John 3 - Expositor's Bible Commentary - Abridged

b. Nicodemus’s visit (3:1–15)

1–2 Nicodemus is introduced as a man of the upper class, conservative in his beliefs, and definitely interested in Jesus’ teaching. As a Pharisee he belonged to the strict religious sect of Judaism in contrast to the Sadducees, who were less rigid in their beliefs and were more politically minded. As a member of the “ruling council” or Sanhedrin, he was sensitive to the prevailing doctrinal trends of the time. His interest in Jesus had been prompted by the miracles he had witnessed, and he came for an interview to obtain more information. His approach shows that he was cautious, open-minded, and ready to receive a new revelation from God if he was sure of its genuineness.

The fact that he came by night does not necessarily mean that he was timid, though in the light of the later references to him in this gospel, he does not seem to have been aggressive in his discipleship (7:45–52; 19:38–42). His salutation was courteous, and he showed no sign of hostility.

3 Jesus’ reply to Nicodemus’s opening statement was cryptic and abrupt. He informed Nicodemus that no one could even see the kingdom of God without a spiritual rebirth. Birth is our mode of entrance into the world. To be “born again [GK 540]” (or “born from above,” the preferable translation; see NIV note) means the transformation of a person so that he or she is able to enter another world and adapt to its conditions. To belong to the heavenly kingdom, one must be born into it.

4 Nicodemus’s reply may be interpreted in two ways. At first sight he appears to be quite materialistic in his attitude, thinking that Jesus was advocating what was impossible—a second physical birth. On the other hand, perhaps he meant, “How can a man whose habits and ways of thinking have been fixed by age expect to change radically?” Physical rebirth is impossible, but is spiritual change any more feasible?

5 In response, Jesus repeated his solemn assertion and expanded on it with reference to water and Spirit. What did Jesus mean by “water” and “Spirit”? Since he wanted to clarify his teaching for Nicodemus, he would naturally use familiar terms. Furthermore, since his ministry came shortly after that of John the Baptist, Jesus was probably referring to John’s preaching, which dealt with the baptism of water (signifying repentance) and with the coming messenger of God who would endow humans with the Holy Spirit (1:31–33). The new birth is conditioned on the repentance and confession of the individual in response to the appeal of God and by the transformation of life by the gift of the Holy Spirit.

6–8 Jesus asserted that the entrance into the kingdom of God that Nicodemus desired could not be achieved by legalism or outward conformity. It requires an inner change and is given only by the direct act of God. Just as the origin and the destination of the wind are unknown to the one who feels it, similarly the new life of one born of the Spirit is unexplainable by ordinary reasoning; and its outcome is unpredictable, though its actuality is undeniable.

9 Nicodemus’s question “How can this be?” should not be interpreted as an exclamation expressing incredulity. Rather, it is a plea for direction. He wanted to know how this experience could become his. Nothing in the Judaism he knew offered anything like this. The answer of Jesus accords with the words of Ezekiel in Eze 36:25–28.

Proselytes to Judaism were washed completely, issued new clothing, and then received into the commonwealth of the people of God; but Israelites were regarded as sons of Abraham and children of God by cove nant from birth. In effect, Jesus was telling Nicodemus that his descent from Abraham was not adequate ground for salvation. He would have to repent and begin a new life in the Spirit if he expected to enter the kingdom of God (Cf. 8:37–44).

Jesus illustrated his point by a play on words applicable both in Hebrew and Greek. The word translated “spirit” also means “wind” (GK 4460). Verse 8 could be rendered “The Spirit breathes where he wills.” NIV and other translations are undoubtedly correct in using “wind,” for the allusion to sound in the second sentence would not make much sense in sequence with “spirit.” Possibly Nicodemus called on Jesus at the time when the evening wind was blowing through the city, so that it was a ready illustration.

10 The Greek text uses the definite article with “teacher”: “Are you the teacher of Israel?” (lit. tr.). Nicodemus’s exact position in the theological circles of Israel is not defined, but the language suggests that he was an important person. Jesus implies that he should have been familiar with the teaching of the new birth. Evidently Jesus felt that since the OT contained this teaching in principle, those who read the Scriptures were responsible for knowing and believing the truth.

11 No doubt Nicodemus thought Jesus to be presumptuous when he said, “We speak of what we know.” Jesus spoke with an air of authority (see comment on Mk 1:22). Jesus’ use of “we” is unusual. Perhaps his disciples were present and he was including them. Or Jesus may have been speaking as the earthly representative of the godhead. Throughout the years God’s “people” had rejected his instruction as ministered through the prophets and the Scriptures. And things were no different now.

12–13 The “earthly things” (GK 2103) Jesus alluded to were probably the phenomena he used for illustrations, such as the wind. If Nicodemus was unable to grasp the meaning of spiritual truth as conveyed by concrete analogy, how would he do so if it were couched in an abstract statement? No one had ever entered into heaven to experience its realities directly except Jesus himself, the Son of Man, who had come from heaven. Revelation, not discovery, is the basis for faith.

14–15 The reference to a story in the Pentateuch (Nu 21:4–9) would have been familiar to Nicodemus, for the Jewish scholars spent the larger part of each day in the study of Scripture and often memorized not only the Pentateuch but the entire OT. Although Jesus did not elaborate the details of this allusion, it has several aspects applicable to the present situation. (1) The ancient Israelites were guilty of disobedience and a grumbling and unthankful spirit. (2) They were under the condemnation of God and were being punished for their sin. (3) The object elevated before them was the emblem of their judgment. (4) They were unable to rescue themselves. (5) The poison of the serpents was deadly, and there was no antidote for it. (6) They were urged to look at the serpent in order to receive life.

Jesus insisted that he would be “lifted up” (GK 5738), a word used elsewhere for crucifixion (8:28; 12:32–33). He was summoning people to receive him as God’s provision for the cure of sin and to place complete confidence in him for the future. Such confidence or belief would ensure partaking in the life of the age to come.

c. The author’s comment (3:16–21)

16 Commentators are divided as to whether vv.16–21 are a direct continuation of the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus or represent only the author’s comment on Jesus’ words. In either case, they express the most important message of the Gospel, emphasized elsewhere in many ways, that salvation is a gift received only by believing God for it. The nature of belief is implied in the illustration of Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness (v.14). It consists of accepting something, not doing something. The result of belief is that one is freed from condemnation, receives eternal life, and lives in a relation of total honesty with God.

“Eternal” (GK 173) refers not only to the duration of existence but also to the quality of life as contrasted with futility. Eternal life is a deepening and growing experience. It can never be exhausted in any measurable span of time, but it introduces a totally new quality of life. The verb “perish” (GK 660) depicts the opposite of salvation. It means to fail completely of fulfilling God’s purpose and consequently to be excluded forever from his fellowship. Its use here clearly implies that those without God are hopelessly confused in purpose, alienated from him in their affections, and futile in their efforts.

The presentation of the good news of God’s love offers only two options: to believe or to perish. Eternal life, which is accepted by believing, is a gift of God and brings with it the fullest blessings God can bestow. To perish does not mean to cease to exist; it means to experience utter failure, futility, and loss of all that makes existence worthwhile.

17–18 Notwithstanding this gloomy picture of “lost” or “perish,” God’s purpose toward humankind is positive; it is an attitude of love. He is not seeking an excuse to condemn human beings but is rather endeavoring to save them. His purpose in sending Jesus into the world was to show his love and to draw people to himself. If they are lost, it is because they have not committed themselves to God, the only source of life. Beginning at this point in this gospel, the contrast between belief and unbelief is increasingly exemplified. John has here defined the crux of belief and unbelief and has indicated the effects of each. The progress of both in the characters of those associated with Jesus becomes increasingly evident as the drama of this gospel unfolds.

19–21 The difference between believers and unbelievers does not lie in the guilt or innocence of either; it lies in the different attitudes they take toward the “light.” Unbelievers shrink from the light because it exposes their sin; believers willingly come to the light so that their real motives may be revealed (see also 1Jn 1:8–9). Furthermore, darkness (defined as love of evil deeds) keeps people from responding to the light (1Jn 1:5). All of us are held accountable for our actions, and the choice is ours: evil deeds or truth.

7. Further testimony of John the Baptist (3:22–36)

22–24 This period of Jesus’ ministry in Judea is not paralleled by any account in the Synoptic Gospels (cf. Mt 4:12–21; Mk 1:14). It occurred before the arrest and imprisonment of John the Baptist, for he and Jesus were preaching and baptizing simultaneously. Both were exercising a rural rather than urban ministry at this time. Jesus and his disciples remained in the Judean country; John was preaching farther north.

23 The exact location of Aenon is uncertain, though it is probably a site south of Bethshan, where there were numerous springs. In this region John would have been in the territory of the Greek city of Scythopolis, outside the domain of Herod Antipas.

25–26 The argument between a Jewish inquirer and the disciples of John indicates that there must have been confusion over the respective merits of Jesus and John. If both were baptizing, whose baptism was valid? By popular acclaim Jesus’ influence was growing and John’s was waning. John’s interrogators felt that their friend and teacher had been eclipsed by Jesus’ sudden popularity, and they wanted an explanation.

27–30 John showed no jealousy whatever; on the contrary, he reaffirmed his subordinate position (Cf. 1:29–31). He would not claim for himself final authority but avowed that he had been sent in preparation for the Messiah. As the bridegroom is more important than the best man or “friend” of the bridegroom, so he would be content to act as an assistant to Jesus.

Just how far the simile of bride and bridegroom should be pressed here is questionable. Should the bride represent Israel, to whom the Messiah came, or the church? The imagery is applied to both (cf. Hos 2:19–20; Eph 5:32), but the focus of this passage is on the bridegroom, not the bride. The emphasis is on the relation of Jesus and John rather than on the relation of Jesus to Israel or to the church.

31–36 This paragraph, like vv.16–21, is likely the author’s reflection on what he has just written. Its phraseology accords better with the style of vv.16–21 than with that of John the Baptist. John declares in no uncertain terms (1) that Jesus came from heaven and spoke with a higher authority than that of earth; (2) that he spoke from observation, not from theory; (3) that he spoke the words of God; (4) that the Father’s love had caused him to endow the Son with complete authority to execute his purpose. These qualities made Jesus superior in every way to John the Baptist, though the latter had an important and divinely authorized message. John spoke as one “from the earth.” The Son, however, was not merely the messenger of God; he was the revealed object of faith. Once again the dividing line is affirmed. The believer in the Son has eternal life; the unbeliever will never possess that life, for he is already under condemnation. The wrath of God remains on him.

This is the only passage in this gospel and John’s letters in which “wrath” (GK 3973) is mentioned. This word does not mean a sudden gust of passion or a burst of temper. Rather, it is the settled displeasure of God against sin. God is neither easily angered nor vindictive. But by his very nature he is unalterably committed to opposing and judging all disobedience. The moral laws of the universe are as unvarying and unchangeable as its physical laws, and God cannot set aside either without violating his own nature.