Credible Bible 2: Why 66 Books?

Our Credible Bible (Lesson 2)

Why These 66 Books?

Prepared by Dr. John E. Marshall

 

            Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls we know we have a reliable record of the books Jesus and the early believers deemed Scripture. At this point, we would be well served to consider why we accept the 39 Old Testament books, but not the Apocrypha, as Scripture. We reject the Apocrypha because Jesus said the prophets, a common way for referring to Holy Writ in His day, went from Abel to Zechariah (Luke 11:50-51). Abel was killed in Genesis; Zechariah was killed near the end of the book of Chronicles, which is the last book in the Hebrew Old Testament.

 

Once convinced of the makeup of the Old Testament, our next issue to face is; why have a New Testament at all? Why did we not stop with the 39 Old Testament books? Why did early believers, who obviously believed the Old Testament books were Scripture, feel a need to add any more books?

 

Two answers are very plausible. One, Jesus had promised to send His disciples the Holy Spirit, who would make them remember Jesus' teaching (JN 14:26), testify about Christ (15:26), and lead them into all truth (16:13).

 

Two, the Old Testament was a collection of open-ended books. Many of them ended looking ahead to a time when God would restore His people, and send Messiah. For instance, Jeremiah and Ezekiel predicted a coming new covenant. Other Old Testament books could also be cited as examples here (see Blomberg, pp. 61-62). They leave the strong impression the story of Israel was not yet complete. More was yet to come.

 

Early believers felt they had experienced in Jesus the completion and fulfillment of Old Testament expectation and hopes. All four Gospel writers for sure wrote as if they were continuing the Old Testament story line.

 

Another question is, why stop at 27? Some think certain works by the early church fathers belonged in the canon. Only 14 books other than our 27 New Testament books were ever given any consideration by early believers. None were serious contenders, except for the Shepherd of Hermas.

 

This brings us to the three guidelines that were used for inclusion in the canon. One, apostolicity; written during the Apostolic Age, in the first century, before the last of the 12 Apostles had died. This criterion was, first and foremost, the dominant requirement. Almost all scholarship now agrees the 27 books of the New Testament were written within the first century. Paul wrote first, in the early 50s to mid 60s. Matthew, Mark (the first Gospel writer), and Luke-Acts were written in the 60s. John was written in the 90s. (For an excellent handling of dating the four Gospels, see Bird, pp.125ff.)

 

Some church fathers began writing soon after John died, even very close to 100 A.D., but this was considered too late to make the final cut. This requirement precludes adding the Koran or Book of Mormon to the canon.

 

Two, orthodoxy. A book had to be faithful to the teachings of Jesus and the disciples. This became more valued as time passed, especially as heresies began to pop up. No book was allowed to be more than one person removed from an Apostle. Matthew and John were numbered among the original 12 disciples. Mark was believed to have written for Peter, who counted Mark as his son in the faith (1 P 5:13). Luke was a student of Paul.

 

Three, widespread use. To gain acceptance, a book could not be popular in only a small sect or in only one section of the Empire. Leaders everywhere were expected to be using them. They had to be valued widely.

 

The early believers interacted a lot. Roman roads helped make this the case. Paul's trips were also a unifying factor. Information and manuscripts flowed freely among early believers. They saw themselves as not only a local, but also a global, community. They felt a need to have worldwide impact. Thus, what happened elsewhere in the Empire mattered to them.

 

Origen (184-253 A.D.), in Alexandria, pondered a few books other than the 27, but when he moved to Caesarea and did not find these books used there, he dropped them because they failed to pass the widespread use test. This test may explain why the Shepherd of Hermas, though written very early, did not make the cut. It remained popular in the west, but not the east.

 

New Testament books obviously spread far and wide quickly. By the last half of the 100s, the Fathers at various points of the Empire were referring often to many of what are now New Testament books as Scripture.

 

They were read in churches every Sunday; an honor accorded only the Old Testament Scriptures. One reason so many manuscripts were saved is due to the fact early believers deemed them authoritative from the first, and wanted them for public reading in worship services.

 

The four Gospels were almost immediately and universally acknowledged everywhere by every one as extraordinary. Early believers also had no controversy with Acts, Paul, 1 Peter, and 1 John. Ones that triggered some discussion were Hebrews (no author mentioned), James (contradicts justification by faith?), 2 Peter (so different from 1 Peter in style; could it be by same author?), 2 and 3 John, and Jude (too short to be of timeless value?), and Revelation (always a puzzle).

 

The early church fathers quoted what are now New Testament books as authoritative, often showing them the respect they showed Old Testament books. Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.) picked 22 (20 for sure plus Hebrews and 2 John). Tertullian (155-240 A.D.) had 23 (James and Revelation; not 2 John). Origen (184-253 A.D.) had 21 (not Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2,3 John, Jude). In the 300s the Church Councils would confirm ideas and beliefs that had already been generally held in the 100s and 200s.

 

Determining the canon was not playful activity. Dodging persecution, and wrestling against heresies, can make people serious about what books they are willing to die for. Selecting the right books was serious business.

 

The canon was not forced on believers. Dan Brown's fiction, "The Da Vinci Code" notwithstanding, the council called by Constantine at Nicaea in 325 A.D. had nothing to do with determining the New Testament canon. This issue was not debated. This council was about the Person of Jesus.

 

Constantine did commission Eusebius to copy and send 50 Bibles to key locations in the empire. Eusebius included all our 27 books, but divided them into categories of acknowledged, and acknowledged with some doubt.

 

Well after Constantine, there still wasn't absolute unanimity on the final list. The first official list with our 27 books on it, all deemed to be without doubt Scripture, happened in AD 367, when Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, sent an Easter letter to the churches and listed the precise books we acknowledge today. In 397 the Council of Carthage ratified this list.

 

The four Gospels deserve special mention. Though in the 100s there was no widespread formal movement toward compiling a canon as such, from the first the four Gospels were entrenched among the earliest believers as the authoritative information sources about Jesus. In the mid 100s, Justin called them "Memoirs of the Apostles". These four books contained stories about Jesus, the essence of our faith, and kept people from fanciful thoughts about Him by setting limits on how far we can go in interpreting who He is.

 

For early believers, the Gospel of Matthew led the march toward canonicity. It was by far the go-to Gospel, for reasons not fully known. My guess is its having the Sermon on the Mount, and having been written with Jewish believers, who outnumbered Gentiles at first, in mind. Early church fathers thought Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic before he left Judea in order to leave his remembrances behind with the mostly Jewish audience he was leaving. Irenaeus (130-202 A.D. Lyon, France), Justin (100-165 A.D. Rome), Clement (150-215 A.D. Alexandria), and many others preferred it in their quotes and use. There are more manuscripts of Matthew than any of the other three Gospels. John comes in second.

 

A fascinating thing I have learned is; early believers had a rabid desire to read, and be read to, about Jesus. As Christianity spread across the Roman Empire, the four Gospels began to be translated almost immediately into languages other than Greek. Talking in our parlance, the Gospels went viral.

 

Demand for the four Gospels was so great that believers helped develop a new literary form; they contributed to the world's shift from scrolls to books. Scrolls were cumbersome and could be written on only one side. Books allowed documents to be written on both sides, and made it possible for them to be stacked and then bound together.

 

From the first, believers craved to have copies of the four Gospels. People wanted to know about Jesus. What I liked most about studying this was seeing how desperately early Christ-followers wanted to be in the Word, and to be near Jesus in their learning. Amen. May we be and do likewise.

 

The fourfold Gospel codex was by far the most popular book among early believers. The fourfold Gospel witness was not due to edicts enforced from above, but due to a grassroots movement among believers to have the Gospel. The people had a portable Jesus library they loved. They enjoyed the richness of having more than one vantage point to look at Jesus' life.

 

 

Credible Bible 1

Our Credible Bible (Lesson 1)

Introduction

Prepared by Dr. John E. Marshall

 

Ruth and I are in our fifth year of hosting a college Bible study group in our home on Thursday nights during the school semesters. We have fallen in love with our students, and enjoy sharing life with them.

 

In these studies, Ruth and I have learned a painful truth. We are often reminded students can be unknowledgeable and unappreciative of the Bible.

 

Even students who grew up in church often show a lack of knowledge about rudimentary Bible truths. Even more alarming, they can be lax in their commitment to Scripture as the authority in their life for belief and behavior.

 

Due to this disconcerting observation, I took a three-week study break in January 2016 to investigate certain scholarly theological books that would help me better defend to our college students the truthfulness and reliability of Scripture. The six books listed here helped me immensely:

 

Bird, Michael F., "The Gospel of the Lord" (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI,

2014)

Blomberg, Craig L., "Can We Still Believe the Bible?" (Brazos Press, Grand

Rapids MI, 2014)

Cowan, Steven B., and Wilder, Terry L., "In Defense of the Bible"

(Broadman and Holman, Nashville TN, 2013)

MacArthur, John, ed., "The Scripture Cannot Be Broken" (Crossway,

Wheaton IL, 2015).

Ward, Timothy, "Words of Life" (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove IL,

            2009).

Warfield, Benjamin Breckenridge, "The Inspiration and Authority of the

Bible" (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg

NJ, 1948 reprint).

 

            Warfield's book is the greatest book I ever read regarding the Bible. I think the other five authors in the above list would pretty much agree with this assessment. I think I can safely say Warfield's book is referenced in the other five books more times than all other sources combined. It would be hard for me to express how refreshing it was to read a masterful, scholarly book that was 100% totally sold out to the Bible being the Word of God.

 

Through 50 years of ministry, I have been guided by a firm belief that without a commitment to the truth of Scripture, we have no chance of living a successful spiritual life. The Bible is the crux of our faith. I respect and love the Bible. I want our college students to do the same—thus this class. I pray it will effectively teach the importance of Holy Writ.

 

I feel the timing is right for a class like this. Forces seem to have been let loose in our land that want to convince us the Bible has no current value for our culture. Sadly, these attacks sometimes come from within the so-called Christian movement. Some see it as antiquated, an ancient relic irrelevant to today. But many of us believe what the Bible says, God says. We feel we can make this claim based on rational, reasonable research.

 

People are prejudice against the Bible before they even give it a fair hearing. Nothing in the writings of the ancients has near the verification and support the New Testament does, but people do not reject the other writings.

 

Many reject the Bible on predetermined factors totally unrelated to the reliability of Bible manuscripts. Often they have a sin they don't want to forsake; thus the Lordship of Christ is not a welcome thought. Sometimes our interpreting the Bible is inconvenienced by its interpreting of us.

 

Others hate the Bible's worldview. They have no use for a God who became flesh through a virgin birth, lived a perfect life, died for the world's sins, rose from death, returned to Heaven, and is the only means of salvation.

 

THE APOSTLE PAUL AND MY DAD

 

            On Paul's second missionary journey (AC 15:36-18:22), Paul founded the church at Thessalonica (AC 17:1-4). Philippi was Europe's first church. Thessalonica was second. (Maybe they called it Second Baptist.)

 

            Within months of the church's founding, Paul felt a need to write his first letter to the Thessalonians. He probably took a pen made of hard reed that was cut diagonally across one end with a finely cut slit through the point. His ink would have been made of soot with burnt resin or pitch. Thicker and more durable than our ink tends to be, Paul may have had to use water to thin its gumminess. An inkstand discovered at Herculaneum, Italy, which was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius in 79 A.D., contained ink as thick as oil, and was still usable for writing.

 

            Paul's writing material would have been either papyrus or parchment. Papyrus, the more common, was made from the pith of a water plant that grew along the banks of the Nile. Parchment, sometimes called vellum, was made from the skins of cattle, goats, and sheep that were scraped till smooth.

 

            Armed with pen, ink, and papyrus, Paul wrote his name in Greek, "Paulos", thereby penning the first word of Holy Writ in almost half a millennium. His letter was the first New Testament writing, and is our oldest extant written Christian document. The year was 51 A.D.

 

In 1951 A.D., the year I was born, my dad began preaching from a Bible, which I now own, that contained a copy of Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians. The purpose of this class is to analyze what happened to the message of that letter and of the other New Testament books in the intervening 1900 years. Can we be sure that the book my dad preached from was conveying the same message Paul wrote 19 centuries earlier?

 

Questions about the reliability of Scripture have to be viewed through the lens of Archaeology, which has become our true friend. (CW, pages 236-239, lists several significant archaeological discoveries.) Over the past few decades the archaeologist's spade has become a witness on our behalf.

 

I learned this on my study break. It had been 40 years since I had read in-depth theological books. I was surprised at how much more corroboration there is for Biblical reliability now than I was exposed to in seminary.

 

For example, in my seminary days, Rudolph Bultmann, the liberal German scholar, was a force to be reckoned with. Now, almost none of his tenets are widely accepted. That's a game-changer for me. I am grateful we have left his arguments behind us.

 

Though Archaeology is our friend, news outlets still seem to prefer to publicize any find that might in any way possibly contradict Christianity. Digs sometimes turn up factors that are quickly analyzed, and prematurely assumed to disprove some historical tenet of Scripture. These are almost always later shown to not evidence Bible error, but the damage is done.

 

The story of Archaeology's finest hour fits well here. Much criticism of the Old Testament was made passé by the greatest archaeological find ever--the Dead Sea Scrolls, which pushed back 1000 years the date of our oldest Old Testament manuscripts.

 

The scrolls helped us better appreciate the reliability of the text we have. We now know the Masoretes accurately conveyed Holy Writ to us.

 

For me, the Dead Sea Scrolls' biggest contribution is; they gave us copies of the Bible that predate Jesus. This is earthshakingly vital to me.

 

We have always known Jesus believed the Old Testament Scriptures were true and divinely inspired. He said, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), and "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law" (Matthew 5:18b). Critics, though, could say, "Yes, but we don't know for sure what the Old Testament manuscripts said in His day. We have no manuscripts extant within 1000 years of His lifetime."

 

They can no longer make this claim. Now we know what the Scripture of His day said. Dead Sea Scrolls have portions of every OT book except Esther. The most striking result of these 972 or so Dead Sea manuscripts, ranging from from 250 BC to 50 AD, is how similar they are to the Masoretic texts of a thousand years later. A stunning example of this is the handful of minor differences the huge scroll of Isaiah brought to the table.

 

Jesus' judgment is the most valuable one we have, and the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that what we have now is what Jesus had then, and He verified them all as trustworthy and holy. We know precisely what He was referring to when He claimed, "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail" (Luke 16:17).

 

 

Jesus Is the Bread of Life

John 6:4-11,32-35

Jesus is the Bread of Life

Prepared by Dr. John E. Marshall

 

John 6:4-7 (Holman) Now the Passover, a Jewish festival, was near. Therefore, when Jesus looked up and noticed a huge crowd coming toward Him, He asked Philip, "Where will we buy bread so these people can eat?" He asked this to test him, for He Himself knew what He was going to do. Philip answered, "Two hundred denarii worth of bread wouldn't be enough for each of them to have a little."

 

Feeding the 5000 is one of Christ's most famous miracles. Other than the resurrection of Jesus, it is the only miracle recorded in all four Gospels.

 

Luke says Jesus fed the 5000 near Bethsaida, Philip's home. Since Philip knew the area well, it was natural for Jesus to direct His question toward him.

 

Philip had opportunity to express strong faith, but showed impatience with Jesus' apparently unreasonable question. Robert Schuller said never say no if the impossible is suggested; lay it before God. He'll let us know what to do or not do.

 

When confronted with something seemingly impossible in your own life, don't talk to yourself only about it. Talk also to the Father. This difference is the thin line that separates faith from worry.

 

John 6:8-9 One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to Him,

"There's a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are they for so many?"

 

Andrew responded better than Philip did. Avoiding utter despair, he brought to Jesus a boy with five loaves and two fish.

Andrew had no clue how important his deed was. He unwittingly provided material for a miracle. We never know what can happen to those we bring to Jesus.

 

John 6:10-11 Then Jesus said, "Have the people sit down." There was plenty of grass in that place, so they sat down. The men numbered about 5,000. Then Jesus took the loaves, and after giving thanks He distributed them to those who were seated, so also with the fish, as much as they wanted.

 

Jesus made the difference. He took loaves and fish worth little, and upset all reasonable calculations. The Twelve needed to know there was no way they could ever do this on their own.

 

Before doing the miracle, Jesus had to humble the disciples. The question of verse five—"Where will we buy bread so these people can eat?"—was asked to highlight the impossibility of the task, and to show the disciples they had no way or hope of doing this.

 

Jesus begins to make our poor resources adequate by first driving home into our heart a consciousness of their insufficiency. We begin by seeing what we have is nothing compared to the immensity of the task Christ requires from us.

 

We must be emptied of self before we can be filled with God. The vacuum principle is valid in the spiritual as well as the physical realm. Our emptiness draws Christ's fullness.

 

When we know we have little, it can become much in Jesus' hands. The boy had, for all intents and purposes, almost nothing to give, but he gave what he did have to Jesus, who used it to feed the multitude. If we give Him our life, He will use it to bless many.

God requires from us not extraordinary ability, but willingness to yield all to Him. Now let's find the ultimate lesson in the miracle.

 

John 6:32a (Holman) Jesus said to them, "I assure you: Moses didn't give you the bread from heaven, . . ."

 

To this crowd, a highlight of God's dealings with His people was when Moses fed the nation with manna in the wilderness. Jesus, though, said manna was not a gift from Moses. He was only God's instrument. Jesus told them to look past Moses to God.

 

We often do not give God the honor He deserves. Never forget, "Every generous act and perfect gift is from above" (James 1:17). To God be the glory, every day, everywhere, in everything.

 

John 6:32b-34 ". . .but My father gives you the real bread from heaven. For the bread of God is the One who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." Then they said, "Sir give us this bread always!"

 

Jesus knew the crowd needed to know manna was not the ultimate, best bread from heaven, but merely foreshadowed it. When Jesus mentioned bread that "gives life to the world," this crowd perked up. They did not fully understand Him, but recognized value in it. They knew they needed more than what they had.

 

We all at times sense this angst, feeling we have not found all we were intended to be. Earthly goals are not our highest element. We were meant for more, for God. Every moment of life was intended to be lived in joyful communion with Him.

 

The crowd's request was well worded, but in vain, for they did not see the Giver of life in the bread they ate, nor the Bread of life in the Giver who fed them.

 

John 6:35a "I am the bread of life," Jesus told them.

 

Jesus offered them Himself. The best gift God has ever given this old, tired world was standing in their presence. Jesus' miracles were wonderful, but He was even more wonderful.

 

We can enjoy nothing of God apart from Christ Himself. We can't separate what the Father gives from what Jesus is. He claimed to be the bread of life (6:35), the light of the world (8:12), the door (10:7,9), the good shepherd (10:11,14), the resurrection and the life (11:25), the vine (15:5), and the way and the truth (14:6).

 

Jesus used humble symbols to describe Himself. Thank God for the simple clarity of the Gospel. Our message is for everyone, not scholars only. Jesus' claims were so plain and understandable that if we misinterpret them, it is caused by our own refusal to believe. Unbelief can never be blamed on obscurity in His language.

 

It was condescending for Him to call Himself bread, the commonest article on a table, but this made the application obvious. "I am the bread of life" is not simply a beautiful phrase. Bread sustains life. Without bread, life cannot continue.

 

Jesus, the bread of life, initiates and sustains spiritual life. Apart from Jesus, people only exist, and have no connection with God.

People desperately need Jesus. He is a necessity, not a luxury. We may like to have money and stuff, but we must have bread.

 

We humans cannot get rid of Christ because we cannot get rid of our deepest desires. People long to know God; and Jesus is the only One who can ultimately satisfy this longing.

 

John 6:35b "No one who comes to Me will ever be hungry, and no one who believes in Me will ever be thirsty again."

 

Jesus is the bread of life, but can help us only if He is appropriated. Bread uneaten cannot end our hunger. The bread of life satisfies only the one who "comes" and "believes." We must come to Jesus as spiritual beggars.

 

Since Jesus is the bread of Life, the implication is, whoever comes to Him leaves an old life of beggarly famines totally unable to satisfy. Nothing in the old life of famine can fulfill us spiritually, nor can we find anything in the old life we can bring to earn God's favor. We are saved without merit. We can only receive.

 

We do not deserve what He offers; we come empty handed. All we can bring is a gnawing hunger, which in this case is a sign of health. It means we have finally realized we need to seek help. Sinners do better when they begin to feel a distressing need for bread from heaven.

 

 

 

Jesus Is New Life

John 2:23-3:10

Jesus is New Life

Prepared by Dr. John E. Marshall

 

John 2:23-25 (Holman) While He was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many trusted in His name when they saw the signs He was doing. Jesus, however, would not entrust Himself to them, since He knew them all and because He did not need anyone to testify about man; for He Himself knew what was in man.

Jesus gathered a large following in the capital city itself, but did not go ahead and declare Himself Messiah. He knew the rabble's belief was superficial.

Jesus sought not cheerleaders, but people who would follow Him to the end. This crowd was not there. They were awed by His miracles, not by who He was, or by what He came to do. They would have followed till He spoke of self-denial. They wanted to accept Jesus on their terms. Thus, He had no faith in their faith.

            Tragic—these were God's chosen people. What was wrong? Why did they not commit fully to Christ? Part of the answer is found in the following dialogue between Jesus and a man who had reached the highest levels of their religion.

 

John 3:1 There was a man from the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.

 

The Pharisees, never numbering more than 6000 at one time, were an elite, close-knit religious brotherhood that held powerful influence in Israel. Becoming a member required pledging you would spend all your life observing every minute detail of the Law. Pharisees believed salvation was gained by keeping the Law.

Nicodemus, a Pharisee, became so enthralled with Jesus that he decided to meet Him. Nicodemus was also a ruler, a member of the Sanhedrin. He was at the top of Judaism, one the highest elites of Israel's most prestigious religious group.

 

John 3:2-3 This man came to Him at night and said, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher, for no one could perform these signs You do unless God were with him." Jesus replied, "I assure you: Unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

 

Nicodemus chose to talk in private; a public meeting was risky. Jesus had many foes. It would be politically and religiously dangerous to be seen with Him.

Jesus, unimpressed with religious and political credentials, cut through the pleasantries and went straight to the heart of the issue. Having inward knowledge of people, He knew Nicodemus had no spiritual life.

The best person Judaism could produce required being born again. Nicodemus did not simply need to improve. He needed to begin, to be born again, which literally meant "begotten from above". It required abandoning every attempt to become righteous by anything Nicodemus could do for himself.

No person can cause their own physical birth. Likewise, entering the spiritual realm requires our being born with no dependence on us. Spiritual life cannot be earned; it can only be received.

This was the hardest thing Jesus could have said to Nicodemus. It went against everything he believed and had been taught. Nicodemus believed people are saved by works, by keeping the Law. People still seek to save themselves, though we can never know if we have done enough.

 

John 3:4 "But how can anyone be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked Him, "Can he enter his mother's womb a second time and be born?"

 

Jesus' abrupt statement about being born again shocked Nicodemus. He, like all humanists—those who believe people can always fix themselves—would say we are the sum of our DNA and all our yesterdays, merely a product of what has happened to us throughout our lives, a bundle of doubts, uncertainties, wishes, hopes, fears, and habits good and bad built up through the years (Morris).

It would be wonderful to undo the cycle and make a fresh start, but how can this possibly be done? Undergo a new physical birth? Take back what we've said and done? Undo all our yesterdays? We are to be born again in what way?

 

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "I assure you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

 

Our only hope is regeneration, a totally new kind of life, spontaneously given only by God. How does God make this new start possible? We must be begotten (male parent) of water and of the Spirit. "Born of water" spoke of physical birth (see Isaiah 48:1).

Nicodemus, born an Israelite, would have thought being born of water would automatically bring salvation. The Jews saw their physical birth as giving them an inherent right to salvation. They would view a call to be born again as senseless.

Many today live under a similar delusion, thinking they were born as Christians, or that infant baptism, confirmation, and church membership saves them. Thus, they see no need to be born again, but Jesus repudiated this. It is not enough to be begotten of a human father. We must also be begotten of our heavenly Father.

 

John 3:6 "Whatever is born of the flesh is flesh, and whatever is born of the Spirit is spirit."

 

Jesus made a sharp distinction between physical birth and spiritual birth because the two lifeforms exist in separate dimensions. Flesh and Spirit are two different kinds of life. Even as cats cannot beget dogs, and horses cannot birth cows, even so flesh cannot beget spirit. Humans can produce only human results. We can't beget God-life. Jesus said God-life can start in us only by an act of God.

Flesh does not evolve into spirit. God-life is not developed slowly. It occurs instantly when a sinner receives it by grace through faith. Our "flesh" is weak, totally unable to help us spiritually. This defeat and frustration can be overcome only by a force beyond us, the Holy Spirit, who alone can bring to us the God-dimension of life.

The Holy Spirit is our only hope for life-changing power. When Jesus comes, a new power enters us which enables us to do what we never could do by ourselves. Jesus illustrated this. . .

 

John 3:7-8 Do not be amazed that I told you that you must be born again. The wind blows where it pleases, and you hear its sound, but you don't know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

 

The work of the Holy Spirit can be compared to wind. We do not understand wind, but see its effects. Similarly, we do not know exactly how the Spirit works, but see His effects in human lives. Few of us know how electricity, radio, television, telephones, or computers work, but we do not deny their existence.

The best argument for Christianity is a Christian life. No one can deny the fact of a changed life. We cannot discard a power able to make people better.

 

John 3:9-10 "How can these things be?" asked Nicodemus. "Are you a teacher of Israel and don't know these things" Jesus replied.

 

Nicodemus was baffled. He did not have the foggiest notion of what Jesus was talking about. Something was spiritually wrong with Nicodemus. Judaism's best of the best, her prime showpiece, was not only unacquainted with the doctrine of being born again, but incapable of understanding it. He was spiritually ignorant.

Nicodemus' inability to comprehend this showed how out of touch with spiritual reality Judaism had become. It needed to be replaced with something new.

The people, for the most part, could not rise above their teachers and leaders. Judaism had gone to seed from leadership to laity. God was replacing it.

Nicodemus started at the wrong end of religion. He was so busy trying to earn God's favor that he had personally missed experiencing God. Our spirituality has to start at the right place. Repentance and a new birth must always come first. If we fail to start at the starting point, we will not be able to get the rest of Christian living right.

Jesus is personally experienced first; His life is lived out in us later. We must begin by focusing on the new birth. Christianity is not primarily facts and theology. First and foremost, it's God living in people, enjoying a personal relationship with them. This is true of our ongoing spiritual life also. Always avoid legalism.