Thread: Were the OT saints 'born again'?

Originally Posted by Colonel

Well king David had her husband killed so he could have her. He was a murderer. I'm quite sure that I wouldn't want to have a pastor who had gone from pastor to murderer back to pastor again. King David wasn't born again. Though the Spirit was upon him he was still a sinner by nature, which makes that situation a bit different.

If King David was not born again, then he didn't belong to God.
I don't want to derail the thread any further, but every saint from Adam onwards was born again just as we are. The idea that being born again was a new thing in Jn3 has no authority other than tradition.

Originally Posted by Francis Drake

If King David was not born again, then he didn't belong to God.
I don't want to derail the thread any further, but every saint from Adam onwards was born again just as we are. The idea that being born again was a new thing in Jn3 has no authority other than tradition.

Jesus was the firstborn from the dead.

Col 1:18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

He was not the first to be resurrected from the dead, Lazarus was resurrected earlier and a dead man who hit Elisha's bones in his grave was resurrected as well.

Heb 11:39 And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise,
40 God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.

Originally Posted by Colonel

Jesus was the firstborn from the dead.

Col 1:18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

He was not the first to be resurrected from the dead, Lazarus was resurrected earlier and a dead man who hit Elisha's bones in his grave was resurrected as well.

Heb 11:39 And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise,
40 God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.

Maybe this should be started elsewhere, but-

None of the above implies anything against OT people being born again by the spirit of God.

The following scripture although given in the New Testament, refers all the way back to the very beginning of creation, therefore everything it says must be also applicable back then.

John1v1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


It is completely wrong to insist that being born from above is limited to those who receive the Lord only in his New Testament incarnate state. The Jesus we read of in the gospels is the same God that king David received and believed in and worshiped 1000 years earlier.

If nobody could be born from above prior to the resurrection, then the discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus makes no sense. Jesus was talking to him in the here and now today, not the future. There is no mention that it would not be possible for another three years.
Not only that, but the "born again" doctrine was a well known Pharisaic concept, and indeed baptism was also part of that concept.

Until Jesus died and was raised from the dead mankind was totally under the curse of sin. There was no new birth even available to them. All that they did was led by the Holy Spirit but they did not have the promise given by Joel...Peter said on Pentecost 'this is that spoken of'. The OT believers were kept by the faith they lived by and died in ...faith in the coming Messiah. But they died having not received the promise...Had Jesus not been raised from the dead we would ALL still be in our sins.

After Jesus was raised man was given the gift of HIS righteousness and the Holy Spirit was sent to be with us and IN us.

If nobody could be born from above prior to the resurrection, then the discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus makes no sense. Jesus was talking to him in the here and now today, not the future. There is no mention that it would not be possible for another three years.
Not only that, but the "born again" doctrine was a well known Pharisaic concept, and indeed baptism was also part of that concept.

I have heard that argument before but that's not accurate...Jesus was merely saying that Nicodemus should understand man' desperate dilemma...so this argument of reason actually proves nothing in the debate.

It is quite clear from the passage that Nicodemus didn't have a clue what "born again" was supposed to mean. And he was a Pharisee.

Originally Posted by Colonel

It is quite clear from the passage that Nicodemus didn't have a clue what "born again" was supposed to mean. And he was a Pharisee.

The theology of being born again was a common concept at the time which is obviously why Jesus nailed Nicodemus on that point. All through the Gospels we see Jesus making use of what was already known as a tool to expound his teachings

The Pharisees used the "born again" terminology for many stages in their spiritual growth, so it was most certainly not a new concept for Nicodemus.
The answers he gave were just typical exploration of the concept and not the display of ignorance that many claim.


The following is from an online Jewish encyclopedia, not likely to be over influenced by christian theology. It makes clear that new birth was known before Jesus mentioned it.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...1525-nicodemus

NICODEMUS:

By: Schulim Ochser, Kaufmann Kohler
Prominent member of the Sanhedrin, and a man of wealth; lived in Jerusalem in the first century C.E. He is mentioned in John iii. 1-21, vii. 50, xix. 39. In the first of these passages he is represented as "a ruler of the Jews" who learned from Jesus what "rebirth by baptism" meant, as if that rabbinical term had been altogether unknown to him (but see Baptism and Birth, New). The second passage records how he made his visit to Jesus by night, in order that he might not be known as one of the latter's disciples. In the third passage he and Joseph of Arimathæa are described as having taken charge of the body of Jesus in order to give it decent burial. That the man brought into such prominence in the fourth Gospel must havebeen a well-known figure of Jewish society at the time is evident. In all probability he is identical with the Talmudical Nicodemus ben Gorion, a popular saint noted for his miraculous powers; and this would explain also the reference to "heavenly things" in Jesus' arguments with him (John iii. 12).

The apocalyptic Gospel of Nicodemus, which gives an account of Jesus before Pilate and the Sanhedrin, as well as of his death and resurrection, belongs to the third century, while the oldest extant manuscript of it dates from the twelfth.

In the same manner, baptism was also nothing new to the Jews when John started doing it.

The Jews had a form of Baptism which was used by John and Jesus to bring a fresh aspect of truth

There is no valid OT scripture of OT saints understanding the regeneration of their spirit and no Jewish teaching that explains that ... The above article does not address the truth of being born again by the power of the Holy Spirit

Paul said it was given to him to share the mystery of the Gospel and part of that was to experience the new birth or a transformed spirit.

Hindus today baptize in the Ganges River so even they understood it represents cleansing and new life but that doesn't mean they understand what Jesus meant by born again

Many pagan cultures have some knowledge of being transformed by their faith in their gods even reincarnation has aspects of this.