We have seen so far in John 3 who Nicodemus is and who he believes Jesus is. In John 3:3 we see what Jesus' response was to all this flattery. We see that Jesus answered, the Greek word apokrinomai (611), which is the combination of apo (575) originally from and krino (2919) to discern judge or separate. Together this word means to answer but with discretion or in response to previous circumstances. Even though it seems completely off the subject Jesus is answering Nicodemus perhaps not in the manner that Nicodemus' greeting would have warranted but He answers according to a deeper subject Nicodemus introduces, that he and those with him recognized and understood that Jesus had come originally from God as a teacher and secondly that no one could do the signs Jesus did except that person have God with him. Jesus expounds upon the concepts Nicodemus introduces and explains why He came to them, "Amen, Amen, I am saying to you if not this one, had been born from above, he is absolutely not able to have recognized and understood the kingdom of God." Jesus uses a Hebrew term transliterated into Greek, amen (281), meaning truly or surely in Hebrew has the idea of certainty or "so be it". Here Jesus uses it twice. When someone wanted to specify the importance and truthfulness of what was said next they would utter twice, amen, amen. "Truly, truly" would be acceptable or "this is the truth". Jesus immediately starts with asserting that what He said next could not be debated but had to be accepted as the absolute truth. He then tells Nicodemus and those with him, lego (3004) to say logically, here the root form, which is present tense, active voice and indicative mood. Lego is also first person singular which with the present tense, on-going action that has no time set for its ending, makes this very interesting. "I am saying" is grammatically correct in English but there is more to this. It could be translated as "I am always saying" because of the divinity of Christ plus the message He is delivering. Because He says "I am always saying" He is actually speaking to us just as much as to His audience at the time. Anyone reading what He said realizes that His message has never changed and that we must accept that this statement is truth and unchanging. Next Jesus says that, "I am always saying to you". "To you" is the 2nd person pronoun but is singular and not plural which shows again Jesus speaks to Nicodemus but then changes to speak to the plural "you" later. Jesus then uses the conjunction ean (1437) if with the negative relative particle me (3361) not. Together they mean "if not" "unless" "except". Ean means "if" but that there is a strong possibility of it occurring and me, a possibility of something happening. Me indicates that choice is involved and that we can choose to do something or not. Here Jesus indicates that there is choice involved but that "if not this one had been born from above" the result would be the opposite of recognizing and understanding the kingdom of God. The indefinite pronoun is singular here emphasizing the individual's decision instead of the collective. This is important because denominations in the past and present wrongly think there is a corporate relationship to Christ based on works instead of a personal relationship to Christ based on grace. Next we see that "if not this one had been born from above", the "had been born" gennao (1080) to be born, is singular again, aorist tense, passive voice and subjunctive mood. This "one" we see by the aorist tense has been completed in his or her birth which shows us the way that God views this process. Being outside of time God sees our birth in Him as a completed action even if we are going through the process in linear time. This is also important because it shows us our salvation in Him is a done deal and assured to us. It can't be taken from us because it is a permanent condition. Next we see it is in the passive voice, which the verb itself is passive in nature. We often refer to the birthing process as being controlled by the child but in reality the child receives the birthing process because the woman's body dictates when the baby will be born. Salvation is not our doing or initiated by us but by the Spirit as Jesus points out later, and we receive or reject it. Lastly gennao is subjunctive meaning that it is dependant on another action occurring or it is the dependant action for something else to occur. Here it is the dependant verb for something else to occur but it also is another indicator of choice. Birth is an fascinating analogy of salvation. Jesus uses this to illustrate what must take place within us in order for the spiritual world to be accessed. When a woman's body determines that the baby cannot be fed any longer in utero a hormone is released that causes her womb to begin contracting. This will open the pathway for the baby to pass through. The fluid that surrounded the baby and kept it safely in the womb is released and the baby has only one option and that is birth. Our introduction to God and the process by which we come to Him may be fast or it may be slow depending on our individual circumstances and on us. When my eldest niece was born it took over sixteen hours for her to make her entrance. This long process doesn't put the baby in distress and is normal for a first pregnancy. My second niece however came fast and furious and caused my sister-in-law a great deal of pain. All three of my nieces came early but they came into this world when they were caused to do so. This does not mean that God does all the work and we do nothing but rather we participate by accepting truth and allowing Him to deliver us into the spiritual world. We have to be completely transformed and birth illustrates the becoming new but also starting over and understanding like babies we have to grow up spiritually. So we receive birth and that birth come Jesus says "from above". Unfortunately some English translations translate this as "born again" and this is incorrect because Jesus is explaining where the birth comes from and that is "above" meaning "from God" and not "born again" which doesn't tell us from what or where have we been born. "Born again" also is incorrect because we are born physically once and we are born spiritually once therefore, born again is really inaccurate . So Jesus tells Nicodemus, "Truly, Truly I am always saying to you if not this one had been born from above he is absolutely not able". "He is absolutely not able" in Greek is ou (3756) the absolute negative particle which means it is impossible for something to occur and dunamai (1410) to be able, to have the power to do something. The negative particle ou is used often in the New Testament but the English translates it and the relative negative particle the same, "not". Here Jesus stresses that we cannot in any way obtain the ability to recognize and understand the kingdom of God without having been born from above. Dunamai is in the present tense, middle voice and indicative mood. If we are born from above we can constantly recognize and understand the kingdom of God. The present tense remember is ongoing action that doesn't tell us when it will end. If we are not born from above it is impossible for us to recognize and understand the kingdom of God. Birth from above is imperative for identifying and understanding the kingdom of God. I was born in the South as were generations of my ancestors going back to the early eighteen hundreds. Being born in the South there are cultural, religious, artistic and dietary differences than other parts of the country. My birth into the South made me not just a part of it but loyal to it. I understand the subtle use of language and manners that those from up North or out West don't detect. If these individuals were to come across someone that claimed to be from the South they wouldn't be able to tell for sure and would rely on the accent alone. In the same way if we are not from it how can we identify and understand something like the kingdom of God? Next dunamai is in the middle voice which tells us that something or someone is influencing or motivating this "one" to have the ability to recognize and understand the kingdom of God if they are born from above. If however they have not been born from above, the negative particle ou tells us that absolutely in no way and an individual identify and understand the kingdom of God because they have rejected that birth. If you see a middle voice especially in texts that deal with doing something spiritually the Spirit is the usually the One motivating the action. This is an incredible truth that the Spirit causes us to want to know spiritual things. Next we have the infinitive eido (1492) which is in the aorist tense and active voice. Eido and ginosko (1097) are often misunderstood because the Greek process of learning isn't explained. Greeks used vocabulary to explain the progression of learning with ginosko being the acquiring of information and learning how something or someone works but with a relational model. Eido however is the end result of ginosko. As children we are taught the alphabet and how those letters form words. This is ginosko and in this process we sound out words to know how to read them. The end result is recognizing and understanding the words we see not just in books but in anything that contains language. So Jesus isn't talking about "see" which is how the English translators interpreted it but without being born from above it is impossible to recognize or understand the kingdom of God. This infinitive is in the aorist tense just as the "had been born". They are a packaged deal and must be recognized as such. The Spirit points out what is of that kingdom and what is not in our process of accepting Christ, because God knows remember who will accept Him out of that process and who won't. Those He knows will accept Him their process in coming to Him is the delivery time and part of the birth in which the kingdom of God is revealed. Recognizing is important but understanding the kingdom of God is equally important and part of our growth in Christ. Many believers might be able to recognize the things of the kingdom of God but do not have a good understanding of it. Birth gives us the opportunity and ability to recognize and understand but it is a choice we must decide if it is important enough to us to have and pursue. Lastly is "to have recognized and understood the kingdom of God". "The kingdom of God" is the accusative singular feminine form of the root basileia (932), royal kingdom or dominion and the genitive, singular masculine form of Theos (2316). Matthew calls it "the kingdom of heaven" while Luke, Mark and John call it primarily "the kingdom of God". In the Old Testament it was called Zion the city that Jews would see as the final resting place after death and after the final judgment. "The kingdom of God" Jesus has said is not of this world, it is a spiritual place here while we are in our fallen physical forms but the reality of it is when the tribulation is over and the second coming of Christ is done, the millennium is over and the heavens and the earth pass away we'll find a magnificent incorruptible all consuming home and sanctuary. God's reign as King of this kingdom is permanent and irrevocable and Christ's gift to purchase the subjects for this kingdom makes it a different expensive kingdom. In His era, kings taxed the subjects of the kingdom to pay for the king's army and luxury but in this kingdom God sacrificed Himself to get back those taken from Him and protect them under His name. This kingdom doesn't function as earthly ones do. The King conquers spirits and minds to save them and free them from spiritual slavery. His riches we have access to and we are given the privilege to come before Him whenever we have needs without fear. Lastly this kingdom is pure, holy and perfect and the end result of God's reign and our acceptance of birth from above. Next we'll examine how all this together creates the first part of Jesus' explanation of the gospel.

John 3

In verse 2 we see that Nicodemus comes to Jesus by night. In John 2:23 we find out that it was Passover and it was logical that Nicodemus came by night. It was common of that era to meet people for social reasons at night but somehow commentators have read into this that Nicodemus was fearful of the Pharisees seeing him with Jesus. We know from 3:11-12 Jesus stops speaking to Nicodemus and addresses those with Nicodemus. In the Greek text the "you" there is plural and not singular so Jesus isn't speaking just to Nicodemus but others who were there. This is important because you see a division in both intent and understanding of the people with Nicodemus versus Nicodemus' reasons for talking with Jesus. Nicodemus shows his respect by calling Jesus "Rabbi" a Hebrew word meaning teacher. This act we don't see from the Pharisees in other places only by Nicodemus. Notice Nicodemus says that "we have recognized and understood that You have come a teacher from God". Oidamen from oida the older form of eido (1492) is a plural perfect tense verb which tells us again there were people with him and that they had been deliberating concerning Jesus. Eido means to recognize what you are looking at and understanding what you are seeing. Unfortunately it gets slapped with the word "know" or "see" in the English translations. Nicodemus and the "we" claimed to identify the fact that Jesus was authentically from God. He says that Jesus was from God using the preposition apo (575) which means from but more specifically originally from. Para (3844) in contrast means from nearby. English translators add an "as" to make it grammatically correct but in the text Nicodemus and the "we" recognized that Jesus was a teacher also, from God. The word teacher in Greek didaskolos (1320) means one who teaches doctrine so in the Jewish context the teacher answered to the scribes. Jesus was recognized for His ability to teach doctrine with Divine influence but they still didn't see Jesus as an equal or as God but did recognize the fact He had some relationship to God. Now the "we" is questionable in this regard as we will see in 11-12, but Nicodemus seems genuine in his assertion. Nicodemus gives the reasons for why he and the "we" concluded Jesus was a teacher from God, "for this reason no one is able to do these signs which You do except God be with Him." In that era Jews were obsessed with signs because Old Testament prophesy was filled with things to look for when Messiah was coming or the world was being judged. The word in Greek semeion (4592) a miracle that has a spiritual end, which makes them finger marks of God. Paul said that Jews want signs and Greeks knowledge and in this obsession with signs there is an awe at the miracle but no recognition of the spiritual implications. Here however Nicodemus states that he and the "we" did connect the dots and wanted to hear more from Him. Next we'll examine Jesus' response to Nicodemus.

John 3:1-21

Having studied John 3 earlier this year I discovered a great deal of mistranslation and misunderstanding of this instance in the ministry of Christ. Remember that John is not a synoptic gospel. Instead of starting at the birth of Christ John begins before the creation of the universe. John also uses a more Socratic approach to the retelling of the life of Christ. This just means that the Greek philosopher Socrates asked questions to teach and to learn. If you read through the book of John you find Jesus asking a lot of questions, teaching His audience through this type of discourse. Chapter three is one of these conversations. In verse one we are told a great deal about one of the characters in this chapter. John uses en, the imperfect tense and indicative form of eimi (2258) "be". This is the usual way John introduces someone. I say this because there are instances John uses ginomai (1096) "become" to introduce characters. Because of this if you come across ginomai in an introduction use the literal meaning such as in 1:6, "There became a man". In 2:23-25 we learn when this conversation takes place at the Feast of the Passover. This is important to understand why Nicodemus by night. We will look at that a little later but now we see that Nicodemus was a man out of the Pharisees. The method by which a young man could become a Pharisee depended on his father's position. If a young man's father was a Pharisee then he would be expected to follow in his father's path and be educated to get him past the academic cuts. If a young man didn't have a father who worked in the temple or was a Pharisee then he had to be an exceptional student to make the cuts along the way. This would lead them to the temple to be educated and then they would be initiated into the Pharisees. We see in verse 10 that Nicodemus wasn't just a Pharisee but also a teacher. Some Pharisees held government positions and taught. This is why John points out that Nicodemus was an archon (758), a ruler of the Jews. The Roman government realized that if they appointed the Pharisees over districts to interpret and judge according to Jewish law, they could keep the peace better. So in addition to being a government official he was a teacher. The name Nicodemus means victor among the people. It is interesting that he has a Greek name that isn't a Greek translation of a Hebrew name. He may have been from outside of Judea like Paul or his parents decided to name him with a Greek name. Next we see that Nicodemus came to Jesus by night. Unfortunately commentators have surmised that it was out of fear of the Pharisees. We saw that the Passover Feast was going on when Jesus was in Jerusalem. Passover was a big part of Jewish culture and a busy time for Pharisees. Being both religious and governmental officials they were required to procide over what the priests did not. So it was necessary for Nicodemus to meet Jesus at night after a long Feast period. Also there is another aspect that cancels out fear as a reason. Later in verse 11-12 we find out Nicodemus is not alone because John uses a plural pronoun "you". From the way Jesus addresses them they came with Nicodemus and were more than likely Pharisees. They often would go to check out new Rabbis to see if they were keeping the Law correctly. Keep that in mind when looking at the rest of the chapter I'll continue this tomorrow.

Mercy (cont.)

Mercy on my last post I explained from scripture is compatible with other gifts and also a requirement given to us to use. Prophecy and mercy have to co-exist otherwise the book of Jonah would not have been so remarkable. Jonah didn't want to see the city of Nineveh turn toward God because he knew God kept His promises and wouldn't destroy them. Jonah sits outside the city angry that they were not destroyed knowing they would be the ones to judge Israel according to prophecy. Habakkuk was shown the wickedness of Israel and he cried out for justice until he learned who God was going to use to judge Israel. His cry for justice was not merciless. Habakkuk tells us in 1:4, "Therefore the law is ineffective, and justice is never upheld for the wicked surround the righteous therefore justice comes out perverted." God had mercy on the righteous and the innocent who were being afflicted and oppressed by their own countrymen and women. However when Habakkuk learns that a foreign nation who is in his eyes more wicked than Israel his call for justice is tempered. But God knows compassion has to be stronger than pride. Habakkuk's pride didn't want a nation like the Chaldeans judging Israel because of the shame it would place on God's people. Notice that God's people. God showed Habakkuk that pride blinds an individual from seeing the reason shame must come even to the people of God. That end is blessing and mercy. In 3:18-19 we see that Habakkuk gets it and is humbled before the Lord, "Yet I will exult in the Lord, I will rejoice in the God of my salvation, Jehovah is my strength and He has made my feet like hinds' feet and makes me walk on my high places." Without mercy Habakkuk would not have heard from the Lord and seen what he saw among the people. Both these prophets show us that Gal. 5:22-23 must exist within us in order for the the words of the Lord to come to us and out of us. Paul says agape, unconditional, sacrificial, proactive and responsive not reactive love must be an inward production of the Spirit followed by joy which is inward stability not moved by what is going on around you. Next is peace, the ceasing of our working against the Spirit and instead participating with Him, and makrothumia, patience with people or being slow to lose your temper with others, being predictable and mature. Following makrothumia is chrestotes being beneficially useful to those around you and then agathosune being beneficially good in addition to being beneficially useful. Next we see pistis, trusting because we are so persuaded by God and passionate to act out of that trust which leads to praotes understanding and trusting God's sovereignty that we treat each situation individually waiting for God to tell us what is the appropriate response. Out of all of these comes self-control or rather being master over one's body, emotions and logic. These characteristics actually define the mercy God wants us to have. For that reason we must not be spineless or an enabler but we must also be empathetic, useful in God's economy and proactive. Mercy like humility and agape must be God's possession and come only from Him or else we are promoting a bad imitation of the real thing and an enemy of the gospel.

Mercy

Growing up in the church I have watched some pretty horrible things done by believers and called "Biblical". I often heard those who claimed to have the gift of prophecy say they didn't have the gift of mercy, basically stepping over the emotionally and spiritually wounded. I watched wondering was this really what God wanted us to be? As a teenager I was afraid to question my elders whom I thought knew more about scripture than I did. As an adult and through a great deal of study I realized making such statements is not only not Biblical but contrary to the character of God. Romans 8:29 tells us God's map for us was to be conformed to the image of Christ. The cross I would most definitely say qualifies as mercy. The gifts have been mischaracterized as possessions instead of "as needed" gifts of power from God and more aptly charismata, results of grace. My ministry happens to be teaching and discipling but I need mercy just as much as I need "logic of knowledge" to convey truth to my students. When we are not the character of Christ we turn people off to the truth. Jesus sent His disciples away in John 4 so that He could speak to the woman at the well. When they came back they were disgusted that He was speaking not just to a Samaritan woman but a woman period. They didn't ask why. Jesus told them that He had food and that food was always to do the will of God who sent Him and to complete that work. The disciples thought that since they didn't say anything they couldn't get in trouble. Jesus rebuked them for their lack of mercy and human reaction to the woman at the well. Mercy is God's will and God's work. James tells us in 2:12-13, "So speak and so keep doing as through a law of liberty being about to be judged. For this reason the Judgement will be unmerciful to the one choosing not to do mercy and mercy boasts against judgment." What mercy we display on earth will stand for us against judgment. But be clear mercy is not being soft hearted, mercy is divine compassion. In Romans 9:15 Paul tells us that God pities those whom He pities and has mercy on whom He has mercy. The difference here are those will let Him show mercy and those who stubbornly reject Him. In Romans 12:1 Paul uses the same Greek word oiktirmos, the noun form, saying "I strongly encourage you through the compassions of God to present your body as a living sacrifice, holy, beyond pleasing to God your reasonable service of worship." We can't fix every one's problems but we can be a friend, a source of encouragement to keep going in Christ, lighting fires under others to beneficial works, to grieve with them when they grieve and rejoice with them when they rejoice. Most of all we are to be a living gospel. Years ago I had a friend who had lost pretty much all of her friends because of her spiritual immaturity. I was the last one and she called me one night to accuse me of hurting her feelings. I was annoyed and ready to just throw the towel in BUT GOD!!! He calmed me down and instead of saying she didn't have the right to be hurt I asked her if I had ever said anything like that in the past (what she thought I was implying) and she thought for a moment and said no. I asked her had I always shown consideration for what she endured growing up and she again agreed that was the case. I then told her what God had done in my own life and that I was convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt God could do the same in hers. I didn't lose that friendship and I actually gained a student. I learned a valuable lesson. Even if I didn't intend to be hurtful my carelessness with my speech could be interpreted as hurtful. To this day if I think I said something that could be taken wrong I go to that person and apologize. People look at me like I've lost my mind but then I see them relax because they are glad to know I think they are important. I have gained more students through my kindness and compassion than through my teaching. The reason being, my teaching is punctuated with the character of God.

A Rock, A Hard place and Me

Have you ever been in an impossible situation where you had to choose between two friends or maybe between a friend and a family member? Have you ever had to choose between your spouse and your children or other family members? It is difficult to know how to resolve these disputes and even worse when we have to choose a side. Sometimes both parties are wrong and we have to refuse to side with either one. I'm doing a study of 1 John with two of my classes. John had to confront a growing movement within the church called Gnosticism, which threatened to undermine not only the gospel but the authority of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. John had to take a stand but not only that, he had to inform the audience of 1 John that they couldn't ride the fence. They too had to choose a side. Were they for the gospel as it was originally taught to them or were they for the Gnostics? John's letters give us the evidence he presented to his audience for why the original gospel he taught them was the only gospel. When we are put in a position where two friends may be in a confrontation, we often want to do what the flesh suggests and that is pick the friend we are the closest to, and side with them. Sometimes the flesh will lie to us and make us fear losing the closest relationship if we don't take their side even if they are wrong. Jonathan, Saul's son became friends with David and defied his father when Saul went after David trying to kill him out of his jealousy. Jonathan was a godly young man and knew that David was innocent of any wrong doing. He chose David over his father because he knew his father was doing something that violated the law and was outright murder. That decision had to be difficult because Saul was his dad. I've never had to chose between a friend and a family member but I have had to choose between friends. I have been burned sometimes for choosing the wrong friend and ended up losing both relationships. When we are placed in the middle of a dispute we first need to go to God before we do anything. Unfortunately we get caught up in the drama and forget to stop and ask the Lord for direction. He will show you what to do next if anything. It is always wise to investigate the stories of each person first and then assess each one's character. If you have a friend who is consistently mature spiritually and isn't known for being dishonest, that friend has character on their side. If you have another friend who feeds off of drama and is usually immature both emotionally and spiritually there will be a question as to their motives and honesty. However we are not God and we cannot determine who is lying and who is telling the truth. Unfortunately both may have perceived the event or argument differently. If we ask for wisdom from God as James 3 instructs us to do there are characteristics we obtain when we request God's wisdom. James says that wisdom from above is peaceful. If there is a peaceful resolution God will let us know. Sometimes it is not what we expect and yet it is the best option. Many times however God places in situations where there is no easy outcome so that we prove we are His creation and not acting out of the flesh. The worst things we can do is avoid the two friends and act as if nothing is wrong, talk about them behind their backs, and meddle in their argument without being asked. God wants our dependency in everything because our personal relationships with people are where we will shine or fail in terms of displaying God's character. Agape is not always showing unconditional loyalty but providing what an individual needs. If they feed off of drama they do not need a friend to keep feeding the beast but one who says "that's enough". If you are in a situation where you are placed in the middle of a dispute between two friends, first go to God, investigate so you have all the facts (there are two sides to every story), be restrained from judgment until you are clear as to what the argument is about and what the facts are, and if possible find a resolution that reconciles both parties. If there is no resolution available then you must choose not according to loyalty or blood relationship but according to what is godly and what is right. God never promised us that the Christian life would be easy and often the hardest thing is what He requires from us. If we choose to trust Him and do the hard thing we learn that the hard thing isn't impossible with God.

Greek Word of the Week

Kalos and agathos-these two words are translated as good but they mean different things in terms of "good". Kalos is an adjective which means the best not just "good". Kalos speaks of the quality or in God's case the inherent "goodness" of His character. It is also imparted to us through Christ and the best God wants for us. James 4:17 says that the one knowing what the (kalos) good is and doesn't do it it is sin to him. In contrast agathos means to be beneficially good or profitable. In Romans 12:2 Paul uses agathos, "proving that the will of God is (agathos) good, well-pleasing and perfect." Here Paul is characterizing God's well as beneficial and profitable. In Romans 2:7 agathos describes the works of those who have obtained eternal life through Christ. Out of kalos, agathos externally is seen. In the Septuagint the Greek translation of the Old Testament, in Genesis 1 "it was good" is kalos showing again that our English word doesn't describe adequately how God viewed what He had created. In Romans 9:11 we see that before the twins Jacob and Esau were born and before they did (agathos) good or bad God's purpose would stand in terms of Jacob obtaining the birthright of Isaac. Agathos will characteristically describe actions while Kalos will describe the character of the individual. For this reason both are often confused. Check when you come across "good" and see which word it actually is in the Greek.