Does Jesus Evangelize Nicodemus in John 3?

[John of Japan]

I read this interesting article, Bro. John...




http://www.reformation21.org/articles/nicodemus-when-knowing-the-bible-isnt-enough.php#.dpuf

Excellent! Thank you. I like his reference to Wittgenstein. I once mentioned in a presentation Wittgenstein as someone I had to read to round out my knowledge of a subject, and afterwards a well-known scholar told me, "Naw, don't read Wittgenstein!"

One caveat: the writer says that "born from above" is "more literal" than "born again." But the Greek word can mean either, so I take it that John was being ambiguous then, with either meaning possible.

 

[John of Japan]

Bro. John, I love your avatar and the face you're making. If I was a betting man, I'd bet dollars to donuts that's your son with you.

You got it, that is "Dr. Paul," as everyone calls him here, that I'm hamming it up with. It is so great to be teaching with my son.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I was reading Mark 7 when I read this...

"The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles. ) So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?” He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

It appears Nicodemus was of a sect of unbelievers. It seems God was at work revealling Christ to him.

 

[Iconoclast]

InTheLight

I've never heard anyone, ever, say that Jesus was not attempting to point Nicodemus to salvation.

Well now you have.

Looks like another case of cognitive dissonance between the Calvinist's stated need for missions vs. their belief that the elect are chosen from before the foundation of the world. Just another inconsistency.

Just another case of you displaying your ignorance of the view, of election, and how off the mark you are.
So your stated position is the Elect are not chosen before the foundation of the world????

Or else another case of Iconoclast having no rebuttal.

I have more than enough rebuttal for a clown post like you offer here,posting this denial of God's election .

Take your pick. (Both picks are valid, BTW.

You got it, Your folly will go no further. You did not really answer the other thread, so i will get to that soon enough, but John has invited me for more serious adult discussion.

 

[Iconoclast]

John of Japan

I was just blown away by a post in the thread on the evangelism of Jesus. Now this thread is not to pick on Iconoclast, but just to try to figure out what he said:

okay..let's see-

In my 60 years of Christian life I've never heard this before.

If you have been a christian for 60 years and not heard of any of this , I would have to ask if that is possible.
The other day you said you have read Berkhof....and yet maintain you never heard such a thing?

I'm not trying to pick on Iconoclast here, but I'm really curious about this view. What do you think?

I'm not trying to pick on JOJ here, but I am curious as to your understanding of how Israelites were made members of the Old Covenant?
Are you saying that Nicodemus...the "teacher in Israel" was not in the Covenant?

If Nicodemus was in the Covenant....do you have evidence that he was a covenant breaker?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Bro. Iconoclast, do you think Nicodemus was saved? I think he was regenerated and Christ finished what God started. Nicodemus was a Pharisee of the Sanhedrin, and Jesus rebuked the Pharisees in Mark 7. I think why he sought Christ was he knew Jesus differently than the others, per his John 3:2 quote.

 

[Iconoclast]

JOJ....do you think this applied to Nicodemus or not? If it did he was a covenant member. Unless you can show he was a covenant breaker....


Gen 17-

5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.


10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.


11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.


12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.


13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.


14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

 

[SovereignGrace]

So I see you agreed with my last post. So I tend to think Jesus was evangelizing to Nicodemus. Where do you disagree? I ask to see where are agreements and disagreements lay.

 

[JonC]

Christ finished what God started.

I am not sure what you mean here. If you will explain it'd be appreciated.

 

[Iconoclast]

Everyone alive who was an OT saint at the time of Jesus had to be brought into the New Covenant.
They were saved as old covenant saints but then were transitioned into the new Covenant by being born from above.

 

[Iconoclast]

So I see you agreed with my last post. So I tend to think Jesus was evangelizing to Nicodemus. Where do you disagree? I ask to see where are agreements and disagreements lay.

Hello SG

Nicodemus was in the OLD COVENANT already. He was defective in his understanding for sure.
Here he is face to face with The Great shepherd of the Sheep from ezk 34;
8 As I live, saith the Lord God, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock;

9 Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord;

10 Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.

11 For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out.

12 As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day.

The article you cited was accurate. It seems that Nicodemus was curious as if Jesus was the one Moses spoke of..deut18:15,yes however...his understanding was defective, and lame. Jesus here starts with first things first....unless he is equipped by the Spirit, born from above, he will not be able to receive Divine truth;

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

I believe Jesus knew what piece of the puzzle Nicodemus needed....and He was correcting him where he was totally defective.
This is pre-cross...so Nicodemus and the Apostles at this point are OT. covenant persons.

They are in the Covenant externally yes, like the jews in Jn 8....but The real circumcision of the heart was still needful for OT believers deut 10;
14 Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the Lord's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.

15 Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.

16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

18 He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment.

19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

20 Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.

Nicodemus should have had a better grasp on this.....Jesus corrected him.
Notice....he did not ask Nicodemus for his end time view, or if he was rapture ready, or read the 4 spiritual laws...No..it was about being really in the kingdom God's way.

 

[DHK]

Everyone alive who was an OT saint at the time of Jesus had to be brought into the New Covenant.
They were saved as old covenant saints but then were transitioned into the new Covenant by being born from above.

And when did that happen?
When was Nicodemus brought into this New Covenant?

When was Peter brought into this New Covenant?
Was it before or after this event?

Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Peter's confession was revealed to him from the Father in heaven. Was he regenerated?
Or, was he still a pre-cross OT saint?

 

[SovereignGrace]

I am not sure what you mean here. If you will explain it'd be appreciated.

Bro. Jon, seeing I come from the DoG side of the debate, my take may differ from yours. I posted this portion of scripture a few posts ago, and I will repost it here..

"The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles. ) So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?” He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

Right here, Christ busted their chops. They claimed to be great men of God, yet Jesus told them the true state of their heart...they were as lost as a green ball in tall weeds, yet they were teaching His word. They never believed Him, His words, and who He was and is. Yet, something sparked Nicodemus to search this Man out. Coming from the DoG side, I see it that God regenerated him, and that caused him to search out Christ. Christ then finished what His Father started.

I hope that clears it up.

 

[JonC]

Bro. Jon, seeing I come from the DoG side of the debate, my take may differ from yours. I posted this portion of scripture a few posts ago, and I will repost it here..

"The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles. ) So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?” He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

Right here, Christ busted their chops. They claimed to be great men of God, yet Jesus told them the true state of their heart...they were as lost as a green ball in tall weeds, yet they were teaching His word. They never believed Him, His words, and who He was and is. Yet, something sparked Nicodemus to search this Man out. Coming from the DoG side, I see it that God regenerated him, and that caused him to search out Christ. Christ then finished what His Father started.

I hope that clears it up.

Yes, it does. Thank you.

 

[JonC]

Bro. Jon, seeing I come from the DoG side of the debate, my take may differ from yours. I posted this portion of scripture a few posts ago, and I will repost it here..

"The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles. ) So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?” He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

Right here, Christ busted their chops. They claimed to be great men of God, yet Jesus told them the true state of their heart...they were as lost as a green ball in tall weeds, yet they were teaching His word. They never believed Him, His words, and who He was and is. Yet, something sparked Nicodemus to search this Man out. Coming from the DoG side, I see it that God regenerated him, and that caused him to search out Christ. Christ then finished what His Father started.

I hope that clears it up.

I'll ask this as well, brother. Do I understand correctly that you are saying is this instance was evangelism as what happens to Nicodemus is what happens to all who are being saved (God regenerates and this causes men to turn towards Christ)?

 

[kyredneck]

I believe Nicodemus went to Jesus looking...

No doubt he was DRAWN like a moth to the light.

21 But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God.

Just like those bitten in the wilderness were drawn to the brazen serpent. (vv. 14-16)

 

[kyredneck]

God regenerates and this causes men to turn towards Christ

Yes. Precisely.

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up;
15 that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life. Jn 3

8 And Jehovah said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a standard: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he seeth it, shall live. Nu 21

Note that the brazen serpent was lifted up for those that were bitten. Those NOT bitten had no need to go to the brazen serpent.

.........They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. Mk 2:17

6 Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Mt 5

It is the Spirit working within His children that causes them to feel their need for the Savior.

Note that God has ALREADY wrought within those that come to the light:

21 But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God. Jn 3

That's what Christ was telling Nicodemus. Before one can enter, or even see the kingdom of God he must FIRST be born from above

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan


okay..let's see-


If you have been a christian for 60 years and not heard of any of this , I would have to ask if that is possible.
The other day you said you have read Berkof....and yet maintain you never heard such a thing?

I have my Berkhof right here. Please give me the page numbers and I'd be glad to check it out, but frankly I think you are guessing. I just looked up in the indexes many of the passages in John 3 Berkhof refers to, and then the name "Nicodemus" and got nothing.

So until you give me actual page numbers, I say that you are simply guessing. You have nothing from Berkhof.

I'm not trying to pick on JOJ here, but I am curious as to your understanding of how Israelites were made members of the Old Covenant?
Are you saying that Nicodemus...the "teacher in Israel" was not in the Covenant?

If Nicodemus was in the Covenant....do you have evidence that he was a covenant breaker?

Before we go down this road, you have to clarify what you mean by "covenant." Abrahamic? Mosaic? Davidic? One of the three (or two, depending on the author) made-up covenants of covenant theology? Once you define how you are using the term "old covenant" then we can discuss it. I assume you are referencing the only time the term occurs in the whole Bible (2 Cor. 3:14), but I don't know what your understanding is of that.

 

[John of Japan]

JOJ....do you think this applied to Nicodemus or not? If it did he was a covenant member. Unless you can show he was a covenant breaker....


Gen 17-

5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Well of course it applied to Nicodemus. It's the Abrahamic covenant. Is that then the covenant you keep referring to? And no, Nicodemus was not a covenant breaker because the Abrahamic covenant was unconditional. Only God could break it, and of course He keeps His word. So circumcision was not sacramental, but only symbolic. It did not matter if an Israelite was circumcised or not when it came to salvation. They had to be saved by faith, just as we do--something dispensationalism teaches clearly and I always thought covenant theology taught too.

Now if you are saying that Nicodemus was circumcised and therefore saved (just trying to figure out your position), you are missing the point of this Gen. 17 passage entirely. Circumcision did not save, but was merely a symbol of the faith of the heart. It is a sacramentalist position to say that circumcision (or baptism, which replaced it) has any bearing whatsoever on salvation. Baptists don't believe that.

What Nicodemus needed was the new birth, and this is what Christ told him he needed, therefore this was an evangelism event. It is clear from many passages that the new birth is needed for salvation: here in John 3, 1 Peter 1:23, 1 John 3:9, 5:18, etc.

Edited in: according to Gen. 17, the meaning God had of "breaking the covenant" in Gen. 17 is merely that the Israelite who was not circumcised would not be considered a Jew, and therefore would be outside the Abrahamic covenant. It did not mean that a human could annul God's unconditional covenant--which covenant had nothing to do with salvation. Therefore it is irrelevant to this discussion whether or not Nicodemus was circumcised, because all of those lost Pharisees were.

 

[agedman]

Well of course it applied to Nicodemus. It's the Abrahamic covenant. Is that then the covenant you keep referring to? And no, Nicodemus was not a covenant breaker because the Abrahamic covenant was unconditional. Only God could break it, and of course He keeps His word. So circumcision was not sacramental, but only symbolic. It did not matter if an Israelite was circumcised or not when it came to salvation. They had to be saved by faith, just as we do--something dispensationalism teaches clearly and I always thought covenant theology taught too.

Now if you are saying that Nicodemus was circumcised and therefore saved (just trying to figure out your position), you are missing the point of this Gen. 17 passage entirely. Circumcision did not save, but was merely a symbol of the faith of the heart. It is a sacramentalist position to say that circumcision (or baptism, which replaced it) has any bearing whatsoever on salvation. Baptists don't believe that.

What Nicodemus needed was the new birth, and this is what Christ told him he needed, therefore this was an evangelism event. It is clear from many passages that the new birth is needed for salvation: here in John 3, 1 Peter 1:23, 1 John 3:9, 5:18, etc.

John,

I don't want to interrupt the flow of the thread too much, but over the years I ran across those that taught men should not be circumcised, because that would bind them again to keeping the law and gentiles had no business with anything touching the Jewish law.

In your experience, did you encounter any who had that view?