If others haven’t seen the results check out:

http://feastupontheword.org/Site:SS_lessons/NT_lesson_5

If you think your comment wasn’t represented correctly or something is left to be improved on there, please edit and improve!

http://www.margaretbarker.com (surprise!)

I think there could be some connection between John 3:5 and Isaiah 4.

She is a British Bible scholar (Methodist preacher, as well) who has devoted her studies almost exclusively to studying the temple. Her first few books drew a lot of attention from Latter-day Saints because they are very serious, non-Mormon studies that could well have been written by an LDS apologist: they go a long way towards explaining the background of the Book of Mormon.

After a few more of these publications, she was asked to speak at BYU (in 2003) and she gave a talk about groups leaving Jerusalem about 600 B.C., though she knew almost nothing of Mormonism at the time. Several LDS scholars began to open dialogue with her on all of this around that time, and she has begun to cite LDS scripture, etc., in her books. She was asked to speak at the Joseph Smith Symposium held by the Library of Congress in 2005, and she presented a paper on how her studies ground the possibility of the Book of Mormon.

Her studies are really fascinating, but there is reason to be rather careful about them at the same time, because they are grounded in some presuppositions that Latter-day Saints may not be comfortable sharing. But I have thoroughly enjoyed everything I’ve read by her. Her website may be found here [corrected], and there are a number of her articles posted there. I recently corresponded with her a little bit and discussed her growing relationship with Mormonism. I’m watching her very closely, and I think a lot of other LDS scholars are too.

Something else that has struck me here and there, but I’ve never taken the time to look into: might the phrasing of 3:8 suggest something like Elijah, the prophet who just sort of disappears and reappears, showing up wherever he wants because he has the full power of the Melchizedek priesthood (perhaps any Melchizedek figure)? Without having seen her do it, I assume Margaret Barker would read the passage this way. Perhaps the language is suggestive of apotheosis…

Actually, a comment Joe made on the wiki some months ago piqued a renewed interest for me in this verse. Also, I think Jim’s comments above that advocates a pairing of “water and Spirit” referring to a single rebirth “from above” (rather than a rebirth of water and a–somewhat separate–rebirth of the Spirit…) have interesting bearing on 3:8. I think I have enough punk-rock in my core (i.e. I tend have more distaste for rules, systems, bureaucracy, etc. than most…) to like this verse for similar reasons as Joe: it emphasizes the unpredictability of the Spirit, the idea that no matter how much we study and think and plan, if we are truly to be born again, we must be responsive in the very moment the Spirit calls us, to whatever it calls us to do, no matter how absurd that call may be (e.g. to sacrifice our favorite son, or to cut off someone’s head, etc.). I think this also complements nicely Paul’s phrase “the law/letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life” in 2 Cor 3:6.

But I’m not very confident any of this is really what the verse is saying. Is the idea that the Spirit bloweth the person who is born again, or is it the person who is born again that–through the Spirit–blows others? Or perhaps this distinction collapses in itself b/c the Spirit and the one born again become on in the same? Anyway, I’d like to study this verse a lot more carefully, and hear others’ thoughts on it….

(Also, Joe, I think the “thou hearest the sound thereof” is very interesting and related to the seeing vs. hearing ideas we’ve been discussing on the wik; perhaps hearing/hearkening to the unpredictable Spirit is itself a form–or even definition–of faith, in contrast to simply following that which can be seen; perhaps this significane is deepened by the “night” occurrence of this saying here? typologically, we all approach Christ in the dark and only by following his word/light are we then able to truly begin to see.)

Of course, I find the staunch ol’ Lutheran, R.C.H. Lenski, very moving on John 3:13. But I recognize that Aland and Metzger classify their Greek reading in omitting the last five Greek words of John 3:13 as a {C}.

Back on John 3:5, I believe that the preposition governs the two words, humatos and pneumatos as one flowing thought (born again or from above) and not two separate events. Though I think one of the modern translations (the CEV? I don’t have it in front of me) confirms Matthew’s interpretation of the verse.

One thing for sure, Nicodemus, was the teacher of Israel; and he completely missed it.

Matt W., shouldn’t Nicodemus have known, not from the Mikvah, Rabbinical interpretations, but from the text itself, the Old Testament, what Jesus was talking about in a birth of water and spirit? Shouldn’t he have known from the OT that flesh can only produce flesh?

The text this weekend had me thinking . . . it is not a problem with intellect . . . the problem is with heart belief on the part of one of the greatest religious scholars of the day.

Todd & Jim F. #8&9: what is “Hudatos - Ez. 36. Pneumatos - Ez. 37.” and “interpretational gloss”? I think that perhaps all of 13 is an interpretational gloss. The verbs are in the perfect and the aorist tenses, referring to what has happened in the past. As a result, the verse doesn’t really fit into what Jesus is saying, but works well if it is a gloss by the writer.” I must have been sleeping when they taught this stuff in Primary.

However, Word Biblical Commentary (36:48) says “A popular interpretation has it that water represents human birth, whether semen of man or waters in the womb, in contrast to birth from the Spirit; this, however overlooks that the whole expression ‘of water and Spirit’ defines the manner in which one is born from above. Suggestions like these do not do justice to the text and have not commended themselves to scholarly opinion. It would seem that the text relates birth from above to baptism and the Holy Spirit.” The Jerome Biblical Commentary agrees.

I didn’t know that was a popular interpretation. It certainly isn’t among Latter-day Saints. However, I think that the scholarly argument against the interpretation is reasonable, in spite of the fact that it makes a good reading. The key to the scholarly argument is that when Jesus speaks of being born of water and the Spirit in verse 5 he is explaining what he meant when he said, in verse 3, that we must be born from above. As my study notes point out and as Matt W reminds us, “from above” is another translation of anothen, probably a better translation here than “again.” (John 3:5 and 3:7 are the only places in the New Testament where the word is translated “again.”) So, the argument goes, “be born of the water and Spirit” restates “be born from above.”

Born of water is the way we are all born. The point of these verses it to highlight the birth of the spirit in contrast to the natural birth we all have already had. Like verse 6 this verse is discussing two births–the first one is our literal birth–not baptism. The second one is our spiritual re-birth–of which baptism is a symbol.

Maybe I am cheating…as I may be basing this on something I heard in my family scripture study long ago :) Anyway, reading the verse in context, I find this interpretation as the most natural.

Born: gennao
1) of men who fathered children
1a) to be born
1b) to be begotten
1b1) of women giving birth to children
2) metaph.
2a) to engender, cause to arise, excite
2b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his
way of life, to convert someone
2c) of God making Christ his son
2d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ’s work

Again: anwyen
1) from above, from a higher place
1a) of things which come from heaven or God
2) from the first, from the beginning, from the very first
3) anew, over again

Jim, this is fantastic. You have asked almost every question that I have posed while going through these verses. Tomorrow, I am covering John 3:9-13.

I’m curious. Do you see the last phrase in John 3:13 as an interpretational gloss?

So “born of the water” can mean “hears and accepts the Gospel.” Of course, that is not enough for anyone; i.e. I can believe all the scriptures, keep all the commandments, etc., but that is not going to get me to heaven. The second baptism, by fire, is required for that.

We understand “born of the water” to refer to baptism. To what else might it refer? How would we decide between these possible meanings?

I drew a blank on this question when I first read it. However, BrianJ in #4 cited Isa 44:3-4 which interestingly mentions water:

For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring: And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses. One shall say, I am the Lord‘s.

Reading this and thinking a bit more, here’s my list so far of what water might be symbolizing: baptism; the fountain of life; the Red Sea and River Jordan; that which quenches our thirst during a drought and causes us to grow; ritual cleansings (perhaps with referencing Namaan and Elija and Elisha’s water miracles). Also it seems water plays an key role in creation, but I’m not sure if/how this relates. Anything else? Any suggestions on how to, as Jim put it, “decide between these possible meanings”?

I like how the author uses the word “man” to connect 2:25 and 3:1.

v. 6: Jim made a very interesting list of cross-references. I focused on “…flesh is flesh” in my reading. I wonder if there are two meanings, depending on the audience: for some, this is just a way of saying, “don’t set your heart on the world”; specifically for Jews this might recall the message in Matthew 3:9 or Luke 3:8.

Robert, #2: The NET Bible notes add Isaiah 44:3-5 to Ezekiel 37:1-14—verses Nicodemus should/would have known and would help him understand Jesus’ point about being born again.

This saying rests on the fact that there is a propitious time for sowing (wind) and for reaping (dryness). But the “right” time is ever uncertain, and the danger is that if one remains always on the watch for the perfect moment, one will never act. Hence the saying is aimed at those who are paralyzed by their concern for the right time. Once again human ignorance and impotence are scored, but the observation will not tolerate simple inaction. One has to get on with living (cf. v 6 and also 9:10) and give up the luxury of being “certain.” [Murphy, R. (2002). Vol. 23A: Word Biblical Commentary : Ecclesiates. Word Biblical Commentary (109). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.]

I think Ezek 37:1-14 also gives very important background context relating the rebirth symbolically/typologicallyt to the gathering of dispersed Israel (the dry bones in Ezekiel’s vision). I also think it suggests a relation between the Spirit and the Word since Ezekiel’s prophecying is what initiates the new spirit into the bones.