Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?

[Darrell C]

I believe regeneration is being alive spiritually. There can be no doubt the New Covenant bestows greater benefits than the Old Covenant, but both Old and New Covenant saints were/are spiritually alive.

This is a good point to explore.

"Were Old Testament Saints alive spiritually?"

I will start with the response, no, they were not alive spiritually (though they had a spirit), because they were not reconciled to God. That would not take place until the Cross.

As a start to a Biblical Basis for that view, I give you the teaching of Christ in John 6 (and I will just post a portion, the rest of the Chapter can be appealed as we go):


John 6:26-29

King James Version (KJV)

26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.


The basic point I mention here is that Christ contrasts physical life with eternal life. The source for life will consistently remain from Him, and tied inseparably from His Incarnation, and specifically to His death. There is no dispute Who gives this Meat (provision for life), nor that believing on Christ is demanded.

And we will see that the Old Testament Saints did not have this provision, but provision for physical life only:


31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Again, the provision of the Old Testament is contrasted with the provision of God in Christ. Both come from God, and Christ draws a distinct contrast between the two.

One more from John:


John 6:49-53

King James Version (KJV)

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.


So a few points to consider:

1. Can this bread be imposed into the Old Testament? Or is it restricted to the time of the True BRead coming from Heaven?

2. Does Christ not make it clear that the father...were dead?

3. Is it not clear the provision for eternal life is specifically associated with His death?


And one more passage in regards to "spiritual life:"


John 7:37-39

King James Version (KJV)

37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


Is this not speaking about spiritual life?

Was not the feast in view a shadow, in fact? A picture of the reality of Christ, even as the sacrifices for sin were?


God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Throw away your Red Letter Bible. Just because some type setter put those words in red does not mean they were spoken by Jesus. It is obvious the words were from John, not Jesus.

John is saying that nobody has gone up to heaven, gotten Heavenly Truth directly from God, then returned to Earth to tell us that truth. Only Jesus brings that truth from Heaven.

This is not about the "Protestant Purgatory" nonsense, it is as the Truth of God being given to mankind.

Actually, do you not think that John 3:13 is the Lord Jesus preaching Himself to Nicodemus as the Messiah. Is He not showing Himself to be the answer to the riddle posed by Agur the son of Jakeh?
Proverbs 30:4. 'Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name, if you know?'

'These are [the Scriptures] that testify of Me' (John 5:39).

 

[Darrell C]

It's 'I couldn't care less'. As to your question see my first sentence. Sometimes you just don't need a proof text but deducing skills.

Well I ain't ever said I were smart...

Okay, so you are content to express opinion apart from Biblical support.

I'm okay with that.

That is one step above those who consistently post pictures, lol.


God bless.

 

[TCassidy]

Actually, do you not think that John 3:13 is the Lord Jesus preaching Himself to Nicodemus as the Messiah. Is He not showing Himself to be the answer to the riddle posed by Agur the son of Jakeh?
Proverbs 30:4. 'Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name, if you know?'

'These are [the Scriptures] that testify of Me' (John 5:39).

Yes, but Greek grammar demands the statement of vs 13 be post ascension and thus a Johnine comment.

 

[Darrell C]

Actually, do you not think that John 3:13 is the Lord Jesus preaching Himself to Nicodemus as the Messiah. Is He not showing Himself to be the answer to the riddle posed by Agur the son of Jakeh?
Proverbs 30:4. 'Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name, if you know?'

'These are [the Scriptures] that testify of Me' (John 5:39).

Thanks for the cross reference, Martin.

Can I ask you your view as to whether you think we can take the Lord's statement to mean what it states...


John 3:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.


...? In other words, is the Lord stating "No man hath ascended up to Heaven?"

Secondly, another cross reference:


Ephesians 4:8-10

King James Version (KJV)

8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)


Would mind commenting on this and sharing whether you feel this has a correlation to the issue of whether men went to Heaven prior to Christ's Death.


God bless.

 

[th1bill]

Are you saying that you do not think men were born again before Pentecost?


God bless.

That is what my Bible says and I do my best to obey the command found in Duet. 4, I think it's verse 2 and found again at the end of Revelation. So, yes, that is where I stand.

 

[th1bill]

Nonsense!

And that response lacks a certain amount of respect and is meaningless.

 

[th1bill]

Not just nonsense. Bapto-Catholic nonsense.

Also no dispute and without purpose. I thought you much more of a man than that.

 

[th1bill]

What in the world are preachers actually teaching people? Apparently not truth as this thread indicates!

You indite, do you also seek to serve? This answer does not.

 

[TCassidy]

Also no dispute and without purpose. I thought you much more of a man than that.

I am a man. And have been for many many decades. And my first pastor referred to the "Two compartment of sheol" theory as "Protestant Purgatory." Or "Bapto-Catholic."

It's a funny. Don't take it so seriously.

 

[th1bill]

There are people here I have read in the past and respected but when a man accuses me, by innuendo, of Catholicism without so much as a verbal inquisition, there is an obvious ignorance of scriptural behavior and certainly Southern and Missionary Baptist Ethical Behaviour and in that manner any man naming himself Baptist tosses all of any earned or deserved respect into file 13. That is sad! And that neighbors, is not of the Holy Spirit, it is of one spirit but not the Holy Spirit.

 

[TCassidy]

There are people here I have read in the past and respected but when a man accuses me, by innuendo, of Catholicism without so much as a verbal inquisition, there is an obvious ignorance of scriptural behavior and certainly Southern and Missionary Baptist Ethical Behaviour and in that manner any man naming himself Baptist tosses all of any earned or deserved respect into file 13. That is sad! And that neighbors, is not of the Holy Spirit, it is of one spirit but not the Holy Spirit.

Its a joke. Don't take yourself so seriously.

 

[th1bill]

I am a man. And have been for many many decades. And my first pastor referred to the "Two compartment of sheol" theory as "Protestant Purgatory." Or "Bapto-Catholic."

It's a funny. Don't take it so seriously.

Tom,
I was called off the stage into Church, the Baptist Church and if we are not face to face so I can ask a question, it is incombant upon you, just as it is on me, to explain before a mater has the opportunity to offend.

My posts are sometimes more inclusive and longer than some believe required but that is not so, i am still teaching and I know because this despicable ministry is one my LORD called me to and so I work not to say stupid things, just as I did in my class and from the pulpit when I was asked to take it. The Internet requires the same care, not because a member may leave, no, I never cared about that anyway but because the Lost Man might not ask!

 

[TCassidy]

Why the "Two Compartment of Sheol" theory won't work.

As nice and tidy as the theory might sound theologically and biblically, it does not really work. Why? Because there is no such place as Abraham’s Bosom.

First, the idea that God cannot be in the presence of sin is untenable.

The passage in Hab. 1:13 simply means that God is too pure to approve sin. It has nothing to do with sin or evil being in God’s presence. Here are some of the reasons:

After the fall, we find God walking in the Eden with Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:8).

Satan himself can be in God’s presence. In Job 1:6, we see Satan presenting himself before God (see also 1 Chron 18:18-21; Rev. 12:10).

Christians, who are still sinners (1 John 1:8), are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Obviously the Holy Spirit must be able to be in the presence of sin.

Christ, God incarnate, was in the presence of sin the whole time he walked the earth (John 1:14). He was even carried in the womb of a sinner!

Second, the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus does not teach that “Abraham’s Bosom” is a separate heaven.

In the parable, Christ is confronting the religious leaders’ bad theology. They were lovers of money (Luke 16:14). They believed that being rich and healthy was a sign that God was on your side. If you were poor and sick then God was not with you.

In the parable, the rich man, whom all the Pharisees thought was the best Jew with great rewards waiting for him in heaven, found himself in torment in Hell. The poor sick man, who was, in the mind of the Pharisees, a bad Jew, was ushered by the angels to Abraham’s “side” or “bosom.”

The idea is not ontological (dealing with a physical place), but relational. To be at one’s side or bosom represented the closest place of fellowship one could have with another.

The one who the Pharisees believed was not a good child of Abraham winds up at the closest place of fellowship that there is—Abraham’s side, or "bosom."

Christ was being rhetorical. The rich man is unnamed and forgotten forever. Lazarus’ name means “God helps”. The rich man dies and is buried. The poor man dies and is carried by the angels. The rich man goes to hell, “far away” from Abraham (Luke 16:23). The poor man goes to Abraham’s side, as close as it is possible to get to "father Abraham," in heaven.

Conclusion

Saints in the Old Testament did not need a special dispensation. God can be in the presence of sin. If he could not be in the presence of sin, we are in big trouble.

Nevertheless, they were forgiven in anticipation of Christ’s atonement. When David, Abraham, Moses, and other Old Testament saints died, they immediately went into the presence of God on the bases of Christ’s shed blood, though yet future in time but already efficacious in eternity.

Romans 3:24-26 “Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

Now, don't be upset that I disagree with you. It happens.

 

[OldRegular]

Why the "Two Compartment of Sheol" theory won't work.

As nice and tidy as the theory might sound theologically and biblically, it does not really work. Why? Because there is no such place as Abraham’s Bosom.

First, the idea that God cannot be in the presence of sin is untenable.

The passage in Hab. 1:13 simply means that God is too pure to approve sin. It has nothing to do with sin or evil being in God’s presence. Here are some of the reasons:

After the fall, we find God walking in the Eden with Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:8).

Satan himself can be in God’s presence. In Job 1:6, we see Satan presenting himself before God (see also 1 Chron 18:18-21; Rev. 12:10).

Christians, who are still sinners (1 John 1:8), are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Obviously the Holy Spirit must be able to be in the presence of sin.

Christ, God incarnate, was in the presence of sin the whole time he walked the earth (John 1:14). He was even carried in the womb of a sinner!

Second, the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus does not teach that “Abraham’s Bosom” is a separate heaven.

In the parable, Christ is confronting the religious leaders’ bad theology. They were lovers of money (Luke 16:14). They believed that being rich and healthy was a sign that God was on your side. If you were poor and sick then God was not with you.

In the parable, the rich man, whom all the Pharisees thought was the best Jew with great rewards waiting for him in heaven, found himself in torment in Hell. The poor sick man, who was, in the mind of the Pharisees, a bad Jew, was ushered by the angels to Abraham’s “side” or “bosom.”

The idea is not ontological (dealing with a physical place), but relational. To be at one’s side or bosom represented the closest place of fellowship one could have with another.

The one who the Pharisees believed was not a good child of Abraham winds up at the closest place of fellowship that there is—Abraham’s side, or "bosom."

Christ was being rhetorical. The rich man is unnamed and forgotten forever. Lazarus’ name means “God helps”. The rich man dies and is buried. The poor man dies and is carried by the angels. The rich man goes to hell, “far away” from Abraham (Luke 16:23). The poor man goes to Abraham’s side, as close as it is possible to get to "father Abraham," in heaven.

Conclusion

Saints in the Old Testament did not need a special dispensation. God can be in the presence of sin. If he could not be in the presence of sin, we are in big trouble.

Nevertheless, they were forgiven in anticipation of Christ’s atonement. When David, Abraham, Moses, and other Old Testament saints died, they immediately went into the presence of God on the bases of Christ’s shed blood, though yet future in time but already efficacious in eternity.

Romans 3:24-26 “Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

Now, don't be upset that I disagree with you. It happens.

Grest poat!

 

[Craigbythesea]

Could you produce one Theologian that agrees with you, and states that this is John speaking within the text?

Morris, The Gospel According to John, 223. Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John, 1:132. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (London: SPCK, 1972), 177.

Cassidy is mistaken. Brown (the late Father Raymond E. Brown) takes the opposite view that Cassidy advocates for. On page 132, He makes a reference to scholars who hold to Cassidy’s view, “For those scholars who believe that the evangelist is speaking here and not Jesus….”, but he does not hold to that view himself, but merely comments upon it. Indeed, on page 145 we find the view of Brown himself, “And Jesus insists that he is the only one who can do so since no one else can has ever gone up to heaven.” Furthermore, Brown explains in detail why the reasoning of scholars who hold to the view held by Cassidy is not sound.

Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John I-XII. “The Anchor Bible”, Volume 29. Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1966.*

*This the first of a two-volume commentary on the Gospel According to John by Raymond Brown. It is currently being published, along with other volumes in The Anchor Bible series, by Yale University Press with the series having been renamed as “The Anchor Yale Bible.”

 

[TCassidy]

Cassidy is mistaken.

You are correct. I made an assumption without checking the full source. Brown wrote “The use of the perfect tense is a difficulty, for it seems to imply that the Son of Man has already ascended into heaven.” I should have kept reading.

 

[Craigbythesea]

You are correct. I made an assumption without checking the full source. Brown wrote “The use of the perfect tense is a difficulty, for it seems to imply that the Son of Man has already ascended into heaven.” I should have kept reading.

Thank you for your honest and polite reply!

 

[Craigbythesea]

Throw away your Red Letter Bible.. It is obvious the words were from John, not Jesus..

That which seems to be obvious in the first stages of study often becomes much less obvious as one pursues his studies.

Note what it actually says:

"No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven."

1. The clause, "who is in heaven," shows that when this phrase was first constructed, Jesus was already in heaven (post-ascension).

2. The Greek word "αναβεβηκεν" (translated "has ascended") is a perfect active indicative verb. The perfect tense shows that the author intended to convey the idea of having ascended in the past, and remaining in heaven (since the force of the perfect is a past completed action with results that continue to the present). Since John said, "except the Son of Man...", this exception means that the "Son of Man" had ascended, and that He remains in heaven when John wrote this.

Understanding the Gospel According to John requires much more than correctly parsing verbs—it requires getting into the head and the heart of the man whom God chose to use to pen the Gospel. In this case, I believe that both the internal and the external evidence points to John, the son of Zebedee, as the “writer,” but redactions appear to have taken place between the first draft and the Gospel as it has come down to us. The question before us in John 3:13 is who is speaking—Jesus or John. Cassidy argues from the tense of the verb ἀναβαίνω that it is “obvious” that John rather than Jesus is speaking. However, scholars of the gospel disagree and have explained the use of the perfect tense in various ways. Raymond Brown explains it using just one sentence, “In the Johannine references to Jesus there is a strange timelessness or indifference to normal time sequences that must be reckoned with (iv 38).

I do not necessarily agree with Brown on every point, but I do agree with his analysis and comments that prove that correctly interpreting The Gospel According to John requires a very substantial amount of knowledge of the writer and what he wrote. I do commend Cassidy for recognizing that Raymond Brown, although a Roman Catholic priest who was Roman Catholic to the very core, was an exceptionally fine New Testament scholar. Perhaps Cassidy is also familiar with Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Luke Timothy Johnson who also are exceptionally fine New Testament scholars—even though they are Roman Catholics . As for me, I am a Baptist who loves wisdom, knowledge, and truth wherever it may be found.

 

[Internet Theologian]

You indite<sic> do you also seek to serve? This answer does not.

It is 'indict' and on target in this day and age sir.