of expressive individualism is full frontal attack. By showing up every week to church and to the table, we train ourselves to believe that feelings of authenticity are not our lord. Christ is.

In July 1798, John Leland, elder of Third Baptist Church in Cheshire, Massachusetts, decided that he could not in good conscience continue to administer the Lord’s Supper to his church. Admittedly bothered by the hypocrisy of his church members using harsh language with one another before joining in an ordinance symbolizing unity, Leland’s real problem was that “he had never enjoyed the Lord’s Supper, as he had preaching and baptizing.” He later discontinued his own participation in Christ’s ordinance.
Leland’s refusal initiated a heated controversy within the church that would last more than a decade and result in several members facing excommunication for their criticisms of the esteemed pastor. Eventually, Leland issued a lengthy statement clarifying his views: “For more than thirty years experiment, I have had no evidence that the bread and wine ever assisted my faith to discern the Lord’s body. I have never felt guilty for not communing, but often for doing it.” Interpreting his own feelings, he concluded that “breaking bread is what the Lord does not place on me.” His own attendance at church meetings would be determined by whenever he thought he could “do good, or get good.”
Leland’s biographer, Eric C. Smith summarizes well the implications of his position: “The cascade of personal pronouns, and the conspicuous absence of Scripture references, announced that Leland had unmoored himself from every authority outside of his conscience—his own church, eighteen hundred years of Christian tradition, and even the Bible. Leland saw himself as perfectly capable of arriving at religious truth all by himself.”
John Leland was a strange figure in the context of the 1790s, but his reasoning about the Lord’s Supper would have fit quite comfortably within today’s worldview of “expressive individualism.” Mark Sayers summarizes several tenets of this mindset in his book, Disappearing Church. Expressive individualists believe “the highest good [in society] is individual freedom, happiness, self-definition, and self-expression.” Consequently, “traditions, religions, received wisdom, regulations, and social ties that restrict individual freedom, happiness, self-definition, and self-expression must be reshaped, deconstructed, or destroyed.” Leland’s approach to the Lord’s Supper has now become the dominant approach to life for many in the modern world.
Read More
Related Posts:

There is more than one way to evangelise, and if you can develop good relationships with non-believers, that is great. But the point is, if Jesus, the disciples, and the church for so many centuries concentrated on actually proclaiming truth to anyone and everyone, then we should not be dismissive of it – even in a rather different culture today. Sure, use the internet or social media or all sorts of new technologies to share the gospel message. And engage in “friendship evangelism” and the like. But do not think that just being nice and “being there” will ultimately cut it. Please make sure that you eventually SAY something!

If you know your New Testament, you will know that Jesus and the disciples had particular ways in which they shared the gospel. These were not the only ways in which folks can share their faith, but if it was good enough for them, then presumably we can learn something from them – especially if many modern forms of evangelism seem to counter what they had done.
It is not just that much of what Christians do today in this regard seems to conflict with what Jesus said and did – along with the disciples – but often we are hearing from some folks that evangelism and proselytisation is wrong altogether.
I kid you not. Plenty of those claiming to be Christians have said that we should not proselytise others. Consider these words that I penned nearly a decade ago. They involve the then Australian head of the once strongly evangelical para-church group World Vision. He actually came out and said this back then:
“We don’t engage in proselytism, and we work cooperatively with people of all faiths and those without a faith. In fact World Vision has more Muslim employees than any other NGO in the world, including Muslim NGOs. We strive to serve people everywhere without regard to their race, religion or politics.” https://billmuehlenberg.com/2014/03/28/clueless-christianity-fuzzy-thinking-and-some-spiritual-lessons/
Wow. The group’s founder Bob Pierce would be rolling in his grave at that. Then we had the case of Pope Francis saying in 2019, “You must not proselytise. It is not Christian to proselytise”. Yes, he then had to go on to explain and defend his remarks. Whether or not he was ‘taken out of context,’ there are many believers today who do seem to look down on evangelism.
Certainly, the idea of waltzing into a town and engaging in open air preaching seems to be a big no-no for many of these trendy and progressive Christians. Such actions are considered to be ‘intolerant’ and ‘unloving’ and we must just slowly build relationships with folks first. You know, let’s just go to lots of cafés over a long period of time and sip on our lattes, and maybe one year we might be in a place to share your faith.
Now, is the building of relationships with non-believers generally a good thing? Yes it is. If and when we have that luxury of doing this, then by all means go for it. But two responses come to mind. This does not always work as planned. I know of Christians who kept putting off sharing their faith in order to “build a relationship” – only to then be told the person had died, and they never did get to hear the gospel! This happens far too often.
Secondly, it implies that everything Jesus and the disciples did were wrong, or not at all paradigmatic for us to follow. Hate to say it, but as far as I know, Jesus and the disciples did NOT normally spend many weeks or months getting to know folks and trying to get onside with others. They quite often simply went up to complete strangers and told them the gospel!
That was their normal way of doing evangelism. Sure, as a fledgling and persecuted new community of believers, they may have been rather limited in this regard. As I say, today, if relationship building is possible, then go for it.
Read More
Related Posts: