Archives for posts with tag: Nicodemus

Sermon – St David’s Day 2026

John 3.1-17

I suppose that I ought to start by telling you what I am not going to talk about. I’m not going to talk about the Gorton and Denton by-election and I’m not going to talk about the safeguarding scandal involving the former Bishop of Swansea.

The only thing that I would say about both of those things is that they both illustrate the need for us, and the need especially in Lent, to reflect on our Christian faith and to try to apply it to difficult questions that we come across in our lives. For that purpose I want to look at our reading from chapter 3 of St John’s gospel. It’s the bit which contains the verse which is supposed to be the best known verse in the whole of the New Testament, verse 16, ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.’ I suppose that sums up Christianity in one sentence. You could spend weeks and weeks teasing out every little bit of meaning from it. But don’t worry – I’m only going to look at one or two of the things come out of this and perhaps bear on our lives today.

The context is the story of Nicodemus. I rather like Nicodemus. I think he’s one of my heroes, a bit like doubting Thomas. I like the way people like him meet Jesus and don’t quite get it right.

Actually when I went to Oberammergau in 2010 for the Passion Play I discovered that in the script which has been used for the Play, pretty well unchanged, since 1600, Nicodemus takes quite a big part and he is a bit of a hero.

Although he seems not to get it completely right in this passage in the Bible, in the story in the Passion Play he becomes an advocate for Jesus in the discussions in the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Council, which is what I think is meant by him being described as a ‘leader of the Jews’, and indeed Jesus referred to him as a ‘teacher of Israel’, although he says that although Nicodemus is a teacher, he still doesn’t get it.

In the Passion Play he’s obviously learned from his encounter with Jesus and he speaks up for him, but unfortunately to no avail. Here Nicodemus questions Jesus in a way that I think that any of us might have done. Jesus answers, rather mysteriously, ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.’ I have to share with you that that’s not necessarily an agreed translation. If you read it in the New English Bible, for example, it says, “…unless a man has been born ‘over again’”, not born ‘from above’. The same word in Greek can have both meanings, so neither translation is necessarily wrong. It does look as though Nicodemus takes it as meaning born ‘over again’ – and he obviously started something, because you’ve certainly heard of the expression a ‘born-again Christian’. Nicodemus is clearly thinking about being born ‘again’ because he then asks how he can literally go back into his mother’s womb and start again.

So Jesus talks about being born from water and the spirit, which is usually interpreted to mean being baptised, somehow washing away the old sinful self and being filled with the spirit of God. We do see instances in the New Testament where Jesus or Saint Paul, talking about Jesus, where they talk about a distinction between body and spirit. Incidentally, the word for ‘spirit’ both in the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament can also mean ‘wind’, and that’s perhaps why these days we tend to refer to the Holy Spirit rather than the Holy Ghost, because a ‘spirit’ is literally something breathed, like a wind or a breeze, and that definitely comes into what Jesus is talking about here. Here the version of the Bible which we are reading today doesn’t really hang together very well, because it has Jesus saying, “Don’t be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born again, from above’” and then goes on to talk about the wind – in the King James Bible, ‘the wind bloweth where it listeth’. You will recall in Romans chapter 8, St Paul makes a big distinction between body and spirit, and then in his first letter to the Corinthians chapter 15 St Paul argues that eternal life, life after death, consists in being born again spiritually.

It would have been a familiar way of thinking to people in the ancient world, because many Greek philosophers, notably Plato, believed in what is sometimes referred to as mind-body dualism. If we refer that back to the first thing that we were not going to talk about, the result of the by-election in Manchester, I think the challenge for us as Christians is, what do we think about the non-spiritual side, the social side, of people who are not as well off as ourselves, who are in need? What do we think about how best to arrange society?

Do we have a Christian outlook on that question or is it something where we say, ‘No, that’s politics; we are concerned with spiritual things.’ Are we saying, effectively, that that is simply a concern of the body as opposed to the spirit, and is Jesus making that distinction too?

It’s 40 years this year since the publication of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Commission on Urban Priority Areas, as it was called, better known as Faith in the City.

There is an interesting discussion in there, a chapter under the heading ‘Theological Priorities’ and in that chapter it says, “The question at issue is whether the acknowledged Christian duty to ‘remember the poor’ should be confined to personal charity, service and evangelism directed towards individuals, or whether it can legitimately take the form of social and political action aimed at altering the circumstances which appear to cause poverty and distress.”

The report goes on to trace the history of both sides, spiritual, inward-looking religion addressing personal salvation, and social, political action: and it says that Christians should be involved in both.

It points out that this is in line with most of the history of the church. Fairly soon after the death of Jesus, obviously there was conflict with the Romans, when the Christians refused to worship the emperor as a god, and then down the ages there have been important pieces of social action, for example the Victorian campaign against slavery, inspired by Christian belief.

Perhaps the result of the by-election in Manchester was to some extent influenced by a desire to look for a more idealistic solution, reducing the gap between between rich and poor and welcoming the stranger. Some of the things that Mr. Polanski was saying have come from his Jewish background, where he referenced compassionate teachings from the Jewish law, which Jesus himself endorsed. So that’s the first thing that I am not talking about.

And then the second thing, which is much more difficult, is the scandal of the former Bishop of Swansea. Maybe the only thing we can say about it, say, if we were to try to imagine what Jesus would say about it, and perhaps if we read on in chapter 3 of St John’s Gospel, is that there is a very clear indication from Jesus at verse 19. He said, ‘Here lies the test: the light has come into the world, but men prefer darkness to light because their deeds were evil. Bad men all hate the light and avoid it, for fear their practices should be shown up. The honest man comes to the light so that it may be clearly seen that God is in all he does.’ There must never be cover-ups, and the best way to avoid terrible abuses in future is for our safeguarding always to involve complete openness. We should always be open to have the light shone on everything we do.

You may say, having heard what I’ve just been talking about, that I have in fact failed to mention another very important thing today, and that is that it is Saint David’s day. I have to share with you that in the Church in Wales’ lectionary, Saint David’s day is, as they put it, ‘transferred’ to tomorrow because it would otherwise fall on a Sunday in Lent; it is a transferrable feast, if you’ve come across those, and here it’s because you are not allowed to celebrate a saint at the same time as you are having one of the Sundays in Lent – and anyway, Sundays are actually not counted as one of the 40 penitential days. Anyway that’s all far too technical for me, and I would just mention that it is Saint David’s day and we are allowed to feel good about being Welsh or being in Wales, as I am. I should tell you that my dearly beloved Mrs, Kenny, exclaimed to me, as we were crossing the Prince of Wales Bridge from Bristol for the first time together, ‘We are in a different country now!’ Well, it’s something to celebrate, I’m absolutely sure, and I’ve had a very happy five years here in Wales. Long may it continue.

Hugh D Bryant

Sermon preached at All Saints Church, Penarth, 29th April 2025

Acts of the Apostles 4:32-37; John 3:7-15 – see https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:ab09bab9-b3d3-40fb-94f8-e2783f0f51ba

This morning I want to look at two or three words in our lessons which I think in one way or another, by a happy accident, because the lessons were chosen long before this came about, have reminded me about various things to do with the late Pope Francis. I am sure you have read and watched and listened to many reminiscences and obituaries which have given us a very colourful picture of this great man, this great man of God, this vicar of Christ, the man who takes the place of, represents, Christ – which is what the word ‘vicar’ means.

Someone who takes the place of somebody else. Vice, in Latin, as in vice versa; vice, vicar. I was very tempted just to read out to you a really good article in this week’s Church Times by Prof. Paul Vallely, biographer of Pope Francis, about the late pope. At the end I will read out a bit of the article because it is so memorable and, I think, gives a really authentic reminiscence of this good man.

But first let’s look at our lessons today in the light of what we know and remember of Pope Francis. ‘The Lord is king and has put on glorious apparel’; the opening line of our psalm appointed today; as the vicar of Christ, the pope is often dressed in amazingly rich and ornate robes, and I think that on occasions, Pope Francis was no exception: but very often we saw him just simply wearing a simple alb, a monk’s garment, not weighed down by a beautiful gilded and embroidered chasuble; and that was the key to so much about Pope Francis, that he was a man who believed in not being a ‘prince of the church,’ as it’s sometimes called.

I treated myself last night to watching again on Netflix that wonderful film that came out a few years ago called The Two Popes, with Sir Jonathan Pryce as Pope Francis and Sir Anthony Hopkins as Pope Benedict. 

The film is full of lovely contrasts. The grand style of the former Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict, a great theologian but quite happy to go along with the tradition of the Catholic Church as it had grown up, and to enjoy the trappings: travelling by helicopter to the summer residence outside Rome and coming in to the Vatican, again by helicopter: and then where Pope Francis rings for a takeaway pizza, which is a very sweet moment; and so on. 

I’m sure we have all read about the only time that Pope Francis drove in a Mercedes was when he was in his Popemobile, whereas normally he used a Ford Fiesta. How he didn’t live in the grand rooms are usually allocated to the pope in the Vatican but rather in a modest guesthouse. How he rang up to settle his newspaper bill in Buenos Aires when he had been elected Pope and suddenly had to stay in Rome permanently.

For Pope Francis the image of the Lord was not so much that of a king who had put on glorious apparel but the servant king, the one who washed the feet of the disciples and healed the sick. One of the stories in the Church Times is of the Pope meeting a man who was horribly disfigured and his face was really repulsive – and hugging him, when nobody else would go near him. You feel that Jesus would have been exactly the same. When Jesus healed a leper it had the same connotation of touching the untouchable.

Then we look at the passage from the Acts of the Apostles with its picture of how the early church conducted itself, that ‘they were of one heart and soul, and no one had private ownership of any possessions, but everything that they had was owned in common’. I’m not going to get into a discussion whether the early Christians were communists – although you will remember what Jesus said about the rich man and the eye of the needle – but certainly there is this passage and the approving reference to Joseph of Cyprus, who became Barnabas and then travelled a lot with Paul subsequently, who, after selling some land, brought the proceeds to add to the early church funds.

This passage, the story, is very much in line with the humble approach of Pope Francis, although he wasn’t actually one of the ‘liberation theologians’ from South America who were also Marxists. He had a really big heart for the poor, and he wanted the church to be a ‘poor church for poor people’. The passage in Acts 4 is, though, certainly reminiscent of Marx’s ‘from each according to his ability: to each according to his need’. 

The other thing that it reminded me of, by pointing out that Joseph came from Cyprus, was what happened at the funeral of Pope Francis on Saturday, that after the main funeral service in several languages, which you can read on the Internet on the Vatican website, there was a second mass in Greek celebrated by the Greek Catholics, the eastern Catholics; not quite the eastern Orthodox church, but certainly a nod towards them and the fact that Christians come in all shapes and sizes. 

At the time of Jesus Latin, which only became the international language of the Church from the time of Constantine, 300 years later, wasn’t used everywhere, but Greek was; so also the mention of Barnabas coming from Cyprus reminds us of the Greek heritage of the early church.

Just moving away from Pope Francis for a minute, our second lesson is this rather mysterious passage from St John’s gospel which tells of Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus, a rabbi, a senior rabbi, a member of the Council who had come to see Jesus secretly by night. It’s worth reading the bit of the chapter which comes before our second lesson so you can see the context more clearly. 

‘‘Rabbi,’ he said, ‘we know that you are a teacher sent by God; no one could perform these signs of yours unless God were with him.’  Jesus answered, ‘In truth, in very truth I tell you, unless a man has been born over again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ ‘But how is it possible’, said Nicodemus, ‘for a man to be born when he is old? Can he enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born?’ Jesus answered, ‘In truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born from water and spirit. Flesh can give birth only to flesh; it is spirit that gives birth to spirit. [John 3:2–6, NEB, https://ref.ly/Jn3.2-6;neb]

You ought not to be astonished, then, when I tell you that you must be born over again. [John 3:7, NEB, https://ref.ly/Jn3.7;neb] In the lesson that was read out from a different translation, this line reads, Do not be astonished that I said to you, “You must be born from above.” [NRSV]

Born over again or born from above: which is it? The word in the Greek original – άνωθεν – could mean either of these things, so the different translators have gone in different directions and neither of them is necessarily wrong. But it does seem to me that more logically it must mean born over again, and this passage is all about that division between body and soul, body and spirit, which you come across here and also in Saint Paul’s letters, notably his first letter to the Corinthians chapter 15. 

Paul picked up on Jesus’s teaching here, and said that the mechanism of resurrection, being born again, involves the spirit rather than the body. The other thing to say at this stage is that as well as the word for ‘over again’ or ‘from above’ being capable of two different meanings, one single Greek word can mean spirit, wind, or soul. 

We will all probably remember the King James Version of this passage, ‘The wind blows where it listeth’, which is somehow much more memorable than ‘the wind blows where it chooses’ [NRSV]. The bathos of the modern translation loses the poetry entirely. 

But the point is that it’s not just the wind. The same word can also mean spirit, the Holy Spirit, and thus, the life force. There is clearly a reference here to condemnation and punishment in the reference to Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness and the son of a man being lifted up, lifted up on the cross. The idea is that, as Moses made the golden serpent and lifted it up on the pole, and anyone who had been bitten by the snakes which were plaguing the Israelites had only to touch the serpent in order to be healed, so Jesus is suffering and death on the cross has the potential to heal as well. 

The exact mechanism, how this healing works, is really difficult to understand; I think we should have some sympathy with Nicodemus. I think in a way he is a bit like doubting Thomas in the sense that there’s nothing wrong with his intellect but the things that he is expected to believe, the things that he is confronted with, in his encounters with Jesus, are just beyond human understanding. 

But maybe even that passage has a reflection in the life of Pope Francis. Let me close by reading you a story about him from the Church Times, which shows how he answered another, similarly tricky, question about the mystery of God.

A FEW years ago, on a visit to a poor parish on the outskirts of Rome, Pope Francis offered to answer questions from the youngest parishioners. But, when one young boy, aged about six, was invited to step up to the microphone to ask his question, he became suddenly overwhelmed.

“I can’t do it,” whispered the boy to a papal aide. “Go on, go on,” Pope Francis said, sitting on a little stage in front of the children and their parents. Children clapped to encourage the boy, who was called Emanuele. He started to cry. “Come up, Emanuele, and whisper your question in my ear,” the Pope said.

The aide led the boy, still crying, up the few steps to Francis. The boy buried his face in the Pope’s neck and hugged him. Francis patted the boy’s back and placed his hand upon his head. The child began to speak. No one could hear. The crowd sat in silence. The Pope was listening. The boy was speaking. On the Pope’s finger we could see the silver ring that he had worn since he first became a bishop in Buenos Aires. On his wrist we could see his cheap black plastic watch.

Then it was over. The boy was led back to his seat to applause. The Pope spoke to the crowd: “OK. I asked Emanuele’s permission to tell you the question he asked me. And he said Yes. So I will tell you. He said: ‘A little while ago I lost my father. He did not believe in God, but he had all four of his children baptised. He was a good man. Is my papà in heaven?’”

The Pope continued: “God is the only one who says who goes to heaven. But what is God’s heart like, with a dad like that?” he asked the rows of parents. They were silent. The Pope smiled. “This dad, who was not a believer, but who baptised his children and gave them that advantage, what do you think? God has a dad’s heart. Would God be able to leave such a father far away from himself?”

“No,” said a few people in the crowd.

“Louder,” said Francis. “Be brave, speak up. Does God abandon his children, when they are good?” “No,” chorused the crowd. “There, Emanuele, that is the answer. God surely was proud of your father. Because it is easier as a believer to baptise your children than to baptise them when you are not a believer. Surely this pleased God very much.” Smiling at the child, he added: “Talk to your dad. Pray to your dad.” [From Paul Vallely: ‘Pope Francis was pastor to the world’, Church Times, 25th April 2025]

I hope that this Easter will be remembered, and you will remember it, as the Easter when Pope Francis, the humble pope, went home to the Lord. He was a Holy Father indeed.