SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
MISUNDERSTOOD
TEXTS OF THE BIBLE
Chapter Three
"Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he
cannot enter the kingdom of God " (John vi. 5).
The fact that the
traditional view of this passage, which connects it with Christian baptism, is
rejected by a weighty minority of theologians, from Calvin to Bishop John C.
Ryle, should make us ready to consider the matter with an open mind. And Dr.
Ryles "six reasons" for rejecting it, enumerated in his Expository
Thoughts on the Gospels, might well make an end of controversy on the subject.
Indeed, the traditional view is vetoed by the glaring anachronism it involves.
For Christian baptism had not then been instituted, and even the disciples
themselves knew nothing of it. And yet the Lord indignantly rebuked Nicodemus
for not understanding His words about a birth by water and the Spirit. "Art
thou the teacher of Israel (He exclaimed) and knowest not these things?" It is
certain, therefore, that He was referring to some Old Testament Scripture with
which a Rabbi of the Sanhedrin ought to have been familiar. The only answer to
this is the profane suggestion that the Lords solemn words had reference
to the Jewish baptism of proselytes, a purely human ordinance, which the Jews
in days of apostasv derived from ancient paganism.
We must avoid the
error suggested by our A.V. that the words imply a twofold birth, of water and
of the Spirit. For in the next verse, and again in verse 8, the water is
omitted, and the new man is said to be "born of the Spirit." And this rules out
the gloss that the Lord was referring to "the baptism of John"; for that
baptism was expressly contrasted with the Spirits work (Matthew iii. 11).
It was a confession of failure and sin, to prepare for receiving a Messiah
whose near advent the Baptist proclaimed. Christian baptism, on the other hand,
was a confession of faith in Christ already come, and gone back to heaven; and
of submission to Him as their Lord, on the part of those who professed to have
been already born of the Spirit. Therefore, when the household of Cornelius
were brought in, their baptism was not the new birth, but a public recognition
that they had been already born of water and the Spirit.
For the question
was, "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have
received the Holy Spirit as well as we? Baptism is a public act performed by
man, for which man can fix the day and hour. The new birth of water and the
Spirit is altogether the work of God ; and as our Lord so expressly declares,
no man can forecast, no man can command it. "The Spirit breathes where He
wills, and thou hearest His voice, but knowest not whence it cometh and whither
He goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." It was presumably the
obvious reference to Ezekiel's prophecy which led our translators to render
pneuma by "wind." Of course, it may have that meaning ; but the word
occurs 370 times in the New Testament (23 times in John), and yet nowhere else
is it so translated. And the word rendered "sound" is phone, the ordinary word
for voice, and it is so translated in 130 of its 139 occurrences. But the need
of all this discussion arises from the accumulations of error and prejudice
which obscure the teaching of the passage. In added words the Lord Himself made
His meaning unequivocally clear. In verse 9 Nicodemus repeats as a humble
seeker after truth the question which he had previously raised (v 4) in
petulant unbelief. "How can a man be born anew?" And now the answer is
vouchsafed to him "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so
must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him should not
perish, but have eternal life." It was not as the result of a mystical human
rite that Nicodemus was to be born again, but by believing in Christ "lifted
up" (cf. ch. viii. 28 and xii. 82). And, as other Scriptures tell us, "Faith
cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." "We are born again by the
living and eternally-abiding Word of God" (1 Peter i. 23).
In this
matter Christendom is in direct conflict with Scripture. Christendom teaches
that baptism symbolises birth. Holy Scripture declares that it symbolises
death. Christendom teaches that it is the putting away of the filth of the
flesh. Holy Scripture declares "it is not the putting away of the filth of the
flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." And in the same passage
(1 Peter iii. 21) the Apostle enforces the symbolism of death, by referring to
baptism as an antitype of the Flood. The water which overwhelmed the world bore
up the ark. Noah was thus saved from death by death; as is the sinner who, on
believing in Christ, becomes one with Him in death. But if it be a question of
the new birth, "we are born again BY THE WORD OF GOD."
As already
noticed, the Lord's words to Nicodemus referred to some Old Testament Scripture
with which he ought to have been familiar. Nor is there any doubt what that
Scripture was, namely, Ezekiel xxxvi.- xxxvii., a prophecy that was greatly
cherished by the Jew; and ignorance of it would have been as discreditable to a
Rabbi as ignorance of the Nicodemus sermon would be to a Christian
theologian.
There we read, "I will sprinkle clean water upon you. . .
. And I will put My Spirit within you" (ch. xxxvi. 2527). And in chapter
xxxvii. we have the vision of the valley of dry bones, when the prophet is told
to call upon the dry bones to "hear the Word of the Lord"; and to prophesy to
the Spirit to breathe upon them. The water of Ezekiel's prophecy was "the water
of purification "of Numbers xix. Water which had flowed over the ashes of the
sin-offering had efficacy to cleanse the sinner. And the antitype of that water
is the Word of God by which we are born again (1 Peter i. 23). When, therefore,
the Lord went on to tell Nicodemus of eternal life through faith in Him as
lifted up upon the cross (V. 14), He was unfolding the meaning of that Ezekiel
prophecy, and of the type to which, as every Rabbi recognised, it so clearly
referred.
To recapitulate. In Scripture, baptism symbolises death,
which is the very antithesis of birth and it is never associated with
regeneration. And, as Bishop Ryle notices in his Expository Thoughts, "there is
little about baptism in the Epistles." How then did it come to signify
regeneration, and to acquire such prominence in Christendom religion ? The
Hibbert Lectures, 1888, by Dr. Edwin Hatch, of Oxford (Vice-Principal of St.
Mary Hall), supplies a clear and conclusive answer to this question. The Early
Church in its apostasy was so thoroughly corrupted by Greek paganism that, in
respect of baptism, it adopted not only the doctrines and ritual, but the very
terminology, of the Eleusinian Mysteries.
"No man can come to Me,
except the Father which hath sent Me draw him"(John V1. 44).
This
verse is perverted by many Christians to excuse want of zeal in bringing the
gospel to the unsaved, and by unbelievers to excuse t.heir not coming to
Christ. And this perversion of the Lord's words affords a colourable
justification for saying that, if men do not accept the gospel, the fault lies
with God, for He does not draw them.
But when read aright, the verse
emphasises a truth that permeates the whole Bible. Man's spiritual being is so
utterly alienated from God that by the light of Nature he cannot even "see the
kingdom of God," much less enter it. The records of the Ministry do not contain
a single case where a sinner who came to the Lord, confessing his blindness and
helplessness, failed to receive light and blessing; but the Jews to whom these
words were addressed spurned both Him and His teaching ; and this was His
answer to their rejection of Him. The blind received their sight, and those who
claimed to see were blinded.
Dispensationally, these words were
superseded by the Lord's further words in John xii. 32. "For before the
glorification of Christ the Father drew men to the Son, but now the Son Himself
draws all to Himself." But the principle underlying both statements is the
same. For it is not in his moral, but in his spiritual nature, that man is
utterly lost and dead. Saul the Pharisee was as moral as Paul the Apostle. And
have we not read of cases, even in heathendom, where without any light of
revelation men have led a clean and upright life? And if this be possible for
some, it is possible for all, and, therefore, God is just in punishing men for
every breach of the moral law.
But did not the Lord say expressly
that these Jews "had not had sin" if He "had not come and spoken unto them,"
and "had not done among them the works that none other did" ? (John xv. 22,
24). Yes, truly, but the sin there referred to was not their breaking the moral
law, but their rejecting Him and His testimony. For God holds none responsible
for rejecting Christ save those who have heard of Christ.
All this
throws light upon His words in John vi. 44. They are not, as commonly supposed,
a limitation placed upon the gospel; but they emphasise the solemnity both of
preaching and hearing the gospel. By words and works that gave abundant proof
of the presence and power of God, the Father had been drawing these proud
religionists to Christ. But now their day of visitation was past, and they were
left to their nature - darkness and incompetence - to come to Him. And so is it
in this present age when the Lord is drawing all unto Himself. True it is that
but for Divine "drawing" none would ever come. But sinners are not drawn
heavenward in the sense in which criminals are drawn to prison. Whenever the
gospel is preached in the power of the Holy Ghost sinners are being drawn to
the Lord; but, alas! the many "resist the Holy Ghost." He (the devil) was a
murderer from the beginning" (John Viii. 44).
The Satan of "Christendom
religion" is the mythical monster of Babylonian paganism. And the general
acceptance of this "Satan myth" has led to the popular misreading of these
words. The vain boast of the Christ-rejecting Jews, that God was their Father,
brought on them the scathing reply, "Ye are of your father the devil, and
the desires of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the
beginning, and has not stood in the truth, because the truth is not in him.
When he speaketh THE lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar, and the
father of IT."
What mean these awful words, addressed by the Lord
Jesus to earnest men of character and repute, who, under their responsibilities
as religious leaders, deplored His teaching? "A murderer from the beginning."
The beginning of what? Not of his own existence, for he was created in
perfectness ; nor yet of the Eden paradise, for long ere then Satan had dragged
down others in his ruin. His being a murderer connects itself immediately with
the truth which he refused, and the lie of which he is the father. These words
of our Divine Lord give us, therefore, a glimpse into a past eternity, when, to
the great intelligences of the heavenly world, God made known His purpose of a
"first-born," who was "in all things to have the pre-eminence." The greatest of
those heavenly beings claimed that place ; and, rebelling against the Divine
purpose, he set; himself from that hour to thwart its fulfilment. And so during
all the ages, as Luther wrote. "he hath no other business in hand but this
only, to persecute and vex our Saviour Christ." Therefore was it, that he
compassed the ruin of our race. Therefore was it, that, in order to stamp out
the house of David, he incited Athaliah to destroy "all the seed royal (2 Kings
xi.), and at the Nativity he incited Herod to destroy "all the children that
were in Bethlehem" (Matthew ii. 16).
But it was not until the
Temptation that his lie was plainly revealed. He there claimed to meet the Lord
on more than equal terms, Having "led Him up," and given Him that mysterious
vision of earthly sovereignty, "the devil said unto Him, To Thee will I give
this authority, and the glory of them, for it hath been delivered unto me, and
to whomsoever I will I give it. If Thou, therefore, wilt worship before me, it
shall all be Thine."
This was the bold assertion of his claim to be the
true first-born, the rightful heir of creation, and therefore entitled to the
worship of mankind. He is the awful being to whom Scripture accords the title
of "the god of this world," not because the Supreme has delegated it, but
because the world yields it to him.
As the temptation revealed him as
the liar, Gethsemane and Calvary revealed him as the murderer. "Satan entered
into Judas," we read - a phrase that has no parallel in all the Scripture. And
surely when the Evil One heard "Emmanuel's orphan-cry" upon the cross, and saw
His body carried to the tomb, he must have thought his victory was assured. But
though foiled, he is still unconquered. For the Scriptures tell us of a supreme
effort yet to come when -"woe to the hated race "- all the powers of hell will
be at work to deceive mankind, and to thwart that coming triumph of the Lord of
glory, "when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and
power."
The devil of " Christendom religion "is a wonderful being who,
like God Almighty, is omnipresent; for, the wide world over, he is by the side
of every nursery cot, and at the elbow of every human being, making the babies
naughty and the "grown-ups" vicious! This pestilent nonsense is believed even
by spiritual Christians. Human nature being what it is, no devil is needed to
make people tell lies, or to account for murders incited by the lusts and
passions of evil men. But how can we account for the untold myriads of murders
that have befouled the awful record of the professing "Christian Church"-
crimes more hideous than any that have been due to lust or greed? "Natural"
murders (if such a phrase may be allowed) await the final judgment of the great
day; but not these hell-born crimes of the so-called "Christian Church,"
"drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of
Jesus."'
And yet these ghastly crimes were committed in the name of
Christ, and by men who were outwardly devout and good; and they are justified,
even today, by multitudes of people who are as kind-hearted and "religious " as
the best of us ! Yes, of a truth the devil has been a murderer from the
beginning, and he is the god of this world. May not the very many Psalms of
David which contain references to conspiracies and plots against his life be
read in the light of these words of the Lord Jesus about Satan? For surely
there was no life in Old Testament story against which the devil's malice would
have been more specially directed than that of David; for the devil must have
known the prominence he held in the scheme of the Messianic purposes. In the
opening sentence of the New Testament, Christ is designated "the son of David";
and in the opening sentence of the Epistles, as "made of the seed of David
according to the flesh." May we not give a new reading then to the so-called
"imprecatory Psalms"? So far from expressing, as the Rationalists suppose the
cravings of an angry Kaiser for vengeance on his personal enemies, are they not
the inspired utterances of the prophet-king with reference to his peculiar
share in the conflict of the ages between Christ and His great enemy who was "a
murderer from the beginning"
"And whosoever liveth and believeth in
Me shall never die" (John xi. 26).
Here is the received exegesis of
these words, as given by one of the best of our modern commentators "Faith in
Me is the source of life, both here and hereafter, and those who have it, have
Life, so that they shall never die," physical death being overlooked and
disregarded, in comparison with that which is really and only death. . . .
There can hardly be any reference in Verse 26 to the state of the living
faithful at the Lord's coming (1 Corinthians xv. 51), for although the Apostle
there, speaking of believers primarily and especially, uses the first person -
the saying would be equally true of unbelievers, on whose bodies the change
from the corruptible to the incorruptible will equally pass, and of whom the
'shall never die' would here be equally true,- whereas the saying is one
setting forth an exclusive privilege of the man that "liveth and believeth on
Me."
This explains why our present verse is a "Misunderstood Text " ;
for our theologians generally confound that Coming of Christ, which is revealed
as the present hope of His people, with the event of the last great dies
irce in a very far-distant future. And thus, as in the case of certain
other passages, a subtle argument is needed to vindicate the truth of the
Lord's words. He called Lazarus from the tomb to die again; but "the living" of
whom He here speaks are the "those who are alive and remain" of 1 Corinthians
xv. (see p. 95, post); and they shall never die.
And here one may well
ask, Who among us really believes that it is the same voice which recalled
Lazarus from death that will yet call forth " all that are in their graves "
(John v. 28)? Who among us believes that, even then, He could have spoken the
word which would have summoned all the dead to life again? But though He had "
all power," He ever held it in subjection to the will of His Father in
heaven.
Chapter Four
Literature | Photos | Links | Home