045. Chapter 24 - The Conversation with Nicodemus

Chapter 24 - The Conversation with Nicodemus John 2:23-25;John 3:1-21 The Judaean Ministry An indication of the fragmentary character of our knowledge of Jesus’ ministry is seen in the fact that the Synoptics omit all mention of the early Judaean campaign, and that John, while clearly showing that it was of considerable duration and over much territory, limits his records of details to two incidents — the cleansing of the temple and the conversation with Nicodemus. This ministry at first centered in Jerusalem, and then launched out into an evangelistic tour of Judaea (John 2:23; John 3:22). It was marked by a striking succession of miracles (John 2:23; John 3:2). It so stirred Judaea that it completely eclipsed John’s following, and led the Pharisees to plot against the life of Jesus (John 2:24; John 4:1, John 4:2). It is noteworthy that, in spite of the tendency of the Gospels to emphasize the miracles of Jesus, John passes over any delineation of these early miracles, to record the opening clash between Jesus and the leaders of the nation, and this intimate conversation with a famous Pharisee which gives momentous revelation of the character of His kingdom.

Friend and Foe The biographical method of John outlines the general movement of Jesus’ early ministry: its visible effects in the open and desperate hostility of the hypocritical Sadducees and Pharisees, and its invisible effects in the quiet investigation and meditation of the more sincere leaders. The first two chapters of John show something of the effect of Jesus’ personality and teaching upon the earnest, but untrained, Galileans whom He invited to assist in His ministry; the next two chapters show the impact of Jesus’ meeting with the scholars and political leaders in Jerusalem. The bold and fiery denunciation of the corrupt leaders is contrasted with His kindly reception of an earnest enquirer after truth. The effort is made today to show that Jesus was unfair and excessively bitter in His attitude toward the Jewish leaders. This quiet conference of Christ with Nicodemus proves how generous and friendly His attitude was whenever the opportunity offered. John shows in rapid-fire contrast the two attitudes of Jesus and the two types of Jewish leadership. How many Pharisees were comparable to Nicodemus in character we cannot tell. Occasionally we find Jesus in the home of a Pharisee, enjoying the hospitality and offering friendly instruction or commending publicly a splendid answer by some Pharisee. The full weight of His condemnation in cleansing the temple fell upon the Sadducees who had charge of the temple management. But it was the Pharisees who took up the gauntlet and attempted to drive Jesus from the stage of action, because they, too, were implicated in the corruption of the temple, and they were, by scholarly training and religious conviction, better qualified to combat the movement of Jesus. We never find Jesus engaged in friendly conversation in the home of a Sadducee, or in public agreement with them. They, with their skepticism and their corrupt politics, were separated from Him by a far wider chasm.

Character of Nicodemus The narrative furnishes an interesting character study of Nicodemus, and makes evident that he was (1) a ruler of the Jews; (2) a distinguished scholar; (3) one who was interested to investigate, but who came by night; (4) willing to admit the validity of Jesus’ miracles, but not yet convinced that He was the Christ; (5) full of questions and the desire to know, but slow to learn. Nicodemus appears in the Gospel on two later occasions: he attempts to argue the cause of Jesus in a semiofficial assembly of the Sanhedrin, and is accused of being in sympathy with Jesus (John 7:50); he boldly assists Joseph of Arimathea in embalming and burying the body of Jesus (John 19:39). Every synagogue had “rulers” — the most scholarly and influential men of the community — who directed its religious life. But “ruler of the Jews” evidently means a member of the Sanhedrin — one of the great men of the nation. This is confirmed by the courage and force with which Nicodemus protests against the illegal and corrupt procedure of the Sanhedrin (John 7:50). His conduct on that occasion, as well as the rebuke of Jesus, indicates that he was a distinguished teacher (John 3:10).

Why by Night? The reasons which caused him to come to Jesus by night have provoked much discussion. Did he come thus merely to avoid the interminable interruptions of His daily ministry among the multitudes — in order to have sufficient quiet and leisure for scholarly discussion? Or was it because he lacked courage to speak out among the crowd, being doubtful of the attitude of Jesus and fearful of the wrath of the Sanhedrin if he revealed a friendly approach to Christ? The Scripture seems to imply that he came by night because he feared the consequences. (Cf. John 19:38, John 19:39 : “Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews,” and “Nicodemus, he who at first came to him by night.”) Scholarship and Prejudice The Christian world has pondered through the centuries the unfathomed depths of this conversation. Jesus was talking with a scholar. Nicodemus’ first remark indicates the philosophic turn of mind — a careful weighing of the evidence Jesus had submitted and a logical conclusion. It is to be expected that Jesus’ replies to such a questioner would he profound. He had a way of giving mysterious and perplexing teaching in order to stir His hearers to persistent mental effort in apprehending the truth. He pursued such a course in addressing uneducated persons such as the Samaritan woman. This method reaches its profoundest character in discussion with scholars. Such formidable replies as Jesus gave would fascinate the hearer, and cause him to meditate on the meaning for years, and the whole church in turn to ruminate and find here an increasing understanding of the truth. Nicodemus was in a measure equipped for such discussion, but his great learning caused him to be slow to learn. False premises encumbered his path. That which a Galilean fisherman or a Samaritan woman might quickly seize by intuition or direct faith, the scholar must reach by the laborious path of premise and conclusion. But when a great scholar such as Saul of Tarsus came to believe in Christ, his mental endowment increased the depth of his faith and the power of his life. Is it surprising that even though many of the Pharisees must have accepted Christianity, the leadership of the church, with the exception of Paul, remained with the Galileans Jesus had trained?

Nicodemus’ Problems

There were apparently two problems in the mind of Nicodemus: the personality and work of Jesus and the character of the Messianic kingdom. He spoke concerning the first. Jesus brushed aside his inadequate tribute and answered the second problem. The closing verses of chapter two declare the ability of Jesus to read the hearts of all men. This account immediately offers an illustration. Jesus read Nicodemus’ heart, and, instead of answering the remark of his lips, replied to the real question in his heart. After all, the two questions were inseparable. The Jews were expecting a material Messiah. The ministry of John, with its announcement of the immediate approach of the Messiah, had stirred the whole nation. The Jerusalem leaders had investigated and repudiated John’s ministry. Then Jesus suddenly appeared in Jerusalem, and, instead of rallying the Jews for an attack on the Roman masters from whom the Messiah was expected to give relief, He turned on the Jewish leaders themselves with a fierce, public condemnation. Stunned by His action in cleansing the temple, they demanded miraculous proof that He was really the Christ (John 2:18). After the heat of the controversy abated, Nicodemus came to question Christ concerning Himself and His unexpected manner of inaugurating His Messianic movement. As if wrested by tremendous effort from the mazes of his life-long study and anticipations, he offered what seemed to him the ponderous conclusion that the miracles of Jesus proved that He was a “teacher sent from God.” The conclusion of Nicodemus fell so far short of the actual truth of Jesus’ personality, and his understanding of the spiritual character of the kingdom of God was so limited, that Jesus went directly to this, which was the heart of the whole problem of His questioner.

Nicodemus and the Rich Young Ruler

There was something about Pharisaism which tended to breed self-complacency. It was evident in two of the most admirable and distinguished members of the sect who appear in the Gospel narratives: Nicodemus and the rich young ruler. One was burdened with great learning, and the other with great riches — both of the worldly variety. But the flame of genuine goodness was not completely smothered out in their hearts. They still longed to know, to do and to be. They were both fascinated by the personality of Jesus. In each case Jesus swept aside their words of praise to lay bare to them their own shortcomings. How quickly the Master forced Nicodemus to change his assured manner, “Teacher, we know,” to a halting “I do not know; I cannot understand.” And the rich young ruler likewise was shaken from his confident “I have kept” to an implied “I cannot keep. Farewell.” Neither was able to meet the daring program of Jesus. Nicodemus finally came Out of the shadows of Pharisaism to walk in the sunlight with the risen Christ. The Kingdom of God The third chapter of John is the only place in this Gospel where the term “kingdom of God” is used. When on trial before Pilate, Jesus used the parallel phrase “My kingdom” (John 18:36), and throughout the Gospel of John Jesus discussed the kingdom under various figurative titles, but the solitary character of the discussion with Nicodemus concerning the kingdom of God adds to its importance. In just such fashion the use of the word “church” in Matthew 16:18, when Matthew continually reports the discussion of the term “kingdom of God” or “kingdom of heaven,” enhances the importance of this central passage. In only one other place does Matthew use the word “church” (Matthew 18:17). A study of both John 3:3. and Matthew 16:18. leads to the same conclusion: that the church and the kingdom are identical. There is an earthly and a heavenly phase to this great organization concerning which Jesus constantly talked. There is the church militant and the church triumphant; the kingdom of God unfolded on earth and glorified in heaven. The Epistle to the Hebrews describes in the following beautiful language the heavenly consummation: “Ye are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven” (Hebrews 12:22, Hebrews 12:23). The more one studies the New Testament the more apparent it becomes that Jesus proclaimed one great organization which was set up on the day of Pentecost and which finally shall find its consummation in heaven: the church of Christ — the kingdom of God.

Conversation with Nicodemus and with Peter In the conversation at Caesarea Philippi and the one at Jerusalem, Jesus spoke to Peter and to Nicodemus of a church, a kingdom, an organization that was to be established and of the manner in which it was to be entered. He promised to make Peter His spokesman when the kingdom was established and through him to open the gates as he proclaimed the means of pardon. Jesus declared to Nicodemus that a man must be born again — born of water and the Spirit in order to enter the kingdom. Peter had a material kingdom in mind and had to receive severe correction as to the misconception under which he labored. Nicodemus was under the same false impression which became more apparent as Jesus answered his amazed rejoinder about the impossibility of a physical rebirth. Before the conversation was over, in each case, the relationship of Jesus and His death to the kingdom was set forth in a sublime statement.

Effect of Jesus’ Reply

Jesus’ abrupt reply “except one be born anew [or from above] he cannot see the kingdom of God” fastened the attention upon the individual, the necessity of such a change of the whole being that it is compared to a birth, and upon the spiritual character of the kingdom. This answer startled Nicodemus as much as did the final response of Jesus to the rich young ruler. Nicodemus doubtless felt he had conceded much in coming to Jesus and in so frankly stating his favorable conclusion about Him. But Jesus broke his complacency of spirit by warning him that everyone, even a learned and pious Jewish scholar like Nicodemus, must be born anew if he would see the kingdom of God. Not by a flattering word or half-hearted devotion, but by a complete transformation and dedication of the life is discipleship to be achieved. The New Birth When Nicodemus uttered his astounded protest of the impossibility of a second birth physically, Jesus responded with a reaffirmation and further definition of the new birth: “Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” There is but one preposition “of” and no article in the Greek with either “water” or “spirit.” It refers to one single action — the redemption of the individual soul. The birth of water evidently means baptism — the completing step in the rebirth of the individual. The birth of Spirit suggests the whole spiritual transformation which takes place in the spirit of the individual as he turns through faith and repentance to solemnly dedicate himself to God in the act of baptism. The primary reference is evidently to the Spirit of God and hence the revisers inserted a “the” and capitalized the word “Spirit.” The Holy Spirit comes into contact with the spirit of man in the preaching of the Word and man comes from the world into the glorious kingdom of God through the new birth which is a change of mind, heart and life (faith and repentance) and a change of state (baptism). The Greek verb translated “be born” means either “to beget” or “to bring forth”; hence man is begotten of the Spirit of God and is born of water. The reference to immersion is inescapable. In the act of baptism the whole man — body, mind and soul — is buried and comes forth a new creature in Christ.

Campbell-Rice Debate

It is interesting to notice, in reading through the vast wilderness of discussion with which commentators have encompassed this passage, how little anyone has added to the positions advanced in the Campbell-Rice Debate. Mr. Rice has summed up the case for the paedo-baptist position as has Alexander Campbell for those who believe Jesus commanded immersion as the final step in entrance to the kingdom.

Mr. Rice followed several lines of argument. He held that Christ did not refer to the church, because Nicodemus would not have understood Him. “Christian baptism had not been instituted. Now we are certainly safe in presuming that the Saviour intended that Nicodemus should understand Him. But if He alluded to an ordinance not then in existence and of which Nicodemus could know nothing, how was it possible that he could understand Him? and how could He consistently reprove him for not understanding Him?” (C.-R. Debate, p. 448). But Christ used exactly the same method at Caesarea Philippi and on various other occasions to give His hearers instruction which would challenge their reflection through the years. Peter did not understand about the establishment of the church, nor the death of Jesus, but he was instructed and rebuked for slow understanding when he made the good confession. Again Mr. Rice argued that the reference of John 3:6 cannot be to the church because of the kind of lives some of those in the church live. He says: “Now, my friend tells us the meaning of this language is — unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the church. I presume this is not the true meaning. It cannot be so; for multitudes who are not born of the Spirit, do enter into the church. Observe, the Saviour says, that they must be born of water and the Spirit. Now, the fact is undeniable, that many enter the church who are not born of the Spirit, as their conduct afterwards abundantly proves” (C.-R. Debate, p. 487). This argument has the flavor of the Calvinistic error, “Once in grace, always in grace”; as if a person could not exercise freedom of the will and leave the church as well as enter it; as if he could not have his name written on the Lamb’s book of life and also have it blotted out of that book. Moreover the argument overlooks the fact that the Lord adds to the church day by day those who are being saved. When man presumes to say who is in the church and to use his declaration as the basis for setting aside the divine plan of redemption, it is well to remember that the only exact record or “church roll” of those who are in the church, mentioned in the Scripture, is the “Lamb’s book of life” which is kept by Almighty God and not by man. It is our business to preach the Word, to lead men into fellowship with Christ, and it is God’s place to judge the hearts and lives of men.

Baptism for Remission of Sins When Mr. Rice undertook to differentiate between the kingdom and the church he was forced to state what he thought Jesus said to Nicodemus and in so doing yielded the whole point of the debate on the design of baptism. He says: “The idea which the Saviour intended to convey, is, that a man must be born again, or he cannot possess the blessings, present and future, of His kingdom. He cannot enjoy pardon, salvation, and eternal life, unless he experiences the new birth, in a change of heart” (C.-R. Debate, p. 487). This is a flat admission of the point under discussion: that baptism is essential to the remission of sins, with the exception that Mr. Rice deliberately and arbitrarily leaves out the word “water” when he explains the passage. This constituted his third line of attack upon the evident meaning of John 3:5. One of the most incisive paragraphs of Campbell’s argument on this passage uncovers the “preposterous” nature of Rice’s position which is in general that of all present-day paedo-baptist writers. Mr. Campbell says: “Since we began to plead for the ordinances of Christ, a new method of evading the force of this passage has been discovered, and very extensively adopted. It is, to make it half literal and half spiritual. Water, say they, means the Spirit, and the Spirit means the Spirit. But might not any one say, if water means Spirit, Spirit means water — and thus make it all water and no Spirit? Certainly this is as rational as to make water mean Spirit and thus make it all Spirit. But the great Teacher said neither the one nor the other. He did not say, ye must be born of Spirit and of the Spirit; nor did he say, ye must be born of water, and of the water — but of water and Spirit” (C.-R.Debate, p. 481).

Timothy Dwight

One of the most telling passages in Campbell’s argument is his quotation of Timothy Dwight. Campbell had quoted the Westminster Confession of Faith and pointed out that “all the Greek and Latin fathers, without one single exception” agreed that John 5:5 refers to baptism (C.-R. Debate, p 256). He quotes Dwight as follows: “I have a few scraps here, giving the words of two of our most distinguished theologians, to wit: Timothy Dwight, president of Yale, who said, ‘To be born of water here means baptism, and in my view it is as necessary to an admission into the visible church as to be born of the Spirit is to our admission into the invisible kingdom. It is to be observed, that he who understands the authority of this institution, and refuses to obey it, will never enter into either the visible or the invisible kingdom” (p. 481). A further quotation of like force is from Dr. Wall, the famous Episcopal writer: “There is not one Christian writer of any antiquity, in any language, but who understands the new birth of water (John 3:5) as referring to baptism; and if it be not so understood, it is difficult to give an account how a person is born of water, any more than born of wood” (History of Baptism, Vol. I, p. 119).

“Wind” or “Spirit”?

Jesus continued His explanation to Nicodemus by pointing out that the physical birth to which His questioner referred and the spiritual birth of which He spoke are two separate and distinct things. The possibility of God’s bringing a man forth into a new, spiritual kingdom should not have amazed Nicodemus any more than the very forces of nature which are controlled by God, but surpass human understanding. “The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knoweth not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is everyone that is born of the Spirit.” The marginal reading in the American Standard Version is “The Spirit breatheth.” The translation, “voice,” fits this rendering as does “sound” (Authorized Version) the rendering, “The wind bloweth.” The word pneuma is used 285 times in the New Testament, and 284 times it is translated “spirit,” but here it seems to mean “wind.” Liddell and Scott give three general definitions for the Greek word: (1) wind; (2) breath; (3) spirit. The verb translated “blows” also has the meaning “breatheth” in classical Greek, although it is never so translated in the New Testament. The word phone means either “sound” or voice in both classical Greek and the New Testament. Thus, either translation of the passage is possible, but the context favors “the wind bloweth” for this is an “earthly thing” which exceeds man’s understanding as to whence it comes or whither it goes, and the workings of the Holy Spirit “a heavenly thing” still more mysterious. The Death of Christ

Having opened the spiritual character of the kingdom to Nicodemus in such profound language, Jesus proceeded to discuss the second element of the conversation: His own personality and work. This was the question with which Nicodemus began. The two questions are interwoven in the closing discussion of Jesus. If Nicodemus could not understand that the kingdom was to be spiritual and to be entered by a new birth, he would be slow to apprehend and believe that Jesus was the Christ in spite of the fact that He was to die. He was to be lifted up as Moses had lifted up the serpent in the wilderness. Notice how Jesus still used language which both revealed and concealed His deity and approaching death, and left Nicodemus with material for long hours of reflection. There is no indication that the conversation closes before John 3:21, although many presume this later section to be the words of John rather than of Jesus. The redemption of the world was to be accomplished and God’s glorious kingdom established by the humiliation and death of His Son and not by any military leadership or earthly pomp and glory such as the Pharisees anticipated. The Deity of Christ

Jesus seems at the first of this great conversation to have avoided the implied question of Nicodemus, and to have turned from the problem of His own personality to that of the kingdom, but in the closing words He gave such a beautiful and fascinating delineation of His person and work that it has been called “the Golden Text of the Bible”: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have eternal life.” The revelation of Himself was still veiled and profound as were His declarations concerning the kingdom, but He opened the door of a mighty vista to Nicodemus and challenged him to come forth “to the light, that his works may be made manifest.” What hours of agonizing indecision and meditation must have passed in the life of Nicodemus before he stood forth in the light of day to help lift the body of his Saviour from the cross!