the work of the Spirit. — Thirdly, he had shown tlie necessity of the new birth, from the natural corruption of man. — Fourthly, He had illustratea the work of the Spirit a second time by tho instance of the " wind." And yet now, after all that our Lord has said, this learned Pharisee seems utterly in the dark, and asks the pitiable question, " How can these things be?" We have no right to be surprised at the vast ignorance of saving religion which we see on all sides, when we consider the history of Nicodemus. We should make up our minds to expect to find spiritual darkness the rule, and spiritual light the exception. Few things in the long run give so much trouble to ministers, missionaries, teachers, and district-visitors, as beginning work with extravagant and unscriptural expectations.
10. — [Jesus answered and said.] It will be observed, that our Lord does not answer the question of Nicodemus directly, but rebukes him sharply for his ignorance. Yet it ought to be care- fully noted, as Melancthon remarks, that before He conchides what He now begins to say, He supplies a complete answer to His inquirer. He shows him the true root and spring of regene- ration, namely, faith in Himself. He answers his groping in- quiry, " How can these things be ? " by showing him the first step in saving religion, viz., to believe in the Son of God. Ijet Nicodemus begin like a little child, by simply believing on Him who was to be lifted up on the cross, and he would soon under- stand " hoiv " a man could be born again, even in his old age.
[Art thou a master of Israel] The English version of this question hardly gives the full force of the original. It should be hterally rendered, " Art thou the master of Israel? " i. e., " Art thou the famous teacher and instructor of the Jews?" ''Dost thou profess to be a light of them that sit in darkness, and an instructor of others?" — The expression certainly seems to indi- cate that Nicodemus was a man of established reputation as a • teacher among the Pharisees. When the teachers were so- ignorant, what must have been the state of the taught ?
[Knowest not these things.] These words unquestionably imply rebuke. The things which our Lord had just mentioned, Nico- demus ought to have known and understood. He professed to be a religious teacher. He professed to know the Old Testament Scriptures. The doctrine, therefore, of the necessity of a new birth ought not to have appeared strange to him. " A clean heart, — circumci'^ion of the heart, — a new heart, — a heart of stone instead of a heart of flesh," were expressions and ideas which he must have read in the prophets, and which all pointed towards the new birth. (Psalm li. 10 ; Jer. iv. 4 ; Ezek. xviii. 31 : xxxvi. 26.) His ignorance conBequently was deserving ol blam^.
147
The verse before us appears to me to supply a strong argument against the idea that the expression, "born of water and the Spirit" means baptism. I do not see how Nicodemus could possibly have known this doctrine, as it is nowhere revealed in the Old Testament, and even its own advocates confine it to New Testament times. To blame a man for not knowing " things " which he could not possibly know, would be obviously most unjust, and entirely at variance with the general tenor of our Lord's dealings.
11.. — [We speak that we do know, <frc.] Whom does our Lord mean here when He says "we?" The answers to this question are various.
(a.) Some think, as Lutntn^, Brentius, Bucer, G-ualter, Aretius, Hutcheson, Musculus, Gomarus, Piscator, and Cartwright, that " we" means, " I and John the Baptist."
(&.) Some think, as Calvin, Beza, and Scott, that it means, " I and the Old Testament prophets."
(c.) Some think, as Alcuin, (according to Maldonatus,) and Wesley, that it means, "I and all who are born of the Spirit."
(d.) Some think, as Chrysostom, Cyril, Rupertus, Calovius, Glassius, Chemnitius, Lampe, Leigh, Nifanius, Cornelius a Lapide, Cocceius, Stier and Bengel, that it means either, " I and the Father,"— or "I and the Holy Ghost, "—or "I and both the Father and the Spirit."
(e.) Some think, as Theophylact, Zvvingle, Poole, and Dod- dridge, that our Lord only means Himself wnen He says " we," and that He uses the plural number in order to give weight and dignity to what He says, as kings do. So also He says, " Where- unto shall we, liken the kingdom of God? or with what compari- son shall we compare it ? " (Mark iv. 30.) " We," in that text, evidently stands for " I." — In St. John's First Epistle, the first person plural is used instead of the singular repeatedly in the first five verses of the first chapter.
The last of these five opinions appears to me by far the most probable and satisfactory. — The three first seem to me to be en- tirely overthrown by John the Baptist's words in this chapter, (v. 32,) where he mentions it as a peculiar mark of our Lord's superiority to all other teachers, that " He testifi;;'th what He hath seen and heard." — The fourth opinion appears to me unten- able. The fear of Socinianism must not make us wrest texts in order to apply them to the Trinity. There is a fitness in our Lord's saying, during His earthly mmistry, after His incarnation, "I speak and testily what 1 have known and seen from all eternity with my Father." But there is no apparent fitness in