John 3:4 (C)

One variation of the above interpretation suggests that Nicodemus is indeed familiar with the idea of rebirth, but having witnessed many such rebirths in the Gentiles who have converted to the Jewish faith, he cannot fail to notice that there has been no genuine transformation in these people. So, his rhetorical question to Jesus in fact expresses his frustration at a proposal that appears impossible. Can a person's inner self, his true character, really be changed? Well, surely a person cannot enter into his mother's womb again and start over, can he?

If this is what Nicodemus has in mind, it would imply that he has a little more understanding than it first appears; however, even so the fact would remain that he fails to grasp what Jesus is saying. If this is the true interpretation, then it would seem that Nicodemus possesses some natural insight into the failure of human effort and human tradition. But there is still no spiritual insight, no understanding of what Jesus has just said to him. Nevertheless, even this interpretation is based on speculation about what Nicodemus must have experienced and what he must be thinking in this passage. As with the previous one, it lacks justification and has not been established.

Another interpretation also insists that Nicodemus cannot be as dull as he seems. But according to this interpretation, he is so insulted by what Jesus says in verse 3 that he offers this rhetorical question as a mocking and scornful response.

In reply, we should first admit that the gospel indeed comes as an insult to someone who has yet to perceive his need for salvation. Our preaching applies the same language and the same labels to every person, whether he is a professional or a criminal. In terms of wisdom and intelligence, there is no essential difference between the philosophy professor or physics researcher and the simpleton, the elementary school dropout, the illiterate who cannot read his mail, or the mentally disabled person who needs help to button his shirt. In terms of morals and virtues, there is no essential difference between the humanitarian or the monk and the prostitute down the street, the serial rapist, or the mass murderer. So the professor and the philanthropist are incensed when they are told that they are no better than the dunce and the whore before God.

I remember speaking to one lady who denied that she had ever sinned in her life. She thought that "sin" applied only to outwardly violent and lewd acts. But upon speaking to her further, I soon discovered that she was filled with hatred, resentment, and bitterness toward people. The Bible says that a person who hates someone in his heart has committed murder and is in danger of hellfire. It also says that a person who denies that he has ever sinned is a liar, and the truth is not in him. So he is either a sinner, or he is a liar, and if he is a liar, then he is still a sinner. The woman was speechless after I showed this to her. The biblical message came as an insult to her. She wanted to call herself a Christian but she did not want to admit her need to be a Christian. Thus of course, she was not a Christian.

So we admit that the gospel comes as an insult to all unsaved people, and especially those who are filled with pride and self-righteousness. That said, the interpretation in question is nevertheless based on speculation about the private thoughts and motives of Nicodemus, and not on something that is explicit or implicit in the passage, or for that matter, any other biblical passage. Therefore, like the others, it lacks justification and has not been established.

(to be continued)

Posted in Expositions | Permanent Link