Basic question: when did the disciples become born again?

[Jac3510]

He was addressing believers in him.
Most of the gospels are not addressed to me, or you, so you treat them as just a historical record, not Jesus teaching you anything?

If I write my wife a love letter, and my mother picks it up, does that mean she should take everything in it as the way I feel about her? Does the fact that the letter was written to "someone who loves me" mean that my mother, who also loves me, is the intended audience? Obviously not. Part of good interpretation is distinguishing between the original audience and the reader. Jesus' words on the Lukan narrative were not directed at all believers, but to a specific set of believers. We can learn quite a few things from them, just as we can learn quite a few things from Leviticus, but it is a mistake to take them as applying directly to us.

Jesus could only do them when the need arose and people were believing

I don't want to be too nitpicky, but do you REALLY think Jesus wasn't capable of doing certain miracles? Are you saying we can limit God?

. . people I'm ion fellowship with have experienced these things personally, I havn't personally hadthose particular miracles follow me yet though in the greater sense I have as I have cause various people to be raised from spiritual death, deafness and blindness through telling them the truth about receiving the Spirit.

Well, perhaps the reason you haven't raised anyone from the dead is that you aren't really saved? Or, if you will recognize, as you seem to here, that "greater" is not a reference to mere, rather boring, physical resurrection, but instead to the spiritual, then I would submit to you that the "signs and wonders" most people look at -- the "miraculous" stuff -- are no more indicators of salvation than good behavior is. In fact, I recall Jesus saying in Matt. 7:14ff that there would be people who would cast out demons and do miracles in His name and not actually be saved . . .

The bottom line: miracles, in the common sense of the word, don't necessarily follow from true belief.

And yet the devils believed who Jesu was, were they saved?
No, many, like you it seems, profess belief, but when it comes down to the specifics, and Jesus is specific, you won't have it.

Can you show me Scripture that says that devils were ever offered salvation? They can believe all they want, but salvation is for men, not for angels.

Your "Jesus" that you believe in is not the one preached by the apostles and backed up by God with his signs following.

See above about signs followings. Either the signs are miraculous in the common sense of the word and you will have to recognize that you yourself are not saved, or the signs are miraculous in the spiritual sense of the word, and your argument here is baseless.

He is talking in the context of meetings, and has been since chapter 11.
If, as you believe, only some Christians can speak in tongues, Paul wouldn't need to reason with them not to all do so when they meet, the problem could never arise!

Sure it could have. Lots of people with the gift of tongues getting together and exercising their gift all at the same time . . . pretty simple.

In any case, even granted the context of local church gatherings, Paul's statement still stands. NOT ALL SPEAK IN TONGUES. Your position is that everyone does. I don't see a distinction in Scripture between the tongues of Pentecost and the tongues of Corinthians. Can you show me a verse where it says that these are different things?

He, and the people he was writing to and writing about were in "the faith" once delivered unto the saints (Jude 3, Acts 2:4, 33, 39):

What does Acts 16:31 have to do with Jude 3 or Acts 2? Let me quote the verse for you:

• The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." (Acts 16:29-31)

Now, correct me where I'm wrong. There is no discussion here of the faith once delivered to all the saints. The jailor asked what he had to do to be saved, and Paul answered with one condition: believe. Did he lie when he said "believe and be saved"? Suppose the man had believed but not repented or be baptized or speak in tongues or any other such thing? Would he still be saved? If not, the Paul was wrong when he said "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." What he SHOULD have said was "Believe AND to x, y, and z, and you will be saved."

Jude contrasts these people wit those who "separate themselves", i.e. presume they are God's but are . . .
" sensual, having not the Spirit. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost" (Jude 19-20)

Yes, there are apostates within the church. They would be the ones who preach a different gospel. They would be the ones who say something other than faith is necessary for salvation.

Praying in the Holy Ghost is praying in tongues (1 Cor. 14:2, 4, 14-21; Romans 8:26)

Did you not read the verses you referenced?

"For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit" (1 Cor 14:2)

This says that if someone speaks in a tongue, then they are speaking to God. This does not say that praying in the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues.

"He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church." (1 Cor 14:4)

Nothing about praying in the Holy Spirit here.

• For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind. If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue. Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults. In the Law it is written: "Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord. (1 Cor 14:14-21)

Far from saying that speaking in tongues is praying in the HS, this says that to speak in a tongue is to pray with "MY spirit." Paul just flatly contradicts you. Further, he says that we should pray also with our mind, which means, in context, NOT praying in tongues. Further, in contrast with Jude 3, this would mean that ALL believers can speak in tongues in your view, which Paul flatly denies.

"In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express." (Rom 8:26)

And again, there's just nothing here about tongues. It simply says that the Spirit intercedes for us. But again, are you saying that only Christians can speak in tongues? Because, presumably, the Spirit intercedes for all believers. But if the Spirit's intercession is the same as speaking/praying in tongues, then ALL believers can speak in tongues, which, again, Paul flatly denies.

So, again, Paul flatly contradicts your doctrines here even in your supporting scriptures.

In all this, you are pulling the same stunt ever cultist does. You are so busy defending your pet little doctrine, you don't want to talk about the only thing is really important: your denial of the Gospel. Jesus said that EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES has everlasting life. Jesus said in John 2 that the disciples believed in Him. He says in dozens of times in the same gospel that EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES has everlasting life. Thus, since the disciples believed, they had everlasting life.

You are denying that. According to 1 John 5:10, you make God a liar. According to John 3:18, you are condemned because you do not believe the words of Jesus. According to Gal 1:8-9, you are accursed because you preach a false gospel. There is still time for you, TM. Turn from this sin of yours and believe the Gospel. If you don't, you will stand before Christ at the Great White Judgment and say, "Lord, Lord!" along with all the other false prophets Jesus described in Matt. 7:24-27.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Danny,

I'll get to your response after you read the paper. I want to give you a chance to understand my position in full as I think that the issue between you and me is simply that I haven't adequately explained my own beliefs yet. We have some disagreements, but at the core, we hold quite a bit in common. Let me emphasize: we have more in common than not on this issue. I would agree with about 99% of your last post. So let me know when you get through it, and we'll continue our discussion. Cool?

[DannyM]

Danny,

I'll get to your response after you read the paper. I want to give you a chance to understand my position in full as I think that the issue between you and me is simply that I haven't adequately explained my own beliefs yet. We have some disagreements, but at the core, we hold quite a bit in common. Let me emphasize: we have more in common than not on this issue. I would agree with about 99% of your last post. So let me know when you get through it, and we'll continue our discussion. Cool?

Cool Jac. I'll give you a shout on it in the next day or 2. I'm looking forward to reading it.

[DannyM]

Danny,

I'll get to your response after you read the paper. I want to give you a chance to understand my position in full as I think that the issue between you and me is simply that I haven't adequately explained my own beliefs yet. We have some disagreements, but at the core, we hold quite a bit in common. Let me emphasize: we have more in common than not on this issue. I would agree with about 99% of your last post. So let me know when you get through it, and we'll continue our discussion. Cool?

Hey Jac! Please tell me where we disagree again?! Ha ha. I've read your paper twice, I have been through it with as fine a tooth comb as I could; I do declare, sir, that it is a masterpiece in its precision & dissection of Hodges' claims. I don't really know where to start. I have made two pages of notes, Jac, and it all either supports or praises you or both! Now I *cannot* be seen to be “blowing smoke” up your behind, Jac, so I will limit my post to some points:

1.You took this Hodges on on his own ground (John) and you destroyed his assertions.

2.When you explained about John in his epistles saying “I wrote these things” and how it refers to, not only the proceeding text, but also the text to come, really resonated with me. I'd always thought this, but you used the language of the NT to prove it. Quality! “Once it is observed that 'these things are written' passages in 1 John are neither conclusions nor general purpose statements but rather statements concerning the immediate contexts, the assumption the John 20:30-31 is the purpose statement for the whole Gospel is immediately placed on unstable ground.” Oh yeah!

3.Ooh, this could be a criticism, Jac! When you suggested John might have gone into a polemic against the docetist heresies this seems to me to be not possible (although I do acknowledge you are not absolute on this) as the docetist heresies came about largely in the 2nd century and onwards, thus missing John by some years…?

4.“Blessed are those who do not see and still believe.” Future believers, Jac, precisely!

Now, where the heck do you and I disagree? You clearly acknowledge the resurrection had been covered in John and was to be accepted, saying that John 20:30-31 “is a summary of the resurrection narrative.”

Great work, Jac. Totally impressed with the precision in which you pulled apart your opponent.

God bless

[Jac3510]

Well thank you for the very kind words, Dan

Like I said, we are in FAR more agreement than disagreement. I figured when I properly explained my position we would see we were on the same side. The only place we might disagree at all--although I bet that turns out not even to be the case--is over whether or not the disciples were actually born again before their belief in the resurrection. I still say they were. They were born again in John 2:11. But as I take great pains to show in the paper, that which one must believe to be born again is more substantive than it was during Jesus' earthly ministry. To put it more precisely still, to "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" is to believe a good bit more now than before His resurrection.

In short, I simply don't see the first disciples as obligated to believe something that had not yet happened for their salvation. Yet I see no reason to deny that they were saved!

Now, again, I expect that, in the grand scheme of things, you and I probably agree here, too. That's why I wanted you to work through the paper. I'm glad you got something out of it. It is scheduled to be published in the Free Grace Seminary Journal, which will debut next year.

Going back to the OP, then:

(2)



edit: your criticism about doceticism is, by the way, well taken. IF (and that is a big if) John was considering that issue at all, it would have only been in seedling form. He makes a similar statement in 2 John 7, which has been taken by many as an argument against proto-doceticism. Maybe that was a concern for John's Gospel? Who knows? In any case, if it is a concern, it is secondary. The primary issue is who Jesus is and the results that come from faith in Him (initially and progressively).

[jlay]

If I may interupt, I think this comes back to the original question I brought up. "What do you mean by 'born again?'" What is Jesus conveying in the use of this word, and are you/we using it in the same context?

The term BA is only used three times in the text. We could relate that to Pauls use of "new creation," but it occurs just as infrequently.

[Jac3510]

If I may interupt, I think this comes back to the original question I brought up. "What do you mean by 'born again?'" What is Jesus conveying in the use of this word, and are you/we using it in the same context?

The term BA is only used three times in the text. We could relate that to Pauls use of "new creation," but it occurs just as infrequently.

Are you asking me, J? For me, "born again" is a reference to regeneration--the moment in which one passes out of death and into life (John 5:24). To be saved is to be born again. To be born again is to be saved.

[DannyM]

Well thank you for the very kind words, Dan

Like I said, we are in FAR more agreement than disagreement. I figured when I properly explained my position we would see we were on the same side. The only place we might disagree at all--although I bet that turns out not even to be the case--is over whether or not the disciples were actually born again before their belief in the resurrection. I still say they were. They were born again in John 2:11. But as I take great pains to show in the paper, that which one must believe to be born again is more substantive than it was during Jesus' earthly ministry. To put it more precisely still, to "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" is to believe a good bit more now than before His resurrection.

Jac, you have given me pause for serious thought on this and I ask that you give me a little more time to really consider this some more. I still lean towards my original position but I now know where you are and I realise I need to have a rethink on this. I'm understand your thinking, Jac, but I'm still being pulled toward the position that, while the disciples “believed in Him,” they were still ultimately not “born again” — which I still take to mean “born in the knowledge of the glory of Christ's death, resurrection and coming.” But I'm now uncertain in the whole and really need to think it through in my mind.

In short, I simply don't see the first disciples as obligated to believe something that had not yet happened for their salvation. Yet I see no reason to deny that they were saved! .

I agree with your principle, Jac, but they ultimately *did* believe when it *did* happen. Thus they were saved despite the wrinkle we are ironing out. But please, any more you can do to prompt clarity for me (at least for my own sanity) would be appreciated.

Now, again, I expect that, in the grand scheme of things, you and I probably agree here, too. That's why I wanted you to work through the paper. I'm glad you got something out of it. It is scheduled to be published in the Free Grace Seminary Journal, which will debut next year.

Going back to the OP, then:

(2)


.

Ha! I like your style, Jac. I'll defer to you (for the time being, at least), seeing as I'm hopping about to and fro right now!

edit: your criticism about doceticism is, by the way, well taken. IF (and that is a big if) John was considering that issue at all, it would have only been in seedling form. He makes a similar statement in 2 John 7, which has been taken by many as an argument against proto-doceticism. Maybe that was a concern for John's Gospel? Who knows? In any case, if it is a concern, it is secondary. The primary issue is who Jesus is and the results that come from faith in Him (initially and progressively).

It is certainly true that 2 John 7 makes the mind wonder; I think this would make a good topic of discussion. (Though John could be referring to a number of non-believers.) Could you see this being resolved, Jac?

Once again, brilliant job, Jac. I'd look forward to seeing it published. I'd also like to see Hodges' response…

Dan

[DannyM]

Jac,

To be born again is to believe in the resurrection of Christ, the ultimately glory. If the disciples were saved before this, then fair enough and perhaps the rules were different as Jesus needed believers in spite of their confusion over Jesus' claims of his coming persecution and resurrection. I cannot reconcile the dilly dallying of the disciples with them being born again. Once Jesus returns we see the transformation from confused, frightened men to bold men, determined to spread the good news at any cost.

You mentioned that the disciples could not have been expected to believe in something yet to occur; so perhaps Jesus allowed for the stumbling block of the disciples' confusion and hesitation over Jesus' claims for the future and granted them saved based on their obvious willingness to follow in his ministry and their enthusiasm in wanting desperately to believe in a leader they knew was very special.

So they were saved in spite of their unbelief in the glory and because of their willingness and dedication. And let us not forget that Jesus reappeared to the disciples; this was obviously done to embolden them and strengthen their faith. So whichever way we turn, the disciples were indeed finally born again. Perhaps Jesus' knowledge of this played a part in his actual faith in THEM.

That's all I can come with. Feel free to challenge me further and push my brain as far as it can go. <<No wise cracks Mister>>

Happy new year sir!

[Jac3510]

Do you have any scriptural evidence, especially from John, that to be born again is different from having everlasting life?

As to evidence they are they same, I would like you to consider to quick points:

1. In John 3, Jesus speaks of being born again before His death and resurrection, with the typical call to belief has the key to that.
2. The entire idiea of eternal life only makes sense in the context of a second birth. How can someone who is dead in their sins have eternal life? Yet if they are born a second time, then they can have eternal life, something Jesus clearly expected of people before His resurrection (cf. John 5:24)

Why is it difficult for you to say that before the resurrection, to be born again, one had to believe that Jesus was the Messiah sent by God (He was, after all, speaking to a Jewish audience that the the entire OT promising His coming); whereas after the resurrection, one had to believe that He was the Resurrected Son of God--still the Messiah, but the term more fully understood?

[DannyM]

Do you have any scriptural evidence, especially from John, that to be born again is different from having everlasting life?

As to evidence they are they same, I would like you to consider to quick points:

1. In John 3, Jesus speaks of being born again before His death and resurrection, with the typical call to belief has the key to that.
2. The entire idiea of eternal life only makes sense in the context of a second birth. How can someone who is dead in their sins have eternal life? Yet if they are born a second time, then they can have eternal life, something Jesus clearly expected of people before His resurrection (cf. John 5:24)

Why is it difficult for you to say that before the resurrection, to be born again, one had to believe that Jesus was the Messiah sent by God (He was, after all, speaking to a Jewish audience that the the entire OT promising His coming); whereas after the resurrection, one had to believe that He was the Resurrected Son of God--still the Messiah, but the term more fully understood?

No need to get you knickers in a twist Jac - we're just having a wee discussion is all As you have acknowledged in your paper, belief in the resurrection is fundamental. I'll tell you what I'll do, I'll use the very passages you use instead of the tedious back and forth of competing with the scriptures, which only suggests that there is contradiction when there is not. John 5:24 will do nicely… "Those who hear my word…” Do you think the disciples really heard Jesus when he told them about his coming resurrection? I'm not talking about their receptors telling them there was a noise. So why did Jesus reappear and rebuke the disciples for their lack of faith if this was not imperative for the era?

I have already conceded to you that the standard for being saved may have been adjusted to according to the disciples' faith of the day and Jesus' knowledge that this faith will be all powerful and PROPER upon his reappearance. I think this explanation is almost watertight, if I don't mind saying so myself.

God bless

[Jac3510]

No need to get you knickers in a twist Jac - we're just having a wee discussion is all

Knickers are twistedless. Just asking a wee question was all . . .

As you have acknowledged in your paper, belief in the resurrection is fundamental.

I would have preferred "insisted" rather than "acknowledged," but that works, too.

I'll tell you what I'll do, I'll use the very passages you use instead of the tedious back and forth of competing with the scriptures, which only suggests that there is contradiction when there is not.

Even if you and I don't come to a consensus on whether or not the phrase "born again" applied to the disciples pre-resurrection, the very fact that you said this right here warms my heart to a degree I cannot describe. I really think if the one thing I was able to leave the theological world with was this idea, I would feel completely and totally as if I had accomplished something significant!

John 5:24 will do nicely… "Those who hear my word…” Do you think the disciples really heard Jesus when he told them about his coming resurrection? I'm not talking about their receptors telling them there was a noise. So why did Jesus reappear and rebuke the disciples for their lack of faith if this was not imperative for the era?

I have already conceded to you that the standard for being saved may have been adjusted to according to the disciples' faith of the day and Jesus' knowledge that this faith will be all powerful and PROPER upon his reappearance. I think this explanation is almost watertight, if I don't mind saying so myself.

God bless

That's a good question. Did they understand Him when He told them He would be resurrected and simply reject it, or did they confuse it with something else? As evidence for the latter, we can point to John 11:24ff, where Martha thinks that Jesus is promising to raise Lazarus on the last day. Her idea of resurrection was clearly future. Further, N. T. Wright has done a massive study on the subject of resurrection in the Jewish mind in his The Resurrection of the Son of God and concluded that the idea of a resurrection (not reanimation) in time would have been totally foreign. So perhaps you can properly argue that when Jesus told them of His resurrection, they confused it with the general resurrection at the end of time.

On the other hand, you have places where the disciples clearly understood Jesus was to die and rebuked Him for it. See, for example, Matt. 16:21-22. But you could also point out that was well after their initial faith in John 2. In any case, what is beyond dispute is that Peter flatly denied at some point during the time he was "saved" that Jesus would die and be resurrected, at least, as we understand the terms.

So it seems to me, in answer to your question, that the disciples in many cases did NOT properly "hear" Jesus' words and comprehend them fully. With that said, I don't think that a person has to have a full comprehension of the Gospel to be saved. Heck, I'm still coming to terms with it. Aren't you? So, the question is, what DID they have to comprehend to be saved?

We have agreed that the disciples were at least saved (in some sense of the word) prior to the resurrection. Whether or not they were "born again" is the discussion. In John 5:24, I think it is evident from the context that Jesus required them to believe two things:

1. That He was God (5:18); and
2. That He was the One to raise them from the dead on the last day, that is, was their Messiah--guarantor of everlasting life (5:21)

Interestingly, this lines up with 20:31 in the lesser sense (that is, as it would be understood from a Synoptic's perspective). God's testimony concerning Jesus in John 5 was that Jesus was the Messiah--the Divine Savior; the Sent One.

Now, the question is, upon believing that message in chaper 5, were they born again? They were certainly saved, you and I both agree. I don't see anything about the resurrection there. Do you? Maybe I'm missing it. The disciples certainly misunderstood it at best, which at the least proves that they weren't responsible to "get" it to be saved . . . the question is were they responsible to "get" it to be born again. It's possible, but I'd need to see some place that distinguishes between having everlasting life and being born again, which you could do if you showed that to be bor again, you had to believe in the resurrection prior to it actually happening. Do you see that in 5? Have I missed it somewhere?

[DannyM]

I would have preferred "insisted" rather than "acknowledged," but that works, too.

You're right. I had in mind our discussion when saying this but you had indeed *insisted* in your paper.

Even if you and I don't come to a consensus on whether or not the phrase "born again" applied to the disciples pre-resurrection, the very fact that you said this right here warms my heart to a degree I cannot describe. I really think if the one thing I was able to leave the theological world with was this idea, I would feel completely and totally as if I had accomplished something significant! ?

I'm learning Jac…

That's a good question. Did they understand Him when He told them He would be resurrected and simply reject it, or did they confuse it with something else? As evidence for the latter, we can point to John 11:24ff, where Martha thinks that Jesus is promising to raise Lazarus on the last day. Her idea of resurrection was clearly future. Further, N. T. Wright has done a massive study on the subject of resurrection in the Jewish mind in his The Resurrection of the Son of God and concluded that the idea of a resurrection (not reanimation) in time would have been totally foreign. So perhaps you can properly argue that when Jesus told them of His resurrection, they confused it with the general resurrection at the end of time. ?

The boy William Lane makes the same point regarding the general consensus being that the resurrection meant the end of time, thus making Jesus' claims of a personal resurrection within three days of his death totally alien to the disciples. Perhaps this further strengthens the view we are pursuing that Jesus allowed for the ignorance and incredulousness of his disciples regarding this whole point…

I have N T Wrights book on order, can't wait to receive this!

On the other hand, you have places where the disciples clearly understood Jesus was to die and rebuked Him for it. See, for example, Matt. 16:21-22. But you could also point out that was well after their initial faith in John 2. In any case, what is beyond dispute is that Peter flatly denied at some point during the time he was "saved" that Jesus would die and be resurrected, at least, as we understand the terms. ?

I don't think the disciples clearly understood this at all, Jac. It seems to me as though Peter is talking out of pure emotion and saying, Never, Lord, you will not suffer these things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law… “This shall never happen to you!” Peter seems to be not only denying the resurrection, but denying the torture and death of Jesus Full Stop. It strikes me as an emotional statement from Peter based on him looking up to his Lord. Call it denial, call it emotional ignorance, but I'm not sure we can call it a full comprehension of the meaning of Jesus' words. It is true that Peter understands Jesus is the Christ, but that is as far as it goes, isn't it?

So it seems to me, in answer to your question, that the disciples in many cases did NOT properly "hear" Jesus' words and comprehend them fully. With that said, I don't think that a person has to have a full comprehension of the Gospel to be saved. Heck, I'm still coming to terms with it. Aren't you? So, the question is, what DID they have to comprehend to be saved? ?

Indeed I am. I think they were saved all along because Jesus knew that he would have to reappear in order to bolster and completely transform the disciples. Like we have both agreed, perhaps the extent of their faith before the resurrection was enough in Jesus' eyes, for the time being, knowing full well that their faith would be cemented absolutely upon his resurrection.

We have agreed that the disciples were at least saved (in some sense of the word) prior to the resurrection. Whether or not they were "born again" is the discussion. In John 5:24, I think it is evident from the context that Jesus required them to believe two things:

1. That He was God (5:18); and
2. That He was the One to raise them from the dead on the last day, that is, was their Messiah--guarantor of everlasting life (5:21)

Interestingly, this lines up with 20:31 in the lesser sense (that is, as it would be understood from a Synoptic's perspective). God's testimony concerning Jesus in John 5 was that Jesus was the Messiah--the Divine Savior; the Sent One.

Now, the question is, upon believing that message in chaper 5, were they born again? They were certainly saved, you and I both agree. I don't see anything about the resurrection there. Do you? Maybe I'm missing it. The disciples certainly misunderstood it at best, which at the least proves that they weren't responsible to "get" it to be saved . . . the question is were they responsible to "get" it to be born again. It's possible, but I'd need to see some place that distinguishes between having everlasting life and being born again, which you could do if you showed that to be bor again, you had to believe in the resurrection prior to it actually happening. Do you see that in 5? Have I missed it somewhere?

John 5:21 “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.”

There can be no doubt what Jesus is saying. Jesus can give life to whomever he pleases. And I go back to the point that perhaps this was really all that was required at the time in order for Jesus to proceed. As you have said, the only comprehensible resurrection according to the Jews was the end resurrection. We clearly see that, when he mentions his own death and resurrection three days later, he is met with confusion and disbelief. So was Jesus appealing to what the disciples actually *did* understand, knowing full well that they would soon be presented with the resurrected Christ, thus emboldening their faith and cementing it forever?

[Jac3510]

Actually, Danny, your last statement raises a VERY important point not too popular among theologians today, but one I think I am going to be forced to accept. I didn't delve much into this in the paper, but let me get your thoughts on this:

It is certain that to believe in Jesus for everlasting life requires having some idea of what everlasting life is. Now, the verse you cited (5:21), along with Martha's misunderstand of Jesus' raising of Lazarus to be an eschatological event, along with the literal rendering of the phrase eternal life (lit. life of the ages), suggests strongly that, for the Jew, eternal life was actually the resurrection on the last day. This idea has deep roots in the OT:

• And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God ~ Job 19:26
  
  Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and eve ~ Dan 12:2-3

Job is probably the oldest book in the Bible and it records the hope of the resurrection. Daniel says it expressly. We find the same hope in Abraham, in David, in Isaiah and the other prophets . . . it permeates the OT.

So - if eternal life is equated with the resurrection at the end of time, which I think it is, it seems that when Jesus said He was the Messiah who would raise those who believed in Him from the dead, He was making a very specific claim: to believe in Him is to have everlasting life, because HE was the One promised since the earliest days of Scripture who would bring about the Resurrection of the Righteous to Life (and the wicked for judgment). Thus, no Jew, including the disciples, could have "believed in Jesus" without believing that He was the One who would bring about the Resurrection.

That provides a great historical context for John 11:24ff, where Jesus says He IS the resurrection and the life.

Now, you and I, in retrospect, can fully appreciate this, because we see that Jesus Himself was resurrected. The first to be resurrected, in fact. As such, as God raised Him, so He will raise us in that resurrected image. So the theology all works out . . . certainly, the disciples believed that Jesus would raise them from the dead. Does that mean that they believed that Jesus Himself would be resurrected? Certainly, in some sense of the word, they did, because they probably had no concept of Him living forever. They probably expected Him to either grow old and die and then be resurrected with everyone else, or, on the other hand, usher in the eschatological age in which the Resurrection happened and then He Himself would receive His own glorified body.

In any case, I must absolutely concede to you that they did have some concept of the glorification of Jesus prior to His resurrection. I just don't think that they believed in His resurrection in the same sense that you and I do today--as you note, they simply didn't understand it. So perhaps we are both right? Perhaps belief in the resurrection was always there, but it was refined later? And if so, the "change" that took place in what one had to believe to be saved was that instead of having a general expectation of Jesus' resurrection, we must have the specific recognition that God has raised Him from the dead--that is now part of God's testimony concerning His Son.

Thoughts?

[B. W.]

Looks like you both maybe exploring what Paul terms the 'μυστήριον' (mustērion) mystery that was kept secret (vieled) and now disclosed, the mystery that unites all things in him, the mystery of Christ revealed from the gospel message, the mustērion concerning Christ in you the hope of glory... etc ... as Paul wrote below:

Rom 16:25, 26, 27 - "Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith-- 27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen." ESV

Eph 1:9, 10, 11 - "making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. 11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will..." ESV

Eph 3:3-9, "...how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 7 Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace, which was given me by the working of his power. 8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things..." ESV

Col 1:25-29 - "...of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, 26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. 27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28 Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. 29 For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me..." ESV

The Disciples were in that transition phase when the mystery was becoming unveiled...

Note how John 15: 19 and John 15:16 fits in with the topic - Basic question: when did the disciples become born again?
-
-
-

[DannyM]

Actually, Danny, your last statement raises a VERY important point not too popular among theologians today, but one I think I am going to be forced to accept. I didn't delve much into this in the paper, but let me get your thoughts on this:

It is certain that to believe in Jesus for everlasting life requires having some idea of what everlasting life is. Now, the verse you cited (5:21), along with Martha's misunderstand of Jesus' raising of Lazarus to be an eschatological event, along with the literal rendering of the phrase eternal life (lit. life of the ages), suggests strongly that, for the Jew, eternal life was actually the resurrection on the last day. This idea has deep roots in the OT:

• And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God ~ Job 19:26
  
  Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and eve ~ Dan 12:2-3

Job is probably the oldest book in the Bible and it records the hope of the resurrection. Daniel says it expressly. We find the same hope in Abraham, in David, in Isaiah and the other prophets . . . it permeates the OT.

So - if eternal life is equated with the resurrection at the end of time, which I think it is, it seems that when Jesus said He was the Messiah who would raise those who believed in Him from the dead, He was making a very specific claim: to believe in Him is to have everlasting life, because HE was the One promised since the earliest days of Scripture who would bring about the Resurrection of the Righteous to Life (and the wicked for judgment). Thus, no Jew, including the disciples, could have "believed in Jesus" without believing that He was the One who would bring about the Resurrection.

That provides a great historical context for John 11:24ff, where Jesus says He IS the resurrection and the life.

Now, you and I, in retrospect, can fully appreciate this, because we see that Jesus Himself was resurrected. The first to be resurrected, in fact. As such, as God raised Him, so He will raise us in that resurrected image. So the theology all works out . . . certainly, the disciples believed that Jesus would raise them from the dead. Does that mean that they believed that Jesus Himself would be resurrected? Certainly, in some sense of the word, they did, because they probably had no concept of Him living forever. They probably expected Him to either grow old and die and then be resurrected with everyone else, or, on the other hand, usher in the eschatological age in which the Resurrection happened and then He Himself would receive His own glorified body.

In any case, I must absolutely concede to you that they did have some concept of the glorification of Jesus prior to His resurrection. I just don't think that they believed in His resurrection in the same sense that you and I do today--as you note, they simply didn't understand it. So perhaps we are both right? Perhaps belief in the resurrection was always there, but it was refined later? And if so, the "change" that took place in what one had to believe to be saved was that instead of having a general expectation of Jesus' resurrection, we must have the specific recognition that God has raised Him from the dead--that is now part of God's testimony concerning His Son.

Thoughts?

Jac, please bare with me as I am flat out at work at the moment. This is the first thing on my mental 'to do' list when I get some free moments.

Dan