Christ's own words to Nicodemus make it clear that he is distinguishing between different kinds of birth: physical and spiritual. He had just told Nicodemus of the necessity of a second birth and in reply to Nicodemus's natural confusion (vs. 4), he gives a brief explanation of what distinguishes the two births from each other. Verses 5 and 6, then, constitute this explanation, as is very evident in what Jesus says:
Again, Jesus addresses the individual or small group with what they need to hear at the moment and we need to know what they need to be hearing at the moment to best understand what Jesus is saying.
Mark 4: 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you.
But to those on the outside everything is said in parables. This is definitely about the “Kingdom” and Nicodemus is definitely an outsider. So, Jesus is talking in parables to Nicodemus. (A parable does not have to be just a story with a Spiritual meaning, but something said with a parallel deeper Spiritual meaning, so the we need to not just look at the surface conversation).
Nicodemus has already acknowledged what the first birth was, so he is
only asking about the born again (not what is meant by two births).
Jesus response “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are
born of water and the Spirit….” Is addressing the born-again question.
Nicodemus as part of the Sanhedrin would not have been baptized by John’s baptism from the conversation Jesus later had with Matt. 21: 23 …the chief priests and the elders… 24 Jesus replied, …25 John’s baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or of human origin?” …They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ Jesus said: ““
Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”
The religious leadership knew John’s baptism was Spiritual (from heaven), but said they “do not know” which is a lie.
Bottom line: Nicodemus would know he personally needed to accept John’s baptism, but at the time he came to Christ he would not have been water baptized with John’s baptism.
Jesus says “…born of water and the Spirit” because the water baptism itself does not “do” anything, but should acknowledge a commitment by the person being baptized. The Spirit that really changes the person’s heart. Nicodemus’ heart is not going to be transformed without demonstrating the commitment with baptism. For Nicodemus to be reborn he would need submit to both water baptism which includes a spiritual changing of his heart.
When Jesus does address our birth from our mother womb he does not say “born of water”, but says: “born of the flesh” which is contrasted with baptism from heaven birth.
Jesus does not call our fleshly birth: “water birth”.
There was, then, a very good reason for Jesus to go into the matter of physical birth. In doing so, he was directly responding to Nicodemus's confusion about what Jesus meant about being born a second time.
To the contrary John’s baptism with a spiritual change of heart was the only rebirth available at the time. The “water” is referring to John’s baptism.
What does this have to do with the exchange between Nicodemus and Jesus in John 3? Neither of them mentioned John the Baptist.
We know a lot about Nicodemus from his position and actions. To understand what Jesus is trying to get Nicodemus to do you have to understand where Nicodemus is at.
Jesus will later in the chapter say: 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. (Nicodemus came at night.)
Seems pretty simple to me... We aren't told why Jesus responded as he did and I am very reluctant to speculate as to why. If it was important for us to know, the passage would tell us (which it doesn't). I don't think it is at all wise to add my own imaginings to God's word.
The simple understanding might be far from the Spiritual truth being conveyed. Remember Jesus “only spoke in parables about the Kingdom” with outsiders present and Nicodemus is an outsider and this is about the Kingdom.
We only have a few parables explained and lots of speculation on what was spiritually to be conveyed in the end. Jesus would know the audience at the time would not understand the spiritual meaning of His parables, but they were poetic, entertaining stories people could remember and share with their friends, not realizing they are learning and teaching to others tons of stuff about the kingdom. This knowledge will be useful when the kingdom does come on Pentecost and they see and even experience what the kingdom is like to than understand the parable spiritual meaning.
The apostles with Jesus for three years being given the “simple” explanations were far from understanding what He said, so why is it simple for you?
How do you know Nicodemus had "all the answers," or felt that he did? This is a guess you're making about Nicodemus's state of mind, and as such adds to Scripture. Did Nicodemus "talk a lot about the kingdom of God"? How would you know this with any certainty? Again, this seems like guesswork to me and as such shouldn't be given any serious weight. We don't know how Jesus spoke to everyone who came up to him, so, again, we ought not to speculate about it with any dogmatism.
Since he was the only “sincere” Pharisee coming to Jesus he might be a step above the rest. No certainty about lots of stuff.
Since he was the only “sincere” Pharisee coming to Jesus he might be a step above the rest. No certainty about lots of stuff.
We have conversations Jesus had with many people including His disciples. Only the inner circle were given direct descriptions of the Kingdom and they did not seem to understand.
It doesn't follow that because Jesus is speaking directly to Nicodemus we need to "get into Nicodemus's head" in order to understand what Jesus was saying to him. Jesus seems very clear to me in his comments about the two kinds of birth. If it was important to know Nicodemus's thoughts, Scripture would have revealed them to us as in the case of Christ and Simon the Pharisee in Luke 7:39.
Everything Jesus said has application for us taken in context, but what do you feel Jesus said philosophically that did not directly apply to the audience at hand?
Again, John the Baptist does not come into the conversation between Christ and Nicodemus at all.
Again, Jesus talks a lot in parables without explanations. Some of those parables were directed at the Pharisees and we can only speculate on what they were thinking.
"Probably would be" is not certainty. These are qualifications made for speculations.
That is what the water is about.
But the very fact that this was Nicodemus's attitude suggests strongly that he would not have believed he needed to be baptized by John. And the phrase about loving the praise of men more than the praise of God was made in reference to acknowledging Christ as Messiah, not John the Baptist.
Would the same logic for not acknowledging Christ be the logic they used for not acknowledge John?
This is a tenuously held-together conclusion that is resting upon a framework of imaginative speculation. Not a good way to handle God's word, it seems to me.
I said: Jesus would not go past what Nicodemus already knew he should be doing, if you’re not going to do what you already know to do, why go further?
So, when someone says: “I know for certain I need to be baptized as the next part of my spiritual growth, but do not want to be baptized”, what do you say to them?
But all that you've noted here is all you can concretely assert about Nicodemus. His innermost thoughts are closed to you no matter how "Sherlock Holmes" you get on the few details Scripture gives us about Nicodemus.
God wants us to know the spiritual meaning to every parable but few are explained.
We are not going to know the inter thoughts of people we talk to, but need to talk with them, so it would be a bad example to give to us the inter thoughts of the people Jesus talked with and expect us to do the same. I have been taught to spend at least 7 hours prior to doing one on one teaching of the nonbeliever with lots of praying for understanding their heart and wisdom to allow the Spirit to speak through me to their heart felt needs.
In scripture we see Jesus, Paul, Peter and others speaking to the hearts of people, yet we can only know what is on their heart from what is said.
"Could" not "did." Not good ground to build any dogmatically-held point upon.
What do you see my “dogmatically-held point”?
Did Nicodemus need to experience John’s “water” baptism?
Had Nicodemus experienced John’s baptism?
Could Nicodemus have become one of Jesus’ followers without first experiencing John’s baptism?
Did Nicodemus need to Spiritually change his ways?
Did Nicodemus do that day what Jesus asked him to do?
Did the Religious leaders of Christ’s days believe John’s baptism was Spiritually from heaven?
The idea of starting, my teaching from what the person knows already?
Step back a moment: Nicodemus comes to Christ and Christ
immediately tells Nicodemus “I tell you” what
you must do!
I see from this conversation what Nicodemus “must do” first and foremost and that is to accept the water rebirth (baptism of John) showing his commitment to repenting and depending on God’s mercy.
Jesus does not say this to Nicodemus in these few words because Nicodemus (“You are Israel’s teacher,” [Jerusalem Pharisee]) does not need to be told this, so what do you say?
We know from the fact Nicodemus is still in the Sanhedrin, he did not submit to being “born again” (what ever that means)
yet. Jesus would have known Nicodemus’ heart was not right, at the time he came to him, since most likely Nicodemus was not willingly to give-up his “teaching” position (worldly life).
The conversation Jesus is having with Nicodemus is that of teaching someone who is not ready or willing to make a huge change in his life at that time, but might with time and more information (see Christ lifted up like he says) make a commitment.
If Jesus just gave a quick command like: “Go be baptized by John’s baptism” the response could be dismissed as quickly as the command was given, Nicodemus had personally worked up some answer to this already in his head and this was something he was not ready to do (had not done).
I see Jesus’ response as being more for Nicodemus to think about later when he truly might be ready to commit (hopeful this comes with Christ’s crucifixion or rising from the grave). Jesus is not dismissing Nicodemus as being uncommitted nor did Jesus leave him unanswered, but Nicodemus has to think for himself to make it his answer.
You say: Jesus is not talking to Nicodemus about being baptized with John’s baptism, so what is Nicodemus being directed to do?
Did Nicodemus do it?
Is there something Nicodemus could do?
Why would Nicodemus not do it?
Is “born again” the same as believe or is it time for him to do/show what he already believes?
The Pharisees knew what "the people" were thinking and saying about John the Bapist but this doesn't mean the Pharisees themselves believed the same. Clearly, they didn't.
If “ Clearly, they didn't” know if John’s baptism is spiritual (from heaven), Jesus must give them the answer to their question, since they “honestly” answered His question. But
Jesus does not answer their question because they knew John’s baptism was from heaven but lied and said “we do not know”.
Perhaps. But you have no certain way of knowing what Nicodemus actually thought or felt in regards to John the Baptist and the matter of baptism. What you've stated here is all basically loose conjecture. And the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus certainly offers you no ground for suggesting Christ meant "water baptism" when he spoke of "born of water." Especially, when in the very next verse, Christ explained that he meant "born of the flesh."
John is preaching the Kingdom is at hand, the Messiah is here, repent and be baptized. If average people can see the truth in John’s words (they are all holy words) how could those that really knew scripture escape the truth. Some Jewish people would not have recognized Jesus as the Messiah especially from what the Leadership was saying about Him, but do you think the Pharisees (described as hypocrites) after three years did not recognize Christ as the Messiah?
To refuse Christ as the Messiah you also have to refuse John as being a prophet.
Yikes! Surely some part of you must recognize that this degree of speculation and extrapolation reveals the faultiness of what you are saying about what Christ meant by "born of water." Certainly, nothing you've imagined here defeats a more natural, straightforward reading of his words.
You’re the one speculating that “born of water” has to mean the birth from your mother’s womb while Jesus goes on to describe birth from your mother’s womb as being “born of the flesh”. The concept of born of water being the mother’s amniotic fluid is not supported by other scripture and nothing seems to be found in secular first century writings. In the context Jesus is addressing Nicodemus’ question about a second birth and not two births, they agree on the first birth.
Water baptism is described as going through a death, burial and rising to a new life (really becoming a new person [being born again]). Water baptism is both physical and had a deeper Spiritual meaning.
Do you not see similarities in coming out of the waters of baptism being like a birth into a new family?
