Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - John 3:1 - 3:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The Discourse with Nicodemus (3:1-15)
3:1. Nicodemus appears three times in the Fourth Gospel (see on 7:50, 19:39), but is not mentioned by any other evangelist, unless we may equate him with the ἄχνof Luk_18:18 (see below on v. 3). The attempt to identify him with Joseph of Arimathæ has no plausibility (see on 19:39); and the suggestion that he is a fictitious character invented by Jn. to serve a literary purpose is arbitrary and improbable (see Introd., p. lxxxiii f.). Νκδμςis a Greek name borrowed by the Jews, and appears in Josephus (Antt. xiv. iii. 2) as that of an ambassador from Aristobulus to Pompey. In the Talmud (Taanith, 20. 1) mention is made of one Bunai, commonly called Nicodemus ben Gorion, and it is possible (but there is no evidence) that he was the Nicodemus of Jn. He lived until the destruction of Jerusalem, which would accord very well with the idea that Jn. has the “young ruler” of Luk_18:18 in his mind, although in that case γρνof v. 4 must not be taken to indicate that the person in question was really “old” at the time of speaking. All that can be said with certainty of the Nicodemus of the text is that he was a Pharisee, and a member of the Sanhedrim (7:50), and apparently a wealthy man (19:39). He seems to have been constitutionally cautious and timid (see on 7:50).
Some points in the narrative of 3:1-15 would suggest that the incident here recorded did not happen (as the traditional text gives it) at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. First, at v. 2, mention is made of σμῖ at Jerusalem which had attracted the attention of Nicodemus; but we have already noted on 2:23 that no σμῖνin that city has yet been recorded. On the other hand, the “signs” which had been wrought at Jerusalem during the weeks before the end had excited much curiosity. That Nicodemus should have come secretly during the later period would have been natural, for the hostility of the Sanhedrim to Jesus had already been aroused (7:50); but that there should have been any danger in conversing with the new Teacher in the early days of His ministry does not appear. Again, at v. 14 (where see note), Jesus predicts His Passion; but if this prediction be placed in the early days of His ministry, we are in conflict with the Synoptists,who place the first announcement of His Death after the Confession of Peter. No doubt, Jn. is often in disagreement with the earlier Gospels, but upon a point so significant as this we should expect his record to agree with theirs.
However, there is not sufficient evidence to justify us in transposing the text here; and we leave the story of Nicodemus in its traditional position, although with a suspicion that the original author of the Gospel did not intend it to come so early.1
For the constr. Νκδμςὄοαατ, see on 1:6.
2. For the rec. τνἸσῦ (N),אΘhave ατν
οτςἤθνπὸ ατννκό. This was the feature of the visit of Nicodemus which attracted attention: he came by night. Cf. 7:50, 19:39. He was impressed by what he had heard, and he gradually became a disciple; cf. 12:42.
The form into which the conversation is thrown is similar to that in c. 4.2 There is a mysterious saying of Jesus (3:3, 4:10), at which the interlocutor expresses astonishment (3:4, 4:11, l2), whereupon the saying is repeated (3:5f, 4:13, 14), but still in a form difficult to understand. That, in both cases, there was an actual conversation is highly probable; but the report, as we have it, cannot in either case be taken to represent the ipsissima verba. Nothing is said in c. 3 of any one being present at the interview between Jesus and Nicodemus; but, on the other hand, there is nothing to exclude the presence of a disciple, and hence the account of the interview may be based, in part, on his recollections.
κὶεπνατ Ραβί See on 1:38. Nicodemus was ready to address Jesus as Rabbi, because he recognised in Him a divinely sent δδσαο. This was not to recognise Him as Messiah; but Nicodemus and others of his class (note the plural οδμν “we all know,” as at 9:31 and Mar_12:14),1 like the blind man of 9:33, were convinced by the signs which Jesus did that He had come ἀὸθο (cf. 13:3, 16:30). That “signs” are a mark of Divine assistance and favour was a universal belief in the first century; and Jn. repeatedly tells that this aspect of His signs was asserted by Jesus Himself (see on 2:11 above, and cf. Introd., p. xcii). The declaration of Nicodemus that no one could do the miracles which Jesus did, ἐνμ ᾖδθὸ μτ ατῦ however foreign to modern habits of thought, expressed the general belief of Judaism. That Jesus went about doing good and healing, ὅιὁθὸ ἦ μτ ατῦis the declaration ascribed to Peter in Act_10:38. The σμῖ to which Nicodemus referred were those mentioned 2:23 as having inspired faith at Jerusalem. See note in loc.
3. For the phrase ἀερθ Ἰσῦ κὶεπν see on 1:50. אΘ read ὁἸσῦ, but BLTbW Omit ὁ see on 1:29. For “Verily, verily,” see on 1:51.
Jesus answers the thought of Nicodemus, rather than his words. Nicodemus was prepared to accept Him as a prophet and a forerunner of the Messianic kingdom; but he misunderstood the true nature of that kingdom. It was a spiritual kingdom, “not of this world,” as it is described in the only other place in Jn. where it is mentioned (18:36). It did not come “with observation” (Luk_17:20, Luk_17:21), and no appreciation of signs or miracles would bring a man any nearer the understanding of it. A new faculty of spiritual vision must be acquired before it can be seen. The answer of Jesus is startling and decisive: ἀὴ ἀὴ (see on 1:51) λγ σι(the saying is of general application, but it is personally addressed to Nicodemus), ἐνμ τςγνηῇἅωε, ο δντιἰεντνβσλίντῦθο.
This saying is the Johannine counterpart of Mar_10:15 ἀὴ λγ ὑῖ, ὃ ἐνμ δξτιτνβσλίντῦθο ὡ πιίν ο μ εσλῃες ατν(cf. the parallels Mat_18:3, Luk_18:17). It is to be observed that this saying in Mk. and Lk. comes immediately before the colloquy with the rich young man, whom Lk. describes as a “ruler,” and it is not impossible that this “ruler” is to be identified with Nicodemus (see on v. 1).1 In any case, “the kingdom of God” or “the kingdom of heaven” is a main topic in the teaching of Jesus as reported by the Synoptists; and it is noteworthy that in this passage (the only passage where Jn. reproduces the phrase in full) the saying which introduces it is terse and epigrammatic, quite in the Synoptic manner. That we have here a genuine saying of Jesus is certain, given in another shape at Mar_10:15. It is repeated in an altered form at v. 5 (cf. v. 7), and reason is given in the note there for regarding the form in v. 3 as the more original of the two. For the repetitions in Jn., see further on 3:16.
ἄωε, in the Synoptists (generally) and always in the other passages (3:31, 19:11, 23) where it occurs in Jn., means “from above,” desuper; so also in Jam_1:17, Jam_1:3:15, Jam_1:17. This is its meaning here, the point being not that spiritual birth is a repetition, but that it is being born into a higher life. To be begotten ἄωε means to be begotten from heaven, “of the Spirit.”2
No doubt, to render ἄωε by denuo, “anew,” “again,” as at Gal_4:9, gives a tolerable sense, and this rendering may be defended by Greek usage outside the N.T. Wetstein quotes Artemidorus, Oniroer. i. 13, where a man dreams that he is being born, which portends that his wife is to have a son like himself: οτ γρἄωε ατςδξι γνᾶθι So Josephus, Antt. 1. xviii. 3, φλα ἄωε πιῖα πὸ ατν “he made friends with him again.” But desuper suits the context in the present passage better than denuo.
ο δντιἰεντνβσλίντῦθο “To see” the kingdom of God is to participate in it, to have experience of it, as at Luk_9:27. For this use of ἰεν cf. Act_2:27 “to see corruption,” Luk_2:26 and Joh_8:51 “to see death (cf. Psa_89:48, Heb_11:5), Rev_18:7 “to see mourning,” 1 Macc. 13:3 “to see distresses,” Ecc_9:9 “to see (that is, to enjoy) life.”1 No doubt, a distinction may be drawn linguistically between “seeing the kingdom of God” and “entering into the kingdom of God,” which is the phrase used in v. 5. Thus in Hermas, Sim. ix. 15, the wicked and foolish women see the kingdom while they do not enter it. But no such distinction can be drawn here; v. 5 restates v. 3, but it is not in contrast with it. “Seeing the kingdom of God” in Jn.’s phraseology is “entering into it”; it is identical with the “seeing” of “life” in v. 36, where see note.2
4. λγιπὸ ατνὁΝ For this constr. Of λγι, see on 2:3.
Nicodemus is represented as challenging the idea of rebirth. From one point of view this is easy to understand. He was probably familiar with the Jewish description of a proselyte as “one newly born” (see Introd., p. clxiii). But for Jews a Gentile was an alien, outside the sheltering providence of Yahweh. Certainly, he must begin his spiritual life anew, if he would be one of the chosen people. But it was incredible that any such spiritual revolution should be demanded of an orthodox Jew.
Yet this is not the objection which Nicodemus is represented as urging. The words placed in his mouth rather suggest that he took the metaphor of a new birth to mean literally a physical rebirth. “How can a man be born again, when he is old?” (as may have been his own case, but see on vv. 1, 3). “Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb?” This would have been a stupid misunderstanding of what Jesus had said, but yet it is to this misunderstanding that the reply of Jesus is directed. It is not a fleshly rebirth that is in question, but a spiritual rebirth, which is a different thing.
Nicodemus says δύεο, where Jesus had said ἅωε, thus mistakenly understanding by ἅωε, denuo rather than desuper; see on v. 3 above.
πςδντικλ This is a favourite turn of phrase in Jn. Cf. 3:9, 5:44, 6:52, 9:16.
5. ὁmust be omitted before Ἰσῦ, as in v. 3. See on 1:29.
For γνηῇnearly all the Latin versions have renatus (f alone has natus), which may point to a Western reading ἀαενθ. But probably the Latin rendering is of the nature of an interpretation (with a reminiscence of γνηῇἄωε in v. 3), the verb ἀαενωoccurring in N.T. only at 1Pe_1:3, 1Pe_1:23.
Another Western variant1 is τνβσλίντνορῶ, for the rec. τνβςτῦθο, which is supported by אΓΘ א 511 e m support τνορνν which is also read in Justin (Apol. i. 61), Hippolytus (Ref. viii. 10), Irenæ (Frag. xxxiii., ed. Harvey), and ps.—Cyprian de Rebaptismate 3. Tertullian has in regnum caelorum (de Bapt. 13); but in another place in regnum dei (de Anima 39). Origen’s witness is alike uncertain, his Latin translation giving both caelorum (Hom. xiv. in Lucam, and Comm. in Rom. ii. 7) and dei (Hom. v. in Exod.). Perhaps, as Hort says, the Western reading was suggested by the greater frequency of the phrase εσρεθιεςτνβσλίντνορννin Mt.
The seal of the baptismal waters is thrice mentioned by Hermas (Sim. ix. 15, 16) as a pre-requisite to entering the kingdom of God; and in 2 Clem. 6 (before 140 a.d.) we have “if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, with what confidence shall we enter into the kingdom of God?” It is possible that here we have reminiscences of the language of v. 5. See Introd., p. lxxvi.
The reference in the word ὕαο is clearly to Christian baptism (see Introd., p. clxiv). But, so far as Nicodemus was concerned, this would have been an irrelevant reference; the argument being darkened by the presence of ὕαο κὶbefore πεμτς Jesus explains that Nicodemus must be “begotten from above” before he can enter the kingdom of God, i.e. that a spiritual change must pass upon him, which is described in v. 6 as being “begotten of the Spirit.” The words ὕαο κίhave been inserted in v. 8 by אa b e, etc. (see note in loc.), although they form no part of the true text; and it has been suggested that, in like manner, in the verse before us they are only an interpretative gloss.2 There is, however, no MS. evidence for their omission here (although the Sinai Syriac transposes the order of words and testifies to a reading “begotten of Spirit and of water”), nor is there extant any patristic citation of the verse which speaks of “being begotten of the Spirit” and does not mention the water. The passage from Justin (Apol. i. 61) by which Lake supports his argument is as follows: ἔετ ἄοτιὑʼἡῶ ἔθ ὕω ἐτ, κὶτόο ἀαενσω, ὃ κὶἡεςατὶἀεενθμν ἀαεννα …κὶγρὁΧιτςεπν Ἂ μ ἀαενθτ, ο μ εσληεεςτνβσλίντνορνν Justin is quoting loosely (after his manner), and it is not certain whether it is Joh_3:3 or Joh_3:5 that he has in his mind. But there is nothing to suggest that the reading before him was ἐνμ τςγνηῇἐ Πεμτςκλ Indeed, in another place (Tryph. 138) he has the phrase τῦἀαενθτςὑʼατῦδʼὕαο κὶπσεςκὶξλυ
We conclude that the words ὕαο κίcannot be extruded from the text of Jn., but that they are not to be regarded as representing precisely the saying of Jesus. They are due to a restatement by Jn. of the original saying of v. 3, and are a gloss, added to bring the saying of Jesus into harmony with the belief and practice of a later generation.1
ἐνμ τςγνηῇκλ We have seen (on 1:13) that those who believe on the name of Christ are described as “begotten of God,” ἐ θο γγνηέο, and the references given in the note show that this is a characteristic Johannine phrase. It is necessary to interpret the words ὁγγνηέο ἐ τῦπεμτς(vv. 5, 6, 8) in similar fashion, and to understand them as describing the man who “is begotten of the Spirit.” “God is Spirit” (4:24), and the phrases “begotten of God” and “begotten of the Spirit” mean the same thing. At 1Jn_3:9 we have πςὁγγνηέο ἐ τῦθο ἀατα ο πιῖ ὅισέμ ατῦἐ ατ μνι but a few verses later (1Jn_3:24) it is said of those who keep God’s commandments γνσοε ὅιμνιἐ ἡῖ, ἐ τῦπεμτςο ἡῖ ἔωε. The “seed of God” is the “Spirit,” whereof believers are made partakers by a spiritual begetting. That is to say, the words ἐ τῦΠεμτςin this verse point to the Spirit as the Begetter of believers.
To translate “born of the Spirit” suggests that the image is of the Spirit as the female parent of the spiritual child, whereas Johannine usage (and O.T. usage also, as we have seen on 1:13) shows that the image is that of the Spirit as the Begetter. It has been pointed out already (on 1:13) that the Latin rendering natus must not be taken as excluding the meaning begotten.
In Semitic languages the Spirit, Ruḥ is feminine; e.g. the Old Syriac of 14:26 runs, “The Spirit, the Paraclete, she shall teach you all things.” Thus the phrase “begotten of the Spirit,” which we have found reason for accepting as Johannine, would be inconsistent with the Aramaic origin of the Fourth Gospel. If, as Burney held, Jn. were originally written in Aramaic, then the original behind τ γγνηέο ἐ τῦΠεμτςmust have meant “born of the Spirit.” But this does not harmonise with 1:13 or 1Jn_3:9.
6. After σρ ἐτν 161 Syr. cur. and some O.L. texts add the explanatory gloss on ὅιἐ τςσρὸ ἐενθ. After πεμ ἐτν a similar group with Syr. sin. add ὅιἐ τῦπεμτςἐτν
Flesh and Spirit are distinct, and must not be confused. They are contrasted with each other in 6:63, where the property of “quickening” is ascribed to spirit, while flesh has no such quality, where eternal life is in question. Both are constituent elements of man’s nature, and so of the nature of Christ (Mar_14:38, 1Pe_3:18, 1Pe_4:6). They represent the two different orders of being, the lower and the higher, with which man is in touch. Flesh can only beget flesh, while spirit only can beget spirit.
7. μ θυάῃ κλ “Marvel not that I said to thee, You must be begotten from above.” The aphorism is repeated in the original form (v. 3), which we have shown reason for supposing to have been amplified in v. 5. ὑᾶ, includes all men, and not Nicodemus only; observe that it is not ἡᾶ, for Jesus Himself did not need re-birth. Of His natural birth it could be said τ γρἐ ατ γνηὲ ἐ πεμτςἐτνἁίυ(Mat_1:20).
μ θυάῃ: cf. 5:28, 1Jn_3:13. θυάενin Jn. generally indicates unintelligent wonder.
δῖὑᾶ …See on 3:14 (cf. 2:4, 4:24) for the thought of the Divine necessity involved in Jn.’s use of δῖ
8. ἐ τῦπεμτς אa b eff2 m Syr. sin. and Syr. cur. give ἐ τῦὕαο κὶτῦπεμτς an expansion of the true text from v. 5.
τ πεμ ὅο θλιπε, κὶτνφννατῦἀοες
πεμ may be translated either “wind” or “Spirit.” It is true that elsewhere in the N.T. πεμ never has its primitive meaning “wind” (except in the quotation of Psa_104:4, in Heb_1:7; cf. 2 Ezr_8:22); but this meaning is often found in the LXX, e.g. Gen_8:1, 1Ki_18:45, 1Ki_18:19:11, 2Ki_3:17, Isa_7:2, Isa_11:15, Psa_148:8, Ecclus. 43:17, Wisd. 5:23.
The verb πενoccurs 5 times elsewhere in the N.T. and is always applied to the blowing of the wind (cf. 6:18). In the LXX it is found 5 times with the same application, there always being in the context some allusion to the Divine action. Cf. Bar. 6:61 τ δατ κὶπὲαἐ πσ χρ πε, and esp Psa_147:18 πεσιτ πεμ ατῦκὶῥήεα ὕαα
φν is properly articulate speech, but is often equivalent to “sound.” In the LXX “the Voice of God” is a common form of expression, and φν is often used of thunder as God’s Voice in nature (Exo_9:23, 1Sa_7:10, Psa_18:13, etc.). It is twice used of the sound of wind, in Psa_29:8 (of a tempest, as the Voice of Yahweh) and 1Ki_19:12 (φν αρςλπῆ, “the still small voice” which Elijah heard). In Jn. it is always used of a Divine or heavenly voice (except 10:5 where the “voice” of strangers is contrasted with the “voice” of the Good Shepherd).
There is no etymological objection to translating “The wind blows where it will, and thou hearest its sound”; but we may equally well translate “The Spirit breathes where He will, and thou hearest His Voice.” There is a like ambiguity in Ecc_11:5, ἐ οςοκἔτνγνσω τςἡὁὸ τῦπεμτς where the “way” which is unknown by man may be the “way of the Spirit” or the “way of the wind.” To the Hebrew mind the wind, invisible yet powerful, represented in nature the action of the Divine Spirit, as is indicated in Gen_1:2 and often in the O.T.; and so in some places the precise rendering of πεμ may be doubtful. That, however, it never stands for “wind” in the N.T. elsewhere is a weighty consideration for the translator of the verse before us. φν may mean, as we have seen, “the sound” of wind; but it is also to be remembered that the φν from heaven of Rev_14:13 was the Voice of the Spirit. The ἦο from heaven on the Day of Pentecost was said to be like a “rushing mighty wind” (Act_2:2).
The context, however, seems to remove all ambiguity in the present passage. Πεμ at the beginning of the verse must refer to the same subject as πεμτςat its close, and in vv. 5, 6. The argument is that, as the Divine Spirit operates as He will, and you cannot tell whence or whither (οκοδςπθνἔχτικὶπῦὑάε), so it is with every one begotten of the Spirit. That which is begotten of the Spirit shares in the quality of spirit (v. 6). Thus Christ, who was preeminently ὁγνηεςἐ πεμτς(Mat_1:20), said of Himself, in words identical with those of this verse, ὑεςοκοδτ πθνἔχμι ἤπῦὑάω(8:14; cf. 9:29). So it is in his measure of every child of God who is begotten of the Spirit (cf. 1:13). Not only do the laws of physical generation not govern spiritual generation (for natural law does not always hold in the spiritual world), but you cannot standardise or reduce to law the manifestations of spiritual life. It is the teaching of Jn. (8:32), just as clearly as of Paul, that “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2Co_3:17).
The rendering of πεμ as Spirit rather than wind is supported by the Latin versions,1 which have “spiritus ubi uult spirat”; and it is noteworthy that the earliest patristic allusion to the passage, viz. Ign. Philad. 7, is decisive for it. Ignatius says: “Even though certain persons desired to deceive me after the flesh (κτ σρα yet the Spirit (τ πεμ) is not deceived, being from God, οδνγρπθνἔχτικὶπῦὑάε, ” the last phrase being an exact quotation from the verse before us.2 Other early authorities for the same view are Origen (Fragm. in loc., ed. Brooke, ii. 252), and the author of the third-century treatise de rebaptismate, 15, 18. It is not until we reach the later Fathers that the interpretation “the wind blows where it lists” makes its appearance.
For the use of ὑάενin Jn., see on 7:33, 16:7.
τνφννατῦἀοες The construction of ἀοενin Jn. is remarkable. When it governs the acc., as here (cf. 5:37, 8:43, etc.), it means merely “to perceive by hearing”; but when it takes the gen. it generally means “to hearken to,” i.e. to hear and appreciate (cf. 1:37, 5:25, 28, 6:60, 9:31, 10:3, 16, 20, 18:37).3 In the present passage “thou hearest His voice” does not connote obedience to the Spirit’s teaching. See on 1:40 for the constr. ἀοενπρ τνς
9. πςδντιτῦαγνσα Here is no repetition of the former question (v. 4). Nicodemus is puzzled by the teaching of vv. 6-8 about the spiritual birth and the freedom and unexpectedness of the spiritual life in one who has been “begotten of the Spirit.”
10. א 69 read ὁἸσῦ, but om. ὁΔW.
ὁδδσαο τῦἸρή. Both articles are significant: “Art thou the authorised (or, the well-known) teacher of the Israel of God?”
κῖτῦαο γνσες He might have been expected to recognise, when he was told it, the doctrine of the various manifestations of the Spirit in man’s life.
11. For the introductory ἀὴ ἀή, see on 1:51.
With this verse v. 32 is closely parallel: ὃἐρκνκὶἤοσν τῦομρυε·κὶτνμρυίνατῦοδὶ λμάε. We should expect κίο rather than κίin the second member of the sentence in both cases, but Jn. never uses κίο. See on 1:10.
ὃοδμνλλῦε. Cf. 8:38, 12:50, 16:18.
The verb λλῖ is used with special frequency in Jn. It occurs nearly 6o times in the Gospel; and 30 times it is placed in the mouth of Jesus in the first person singular, the only Synoptic instance of this latter use being Luk_24:44. The general distinction between λγι and λλῖ, viz. that λγι relates to the substance of what is said, while λλῖ has to do with the fact and the manner of utterance, holds good to a certain extent in Jn., as it does in classical Greek. But in Jn. the two verbs cannot always be distinguished in their usage and meaning, any more than “say” and “speak” can always be distinguished in English. Here ὃοδμνλλῦε should be rendered “we speak of what we know,” the words spoken not being given; but then τῦατ ῥμτ ἐάηε (8:20) means, “He spoke these words,” viz. the very words that have just been cited (cf. 16:25, 17:1, 13, etc.). See, in particular, 10:6, 14:10, 12:49, 16:18, in which passages the verb λλῖ is used exactly as λγι might be; cf. 8:43.
If there is any special tinge of meaning in λλῖ as compared with λγι in Jn., it is that λλῖ suggests frankness or openness of speech. Jn. “assigns it to Christ 33 times in the first person, whereas it is never thus used by the Synoptists, except at Luk_24:44 after the Resurrection” (Abbott, Diat. 2251b). See on 18:20.
The plural forms οδμν λλῦε, etc., arrest attention. The verse is introduced by the solemn ἀὴ ἀή, and so is represented by Jn. as spoken by Jesus. Now the plural of majesty is not ascribed to Jesus anywhere, and in v. 12 He employs the singular επν Abbott (Diat. 2428) suggests that the plurals here associate the Father’s witness with that of the Son (cf. 5:32, 37); but this would be foreign to the context. Further, v. 32, ὃἑρκνκὶἥοσν τῦομρυε is clearly a repetition of what is said in this verse.
The plurals οδμνare, therefore, explained (cf. 4:22) by some exegetes (e.g. Godet, Westcott) as associating His disciples with Jesus in the testimony with which He confronts Nicodemus. “We,” i.e. my disciples and I, “speak of what we know.” But this is markedly unlike the authoritative tone of the rest of the discourse. Nor is there any other instance of the disciples’ testimony being mentioned in the same breath as His own testimony. They bore witness, indeed, because they had been with Him from the beginning (15:27), but He did not rely on this while He was in the flesh. Even if we adopt the reading ἢᾶ for ἐέat 9:4 (where see note), we do not get a true parallel to ὃἐρκμνμρυομνof the present verse.
The similarity of the language used here to that which Jn., in other passages, uses to associate his own witness with that of his fellow-disciples is very close: e.g. ὃἀηόμν ὃἐρκμν…ὃἐεσμθ …ἀαγλοε ὑῖ (1 Jn. 1f.; cf. 1Jn_4:14), or ἐεσμθ τνδξνατῦ(1:14), or the use of οδμνin 1Jn_3:2, 1Jn_3:14, 1Jn_3:5:15, 1Jn_3:19, 1Jn_3:20. And, having regard to the way in which commentary and free narrative are intermingled in this chapter (see on v. 16), we seem to be driven to the conclusion that in v. 11 Jn. is not reproducing the actual words of Jesus so much as the profound conviction of the Apostolic age that the Church’s teaching rested on the testimony of eye-witnesses (cf. 1Jn_4:14). He has turned the singular ἑρκ (see v. 32) into the plural ἑρκμν(v. 11), just as in v. 5 he has added ἐ ὕαο to the original saying of the Lord about the need of spiritual birth.
κὶτνμρυίνἡῶ ο λμάεε This is repeated (v. 32), and is a frequent theme in the Fourth Gospel. Cf. 1:11, 5:43, 12:37.
12. The contrast between τ ἐίεαand τ ἐορναappears again, 1Co_15:40, 2Co_5:1, Php_2:10, Php_3:19, Jam_3:15; the word ἐἱεο appearing in these passages only in the Greek Bible. The thought of this verse is like Wisd. 9:16, 17, “Hardly do we divine the things that are on earth, and the things that are close at hand we find with labour; but the things that are in the heavens who ever yet traced out …except thou gavest wisdom and sentest thy Holy Spirit from on high?”
The ἐίεαor “earthly things” as to which Jesus has already spoken include the doctrine of the kingdom of God, which was to be set up on earth, and accordingly of the New Birth which Nicodemus found it difficult to accept. Such matters are wonderful in the telling, although ἐίεαall the time, in contradistinction to the deep secrets of the Divine nature and purpose (ἐορνα of which no one could tell except “He that cometh from heaven” (v. 32).
πσεστ. So א πσεστ is read by ΓΘ fam. 13, etc.
13. οδὶ ἀαέηε εςτνορννκλ The argument is that none can speak with authority of τ ἐορνα except one who has been ἐ ορν, and has come down from thence. And of no one can this be said but the “Son of Man” (see Introd., p. cxxx), for no man has ever ascended thither. To the question of Pro_30:4 τςἀέηεςτνορννκὶκτβ; the suggested answer is “God alone” (cf. Deu_30:12 and the reference thereto in Rom_10:6). So too in Bar. 3:29, “Who hath ascended to heaven and taken her (sc. Wisdom), and brought her down from the clouds?” the answer is “No one.” There is a Talmudic saying which taught this explicitly: “R. Abbahu said: If a man says to thee, I ascend to heaven, he will not prove it,”1 i.e. the thing is impossible. This was the accepted Jewish doctrine.
On the other hand, the Jewish apocalypses have legends of saints being transported to heaven that they might be informed of spiritual truth, e.g. Enoch (Enoch lxx. 1, etc.), Abraham (in the Testament of Abraham), Isaiah (Ascension of Isaiah, 7), etc.2 But of such legends the Fourth Gospel has no trace. “No one has ascended into heaven, save He who descended from heaven, viz. the Son of Man.”
There is no reference to the Ascension of Christ in this passage (cf. 6:62, 20:17), which merely states that no man has gone up into heaven to learn heavenly secrets. It is only the Son of Man who came down from heaven, which is His home, who can speak of it and of τ ἐορναwith the authority of knowledge.3
The phrase κτβίενἐ τῦορνῦis used again of Christ’s coming in the flesh at 6:33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58, but in that sense nowhere else in the N.T. In 1Th_4:16 κτ ἐ ορνῦis used of the Advent of Christ in glory, and in 1:32 above of the Descent of the Spirit at the Baptism of Jesus. κτβίενis also used Eph_4:9 of the Descent into Hades. The phrase here, however, undoubtedly refers to the Descent of Christ to earth in His Incarnation, and the use of the title “the Son of Man” in this context has no Synoptic parallel (see Introd., p. cxxx).
It may be added that the pre-existence of the Son of Man in heaven is a tenet of the Book of Enoch: “That Son of Man was named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits and His name before the Head of days. And before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits” (xlviii. 2, 3). See on 6:62.
ὁυὸ τῦἀθώο. So א 33, but the clause ὁὢ ἐ τ ορν is added by ANΓΘ with the Lat. and some Syr. vss. (not Diatessaron). If the clause were part of the original text, it is not easy to account for its omission. It does not contain any doctrine different from that of the Prologue as to the pre-existence of the Son; cf. ὁὢ εςτνκλο τῦπτό (1:18). Nor does it add anything to the argument, which is complete in itself, if the verse ends with ὁυὸ τῦἀθώο. Indeed, it makes the argument more difficult to follow. The point is that the Incarnate Son of Man is the only person on earth who can speak with authority of heavenly things, and that because He has come down from heaven itself. If we retain ὁὢ ἐ τ ορν we must interpret the phrase of the timeless existence of the Son in the heavenly places, while yet He is manifested on earth. But this thought suggests later developments of Christology. The clause is probably an interpretative gloss, added at an early period, possibly in the second century.1
It may be doubted whether vv. 13-15 really belong to the discourse of Jesus to Nicodemus, or whether they should not ather be taken as part of the commentary which Jn. subjoins (see on v. 16 below). If the latter alternative be accepted, the report of the discourse ends quite naturally with the question of v. 12. But the title “the Son of Man” is never used in the Gospels in narrative, or in evangelistic comment, being found only in the report of words of Jesus Himself.2 This consideration is conclusive for taking the comment of Jn. as beginning with v. 16, and not with v. 13.
14. κθςΜϋῆ ὕωε τνὄι κλ
ὑονmeans “to lift up,” either literally or figuratively, when it is equivalent to “exalt.” In Act_2:33 (τ δξᾷτῦθο ὑωες and Act_5:31 (τῦο ὁθὸ …ὕωε τ δξᾷατῦ it is used of the exaltation by God of Jesus to His right hand, i.e. of the Ascension. Cf. Php_2:9 and Isa_52:13, where it is said of the Servant of Yahweh ὑωήεα κὶδξσήεα σόρ.
But the word is not used thus in the Fourth Gospel, where it is always applied to the “lifting up” of Jesus on the Cross, and is always found in connexion with the title “Son of Man” (see Introd., p. cxxxii). Jesus said to the incredulous Jews (8:28) ὅα ὑώηετνυὸ τῦἀθώο, ττ γώεθ ὅιἐώεμ, “When ye shall have lifted up the Son of Man, then ye shall know, etc.” This “lifting up” is to be the act of the Jews, not of God (as in Act_2:33, Act_5:31), and it is therefore clear that it does not refer to the Ascension, but to the Crucifixion. Again in 12:32 we have ἐνὑωῶἐ τςγς πτςἐκσ πὸ ἐατν on which Jn.’s comment is, “this He said, signifying by what death He should die.” And that the people understood the word thus appears from their rejoinder (12:34); while they knew that the Christ “abides for ever,” they were puzzled by the saying that the “Son of Man” was to be “lifted up.” If ὑωῆα were to be understood merely as “exaltation” (as the Ascension was) they would have had no difficulty in admitting δῖὑωῆα τνυὸ τῦἀθώο (see note in loc.).
In the present passage, there can in like manner be no reference to the Ascension of Jesus, as in that case the type of the brazen serpent would not be applicable. In the story in Num_21:9f., Moses set his brazen serpent “upon the standard,” or, as the LXX turns it, ἔτσνατνἐὶσμὶυ so that those who had been bitten by the poisonous serpents might look upon it and live. As the story is explained in Wisd. 16:6, 7, the brazen serpent was a σμοο στρα: “he that turned towards it was not saved because of that which was beheld, but because of thee, the Saviour of all (τνπνῶ στρ).” The word ὑονis not used anywhere in the LXX of the act of Moses in “lifting up” the serpent and exposing it to the gaze of the people, nor is the word used anywhere in the N.T. outside Jn. of the “lifting up” of Jesus on the Cross. But this is undoubtedly the parallel which is drawn in the words of Jesus in 3:14. Those who looked in faith upon the brazen serpent uplifted before them were delivered from death by poison; those who look in faith upon the Crucified, lifted up on the Cross, shall be delivered from the death of sin.
The early Greek interpreters are quite unanimous about this. Thus Barnabas (§12) says that Moses made a brazen serpent, the τπςof Jesus, that he set it up conspicuously (τθσνἐόω), and bade any man that had been bitten “come to the serpent which is placed on the tree (ἐὶτῦξλυἐιεμνν and let him hope in faith that the serpent being himself dead can yet make him alive (ατςὢ νκὸ δντιζοοῆα), and straightway he shall be saved.” This is but an elaboration of the idea in Joh_3:14, going beyond what is there said, for Barnabas emphasises the point that the brazen serpent is a type of Jesus, while all that is said in Joh_3:14 is that as the first was “lifted up,” so must the Son of Man be “lifted up.”
Origen (Exhort. ad martyr. 50, arguing that death by martyrdom may be called ὕωι), and Cyprian (Test. ii. 20) apply Joh_3:14 to the Crucifixion of Jesus; cf. Justin, Tryph. 94. Claudius Apollinaris (about 171 a.d.) writes of Jesus as ὑωεςἐὶκρτνμνκρτς where ὑονevidently means to lift up on the Cross; Cf. Psa_22:21 (Routh, Reliq. Sacr., i. 161). See also the passage from Artemidorus quoted on 21:18, 19 below, for the connexion between the ideas of ὕο and of crucifixion.
We have then here a prediction placed in the mouth of Jesus, not only of His death, but of the manner of that death. The Synoptists represent Jesus as more than once foretelling His death by violence (Mar_8:31, Mar_9:31, Mar_10:33 and parallels), but only in Mat_20:19 is death by crucifixion specified; cf. Luk_24:7. But by the use of the word ὑον(cf. also 8:28 and 12:32) Jn. consistently represents Jesus as predicting that He would be crucified, which would carry with it the prediction that He would suffer at the hands of the Roman authorities, and not by the Jews (cf. Joh_18:31, Joh_18:32).
It is not consistent with the Synoptic tradition (cf. Mar_8:31, Mat_16:21, Luk_9:22) to represent Jesus as foretelling His Passion so early in His Ministry. We should expect not to find any indication of this until after the Confession of Peter (6:68, 69). And if vv. 11-15 are intended by the evangelist to be taken as words of Jesus, rather than as reflexions of his own (see on v. 13), then it is probable that they are recorded here out of their historical context. See on v. 1 above.
It has been suggested, however (e.g. by Westcott and E. A. Abbott) that we must see a deeper significance in the word ὑονas placed in the lips of Jesus. Abbott holds1 that the Aramaic word which is rendered by ὑονwas זקף and that this actually has the double meaning (1) to exalt, (2) to crucify. But Burkitt has shown that this cannot be accepted because זקףcould not be used of a “lifting up” such as the Ascension was.2 In short, (a) Jn. clearly states his own view of what Jesus meant by the words which he ascribes to Him here; (b) all the early Greek exegetes agree with him; (c) if we try to get back to the Aramaic word lying behind ὑον we cannot find one which has this special ambiguity. אי will fit ὑονin the sense of “exalt,” but not in that of “crucify.” זףwill fit ὑονin the sense of “crucify,” but not in that of “exalt.” We cannot therefore accept Westcott’s view that “the lifting up includes death and the victory over death.” There does not seem to be any hint of this in any of the passages in which ὑονoccurs in Jn.
The Jewish commentators on Num_21:9f. give little help as to the significance of the brazen serpent, being perplexed by the inconsistency of the story with the general prohibition of all images in the religion of Israel. Indeed, Hezekiah found it necessary to destroy “the brazen serpent that Moses had made” (2Ki_18:4) because it had led to idolatrous practices. Philo (Legg. All. ii. 19) allegorises the narrative after his manner. As the poisonous serpents signify the pleasure (ἡοή which is dangerous to the soul, so the brazen serpent signifies temperance (σφούη then the man who sees psychically the beauty of σφούη κὶδὰτύὸ τνθὸ ατν ζστι
Jesus, however, explicitly takes this story as a type of His Cross, which must have fulfilment: δῖ “it is necessary” that so “the Son of Man shall be lifted up,” as Jn. reports His words here. Something has already been said (see note on 2:4) of what may be called the Predestinarian Doctrine of Jn.; see also Introd., p. clii, where Jn.’s use of the phrase “that it might be fulfilled” is examined. A similar Divine necessity is indicated several times elsewhere in this Gospel by the word δῖ The evangelst uses it, when writing in his own person, of the inevitableness of the Resurrection of Christ. But he also ascribes the employment of this way of speech to Jesus Himself. “I must work the works of Him that sent me, while it is day” (9:4); “Other sheep I must bring” (10:16); and again at 12:34 the people charge Jesus with saying, as here, δῖὑωῆα τνυὸ τῦἀθώο. Cf. also 3:30. There is nothing peculiar to the Fourth Gospel in this.1 The Synoptists and Paul alike share the belief that it is not Fate but Providence that rules the world, that God foreknows each event because He has predetermined it, and that therefore it must come to pass. To reconcile this profound doctrine with human free will was the problem of a later age.
See note on 12:32.
15. Before ἔῃthe rec. text interpolates μ ἀόηα ἀλ (from v. 16) with אΔ, but the words are omitted here by א 33 fam. 1, etc.
The rec. has εςατνafter πσεω (a common constr in Jn.; see on 1:12) with אΔ; but recent editors have generally followed BTbW in reading ἐ ατ Yet the constr. πσεενἔ τν never appears in Jn., so that if we read ἐ ατ, πσεω must be taken in an absolute sense (see on 1:7 for this usage), and we must translate, with the R.V., “Whosoever believeth may in Him have eternal life.” (Cf. for the constr. 1:4.) The thought of the believer being “in Christ” is thoroughly Johannine (15:4, 1Jn_5:20) as well as Pauline. But we prefer the reading εςατν which has good MS. support. See on v. 16.
The connexion between faith and eternal life runs through the Gospel, the purpose of its composition being ἵαπσεοτςζὴ ἔηεἐ τ ὀόαιατῦ(20:31). Cf. 6:47 ὁπσεω ἔε ζὴ αώινand 3:36 ὁπσεω εςτνυὸ ἔε ζ. αώ where see note.
The adj. αώιςis always associated in Jn. with ζή(never, as in Mt. or Mk., with “sin” or “fire”), the expression ζὴαώιςoccurring 17 times in the Gospel and 6 times in 1 Jn. (in the form ἡζὴἡαώιςin 1Jn_1:2, 1Jn_2:25). ζὴαώιςas the portion of the righteous is mentioned Dan_12:2, and thereafter the expression is found in the Psalter of Solomon (iii. 16) and in Enoch.1 It occurs frequently in the Synoptists and in Paul, and always in the sense of the future life after death (but see on 12:50). This significance it has also in Jn. many times; e.g