Nicodemus at Night (John 3: 1-21)

[Mystic]

(1) Whis is Nicodemus?
A Pharisee and, together with Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish Council (Sanhedrin).

(2) Who are the "we" that Nicodemus is referring to in 3:2? Nicodemus is among these witnesses:
"When He was in Jerusalem during the Passover festival, many believed in His name, because they saw the signs He was doing (3:2)."

(3) Did Jesus consider these new believers true followers? No, because He mistrusts their motives:
"But Jesus would not entrust Himself to them, because He... knew what was in them.(2:24)"

(4) Why does he come to Jesus "at night?"
"Nevertheless, many even of the (Jewish) authorities believed in Him. But because of the Pharisees, they did not confess it, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogues 12:41-42)."
]

 

[paradox3]

Nicodemus came at night. Having witnessed the signs that Jesus was doing, he said:

"Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God."

I love this quote. It almost works as a mantra and it lays the cornerstone for faith in community. It also reminds me that Jesus had roots in Judaism.

Where did Nicodemus get the idea that Jesus would be a teacher? As the story unfolds in this gospel there has been no actual teaching so far.

Jesus has encountered John the Baptist, started to call his disciples & turned the water into wine at Cana. He has done other miraculous signs which are not described for us.

Jesus has gone to Jerusalem for Passover and cleansed the temple.

Along the way he has shared a couple of prophesies which are rather mysterious at the time. Nothing that I would call teaching.

So how has Nicodemus made the leap from Jesus as miracle worker to teacher or rabbi?

Where does faith begin today? Maybe for some it starts with witnessing a miracle.

 

[paradox3]

The start of faith for me was as a child through Sunday school. I must have learned there that Jesus performed miracles but I don't really remember.

More formative for me was CGIT and CGIT camp. Here the focus was on Jesus as an ethical teacher. Essentially I have always viewed Jesus through this lens. I may have wavered a bit on the "sent by God" part of the equation over the years

 

[Luce NDs]

Saint Nicholas was a Roman cast off ... too orthodox for the Roman's messing about with power in destroying natural images ... Psyche was disposed ... due to idiopathies' ... that alien feel ...

It was dark up there in those branches of the forbidden tree ... Ψ ... graft? Requires considerable crafting ...

To put these myths together ... mythology? It may be totally iconic, or symbolic ... boiled over?

 

[jimkenney12]

My favourite story related related to the born from above part was about an Anglican minister and a Salvation Army leader debating baptism. The Salvation Army does not use water in baptism. They gave each other a moment to choose a bible verse that supported how they do baptism. They picked the same verse, "unless a person is born of water and the Spirit." For the Salvation Army, we are born of water when we are born, and born of the Spirit with the laying on of hands in their service.

 

[Mystic]

"Truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again ("from above"--John 3:3)."
This saying circulated as an independent saying of Jesus in oral tradition, quite apart from its inclusion in John.

(1) The new birth is an experience of divine power that one experiences in an unpredictable ways;ubject to divine sovereignty:
"The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but no one knows where it comes from or where it goes (3:8).
The Greek and Hebrew word for "wind" also means "Spirit."
"Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water [baptism) and the Spirit (3:5)."
This refers to an actual experience of the Holy Spirit, not merely to a concept accepted by faith. The wind is invisible, but one hears it and feels its force and changing directions.

(2) In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus identifies the mindset of those who have experienced this new birth:

"Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it (Mark 10:15)."

The hallmark of being born again ("from above") is the maintenance of a beginner's open mindset.

(3) PETER'S INCORPORATION OF KESUS' TEACHING ABOUT THE NEW BIRTH ("FROM ABOVE"):
"He has given us a new birth to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (1 Peter 1:3)."
"You have been born again, not of perishable but of imperishable seed ("sperma") through the living and enduring Word of God (1:23)."

(4) PAUL'S PERSPECTIVE ON THE NEW BIRTH:
The psychological impact of the new birth is that we now perceive the world through new eyes, 'the eyes of the heart (so Ephesians 1:18):"

"If anyone is in Christ, he (she) is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see. everything has become new (2 Corinthians 5:17)!"

The new birth is a process, not a once-for-all event:

"I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you (Galatians 4:19)."

 

[paradox3]

My favourite story related related to the born from above part was about an Anglican minister and a Salvation Army leader debating baptism. The Salvation Army does not use water in baptism. They gave each other a moment to choose a bible verse that supported how they do baptism. They picked the same verse, "unless a person is born of water and the Spirit." For the Salvation Army, we are born of water when we are born, and born of the Spirit with the laying on of hands in their service.

Being born of water at our physical birth makes a lot of sense to me. Then the spiritual birth comes later.

In our tradition baptism and holy Communion are sacraments (invoking the real presence of God) but both rites are also highly symbolic.

Jesus compares the spirit to the wind. We don't know where it comes from or where it goes. Yet we feel it.

Perhaps this is the start of the teaching ministry of Jesus. John carries on the narrative with Jesus teaching about his own nature next. And the importance of belief.

 

[paradox3]

@jimkenney12
You spoke to me on another thread about going for the chewy stuff. I am finding lots to chew on with this BPoTW & discussion.

Thanks for joining in! Same to @unsafe @Mystic and @Mendalla.

There has been one other contributor but I have that person on Ignore

 

[Mystic]

Being born of water at our physical birth makes a lot of sense to me. Then the spiritual birth comes later.

Nowhere in early Christianity is "water" a term used for amniotic fluid. On the other hand, Peter identifies baptism and repentance as necessary conditions for receiving the Holy Spirit and divine forgiveness (Acts 2:38)." This of course is synonymous with eligiblity for entering hte kingdom of God. For this reason, the scholarly consensus is that "born of water and the Spirit" means "born of baptism and the Holy Spirit.

 

[paradox3]

Nowhere in early Christianity is "water" a term used for amniotic fluid. On the other hand, Peter identifies baptism and repentance as necessary conditions for receiving the Holy Spirit and divine forgiveness (Acts 2:38)." This of course is synonymous with eligiblity for entering hte kingdom of God. For this reason, the scholarly consensus is that "born of water and the Spirit" means "born of baptism and the Holy Spirit.

Seems fair enough.

The Salvation Army interpretation is interesting though.

Our denomination practices infant baptism. I am not sure there is any biblical text to support this.

What about your denomination?

 

[jimkenney12]

In the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, Peter baptises the whole household of the Roman. I assume that would include children.

 

[Mendalla]

Methodists baptize infants as well, don't they? Oddly, I've long kind of leaned to the Baptist position that it should be done as adults. Seems to me that being "born from above" and accepting Jesus should be done by the person, not on their behalf by their parents and church.

 

[Waterfall]

Nowhere in early Christianity is "water" a term used for amniotic fluid. On the other hand, Peter identifies baptism and repentance as necessary conditions for receiving the Holy Spirit and divine forgiveness (Acts 2:38)." This of course is synonymous with eligiblity for entering hte kingdom of God. For this reason, the scholarly consensus is that "born of water and the Spirit" means "born of baptism and the Holy Spirit.

So Jesus needed forgiveness?

 

[Mystic]

Our denomination practices infant baptism. I am not sure there is any biblical text to support this.
What about your denomination?

The UMC also practices infant baptism. Paul and the Book of Acts speak of baptizing someone "and their whole household."
Your denomination and mine take this to apply to any infants or small children in the house, though their presence is not mentioned in these texts.
On the other hand, Paul's theology of baptism in Romans 6:1-6 implies immersion--i. e., when we are immersed, we symbolically participate in Christ's death, and when we emerge from the water, we symbolically participate in His resurrection power.

 

[Mystic]

So Jesus needed forgiveness?

John's baptism was a "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."
So the church has the problem of reconciling Jesus' need for such a baptism with the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.
John protests: "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me (Matthew 3:14)?"
Jesus replies: "Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness (3:15)."
So the question is, how does Jesus' baptism "fulfill all righteousness" unless Jesus 'feels the need to confirm His repentance through John's baptism?
Theologians debate the answer to that question.

 

[paradox3]

The baptism of Jesus is not handled identically by the four gospel writers.

Let's return to John for a bit. Here's the relevant text:

Bible Gateway passage: John 1:29-34 - New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

The Lamb of God - The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him, but I came baptizing with water...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[paradox3]

According to the writer of the book of John, was Jesus even baptized by John the Baptist?

I think it's debatable but I am leaning towards probably not in this account.

John the Baptist saw the spirit descending though. Like a dove from heaven

 

[Mystic]

According to the writer of the book of John, was Jesus even baptized by John the Baptist?

John's remarks in the Fourth Gospel precede his baptism of Jesus and that's why the actual baptism is not mentioned.
John makes it clear here that he is only present to baptize; so Jesus' approach implies that He is coming to John for baptism.
At least. that's how all the academic commentaries take it.

John the Baptist saw the spirit descending though. Like a dove from heaven

Mark's version does not preclude John's sharing Jesus' vision of the heavenly dove. My point is that Mark's version is worded in such a way that only Jesus needs to have seen the dove. So there is no contradiction.

 

[Waterfall]

John's baptism was a "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."
So the church has the problem of reconciling Jesus' need for such a baptism with the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.
John protests: "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me (Matthew 3:14)?"
Jesus replies: "Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness (3:15)."
So the question is, how does Jesus' baptism "fulfill all righteousness" unless Jesus 'feels the need to confirm His repentance through John's baptism?
Theologians debate the answer to that question.

Is part of the debate, questioning if he was God or chosen by God?

 

[paradox3]

John's remarks in the Fourth Gospel precede his baptism of Jesus and that's why the actual baptism is not mentioned.
John makes it clear here that he is only present to baptize; so Jesus' approach implies that He is coming to John for baptism.
At least. that's how all the academic commentaries take it.

Mark's version does not preclude John's sharing Jesus' vision of the heavenly dove. My point is that Mark's version is worded in such a way that only Jesus needs to have seen the dove. So there is no contradiction.

Could we agree that the baptism of Jesus is implied in John's Gospel but not described? It seems curious he would have omitted this detail though.

Perhaps because he wished to emphasize that John recognized Jesus as the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. And that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit.