Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon
John 3.5 is not about salvation? Based on Jesus's entire conversation with Nicodemus, to be born from above and thus be able to see and enter the kingdom is equivalent to believing in Jesus and thus not perishing but having eternal life. That is the very definition of salvation.
|
The word "salvation" isn't present in
John 3:5. And the phrase "born again" didn't have the same connotations as it seemingly does for us, all these years later. We have equated the phrase "born again" with "saved".
But the Biblical idea of being saved, or of salvation, especially in the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament, as the foundation of Christ's life and work, is one of immediate rescue and deliverance, particularly from temporal situations and problems. And being born again/from above, was basic rabbinical language used to tell prospective followers that they needed to abandon their former allegiances to someone else's teachings, in order to follow another's.
Consider the context. Nicodemus is a Rabbi, affiliated with the Pharisees. He comes by night to meet Jesus in a private audience. He begins their discussion with flattery:
“Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”
In the Dea Sea Scrolls, in Pesher Nahum, the Pharisees are called "Flattery-Seekers". They are also known as Flattery-Seekers (Sometimes rendered Seekers After Smooth Things) in The Psalms of Thanksgiving, likely a reference to
Isaiah 30:10, where the Hebrew word for "smooth" is
chelqah , which figuratively means "flattery". This is a pejorative against them, for their desire for more lenient interpretations of the Torah.
Jesus, then, cuts to the chase, and decides to given Nicodemus a decidedly not smooth thing for him to hear. Essentially, the Pharisees, as a party, are guilty of some serious crimes against God and His people. Nicodemus is guilty by association. If he would be cleared of that guilt, he must start over, anew, or afresh (which is the best interpretation of
anóthen from
John 3:3).
Essentially, Nicodemus, and by extension, the Pharisees, must make a clean break from their past allegiances to their school of thought, else they will be excluded from seeing and entering the "Kingdom of God", a metonym for the Nation of Israel.
Nicodemus and Jesus have their parlay in verses 3-9, then Jesus begins His diatribe against him in verse 10:
“Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?"
The context of
John 3 is very much the immediate situation on the ground in the nation of Israel, in Christ's conflict with the Pharisees, a conflict that preceded Christ, going nearly 200 years all the way back to the formation of the Yahad at Qumran, and the persecution of the Teacher of Righteousness by the Flattery-Seekers, after they attempted but failed to ally themselves with Demetrius, King of Greece, in an attempt to overthrow Alexander Jannaeus, which caused a severe blowback against the Pharisees under Alexander (he crucified 800 of them, plus killed all their wives and children). But, when Alexander died, his widow, Salome, favored the Pharisees, and they got the last laugh, so to speak, and remained in political and religious power until the time of Christ.
Suffice it to say, that there is a lot more going on in
John 3:3-5 then your typical modern, Protestant Evangelical version with a Pentecostal spin.
Quote:
It would be helpful if you just stated clearly what you think the the birth of the Spirit it is. Do you not think it only occurs with the sign of tongues?
I don't see the word "baptism" here either, but I would imagine you and others would say that "water" is obviously baptism.
|
It would be most helpful to not make any assumptions about what I believe.
Threaded Mode
