.JPG)
I've never understood what some Christians mean when they describe themselves as "born again." Growing up in a mainline-to-liberal Presbyterian church, I never encountered the phrase. I think the first time I heard it may have been in a conversation with a female high-school classmate of mine, who, after I identified myself as Christian, narrowed her eyes suspiciously and asked,
"But, are you Born Again?"
I wasn't sure what she meant. Over a decade later, I'm still not sure. But last Sunday, in church, my minister addressed the origins of this phrase, and it was a real revelation.
Apparently, there are only two references to being "born again" in the Bible. The main one comes from the Gospel of John (the other is a relatively obscure passing reference in one of the Epistles). Here's the relevant passage, Revised King James version:
3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
3:4 Nicodemus said to him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
3:5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Now, this passage has been the crux of Evangelical Christianity's insistence on being "born again" as a ticket to Heaven. After all, Jesus said it, right? "Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God!" Pretty clear stuff.
Except . . . it was a pun.
Yeah, that's right, a pun. We tend to forget that what we now know as the Bible originated as a rich oral tradition of storytelling that included a fair amount of humor. In this case, the Greek word Jesus uses that gets translated as "born again" is ANWQEN, which can mean either "born once more" (again) or "born from above" (or, of Spirit).
Unfortuntely, puns don't usually translate very well. Here's a better attempt:
3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is ANWQEN (born again/born from above), he cannot see the kingdom of God.
3:4 Nicodemus said to him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born? ("Born again?" What do you mean, "born again?")
3:5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit (born from above), he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (i.e., You silly Nicodemus, did you really think I meant "born again?" I meant "born from above." Duh!)
In light of this, it would seem that when it comes to "Born Again" Christians . . . the joke's on them.
Incidentally, while Catholics have wisely avoided the strange fixation on the "born again" theme, in researching this entry I discovered that many Catholics (at least, the ones with a prominent Internet presence) have a similarly ill-conceived interpretation of this passage . They cite the line, "Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" as evidence that baptism (being "born of water") is an essential component of one's ticket to Heaven.
Given what we've just learned, it seems pretty clear to me that in this context, "born of water" refers to being born from the womb. Jesus seems to be saying in order to enter the kingdom of God (which I think denotes not a "ticket to Heaven," but rather that source of Divinity which exists within each of us), one must exist both as body and as Spirit.
Now that, I think I just might understand.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oh my. Make my head spin why don't you.
ReplyDeleteI was asked out by a born again christian guy here in Minnesota last week. It was a little awkward. I didn't ask him what he meant by it, though.
Of COURSE they don't get the joke. Would you think it was funny if everything you believed to the very core and with every fiber of your being was the result of misinterpretation? Well would you? I didn't think so.
ReplyDeletePeople who think they know it all and have set themselves up as "chosen" don't want to hear that they've been duped.
A very enjoyable post, that's what I think.
Interesting. I'm not sure, though, given that John baptized Jesus (he did, didn't he? I'm kind of a heathen) that reading "water and Spirit" as referring to some kind of formalized ritual involving both is necessarily such a bad one.
ReplyDeleteJohn apparently wrangled up a whole bunch of Jews to undergo what was at the time I think a relatively common Jewish purification/bathing rite because he thought the apocalypse/Messiah was imminent. It would make sense that Jesus was referring to something like this. Something to purify sin for those who wanted to repent. Incidentally, on this read, it makes absolutely no sense to baptize babies.
If Jesus had been strongly influenced by John, he might assert (incorrectly, I believe, according to common practice at the time) that such a ritual was necessary to be a good Jew (i.e. "see the kingdom of God.")
Also, rereading the passage a few times, I wonder why Jesus even mentioned water, if it is to symbolize the womb. All humans are born out of a womb. It seems unnecessary to note it unless it means something.
And I also wonder why the first time Jesus speaks he says "see the kingdom of God" and then the second time says "enter the kingdom of God."
Sigh. Biblical exegesis is so fun.
Ruby,
ReplyDeleteExcellent point. Certainly it would not be inconsistent for Jesus to have been speaking of baptism. And yes, John did baptize Jesus (though apparently not in the Gospel of John, so I'm not sure to what extent that can be applied here).
To be honest, in re-reading the last part of my post I find that it's not well-explained at all.
First of all, I didn't quote enough of the pssage. Instead of John 3:3-5, here's John 3:3-6 ...
3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
3:4 Nicodemus said to him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
3:5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
What I'm suggesting is that versus 5 and 6 are a pair here, making the same point. I'm also assuming that Jesus is actually responding to Nicodemus' question is verse 4, and not simply talking past him.
Having said that, I certanly don't claim that my interpretation is the only, or "correct" interpretation.
I'm not surprised evangelicals missed the joke. As a group, they're not noted for their sense of humour. Thanks for the alternative interpretations.
ReplyDeleteBut to be honest, I've never really felt the need of an alternative interpretation to ignore them. I've simply assumed "you're talking about a text that was written by a human already at least 50 years after the event, and transcribed and translated by more humans over the following centuries... and you're trying to read deep significance into individual words? Get a grip."
Looked at in that perspective, it seems silly to focus on words like "born", which might be used in dozens of ways literal and figurative, even without allowing for puns.
Well jeez, castlerook, include all the text next time, wouldja?
ReplyDeleteKidding. With that addition, I think your interpretation makes more sense.