REBIRTH AND THE COVENANT COMMUNITY
At first sight, rebirth does not seem
a likely concept for a monotheistic author to use, because it was associated
with pagan religions. A whole Hermetic tractate (C.H. XIII) is devoted to it (d.
Dodd 1953: 44-53). The following example is from a Mithras liturgy (complete
with some incomprehensible terms:
This is the invocation of the word (logos):
'First origin (genesis) of my origin, aeēiouō first beginning of my
beginning . . . if it seems good to you, meterta phōth îerazath, to give me,
held as I am by my existing nature, to immortal birth, in order that, after the
present need which presses hard upon me, I may behold by immortal spirit the
immortal Beginning, anchrephrenesouphiringch by immortal water, erounouï parakounēth
by the most steadfast air, that I may be born again by thought, kraochrax oïm,
I begin, that I may be initiated and that the sacred spirit may breathe in me
... born mortal from a mortal womb, improved by mighty power and an
incorruptible right hand .... ' And gaze on the god, bellow long, and greet him
thus: 'O Lord, hail, ruler of water, hail, founder of earth, hail, sovereign of
wind/spirit .... Lord, born again I pass away; increasing and having been
increased I come to an end; born of a life-giving birth I am set free for death
and go on my way, as you ordained, as you enacted and made the mystery.' (Paris
papyrus 574)
Early Christianity did not borrow much
material of this kind. This borrowing can only be explained by a profound need
for such a concept. To understand this need, we must recall that most Jews
inherited their Jewish identity by birth. Although it was possible to be a
proselyte, the majority of Jews had two Jewish parents, so much so that for
most purposes Jews may fruitfully be described as an ethnic group. Entry to the
covenant people was normally, therefore, by birth. It is this which is upset by
John 3.3: 'Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen I tell you, unless
a person is born again/from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.'" The
fourth Gospel has one Greek word, anothen, which means both 'again' and
'from above', and we should understand both. When Nicodemus, described as a
'ruler of the Jews', has asked his not very bright question about going back
into his mother's womb, Jesus reformulates the main point: 'Amen, amen I tell
you, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom
of God' (In 3.5). It is noteworthy that the fourth Gospel's only two uses of
the term 'kingdom of God,’ are precisely at the point where the standard Jewish
version of covenantal nomism is rejected, and at the point where it introduces
what is otherwise a pagan idea.
'Water' and 'spirit' were also
traditional. Psalm 51 presents personal repentance with images including 'wash
me' and 'do not take your holy spirit from me' (51.9, 13). Second Isaiah
presents the salvation of Israel, declaring, 'I will pour water on a thirsty
place .... I will pour my spirit on your seed' (Is 44.3). Ezekiel likewise
looks for the restoration of Israel: 'I will throw water upon you .... And I
will put my spirit within you' (Ezek 36.25, 27). The author of the Community
Rule from Qumran declared that the stubborn of heart would 'not be cleansed by
waters of purification, nor sanctified by seas and rivers' (1QS III, 4-5). Of
the man who enters the covenant, on the other hand,
And by the spirit of holiness in unity
with his truth he shall be cleansed from all his sins . . . and in the
submission of his soul to all the precepts of God, his flesh shall be cleansed
by sprinkling with waters of purification and sanctified with waters of
cleansing. (1QS III, 7-9)
John the Baptist took up this
tradition. He baptised with water, to symbolize repentance and forgiveness of
sins, and he predicted the coming of one who would baptise with holy spirit and
with fire.
This was taken up in early
Christianity. Baptism in water is the means of entering the Christian community
already in the early chapters of Acts, and the Holy Spirit may be received at
the same time or separately. When Paul was faced with schism in Corinth, he
wrote from Ephesus, seeking to play down the importance of the person by whom
Christians were baptised (1 Cor 1.12-17). He did not however attempt to
undermine the importance of baptism, surely because it was so Widely accepted
as the means of initiation into the Christian community. At Colossians 2.11-13
he interprets it vigorously as a replacement for circumcision. Replacing the
ancient association between circumcision and death (Ex 4.24-6), he has
Christians die and rise again with Christ in baptism. This is expounded in
Romans 6, where there is an analogy between the believer's baptism and the
atoning death of Christ, and the resulting life for the believer (cf. Jn 3.14f).
When Paul preached in Ephesus, he met a dozen or so Christians who knew only the
baptism of John, and not the Holy Spirit. They were dearly exceptional. Paul
baptised them in the name of Jesus, laid his hands on them and the Holy Spirit
came upon them (Acts 19.1-7).
It follows from this massive cultural
background that the fourth evangelist and any Christian audience would
necessarily have baptism in mind at John 3.5. Why then is the term 'baptise' or
'baptism' not used at this point? There is a complex of cultural reasons for
this too. One main point has just been made: it was culturally obvious that
baptism was central to Christians being reborn by water and spirit. There was
therefore no need to mention it until later in the chapter, when the main
theological points had been made clear. Secondly, we know from the end of
Chapter 6 that some Christians left the Johannine community after taking part
in the eucharist, and the anti-Jewish way in which the eucharist is finally
expounded to 'the Jews' entails that at least the majority of those who left
self-identified as Jews. A similar inference follows from the end of Chapter
12. Here we find that many of the rulers believed in Jesus, but they did not
confess him, effectively because they would have been thrown out of the Jewish
community. It follows that baptised Christians had left the Johannine
community, and remained in the Jewish community, and that some of them were
prominent people. There was therefore little point in telling a leader of the
Jews that Jews needed to be baptised! Moreover, the clear differentiation of
flesh and Spirit at both 3.6 and 6.63 strongly suggests a perspective like that
of lQS III. Baptism is not mentioned at 3.5 because it is not enough: it could
he gone through by people who were not reborn of the Spirit, as later
experience appeared to show. Rebirth by water and the Spirit, which all
Christians, and their Jewish opponents, knew was symbolised by the initiation
rite of baptism, is therefore the centre of the opening exposition.
Further, rebirth, experienced by
Christians entering the Christian community, is a simple opposite of birth,
experienced by Jewish babies arriving in the Jewish community. This is the
point of Nicodemus' apparently unintelligent question at 3.4: it bluntly
mentions natural birth to clarify the frame of rebirth at 3.3 and 3.5, so that
we can all see that rebirth is the spiritual equivalent of birth. Finally, the
fourth evangelist found it difficult to write about Christian baptism within
the framework of the historical ministry of Jesus. This is clear from 3.22-4.2.
Here we are offered the quite unhistorical information that Jesus baptised
(3.22), that everyone came to him (3.26), that the Pharisees heard that Jesus baptised
more people than John (4.1), and then the true fact that Jesus did not baptise!
The fourth evangelist was not all that good at dealing with the similar problem
of expounding the eucharist before it had been instituted. 19 All this would be
an additional deterrent to beginning this chapter with baptism. Hence his decision
to deal with the theology of rebirth, followed by Jesus' atoning death and the
need for faith leading to eternal life, before his final endeavour to put the
baptism of John in its place.
We can now see what the opening of
John 3 means and refers to. Its main point is the replacement of the Jewish
community by the Christian community, the only one in which salvation is
perceived to occur. It begins by contrasting entry into the two communities.
Birth into the Jewish community is taken for granted. Rebirth by water and
Spirit is contrasted with it, for everyone knew that this was the means of
entry into the Christian community, largely by baptism. The contrast between
flesh and Spirit, and the unknown origins and destination of those born of the
Spirit (3.6-8), reflect the position of the Johannine community as baptised
Christians, some of whose baptised fellow Christians had left to remain in the Jewish
community. (Maurice Casey, is John’s Gospel True? [London: Routledge,
1996], 127-30)
To Support this Blog: