Recently a discussion arose on this blog about the status of people who followed after God before Christ died. In this entry I will attempt to show that old testament saints were born again and had the same status before God as we do today. This is not to say that the experience of a believer before Christ and those who believe after Christ are exactly the same, but I believe there is more continuity between the experiences then often assumed. We will begin our discussion with a brief examination of John 3:1-10:
Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, 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, “Truly, truly, 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 its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?
Here Christ is explaining that one must be born again to enter the kingdom of God. He offers no date as to when this type of experience is to begin, it reads as if one must already be born again to enter the kingdom. But I want to draw attention to the last line in particular; Jesus assumes that Nicodemus should know this. Jesus is not laying down a new teaching here, this is what the Old Testament teaches and as a teacher of Israel you should know this. It is taught and shown throughout the Old Testament (as well as the new) that one is saved by being born again, this is the simplest reading of this passage. For the purposes of this entry the question of what “water” refers to in this passage will be left aside and we will examine only the role of God’s Spirit in this action. To prove this several passages will be examined that shows this.
So the LORD said to Moses, “Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him (Num 27:18).
With Joshua (see also Caleb Numbers 14:21) we have a clear example of an OT saint who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and Romans 8:7-11 explains that the indwelling of the Spirit is what gives life to the believer (a more detailed explanation of what Jesus was discussing with Nicodemus). The concept of the Spirit being in the believer is therefore not something new to the New Testament, it happened in the Old. A further explanation of what this means is given in the New Testament, but although Christ’s connection to the the Spirit is not explained until the New Testament does not mean it did not exist in the Old. The OT saints understood in part, but they still understood part (or should have) and took part in the Spirit.
And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live (Deu 30:6).
The saints in the OT had circumcised hearts, they loved God with their hearts. This can only be true of someone born again, only the Spirit can do this. Romans 2:8-29, explaining further on this as the NT does, making it clear that this is done through the Spirit.
But now your kingdom shall not continue. The LORD has sought out a man after his own heart, and the LORD has commanded him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you (1Sa 13:14).
Here we see why God choose David to be king; He wanted someone who was after Hid own heart. Could someone be after God’s heart and not be born again? Romans 8:8 says that “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” How does one leave the flesh but by being born again? How can one please God but by being after His heart?
When he turned his back to leave Samuel, God gave him another heart. And all these signs came to pass that day (1Sa 10:9).
Often it is assumed that being given a new heart by God is what makes one born again and that it happens only in the New Testament, yet the one instance where it is explicitly said to have happened in scripture takes place in the Old Testament. King Saul when he was made King by God was given a new heart. We also see in Ezekiel 18:31 God telling people to turn away from their sin and embrace a new heart. The people in the OT had an understanding of what this meant and had the ability to do so.
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit. Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will return to you. Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, O God of my salvation, and my tongue will sing aloud of your righteousness. O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise. For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. Do good to Zion in your good pleasure; build up the walls of Jerusalem; then will you delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on your altar (Psa 51:10-19).
Here we have King David in the OT touching on all aspects of what it means to be born again. The Spirit, joy in salvation, true worship of God, and a heart set after God. Of course this passage brings up the question of if someone can have the Spirit taken away from them or not, and is the answer different in the OT from the NT. Although I have recently become convinced that someone can have the Spirit removed both in the OT and the NT, I do not believe a view that holds that the Spirit can be removed in the OT and not the NT proves that OT saints were not born again. Is not being able to give up one’s salvation what it means to be born again? What scriptures that discuss being born again makes that the central point? It may be argued that it is a difference between the OT and NT (and as I admitted at the beginning there are differences) but I don’t believe it’s a difference (assuming it is different which will take a whole other entry to work out) that has anything to do with what it means to be born again
All of this now begs the questions; if the saints in the Old Testament were born again how were they before Christ?
When this topic was discussed in another blog entry a few weeks ago John 1:12-13 was brought up as proof that a direct knowledge of the incarnate Jesus was needed to be born again, but is that what that passage teaches?
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
Joh 1:9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Jesus does not come and dwell incarnate in this passage until verse 14 when the Word becomes flesh, yet verse 12 and 13 speak of being born of God. How is that possible? Verses 10 and 11 explain; Jesus was in the world He just was not incarnate yet. The saints in the Old Testament received Christ in this form and were born again. They did not fully understand who it was that they were embracing, but they trusted God and had faith that He would send a Messiah who would save them from their sin. This was the experience of Simeon and Anna in Luke 2. They had placed their faith in a coming saviour, they embraced Him even though He had not yet been born. For this they were part of those who became children to God, they were born again.
The Christ was known to those in the Old Testament through the shadows in the temple, through the prophets, and through their history as a nation. Trusting in God and His Messiah was how one received the Spirit of god, how one was given a new heart and how one loved God. Those who believe that the Old Testament saints were not born again must show how the born again experience we have today differs in these regards.
Bryan, I agree with this passage here and the concept. However, I think it should be obvious from this statement that the fundamental nature of salvation in the OT is a looking ahead, when the nature of it in the NT is a looking behind. One is the hope for a future atonement the other is an embracing of atonement that has happened. I don’t disagree that OT saints were saved, but is it not apparent that the nature of their salvation was slightly different?
When we look at how the Holy Spirit operated among people in the Old Testament, there are many differences. The Holy Spirit came upon certain individuals for specific tasks at specific times - the priest, the king, the prophet. However, the common man was not anointed like they were. Aside from the Holy Spirit manifesting in a glory cloud or a pillar of fire, the average person would have never experienced the Holy Spirit. His presence was in the Holy of Holies and only the priest had access to that place and only on occasion. Even those particular individuals who were given access to the Holy Spirit - either by anointing or by way of the Holy of Holies - the Spirit did not reside continually with them, much less in them.
There are scriptures in the Old Testament like Numbers 27:18 that speak of the Holy Spirit being “in” someone, but when you look at the collective body of other scriptures and interpret the less clear passages with the more clear passages, it is obvious that the Holy Spirit did not abide in individuals during this time. The Holy Spirit’s only earthly abode was the Holy of Holies. Look at the account of what happened when Jesus died as recorded in Matthew 27:
50And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
51And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split.
What is the significance of the veil of the temple being ripped? That’s where the presence of God had resided under the Old Covenant. This signified an altogether new dwelling place for the Holy Spirit.
Notice what Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5:
1For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven,
3inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked.
4For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life.
5Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge.
Notice the language here. Paul is using the term “tent”, an OT reference to the tabernacle where God’s presence lived, to describe the human body. It is clear that the tabernacle was a type of that which was to come, namely God living in men. Second Corinthians 6 also calls the Christian’s body the temple of God.
16Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said,
“I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM;
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
17″Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE,” says the Lord.
“AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN;
And I will welcome you.
18″And I will be a father to you,
And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,”
Says the Lord Almighty.
Even though Paul quoted Jeremiah, he alluded to the fact that the new birth in this present covenant was the fulfillment of the OT prophecy. Could you imagine someone in the OT claiming that they were the temple of God? They would have considered that blasphemy! In fact, that’s what they accused Jesus of. They knew only of a temple made with hands.
The concept of being a child of God is not even a very prominent theme in the Old Covenant. The Hebrews considered themselves sons of Israel, but not literal sons of God. They were the children of God in one sense, but not in the sense of being in Christ.
“For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren” (Romans 8:29)
Jesus was the firstborn of this godly line that, before his incarnation, did not exist. In order to be born again into this line, on must be “in Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:17). Under the present covenant God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, enabling us to call God our Father (Galatians 4:6).
It is clear that Chris and I have had the same instruction on this issue somewhere.
Colin, I’m not sure what you mean by “nature of their salvation”. Yes, one was looking forward to an event and we are looking back to that event but I don’t see how that changes the nature of salvation since it’s the same salvation that is being looked it. Knowledge of it varies, but I think the actual act is the same.
Chris, can you prove “The Holy Spirit came upon certain individuals for specific tasks at specific times - the priest, the king, the prophet. However, the common man was not anointed like they were” without an argument from silence? The OT tells the story of priests, kings, prophets and such so of course the focus will be around their interaction with the Spirit. Why should I assume their interaction with it would be significantly different from the common man?
I understand the story in Matthew 27 very differently then you do it seems. I understand the veil being ripped because sin which separates us from God was dealt with, not because we now have access to the Spirit. We can approach God because there is now no barrier between us and Him. Yet, those who looked forward to this event had the benefit of it just as those of us who look back to it have the benefit. Perhaps it’s what Calvinism I still have but I don’t see Christ’s death as temporally bound I guess.
Regarding 2 Corinthians 6, did the OT saints then not have a guarantee of their salvation?
“Chris, can you prove “The Holy Spirit came upon certain individuals for specific tasks at specific times - the priest, the king, the prophet. However, the common man was not anointed like they were” without an argument from silence? The OT tells the story of priests, kings, prophets and such so of course the focus will be around their interaction with the Spirit. Why should I assume their interaction with it would be significantly different from the common man?”
Can I prove that the Holy Spirit only came upon these individuals? No, I wouldn’t use the word “prove” but I think it is implied in the Old Testament narrative and in the type of the tabernacle. I think even the fact that the day of Pentecost fulfilled Joel’s prophecy, according to Peter in Acts 2, demonstrates quite clearly that the power of the Holy Spirit was something foreign to the common man. Even if we view Matthew 27:18 strictly in the way you do, there is an implication of separation from God that does not exist in New Covenant redemption.
“Regarding 2 Corinthians 6, did the OT saints then not have a guarantee of their salvation?”
Who said they didn’t? My point in referencing that scripture was to point out the evident fulfillment of, “I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM.” Paul points to this scripture as being synonymous with being the temple of God. I don’t know how we can escape the fact that the Old Testament type foreshadowed the New Testament anti-type. It is plainly pointed out here.
born again ?
While most of your study is correct about OT & NT salvation. OT people
were looking ahesd to something big. IT is a difference in relationship to GOD,that a person under GRACE has attained. Before CHRIST was sacrificed man could not enter the HOLY of HOLYS,where only an anointed PRIEST could enter & only ONCE a year. THE PRIEST became in a sense; GODS representative to work earthly affairs. This was symbolisum at it’s highest.
When, GOD ,in the flesh, “CHRIST” paid the final sacrifice there was no longer a need for the Jewish Temple, or the VEIL. FOR, (NOW/TODAY),in the new tesament we as children born of GOD become that TEMPLE and our NEW relationship is established that lets US enter the HOLY of HOLYS,into the very presence of GOD the FATHER who was, in the old testiment, contained in the “ARC of THE COVENNANT”, that used to be positioned behind the VEIL. NOW/TODAY we as (BELIEVERS) have access to GOD the FATHER and contain within us the FULLNESS of the GOD HEAD, & we cry abba FATHER. OUR faith is not our own doing, it is the GIFT of GOD SENT by the conviction of the HOLY SPIRIT ,WHO works amoung men. therefore it was the fore thought of GOD that brought you & me to the knowledge of truth. THAT WE are ALL sinners in HIS sight but HE has reasoned from before the foundation of EARTH to save some , as many as would accept. WE now become HIS representatives on EARTH to do HIS will (that being: for US to show the WORLD CHRIST ,who showed the WORLD, GOD the FATHER).WE are now HIs representative in EARTHLY matters. TILL HE COMES AGAIN to establish HIS reign on EARTH.
I hope i’ve been of help
TLF
Chris,
The Holy spirit came appon believers in the new testament as well. Check it out. New testoment saint were also moved by the holy spirit. Acts: The view u have about the holy spirit “coming upon the prophet” was not just localized to the old testament. good verbage though
Jesse, I didn’t mean to suggest that the Holy Spirit did not come upon New Testament believers, just that He did not indwell Old Testament believers the same way he presently does. Actually, I believe that there is an experience subsequent to being born again in this dispensation - that is, being baptized in the Holy Ghost. As Jesus said,
“But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”
Acts 1:8
Interesting post, and good comments! All stuff on my heart.
I was doing a search for something I was just about to post and came across yours.
A question?
What is the first verse of the New Covenant?
Most would respond with Matt.1v1.
However Jesus tells us clearly.–
Mat 26:27 And He took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink all of it.
Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
From this, and much more elsewhere, it is clear that, to Jesus and the disciples, that all of the Gospel period, all of the ministry of Jesus to that very point, was a seamless continuation of the OLD COVENANT.
If the disciples had never been told, as indeed they hadn’t, that there was a new covenant to happen shortly, they would never in a million years start to think in anything other than OLD COVENANT thought patterns.
With this in mind we need to reconsider a whole lot of dogmatic, doctrinal points.ie.—-
1) The whole “Born again” verses of John3 were taught by Jesus whilst in the OLD COVENANT, therefore they are OLD COVENANT. ie all the OLD COVENANT saints were born again, otherwise Jesus wouldn’t have derided Nicodemus, who was still an OLD COVENANT man.
2) Jesus taught about being filled with the Holy Spirit, whilst ministering in the OLD COVENANT, therefore the Holy Spirit was available to the disciples as OLD COVENANT believers, in the manner of the previous old covenant believers, the patriarchs, etc. who were filled with the Holy Spirit.
Luk 11:11 For what father of you, if the son asks for bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a snake for a fish?
Luk 11:12 Or if he shall ask for an egg, will he give him a scorpion?
Luk 11:13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father GIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT to those who ask Him?
Note Jesus does not differentiate in what manner the Holy Spirit would come, within or upon. The disciples for their part would obviously be thinking of Elisha or Isaiah. We must not try to insert dogmas about how, that do not exist in either their minds or that of Jesus.
Once we realise that Jesus had his ministry in the OLD COVENANT, it starts to clarify a whole lot of stuff that causes controversy.
Jesus was preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven being at hand. This is not as some bible commentaries make out, ie. the next big event after the ministry of Jesus. The Kingdom being at hand was the concept of there being another Kingdom besides the one the natural eye could see, the Kingdom where God was enthroned. This is where Jesus lived and did, on earth, what he saw his Father doing in His Kingdom.
The Kingdom of God was the one Elisha showed his servant.
2Ki 6:15 And the servant of the man of God arose early and went out. And, behold, an army surrounded the city, and horses and chariots. And his servant said to him, Alas, my master! What shall we do?
2Ki 6:16 And he answered, Do not fear, for those with us are more than those with them.
2Ki 6:17 And Elisha prayed and said, I pray You, Jehovah, open his eyes so that he may see. And Jehovah opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw. And behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
There is far too much to explore along this line in a comment. I hope others can enlarge on it and reveal even more interesting nuggets!
Francis,
Thank you for your contribution, but I must respectfully disagree. Because Jesus was bridging the gap between the Old and New Covenants, he began to gradually introduce new concepts throughout his ministry. I think the Last Supper/Passover example is a good one. Obviously Jesus had yet to shed his blood for the remission of sins, but he spoke to what was about to take place that would ratify the covenant. Another example is when Jesus said,
22And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you.
23And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
24Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.
(John 16:22-24)
Notice that the phrase “in that day” is forward-looking. When he says “hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name” he was teaching about a progressive principle of prayer that until that time they had not known, that is prayer - not to Jesus - but to the Father in the name of Jesus. Because Jesus spoke the words of the Father they were, up until that point, able to ask Jesus anything they desired; but because he was to ascend into heaven that was to mark a new era following the interim, an era only made valid when Jesus was fulfilling his ministry as High Priest (see Hebrews).
I don’t know if I would pin down a first passage of the New Covenant, but if I were hard-pressed to do so, it would be this one:
1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
(Acts 2:1-4)
By this time, Jesus had begun his ministry as High Priest, having been seated at the right hand of the Father to make intercession for us, after the fulfillment of what he had predicted: the coming of the Holy Spirit to empower the saints in order to accomplish the Great Commission, which is essentially a continuation of Jesus’ ministry of reconciliation. I think Peter’s reference to Joel’s prophecy following the outpouring of the Spirit is also evidence of the entrance into a New Covenant era.
16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:
21And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
(Acts 2:16-21)
Chris, your points don’t really conflict with those of Francis that I can see. You both seem to agree that most of the Gospels do not constitute the “New Covenant” proper. Since Jesus specifically indicated that communion was an observation of the “new covenant”, Francis is correct in suggesting that this was the introduction of a new concept. You are right though that the new covenant had as a pre-requisite Christ’s death. This is why all it took for the man next to Jesus on the cross to be saved was to put his confidence on Jesus. It was a shift from the idea that someday God would somehow address man’s sins to a specific knowledge of how that would happen. The church didn’t begin to fully experience the “new covenant” until the Holy Spirit came, but it began the moment Christ died.
Regarding the other points by Francis:
1) Obviously Jesus would not have condemned Nicodemus for ignorance if the concept of being born again was different than the OT saints. This is likely the strongest argument that they WERE (followed by Romans 4).
2) Jesus was teaching people to pray “just as John taught his disciples”. The idea was to help the people understand how to talk to God, and the answer was to openly share about your needs. This is DEFINITELY consistent with OT saints.
3) I think the “Kingdom of God” part is less clear. Clearly God’s Kingdom already exists in heaven (see the Lord’s prayer for an example), but I am unsure whether the “coming” of it refers to the church, angels, or the future conquest of Revelation. I’d probably need to study the word choice and context a lot more to be able to offer an opinion here.
“1) Obviously Jesus would not have condemned Nicodemus for ignorance if the concept of being born again was different than the OT saints. This is likely the strongest argument that they WERE (followed by Romans 4).”
I don’t think Jesus’ conversation can be construed as a condemnation, and I don’t think Jesus was accusing him of being ignorant, although the King James (and perhaps other translations) seem to infer that. Let’s look at the exchange in John 3 from the NIV.
3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”
4″How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”
5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
9″How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
10″You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
In verse 10, where the NIV says, “Do you not understand these things?”, the KJV says, “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?” Which is correct? I think by examination of the context, that the NIV is probably more accurate. I say this because Jesus was responding to a question regarding how it could be possible for someone to be born again, an apparently foreign concept to this pharisee. So Jesus wasn’t accusing him of not knowing something clearly laid out in the Old Testament. Jesus’ mention of Moses and the serpent on the poll foreshadowed the work of redemption that would be necessary in order for people to be born again. Jesus only referenced the Old Testament scripture to explain what he was about to fulfill.
Now if we go back to the beginning of John’s account in chapter 1, we see this:
10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
The fact that John introduces the concept of the New Birth in connection with the coming of Christ suggests to me that this is a uniquely New Covenant reality. I think that also agrees with the gist of the exchange between Nicodemus and Jesus.
The KJV is a really bad translation, and while the NIV isn’t great either, it’s significantly better than the KJV. The NASB, TNIV, or ESV are the best.
DBT, you’re an idiot. You’re summarizing a massively complex issue in two incredibly trite and naive statements. The first stupid thing you do is fail to define a “good” translation.
Those who hold to “KJV only” normally base this claim on the manuscripts on which it is based. While I don’t agree that the manuscripts it is based on are necessarily better, determining a criteria for manuscript selection is a huge subject with many details to take into account. Arguably, an unclear translation of a superior manuscript may or may not be preferable to a clear translation of an inferior manuscript. It was also translates into a “different language”, its target being people living hundreds of years ago and speaking in a much different way than today. You might as well complain about the Septuagint being a “really bad translation”.
The NIV deliberately seeks an “idea to idea” translation of the original manuscripts, and was painstakingly translated, reviewed and revised. Arguably, this is a superior model for translation than “word for word” translations (including the KJV and ESB) since it provides a superior quality English understanding of the original meaning. Doing so does make word studies and original language lookups far more difficult though.
The Contemporary English Version deliberately did language studies of magazines and other popular culture materials to mirror readability with truly modern English. It takes the “idea for idea” to the extreme, and focuses on communicating meaning over foreign grammar structure. It is the only winner of a “Plain English Campaign” award, a secular organization that rates clarity of published documents.
Arguably all versions described OTHER than the KJV are inferior due to their restrictive copyright agreements. The organizations involved are apparently all more interested in revenue than in allowing the free spread of the gospel, and most place restrictions on the copying of more than 25% of any one book. My main point is that different versions serve different purposes, and that only a complete idiot would trivially dismiss any faithful interpretation of the Word of God. ALL of these translations have brought people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, and ALL of them can be used to know our Creator better. You are more than welcome to prefer whatever (accurate) translation you like, but to call a translation “really bad” is uncalled for.
Chris, why restrict ourselves to 2 or 3 translations:
http://bible.cc/john/3-10.htm
==-==
International Standard Version (©2008)
Jesus answered him, “You’re a teacher of Israel, and you can’t understand this?
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus told Nicodemus, “You’re a well-known teacher of Israel. Can’t you understand this?
King James Bible
Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
American King James Version
Jesus answered and said to him, Are you a master of Israel, and know not these things?
American Standard Version
Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou the teacher of Israel, and understandest not these things?
Bible in Basic English
And Jesus, answering, said, Are you the teacher of Israel and have no knowledge of these things?
Douay-Rheims Bible
Jesus answered, and said to him: Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?
Darby Bible Translation
Jesus answered and said to him, Thou art the teacher of Israel and knowest not these things!
English Revised Version
Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou the teacher of Israel, and understandest not these things?
Webster’s Bible Translation
Jesus answered and said to him, Art thou a teacher of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Weymouth New Testament
“Are you,” replied Jesus, “‘the Teacher of Israel,’ and yet do you not understand these things?
World English Bible
Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and don’t understand these things?
Young’s Literal Translation
Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Thou art the teacher of Israel — and these things thou dost not know!
==-==
Plenty of these seem to suggest that being “born again” was not a concept new to the new covenant. I suspect we will have to dig into original language studies to get further though, since clearly not all of the translations provide the same clarity of meaning.
“Plenty of these seem to suggest that being “born again” was not a concept new to the new covenant.”
Well, I think the important thing to realize is the context of their conversation. Verse 10 in and of itself should not be taken out of context to make a case for or against the new birth being a distinctly New Covenant concept. When Jesus responded (and I’ll just pick one), “Are you the teacher of Israel, and don’t understand these things?” it was a response to the explanation he gave in verses 5-8, not something spoken of in the Old Testament. So using that verse to make an argument that Jesus was accusing him of ignorance of a concept for which he should already have been aware just doesn’t make sense.
The KJV comes from the Vulgate, which is from the 5th century (that’s 400 years after the original autographs were written), while the ESV and TNIV are from much earlier manuscripts. Get your facts straight before you call someone an idiot, otherwise you’ll look the fool like you do right now.
If you want to read more about this, check out Fee’s How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. I don’t agree with all of their tastes in translations, but they do a solid job of eliminating the KJV as an option.
Some of those earlier manuscripts are gnostic.
I try to read different translations. I am fond of the King James because of its poetic value, but I understand its limitations. I do not, however, believe it came from the Latin Vulgate. I think you are thinking of the Catholic Bible.
But as to the manuscripts debate, I have never been convinced that the supposedly older ones are necessarily better. For instance, the NIV, which is taken from the ones that are supposed to be older omits verses that are found in the King James. Its possible that the verses were added later, but I don’t think so. Who knows? But really it’s a non-issue to me. I’m not dogmatic one way or the other.
DBT, as far as you being called an idiot, don’t sweat it. For some people, insulting others is a way people mask their own insecurity. They feel better about themselves by putting others down. Such insults are not a testimony of your level of intelligence, but their own carnal nature. We should pray for people like this.
“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”
Matthew 5:44 (KJV)
You’re correct, that’s the Roman Catholic Bible which came from the Vulgate.
Wow! I was reading along, enjoying the comments, when, seemingly out of nowhere, here comes this expression “You are an idiot!” I was deeply saddened.
I am pleased to see your understanding of the first part of the Gospel of John all that is said of the Eternal Word before He became flesh and tabernacled amoungst us. John the baptist had a twofold testomony in that He that came after him was preferred before him because He was before him. Abraham rejoiced to see the Eternal Word manafest in the flesh and he did, the Pharisee’s reply was that the Lord was not yet fifty years old and He had seen Abraham. The Lord’s reply before Abraham was I am. In the Word was life that was so from the begining. Those that recieved Him had eternal life in the Son. Let us remember what the name Jesus Christ means, Jehovah Saviour annointed(not the watchtower’s jehovah). Jehovah Saviour annointed (annoited prophet,priest and king). No flesh can glory in God’s presence and if that which is born of flesh is flesh then before any one is born again that’s all they are is flesh. The mind of the flesh is not subject to God. Abraham beleived that God would justfy him an ungodly man and that was reckoned to him as righteousness.
Romans 3:24-26 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation(mercy seat) through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
In this portion of Romans I believe we see some of the difference between Old and New Testament saints. Those past sins represent those of the Old testament saints in which God showed forbearance in the remission of their sins. After the cross God’s righteousness is displayed in that He is shown to be just in justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. And yet we clearly see that Abraham was reckoned as righteous in Roman’s four.