(... in response to an RF forum comment)

Good morning, Guys.

John 3:1-8 is often appealed to by RF pastors as a proof-text which supports the notion that baptism by immersion in water, followed by the Holy Spirit, will lead to 'tongues' (which, to the RF, equals 'being born again'). But how many pastors and 'folk' have read into this passage their own beliefs, rather than letting the passage inform and shape their beliefs?

I'd like to briefly comment on this passage, even though it was discussed rather briefly in a previous thread in the 'open' forums. My corrective comments there were removed, because what I had to say apparently disturbed the faithful. I now open the meaning of this important text, and my understanding of it, to discussion in our private forum.

First up, we need to know a little about the way John wrote if we're to grasp what he sought to record. One of the literary devices that he frequently crafted into his Gospel was that of the ?misunderstood statement'. Jesus says something but the hearer doesn't quite catch the meaning, which then allows Jesus to expand and further develop both the point he originally intended, along with the theology underpinning it. The current passage is just one such example (another one which is related by theme and content to this one, is to be found later in the discussion between Jesus with the woman at the well).

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?' Jesus answered, 'Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of [the] Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.'" (John 3:3-8, KJV)

I've recently been accused of using Greek as something of a weapon. My aim, it's apparently thought, has been to make the simple difficult! So what I'll do this time around is keep the Greek to an absolute minimum, and explain the most important features as simply as possible. When I do refer to Greek, I'll use such familiar 'helps' as Vine's Expository Dictionary and Strong's Concordance. Not because I rate them particularly highly, which I don't, simply because it's not likely that any of you will have access to more detailed and scholarly lexical reference aids.

Now to begin at the beginning. Jesus told Nicodemus that he had to be born 'from above'. The Greek word he used was 'anothen' (Gr. 509, 'anothen': 'from above'; by analogy 'from the first'; by implication 'anew.' KJV: 'from above, again...'). Nicodemus, being more than just a little 'obtuse', understood Jesus to be referring to the word's secondary meaning, and 'heard' Jesus say, "...you must be born 'again'." Jesus had sought to distinguish between the 'natural' state of man from the 'supernatural' or regenerate state (see verse 6). He even pointed out that the 'natural' man wouldn't even be able to perceive ('see' Gr. 1492 'eido': ...'to see [literally, or figuratively]; by implication [in the perfect only], 'to know') the Kingdom of God. To Jesus the Kingdom, and it's implications, was completely beyond the grasp of un-spiritual people.

It's very important to recognise at this point, that the entire passage uses puns based on Greek wordplays to bring out the meaning intended by Jesus, so it's just about impossible to try and explain this passage without referring to the underlying Greek text at key points. You guys will just have to accept what I say at this point, grin and bear it.

After Nicodemus proves, categorically, that he's still in the 'natural' (i.e. carnal) state - see verse 4 - Jesus goes on to use his misunderstanding to further develop his theme and message. He says to Nicodemus (who is identified as 'THE Teacher of Israel'), that a 'natural' man simply can't enter into the Kingdom of God unless he's been born of 'water' and 'wind'. The first part of the pun is that both water and wind come from 'above' (i.e. 'anothen', which we've already covered). As just about everyone knows, 'wind' and 'spirit' are the same word in Greek (which forms the second part of the pun - yet further confusion based on a natural inability to perceive the proper context of Jesus' message). We know that Jesus meant to liken the Spirit to 'wind', because he describes how it 'blows where it wants', but I'm getting ahead of myself a little. The principle point is that Jesus emphatically declared that a person must be born from above, and that only such people would 'understand', given that only such people were truly 'spiritual'!

So what exactly does the reference to 'water' and 'wind' mean? Well, it certainly *isn't* baptism, but it certainly *is* a reference to the Holy Spirit. The Greek phrase 'hudatos kai pneumatos' forms what is referred to in Greek grammar as a 'hendiadys' - a construction where two words express the one intended referent (you'll also find this technical word explained in a good English dictionary). A hendiadys involves the second of a pair words explicitly pointing back to, and reinforcing the first word. In English our passage should be translated, "...by water, which is Spirit." (and it is this factor which frames the third part of the pun, as Jesus is now referring to (1) the fact that the Spirit also comes from 'above': 'anothen', and (2) that as 'wind' he is also likened to 'water'). When Jesus said this, the penny should've dropped for Nicodemus. But it didn't.

Can we rightly expect that Nicodemus would've somehow made a link from Jesus' words to the rather unusual practice of non-proselyte Jewish baptism that John the Baptist had recently introduced? I'd suggest that it isn't likely, and further, that it's quite anachronistic for modern Christians to presume such to be the case. Remember, Nicodemus was referred to by Jesus as 'THE teacher of Israel'. Further, Jesus was talking to him about the *Kingdom of God*, a subject which was VERY well known, and anticipated, in the Judaism of the time. Given Nicodemus' position, Jesus was fully justified in *expecting* him to make the obvious theological link to a number of very prominent Old Testament passages that dealt with this specific theme - the clearest among being: Isaiah 44:3-5, and (especially!) Ezekiel 36:24-28, along with 37:9-10. But Nicodemus altogether missed the plot! But he's not been alone in this ;o)

Now as part of my reading, I noticed in one of the articles published at this site, that pastor Brad Smith has continued an old RCI error in appealing to the "...hearest the sound thereof..." of verse 8 as a direct reference to 'tongues', and that this 'tongues' should be taken as being the voice of the Holy Spirit! But all of this is silly nonsense, and isn't to be found anywhere in the text (more so, the imagination). Appeals to meaning Strong's Concordance invariably fall over at this point, and for several reasons. First among them is that the meaning of the *text* has been directly subordinated to a perceived *theology*. Further, Strong's is wholly inadequate in expressing the complete range of meaning for the Greek words 'phone' (Gr. 5456) and 'akouo' (Gr. 191) in the first place. For example, Strong's reference for ?phone' is but a scant four lines long. Bauer's Lexicon - the academic standard - by contrast, devotes an entire column and a half to this word, and quotes scores of references spanning the Greek translation of the OT, the NT and to sources contemporary to the NT. What comes to light as a consequence is that the word has a far broader range of meaning than Brad Smith claims, or than Strong's infers. For example, the word also could be used to refer to music produced by instruments (Plato's Republic 3. 397a).

This meaning has carried across into the NT as well (e.g. Matthew 24:31, 1 Corinthians 14:7, and Revelation 8:13). So contrary to Brad's claims, John 3:8 is NOT the only occasion where 'phone' has been translated as something other than 'voice' at all. But even if one wishes to maintain that this is the word's principle meaning, the claim that ?tongues' is meant can be disqualified in any case. The fact is that attention has been directed to the wrong word! I now refer you all to Vine's Expository Dictionary, s.v. 'HEAR, HEARING' on pages 534 and 535 in my handy Nelson's edition (1997 ed). Vine is a little more useful, and honest, a reference than is Strong's when quoted by the non-Greek reader; as he provides a useful measure of the grammatical information needed to ensure that the proper context is maintained when ?wheeling-and-dealing' with biblical texts. But he also expects a little more understanding on the part of the reader as to the way language works as well. In our case, Dr Vine discusses several passages, highlighting the very *real* difference in meaning that a difference in grammatical case causes. He describes the difference in outcome that results should a genitive case appear in contrast to the accusative, by commenting on an apparent contradiction between Acts 9:7 and 22:9. Upon which, he states: "The former indicates a hearing of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they did NOT hear)."

I will now quote what he has to say about our current passage: "In John 5:25, 28, the genitive case is used, indicating a "sensational perception" that the Lord's voice is sounding; in 3:8, of hearing the WIND (my emphasis) the accusative is used, stressing the "THING PERCEIVED." (my emphasis). The point missed by Brad Smith in his article, the point missed by RF apologists the world over who seek to 'prove' the un-provable from our passage is this: 'akouo' (Gr. 191) doesn't automatically mean to hear something AUDIBLY at all! It can also mean to 'perceive' SPIRITUALLY, and this is precisely what was intended by Jesus in John 3:8!

Nicodemus was 'earthly' and 'natural'. Consequently, he didn't have the insight that comes from being spiritual. He completely missed what Jesus was saying to him because he was looking at the matter from a purely natural angle. You fellows, might I add, have done precisely the same thing!

John 3:8 *doesn't* teach baptism by water followed by the Holy Spirit will lead to the 'voice' of 'tongues' at all. What it *does* prove is that natural, unregenerate man will invariably and completely miss the point that Jesus made between earthly/natural understanding, and spiritual/supernatural perception. Consider this: Nicodemus probably expected to hear a 'voice' too.

God bless,

Ian