Alastair Roberts (PhD, Durham University) writes in the areas of biblical theology and ethics, but frequently trespasses beyond these bounds. He participates in the weekly Mere Fidelity podcast, blogs at Alastair’s Adversaria, and tweets at @zugzwanged.
Many thanks for this very helpful exposition of John 3. I have a question, however, which I’m hoping you might be able to shed some light on. I entirely agree with your interpretation of the passage, that it is primarily about the new birth of Israel, firstly through the resurrection of Jesus, the firstborn, from the dead, and then his people in union with him, rather than the more common individualistic interpretation. However, the one niggle I have with this lies in Jesus’s first words in the passage. In answer to Nicodemus’s statement, Jesus’s says that unless one/someone is born again/from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God. This use of “one” or “someone” (the two most common translations), do tend to sound more in keeping with the interpretation of the passage referring to individuals being born again, than about Israel being born again. Do you have any thoughts as to how it might fit in with the interpretation you have advanced? I know James Jordan refers it to Jesus being the “one” or” someone” who needed to be born again (through the resurrection), but I thought that sounded a little force. Although your post was a year ago, any thoughts you have would be very welcome.
Dear Alastair,
Many thanks for this very helpful exposition of John 3. I have a question, however, which I’m hoping you might be able to shed some light on. I entirely agree with your interpretation of the passage, that it is primarily about the new birth of Israel, firstly through the resurrection of Jesus, the firstborn, from the dead, and then his people in union with him, rather than the more common individualistic interpretation. However, the one niggle I have with this lies in Jesus’s first words in the passage. In answer to Nicodemus’s statement, Jesus’s says that unless one/someone is born again/from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God. This use of “one” or “someone” (the two most common translations), do tend to sound more in keeping with the interpretation of the passage referring to individuals being born again, than about Israel being born again. Do you have any thoughts as to how it might fit in with the interpretation you have advanced? I know James Jordan refers it to Jesus being the “one” or” someone” who needed to be born again (through the resurrection), but I thought that sounded a little force. Although your post was a year ago, any thoughts you have would be very welcome.
Best wishes,
Rob Slane