Darrell, I have much respect for you as a man who takes and treats the Bible very seriously, but I can't agree with you here. I fear you have pulled the verse out of its context without out considering our Lord's intention in the surrounding verses.
Verses 11-12.
"......We speak what we know and testify to what we have seen, and you (plural) do not receive our witness. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" Nicodemus has registered his incredulity in vs. 4 & 9. Our Lord and John the Baptist ('we') have spoken things which have come directly from God and Nic and the other Pharisees haven't accepted them. If Nic and the others won't receive earthly things- things that apply to them, like repentance and the New Birth- how will they believe when the Lord Jesus starts talking about Himself as the Christ?
Then our Lord goes on to preach Himself as God and Messiah from the Jewish Scriptures. First of all, He is the One who came from heaven. No man has ever been up and come down again to bring the truth of heaven to earth, but He, the Son of Man (
Daniel 7:13), who as Man is standing there in front of Nic, is also as Almighty God reigning in heaven that very moment. He knows the truth because He
is the Truth. He then goes on to reveal Himself as the antitype of the brazen serpent and the One who takes away the sin of the world.
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.
Nicodemus has registered his incredulity in vs. 4 & 9.
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.
I'm sorry, but no, I don't think it has. I haven't time to try to give an exposition of this, but surely it is another allusion to the Deity of our Lord (cf. Psalm 68:18). Paul likens Him to a Roman General enjoying a Triumph, and shows that He has not gone back into heaven without equipping the saints for ministry. I don't think He is speaking about whether OT saints went up to heaven.
Mark 12:26-27.
"But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but the God of the living.'
The O.T. saints were regenerate and went to be with their Lord when they died, saved by the blood of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
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...
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.
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.
This thread has been almost incredibly bad-tempered and testy. I don't blame you for that, Darrell. I think there is an issue of quis custodiet ipsos custodies. However, unless the atmosphere changes, I won't be posting again on this thread. You are welcome to PM me if you like.
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.
