Here are the world famous words of John 3:5:

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Nicodemus had a hard time accepting this, and Jesus gave him a jolting rebuke, “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?”

But where in the Old Testament was Nicodemus to understand these spiritual realities desperately needed for the Jewish people, passages crying out for the solution of an efficacious birth of water and spirit?

As one of the passages that intertwines the (1) spiritual washing for heart cleansing and (2) purging breath for life renewal in the Old Testament, please let me suggest also the study of Isaiah 4.  Personally examine verses 3 and 4 of the chapter.

“And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem:  When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.”

I have never seen this connection of Isaiah 4 and John 3 proposed by any of the biblical commentaries in my possession.  But that it is not to say that I am introducing something unique and never been proposed by true scholars.  (Most everything that I find as new has already been discussed before.)

I am just excited that the Spirit has lead me this week to some interesting parallels between two chapters that are the central focus of my study and meditation.  How does one enter the kingdom of God in John 3:5?  There must be a supernatural birth of hudatos and pneumatos.  How is one “written among the living” in Isaiah 4:3?  There must be a divine work of rinsing and ruach.

Obviously, a scholar like R.C.H. Lenski would not accept my interpretation of hudatos in John 3:5 severed from literal water baptism, but all can see that his ecclesiology (not his doctrine of justification in soteriology) is heavily entrenched in the Lutheran’s sacramental baptism by sprinkling.

I just read this.

Dated – February 16, 1998. (more…)

In Lost Tribes & Last Days (Deseret Book, 2005), Kent writes:

I recommend that readers turn first to the Bible itself to gain an understanding of Isaiah’s day within the context of the Old Testament. Ideally, the place to start reading is at Genesis 1:1, from which one should read through the end of 2 Chronicles before beginning Isaiah. This 634-page warm-up would provide readers with indispensable background knowledge for understanding Isaiah. The recommendation may sound extreme, but from my experience, those who have paid this price do not find Isaiah to be mysterious, unlike those who pick out a random chapter and attempt to read it. For the historical and political context (and the book of Isaiah is full of history and politics), one should read at least from I Kings through 2 Chronicles before reading Isaiah – a mere 172-page warm-up (83).

I like this particular exhortation. Go for it, friends. Feast on the Word.

Kerry Shirts, alias the Backyard Professor, has posted “Creation Ex Nihilo Ideas.”  As a firm believer in Jehovah who creates ex nihilo, I will get back with Kerry on this.

Thinking of a Christian literalist who has been on the circuit to popularize creationism to the masses in past days, Jared over at LDS Science Review now reports, “Kent Hovind Sentenced to 10 years.”  As I have already typed, I do pray for this man and his wife.

Also, Jared linked me over to Mormons and Evolution with his article “Variant LDS Creationism.”  Is this one of the main blogs that strives to integrate LDS belief with science?

On Common Consent, Kathleen had me intrigued with her post, “Translating Correctly.”

And sort of along the same vein, Matt B. hammers out on Mormon Mentality, “My beef with our cross-referenced standard works, and the questions it raises.”  Notice DKL’s comments in the thread.  I don’t think he would get along very well with KJV-Only Baptists because of his aversion to the traditional translation.  Does he care much for the underlying textus receptus?

Joe Spencer in the Feast Upon the Word blog poses a question that seems to contradict feasting, by asking, “What is the place of historico-critical methodology in LDS teaching?”  If he were to ask the same question to me in the sphere of Bible teaching, I would not hesitate in responding, “Higher criticism though glittering with a cloak of piety attempts to systematically shred fundamental truth by rationale logic but ends up wallowing in individualistic subjectivism.”  But I acknowledge that the science of faith-saturated “lower criticism” is a different breed altogether.

And last of all, Elise’s “Maturing Views of the Sacrament” on Sunstone Blog caught my attention and had me thinking personally about the church ordinance as joyous celebration.  The Lord’s Supper is a visual feasting on the Lord Jesus and His work of glad tidings rather than upon my meager awareness or attempts at personal righteousness.  If I spent the time in communion, remembering my past performance rather than His, I would be a dismal mess on a repeated basis.  Every time I celebrate the Lord’s Supper, the moving picture of His grace, displayed through His blood shed and body broken, drowns out all my sin.  (btw, I did catch Elise’s word choice of “union”.)

Here is the question I asked this week in Idaho Falls:

What did Jesus mean when he said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).

Here are forty answers from people who answered in response to my question on the meaning of the words in bold. (more…)

The Second Counselor to President Gordon B. Hinckley is quoted in Latter-Day Commentary on the New Testament: The Four Gospels (American Fork: Covenant Communications, 2002) by Ed J. Pinegar, K. Douglas Bassett, and Ted L. Earl.

In the blowing winds of the intermountain West, James Faust makes the interpretation on John 3:5 distinct and sharp for LDS.

(more…)

Richard Lloyd Anderson teaches in the Guide To The Life of Christ (FARMS Reprint, 1999):

The Protestant Problem

At the resurrection Jesus sent his apostles with the command to preach and baptize (Matt. 28:19-20), giving the double requirement. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). Yet the Protestant reformers taught that grace alone and faith alone brought salvation. Because Christ was baptized and established the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, Protestants generally emphasize these two ceremonies, though not firmly requiring any ceremony as necessary for salvation. Popularly, baptism is explained as “an outward sign of an inward grace,” advisable but not required by God. But Jesus said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Some claim that “born of water” refers to one’s physical birth, coming out of the amniotic fluid of the mother’s womb. According to this interpretation, Jesus only asked Nicodemus to be born of the Spirit after the fluid of physical birth. This is forced however, for it contradicts John’s context, the apostle’s interpretation, and Jewish terminology of the time. (more…)

The Troll of My Life

By Kristie Wood, the Troll’s wife (Dedicated to All Those Happening Across the Bridge of Life)

He’s hairy. He’s scary—your trollish brute,

He’d rather be sweaty than smell of “Aloof”. (more…)

Blake commented over at the New Cool Thang:

Todd: I have read your post — all of it. Frankly, it is so far ranging with so little contact with responsible issues that I choose to not respond on your blog. I invite you to raise issues in smaller bites here so that we can deal with them. So come back here and let us engage in the context of this discussion. It would be irresponsible to allow such a thread-jack.

However, I will observe that your very world-view of scripture is upset by this issue because you deal with these scriptural passages by rejecting premise (4) and asserting that they just don’t mean what they say. Yet how can a fundamentalist Baptist say that? The biggest problem is that you read the Old Testament through the lens of baptist theology as if the Hebrews were just fundamentalist Baptists. (BTW many Mormons make the same mistake of assuming that the writers of the Old Testament were just Mormon but a long time ago). So engage in this discussion responsibly and in a way that allows us to respond to your objections. Your post is just not focused enough to allow any coherent response that would be a meaningful dialogue as I see it.

I appreciate Blake reading my post.  And I acknowledge the “far ranging” aspects.  On this thread, let me try again by narrowing my comments in the discussion to premise 4 or what Blake chooses.  And on this particular post, I desire to exclusively limit the commenting only between Blake and myself, not to alienate anyone else, but for the sake of focus and my sanity if he is willing.  But before I share a blurb on premise 4, can Blake share with me his sources by John Piper?  I have a voracious appetite for reading and would like to gain possession of the book Blake consulted.

I am trying to get some LDS perspective on Isaiah, so I started reading Mark E. Petersen’s book, Isaiah For Today (Deseret Book Company, 1981).

Not too far into the book, Mark tries to pound me on the head with a sledgehammer:

To understand Isaiah, people need to understand the Latter-day Saint point of view.  They cannot and never will understand him otherwise.  Both Jews and Christians alike grope in darkness concerning this matter until they are willing to accept the restoration of the gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith (p. 6). (more…)