John 3: 3 Commentary

1. Jews of that day believed they were automatically
a. As the covenant people of God
b. Not only GUARANTEED eternal life
c. But would be sitting in FIRST CLASS
d. Enjoying the Messianic earthly kingdom to come
2. Jews were looking for Messiah
a. To bring about Israel’s GOLDEN AGE
b. In a physical and tangible manner
3. But Jesus said we FIRST
a. Must have ‘NEW LIFE’
b. To even perceive
c. This KINGDOM of GOD
4. Jesus states that EVERYONE
a. Must be born “FROM ABOVE”
b. In order to discern this Kingdom
c. Which would also include
d. Recognizing Jesus as Lord and Savior
e. And NOT just merely
f. ‘A teacher come from God’
5. When Jesus talks about being BORN-AGAIN
a. He is NOT referring to MORAL REFORMATION
b. Such as ‘turning over a new leaf’
c. Or ‘adopting a new code of conduct’
6. But He is talking about
a. SPIRITUAL TRANSFORMATION
b. A complete exchange
c. Of the old nature for a new one
7. Paul later speaks of believers as NEW CREATIONS
a. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come (2 Cor 5:17 ESV)

By Tractorman (wrote 3584 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/10/2012 13:09 pm

THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD PERFECT AS IT IS COULD NOT BE SEEN NOR COMPREHENDED BY CARNAL PEOPLE-one needs to be born again to see the stone made w/o hand flying in the air and hitting the legs of the statue that symbolizes MAN’S IMPERFECT GOVERNMENT!

Daniel 2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

Psalm 2:9 You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”

By TIUCHE (wrote 3264 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/28/2011 15:43 pm

SALVATION FACT: The Holy Bible only talks about being born again, that is, a second time only. At the moment of faith alone in Christ alone, a person receives eternal life. “Eternal” means forever. A believer can never lose Christ’s guarantee of salvation.

Imagine for a moment what the Holy Bible would have to say if a believer could lose salvation. A believer would have to continually be born again, a third time, a fourth time, a fifth time, a sixth time, a seventh time, and so forth. Each time a believer lost their salvation, a believer would have to continually be born again. But, the Holy Bible never talks about being reborn a third time, much less a fourth time, etc.. Salvation is a permanent, irrevocable act of God. Once saved, always saved.

By Roland G (wrote 1651 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 7/14/2011 13:18 pm

George,

I don’t think I’m missing the “spiritual aspect” of this verse at all. If Jesus is talking about the resurrection of the dead then there is nothing “unspiritual” about it! We modern evangelicals place a heavy emphasis on the “new birth” and rightly so; however, we tend to overlook the many times Jesus refers to the resurrection at the end of the age. This is NOT to the churches’ credit. I have found no credible resource that says “gennao anothen” can be translated “born AGAIN”. The very term “born again” is metaphoric language but nothing in the context of Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus is metaphoric. Every word Jesus uses is literal. The interpreters have converted it into a metaphor. If Jesus had meant to speak metaphorically, why didn’t he use the word “anagennao” (born anew) like Peter does?

Furthermore, how is it that Jesus is justified for chastening Nicodemus for not knowing about “the new birth” when Jesus himself had not yet been crucified; let alone the outpouring of the Holy Spirit had not yet taken place? Just where was this teaching in the OT that Nicodemus should’ve known about even though experientially, it could not yet be obtained?

If being “born again” was the ONLY spiritual requirement for literally “seeing and entering” the kingdom of God, why wasn’t Jesus proclaiming this to everyone he met? Surely, he would’ve told this to the woman at the well in John 4. But, he only mentions it to a Pharisee.

IMHO, many in the church have a pretty good understanding of what it means to be “born again”; however, very few understand what it means to be “born from above”. They are not the same thing at all.

By Scott Dale (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/4/2010 05:13 am

This bible commentary covers it well. The last sentence says it all. Scott this is where you are like Nicodemus, you are missing the spiritual aspect.

3:3 Nicodemus’ greeting is answered by Jesus as if it were an inquiry about entering the kingdom of God. We may be dealing with an incomplete dialogue here (as in chapter 2 at Cana) but this does not have to be the case as suggested by Jesus’ reply introduced by ajpekrivqh.

a[nwqen The word has a double meaning, as pointed out by Z. C. Hodges.65 The word may mean either “again” (in which case it is synonymous with palivn) or “from above” (s.v., BAGD). This is a favorite technique of the author of the Fourth Gospel, and it is lost in almost all translations at this point. Think of the effect on the contemporary evangelical terminology of being “born again”!

John uses the word 5 times, in 3:3, 7; 3:31; 19:11 and 23. In the latter 3 cases the context makes clear that it means “from above”. Here (3:3, 7) it could mean either but it seems that Hodges is right that the primary meaning intended by Jesus is “from above”. Nicodemus, it seems, understood it the other way, which explains his reply, “How can a man be born when he is old? He can’t enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?” John the Evangelist often uses the technique of the “misunderstood question” to bring out a particularly important point: Jesus says something which is misunderstood by the disciples or (as here) someone else, which then gives Jesus the opportunity to explain more fully and in more detail what he really meant.

ouj duvnatai ijdei’n Jesus uses the term “see” in the sense of “experience, encounter, participate in”—e.g., “see death” (8:51), “see life” (3:36). Note also in v. 5 the use of eijselqei’n in reference to the kingdom of God, with the same meaning as the phrase here.

But what does Jesus’ statement about “seeing the kingdom of God” mean within the framework of John’s Gospel? John uses the word basileiva only 5 times—3:3, 5; 18:36 (3x). Only here is it qualified with the phrase tou’ qeou’.

The fact that John does not stress the concept of the basileiva tou’ qeou’ does not mean it is absent from his theology, however. Remember the messianic implications found in chapter 2, both the wedding and miracle at Cana and the cleansing of the Temple.

For Nicodemus, the term must surely have brought to mind the messianic kingdom which Messiah was supposed to bring. But Nicodemus had missed precisely this point about who Jesus was! It was the Messiah himself with whom Nicodemus was speaking!

Whatever Nicodemus understood, it is clear (as I have already mentioned) that the point is this: he misunderstood Jesus’ words. He over-literalized them, and thought Jesus was talking about a second physical birth, when Jesus was in fact referring to new spiritual birth.

By George (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/1/2010 21:22 pm

Well then, perhaps your first post says more about you than it does about me.

By Scott (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 2/4/2009 00:25 am

No I would not.

By Jason W. Elder (wrote 321 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 2/3/2009 23:41 pm

Mr Elder,
With all due respect, perhaps you’d care to explain where my post is incorrect rather than just discounting it out of hand.

By Scott (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 2/3/2009 23:37 pm

Its amazing how Scott gets so many things out of this text that aren’t really there. Christians should beware of people who try to tell them that the Bible doesn’t “really” mean what it says. “…Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.” (1Timothy 1:6-7)

By Jason W. Elder (wrote 321 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 2/3/2009 22:34 pm

Jesus is not talking about the spiritual awakening that we generally refer to in the evangelical community (ie: spiritual rebirth). If he was, he would’ve used the same word Peter uses as a metaphor in 1Peter 1:23 (anagennao=born again/change of mind). The literal translation of Jesus’ words are: “born from above”. He was saying that just as a man must be born physically from the earth; so he must also be born (physically) from above which is the unique role of the Spirit of God.

In otherwords, Jesus was talking about the Resurrection of believers at the end of the age. The time when their dead bodies are born (again) from above into glorious immortal, imperishable bodies. This is no mere “spiritual awakening” Jesus is talking about. Nicodemus believed in the Resurrection of the dead so he should’ve understood this.

Paul makes this all very plain in 1 Cor 15: “The body that is sown is a natural body, (but) it is raised (re-born) a spiritual body.” Then he states in vs 49-50 that our bodies will literally become like Jesus’ glorious body and that “flesh and blood cannot inherit (see or enter) the kingdom of God.”

Paul’s clear inference is that our physical bodies must be changed and it is this reality that Jesus was trying to communicate to Nicodemus.

The word-picture of new birth that Jesus uses in verse 3 (born from above) is a metaphor for the glorious Resurrection at the end of the age. Not the spiritual experience so common to gentile believers.

One thing is certain however, no one will be physically born again at the Resurrection of the dead if he has not been first born again in his spirit.

By Scott (wrote 581 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 2/3/2009 18:36 pm