Who must be born again?
- Jul 19, 2011
- 15 min read
Updated: Mar 27, 2023
The short answer is "you must be born again!"
The long answer is a bit complicated.
the Olympic National Rain Forest, Washington state
John 3:7 is one of the most well-known and loved verses in Scripture. But we need to know what it says. Is "you" everyone or only the man Jesus was speaking with? Is "must" an absolute or are there exceptions? Is it possible to be a child of God without being born again? Do we need to know how to be born again or does God do it without us knowing? If God does it, why did Jesus tell Nicodemus he had to do it?
some preliminary information
The books of the New testament are arranged into four major groups:
— The Gospels life and teachings of Christ
— Acts history of the early church
— Letters Paul, Peter, James, Jude, John, and the writer of Hebrews
— the Apocalypse
Because the Gospels come first we imagine they were written first, which makes sense: the birth and life of Christ come before anything that happened after his ascension.
But the Gospel writers did not go home at the end of the day and add another chapter to their record of the life of Christ. It was years before they understood that "the Way" was growing into something significant and that people who were believing in Christ knew nothing of his life and his teachings. It was, in fact, after other people started writing that Matthew, Mark, and Luke got down to writing an account of the life of Christ. It was 50 or 60 years after Christ that John wrote his Gospel.
Arranging the books of the New Testament in the order in which they were written looks something like this:
Bible Gateway | | NIV Study Bible | | ESV Bible | |
James | 44-49 | James | 48-50 | James | 40-45 |
Galatians Mark Matthew 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Romans Luke Ephesians Philippians Philemon Colossians Acts 1 Timothy Titus 1 Peter 2 Timothy 2 Peter Hebrews Jude | 49-50 50-60 50-60 51 51-52 55 55-56 56 60-61 60-62 60-62 60-62 60-62 62 62-64 62-64 64-65 66-67 67-68 67-69 68-70 | Matthew 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians Galatians 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Mark Romans Ephesians Colossians Philemon 1 Peter Luke Philippians Acts Hebrews 1 Timothy Titus 2 Peter Jude 2 Timothy | 50-70 51 51-52 51-53 55 55 55-68 57 60 60 60 60-64 60-80 61 62-64 63 63-65 63-65 64-68 65-80 67-68 | Galatians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians Mark Matthew 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Romans Hebrews Ephesians Philippians Colossians Philemon Luke Acts 1 Peter 1 Timothy Titus 2 Peter Jude 2 Timothy | 48 49–51 49–51 53–55 60 53–55 55–56 57 60–70 62 62 62 62 62 62 62–63 62–64 62–64 64–67 64–67 64–67 |
John 1 2 3 John Revelation | 80-90 90-95 94-96 | John 1 2 3 John Revelation | 80-95 85-95 95 | 1 2 3 John John Revelation | 85–95 89–95 95–96 |
Precision is impossible, but these are common estimates.
Some commonalities are significant:
— the general order is about the same
— nothing was written for at least 10 years after Christ died
— John is the last Gospel written: 15-20 years after all the other authors
Two important dates act as separators. The first is the Council of Jerusalem in 48/49/50. Most authorities place James' letter before the Council and all other writings after. The reasons for this:
— the Council had to have happened before anyone wrote about it
— James is regarded as the earliest book because it is the least theologically developed
The significant point is that everyone, except possibly James, wrote after the Jerusalem Council.
The second separator is 70 AD: the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Within three years the war with Rome was over and Israel as a nation no longer existed (until 1948).
Everyone except John wrote while there was still an Israel. John wrote his Gospel and letters after there was no Israel.
John's Gospel
The beginning point for our look at "you must be born again" is that John didn't write his Gospel until 10 years after there was no Israel. Jesus telling the disciples that they would be his "witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" was now only "to the ends of the earth". Jerusalem and Israel no longer existed.
And so our question remains: Who has to be born again? Since Jesus said these words to Nicodemus under the cover of night and John didn't write it down until there was no longer an Israel, who is the "you" that must be born again?
The question "what about the natives in Africa who have never heard the Gospel" must now be asked of "you must be born again". No one in Israel knew that Jesus had said "you must be born again". How could John have stored away this information until after there was no longer an Israel?
We can say that just because John hadn't written his Gospel didn't mean no one knew it. Surely it was common knowledge that it was necessary to be born again, right?
Not really. John the Baptist told the people, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” After he was arrested Jesus went to Galilee and Capernum and also began to proclaim, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near”. No Gospel writer, not even John, has Jesus or John the Baptist telling the people they must be born again. (John 1:13 says that believers in Christ are born of God, but that is John writing 60 years later. Unless John records what Jesus or John the Baptist told the people at that time, it is no different from what John records Jesus telling Nicodemus in a private conversation: no one knew it.)
It is noteworthy that no Gospel writer has Jesus or John the Baptist telling the crowds, the disciples, or the leaders of Israel that they must be born again. Only Nicodemus. It was a requirement only one person knew about.
Years later Paul says something similar in Gal 4:29 in a discussion about Isaac and Ishmael. Paul's point, though, is not that Isaac was born again but that Ishmael was the son of the slave girl and Isaac was the son of Sarah: the son of promise. Isaac's conception was a miracle because Sarah was barren. This has no direct bearing on John 3:17 because Jesus is not telling Nicodemus (or us) that being born again means we are born of women who cannot have children.
Peter is more on point in 1 Peter 1. He is telling his readers that they have been given a new birth and that their new birth is because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Because he lives, we too live. This is very much on point. The problem is (1) it is a statement of what has happened, not what they must do , and (2) it is 35 years after Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus.
There are also numerous similar statements made by John in 1 John 2, 3, 4 and 5, but again: they are statements of what God has done, not what must be done, and they are well after the period of the missionary effort in Israel is finished.
after Christ's death
It would seem that the appropriate time to tell people they had to be born again was at the time. If, as we know now, that Jesus would be crucified and raised from the dead, then the perfect time to tell people that Jesus' death and resurrection means we must be born again is at Pentecost. But no: that is not what the people were told.
When the onlookers scoffed Peter stood with the eleven and addressed the crowd. He told them they had killed their Messiah. When the people heard this and asked what they should do, Peter said to them:
Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.
The message after the crucifixion was the same as the message before: Repent and be baptized. Now that Pentecost had happened the message was enlarged to tell the people that then they too would receive the Holy Spirit, but the message was not that they needed to be born again.
Later, when Peter and John were at the Temple and healed the man lame from birth, Peter addressed the crowd and told them to repent and turn to God. When they were brought before the High Priest and elders, Peter told them they had killed their Messiah and they would not stop proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah.
In Acts 8 Peter and John went to Samaria when the apostles heard that they had accepted the word of God. They prayed over the people to receive the Holy Spirit because they had only been baptized into Jesus.
In Acts 10 Peter was sent to Cornelius, a God-fearing Roman centurion (the first Gentile in the expansion story). Peter told Cornelius:
He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one ordained by God as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.
When Peter returned to Jerusalem and told the others what had happened their reply was: “Then God has given even to the gentiles the repentance that leads to life.”
After this the focus changes to Paul and Barnabas and their first missionary journey. This led to certain Jews stirring up trouble, insisting that the gentiles could not come to God without becoming Jews (circumcision and a kosher diet). Paul and Barnabas appeared before the council to give their account. The Council's decision was this:
It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.
So now we are at the time of the Jerusalem Council: the turning point in the expansion of the church when the Jewish leaders declared that gentile believers did not have to become Jews. Acts 15 does not name anyone in the council except James and peter, but Paul tells us (in Gal 2:9) that John was also there and was one of the "acknowledged pillars" who made the decision.
During the life of John the Baptist and Christ the message was "repent". At Pentecost and immediately after the message was again "repent". When the church expanded into gentile areas the message was that they had repented. At no time, even though John was center-stage with Peter, did he once say "you must be born again".
And now, 15 years later, when John stands with Peter and James to make a definitive statement on what is required, he does not say "you must be born again" but tells them that if they keep four essentials they will do well:
— abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols
— and from blood
— and from what is strangled
— and from sexual immorality
That's it. The essentials of the faith. The gentiles don't have to become Jews, but they do have to make sure they don't offend any Jews. John has the microphone. He has the chance to announce loudly "you must be born again!" and instead tells the gentiles to not do anything too gentile-y.
Astonishing.
Paul, in his account, glosses over this embarrassment and says the council asked only that they remember the poor.
Does anyone need to be born again?
Absolutely. But it needs to be explained.
Paul never told anyone they needed to be born again because they didn't need to. Peter told his readers about being born again because they needed to. Different audiences; different messages.
John the Baptist told the crowds: "Do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor,’ for God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham." A strong point of resistance that John the Baptist, and Jesus, encountered was that the descendants of Abraham claimed that being a child of Abraham was their guarantee. John the Baptist laid into this lie with a fury. "Don't say that! If God wants children he can make them from these stones at your feet!"
Breaking through the thick crust of delusion was a difficult task. The people of Israel simply did not believe they had anything to worry about. Yes, they had sinned over the centuries and God had punished them and God had restored them. Every time. This would be no different. Rome was their master but the Messiah would come and restore Israel to its former glory.
To their way of thinking, they were the people of God and they always would be, there was no other people of God and the never would be, and even though they were in a tough spot now, the basic truth would never change: they were the people of God; no one else ever would be.
And so the message to the Jews, and to Nicodemus in particular, is that being a child of Abraham makes you a child of Abraham, not a child of God. In our Venn diagram there was a lot of overlap, but it was not a perfect overlap, and they knew it: there were many descendants of Abraham who were descendants of Ishmael and not Isaac, and there were many descendants of Isaac who were not Israel (all of Samaria for instance), and there were many Israelites who were no better than gentiles (the tax collectors and prostitutes for instance). They knew all that. They knew the "good" descendants of Abraham constituted only a small fraction of all descendants of Abraham.
But John the Baptist and Jesus said no: it's a smaller percentage than you think. It's zero.
The promise made to Abraham was a promise that continued through Isaac and not Ishmael because God made it so. The promise extended through Jacob and not Esau because God made it so. No one ever in the history of the human race ever became a child of God by being the child of someone else. Not the children of Adam, not the children of Noah, not the children of Abraham, or of Samuel, or of David, or of Mary. Everyone is a child by their own birth, and that birth is always of God and never of a human.
So when Jesus told Nicodemus "You must be born again" he was telling him that if you die a child of Abraham you will die just like Abraham did: buried in the dirt and long ago turned to dust. If you want to survive the grave you must be the child of someone over whom the grave has no power. God is the Father of his children; no one else's. And he gives them life because he does and no one else can.
The message to Nicodemus is not wrong. What's wrong is saying it applies to everyone. We do not have the power to be born again. John and Peter and Paul can announce it loud and long and it will mean nothing because there is nothing we can do about it. God gives life. If he gives it, we live, If he doesn't we don't.
No one has to know they must be born again because it is God who does it. But, knowing that God does it and saying "No, I'm a child of Abraham: I'm safe" means you refuse the life that only God can give. It is saying: "You have your opinion; I have mine. Go away. I'll be fine."
the problem with being a Born Again Christian
The born again movement, popularized in the mid 20th century and flowering in the 60's and 70's, is not wrong; it's just not right. It's wrong because there is no such thing as a child of God who is not born of God. It's wrong because there is no such thing as being born again without God doing it. And it is wrong because it creates a supposed quality to those who know they have been born again over those who only claim to be Christians. It is no accident that the born again movement coincides with the charismatic movement. Both are looking for something more identifiable, more special. More certain.
We want to know. Baptists walk down the aisle to the tune of "Just as I am" and repeat the sinner's prayer because once you've done that, you're good. Catholics have the sacraments because so long as you do them, you're good. Charismatics have physical proof of a spiritual fact. Born-again Christians have a Scripture-based banner, from the mouth of Jesus himself through the pen of the disciple that Jesus loved best. Everyone wants to know. Because living by faith isn't good enough. We simply cannot die without knowing for certain that we will be born again.
The large issue for this discussion is therefore: Why at this late date do we suddenly care that we must be born again? One view that it is a coming to terms with a subject that had been overlooked for far too long. Another is that the 60's and 70's saw the addition of a youth movement to Christianity: an addition that many people saw as a welcome spring cleaning to a Church that had grown predictable, repetitive, and stale.
Or, my contention is that the Church has been looking for answers in all the wrong places from the beginning. Peter and John began well. They were confrontational, fearless, and effective. John slowly moved out of the spotlight and James came in. As James grew closer to the center Peter moved away. By the time of the Jerusalem Council James is making the decisions and Peter is going along. The other original disciples are barely named.
The Jerusalem Council discussion contains a haunting statement. In Acts 15:7 Peter said, "My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers." He said that and then rather than going to the churches and fixing the problem, allowed James to pen a letter that Paul and Barnabas would take to the churches. He literally phoned in his reply.
In Gal 2:9 Paul explains the last step in Peter's relinquishment of his mission:
When James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Jesus told the disciples they were to be his "witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." Peter was charged moist specifically with Samaria and the ends of the earth because God expressly sent him to Samaria and then to the gentiles. Now, 15 years on, Peter has given the leadership in Jerusalem to James and the gentiles to Paul.
It was simply too much. It was too tiring to lead, too difficult to go, too dangerous to go further. And his heart wasn't in it. He never once showed affection for the gentiles as Paul did. It was too difficult, too dangerous, too boring. She he said "farewell" to the gentiles and handed his birthright to Paul.
Fifteen years later he would write two letters, to the Jews in exile.
why would John write a Gospel after it was all over?
John also wrote to the Jews. Why he waited until there was no longer an Israel is peculiar. Possibly it had less to do with the death of Israel and more to do with his quickly-approaching death. All of the original crew was long gone. He alone was left to ponder what had happened and what was to happen. Jesus, who he loved best, had not come back. There was no kingdom.
What John was left with was three Gospels that promised a kingdom that clearly was not going to happen. We cannot say he had lost all hope, but he was looking at a fledgling church that might or might not survive his death. He wanted to say something before it was too late, to give them hope and some strength to continue on. And so he decided to add another account of the life of Christ, without any mention of a kingdom, without any statement by John the Baptist or Christ on the need to repent to prepare for the kingdom, with Jesus allowing that they all might die before he returned, no great commission, repeated statements by Jesus that he is the Christ and the Son of God and the I Am, repeated statements by others that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, repeated statements that he himself is a witness to all these things and his witness is true, and love: love one another, abide in his love, the disciple that Jesus loved.
John's Gospel was not faked, but it was given to a church that would soon be alone. John the Baptist was gone, Jesus was gone, all the disciples and apostles were gone, the family of Jesus was gone, Israel was gone, Jerusalem was gone, the Temple was gone, and he would soon be gone.
The days of adventure and mystery were a distant memory. John wanted a tangible word that would survive his death. And so he wrote of those days of glory, that he was privileged to be part of, to tell the people that it all was, and still is, real. That it happened so that all those back then and all those who would later come to believe, would not fall away but would instead strengthened and encourage one another.
John 20:30-31 is a favorite:
Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.
There was nothing more important to John than the life of the Church. His last wish was that people would come to believe and continue to believe. It is a magnificent, moving heartfelt wish that he expresses with a passion that touches the heart of all who share John's deepest joy.
back to the point: why would John say "you must be born again" only after 50 or 60 years?
One reason we have already touched on: when there were people around to tell what had happened it wasn't so important that there was a written record. John writing at the end of his life is his way to keep the message going after there was no longer any eye witness.
Another is the plight of the Jews. John's heart was for the people of Israel even if there wasn't an Israel. The story was still important. Abraham and Moses were the heroes of their faith. Abraham died but the promise did not. Moses died but the people went into the Promised Land and flourished. Jesus died, but he rose from the grave and Pentecost happened. People needed to know his death was a shock but not a defeat. It was planned.
(Of course the the fact that he had not returned was a surprise and a disappointment. A bit of an embarrassment actually.)
Regardless, Israel as a nation could not end. John knew that Jesus was the hope of Israel. If Jesus remained, Israel remained. The promise had not come to fulfillment in his lifetime, but John knew that Israel's life was bound up in their acceptance of Christ and he needed desperately for Israel to continue as the people of God.
That a gentile would read his Gospel was probably not on John's mind. The Church had expanded into gentile regions, but John's grief was for his people and the risk of their utter demise if they rejected Christ finally.
The chronologies can be found here.
Comments