Nicodemus and the New Birth (John 3)
Nicodemus and the New Birth (John 3)
Vs. 1 Νικόδημος A name not uncommon amongst the Jews, see Josephus, Ant. xviii.3.2, Bell Jud. ii.17.10. See Simons (?) pp. 15, 28. Comp. Νικόλαος. Nicodemus was either a translation of some Jewish name (like Theodorus, Theodotus, perhaps Theudas = Matthias, Acts 5:36, see Wiesler, p. 90), or a modification of some Jewish name like Alphaeus, Jason, Simon, or a second adopted name like John Hyrcanus or Herod Agrippa. The Talmud mentions one Nicodemus whose real name was Baar, and elsewhere Baar is called a disciple of Jesus, one of the three eldest men when Titus took Jerusalem. He was ben Gorion. On this see John Lightfoot. The Nicodemus of Josephus (Bell. Jud. s.v.) was father of Gorion. See Delitzsch, Zeitschrift fur Luth. Theol. 1854, p. 643.
In regard to the character of Nicodemus, comp. 7:50 and 19:39. And see the Gospel of Nicodemus chapters 5, 7, 15.
ἄρχων τῶν Ἰουδαίων A member of the Sanhedrin, comp. 7:50.
Vs. 2 διδάσκαλος A very qualified confession of the Person of Jesus.
Vs. 3 ἀπεκρίθη This is the reply to ἐλήλυθας διδάσκαλος. Nicodemus seems to ask ‘what have you to teach us?’ The reply is, ‘I don’t cast a lesson here or a lesson there, but an entire change of life, a being born again.’
ἄνωθεν ‘again, anew’ as in Gal 4:9. This is the right translation for: 1) this is how Nicodemus takes it, on the supposition that it was spoken in Aramaic (which however is more than doubtful. The mistake in reference would be impossible); 2) the analogy of the New Testament; 1 Pet 1:3, ἀναγεννήσας, having fathered again (cf. vs. 23); Titus 3:5, παλινγενεσίας, regeneration. There is no doubt in our Lord’s reply that Nicodemus had understood the word ἄνωθεν, at all events. So too καινή κτίσις, καινός ἄνθρωπος, a Jewish mode of speaking, about proselytes. For an early interpretation of this we turn to Justin Martyr, Apol. I chapter 61: ‘For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. . . . Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe.’ Cf. Cureton Syriac at this juncture, and Peshitto.
It is no argument that in 3:31, 21:11 (19:23 can hardly be quoted) ἄνωθεν means ‘from above.’ No doubt more frequently ἄνωθεν does mean ‘from above.’ But because it means so twice is not reason why it should mean so thrice, in a third place.
Vs. 4 What is the nature of the answer? The expression ‘being born anew’ was familiar to the educated Jews. But the expression would never be used of one born a Jew. A proselyte who was admitted into the covenant was said to be born anew, regenerated. He ceased to be a Gentile; he was born an Israelite. But with this meaning, so Nicodemus thought and spoke, the phrase could have no reference to himself, nor none to the Jews about him. They would not be born again. The spirit therefore which dictated the reply is akin to that which said, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’
Vs. 5 ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ Πνεύματος the water, the visible; the Spirit, the invisible grace. The καὶ Πνεύματος distinguishes the baptism of which our Lord speaks from the baptism of John. St. John has been called the sacramental Gospel.
Vs. 6 τὸ γεγεννημένον etc. There is an Israel after the flesh and there is an Israel after the Spirit. ‘The one you are, the other you must become.’
σάρξ ἐστιν partakes of the character of, preserves the nature of that from which it sprung. For this natural external conception of your religious pedigree it is the necessary consequence, the inevitable result that your whole religious life should be final, external.
Vs. 7 Δεῖ ὑμᾶς Is there not some force in this word ὑμᾶς? Is it not in fact the key to the whole force of the context? ‘Because I said that you, the children of Abraham, the children of the covenant, so proud of your national descent, so satisfied with your stainless pedigree?’ Of the poor proselyte who needed to be born anew, as one of the covenant people, such words were intelligible, but as applied to themselves the words seemed to have no meaning. See 8:31sq. and the remainder of the chapter.
τὸ πνεῦμα The motions of the flesh can be seen and felt, can be described in words, can be explained and known. Not so the motions of the Spirit. Of the operations of the Spirit we are conscious. But there the awareness and knowledge ends. The before and after, the mode and the sequence of the operation, are unknown to us. It is this characteristic of the wind τὸ πνεῦμα, the רוּחַ that made it a portender (?) of the Spirit as e.g. John 20:22. This is a symbolism not confined to any one nation of family of nations. See Xenephon, Mem. iv.3.14. It is Indo-European (cf. inspiro). It expresses: 1) invisibility; 2) freedom; 3) incomprehensibility. The only other passage in the New Testament where πνεῦμα means wind is Heb 1:7 (and even there it is doubtful).
It is a pity that the word ‘ghost’ has gone out of use except in the phrase ‘yielded up the ghost.’ Matt 27:50, ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα. There we can make no distinction between ἄνεμος and πνεῦμα. Comp. Eccles 11:5: ἐν οἷς οὐκ ἔστι γινώσκων τίς ἡ ὁδὸς τοῦ πνεύματος. ὡς ὀστᾶ ἐν γαστρὶ κυοφορούσης, οὕτως οὐ γνώσῃ τὰ ποιήματα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅσα ποιήσει σὺν τὰ πάντα.
οὕτως ἐστὶν The regular combination see Matt 13:45.
Vs. 10 ὁ διδάσκαλος There are two mistaken interpretations in Alford. ὁ διδάσκαλος does not mean the teacher. It does not require that he should have been ‘pre-eminent,’ ‘the one whom men call the teacher.’ ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ Ἰσραήλ is a rabbinical expression. See John Lightfoot and the sources he cites—‘art thou a wise man in Israel.’ Another instance of the Hebrew coloring in the Gospel.
γινώσκεις discernment, the process.
Vs. 11 οἴδαμεν ‘We know,’ the absolute fact as often in St. John. See Journal of Philology III, p. 116. οἴδαμεν ‘I and mine.’ ὃ οἴδαμεν, Hebrew parallelism. As very frequently in the second clause, each word is an advance upon the corresponding word in the first clause. ἑωράκαμεν is more vivid than οἴδαμεν, μαρτυροῦμεν is stronger than λαλοῦμεν.
Vs. 12 τὰ ἐπίγεια ‘These facts of the new birth which are enacted on earth, of which, if you cannot explain the operation, you can at least see the results.’
τὰ ἐπουράνια e.g. the Sonship of Christ, the nature of his Kingdom, of which you can have no earthly experience. See Wis. Sol. 9:16; and comp. Heb 6:1.
Vs. 13 The verse is a comment on ἐπουράνια. No one else can teach you τὰ ἐπουράνια. ‘I, only I, who came down from heaven, who therefore who can ascend into heaven, can rise to the mysteries of the higher world and carry you thither with me.’ It is the answer to the question in Prov 30:4—‘Who ascends into heaven and comes down.’ Comp. Eph 4:9, 10.
ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν The actual Ascension is only a symbol of the spiritual ascension of the Son of Man that is continuous. Thus ἀναβέβηκεν includes the idea expressed in the Collect for Ascension Day—‘In heart and mind hither ascend.’ This is also the explanation of the perfect ἀναβέβηκεν and compare 1:52.
ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου The Man, the typical Man, the representative of the race, in whom is seen the image of God, in all its completeness and definiteness of nature. In this or that man, it is blurred and confused, only partially and inadequately represented. In the Man alone is the impress perfect. Thus, the Son of Man can be none other than the Son of God, the Word of God incarnate.
ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ A reference to Dan 7:13. In reference to mankind he may be said to ascend and descend, to carry up their souls to heaven, and to bring down the divine grace upon them. But in his own Person he dwells continually in heaven. He is in heaven. Thus ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is a corrective to the idea of ascent and descent that seems to limit his divinity, his Heavenly being.
Vs. 14 καὶ καθώς The Ascension suggests the Crucifixion, the lifting up as common to both.
ὕψωσεν τὸν ὄφιν A symbolical meaning given. See Philo, Leg. Alleg. ii.19, I p. 80M. He made it Edom in one case, σωφροσύνη. For Patristic passages see my notes on Barnabas 12. See Justin Martyr, Dialog. 94 on this type of sign (see John Lightfoot on this), comp. Wis. Sol. 16:5 where it is seen as an arbitrary sign, a sign of God’s power. The point of comparison is: 1) the lifting up, and 2) the healing. Other lessons (e.g. in Alford) may be derived therefrom. These may be legitimate applications but they do not appear in the narrative.
By man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead, 1 Cor 15:20, in the likeness of the flesh of sin, Rom 8:3. The lifting up of the crucifixion suggests a lifting up in a higher sense (see 12:32sq.).
Vs. 16 There is possibly a reference to Gen 22:2 (comp. Heb 11:17) in vs. 16, but I question it.
Does our Lord’s discourse continue, or is this St. John’s commentary on it? Probably the latter. We must imagine this Gospel as written for, almost as spoken to, the disciples gathered about the veteran teacher. This will explain how there is no distinct line of demarcation between the original speaker’s own words and the comments of the narrator. The speaker’s tones, gestures, his own and his hearers’ vivid imaginations, supplies what is wanted in the form of the narrative. Comp. 1:16-18. And I am not sure but that this principle should be applied much more widely e.g. vss. 13-14.
So too St. Paul in Gal 2:14sq. and Acts 1:16sq. Certainly, 1) they all seem spoken as of the past, and 2) they all strongly resemble St. John’s own language and St. John’s own Epistle e.g. 1 John 4:8. But when Alford says that this would be to accuse St. John of an imposture, a forgery, this is an entire misconception. Imposture and forgery imply an intent to deceive. Such an intent has no place here.
Vs. 17 ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον This was the Jewish conception. Messiah was the avenger of his people, the punisher of the heathen.
Vs. 18 ἤδη κέκριται The fact itself is his condemnation. His state of soul is his punishment, judged and by implication, condemned. See Rom 14:23; Gal 2:11.
ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν Because the sole perfect image of divine grace and holiness has been presented to him and he has rejected it.
The idea of μονογενής, ‘the sole Son,’ is that of perfect representation. The graces, the power of the Father are not divided among many, so that each is a partial reflex of the Divine Original, but are concentrated and coexist in One. Comp. 1:14, 18 for the idea of concentration of Divinity, not as Alford has it.
Vs. 19 Not this is the reason, the ground, of the condemnation but this is the condemnation. The closing of the eyes to the light (it was a Biblical blindness as we would say) was indeed the cause of the punishment, but it was the punishment itself as well.
ἦν γὰρ αὐτῶν The hypocrisy, the pride, the impurity, the selfishness of men, they shrunk from Jesus in his earthly life, as the same vices have always shrunk from the presence of the Ideal, of the same moral holiness. See esp. Eph 5:14.
Vs. 20 ἐλεγχθῇ exposed.
Vs. 21 ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν To do evil is the opposite of ‘to do the truth.’ Comp. Rev 21:27; 22:15.
Vs. 22 Μετὰ ταῦτα The interval may have been long or short. We cannot assume the continuity of the history. This is a common chronological notice in St. John denoting an uncertain period, comp. 5:1, 14; 7:1; 21:1; and with μετὰ τοῦτο 11:7, 11; 19:28.
εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν γῆν See my note on Gal 1:22.
ἐβάπτιζεν Explained at 4:2, but notice the natural way it is stated here and left without explanation.
ἐν Αἰνὼν ἐγγὺς τοῦ Σαλείμ See the Cureton Syriac and the Peshitto.
Σαλείμ א, B, L, Origen; Σαλήμ—B.M.T.
It is not at all implied in the narrative that St. John and our Lord were baptizing at or near the same place, only that they were baptizing at the same time. In Josh 15:32 we have καὶ Λαβὼς καὶ Σαλή in the mention of the tribes of Judah, but the name is not the same. These places are moreover in the arid country south of Judaea. See Smith’s Dictionary article, II, p. 1093, on Salim. The most probable location of Salim seems to be that assumed by Jerome and Eusebius (see John Lightfoot, ii, p. 499), near the Jordan sight or nine miles south of Scythopolis. In Jerome’s time it was called Saliminias. A Salim has been discovered by Van der Welde exactly in the position (six English miles south of Bethshan) and two miles west of Jordan. See Smith’s Dictionary, p. 1093. There is ‘much water’ there, comp. the name Aenon.
John apparently moves gradually northward in his baptizing. See Smith’s Dictionary s.v. Jordan, Vol. I, p. 1127sq. He is probably 1) at the lower fords of the Jordan at Jericho (John 10:40; comp. 11:1; comp. Matt 3:1); 2) at Beltabara/Beltany John 1:29sq. the upper fords; 3) Aenon near Salim. John’s native home was in the hill country of Judaea (Luke 1:39). He was apprehended by Herod Tetrarch of Galilee and therefore must have been under his jurisdiction at that time. This also points to a northward movement.
ὕδατα πολλά Therefore not on the river Jordan. It seems to be about mid-summer (comp. 2:23; 4:3; 5:1).
παρεγίνοντο
Vs. 24 οὔπω γὰρ ἦν etc. Correcting some misapprehension? On the Synoptic narrative see Meyer.
Vs. 26 See 1:28.
μεμαρτύρηκας The perfect is expressive. The surprise is that after bearing witness to Jesus, and thus deferring to Him, he should still be baptizing, though Jesus had commenced his ministry.
Vs. 27 ‘The authority, the power, is given Him of God.’ The words might also be taken to refer to the Baptist himself (so Alford), and would make excellent sense. ‘I cannot assume a superiority which God has not given me.’ But the former interpretation is more in accordance with St. John’s language elsewhere see 5:19, 30; 9:33; 14:10. No argument can be based on the use of ἄνθρωπος that is quite unemphatic here, a Hebraism for τις. Heb 5:4 is a parallel but proves nothing.
Vs. 28 Οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ὁ Χριστός, ἀλλ’ ὅτι Ἀπεσταλμένος εἰμὶ ἔμπροσθεν ἐκείνου. The last word here does not refer to Χριστός but to a more remote subject, Jesus. Comp. 1:18, 33; 5:11, 39.
Vs. 29 Comp. Matt 9:15 (Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34); Matt 25:1 in answer to the disciples of John. They would recognize their master’s metaphor. νυμφίος not ὁ νυμφίος. ‘He that has the bride is the bridegroom; I am not a bridegroom.’
ὁ δὲ φίλος τοῦ νυμφίου To be distinguished from the οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ νυμφῶνος (Matt 9:15; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34). This is a translation of the Hebrew phrase ‘the friend or companion of the bridegroom’ who conducted all the preliminaries of the marriage, the betrothals etc. on behalf of the bridegroom (see John Lightfoot, I, p. 586). See Buxtorf, s.v. p. 2536.
Hence the propriety of the metaphor. John the Baptist is the φίλος. He arranges the preliminaries of the marriage. The disciples of Jesus are οἱ υἱοί, the guests and friends at the feast. See especially the illustration in Buxtorf l.c. The matrimonial contract between God and his people, taken from the law of Moses. The first one is torn up and new one made.
ἑστηκώς An attitude of expectation or of attention. 1 Cor 16:13—stand on the alert.
καὶ ἀκούων αὐτοῦ The exact point in time, whether on the approach or at the feast, is not clear, and it is not a matter of consequence.
χαρᾷ χαίρει See Lobeck, Panal. p. 524.
τὴν νύμφην νυμφίος A coincidence of exegesis with Rev 18:23. It is worth noticing too that the Church is spoken of as the bride only here and in Rev 21:2, 9, 17, though it is implied in the metaphor of the bridegroom elsewhere (e.g. Matt l.c.) and even expressed in other terms (e.g. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25sq. In the first of these passages Paul is the friend of the bridegroom). For the spiritual significance of the voice of the bridegroom, see Rev 22:21.
On ἡ χαρά See 15:11; 17:13; comp. Phil 2:2.
Vss. 31-32 The same difficulty confronts us here as in vss. 16ff. and the same answer perhaps must be given.
ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν καὶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαλεῖ is of the earth. This is all that can be said of him. There is an end of it. Comp. John 19:22—Ὃ γέγραφα, γέγραφα. The A.V. has tried to relieve the expression from what seemed to be tautological, but which was really deliberately emphatic.
Observe the parallelism which brings out the emphasis:
ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς
ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐρχόμενος
ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν
πάντων ἐστίν
ἐκ τῆς γῆς
ὃ ἑώρακεν καὶ ἤκουσεν
λαλεῖ
τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ
Vs. 34 ἐκ μέτρου δίδωσιν τὸ Πνεῦμα See Col 1:19—πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα. Spiritus sanctus non habitant super prophetas nisi nemsma(?) quadrans.