John 3:5-6 구원파의 구원표 사기

 John 3:5-6 구원파의 구원표 사기

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203%3A5-6&version=NLT;MSG;NIV;ERV;CEV

 

(NLT)

“I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.
 Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life.

(NIV)
 “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God
 unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

(CEV)
I tell you for certain that before you can get into God’s kingdom,
you must be born not only by water, but by the Spirit.
 Humans give life to their children.

Yet only God’s Spirit can change you into a child of God.

 

개역개정

진실로 진실로 네게 이르노니 사람이 물과 성령으로 나지 아니하면 하나님의 나라에 들어갈 수 없느니라

육으로 난 것은 육이요 영으로 난 것은 영이니...

 

중생에 있어서 걸림돌이 되는 건 일차 water 물이고 이차 the Spirit 성신이신데

물은 물질에 속한 것이기는 하지만 상징적으로 해석도 가하므로 문제고

성신님은 하나님이시니 사람이 대신할 수 없으므로 크게 문제가 없을 듯 하지만

신 노릇에 이골이 난 사람들이 성신을 사칭하는 것이 너무나도 자연스러운지라

영어에서 spirit 인간영과 Spirit 성신(聖神) 사이에 대소문자 차이만 보일뿐

영적으로는 확실히 선 그어 구별하기가 쉽지 않기에

기만자가 사기치기 이어 반장이고

신자가 사기당하기 안성맞춤이다

 

(일반적으로 '성령'을 쓰지만 본인은 하나님이라는 의미가 들어간 '성신'을 선호한다)

 

해서 구원파 사기단들이 중생날을 알아야 구원받은 것이라 혹세무민 하는데

현실적으로 성인 아닌  갗 태어난 신생아가 자기 생일날을 스스로 알리 만무고

좀 더 성숙한 초등생이나 대학생이라도 단지 부모가 알려 주어서 아는 거지

스스로 생일날을 아는 사람이 일절 없고 알 수도 없는 건

육신 출생조차도 자기 힘과 노력이 아닌 부모님의 노력의 결과인 때문이다

 

혹자는 물세례 받은 날이 구원받은 날이라 사기 치는데

물론 진정한 회개의 표시로 물세례를 받는다면

그날을 깃점으로 믿음이 점점 자랄 수 있기에

상징적인 중생일로 기념할 수는 있겠지만 물만으로 되는 것도 아니고

상징적이든 실제적이든 물은 물이요 물질이라 영적인 가치를 부여할 수 없고

영적인 영역에서는 영이신 성신 하나님께서 관여하실 일이고

성경 문맥상으로도 바람처럼 역사하시므로

모년모월모일모시에 구원을 베프 신다는 것을 알 수도 없는데 알 수 있다 하면

그게 바로 인신이 성신을 빙자한 영적인 사기가 아니면 무엇이랴?

 

같은 사람이라도 신생아가 태어난 것을 다 알 수 있는 것은 아니고

출생을 증인 한 부모나 의사나 간호원이 알려 주거나 서류를 보아 아는 건데

영적인 출생을 증인 할 사람은 세상에 하나도 없을 건

어떤 누가 감히 천국에 올라가서 천국출생을 증인 할 수 있겠나 생각하면

구원파의 중생 날짜 운운은 완전 종교사기극과 유사하다

 

세상의 끝날을 아무도 모른다 했는데

자기만 특별계시를 받았다 하여 모년모월모일이라 선언하면

자기가 성자 하나님 보다도 더 잘났다는 선언이 아니고 무엇이랴만

잘나서만 하는 playing God 신노릇 아니고 죄인 특성상 누구나 하는 거라

누구나 성경을 주관적으로 사사로이 풀듯 하는 말이라 알면 사기당할 일 없겠지만

TV 드라마 시청에 이골 난 사람들은 극과 현실 차이 구별을 잘 못하므로

이단 종교극이 사칭인지 사기인지 사실인지 오리무중이라 쉽게 사기당한다

 

마술사 시몬이 물세례는 받았으니 중생의 피상적인 조건인 물은 구비한 듯 하지만

또 다른 영적 조건인 성신은 부재하여 돈 주고 사려했던 점으로 미루어 보아

그의 물은 진정한 회개의 씻는 물이 아니고 종교의식상의 허식에 불과했다 알 수 있고

허식은 가식이라 진실/정직한 마음과 신실한 믿음이 부재하니

그런 가식자/위선자에게 신실하신 성신님께서 임하실 수가 없었을 것이라

성신의 역사가 아닌 돈 역사로 천국 입장을 시도했던 것 때문에

동명이인인 사도 시몬에게 혼줄이 났던 사도행전의 기록이 있듯

 

오늘날에도 많은 신자들이 형식적인 침례는 받았지만

물의 상징적인 역할상 사람이 해야 할 일인 진정한 회개로

선한 양심이 하나님을 찾아가는 순례과정이 부재한 때문에

천국 갈 확신은 없는지라 돈으로 구원표를 사려 거금을 바쳐서

헌금 게시판 첫자리에 이름이 올라가는 걸로 만족자족하고

제 마음대로 세상 살다가 마지막날 천국에만 입성하자 하나

그날에 가서 '나는 너를 모른다'는 선언을 들으면 어찌할꼬?

 

사실 이런 현실은 기독인이면 누구에게나 있는 것이지만

'나를 찾고 찾으면 만나리라' 하신 하나님 말씀에 의거하여

찾고 또 찾으며 믿음의 길로 가다 보면 만남은 필연 일건 만남약속 때문이요

언젠가는 구원의 확신이 자연스레 오리라 보는 건

육체의 부모님이 넌 내 자식이 다며 증인해 주니 알듯

하나님께서도 확실히 인증해 주시지 않겠나 생각되는데

시 에스 루이스는 이런 말로 구원이 이른 것을 설명한다 본다

 

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen:

not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. -- C. S. Lewis

 

나는 해가 떴다는 것을 믿듯 기독교를 믿는다

내가 해를 보는 것 때문만은 아니고 해가 비추기에 다른 모든 것이 보이기 때문이다

 

이와 같이 그리스도를 진정으로 내 구주로 모시면

빛이신 그리스도께서 오셔서 다른 모든 것을 보이게 하실 것이므로

구원주이신 그리스도께서 오신 걸 알 수 있고

구원주께서 계시니 그것이 곧 구원이요 중생인 증거가 되는데

그리스도께서 보여 주시는 것 무지 많은 중

가장 현격한 증거는

우리 죄 때문에 십자가를 지신 그리스도이시기에

죄가 싫어지고 무서워진다는 것이 아닐까?

 

Lord, help us to enter into Your kingdom through the Holy Spirit. Amen.

 

 

 

 

참조

https://biblehub.com/john/3-5.htm
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(5) Again the words "Verily, verily" (comp. Note on chap John 1:51), calling attention to the deeper truth which follows; and again the words of authority, "I say unto thee."

Of water and of the Spirit.--We are here on the borderland of a great controversy.

 

The subject is closely connected with that of the discourse in Capernaum (John 6), and so far as it is a subject for the pages of a Commentary at all, it will be better to treat of it in connection with that discourse. (See Excursus C: The Sacramental Teaching of St. John's Gospel.)

 

Our task here is to ask what meaning the words were intended by the Speaker to convey to the hearer; and this seems not to admit of doubt.

 

The baptism of proselytes was already present to the thought; the baptism of John had excited the attention of all Jerusalem, and the Sanhedrin had officially inquired into it. Jesus Himself had submitted to it, but "the Pharisees and lawyers" [Nicodemus was both] "rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptised of him" (Luke 7:29). The key to the present verse is found in the declaration of John, "I baptise with water... He baptiseth with the Holy Ghost" (John 1:26; John 1:33), and this key must have been then in the mind of Nicodemus.

 

The message was, baptism with water; baptism with water, by which the Gentile had been admitted as a new-born babe to Judaism, the rite representing the cleansing of the life from heathen pollutions and devotion to the service of the true God; baptism with water, which John had preached in his ministry of reformation (comp. Matthew 3:7), declaring a like cleansing as needed for Jew and Gentile, Pharisee and publican, as the gate to the kingdom of heaven, which was at hand; baptism with water, which demanded a public profession in the presence of witnesses, and an open loyalty to the new kingdom, not a visit by night, under the secrecy of darkness--this is the message of God to the teacher seeking admission to His kingdom. This he would understand. It would now be clear to him why John came baptising, and why Jews were themselves baptised confessing their sins.

 

There is no further explanation of the "outward and visible sign," but the teaching passes on to the "inward and spiritual grace," the baptism of the Holy Ghost, the birth of the Spirit, which was the work of the Messiah Himself.

 

Of this, indeed, there were foreshadowings and promises in the Old Testament Scriptures (comp., e.g., Ezekiel 36:25 et seq.; Jeremiah 31:33; Joel 2:28); but the deeper meaning of such passages was buried beneath the ruins of the schools of prophets, and few among later teachers had penetrated to it. It is hard for this Rabbi to see it, even when it is brought home to him.

(5) It is believed that the rendering adopted agrees with the whole context, and gives a fuller sense to the words of the great Teacher.

Pulpit Commentary
Verse 5. - Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man (any one) have been born (out) of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. This memorable utterance has been the occasion of much controversy, arising from the contested sanction thus supposed to be given to the opus operatura of baptism, and to the identification of water baptism with Spirit baptism.

 

Expositors have asserted that the rite of water baptism is not merely regarded as the expressive symbol and prophecy of the spiritual change which is declared to be indispensable to admission into the kingdom, but the veritable means by which that baptism of the Spirit is effected.

 

Now, in the first place, we observe that the sentence is a reply to Nicodemus, who had just expressed his blank astonishment at the idea that a fundamental change must pass over a man, in any sense equivalent to a second birth, before he can see the kingdom of God. Our Lord modifies the last clause, and speaks of entering into the kingdom of God rather than perceiving or discerning the features of the kingdom.

 

Some have urged that ἰδεῖν of ver. 3 is equivalent to εἰσελθεῖν εἰς of ver. 5. The vision, say they, is only possible to those who partake of the privileges of the kingdom. But the latter phrase does certainly express a further idea - a richer and fuller appreciation of the authority and glory of the King; just as the "birth of water and of the Spirit" conveys deeper and further thought to Nicodemus, than did the previously used expression‎, γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν.

 

The first expression‎ was dark in the extreme; the latter pours light upon it. "Birth of water" points at once to the method so frequently adopted in Jewish ceremonial, by which a complete change of state and right before God was instituted by water.

 

Thus, a man who had not gone through the appropriate and commanded lustrations was unfit to present his offering, to receive the benediction sought by his sacrificial presentment; the priest was not in a fit state to carry the blood of the covenant into the holy place without frequent washings, which indicated the extent and defilement of his birth stain. Nicodemus for probably thirty years had seen priests and men thus qualifying themselves for solemn functions.

 

So great was the urgency of these ideas that, as he must have known, the Essenes had formed separate communities, with the view of carrying out to the full consummation the idea of ritual purity. More than this, it is not improbable that proselytes from heathen nations, when brought into covenant relation with the theocratic people, were, at the very time of this conversation, admitted by baptismal rites into this privilege.

 

To the entire confusion of Pharisee and Sadducee, John the Baptist had demanded of every class of the holy people "repentance unto remission of sins," a demand which was accepted on the part of the multitudes by submitting to the rite of baptism. The vastly important question then arises' - Did John by this baptism, or by any power he wielded, give to the people repentance or remission of sins?

 

Certainly not, if we may conclude from the repeated judgment pronounced by him self and by the apostles after him. Nothing but the blood and Spirit of Christ could convey either remission or repentance to the souls of men. John preached the baptism of repentance unto remission, but could confer neither. He taught the people to look to One who should come after him. He sharply discriminated the baptism with water from the baptism of the Spirit and fire.

 

This discrimination has been repeatedly referred to already in this Gospel. Thus the Fathers of the Church saw distinctly that there was no regenerating efficacy in the water baptism of John, and the Council of Trent elevated this position into a canonical dogma. It is most melancholy that they did not also perceive that this judgment of theirs about the baptism of John applied to water baptism altogether. Christ's disciples baptized (not Christ himself, John 4:2) with water unto repentance and remission; but even up to the day of Pentecost there is no hint of this process being more than stimulus to that repentance which is the gift of God, and to the consequent pardon which was the condition of still further communication of the Holy Spirit.

 

The great baptism which Christ would administer was the baptism of Spirit and fire. The references to the baptism of the early Church are not numerous in the New Testament, but they are given as if for the very purpose of showing that the water baptism was not a necessary or indispensable condition to the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

Cornelius and his friends received the sacred bestowment before baptism. The language of the Ethiopian ennuch shows that he had received the holy and best gift of Divine illumination and faith before baptism. Simon Magus was baptized with water by Philip, but was in the gall of bitterness and un-spirituality.

 

There is no proof at all that the apostles of Christ (with the exception of Paul) wore ever baptized with water, unless it were at the hands of John. Consequently, we cannot believe, with this entire group of facts before us, that our Lord was making any ceremonial rite whatsoever indispensable to entrance into the kingdom.

 

His own reception and forgiveness of the woman that was a sinner, of the paralytic, and of the dying brigand, his breathing over his disciples as symbolic of the great spiritual gift they were afterwards to receive, is the startling and impressive repudiation of the idea that Christian baptism in his own name, or, still less, that that ordinance treated as a supernaturally endowed and divinely enriched sacrament, was even so much as referred to in this great utterance. But the entire system of Jewish, proselyte, and Johannine baptisms was in the mind of both Nicodemus and Christ.

 

These were all symbolic of the confession and repentance, which are the universal human conditions of pardon, and, as a ritual, were allowed to his disciples before and after Pentecost, as anticipatory of the great gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

No baptism, no "birth out of water," can give repentance or enforce confession; but the familiar process may indicate the imperative necessity for both, and prove still more a prophecy of the vital, spiritual transformation which, in the following verse, is dissociated from the water altogether.

 

Calvin, while admitting the general necessity for baptism, repudiates the idea that the rite is indispensable to salvation, and maintains that "water" here means nothing different or other than "the Spirit," as descriptive of one of its great methods of operation, just as "Holy Spirit and fire" are elsewhere conjoined.

 

(NLT)“I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.
 Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life.

(NIV)
 “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God
 unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

(CEV)
I tell you for certain that before you can get into God’s kingdom,
you must be born not only by water, but by the Spirit.
 Humans give life to their children.
Yet only God’s Spirit can change you into a child of God.

 

개역개정진실로 진실로 네게 이르노니 사람이 물과 성령으로 나지 아니하면 하나님의 나라에 들어갈 수 없느니라
육으로 난 것은 육이요 영으로 난 것은 영이니...

 

중생에 있어서 걸림돌이 되는건 일차 water 물이고 이차 the Spirit 성신이신데물은 물질에 속한 것이기는 하지만 상징적으로 해석도 가하므로 문제고
성신님은 하나님이시니 사람이 대신할 수 없으므로 크게 문제가 없을 듯 하지만
신 노릇에 이골이 난 사람들이 성신을 사칭하는 것이 너무나도 자연스러운지라영어에서 spirit 인신 과 Spirit 성신(聖神) 사이에 대소문자 차이만 보일뿐
영적으로는 확실히 선 그어 구별하기가 쉽지 않기에기만자가 사기치기 이여반장이고신자가 사기당하기 안성마춤이다

 

(일반적으로 '성령'을 쓰지만 본인은 하나님이라는 의미가 들어간 '성신'을 선호한다)

 

해서 구원파 사기단들이 중생날을 알아야 구원 받은것이라 혹세무민하는데
현실적으로 성인아닌  갗 태어난 신생아가 자기 생일날을 스스로 알리 만무고좀더 성숙한 초등생이나 대학생이라도 단지 부모가 알려 주어서 아는거지스스로 생일날을 아는 사람이 일절없고 알 수도 없는건육신출생 조차도 자기 힘과 노력이 아닌 부모님의 노력의 결과인 때문이다

 

혹자는 물세레 받은 날이 구원받은 날이라 사기치는데물론 진정한 회개의 표시로 물세례를 받는다면그날을 깃점으로 믿음이 점점 자랄 수 있기에상징적인 중생일로 기념할 수는 있겠지만 물만으로 되는것도 아니고
상징적이든 실제적이든 물은 물이요 물질이라 영적인 가치를 부여할 수 없고
영적인 영역에서는 영이신 성신 하나님께서 관여하실 일이고성경 문맥상으로도 바람처럼 역사하시므로모년모월모일모시에 구원을 베프신다는 것을 알 수도 없는데 알 수 있다 하면
그게 바로 인신이 성신을 빙자한 영적인 사기가 아니면 무었이랴?

 

같은 사람이라도 신생아가 태어난 것을 다 알 수 있는 것은 아니고출생을 증인한 부모나 의사나 간호원이 알려 주거나 서류를 보아 아는건데영적인 출생을 증인할 사람은 세상에 하나도 없을건어떤 누가 감히 천국에 올라가서 천국출생을 증인할 수 있겠나 생각하면
구원파의 중생 날짜 운운은 완전 종교사기극과 유사하다

 

세상의 끝날을 아무도 모른다 했는데
자기만 특별계시를 받았다 하여 모년모월모일이라 선언하면자기가 성자 하나님 보다도 더 잘났다는 선언이 아니고 무었이랴만잘나서만 하는 playing God 신노릇 아니고 죄인 특성상 누구나 하는거라누구나 성경을 주관적으로 사사로이 풀듯 하는 말이라 알면 사기당할 일 없겠지만TV 드라마 시청에 이골난 사람들은 극과 현실 차이 구별을 잘 못하므로이단 종교극이 사칭인지 사기인지 사실인지 오리무중이라 쉽게 사기 당한다

 

마술사 시몬이 물 세례는 받았으니 중생의 피상적인 조건인 물은 구비한듯 하지만또 다른 영적 조건인 성신은 부재하여 돈주고 사려했던 점으로 미루어 보아그의 물은 진정한 회개의 씻는 물이 아니고 종교 의식상의 허식에 불과했다 알 수 있고허식은 가식이라 진실/정직한 마음과 신실한 믿음이 부재하니그런 가식자/위선자에게 신실하신 성신님께서 임하실 수가 없었을 것이라성신의 역사가 아닌 돈 역사로 천국 입장을 시도했던 것 때문에
동명이인인 사도 시몬에게 혼줄이 났던 사도행전의 기록이 있듯

 

오늘날에도 많은 신자들이 형식적인 침례는 받았지만물의 상징적인 역할상 사람이 해야 할 일인 진정한 회개로선한 양심이 하나님을 찾아가는 순례과정이 부재한 때문에
천국갈 확신은 없는지라 돈으로 구원표를 사려 거금을 바쳐서
헌금 게시판 첫 자리에 이름이 올라가는 걸로 만족자족하고
제 마음대로 세상 살다가 마지막날 천국에만 입성하자 하나그날에 가서 '나는 너를 모른다'는 선언을 들으면 어찌할꼬?

 

사실 이런 현실은 기독인이면 누구에게나 있는 것이지만'나를 찾고 찾으면 만나리라' 하신 하나님 말씀에 의거하여찾고 또 찾으며 믿음의 길로 가다보면 만남은 필연일건 만남약속 때문이요
언젠가는 구원의 확신이 자연스레 오리라 보는건육체의 부모님이 넌 내 자식이다며 증인해 주니 알듯하나님께서도 확실히 인증해 주시지 않겠나 생각되는데시 에스 루이스는 이런말로 구원이 이른것을 설명한다 본다

 

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen:
not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. -- C. S. Lewis

 

나는 해가 떳다는 것을 믿듯 기독교를 믿는다내가 해를 보는것 때문만은 아니고 해가 비추기에 다른 모든것이 보이기 때문이다

 

이와같이 그리스도를 진정으로 내 구주로 모시면
빛이신 그리스도께서 오셔서 다른 모든것을 보이게 하실 것이므로구원주이신 그리스도께서 오신걸 알 수 있고구원주께서 계시니 그것이 곧 구원이요 중생인 증거가 되는데그리스도께서 보여 주시는 것 무지 많은 중
가장 현격한 증거는우리 죄 때문에 십자가를 지신 그리스도이시기에
죄가 싫어지고 무서워 진다는 것이 아닐까?

 

Lord, help us to enter into Your kingdom through the Holy Spirit. Amen.

 

 

 

참조

https://biblehub.com/john/3-5.htm

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(5) Again the words "Verily, verily" (comp. Note on chap John 1:51), calling attention to the deeper truth which follows; and again the words of authority, "I say unto thee."

Of water and of the Spirit.--We are here on the borderland of a great controversy.

 

The subject is closely connected with that of the discourse in Capernaum (John 6), and so far as it is a subject for the pages of a Commentary at all, it will be better to treat of it in connection with that discourse. (See Excursus C: The Sacramental Teaching of St. John's Gospel.)

 

Our task here is to ask what meaning the words were intended by the Speaker to convey to the hearer; and this seems not to admit of doubt.

 

The baptism of proselytes was already present to the thought; the baptism of John had excited the attention of all Jerusalem, and the Sanhedrin had officially inquired into it. Jesus Himself had submitted to it, but "the Pharisees and lawyers" [Nicodemus was both] "rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptised of him" (Luke 7:29). The key to the present verse is found in the declaration of John, "I baptise with water . . . He baptiseth with the Holy Ghost" (John 1:26; John 1:33), and this key must have been then in the mind of Nicodemus.

 

The message was, baptism with water; baptism with water, by which the Gentile had been admitted as a new-born babe to Judaism, the rite representing the cleansing of the life from heathen pollutions and devotion to the service of the true God; baptism with water, which John had preached in his ministry of reformation (comp. Matthew 3:7), declaring a like cleansing as needed for Jew and Gentile, Pharisee and publican, as the gate to the kingdom of heaven, which was at hand; baptism with water, which demanded a public profession in the presence of witnesses, and an open loyalty to the new kingdom, not a visit by night, under the secrecy of darkness--this is the message of God to the teacher seeking admission to His kingdom. This he would understand. It would now be clear to him why John came baptising, and why Jews were themselves baptised confessing their sins.

 

There is no further explanation of the "outward and visible sign," but the teaching passes on to the "inward and spiritual grace," the baptism of the Holy Ghost, the birth of the Spirit, which was the work of the Messiah Himself.

 

Of this, indeed, there were foreshadowings and promises in the Old Testament Scriptures (comp., e.g., Ezekiel 36:25 et seq.; Jeremiah 31:33; Joel 2:28); but the deeper meaning of such passages was buried beneath the ruins of the schools of prophets, and few among later teachers had penetrated to it. It is hard for this Rabbi to see it, even when it is brought home to him.

(5) It is believed that the rendering adopted agrees with the whole context, and gives a fuller sense to the words of the great Teacher.

Pulpit Commentary
Verse 5. - Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man (any one) have been born (out) of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. This memorable utterance has been the occasion of much controversy, arising from the contested sanction thus supposed to be given to the opus operatura of baptism, and to the identification of water baptism with Spirit baptism.

 

Expositors have asserted that the rite of water baptism is not merely regarded as the expressive symbol and prophecy of the spiritual change which is declared to be indispensable to admission into the kingdom, but the veritable means by which that baptism of the Spirit is effected.

 

Now, in the first place, we observe that the sentence is a reply to Nicodemus, who had just expressed his blank astonishment at the idea that a fundamental change must pass over a man, in any sense equivalent to a second birth, before he can see the kingdom of God. Our Lord modifies the last clause, and speaks of entering into the kingdom of God rather than perceiving or discerning the features of the kingdom.

 

Some have urged that ἰδεῖν of ver. 3 is equivalent to εἰσελθεῖν εἰς of ver. 5. The vision, say they, is only possible to those who partake of the privileges of the kingdom. But the latter phrase does certainly express a further idea - a richer and fuller appreciation of the authority and glory of the King; just as the "birth of water and of the Spirit" conveys deeper and further thought to Nicodemus, than did the previously used expression, γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν.

 

The first expression was dark in the extreme; the latter pours light upon it. "Birth of water" points at once to the method so frequently adopted in Jewish ceremonial, by which a complete change of state and right before God was instituted by water.

 

Thus, a man who had not gone through the appropriate and commanded lustrations was unfit to present his offering, to receive the benediction sought by his sacrificial presentment; the priest was not in a fit state to carry the blood of the covenant into the holy place without frequent washings, which indicated the extent and defilement of his birth stain. Nicodemus for probably thirty years had seen priests and men thus qualifying themselves for solemn functions.

 

So great was the urgency of these ideas that, as he must have known, the Essenes had formed separate communities, with the view of carrying out to the full consummation the idea of ritual purity. More than this, it is not improbable that proselytes from heathen nations, when brought into covenant relation with the theocratic people, were, at the very time of this conversation, admitted by baptismal rites into this privilege.

 

To the entire confusion of Pharisee and Sadducee, John the Baptist had demanded of every class of the holy people "repentance unto remission of sins," a demand which was accepted on the part of the multitudes by submitting to the rite of baptism. The vastly important question then arises' - Did John by this baptism, or by any power he wielded, give to the people repentance or remission of sins?

 

Certainly not, if we may conclude from the repeated judgment pronounced by him self and by the apostles after him. Nothing but the blood and Spirit of Christ could convey either remission or repentance to the souls of men. John preached the baptism of repentance unto remission, but could confer neither. He taught the people to look to One who should come after him. He sharply discriminated the baptism with water from the baptism of the Spirit and fire.

 

This discrimination has been repeatedly referred to already in this Gospel. Thus the Fathers of the Church saw distinctly that there was no regenerating efficacy in the water baptism of John, and the Council of Trent elevated this position into a canonical dogma. It is most melancholy that they did not also perceive that this judgment of theirs about the baptism of John applied to water baptism altogether. Christ's disciples baptized (not Christ himself, John 4:2) with water unto repentance and remission; but even up to the day of Pentecost there is no hint of this process being more than stimulus to that repentance which is the gift of God, and to the consequent pardon which was the condition of still further communication of the Holy Spirit.

 

The great baptism which Christ would administer was the baptism of Spirit and fire. The references to the baptism of the early Church are not numerous in the New Testament, but they are given as if for the very purpose of showing that the water baptism was not a necessary or indispensable condition to the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

Cornelius and his friends received the sacred bestowment before baptism. The language of the Ethiopian ennuch shows that he had received the holy and best gift of Divine illumination and faith before baptism. Simon Magus was baptized with water by Philip, but was in the gall of bitterness and un-spirituality.

 

There is no proof at all that the apostles of Christ (with the exception of Paul) wore ever baptized with water, unless it were at the hands of John. Consequently, we cannot believe, with this entire group of facts before us, that our Lord was making any ceremonial rite whatsoever indispensable to entrance into the kingdom.

 

His own reception and forgiveness of the woman that was a sinner, of the paralytic, and of the dying brigand, his breathing over his disciples as symbolic of the great spiritual gift they were afterwards to receive, is the startling and impressive repudiation of the idea that Christian baptism in his own name, or, still less, that that ordinance treated as a supernaturally endowed and divinely enriched sacrament, was even so much as referred to in this great utterance. But the entire system of Jewish, proselyte, and Johannine baptisms was in the mind of both Nicodemus and Christ.

 

These were all symbolic of the confession and repentance, which are the universal human conditions of pardon, and, as a ritual, were allowed to his disciples before and after Pentecost, as anticipatory of the great gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

No baptism, no "birth out of water," can give repentance or enforce confession; but the familiar process may indicate the imperative necessity for both, and prove still more a prophecy of the vital, spiritual transformation which, in the following verse, is dissociated from the water altogether.

 

Calvin, while admitting the general necessity for baptism, repudiates the idea that the rite is indispensable to salvation, and maintains that "water" here means nothing different or other than "the Spirit," as descriptive of one of its great methods of operation, just as "Holy Spirit and fire" are elsewhere conjoined.