Over the years I have encountered several who believed that old testament believers were not born again. The reasoning for this belief may be put into a syllogism.
1) the new birth is a new covenant experience
2) the new covenant did not come into force till the death of the testator
3) therefore no one prior to the inauguration of the new covenant was born again.
I wrote on this question back in 2010 (See here)
My former Greek teacher in seminary, Dr. Mac Griffin, believed that old testament believers were not born again, arguing the syllogism above. I debated with him and others in the churches supporting his seminary work. I was recently listening to some further sermons by pastor Charles Lawson, who I recently recommended as a good teacher, yet with the caveat that I disagreed with him on a few things, and discovered that he too believes that old testament believers were not born again.
Nicodemus should have known about the new birth.
"Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?" (John 3: 3-10)
But how was Nicodemus supposed to know these things? Why does Christ come down so hard on him? Was the new birth taught in the Old Testament? If so, where?
On the question Jesus asked of Nicodemus (vs. 10) Dr. Gill said (Commentary):
"which were so plainly to be suggested in the sacred writings, with which he was; or ought to have been conversant: for the same things Christ had been speaking of, are there expressed by a circumcision of the heart; by a birth, a nation's being born at once; by sanctification; by the grace of God signified under the metaphor of water; and by quickening persons, comparable to dry bones, through the wind blowing, and breathing into them, (Deuteronomy 30:6) (Isaiah 49:21) (66:8) (Ezekiel 36:25) (Ezekiel 37:9 Ezekiel 37:10)."
When I used to debate with Dr. Griffin on this subject he stated that Nicodemus' ignorance about being born again was appropriate since it was not taught in the old testament scriptures. When I first heard this I was rather stunned that he could interpret the dialogue between Christ and Nicodemus in such a way. I argued that Christ was scolding Nicodemus for his ignorance and affirming that he should have known something of the new birth from the old testament scriptures. I thought that Dr. Griffin's interpretation indicted the Lord for scolding him for an ignorance that was justified. I found that repugnant. Christ's rebuke was justified because the old testament scriptures did speak of it, although not as clearly as that of the new testament. Was the new birth known in the old testament?
Answer: the precise words "born again," or "born of God," or "born of the Spirit," or "regeneration" are not used in the old testament. But, the idea was there in other ways. For instance, it was implied in the fact that the chosen people were called "children of God." So Moses said to the people of Israel: "You are the children of the LORD your God." (Deut. 14: 1) "All of you are children of the Most High," said the Psalmist. (Psa. 82: 6) Also, the Lord said through Moses:
"And you shall say unto Pharaoh, Thus says the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto you, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your son, even your firstborn." (Exo. 4: 22-23)
Being a child of God implies being his offspring, being begotten. In the above Israel is called "my son" and "my firstborn," and "born" is involved. Further, Nicodemus, the master teacher of the old testament, should have known that this being born a child of God pertained not to being physically born (although this was a common error among the Jews at the time of Christ). Isaiah wrote:
"Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God." (Isa. 66: 7-9)
Obviously these texts speak of being born of God, being born a "child of Zion." So too does this passage:
"Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God. Selah. I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon to them that know me: behold Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia; this man was born there. And of Zion it shall be said, This and that man was born in her: and the highest himself shall establish her. The LORD shall count, when he writes up the people, that this man was born there. Selah." (Psa. 87: 3-6)
Again, Nicodemus should have known that being a true child of Zion was not due to physical birth. If it were, then every person born of the seed of Jacob would be eternally saved. Nicodemus should have known what Paul later wrote:
"For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." (Rom. 2: 28-29)
New Covenant Benefits Received In O.T
"No one could receive the blessings of salvation till the atonement was made."
Such is the main argument of those who believe that believers, prior to the death of Christ and the shedding of his blood, "the blood of the new covenant," were not born again. But, new covenant blessings were given to believers even while under the old covenant. They were given on the basis of the promise of a future covenant in which Christ would become a sacrifice for sin and pay sin's debt. We do the same thing every day when we buy a car and finance it. We get the car even before the car is paid for. The promise to pay for the car in installments grants the buyer the right to ownership even before it is paid for. Abraham, when he believed God, was "credited" with righteousness based upon the promise of God to pay the debt through the sacrifice of his Son. (See Romans chapter four)
To deny that new covenant benefits were given to believers in the old covenant time period (and even before then) is to deny that anyone, before the new covenant was made and came into force, experienced the forgiveness of sins, communion with God, the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit, yea, of salvation itself. But, such a consequence is totally untenable and so the premises that produced the conclusion must be rejected.
In the old testament the Lord said to people:
"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." (Deut. 10:16)
"Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, you men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." (Jeremiah 4:4)
In the new testament circumcision of the heart is another figure for salvation or being reborn in spirit. The circumcision of the heart was not only that which the Lord desired of his people in the time before Christ came but is what he promised to do for them.
"And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live." (Deut. 30:6)
Thus, men had circumcised hearts in the old testament and this circumcision is the same experience as being "born again."
No Salvation Before The Testator's Death?
"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. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." (Heb. 9: 15-17)
Notice that when Christ died that he made atonement for sins committed by believers "under the first testament." It was retroactive. Yet, this does not mean that God could not save people in the old testament period. He saved them based on the new covenant, though it had not yet been inaugurated by the blood of Christ, the "blood of the new covenant." He saved based upon the "promise" of a new covenant being effected, like we get the benefit of items on credit, or by a "promissory note." Commented Dr. Gill:
""the transgressions" that were under it are the sins of the saints who lived under that dispensation, froth Adam to Moses, and from Moses to Christ, and takes in all their iniquities of every kind: and the "redemption" of these, or from these, by Christ, at and through his death, does not suppose that there was no remission of sins, or justification from them, under that dispensation; or that the Old Testament saints did not go to heaven, but were detained in a prison, till redeemed by the death of Christ."
"The necessity of Christ's death is here urged, from the nature and force of a testament or will, among men, which does not take place, and cannot be executed, till a man is dead. Otherwise it is of no strength at all whilst the testator liveth; no claim can be made by the legatees for the part they have in it, nor can any disposition be made by the executor of it; not that hereby is suggested, that the testament or will of God was uncertain and precarious till the death of Christ, and subject to change and alteration as men's wills are till they die; nor that the inheritance could not be enjoyed by the Old Testament saints; for it is certain, it was entered upon by them before the death of Christ; but the sense is, that there was a necessity of it, that the saints right unto it, upon the foot of justice, might be evident by it."
The Gift of the Spirit
Those who believe that old testament believers in Messiah were not "born again" will say that they had the Holy Spirit but not as perpetually abiding, while believers under the new covenant have the Holy Spirit in a superior manner and have him as an abiding presence. But, this may be true and yet without denying that old testament believers were saved and born of the Spirit. A superabundance of the Spirit in the church age is no argument against the presence of the Spirit in believers in the Old Testament. Old Testament believers did not experience the Holy Spirit as believers did on Pentecost. (Acts 2) They were not baptized or immersed in the Holy Spirit. The "measure" of the Spirit is greater in believers post Christ's death and resurrection.
The Case Of Peter
"He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." (Matt. 16: 15-17)
This was the text I most harped upon to Dr. Griffin when we would debate the question. I would use rhetorical questions and asked:
1) Does not John say that "whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God"? (I John 5: 1)
2) Did Peter not believe that Jesus was the Christ in Matthew 16?
3) Was not Peter born again then and that prior to the death of the testator?
What think ye?
No comments:
Post a Comment