Were Old Testament Saints Born Again?

[Jope]

Not all the Pre-Christ saints were indwelt with the Holy Spirit like those of the Church are today.

Otherwise, Moses wouldn't have wished that all the LORD's people would have the Spirit on them:

Numbers 11 ESV
27 And a young man ran and told Moses, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.” 28 And Joshua the son of Nun, the assistant of Moses from his youth, said, “My lord Moses, stop them.” 29 But Moses said to him, “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!”

- Bold emphasis mine.​

Later on, in the time of Jehosophat, we know that there was a remnant chosen by God (1Kings 19:14-18; Rom. 11:1-6), yet, we read specifically of the Spirit of the LORD coming upon Jahaziel, a Levite of the sons of Asaph (2Chron. 20:14-15). Why does it bother to specify that the Spirit came upon Jahaziel if the Spirit of the LORD was upon all the remnant of God?

We don't ever read of the Spirit of the LORD coming upon that remnant (Rom. 11:4), who lived in the same time as Elijah and Jehosophat.

Those scriptures that show that the Spirit came upon certain people in Pre-Christ times are scriptures showing types of Christ. Joseph and Joshua, for example.

We never read that it was a requisite for Pre-Christ saints to have the Spirit of God when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, as we do for the Christians (Eph. 1:13). The Pre-Christ saints didn't even believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:21-22), they didn't know His name (Prov. 30:4; Acts 4:12). They had to wait until Christ preached to them in Hades (John 5:24-29; 1Pet. 4:9; Mt. 27:52-53; Hos. 6:2; Eph. 4:8).

In the present dispensation, those who don't have the Spirit of Christ are "none of His" (Rom. 8:9, KJV). If we were to apply this concept to Moses time, when Moses had wished that the Spirit of God would come upon all the LORD's people, then those people devoid of the Spirit, like Caleb for example, would not have been a part of the LORD's people.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Not all the Pre-Christ saints were indwelt with the Holy Spirit like those of the Church are today.

Otherwise, Moses wouldn't have wished that all the LORD's people would have the Spirit on them:
.

Again there is a diffrence between indwelt and anointing.... same in NT and OT.

 

[Bro. James]

Great impact on a number of issues

"Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." Adam knew this--Gen 3:16. He showed his sons. Abel believed it. Cain did not. Cain killed his brother in a jealous rage.

Job knew about blood redemption: "I know that my redeemer liveth; and on the earth again shall stand."

Moses gave up a high place in Egypt, esteeming the reproach of Christ of greater value. The unbelievers died in the wilderness.

Jesus is in the OT and NT, in every book. Jesus to disciples "Who do you say that I am?" Answer: " thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Mt. 16.

Salvation by grace through faith--OT and NT. The main doctrine which goes in the trash is: baptismal regeneration. The pedobaptists are wrong.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Darrell C]

I think that Christ was the lamb, the sin offering, that in the past tense by his resurrection from the dead became the author of.

He was raised from the dead to die no more.

He was raised from the dead no more to return to corruption.

There is a perfection in the resurrected Son of God, the Son of Man, that he did not possess before his death.

He learned obedience through sufferings.
He became obedient unto death.

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels;

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels


The Son of God was lower than the angels in that he could die yet by inheritance he obtained a more excellent name than they.

Was this inheritance at a moment in time. Is this God the Son inheriting or is this the Son of God, the man child Jesus born unto the virgin Mary inheriting?

Hello Percho, sorry for the time in between posts, but I will address this last question at this time:

Was this inheritance at a moment in time. Is this God the Son inheriting or is this the Son of God, the man child Jesus born unto the virgin Mary inheriting?

I would first point out that I do not consider the Lord to have been in need of being born again, for He was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who I do not see as being separated from God as was all of mankind in Adam.

Concerning His "perfection" it was necessary for Him to be the One Who died for us to actually...die. There is absolutely no reason to conclude that there was ever a possibility that something might occur, or not occur, that would disqualify Him from being made perfect as our Savior. That perfection, or, completion, focuses on bringing something to an end, and should be viewed even as we would view the order of salvation, in that, those that are born again will be glorified, it is a foregone conclusion, not something which is dependent upon a course of events. In other words, Christ was not made perfect because He "made the grade," so to speak, but was made perfect in the sense that He completed that which He had to do, which was a foregone conclusion from before the foundation of the world.

So I have to first address the implication I see in your post that Christ's being made perfect could in any way not have been accomplished, for, that is what He came to do. If I have misread this, then I apologize, but that seems to be the implication here.

Now back to the question:

Was this inheritance at a moment in time. Is this God the Son inheriting or is this the Son of God, the man child Jesus born unto the virgin Mary inheriting?

What does the Word of God say?

Consider:



Hebrews 1:4-6

King James Version (KJV)


4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.


I think your question is a good one, and I think in view is the Lord's incarnation. But, we do not forget Who Christ is, and that He is both the Son of God as well as God the Son (and we keep in mind that an inheritance is never earned, one is born into it):



Hebrews 1

King James Version (KJV)


1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


We cannot disassociate the Humanity of Christ at any time from His Deity, and the point I would try to make is that the Lord manifesting in flesh to die for man was again...a foregone conclusion.

From the perspective of His humanity, He had to manifest among men and complete the Work which He knew He would do. That does not change the fact that He is the Creator, and that from the perspective of His Deity, all things are made by Him and For Him. The inheritance speaks to His salvific work, but, I think we can also say that it is because He is God the Son, we understand that to be why His name is above any other.

In other words, the inheritance obtained is not something that could have been gained by anyone other than God the Son.

I think that Christ was the lamb, the sin offering, that in the past tense by his resurrection from the dead became the author of.

I agree, which is one reason I do not believe men were born again before the Cross or Pentecost.

He was made "perfect," complete, as the One which bestows eternal redemption.



Hebrews 5:8-9

King James Version (KJV)


8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;


What is significant about the Cross? What was the purpose of the Cross? Was it not to stand in the place of the sinner, to take upon Himself the penalty for our sin?

And until that took place, could we not see atonement as incomplete, or...not yet perfect?

That is precisely what the writer of Hebrews states. The completed action of death was necessary that remission of sins be obtained in perfection. That is how He was "made perfect," because He completed the necessary work for our sin to be forgiven. It is forgiven based upon His death in our place, His righteousness imputed on our behalf.

Consider also:



Hebrews 9:12

King James Version (KJV)


12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

He was raised from the dead to die no more.

Agreed.

He was raised from the dead no more to return to corruption.

He saw no corruption.


Acts 2:27

King James Version (KJV)


27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

There is a perfection in the resurrected Son of God, the Son of Man, that he did not possess before his death.


He learned obedience through sufferings.
He became obedient unto death.

I think it important that we keep the teaching of "perfection" in it's proper context in Hebrews, as it is easy to go outside of Hebrews, and comparing it with the perfection Paul speaks about in regards to progressive sanctification to make erroneous conclusions about perfection in general.

For instance, Christ taught that men were to be "perfect" as our Father in Heaven is perfect.

Can they? Of course not.

Was the Lord Jesus Christ? Of course. We could argue that "No, He wasn't, because He was in a body of flesh," but...we also know He was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.

The fact is, if He was not perfect, He would have been disqualified as the sinless sacrifice, and we know that He, above all men, was without blot or blemish, spotless...perfect.

When we think of Christ's suffering, we often forget what it must have been like for God to dwell in the flesh of men, and...to dwell with men.

No man before or after Christ could have the compassion that Christ had for man, and no-one is better qualified to show sympathy.

There is a perfection in the resurrected Son of God, the Son of Man, that he did not possess before his death.

This, in my view, implies that the Lord "earned" a designation of perfect, when, I take the view that His perfection, that which you rightly distinguish as a perfection which "He did not possess before his death," has nothing whatsoever with His "earning" through being sinless, but refers to the simple fact that He had to first die in order that He make complete and establish that which would allow Him to forgive sins completely, but to bestow eternal redemption upon man.

Christ came to bestow life which He compared to the life of "the fathers" in the wilderness (of whom Moses was one), comparing manna with the "True Bread," which, if a man eats...though he were physically dead, yet shall he never perish.

Now if Moses is (by implication) said to be dead, and no man has life apart from "eating the flesh and drinking the blood" of Christ (placing faith in Him and His Work on the Cross), then how do we ascribe eternal redemption, or eternal life to those that preceded Christ being made perfect that He might be the Author of eternal salvation?

I will mention that I am not saying that men were not "saved" before the Cross or Pentecost, but, that they had not been "perfectly," or completely forgiven, and, that this was necessary for man to come into the presence of God in reality, not in shadow, as is found in the Law.

Consider:


Hebrews 9:8-12

King James Version (KJV)


8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.



Hebrews 10:19-20

King James Version (KJV)


19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;


The death of Christ was necessary for the purpose of bringing man into the presence of God in reality, not shadow.

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels;

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels


The Son of God was lower than the angels in that he could die yet by inheritance he obtained a more excellent name than they.

Because He was God the Son, manifest in flesh.

An inheritance can never be earned.

Was this inheritance at a moment in time. Is this God the Son inheriting or is this the Son of God, the man child Jesus born unto the virgin Mary inheriting?

Again, I think that we always make a mistake when we try to emphasize one over the other. Christ was both man and God. We separate only the temporal from the Eternal, where we see that God the Son has always been God the Son, but, God the Son was not always in that flesh, that body, created for the purpose of dying in the place of sinful man. We can nail down a place in History where He was born of a virgin, but, we can find no place in Eternity when He was not.

God the Son has always been perfect, for God is complete. What was not complete, though, was the Work which would open unto men the way into the Holiest, the very presence of God, in God's realm, Heaven.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Scripture says indwelt. 1eter 1:11 and MANY OT passages says the same that I have posted. No one can be save that's not indwelt.....no two kinds of salvation. The Holy Spirit came upon the saints in the NT too just like the OT.

Not entirely correct: the Lord teaches the coming of the Comforter as something which will take place after He has returned unto the Father.

That is why the disciples were troubled, because He said He was going away. The promise of the Spirit, also found in the Old Testament and referred to in Acts 1, was meant to comfort the disciples. But, we cannot place this ministry before it began, and it began on Pentecost.

While we see the Spirit of God always working in the lives of men, primarily for the purpose of empowering them for ministry, such as the ministries of Prophet, Priest, King, and even the avenger of God (Abraham rescuing Lot, for example), we can without debate set the ministry of the Comforter as having a specific time of beginning which also coincides with Pentecost. It can be argued that this is just empowerment to preach the Gospel, but, when we examine the understanding of the disciples, and couple that with the fact that the Gospel was shrouded in mystery, it makes more sense to distinguish between the ministries of the Holy Spirit before and after Pentecost.

Both ministries are mentioned by the Lord here:


John 14:17

King James Version (KJV)


17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

The Holy Spirit was around in OT too...not just when Jesus sent Him.

The Holy Spirit has always, and always will be..."around."

He empowered the disciples, for example, to preach the Kingdom of God, to heal, and to cast out demons.

Remember what Jesus told the Jews that were accusing him? He said why is it you cannot understand what I am saying? Your of you Father the Devil. That's in John's Gospel and in first John it says "But you belong to God, my dear children. You have already won a victory over those people, because the Spirit who lives in you is greater than the spirit who lives in the world." Only those who have the Spirit on the inside old or new can hear his voice and discern truth from error.

Did the disciples believe?



John 16:29-33

King James Version (KJV)



29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.

30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Again there is a diffrence between indwelt and anointing.... same in NT and OT.

Could not possibly be, for the New Covenant standard is that the indwelling is everlasting, whereas in the Old Testament we see clearly that it was not always so:



John 14:16-17

King James Version (KJV)


16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.



Christ clearly teaches that another Comforter would take...His place. We see the Lord comfort the disciples by assuring them that they would receive the One which, after He had returned to the Father, would be sent.

He, the Spirit, dwelt with them, but, He would be in them when they were baptized with the Holy Spirit.

And that did not take place until Pentecost.

We can say they were empowered for ministry, we see the result of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, but, we cannot negate Christ's teachings, nor His direct statement:



Acts 1:4-5

King James Version (KJV)


4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.



David pled, "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me," having as an example the departure of the Spirit of God from King Saul, and himself guilty of murder and adultery.

Can we, as believers, born again and indwelt of God deny that He is the guarantee of our bodily resurrection...echo the plea of David?

I do not believe we can, and think that when we do, we forget that which Christ spoke, namely that He will not leave nor forsake us.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

So far the poll shows that there is a majority of folks that believe men were born again in the Old Testament. I am a little surprised by this, but, there are some great men of God on both sides, and it is a question we must all settle in our hearts as we study the Word of God.

It is a great topic of discussion, and one that I think challenges us, because I do not think many have really given it the attention it truly deserves.

God bless.