• Welcome to Talk Jesus

    A true bible based, Jesus centered online community. Join over 11,000 members today

    Register Log In

Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost?


  • Total voters
    5
Active
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. What are you calling a 'delayed Jesus offering'? Are you saying Christ's offering on the cross was delayed? Are you asking why didn't Christ come immediately after Adam sinned?

Quantrill
The idea is a challenge. Why would God allow any other human to suffice for what the Father gave His only begotten Son to accomplish? That came centuries later. Meanwhile, had Abraham succeeded in sacrificing Isaac, wouldn't God have had to honor that as sufficient for all? God would not allow that then or any other point in time until Jesus could be prepared for that role of substitution. What Abraham was willing to do set up a continual hope that God would be known to supply the perfect Lamb for us all. Notice the boy was not Ishmael, born out of the covenant of promise by the womb of Sarah.
 
Active
The idea is a challenge. Why would God allow any other human to suffice for what the Father gave His only begotten Son to accomplish? That came centuries later. Meanwhile, had Abraham succeeded in sacrificing Isaac, wouldn't God have had to honor that as sufficient for all? God would not allow that then or any other point in time until Jesus could be prepared for that role of substitution. What Abraham was willing to do set up a continual hope that God would be known to supply the perfect Lamb for us all. Notice the boy was not Ishmael, born out of the covenant of promise by the womb of Sarah.
The sacrifice of Isaac would not have sufficed for what Christ would do at the Cross. Isaac was a sinner and could not be a substitute. And I don't believe that was God's intent in asking this of Abraham . It was but a test. (Gen. 22:1) Had the sacrifice been allowed, it would have only proved that for which it was for, which was a test of Abraham's faith. That it pointed to the sacrifice of God's only Son, yes. And how much grief must Abraham felt leading up to that on the mount in Moriah even though he knew God would raise him from the dead. (Heb. 11:17-19)

And, as God does so many times with His people, He brought Abraham into His (God's) grief. Abraham was made to feel as God felt. We usually center on Jesus Christ suffering at the Cross, which is understandable. But another grief we cannot imagine is that of the Father. Christ's being forsaken was horrible for Him (Christ). How much more it must have been for the Father to have to forsake Him for a time. And to make it worse, it was His idea, His plan of salvation, His responsibility. We tend to forget that God in all His omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, feels. Woe to the man who comes before God having rejected His Son.

Though Chris'ts sacrifice in time came much later, it really wasn't delayed, as it occurred at the exact moment God wanted it to. (Gal. 4:4) As you say, there was much preparation going before.

Yes, Isaac was of Sarah, not Hagar. Of the free woman, not the bondwoman. Much to the anger of the muslims. (Gal. 4:22-31) Which of course they deny and change in their false religion.

Quantrill
 
Least amongst the Best
Staff Member
He brought Abraham into His (God's) grief. Abraham was made to feel as God felt. We usually center on Jesus Christ suffering at the Cross, which is understandable. But another grief we cannot imagine is that of the Father.
thank you Quantrill

powerful stuff.
O that we could and would go there more often and see how little our complaints in this life are.


Bless you ....><>

[CENTER]Love is For Giving
God is Love[/CENTER]
 
Active
There's no difference save in language used. The Holy Spirit made himself known in the OT and worked within certain of the prophets, warriors, etc...Ezekiel for instance in Ezekiel 2. Gideon, and others.
It is true that the Holy Spirit was known throughout the Old Testament by God's people. But this cannot be identified as the work of the Holy Spirit in the new-birth of the believer in Christ. It was even yet future in Christ's day when He was on the earth. "...for the Holy Ghost was not yet given...." (John 7:38-39) And it is clear that the new-birth is the result of the resurrection. (1Peter 1;3,23)

So, what does it mean the 'Holy Ghost was not yet', (John 7:39), when He was present in the Old Testament which includes the time period of the Gospels? It can only mean the Holy Spirit was not yet known in the way He would now be known.

See Andrew Murray's work, (The Spirit of Christ), ch. 5, from whom I give this quote. "When poured out at Pentecost, He came as the Spirit of the glorified Jesus, the Spirit of the incarnate, crucified and exalted Christ, the bearer and communicator to us not of the life of God as such, but of that life as it had been interwoven into human nature in the person of Christ Jesus....Of this Spirit, as He dwelt in Jesus in the flesh and can dwell in us in the flesh too, it is distinctly and literally true, the Holy Spirit was not yet. The Spirit of the glorified Jesus; the Son of man become the Son of God---He could not be until Jesus was glorified."

Thus we see why the resurrection is important in the giving of the Holy Spirit in our new-birth. It is not just the Holy Spirit that indwells us, it is the very Spirit of Jesus Christ raised from the dead by the Holy Spirit and glorified. The Holy Spirit at the resurrection unified and meshed or welded together forever the Spirit of Christ with His Body. This is the Holy Spirit we as believers know today. (Rom. 8:9)

Quantrill
 
Active
thank you Quantrill

powerful stuff.
O that we could and would go there more often and see how little our complaints in this life are.


Bless you ....><>

[CENTER]Love is For Giving
God is Love[/CENTER]
Yes, all thanks to God. You are quite welcome.

Quantrill
 
Least amongst the Best
Staff Member
It is true that the Holy Spirit was known throughout the Old Testament by God's people. But this cannot be identified as the work of the Holy Spirit in the new-birth of the believer in Christ. It was even yet future in Christ's day when He was on the earth. "...for the Holy Ghost was not yet given...." (John 7:38-39) And it is clear that the new-birth is the result of the resurrection. (1Peter 1;3,23)

So, what does it mean the 'Holy Ghost was not yet', (John 7:39), when He was present in the Old Testament which includes the time period of the Gospels? It can only mean the Holy Spirit was not yet known in the way He would now be known.

See Andrew Murray's work, (The Spirit of Christ), ch. 5, from whom I give this quote. "When poured out at Pentecost, He came as the Spirit of the glorified Jesus, the Spirit of the incarnate, crucified and exalted Christ, the bearer and communicator to us not of the life of God as such, but of that life as it had been interwoven into human nature in the person of Christ Jesus....Of this Spirit, as He dwelt in Jesus in the flesh and can dwell in us in the flesh too, it is distinctly and literally true, the Holy Spirit was not yet. The Spirit of the glorified Jesus; the Son of man become the Son of God---He could not be until Jesus was glorified."

Thus we see why the resurrection is important in the giving of the Holy Spirit in our new-birth. It is not just the Holy Spirit that indwells us, it is the very Spirit of Jesus Christ raised from the dead by the Holy Spirit and glorified. The Holy Spirit at the resurrection unified and meshed or welded together forever the Spirit of Christ with His Body. This is the Holy Spirit we as believers know today. (Rom. 8:9)

Quantrill

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
Galatians 4:4-7


 
Last edited:
Member
It is true that the Holy Spirit was known throughout the Old Testament by God's people. But this cannot be identified as the work of the Holy Spirit in the new-birth of the believer in Christ. It was even yet future in Christ's day when He was on the earth. "...for the Holy Ghost was not yet given...." (John 7:38-39) And it is clear that the new-birth is the result of the resurrection. (1Peter 1;3,23)

So, what does it mean the 'Holy Ghost was not yet', (John 7:39), when He was present in the Old Testament which includes the time period of the Gospels? It can only mean the Holy Spirit was not yet known in the way He would now be known.

See Andrew Murray's work, (The Spirit of Christ), ch. 5, from whom I give this quote. "When poured out at Pentecost, He came as the Spirit of the glorified Jesus, the Spirit of the incarnate, crucified and exalted Christ, the bearer and communicator to us not of the life of God as such, but of that life as it had been interwoven into human nature in the person of Christ Jesus....Of this Spirit, as He dwelt in Jesus in the flesh and can dwell in us in the flesh too, it is distinctly and literally true, the Holy Spirit was not yet. The Spirit of the glorified Jesus; the Son of man become the Son of God---He could not be until Jesus was glorified."

Thus we see why the resurrection is important in the giving of the Holy Spirit in our new-birth. It is not just the Holy Spirit that indwells us, it is the very Spirit of Jesus Christ raised from the dead by the Holy Spirit and glorified. The Holy Spirit at the resurrection unified and meshed or welded together forever the Spirit of Christ with His Body. This is the Holy Spirit we as believers know today. (Rom. 8:9)

Quantrill
God is the Holy Spirit. And Jesus figures prominently in the OT writings. There are not three separate and distinct entities in scripture. Our God is one.
God is Holy Spirit and Emmanuel was "God with us". One.
 
Active
The sacrifice of Isaac would not have sufficed for what Christ would do at the Cross. Isaac was a sinner and could not be a substitute. And I don't believe that was God's intent in asking this of Abraham . It was but a test. (Gen. 22:1) Had the sacrifice been allowed, it would have only proved that for which it was for, which was a test of Abraham's faith. That it pointed to the sacrifice of God's only Son, yes. And how much grief must Abraham felt leading up to that on the mount in Moriah even though he knew God would raise him from the dead. (Heb. 11:17-19)
That first sentence ought to suffice to make the notion of child sacrifces of no good purpose, as we agree only Jesus could satisfy God. All others are simply killings by comparison.
I know most Bibles with comments say it was a test for Abraham, but the Hebrew in in Gen 22:1 means ""prove", as in burning dross off the gold, not testing the gold to confirm it is gold being put through the fire, what is said to be assaying the gold to determine its purity. Is there any dross to come out? I believe God already knew what was in Abraham's heart, but Abraham probably didn't know yet. I lean more to it being a direct command from God, that Abraham obeyed sufficiently by taking the act in hand.
It's also interesting that in
Hebrews 11:17-19 (KJV)
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

the word "tried" is from the Greek peirazō, which has it's root in peira, assay/trial. peirazō is best said to prove as with a metallurgic examination more in line with the Hebrew in Gen 22:1. From those it appears God knew the substance of his heart, which he knows of us too. He would not tempt us with chance, not knowing what we would think or do, not being a tempter of man.

And, as God does so many times with His people, He brought Abraham into His (God's) grief. Abraham was made to feel as God felt. We usually center on Jesus Christ suffering at the Cross, which is understandable. But another grief we cannot imagine is that of the Father. Christ's being forsaken was horrible for Him (Christ). How much more it must have been for the Father to have to forsake Him for a time. And to make it worse, it was His idea, His plan of salvation, His responsibility. We tend to forget that God in all His omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, feels. Woe to the man who comes before God having rejected His Son.
Consider that had Abraham felt the level of grief such as the Father had over His Son, who was with the Father in the beginning, his heart might have failed. Surely no mortal man could hold up to that. What I do see is tremendous faith that God knows what is happening, that whatever happens, whether we can imagine it or not, if God commands, it can be trusted. So yes, the Father's grief over Jesus, and over his mankind creation, over sin, is unfathomable to us.
Genesis 22:18 (KJV)
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Though Chris'ts sacrifice in time came much later, it really wasn't delayed, as it occurred at the exact moment God wanted it to. (Gal. 4:4) As you say, there was much preparation going before.

Yes, Isaac was of Sarah, not Hagar. Of the free woman, not the bondwoman. Much to the anger of the muslims. (Gal. 4:22-31) Which of course they deny and change in their false religion.

Quantrill
Good discussion!
 
Active
That first sentence ought to suffice to make the notion of child sacrifces of no good purpose, as we agree only Jesus could satisfy God. All others are simply killings by comparison.
I know most Bibles with comments say it was a test for Abraham, but the Hebrew in in Gen 22:1 means ""prove", as in burning dross off the gold, not testing the gold to confirm it is gold being put through the fire, what is said to be assaying the gold to determine its purity. Is there any dross to come out? I believe God already knew what was in Abraham's heart, but Abraham probably didn't know yet. I lean more to it being a direct command from God, that Abraham obeyed sufficiently by taking the act in hand.
It's also interesting that in
Hebrews 11:17-19 (KJV)
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

the word "tried" is from the Greek peirazō, which has it's root in peira, assay/trial. peirazō is best said to prove as with a metallurgic examination more in line with the Hebrew in Gen 22:1. From those it appears God knew the substance of his heart, which he knows of us too. He would not tempt us with chance, not knowing what we would think or do, not being a tempter of man.



Consider that had Abraham felt the level of grief such as the Father had over His Son, who was with the Father in the beginning, his heart might have failed. Surely no mortal man could hold up to that. What I do see is tremendous faith that God knows what is happening, that whatever happens, whether we can imagine it or not, if God commands, it can be trusted. So yes, the Father's grief over Jesus, and over his mankind creation, over sin, is unfathomable to us.
Genesis 22:18 (KJV)
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.


Good discussion!
You can call it 'prove' or 'test' or 'trial'. It's purpose was clear. Hard to argue against that God didn't already know what was in Abraham's heart. He is God of course. But He wanted it revealed. And He stated clearly "...for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." (Gen. 22:12)

The Father's grief was not unfathomable to Abraham.

Quantrill
 

Similar threads


Top