Born Again (22)
John 3:5 (D)
The correct interpretation is that Jesus is talking about a single birth. Physical birth is assumed, and this is why spiritual birth applies in the first place. The theological, grammatical, and contextual reasons already discussed above all apply here as support for this view, but we need not repeat them. Instead, we will make only one more point to make sense of the "water" in verse 5.
In verse 10, Jesus refers to Nicodemus as "Israel's teacher," and because of this he is supposed to "understand these things." We infer from this that the Old Testament already contains what Jesus is teaching here. With this in mind, we find the following in Ezekiel 36:25-27, where God declares through the prophet:
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
What is described in this promise is consistent with what Jesus teaches in John 3, and here the application of water and spirit is considered as one act, and this one act is to be performed by God and not man. It is likely that Jesus expects Nicodemus to recall this passage and come to understand what he means by "born again," or what is the equivalent, "born of water and spirit."
With all this talk about what it means to be born of water and spirit, I do not want anyone to lose sight of what our passage is really about, what Jesus is really telling us, and that is, "You must be born again." Unless a person is born again, or born from above, and unless God sprinkles this person with water and puts a new spirit into him, he will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Therefore, when you assess the condition of your soul, the first question to ask yourself is not whether you have made a decision to reform your life, or whether you have repeated a prayer of salvation, but the question is whether God has performed this cleansing action in you, whether he has given birth to you in the spirit, and whether he has thus adopted you through Jesus Christ.
(to be continued)
Born Again (21)
John 3:5 (C)
A second interpretation is that by "water," Jesus is talking about water baptism. Those who hold this view are split on whether Jesus is referring to John's baptism or Christian baptism. For our purpose, we do not need to make this distinction, but we will deal with the view that "water" here refers to baptism in general.
Our previous arguments apply also to this interpretation. Since verse 5 corresponds to verse 3, making water and spirit into two distinct elements in verse 5 would break the parallel between these two verses. Also, whereas it is possible to infer from verse 3 that Jesus is talking about a spiritual birth (born "again" means born "from above"), there is no way to infer baptism from the verse, or just from the term "born again." In the several other places where Jesus refers to this spiritual birth in our passage, there is nothing that can be construed as a reference to water baptism, but he uses expressions such as, "born again," "the Spirit gives birth to spirit," and "born of the Spirit."
As far as I am aware, the Bible nowhere refers to baptism as a birth (or as producing a birth). For the sake of clarity, and to avoid begging the question, I will admit that if this verse is indeed talking about water baptism, then this would be one instance in which the Bible refers to baptism as a birth. So to be precise, I am saying that, ignoring our verse for the moment, it seems that there is no other place in the Bible that refers to baptism as a birth. But even if the Bible speaks of baptism as a birth elsewhere, our other arguments show that baptism does not fit into this verse.
This interpretation, the one that says "water" refers to baptism here, goes against the entire thrust of the passage, which stresses God's action in giving spiritual birth to the one who would see and enter his kingdom. In verses 3, 6, 7, and 8, there are expressions like "born again (from above)," "the Spirit gives birth," "You must be born again (from above)," and "born of the Spirit." Thus it would be inconsistent to find Jesus here declaring water baptism – something performed by a man – as a crucial condition in one's entrance into the kingdom. It would appear to subvert what he emphasizes in the other verses, and oppose the direction that his statements are driving toward. On the other hand, if verse 5 also stresses God's action alone, then there is perfect coherence. But if verse 5 indeed stresses God's actions alone, then the "water" in the verse cannot refer to baptism.
(to be continued)
Born Again (20)
John 3:5 (B)
One interpretation is that by "water," Jesus refers to physical birth. Accordingly, the meaning of the expression is that, to enter God's kingdom, one must undergo both a physical birth and a spiritual birth. In other words, physical birth is not enough, but one must add to physical birth a spiritual birth in order to enter the kingdom of heaven.
The theology in this interpretation is correct, but the question is whether it is what our passage teaches. In verse 4, Nicodemus misunderstands that by "born again," Jesus is referring to a repetition of physical birth. Or again, it might be that he assumes Jesus is not asserting this, but given his lack of spiritual understanding, this is the only way he can interpret the statement, that is, as referring to a repetition of physical birth.
This first interpretation of verse 5 would have Jesus acknowledge a person's physical birth, but then proceed to explain that he is referring to something other than and in addition to physical birth, that is, a spiritual birth. Verse 6 does not seem to contradict this understanding: "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."
There are reasons to reject this view. As we have noted, verse 5 corresponds to and elaborates on verse 3, but this interpretation of "born of water and the Spirit," does not parallel "born again." If "born of…the Spirit" in verse 5 corresponds to "born again" in verse 3, then for verse 5 to truly parallel verse 3, verse 3 should say, "born and born again," instead of just "born again."
Also, there is only one "of" for both "water" and "the Spirit," suggesting that Jesus is referring to only one birth in verse 5, and not two births. This is recognized by many modern translations but is obscured by the KJV, which reads, "born of water and of the Spirit." In fact, there should be no article before "spirit," so a more literal translation is, "born of water and spirit." Lattimore's translation reads, "born from water and spirit." One commentator who perceives the unity between "water" and "spirit" in this expression suggests, "born of water-spirit."
As for verse 6, there Jesus does not say, "You must be born of the flesh, and you must be born of the Spirit," as if he is positively encouraging both. Rather, throughout the entire passage he is only encouraging a spiritual birth – of course, the physical birth has already happened. Verse 6 merely contrasts the two to emphasize what Jesus is really talking about. He is saying that flesh is flesh, spirit is spirit, so that we need the latter to produce spiritual life. It is a case of flesh versus spirit, or the inferiority of the flesh and superiority of the spirit, and not a case of flesh and spirit working together to bring a man to God's kingdom.
This brings us back to verse 5. Like verse 3, here Jesus refers to a person who is already born in the physical, fleshly sense. If this person were not already born in the flesh, then he would not even need to enter God's kingdom, because he would not exist at all! But he is telling Nicodemus what must happen to a person (already born in the physical sense) in order for him to enter the kingdom of God. It is necessary for a person to undergo spiritual birth in order to see or enter the kingdom, but spiritual birth would not even apply to a person who has not been born in the flesh, since such a person would not exist to need such a spiritual birth in the first place.
Then, another argument against this view is that John does not use the term "water" in John 1:13 when he refers to physical birth.
(to be continued)
Born Again (19)
John 3:5 (A)
Verses 5-8 consist of Jesus' answer to the rhetorical question in verse 4, where Nicodemus says, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" (NASB). As we have noted, Nicodemus exhibits a spiritual dullness that causes some commentators to stumble. But rather than trying to explain it away, we should realize that his response is not surprising in light of verse 3, where Jesus tells him that he needs to be born again. Despite being a religious leader, Nicodemus is spiritually dull because he is still a natural man, an unregenerate man, and this is precisely why Jesus tells him about this new birth from above.
In response to what Nicodemus says in verse 4, Jesus now elaborates on what he means by born again. He says, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The 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."
Jesus has not changed the subject, but he is expanding on verse 3 in light of verse 4. That is, he is elaborating on what it means to be born again, and why one needs to be born again, in light of the response in verse 4 from Nicodemus, who does not seem to understand what Jesus says in verse 3. This point is important because it tells us that although Jesus uses several different terms here, especially in verses 5 and 6, he is still talking about the same thing. The changes in terms are intended to clarify the statement in verse 3.
With this in mind, we see that he says in verse 5, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit." Where he says "no one can see the kingdom" in verse 3, here he says "no one can enter the kingdom." But these two expressions refer to the same thing. The meaning is that no one can be saved, no one can become acceptable to God and enter heaven, unless he is born again.
Then, where he says "unless he is born again" in verse 3, here he says "unless he is born of water and the Spirit." There are several opinions as to what Jesus means by the expression, "born of water and the Spirit." In particular, the problem is what he means by "water."
It will require more than several pages to provide a full account of the various arguments, but this will become too much of a burden to our present discussion. Let us see if we can quickly think through the major options and come to a reliable conclusion without getting too involved in the details. Some of the arguments offered for the various positions appeal to extra-biblical sources, but since we cannot consider them authoritative, and since we must keep our discussion brief, I will not deal with them here. Instead, I will focus on what we can derive from our passage, as well as from other parts of the Bible. Not only will this approach generate a more reliable conclusion, but it will also limit the length of the discussion.
(to be continued)
Born Again (18)
John 3:4 (G)
Moving on to Luke 18:31-34, we read as follows:
Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again."
The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.
Is this not remarkable? And does this not prove our point, that a person can be as dull about spiritual things as Nicodemus appears in John 3? He could even be a biblical scholar, but without the Spirit's illumination, there can be no understanding. Here Jesus tells his disciples plainly and directly, without using figures of speech, about what would happen to him. But "the disciples did not understand any of this."
This is why I wonder about those commentators whose interpretation of John 3:4 hinges on their own refusal to believe that Nicodemus could be as spiritually dull as he appears. These people have no insight into man's spiritual condition. The truth is that, depending on what kind of audience one is addressing, sometimes a minister would find that most of his hearers are as spiritually dull as Nicodemus and the disciples. They would not understand regardless of how plainly you tell them what you mean. It is as if I were to say to someone ten times, and in different ways, "My name is Vincent," and then the next thing that comes out of his mouth is, "But what is your name?"
If you have been a Christian for very long, you should know what I am talking about, and surely most ministers have encountered such cases. Sometimes the people appear so dull that, if you do not know better, you would think that they are pretending not to understand, and pretending to be stupid, perhaps to aggravate you or play a trick on you. But the truth is that they really do not understand what you are telling them. Nevertheless, experience proves nothing, but the commentators should accept this and the many other biblical passages that illustrate the point.
There are many other passages that I can cite, and you can probably think of several yourself. But let us end this section with 1 Corinthians 2:14, since it aptly summarizes the explanation concerning the unbeliever's intellectual deficiency: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
The verse says that the natural man, the man without the Spirit, "cannot understand." The natural man rejects spiritual truths not because he is intellectually superior, but because he is intellectually inferior, and this intellectual inferiority has a spiritual cause as its root. As Paul says, "For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom" (1 Corinthians 1:25). This is why even the greatest natural intellect is still far too feeble to grasp the lowest spiritual truths. He is only wise according to human standards (v. 26) – that is, when compared to other unbelievers, to other fools. But the Christian has received wisdom from God.
If a person is surprised by the lack of understanding in Nicodemus, if he thinks that Nicodemus should surely be further down the road than he appears, then he is utterly out of touch with what Scripture teaches about man's condition. But those who acknowledge what Scripture teaches realize that Nicodemus already represents the best of unregenerate humanity. In both learning and religion, he represents the best that man can attain apart from regeneration, from the new birth, and yet he is exactly as shallow and dull as he appears. At this point, Nicodemus is still a natural man, a man without the Spirit. This is why he fails to understand, and this is why he needs to be born again.
(to be continued)
Born Again (17)
John 3:4 (F)
Then, we turn to Matthew 16, and we will first read from verses 5-12:
When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. "Be careful," Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees."
They discussed this among themselves and said, "It is because we didn't bring any bread."
Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, "You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? Do you still not understand? Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees."
Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
When Jesus mentions the "yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees," he is not referring to food but to their doctrine. If his own disciples could misunderstand something like this, why are we surprised that Nicodemus would fail to understand what Jesus means by "born again"? Certainly, here the disciples are not being sarcastic or clever – they really think that Jesus is talking about food. And what Jesus says in his rebuke confirms that the disciples are genuinely deficient in understanding.
Now comes the crucial point. Jesus does not attribute the misunderstanding to mere miscommunication. He does not say that his statement is too vague, and neither does he say that the disciples have a general deficiency in reasoning skills or in understanding language. Instead, he blames the misunderstanding on their lack of faith – he says that this is a spiritual problem. If they would have the faith to recall and realize that Jesus could multiply food, then they would not be saying among themselves that Jesus is concerned about food.
Pay attention to what I am saying here. I am not saying what many professing Christians teach, and what many non-Christians allege that Biblical Christianity teaches. That is, I am not saying that the natural man is rational and that biblical revelation is irrational, so that to "understand" revelation, one must exercise "faith" to accept something that is irrational. This is a misrepresentation of Biblical Christianity, although it is also one that has been taught by many professing Christians.
So take care to understand what happens in our passage, and notice what Jesus says. He does not say that the disciples fail to understand because they are too rational, so that they must become irrational by faith. No! He says that if their faith were stronger, they would take into account the earlier miracles and realize that food has never been a problem with Jesus, so that when he talks about the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees, he could not be referring to physical food.
In other words, it is precisely a lack of faith and not an abundance of faith that makes them irrational, that prevents them from reasoning from true premises to their necessary conclusion, that hinders them from perceiving and understanding the truth. This is one of the reasons why a person who lacks faith cannot reason correctly about spiritual things. He cannot employ the needed premises in his deductions as long as these premises are spiritual propositions. His mind cannot process them. It is not that spiritual things are irrational, but the problem is that his mind is defective.
Of course, the problem is not limited to reasoning about spiritual things, for sin has dealt a crippling blow to the unbeliever's ability to reason about natural things as well. But even if we ignore this for the moment, and even if we assume that the unbeliever can reason about natural things perfectly, we must still point out that, in reality, it is impossible to correctly reason about anything at all without taking into account spiritual realities and spiritual premises.
Whether we are talking about physics, politics, literature, or even sports, God's works pervade everything, and therefore when a person who has no spiritual understanding tries to reason about anything – anything at all – he is doomed to failure from the start. This explains why a Christian may find even the most educated non-Christian extremely deficient in intellect. A non-Christian is wrong about everything, even the littlest thing, and thus a spiritual man will tend to find him irritatingly stupid. And the more perceptive the spiritual man, the more he must endure. He says with Christ, "Are you still so dull?" (Matthew 15:16), and exclaims in frustration, "O unbelieving and perverse generation, how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you?" (Matthew 17:17).
Matthew 16:13-17 is also relevant to our purpose, but as there are several more passages that we must examine, we will have to skip this one.
(to be continued)
Born Again (16)
John 3:4 (E)
It does not surprise me at all that Nicodemus sounds as spiritually dull as he does. In fact, given all the biblical passages on spiritual dullness, it would have puzzled me that so many commentators outright reject the possibility, if I had not noticed that these same passages explain why the commentators fail to understand spiritual dullness! The effects of sin on the mind cannot be overcome by education, even by seminary education, but they can be overcome only when God's Spirit enlightens the mind through Scripture.
In any case, some commentators are more honest with the text. D. A. Carson writes, "A more realistic view is that Nicodemus did not understand what Jesus was talking about at all." Similarly, A. T. Robertson observes, "The learned Pharisee is as jejune in spiritual insight as the veriest tyro," and adds, "This is not an unheard of phenomenon."
I can cite many examples of extreme spiritual dullness from what I have encountered in ministry. I would explain certain spiritual concepts to people plainly, directly, and repeatedly, but they could not understand them. But then, for some of them, one day the Spirit illuminated their minds, and they understood. We are commanded to proclaim and to expound, but we have no direct access to the human heart, no direct control over the mind. It is up to the Sovereign Spirit to grant understanding to our hearers.
Nevertheless, examples from personal experience cannot prove anything – at best they can only illustrate what the Bible already teaches. Thus for us to arrive at a proper understanding about spiritual dullness, we should look at some of the biblical passages on the subject. One can consider this an excursus, but it is far from a waste of time, nor is it irrelevant, since what we establish here will help us better understand the upcoming verses in John 3.
Now, Jesus says in Matthew 11:25-27, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
We must realize the force of these words. Jesus is saying that true knowledge and perception about the Father and the Son are jealously guarded by them, and even deliberately hidden by them, except to those whom they choose to reveal themselves. So it does not matter how much natural intelligence a person seems to possess – to know God without divine revelation, one must first overcome God's omnipotence to hide himself, but if one could accomplish this, then it would not be omnipotence that we are talking about.
This passage alone should eliminate all questions as to whether someone with the learning of Nicodemus could be as spiritually dull as he appears. His ability to understand anything about the spiritual operations of God depends on whether God has chosen to reveal himself to him, and whether he has chosen to reveal himself at that particular time. In fact, Jesus says in our passage, "You have hidden these things from the wise and the learned," so that human wisdom and learning cannot penetrate the barrier between natural and spiritual wisdom.
(to be continued)
Born Again (15)
John 3:4 (D)
One commentator is especially charitable toward Nicodemus, but so charitable that he seems to ignore what is actually in the text. Among other things, he says we cannot believe that Nicodemus, a prominent teacher in Israel, would be so deficient in understanding that not only does he fail to grasp what Jesus is saying, but that he would misunderstand it in the way that his response in verse 4 appears to indicate. But the commentator gives no good reason for this assertion. Moreover, he then tries to force the subsequent verses into conformity with this view, that Nicodemus is not really so void of spiritual understanding.
Before you throw up your hands and say, "Maybe we cannot know what Nicodemus means at all!" let me remind you that all these interpretations come from commentators who refuse to believe that Nicodemus could be really as dull as he appears. What we notice is that not only do they fail to establish that Nicodemus is not as dull as he appears, but that they also fail to provide their own reasonable and coherent interpretation.
Underlying their refusal to believe that Nicodemus could be as dull as he appears is the assumption, sometimes explicitly stated, that it is impossible for a biblical scholar such as he to be so void of spiritual understanding, such that he fails to grasp even a fundamental truth upon which a proper relationship with God must be constructed. But this is what it is – an assumption, and one that has yet to be justified. In fact, from this and other passages found in this Gospel, it is more than likely that one of John's intentions for this text is precisely to challenge this assumption.
Moreover, I will not hesitate to suggest the possibility that these commentators make such an assumption about Nicodemus because they make the same assumption about themselves. Is it possible for biblical scholars like themselves to be so spiritually dull that they would fail to grasp even the most basic and necessary truth? Nevertheless, in the spirit of asserting only that which we may legitimately infer from a text, we will not speculate further about the reasons and motives of these commentators, except to say that it is unbiblical and dangerous to assume that a biblical scholar would automatically understand spiritual truths.
The assumption is sometimes even stronger, so it seems that some commentators would refuse to believe that anyone would be dull enough as to misunderstand what Jesus means. Anyone should have a superior comprehension than what Nicodemus appears to demonstrate in verse 4. But again, this is merely an assumption. Rather than interpreting Scripture based on what we think we know about human nature, we must interpret Scripture based on what Scripture itself teaches about human nature. What is possible or impossible for a man to understand must be defined by the Bible, and not from what we think we know about man apart from the Bible.
(to be continued)
Born Again (14)
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)
Born Again (13)
John 3:4 (B)
Now, some commentators say that the Jews are already familiar with the idea of rebirth. When Gentiles are converted to the Jewish faith, it entails such a reorientation of their entire lifestyle that they are said to be reborn. Therefore, Nicodemus must have some idea of what Jesus is talking about. According to these commentators, the issue here is that the Jews would never apply the idea of rebirth to themselves, since in their minds this is something that only the Gentiles need. And this is supposed to explain this reaction from Nicodemus.
However, this explanation makes no sense. The response shows that Nicodemus is shocked at the thought that something seemingly impossible is required for anyone to even see the kingdom of God. But if these commentators are correct, Nicodemus should express surprise at his need for a new birth, and not the very idea of a new birth.
In fact, elsewhere in the Gospel of John when Jesus says to the Jews, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free," they reply, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" To this, Jesus declares, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin…. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed" (see John 8:31-59).
When these Jews deny that they are under bondage, when they deny that they need to be "set free," they do not question the very idea of being "set free" as if they do not understand, but they appeal to their lineage to deny that they are under bondage. So if something similar is happening in John 3, and if Nicodemus is merely denying that he needs to be reborn like the Gentiles, then it makes no sense for him to speak as if he questions the very idea or the very possibility of being reborn.
Although the commentators who take the above position do not point out this problem in their interpretation, they do realize that to say "Surely this cannot happen, can it?" is very different than to say "I do not need this to happen to me." So they suggest that the rhetorical question from Nicodemus is intended to be a sarcastic response. But this is beginning to seem like that the commentators are making things up as they go along. If their interpretation is inconsistent with the speaker's statement, then the speaker is just being sarcastic. It is sufficient to say that this interpretation lacks justification, and has not been established.
(to be continued)
Born Again (12)
John 3:4 (A)
Jesus has just said to Nicodemus that "no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." We have spent a little time explaining what the term "born again" means, and we will discuss it still more later. Right now we must turn to examine the response from Nicodemus. Does he know what it means? He says in verse 4, "How can a man be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
As mentioned, the word usually translated "again" in verse 3 can mean either "again" or "from above," and in our context, both. Nicodemus, it seems, takes what Jesus says only in a physical sense, and formulates his response as a rhetorical question that assumes a negative answer (NASB, ESV). As many commentators point out, he speaks with a "crass literalism" that, at least on the surface, betrays an extreme spiritual dullness, and this dullness is such that it has become an issue in interpretation.
That is, because Nicodemus understands the term "born again" as referring to a second birth, and because it appears he takes this in a purely physical sense, his response is to wonder incredulously as to whether a person can enter into his mother's womb, and then be physically born for a second time. The issue for interpretation is whether Nicodemus could really be so spiritually dull, and if not, then a superficial reading of his response would tend to produce a misrepresentation of his perspective.
It remains to be seen as to whether Nicodemus could really be so dull, but before we discuss that, I must point out an error that is common to both Nicodemus and the commentators, although they commit this error from different angles. His rhetorical question assumes that an old man cannot enter into his mother's womb and be born a second time, and many commentators also assume that Nicodemus could not be so dull as to understand what Jesus has said in this way because such a physical rebirth is obviously impossible.
However, when the subject is religion, then the special providence of God could always be a factor unless it is precluded by principles and assumptions that are previously stated. But once God's power is involved, not only is it possible for an old man to enter his mother's womb and be born for a second time, it is even easy for this to happen. God could make the same person be reborn this way several thousand times a day if he so wishes.
So in a religious discussion, nothing should hinge on whether something like this is possible or impossible. Why should anyone find it strange that God the Son would enter the world through a virgin? Why should anyone find it incredible that God would raise the dead (Acts 26:8)? Why? There is no rational justification for the doubt. What is strange, what is incredible, is that anyone would find miracles strange and incredible. But sin is what explains this irrationality of unbelief.
Since all things are possible with God, what is possible or impossible should have nothing to do with what it means to be born again. However, if all through the discussion the person is thinking of only what he can do to make himself more religious, then for someone to tell him that he must be born again would naturally appear impossible, because it is indeed impossible for him.
But what is impossible with man is possible with God. This is Christianity! God performs that which is impossible for man to do. Thus as long as a person is fixated on finding out what is in his own power to do to save himself, or to make himself acceptable to God, he will never enter the kingdom of heaven. This is certainly a stumbling block for the Jews, and especially for the Pharisees. It is reasonable to think that this is at least part of the difficulty that Nicodemus has with what Jesus says in verse 3, that "no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
(to be continued)
Born Again (11)
John 3:3 (D)
We will say more about this when we come to verses 5-8, but right now it is clear that both "again" and "from above" are intended. This should not surprise or puzzle us, for as Leon Morris observes, John is fond of using words that can mean several different things when he intends to convey all those meanings at the same time. The difficulty for us, then, is that in the context of our passage the word cannot be translated with a single English word. Thus some translations employ marginal notes, and others like William Barclay and Leon Morris choose to translate "born again" into something like "reborn from above," so as to pack both meanings into one expression.
If my impression of the professor was correct, then although we will say more about what it means to be "born again" and "born from above," right away we can say that his use of the term differed from the way Jesus uses it. This is disastrous because Jesus insists that a man must be born again. And if the professor was "born again" in a different sense, then it means that he never had what Jesus insists to be necessary for everyone.
To be "born again," to be "born from above," is much more than to have a moral crisis and to reform one's habit and lifestyle. Above all – and this is the point that even many professing Christians fail to grasp – it is not initiated or performed by the person's own decision. The very idea of being "born" precludes this. Even with natural birth, one cannot give birth to himself, but someone else gives birth to him completely apart from his decision. In fact, that this person has any opportunity to decide anything at all is because someone has previously given birth to him.
That a person needs to be born "again" means that the first birth by which a person enters the world is insufficient for the purpose that Jesus has in mind. And that a person needs to be born "from above" further clarifies this in that now we see he is referring to a different kind of birth altogether. Also, that the person is to be born "from above" again emphasizes the fact that this birth cannot be performed by another human person, and still less by the person himself. It is neither initiated nor accomplished by human relation or human volition. A person reborn from above is "born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13, NASB).
Jesus says that unless a person is born again or born from above, he cannot "see the kingdom of God." An equivalent expression appears in verse 5, and says that without being born thus, a person cannot "enter the kingdom of God." To someone with a background like Nicodemus, this means that no one can participate in the messianic kingdom that every Jew expects to come, and that unless otherwise enlightened by Scripture, every Jew expects to enter just by virtue of his natural descent. In conjunction with this kingdom, they expect to inherit eternal, resurrected, glorified life from God. John also addresses this in our passage.
The pivotal question here is how one may inherit life and escape death and condemnation, how one may receive life and not perish (v. 16-18). The message of Jesus comes as a shock and an offense, saying to them, "God can raise for himself children of Abraham even from a pile of rocks, and you are deceived if you think you can rely solely on your natural heritage. I tell you the truth, and that is you must be born again, and unless you are born again, you will not see or enter the kingdom of God, but you will perish like the rest."
Of course, John is not addressing only Jews here, nor does he use language that only Jews could understand. Rather, he says that whoever believes in Jesus Christ will be saved and receive eternal life, but whoever rejects him is condemned already. To enter the kingdom is to find life, and to be shut out is to perish. But you will never see or enter into this glorious kingdom unless you are born again – that is, born from above – not by human decision, but by God's decree and power.
(to be continued)
Born Again (10)
John 3:3 (C)
Let us read what Jesus says again: "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." The word translated "again" can convey three meanings. Commentators usually say that there can be two meanings because it is commonly agreed that one of these three does not apply in our context.
One of the meanings is "from the first." For example, the word appears in Luke 1:3, and there it is translated as "from the beginning" (NIV) or "from the very first" (KJV). In Acts 26:5, where the KJV gives the literal translation, "Which knew me from the beginning," the NIV translates according to the meaning demanded by the context, and reads, "They have known me for a long time." It is this meaning that appears to commentators as inapplicable in our context, although William Barclay suggests that it can refer to the radical nature of the new birth.
The second meaning is "again," and this is the translation usually selected. For example, Paul writes in Galatians 4:9, "Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?" Then, the third meaning is "from above." Considering the context of this passage and other portions of the New Testament, it seems that both of these meanings are intended.
The response from Nicodemus in verse 4 indicates that he took the word as meaning only "again," although he fails to understand the term even from this perspective. Since, as we will see, there is a deficiency in his understanding about spiritual things and in what Jesus says in this verse, we cannot depend on his interpretation alone as an indication of what Jesus intended to convey by the word.
But we may know that "again" is at least part of his meaning here, since this would be consistent with his own teaching elsewhere, as well as the teaching of the New Testament writers. For example, he says on another occasion, "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:3). Peter writes that "he has caused us to be born again" (1 Peter 1:3, ESV), and here he definitely refers to being born anew.
Then, there is perhaps even stronger evidence that Jesus includes "from above" as part of his meaning. First, we must note that just as the kingdom of heaven is the same as the kingdom of God, and just as to say that something has come from heaven is the same as to say that something has come from God, to be born "from above" is just another way of saying to be born "of God." Once we are reminded of this, we realize that what Jesus teaches here has already been mentioned in the introduction of this Gospel, where John refers to those who are "born of God" (John 1:13).
Second, the word translated "again" here in verse 3 clearly means "from above" everywhere else in John's Gospel. In the same chapter of this Gospel that we are studying, verse 31 says, "The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all." The other instances are John 19:11 and 23. The word is translated "from above" in the former, whereas the latter verse has no direct relevance to our text, but the translation there is "in one piece from top to bottom."
(to be continued)
Born Again (9)
John 3:3 (B)
So it is not that I always choose to wait for a "perfect" opportunity, which might never come, but I am against setting down very rigid rules as to how long you are permitted to wait before you must mention the gospel. I have heard a number of preachers say that if someone has known you for more than a week and still have no idea that you are a Christian, then there must be something wrong with you. Perhaps your faith is defective, or perhaps you are not a Christian at all. Not only is this rule unbiblical, but because it is unbiblical, it injects unnecessary fear and guilt into God's people, and into believers who could become effective witnesses for Christ given the proper instructions and exhortations.
Of course, these preachers intend to encourage zeal in evangelism, but what they say is too simplistic, and betrays ignorance of anything beyond the most plain and superficial spiritual operations. I am certainly not encouraging timidity, but rather a boldness that can work together with a mature sense of spiritual timing, as well as confidence in God's providence to prepare people's hearts and direct our conversations.
I had known this student for several months, and we were in another class together previous to this, although we never spoke then. This was the first natural opportunity to speak to him about religion, and it came as a direct invitation to talk about the heart of the matter. Starting a discussion about religion in such a manner has a number of advantages, one of which is that the person will more likely follow through with it to the end, instead of turning away to escape when the conversation becomes uncomfortable for him, perhaps when the believer begins to expound on sin, its consequences, and the only solution in Jesus Christ.
There is something else remarkable about this, and that is that he asked the question at all. The term "born again" has become so familiar in some cultures that many people assume that they understand what it means, or what it refers to, when in fact they have far less understanding about spiritual things than someone like Nicodemus. But although the language might be familiar, the concept is still foreign to most people, and even to some professing Christians. So it surprised me that my friend would ask me what the professor meant when he referred to himself as "born again." It gave me the opportunity that I had been waiting for to tell him about the Christian faith.
This student did not understand the meaning of "born again," and he was willing to admit it. The professor, on the other hand, used the term as if he knew its meaning. Although I could not be sure, from the way that he used the term, my impression was that by it he was referring to a drastic moral reformation determined and executed by himself at a point of crisis in his life. And it seemed to me that it was this kind of "new birth" that he was trying to offer people in his inner-city and prison ministries.
For example, if he could persuade a gang member to leave the gang and start a new life, or to awaken an alcoholic to his drinking problem so that he would begin to deal with the difficulties of life by investing in work, hobbies, and relationships instead, then he would have considered such a person as "born again," especially when his outreach was done in association with the church.
If my impression was correct, then the professor did not know what the term meant when he said it. Or, more precisely, he was using it in a very different way than the way it is used in the Bible. What, then, does it mean to be born again? Does Nicodemus know? Do you know? Will you understand it if I were to tell you?
(to be continued)
Born Again (8)
John 3:3 (A)
Keeping in mind that "he knew all men," that "he knew what was in a man," and therefore that he knows what is in Nicodemus, verse 3 says, "In reply Jesus declared, 'I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.'" Jesus is not saying this to a common criminal or some drunk on the street, but to an educated, powerful, and religious rabbi. And he says, "No one" – no one – "can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
When I was in college, I took a course from a professor of economics who was well-known for his participation in Christian inner-city and prison ministries. One day, he referred to himself as a "born again Christian" in his lecture as he was talking about his work with prison inmates, using them as examples to illustrate a point about economics and racial issues.
When the class was over, a classmate whom I had befriended asked if I would like to have lunch with him, and mentioned a certain restaurant. I recalled the meal that I had the last time I was there and instantly agreed. As we sat down and started to peruse our menus, he suddenly looked up and said to me, "What did he mean by born again?" What a delicious opportunity, to be asked a question like that.
Now, I am never one to shy away from a spiritual discussion, nor do I mind initiating one with a friend or stranger. But contrary to some, I disagree that I must always tell someone that I am a Christian as soon as possible no matter what. If it is clear that I am unlikely to meet the person again, then I would have a greater sense of urgency about it, but even then I know that I am not the only one whom God can use to speak to the person. (The doctrine of divine sovereignty does not undermine evangelism, but if it does not mean that God is sovereign, and that he does not need men or a particular man, then it means nothing.) However, if it is clear that I will have the opportunity to meet the person again, or even many times afterward, then I would often wait for the right opportunity, or at least take time to set up the conversation better when introducing the topic.
Do not misunderstand – I would not hesitate to bring up the gospel even at inconvenient times, nor do I think that we must be asked before preaching to people. Once I was doing street evangelism with a church in Hong Kong, and on this particular night, we had decided to enter a fast food restaurant and speak to the customers there one-on-one. Each of us would approach a table and speak to the diners about the gospel. Each conversation involved an explanation of Christianity and would often require a defense of it as questions and objections were raised. It would conclude with an invitation to visit the church to learn more, and if the people would accept them, we would always give them several audio cassettes to bring home. Sometimes a conversation would last for thirty minutes or more, and sometimes even more than a hour. So each of us could usually talk to only several people each night.
On this night, as I was looking for the final person to talk to, I spotted a young man sitting alone at the corner of the restaurant. I said that he was a young man, but he was perhaps ten to fifteen years older than I was, as I was even younger. As I approached, I noticed that there was a rose on the table, and he was writing slowly on a notepad. I went up to him and started to tell him about God, Jesus, and the gospel. Without looking up, he cried, "My girlfriend just broke up with me. Please leave me alone!" I looked over his shoulder – he was writing a letter to her girlfriend, or ex-girlfriend, to convince her to take him back. I could not make out what he wrote, but I noticed that there were tear stains on the paper.
I was not deterred, but went right on preaching to him. I was too young at the time to have any regard for the type of problem he was experiencing anyway. I continued, and at times he would respond to my probing questions through his tears, so that we actually had a conversation despite his reluctance. Finally, as he was not in the mood for a thorough spiritual discussion about his soul, I asked if I could give him a sermon tape, and he cried, "Leave it! Leave it!" I placed a tape on the table, patted him on the back, and left. As I thought about that incident, I realized that I could have done better, but I never regretted approaching him and talking to him despite his pain and reluctance.
(to be continued)