Category: John

The first words of the Gospel of John personifies Jehovah as “the Word.”

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.

That may be difficult for us to understand, but it was not difficult for the Greek-speaking audience to whom John wrote.

The Greek word translated as “word” is logos (Strong #3056 ). It has many shades of meaning: it is both the words spoken and the system of thought behind those words; the subject under discussion or the speech used in the conversation; ideas in a questions of law, reasoning, and rationale. It is the reflections of one’s own mind; speech, treaties, utterance, etc. Even though “Word” does not have as comprehensive a meaning as logos, “Word” is still a valid translation.

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible does not change that meaning, but it makes it easier for us to understand.

1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God (JST john 1:1-2).

The Savior further clarified John’s personification of “the Word” in a revelation to the Prophet Joseph when he said,

26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth (D&C 93:26).

All three versions combine to help us to understand that by virtue of the eternal sweep of his Atonement, the Savior is the personification of the gospel and the source of the teachings.

Earlier in Section 93 John’s testimony is quoted more fully.

6 And John saw and bore record of the fulness of my glory, and the fulness of John’s record is hereafter to be revealed.
7 And he bore record, saying: I saw his glory, that he was in the beginning, before the world was;
8 Therefore, in the beginning the Word was, for he was the Word, even the messenger of salvation—
9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.
10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him (D&C 93:6-10).

If I understand those statements correctly, they mean that the Savior, the Firstborn and Only Begotten Son of the Father, taught us the gospel from the very earliest beginnings of our cognizance. That concept acknowledges that the Savior has had a pivotal role in every phase of our very early and continued maturation.

One’s having truth presupposes one’s having priesthood, for there are some truths that one cannot understand unless one is “authorize us to believe.”

George A. Smith, while serving in the First Presidency, reported: “Joseph Smith taught that every man and woman should seek the Lord for wisdom, that they might get knowledge from Him who is the fountain of knowledge; and the promises of the gospel, as revealed, were such as to authorize us to believe, that by taking this course we should gain the object of our pursuit.” {1}

That same doctrine is taught in the scriptures. Two examples are:

27 And no man receiveth a fulness [of truth] unless he keepeth his commandments.
28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things (D&C 93:27-28).

Of course, one cannot keep all the commandments unless they are available to us through the priesthood and its attendant covenants and ordinances. So, to be authorized to believe, one must first have the necessary priesthood authority to be able to know what to believe.

19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.
20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest (D&C 84:19-20).

Some priesthood blessings are tied to one’s birthright. (That is why the birthright blessings of Abraham are so important to Latter-day Saints.) When the Lord explained the rights of bishopric to the Prophet Joseph, he said,

17 For the firstborn holds the right of the presidency over this priesthood, and the keys or authority of the same (D&C 68:17).

The same is, no doubt, true of the eternal priesthood. Therefore, in another place, the Savior explained,

21 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn;
22 And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn.
23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;
24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are come;
25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.
26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;
27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments (D&C 93:21-27).

These scriptures teach us a great deal about the premortal Savior. He is the personification of truth by virtue of his birthright as the Firstborn Son of the Father. Now we are left with this most important of questions: Did Jehovah hold the rights of priesthood because he happened to be the first one born, or was he the Firstborn because he had already earned those rights? In my last post I discussed the orders of premortal priesthood described in Alma 13. Alma calls the priesthood held by the intelligences “the order of the Son.” He teaches that both the gospel and the priesthood that enabled its covenants were ascribed to the Savior before intelligences were born into the spirit world. Using Alma 13 as evidence, the answer to our questions must be that the Savior had already earned the right to be the First Born and Only Begotten Son of the Father.

In John the Beloved’s Revelation, he uses an intriguing description of the Savior and makes it more intriguing by the challenge that follows it.

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear (Revelation 13:8-9).

The phrase, “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” is not found elsewhere in the Bible, but we can know from the Book of Moses that it had once been in the Hebrew scriptures. The context is this:

45 And it came to pass that Enoch looked; and from Noah, he beheld all the families of the earth; and he cried unto the Lord, saying: When shall the day of the Lord come? When shall the blood of the Righteous be shed, that all they that mourn may be sanctified and have eternal life?
46 And the Lord said: It shall be in the meridian of time, in the days of wickedness and vengeance.
47 And behold, Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, even in the flesh; and his soul rejoiced, saying: The Righteous is lifted up, and the Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world; and through faith I am in the bosom of the Father, and behold, Zion is with me (Moses 7:45-47).

The Savior suggested that same idea when he introduced himself to the Nephites. First the Father spoke to them and said,

7 Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him.

Then the Savior appeared.

9 And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake unto the people, saying:
10 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.
11 And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning (3 Nephi 11:5-11).

I do not pretend to understand the eternal ramifications of the Atonement, but perhaps part of the question was clarified when the Savior introduced himself to the brother of Jared.

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters (Ether 3:14).

It is further clarified by this explanation given to the Prophet Joseph.

40 For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.
41 He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever (D&C 88:33-45).

It is appropriate to conclude this discussion with two testimonies written by the Prophet Joseph Smith. The first was dictated by him as he and Sidney Rigdon received the revelation that is section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—
24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God (D&C 76:22-24).

The second is somewhat similar, but more personal and more explicit. It is a few stanzas from a poem called “A Vision,” by the Prophet, published on February 1, 1843, in the Times and Seasons.

And now after all of the proofs made of him,
By witnesses truly, by whom he was known,
This is mine, last of all, that he lives; yea, he lives!
And sits at the right hand of God on his throne.

And I heard a great voice bearing record from heav’n,
He’s the Saviour and only begotten of God;
By him, of him, and through him, the worlds were all made,
Even all that careen in the heavens so broad.

Whose inhabitants, too, from the first to the last,
Are sav’d by the very same Saviour of ours;
And, of course, are begotten God’s daughters and sons
By the very same truths and the very same powers. {2}

John’s introduction saying that the Savior is the very personification the truth that is the gospel, is only that, an introduction. It provides a background from which to consider what else he is going to tell us about the Savior’s eternal nature. The profundity of this and the rest of John’s testimony is beyond my understanding, but it is wonderful to contemplate.

——————————–
FOOTNOTES

{1} Joseph Smith [Melchizedek Priesthood manual], (Salt Lake City, Utah, published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2007), 266.

{2} The eternal and universal sweep of the Savior’s knowledge and powers is suggested by the following.

Apostle John Taylor wrote an editorial called “Origin, Object, and Destiny of Women.” It was published in The Mormon, New York, New York, August 29, 1857. The following is only part of one paragraph, but it should really be read in context. You will find the entire editorial in “Favorite Quotes” in this website. Part of the editorial reads:

Knowest thou not that eternities ago, thy spirit, pure and holy, dwelt in thy Heavenly Father’s bosom, and in his presence, and with thy mother, one of the Queens of heaven, surrounded by thy brother and sister spirts in the spirit world, among the Gods. That as thy spirit beheld the scenes transpiring there, and thou growing in intelligence, thou sawest worlds upon worlds organized and peopled with thy kindred spirits, took upon them tabernacles, died, were resurrected, and received their exaltation on the redeemed worlds they once dwelt upon. Thou being willing and anxious to imitate them, waiting and desirous to obtain a body, a resurrection and exaltation also….

The other interesting statement is from the Book of the Secrets of Enoch. The following is from Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, 142-47. The part of the quote that relates to our question is in 24:1, “I tell to thee even before the very beginning, all that I created from non-being, and visible things from invisible.” Two accounts that appear to be similar to the events described by Enoch are, Revelation 12:1-9; 1 Nephi 1:8-15.

I have a very simple rule for judging the value of the apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. The rule is this. If it is apparent that the author knew the ancient temple drama, I give his writings serious consideration. If it is apparent that he did not, I treat is as fiction. Using that criterion, I have great respect for the writings of Enoch. (see footnote B).

The full quote from Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord reads as follows:

——————————–
The most complete description of a sode experience found in the non-canonical works is in one of the books of Enoch. It reads:

24:1 And the Lord summoned me, and said to me: Enoch, sit down on my left with Gabriel.’ And I bowed down to the Lord, and the Lord spoke
2 to me: Enoch, beloved, all thou seest, all things that are standing finished I tell to thee even before the very beginning, all that I created from non-being, and visible things from invisible.
3 Hear, Enoch, and take in these my words, for not to My angels have I told my secret, and I have not told them their rise, nor my endless realm, nor have they understood my creating,
4 which I tell thee to-day. For before all things were visible, I alone used to go about in the invisible things, like the sun from east to west, and west to from west to east. But even the sun has peace in itself, while I found no peace, because I was creating all things, and I conceived the thought of placing foundations, and of creating visible creation.
25:1 I commanded in the very lowest parts, that visible things should come down from invisible, and Adoil [the footnote reads Adoil. is from Hebrew roots that mean ‘the hand of God.’ ] came down very great, and I beheld
2 him, and lo! he had a belly of great light. And I said to him: ‘Become undone, Adoil, and let
3 the visible come out of thee.’ And he came undone, and a great light came out. And I was in the midst of the great light, and as there is born light from light, there came forth a great age, and showed all creation, which I had thought to
4 create. And I saw that it was good. And I placed for myself a throne, and took my seat on it, and said to the light: ‘Go thou up higher and fix thyself high above the throne, and be
5 a foundation to the highest things.’ And above the light there is nothing else, and then I bent up and looked up from my throne.
26:1 And I summoned the very lowest a second time, and said: Let Archas come forth hard, and he came forth hard from the invisible.
2 And Archas came forth, hard, heavy, and very red.
3 And I said: Be opened, Archas, and let there be born from you, and he came undone, an age came forth, very great and very dark, bearing the creation of all lower things, and I saw that it was good and said to him:
4 Go thence down below, and make yourself firm, and be a foundation for the lower things, and it happened and he went down and fixed himself, and became the foundation for the lower things, and below the darkness there is nothing else. {A}

In this vision, Enoch {B} reports that God had created a perfect balance between good and evil, providing the full spectrum of options for each of his children. In the vision, God is represented as sitting on his throne below the light and above the darkness—that is, in the center—where he and his temple always are. {C}
———————

FOOTNOTES from Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord

{A} Book of the Secrets of Enoch, in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, 2 vols. Translated and edited by R. H. Charles. 2: 431-69. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. 2:442-45.

{B} Early Jews and Christians considered the books of Enoch as an important part of their most sacred literature. For example, compare Jude 1:14-16 with 1 Enoch 1:9.

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage (Jude 1:14-16).

And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones
To execute judgement upon all,
And to destroy all the ungodly:
And to convict all flesh
Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him (1 Enoch 1:9).
(The Book of Enoch, tras. R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 2: 189.)

{C} When the Prophet Joseph wrote a poetic version of his vision, he made its meaning even more clear.

I’ll surely reveal all my myst’ries to them—
The great hidden myst’ries in my kingdom stor’d;
From the council in Kolob, to time on the earth,
(Joseph Smith, “A Vision,” in Times and Seasons, February 1, 1843).

Abraham 3:3-4 reads:

3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.
4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

John 3:1-22, LeGrand Baker, the Saviour and Nicodemus

Last week we read Alma 33:19-22 and observed that the Old Testament does not give an explanation of the meaning of the brass serpent Moses made, with the promise “that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived (Numbers 21:1-13).”

However, the ways the story is used in the Book of Mormon leave no doubt that Moses understood that symbolism, and that its explanation was found on the brass plates. The Nephite prophets knew the story and explained that it was a representation of the Saviour’s atonement. In Helaman, Nephi shows that the symbolism of the serpent on the pole foretold “the coming of the Messiah… the Son of God,” and was about the Saviour’s atonement and his dying on the cross (Helaman 8:12-19).

In the New Testament, the Saviour uses the story as part of his conversation with Nicodemus, and thereby helps us understand that dialogue which was so sacred that John gives us only just enough detail that we can know what was discussed, without knowing just what was said.

I would like to review that conversation, not to elaborate but to open a window just wide enough that you may see for yourselves what is there.

This is one of my favorite stories in the New Testament because it lets us watch Jesus and Nicodemus become friends.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

John’s introduction to the story is in the last part of the previous chapter, so lets start there.

23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

His reluctance was based on the very simple fact that he knew in advance how they would respond to him and to his testimony(John 2:23-25).

That’s the key to the whole story. The footnote in our Bible says that “commit” might have been translated “entrust.” I just learned that the Greek word is a form of pistis, and so implies a covenant. That is, it says that Jesus was willing to let the people see his miracles, but if that’s all they were interest in, then he was not willing to let them know who he was, or by what authority he did those miracles. President McKay explained how the Saviour knew what he could say and to whom:

Every man and every person who lives in this world wields an influence, whether for good or for evil. It is not what he says alone; it is not alone what he does. It is what he is. Every man, every person radiates what he or she really is. Every person is a recipient of radiation. The Saviour was conscious of that. Whenever He came into the pres­ence of an individual, He sensed that radiation — whether it was the woman of Samaria with her past life: whether it was the woman who was to be stoned, or the men who were to stone her; whether it was the statesman, Nicodemus, or one of the lepers. He was conscious of the radiation from the individual. And to a degree so are you. and so am I. It is what we are and what we radiate that affects the people around us (President David O. McKay, “Radiation of the Individual” The Instructor, October, 1964, 373).

With the background information that the Saviour never revealed himself except to those whom he knew he could trust, John tells the story of Nicodemus.

JOHN, CHAPTER 3

1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him (John 3:1-2).

So Nicodemus appears to have introduced introduces himself to Jesus by saying the very thing that would have disqualified him from receiving Jesus testimony. But Jesus knew his heart, so the words he spoke was not the thing that mattered. After that introduction, John writes, “Jesus answered and said unto him…” John does not give us the question that evoked that answer, nor, indeed, does he tell us most of what was said. Leaving us to ask, why did John give us these parts of the conversation and leave out so much else of what must have been said?. I’m convinced John’s primary purpose was to let us know us the true depth of what was said, and show us the beginnings of Jesus’s friendship with Nicodemus, but he also was determined not to tell those who could/would not understand. So he gives us just enough of the conversation that we can know what ideas were discussed, but only just enough that we can understand. Therefore John wrote it in code.

Much of the New Testament is written in a temple code, and its authors tell us so over and over again. The phrase the Saviour uses is “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matthew 11:15, 13:9-17; Mark 4:9; Mark 7:16; Luke 8:8; Luke 14:35.) The gospel of John does not use that phrase, but it quotes the Saviour as saying: “they that hear shall live (John 5:25-31)”; “He that is of God heareth God’s words (John 8:47)”; and “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me (John 10:27).” However, in Revelation chapters 2 and 3, John uses a variant of the Saviour’s phrase many times. In the surface text, those chapters are seven unrelated letters to seven churches. But in the encoded sub-text they are a colophon in which John identifies himself as one who really knows. If we read only the first half of each of John’s letters, he walks us through an encoded version of the New Testament temple drama. If we read only the second half of each, tells us why it is important. He alerts us to what he is doing by repeating over and over again, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.”

John’s report of the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus contains a similar sub-text. It is to be understood only by those who already know, and therefore have ears to hear. So the first thing we hear Jesus saying is answering a question that is unspoken in our text.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3).

Borsch explains at least part of what Jesus really said:

Of much more interest to us is the water imagery of the Gospel along with some of its associations. Let us look first at Jesus’ meeting with Nicodemus in John 3:1ff. and the discussion there about entering the Kingdom of God. Here one of the key words is [words written in Greek]. This adverb has two primary meanings, ‘from above’ and ‘anew’, but the former has predominance. This is true in the New Testament as well as in other literature, and, more importantly, in John, where, outside this passage, ‘from above’ is the meaning. The whole force of the culmination of this passage (3:13) along with the use of the word in 3:31 strongly suggest that ‘being born from above: is the primary sense intended in 3:3, 7. Yet it is probably just as obvious that Nicodemus, understands it as ‘anew’ when he asks Jesus, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?’ Almost surely, then, we are dealing with Johannine irony. Not only does Nicodemus misunderstand [words written in Greek]., but he fails to understand the mode of the birth which Jesus is describing. (Frederick Houk Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History [London, SCM Press, 1967, 270])

Nicodemus was a scholar, therefore he understood what Jesus said. However the adoption/kinship ordinances of Solomon’s temple had not been performed for 600 years, not since Solomon’s temple was destroyed. Nicodemus’s next question reflects his amazement that the notion that those ordinances might be performed again. So he asks for clarification, and does it in a silly way whose intent is to challenge Jesus to see if that really knows what he is talking about

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? (John 3:4)

There are two ways to read that. The usual way is to assume that Nicodemus thought that was a stupid thing to say, and was trying to bate Jesus. The second way – the one I think is a necessary introduction to the rest of the story – is that Nicodemus did understand and wanted to know what, how, and why. The reason I think that, is that the ideas of sonship and birthright were central to Jewish legal and theological thought. In Psalm 2, in Jesus’ baptism, and on the Mt. of Transfiguration, “You are my son” is a designation of royal birth and kingship. The Jews had lost the ancient temple rites suggested in Psalm 2, but the scriptures talk about those rites, and Nicodemus, who was a scholar, must have known about them. If he did, he also knew that the Jews had not practiced those ceremonies for 600 years — not since Solomon’s temple was destroyed.

Jesus answer addresses Nicodemus’ question precisely: He explained there is another birth that introduces one into the kingdom of God – if it is a birth, then, by definition, it makes the person both son and heir.

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.

I suspect this statement is, as it implies, about kingship and the Kingdom. If it is then that is further evidence that the conversation is about ancient kingship rites.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (John 3:5-6).

There are two ways of understanding that verse. The first, which we use all the time in missionary work, is correct because it is a legitimate introduction to the second. The first is that the Saviour is talking about baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. However, if John’s report of the conversation is sub-textually about the ancient temple rites, then the second meanings are about the coronation ceremony that follows baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. In that case, to be born of water would imply a different washing, and to be born of the Spirit would be a reference to an anointing to be king. There are two important examples of this understanding in the Old Testament.

When David was only a boy, “Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward” (1 Samuel 16:13). Johnson referred to that story, and called the experience an “endowment of the Spirit” whereby the king received extraordinary religious authority, as well as wisdom in government and military matters. Mowinckel understood that the “Ideas about the fruits of this endowment with the spirit are, naturally, strongly influenced by older biblical conceptions of the gifts of the spirit in the Messiah.” (Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, 253-4)

During the coronation ceremony which was part of the Feast of Tabernacles temple drama, the king (representing every man in the congregation) was washed in preparation to receiving the anointing. Then he went into the temple where he was clothed in kingly robes, anointed, crowned, and given a royal king name. The anointing during that ceremony was a dual ordinance. It made him king, and it also adopted him as a son of God who could sit on the Lord’s throne and not be a usurper. We learn the new king-name in Psalm 2. It is “son.” (Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, 461-571)

Even though those ceremonies were no longer performed after Solomon’s Temple was destroyed, there is evidence in the New Testament that the memory of them was not entirely lost by the Jews. After the Saviour established his church, the Saints in New Testament times understood that a similar adoption ceremony was necessary to make one a son and heir of God. Thus, Paul wrote,

5 [The Father] Having [foreordained] us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. (Ephesians 1:5-6)

If this sonship and adoption ceremony is what Christ meant when he told Nicodemus that he must be born again, and if Nicodemus understood that. It is little wonder that this learned Jew was amazed. To that amazement, the Saviour said,

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again [from above] (John 3:7).

Then he explained what it was that Nicodemus was feeling. The translation of the next verse is interesting. Because Nicodemus asked, “How can these things be?” the translators of the King James Bible believed he was simply dumbfounded at the Saviour’s answer. So they have Jesus say to him:

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit (John 3:8).

The word that they translated as “spirit” in the second instance, is the same the Greek word that they translated as “wind” in the first. It would be more correct, then, if they had Jesus saying , “The Spirit moves as it will.” Nicodemus is experiencing something he has probably never felt before, or at least that he has never identified, and Jesus is simply explaining to the same thing our missionaries tell new investigators: “The feeling you are feeling just now is the Holy Ghost.” To which Nicodemus responds much like the new investigator:

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? (John 3:9-10)

If Jesus was chiding (as many interpretations suggest), his words mock Nicodemus’s scholarship. But that does not fit the rest of the situation. If Jesus was smiling (as I believe he was), then his words would have meant: “lets look into the depth of your knowledge so I can show you.” Where he takes Nicodemus mind from here, insists that he was smiling. Jesus is about to open his own soul and let Nicodemus know who he really is, However, before he does that, knowing that Nicodemus’s first impulse will be to help others also understand, Jesus explains that it won’t do any good to try to teach those who do not want to know. He tells him that he must not share what he is about to learn. He says:

11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye [plural] receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye [plural] believe not, how shall ye [plural] believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? (John 3:11-12)

The word “ye” is plural. (It is roughly equivalent to the Southern “y’all.”) So when Jesus says “ye believe not,” he is talking about an entire group of people and is not talking about Nicodemus personally. He is not accusing Nicodemus, but rather is reminding him that the Pharisees who do not then, and will not ever, believe what he says.

I am absolutely convinced that the next lines would never have been spoken by Jesus to anyone whom he distrusted. In the Inspired Version, Joseph Smith helps us understand that and the next verse by adding the words, “I tell you,” which I take to mean, “I am telling only you, and therefore you are not to tell those Pharisees who will not believe.” What he tells him must have been both amazing and wonderful to Nicodemus.

13 And [I tell you] no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven (John 3:13).

Jesus had just finished saying, “We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen.” Now he confides to Nicodemus that what he has seen is the sode. Telling him that was necessary, because it would have been the only evidence that Nicodemus (a learned Jew) could have accepted that Jesus was a true prophet. I have no doubt that Nicodemus knew the same criterion of what is a true prophet as Jeremiah understood it. This is what Jeremiah wrote (I added the italics):

18 For who hath stood in the counsel [ the word is sode] of the Lord [had a sode experience], and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it?19 Behold, a whirlwind of the Lord is gone forth in fury, even a grievous whirlwind: it shall fall grievously upon the head of the wicked.
20 The anger of the Lord shall not return, until he have executed, and till he have performed the thoughts of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it perfectly.
21 I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.
22 But if they had stood in my counsel (sode), and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings. (Jeremiah 23:1-40.) (For a discussion of a sode experience, see Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord, 195-208)

Jeremiah wrote that a false prophet is one who has not had a sode experience and therefore can only speak from his own imagination. In contrast, he identifies a true prophet as one who has had a sode experience, and who has then returned to the people to deliver the words which God commissioned him to speak. I suspect that the reason Nephi begins the Small Plates by saying he had a “great knowledge of the … mysteries [mysterion = sode] of God,” and then by telling us about Lehi’s sode experience immediately thereafter, was to clearly identify to his readers that he and his father had been to the Council, received instruction, were delivering the message they had received, and were, therefore, true prophets. For the same reason, the First Vision is both the beginning and the most critical part of the Joseph Smith story.

The next part of Jesus statement is a necessary conclusion to the first: “And [I tell you] no man hath ascended up to heaven [had a sode experience], but he that came down from heaven.

To “come down from heaven” is the necessary conclusion of a sode experience, for the prophet id to return to his people and warn or instruct them, according to the instructions he received at the Council.]

Then the Saviour tells Nicodemus the great secret: Not only was Jesus at the Council in Heaven, but it was he who conducted the meetings there, he is Jehovah, and it was he who gave the assignments to the other prophets and kings. He said “

“…even the Son of man which is in heaven.”

“Son” is the royal king-name, so by declaring himself to be “the Son of Man,” he is declaring his position in the Council. He has just explained to Nicodemus that not only did he attend the Council, but that he conducted the affairs of the Council over which his Father presided.

(By this time, it is evident to me that what John is telling us is only the barest outline of a conversation that may have lasted many hours, or more likely, may have continued over several days.)

As a confirmation that Jesus, Jehovah, and Messiah are the same person, Jesus added,

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up [This is the same doctrine taught by the Book of Mormon prophets]:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:14-15).

The explanation of that incident is not given in the Old Testament, but it is in the Book of Mormon. When Nephi referred to it, he did not explain it, but used it as evidence – suggesting that the people had a full understanding of its meaning.

14 Yea, did he not bear record that the Son of God should come? And as he lifted up the brazen serpent in the wilderness, even so shall he be lifted up who should come.
15 And as many as should look upon that serpent should live, even so as many as should look upon the Son of God with faith, having a contrite spirit, might live, even unto that life which is eternal.
16 And now behold, Moses did not only testify of these things, but also all the holy prophets, from his days even to the days of Abraham. (Helaman 8:14-16)

Nicodemus might have understood that because he had access to ancient sacred records that were later lost when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and burned the Temple. It is possible that some of those records contained the same interpretation of Moses’s brazen serpent as was on the brass plates. If so, Nicodemus’s study would have helped him to understand that the Saviour’s reference to Moses’s serpent was a way for Jesus to identify himself as the Messiah who will perform the atonement.

Or else Jesus might simply have explained it to him. In that case, it is clear that Nicodemus understood what Jesus was saying.

John does not explain that to his readers, just as he does not explain many things. But John does tell us about its implications for the atonement, and what Jesus told Nicodemus about it:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The title, Only Begotten Son, is frequently used in the scriptures as a title for Jehovah who will be the Saviour. By using that title, Jesus identifies himself as Jehovah, and then he adds that he is also the Son of God:

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16-17).

So far in this conversation, Jesus completely entrusted himself to his friend. He has not only told Nicodemus that he is a true prophet, but he has explained that he is Jehovah/Messiah, the Son—heir— of the Eternal Father. Having done all that, Jesus now tells his new friend everything else there is to tell.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God (John 3:19-21).

Jesus just identified himself as the personification of the Father’s “Light”, that is, the power of creation and of life, “the light and life of the world.” Jesus has now told Nicodemus almost all there is to say. He has defined himself the same way John defines him at the beginning of the gospel — not only as the Son of God, but also as the very source of light, truth, and life—the origin of all things.

The next verse tells us how Nicodemus responded to what Jesus told him.

22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized (John 3:22).

The usual reading of that verse is that it was Jesus who was doing the baptizing, However this cannot be, for in the next chapter John explains:

1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) (John 4:1-54)

If Jesus did not personally baptize anyone, than verse 22 must not say it was he who baptized. Therefor, it must read:

22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he [Nicodemus] tarried with them, and baptized (John 3:22).

Showing that after their very intimate conversation, Nicodemus became one of Jesus’s disciples.

Later, John shows us what a true friend Nicodemus was. He defended Jesus against the Pharisees (John 7:45-53.), and after Jesus was crucified, he and Joseph of Arimathaea attended to Jesus’s burial. (John 19:38-42.)

I love the story of Jesus and Nicodemus because it is one of the very few accounts where we can actually watch Jesus making a new friend. He does it, not by chiding or admonishing, but simply by making himself visible to one whom he could trust. We watch as he “entrusted” himself — made himself vulnerable— to Nicodemus. The Saviour virtually exposed his own soul and let his friend see who he was. I cannot envision that conversation without imagining that it concluded with a hug— a long and very meaningful hug.

John 15:13 — LeGrand Baker — ‘lay down his life’ 

John 15:13
13  Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for hisfriends.

Nov 1998
This morning my daughter Dawn was considering the woes of motherhood and the cost in time, patience, and effort in rearing her four young children. She graduated from BYU with a double major in economics and philosophy and was wondering what was becoming of her life.

This scripture was called to her mind – but not just the scripture but also the understanding that she needed to check Strong to see what it really says. What it says did not surprise her, but it did surprise me when she told me.

“Lay” is Strong # 5087, “theh’-o (which is used only as alt. in cert. tenses); to place (in the widest application, lit. and fig.; prop. in a passive or horizontal posture, and thus different from 2476, which prop. denotes an upright and active position, while 2749 is prop. reflexive and utterly prostrate): – + advise, appoint, bow, commit, conceive, give, kneel down, lay (aside, down, up), make ordain, purpose, put, set (forth), settle, sink down.”

It isn’t about why one dies, but it is about why one lives. It is about dedication and constancy. Knowing what it is about gives this whole passage a new meaning.

9    As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10   If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love
11   These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
12   This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you
13   Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life [dedication and constancy ] for his friends.
14   Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
15   Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you (John 15:9-15).