c.Reflection (3:31-36)

c.Reflection (3:31-36)

JOHN 3

Ε. THE FIRST DISCOURSE — THE NEW BIRTH (3:1-36)

John pursues his aim of showing that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of God" (20:31) chiefly in two ways: he narrates some of the signs Jesus did, and he records some of the discourses Jesus spoke. Sometimes the "sign" and the discourse are intimately related, sometimes not. The first "discourse" is a private talk to a single listener, Nicodemus, a member of the ruling class.¹ The conversation brings out the means of attaining eternal life, and, in typical Johannine fashion, this leads on to reflections of the Evangelist and to further incidents.

1. The New Birth (3:1-15)

1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him." 3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, unless a man is born again,^a he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4"How can a man be born when he is old?"Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" 5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit^b gives birth to Spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You^c must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." 9"How can this be?" Nicodemus asked. 10"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven — the Son of Man.^d 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life."^e

a. 3 Or born from above; also in verse 7

b. 6 Or but spirit

c. 7 The Greek is plural.

d. 13 Some manuscripts Man, who is in heaven

e. 15 Or believes may have eternal life in him

Right from the opening verse of this Gospel John has been concerned to impress on his readers the surpassing excellence of Jesus. He is the Word become flesh. But he did not become flesh, so to speak, on general principles; he had a purpose. He came specifically in order that people might have the abundant life (10:10). In this chapter John furthers his purpose by recording a conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, a typical representative of Pharisaic Judaism. As such Nicodemus would have stressed the careful observance of the Law and the traditions of the elders. For the loyal Pharisee this was the way of salvation. John uses this conversation to show that all such views are wide of the mark. Not a devout regard for the Law, not even a revised presentation of Judaism is required, but a radical rebirth.² The demand is repeated three times (vv. 3, 5, 7). Nicodemus and all his tribe of lawdoers are left with not the slightest doubt but that what is asked of anyone is not more law, but the power of God within that person to remake him or her completely. In its own way this chapter does away with "works of the law" every bit as thoroughly as anything in Paul.

1 Jesus' visitor is introduced as "a man³ of the Pharisees" (for this term see on 1:24). The Pharisees had no vested interest in the Temple (which was rather the domain of the Sadducees). A Pharisee would, accordingly, not have been unduly perturbed by the action of Jesus in cleansing the Temple courts. Indeed, he may possibly have approved it, partly on the general principle that anything that put the Sadducees down a peg or two was laudable and partly in the interests of true religion. So there is no problem about a leading Pharisee coming to Jesus just after the Temple cleansing (though, of course, we have no means of knowing how long after the events of ch. 2 Nicodemus came to Jesus). The name "Nicodemus" is Greek, but it occurred among the Jews. There was a well-known Nicodemus who survived the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and whom some identify (improbably) with this Nicodemus. There is no certain reference to this Nicodemus in Jewish writings.⁴ John says that he was "a ruler of the Jews,"⁵ which NIV renders as "a member of the Jewish ruling council" that is of the Sanhedrin (for "the Jews" see on 1:19). The use of the expression is doubtless intended to let readers know that Nicodemus stands as the representative of the old religion. We hear of Nicodemus only in this Gospel. He comes before us raising a hesitant (and apparently ineffectual) voice on behalf of Jesus when he is being discussed by the authorities after an abortive attempt to arrest him during the Feast of Tabernacles (7:50-52). He is not recorded as saying anything at the trial of Jesus, but he helped Joseph of Arimathea at the burial (19:39). We may, I think, fairly infer that he had a love for the truth, but that he was rather a timid soul. In the end he came right out for Jesus, and that at a time when all the disciples forsook him. That is saying a lot for a timid man.

2 Anyone in Nicodemus's position would be an unlikely candidate for the position of follower of Jesus. But Jesus' "signs" had impressed this Pharisee, and he wanted to know more. Prudently he came "at night." This is usually taken to be due to fear (so, for example, Michaels) or at least to a careful regard for people's opinions. Nicodemus was a prominent man; since he was "Israel's teacher" (v. 10) it would never do for him to commit himself to the unofficial Teacher from Galilee, not at any rate until and unless he was absolutely sure of his ground. If this is the explanation of the night visit it is not without its interest that Jesus says nothing in condemnation. He was content to receive Nicodemus just as he was. But it is not at all certain that the reason for the night visit was fear. The Pharisee may have chosen this time in order to be sure of an uninterrupted and leisurely interview. During the day Jesus would be busy and there would be crowds (crowds of common people!). Not so at night. Then there could be a long, private discussion. Others associate the late visit with the rabbinic commendation of those who pursued their studies into the night hours.⁶ Perhaps most scholars today think that the words should be taken symbolically. Jesus is the Light of the world, and it was out of the darkness in which his life had been lived that Nicodemus came to the light.⁷ It would be quite in his manner for John to have more than one of these meanings in mind.⁸

Nicodemus begins with a courteous, even flattering address (for the respectful "Rabbi" see on 1:38). He hails Jesus as a teacher⁹ "who has come from God."¹⁰ We must notice that he regards Jesus as a teacher only, and that he has as yet no perception of the real nature of him whom he sought out. He has come as one teacher to another to discuss matters of mutual interest.¹¹ Indeed, there may even be a trace of condescension in that he, an honored Pharisee, had come to talk to a teacher who had never been through the schools (7:15).¹² Though he comes alone he speaks in the plural: "we know." Evidently he is associated with others and feels that he can speak for them.¹³ The continuous tenses he uses¹⁴ are perhaps meant to indicate that Jesus habitually did the signs of which he speaks. Nicodemus has a true perception that such signs point to God (see Additional Note G, pp. 607-13 for the significance of the "signs").

3 Jesus declines to carry on with courteous exchanges that get no where, but plunges immediately into the very heart of the subject. Clearly Nicodemus is seeking instruction in the way to life. Jesus' first words tell him about it. He underlines the importance of his words by introducing them with the solemn "I tell you the truth" (see on 1:51). Then in one sentence he sweeps away all that Nicodemus stood for, and demands that he be remade by the power of God.¹⁵ The word rendered "again" might equally be translated "from above."¹⁶ Both senses are true, and in the Johannine manner our author probably intends that we understand both (Barclay gets the best of both worlds with "unless a man is reborn from above"). Anyone who would enter the kingdom of God must be born¹⁷ in a radically new fashion, and this second birth is from heaven. Entry into the kingdom is not by way of human striving (cf. 1:13), but by that rebirth which only God can effect. "The kingdom of God" is the most common topic of Jesus' teaching in the Synoptic Gospels. As such it has attracted a great deal of attention, and the literature on the subject is enormous.¹⁸ Most modern students hold that the term "kingdom" is to be understood in a dynamic sense; it means "reign" rather than "realm."¹⁹ It is God's rule in action. We are probably not meant to make much of a distinction between seeing and entering (v. 5) the kingdom. But it will be appropriate that Jesus speaks here of seeing it. So far from entering into all that its privileges mean, anyone who is not reborn will not even see the kingdom.²⁰ This passage incidentally is the only one in this Gospel that mentions the kingdom of God (though Jesus speaks of "my kingdom," 18:36).²¹ But John frequently speaks of eternal life, and for him the possession of eternal life appears to mean very much the same as entering the kingdom of God as the Synoptists picture it.

4 Nicodemus answers²² in a way that shows that he takes Jesus' words to refer to physical birth (for similar misunderstandings see on 2:20). It seems so obvious that the words are not meant to be taken literally that we must ask why Nicodemus adopted this curious interpretation. Perhaps it was a case of hurt dignity. There are references to proselytes who were admitted to the Jewish religion as being like children newly born.²³ Nicodemus may have felt that the term appropriate to the Gentile as he entered the ranks of the chosen people was the last word that should be applied to one who was not only a Jew but a Pharisee, and a member of the Sanhedrin.²⁴ So, not liking the way the conversation is going, he chooses to misunderstand. It is perhaps more likely that he is wistful rather than obtuse. A man, Nicodemus might have said, is the sum of all his yesterdays. He is the man he is today because of all the things that have happened to him through the years. He is a bundle of doubts, uncertainties, wishes, hopes, fears, and habits, good and bad, built up through the years. It would be wonderful to break the entail of the past and make a completely fresh beginning. But how can this possibly be done?²⁵ Can²⁶ physical birth be repeated?²⁷ Since this lesser miracle is quite impossible, how can we envisage a much greater miracle, the remaking of a person's essential being? Regeneration is sheer impossibility!

5 Once again Jesus prefaces his remarks with the solemn and emphatic "I tell you the truth." This invites Nicodemus's undivided attention to the words that follow, for they are important. Jesus explains being born anew as being born "of water²⁸ and the Spirit." There is no article with either noun in the Greek, but NIV can be defended for supplying one by the consideration that Jesus is undoubtedly referring to the regenerating activity of the Holy Spirit of God.²⁹ On this occasion, however, he does not speak of being born "of the Spirit" simply (as he does in vv. 6, 8), but of being born "of water and the Spirit." The explanations of this unusual and arresting expression are many, but most of them fall into one or other of three main groupings.

(i) "Water" stands for purification (cf. 2:6). If this is the correct explanation there is probably a backward look at the baptism of John. This was "a baptism of repentance" (Mark 1:4), concerned with purifying (v. 25), and it could be explicitly contrasted with the baptism of the Spirit (1:33). The meaning then will be that Nicodemus should enter into all that "water" symbolizes (repentance and the like), and that he should also enter into the experience that is summed up as "born of . . . the Spirit," entering into the totally new divine life that Jesus would impart.³⁰ Both demands were radical. The Pharisees refused John's baptism (Luke 7:30), and they consistently opposed Jesus. It was asking a lot for Nicodemus to accept both.

(ii) "Water" may be connected with procreation. This conception is quite foreign to us and we find it difficult at first to make sense of it. But Odeberg has gathered an impressive array of passages from rabbinic, Mandaean, and Hermetic sources³¹ to show that terms like "water," "rain," "dew,"and "drop" were often used of the male semen. If "water" has this meaning here, there are two possibilities. Being born "of water" may point to natural birth, which must then be followed by being born "of the Spirit," that is spiritual regeneration. Or better, we may take "water" and "Spirit" closely together to give a meaning like "spiritual seed."³² In this case being born "of water and the Spirit" will not differ greatly from being born "of the Spirit."³³ Lindars objects to this view on the grounds that "if John had meant this he would have said 'of blood', as in 1.13." But it is dangerous to assume such an insight into John's mind as to claim knowledge of how he would express himself. Odeberg's point is not so easily overthrown.

(iii) "Water" may refer to Christian baptism.³⁴ The strong argument in favor of this view is that baptism may well have been the natural association that the term would arouse among Christians at the time this Gospel was published.³⁵ John would scarcely have been unmindful of this. The weak point is that Nicodemus could not possibly have perceived an allusion to an as yet nonexistent sacrament. It is difficult to think that Jesus would have spoken in such a way that his meaning could not possibly be grasped. His purpose was not to mystify but to enlighten.³⁶ In any case the whole thrust of the passage puts the emphasis on the activity of the Spirit, not on any rite of the church.³⁷

The second explanation seems the most likely, and that in the sense of taking "water" and "Spirit" closely together. Nicodemus was a Pharisee. He was used to this way of speaking, and the allusion would be natural for him. We should accordingly take the passage to mean being born of "spiritual water," and interpret this as another way of referring to being born "of the Spirit." Jesus is referring to the miracle that takes place when the divine activity remakes anyone. That person is then born all over again by the action of the very Spirit of God. As John is fond of using expressions that may be taken in more ways than one, it is, of course, not impossible that he wants us to think of the other meanings as well. But the main thrust of the words surely has to do with the divine remaking.

In verse 3 Jesus has spoken of "seeing" the kingdom of God; here, of "entering" it. There is probably no great difference of meaning.³⁸ In both places Jesus is stressing the truth that spiritual regeneration is indispensable if we would be God's. It is the perennial heresy of the human race to think that by our own efforts we can fit ourselves for the kingdom of God. Jesus makes it clear that it is impossible to fit oneself for the kingdom. Rather, it is necessary to be completely renewed, born anew, by the power of the Spirit. These solemn words forever exclude the possibility of salvation by human merit. Our nature is so gripped by sin that an activity of the very Spirit of God is a necessity if we are to be associated with God's kingdom.

6 The teaching of this verse is succinctly paraphrased by Hoskyns: "There is no evolution from flesh to Spirit."³⁹ While John does not use the term "flesh"⁴⁰ in the same way as does Paul, to denote mankind's sinful nature, he yet uses it in such a way as to make clear that it is, so to speak, of the earth earthy. It cannot give rise to anything other than what is earthy. But Jesus has been speaking of a spiritual kingdom, the kingdom of God. For entrance into that kingdom a spiritual birth is required.⁴¹ It is perhaps worth adding that Jesus' statement is couched in quite general terms.⁴² This is a truth of general application and is not meant only for Nicodemus and his friends.

7 In the light of the principle he has just enunciated Jesus urges Nicodemus not to be astonished at his teaching on the new birth. It is only what is to be expected. Notice that Jesus now says "You," whereas earlier he has spoken about "one" being reborn. The plural may be a recognition that Nicodemus had associates (cf. his own "we," v. 2). At any rate it makes the application of the words wider than to the Pharisee only. "Must" is a strong expression.⁴³ There is no other way than that of rebirth.

8 The interpretation of this verse is complicated by the fact that the word that has been uniformly translated "spirit" in its occurrences hitherto in this chapter has more than one meaning. In Greek (as, for that matter, in several other languages) the one word may mean "spirit" or "breath" or "wind." The spirit of a person is the immaterial principle of life within him or her. And it was a matter of observation for people in early days that when the breath ceases the life ceases also. What more natural, then, than to apply the same word to both? And since wind is nothing more than a lot of breath going somewhere in a huny, it was equally natural to use the word for the wind.⁴⁴ The word used here might then mean "wind" or it might mean "Spirit" (or, in the Johannine manner, there may be a hint at both meanings). Since the term was used previously in this chapter we would expect the earlier meaning to carry on and yield the sense "Spirit." The passage would then mean that people cannot predict the movements of the Spirit. The Spirit breathes where he wills, and just as people cannot comprehend the Spirit neither can they comprehend anyone that is born of the Spirit. This gives a consistent interpretation and a very natural one.

But it suffers from the not inconsiderable disadvantage that it is more than difficult to understand how anyone who cannot comprehend the Spirit or the person born of the Spirit can be said to hear the "sound" of the Spirit. The impossibility of giving this a satisfactory meaning inclines most translators and commentators to take the word in the sense "wind." The meaning then is that the familiar wind has its mysteries. It can be heard (did Nicodemus and Jesus hear a gust of wind at this point?). Yet people know neither its origin nor its destination. With no knowledge of scientific meteorology as we understand it, the wind, for the ancients, had something mysterious and unpredictable about it. As is the wind, so is anyone who has been born of the Spirit. The person who lacks spiritual life may have contact with such people, but knows neither the origin of their life nor their final destiny. This latter seems the preferable interpretation of the passage.⁴⁵

9-10 Nicodemus confesses himself baffled by all this. His puzzled question elicits the gentle reminder that a man in his position ought not to find it all so very difficult. "Israel's teacher" (more literally "the teacher of Israel") points at the very least to preeminence as a teacher. The article ("the," not "a" teacher) may indicate that Nicodemus held some official position, but if so we do not know what it was.⁴⁶ But this leading Pharisee professed to know the things of God, and even to teach them to others. Under these circumstances he ought to have known that no one is able to come to God in her or his own strength or righteousness. Even if the information that he as well as others must be reborn was new to him he should not have greeted it with such astonishment.

11 For the third time in this conversation Jesus uses the solemn "I tell you the truth" (vv. 3, 5). This time it is not the truth that one must be reborn that is underlined, but the other truth that Jesus can be relied on. He has said⁴⁷ nothing but that of which he has knowledge (Goodspeed, "we know what we are talking about"). Notice the twofold reference to witness (see on 1:7). It emphasizes the reliability of what Nicodemus has heard. "Testimony" (or "witness") does not point to opinions that may be debated, but to objective fact. Jesus is not hazarding a guess, but telling Nicodemus about things of which he has perfect knowledge. The plural "we" is curious, all the more so since Jesus so rarely associates people with him.⁴⁸ Moreover, this passage must refer, at least primarily, to the Master's own knowledge and witness. But it may well be that he is here associating his disciples with himself. Westcott thinks that some of them may even have been present (cf. the comment of Cotterell on v. 2).⁴⁹ None is mentioned, but it is not impossible. Those who have learned from Jesus and have experienced the rebirth to which he refers can speak to others of the necessity for the new birth. In doing so they testify to what they know. But whether it is of Jesus or his followers, the witness is not received. "You people" is another plural that takes us beyond Nicodemus. The Jews at large did not receive the witness. The present tense must be given its full force. This was no occasional thing, but the regular habit.

12 Jesus reverts to the first person singular and draws attention to what he himself is doing. He has borne witness to "earthly things" without being believed.⁵⁰ The simplest way of understanding this is to see a reference to the present discourse. It was taking place on earth and concerned a process with effects discernible on earth. In contrast with this, Jesus can impart "heavenly things," that is higher teaching. But if men like Nicodemus will not believe the simpler things they cannot be expected to believe what is more advanced.⁵¹ Another suggested way of taking the words is to see in the "heavenly things" a reference to the present discourse, when "earthly things" would apply to some previous discourse of Jesus. It is urged that "heavenly things" is a better description of this discourse than is "earthly things," and that if this meaning is taken it gives an excellent reason for the unbelief mentioned in the previous verse. Against it, however, is the fact that we have no evidence of any previous contact between Jesus and Nicodemus. Indeed, the opening words seem clearly to imply that this is a first meeting. This being so, there is no previous occasion to which we may refer the "earthly things," and they must accordingly describe the conversation in this chapter. A reference to previous teaching seems quite out of the question. Thus we adopt the first-mentioned interpretation.⁵²

13 Jesus makes it clear that he can speak authoritatively about things in heaven, though no one else can. No man has ever ascended⁵³ into heaven (Prov. 30:4). But he has come down from there.⁵⁴ Throughout this Gospel John insists on Jesus' heavenly origin. This is one way in which he brings out his point that Jesus is the Christ. Here his heavenly origin marks Jesus off from the rest of humanity.⁵⁵ People are, as Paul puts it, "of the earth, earthy" (1 Cor. 15:47, KJV), but Jesus is from heaven. People cannot raise themselves to heaven⁵⁶ and penetrate divine mysteries. It was part of the sin of the "son of the dawn" that he said in his heart, "I will ascend to heaven" (Isa. 14:12-13). But he could not do it. It remained a boast and an ambition. Jesus, however, really has been in heaven, and he has brought heavenly realities to earth (see on 1:51). The words may possibly have a polemical aim and be directed against those Jews who taught the possibility of great saints attaining heaven.⁵⁷ Since in the context there is the thought of the new birth, and since there are references to seeing and entering the kingdom of God we, should probably understand the passage to mean that ascent into heaven is in fact possible. But this can be done only by the new birth that is "of the Spirit" and that the Son of man in some sense effects. It is not a human possibility. For "the Son of Man" see Additional Note C (pp. 150-52). The words "who is in heaven" (mg.) are absent from some of the most reliable manuscripts,⁵⁸ and they should probably be omitted. If they are included they will point to the eternal being of the Son of man. The incarnation represents not a diminution of his functions, but an addition to them.⁵⁹ Only a crassly literal localization of heaven would require us to think that Jesus had to leave heaven to come to earth.

14-15 This section of the Gospel concludes with an impressive statement of the purpose of the death of Jesus.⁶⁰ Jesus recalls the incident wherein, when fiery serpents bit the Israelites, Moses was told to make a snake of bronze and set it on a pole (Num. 21). Whoever looked⁶¹ at the bronze snake was healed.⁶² And, just as⁶³ that snake was "lifted up" in the wilderness, so, Jesus says, "the Son of Man must⁶⁴ be lifted up." This must refer to his being "lifted up" on the cross, as the context here and John's use of the verb elsewhere⁶⁵ plainly show. But this does not exhaust the meaning of the expression. It is surely another example of John's use of words of set purpose to convey more than one meaning. The verb can refer to exaltation in majesty. It is used of Christ's exaltation (Acts 2:33) and again in a compound (Phil. 2:9). It is part of John's aim to show that Jesus showed forth his glory not in spite of his earthly humiliations, but precisely because of those humiliations.⁶⁶ Supremely is this the case with the cross. To the outward eye this was the uttermost in degradation, the death of a criminal. To the eye of faith it was, and is, the supreme glory.⁶⁷

The purpose of Jesus' death was to give life to believers. For the importance of believing in this Gospel see on 1:12 and Additional Note Ε (pp. 296-98). Anyone who has believes has (the present tense points to a present possession) eternal life in Christ.⁶⁸ This associates the life very closely with Christ. The life Christians possess is not in any sense independent of Christ. It is a life that is "hidden with Christ in God" (Col. 3:3), This is the first mention in this Gospel of eternal life (for "life" see on 1:4), a concept that means much to the Evangelist. He gives it a good deal of emphasis before his Gospel is through. In the Prologue he has informed us that life is "in" the Logos, and much the same thought is found here, with the addition that the lifting up of the Son of man is an integral part of the process whereby the life is mediated to believers. The word rendered "eternal" (always in this Gospel used of life) basically means "pertaining to an age."⁶⁹ The Jews divided time into the present age and the age to come, but the adjective was used of life in the coming age, not that of the present age. "Eternal life" thus means "the life proper to the age to come." It is an eschatological concept (cf. 6:40, 54). But as the age to come is thought of as never coming to an end the adjective came to mean "everlasting," "eternal." The notion of time is there. Eternal life will never cease. But there is something else there, too, and something more significant. The important thing about eternal life is not its quantity but its quality.⁷⁰ In Westcott's phrase, "It is not an endless duration of being in time, but being of which time is not a measure."⁷¹ Eternal life is life in Christ, that life which removes a person from the merely earthly. As we see from the earlier part of this chapter, it originates in a divine action, the action wherein one is born anew. It is the gift of God,⁷² and not a human achievement.

2. Reflection (3:16-21)

16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,^a that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.^b 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."^c

a. 16 Or his only begotten Son

b. 18 Or God's only begotten Son

c. 36 Some interpreters end the quotation after verse 15.

All are agreed that from time to time in this Gospel we have the meditations of the Evangelist, but it is difficult to know where they begin and end. In the first century there were no devices like quotation marks to show the precise limits of quoted speech. The result is that we are always left to the probabilities and we must work out for ourselves where a speech or quotation ends. In this passage Jesus begins to speak in verse 10, but John does not tell us where this speech ends. The dialogue form simply ceases. Most agree that somewhere we pass into the reflections of the Evangelist. Perhaps the dividing point comes at the end of verse 15. The sentence which ends there has a reference to "the Son of Man," an expression used only by Jesus in all four Gospels. We are on fairly safe ground in maintaining that these are his words. But in verse 16 the death on the cross appears to be spoken of as past, and there are stylistic indications that John is speaking for himself.⁷³ It seems that the Evangelist, as he records Jesus' words about his death, is led to some reflections of his own on the same subject. That death is God's gift to deliver sinners from perishing. If, after all, they do perish that is because they prefer darkness to light. They bring it upon themselves.

16 God loved⁷⁴ "the world" (see Additional Note B, pp. 111-13). The Jew was ready enough to think of God as loving Israel, but no passage appears to be cited in which any Jewish writer maintains that God loved the world.⁷⁵ It is a distinctively Christian idea that God's love is wide enough to embrace all people. His love is not confined to any national group or spiritual elite. It is a love that proceeds from the fact that he is love (1 John 4:8, 16). It is his nature to love. He loves people because he is the kind of God he is. John tells us that his love is shown in the gift of his Son. Of this gift Odeberg finely says, "the Son is God's gift to the world, and, moreover, it is the gift. There are no Divine gifts apart from or outside the one-born (sic) Son."⁷⁶ It should be noticed that God's love is for "the world"; in recent times some scholars have argued that John sees God's love as only for believers, but here it is plain that God loves "the world." In typical Johannine fashion "gave" is used in two senses. God gave the Son by sending him into the world, but God also gave the Son on the cross. Notice that the cross is not said to show us the love of the Son (as in Gal. 2:20), but that of the Father. The atonement proceeds from the loving heart of God.⁷⁷ It is not something wrung from him. The Greek construction puts some emphasis on the actuality of the gift: it is not "God loved enough to give," but "God loved so that he gave."⁷⁸ His love is not a vague, sentimental feeling, but a love that costs. God gave what was most dear to him.⁷⁹ For "one and only" see on 1:14, and for "believes" on 1:12 (also Additional Note E, pp. 296-98). The death of the Son is viewed first of all in its revelatory aspect; it shows us the love of the Father. Then its purpose is brought out, both negatively and positively. Those who believe on him do not "perish." Neither here nor anywhere else in the New Testament is the awful reality behind this word "perish" brought out. But everywhere there is the recognition that a dreadful reality awaits the finally impenitent.⁸⁰ Believers are rescued from this only by the death of the Son. Because of this they have "eternal life" (see on v. 15). John sets perishing and life starkly over against one another. He knows no other final state.

17 Now John uses the thought of judgment to bring out God's loving purpose, and once again he employs the device of following a negative statement with the corresponding positive. God did not send⁸¹ the Son⁸² into the world, he tells us, in order to judge⁸³ it. Elsewhere, however, he says that Jesus did come into the world "for judgment" (9:39). The resolution of the paradox demands that we understand salvation as necessarily implying judgment. These are the two sides to the one coin. Jesus came to bring salvation, but the very fact of salvation for all who believe implies judgment on all who do not. This is a solemn reality, and John does not want us to escape it. Judgment was a recognized theme in contemporary Jewish thought, but it is the judgment of God, and it is thought of as taking place at the last day. John modifies both these thoughts. He does, it is true, speak of judging sometimes in much the normal Jewish way (8:50). But it is quite another matter when he says that God has committed all judgment to Christ (5:22, 27). He goes on to speak of Christ as judging (5:30; 8:16, 26) or not judging (8:15 [but cf. 16]; 12:47), and of his word as judging people (12:48). His judgment is just (5:30) and true (8:16). How people will fare in the judgment depends on their relationship to him (5:24; 3:19). As the cross looms large Jesus can even speak of the world as judged (12:31), and of Satan likewise as judged (12:31; 16:11). Clearly John sees the whole traditional doctrine of judgment as radically modified in the light of the incarnation. The life and especially the death of Jesus have their effects on the judgment. So far we have referred to future judgment, the judgment of the last day. But this is not all of John's teaching. He views judgment also as a present reality (v. 18). What people are doing now results in a present preliminary judgment and determines what will happen when they stand before Christ on judgment day. All this has obvious christological implications. Clearly John has a high view of Jesus' Person. His teaching on judgment is yet another way in which he brings out the messiahship of Jesus, his great central aim.

In this verse "judge" has a meaning much like "condemn" (KJV), as the contrast with "be saved" shows.⁸⁴ Some people will, in fact, be condemned, and that as the result of Christ's coming into the world (v. 19). But the purpose of his coming was not this.⁸⁵ It was, on the contrary, "to save the world." So John brings out his positive corresponding to the negative at the beginning of the verse. Salvation was central to the mission of Jesus, a truth that is brought out also in the Synoptists (Matt. 27:42; Mark 8:35; Luke 19:10, etc.). We should not overlook "through him" at the end of the verse, for this attributes the salvation in question ultimately to the Father. It is also worth noticing that we have here another example of John's habit of giving emphasis to certain words by the simple device of repetition. He uses "world" three times in this verse.

18 John proceeds to bring out the importance of faith. He has said that Christ died for people, but that does not automatically bring salvation. No one is saved without believing. John asserts this with another example of a favorite construction, the same truth being put both positively and negatively.⁸⁶ Anyone who exercises faith is not condemned (or "judged"; see on previous verse). For that person judgment is not to be feared. But anyone who does not believe (persistence in unbelief is meant) does not have to wait until Judgment Day. That person is condemned already. Unbelief has shut him or her up to condemnation. John goes on to remove all doubts as to why this should be. That person has not believed⁸⁷ "in the name of God's one and only Son." For believing "in the name" see on 1:12, and for "one and only" on 1:14. Notice another example of emphasis by repetition; the verb "believe" is mentioned three times in this one verse and is thus shown to be important. John goes on to bring out the enormity of a refusal to believe with his description of Jesus as "God's one and only Son." Though the expression does not in itself necessarily refer to a metaphysical relationship, there can be no doubt but that here John is affirming emphatically that Jesus has community of nature with the Father. When people do not believe on such a Person they condemn themselves. The coming of Jesus divides people into the saved and the condemned. This verse is of the utmost importance for our understanding of the paradox that Jesus both came to judge and did not come to judge. His coming gives people the opportunity of salvation and challenges them to a decision. To refuse his good gift is to call down judgment on oneself.

19 NIV's "verdict" is misleading; the word denotes the process of judging, not the sentence of condemnation.⁸⁸ Faced with the light (see on 1:4) that has come into the world people may prefer the darkness.⁸⁹ John is not saying that God has decreed that people who do such and such things are condemned. It is not God's sentence with which he is concerned here. He is telling us rather how the process works. People choose the darkness and their condemnation lies in that very fact. They shut themselves up to darkness; they choose to live in darkness; they cut themselves off from the light. Why? "Because their deeds were evil." Immersed in wrongdoing, they have no wish to be disturbed. They refuse to be shaken out of their comfortable sinfulness. So they reject the light that comes to them and set their love (aorist tense) on darkness. Thereby they condemn themselves. There is a certain emphasis on "light" in this section. In characteristic fashion John makes the concept prominent by repeating the word (it occurs five times in vv. 19-21). We should probably give it a twofold meaning in this verse. There is the usual metaphorical meaning whereby "light" stands for "good" over against "darkness," which means "evil." But in this Gospel Christ is the light (1:9; 8:12; 9:5), and John is here speaking of Christ's coming to this world. The supreme condemnation of the people of his day, John says, was that when Christ, the Light of the world, came to them, they rejected him. They loved the darkness.

This is a place where the teaching of the Qumran scrolls diverges from that of this Gospel. In the scrolls there is a rigid and hopeless determinism. The men of darkness belong to the spirit of error. Their fate deprives them of any power of choice. Willy-nilly they belong to the spirit of error. But John is concerned with meaningful choice, not blind fate. People preferred darkness to light. It was not forced on them; they themselves chose darkness. And in that lies their condemnation.

20 John amplifies his explanation. Why did those who do evil⁹⁰ not come to the light? Because all who make a practice of wrongdoing hate the light. John does not hesitate to use the strong term "hates," a verb he employs 12 times, almost a third of all its New Testament occurrences. This is accounted for largely because he so often sees the sinful world as hating God or Christ or, as here, what they stand for. The strife between good and evil is no tepid affair, but one that elicits the bitter hatred of the forces of evil. One reason for this is brought out here. To come to the light means to have one's darkness shown for what it is, and to have it rebuked for what it is. No one likes this uncomfortable process, persistent wrongdoers least of all. The fear of salutary reproof keeps them away from the light. There is a moral basis behind much unbelief.

21 Not so "whoever lives by the truth" (for "truth" see Additional Note D, pp. 259-62). More literally this means "he that does the truth," an unusual expression.⁹¹ We generally speak of "telling the truth." It may be that John's choice of verb is partly due to the need for a contrast with "does evil" (v. 20).⁹² But there are actions that are true as well as words. Anyone who habitually performs the actions that can be described as true comes to the light. The deeds of such a person are not those that must be reproved. They are "done through God" (more exactly "in God," as NRSV),⁹³ and the light will make this clear to all. John does not, of course, mean that some people by nature do what is right. He is not teaching salvation by works or by nature. In this very chapter he has reported the words of Jesus that emphasize that not good works, but rebirth is the way to God. The person John has in mind here is the one who responds to the gospel invitation, the one who has life in Christ (v. 15). Perhaps we could bring out his meaning by saying that the truth conveyed elsewhere in the New Testament by the doctrine of election underlies this verse. It is only the person on whom God has laid his hand who can truly say that his works are "wrought in God." And that person will not avoid the light.

3. Jesus and John the Baptist (3:22-36)

a. A Question about Purifying (3:22-26)

22After this, Jesus and his. disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized, 23Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized. 24(This was before John was put in prison.) 25An argument developed between some of John's disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing. 26They came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan — the one you testified about — well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him."

It is often suggested that verses 22-30 are out of their proper place. Some advocate transferring them to a position after 2:12, others after 3:36. The arguments usually revolve around their suitability to the context in which we find them. There are suggestions of displacement at various points in this Gospel, and more or less plausible arguments are produced to support such theories. But we must always bear in mind that what we think is an appropriate sequence is not necessarily the one the writer of this Gospel would have adopted. And in any case our first duty is to see whether the verses in question make sense in the Gospel where they are traditionally found. Only if we find compelling reason should we place them elsewhere. In the case of these verses no such compelling reason appears to have been urged.⁹⁴

In verses 1-21 John has recorded a conversation in which Jesus sets forth the way of salvation and has added some comments of his own. Already in his opening chapter, he has insisted that John the Baptist regarded his function as that of bearing witness to Jesus. Now, after making it plain what Jesus stands for, the Evangelist returns to the Baptist to show that he bears witness to the Jesus of whom John is writing. The readers of the Gospel now know what Jesus wants of people. They know that he demands a radical rebirth. They know that he will die for his people's salvation. They know that those who believe in him have eternal life while those who do not are condemned already. Now John brings them to see that in the light of all this the Baptist maintains his unwavering support. He is still a witness to Jesus.

22 After the events previously recorded⁹⁵ Jesus moved with his disciples from Jerusalem into the country districts of Judea.⁹⁶ The locality is not closely specified, but it appears to be somewhere in the Jordan plain, perhaps not so very far from Jericho. "Spent some time" translates another word that is not very specific,⁹⁷ but we get the impression of an unhurried period during which Jesus and his followers got to know each other better. We do not read of Jesus as baptizing in any other Gospel, and from 4:2 we learn that the actual baptizing was carried out by the disciples, not by Jesus in person. It is difficult to think of this as Christian baptism in the later sense. More probably it represents a continuation of the "baptism of repentance" that was characteristic of John the Baptist, though with some implication of adherence to Jesus. Both Jesus and his first disciples had come from the circle around John, and it may well be that for some time they continued to urge people to submit to the baptism that symbolized repentance. We know that Jesus' first preaching was the same as that of John, "Repent" (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). It may well be that the symbol of repentance was retained for a time also. Cf. Schnackenburg, "As they practised it, it remained a baptism of repentance, but at the same time, it admitted to the group of those who wished to join Jesus."

23 From Jesus the spotlight moves to John. At that time he was at work⁹⁸ at Aenon, which is located "near Salim."⁹⁹ either place can now be identified with certainty. One suggestion for Aenon is a site about seven miles south of Beisan.¹⁰⁰ If this is correct, there is a striking accuracy in the statement that there was "plenty of water" or, more literally, "many waters" there, for in this locality there are seven springs within a radius of a quarter of a mile.¹⁰¹ some such place John pursued his activities. The tense of the last two verbs is continuous and we might give the force of this as "they kept coming and being baptized."

24 The Evangelist tells us nothing about the imprisonment of John the Baptist apart from this laconic statement. Apparently he regarded this as so well known that he had no need to do other than simply mention it. We must turn to the fuller accounts in the Synoptists for information about it (Matt. 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29; Luke 3:19-20). John is concerned to give us information about Jesus, not the Baptist. The latter is mentioned for his witness to Jesus, and for that alone. His imprisonment does not clarify his witness in any way, so it does not fit in with our Evangelist's plan. But the present incident does, so he records it. He adds to the information given in the Synoptic Gospels by indicating that between the temptation of Jesus and the arrest of the Baptist there was an interval during which Jesus and John worked side by side. We should not have known this from Mark 1:13-14 and the parallels.

25 The particular incident that triggered John's statement was a dispute his disciples¹⁰² had with a Jew¹⁰³ about purifying. This verse is compressed to the point of obscurity. A little light may be shed on however, by the Qumran scrolls. These show that there were Essene-type sects with a deep interest in ceremonial purifications. If the suggestion that John the Baptist had had contacts with such a sect and had broken with it are well grounded, such a dispute as the one mentioned here would be very natural. It is also a natural touch that the dispute involved John's disciples and not John himself. They would probably be more aggressive than their master, and possibly more accessible for such a dispute.

26 The discussion must have taken a curious turn, for when John's disciples bring it to him there is no mention of differing views about purification. It is now a complaint that Jesus was having great success.¹⁰⁴ For "rabbi" see on 1:38. Jesus is not mentioned by name, but described as "that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan — the one you testified about." This perhaps indicates that Jesus stayed with John rather longer than we would have gathered from a cursory reading of chapter 1. We should also notice that John's disciples recognize the place that witness (see on 1:7) to Jesus occupied in their master's teaching.¹⁰⁵ At a later time disciples of John might refuse to give allegiance to Jesus, but his immediate disciples knew what he had said about him. "You" is emphatic and stands in sharp contrast with "he." John's disciples believe that John had behaved generously in bearing his witness to Jesus. They find it intolerable that Jesus should then act in independence, so to speak, and gather more disciples than his illustrious predecessor. "Everyone" is an indignant exaggeration, very natural in the circumstances.

b. The Reply of John the Baptist (3:27-30)

27To this John replied, "A man can receive only what is given him from heaven. 28You yourselves can testify that I said, '1 am not the Christ^a but am sent ahead of him.' 29The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. 30He must become greater; I must become less.

a. 28 Or Messiah

27 John's reply is an immediate justification of Jesus' success. His first words are very general. They may be applied to John himself. He has what God has given¹⁰⁶ him, that and no more. He cannot be anything more than the forerunner. God has not given it to him to intrude on the place of the Messiah.¹⁰⁷ They apply also to Jesus. He has had this success given him (the verb is a perfect with the idea of a permanent gift) from God himself ("heaven" was a common circumlocution to avoid the use of the divine name). John sees the hand of the Father in everything. If people were flocking to Jesus, that was because the Father willed it so. The words also apply to the believer whose salvation is a gift from God. It could never have been acquired otherwise. It is unlikely that the Baptist meant the words in this sense; his intention is to show the reason for Jesus' greater success. But the language he uses is certainly capable of this further application.

28 John is able to appeal to what was well known about his preaching. "You yourselves" is emphatic. "You," John is saying, "have the answer already if you will only think of the significance of what you have already heard." He had spoken on this subject before and had explicitly disclaimed being the Christ (1:20).¹⁰⁸ They should have remembered that. His "I" is also emphatic; there is to be no doubt about his disclaimer. "I. . . am sent" is in the perfect tense, which may indicate that his permanent character was that of a man sent from God (1:6) to be the forerunner of the Messiah. Nothing can alter that. The success of Jesus is not at all difficult to explain if John was truly sent from God. On the contrary, it was the most natural thing in the world. For Jesus is the One before whom¹⁰⁹ John came, and to prepare whose way John came.

29 So far from being downcast at what is happening, John rejoices. He now employs the illustration of a wedding to bring this out. At a wedding the bridegroom is the important man. His friend may stand by him and rejoice with him. Indeed, in the Jewish scene he could do more. "The friend who attends the bridegroom" was an important person.¹¹⁰ He was responsible for many of the details of the wedding, and in particular it was he who brought the bride to the bridegroom. But when he had done this, his task was over. He did not expect to take the center of the stage.¹¹¹ "The bride belongs to the bridegroom.'' But a wedding is a happy occasion for others than the bridegroom. The bridegroom's friend "is full of joy."¹¹² The joy of his friend brings joy to him, too. In the same way, says John, his own joy,¹¹³ not simply that of Jesus, fills him completely. The news his disciples brought him was what he had been longing to hear. It filled his cup of joy to the full. Elsewhere Jesus used the wedding illustration to explain why his disciples did not fast (Mark 2:19). The present passage shows that the joy of his coming was not confined to his immediate circle. There may be more to the present passage than a happy illustration. The Baptist would have been well aware that in the Old Testament Israel is regarded as the bride of Yahweh (Isa. 54:5; 62:4-5; Jer. 2:2; 3:20; Ezek. 16:8; Hos. 2:19-20). This imagery made its appeal as a way of referring to the Messiah, and we find it applied to Christ, for example in 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:32. "In some real sense the Baptist testified that God Himself was in Christ betrothing His bride to Himself afresh" (Murray). At the time the Evangelist records the saying it would be impossible to miss the overtones that Jesus, not the Baptist, is the Bridegroom. The church is his bride, not that of his forerunner.¹¹⁴

30 The last words of the Baptist to be recorded in this Gospel form surely one of the greatest utterances that ever fell from human lips. It is not particularly easy in this world to gather followers about one for a serious purpose. But when they have been gathered it is infinitely harder to detach them and firmly insist that they go after another. It is the measure of John's greatness that he did just that. Jesus, he says, "must" become greater. It is not merely advisable, nor is it the way events might happen to turn out. There is a compelling divine necessity behind the expression (cf. v. 27). John sets "he"¹¹⁵ and "I" over against one another in emphatic contrast. They are not cast for identical or even similar roles. It is God's plan that the Messiah must continually increase. The servant, however, must of necessity decrease. It is never the part of the servant to displace the Master. This lesson is something that must be learned in every age.

c. Reflection (3:31-36)

31 "The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. 34For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God; to him God gives the Spirit without limit. 35The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."^a

a. 36 Some interpreters end the quotation after verse 30.

Once again we are confronted with the difficulty of knowing exactly where a speech ends. Some hold that John the Baptist is the speaker to the end of the chapter (e.g., Murray). Others think the words were spoken by Jesus (usually, like Bultmann, they think of a transposition of order of some of the verses). It seems more probable that verses 31-36 are from the Evangelist.¹¹⁶ They come more naturally as his reflection on the significance of Jesus in the light both of the Baptist's words and of subsequent happenings, than as a comment of the forerunner or of the Master. There are some stylistic points of a minor nature that perhaps indicate the hand of the Evangelist. There is also the difficulty of seeing how the Baptist could say, "no one accepts his testimony" (v. 32) in the very speech in which he is answering the affirmation that "everyone is going to him" (v. 26). Whoever originated them, the words bring out the community of Jesus with the Father and the importance of being in right relationship with him.

31 "The one who comes from above"¹¹⁷ is another reference to the heavenly origin of Jesus, in which this Evangelist delights (others, of course, also remind us of this as Paul in 1 Cor. 15:47). It may even be a title of Jesus, but in view of the later "the one who is from the earth" it probably is not. It is John's plan in writing this book to show "that Jesus is the Christ" (20:31), and one way he does this is to emphasize that Jesus does not take his origin from the earth.¹¹⁸ Being "from above," he is superior to all on earth.¹¹⁹ "The one who is from the earth"¹²⁰ is a general term that has its application to the whole human race. None such can ever do other than speak "from the earth" ("from" here denotes origin;¹²¹ it must not be understood as though it meant "about"; he may speak "about" heavenly realities, but it is still true that what he says originates on earth). But there is particular reference to John the Baptist. His followers may think of him as the Messiah, but the Evangelist cannot but contrast him with the Messiah. The Baptist is "from the earth."¹²² He does not come "from above." His teaching is important (cf. the stress placed on John's "witness"), but it must always be borne in mind that it is of earthly origin. The repeated affirmation that Christ is "above all"¹²³ is impressive. He is absolutely preeminent. The words refer to all things and ail people.

32 Jesus earlier assured Nicodemus that he and those with him speak only of what they know and have seen. John now gives his readers a similar statement about the Master. "What he has seen and heard"¹²⁴ is another way of expressing certainty. The teaching of the Master is not a hypothesis put forward as a basis for discussion. He teaches what he knows. The particular form in which John casts this certainty agrees with the heavenly origin referred to in the previous verse. It is of what he has seen and heard in the heavenly sphere that he bears his witness among people (for witness, see on 1:7). But though what he says is thus seen to be supremely reliable, people in general do not accept it. "No one" is not to be taken literally, as the very next verse shows. The passage is reminiscent of 1:11-12, where a statement that might be understood to mean that nobody at all received Jesus is immediately explained. John has already made it clear in this chapter that we must all be reborn. In our natural condition we will not accept Christ's witness. The world, as a whole, is not interested in the truth that Jesus came to bring. John sorrowfully makes it plain that people do not receive his witness.

33 "The man who has accepted" translates an aorist participle. John is thinking not of a continuous, day-by-day receiving of the witness of Jesus (though that, too, is important), but of the decisive act whereby one decides to accept Jesus and Jesus' witness.¹²⁵ Anyone who does this does more. That person sets a seal on the proposition that God is true. The seal was used a good deal in antiquity, when there many who could not read. A design affixed by a seal conveyed a clear message even to the illiterate. Great men used distinctive seals that stamped articles as belonging to them. The seal came to be used not only to denote ownership but also to authenticate, to give its owner's personal guarantee.¹²⁶ It is something of the sort that is meant here (Moffatt: "certifies to the truth of God").¹²⁷ Those who accept Christ are not merely entering into a relationship with a fellow human being (as they would be doing, for example, if they attached themselves to John the Baptist). They are accepting what God has said. They are recognizing the heavenly origin of Jesus. They are acknowledging the truth of God's revelation in Christ. They are proclaiming to all their deep conviction that God is true. This probably means more than "God is truthful." Elsewhere John reports that Jesus said, "I am . . . the truth" (14:6). It is something like this that is in mind here. Truth is rooted in the divine nature. But there is also an emphasis on Jesus who bears the decisive witness to God. The God who is true will not mislead them in the witness borne to Jesus.¹²⁸

34 This is brought out with the express assertion that Jesus (note the change from "the one who comes from above" to "the one whom God has sent"; for this last expression see on v. 17) speaks "the words of God." His words are not merely human words, but divine. Therefore, to receive his witness is the same thing as to receive the words of God. Haenchen here rejects the view that this Gospel is "dominated by christology." Rather, "Everything in the Gospel of John is about God and only about God and therefore about Jesus."¹²⁹ It is to agree that God is true. The end of the verse ("he does not give the Spirit by measure"¹³⁰) has been understood in different ways.

(i) The Father gives the Spirit to the Son without measure (NIV inserts the word "God" to bring out this meaning). There is perfect communion between them, and no limit to the gift.¹³¹ His perfect endowment with the Spirit guarantees the truth of his words. For the Father's various gifts to the Son see on verse 35.

(ii) The Son gives the Spirit to believers without measure. The verse is often understood in this way, but caution must be exercised. It is true that believers receive the Spirit in abundant measure and that their consequent illumination enables them to speak aright (cf. 16:14, where Jesus says of the Spirit: "He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you"). But it is not true that the New Testament regards believers as receiving the Spirit without measure. In the first place, no one else has the Spirit in any way comparable to Jesus.¹³² And in the second, there is an implied limitation when we are told that "to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it" (Eph. 4:7; both Augustine and Calvin draw attention to the importance of this verse).

(iii) The Spirit does not give by measure, in other words, when the Spirit gives he does so liberally. This is a barely possible interpretation of the Greek.

The first of these seems preferable, though there is probably also a hint that Jesus gives the Spirit to his followers. Elsewhere John speaks of the Spirit as given by the Father (14:26), but also by the Son (15:26).

35 The mutual love of the Father and the Son means much in this Gospel. John pictures for us a perfect unity in love. Here the point is that the love of the Father for the Son guarantees the Son's plenipotentiary powers. People may trust the Son in all things, for the Father "has placed everything in his hands."¹³³ In the context this refers especially to the gift of life in the Spirit. People may come to Christ as they would come to God. Christ, with the full authority of the Father, gives the Spirit bountifully, as the previous verse hints, and gives life eternal, as the following verse makes clear. The words also indicate the dependence of the human Jesus on the Father. This is one of John's great themes,¹³⁴ and he lays great stress on it. While he is sure of Jesus' preeminent place (he is the Logos, the Son, etc.), he is also sure of his real humanity. As a man Jesus depended on the Father as other men do. In this we see his lowliness, and his perfect example to us.

36 For "believes in" see on 1:12 and for "eternal life" on v. 15. Eternal life is here, as often, regarded as the present possession of believers. When people put their trust in Christ they are reborn from above, they enter a new life. The decisive thing has happened. They will in due course pass through the portal of death, but that does not alter the fact that abiding eternal life is theirs already. In the things that matter they are alive eternally. The present participle indicates a continuing trust. "The Son" is used absolutely, as often in this Gospel. People may in some sense become children of God (1:12), but Christ is "the" Son.¹³⁵ The absolute use emphasizes the uniqueness of his position. In typical Johannine fashion the positive is followed by the negative. We might have expected "whoever does not believe," and indeed, some hold that the verb John uses should be translated that way.¹³⁶ It seems that "does not obey" is the meaning, but this is not so markedly different, for those who believe do in fact obey the Son, and those who do not believe do not in fact obey him. The verb is a present participle indicating a continuing attitude. This verse is important in view of the idea held by some that John's concept of faith is an intellectual one, the assent to certain truths. This verse shows that for him faith and conduct are closely linked. Faith necessarily issues in action. The thought is like that in verse 18ff., where those who are not saved are the people who choose darkness rather than light, who hate the light, and do not come to it. Of such a person it is now said that he "will not see life" (see on vv. 3 and 5 for "seeing" and "entering" the kingdom). Disobedience cuts people off from that life which is life indeed. Far from seeing life (NIV's "for" renders a strong adversative¹³⁷), they can look for nothing but the continuing wrath of God.¹³⁸ "The wrath of God" is a concept that is uncongenial to many modern students, and various devices are adopted to soften the expression or explain it away. This cannot be done, however, without doing great violence to many passages of Scripture and without detracting from God's moral character. Concerning the first of these points, I have elsewhere pointed out that there are literally hundreds of passages in the Bible referring to God's wrath, and the rejection of them all leaves us with a badly mutilated Bible.¹³⁹ And with reference to the second, if we abandon the idea of the wrath of God we are left with a God who is not ready to act against moral evil. It is true that the wrath of God has sometimes been understood in crudely literal fashion, but of which of God's attributes and activities is this not true? The remedy is not to abandon the concept, but to think it through more carefully. It stands for the settled and active opposition of God's holy nature to everything that is evil.¹⁴⁰ We may not like it, but we should not ignore it. John tells us that this wrath "remains." We should not expect it to fade away with the passage of time. Anyone who continues in unbelief and disobedience can look for nothing other than the persisting wrath of God. That is basic to our understanding of the gospel.¹⁴¹ Unless we are saved from real peril there is no meaning in salvation.

——————————————

1. D. Rensberger argues that throughout this Gospel "Nicodemus appears as a man of inadequate faith and inadequate courage, and as such he represents a group that the author wishes to categorize in this way" (Johannine Faith and Liberating Community [Philadelphia, 1988], p. 40). But to say that when Nicodemus is referred to John means a group of secret believers is sheer dogmatism. There is no evidence for this in the Gospel, and it does not fit what John has to say about Nicodemus.

2. Cf. L. S. Thornton: "The Christian doctrine of a new life stands in contrast to the contemporary Jewish expectation of a new world. Doubtless the two doctrines overlap in the New Testament. But the relation between them might be not inappropriately described in terms of kernel and husk. Within the sheltering husk or shell of Jewish apocalyptic expectations there appeared first the gospel revelation and then the pentecostal gift of the Spirit and the new life in Christ"(The Common Life in the Body of Christ [London, n.d.], p. 188).

3.  The expression "a man of the Pharisees" is as unusual an expression in Greek as in English. The use of άνθρωπος is probably meant to link the opening words of this chapter with the closing words of the preceding one, and so bring out Jesus' knowledge of "man." This will also be behind the use of αύτόν rather than Ίησοΰν in the first reference to the Lord.

4. "The silence of Jewish sources about a scholar of this name is sufficiently well explained by the rabbinical tactics of never mentioning an outlaw" (Schnackenburg).

5. John often speaks of "the Jews," and he uses the expression "ruler" (άρχων) not infrequently (e.g., 7:26, 48), but this is the only place where he links the two. There seems to be little doubt that by the expression he means a member of the Sanhedrin, for it is difficult to find any other reasonable explanation.

6. Β. Gerhardsson cites examples; see Memory and Manuscript (Lund, 1964), p. 237. As is well known, the men of Qumran provided that the Law should be studied by night as well as by day. Bultmann notices the view that night study lies behind the present passage, but thinks it even more probable that John is simply creating an atmosphere of mystery.

7. Thus Barrett thinks "it is perhaps more probable that he intended to indicate the darkness out of which Nicodemus came into the presence of the true Light (cf. vv. 19-21)." Cf. also Augustine: "Because he came by night, he still speaks from the darkness of his own flesh" (11.5; p. 76). Newbigin remarks, "he is a man who is drawn to the light but not yet able to leave the darkness."

8. But we should not overlook the timidity that marks Nicodemus in 7:50-51. Even in 19:39 he simply follows Joseph of Arimathea. The repetition of the statement that he came "by night" (19:39) perhaps indicates that it is to be taken literally. It may connect with the fact that Joseph is said to have been a secret disciple for fear of the Jews.

9. Τ. H. Gaster sees a reference to the "Teacher of Righteousness" of the Qumran scrolls: "The spiritual leader of the community is called 'teacher' or 'right-teacher'. In John 3.2, Jesus is hailed as the teacher sent by God — that is, the teacher who, it was held, would arise in the last days" (SDSS, p. 23). The absence of the article in the Greek is, however, against such a specific identification.

10. The word order άπό Θεοϋ έλήλυθας διδάσκαλος perhaps puts an emphasis on "from God."

11. Plummer, commenting on οιδαμεν, remarks: "there is a touch of Pharisaic complacency in the word: 'some of us are quite disposed to think well of you.' "

12. In Egerton Papyrus 2 the words of Nicodemus are linked with some from the quotation about paying tribute to Caesar (Matt. 22:15-22): ". . . came to him to put him to the proof and to tempt him, whilst they said: 'Master Jesus, we know that thou art come from God, for what thou doest bears a testimony to thee which goes beyond that of all the prophets. Wherefore tell us: is it admissible to pay to the kings the charges appertaining to their rule? Should we pay them or not?" (cited from E. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, ed. W. Schneemelcher, trans. R. McL. Wilson, I [London, 1963], p. 97). This appears to indicate a view that Nicodemus's words may be regarded as part of an attempt to trap Jesus. But I know of no other evidence for this interpretation.

13. F. P. Cotterell regards the plural as due to the improbability "that Nicodemus, an eminent Rabbi, should be walking about Jerusalem without any of his disciples in attendance. It is similarly unlikely that Jesus would be without any of his disciples" (ExT, 96 [1984-85], p. 238).

14. He says, ταΰτα τά σημεία μοιεΐν ἄ σΰ ποιείς. This looks like the doing of a number of signs, a reference, probably, to those mentioned comprehensively in 2:23. Although thus far John has recorded no specific signs in Jerusalem, we must bear in mind that he expressly tells us that he has omitted many things (21:25).

15. We may discern something of the force of this passage by noticing what is possibly the closest Jewish parallel, the passage that tells us that Wisdom "guided (Jacob) on straight paths; she showed him the kingdom of God" (Wis. 10:10). But the thought in Wisdom does not go beyond an increase of knowledge. In the Johannine passage we have something quite different, a rebirth brought about by the very Spirit of God.

16. άνωθεν. Abbott argues that here it means "from above" (1903-8), as does SBk, II pp. 420-21. It is pointed out that there is no Aramaic adverb with the meaning "again." Westcott, by contrast, has an additional note in which he urges that "anew" is the meaning: "The reality of the new birth has to be laid down first, and then its character (v. 5)." It must be borne in mind that άνωθεν means "from above" in every other place where it occurs in this Gospel (3:31; 19:11,23). Against this meaning in the present passage is the fact that Nicodemus evidently took Jesus to mean "again," for he speaks of entering his mother's womb a second time (v. 4). Yet this is a clear misunderstanding. If the meaning "from above" be rejected we must translate "anew" rather than "again"; it is a new thing, not the repetition of an old one, of which Jesus speaks. Yet we should probably not try to pin John down exclusively to either meaning. This seems to be another example of his habit of using expressions that may be understood in more ways than one with a view to both senses being accepted. We should perhaps notice that άνωθεν can also mean "from the beginning" (as it does in Luke 1:3), though this can scarcely be the meaning here.

17. The verb is γεννάω, which properly signifies the action of the male parent, and would here give the meaning "be begotten." It is, however, used also of the female parent (e.g. 16:21), so that the translation "be born" can certainly be justified. But it is somewhat more probable that John means "be begotten" (cf. the use of the same imagery in 1 John 3:9). Matthew uses the verb freely in his genealogy, but apart from this he has it only 5 times, Mark once, Luke 4 times, and Acts and Paul 7 times each. John's 18 times are thus significant; it is an important word for him. The same essential idea is found in Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet. 1:23. But John is more fond of this imagery than is any other New Testament writer.

18. See, for example, R. Otto, The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man (London, 1938); C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (London, 1938); T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge, 1939), pp. 116ff.; V. Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice (London, 1939), pp. 6ff.; Ν. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ (Philadelphia, 1944), ch. VIII; W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah (London, 1944); R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I (London, 1952), pp. 4ff.; E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology (London, 1955), ch. 28; A. M. Hunter, The Work and Words of Jesus (London, 1956), pp. 68ff.; Η. E. W. Turner, Jesus Master and Lord (London, 1957), pp. 239ff.; SBk, I, pp. 172ff.; TDNT sub βασιλεία; G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom (London, 1966); NIDNTT, art. "King, Kingdom" and the bibliography there.

19. This is disputed, however, by S. Aalen in an important article, " 'Reign' and 'House' in the Kingdom of God in the Gospels" (NTS, VIII [1961-62], pp. 215-40).

20. Cf. Barrett, John "set out from an exceptionally clear perception of the two 'moments' of Christian salvation, that of the work accomplished and that of the work yet to be consummated; and he perceived that the language of Judaism (the kingdom of God) and the language of Hellenism (γεννηθ􀀀να άι νωθεν) provided him with a unique opportunity of expressing what was neither Jewish nor Hellenistic but simply Christian."

21. It has been suggested that the reason for the omission of any emphasis on the kingdom in this Gospel is the fact that John had earlier so thoroughly misunderstood its nature and tried to get the best place in it (Mark 10:35ff.). Now he was ashamed of his previous conduct and preferred not to dwell on what reminded him of it.

22. For λέγει προς αύτόν see on 2:3.

23. SBk, II, p. 423.

24. Cf. Findlay, "as though in modern times an Anglican dignitary or eminent Nonconformist divine were told to go and get converted in an evangelical mission hall!" (p. 57).

25. Cf. Strachan, "His question is not hopeless so much as wistful. Can human nature be changed?"

26. Though John does not use the noun δύναμις at all he employs the verb δύνομαι more often than does any other book in the New Testament (Matt. 27 times, Mark 33 times, Luke 26 times, John 36 times). He is quite interested in what is and is not possible.

27. The question introduced by μή expresses his incredulity: "Surely he cannot... ?"

28. Some exegetes (e.g. Bultmann) regard ύδατος καί as a later insertion. Interestingly. Brown is able to cite a group of learned Roman Catholics who take this line, as well as certain Protestants. But there are no textual grounds for the omission, and the doctrinal and contextual considerations adduced seem inadequate. We should take the text as it stands.

29. A Jewish parallel sometimes cited is Wis. 9:17: "Who has learned thy counsel, unless thou hast given wisdom and sent thy holy Spirit from on high?" But in this passage the thought is that of enlightenment, whereas John is writing of regeneration.

30. Cf. Morgan, "Mark the continuity. You have been attending the ministry of one who baptized you in water, and told you Another would baptize you in the Spirit. Except you are born of all that the water baptism signified, repentance; and that which the Spirit baptism accomplishes, regeneration, you cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." J. A. T. Robinson says forthrightly, "If the words have a setting in the life of Jesus, then the allusion must be to the teaching of John," and he proceeds to cite Armitage Robinson: "the whole of John's mission lies behind the saying" (NTS, IV [1957-58], p. 273). Notice also that Ezek. 36:25-26 combines the ideas of water purification and the giving of "a new spirit." Cf. also Isa 44:3.

31. FG, pp. 48-71. Here we may take notice of the fact that the mystery religions make use of the terminology of rebirth. But any connection between them and this Gospel is purely verbal. In them the worshiper may be brought more surely into relationship with his god, but there is no idea of a transformation of his whole nature such as the Christian conception signifies. In this Gospel, as MacGregor notes, "The entrance upon eternal life is conditioned not by a magical renewal of the physical nature to be obtained by prescribed rites, but by a birth from above, from God" (on v. 3).

32. This is rendered all the more likely in that neither noun has the article and one preposition governs both.

33. Cf. Odeberg: "One may even venture the hypothesis, that γεννηθῆναι ἐξ ὕδατος xαὶ πνεύματος is identical in sense with the γεννηθῆναι έx πνεύματος" (FG, p. 48). He argues that this view is also favored by the contrast between physical birth (3:4) and birth "of water and the Spirit." It is of interest that this was the view of Calvin: "he used the words Spirit and water to mean the same thing. ... By water ... is meant simply the inward cleansing and quickening of the Holy Spirit." It must be borne in mind that it is John's habit in repeating a statement to make minor variations. This happens in twofold variation (compare 7:30 and 44; 3:17 and 12:47). For threefold variation with two the same see 6:35, 48, 51, and with all three different 1:32, 33, 34 (three different Greek verbs for seeing), or 5:8, 11, 12. For multiple variation consider the references to Judas Iscariot in 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26, 29. Even when he is expressly quoting, John does this kind of thing, as we see by comparing 1:48 and 50, or 6:44 and 65. Many more examples could be cited. It is clearly a mark of Johannine style. It is fair to say that the sense is not distorted by the stylistic variations, but the variations are real. See further, SFG, ch. 5. In this chapter the four references to rebirth, vv. 3, 5, 6, and 7 all probably mean much the same thing.

34. Luther says: "here Christ is speaking of Baptism, of real and natural water such as a cow may drink. . . . Therefore the word 'water' does not designate affliction here; it means real, natural water, which is connected with God's Word and becomes a very spiritual bath through the Holy Spirit or through the entire Trinity" (vol. 22, p. 283). J. D. G. Dunn firmly rejects such views: "The argument that no Christian reader could fail to see Christian baptism, though powerful, must give precedence to the argument drawn from John's theology . . . John seems to be challenging any sacramentalism which he assumes on the part of his readers" (Baptism in the Holy Spirit [London, 1970], pp. 189-90).

35. This does not necessarily mean a doctrine of "baptismal regeneration" in the sense that baptism effects an operation of the Spirit within the baptized. The whole passage emphasizes the work of the Spirit, not the performance of any rite (there is no other expression in the whole passage that can be construed as a reference to baptism). Wright, who accepts the reference to baptism, says, "it is clear that while the Evangelist is probably thinking of the symbolic rite of baptism, his thought is at the farthest possible remove from any magical sacramentalism. In other words, he does not mean that the physical act of immersion in water is indispensable to spiritual quickening. Those who so interpret this reference isolate it from the whole context of the mind of Jesus as expressed in this Gospel. The passage does not say that the Spirit necessarily comes to those who are immersed in water."

36. D. W. B. Robinson examines and refutes the idea that baptism is in mind (RThR, XXV [ 1966], pp. 15-23). Haenchen says the expression "can only refer to Christian baptism." Two or three sentences later he says, "the connection of the gift of the Spirit with baptism contradicts the conviction of the Evangelist" and refers to 20:22. The latter statement is surely true, but I do not see how he can reconcile that with the former.

37. See, for example, the discussion by Brown. He finds the argument that "of water" was not in the original text inconclusive. But accepting it still leaves him with uncertainties: "Accepting 'water' at its face value, we do not think there is enough evidence in the Gospel itself to determine the relation between begetting of water and begetting of Spirit on the level of sacramental interpretation. Begetting of Spirit, while it includes accepting Jesus by faith, is primarily the communication of the Holy Spirit" (p. 144). In other words, though Brown inclines to seeing a reference to baptism he puts his emphasis on the activity of the Spirit. This is surely the significant thing. Any understanding that sees a reference to baptism must be taken as giving us John's understanding, not Jesus' meaning: "if we think of John iii as based on a historical scene, Nicodemus could have understood nothing of Christian Baptism" (p. 142).

38. Westcott, it is true, senses a "marked contrast" between the two. He equates "see" with "outwardly apprehend" (on v. 3), and "enter" with "become a citizen of the kingdom, as distinguished from the mere intelligent spectator" (on v. 5). Barrett, by contrast, finds it impossible to distinguish between the two. Among the witnesses of antiquity Hermas distinguishes sharply between the two (though not by way of a comment on the present passage). He says that those bearing certain names ("Faith," "Continence," etc.) will enter the kingdom, while others ("Unbelief," "Intemperance," etc.) "shall see the kingdom of God, but shall not enter into it" (Sim. 9:15).

39. Hoskyns, p. 204.

40. John uses σάρξ 13 times (more than the three Synoptists put together). Most of the examples come from ch. 6, where Jesus speaks of giving his flesh for the life of the world. John does not use the term to convey the notion of moral frailty as does Paul. For him it may denote the physical weakness inseparable from human existence, but not wickedness or sinfulness. It may point to limitations of vision (8:15), but on the other hand it may refer to the incarnation (1:14) or to the gift of God (6:51).

41. "There are two levels of existence; the one is the sphere of flesh and the other of spirit. On each level like produces like. A man can only pass from the lower order, the realm of flesh, into the higher order, the realm of spirit, by being born again" (G. Appleton, John's Witness to Jesus [London, 1955], p. 29).

42. In both cases he uses the neuter participle τò γεγεννημένον, "that which," rather than the masculine, "he who."

43. John uses it again of the necessity of the crucifixion (v. 14; 12:34), of the resurrection (20:9), of the things Jesus did in the execution of his ministry (4:4; 9:4; 10:16), and of the eclipse of John the Baptist before Jesus (3:30). The term is also used of worship (4:20, 24).

44. Yet it should be borne in mind that elsewhere in the New Testament πνεϋμα does not seem to have its primitive meaning "wind" (άνεμος is used where this sense is required).

45. The verb πνέω always refers to the blowing of the wind in its six other New Testament occurrences.

46. For this curious expression see the note by E. F. F. Bishop, BT, 7 (1956), pp. 81-83.

47. The verb is λαλο􀀀μεν ,for which see the note on 1:37.

48. According to A. G. Hebert this is done only here, 9:4; in Mark 9:40 and parallels, and in Matt. 17:27 (The Form of the Church [London, 1944], p. 46n.).

49. Hoskyns understands it differently: "Jesus is no isolated person (v. 11). There are, and have been, men who speak because they know, and bear witness because they have seen. There have been prophets: there is a man named John baptizing in the desert: and there are men who have left all and followed Jesus. These all say the same thing; and it is with their testimony that Nicodemus and his like must first concern themselves" (p. 204). Abbott thinks that the plural means "the Father and I " (2428).

50. In the expression 􀀀α ΐο 􀀀 πιστεύετε we have another example of 􀀀α ίin the sense καίτοι, "and yet" (see on 1:5).

51. Notice the difference between the two conditional clauses, εΐ τά έπίγεια εΐπον implies fulfillment. It refers to what has actually happened, whereas έόדν είπω ύμίν τά έπουράνια has no implications about the fulfillment of the condition. It refers to what is as yet future.

52. For the contrast between earthly and heavenly things cf. Wis. 9:16, "We can hardly guess at what is on earth ... but who has traced out what is in the heavens?"

53. The perfect άναβέβηκεν is unexpected. Perhaps the meaning is "no man has gained the heights of heaven." There is the thought of continuing possession. But the primary reference of the words may well be spiritual rather than physical. Cf. Godet, "No one has entered into communion with God and possesses thereby an intuitive knowledge of divine things, in order to reveal them to others, except He to whom heaven was opened and who dwells there at this very moment."

54. "The reference to the descent out of heaven, which preceded the ascent, is noteworthy. It is the first hint of our Lord's consciousness of pre-existence" (Murray). W. C. Grese finds here the rejection of the idea of a heavenly journey found in a number of documents in antiquity: "Verse 13 rejects all other heavenly journeys ... and reserves the claim to heavenly knowledge exclusively for Jesus" (JBL, 107 [1988], p. 687).

55. Bultmann explains the present passage in terms of the Gnostic myth of the descent of the Redeemer (in addition to his Commentary see his Theology of the New Testament, II [London, 1955], p. 37; also see I, pp. 166ff. for an outline of the myth). He cites no evidence, and takes the truth of his assumption for granted. But weighty objections may be urged against it. First, there is no real evidence that the Gnostic myth existed at the time this Gospel was written. As Alan Richardson says, "the only first-century literature to which Bultmann appeals is the NT itself, and this is capable of a simpler explanation. There is no real evidence for the existence of 'the Gnostic myth' in the first century A.D." (An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament [London, 1958], p. 143). Second, the picture John gives is not that of the myth. As Theo Preiss says, the setting "radically differentiates from the oriental and gnostic idea of the anthropos and the mystical body, the Jewish and Christian figure of the Son of Man and the Body of his Church. The difference can be summed up very briefly: in the gnostic myth, Man is the divine principle substantially and eternally identical with the sum of the souls of men scattered but predetermined to salvation. In the thought of Jesus the Son of Man freely identifies himself with each of the wretched ones by an act of substitution and identification, and he will gather them together at the last day" (Life in Christ [London, 1954], p. 53). Third, the heavenly origin of Christ is brought out by John with terminology that is not Gnostic. Hisidea is independent of Gnosticism.

56. "It is well to note this text, which hurls a thunderbolt aainst all the work-saints (werckheilige)" (Luther, vol. 22, p. 330).

57. See Odeberg, FG, pp. 72-98.

58. E.g. p66 p75 Β L sah boh. D. A, Black argues for the retention of the words (GThJ, 6 [1985], PP· 49-66).

59. Augustine puts this succinctly: "Born of a mother, not quitting the Father" (12.8; p. 84). Cf. Calvin: "Christ, who is in heaven, put on our flesh that, by stretching out a brotherly hand to us, He might raise us to heaven along with Himself."

60. To the objection that Jesus could not have known of the cross as early as this, and that the Synoptists do not represent him as speaking of it until the incident at Caesarea Philippi, Murray replies: " I f Jesus knew what was coming six months or six hours before it came to pass, it is clearly possible that He was Himself familiar with the thought from the first, and was only waiting to communicate it to His disciples till their faith was strong enough to bear the revelation." There are hints in the Synoptists even before Caesarea Philippi (e.g. Matt. 9:15; 10:38). Murray has a long note on Jesus' foreknowledge of the cross. He stresses the courage of our Lord in living out his ministry with the knowledge of what lay before him. An impressive, though unobtrusive witness to the factuality of this saying is the effect on Nicodemus of the crucifixion. When all the disciples fled, it was this hesitant and timid man who assisted Joseph of Arimathea at the burial. If, when Jesus died, he was able to recall that in his first contact with him Jesus had prophesied that he would die in this wav the situation is easier to understand.

61. Τ. F. Glasson points out that the idea of looking is central in Num. 21. It is not mentioned explicitly here, but Glasson thinks it is implied, all the more so since the idea of seeing is so pronounced in this Gospel (Moses in the Fourth Gospel [London, 1963], pp. 34-35).

62. The Jewish understanding of this passage insisted that Yahweh, not the snake, brought deliverance. "He who turned toward it was saved, not by what he saw, but by thee, the Savior of all" (Wis. 16:7); "But could the serpent slay or the serpent keep alive! — it is, rather, to teach thee that such time as the Israelites directed their thoughts on high and kept their hearts in subjection to their Father in heaven, they were healed; otherwise they pined away" (Mishnah, Rosh. Hash. 3:8). T. W. Manson points out that this saying is ascribed in other Jewish writings to R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus and comments: "Since Eliezer is a first-century Palestinian Rabbi, it seems clear that we have to do in John 111-14 and Mishnah R.H. iii.8 with Palestinian Christian proofs and Palestinian Jewish rebuttals. So, whatever we may think about the authorship, date, and place of writing of the Fourth Gospel, here is one more piece of evidence of its dependence on Palestinian materials" (JThS, XLVI [1945], p. 132). The Rosh. Hash, passage understands the incident in which Israel prevailed while Moses' hands were held up in the same fashion. Interestingly, Justin Martyr also joins these two passages, but he understands them of Jesus: "And shall we not rather refer the standard to the resemblance of the crucified Jesus, since also Moses by his outstretched hands, together with him who was named Jesus (Joshua), achieved a victory for your people?" (Dial. Try. 112; ANF, I, p. 255). They are linked also in Ep. Barn. 12:2-7. Dodd cites from the Hermetic tractate called The Bowl a passage in which the author speaks of "the image of God (το􀀀 θεο􀀀 ε􀀀􀀀ώv),which if you behold exactly and contemplate with the eyes of the heart... you will find the way to the higher sphere ( τ 􀀀 νπρòς τ 􀀀􀀀νω 􀀀δόν );or rather, the image itself will guide you"(IFG, p. 307). Even Hellenistic thinkers who would not perceive the allusion might well comprehend the essential meaning of the words.

63. John uses καθώς 31 times, which compares with 3 times in Matthew, 8 times in Mark, and 17 times in Luke. Clearly he is fond of making comparisons.

64. See on v. 7; 4:4 for the use of "must" with respect to Jesus' mission.

65. John uses the verb 􀀀ψόω again in 8:28; 12:32, 34. Particularly important is 12:32, where Jesus says, "I, when I am lifted up from the earth . . ." and John explains,"He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die." There can be no doubt as to the significance John attaches to ΰψόω. Black notes and rejects the view that this points to Syriac influence. He cites G. Kittel, who points out that the equivalent verb is used in this sense in Ezra 6:11 and the Targums on 1 Chron. 10:10; Esth.1.9.13; 2.7.10. He concludes, "The Johannine use is therefore an Aramaism" (AA, p. 103). H. Hollis argues that the expression reflects the "lifting up" of the heads of Pharaoh's chief butler and chief baker (Gen. 40:20-22).

66. This is a very different idea from that of the Qumran sectarians who looked for a "prince of the congregation" who would "tread down peoples like the mire of the streets" (1QSb 5. 28; ML, p. 398).

67. Cf. Vincent Taylor, "There could be no vainer controversy than the dispute whether in these passages (i.e. John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32) the crucifixion or the exaltation is meant. The death is the exaltation" (The Atonement in New Testament Teaching [London, 1946], p. 147). The cross of shame is the throne of glory. Cf. H. Blair: "the suffering and struggle of Jesus are only alternative names for his glory. In fact, glory hurts. It is when it hurts and is accepted that it becomes glory" (The Ladder of Temptations [London, 1960], p. 100). Strangely Odeberg does not see a reference to the cross. Instead he thinks of the spiritual experience that leads toward the spiritual birth: "this spiritual experience is described as an elevation of the Son of Man, scil. by earthly man, and a directing of man's spiritual gaze towards that lifted-up Son of Man by believing in him" (FG, p. 111). Admittedly the passage may profitably be employed to start us on such a meditation, but that is not to say that that was John's meaning. Wherever he uses ύψόω he has the cross in mind (see n. 62 above).

68. It is almost certain that we should take πας ό πιστεύων έν αύτω £χη ζωήν αίώνιον in this fashion. John never elsewhere follows the verb πιστεύω with έν so that έν αύτω is to be taken with 􀀀χη .πιστεύω is often used absolutely in this Gospel. See Additional Note E, pp. 296-98. There is a valuable note on έν in the New Testament by N. Turner (BT, 10 [1959], pp. 113-20), In another place Turner gives the meaning of this passage as "every believer whose life is hid in Christ possesses eternal life' (Grammatical insights, p. 121). There are variant readings έπ' αύτω, έπ' αύτόν, and εις αύτόν. These are probably due to the difficulty caused by what scribes deemed to be the construction πιστεύω έν. This is rendered all the more probable since some MSS have imported μή άπόληται άλλ' from v. 16, and have placed it between έν αύτ􀀀 and έχη.

69. The word is α􀀀ώνιος J.ohn employs it 17 times, nearly three times as often as in any other New Testament book.

70. Salmond says that "eternal" is used "not in order to add to the 'life' the idea of perpetuity, but to express more fully the quality which belongs to the 'life' itself. In John's writings 'death' is an ethical condition, the condition of failure and evil in which men exist by nature, and out of which they are raised by Christ. The 'life' is the new condition — the spiritual order of being, the existence of fellowship with God into which Christ brings men; and the 'eternal life' is this 'life' in its quality of the divine order of life, the life which fulfils the whole idea of life, the good of life, the perfection of life, the satisfaction of life in God." He is careful to add, "It lies in the nature of the 'life' as eternal, a life of the divine order, that it is superior to change, decay, or extinction" (The Christian Idea of Immortality [Edinburgh, 1907], p. 391).

71. The Epistles of St John (London, 1892), p. 215.

72. "Eternal life" is always in this Gospel the life of the believer. Neither the Father nor the Son is said to have it. The Father "has life in himself," and he has granted this also to the Son (5:26). The Son is "the life" (11:25; 14:6). But "eternal life" is reserved for the gift of life bestowed on believers.

73. The term μονογενής (vv. 16, 18) is applied to Christ elsewhere in the New Testament only by John (1:14, 18; 1 John 4:9). The expressions πιστεύω εις τό όνομα (v. 18) and ποιέω τήν άλήθειαν (ν. 21) are not found elsewhere in speeches of Jesus, but are Johannine. The repeated use of γάρ, while not conclusive (it is found in the speeches of Jesus), is quite in the Johannine manner.

74. This is John's first use of άγαπάω, a verb he w i l l employ 36 times, more than twice the number in any other book of the new Testament except 1 John (which has it 31 times; next is Luke with 13 times). He also uses φιλέω more than anyone else, though the figures are smaller (John 13 times, then Matthew 5 times; the New Testament total is 25 times). It is interesting that John uses both verbs more than twice as often as anyone else. For the supposed distinction between the two verbs see on 21:15. Clearly love matters a good deal to this author (though we should notice that Paul's total use of all the love words is higher than John's). I have examined the idea of "Love in the Fourth Gospel" in the Richard C. Oudersluys Festschrift, Saved by Hope, ed. James I. Cook, (Grand Rapids, 1978), pp. 27-43. See also my Testaments of Love (Grand Rapids, 1981).

75. Cf. Odeberg: "The relation of the Holy One to 'his world' is, as far as we know, never expressed by the term 'love' " (FG, p. 116).

76. FG, p. 130. For the idea of love in the Bible see my Testaments of Love (Grand Rapids, 1981) and the literature there cited.

77. Cf. Dodd, "The statement in iii. 16 is quite fundamental to our author's position, and the reader is intended to bear it in mind during the following discussions, though little further is said about the love of God until with ch. xiii it becomes a dominant theme" (IFG, p. 307). Bruce comments, " I f there is one sentence more than another which sums up the message of the Fourth Gospel, it is this. The love of God is limitless; it embraces all mankind. No sacrifice was too great to bring its unmeasured intensity home to men and women: the best that God had to give, he gave — his only Son, his well-beloved." So also Marsh, "The magnitude of the love is matched by the magnitude of the gift . . . . God loved all there was, and gave all he had" (p. 183).

78. John uses the indicative ώστε . . . έδωκεν (not the infinitive, ώστε . . . δούναι, which might have been expected). This is John's only use of ώστε, so we have no means of knowing how often he would have used the one construction in preference to the other. But ώστε is found in the New Testament 84 times, only 21 times with the indicative, 15 of which are in Paul. Outside the Pauline epistles it is thus infrequent. John's use accordingly is rather unusual and probably emphatic.

79. "This is the heart of the Gospel. Not 'God is Love' — a precious truth, but affirming no divine act for our redemption. God so love that He gave" (Temple).

80. See further my The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment (London, 1960), pp. 69ff.; The Cross in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, 1965), pp. 146ff., 385f.

81. The verb is άποστέλλω. Westcott distinguishes this verb from πέμπω in that it "conveys the accessory notions of a special commission, and so far of a delegated authority in the person sent. The simple verb πέμπω marks nothing more than the immediate relation of the sender to the sent" (Additional Note to 20:21; Κ. H. Rengstorf makes a similar distinction, TDNT, I, pp. 398ff.). Abbott reverses the distinction: "we are perhaps justified in thinking that άποστέλλω means 'sending away into the world at large,' but πέμπω 'sending on a special errand' " (Johannine Vocabulary [London, 1905], 1723g). More recently Calvin Mercer has argued that the Westcott-Rengstorf distinction is correct (NTS, 36 [1990], pp. 619-24), but he does not notice that variation in expression without significant difference in meaning is a characteristic of Johannine style (see SFG, ch. 5). It may be doubted whether a sharp distinction between the two words is legitimate. C. C. Tarelli has pointed out that John uses άποστέλλω in the aorist and perfect indicative active and the perfect participle passive, whereas he uses πέμπω in the present, the future, and the aorist active participle (JThS, XLVII [1946], p. 175). The difference is notone of meaning but of John's consistent choice of certain parts only of each of these verbs. That there is no difference of meaning is further to be seen in the way the verbs are used. Both are used of purely human sending (ά. in 1:24; π. in 1:22), of the sending of John the Baptist (ά., 1:6; π., 1:33), and of Christ's sending of the disciples (ά., 17:18; π., 13:20). In both the preponderance is for the Father's sending of the Son (ά. 17 times out of 28 occurrences; π., 24 times out of 32). The verbs occur together in 7:28-29; 20:21 and both roots in 13:16. No real difference of meaning is apparent. Both words occur in John more often than in any other New Testament book, άποστέλλω 28 times as against 22 times Matthew, Mark 20 times, and 25 times in Luke; πέμπω 32 times, as against 4 times in Matthew, once in Mark, and 10 times in Luke. These statistics show that the thought of mission is important to John.

82. "It will be observed that the title Son (the Son, not his Son), which is that of dignity, takes the place of only begotten Son, which is the title of affection" (Westcott). Moloney notices that John uses "the Son" absolutely 20 times, as against 3 times in the Synoptics, once in Paul and 5 times in Hebrews (Moloney, p. 208).

83. John uses the verb κρίνω 19 times, as against 6 times each in Matthew and Luke and none at all in Mark. The only New Testament book to use the verb more often than John is Acts, where it is found 21 times. John also uses the word κρίσις (11 times) and κρίμα (once). Such statistics show that the idea of judgment interested him more than it did most writers.

84. This is all the more likely in that John never uses the word κατακρίνω (though it is found in the story of the woman taken in adultery, 8:10, 11).

85. MacGregor cites Holtzmann that Christ comes to judge the world "as little as the sun comes to throw a shadow. But "judgment like the shadow is the natural consequence of the world's constitution and circumstances."

86. Godet cites Η. Jacottet: "Here is justification by faith, and condemnation by unbelief."

87. Note the perfects ϰέϰριται and πεπίστευϰευ. The one of whom John writes has passed into a continuing state of condemnation on account of a refusal to enter a continuing state of belief. On μή πεπίστευϰευ, which may be contrasted with ού πεπίσ-τευϰευ in 1 John 5:10, Abbott comments: ὄτι μή "states it subjectively, as the judgment pronounced by the Judge, 'This man is guilty in that he hath not believed,' so that the meaning is almost 'hath been pronounced guilty of not believing' " (2187). Moulton puts it this way: the present passage "states the charge, quod non crediderit," whereas 1 John 5:10 states "the simple fact, quod non credidit" (Μ, I, p. 171).

88. ϰρίσις, not κρίμα. LS gives the meaning of the word as "separating, distinguishing"; the word can mean "judgment," but it is surely the process of judging that is in mind here. E. Stauffer says, "History is krisis, is separation of souls" (NTT, p. 42).

89. This is John's one use of σκότος. He prefers σκοτία; see on 1:5.

90. "Who does evil" renders ό φα􀀀λα πράσσων. Both adjective and verb are found again in 5:29 and nowhere else in John. In strictness φα􀀀λο ςexpresses that which is worthless (we might render it "paltry" or "mean"), and πράσσω conveys the thought of "practice." But probably the meanings should not be pressed unduly. In 5:29 the expression used here is set in contrast with τα άγαθ􀀀 ποι􀀀ω as here with ποιέω τήν άλήθειαν.

91. It is found, however, more than once in the Qumran scrolls; see 1QS 1:5; 5:3; 8:2. But the Qumran covenanters connected truth with the Law as when they explain Hab. 2:3: "This means the men of truth, the doers of the law, whose hands do not grow slack from the service of the truth" (DSS, p. 368).

92. But against this is the fact that the Greek verbs are different: "does" is πράσσων in v. 20 and ποιών here.

93. The expression is δτι έν Θεω έστιν είργοισμένα, which puts an emphasis on "in God." The perfect participle may point to the permanence of such works.

94. On the general subject of dislocations in the text see Introduction, VI. Dislocations. In the present passage v. 31 does not really follow very smoothly on v. 21. Cf. Dodd, "It is pretty certain that i f our MSS. had given verse 31 immediately after verse 21, critics would have pointed out a disjuncture; for there is no immediate connection between the thought of judgment by the light in verses 17-21 and the supremacy of Christ as the One who descends from heaven and bears witness to what He has seen, which is the theme of 31-2" (IFG, p. 309).

95. For μετὰ ταῦτα see on 2:12.

96. εἰς τήν Ίουδαίαν γῆν. The expression is found nowhere else in the New Testament. It may denote the country districts as contrasted with Jerusalem itself.

97. διέτριβεν. John uses the verb again in 11:54, but otherwise it occurs only in Acts in the New Testament.

98. "Was baptizing" is ήν . . . βαπτίζων. There is probably no great difference from έβάπτιζεν of the previous verse; John is fond of the periphrastic construction. I f the two are differentiated the thought will be that John gave himself to baptizing more continually than did Jesus.

99. The meaning of the former is "fountains," and of the latter "peace." Those who delight to allegorize have not failed to point out the significance of "fountains near to peace": the work of the Baptist leads people near to that peace which Christ alone can give. This is edifying, but it is quite another thing to maintain that John's meaning is wholly symbolic. He appears to be using the terms because they were in fact the names of the places in question.

100. This is accepted, for example, by R. D. Potter (SE. I, p. 333). He objects to Albright's idea that the site was three miles to the east of Sychem on the ground that there is not much water there (for Albright see BNT, p. 159). The Westminster Historical Atlas mentions both sites and says, "no decision is possible" (p. 85). The Rand McNally Bible Atlas likewise leaves the question open.

101. Bernard cites Sir C. W. Wilson for this information.

102. It is possible to take έx τῶν μαθητῶν 'Ιωάννου as a partitive genitive, "some of John's disciples." But it is better to take it as an indication that the dispute originated with these disciples.

103. μετά 'Ιουδαίου seems to be the correct reading, though there is strong support for the plural. Some have conjectured μετά τῶν Ίησοῦ, but there seems little in favor of this. While it would suit the context admirably, it is difficult to think that, if it were original, it would have no support in the MSS.

104. Godet comments: "Perhaps in response to the disciples of John who invited him to have himself baptized, reminding him of the promises of the Old Testament (Ezek. xxxvi.25, etc.), he answered ironically that one knew not to whom to go: 'Your master began; here is a second who succeeds better than he; which of the two says the truth?' The question was embarrassing. The disciples of John decide to submit it to their master." The difficulty about this is that it scarcely gives sufficient weight to the statement that the dispute originated with John's disciples. But if we can picture them as taking the initiative, perhaps as picking an argument with a Jew who was rather impressed by Jesus, we may have the situation.

105. The perfect μεμαρτύρηϰας may well be meant to indicate the continuing effects of John's witness.

106. John uses the verb δίδωμι 76 times, which is more often than any other New Testament writer. He has an especially interesting number of things the Father gives the Son (see on v. 35).

107. Cf. Calvin, "he denies it is in his power or theirs to make him great, because the stature of us all is that we are what God wanted us to be." For John's development of the messianic idea see on 1:41.

108. Characteristically there are small variants from the former statement. He reverses the order of έγώ and ούκ εἰμί from that in 1:20. and the expression "am sent ahead of him" is not found in the earlier statement, though the sense of it is there (e.g., 1:15, 30).

109. For έκεϊνος see on 1:8.

110. See I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, Π (Cambridge, 1924), p. 213; SBk, I, pp. 500ff. He was the , "the best man." Abrahams cites Mishnah, Sank. 3:5, "A friend is his shoshbin." He also says, "There was anciently a shoshbin for the bridegroom and another for the bride . . . but, adds the Talmud, this was not the custom in Galilee."

111. Calvin draws out the implication for the Christian teacher: "Those who win the Church over to themselves rather than to Christ faithlessly violate the marriage which they ought to honour."

112. χαρα χαίρει, "rejoices with joy," is probably a Semitism reflecting the use of the infinitive absolute (though the construction is sometimes found also in the classics).

113. The expression ή έμή is probably not emphatic; G. D. Kilpatrick has shown that this is the normal way of denoting possession in John. When emphasis is required the possessive goes between the article and the noun (e.g. 4:42; 5:47; 7:16). See BT, 11 (1960), p. 173. The form used here carries more emphasis than the genitive of the personal pronoun, but it is not John's emphatic form. John uses έμός 40 times, and, as no other book has it more than 9 times (1 Corinthians; next is Matthew which uses it 5 times) it is quite a feature of Johannine style. Cf. his frequent use of έγώ (see on 1:20).

114. See further the chapter on "The Bridegroom," in V. Taylor, The Names of Jesus (London, 1953), pp. 87-88.

115. For εκείνος see on 1:8.

116. See the note in Lagrange, p. 96.

117. The expression is ὁ άνωθεν ερχόμενος. Jesus is called ὁ ἐρχόμενος by the Synoptists (e.g., Mark 11:9; Luke 7:19-20), as also in this Gospel (e.g., 11:27; cf. 1:15). The expression is a title of the Messiah. Notice John's habit of small variations (see on v. 5). Jesus is called "the one who came from heaven" (v. 13), "the one who comes from above" (v. 31), and "the one who comes from heaven" (v. 31).

118. Chrysostom makes the point that his accreditation is not earthly: "it is impossible for One who cometh from heaven to have His credit strengthened by one that inhabiteth earth" (30. 1; p. 103).

119. πάντων is ambiguous. It might be masculine, with the meaning "above all men" (i.e., superior to all teachers), or it might be neuter, "above all things." Perhaps John would not care to be tied exclusively to either meaning.

120. Black maintains that the present passage is a translation of sayings that originally formed an Aramaic poem. He points out that " 'he that is of the earth is of the earth' is pure tautology and has no meaning" in Aramaic, as in Greek or English. He suggests that there has been a misreading of an expression meaning "he that is of the earth is inferior to Him" (AA, pp. 109-10). This makes sense and completes the parallelism required by the poem. But we should bear in mind that John loves to repeat words for emphasis, and this may be the significance of the threefold "of the earth."

121. είναι ἐx is a common Johannine construction. Besides being ἐx της γης people may be said to be έx τοῦ xόσμου (15:19), x τῆς άληθείας (18:37), ἐx τοῦ Θεοῦ (8:47), ἐκ τοῦ πατρός τοῦ διαβόλου (8:44), or ἐx των κάτω (8:23). By contrast with the latter, Jesus is έx των άνω. In 1 John people may be έx τοῦ διαβόλου (3:8) or έx τοῦ πονηρού (3:12), while certain έπιθυμίαι are not έκτου Πατρός but έκτοϋ κόσμου (2:16). The construction is occasionally found in other parts of the New Testament, but nowhere is it characteristic as it is in John.

122. John does not use γη in a derogatory sense as he does κόσμος. To be "of the earth" is very different from being "of the world"; the word denotes limitation rather than evil. John here uses the expression "of the earth" three times, literally, "he who is of the earth is of the earth and speaks of the earth" (translations insert words to give acceptable English). The effect is to emphasize the "earthiness" of this person in contrast to Jesus, who is "from above."

123. The expression is έπάνω πάντων. Paul similarly speaks of Christ as ὁ ών έπὶ πάντων (Rom. 9:5, and cf. Eph. 1:21). An important group of MSS omits the words ( * D f l 565 it syr). This would take the preceding words with the next verse and give the sense, "He who comes from heaven testifies to what he has seen and heard." A decision is difficult, but perhaps the retention of the words is slightly more probable. The sense then will be as ΝIV.

124. The change of tense from the perfect ἑώρακεν to the aorist ήκουσεν is unexpected. Perhaps, as Westcott thinks, the former points us to "that which belonged to the existence" and the latter to "that which belonged to the mission" of the Son. Abbott considers a similar explanation possible, but he points out that in this Gospel άκούω is in the aorist when Christ is described as "hearing" from the Father, and that "(apart from forms of όφθήναι, δψομαι etc.) the perfect of όραν is the only part of the verb used by John" (2451). BDF thinks that the combination "puts the chief emphasis on seeing." In 5:37; 1 John 1:1, 3 the same two verbs occur, but both tenses are perfect. In these cases BDF views that hearing as equally essential with seeing and the coordinated verbs bring this out (342[2]).

125. Abbott thinks that the reference is not general, but refers to a particular person, probably John the Baptist (2501). If the reference must be confined to one person there is no more likely candidate. But nothing in the context limits it in this way. It seems more probable that the verse applies to anyone who receives the testimony.

126. BAGD gives as one of the meanings of σφραγίζω "attest, certify, acknowledge (as a seal does on a document: pap.; Jer 39:10f; Esth 8:8, 10)" (2.c). The most common use of the verb in the New Testament is for God's marking out of people as his own (cf. 6:27).

127. Cf. Luther: "Among men nothing is safer and more certain than that which is given under one's hand and seal. I feel sure when I have a sealed document.... Anyone who really accepts the message of the Gospel resolutely sets his seal to it and says: 'This seal and document mean that I can stake life and limb and all I possess on this.' His heart is certain and harbors no doubts" (vol. 22, pp. 471-72).

128. It is possible that the text should be amended, in which case these comments would not stand. Black thinks that the original Aramaic has been misread and that the passage originally read

"He that hath received his testimony Hath set to his seal ('ashar) that God sent him" (AA, p. 110).

This would give an excellent sense, but it scarcely seems that the amendment is required.

129. The opening essay in C. K. Barrett's Essays on John (London, 1982) stresses this. Barrett concludes, "The figure of Jesus . . . makes sense when in hearing him you hear the Father, when in looking at him you see the Father, and worship him" (p. 16).

130. έx μέτρου is an unusual expression, which does not appear to occur elsewhere. Probably it is correctly understood as "by measure" (which is usually simply μέτρφ).

131. Cf, the saying in The Gospel according to the Hebrews (described by M. R. James as "a divergent yet not heretical form of our Gospel according to St. Matthew" [The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1926), p. 1]): "And it came to pass when the Lord was come up out of the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended and rested upon him" (James, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. 5).

132. Cf. the rabbinical saying attributed to R. Acha (c. 320), "The Holy Spirit, who rests on the prophets, rests (on them) only by weight (= by measure)" (SBk, II. p. 431). I f this view is as early as the Fourth Gospel there may be in mind a deliberate contrast between Jesus and the prophets.

133. We read again of the Father as having put "all things under his power" (13:3; more literally "has given him all things, into his hands"; cf. Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22). Specifically the Father gave Christ the Spirit (v. 34), the work he accomplished (17:4), the works he did (5:36; cf. 14:31), his message (12:49; 17:8), his authority (17:2), his name (17:11), his glory (17:22-24), his disciples (6:37-39; 10:29; 17:6, 9, 12, 24; 18:9), the cup he must drink (18:11), "all judgment" (5:22), "to have life in himself" (5:26), and power over all flesh (17:2). In these passages the perfect is the usual tense (17 times), the aorist being used less than half as often (8 times), and the present twice only. This may point to the permanence of the gifts. John uses the verb δίδωμι 76 times, which is more than any other New testament writer (next is Luke with 60 times).

134. L. Hodgson speaks of this dependence as the "keynote of our Lord's thought" (And Was Made Man [London, 1933], p. 198). J. E. Davey puts great emphasis on John's treatment of the theme of dependence (The Jesus of St. John [London, 1958], ch. 5).

135. As we have noted before, John never uses υιός when he speaks of people as sons of God. He reserves this word for Jesus, and the terminology points to his view that the nature of Jesus' sonship is different from that of ours.

136. Thus BAGD says: "since, in the view of the early Christians, the supreme disobedience was a refusal to believe their gospel, ά. may be restricted in some passages to the mng. disbelieve, be an unbeliever. This sense, though greatly disputed (it is not found outside our lit.), seems most probable in J 3:36. . . ." (3). Bernard thinks the meaning is "strictly, 'to be disobedient,' . . . but rather implies a rebellious mind than a series of disobedient acts.' Godet says that it "brings out the voluntary side in unbelief, that of revolt." F. F. Bruce in his commentary on Acts (London, 1951) under 14:2 says, "unbelief and disobedience are both involved in the rejection of the Gospel."

137. άλλ'.

138. This is John's one use of όργή. But the idea is expressed in other terms that show the certainty of the punishment of the finally impenitent (cf. the use of the concepts of perishing and of judgment earlier in this chapter).

139. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross3 (London and Grand Rapids, 1965), chs. IV and V. Cf. also the note on 1 Thess. 1:10 in NICNT; R. V. G. Tasker, The Biblical Doctrine of the Wrath of God (London, 1951); the Addendum in P. T. Forsyth, The Work of Christ (London, 1946); art. on όργή in TDNT; C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (London, 1943), pp. 46ff.; A. Richardson, Introduction to the Theology of New Testament, pp. 75ff. For the contrary view see C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London, 1935), and his Moffatt commentary on Rom. 1:18.

140. Strachan quotes from Westcott that God's wrath "is not an arbitrary sentence, but the working out of a moral law," and objects: "This tends to make us think that moral laws are forces which come automatically into operation when men do wrong, or cherish wrong aims. . . . The New Testament writers . . . think in much more personal terms of the nature and consequences of wrong-doing. . . . God is not thought of as handing over the wrongdoer to an impersonal blind force which automatically punishes. The 'wrath of God' is an expression of God's holy personality." Our God is active in opposing the wrong. Cf. also L. Hodgson: "The wrath of God and divine punishment are essential elements in a doctrine which is to face the facts of evil and retain a fundamental optimism. The belief that God has sworn in His wrath that men who do certain things shall not enter into His rest enables the Church to open its worship each day with the words, 'Come, let us sing unto the Lord, let us heartily rejoice in the strength of our salvation' " (The Doctrine of the Atonement [London, 1951], p. 60). The last reference is to the use of Ps. 95 in the morning worship of the Anglican church.

141. Filson maintains that "verse 36 is as basic as the famous 3:16." A little later he says, "The wrath of God, the divine judgment, immediately and relentlessly rests on the unrepentant sinner who stubbornly rejects the offer of grace and life. There is no place for neutrality. Man was made as a moral being who can really live only by being obedient to his Father. He must either believe, obey God, and find eternal life, or refuse and so suffer the ruin that his evil choice makes inevitable."

↑ Back to top