Man in the Dark: Nicodemus and the New Birth
John 3:1-21
By Dave Redick
Unwilling at this point to risk his position on something that he didn't quite understand (not necessarily a bad approach to investigating possible truth) but also curious about Jesus, Nicodemus chose to approach the Lord after dark. With darkness in his approach - and darkness in his understanding - he hoped Jesus would help him sort it all out without putting his position on the council in jeopardy.
Introduction
In my message preparation this week I jumped online, found a search engine, and plugged in the search phrase, "born again." Here are a few web sites that popped up in my browser from among the 231,000+ pages the search produced:
A website for "born again bikers." A born again vitamin company. A website for born again marriages. Another claiming to be "India's First Born Again Indian Matrimonial Service. A page that sold "born again posters." A born again clothing store A site for "Born Again Chinese Christian Tracts" A web page advertising "born again Christian curriculum for home schools." A site for "born again Roman Catholics." A website dedicated to "electronic publishing for the born again." Another that asked the question, "Is George Bush really born again." A site devoted to "Born Again Biblical Fundamentalist Christianity." (Whew!) The "Official Born Again Rat Pakker Page" ("Dedicated to Dean, Frank, Joey, and Sammy.") "Born again," like so many other good concepts, has certainly been trivialized - perhaps even to the point that we sometimes feel we must hesitate when we use it. Yet the phrase is a good one. It came originally from the lips of Jesus Himself.
This morning I want to take you back to the source - the passage where the phrase "born again" was born. It's in your Bible in the gospel of John, chapter 3. We'll consider verses 1-21 and rather than read them all at once, to save time I will read them as I comment on them. We begin in verse 1.
(Read v. 1)
As I read this passage last week I was tempted to dwell on the life and character of this man Nicodemus. Though he was "in the dark" in more ways than one at the time John describes here, he's certainly an interesting fellow. I'll limit myself though, to just a short summary of his role here, so we can focus on this issue of being "born again."
Nicodemus is described here as "a man of the Pharisees… a ruler of the Jews" (verse 1) and a "teacher in Israel" (verse 10). Thus he was a very religious man, well trained in the Old Testament law and tradition. Wealthy, educated, powerful, well respected by his people - these words would all describe a man in his position.(1) Yet for all his religious and social accomplishment, he found himself very much "in the dark" when it came to understanding Jesus and his message. After witnessing the miraculous signs Jesus did, Nicodemus knew the Galilean rabbi had to be from God. He just couldn't pull it all together as to what that meant. Unwilling at this point to risk his position on something that he didn't quite understand (not necessarily a bad approach to investigating possible truth) but also curious about Jesus, he chose to approach the Lord after dark. With darkness in his approach - darkness in his understanding - he hoped Jesus would help him sort it all out without putting his position on the council in jeopardy.
(Read v. 2)
You'll note that isn't a question. Yet Jesus, knowing "what was in man" (John 2:25) answered anyway because he knew the religious problem Nicodemus was having.
(Read v. 3)
Thus we see first in this passage what all the hoopla is about. We see:
1. The Necessity of the New Birth (1-3)
Three times as he spoke to Nicodemus in this passage, Jesus drove home this important point:
Verse 3: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Verse 5: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Verse 7: "You must be born again." Do you see any wiggle room in those three statements? Any options? Neither do I. Yet if you've been around people in the context of the Christian faith very long, invariably you've heard the conversation that goes something like this: "Oh, I see you are a Christian. Are you born again?" Pick up any redundancy there? It would be like someone saying, "Oh, I see you're a beaver. Do you have big teeth and a flat tail?" All beavers have big teeth and flat tails, just as all true Christians are born again! Calling oneself a "born again Christian" is redundant, except for the fact that there are so many people today who claim to be Christians who either don't understand what it means to be born again or they have rejected the idea.
Want to make someone really mad at you? Just tell one of these religious folks who attends church somewhere where they don't teach the Bible (or don't teach it accurately) that he or she isn't a Christian because they're not born again. You'll offend them deeply. Yet that is essentially what Jesus told Nicodemus here. You might also notice that the Lord wasn't very diplomatic about it. These were the first words out of His mouth and he stated the same truth three times to a man that counted himself among the most religious people in his entire nation. Jesus told him he had to be born again, yet Nicodemus didn't have a clue as to what that meant. The difference between this story and that of many today though is that Nicodemus didn't go away mad. He stayed on to consider what this might mean. That was a very wise move.
So, if being born again is necessary, as Jesus says here, it's wise for us to understand exactly what it means. Thus we move on in this passage to:
2. The Nature of the New Birth (4-8)
(Read v. 4)
Councilman Nicodemus was fully focused on physical birth. That's as far as his understanding took him at this point. According to the way he and his associates thought, you became one of God's chosen people, a Jew, by physical birth. You were born physically into the lineage of Abraham. It isn't hard to see why Nicodemus would misunderstand Jesus' words. He was thinking physical birth. Yet surely that couldn't be what this Galilean rabbi meant. Returning to his mother's womb and coming forth again? That couldn't happen. Further, was Jesus somehow suggesting that his first birth, the one every Jew counted on to be right with God,(2) wasn't adequate? Surely that couldn't be! It went against everything he had been taught and had taught others.
Jesus wasted no time correcting this good-hearted man's misunderstanding. Verses 5-8 contain Jesus' explanation of the new birth. Let's look at them more closely.
First, the terms of the new birth are in verse 5:
(Read v. 5)
This is what Jesus says being "born again" means. If one has been "born of water and the Spirit," he or she has been born again. They are one in the same. I'll say more about that in just a few moment moments.
Secondly, we see in Jesus' words the realm of the new birth:
(Read v. 6)
Jesus is trying to get Nicodemus to think beyond the realm of physical birth. Physical birth produces fleshly life. Spiritual birth produces spiritual life. The two are not the same. (Even if it were possible to return to the womb and be born again physically, it would still produce only flesh. "That which is born of flesh is flesh.") While both fleshly life and spiritual life begin by birth, they are not the same. Thus they are each entered by separate births. The realm of the new birth then, is spiritual, not physical. Those today who cite their birth into a Christian home or their citizenship in a "Christian nation" as evidence that they are Christians have missed the point as surely as Nicodemus missed it. One cannot be "born a Christian" in the physical sense. That takes a new birth.
Further, while these things might appear incomprehensible to Nicodemus at first, Jesus points out that he had accepted other things that he could not fully see.
(Read v. 7-8)
No one has ever seen the wind. Yet we don't question its existence, because we see the results: When there is the sound of a breeze, the leaves and the clouds move, we look outside and know that wind is blowing. So it is with the new birth. We may not understand it as easily as we do the physical birth, but that doesn’t mean it is not real. Evidence is seen in the results.
By the way, when one claims to be born again, yet there is no evidence of a changed life after a time, that one should wonder if he or she was really reborn.
So what about Jesus' words, "born of water and the spirit"? What did He mean? More specifically, what water did Jesus intend? Many commentators from many persuasions believe that this is a reference to Christian baptism. In fact, there may be some evidence that the first commentator to consider otherwise was John Calvin during the reformation.(3) I believe that what Jesus meant here by "water" was the water of Christian baptism. But let's consider it a bit more.
Jesus does not clarify His meaning of "water" in the context of the 21 verses we are studying. He doesn't say, "This is what I mean by water and the spirit." We are left to resolve the issue by looking elsewhere. Consequently, some that do not believe "water" here refers to baptism have suggested that Jesus was referring to the "water" of physical birth - the literal amniotic fluid that surrounds every unborn child. Thus, the phrase, "water and the spirit" is explained by saying that one must have two births, one physical (water) and the other spiritual (spirit). While it is true that there must be two births, referring to physical birth by using the term "water" is not done anywhere else in the Bible. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find any biblical evidence of such usage. It also seems a bit redundant that Jesus would need to explain physical birth to Nicodemus here. Though in the dark about the new birth, the councilman already understood that one must be alive (by virtue of physical birth). Religiously, he certainly understood the need to be born physically into the family of Abraham.
I think it is more reasonable to conclude that both the "water" and the "spirit" refer to the new birth. There is evidence of the two used that way elsewhere in the New Testament.
For instance, in Titus 3:5, Paul speaks of the new birth, which he calls "regeneration." There we read, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit…." Notice that this verse brings together water (washing) and Spirit (renewing by the Holy Spirit) under the context of the new life (which is what regeneration is.)
Again, in Acts 2:38 we see the same thing with regard to salvation: "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." A repentant person is baptized in water and receives the gift of the Holy Spirit. Water and Spirit.
Seen graphically, here are the parallels:
Passage
Water
Spirit
Result
John 3:5
"born of water"
"and the Spirit"
"born again"
Titus 3:5
"washing of regeneration"
"renewing by the Holy Spirit"
"saved"
Acts 2:38
"baptized"
"gift of the Holy Spirit"
"forgiveness"
Let's review my point. What biblical parallels do we have to connect "water" here with the amniotic fluid of physical birth? There are none. What parallels do we have that would connect "water" here to baptism? I have shown you at least two.
Having said these things, let me also say that if John 3:5 were the only passage in the New Testament that speaks of the necessity of baptism for the new birth, entrance into the kingdom, and salvation, I would not be as dogmatic. But there is ample evidence in the words of Christ and His apostles elsewhere to show that baptism is an essential step in salvation - not the only step, but an essential one.
Mark 16:16 says, "He who believes and has been baptized shall be saved." Romans 8:1 tells us there is no condemnation for those "in Christ Jesus." Romans 6:3 and Galatians 3:27 tell us we are "baptized into Christ." Acts 22:16 says, "be baptized and wash away your sins." Romans 6:4 says we are "buried with Him through baptism" so we "might walk in newness of life." 1 Peter 3:20-21 tells us that just as Noah and his family were saved by the water of the flood, so correspondingly, "baptism now saves you." Clearly, baptism is involved in salvation, being born again, and getting into the kingdom.
Of course, I'm not here referring to the doctrine that says that baptism alone saves us, or that there is something magical in the actual water that saves us. Baptism of an unrepentant unbeliever would be meaningless. What I mean is that when a believing, penitent, confessing person is baptized, that is when the new life begins. The power isn't in the water. According to 1 Peter 3:21, the power is in the resurrection of Christ. Yet the water is necessary.
What about those who are not baptized? Does this mean they are lost? The Bible never says directly that someone who isn't baptized won't go to heaven - unless of course, the "water" here in John 3:5 means baptism. In that case, listen to the words of Jesus again: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Do you see why this passage is such a controversial one? If the "water" is Christian baptism, then it is essential to enter the kingdom. I've already pointed out that many reject the idea that Jesus meant baptism in this passage. Some probably reject it because it does not agree with the position of their particular denomination. Others do something that I find very strange. They take the resulting absence of a negative statement (that is, the absence of a statement that says the one who isn't baptized won't go to heaven) as a green light to ignore the numerous commands and statements about water baptism.
Let me illustrate this "absence of the negative" argument by looking again at Mark 16:15-16: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." The "absence of the negative" argument suggests that although Jesus said that those who disbelieved would be condemned, He didn't say that those who aren't baptized will be condemned. (Thus, the absence of the negative.) Does this sound to you like wise reasoning? Let's try it out on a situation a little less charged with emotion.
Suppose I came to you on the 99th floor of one of the World Trade Center towers on September 11th an hour before the terrorist attacks and said, "If you believe what I say and get out of the tower now, your life will be saved." Would you stay or would you get out? It would depend on whether or not you believed me. If you believed me you would probably go. If you didn't believe me, you'd stay and lose your life. But maybe there is another possibility. As an alternative, would you say, "Well, I believe him, but I'm staying anyway, because he didn't say that if I didn't get out now, I wouldn't save my life." I'm afraid an argument like that would leave you dead.
Yet I have heard this "absence of the negative" idea appealed to in some pretty prominent places. Such people tell others emphatically that water baptism is unnecessary for salvation.
Look over those verses I just gave you again. I cannot imagine in my wildest dreams why a person would read these numerous commands and statements about being baptized and then choose to ignore them or say they are meaningless. That is very shaky theology. Add to this the truth that every conversion described in the book of Acts included immediate baptism and I find myself hard pressed to find a reason for not teaching that baptism is essential.
Let's quickly move on to what Jesus said about:
3. The Foundation of the New Birth (9-18)
Because I'm in my ever-present race with the clock, I'm going to have to be brief here with my last two points.
(Read v. 9-13)
Jesus now turns the discussion to faith. That was what Nicodemus needed at this point. He was curious but He had not yet accepted that Jesus was the Son of God.
Faith is the foundation of salvation. "Without faith it is impossible to please God," we read in Hebrews 11:6. Yet it goes beyond faith in God. It also goes to faith in Jesus as the Son and the Savior.
(Read v. 14-16)
Now there is a familiar verse. John 3:16. There are a lot of people who can quote that verse from memory.
Many people say that John 3:16 is all you need to know about the Bible in order to be saved. I was taught this as a child in Sunday School and figured for a long time that it was all I needed to know. It is frequently called "the gospel in miniature" or "the gospel in summary" and upon that view the conclusion is made that all we must do to be saved is believe in Jesus. Everything else (if anything) comes after salvation. Some, taking this conclusion even further, say that everything else the Bible says, including willingness to obey the direct commands of Christ, is also optional. Their conclusion is that we are saved by faith only or faith alone.(4)
Is that what Jesus intended here? Is this "the gospel in miniature" or "the gospel in summary"? Is this all we need to know? Are we saved by faith alone?
There is another passage where Jesus summarized the gospel. I know that because, unlike John 3:16, it actually says so. In his last words on earth, before He ascended back into heaven, Jesus said in the passage we read earlier in Mark 16:15-16, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." Then He told what gospel to preach: "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."
Wait a minute. If John 3:16 is "the gospel in miniature" and it says all we need to do is believe to be saved, why does Jesus say in Mark 16:16 that we must believe and be baptized to be saved? Is this a contradiction? Is Jesus speaking out of both sides of his mouth? Or could it be that He had already spoken of baptism within the larger context of John 3:16? Remember "born of water" back in verse 5? That statement does share the same context as John 3:16. If by "water" Jesus meant baptism, then the contradiction disappears.
But even if John 3:5 does not refer to baptism, did Jesus intend to say we are saved by belief only or is there not a built in supposition that if we "believe in Him," we will also do whatever He says we must do? The faith that saves is more than simple belief. It is faith that will do its best to do whatever Christ commands.(5) Belief is the foundation of salvation but belief that is unwilling to obey is not under consideration here.(6)
(Read v. 17)
We come finally then to what I have labeled:
4. The Rejection of the New Birth (18-21)
What of those who reject Christ? Jesus puts it very clearly:
(Read v. 18-21)
We must believe in Jesus. We must be born again. There is no other option for those who wish to have eternal life and escape the judgment of God.
Conclusion
A young sculptor worked painstakingly on the statue of an angel. When the great Michelangelo came to view it, the artist hid nearby and waited to hear the master's comment. Michelangelo looked intently at the sculpture with breathless suspense. At last he said, "It lacks only one thing." Hearing this, the young artist was crestfallen. For days he could neither eat nor sleep. A friend became so concerned for him that he went to Michelangelo to ask what the statue lacked. The master replied, "It lacks only life; with life it would be perfect."(7)
Some people are like that statue. Outwardly, they have an admirable appearance. They are good by the standards of the world. They live moral, exemplary lives. They are respected citizens who are active in charitable functions. They are faithful members in their churches. But because they have never been born again, they lack one thing. They lack spiritual life.
Jesus said elsewhere in Matthew 7:21-23: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'"
My friends, Jesus wasn't kidding. "You must be born again."
Footnotes: (Use your "back" button to return to your place)
1. The next time we see Nicodemus is in John 7:51 where he shows some cautious sympathy for Jesus when the Sanhedrin began to denounce Him as a false prophet. The final time he appears on the pages of God's Word is when he brought a hundred pounds of embalming spices and assisted Joseph of Arimathea in taking the lifeless body of Jesus from the cross. Christian tradition has it that Nicodemus was ultimately baptized by Peter and John and suffered persecution from hostile Jews, lost his position on the Sanhedrin, and was banished from Jerusalem. --From Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright (c)1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
2. Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8
3. "There is not any one Christian writer of any antiquity in any language but what understands it of baptism....I believe Calvin was the first that ever denied this place to mean baptism. He gives it another interpretation, which he confesses to be new." - William Wall (History of Infant Baptism)
4. A clear statement of just the opposite of this is James 2:24: "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." James was not speaking here of works of human merit but of works that spring from a faith that believes enough to do what the Lord commands. One would do well to read James 2:14-26. Also important to note is the statement of John the Baptist at the end of John chapter 3: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." - John 3:36
5. Luke 6:46: "And why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?"
6. Actually, John's quote of Jesus' stress on belief in John 3:16 is in perfect harmony with the apostle's stated purpose of this book. John 20:31, John says, "…these [descriptions of Jesus' signs] have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." John's purpose was not to write a detailed, critical account of every aspect of the new birth. He wrote things designed to produce and show the importance of faith, which is the foundation for all the rest.
7. Told by William E. Biederwolf, former president of the Winona Lake Bible Conference.
Dave Redick is Minister of the Hwy 20 Church of Christ in Sweet Home, Oregon and Editor of The Preacher's Study. He may be reached at pstudysupport@comcast.net.
Copyright © 1996-2008 by The Preacher's Study. Permission is granted to subscribers to use this document in total or in sermon preparation in the context of the local congregation only. Publishing it in a book, on the Internet, or anyplace beyond the local congregation is prohibited.
All Scripture quotations and references are from the New American Standard Version unless otherwise stated.
[Archive] [Home] [Comments] [Search]
