An exposition of John 2:23-John 4:3, THE REBIRTH

[RebirthDefender]

An exposition of John 2:23-John 4:3, THE REBIRTH

At the end of John 2, Jesus was in Jerusalem at the Passover. Many believed on His name, but He rejected them even though they were believers. Then, at the beginnning of John 3, Nicodemus comes to Jesus saying "WE..." We? We who? Nicodemus is representing this group of BELIEVERS that Jesus has rejected. Nicodemus says "Jesus, WE believe in you." Apparently Nicodemus is confused about the fact that Jesus has rejected some people who believe in Him, and Nicodemus is about to ask Jesus why He rejected them. But, Jesus answers the question before he can even ask, saying "You must be born again to see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus ridicules the rebirth saying "It is impossible for an old man to go back to his mother's womb," but Jesus clarifies that he intended a rebirth that is "of water and of the Spirit" not a physical rebirth in your mother's womb. Now, Nicodemus keeps arguing with Jesus, so Jesus says in verse 12 "If I tell you EARTHLY THING and you don't believe, how will you believe when I tell you HEAVENLY THINGS?" Notice that in verse 31 of this same chapter (John 3:31) we find John the Baptist state plainly "I am of the earth and speak EARTHLY THINGS but Jesus is from heaven and speaks HEAVENLY THINGS." It is obvious from this statement of John the Baptist that when Jesus, speaking of the rebirth, said to Nicodemus "if I tell you EARTHLY THINGS and you do not believe..." that he was saying "if I preach to you the same thing that John the Baptist has already preached to you..." In other words, Jesus' statement in verse 12 means "if I repeat to you the earthly things that John the Baptist has already told you (i.e. the necessity of the rebirth of water and of the Spirit which takes place in baptism) and you reject that, how will you believe the heavenly things that I as Christ have to tell you (i.e. My Incarnation and death on the cross for the whole world)?" It will also be noticed by all who have honest hearts, that as soon as Jesus was done speaking with Nicodemus, he went to where John was baptizing and began to take over John's ministry. In fact, the Pharisees were upset about this. The Bible says that John's disciples got into an argument with the Jews (and I think Nicodemus was among the Jews that are mentioned there) and that they bring the argument to John the Baptist to settle. The argument was this "John, you remember that guy Jesus who you endorsed? He's taking over your ministry! He's over here baptizing more people than you ever did!" Now, John's repsonse to this is "Good! I am glad!" John says "I am of the earth and speak of earthly things, but he is from heaven and speaks heavenly things. He is from heaven and is above all." John also says "I must decrease and he must increase" and compares himself to a friend of the groom who is happy to see his friend's happiness or in other words "I started this ministry of baptism with the hope that Jesus would eventually take it over and I would be phased out." So, the chapter closes with John the Baptist approving of Jesus' taking over his ministry of baptism, and telling the Jews "He is the Son of God and you must believe on Him if you want to be saved, for otherwise the wrath of God will abide on you forever." Then chapter 4 begins with "When Jesus knew that the Pharisees knew that He had baptized more disciples than John ever did, he He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee."

SUMMARY

The summary of John 2:23-John 4:3 is this: Jesus rejected some believers because they rejected John's baptism. Nicodemus representing that group desired of Jesus the reason for His rejecting them. Jesus instructs him that they have rejected the rebirth of water and of the Spirit, which is received in John's baptism. Nicodemus gets in a huff about this. Jesus tells him that John's preaching on baptism is simple and earthly and that if Nicodemus cannot beleive such simple preaching he will never be able to believe about more heavenly things such as the Incarnation and death of the Messiah on the cross for all mankind. Then, Jesus, seeing that the Jews so strongly oppose the baptism of John goes and begins to administer the same baptism through the agency of his disciples, to show his approval of it. In doing so, Jesus baptizes more disciples than John ever did. The Jews get mad and try to stir up jealously between Jesus and John. John tells the Jews that Jesus is the Son of God and that it is right for Jesus to take over his ministry of baptism. After Jesus has baptized more disciples than John ever did, He feels he has sufficiently made his point to the baptism-hating Jews, and he goes on his way preaching the coming kingdom of God.

CONCLUSION

At this point, I will also point out that in Matthew 21:31, Jesus told the Pharisees (most likely Nicodemus is included in this situation as well) "Truly I say to you that the tax-collectors and prostitutes will enter the kingdom of God before you, because John came to show you the way of righteousness and you rejected him, but the tax-collectors and prostitutes accepted him, and this was not enough to make you repent and accept him." Here, notice, that Jesus connects entering the kingdom of God with John's baptism. Why did the Pharisees not enter the kingdom of God while the prostitutes did? It was because the Pharisees rejected baptism while the prostitutes accepted it. This lines up perfectly with Jesus' statement in John 3:5 that "Unless a man is born again of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Rebirth and John's baptism are both spoken of as necessary to entering the kingdom of God, so who can doubt that rebirth "of water and of the Spirit" is in fact that same thing as John's baptism? Finally, Peter says in Acts 2:38 "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." While a man is being dunked under water by man, he is also receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit by God. Now, this shows plainly an involvement of both water and of the Spirit. It is impossible to rightfully teach that being reborn of water and of the Spirit is anything other than being baptized as a repentant believer in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins and receiving therein the gift of the Holy Spirit. Yes, and also, both John's baptism and that which Peter here preached required repentance, so that it is impossible to rightfully imagine that the rebirth of water and of the Spirit can be received without faith and repentance.

 

[StAnselm]

I was wondering where you were going with this. Your user-name and phases such as "it will also be noticed by all who have honest hearts" made me suspicious...

Now, this is a thought-provoking post, and you raise some interesting issues.

Then, at the beginnning of John 3, Nicodemus comes to Jesus saying "WE..." We? We who? Nicodemus is representing this group of BELIEVERS that Jesus has rejected.

Well, maybe. Or Nicodemus could have come with a group of people, such as his own disciples...

There were many classes of followers - the twelve, the disciples, the crowds - and Jesus drew the line somewhere. But there's scant evidence that this is connected with who accepted John's baptism.

and Nicodemus is about to ask Jesus why He rejected them.

It could be the case, but you're basing your argument on evidence which (by definition) is not there. Kinda like what the conspiracy theorists do.

Jesus says in verse 12 "If I tell you EARTHLY THING and you don't believe, how will you believe when I tell you HEAVENLY THINGS?" Notice that in verse 31 of this same chapter (John 3:31) we find John the Baptist state plainly "I am of the earth and speak EARTHLY THINGS but Jesus is from heaven and speaks HEAVENLY THINGS."

This is an interesting point, and the connection may well be valid. The problem is that Jesus hasn't mentioned John, and yet says "I have told you earthly things..." - you are translating it as a present tense, but it is, in fact, an aorist - past tense.

The connection between John the Baptist and Jesus is an important one, and there are some fascinating connections between the two, especially in John's gospel. But remember Acts 19:1-5:

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them,
"Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.
Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus."
On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

John's baptism was not the same as being baptised into Jesus!

 

[Stinker]

At this point, I will also point out that in Matthew 21:31, Jesus told the Pharisees (most likely Nicodemus is included in this situation as well) "Truly I say to you that the tax-collectors and prostitutes will enter the kingdom of God before you, because John came to show you the way of righteousness and you rejected him, but the tax-collectors and prostitutes accepted him, and this was not enough to make you repent and accept him." [RebirthDefender]

I cannot see John the Baptist baptizing practicing sinners!

"Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:" John the Baptist addressing some practicing sinners who came to him to be baptized of him. (Mt.3:8)

 

[RebirthDefender]

"I cannot see John the Baptist baptizing practicing sinners!" (Stinker) No one said that he did baptize practicing sinners. Simon the Leper was still called Simon the Leper after Jesus healed him--he wasn't really a leper anymore, but he kept being called that.

 

[RebirthDefender]

"John's baptism was not the same as being baptised into Jesus!" (StAnselm) In the sense that John's baptism looked forward to the cross and Christian baptism looks backwards to the cross they are different. However, John's baptism was at that time for the same purpose that Christian baptism is today, and the prerequisites of repentance is the same. John's baptism was "for the remission of sins" and required repentance to come before it (Mark 1:4) and Christian baptism is also "for the remission of sins" and require repentance to come before it (Acts 2:38). The difference is just that in Christian baptism the recipient can look backward to Calvary as accomplished, whereas those that John baptized looked forward to Jesus as the Messiah accomplishing something that they weren't sure yet exactly what it was.

 

[RebirthDefender]

BTW, StAnselm, you refer to the 12 men in Acts 19:1-5 who claimed to have been baptized with what they called "the baptism of John." If you read the entire context from Acts 18:24-Acts 19:5 you will find that in fact, the baptism they received was NOT John's baptism, but Apollos' baptism. Apollos was baptizing post-resurrection with what he called "John's baptism" but it wasn't John's baptism since John's baptism ended with the resurrection of Christ. John's baptism was for the same purpose and had the same effect as Christian baptism if it was received prior to the resurrection of Christ. As a case in point, the apostles had only received John's baptism. They did not get rebaptized at Pentecost, but they baptized others. John's baptism, then, was valid prior to the resurrection, but not after, because his baptism looked forward to the cross. After the cross had taken place, the recipient of baptism needed to look backward, so a baptism that looked forward would not do.

BTW, as to my mistake in tense, you are correct that it is "I have told you earthly things..." but that strengthens the fact that he is calling the rebirth an earthly thing, as his discourse on the rebirth precedes this statement. And, I cannot see how verse 12 and 31 cannot be connected. The apostle John and the Holy Spirit in writing them in this same chapter must have wanted us to connect them, and it would seem also that John commonly made such statements of himself.

 

[StAnselm]

If you read the entire context from Acts 18:24-Acts 19:5 you will find that in fact, the baptism they received was NOT John's baptism, but Apollos' baptism.

We have to go by what Luke actually says. He says that Apollos "knew John's baptism" and gives no indication that the disciples in chapter 19 were mistaken.

he is calling the rebirth an earthly thing, as his discourse on the rebirth precedes this statement. And, I cannot see how verse 12 and 31 cannot be connected.

Yes, they are connected, and I'm glad you've pointed it out to me. But is it connected in the way you think? Well, Jesus refers to the earthly things as things that he spoke. The question then is, does the Evangelist want us to connect that with the words of the Baptist?

It is obvious from this statement of John the Baptist that when Jesus... was saying "if I preach to you the same thing that John the Baptist has already preached to you..."

Well, it's certainly not obvious. And hence, you need to be careful what you conclude from it. The "earthly things" could, for example, be verses 5 - 7. But the text does not directly link these to John the Baptist. And we still don't know in what way it is earthly - because it's obvious that "what is born of flesh is flesh"??

In Matthew 3:11 John starkly contrasts his baptism and Jesus', which auggests that John's baptism is not the rebirth "of water and the Spirit." Jesus furnishes us with a similar contrast in Acts 1:5.

Hence, I think you're mistaken.

And I have the impression that you want to promulgate a doctrinal revolution based on your exegesis here, and that would be a mistake...

 

[RebirthDefender]

StAnselm, please also notice these verses.

Luke 7:29 -- All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been baptized by John. But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.

Matthew 21:24-32 -- Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. "By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you this authority?" Jesus replied, "I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John's baptism--where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?" They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' But if we say, 'From men'--we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet." So they answered Jesus, "We don't know." Then he said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things. What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.' 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go. Which of the two did what his father wanted?" "The first," they answered. Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him."


You must admit that Jesus here tells the Pharisees that the prostitutes and sinners ARE ENTERING God's kingdom through John's baptism, while they the Pharisees in rejecting John's baptism are rejecting God's kingdom. In fact, the parable shows that the prostitutes and tax-collectors were the first son who said "No" to God at first but then later repented, and entered the vineyard that the father commanded them to work in, and this they did through John's baptism. The Pharisees, however, are the second son who said "I will, sir" but who then rejected John's baptism and thus never even made it to the vineyard. This passage, beyond teaching that, also shows which side of the issue of baptism is the Pharisaic side. Those who reject the fact that baptism is necessary to entering God's Kingdom are aligning themselves with the Pharisees of old, because they are teaching EXACTLY 100% what the Pharisees taught.

 

[StAnselm]

You are correct in your indentification of the parties in the parable. But I think there is considerable slippage in your concept of baptism being necessary:

All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been baptized by John. But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.

Now, I might quibble over the translation here, but it looks like the there is some formal ambiguity here. Is the reason that the people acknowledge God's way is right that they were baptised; or does the fact that they were baptised show that they acknowledge God's way is right?? I think it's definitely the latter.

Hence, you need to be careful regarding the case you build up regarding the necessity of baptism.

You must admit that Jesus here tells the Pharisees that the prostitutes and sinners ARE ENTERING God's kingdom through John's baptism

Well, it depends what we mean by "through". Is it "by virtue of being baptised", or is the baptism in fact a sign of them entering, through faith and repentance? I believe it is the latter.

Those who reject the fact that baptism is necessary to entering God's Kingdom...

Again, do you mean in an absolute sense, or not? That is, I'm happy to say that someone who enters God's Kingdom ought to be baptised, needs to get baptised, etc. If they don't get baptised, then they are being disobedient.

But that's very different to saying that if they're not baptised then they are not in the Kingdom at all.

 

[RebirthDefender]

You are correct in your indentification of the parties in the parable.

Please keep that in mind.

(1) The son who said "no" at first, but then repented and obeyed the father represents the prostitues and tax-collectors who repented at the preaching of John and obeyed the father in baptism.

(2) The son who said "yes, sir" but then disobeyed the father represents the Pharisees who told God that they loved him, and who claimed that they were obeying God, but who rejected John and refused to be baptized in obedience to the father.

Again, do you mean in an absolute sense, or not? That is, I'm happy to say that someone who enters God's Kingdom ought to be baptised, needs to get baptised, etc. If they don't get baptised, then they are being disobedient.

StAnselm, please note, that you are contradicting yourself. The obedient son in the parable represents those who obeyed God in baptism. How then can the obedient son be obedient without obedience??? If he has not been obedient how has he been obedient? "If they don't get baptised, then they are being disobedient." EXACTLY! That's the point of the parable. AND, in the application of the parable, which Jesus Himself gives, we see that the obedient son enters the kingdom of God while the disobedient son does not.

 

[StAnselm]

But the parable doesn't talk about baptism! You're importing ideas of John's baptism into it. Yes, entering God's kingdom reuires faith and obedience, but that doesn't mean citizens of the kingdom are never disobedient.

So it's a mistake to centre the obedience that the son renders on baptism.

 

[RebirthDefender]

But the parable doesn't talk about baptism! You're importing ideas of John's baptism into it.

You're a comedian right? Obviously you are, because surely you noticed that Jesus EXPLAINS the parable. So, you must be pulling my leg acting like the parable has nothing to do with baptism. If anyone is "importing ideas of John's baptism into it" it is Jesus who is doing the importing, and certainly he has the right! It is his parable after all, and He is the Son of God!

Firstly, the context in which the parable is given is a discussion on the authority of John's baptism! Just look back a couple of verses--Jesus told the parable precisely because the Pharisees answered his question "Where did John's baptism come from?" by saying "We cannot tell." Knowing that this response of theirs was just an evasion of the question, he procedes to give them this parable.

Secondly, Jesus directly applies the parable to the preceding context, and mentions John and the tax-collectors' and prostitutes' acceptance of him, and the Pharisees' rejection of him, and how the parable relates to that.

Let's look at the facts: Jesus tells a parable about two son and a father. The fathers tells both sons to go work in his vineyard. One son says "No" but repents and then obeys. The other son says "yes" but then disobeys.

Now Jesus tells the Pharisees that the horrible sinners such as prostitutes have obeyed God in accepting John's baptism--they are the son who said "no" (they were prostitutes at first!) but then repented and obeyed. Now, he says that in obeying they entered the kingdom of God. The vineyard in the parable was representing the kingdom. The disobedient son "went not" into the vineyard. The obedient son went and worked in the vineyard. This is the prostitutes who entered God's kingdom through John's baptism. But the disobedient son is the Pharisees who tell God "yes, we'll obey you" but then reject John's baptism and do not enter the kingdom (represented by the vineyard).

Two chapters later, returning to the same theme he says in Matthew 23:13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in." How did they hinder men from entering God's kingdom? How did they not enter themselves? How did they shut up the kingdom against men? In the vehement attacks on John's baptism. Why do you think Jesus found it so important to ask them in Matthew 21:24 where John's authority to baptize came from? If John's baptism were just a worthless symbol, he need not even mention. However, the Scriptures teach plainly that John's baptism was "for the remission (forgiveness) of sins" (Mark 1:4) and Peter shows that post-resurrection baptism is also "for the remission (forgiveness) of sins" in Acts 2:38, AND the New Revised Standard Version translates that phrase "so that your sins may be forgiven" there in Acts 2:38. John's baptism, just like baptism today, was "so that sins may be forgiven"--it wasn't a worthless symbol that the Pharisees could reject without consequence--in rejecting it they rejected the forgiveness of their sins.

 

[StAnselm]

Yeah, sorry - I was exaggerating the bit about importing ideas of baptism. The things is, even though they're there, I don't believe they are central.

In other words, you are putting the cart before the horse: the Pharisees were rejecting the Kingdom, and the rejection of baptism was just a symptom of that.

Now Jesus tells the Pharisees that the horrible sinners such as prostitutes have obeyed God in accepting John's baptism

See, no doubt they did, but Jesus doesn't say that - he says they believed John...

Jesus shifts the emphasis from faith to baptism. Not that they are opposed, but that latter proceeds from the former.

I fear that you're over-emphasising the role of baptism.

 

[RebirthDefender]

"Do the funky chicken for this cookie!" (Me)

"Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins" (God through Peter in Acts 2:38)

Now, no one would deny that "do the funky chicken for this cookie" means that you get this cookie IF AND ONLY IF you do the funky chicken and not before you do it. But men find it so hard to understand--no, it's not a problem of understanding, but of belief--men find it so hard to believe God's word that we must "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins." That phrase obviously means that you get the forgiveness of sins IF AND ONLY IF you repent and are baptized, and that you will not get it before you do that. But because of false doctrine and hardness of heart, men reject this plain fact.