Second
Sunday in Lent
John 3:1-17
Exegetical Notes by Brian
Stoffregen
2 Lent A: John 3:1-17 Exegetical Notes
Note that John 3 appears often in the 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
Between now and Pentecost, there are 13 readings from the Gospel of
John, (including Maundy Thursday and Good Friday). I like the
following description of this gospel: "Shallow enough for a child to
wade in and deep enough to drown an elephant." It is often the gospel
given to new converts to read – and they find life in its words and
symbols. It is a book that continues to confound scholars about all
the nuances of its meanings and symbols (see Kysar, _The Fourth
Evangelist and His Gospel_, p. 6). Hopefully, we can all drink from
its waters and find life. In this note, there are some themes that
reappear throughout this gospel.
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.
Craddock (_Preaching Through the Christian Year A_) introduces this
text with: "In John 3:1-17, the church overhears Jesus tell a
religious leader that the life abundant and eternal is a gift from
above and is not attained by achievement, claim, or proof. Nothing
could be more appropriate for Lent than a reminder that prayer and
fasting do not earn anything" (p. 159).
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 _gennethe anothen_ (= "born from above"), then offer briefer
comments about other aspects of this text.
_ANOTHEN_ -- FROM ABOVE / AGAIN
_anothen_ -- 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.] I believe that Jesus
intended "from above," but, as is typical in John, Nicodemus
understands it to be a literal "again".
The prefix _ana_ (adverbial form: _ano_) generally means "up". As in
_anabaino_ = "to go up" in contrast to _katabaino_ - "to go down". The
adverb _ano_ 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 [_ek ton kato_],
I am from *above* [_ek ton ano_].
You are from this world,
I am not from this world [_ek tou kosmou_].
11:41 -- Jesus raised his eyes *up* and said.
The suffix _-then_ generally means "(motion) from (a place)". It is
used in _pothen_ in v. 8. _pou-_ = where? + _-then_ = from -- "You do
not know *from where* the Spirit comes."
So, most literally, _anothen_ means "from up". Besides its use in our
text (vv. 3 & 7), it always has the sense "from up" in John.
3:31 -- The one coming *from above* is above [_epano_] all; the one
being from the earth is from the earth and speaks from the earth. The
one coming from heaven is above [_epano_] 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" which can mean "start
from the beginning" or "do over". So _anothen_ can mean, "again" or
"anew," but that isn't its primary meaning.
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). Craddock (_Preaching Through the Christian Year A_) notes this
and then writes: "It is striking that the popularization of this
expression has accepted Nicodemus' misunderstanding (born again)
rather than Jesus' word" (p. 160).
_GENNAO_ = "give birth" (of females); "beget," "become a father of"
(of males)
All the references to _gennao_ ("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. (In
fact, my grammar check dislikes passive verbs.)
For those who may not remember their English grammar, passive verbs
use forms of "to be" as helping verbs. For example, the active
sentence, Jack *built* a house, can be turned into a passive sentence,
A house *was built* by Jack. With active verbs the roles are clear,
"actor *acts* on an object." With passive verbs, "the object *is
acted* upon (by the actor)."
For instance, the passive, "Jesus was born of Mary" can be rephrased
with an active verb: "Mary gave birth to Jesus." Even though the order
is changed, in both sentences, Mary is the "actor," giving birth is
the "act," and Jesus is the "object" of that action.
However, with passive verbs, the actor may not be named. For instance,
one could say, "The house was built." The builder/actor is not named.
It may have been Jack or it could have been Jill. (Hopefully the
context would make it clear who built it.) The passive phrase in our
text, "You must be born again," indicates that "you" is the "object"
of the actions; "giving birth/begetting" is the "act," but the "actor"
is not named.
_gennao_ 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*." The last clause is
passive. It can be easily turned into an active sentence: "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 "act," and they (or we) are the "objects" of the actions.
This lengthy lesson in grammar indicates that being born from above is
not something we do. 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. We have to take that image seriously – more
seriously than many of the so-called "born-again" people. My complaint
with some of the "born again" emphasis is that it often becomes
something we do. Both the grammar and the imagery of birth indicate
that it is something God (the one "from above") does to or for us.
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 _anothen_), 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]
NICODEMUS AS SYMBOL
Craig R. Koester (_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."
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. (3) All humanity (_anthropos_ 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 that are 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 in their relationship with Jesus.
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 [_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 [_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 _then as meaning "from" -- a meaning repeated in the verse
quoted above about the kingdom "from another place". The participle ek
can have the same meaning, like in the verse quoted above. The origins
of Jesus' kingdom do not come *from* or *out of* this world. It does
not have *this world* as its source.
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 [_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 _pothen_).
The second time Nicodemus appears (7:50), this issue is raised by
others, "Search and you will see that *from* [_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 (_ek_) heaven" (3:13) or "from above" (3:31 -- both _anothen_ and
_ek_ are used). [NOTE: When Nicodemus says that Jesus is a teacher
having come *from* God (3:2), it is the Greek word _apo_, not _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" (_anothen_) and "from (_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."
Malina and Rohrbaugh (_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" [p. 84].
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) -- next
week's text.
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 moneychangers. 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 (_ek_) the flesh,
needs to be transformed into that which comes from (_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
This imagery refers to Numbers 21:9. There we know the problem and
solution:
SOLUTION = look at *snake* up on a pole and live
PROBLEM = poisonous *snakes* on the ground who brought death
In John, we are given the solution = the Son of man on a pole who
brings life
Since the phrase "son of man" is also a Hebrew idiom for "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."
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 in the 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.
Brian Stoffregen
Faith Lutheran Church, 2215 S 8th Ave., Yuma, AZ 85364
e-mail: brian.stoffregen@gmail.com