John:3:1-21
rwp@John:3:1 @{Now} (\de\). Songs:often in John \de\ is explanatory and transitional, not adversative. Nicodemus is an instance of Christ's knowledge of men (2:25|) and of one to whom he did trust himself unlike those in strkjv@2:24|. As a Pharisee "he belonged to that party which with all its bigotry contained a salt of true patriotism and could rear such cultured and high-toned men as Gamaliel and Paul" (Marcus Dods). {Named Nicodemus} (\Nikodmos onoma\). Same construction as in strkjv@1:6|, "Nicodemus name to him." Songs:Revelation:6:8|. It is a Greek name and occurs in Josephus (_Ant_. XIV. iii. 2) as the name of an ambassador from Aristobulus to Pompey. Only in John in N.T. (here, strkjv@7:50; strkjv@19:39|). He was a Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin, and wealthy. There is no evidence that he was the young ruler of strkjv@Luke:18:18| because of \archn\ (ruler) here.
rwp@John:3:2 @{The same} (\houtos\). "This one." {By night} (\nuktos\). Genitive of time. That he came at all is remarkable, not because there was any danger as was true at a later period, but because of his own prominence. He wished to avoid comment by other members of the Sanhedrin and others. Jesus had already provoked the opposition of the ecclesiastics by his assumption of Messianic authority over the temple. There is no ground for assigning this incident to a later period, for it suits perfectly here. Jesus was already in the public eye (2:23|) and the interest of Nicodemus was real and yet he wished to be cautious. {Rabbi} (\Rabbei\). See on ¯1:38|. Technically Jesus was not an acknowledged Rabbi of the schools, but Nicodemus does recognize him as such and calls him "My Master" just as Andrew and John did (1:38|). It was a long step for Nicodemus as a Pharisee to take, for the Pharisees had closely scrutinized the credentials of the Baptist in strkjv@1:19-24| (Milligan and Moulton's _Comm_.). {We know} (\oidamen\). Second perfect indicative first person plural. He seems to speak for others of his class as the blind man does in strkjv@9:31|. Westcott thinks that Nicodemus has been influenced partly by the report of the commission sent to the Baptist (1:19-27|). {Thou art a teacher come from God} (\apo theou elluthas didaskalos\). "Thou hast come from God as a teacher." Second perfect active indicative of \erchomai\ and predicative nominative \didaskalos\. This is the explanation of Nicodemus for coming to Jesus, obscure Galilean peasant as he seemed, evidence that satisfied one of the leaders in Pharisaism. {Can do} (\dunatai poiein\). "Can go on doing" (present active infinitive of \poie\ and so linear). {These signs that thou doest} (\tauta ta smeia ha su poieis\). Those mentioned in strkjv@2:23| that convinced so many in the crowd and that now appeal to the scholar. Note \su\ (thou) as quite out of the ordinary. The scorn of Jesus by the rulers held many back to the end (John:12:42|), but Nicodemus dares to feel his way. {Except God be with him} (\ean m i ho theos met' autou\). Condition of the third class, presented as a probability, not as a definite fact. He wanted to know more of the teaching accredited thus by God. Jesus went about doing good because God was with him, Peter says (Acts:10:38|).
rwp@John:3:3 @{Except a man be born anew} (\ean m tis gennthi anthen\). Another condition of the third class, undetermined but with prospect of determination. First aorist passive subjunctive of \genna\. \Anthen\. Originally "from above" (Mark:15:38|), then "from heaven" (John:3:31|), then "from the first" (Luke:1:3|), and then "again" (\palin anthen\, strkjv@Galatians:4:9|). Which is the meaning here? The puzzle of Nicodemus shows (\deuteron\, verse 4|) that he took it as "again," a second birth from the womb. The Vulgate translates it by _renatus fuerit denuo_. But the misapprehension of Nicodemus does not prove the meaning of Jesus. In the other passages in John (3:31; strkjv@19:11,23|) the meaning is "from above" (\desuper\) and usually so in the Synoptics. It is a second birth, to be sure, regeneration, but a birth from above by the Spirit. {He cannot see the kingdom of God} (\ou dunatai idein tn basileian tou theou\). To participate in it as in strkjv@Luke:9:27|. For this use of \idein\ (second aorist active infinitive of \hora\) see strkjv@John:8:51; strkjv@Revelation:18:7|.
rwp@John:3:4 @Being old (\gern n\). Nicodemus was probably familiar with the notion of re-birth for proselytes to Judaism for the Gentiles, but not with the idea that a Jew had to be reborn. But "this stupid misunderstanding" (Bernard) of the meaning of Jesus is precisely what John represents Nicodemus as making. How "old" Nicodemus was we do not know, but surely too old to be the young ruler of strkjv@Luke:18:18| as Bacon holds. The blunder of Nicodemus is emphasized by the second question with the \m\ expecting the negative answer. The use of \deuteron\ adds to the grotesqueness of his blunder. The learned Pharisee is as jejune in spiritual insight as the veriest tyro. This is not an unheard of phenomenon.
rwp@John:3:5 @{Of water and the Spirit} (\ex hudatos kai pneumatos\). Nicodemus had failed utterly to grasp the idea of the spiritual birth as essential to entrance into the Kingdom of God. He knew only Jews as members of that kingdom, the political kingdom of Pharisaic hope which was to make all the world Jewish (Pharisaic) under the King Messiah. Why does Jesus add \ex hudatos\ here? In verse 3| we have "\anthen\" (from above) which is repeated in verse 7|, while in verse 8| we have only \ek tou pneumatos\ (of the Spirit) in the best manuscripts. Many theories exist. One view makes baptism, referred to by \ex hudatos\ (coming up out of water), essential to the birth of the Spirit, as the means of obtaining the new birth of the Spirit. If so, why is water mentioned only once in the three demands of Jesus (3,5,7|)? Calvin makes water and Spirit refer to the one act (the cleansing work of the Spirit). Some insist on the language in verse 6| as meaning the birth of the flesh coming in a sac of water in contrast to the birth of the Spirit. One wonders after all what was the precise purpose of Jesus with Nicodemus, the Pharisaic ceremonialist, who had failed to grasp the idea of spiritual birth which is a commonplace to us. By using water (the symbol before the thing signified) first and adding Spirit, he may have hoped to turn the mind of Nicodemus away from mere physical birth and, by pointing to the baptism of John on confession of sin which the Pharisees had rejected, to turn his attention to the birth from above by the Spirit. That is to say the mention of "water" here may have been for the purpose of helping Nicodemus without laying down a fundamental principle of salvation as being by means of baptism. Bernard holds that the words \hudatos kai\ (water and) do not belong to the words of Jesus, but "are a gloss, added to bring the saying of Jesus into harmony with the belief and practice of a later generation." Here Jesus uses \eiselthein\ (enter) instead of \idein\ (see) of verse 3|, but with the same essential idea (participation in the kingdom).
rwp@John:3:6 @{That which is born} (\to gegennmenon\). Perfect passive articular participle. The sharp contrast between flesh (\sarx\) and Spirit (\pneuma\), drawn already in strkjv@1:13|, serves to remind Nicodemus of the crudity of his question in strkjv@3:4| about a second physical birth.
rwp@John:3:7 @{Marvel not} (\m thaumasis\). "Do not begin to wonder" (ingressive first aorist active subjunctive with \m\), as clearly Nicodemus had done. In John the word \thaumaz\ usually means "unintelligent wonder" (Bernard). {Ye must be born anew} (\dei humas gennthnai anthen\). Jesus repeats the point in verse 3| (\dei\ and the infinitive instead of \ean m\ and the subjunctive) with \anthen\ (from above) only and not \ex hudatos\.
rwp@John:3:8 @{The wind} (\to pneuma\). In Greek \pneuma\ means either wind or spirit as _spiritus_ does in Latin (so also in Hebrew and Syriac). Wycliff follows the Latin and keeps spirit here and Marcus Dods argues for it. The word \pneuma\ occurs 370 times in the N.T. and never means wind elsewhere except in a quotation from the O.T. (Hebrews:1:7| from strkjv@Psalms:104:4|), though common in the LXX. On the other hand \pne\ (bloweth, \pnei\) occurs five times elsewhere in the N.T. and always of the wind (like strkjv@John:6:18|). Songs:\phn\ can be either sound (as of wind) or voice (as of the Spirit). In simple truth either sense of \pneuma\ can be taken here as one wills. Tholuck thinks that the night-wind swept through the narrow street as Jesus spoke. In either case the etymology of \pneuma\ is "wind" from \pne\, to blow. The Spirit is the use of \pneuma\ as metaphor. Certainly the conclusion "of the Spirit" is a direct reference to the Holy Spirit who works his own way beyond our comprehension even as men even yet do not know the law of the wind.
rwp@John:3:9 @{How?} (\Ps;\) Nicodemus is not helped either by the use of \hudr\ or \pneuma\ to understand \dei gennthnai anthen\ (the necessity of the birth from above or regeneration). He falls back into his "stupid misunderstanding." There are none so dull as those who will not see. Preoccupation prevents insight. Literally one must often empty his mind to receive new truth.
rwp@John:3:10 @{The teacher of Israel} (\ho didaskalos tou Isral\). The well-known or the authorized (the accepted) teacher of the Israel of God. Note both articles. {And understandest not these things?} (\kai tauta ou ginskeis;\). After being told by Jesus and after so propitious a start. His Pharisaic theology had made him almost proof against spiritual apprehension. It was outside of his groove (rote, rut, rot, the three terrible r's of mere traditionalism).
rwp@John:3:11 @{We speak that we do know} (\ho oidamen laloumen\). Jesus simply claims knowledge of what he has tried to make plain to the famous Rabbi without success. John uses \lale\ some 60 times, half of them by Jesus, very little distinction existing between the use of \lale\ and \leg\ in John. Originally \lale\ referred to the chatter of birds. Note John's frequent use of \amn amn\ and \leg\ (double emphasis). {And bear witness of that we have seen} (\kai ho herakamen marturoumen\). The same use of neuter singular relative \ho\ as before. Perfect active indicative of \hora\. He is not a dreamer, guesser, or speculator. He is bearing witness from personal knowledge, strange as this may seem to Nicodemus. {And ye receive not our witness} (\kai tn marturian hmn ou lambanete\). This is the tragedy of the matter as John has shown (1:11,26|) and as will continue to be true even today. Jesus probably associates here with himself ("we") those who have personal experience of grace and so are qualified as witnesses. Note the plural in strkjv@1John:1:1f|. Bernard thinks that John has here read into the words of Jesus the convictions of a later age, a serious charge to make.
rwp@John:3:12 @{If I told} (\ei eipon\). Condition of the first class, assumed to be true. {Earthly things} (\ta epigeia\). Things upon the earth like \ta epi ts gs\ (Colossians:3:2|), not things of an earthly nature or worldly or sinful. The work of the kingdom of God including the new birth which Nicodemus did not understand belongs to \ta epigeia\. {If I tell you heavenly things} (\ean eip humin ta epourania\). Condition of the third class, undetermined. What will Nicodemus do in that case? By \ta epourania\ Jesus means the things that take place in heaven like the deep secrets of the purpose of God in the matter of redemption such as the necessity of the lifting up of Christ as shown in verse 14|. Both Godet and Westcott note that the two types of teaching here pointed out by Jesus (the earthly, the heavenly) correspond in general to the difference between the Synoptics (the earthly) and the Fourth Gospel (the heavenly), a difference noted here in the Fourth Gospel as shown by Jesus himself. Hence the one should not be pitted against the other. There are specimens of the heavenly in the Synoptics as in strkjv@Matthew:11:25ff.; strkjv@Luke:10:18ff|.
rwp@John:3:13 @{But he that descended out of heaven} (\ei m ho ek tou ouranou katabas\). The Incarnation of the Pre-existent Son of God who was in heaven before he came down and so knows what he is telling about "the heavenly things." There is no allusion to the Ascension which came later. This high conception of Christ runs all through the Gospel and is often in Christ's own words as here. {Which is in heaven} (\ho n en ti ourani\). This phrase is added by some manuscripts, not by Aleph B L W 33, and, if genuine, would merely emphasize the timeless existence of God's Son who is in heaven even while on earth. Probably a gloss. But "the Son of man" is genuine. He is the one who has come down out of heaven.
rwp@John:3:14 @{Moses lifted up the serpent} (\Muss hupssen ton ophin\). Reference to strkjv@Numbers:21:7ff.| where Moses set the brazen serpent upon the standard that those who believed might look and live. Jesus draws a vivid parallel between the act of Moses and the Cross on which he himself (the Son of man) "must" (\dei\, one of the heavenly things) "be lifted up" (\hupsthnai\, first aorist passive infinitive of \hupso\, a word not used about the brazen serpent). In John \hupso\ always refers to the Cross (8:28; strkjv@12:32,34|), though to the Ascension in Acts (Acts:2:33; strkjv@5:31|). Jesus is complimenting the standing and intelligence of Nicodemus as "the teacher of Israel" by telling him this great truth and fact that lies at the basis of the work of the kingdom of God (the atoning death of Christ on the Cross).
rwp@John:3:15 @{That whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life} (\hina pas ho pisteun en auti echi zn ainion\). Final use of \hina\ with present active subjunctive of \ech\, that he may keep on having eternal life (a frequent phrase in John, always in John \ainios\ occurs with \z\, 16 times in the Gospel, 6 in 1John, ageless or endless life, beginning now and lasting forever). It is more than endless, for it is sharing in the life of God in Christ (5:26; strkjv@17:3; strkjv@1John:5:12|). Songs:here \en auti\ (in him) is taken with \echi\ rather than with \pisteun\. The interview with Nicodemus apparently closes with verse 15|. In verses 16-21| we have past tenses constantly as is natural for the reflection of John, but unnatural for Jesus speaking. There are phrases like the Prologue (verse 19; strkjv@1:9-11|). "Only begotten" does not occur elsewhere in the words of Jesus, but is in strkjv@1:14,18; strkjv@1John:4:9|. John often puts in explanatory comments (1:16-18; strkjv@12:37-41|).
rwp@John:3:16 @{For so} (\houts gar\). This use of \gar\ is quite in John's style in introducing his comments (2:25; strkjv@4:8; strkjv@5:13|, etc.). This "Little Gospel" as it is often called, this "comfortable word" (the Anglican Liturgy), while not a quotation from Jesus is a just and marvellous interpretation of the mission and message of our Lord. In verses 16-21| John recapitulates in summary fashion the teaching of Jesus to Nicodemus. {Loved} (\gapsen\). First aorist active indicative of \agapa\, the noble word so common in the Gospels for the highest form of love, used here as often in John (14:23; strkjv@17:23; strkjv@1John:3:1; strkjv@4:10|) of God's love for man (cf. strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:16; strkjv@Romans:5:8; strkjv@Ephesians:2:4|). In strkjv@21:15| John presents a distinction between \agapa\ and \phile\. \Agapa\ is used also for love of men for men (13:34|), for Jesus (8:42|), for God (1John:4:10|). {The world} (\ton kosmon\). The whole cosmos of men, including Gentiles, the whole human race. This universal aspect of God's love appears also in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:19; strkjv@Romans:5:8|. {That he gave} (\hste edken\). The usual classical construction with \hste\ and the indicative (first aorist active) practical result, the only example in the N.T. save that in strkjv@Galatians:2:13|. Elsewhere \hste\ with the infinitive occurs for actual result (Matthew:13:32|) as well as purpose (Matthew:10:1|), though even this is rare. {His only begotten Son} (\ton huion ton monogen\). "The Son the only begotten." For this word see on ¯1:14,18; strkjv@3:18|. The rest of the sentence, the purpose clause with \hina-echi\ precisely reproduces the close of strkjv@3:15| save that \eis auton\ takes the place of \en auti\ (see strkjv@1:12|) and goes certainly with \pisteun\ (not with \echi\ as \en auti\ in verse 15|) and the added clause "should not perish but" (\m apoltai alla\, second aorist middle subjunctive, intransitive, of \apollumi\, to destroy). The same contrast between "perish" and "eternal life" (for this world and the next) appears also in strkjv@10:28|. On "perish" see also strkjv@17:12|.
rwp@John:3:17 @{For God sent not the Son} (\ou gar apesteilen ho theos ton huion\). Explanation (\gar\) of God's sending the Son into the world. First aorist active indicative of \apostell\. John uses both \apostell\ from which comes \apostolos\ (3:34; strkjv@5:36,38|, etc.) and \pemp\ (4:34; strkjv@5:23,24,30|, etc.) for God's sending the Son and \pemp\ more frequently, but with no real difference in meaning. All the Gospels use \ho huios\ in the absolute sense in contrast with the Father (Mark:13:32; strkjv@Matthew:11:27; strkjv@Luke:10:22|). {To judge} (\hina krini\). Final clause with \hina\ and the present (or aorist) active subjunctive of \krin\. The Messiah does judge the world as Jesus taught (Matthew:25:31f.; strkjv@John:5:27|), but this was not the primary or the only purpose of his coming. See on ¯Matthew:7:1| for \krin\, to pick out, select, approve, condemn, used so often and in so many varying contexts in the N.T. {But that the world should be saved through him} (\all hina sthi ho kosmos di' autou\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \sz\, the common verb to save (from \ss\, safe and sound), from which \str\ (Saviour) comes (the Saviour of the world, strkjv@4:42; strkjv@1John:4:14|) and \stria\ (salvation, strkjv@4:22| here only in John). The verb \sz\ is often used for physical health (Mark:5:28|), but here of the spiritual salvation as in strkjv@5:34|.
rwp@John:3:18 @{Is not judged} (\ou krinetai\). Present passive indicative. Trust in Christ prevents condemnation, for he takes our place and pays the penalty for sin for all who put their case in his hands (Romans:8:32f.|). The believer in Christ as Saviour does not come into judgment (John:5:24|). {Hath been judged already} (\d kekritai\). Perfect passive indicative of \krin\. Judgment has already been passed on the one who refuses to believe in Christ as the Saviour sent by the Father, the man who is not willing to come to Christ for life (5:40|). {Because he hath not believed} (\hoti m pepisteuken\). Perfect active indicative of \pisteu\, has taken a permanent attitude of refusal. Here \hoti m\ states the reason subjectively as the judgment of the Judge in any such case (\ho m pisteun\ already mentioned) while in strkjv@1John:5:10| \hoti ou pepisteuken\ gives the reason objectively (\ou\ instead of \m\) conceived as an actual case and no longer hypothetical. See strkjv@1:12| for \eis to onoma\ with \pisteu\ (believing on the name) and strkjv@1:14| for \monogenous\ (only begotten) and also strkjv@3:16|.
rwp@John:3:19 @{And this is the judgment} (\haut de estin h krisis\). A thoroughly Johannine phrase for sequence of thought (15:12; strkjv@17:3; strkjv@1John:1:5; strkjv@5:11,14; strkjv@3John:1:6|). It is more precisely the process of judging (\kri-sis\) rather than the result (\kri-ma\) of the judgment. "It is no arbitrary sentence, but the working out of a moral law" (Bernard). {The light is come} (\to phs elluthen\). Second perfect active indicative of \erchomai\, a permanent result as already explained in the Prologue concerning the Incarnation (1:4,5,9,11|). Jesus is the Light of the world. {Loved darkness} (\gapsan to skotos\). Job:(Job:24:13|) spoke of men rebelling against the light. Here \to skotos\, common word for moral and spiritual darkness (1Thessalonians:5:5|), though \h skotia\ in strkjv@John:1:5|. "Darkness" is common in John as a metaphor for the state of sinners (8:12; strkjv@12:35, 46; strkjv@1John:1:6; strkjv@2:8,9,11|). Jesus himself is the only moral and spiritual light of the world (8:12|) as he dared claim to his enemies. The pathos of it all is that men fall in love with the darkness of sin and rebel against the light like denizens of the underworld, "for their works were evil (\ponra\)." When the light appears, they scatter to their holes and dens. \Ponros\ (from \ponos\, toil, \pone\, to toil) is used of the deeds of the world by Jesus (7:7|). In the end the god of this world blinds men's eyes so that they do not see the light (2Corinthians:4:4|). The fish in the Mammoth Cave have no longer eyes, but only sockets where eyes used to be. The evil one has a powerful grip on the world (1John:5:19|).
rwp@John:3:20 @{That doeth ill} (\ho phaula prassn\). The word \phaulos\ means first worthless and then wicked (usually so in N.T.) and both senses occur in the papyri. In strkjv@5:29| see contrast between \agatha poie\ (doing good things) and \phaula prass\ (practising evil things). {Hateth the light} (\misei to phs\). Hence talks against it, ridicules Christ, Christianity, churches, preachers, etc. Does it in talk, magazines, books, in a supercilious tone of sheer ignorance. {Cometh not to the light} (\ouk erchetai pros to phs\). The light hurts his eyes, reveals his own wickedness, makes him thoroughly uncomfortable. Hence he does not read the Bible, he does not come to church, he does not pray. He goes on in deeper darkness. {Lest his works should be reproved} (\hina m elegchthi ta erga autou\). Negative final clause (\hina m\) with first aorist passive subjunctive of \elegch\, old word to correct a fault, to reprove, to convict. See also strkjv@8:46; strkjv@16:8|. To escape this unpleasant process the evil man cuts out Christ.
rwp@John:3:21 @{That doeth the truth} (\ho poin tn altheian\). See strkjv@1John:1:6| for this striking phrase. {Comes to the light} (\erchetai pros to phs\). Is drawn by the light, spiritual heliotropes, not driven from it. {That may be made manifest} (\hina phanerthi\). Final \hina\ with first aorist passive subjunctive of \phanero\. {They have been wrought in God} (\en thei estin eirgasmena\). Periphrastic perfect passive indicative of \ergazomai\. He does not claim that they are perfect, only that they have been wrought in the sphere of and in the power of God. Hence he wants the light turned on.
![[pBiblx2]](/img/pbiblx2_logo3.png){kind=logo}