HOLY TRINITY B: John 3:1-17 Exegetical Notes
Note that John 3 appears often in the
Revised Common Lectionary [RCL]
|
|
John 3:1-17 — 2 Lent A
John 3:1-17 — Holy Trinity B
John 3:13-17 — Holy Cross ABC
John 3:14-21 — 4 Lent B |
Related to the Trinity, in this text we have the
Son speaking; we have the image of the
Father “giving birth” or “begetting” through water and the
Spirit [πνεῦμα
pneuma], who is like the wind [πνεῦμα
pneuma] = “powered air.”
While nearly all Christians know John 3:16, how many are aware that it is part of Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus? Some interpreters end Jesus’ speech with v. 15 (e.g., NAB), and present vv. 16-21 as comments by the narrator. Most others extend Jesus’ speech to v. 21 (although note the footnote in NRSV). The difficulty in outline these verses is also indicated by the different sets of verses used in the RCL as listed above.
Usually when I have taught this text, especially the “born again” verses, I stress the need for us to take it
more seriously than many of the “born again” people. I’ll start with a detailed study of the phrase γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν (
gennēthēi anōthen = “born from above”), then offer briefer comments about other aspects of this text, and finally offer some quotes about the Trinity and other gods.
ΑΝΩΘΕΝ (
ANŌTHEN) -- FROM ABOVE / AGAIN
ἄνωθεν(
anōthen) -- Should it be translated “from above” (NRSV*, NAB, NJB, CEV*) or “again” or “anew” (RSV*, NEB, NIV*, TEV*)? [Those marked with * include the other translation in a footnote.]
The prefix ἀνα (
ana) (adverbial form: ἄνω
anō) generally means “up” in contrast to κατα (
kata,) which means “down”. As in ἀναβαίνω (
anabainō = “to go up”) in contrast to καταβαίνω (
katabainō = “to go down”). The adverb ἄνω (
anō) is used thrice in John all in reference to something “up”.
|
|
2:7 -- They filled the jars with water to the top.
8:23 -- “You are from below [ἐκ τῶν κάτω ek tōn katō], I am from above [ἐκ τῶν ἄνω ek tōn anō].
You are from this world,
I am not from this world [ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ek tou kosmou].
11:41 -- Jesus raised his eyes up and said. |
The suffix –θεν (
-then) generally means “(motion) from (a place)”. It is used in πόθεν (
pothen) in v. 8. ποῦ- (
pou-) = where? + -θεν (
-then) = from—“You do not know
from where the Spirit comes.”
So, most literally, ἄνωθεν(
anōthen) means “from (what is) up”. Besides its use in our text (vv. 3 & 7), it always has the sense “from (what is) up” in John.
|
|
3:31 -- The one coming from above is above [ἐπάνω epanō] all; the one being from the earth is from the earth and speaks from the earth. The one coming from heaven is above [ἐπάνωepanō] all.
19:11 -- You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.
19:23 -- The garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. |
In English we have the phrase “from the top,” e.g., a music director says, “Let’s take it from the top,” which means: “start from the beginning” or “do over”. So ἄνωθεν(
anōthen), literally, “from above” or “from the top,” can also mean, “again” or “anew.”
I think that as other terms are misunderstood in John, Jesus meant “from above” (= from God) and Nicodemus took it as “again” (= a second time).
ΓΕΝΝΑΩ (
GENNAŌ)= “GIVE BIRTH” (of females); “BEGET” or “BECOME A FATHER OF” (of males)
All the references to γεννάω
gennaō (“give birth”) in ch. 3 are
passive (vv. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). “to be born” or “having been born”. It is often helpful to try and change passive verbs into active ones. With active verbs the roles are clearer: “actor acts on an object.”
A BRIEF LESSON ON ACTIVE & PASSIVE VERBS
For those who understand the differences between active and passive verbs, you can skip these simple examples.
Examples of sentences with
active verbs:
“Jack builds a house.”
“Jill baked a pie.”
actors = Jack and Mary
actions = builds and baked
objects of the actions = house and pie
However, with passive verbs the order gets mixed up. Expressing the same sentences with
passive verbs (which uses forms of “to be” as helping verbs):
“A house
is built by Jack.”
“A pie
was baked by Jill.”
Even though the order of the words is changed, Jack and Jill are still the actors. Building and baking are the actions. House and pie are the objects of the actions.
Sometimes with passive verbs, the actor may
not be named. “A house is built.” “A pie was baked.” Figuring out that Jack and Jill are the actors would have to come from the context.
In order to avoid saying, and possibly misusing the name of God, a “divine passive” is often used in the Old Testament. E.g., “Israel was rescued from Egypt” rather than “The LORD rescued Israel from Egypt.”
As my grammar check reminds me, it is better to rephrase passive sentences into active ones. For instance, the passive: Jesus was born of Mary, could be rephrased actively, Mary gave birth to Jesus.
BACK TO JOHN 3 & APPLYING THIS LESSON
This brief lesson in English grammar is important for understanding the phrase: “You must be born from above.” This is a passive sentence. “You” is the object of the actions (not the actor). “Giving birth” or “begetting” is the act, but the “actor” is not named.
The same verb, γεννάω
gennaō, is used in John 1:12-13 where the “actor” is clearly defined: “Whoever received him [the Word who was in the world], he gave to them the right to become children of God, to those who believed in his name, who not from blood nor from desires of the flesh nor from desires of a man, but from God they
were born.”
Rephrasing the last four words with an active verb, we could have: “God gave birth to them”; or “God begot them” or “God became their father (/mother)”. In either case, God is the “actor,” giving birth/begetting is the “action,” and they (or we) are the objects of the actions. We can assume that God is also the actor in our verses.
Being born from above is not something we do. We are not the “actors”. It is something done to us (by God). In a similar way, being born the first time was not something we did. Our physical births were caused by powers far beyond our infantile abilities and understanding. Being born is something that happens to us from powers outside of ourselves.
My complaint with some of the “born again” emphasis is that it often is presented as something we do. There may be specific steps one takes to become born again. There may be a prayer one must pray to be born again. We need to take the text more seriously than they. Both the grammar and the imagery of birth indicate that it is something God (the one “from above”) does to or for us. Just as we were passive recipients of our first births—although it made a profound difference in our lives; so, I believe that we are passive recipients of this “birth from above”—although it makes a profound difference in our lives.
BIRTH AS STATUS
Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh write about the importance of birth in
Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John.
|
|
It is critical to recognize that the topic here is birth. Birth status was the single, all-important factor in determining a person’s honor rating. Ascribed honor, the honor derived from one’s status at birth, was simply a given. It usually stayed with a person for life. ... To be born over again, born for a second time (one meaning of anōthen), however unthinkable that event might be, would alter one’s ascribed honor status in a very fundamental way. A new ascribed honor status would derive from a new birth.
Thus, a second birth, especially if it differed substantially in honor level from the first birth, would be a life-changing event of staggering proportions. [p. 82] |
Then they comment specifically about the transformation indicated in our text:
|
|
To be born “from above”—that is, to be born of the sky, of the realm of God—is to belong to that realm, to become a veritable child of God. This, of course, is to acquire an honor status of the very highest sort. ... Thus, whatever honor status a person might have in Israelite society, being born “from above” would re-create that person at a whole new level. In addition, since all children of the same father share that father’s honor status, differences in status among “the children of God” obviously disappear, except for the firstborn. [p. 82] |
The early church—and some present day churches—capture a bit of this “equal status” by the use of “brothers and sisters” to refer to fellow believers.
NICODEMUS AS SYMBOL
Craig R. Koester in
Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community takes Nicodemus as a symbolic and representative figure. Note that although Nicodemus seemingly comes alone, he speaks for others: “
We know” [v. 2].
Similarly, Jesus suddenly changes from “I” and (singular) “you” to “we” and (plural) “you” in vv. 11-12. John presents this as more than just a conversation between two people.
Nicodemus may represent: (1) The Pharisees—the upright, law-abiding, obedient, religious Jews. (2) Those who believe in Jesus because of the signs he performed (see 2:23). (3) All humanity (ἄνθρωπος
anthrōpos of vv. 1, 4, 19 -- it is also used twice in the verse just before our text -- 2:25): “[Jesus] had no need for anyone to testify about
humanity, for he, himself, knew what was in
humanity.” Through Nicodemus we can also learn a little about what is in humanity.
DARKNESS (NIGHT) AND LIGHT DICHOTOMY
While I have often assumed that Nicodemus came “at night” (v. 2) because of fear (compare 19:38-39), Koester suggests that “at night” is a symbol of darkness—a symbol picked up later in the text (but not part of our lesson—vv. 19-21). If Nicodemus represents humanity—the world in darkness, then does his coming to Jesus indicate his coming to the light, or does his ignorance and misunderstanding keep him “in the dark” about Jesus? In neither of the other references to Nicodemus is he called a believer or disciple (7:50; 19:39 -- where he helps Joseph of Arimathea, “who was a disciple of Jesus,” prepare Jesus’ body for burial.)
Either way, his “darkness” is unsettling. He was a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews, so we must assume that he lived a moral life, obedient to the Mosaic law. There is no reason to think that he was guilty of the crimes more likely to be associated with darkness: murder, theft, adultery, etc. 2 Esdras 14:20-22 describes the law as the light that illuminates the right path in the dark world. However, if Nicodemus is a “law-abiding” Pharisaic Jew, then “darkness” is no longer defined by disobeying the Law. If Nicodemus represents “every person,” then what is true for him is true for all people. Being in light or darkness is revealed by one’s response to Jesus, not one’s morality. (Although being in a right relationship to Jesus will result in God-pleasing acts -- 3:21.) Perhaps what Nicodemus teaches us about humanity is that even the most moral people can still be in the dark about their relationship with Jesus.
A second lesson given by Wes Howard-Brook (
Becoming Children of God,) is: “Nicodemus apparently hopes he can continue as a secret believer, visiting Jesus at night. But the challenge of the fourth gospel is to walk in the light, to make a commitment to a counter community that is so permeated by newness that it is as if one were starting life from scratch, born again (or from above).” (p. 88)
KINGDOM OF GOD
The phrase “kingdom of God” only occurs in John 3:5 & 7. “Kingdom” also occurs twice in 18:36 where Jesus states: “My
kingdom is not of this world [ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου
ek tou kosmou]. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my
kingdom is from another place [ἐντεῦθεν
enteuthen].”
In our text, the kingdom is something one is able “to see” and “to enter”, which can lead to the mistaken notion of “kingdom” as a place, rather than God’s power. Those enlightened by Jesus are able to “see” God’s power in their lives and in the world. They realize and believe that they are living in and by the power of God—something that those in the dark can’t see.
THE PLACE WHERE ONE IS FROM
One of the themes of John is one’s origins. I’ve already mentioned the suffix -θεν (‑
then) as meaning “from”—a meaning repeated in the verse quoted above about the kingdom “from another place”. The participle ἐκ (
ek) can have the same meaning, like “my kingdom is not
of this world” [18:36]. The origins of Jesus’ kingdom does not come
from or
out of this world.
This is the question Pilate asks Jesus in 19:9: “Where do you come from?” The “origins” of Jesus is a theme throughout the gospel. From chapter 1, we, the readers know that Jesus—the Word—was with God and was God. Jesus came from God. That is the true confession of faith for John. In contrast, we have Nathanael stating, “From [ἐκ
ek] Nazareth, is anything good able to come?” Three other times questions about Jesus’ place of origin are asked: 7:27-28; 8:14; and 9:29-30 (all using πόθεν
pothen).
The second time Nicodemus appears (7:50), this issue is raised by others, “Search and you will see that
from [ἐκ
ek] Galilee a prophet does not arise” (7:52).
Where does Jesus come from? On one hand, the obvious, shallow answer is from Nazareth in Galilee, but that is not sufficient. For John, the deeper answer of faith is, “from God” or “the one who has descended from [ἐκ
ek] heaven” (3:13) or “from above” (3:31 -- both ἄνωθεν
anōthen and ἐκ
ek are used). [NOTE: When Nicodemus says that Jesus is a teacher having come
from God (3:2), it is the word ἀπό
apo not ἐκ
ek that is used.]
I think similarly, the answer to “Where do disciples come from?” may have two answers. One obvious, but shallow and insufficient answer is “Those who come to Jesus (like Nicodemus did). The deeper answer of faith is, “from above” [ἄνωθεν
anōthen] and “from [ἐκ
ek] water and spirit”. Or, perhaps another way of phrasing these answers: “I decided to follow Jesus,” is the shallow and insufficient answer; whereas “God chose, claimed, and made me a child of God,” is a more accurate rendering of “having been born from above.” Or, when asked if we have been born again, we can assuredly answer, “Yes, I’ve been baptized—born of water and the Spirit.” (Often that is not accepted as an adequate answer.)
This movement from inadequate understanding of faith to a more scriptural and orthodox understanding of faith has certainly been part of my growth from faith to faith and I think of many other people, too.
Malina and Rohrbaugh in
Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, build on the idea that one cannot usually aspire to a higher (social) level than where one is born. Jesus is able to return to God because that’s where he is from. However, those who have been “born from above,” are also able to return there, because that’s where we are now from.
Jesus’ says to Nicodemus: “The wind/spirit blows where it wishes. You (singular) hear its sound but you don’t know
from where it is coming and where it is going. This it is with everyone who has been born
from the Spirit.”
Malina and Rohrbaugh give this brief commentary: “How the new Spirit-birth happens is not specified. It is simply said to be as mysterious as the wind was to ancient people.”
Beyond the mysteriousness of the wind/Spirit, could Jesus be implying that Nicodemus, because he is still in the dark—not yet enlightened by Jesus—is unable to comprehend the origins of the wind/spirit or of true believers? Both come from God. I’m afraid that as long as people consider Christianity as something we do—living obedient moral lives, coming to Jesus, making a decision to follow Jesus—they will be in the dark about the true origins of our faith and also our deeds, which are to be done “in God” (3:21).
As long as people consider Christianity as something we do, are they not trying to control the Spirit—telling it where and where to blow?
THE SYMBOL OF WATER
Water is a major symbol in the opening chapters of John.
|
|
John baptizes with water (1:26, 31, 33).
Jesus has the purification jars filled with water (which become wine) (2:7, 9).
To enter the kingdom of God one must be born of water and spirit (3:5).
John baptizes where there is plenty of water (3:23).
The lengthy discussion and misunderstanding about living water with the Samaritan woman at the well (4:7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15). |
I think that the “water” in 3:5 needs to be read within this wider symbolism of water. Prior to this instance, water is connected with ritual washing (either John’s baptism, or the jars that Jesus used). A discussion about purification rites comes soon after our text (3:25).
The water in the purification jars is transformed by Jesus into wine. Immediately following this “sign,” Jesus enters the temple and drives out the animal sellers and money changers. Jesus indicates that the human-constructed temple will be replaced by the temple of his own body (after three days) (2:21). The Jewish rituals of purification are replaced and transformed by Jesus.
Then comes our text where that which comes from [ἐκ
ek] the flesh, needs to be transformed into that which comes from [ἐκ
ek] the Spirit. Our human acts of purification (even John’s baptism) are no longer sufficient. We need the transforming work that comes “from above,” either coming from Jesus or from the Spirit.
Christian baptism with water and Spirit (as opposed to John’s water baptism) is the act where God does the transforming in our lives. Baptism as an act of God for us—both with water at our baptisms and with daily dying and being raised through our repentance—keeps our lives properly oriented—as having come from God.
POLE-ISH THEOLOGY
In Numbers 21:9, we know the problem and solution:
|
|
PROBLEM = poisonous snakes on the ground who brought death
SOLUTION = look at snake up on a pole and live |
In John, we are given the solution
|
|
the Son of man on a pole who brings life |
Since the general Semitic meaning of the phrase “son of man” is “a human being,” we can make a parallel analogy with Numbers
|
|
SOLUTION = the human being on a pole who brings life
PROBLEM = human beings on the ground (who bring death upon themselves) |
Lucy once said to Charlie Brown, “Discouraged again, eh, Charlie Brown?” “You know what your whole trouble is? The whole trouble with you is that you’re you!”
Charlie asks, “Well, what in the world can I do about that?”
Lucy answers, “I don’t pretend to be able to give advice...I merely point out the trouble!”
The symbol of Jesus on a pole indicates that the problem with us is us—and that Jesus is the solution.
It may also be that “lifting up” Jesus could also be a spatial comment about that which is “above.” He is, in a sense, separated from the earth with his being “lifted up.”
Note also that putting the serpent on the pole did not get rid of the poisonous serpents on the ground. It didn’t keep people from getting bit. It did save people from dying from the bite. So, having the Son of Man lifted up on the pole does not get rid of the human sinfulness on the ground. People are still afflicted by sin, and by cancer, and by hangnails, etc., but we have the promise that by looking at Jesus on the cross, we will have life.
Wes Howard-Brook (
Becoming Children of God) comments on the “lifting up” image:
|
|
This is the first of three Johannine “lifting up” passages (8:28; 12:32, 34), parallel to the synoptic Passion predictions. The fourth gospel eschews the synoptic language of suffering and being put to death in favor of the Johannine “lifting up” to emphasize these positive, healing elements of the crucifixion that are in fact God’s “glory.” Rather than focusing on the evil of the executioners, the fourth gospel brings the readers’ attention to the voluntary, loving nature of Jesus’ movement toward Golgotha and beyond. (p. 91) |
The “lifting up” reinforces the intense love that God has for “the world” – the place that darkness dominates and that rejects exposure by the light.
ETERNAL LIFE
John 3:15 is the first time “eternal life” is used in the gospel. Every time the phrase is used in John, it is with a present tense verb—usually “have”. It is something believers have now, and perhaps should be translated “unending life”. It begins now and lasts forever. Just what is “eternal life”? O’Day (
John, New Interpreter’s Bible) writes:
|
|
“Eternal life” is one of the dominant metaphors in the Fourth Gospel to describe the change in human existence wrought by faith in Jesus (e.g., 3:36; 4;14; 5:24; 6:27; 17:4). To have eternal life is to live life no longer defined by blood or by the will of the flesh or by human will, but by God (cf. 1;13). “Eternal” does not mean mere endless duration of human existence, but is a way of describing life as lived in the unending presence of God. To have eternal life is to be given life as a child of God. To speak of the newness available to the believer as “eternal life” shifts eschatological expectations to the present. Eternal life is not something held in abeyance until the believer’s future, but begins in the believer’s present. [p. 552] |
LOVE
With the familiarity of John 3:16 and our varied uses of “love,” we probably don’t grasp the significance of that word in John or in this verse. Malina and Rohrbaugh writing about “love” and “hate” in John.
|
|
Two words nearly always assigned to internal states in our society are love and hate. To understand what they meant in the first-century Mediterranean world, however, it is necessary to recognize both their group orientation and their corresponding external expression. The term love, for example, is best translated “group attachment,” or “attachment to some person.” ... There may or may not be affection, but it is the inward feeling of attachment, along with the outward behavior bound up with such attachment, that love entails....
Correspondingly, hate would mean “disattachment,” “nonattachment,” or “indifference.” ... [. p. 87] |
Given this understanding, God’s
love means attaching himself to the world. God sent his Son. The Word became flesh. Love is not necessarily an inward emotion, but outward actions—a theme that reoccurs throughout this gospel.
CONCLUDING COMMENT ON THE TEXT
Wes Howard-Brook (
Becoming Children of God) concludes his comments on this section with these words:
|
|
For the fourth gospel, God’s love for the world cannot be separated form the community’s call to shine light into the places of darkness where evil continue to be practiced.
If Nicodemus is still listening, this speech has made all too clear what h must do to understand Jesus’ riddles about new birth and the blowing spirit. His position as Pharisaic ruler is antithetical to his supposed faith in Jesus as a teacher sent from God. No secret discipleship is allowed! Nicodemus and those on whose behalf he speaks must either participate openly in the Johannine mission or remain in the dark. (p. 93) |
Can we be bold enough to proclaim the same to folks whose ideas and practices of Christianity is inadequate? Who seek to remain on the sidelines?
QUOTES ON THE TRINITY
|
|
“To try to deny the Trinity endangers your salvation, to try to comprehend the Trinity endangers your sanity.” Martin Luther (I’ve had this in my notes, but I’ve never found where Luther actually said it.) |
|
|
“Bring me a worm that can comprehend a human being, and then I will show you a human being that can comprehend the Triune God!” John Wesley (I do not have a reference for this quote, either.) |
|
|
“There are probably a number of people who imagine that the idea of the Trinity was thought up by ivory-tower theologians who, typically, were making things more complicated than they needed to be and were obscuring the simple faith of regular believers. In fact, it seems that the process worked pretty much the other way around. Practicing believers and worshipers were driven by their experiences of God’s activity to the awareness that God related in several different ways to the creation. . . . Thus what these believers came to insist upon was that God had to be recognized as being in different forms of relationship with the creation, in ways at least like different persons, and that all these ways were divine, that is, were of God. Yet there could not be three gods. God, to be the biblical God and the only God of all, had to be one God. This complex and profound faith was then handed over for the theologians to try and make more intelligible. They have been trying ever since.” Frederick Houk Borsch, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles |
Brian Stoffregen
Faith Lutheran Church, 2215 S 8th Avenue, Yuma, AZ 85364
e-mail:
brian.st...@gmail.com
