Featured What does it mean?

We can't be too hard on Nicodemus, for even the disciples present an understanding of the Messiah that was expectant of a physical Kingdom. It is not surprising that Nicodemus was thinking carnally as well.

But we don't give him a pass, either, because as a/the teacher of Israel, what should have come to mind was God's restorative promises which were not entirely physical. But, because many likely limited such passages as we see above, and Ezekiel 37 to merely being figurative, they allowed themselves to to be led into a more physical interpretation of what God was stating. Skeletons being brought back to life, for many I am sure, simply spoke of God's restoration of the Kingdom, rather than a glimpse into the spiritual needs of Israel. They viewed Israel to be "dead" physically, but the insight we are given full access to is that Israel was dead spiritually. I am sure many of them viewed much of Genesis to be allegory, rather than acknowledging that Adam did in fact die the day he disobeyed God.

Again I would mention (I think it was this thread I mentioned it) the context seems to point at a completed action, "we are/were saved," as opposed to "we are being saved." Interpreting the renewing of the Holy Ghost as progressive sanctification would imply salvation was still in progress, and while we both know that temporally speaking it is, the question still remains, is that what Paul is saying here?

But I run across few who tie this promise into the Promises of God in regards to the New Covenant, Of course, I do not spend a lot of time in commentaries, so it is likely just ignorance on my part.

On the forums, though, there are few who are even aware of this promise, or see it as the clearest promise of the New Birth given in the Old Testament.

And one thing I will point out is that what He states He will do refers to something He will do...in the future. Rather than He is accomplishing it at the time of the Promise. I believe this is specifically what Christ is referring to (implicitly, "...how is it you do not know these things?"), as well as in Acts 1:4.

Sorry, but I am not "well read" in regards to Shakespeare, but I do appreciate the insight.

I'm more of a Tolkien man myself.

I agree fully. David recognizes his problem is internal, and has to do with his heart. But again, I do not see this as a plea for the Holy Spirit, but a repair of his own spirit (i.e., a broken and contrite spirit). The Spirit of God, in the Old Testament Ministry He performed, "came upon David from that day forward" when he was anointed King of Israel.

And while we know that those who are born again and indwelt by God also have a relationship that can be close or not so close (i.e., grieving the Spirit rather than being filled), David's plea speaks of the same basic principle which is in regards to His person, rather than a picture of his spirit and the Spirit of God. The terms "heart" and "spirit" here are, in my view, a reference to the same thing, as contrasted to what I see Paul saying in Titus 3:4-5.

And his terminology aligns with teh Age of Law which he is under. He is appealing, not to the Cross of Christ, which is still Mystery at this point, but to the provision he has in the Law concerning remission of sins.

He is looking back, rather than forward with some kind of insight to the true remedy for the problem which has him in the circumstances he is in at the time of the prayer. He did not understand Passover as we do.

I don't see it that way. In view is David's spirit, not the Spirit of God. .

Consider David's cry, "My God, My God...why hast thou forsaken me?" The question we ask is...did God forsake David in actuality, or is this simply how David feels? I think if we continue on in David's Psalm, we see that he understands he has not truly been forsaken of God, though his misery generates the cry. His conclusion, the point he makes so often missed in the quotation from the Cross...is that God will deliver him.

He knows this.

Christ knew this.

Men did not, and some still do not.

As I said...more of a Tolkien man myself.



Just kidding. Martin, I may take a look at it, but I would not import your work from there to here for the purpose of brotherly criticism, as I would not to take the risk that you might be offended. If you yourself imported it, then it would be fair game, lol, and I might take a crack at it. I am usually disappointed with nearly most teachings I run across in regards to Regeneration, and at variance with most here. It's an important issue, which is why I am still here, as I could not leave with "dishes still on the table," so to speak.

Thanks for the response, Martin.


God bless.

 

I would suggest that the "glorification" of Christ deals primarily in a context surrounding the Incarnation. When God manifested in flesh He veiled the Glory He always had, and never lost, in human flesh. When Christ died, and was raised, He was Glorified. We do not, though, divorce this aspect of the Incarnation from His Return to Heaven.

So in short my view would be that Christ's glorification refers to both His Resurrection and return to the Glory He had with the Father.

Here are two verses/passages that represent the two primary aspects of His being glorified:


John 12:23-27

King James Version (KJV)


23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.


John 17

King James Version (KJV)


5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

I believe Peter reers to Christ's glorification as a whole here, referring to His Resurrection and Ascension.

I wouldn't necessarily put a "plus" in there, because we see His Resurrection and Ascension a equal parts of His Redemptive Work. Again, the Incarnation is central to His being "glorified," because we know He has always had Glory, He being God. But, that glory was for a time veiled in flesh, and through His Resurrection and Ascension His Redemptive Work is brought to bear upon mankind. He said it was needful for us that He return to Heaven, that the Spirit might be sent, which, by the way, He also correlates to His own indwelling of the disciples and those who would believe on Him.

I view them as two elements of salvation in Christ: the resurrection of the spiritually dead, and the restoration of the relationship man fell from in Adam, which leaves all of Adam's descendants spiritually dead and separated from God.

That is an arguable point, though, as evidenced in brother Martin's post.

But what we can say with some certainty is that there is a distinction between Christ being glorified, and what that entails, and believers being glorified, which does not impute redemptive quality to man's part in salvation, but refers to the second resurrection we see in salvation in Christ, which is the resurrection of the believers' bodies. And to make it a little more confusing, lol, we do share in Christ's glorification in the sense that we are made one with Him in salvation.

But, we have to separate the effecting of salvation (Christ) and the effects of salvation (believers).

If you note in the passage...


Titus 3:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


...salvation is not, as John states in John1:11-13, man's will, but credited entirely to the will of Sovereign God. His kindness, His love, His mercy. Not by any work man can imagine possible.

And that is the consistent teaching throughout the entire New Testament, and taught in the Old as well.

His kindness, love, and mercy are the reason, the washing and regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost the way that His kindness, love, and mercy "appears (towards man)."

Remember, "faith" is always preceded by grace. Faith is a result of that grace, not a cause. Salvation is a gift, not a reward for having faith. Faith is generated through the ministry of the Comforter Who is in this Age convicting unbelievers of sin, righteousness, and judgment. When He does that, man responds in two distinct ways: he comes into obedience to the Gospel, or he rejects it. We don't throw in other responses such as men can ponder it, or put it on hold, because reception is only evidenced by repentance, and...

...a "maybe" is still rejection.


God bless.

 

Here are the words used to translate it:

The KJV translates Strongs G1223 in the following manner: by (241x), through (88x), with (16x), for (58x), for ... sake (47x), therefore (with G5124) (44x), for this cause (with G5124) (14x), because (52x), misc (86x).


All you have to do is read each one and determine the best English word that fits.

I think the KJV Translators do a sufficient job.

Not sure where you are getting "through, the faith" from.

Let me ask you this, Percho, how does "the clarification that goes with this statement impact your understanding of what he means when he says "through faith?"

For example, we are saved by grace through faith...

...its not of yourself/selves...

...its the gift of God...

...its not of works...

...it does not promote boasting (self congratulations for accomplishing something)...


What we can determine, through (or by, lol) examining the defining Paul gives, is that the salvation in view is not something credited to ourselves. Grace precedes faith, faith being a result of salvation which is freely given as a gift because of God's grace.

I don't see it that way, though I think it does fit when we understand "The Faith of Jesus Christ" to represent salvation itself. Not that it is Jesus' faith that saves (though that is true enough, lol), and not that it is our faith individually that is the saving factor, but that Faith which men were "shut up under the Law" from, and is now manifested, that is the Faith we are saved by. In other words, it goes back to faith in Christ. But God, not faith, is the Savior.

Hope that helps.

Me neither. Knew an Italian once, does that count?





God bless.

 

Dia has a variety of meanings, but I think here it would tend to mean 'by means of' or 'on account of.'

It has a Definite Article: dia tes pisteos. But that does not mean that it should be translated 'on account of the faith.' It just means that it is a particular faith that is meant here; faith in Christ.

 

But does every manuscript have the definite article, and what are your thoughts as to differences in manuscripts on what, in my view, would be a pretty important distinction.


God bless.

 

Again, I do not see that the distinction changes what it states. Our faith is The Faith of Christ. It is equally true we are saved by grace through our faith and saved by grace through The Faith.

Not the case in this Age. I was never under Law, thus never had the Law as a schoolteacher. While it is true that God imprints His Will in the hearts of men, that is not the same as it would be in a context where the actual Covenant of Law was the established form of relationship to and with God. While distinct to the Nation of Israel, the Covenant could be adopted by Gentiles, and was in fact performed even by those who had never been exposed to the Covenant of Law, or the Written Word.

In other words, for me, I was never "shut up (and I realize that is a great opportunity there for some) unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed," but was directly exposed to the Faith of Christ only. It was through the preaching of the Gospel that I came to Christ, rather than first being led to conviction of sin and a conviction of my need for salvation through either the Covenant or the Written Word that was not the revealed Gospel.

It could be argued, though, that a semblance of that principle applies in the sense that I still had that revelation to my heart in regards to God's will. I knew it was wrong to kill, steal, commit adultery, et cetera, but, that does not mean I either obeyed that law from a temporal standpoint or even came close to obeying the intent of the Law (i.e., not hating a brother without cause, thus guilty of murder). I can see that I was an idolatrous and adulterous person in my previous life, both temporally speaking as well as spiritually speaking.


God bless.

 

The whole of chapter 3 does not just concern all peoples being blessed in Abraham's seed," for we know that the promise is fulfilled and understood in two way, first that the Seed in view is singular, that is, Christ; secondly, that the realization of the promise does indeed see that promise fulfilled din that the actual blessing upon all families of the earth is a reality as well.

Another important issue is the faith that Paul beings his discourse with, which is a severe rebuke to those who had succumbed, or were in danger of succumbing to the Judaizer's perverted Gospel of works. Two issues there.

We also see detailed commentary on the purpose of the Law itself, and its nature, and what it did and did not do.

As far as the definite article, not sure how I can possibly say more on that than I already have: the distinction does not change Faith or The Faith, and it doesn't create two concepts which are separate the one from the other.

Yes, but it is not until the Promised Spirit is sent that we have not only the conviction of sin which drives men to faith in God, understanding only He can save them from their sin, but a conviction of the righteousness of Christ, and specific faith in the risen Savior.

Consider:


Hebrews 6:1-3

King James Version (KJV)


1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3 And this will we do, if God permit.


Israel received the Oracles of God, and the Writer rebukes them for not even understanding the First Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, and exhorts them to go on unto "perfection," which is the revealed understanding of Christ given unto this generation of Hebrews.

Foundational Doctrine found in the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament): faith in God, the Savior, and their relationship to/with God through the Covenant of Law;

Perfection (completion) of that which was foundational (in relation to Messiah): specific faith in Christ, His Sacrifice, and their relationship to/with God through the New Covenant.


And this is what Paul does in Galatians 3...he expounds the more perfect understanding of the Promise, the law, and Christ.

Exactly, but...it would not be until the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ is revealed through the Spirit that men would exchange general faith in God to specific faith in God in the Person of Jesus Christ.

As much as we want to impose understanding of Messiah into the understanding of the Old Testament believer, we cannot even find one disciple of Christ we could impose such faith in. Not one of them...even believed He had arisen again:


Mark 16:9-14

King James Version (KJV)


9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.


Many think "doubting Thomas" was the only one who was, not just skeptical, but unbelieving, and desiring "proof" that Christ had done...

...exactly what He told them He would do.

The Angels ask them "...why seek ye the living among the dead? He has arisen...even as He told you He would."

Or in other words "...why is it you do not believe the Word He spoke unto you?"

So why do you not use the definite article here?



When "The Faith" came, they had "Faith." A faith that is distinct from the faith of Abraham.

Considered what Abraham had faith in. One specific point is that God could raise Isaac from the dead, and in fact would have to in order for God to keep His Promise, which shows his faith in...

...the Promise itself.

But I ask you, did Abraham know that the Seed in view...was singular?

But you do, right? How? Because you are privy to that revealed through the Spirit in this Age.

This is true, but that does not mean our opinions have any significance if it does not agree with that which the Word of God teaches.

Many of the Hebrews of the First Century were of the opinion that remaining under Law was acceptable. The Judaizers taught it was required.

That is the error Paul rebukes, and it is not his opinion he gives, but the very Word of God on the matter.


God bless.

 

I do not view Abraham as a man privy to the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ, as explained in an earlier post.

The "faith of Abraham," in relation to the Christian, is directly related to faith itself, rather than we share the same specific faith Abraham did. In other words, Abraham did not have the Faith of Christ, because he did not, as you and I, place faith in the Risen Savior.

Both are relevant, because it was Christ's obedience by which the object of our faith came to be. We exist in that time "when faith/The Faith came," rather than being shut up unto the Law.


God bless.

 

The "faith of Abraham" was not privy to The Faith of Jesus Christ. Not according to Paul:


Galatians 3:22-24

King James Version (KJV)

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.


The "shutting up" in view defines an all inclusive condition...to all men. The Faith of Jesus Christ was not the revelation they had (though as time progressed revelation of Messiah became more detailed), what they had was the schoolmaster...the Law. "The Law" refers primarily to the Covenant here. Justification by faith is the pattern throughout all Ages, including that which Abraham existed in.

So you can say Abraham's faith was identical to ours in this Age, but you then nullify that fact that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was not revealed in past Ages. If your conclusion brings other teachings of Scripture into conflict with each other, you need to figure out why.

It is true that the promises made to Abraham are elements of the Gospel, however, we do not impose an understanding that Abraham understood Resurrection as we do. IT is a simple faith that God promised Abraham that all families of the earth would be blessed through his seed (Isaac), and that if he were to sacrifice Isaac, God would be obligated to raise him from the dead, because his faith understood that God does not lie, and would not renege on his promise.

That does not mean that Abraham understood that Christ would die for the sins of the world, or that Abraham was trusting in the Risen Savior.

You impose that into Abraham's faith. You want to equate the two, but you have already seen in this thread the evidence that not only was Abraham not understandin of these truths, those who were under the Law were not understanding either.

Again...


Galatians 3:16

King James Version (KJV)

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.


Now look at Abraham's faith and ask yourself...was his faith in God premised on salvation in Christ? Or the fulfillment of the Promise through a natural descendant which was his son?


Continued...

 

Agreed, but...Abraham knew the resurrection of Isaac would be physical...not spiritual. The many nations that would arise from Abraham would be physical descendants. And while we can understand that Abraham would have "spiritual descendants" that would be able to see him as a "father" of the faithful, we do not then make Abraham our Spiritual Father, for God is our Father.

Abraham looked forward to the day of the fulfilling of the Promise of God. But he understood that in physical terms.

He did not have knowledge that Christ would die in the stead of the sinner, or that resurrection would be, for the faithful, like unto that of Jesus Christ.

On the contrary, the Old Testament Saints have received the promises which are relevant to salvation at this point in time, which deals with remission of sins on an eternal basis, as opposed to remission of sins achieved through the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. While they have not received their glorified bodies, neither have we, but, both of us have been made perfect in regards to remission of sins and relationship with God:


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.



Hebrews 12:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,



Hebrews 12:22-24

King James Version (KJV)

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


The Old Testament Saint can be considered to be the "dead in Christ" even as those who have been born again since this Age began, who have died, are the "dead in Christ," but, that is unrelated to their spiritual condition. They are, in regards to spiritual condition, alive in Christ, even as the dead in Christ are, and we which remain are.

One does not need to receive their glorified bodies in order to be made alive in Christ.

Jesus, born of the virgin Mary...is the Promise.

That is what Paul explains here:


Galatians 3:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

So if you know the Promise was life eternal, and you say Abraham and Isaac are dead, lol...why are you not understanding that Christ made eternal life possible, and that this was the Promise?

You've got the ingredients, Percho, stop and think about them.

Let's focus on one concept presented here: Christ died, the Just...for the unjust.

Now who is it that Christ died for, Percho? Did He not die for Abraham and Isaac? Why then do they fall into a category of unjust, when we are told they are just elsewhere, that they were justified by faith?

The answer is that there is a difference between being temporally justified and being justified through faith in Christ. Abraham did have faith, and was justified, but, that does not mean his faith was specific to the specific revelation of the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ. And we know it cannot be, simply because the Gospel of Jesus Christ was a Mystery not revealed in past Ages.

From the eternal perspective that justification secured their eternal destiny, and when Christ died they were made perfect because they were men of faith, but Peter makes it perfectly clear that all were still in the same condition, that is...all were still in need of Redemption which could come through Christ only.

Does Paul saying that Christ died for us "while we were yet sinners" apply to only those after the Cross and Pentecost? Was Abraham not a sinner? Are the Old Testament Saints excluded from being redeemed from their sin through Christ because they had been redeemed "on credit" previously?

No:


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.


"Us" is all inclusive. It speaks of both Old and New Testament Saint. We are both made perfect by the One Sacrifice of Christ...

...alone.

The sacrifices offered by Abraham pertained to the physical provision of God for the Old Testament Saint. Those sacrifices did not redeem the transgressions for which they offered.

When Christ died on the Cross...He redeemed their sin, Percho. They were, then...made perfect in regards to eternal salvation, and, while many kick at this obvious truth of Scripture...

...He obtained Eternal Redemption for them.

It's right there, Percho.


God bless.