Book Reviews / Pneuma 30 (2008) 315-370 345

James M. Hamilton, Jr., God’s Indwelling Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Old and New
Testaments, New American Commentary Studies in Bible & Theology 1 (Nashville:
B&H Academic, 2006). xiv+233 pp. $19.99 hardback.

James Hamilton’s revised dissertation (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Ph.D.

2004) seeks to answer the question, “were individual believers under the old covenant
continually indwelt by the Holy Spirit?” (p. 1). The question is answered by three
texts (John 7.39; 14.17; and 20.22), which are presented as conclusive evidence that
the Holy Spirit did not indwell believers prior to the resurrection (glorification) of
Jesus.
Hamilton proceeds from the assumption that the Bible “exhibits a coherent system of
thought, . . . a unified, non-contradictory theology” (p. 1). In my judgment, this assump-
tion forces him to artificially alleviate tensions in the biblical text, and it pushes him to
make unsound exegetical and theological moves (some of which are mentioned below).
After demonstrating clearly that numerous Old Testament believers were indwelt by the
Spirit, he repudiates his own findings, arguing that these persons are special cases, excep-
tions to the rule, and that “the Old Testament contains no clear statement that all old
covenant believers were individually indwelt by the Holy Spirit” (p. 55). By characterizing
those with the Spirit as exceptional, Hamilton suggests that average believers (whom he
calls the “remnant” [p. 2]) did not have the Spirit.
Hamilton concludes that, in light of the Old Testament’s ambiguity, we must look to the
New Testament for clarity (p. 55); thus, he proceeds to the Fourth Gospel. He concludes
from his overview of John that: 1) regeneration is prerequisite to faith; therefore, by defini-
tion, all Old Testament believers were regenerated; 2) the indwelling of the Spirit was
granted for the first time in John 20.22; therefore, the Old Testament believers were not
indwelt by the Spirit. Consequently, Hamilton insists that Old Testament believers were
regenerated but not indwelt. Hamilton’s exegesis lacks careful observation and his argu-
ments do not convince. First, although the Fourth Gospel stresses the necessity of regen-
eration, it does not require that regeneration precede faith. R. Hollis Gause, Living in the
Spirit (rev. ed. 2007) offers a more engaging discussion of regeneration in the Gospel of
John. Second, a more persuasive reading of John 20.22 is proposed in John Christopher
Thomas, “The Spirit in the Fourth Gospel” (2000), which was recently reprinted in his The
Spirit of the New Testament (2005).
Hamilton proposes further that “the Spirit was not yet given” (Jn 7.39) and “he is with
you and shall be in you” (Jn 14.17), both refer to the indwelling of John 20.22. Although
the temple is not mentioned in John 7.38-39 and John 20.21-23 and is hardly a major
theme in John, Hamilton applies the temple imagery to his interpretation of these texts. He
argues that in the Old Testament the Holy Spirit dwelt in the temple but not in the indi-
vidual believer. After Jesus’ glorification, however, the Spirit dwells in believers both corpo-
rately and individually. In the Old Testament, the Spirit’s presence in the temple gave
spiritual strength to the individual believer. Hamilton, however, fails to address the situa-
tion of believers who lived before the building of the tabernacle and those who lived during
the exile after the temple had been destroyed. If the temple enabled spiritual life, then how
did these persons remain faithful?

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008 DOI: 10.1163/157007408X346609

346 Book Reviews / Pneuma 30 (2008) 315-370

Ultimately, the crucial text for Hamilton is “he is with you and shall be in you”
(Jn 14.17), which seems to suggest that the Spirit did not indwell the disciples before the
resurrection of Jesus. The text itself, however, is doubtful, receiving a “C” rating from the
Bible Society committee, causing the NJB to change the tense to, “he is in you.” Further-
more, I would like for Hamilton to have considered 2 John 1.2, which speaks of the truth
that “dwells in us and shall be with us,” showing a literary pattern similar to John 14.17 but
with the tenses reversed.
I would suggest that Hamilton investigate the following elements that should be part of
a study of the soteriological work of the Spirit in the Old Testament: 1) the exodus as the
paradigm for salvation; 2) the role of the Mosaic Covenant in the formation of the com-
munity; 3) the OT priests and the nurture of spiritual life; 4) terminology such as “forgive”
(‫)נשׂא‬, “atone” (‫)כּפר‬, “repent” (‫ ;)שׁוּב‬and 5) the communal nature and constitutive features
of the people of God.
Finally, in light of the fact that Hamilton’s primary line of argument utilizing John 7.39,
14.17, and 20.22, along with his conclusions, were published by C. I. Scofield in Things
Old and New (1920), a citation of Scofield would be appropriate. Scofield might also be the
origin of Hamilton’s view on Spirit baptism, since the arguments found in the Scofield
Reference Bible (1945 ed.) and in Hamilton’s appendix on Acts are fundamentally the same.
While leaning upon old dispensational reasoning, Hamilton’s appendix virtually ignores
the last 100 years of the Spirit’s work in the world and the accompanying Pentecostal/Char-
ismatic scholarship on Luke-Acts.
In conclusion, Hamilton identifies a number of central issues, but his approach is less
than satisfying; and he fails to take account of relevant works like those of Harold D.
Hunter, Howard M. Ervin, Roger Stronstad, and Michael Welker, among others. In spite
of my negative assessment, I can recommend this monograph as an easily accessible entré to
the topic.

Reviewed by Lee Roy Martin