Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a
leader of the Jews. 2 He came to Jesus
by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come
from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of
God.” 3 Jesus answered him,
“Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God Jesus
answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God Jesus answered him, “Are you a
teacher of Israel
11 “Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we
know and testify to what we have seen; yet you do not receive our testimony. 12
If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can
you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? 13 No one has
ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14
And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the
Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have
eternal life.
16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his
only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have
eternal life.
17 “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the
world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through
him.
John 3:1-21 is the discourse of
Jesus with Nicodemus in Jerusalem, the first of the discourses in this gospel.
In Chapter 2, Jesus was one who turned water into wine at a wedding and one who
appeared in the courts of the temple to cleanse it. Now, we see Jesus as a
patient and learned teacher. The story is unique to this gospel. It begins with
a Pharisee, Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. In Tal Bab Taanith 20a we find a
reference to a Nicodemus who was wealthy before 70AD and living in Jerusalem. Some
do not consider it the same as the person in this text. He will appear again in
7:45-52 and 19:38-42. He seems to represent a Jewish leader and teacher who
slowly came to discipleship. We then learn that he came to Jesus by night. In
the context of John, this might mean he simply wanted to do so secretly.
However, with the contrast between light and darkness in this gospel, it may
hint at a deeper meaning. He is one emerging from the darkness of the world and
into the light provided by Jesus. Another way of looking at this is that the rabbis
recommended the study of the Torah at night, with rabbis often found prolonging
their discussions well into the night. Nicodemus begins affirming that we know
Jesus is a teacher who has come from God, a strong confessional statement. The
reason is that no one can do the signs (such persons do not merit trust from
Jesus in 2:23-25) that he does apart from the presence of God. At this point,
he sees in Jesus a distinguished rabbi. The response of Jesus is to say that he
truly tells him that no one can see the kingdom of God (used only twice in
John, both in this discourse) without being born from above. To find access to
the rule of God is of the very essence of salvation, says Pannenberg. The
salvation he mediates consists of fellowship with God and the related life,
which also embraces a renewal of fellowship with others.[1] In
Greek, this term means both "from above" and "again, anew."
Jesus is discussing the possibility of new life - being born anothen, which translates as both
"anew" and "above." This rebirth is both into a new time
(“anew”) and into a new place ("above"). By discussing the kingdom of
God here, Jesus offers yet another symbol of a new time (the age of God's
reign) and a new place (the kingdom as God's domain). While most translations
choose one of these meanings and then relegate the second meaning to a
footnote, it is more theologically correct to maintain this double meaning.
Nicodemus respond with the question of how one can be born after having grown
old. He wonders, sarcastically, whether one can enter into the womb of the
mother again. He stumbles on the notion of begetting. Yet, the notion of
eschatological children of God was present Judaism. He had opportunities, for
which see Isaiah 32:15, Joel 2:28-29, Ezekiel 36:25-26, Jubilee 1:23-25, IQS iv
19-21. He seems obtuse at this point, but in this gospel, such a response is
typical. People do not immediately understand the reference to spiritual
matters. This obtuseness or lack of understanding may also suggest the darkness
out of which Nicodemus has come, symbolizing the darkness of his Jewish
heritage. Jesus responds that he very truly tells him that no one can enter the
kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. We find the specific
coupling of water and Spirit in Ezekiel 36:25-26 and Isaiah 44:3. For John and
for the early church, the reference to water suggests baptism. The verse does
raise some interesting theological issues. Pannenberg points out that in Logos
Christology, alienation from the logos is something God overcomes by the
incarnation of the Logos. We do not receive the Logos unless we are born anew
of the Spirit of God.[2] In
a theological fine point, Pannenberg stresses that the gift of the Spirit and
regeneration occur together, as this passage suggests.[3] He
notes the close connection of regeneration as a work of the Holy Spirit in
baptism. He notes that John does not mention conversion, but rather, an
essential regeneration that occurs by water and the Spirit. [4] As
Jesus continues, he says that what is born of flesh (weak and mortal, not
sinful) is flesh. What is born of the Spirit (divine life and power) is spirit.
Given this essential difference, humanity cannot attain the kingdom on its own.
The contrast is between the transitory existence of human life and the
inviolable power of the Spirit of God. Tertullian used the contrast of flesh
and spirit here as suggesting two substances united in Christ.[5] As
Jesus continues, he should not have astonishment that he refers to birth from
above. After all, the wind blows where it chooses. You hear its sound, but you
do not know where it comes from or where it goes. Everyone born of the Spirit
is the same way. Ruah in Hebrew is a mysteriously invisible natural force that
declares itself especially in the movement of the wind. This notion forms the
background of the use of pneuma here. If God is Spirit, the sound fills
creation and the power gives life to all creatures.[6]
Beginning in verse 9, Nicodemus
now wonders how these things can be. Jesus seems puzzled that a teacher of
Israel does not understand these things. Jesus truly says to him that we (the
plural suggests the community of John more than just Jesus) speak of what we
know and testify (legal terminology) to what we have seen. Yet, Nicodemus and
Jewish leaders did not receive our (the community of John) testimony. At this
point, Nicodemus as a person recedes into the background, and what he
represents, Jewish leadership, comes to the fore. In addition, it becomes
possible that the narrator is telling of his experience with Jewish leadership.
As Jesus continues, if Jesus had spoken to him of earth things, and he did not
believe, how could he believe if he told Nicodemus of heavenly things? Yet,
this observation does not mean that Jesus stops trying. Now, in direct answer
the question of how these things can be, Jesus says that no one ascended into
heaven, except the one who descended from heaven, that is, the Son of Man or
the Human One. Moses (Numbers 21:4-9) lifted up the serpent in the wilderness
to heal the people in the camp from snakebites. In the same way, the Son of Man
must (divine necessity, the plan of God) be lifted up in offering his life as a
sacrifice, so that the sacrificial offering makes possible a new reality for
others. Whoever believes in him may have eternal life, the first occurrence of
this phrase in John. John is referring to Jesus, of course. Begetting, birth
from above, is possible through the death, resurrection, and ascension of
Jesus. As Pannenberg points out, John can call the crucifixion the exaltation
of the Son only in the light of the resurrection and the return to the Father.[7]
The certainty of his work of salvation is founded on God’s plan, the goal of
which is the giving of life to believers. In a discussion of the metaphorical
language involved in the resurrection of Jesus, Pannenberg stresses that it
refers to a real event. The new eschatological life, eternal life, is life in
the full sense of the term, in comparison with each earthly life is such only
with reservation.[8]
Beginning in verse 16, we read,
famously and memorably, that God loved the world so much that God gave the
Beloved Son, the only-begotten and uniquely loved Son, intimately united to the
Father and supremely loved, so that everyone who believes in the Son may not perish
(snatching the world from destruction), but will rather have eternal life.
Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world. Rather,
God sent the Son into the world to save the world through the Son. In the
classical doctrine of the Trinity, a careful distinction to make is that
between the processions and the sending, whether of the Son, as here, or the
Spirit.[9]
Pannenberg will point out that rarely does the New Testament look at Jesus as
judge. In fact, this passage states that Jesus came into the world to save it,
not condemn it. Jesus will not personally condemn anyone, because he has come
into the world to save it. Yet, his word and person are the standard by which
the future judgment takes place.[10]
The background of this passage may well be the near-sacrifice of Isaac by
Abraham in Genesis 22:2, 12. Assuming Jesus is still the teacher, he has
distilled the gospel into a simple statement. The complexity of the heavenly
and earthly identity of the Son combines with the simplicity and power of
divine love. He has summed up the Christian message of redemption. The plan of
the cross has its root in the immeasurable love of God for the world. The Son
is the most cherished gift God had to give. John makes known the greatness of
the act of God in the Incarnation and in the mission of bridging the chasm
between God and world. God has revealed
this love in the historical mission of the Son, to the extent of the cross. The
purpose of this giving of the Son is life for others. God bridges the gap
caused by human alienation and sin, bringing reconciliation. In a discussion of
the divine essence and existence, Pannenberg finds here that the Son reveals
the existence of the Father, and by the sending of the Son, the Father reveals
the divine essence, that is, divine love.[11]
The sending of the Son into the world, that we might live through him, declares
the love of God for us.[12]
As Pannenberg interprets the infinity and holiness of God, he sees the sending
of the Son to save the world aiming at the bringing of the world into the
sphere of the divine holiness.[13]
In contrast to Barth, Pannenberg will stress that the creation of the world is
an expression of the love of God. The love with which God loved the world in
the sending of the Son does not differ in kind from the fatherly love the
Creator for the creatures God made.[14] As
Pannenberg sees it, the whole earthly path of the Son was from the outset a
path to the crucifixion of Jesus according to the providence of God, which we
can see here, even if it simply says that God “gave” the Son out of love for
the world so that those who believe should have eternal life. Bultmann would limit
the giving here to “gave up to death,” but he thinks we can take it more
broadly as a reference to the sending of the Son to the cosmos, though with the
special nuance that God “gifted” the Son to the world.[15]
When we combine verses 16-17, he wants to stress that the saving work of the
Son was the purpose of the Father sending the Son.[16]
He will stress that the sending of the son for incarnation in the one man Jesus
had concern for others as well. God sent the Son into the world to save it.
Thus, the goal of the sending of the Son is one we find in others.[17]
In
discussions of the Trinity in the early church, the East followed the
terminology of John closely, distinguishing between the “generation” of the Son
here and the “procession” of the Spirit in John 15:26.[18]
The notion of sending here refers to the passion and death of Jesus, not to his
birth.[19]
We should also note that such notions of sending presuppose the pre-existence
of the Son.[20]
[1]
Systematic Theology Volume 2, 398.
[2]
Systematic Theology Volume 2, 295.
[3]
Systematic Theology Volume 3, 225-6.
[4]
Systematic Theology Volume 3, 233,
246.
[5]
Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Volume
2, 382.
[6]
Systematic Theology Volume 1, 427.
[7]
Systematic Theology Volume 2, 365.
[8]
Systematic Theology Volume 2, 347.
[9]
Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume
1, 305.
[10]
Systematic Theology Volume 3, 614.
[11]
Systematic Theology Volume 1, 358.
[12]
Systematic Theology Volume 3, 183.
[13]
Systematic Theology Volume 1, 399.
[14]
Systematic Theology Volume 2, 144.
[15]
Systematic Theology Volume 2, 397,
438, 444.
[16]
Systematic Theology volume 2, 441.
[17]
Systematic Theology Volume 2, 320.
[18]
Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume
1, 305.
[19]
Systematic Theology Volume 2, 301.
[20]
Systematic Theology Volume 2, 369.
No comments:
Post a Comment