Ch. 3:1-21. CHRIST’S CONVERSATION WITH NICODEMUS.--THE ARGUMENT FROM
MIRACLES: ITS STRENGTH AND ITS WEAKNESS ILLUSTRATED (verse 2).--CHRIST
MORE THAN A TEACHER, A LIFE-GIVER; CHRISTIANITY MORE THAN A SYSTEM
OF TRUTH, A NEW LIFE.--THE CONDITION OF SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE, A NEW
SPIRITUAL LIFE.--THE SPIRIT OF SKEPTICISM ILLUSTRATED (verse 4).--THE
TRUE METHOD OF ANSWERING SKEPTICISM, NOT BY ARGUMENT, BUT BY PERSONAL
ASSURED CONVICTION (verse 5).--THE TWO CONDITIONS OF ENTERING CHRIST’S
KINGDOM: A NEW SPIRITUAL LIFE, AND A PUBLIC CONFESSION OF CHRIST (verse
5).--LIKE BEGETS LIKE.--THE KNOWN AND THE UNKNOWN IN THEOLOGY (verses
8, 11): THE KNOWN, WHAT TAKES PLACE ON EARTH; THE UNKNOWN, WHAT TAKES
PLACE IN HEAVEN.--THE IGNORANCE OF THE WISE; HE IS NO MASTER WHO HAS
NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE NEW BIRTH.--THE POWER OF SALVATION:
A CRUCIFIED CHRIST; THE CONDITION OF SALVATION: FAITH IN HIM; THE
CONDEMNATION OF SINNERS: THEIR LOVE OF DARKNESS AND REJECTION OF THE
LIGHT.
Christ’s interview with Nicodemus is described only by John. It
occurred immediately after the events described in the preceding
chapter, and before Christ had inaugurated his missionary labors,
which he did not begin till the imprisonment of John the Baptist (Mark
1:14). In studying this passage, the following considerations will
prevent the student from falling into the perplexities and errors into
which some learned and orthodox commentators have fallen. (1) The
conversation was had at the commencement of Christ’s ministry, before
he had explained, even to his own disciples, the principles of his
kingdom; we cannot therefore safely assume that Nicodemus was familiar
with those principles, nor can we interpret Christ’s teachings here by
the later apostolic teaching, except in so far as that was developed
from this as from a germ. (2) Nicodemus was a Pharisee, therefore a
formalist, and pre-eminently a Jew. We may safely assume that Christ’s
object was in part to correct Jewish and Pharisaic errors, and
our first object must be to understand, if we can, Nicodemus’
understanding of our Lord. (3) There is no evidence that John was
present at this interview; and it is not probable that we have a full
verbatim report of it. The structure of the narrative indicates that
only so much of the conversation is reported as was necessary to make
clear Christ’s discourse founded thereon.
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus,[85] a
ruler of the Jews:
[85] ch. 7:50, 51; 19:39.
=1. There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus.= Of Nicodemus
nothing is known except what John tells us. He is not mentioned by the
other Evangelists; and subsequent traditions are untrustworthy. There
is a Nicodemus referred to in the Talmud; but there is nothing to
identify him with this one, for the name was common among the Jews.
The only incidents related of him are this conference, his protest
against condemning Jesus unheard (ch. 7:50-52), and his participation
with Joseph of Arimathea in the burial of Jesus (ch. 19:39). There is
a spurious Gospel of Nicodemus, the author of which is, however,
unknown. The designation of him here as a _ruler of the Jews_
indicates that he was one of the Sanhedrim, and this indication is
confirmed by ch. 7:50. On the character of the Pharisees, see Matt.
3:7, note. Among them there were some pure and honest souls, sincere
but not courageous seekers after the truth (Mark 12:28-34; 15:43; Acts
5:34-39; 15:5; Phil. 3:5); to this class of the Pharisees Nicodemus
seems to have belonged.
[Illustration: A MODERN JEWISH RABBI.]
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him,
Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God,
for[86] no man can do these miracles that thou doest,
except God[87] be with him.
[86] ch. 9:16, 33; Acts 2:22.
[87] Acts 10:38.
=2. The same came to Jesus by night.= Why _by night_? The reason
generally assumed is fear of the Jews; but this is not asserted by the
Evangelist, and at this time there had not been developed any
pronounced hostility on the part of the Judeans to Jesus. Nicodemus
may have had a natural reluctance to commit himself to an unknown
Rabbi, till he had learned more of his doctrine; he may have simply
sought a quiet and personal conversation, such as he could not obtain
in the busy day-time.--=Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher.= The
plural is not used here for the singular number; Nicodemus expresses
not merely his own personal conviction, but that of the Pharisees as a
class. That they did, even much later, recognize Christ’s superhuman
character and mission is clear from such passages as Matt. 12:23, 24;
John 9:29-34; 11:47, and this even when they resisted him most
bitterly.--=For no man can do these miracles=, etc. This is the
argument from miracles put in the tersest possible form. Comp. Acts
4:16, 17. And this is all that miracles prove, namely, the commission
and authority of Christ; they do not of themselves show his
_character_. Nicodemus then regards Christ as a _prophet sent from
God_; and John, who in ch. 1:6, etc., has drawn clearly the
distinction between the prophet and the Light and Life, reports in
this conversation with Nicodemus a discourse of Christ in which he
emphasizes the same distinction. Nicodemus impliedly asks to know what
_new doctrine_ Christ has to teach; Christ replies in substance that
the world needs not new doctrine, but _new life_. The key to the
understanding of this conversation is the contrast between the two
conceptions of religion, as a system of doctrine, and as a new and
spiritual life.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say
unto thee, Except[88] a man be born again, he cannot see
the kingdom of God.
[88] ch. 1:13; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:1; Tit. 3:5; James
1:18; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 2:29; 3:9.
=3. Verily, verily.= With Christ these words are a common precursor of
any especially weighty and solemn declaration (Matt. 5:18,
note).--=Except a man be begotten anew, he cannot see the kingdom of
God.= On the meaning of this sentence, it is to be observed that, (1)
The word (γεννάω) here rendered in our English version _born_, more
properly signifies the act of begetting. Here therefore Christ’s
language carries Nicodemus back to the very beginning of life. (2) The
word (ἄνωθεν) rendered here in our English version _again_, is
certainly mistranslated. It means either _anew, i. e., from the
beginning_ or _from above_. Both meanings are attached to it here by
the best scholars. According to the first definition, Christ simply
implies that the life must begin anew, that the character must be
rebuilt from the foundation, without however implying how; according
to the other idea, he indicates in the use of this word not only a new
but a spiritual and divine birth. The word is used in the first sense
in Luke 1:3, where it is rendered _from the very first_; in the second
sense in James 1:17; 3:15, 17, where it is rendered _from above_. It
is clear that Nicodemus understood it in the former sense merely, and
therefore I have so rendered it here. (3) The word rendered _see_
(ἰδεῖν) is not equivalent to _enter into_ (εἰσελθεῖν), as Meyer
interprets it. The declaration is explicit that a new spiritual life
is necessary, not only to enter into but even to form any correct
conception of the kingdom of God. And with this agrees the teaching of
Christ elsewhere (Matt. 13:14, 15), and of Paul (1 Cor. 2:9, 14, 15).
Christ thus declares to Nicodemus that he cannot even understand the
spiritual teachings of the new religion without first beginning a new
life. In other words, _a new spiritual life is the condition precedent
to a correct spiritual apprehension of Christ’s teaching_. It is
further to be observed that light is thrown on the meaning of this
declaration by a consideration of previous Rabbinical and of later
Apostolic teaching. The new birth was a familiar metaphor with the
Rabbis. They held that a Gentile in becoming a Jewish proselyte, and
submitting to circumcision and baptism, was born again. Old things
passed away; all things became new; it was even maintained that the
proselyte might marry his nearest kin without offence, because the old
relationships were annulled by his new birth. Christ employs this
metaphor, familiar to the Jewish Rabbi, without interpreting it, and
declares that no man, _Jew or Gentile_, could see the kingdom of God
without undergoing a change as radical. This truth, that a man may
bury his old life and begin a new one, with something of the freshness
and hope of youth, is also foreshadowed in the O. T. (Isa. 1:18, 19;
Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 11:19, 20; 36:26), and underlies the teaching of the
N. T. (Rom. 6:8; 8:3; 12:2; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Ephes. 2:1-8; Col.
3:9, 10; Titus 3:5); and the metaphor itself frequently occurs in the
teaching of the apostles (Rom. 8:15; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:3; 1 John
3:9).
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he
is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s
womb, and be born?
=4. How can a man be born when he is old?= It seems to me clear that
this question is asked in a spirit of irony. So Godet, Alford, Luther,
and others. Considering that the metaphor was a common one, as
Lightfoot has shown, and that the doctrine of a new life inspired from
God could not have been unknown to any devout student of the
O. T. (see references above), it is hardly possible to suppose
that Nicodemus took Christ literally. This is however Meyer’s
interpretation of the question; but it represents Nicodemus as not
only “a somewhat narrow-minded man,” but also as a grossly ignorant
and stupid one; and so, in truth, Meyer represents him throughout.
In the following verses (5-8), Christ answers Nicodemus’ threefold
question: _first_, by simply reasserting his declaration that no man
can see the kingdom of God unless he is born anew; _second_, by
declaring the nature of this new birth, as the commencement of a new
spiritual life, not of a new physical or fleshly life; and _third_, by
borrowing an illustration from nature to indicate the degree of
knowledge attainable by man on this subject; he can perceive the
results of the operations of the spirit of God, but he cannot trace
them to their source nor comprehend their laws.
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a
man be born of water[89] and _of_ the Spirit,[90] he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God.
[89] Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38.
[90] Rom. 8:2; 1 Cor. 2:12.
=5. Born of water and of Spirit.= Governing ourselves by the cardinal
canon, that we are to understand Christ as Christ expected his auditor
to understand him, it cannot be difficult to understand this
declaration. The Jewish proselyte, as a sign that he put off his old
faiths, was baptized on entering the Jewish church. John the Baptist,
employing the same symbolic rite, baptized Jew as well as Gentile, as
a sign of purification by repentance from past sins. The Sanhedrim
were familiar with his baptism, and had sent a delegation to inquire
into it (ch. 1:19, 25), and he had told them prophetically of the
baptism of the Spirit which Christ would inaugurate. Nicodemus then
would certainly have understood by Christ’s expression, “born of
water,” a reference to this rite of baptism, and by the expression,
“born of the Spirit,” a reference to a new spiritual life, which
however he could have only imperfectly apprehended. The declaration
then is that no man can enter the kingdom of God except by (1) a
_public_ acknowledgment and confession of sin, a _public_ putting off
of the old man and entering into the new; and (2) a real and vital
change of life and character wrought by the Spirit of God in the heart
of the believer. By the one act he enters into the visible and
external kingdom; by the other, into the spiritual and invisible
kingdom. That a _public_ confession and consecration is essential is
clearly indicated elsewhere in Christ’s teaching (Matt. 10:32, 33).
Observe the difference in phraseology here and in verse 3. He cannot
_see_ the kingdom of God, except his eyes are opened by the Spirit of
God; he cannot _enter_ it, except by a public and complete abandonment
of the old and a spiritual consecration to the new life (2 Cor.
5:14-16).
6 That[91] which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that
which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
[91] 1 Cor. 15:47, 49; 2 Cor. 5:17.
=6. That which is born of flesh is flesh.= The connection is this:
even if a man when he is old could enter again his mother’s womb and
be born, it would avail nothing; that which is born of flesh is always
flesh; only that which is born of the Spirit partakes of the Spirit of
God. (Comp. Rom. 8:5-9.) The declaration here, coupled with John’s
explicit declaration in ch. 1:14, that the Word was made flesh,
implies that the birth of Jesus was supernatural, though he narrates
none of the circumstances of that birth.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
=7. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.= The
original, by its construction, puts an emphasis on the word _ye_. And
it was this which surprised Nicodemus; not that men must be born
again, but that this necessity was laid on him, a child of Abraham,
and an honored ruler and teacher among the Jews. Observe too that he
says _ye_, not _we_. “The Lord did not, could not say this of Himself.
Why? Because, in the full sense in which the flesh is incapacitated
from entering the kingdom of God, He was not born of the flesh. He
inherited the weakness of the flesh, but his spirit was not like that
of sinful man, alien from holiness and God, and therefore on Him no
sentence hath passed; when the Holy Spirit descended on Him at His
baptism, the words spoken by the Father were indicative of past
approval, not of renewal. His obedience was accepted as perfect, and
the good pleasure of the Father rested on Him. Therefore He includes
not himself in this necessity for the new birth.”--(_Alford._)
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the
sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and
whither it goeth: so[92] is every one that is born of the
Spirit.
[92] 1 Cor. 2:11.
=8.= It is very difficult to convey the exact meaning of the original
of this verse; for in the original the same word signifies _wind_ and
_spirit_; there is thus a verbal felicity in the metaphor, a certain
play upon the word itself, which cannot be transferred from the Greek
into another language. As in nature we see the operation of the summer
breeze, that comes we know not whence, and goes we know not whither,
so in the kingdom of grace we see the effects of the Spirit of God, in
changes wrought in the individual character and in the community (Gal.
5:22), but are unable to comprehend the nature of the influence or the
laws according to which it operates. Christ by this metaphor certainly
indicates something more than the mere incomprehensibleness of the
Spirit’s work (comp. Eccles. 11:5); he indicates also the realm in
which we are to conduct our investigations, and that from which, by
the nature of the case, we are excluded. We can study to advantage the
_results_ of the Spirit’s operations; but all endeavors to know _how
He_ operates, what are the occult laws of _His_ being and work, are in
vain. A humble acceptance of this teaching would eliminate many
useless discussions from theology. Alford notices that the Greek word
used for wind (πνεῦμα) indicates the gentle breath of summer, not the
violent gale. “It is one of those sudden breezes springing up on a
calm day, which has no apparent direction, but we hear it rustling in
the leaves around.” Observe also in the language, _where it listeth_,
an indication of the fact that the divine operations are free,
unconstrained, and not answerable to man, nor subject to his control.
Comp. Rom. 9:15, 16.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these
things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of
Israel, and knowest not these things?
=9, 10. Nicodemus answered, ... how can these things be?= He is
sobered by the moral power and earnestness of the Lord, lays aside
cavilling, and asks seriously for clearer light. For similar effect of
Christ’s personal power on a skeptical nature, compare his conference
with the Samaritan woman (ch. 4:11 with 25), and with Pilate (ch.
18:33-38 with 19:9-12); compare also account of Paul before Festus and
Agrippa (Acts 26:31, 32). Observe that Christ does not overcome
Nicodemus’ skepticism by arguing against his objections, but by the
mere power of his own personal assurance of the truth.--=Thou art the
teacher of Israel; and dost thou not know these things?= There is
certainly in this declaration and question a touch of irony and of
rebuke. The necessity of a radical change of heart and life, for
Israelite as well as Gentile, is abundantly taught by the O. T. (see
ver. 3, note, for references); Nicodemus, as a professional teacher of
the religion of the O. T., ought not to have been surprised at
Christ’s reiteration of the truth; and the less because the doctrine
of a new birth and a public baptism as a symbol of it were taught by
the Rabbis to the Gentiles. The language here, _The_ teacher of Israel
(ὁ διδάσκαλος) indicates that Nicodemus was a well-known teacher;
perhaps that he prided himself on his pre-eminence.
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We[93] speak that we do
know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our
witness.
[93] 1 John 1:1-3.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not,
how shall ye believe if I tell you _of_ heavenly things?
=11, 12. We speak that we do know=, etc. Christ has spoken hitherto
only of that which is matter of common observation, viz., man’s need
of a new and divine life, and the apparent results of it in character
and conduct. He now speaks of that which is matter of personal
experience with Him, the new life in the soul. He now becomes not
merely an interpreter to facts that are patent, but also a _witness_
to facts that are not. Christian teaching, to be effectual, must
always be founded on personal experience of the truth taught (1 Cor.
2:12, 13).--=Earthly things ... heavenly things.= The connection of
these verses with the preceding interprets the contrast which Christ
here indicates. Nicodemus has impliedly asked for an exposition of
Christ’s system of truth. Christ has replied by saying that no man can
understand the truths that pertain to the kingdom of God unless he is
born again. This necessity of a radical change in heart and life in
order to appreciate divine things is an earthly fact, easily tested by
an observation of men; a striking evidence of it is afforded by the
question of Nicodemus in verse 4. He then immediately goes on to ask
how such a change can be effected. But this, the method of God’s work
in anew creating the heart, is a heavenly thing, not a matter of
observation; and Christ says, If you do not believe me when I tell you
a truth which you can easily verify by studying the earthly life of
men, what use is there in my telling you the secrets of God’s working,
the truth of which disclosure you have no means of verifying. Observe
the implication that the things which are earthly, literally, _upon
the earth_ (ἐπίγεία), belong to us to study and know, and the things
which are heavenly, literally, which take place _in the_ heavens
(ἐπουρανια), belong to the secret counsels and work of God, and do not
belong to us to investigate (Deut. 29:29). And yet by far the largest
proportion of theological conflicts have taken place respecting these
hidden things, concerning God’s eternal counsels not man’s present
duty.
13 And[94] no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that
came down from heaven, _even_ the Son of man which is in
heaven.
[94] Eph. 4:9, 10.
=13.= The key to the interpretation of this verse is to be found in
its context and connection. Christ says: How shall ye believe if I
tell you of things which take place in heaven; yet no one else can
tell you, for no one has ascended into heaven, and no one therefore
can report its secrets, except he who has descended from heaven and is
in continual communion with heaven. So interpreting it, observe, (1)
The declaration, _No one_ (not merely no man) _hath ascended up to
heaven_, means no living person; it does not militate against the
doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, nor imply an unconscious or
even an intermediate state. It is by the connection limited to those
living on the earth, for they alone could reveal the secrets of heaven
if acquainted with them. (2) _He that came down from heaven_ plainly
implies the pre-existence and supernatural character and origin of
Jesus Christ (comp. ch. 8:58). He contrasts himself with other men,
patriarchs, prophets, apostles, as the _only one_ who has descended to
earth from heaven. (3) _Which is in heaven_ indicates not merely, as
Meyer apparently interprets it, that Christ’s proper abode and home
were in heaven, but also that he maintained a vital and continuous
communion therewith, dwelling in the Spirit in heaven, even while in
the flesh upon earth. The Christian’s experience interprets, though it
does not fully measure, this mystery of the heavenly life in the flesh
(Phil. 3:20; Ephes. 2:6; Heb. 12:22).
14 And as[95] Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
[95] Numb. 21:9.
15 That whosoever[96] believeth in him should not perish,
but have eternal life.
[96] ver. 36; Heb. 7:25.
=14, 15. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness.= The
reference here is to the event recorded in Num. 21:4-9. The account
there should be carefully studied and compared with the spiritual
interpretation which Christ affords here. What species are there
indicated by the description “fiery serpent” is not very clear;
probably the title was given from the burning sensations produced by
their bite. Travelers describe a large serpent, said to abound in the
Arabian peninsula, full of fiery red spots and undulating stripes,
and regarded as one of the most poisonous of the serpent kind.
Excruciating heat and a burning thirst are among the symptoms produced
by the bite of this serpent. The brazen serpent described in Numbers
is thought to have been put upon a pole and carried throughout the
camp, so as to bring it within the sight of all the people. It was
carefully preserved and carried into the Holy Land, where it became an
object of idolatry and was destroyed in the reformation instituted
under Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:4). A Roman Catholic church at Milan,
Italy, however, still claims to possess the original brazen
serpent.--=Must the Son of Man be lifted up.= Why _must_? What is the
necessity? That question Christ does not answer here, nor, so far as I
can see, does the N. T. anywhere. It simply represents the atoning
sacrifice of Christ as a necessity, without explaining the grounds of
that necessity (comp. Luke 24:26). That it is in the divine economy of
grace an inexorable necessity is indicated even by the types of the O.
T. (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22). The phrase “Son of Man” was a common
Jewish designation for the Messiah. It would have been so understood
by Nicodemus (Matt. 10:23, note).--=Be lifted up.= Not only _on the
cross_, but _by the cross unto glory_. It is the cross which lifts up
Christ to be the object of adoration for the whole creation (Phil.
2:9; Rev. 5:9).--=Should not perish.= These words are wanting in the
best manuscripts. But the doctrine implied, that those who do not
believe will perish, is clearly taught in verse 16, from which it was
probably borrowed and inserted here by some early copyist.--=Eternal
life.= The same Greek words are rendered everlasting life in the next
verse (ζωὴν αἰώνιον). Comp. ch. 10:10. Eternal life is the life of the
soul which disaster cannot impair nor death destroy--a present
possession, not a future inheritance, except that it is a possession
which grows in value and importance in the future.
In studying Christ’s language in these two verses observe (1) That we
have Christ’s authority for the doctrine that the O. T. history is
intended to indicate, by types or object-teaching, the great truths of
the Gospel. This he assumes elsewhere in his ministry (Luke 22:15, 19,
20; John 6:49-51), and it is directly asserted by Paul (1 Cor. 10:11),
and underlies the Epistle to the Hebrews. The history of the brazen
serpent is then a parable of the Gospel; parabolically it points out
the way of salvation. (2) The serpent is throughout the Bible an
emblem of Satan, and its poison an emblem of the deadly and pervasive
effects of sin (Gen. 3:1, 14, 15; Deut. 32:33; Psalm 58:4, 5; 140:3;
Rom. 3:13; 2 Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9). It is a fitting emblem--slight in
its first wound, affecting the blood, the current and fountain of
life, pervading the whole frame with its subtle poison, a poison for
which there is no human remedy, and resulting in certain death. (3)
For the human soul, poisoned by sin, the end whereof is death (James
1:15), there is lifted up One who, though he knew no sin, was made in
the likeness of sinful flesh (2 Cor. 6:21), so that in him the enemy
himself was, as it were, nailed to the cross (Col. 2:15). Thus, as the
brazen serpent represented the fiery serpent, yet had in him not
poison but healing, so Christ represented sinful flesh, but had in him
no sin but redemption from the poison of sin in others. (4) The one
only condition of healing to the poisoned Israelite was that he _look
on_ the brazen serpent; and this simply as an act of obedient faith.
To this fact Isaiah had reference in his interpretation of the divine
condition of salvation, “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends
of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else” (Isaiah 45:22). So
here to “believe in him” is not to believe some doctrine about the
Messiah, but simply to trust in him, to look unto him (Acts 16:31;
Heb. 12:2). (5) The work of heralding the Gospel is the work of Moses
in the wilderness. It is a simple pointing to the Saviour, lifted up
that the sinner, by looking unto him, may be saved. The work of
instruction in the precepts of Christ and the principles of his
kingdom comes after, not before, salvation (Matt. 28:19, 20, note).
16 For God[97] so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have everlasting life.
[97] 1 John 4:9.
=16.= Some scholars, including Olshausen and Tholuck, suppose that
Christ’s discourse ends with the preceding verse, and that the
remainder, to verse 21, are added by John; but the grounds for such an
hypothesis seem to me quite insufficient, and the objections to it
quite conclusive. The grounds are (_a_) _That all allusion to
Nicodemus is henceforth dropped_. But Nicodemus is only introduced as
an interrogator, because his questions elicit the instruction of
Jesus; and only so much of his share in the conversation is recorded
as is necessary to make Christ’s language intelligible. (_b_)
_Thenceforth past tenses are used._ This might, however, well be the
case, even if the events were future, the discourse being prophetic.
But the events were not future, but past. The love of God, the sending
his Son into the world, the opening of the door of salvation through
Him--all this was already accomplished; and the passion is not
described in detail as an event past. (_c_) _The phrase “only
begotten” is said to be peculiar to John._ But Stier well replies that
John probably obtained the phrase from Christ. The objections to the
view which supposes that Christ ends the discourse at verse 15, and
that the rest is John’s are, (_a_) That the discourse breaks off
abruptly, if ended at verse 15, leaving Nicodemus in entire ignorance
of the way of salvation. The same necessity which, on this hypothesis,
led John to complete it, would much more have led Christ to complete
it. (_b_) There is nothing to indicate a break at verse 15; and to
suppose John guilty of adding to the discourse of our Lord his own
words, without indicating that it is an addition, is to accuse him of
imposture, if not forgery, and casts discredit over his whole
narrative. Lange, Stier, Meyer, Alford, all hold the discourse to be
our Lord’s to the end, at verse 21. The verse itself has been well
called by Luther “The little gospel,” for it embodies the whole gospel
in a single sentence. It declares the divine nature--love (1 John 3:9,
16); the nature of that love, a love unto self-sacrifice, the
sacrifice of his Only Son; the object of that love--the whole world;
the result of that love--the gift of the Messiah; the divine nature
of the Messiah--God’s only begotten Son; the object of that
gift--salvation; the sole condition of securing the benefits of that
gift--trust in the Saviour; the proffer of that salvation--to all that
believe in him; the effect of rejecting it--perishing; the effect of
accepting it--everlasting life. Observe, (1) that all attempts to
limit the meaning of the word _world_ (ὁ κόσμος) to the elect, or the
church, are inconsistent with the original and with other parallel
passages of Scripture. See particularly 1 John 2:2, and Matt. 13:38,
note; (2) the cause of the atonement is traced here not to the wrath
but to the _love_ of God, a fundamental fact often lost sight of in
presenting that doctrine; (3) in the original an emphasis is put upon
the word _so_, which is not preserved in the English version. The
wonder of the Gospel is not that God loved the world, but that he
loved it with such a love, a love which only the sacrifice of an only
begotten Son can interpret.
17 For God[98] sent not his Son into the world to condemn
the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
[98] Luke 9:56.
=17. Not ... to condemn the world.= The Jews believed (see _Lightfoot_)
that the Messiah would save Israel and judge the Gentile nations. It
was a Rabbinical interpretation of Isaiah 21:12, “The morning cometh
and also the night.” “It will be the morning to Israel (when the
Messiah shall come), but night to the (Gentile) nations of the world.”
This error Christ refutes, in this his first private preaching of
the Gospel, as subsequently in his first public preaching (Luke
4:25-27); he declares that he brings salvation to the whole world.
Alford notices the peculiar construction of the close of the verse,
not, That he might save the world, but, That the world through him
might be saved. “The free will of the world is by this strikingly
set forth in connection with verses 19, 20. Not that the Lord is not
the Saviour of the world, but that the peculiar cast of this passage
requires the other side of the truth to be brought out.”
18 He[99] that believeth on him is not condemned: but he
that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath
not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
[99] ch. 6:40, 47.
=18.= The connection is this: Though God did not send his Son into the
world to condemn the world, yet he is even now judging it and
condemning its unbelief, though not in the way Nicodemus had
anticipated; his mere presence is a judgment. His fan _is_ in his hand
(Matt. 3:12); for he that trusts in Christ is thereby taken out from
judgment, while he that rejects Christ condemns himself. The next
verse states the ground and the nature of this condemnation. The Light
has come into the world, and men by refusing the Light attest their
love of darkness; and it is for this, not for the darkness but for
their _love_ of it, that they are condemned.--=Is not condemned.= But
“is passed from death unto life” (ch. 5:24).--=Is condemned already.=
The sinner is condemned, not by Christ but by his own act; he is
_self-condemned_ (Tit. 3:11). Observe, that throughout the N. T. both
condemnation and salvation are represented as _present_ realities, not
as future possibilities. The last judgment _decides_ nothing; it
simply announces publicly the results of the judgment now forming.
_Life is the true judgment-day._--=Because he hath not believed.= Men
are not condemned for their deeds but for their desires. The way of
escape from the evil is provided and declined; and for this the soul
is condemned. Thus it is true that the Lamb of God taketh away the sin
of the world (ch. 1:29) and yet condemns the sinner (ch. 15:22),
because the condemnation is not for the past sin, but for the present
rejection of the Saviour from sin.--=In the name of the only begotten
Son of God.= The name is Jesus, _i. e._, Saviour, and was given to him
because “he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). To
disbelieve in that name is to reject that salvation. “The ‘only
begotten’ also here sets before us the hopelessness of such a man’s
state; he has no other Saviour.”--(_Alford._)
19 And this is the condemnation, that light[100] is come
into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light,
because their deeds were evil.
[100] ch. 1:4; 9:11.
=19. And this is the condemnation.= Not merely, This is the cause of
the condemnation; Christ has already stated that in the preceding
verse; he here states the nature of the condemnation. He that loves
darkness rather than light is given over to his own choice; this is
the sentence pronounced against him (Hosea 4:1-17; Rom. 1:28; Rev.
22:11).--=Men loved darkness rather than light.= Not merely _more_
than light; they chose darkness. For illustration of this deliberate
choice of darkness see Matt. 13:14, 15; 28:12-14; John 6:66; 12:10,
11; Acts 4:16, 17; 2 Tim. 4:10. This is not always, however, a
conscious and deliberate choice. See John 12:43; 2 Tim. 3:4.--=Because
their deeds are evil.= _Corrupting to others._ This is the force of
the Greek word (πονηρὰ), which is different from that rendered _evil_
in the next verse. The corrupting power of sin lies in its secreting
its evil character and purpose; hence it avoids the light; hence too
it is called in Scripture the power of darkness (Luke 22:53; Col.
1:13; Rev. 16:10). Observe the secret cause of unbelief here
indicated; men are willfully ignorant of the truth. It is not the
intellect, but the will which is perverse. “The source of unbelief is
immorality.”--(_Meyer._)
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light,
neither[101] cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be
reproved.
[101] Job 24:13, 17; Pr. 4:18, 19.
=20. Every one that practiseth evil.= _Worthless things_ (φαῦλα) not
as in the preceding verse, _things corrupting_. But corrupting include
worthless things, for they are not only worthless but worse than
worthless. The evil here characterized is parallel to the idle words of
Matt. 12:36, and it is opposed to the truth which is always fruitful in
goodness and love.--=Hateth the light.= It has been supposed by some
that there is in these words a covert rebuke of Nicodemus for coming to
Christ secretly by night. This seems to me improbable. Christ was not
accustomed to conceal his rebukes so deftly.--=Lest his deeds should be
reproved.= Not necessarily by words of condemnation, but by the mere
exposure of their worthlessness when brought to the light. See Luke
3:19, 20; John 8:8, 9; Compare Ephes. 5:11-13.
21 But he that doeth[102] truth cometh to the light, that
his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought[103]
in God.
[102] 1 John 1:6.
[103] John 3:21.
=21. But he that doeth the truth.= Man _practises_ the evil (πράσσω),
he _does_ the truth (ποιέω). Compare ch. 5:29, where the same
distinction is observed: “they that have _done_ good (shall come
forth) unto the resurrection of life, they that have _practised_ evil,
unto the resurrection of damnation.” “He that _practises_ (πράσσω) has
nothing but his _practice_, which is an event, a thing of the past, a
source to him only of condemnation, for he has nothing to show for it,
for it is also worthless (φαῦλον); whereas he that _does_ (ποιέω)
has his _deed_--he has abiding fruit; his works do follow
him.”--(_Alford._)--=Cometh to the light.= Not merely is willing and
desirous to come to the light, but is also enabled to come to it, and
to appreciate and receive it (Prov. 4:18; John 7:17). Observe that
throughout the N. T. truth is represented not merely as an abstract
philosophy to be intellectually received, but as a _life_ in harmony
with the eternal verities of God’s law and character. Thus the
incarnation is the fundamental doctrine of Christianity; as Christ is
himself emphatically the Truth, so every Christian must be in a
smaller measure an embodiment and incarnation of divine truth,
manifesting it less by his words than by his life. So, on the other
hand, Paul catalogues the vices of life, as the things which are
contrary to “sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:10). For an exemplification of
what it is to do the truth, see Psalm 15.--=That they are wrought in
God.= The Christian comes to the light, not for self-glorification,
but to glorify God; his desire is not to manifest the goodness in
himself, but the goodness in God which has triumphed over the evil in
himself (Matt. 5:16; 1 Cor. 15:10).
* * * * *
Ch. 3:22-36. FURTHER TESTIMONY FROM JOHN THE BAPTIST TO JESUS.--THE
OFFICE AND THE JOY OF THE MINISTRY--CHRIST CONTRASTED WITH HIS
HERALD--THE HUMAN CONFIRMATION OF DIVINE TRUTH--THE CONDITIONS OF
SALVATION--THE GROUND OF CONDEMNATION--THE DANGER OF AND THE DEFENCE
FROM ENVY.
22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into
the land of Judæa; and there he tarried with them, and
baptized.[104]
[104] ch. 4:2.
=22. After these things.= Not necessarily immediately after. There is
nothing to indicate how much time elapsed between the conversation
with Nicodemus and the events recorded in the latter part of this
chapter, except the note of time in verse 24.--=And baptized.= Christ
did not baptize (ch. 4:2), and the baptism could not have been in the
name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, for the Holy Ghost
was not yet given (John 7:39), that is, in such measure as to be the
common heritage of all disciples. The probable explanation of the
statement here and in ch. 4:1, 2, is that of Chrysostom: “Both parties
(John and the disciples of Jesus) alike had one reason for baptizing,
and that was to lead the baptized to Christ.”
23 And John also was baptizing in Ænon, near to Salim,[105]
because there was much water there: and they[106] came, and
were baptized.
[105] 1 Sam. 9:4.
[106] Matt. 3:5, 6.
24 For John[107] was not yet cast into prison.
[107] Matt. 14:3.
=23, 24. In Enon near to Salim.= The site of both places is uncertain.
For different hypotheses see _Smith’s Bible Dictionary_, article
_Ænon_. Jerome and Eusebius both affirm that Salim existed in their
day eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis near the Jordan. Van der
Velde found a Mussulman oratory called Sheyk Salim about six miles
south of Scythopolis, and two miles west of the Jordan. Dr. Hackett
seems to think this the more probable site. This places it near the
northern border of Samaria.--=Because there was much water there.=
Rather _many_ waters, _i. e._, many springs. Whether this spot was
chosen because the water afforded conveniences for baptizing, or
because the springs afforded conveniences for the pilgrims that
flocked in such numbers (Matt. 3:5) to the baptism of John, is
uncertain. Nothing respecting the form of baptism can be deduced from
this expression.--=For John was not yet cast into prison.= For
chronology of this period, see Matt. 4:12, note. The events recorded
in John, chaps. 2, 3, and 4, seem to have occurred between the
temptation and the first preaching of Jesus recorded in Matt. 14:3-12;
Mark 6:14-29. See notes there.
25 Then there arose a question between _some_ of John’s
disciples and the Jews about purifying.
26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi,
he that was was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou
barest[108] witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all
_men_[109] come to him.
[108] ch. 1:7, 15, etc.
[109] Ps. 65:2; Isa. 45:23.
=25, 26. Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples
and a Jew about purifying.= Not _the Jews_, but _a Jew_, an indication
that the difficulty, whatever it was, started with him. Various
conjectures have been proposed respecting the nature of this question.
The discussion of them is unprofitable. The fact of the question is
merely stated to explain how the instructions of John the Baptist came
to be given.--=And they came.= Some of the disciples of John
came.--=Said unto him.= What they said was evidently in the nature of
a complaint. “He who also was with thee,” said they, “as one of thy
disciples, has started off on a mission of his own, and is eclipsing
thee.” There was possibly a little personal jealousy in this
complaint. To their minds Jesus was but a disciple of the Baptist like
themselves.
27 John answered and said, A man[110] can receive nothing,
except it be given him from heaven.
[110] 1 Cor. 2:12, 14; 4:7.
28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said,[111] I am
not the Christ, but that I[112] am sent before him.
[111] ch. 1:20, 27.
[112] Luke 1:17.
=27, 28. A man can receive nothing except it be given him from
heaven.= Some, as Alford and Maurice, suppose that John refers to
himself, saying in effect: I cannot take more than God has given me,
viz., the mission of a herald; others, as Chrysostom, that he refers
to Jesus. This latter seems to me clearly the true view, which has
been abandoned, perhaps, from a reluctance to apply the principle
involved in it to Christ, that whatever power he possessed was not
independent but derived from the Father. The connection seems to me to
be this: “If he whom I baptized is drawing all men unto him and is
conferring on them spiritual gifts greater than I conferred, it is
because his spiritual power, heaven bestowed, is greater. For, in the
spiritual realm no man can usurp; no man can receive what heaven
does not give.” In other words, spiritual results are always an
all-sufficient justification for any spiritual work. No question of
its regularity, or of the authority or the right of the worker is to
be entertained.--=Ye yourselves bear me out.= He turns their words,
“to whom thou barest witness,” against themselves. See for his witness
Matt. 3:11, 12; John 1:20, 25-27.--=I am sent before him.= As a herald
before a king (Luke 3:3-6).
[Illustration: TRADITIONAL SITE OF ENON.]
29 He that hath the bride[113] is the bridegroom: but the
friend[114] of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth
him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice:
this my joy therefore is fulfilled.
[113] Cant. 4:8-12; Jer. 2:2; Ezek. 16:8; Hos. 2:19, 20;
Matt. 22:2; 2 Cor. 11:2; Ephes. 5:25, 27; Rev. 21:9.
[114] Cant. 5:1.
30 He must increase, but I _must_ decrease.
=29, 30. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom=, etc. In the East,
etiquette forbids any meetings between the bride and groom prior to
marriage. Often they do not even see each other. All communications
between them are carried on by one answering to our groomsman, and who
is designated as the friend of the bridegroom. See Matt. 25:1-13,
Prel. Note. To this custom John refers. The Church is the bride (Matt.
9:15; 25:1-13; Rev. 21:9); in a sense every individual Christian is
the bride (Jer. 3:14; Isa. 54:5); Christ is the bridegroom; every one
who brings Christ to his Church, or to the individual soul, is a
“friend of the bridegroom.” The practical lesson for us is that we are
to rejoice to be lost in the Master; to rejoice when our mission is
ended for the Church or the individual, and those whom we have been
teaching are able to say to us, as the Samaritans to the woman (John
4:42), “Now we believe, not because of thy saying; for we have heard
him ourselves, and know that it is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of
the world.” “I know scarcely any words in all the Scriptures which
have a deeper and diviner music in them than these, or which more
express all that a Christian minister and a Christian man should wish
to understand and feel; and should hope that some day he may
understand and feel as he who first spoke them did.”--(_Maurice._)--=Who
standeth and heareth him.= Stands ready to do the bridegroom’s
bidding.--=He must increase, but I must decrease.= This is with John
the Baptist a subject not for resignation, but for rejoicing. His
decrease in the increasing of Christ is the evidence that his work and
his faith have not been in vain. For him to live is Christ; hence the
more Christ and the less John, the greater his joy.
31 He that cometh from above[115] is above all: he[116] that
is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he
that cometh from heaven is above all.
[115] ch. 6:33; 8:23.
[116] 1 Cor. 15:47.
32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and
no man[117] receiveth his testimony.
[117] ch. 1:11.
=31-32.= It has been supposed by some critics that the discourse of
John the Baptist ends with the preceding verse, and that what follows
is a comment by the Evangelist, (so Bengel, Olshausen, Tholuck); and
by others that although it is in form the Evangelist’s report of the
Baptist’s words, it has been so transformed in the reporting that it
is in effect the Evangelist’s, (so Lucke and De Wette.) It must be
confessed that the style is far more like that of John the Evangelist
than like that of John the Baptist, so far as we have reports from
other quarters, of the latter’s discourses; but there is no indication
of any transition here from a report to a comment on it; and the
closeness of the connection in thought forbids the idea that any such
transition exists. I therefore (with Alford and Meyer) regard the
whole discourse as in substance that of John the Baptist, though
probably in phraseology largely that of the Evangelist.--=He that
cometh from above is above all.= The Baptist emphasizes the contrast
between Christ and himself. Christ, from above and above all, speaks
what he knows and has seen (comp. John 3:11); John the Baptist from
the earth, and possessing the earthly nature, can, like all other
human teachers, only declare the truth as it has come to him in his
earthly condition and as seen through the earthly atmosphere. The
teachings of Christ are the highest even in the Bible, for they are
free from that admixture of earthiness which belongs essentially to
all mere earth-born teachers.--=No man receiveth his testimony.= A
sorrowful comment (comp. ch. 1:11); but not literally true, nor is it
intended to be literally taken. This is evident from the next verse.
33 He that hath received his testimony hath set[118] to his
seal that God is true.
[118] 1 John 5:10.
34 For he[119] whom God hath sent speaketh the words of
God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure[120] _unto
him_.
[119] ch. 7:16.
[120] ch. 1:16; Ps. 45:7; Isa. 11:2; 59:21; Col. 1:19.
35 The Father loveth the Son,[121] and hath given all
things into his hand.
[121] Matt. 28:18.
=33-35. He that hath received his testimony hath sealed that God is
true.=--The seal was in ancient times, as in modern, attached to any
document in confirmation and attestation of it. John the Baptist
declares that whoever accepts heartily the testimony of Jesus Christ
becomes himself a confirmation of its truth to others, by his own
life. The meaning is interpreted by Matt. 5:14; and 2 Cor. 3:2. A
pregnant and suggestive metaphor; that we put the seal to God’s
testimony.--=He whom God hath sent.= The question of Christ’s relation
to the Father is not in issue here. John’s disciples complain that
Jesus teaches at all; John replies that the divine effects of his
teaching are the attestation of his divine ministry; and that having
been divinely sent, he can speak no other than divine words. Compare
ch. 7:16.--=For the Father giveth not the Spirit by measure.= Alford
sustains the addition of the English translators, _unto him_; to me it
seems, as to Meyer, quite arbitrary. The meaning is not, God has
distinguished Christ from all other teachers by his unmeasured gifts
of grace to him; but, when God gives he does not stint, nor measure,
nor parley, but gives abundantly more than we can ask or think (Ephes.
3:20); therefore, when he sends one into the world to reveal divine
truth, we are not to be afraid of his teaching, and to put limitations
upon and hindrances about him, lest he go astray. The truth that God
has given immeasurably more into the hands of his only begotten Son
than to any created being appears in the next verse, not in this. Our
English version destroys the climax, and makes ver. 35 little more
than a repetition of ver. 34.--=And hath given all things into his
hands.= Observe that throughout the N. T. the power and authority of
Christ is represented as derived from the Father, not as original or
independent of him. See for example, John 5:26; Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:9.
36 He[122] that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:
and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but
the wrath[123] of God abideth on him.
[122] ver. 15, 16; Hab. 2:4.
[123] Rom. 1:18.
=36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.= An
assertion, not a promise. The declaration is not that everlasting life
shall be given to him in the future as a reward for his act of faith,
but that faith at once inducts him into spiritual life, which is alone
everlasting. Compare ver. 18 above; Rom. 6:23; 1 John 3:2. Observe
what faith confers is _life_, _i. e._, the highest development and
activity of the whole being (John 10:10), the reverse being
death.--=He that believeth not the Son.= Two different Greek words are
translated in the two clauses of this verse by the English word
_believe_. The force of the original is impaired, if not destroyed, by
this mistranslation; but it is not easy to find in English the exact
equivalent for the distinction which is noted in the original. The
passage may perhaps be rendered, _He that hath faith in_ (πιστεύων
εἰς) _the Son hath everlasting life; but he that will not be persuaded
by_ (ἀπειθων) _the Son shall not see life_. Beware of considering
_Believe on the Son_ as equivalent to either _Believe correctly about
the Son_, or even _Believe the Son_. See Matt. 18:6, note.--=Shall not
see life.= Not only shall not have it, but cannot even comprehend it.
Spiritual life is only spiritually discerned, and faith is the first
condition of spiritual discernment. See ver. 3 and note.--=The wrath
of God abideth on him.= Remains, as something previously resting upon
him and not removed. See Ephes. 2:3.
[Illustration: SYCHAR.]