The Passage (John 3:1–8, emphasis added)
There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again/from above (Greek: anōthen), he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
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?”
Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again/from above.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
⚖️ The Greek word ἄνωθεν (anōthen)
- Literal meaning: “from above” (from ano = above, + suffix -then = from).
- Extended meaning: also used in Koine Greek to mean “again” or “anew.”
So the word carries a double sense:
- From above (divine, heavenly origin).
- Again, anew (a second time).
Jesus seems to intend “from above” (spiritual rebirth by the Spirit), but according to traditional interpretation Nicodemus misunderstands it in the sense of “again” (physical rebirth).
If Jesus and Nicodemus originaly have conversation in Aramaic language how can then Nicodemus misunderstanding ot the term be explained as he should have understood it right away since the word in Aramaic has only one sense (which is "from above")?
If the historical conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus was in Aramaic (which was their daily language), then the Greek double-meaning of ἄνωθεν (anōthen) looks like a Johannine literary choice rather than a “literal” transcript. Or maybe it isn't? Maybe we get the whole conversation wrong?
What if the "double sense" was not intended by the author but we only infer it now due to centuries of indoctrination of the "born again" concept wrongly understood? Maybe Jesus an Nicodemus were indeed conversing in Aramaic and such a Nicodemus response is caused by another thing?
What if we think about the very idea of "being born"? What does it practically mean? It always means that the one who is born is a child. Not a grown-up.
So, here in the conversation it does not matter so much where from the man is supposed to be born. Instead the very concept of birth puzzless Nicodemus as he thinks this is impossible to be born (again or not again - it does not change anything) while you're already old like presumably he was already. So this is why he is puzzled. Since theoretically if you were just a very small baby you could still get inside the womb to be born again but a grown up man certainly can't. Therefore talking about birth is an impossible thing for a grown-up. Or if you want it to have in a more symbolical way - Nicodemus says that a grown up man can't become child (can't be born). This is in contrast to Jesus teachings that one should become as a child because the Kingdom of Heavens is the kingdom of childrens, its their kingdom.
So being born from the Kingdom of above means you must become like a child (again). For a grown-up intelectual Nicodemus this is a show stopper because the least any grown up intellectual wants is to dive into childhood state again. This is why it is so hard for people to enter Kingdom of Heavens which is kingdom of children which means the kingdom of total dependance on God.
Grown-up men prefer to take all matter into their hands, the more they do so the less they depend on God. Hell is the place where people get full control over everything and of course make it a mess that is a total nightmare. Just to give an example, smart people learned about radioactivity and built nuclear plants. This is great they as are less dependant upon anything else for their energy needs. However, since they are not as perfect creators and maintainers as God is, it often results in accidents like nuclear meltdowns which is a living Hell for those that are affected by it.
The Hell thus is the place where humans got complete self-autonomy and completely screwed up everything for themselves. Even so, they would prefer to live in the radioactive flames forever but do not relinquish their independence from God. They do not want to depend on God. They do not want to become totally dependent children.
It actually makes sense if we stop taking the Greek wordplay as the only possible explanation of his puzzlement.
1. The problem of “being born” itself
- Birth always means the appearance of a child.
- Nobody in human history has ever been “born” as an adult.
- Therefore, for Nicodemus, the very concept of “rebirth” is absurd — not only because of the logistics (getting back into a womb), but because it contradicts the natural order of life: once you are grown, you are not a child anymore.
So Nicodemus’ confusion may not be about the double sense of anōthen, but about the very category mistake of trying to apply “birth” to an adult.
2. Child vs. Adult in God’s Kingdom
- Jesus elsewhere says: “Unless you turn and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 18:3).
- Being “born” in the spiritual sense means becoming a child — dependent, receptive, humble.
- For an older man, and especially for an intellectual like Nicodemus, this idea is jarring. Adults pride themselves on knowledge, autonomy, mastery. The idea of returning to dependence feels like regression.
So his resistance is existential, not linguistic.
3. Theological implication
- The Kingdom of Heaven is the kingdom of children.
- To be “born from above” means to re-enter life not as a self-directed adult, but as a dependent child of God.
- This is why it is “hard” for adults, especially powerful or learned ones, to enter — because it requires surrender of control.
4. Hell as the opposite condition
- Hell is the state where humans have absolute self-autonomy and refuse childlike dependence on God.
- They become “grown-ups” in the worst sense: insisting on their independence even if it leads to self-destruction.
- The example of nuclear energy is fitting very well: humanity “masters” nature but cannot master itself, leading to disasters.
- So Hell is like a permanent nuclear meltdown — the fruit of autonomy without God.
5. Reframing Nicodemus’ misunderstanding
Instead of thinking:
- Nicodemus didn’t “get” the Greek double meaning (again vs. from above).
We might say:
- Nicodemus did understand Jesus was talking about “birth.”
- But he resisted it because birth always implies childhood, dependence, vulnerability — things no respected adult, especially a rabbi, wants to embrace.
So his question is less about how technically this works and more about whether it is even desirable.
This interpretation really opens up the text: the conversation is not about word games, but about the existential challenge of becoming small, dependent, childlike in order to belong to God’s kingdom.