JESUS IN JERUSALEM, AND NICODEMUS AS A WITNESS OF THE FIRST POWERFUL IMPRESSION OF JESUS UPON THE PHARISEES. THE CONVERSATION OF CHRIST WITH NICODEMUS BY NIGHT CONCERNING THE HEAVENLY BIRTH AS THE CONDITION OF ENTRANCE INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD. SYMBOLISM OF WATER, WIND, AND THE BRAZEN SERPENT.
Joh_3:1-21
(Joh_3:1-15, Gospel for Trinity Sunday; Joh_3:16-21, Gospel for 2nd Pentecost)
1[But] there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2The same came to Jesus [him] by night, and said unto him, Rabbi [Master], we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again from above] he cannot see the kingdom of God.4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the [omit of the] Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [of heaven].6That which is [hath been] born of the flesh is flesh; and that which Isaiah 7[hath been] born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye 8must be born again [from above]. The wind bloweth where it listeth [will], and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell [knowest not,
ïὐ÷ ïῖ
̓
äáò
], whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is [it with] every one that is [hath been] born of the Spirit. 9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master [the teacher,
ὁ äéäÜó÷áëïò
] of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know [that which we know] and testify that [which] we have seen; and ye receive not our witness [testimony]. 12If I have told you earthly [human] things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of [omit of] heavenly [divine] thing?13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which 14[who] is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness [made it a high signal for the surrounding wilderness], even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15That whosoever believeth in him should [may] not perish, but [omit not perish but] have eternal life.
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should [might] not perish, but have everlasting life. 17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn [judge] the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18He that believeth on him is not condemned [judged]; but he that believeth not is condemned [hath been judged] already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19And this is the condemnation [judgment] that [the] light is come into the world, and men loved [the] darkness rather than [the] light, because their deeds were evil.20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh [and cometh not] to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved [detested, discovered, shown to be punishable]. 21But he that doeth [the] truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that [for] they are wrought in God.
Å
XEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
[This is one of the richest and most important sections of the Bible. The sixteenth verse alone contains the whole gospel in a nutshell, or “the Bible in miniature,” and is worth more than all the wisdom of the world. The infinite love of the Father, the mission of His Son, the work of the Holy Spirit, the lost condition of man, the necessity of a new birth from above, faith in Christ as a condition of salvation, the kingdom of God, eternal life—all these fundamental doctrines are set forth by the unerring mouth of our Lord in this interview with a timid, yet earnest and anxious inquirer. The central idea of the passage is the new birth, which implies the total depravity of man and the work of divine grace. This great doctrine stands in the proper place at the beginning of Christ’s ministry.
The first miracle of Christ was a miracle of transformation, His first public act in Jerusalem an act of reformation, His first discourse a discourse on regeneration. He is not satisfied with mere improvements of the old, but demands a new life, lays a new foundation. True religion in the soul begins with a personal conviction of sin and guilt, and of the necessity of a radical change. Without such a conviction all efforts to convert a man are in vain. The night discourse with Nicodemus is the locus classicus on the new birth, as the indispensable condition of admission into the kingdom of God. It occupies a position in the Gospel of John, similar to that which the Sermon on the Mount does in the Gospel of Matthew.
It is characteristic of the idealism and mysticism of John that in his Gospel he gives no account of the institution of the church and the sacraments. But, anticipating the visible rite, he presents in John 3. the idea of the new birth, which is symbolized in Christian baptism, together with the idea of “the kingdom of God,” which is the internal and abiding essence of the church. So in John 6 he gives the general idea of vital union with Christ, which underlies the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
According to the Synoptists, Christ began His public ministry by preaching to the people: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye (change your mind,
ìåôáíïåῖôå
), and believe in the gospel” (Mar_1:15). According to John, He made, at the outset of His ministry,. the same demand, first indirectly, and then directly (
äåῖ ὑìᾶò
, Joh_3:7), upon an individual, a man circumcised, orthodox, honest, unblemished, yea, of the highest rank, a member of the Supreme Council of the theocracy, even favorably disposed to Christ and almost ready to accept Him as the Messiah, in a word, a man endowed with every personal and official claim to membership of the Messianic kingdom, yet lacking one fundamental condition: a new birth from above. Christ answers not so much to the words, as to the thoughts of Nicodemus, penetrating his heart to the very core (Joh_2:25). With historical faithfulness, John does not state the result of the conversation, because it did not appear at once, but some time afterwards (Joh_7:50; Joh_19:39).
Regeneration (
ἀíáãÝííçóéò
,
ðáëéããåíåóßá
) is a creative act of God the Holy Spirit, whereby a new spiritual life from above is implanted in man, through the means of grace, especially the preaching of the gospel; like the natural birth, it can occur but once. Conversion (
ìåôÜíïéá
, which must not be confounded with regeneration) is the corresponding subjective change of heart, whereby man, under the influence of the Spirit, in conscious repentance and faith, turns from the service of sin to the service of God; this may be repeated after a relapse. Regeneration, as to its origin and mode of operation, is a mystery like the natural generation and birth, but a mystery manifest in its effects to all who have spiritual eyes to see; it meets us as a fact in every true Christian, or child of God, who is as sure of the higher life of Christ in his own soul as he is of his natural existence. The difficulties in the exposition of this passage are mainly dogmatical, and arise from the relation of regeneration to baptism, viz., whether water means baptism at all, and, if so, whether it refers to John’s baptism, or the baptism of the disciples of Jesus, or, by anticipation, to Christian baptism (which did not appear till the day of Pentecost), or the general idea of baptism in its various forms as a historic preparation for Christian discipleship; and also from the question as to the necessity of baptism for salvation. These difficulties are fully discussed below.—P. S.]
Joh_3:1. There was a man.—An important incident of the residence of Jesus in Jerusalem, exemplifying what has just been said, and introduced with the continuative
äÝ
. [Comp. however, Text Note 1.—P. S.] Lücke [and Godet]: An example of the higher knowledge just mentioned; Tholuck: Of the weak faith just mentioned; De Wette: A proof of Joh_3:23-25; Luthardt: Transition from the people to an individual; Ewald: Nicodemus an exception; Strauss: Added through desire to show a believer from the cultivated world; Baur: Nicodemus a typical figure: outwardly believing, inwardly unbelieving Judaism. (On the contrary Luthardt: He is in fact a genuine disciple in disguise, see Tholuck.) The views of Lücke and Tholuck do not exclude, but meet in, that of De Wette. An example, that is to say, at once of the weak faith to which Jesus cannot entrust Himself, and of His power to discern it. Yet John has especially selected this incident also on account of its great didactic importance, and as an example of the enthusiasm which Jesus at first awakened, extending even into the circle of the Pharisees.
Nicodemus.—A current name, first with the Greeks, then with the Jews (
ðַ÷ְãִéîåֹï
,
ðַ÷ְãָí
Lightfoot and Wetstein). Akin to
Íéêüëáïò
. Starke :“If the name be Hebrew, it is equivalent to innocent blood (
ðַ÷ִé
and
ãָּí
), but if Greek, conqueror of people (the same as Nicolaus). As the Jews gave not only Hebrew, but Greek and Latin names also, to their children, both meanings at last met in Nicodemus.” The gradual unfolding of his faith appears by stages in this place, Joh_7:50 and Joh_19:39. “Tradition adds that he afterwards, having publicly acknowledged the doctrine of Jesus, and having been baptized by Peter and John, was deposed from his office and banished from Jerusalem (Photius, Biblioth., Cod. 171), but was supported in a country-seat by his kinsman Gamaliel, till his death.” Winer. Thus tradition makes him again in an unworthy mariner-keep out of sight with his faith. The Talmud mentions also a Nicodemus, Son of Gorion, properly called Bunni, who was a disciple of Jesus, and survived the destruction of Jerusalem, whose family sank from wealth into great poverty (Delitzsch, (Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theolog. 1854, p. 643). The identity is not proved. Josephus also, Antiq. XIV. 3, 2, speaks of a Nicodemus, who was sent as a legate of the Maccabean Aristobulus to Pompey. The apocryphal literature has completed the biography of Nicodemus in a Gospel ascribed to him.
The germ of a genuine faith had to contend in Nicodemus with regard for the polite world, thoughts of his station, fear of men, Pharisaic prejudice, but, on a foundation of sincerity, conscientiousness, rectitude, and a higher fidelity even to his office, issues victorious in courageous confession and joyful offerings; and the closing words of the conversation, Joh_3:21, are plainly enough a prediction of the Lord respecting him, after a reproof, Joh_3:20, of his stealthy coming in the night as a suspicious sign. Similar characters, though they probably did not all so decidedly come out, are described in Joh_12:42.
A ruler of the Jews.—Member of the Sanhedrin [comp. Luk_23:13; Luk_24:20; Act_13:27], like Joseph of Arimathea, Joh_7:50. Of the party of the Pharisees. [
ἐê ôῶí öáñéóáßùí
. This is not mentioned as derogatory. Hengstenberg remarks that the Pharisees were specially hostile to the doctrine of regeneration and resolved religion into a self-made holiness. But the Sadducees were even more opposed to spiritual religion. A Paul could proceed from the earnest Pharisees, but not from the frivolous and skeptical Sadducees.—P. S.]
Joh_3:2. By night.—That this is intended for a mark of weakness, is proved by Joh_3:20; and even by the particular mention of this circumstance itself, as well as by the very gradual appearing of his adhesion to Jesus. Koppe puts him down as a hypocrite (see Lücke), who came to question the Lord with evil intent, and who feigned simplicity; Niemeyer, on the contrary, represents his shyness as a true caution. “He was an honorable character, rather slow of nature,” says Meyer. Yet no doubt something more. An educated man of age, sitting as pupil to a young, untitled rabbi; a Pharisee, stepping free of the despotic and heresy-scenting spirit of his sect; a Sanhedrist, who soon ventures to oppose the fanaticism of the whole council; a prominent, serene-tempered, mature man of the world, who under the cross of the dead Jesus appears as a disciple, and in a costly burial-gift gives token of his unreserved and joyful devotion, and thus evinces that there were given to him and have continued with him, in his frigid school, a noble vigor of spirit, in his legal dignity a living yearning, in his high age a youthful striving, under all traditional prejudice a large ingenuousness, above all, under the whole system of Pharisaic show a sincere heart, and under all the rust of worldliness the metal of a turn for the faith and devotion of the Christian. Meyer justly observes, against De Wette and others, that the coming of Nicodemus by night does not imply that no disciples were present at the interview; and the directness of the narrative, though bearing the Johannean stamp, leads us to supppose that John was a witness.
Rabbi, we know [
ïἴäáìåí
].—First of all, Nicodemus accords to the Lord the dignity of Rabbi, denied to Him by many (Joh_7:15); and this, considering the importance attached by the scribes to this title, is not without a favorable significance. This “we know” implies that he had kindred spirits in his circle, who acknowledged the high office of Jesus. Yet the word shades off, in a somewhat politic sense, from a Pluralis excellentiæ into a suggestion of an indefinite prospect of recognition by the whole Sanhedrin. It expresses also the self-sufficient scribe-spirit, and unconsciously betrays over valuation of knowledge and under-valuation of faith.
A teacher come from God.—Acknowledgment of an indefinite prophetic character.—
For no man can do these miracles.—Acknowledgment of a number of accredited, important miraculous signs [
ôáῦôá ôὰ óçìåῖá
, hæcce tanta signa], which Jesus had done in Jerusalem, and which, in the judgment of Nicodemus, certified Him to be a new prophet of God. Miracle a test of a prophet, but under qualifications, Deu_13:1; Deu_18:20.
Except God be with him.—The miracle proves the supernatural power which stands by the worker. False miracles might be performed through Satanic agency, Exodus 7. But the character and greatness of the miracles of Jesus made it certain to Nicodemus that He wrought them in the power of God. And this involved the further inference that He was accredited by the miracles as a prophet sent from God. The
ἔñ÷åóèáé
is significant, Joh_1:6; Joh_1:15.
Joh_3:3. Verily, verily, I say unto thee.—One of the great cardinal truths of the kingdom of heaven, solemnly introduced. The answer consists of a series of antitheses: (1) The address of Rabbi is answered by an address without Rabbi; (2) the “we know” is met with “verily, verily, I say unto thee;” (3) the word: Thou art come from above, and therefore art a teacher (from the kingdom of God), is met by the word: A man must be even born from above, if he would so much as see the kingdom of God; (4) the sign is met by the kingdom of God itself. And this antithesis runs through all: Thou wouldst know that I am a prophet, but thou still lackest the qualifications for seeing who I am, and seeing in me the personal manifestation of the kingdom of God.
Various views of the relation of the answer of Jesus to the address of Nicodemus: (1) Intermediate talk omitted (Kuinoel and others). (2) Jesus would lead him from the faith of miracles to the faith which morally transforms (Augustine, De Wette). (3) Jesus is come not as a teacher, but for the moral transformation of the world (Baumgarten-Crusius). (4) Thou thinkest thou already seest a sign of the kingdom of God; no man can see the kingdom of God, unless he be born anew (Lightfoot, Lücke). (5) Meyer: The address of Nicodemus is interrupted by Christ, and must therefore be completed from this answer. Nicodemus intended to ask: What must I do, to enter into the kingdom of the Messiah? To this Christ here gives him the answer. But (a) the hypothesis of interruption is unsuitable; better, that of hesitation; best, that of polite, skilful waiting, as if to say: What more? (b) Nicodemus was as yet hardly so far advanced as to ask what Meyer puts into his mouth. The connection is probably this: Thou thinkest that I am come from God. But ho who would even see the kingdom of God, must be more than this; he must be born from above; how much greater must be said of the Founder of the kingdom of God.
Jesus gave him to understand that he had not yet reached the forecourt of true knowledge. At least Christ’s answer confronts the proud consciousness of the address with the humbling nature of truth. And when He requires the new birth from above as the condition of seeing the kingdom of God, He means, according to the analogy of the Jewish designation of proselytes as born again (Jeramoth fol. 62, etc.), primarily: Except a man come out from the old system, become a proselyte, publicly commit himself to a new position. And in birth from above the word demands a great transition. Nicodemus would privately assure Him of the adhesion of a party of the Pharisees, implying the presumption that he would attach himself to the old order of things. Jesus demands of him a proselytism wrought by God, a coming forth from the darkness of night and of the old party, if he would have any understanding at all of the kingdom of God which he himself announces. We may still suppose that John relates only the essential, salient words, and omits intervening details; the main progress of thought, however, he has undoubtedly given, though in the color of his own contemplation.
Except a man be born from above [
Ἐὰí ìÞ ôéò ãåííçèῇ ἄíùèåí
]. Various interpretations of
ἄíùèåí
: (1) Locally: from heaven (
ἐê ôïῦ ïὐñáíïῦ
); (2) temporally: afresh, from the very beginning (
ἐî ἀñῆò
). Both views are adduced by Chrysostom [who himself explains the word by
ðáëéããåíåóßá
]. In favor of the latter, in the sense of iterum, denuo, are the Vulgate [Augustine], Luther [Calvin, Beza], Olshausen, Neander, Tholuck [Alford, Hengstenberg, Godet]. Against it are the verbal criticisms, that
ἄíùèåí
, taken temporally, means not again, but from the beginning, and that the rendering again has probably arisen under the influence of the expressions of Paul in Rom_12:2; Gal_6:15; Eph_4:23; Col_3:10; Tit_3:5; and of Pet. in 1Pe_1:23. For the local explanation are Origen and many others, down to Bengel [superne, unde Filius hominis descendit], Lücke, and Meyer [also De Wette, Robinson, Baur, Bäumlein, Weizsäcker, Owen, Wordsworth]. From above, in the sense of from God,
ἐê èåïῦ
. This is further favored by the consideration “that John conceives regeneration not under the aspect of a second birth, but of a divine birth, Joh_1:13; 1Jn_2:29; 1Jn_3:9; 1Jn_4:7; 1Jn_5:1.” Meyer. The ideas of being born from above or of God and being born anew are, however, in substance interchangeable, and Tholuck’s objections to Lücke, etc. [Krauth’s trs., p. 114], are untenable.
[Often as the fact of regeneration appears in the N. T., the terms for it are rare, and not near as frequent as the terms
ìåôÜíïéá
and others, which signify the corresponding act of man in turning to God under the regenerating operation of the Holy Spirit. The verb
ἄíùèåí ãåííåèῆíáé
, to be begotten, or born from above, i.e., from God, which is used twice in this ch. (Joh_3:6-7), occurs nowhere else in the N. T. John also uses once to be born of water and Spirit (
ãåííçèῆíáé ἐî ὔäáôïò êáὶ ðíåýìáôïò
), Joh_3:5, and twice to be born of the Spirit (
ôὸ ãåãåííçìÝíïí ἐê ôïῦ ðíåýìáôïò
, Joh_3:6,
ὁ ãåã
.
ἐê ô
.
ðí
., Joh_3:8, without the water), but the more usual phrase with him is to be begotten, or born of God (
ãåííçèῆíáé ἐê èåïῦ
), Joh_1:13; 1Jn_2:19; 1Jn_3:9; 1Jn_4:7; 1Jn_5:1; 1Jn_5:4; 1Jn_5:18. The verb
ἀíáãåííÜïìáé
, to be begotten, or born again, occurs but once or twice, 1Pe_1:23 (
ἀíáãåãåííçìÝíïé ïὐê ἐê óðïñᾶò öèáñôῆò ἀëëὰ ἀöèÜñôïõ
,
äéὰ ëüãïõ æῶíôï÷ èåïῦ
); 1Pe_1:3 (
ἀíáãåííÞóáò ἡìᾶò åἰò ἐëðßäá
); comp. Jam_1:18 (
ἀðåêýçóåí ἡìᾶò ëüãῳ ἀëçèåßáò
). The noun
ἀíáãÝííçóéò
, regeneration, is not found at all in the N. T. (although often in the Greek fathers), but the analogous noun
ðáëéããåííåóßá
occurs twice, once in connection with baptism, Tit_3:5 (
ἔóùóåí ἡìᾶò äéὰ ëïõôñïῦ ðáëéããåíåóßáò êáὶ ἀíáêáéíþóåùò ðíåýìáôïò ἁãßïõ
), and once in a more comprehensive sense, with reference to the final resurrection and consummation of air things, Mat_19:28 (
ἐí ôῇ ðáëéããåíåóßá
,
ὄôáí ê
.
ô
.
ë
.). Paul speaks of a new creature (
êáéíὴ êôßóéò
) in Christ, 2Co_5:17, and of the new man (
êáéíὸò ἄíèñùðïò
), Eph_4:24. The Rabbinical theology had a very superficial conception of the new birth and confined it pretty much to the change in the external status of a proselyte to Judaism. Hence the comparative ignorance and perplexity of Nicodemus who, being a circumcised Jew, did not feel the need of such a radical change.—P. S.]
The kingdom of God.—The fact that the phrase “kingdom of God” occurs only here and in Joh_3:5, and nowhere else in John (except Joh_18:36, the
âáóéëåßá
X
ñéóôïῦ
, which Meyer has overlooked), not only proves, as Meyer rightly observes, the independent originality of this Gospel, but also characterizes John’s view of Christianity. From his point of view John sees not the form of a universal kingdom, but the world transfigured in personal being. Lücke: John seems to have transformed the positive Jewish idea into the more abstract, and to the Greeks more intelligible formula of fellowship (
êïéíùíßá
, 1Jn_1:3), the unity of believers with God and Christ. The essential elements of the idea of a kingdom, however, come out distinctly in chapters 10 and 17, and are fully developed in the Apocalypse. On the
âáóéëåßá ôïῦ èåïῦ
see Com. on Mat_3:2, p. 69. [The kingdom of God is a deeper and more spiritual conception than the church, which is the earthly training school for the heavenly and everlasting kingdom. We could not with any propriety substitute here: “Except… he cannot see the church.”—P. S.]
He cannot see.—Not even see; to say nothing of entering, being at homo therein. Meyer disputes this interpretation; comp.
åἰóåëèåὶí
, Joh_3:5. That entrance and experience go with the seeing, must of course be understood.
Joh_3:4. How can a man be born when he is old?—Taken literally, this reply of Nicodemus supposes, an absurdity. And so Meyer, after Strauss, would take it. He admits that a Jewish theologian must have been familiar with the Old Testament ideas of circumcision of the heart (Deu_30:6; Jer_4:4), and a new heart and spirit (Eze_11:19; Eze_36:26; Psa_51:10; Psa_86:11); yet Nicodemus may have been limited in other respects; and now on meeting Jesus, become really perplexed. We might rather suppose that the good-humored old man spoke, possibly even wittily, with a double meaning. The first sentence may mean either: How can a Jewish Senator, an elder of the people, become a heathen proselyte? or: How can a physically old man, undergo new, fundamental, spiritual transformation ? The second sentence would then illustrate this impossibility by a physical impossibility: Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb? The expositor must remember that the Orientals constantly express their thoughts in such similitudes. Meyer: “The
ἄíùèåí
he understood not as
äåýôåñïí
, but not at all.” He assuredly did understand it as an equivalent of
äåýôåñïí
, for the total antithesis is evidently implied:
ἄíùèåí ãåííçèῆíáé
,
ἐê ôῆò ãῆò ãåííçèῆáé
. Then the idea of being born from above involves that of being born anew. Various interpretations. (1) A Jew is required to make himself the same as a proselyte (wetstein, Knapp). (2) Luthardt: The beginning of a new spiritual life is not to be conceived without a new beginning of the natural. (This could not be said by one familiar with the Old Testament). (3) The demand is as unreasonable as that one should enter a second time into his mother’s womb, etc. (Schweizer, Tholuck). (4) No one can turn in mature age into a different spiritual state (Schleiermacher, Baumgarten-Crusius). Besides the two antitheses here quoted—an old man required to make a new spiritual beginning, a Jewish elder to become a proselyte—the expression contains also the intimation that an old, matured stage of the Jewish spirit could not pass into a new and different youthful life. But we still suppose that Nicodemus employs the sensuous expression in innocent good-nature, to bring out vividly, with rabbinic art, the impossibility of the requirement of Jesus.
Joh_3:5. Born of water and Spirit [
ãåííçèῇ ἐî ὔäáôïò êáὶ ðíåýìáôïò
].—The next answer of Jesus has three noticeable features: (1) The imperturbable confidence expressed in the repetition; (2) The advance of the thought; the explanation of the birth from above as a being born of water and Spirit; (3) The entering into the kingdom of God, instead of seeing it. Whereupon further explanations follow, Joh_3:6-8.
[Before giving the various interpretations, we shall briefly state our own view on this important and difficult passage. The key to it is furnished by the declaration of the Baptist that he baptized only with water, but Christ would baptize with the Holy Ghost, Joh_1:33 (
âáðôßæåéí ἐí ὔäáôé
—
ôὸ ðíåῦìá
); Mat_3:11, and by the passage of Paul where he connects Christian baptism, as “the bath of regeneration” (
ëïõôñὸí ðáëéããåíåóßáò
) with “the renewal of the Holy Ghost” (
ἀíáêáßíùóéò ðíåýìáôïò ἁãßïõ
), and yet distinguishes both, Tit_3:5. Comp. also Eph_5:26 (
êáèáñßóáò ôῷ ëïõôñῷ ôïῦ ὔäáôïò
); 1Jn_5:6 (“that came by water and blood,” after which
à
. B. insert
êáὶ ðíåýìáôïò
, “not by water only, but by water and blood”); Joh_3:8 (“three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood”). The term
ὔäùñ
then is closely related to, and yet clearly distinguished from,
ðíåῦìá
, and in such connection always refers to baptismal water. It is water in its well known symbolic significance, as representing purification from sin by the cleansing blood of atonement. So water appears often already in the O. T., especially in Messianic passages. Psa_51:2 : “Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.” Isa_52:15 : “So shall He sprinkle many nations.” Eze_36:25 : “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean;” to which is added, Joh_3:26, the promise of a new spirit and a new heart.Zec_13:1 : “In that day there shall be a fountain opened in the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness;” comp. Joh_12:10, where the outpouring of the Spirit of grace is promised at the coming of the Messiah. Nicodemus, though ignorant of Christian baptism, which did not appear till the day of Pentecost, was familiar with these passages, with Jewish lustrations, with the baptism of John unto repentance, probably also with the baptism of the disciples of Jesus (mentioned soon afterwards, Joh_3:22; Joh_4:2), and the baptism of proselytes which Jewish tradition traces back to remote antiquity. The idea which underlies all these baptisms is essentially the same. We would therefore not confine
ὔäùñ
to any particular form of baptism, but (with Lange, see below, No. 5) extend it to all preparatory lustrations; nor would we refer it directly to the sacrament as an external act or rite, but (with Olshausen) to the idea rather of which the cleansing with water is the symbolic expression; just as in John 6. we have an exposition of the general idea of the holy communion before the sacrament was instituted in which it comes to its full embodiment. The idea underlying all forms of baptism, is the forgiveness of sins on condition of repentance. This is the negative part of regeneration, while the new life communicated by the Holy Spirit is the positive part, or regeneration proper. So Peter in his pentecostal sermon represents the matter when he calls upon his hearers: “Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Act_2:38). The chief matter is, of course, the positive part, the gift of the Holy Spirit, who is the efficient cause, the creative and vivifying agent of regeneration, and who alone can make the word and the sacrament effective. Hence the Spirit alone is mentioned Joh_3:6; Joh_3:8. The omission of water here is as significant, as the omission of baptism in the negative clause of Mar_16:16, where the condition of salvation and the reason of damnation are laid down. This is a sufficient hint that the necessity of water baptism to salvation is not absolute, but relative only. The penitent thief passed into paradise without water baptism. Cornelius was regenerated before he was baptized, and many martyrs in the early ages died for Christ before they had a chance to receive the sacrament. It is possible to have the substance without the form, the baptism of the Spirit, without the baptism of water; as it is quite common, on the other hand, to be baptized with water and have the Christian name without the Christian spirit and life. The Apostles themselves (except Paul) never received Christian baptism, for Christ Himself who alone could have administered it to them, did not baptize (Joh_4:2). In their case the pentecostal effusion of the Spirit was sufficient. We are bound to God’s appointed means of grace, but God is free, and the Spirit “bloweth where it listeth.”—P. S.]
Different interpretations of water.
(1) The water signifies [Christian] baptism (fathers, and older Lutheran divines, Meyer, Tholuck, De Wette). Baptism is
ëïíôñüí ðáëéããåíåóßáò
as the means of cleansing, Tit_3:5; 1Pe_3:21; Eph_5:26; Heb_10:22;’ 1Jn_5:6; 1Jn_5:8. With baptism the gift of the Holy Ghost is joined, Act_2:38. Tholuck: “The water is (Joh_7:39) the symbol of the communication of the Spirit.” Yet probably in another sense. Calvin’s objection: The words would then have been unintelligible, because the baptism of Christ had not yet begun. Strauss: This very thing proves a later insertion [a proleptic fiction] of the Evangelist.
(2) The older Reformed divines (except Beza, Aretius), also Arminians, Socinians:
ὕäùñ
is a figurative term for the purifying power of the Spirit; therefore
ἔõ äéὰ äõïῖí
.
(3) Piscator, Grotius, Episcopius, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius: the baptism of John.
(4) Schweizer: the proselyte baptism, with: not only, but also—to be supplied.
(5) Baptism in the comprehensive sense as a theocratic historical lustration in its various phases according to the degree of the development of the kingdom of God. Thus the flood even is represented as a prototype of Christian baptism [1Pe_3:20-21], Lücke alone brings forward the universal idea of baptism in its symbolical import. “Water is here, as in the baptism of John, the symbol of purification, of
ìåôÜíïéá
, of the essential but negative beginning of the being born of God.” It is only to be observed, first, that a merely negative beginning is inconceivable; and secondly, that the
ìåôÜíïéá
in question is one which completes itself by entrance into a new, higher fellowship by means of the corresponding lustration. And this lustration, of course, was not yet before Nicodemus in the Christian form, but only in the form of the baptism of John. The word refers, therefore, primarily to the baptism of John. But to this, as the lustration of its time. The word found its fulfilment in the Christian baptism, which actually asserts its character as a dividing lustration between the old world and the new. The passage is therefore to be explained from the words of John: “I baptize with water, etc.;” except that Christ makes of the antithesis a synthesis. Concretely: One must become a divinely begotten proselyte, through the medium of discipleship under John and discipleship under Christ. It cannot be objected, that John’s office is only temporary (against Meyer). As the transition is through the Old Testament into the New, so it is also through the person who closes the Old Testament to him who opens the New, to Christ. One must first become historically a Christian, receiving the lustration of Christian discipline; then, spiritually a Christian. As the condition of salvation, the two things are a concrete unit; the first not without the second, the second not without the first; yet the second, the baptism of the Spirit, the chief and decisive thing according to Joh_3:6.
Of water and Spirit.—The relation of the two.—Olshausen: The water denotes the soul purified in simple repentance, as the feminine principle, the Spirit, the masculine. (Is this a remnant of theosophy?) Meyer: The passage shows the necessity of baptism to participation in the kingdom of the Messiah, but only to those passing over to Christianity, not to Christian children (for which he quotes, without warrant, 1Co_7:14). Tholuck: According to the Lutheran doctrine the communication of the Spirit is not absolute, but only ordinarie dependent on baptism. The
ἐê
, according to the Lutheran doctrine, denotes the causa materialis, according to Musæus, instrumentalis. Tholuck himself proposes a middle view, making
ἐê
denote the visible source, the operating cause. This, however, is not a middle view, but a still stronger form of the causa materialis. Unquestionably the
ἐê
with water denotes the historical means, with Spirit, the vital.—The water is the predominantly negative medium of the birth, the Spirit, the predominantly positive. In general, the birth from water might be intelligible to the Israelite from his usual lustrations, and particularly from the promises in Isa_1:16; Mal_3:3; Jer_33:8; Eze_36:25; and the birth from the Spirit, from circumcision, and such promises as Eze_36:26; Joe_2:28; Zec_12:10.
He cannot enter.—Lücke: In the nature of the case
åἰóåëèåῖí
must be the same as
ἰäåῖò
; that is, have a share in the presence of the kingdom of God. [So also Meyer], Still
ἰäåῖí
denotes this rather in the aspect of perceiving as an object,
åἰóåëèåῖí
, of entering into it. And this makes the expression a further development of the idea of the participation, corresponding to the further definition of the being born from above, as a being born of water and of the Spirit.
[It is from this expression mainly (
ïὐ äýíáôáé åἰóåëèåῖí
, etc.), that the fathers inferred the doctrine of the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation, which is still taught in the symbols of the Greek, Roman, and Lutheran churches. Clement of Alexandria assumed that even the saints of the O. T. were baptized in hades before they could pass into heaven, and Augustine went so far as to exclude all unbaptized infants who die in infancy from heaven,—an inference against which all our nobler feelings instinctively rebel. Baptism no doubt is the ordinary and regular way to Christ’s church, as circumcision was to the Jewish church. But on the other hand it has always been maintained by judicious divines in all churches, that it is not the want, but the contempt of the sacrament that condemns (non defectus , or privatio, sed contemptus sacramenti damnat), and that under certain conditions the baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis), and the baptism of blood in martyrdom (baptismus sanguinis), may be a full equivalent of baptism proper (baptismus fluminis). The omission of water in Joh_3:6; Joh_3:8, implies that the Holy Spirit may produce regeneration without baptism, as He undoubtedly did under the Jewish dispensation and in the case of Cornelius; while on the other hand the example of Simon Magus proves that baptism may take place without being accompanied by spiritual regeneration. The necessity of regeneration and faith to salvation is absolute, the necessity of baptism, or any thing else, is merely relative. Only unbelief, i.e., the rejection of the gospel, with or without baptism, condemns. This is clearly taught, Mar_16:16 :
ὁ äὲ ἀðéóôÞóáò
(without the addition
êáὶ ìὴ âáðôéóèåὶò
)
êáôáêñéèÞóåôáé
. Comp. my remarks on p. 127.—P. S.]
Joh_3:6. That which is born of the flesh.—The
óÜñî
; here is the designation of human nature in its sinful tendency, antithetic to spirit. Generally John uses
óÜñî
for human nature as a whole. He now, at the outset, views human nature as sinful
óÜñî
in contrast with the Spirit (Joh_1:13, and here). But that he can conceive it also as regenerate
óÜñî
, appears from Joh_1:14; Joh_6:51 sqq. From this alone it follows, that he must have an idea of an original pure
óÜñî
; and this is evident also from Joh_17:2.
ÓÜñî
, absolutely, therefore, is not “the material nature of man, ethically determined by sinful inclination of which it is the seat, with the principle of the sensuous life of the
øõ÷Þ
” (Meyer)
ÓÜñî
is here, as in Joh_1:13, the whole human nature, body, soul, and spirit, but under per verse dominion of the
óÜñî
, in the narrower sense in contrast with the ruling of the human spirit by the Spirit of God. The neuter stands for the personal, to make the expression as general as possible (Winer, p. 160). There is thus the same antithesis as in Joh_1:13. All men are flesh, in so far as they have proceeded from the natural, carnal generation, stand opposed to the kingdom of God, and need the birth from the Spirit. What, therefore, is born of the flesh is flesh, and would be flesh again, though a man could be born the second time of his mother, Besser says: “Not something in us is carnal, but everything” (see Flacius.)
That which is born of the Spirit.—The water in Joh_3:5 is omitted as less decisive, but is implied, especially in so far as the office of the water is to abnegate that which is sinful in the birth from the
óÜñî
in order to mediate the birth from the Spirit. The passage relates not only to a proceeding of the moral nature and life from the Spirit of God (Meyer), but to a transformation of the whole person himself by the operations of the Spirit.—Is spirit. That is: Is determined in its whole nature by the Spirit as its principle, growing towards entire spiritualization, as that which is born of the flesh is determined by the flesh as its principle, and in its abnormal development sinks into carnality, Rom_8:5. Evidently the whole sentence applies to the whole human race (not, as Kuinoel holds, to the Jews alone), and expresses: (1) The contrast between the old man and Christ as the Son of Man; (2) The contrast between the unregenerate and the regenerate (see Romans 5). Meyer: “In the conclusions respectively, the substantives
óÜñî
and
ðíåῦìá
stand significantly and strongly [comp. 1Jn_4:8] for the adjectives
óáñêéêüò
and
ðíåíìáôéêüò
, and are to be taken qualitatively.”
Joh_3:7Marvel not.—The expression of Jesus reflects the astonishment of the aged hearer. His confusion seems to pass into waiting admiration. Christ then shows him why he should not wonder, by illustrating the spiritual mystery by a mystery of nature. With great force He here brings out the word: Ye must, etc. Bengel: Te et eos, quorum nomine locutus es.
Joh_3:8. The wind bloweth where it listeth.—The comparison of the one
ðíåῦìá
with the other, as well as the verb
ðíåῖ
, satisfies us that the subject here is the wind, not the Spirit, as Origen and Augustine took the word. Not alone the double sense of the word (
ðíåῦìá
,
øåּäַ
), but the symbolical import of the wind also occasions the illustration of the spiritual case by the natural analogy. With John, concrete, graphic circumstances always reflect themselves in high thoughts; and thus we may suppose the figure here to have been furnished by a storm or roaring wind in the night. Now first comes the question: What does the figure say? Then: What does it mean? The wind in its blowing, the air in its motion, is a type of the Spirit, because it is in fact the element of the unity and union of the diversities of the earth. It bloweth where it listeth. The personification of the wind is suggested by its unconfined, apparently free motion, as unaccountable as original, personal will. Where? Meyer presents an example of
ðïῦ
with a verb of motion; but here the where is emphatic, the place where the wind whistles and roars in its strength.
[There are three points of comparison between the wind and the Spirit in the work of regeneration: 1) the freedom and independence:
ὅðïõ èÝëïé ðíåῖ
; 2) the irresistible effect:
ôÞí öùíὴí áὐôïῦ ἀêïýåéò
; 3) the incomprehensibility:
ïὐê ïἶäáò
, both as to origin (
ðüèåí
) and termination (
ðïῦ ὑðÜãåé
). To these might be added a fourth analogy, which, however, is not stated in the text, viz., the different degrees of power; the Holy Spirit acts now like the gentle breeze upon minds as tenderly constituted as John, Melanchthon, Zinzendorf, now like a sweeping storm or whirlwind upon characters as strong as Paul, Luther, Calvin, Knox. Hence the presumption and folly to make our own experience the measure and rule for all others. We should rather adore the wisdom and goodness of God in the variety of His operation.—P. S.]
And thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell.—Though perfectly manifest, the deepest mystery. And first in reference to the whence. Even if the general conditions of its origin be known, as they were only in part to the ancients (locality, season, heat, etc.), yet the particular actual conditions, and the precise origin of a given current, are not known. No more the end of the current, its particular actual effects. So with the Spirit, both as to its origin and its effects, in the matter of regeneration. The origin of the rustling wind of the new life-word of Christ, which stirs him, Nicodemus does not know. The wind comes down mysteriously through the Old Testament with ever increasing strength. Nicodemus has marked many things in the Old Testament, but not the rising motion of the Spirit. Still less knows he whither this mighty Spirit-current leads, out over Israel into the Gentile world, and out over the earth into the eternal heaven. Yet the Lord immediately gives to the figure a definite application. In whatever soul the Spirit of regeneration would act, there he is present all at once in his untrammelled power. The beginnings are a mystery. So the issues in the eternal life. This, too, Nicodemus did not yet know; how the Spirit had seized him, and whither it would go with him, 1Co_15:28. How some of the older theologians used this passage for the doctrine of gratia irresistibilis, while others denied this use of it, and how Calvin interpreted it, not for his system, but only as presenting the incomprehensible and mysterious in the work of the Spirit, see in Tholuck. The words concerning the wind and regeneration would evidently say: Regeneration is a thing which, both as to its origin and its goal, is a mystery of faith, but in its manifestation, especially under the preaching of the Gospel and under awakening miracles, is a mighty, unmistakable life. Faith as life is plain: life as faith is a mystery. The wind a type of divine operation; Xenoph. Memorab., 4, 3, 14. Comp. Psa_135:7; Ecc_11:5.
So is every one.—Popular phrase for: So is it with every one.
Joh_3:9. How can these things be?—Luther: “Nicodemus becomes more foolish and gets no idea of the parable.” Stier: “He now really asks, instead of contradicting.” If the question be interpreted from the advance of the discourse of Jesus, it says far more, and the
ðῶò
is not hæsitantis, as Grotius takes it. Nicodemus asks now with the wish that such a regeneration may be possible by a power which makes water and Spirit operative. Though the wind so mysteriously comes and goes, it yet has its sufficient cause; where lies the sufficient cause for the mysterious regeneration of water and the Spirit? The
äýíáôáé
having been already treated, the emphasis now is not on it, but on
ðῶò
.
Joh_3:10. Master of Israel, and knowest not these things?—Not now a rebuke for want of faith in the power of the divine Spirit (Tholuck), but a reminder that he, as Master of Israel, ought to know the ground for the outpouring of the Spirit, to wit, the doctrine of Christ the Son of God, and His sufferings and His redeeming work.—Master of Israel. According to Scholl (see Lücke, I. p. 527) three men stood at the head of the Sanhedrin: The president (
äַðָּùִׂéà
), who was called, by eminence, the public teacher of the law; the vice-president, or pater domus judicii, sive Synedrii (
àַá áֵּéú ãִּéï
); and the wise man (
çָëָí
), sitting on the left of the president. Now Nicodemus could hardly have been the president of the Sanhedrin: but he might have been “the wise man.” Yet, as Lücke remarks, this last office is doubtful, and the ideas of wise man, teacher, etc., do not coincide. Lücke, after Erasmus: “Ille doctor, cujus tam Celebris est opinio.” Nicodemus took the lead of those who desired to know concerning Jesus; so far he was the teacher of Israel. He wished to know what he was, and did not know that he was the Messiah, or what the Messiah was, as the basis of the sending of the Spirit and of regeneration. This he might know from Isaiah 11, 61.
Joh_3:11. Verily, verily, We speak that which we know.—The introduction of another cardinal truth of the doctrine of Christ the Son of God, His sufferings and His work. An intimation that it is He himself, without the declaration that it is He. That we do know. The personal certitude of Christ meeting the ignorance of Nicodemus. A plural of personal dignity, veiled in the plural of the new Christian community. The plural, therefore, does not mean simply: (1) Christ and John the Baptist (Knapp, Luthardt); (2) Christ and the prophets (Luther, [Calvin], Tholuck); (3) Christ and God (Chrysostom, and others); (4) Christ and the Holy Ghost (Bengel); (5) Men (Baumgarten-Crusius); (6) The universal Christian consciousness (Hilgenfeld); (7) Jesus alone (Meyer). “We speak that which we know,” has reference to the consciousness of Christ alone. “Testify that which we have seen,” relates to Christ and his associates, the Baptist and the disciples, who recognized in him the glory of the Son of God, [Hengstenberg and Godet include the disciples in both plurals. Godet makes some good remarks here (I p. 420), and says that the plural gives to the passage a festive rhythmical character in the consciousness of sta
