Well, you're a handsome group of people. I was just looking out at you. Nice looking
bunch. I see Ralph and Eleanor Anderson back there. Ralph and Eleanor have been in Hawaii
for two or three weeks. That's just the way it goes. Some people got it and some don't,
I guess. I don't know. Ralph came back with a nice, lovely tan as did Eleanor. Ralph,
I didn't mind your tan. It's the grass skirt that bothered me. Now, don't talk to me.
I'm busy right now. We are going to begin tonight a series entitled Some Things Hard
to Understand. That's going to deal with passages of scripture that you find puzzling in your
Bible study. I need your help to know what those scriptures are. We have some ushers
who have some slips of paper in their hands. You may have a slip of paper of your own.
If you need one, just lift your hand. They'll see where you are. If you have a verse that
has troubled you, a passage of scripture that you have found difficult to understand, to
interpret, I'd like you to take one of these slips of paper. You don't have to hand it
in right at this very moment. I'd like you to take one of these slips of paper and you
write it down. While you're writing, write on there your question. It could be that I
won't understand what your particular problem is in that passage and I want to know that.
So you write down the passage. Nothing from Hezekiah, please. That book is off limits.
I'd like you also to write down your name because if there's a further question I need
to know so I can answer your question adequately, I can give you a call that way. If I need
help answering it that night that I talk about it, I'll call you up and let you help me.
No, I'm just kidding. What I'd like you to do is to write down that text and hand that
slip then to the ushers on your way out. We'll collect it that way and you won't have to
try to think of a real hard text. This is not called Stump the Pastor. This is for those
who have legitimate questions regarding verses that are tough. I see our theme found in 2
Peter, if you want to look there, chapter 3 verse 15 is something Peter says. This encourages
me. Peter says, In regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation, just as also our
beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, is also in all his
letters speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand.
I'm glad Peter found it hard to understand some of the things Paul wrote. Now, Peter
wasn't free from this same problem. Some of the things he wrote causes problems. Peter
says as he was reading Paul's letters, there are some things he found hard to understand.
He says, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the scriptures
to their own destruction. I would like you to note there that Peter makes Paul's writings
equivalent to scriptures. This is a strong verse regarding inspiration. In the previous
verse he said that Paul wrote according to the wisdom given him. In other words, it's
the work of the Holy Spirit as Paul was writing. The work of inspiration. Some of the things
that Paul wrote, some of the things that Peter wrote, some of the things that James wrote,
these are hard things to understand. If you have some of those in mind, feel free to write
down your suggestion.
Tonight, we're going to look over in the Gospel of John to the third chapter. I think
this is one of those texts that has created a great deal of confusion. Very often these
passages that are kind of tough to understand are clarified to some degree, sometimes to
a great degree, by the application of what we call the principles of hermeneutics. That
is the principles of interpretation. We're going to be doing that in a practical way,
and you'll be able to see illustrated how these principles are to be applied to the
Word of God.
Let's begin reading in verse one of John 3. Now there was a man of the Pharisees named
Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to him by night and said to him, Rabbi, we
know that you have come from God as a teacher, for no one can do these signs that you do
unless God is with him. Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless
one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus said to him, How can a man
be born when he's old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be
born, can he? Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water
and 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.
So John 3 verse 5 is the verse that we are really focusing on. It is a verse that causes
a great many people to believe that baptism is essential to the saving experience. In
other words, that one has to be baptized in order to be saved. This is what I would call
the baptismal regeneration view. In other words, it teaches that in order to be regenerated,
baptism is necessary. Many of these people who would teach this say, Yes, it is faith
that saves, but one must be baptized also in order to be sure of heaven.
I have an aunt who belongs to a church that teaches this, or at least she used to, and
when she did and followed that teaching, there was a time when I asked her how one could
get to heaven. She responded and said, by being baptized and believing in Jesus Christ.
I said, well, let's just suppose that a person believed in Jesus Christ, but then got killed
before he had a chance to be baptized. Would he go to heaven? She said, absolutely not.
Because, one has to be born again of water as well as by the Spirit.
Now, there are several other texts in the New Testament that people use to underscore
this teaching. Before we look at them, I would like for you to remember with me one of the
basic principles of Bible interpretation. That is, the Bible cannot contradict itself.
The Bible cannot be contradictory because God is not contradictory. God is a God of
perfect harmony, and therefore his revelation cannot be self-contradictory. Therefore, we
must allow clear passages of the Word of God to enlighten us as to the meaning of difficult
passages. If we have a passage we have a hard time understanding, it seems dark to us in
our thinking, our perception, then we need to go to other passages that are more clear
dealing with the same subject and allow them to guide us in understanding that difficult
text. Now, with that in the back of your minds, I'd like you to turn to Acts chapter 2.
Here we find perhaps the favorite verse of all of these who take the baptismal regeneration
view of John 3.5. Peter is preaching to the Jews at Pentecost, and he says, Repent and
let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.
So they say that here we see a clear verse that teaches that you have to be baptized
in the name of Jesus Christ and that you have to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
in order for your sins to be forgiven. Now the question is, is that exactly what this
verse says? If you look at it carefully you will notice that the key is that preposition,
which is in the King James Version and in the Version I have, the New American Standard,
translated for, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
But that same preposition in the Greek can be translated a number of ways, all of them
legitimate. For example, it can be translated this way, on account of, in other words, be
baptized on account of the forgiveness of your sins. Or it can be translated with reference
to or with respect to the forgiveness of your sins. You say, how do you know which one the
Greek means? Well, you have to allow the context to lead you in making that decision. You say,
well, in the context here it maybe could be either way. Well, if so, then we need to allow
other scriptures to lead us in how it should be most clearly translated. My point is this,
that I believe the clearest way to understand this verse is by seeing that preposition as
meaning with reference to or on account of the forgiveness of your sins. That's why we
are baptized, because our sins have been forgiven, not in order for them to be forgiven.
In addition to that, there are some Greek scholars, and I do not claim at all to be
in that midst, in that elect group. There are some who say that the phrase here in the
Greek, the forgiveness of your sins, can just as well be attached to the verb repent as
be baptized. So then it would read, repent for the forgiveness of your sins, and let
each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. So my point really is this,
that when you have a verse that can be translated a number of different ways, it's not a good
verse to base your doctrine on. I believe the best understanding, as I've said, is
that he's saying repent and be baptized with reference to the forgiveness of your sins,
or on account of the forgiveness of your sins.
Well, let's look at Mark chapter 16, verse 16.
This is another one that's a real favorite.
He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved.
And so we hear, it could not be clearer, could it, that you believe and you're baptized
and you are saved. Two things I want to say about this verse. In the first place, the
last part of this chapter, beginning with verse 9, is questionable as to whether it
was a part of Mark's original writing. You may see a footnote regarding that if you have
a study Bible. In other words, the oldest manuscripts that we have, the ones that date
back the furthest to the time when Mark actually penned these words, those oldest manuscripts
do not include that last part of the chapter, which would suggest to us at least that there
was a scribe along the point somewhere that decided they should be included as a part
of this gospel. But let's just assume for the moment that these verses should be there.
And by the way, that's the longest passage to my knowledge in the whole Bible where there
is a dispute regarding the authenticity of the verses. But let's suppose for a moment
that these are authentic verses. How would we answer that challenge in verse 16? I think
the answer is found in the parallelism. Notice that he does not say, and he who has disbelieved
and is not baptized shall be condemned. In other words, it seems to me that if Mark was
saying that baptism was essential to salvation along with faith, then in the last part of
verse he would have made that clear by saying, and he who does not believe or has disbelieved
and has not been baptized shall be condemned. There are some who also point out that the
whole context here, and that's important to consider when we interpret the Bible, that
the whole context points to another age, the kingdom age. It goes on to say, and these
signs will accompany those who have believed. In my name they will cast out demons, they'll
speak with new tongues, they'll pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it shall
hurt them, they shall lay hands on the sick, and they will recover. Now you see people
picking out bits and pieces of those verses and trying to apply them to today and to their
life or to their ministry or to their church, and yet there are not too many that want to
take the whole thing together. The reason for that is that it refers to, in one hand,
the ministry of the apostles, but then as some would say, also what will take place
during the kingdom age. What about 1 Peter 3.21? By the way, I think the parallelism is
the strongest argument there regarding that verse. That is that in the last part of the
verse he does not include baptism or the lack of it as being a reason for condemnation.
What about 1 Peter 3.21? Let's just back up a little bit. It says, For Christ also died
for sins once for all, verse 18, 1 Peter 3, the just for the unjust, in order that he
might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the
Spirit, in which also he went and made proclamation to the spirits, now in prison, who once were
disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction
of the ark, in which a few, that is eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
Let me just stop a moment and say, aren't you curious as to where Jesus went and what
he proclaimed and who these spirits are in prison? Well, if you are, put it down in your
paper. We'll talk about it sometime. Verse 21 goes on to say, though, and corresponding
to that, baptism now saves you. And so people say, well, there's a very clear verse, or
at least a part of a verse, that says, baptism saves you. It should be granted, first of
all, that this is one of the most difficult texts in the whole New Testament. That is,
this whole passage beginning in verse 18 down through verse 22. What does he mean, that
baptism now saves you? Well, notice that he begins the verse by saying, and corresponding
to that, the word that is in the original here is a word related to the word type. In
other words, he's saying, and typically speaking, or we might say it in a figure, that is, baptism
now saves you. In other words, he's suggesting that what is involved in baptism is somehow
a picture or a type, a fulfillment of a type that is found back there in the flood that
he has mentioned in verse 20. Let's think about the flood for a moment. If there's
some kind of relationship between those waters and the water of baptism, was it the water
that saved Noah? No, it was not. The waters did not save Noah. In fact, the waters were
the means of death and condemnation. What was it then that saved Noah? Well, on one
hand, it was his faith, his faith in the promise that God had made to him regarding his own
deliverance. But then that promise was fulfilled in the ark which he constructed over a 120-year
period. And so it was his faith in the word of God, and the ark was the means by which
he and his family members were delivered from condemnation. Now likewise, in a fulfillment
of that, how are we saved today? Well, we're saved by faith, as was Noah. And the ark
that he constructed finds its typical fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ. It's a very
beautiful picture, the ark is, of God's salvation provided through his Son, Jesus Christ. Maybe
sometime we can talk about that complete picture. But what about baptism then? Well, he is making
it clear, it seems to me, in the last part of verse 21 that he's not talking about water
baptism washing away sins. He goes on to say, baptism now saves you, not the removal of
dirt from the flesh. In other words, he says, I'm not really talking about physical water
baptism that washes the flesh. But he says, I'm talking about that which baptism symbolizes
the appeal to God for a good conscience or of a good conscience. In other words, baptism
is a testimony that one's conscience has been cleared of sins because of his faith in Jesus
Christ. It is an appeal of a good and clear conscience toward God. That's what baptism
pictures. And so in an admittedly difficult passage, I believe it can be shown effectively
that it's not the water of baptism that saves us as do some of these people teach. But baptism
rather is a picture. And what it does is to speak in a physical way of what God has done
inwardly in the heart, in the conscience, through faith in the death and the resurrection
of Jesus Christ, which is really the theme here in this particular paragraph.
And let's go back now to John chapter 3. I think it can be shown that the other texts
that are often used to prove that John 3.5 is talking about baptism are not trustworthy
texts for that particular teaching. Now just to underscore the idea that baptismal regeneration
is unscriptural, let me suggest several other things to you before we go on. And that is,
first of all, if baptism is required for salvation, then there are none in the Old Testament who
would be saved because they were not baptized. In fact, they were saved as we are by faith
in the grace of God and the provision that he made through his son Jesus Christ, faith
alone. If baptism is necessary for salvation, secondly, Jesus then lied to the thief on
the cross who had repented because Jesus said to that thief who was nailed there and dying,
today you will be with me in paradise. And he didn't get baptized. Now I realize there
are those who say, well, he was baptized with the baptism of intent. I mean, he would have
if he hadn't been nailed to the cross. It seems to me that's drawing a pretty fine line.
Jesus did not lie, of course, to that thief, but he was with the Lord in paradise that
day. The idea of baptismal regeneration, furthermore, destroys salvation by grace alone because it
incorporates some human work as a part of salvation. If baptismal regeneration is true
in the fourth place, isn't it interesting that Christ never baptized anyone, John 4
2, and yet he came to seek and to save that which is lost. If baptism saved, then surely
you would think that Jesus would be quite involved in baptism, but he himself did not
baptize anyone. We have another clear indication that it is
faith alone in Acts 16.31 when the jailer came in and said to Paul, falling on his knees
before Paul, what must I do to be saved? And there was a beautiful opportunity for Paul
to say, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized and thou shalt be saved. But he
did not say that. He said, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
Now the man was baptized that night, but properly so after his faith in Christ and as a testimony
of that faith and not as a part of his salvation. I think it would be wrong of Paul, furthermore,
if baptism saves, to say what he does in 1 Corinthians 1, 14 to those people, I thank
God I baptize none of you, except Gaius and Crispus, a little bit later down he says,
in the household of Stephen. But then he goes on to say, Christ sent me not to baptize,
but to what? Preach the gospel. And so the apostle is thanking God he didn't baptize
anyone. Now if baptism was a part of salvation, if a person had to be baptized to be saved,
you would think that Paul would not make a statement like that. His greatest concern
would be that they not only believe in Christ, but immediately be baptized. But he says,
I thank God I didn't, he's not trying to undermine or demean baptism. He's simply
saying, I thank God that I didn't do it because if I had you would be bragging about
my baptizing you or somebody else baptizing you and be dividing yourselves over that.
Furthermore, he says there, Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel.
Could it be more clear that baptism is not a part of the gospel? I mean that would be
a nonsensical statement if the gospel included baptism when Paul would say he didn't send
me to baptize, but to preach the gospel. I think finally there is a truth, a principle
that is involved and that is a spiritual result cannot be achieved by a physical means. In
other words, physical water, physical bread and grape juice or wine, physical things cannot
gain us grace with God. Physical means do not accomplish spiritual ends. Well then if
John 3, 5 is not talking about water baptism, what might it be talking about? Well there's
a second view and that is the repentance view. Those who teach this say that the water here
stands for repentance. They'd say that Jesus was pointing Nicodemus to the ministry of
John the Baptist with which he had to be familiar and he was reminding Nicodemus of John's baptism
of repentance when he spoke about the water. In other words, he was reminding Nicodemus
that he had to repent as well as be born of the Spirit. Everett F. Harrison teaches this.
He says water denotes the cleansing from defilement and points to the significance of John's baptism.
This is the negative or preparatory side of the new birth. G. Campbell Morgan, a great
Bible teacher now with the Lord a number of years, also taught this particular view. So
it is a legitimate view but I don't think the strongest one. Then there is the natural
birth view regarding John 3, 5 and the context seems to favor this particular one. You will
notice that Jesus in verse 3 speaks about being born again. Nicodemus replies, how can
I enter into my mother's womb and be born again? Jesus responds by saying, unless you're
born of water and the Spirit. Those who teach this, and frankly this is a position that
I have held at times. There are some times when you take positions and you change them
and I have done that more than once on these matters that are non-essential. But the context
would seem to say here that this is natural birth. That is, it is the water of the natural
birth. Now that makes sense to us in our Western mind because we speak of the first birth as
being the birth of water, the breaking of the water in preparation for the actual birthing
process of the child. And yet that was not the Oriental way of thinking. That is our
Western culture really being imposed upon this passage when we think of it that way.
Furthermore, there are those again who are Greek scholars who tell us that this is not
the most appropriate word for that kind of water anyway. As I say, the context would
seem to fit nicely that way. Jesus goes on to say, that which is born of flesh is flesh.
That would be the first birth, physical birth. That which is born of the spirit is spirit.
That is the second birth. And so in some respects this is an attractive interpretation, but
again I don't think the best one. Then there is the view, and this is perhaps the most
popular one, that it is the word of God that is symbolized here by the water. Water is
symbolic they say of the word of God. For the word of God is always spoken of as the
instrument of the new birth, and that is true. In 1 Corinthians 4.15 the Apostle Paul says,
I became your father through the gospel. What does he mean? He preached the word of God
to them. It was implanted in their hearts, and God the Holy Spirit used that to quicken
them to life. It was the instrument of the new birth. James 1.18, he brought us forth
by the word of truth. 1 Peter 1.23 is very clear. For you have been born again not of
seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is through the living and abiding word
of God. And so it is the word of God, which the Holy Spirit uses as his instrument to
give us a new birth. The only problem was, Jesus spoke this to Nicodemus, and I don't
think Nicodemus had read 1 Corinthians or James or 1 Peter yet. In fact, they weren't
even written. So I don't think that this is the most satisfactory view either, though
I'm not denying that the word of God is that which gives us new birth as the Spirit of
God uses it. There are those who teach another view, and this is the one that I tend to lean
toward. It is the Holy Spirit view. And that is that the water here is symbolic of the
Holy Spirit. In the first place, water in the Gospel of John is symbolic of the Holy
Spirit, and that is clear. Now Jesus in chapter 4 again mentions water. You might want to
look over there at verse 10. Jesus answered and said to her, the woman at the well, if
you knew the gift of God and who it is who says to you, give me a drink, you would have
asked him, and he would have given you living water. Verse 14, whoever drinks of the water
that I shall give him shall never thirst, but the water that I shall give him shall
become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life. Now it doesn't say here
that the water is the Holy Spirit, but you see that Jesus is using that figure or that
symbol of water again. But turn over to chapter 7. It seems to me that we have here a clear
statement as to what the water is in the Gospel of John. Verse 37, John 7.
Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying,
If any man is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as the Scripture
said, from his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water. But this he spoke
of the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive. For the Spirit was not
yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. And so it seems to me that at least in the
Gospel of John, that the Holy Spirit tells us that water is a symbol of himself.
Now going back to John 3 verse 5, there is another possible translation of this verse.
It's called the ep-exegetical translation. And it would be put this way. Jesus answered,
Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of water, even the Spirit. In other words,
that conjunction and would in this case be a comma and then the word even. Or we might
put it mathematically as an equal mark. He is saying, unless a man is born of the Spirit,
or rather of water, even the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Now the real question here is, not what do I see today in 20th century culture in the
United States, but what would Nicodemus see or hear or understand as Jesus said this to
him? After all, Jesus has already indicated, or the Lord has indicated to us in verse 1,
that Nicodemus was a ruler of the Jews. And then Jesus himself says in verse 10, are you
a teacher of Israel? And do not understand these things. It seems to me that when Jesus
was talking to Nicodemus, he was talking to Nicodemus in language that he should understand
as a trained rabbi. He was a student of the Old Testament. And Jesus is saying to Nicodemus,
look, don't you understand what I'm talking about? Are you a teacher of Israel? Now that
must have gotten Nicodemus to thinking. Now what was it that Nicodemus should have realized?
Go back with me to Ezekiel chapter 36. And here I believe we have an answer that lends
itself toward that last view that I mentioned, that he's talking about the Holy Spirit through
the symbol of water. In Ezekiel chapter 36, we have a record of God's promise through
that prophet of his new covenant that he would make with the nation of Israel. In verse 25,
he speaks about the latter days, days yet actually to come on the calendar, when God
is going to regather Israel and establish with them as a nation the new covenant, which
we already enjoy as the church. And he says in verse 25, then I will sprinkle clean water
on you, and you will be clean, and I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from
all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you,
and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
And I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you will be
careful to observe my ordinances. It seems to me that the Lord Jesus Christ may well
have been expecting that Nicodemus would remember this word about the new covenant in the book
of Ezekiel. After all, it was the new covenant that he was coming to establish through the
sacrifice of himself, through the shedding of his blood as the Lamb of God, which he
had already been proclaimed to be by John the Baptist.
And I believe that Jesus, in speaking to Nicodemus, was probing his mind, trying to get him to
realize that standing before him was the one who would fulfill the new covenant, the one
who would sprinkle the heart with water and cleanse it and would put the spirit within
the heart, as was prophesied by the Lord hundreds of years before.
So it seems to me that that's what Nicodemus would have realized as a ruler in of the Jews
and a teacher in Israel. Now whichever of the satisfactory views you choose to take,
and the first one I want to emphasize is not satisfactory, it is not scriptural, but the
others can be understood within a biblical context as being a possible interpretation
of John 3.5. But whichever you take, regarding this passage, this perhaps difficult passage
of scripture for you, don't miss the clear truth that is here, and the simple truth,
and that is that the new birth is essential for one to be saved.
Jesus is talking to a man who is very religious, a man who had performed ritual, and he says
to that man who was religious and moral and had been brought up in Jewish ritual, you
must be born again. And I may be talking to someone here tonight, maybe you've come to
Grace Church sometime or you may be here for the first time tonight, and you've been a
religious person and a moral person and a person involved in ritual doing good things
to try to please God. My friend, will you see the simple truth that Jesus is communicating
here that unless you have a new birth, unless you are born again, you will never enter the
kingdom of God, you will never be saved. My question in closing is this, have you been
born again? Have you received Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?
Nicodemus was. We have no record of it in John 3, of course. He's mentioned again in
the Gospel of John in the middle of the book, but over in chapter 19, by the time we come
to the close of it, we see that it was Nicodemus who up to that point had apparently been a
secret believer who went along with Joseph of Arimathea to the cross and took down the
body of Jesus and buried it. And so at his death, at Jesus' death, Nicodemus made his
open confession of his trust in this one who had been rejected by his people. He was born
again. Nicodemus will be in heaven. You'll be able to talk to him and meet him someday
if you've been born again. Let's pray. Father, I pray that we will not focus upon
the difficult passage in our text, but rather that we might focus on that which is very
clear that the new birth is essential, for we see that Jesus said, you must, now you
should. And Father, if there be one here tonight who's never been born again, who's not sure
of heaven, who does not have the knowledge of his sins being forgiven, that one who's
still walking in spiritual darkness and death, may that one trust the Savior tonight and
be born from above, born again. With our heads bowed and our eyes closed, and just as we
come to the end of the service, I wonder how many of you here tonight can say with a glad
heart and an assured heart, yes, I know before God that I have been born again. There's no
doubt in my mind about that. Would you lift your hand and put it down? Yes, that's almost
every hand here. But I wonder if there's someone who would say, no, I'm not sure about myself.
Could I pray for you? Just as we close, would you lift your hand and put it down? You're
not sure you're on your way to heaven. Though religious or moral, you're not sure you've
been born again. Anyone here? Let's take our hymnals now and turn again.