Featured Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?

Then it is strange, your first post to me, because that is the view I support.

God bless.

 

Thanks for the reply, Martin.

I can understand not viewing His statement as a reference to a point I think it seen in Scripture as fairly evident, that is, that men did not have access to God. We see this in the Tabernacle and Temple, and while we do see the High Priest admitted access, this is known to be shadow/figure/parable.

Consider:


Exodus 33:20

King James Version (KJV)

20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.


Of course, this is, I believe, a reference to the physical man, primarily, which might not seem to apply to men who have died, however, just as in the case of "No man hath ascended up to Heaven," there is created a statement of truth which, if it is not true, creates a problem. I don't see it as a matter that He is restricting, or we can restrict, the statement to what He is presently speaking of, because again, this basic principle is seen on numerous occasions.

So when we consider the context of the entire passage, that one lesson that we find, that a man cannot see nor enter the Kingdom of God except he be born again (and again I see this as acceptable whether again, from above, or of the Spirit is used, as they all speak of the same event/process), which would negate, I feel, the possibility that men did in fact see and enter the Kingdom of God at death.

And this has already come up, Nicodemus' response. You say incredulity, whereas I see ignorance of what the Lord is speaking about. The incredulity seems rather on the part of the Lord. That he was such a notable teacher yet did not understand what Christ was saying. He asks, "How can these things be," when he should have known that these things can only be due to God, which, even further, was actually promised. It might be likened to ignorance on our part in regards to the Lord coming back. We differ in our eschatological views, but, both of us, I believe, live in a hope of the promise of Christ's Return. That is not much different than the hope of Israel, who awaited the coming of Messiah and His Kingdom. Ezekiel 37, for example, pictures a restoration of the dead to life. I used an analogy earlier in the thread about what I see happening here in regards to Nicodemus' response, which would be similar to, if we were speaking, and I said "You need to speak to the Chair." You reply, "Why would I speak to furniture?" But I am speaking of the head of a Board, so, Nicodemus imposes an incorrect meaning to the word used, which causes him to arrive at his response which was purely physical.

And I'll stop there on this point, just wanted to touch on that because I see it as important to the general context.

The above quote is, I am sure you know, a response to Sadducees who believed when men died they ceased to exist. They did not believe in resurrection, the resurrection of the dead.

So I don't think we can take this and impose a context that basically violates the principle of Mystery, that is, that which was not revealed until a particular time in Redemptive History.

While in this context the Lord does indeed affirm that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still alive (living), that does not negate His teaching in John 6 (and I just did a post touching on whether men were "spiritually alive" in the Old Testament, and touched on that passage, if you would care to examine and comment), where He states...

Now the fathers received provision for life, but just as most issues in the Old Testament are physical in nature, even so here the Lord contrasts the physical nature of the provision given Israel and the spiritual. Manna is contrasted with the True Bread, which He reveals to be a reference to His offering of Himself (the bread I will give is My flesh).

And I will stop there as well, because these two points are points which require quite a bit of Scripture to discuss, and these should be sufficient to generate discussion if anyone is interested in pursuing it.

I don't really PM, because I feel everything should be out in the open.

As far as the atmosphere of the thread, it hasn't been that bad this time around. But, this is why I think this issue becomes volatile: it is something that not many have ever contemplated, and when they hear it for the first time, I think there is a bit of embarrassment on their part because of that. Secondly, in the Baptist fellowships I have been part of, there is a general teaching that equates the salvation received by Old Testament Saints and those saved under New Covenant conditions. A popular saying is something to the effect "The Old Testament Saints were 'saved on credit' which gives one the impression that the benefits of the Cross were applied to them in advance.

And I do not think that stands up in light of New Testament teaching.

But thanks for the response. I would be glad to have you participate, but, I can understand if you do not.


God bless.

 

According to Christ there was. We see that Hades is stated to be the place where the Rich Man ends up, likewise, we see Lazarus after his death in the place of the dead. We know this is the place of the dead because, well...Abraham was dead as well. That is generally not disputed.

Secondly, we see this place in a context of being under Law. Lazarus is not with God, but Abraham, and the rich man's brothers are not given the Gospel of Christ as a means of escaping torment, but the Law and the Prophets:


Luke 16:27-31

King James Version (KJV)

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

That is not the focal point. Most understand God comes into the presence of sin and sinful men often in Scripture, but, what we never see, and again I mean never...are men or demons coming into presence of God.

Job might be the first book thought of as a proof-text, but, nowhere in the book that I am aware of do we see that the sons of God come before God...in Heaven.

To my knowledge the only ones we see in Heaven are Angels, and when Angels sinned...they were thrown out.

But even if we could show a tolerance for sin in Heaven concerning Angels (which I think is clear we cannot, based on Lucifer), we still have no Scriptural support for men going to Heaven at death. Enoch and Elijah cannot, in my view, be seen to be going into Heaven. Elijah is caught up to the heaven, but this does not create a dogmatic proof, and when we balance that with other passages thought to state specifically men did not go to Heaven, it becomes very unlikely that was the case.

Agree with most of this.

I agree, there is no connotation of "Heaven" given it at all.

That is the point, it is not Heaven.

And one point that may not have been considered is that while men did not go into Heaven, that does not mean that the Lord did not visit the Just, or even the unjust...in Sheol/Hades. That is significant because one objection is the Just not having access to God after death. I think they did. Hades was literally the "shadow of death," which will be made a reality for the unjust when they are cast into Hell.

Agree with this for the most part as well. I have seen some interesting commentary on this passage, but will not comment on it, because I think it distracts from the simple lesson Christ teaches here which I feel we should understand first before trying to bring out analogous application.

Sheol/Hades was and is a place. Hell was and is a place. There was a place where men went when they died.

The Lord never used false imagery to present spiritual truths.

And Old Testament teaching and understanding concerning death was that there would be a resurrection of the dead. Not even the Old Testament Saint thought they went to be with God when they died. Not until the Resurrection.

This is all interesting, to be sure, but, the focal issue is where they went when they died, in the context of the discussion (which is a point I think important to the OP).

Again, Christ did not use false imagery to present spiritual truths. The imagery always deals with realities, the contrast being between the physical and spiritual usually (Wheat/believers, tares/unbelievers, et cetera).


Continued...

 

So why is he not close to God?

Saints in the Old Testament received a special dispensation. The Law stands out as the primary contrast to the dispensation of this Age.

And the Writer of Hebrews makes it clear there was indeed a need:


Hebrews 8:7-9

King James Version (KJV)

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

But man cannot be in the presence of God in an unredeemed state:


Hebrews 9:12-15

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.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


We see that the veil of the Tabernacle (which extends to the Temple) was a figure of the reality of the means of entering into the presence of God:


Hebrews 9:24

King James Version (KJV)

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:


The Writer will reiterate this point in the next Chapter:


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;

Not according to the Writer of Hebrews. They died in a state in which their transgressions were still in need of redemption. That was accomplished through the Cross. Thus were their spirits made perfect, which in the context of the Book of Hebrews has a primary relation to remission of sins.

And we are told specifically...


Hebrews 11:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.


Hebrews 11:39-40

King James Version (KJV)

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

And what Scripture could we base this on?

Scripture never creates a concept where sin goes unpunished, or is of little importance to God. Notice it is "the present time" in view in the passage above. The transgressions of the Old Testament Saint still had to be redeemed, so we see that sin is still dealt with, though the penalty of sin withheld until this present time, which is of course the time when Christ offered Himself up for sin.

It wouldn't be interesting if there was no disagreement, lol.


God bless.

 

Well, in light of all you have just said, I personally would request that you point out what you disagreed with that I have said.


God bless.