John 3 - Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

3:3 Kingdom of God. This is not a usual Johannine expression (only in 3:3, 5 in John; cf. also 18:36). It means “God reigns.” In the OT, the Kingdom referred first to God as the true King over Israel (1 Sam 12:12; Zeph 3:15) and indeed over all creation (Ps 24:10; Isa 6:5; 66:1). At the same time, the people longed for a future Kingdom at the Day of the Lord, in which their enemies would be destroyed and a messianic deliverer would liberate his people (Isa 9:2-7; Zech 9:9-17; 14:1-11; Mal 4:5). John tends to replace “kingdom” language with that of “life” or “eternal life.”

3:5 water and the Spirit. Carson (1991:191-195) lists six possible understandings of this expression: (1) It refers to natural birth and spiritual birth (so Pamment 1983), but there is no evidence in ancient writings for “water” as a reference to natural birth. (2) “Water” is Christian baptism, which is effected through the Spirit, but this would have little relevance for the time of Jesus (for some [e.g., Bultmann] this means it was added by a later editor). (3) “Water” could refer to John’s baptism, and Jesus is saying it is not enough without rebirth by the Spirit, but this does not fit with Nicodemus, who was hardly a follower of the Baptist. (4) This might refer to the water-purification rites of Qumran and Judaism in general as inadequate compared to Spirit-birth, but there is no contrast between water and Spirit here. (5) “Water” might refer to Torah or Jewish tradition, but this is never connected to birth imagery, so the idea of “born anew” through Torah is doubtful. (6) The best option is to see “and” as meaning “that is” and to take “water” as a symbol of the Spirit—thus, “born of water, namely the Spirit” (for epexegetical kai, see BDF § 442/9). This fits 7:38-39, where water is identified as the Spirit, and it also fits Jewish understanding, as stated above. Comfort said, “The ‘water’ signifies the cleansing and life-imparting action of the Spirit. This is substantiated by 7:37-39, where the Spirit is likened to flowing waters, and by Ezekiel 36:25-27, where the cleansing and regeneration of Israel are associated” (1994:55).

3:11 we know. The “we” has been variously interpreted as Jesus and the disciples (Westcott, Godet, Morris, Burge), Jesus and John the Baptist (Hoskyns), Jesus and God (Chrysostom Homilies on John, 3:11), a plural of majesty, Jesus and the Spirit (Bengel), or a sardonic echoing of the “we know” used by Nicodemus in 3:2 (Beasley-Murray, Carson). Many critics believe it reflects debates in John’s day between church and synagogue (Brown, Schnackenburg, Bruce, Barrett, Witherington), but that explanation is unnecessary. Certainly John would be aware of its relevance for his own time, but that does not mean it does not go back to Jesus’ situation. Since both Jesus and the Spirit are present in the immediate context, the “we” may well represent the Godhead.

3:13 No one has ever gone to heaven. In the Gr., the perfect tense “has ascended” is somewhat problematic, for it seems to imply that Jesus at some time in the past went up to heaven—yet his ascension did not happen until the end of his life. Some believe it applies only to others and so no one in the past has ever done so (Bernard). Others again take this as a post-Resurrection saying read back into Jesus’ life (Brown). It can also be taken as elliptical—“No one has ever ascended into heaven and remained there [and thus is able to speak of heavenly realities] but only the one who has descended from heaven [is able to do so]” (Carson, Köstenberger). Another solution is to note that the perfect tense normally stresses present results and in John is virtually equivalent to a present tense; the emphasis is, “No one at any time ascends to heaven—only Jesus,” so it is “a state resulting from a fact” (so Godet). Either of these latter two are possible. The truth is both past and present: no one has ever ascended, then or now, except the Son of Man.

Son of Man. Several ancient mss add “who lives in heaven” to “Son of Man” (A 038 044 050 f1,13 ). Some scholars prefer this on the grounds that it produces a more difficult reading. Still, the shorter reading has stronger ms support (66 75 B L Ws 083 086 cop), and “who lives in heaven” was probably added later to reflect the Christological emphases of its time (cf. Metzger 1994:174).

3:15 everyone who believes in him will have eternal life. This can also be rendered as “everyone who believes will have eternal life in him” (cf. NLT mg). The ms evidence on this is divided (cf. Comfort 2007:[John 3:15]).

Nicodemus was evidently one of the “many” people referred to in 2:23. Jesus’ dialog with him is his response to those with an inadequate faith, demonstrating that Jesus knew what Nicodemus was really like (2:25). This is a major theme concerning the salvation encounters in the rest of the book. Jesus will show the same depth of insight into the heart of the Samaritan woman in the next chapter. Nicodemus was one of the Pharisees described in 1:19, 24; in fact, he was a “leader” among them, most likely a member of the Sanhedrin (1:19). John chronicles his progressive conversion from confused seeker (3:1-15) to secret follower (7:50-51) to public witness (19:39). In his first encounter, Nicodemus came to see Jesus “after dark one evening,” possibly because he wanted to avoid being seen by his fellow leaders in light of their opposition to Jesus (Cf. 19:38) or because he wanted some uninterrupted time with Jesus. Yet there is a deeper meaning because “night” (nuktos [TG3571, ZG3816]) was used by John to typify spiritual darkness (1:5; 3:2; 9:4; 11:10; 13:30). Jesus certainly did not “trust” Nicodemus.

Nicodemus’s opening compliment (3:2b) shows that he was one of the “many” of 2:23, for he centered on Jesus’ sign-miracles, calling Jesus “rabbi” and saying, “We all know that God has sent you.” We must remember that Nicodemus was a leading Pharisee and thus a distinguished “rabbi” in his own right. To say Jesus had come from God was high praise indeed, for it virtually made Jesus a special envoy, an inspired teacher set apart from others. Famous rabbis were often credited with miracles (cf. Schnackenburg). Note that Nicodemus states, “we all know,” indicating that he was representing others who were quietly searching (perhaps Joseph of Arimathea [19:38] was another). For this group of leaders, the miracles Jesus had done provided evidence that God was with him. In light of the questions the Baptist had been asked by the delegation from the Sanhedrin (1:19-22), this identification could have some kind of messianic link. They were searching for truth but had not yet found it.

Jesus provided that truth for Nicodemus (in Gr., it is introduced by the second double amēn [TG281, ZG297] saying; see note on 1:51), but rather than answering Nicodemus’s implied question, Jesus instead wrenched him out of his comfortable rabbinic categories by beginning with the statement, “unless you are born again.” There is a play on words here in that “again” (anōthen [TG509, ZG540]) also means “from above.” There must be a heaven-sent new birth (Cf. 1:13) in order for Nicodemus to see who Jesus is and enter the Kingdom. It is this rebirth alone that allows one to “see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus had not connected the dots! He did not realize that Jesus had indeed come from God. Jesus was the King of Israel (1:49), who had brought the Kingdom of God to earth. When Nicodemus heard “kingdom,” he would have thought of the Jewish national hope for God’s future intervention, but Jesus was redefining the concept. In 18:36, he told Pilate, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom,” meaning it is a heavenly reality. Nicodemus could see it only if he experienced the heaven-sent new birth. The Jews thought they automatically had a part in the Kingdom because they were the children of Abraham, the covenant people (Cf. 8:33, 39). Jesus said they could enter it only if they had a new birth.

Christ taught that the Kingdom was both imminent (Mark 1:15) and already here (Matt 12:28; Luke 11:20)—he had inaugurated it. Yet it was still to be consummated at his second coming (Luke 17:20-22; 21:31). We are in the Kingdom age but continue to long for it to be finalized in world history. In John, “Kingdom” teaching coalesces into the concept of “eternal life,” which is also both present and future—that is, we have life now (3:16; 5:24) and still will be resurrected at the last day (5:28-29; 6:39-40). Oliver and van Aarle (1991:390-395) believe that “the kingdom of God” in John is equivalent to God’s household, in which God is the father (patron) and the saints are his family (clients), who are given a place in his household (as in 14:2-6, 23).

Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus’ talk concerning entrance into the Kingdom. He interpreted the spiritual “born again” (or “born from above”) as “physically birthed a second time” and asked, “How can an old man go back into his mother’s womb and be born again?” All his neat categories had been bypassed as he continued to think from an earthly perspective. He was trying to get Jesus to admit that what he said was absurd. Jesus clarified the concept of being “born again” further, emphasizing it with another double amēn [TG281, ZG297] (Cf. 3:3): to “enter the Kingdom of God,” one must be “born of water and the Spirit.” To understand this, we refer to 7:38-39, where John says “the living water” is “the Spirit.” The meaning, then, is “born of water, namely the Spirit” (cf. note on 3:5). Nicodemus had the Old Testament background to understand this, though he failed to do so. First, though the idea of rebirth is not common in the Old Testament, the theme of Israel as “the children of God” should have made it possible to understand birth imagery (so Brown). Second, water as spiritual cleansing is connected with the coming of the Spirit in Ezekiel 36:25-28: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and . . . put a new spirit in you.” This prepares for the “valley of dry bones” in Ezekiel 37, in which the dead are brought back to life (so Carson, Comfort). Clearly, what Jesus was saying was that the Kingdom can only come via “birth from above,” namely a new birth from the Spirit that provides spiritual cleansing (cf. Belleville 1980).

Nicodemus’s confusion must have been obvious, for Jesus clarified the new birth further, centering on the contrast between flesh and spirit (3:6): “Humans [flesh] can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life.” As long as Nicodemus remained on the earthly plane (as in 3:4), he could never go beyond this life. Only when he turned to the Spirit (“from above,” 3:3) could he find spiritual life. There was no reason to be “surprised” when Jesus demanded, “You must be born again.” As stated above, the Old Testament background should have made Nicodemus aware of the teaching. Note that new birth is a divine necessity (dei [TG1163, ZG1256], “must”); without it, there is no possibility of entering into the Kingdom. Also, the plural “you” shows that Jesus included all humanity in this need. Nicodemus’s problem was that he, as a leading teacher, was still trying to control the process whereby one enters into the Kingdom. So Jesus used another illustration. Everyone knows you cannot control the wind; it “blows wherever it wants.” A person can “hear the wind” but cannot tell either its origin or its destination (in an ultimate sense, not even with modern technology). Here Jesus was using another play on words, for the Greek word for “wind” is the same as for “spirit” (pneuma [TG4151, ZG4460]). For the ancients, the wind was the breath of God (so Brown). Moreover, it was the “breath from the four winds” of God that brought the dry bones of Ezekiel 37 to life. The Spirit is like the wind, and the voice of the Spirit is like the sound of the wind—you hear it but cannot control or truly understand it. Jesus’ point was that the Spirit controls the process of salvation—we don’t. We experience its effects via the Spirit rather than the flesh. We believe but do not actively control any aspect of it. Moreover, the natural person cannot understand those who are “born of the Spirit.” The power of the Spirit within the believer is a mysterious force, and the resultant status of those who have become God’s children (1:12) cannot be comprehended apart from the Spirit.

Nicodemus, still confused, asked, “How are these things possible?” (3:9). Jesus’ words went against the grain of everything he had been taught, from the covenant privileges of Israel to the place of faithful adherence to the Torah. He had always believed that devotion to God and obedience to his commands were sufficient. Jesus had burst all these categories. In fact, this is the last time Nicodemus speaks in this section. The rest is all Jesus’ words, for he did not treat this response as an honest search for truth but charged that it was in essence a refusal to accept the truth he should have understood. Jesus took the offensive, saying that since Nicodemus was a “respected Jewish teacher,” he should have understood these things. There was nothing Jesus said that was incomprehensible to a person with a knowledge of the Old Testament. Nicodemus’s problem was not ignorance but unbelief. Jesus told him “what we know and have seen” (3:11)—namely, the deep truths of spiritual salvation. The “we” probably refers to Jesus and the Spirit, thus referring to divine knowledge of these realities. The problem is that Nicodemus “won’t believe our testimony.” The same unbelief later charged to the Jews (5:41-47; 8:23-24, 45) was also true of Nicodemus.

Jesus then said, “If you don’t believe me when I tell you about earthly things, how can you possibly believe if I tell you about heavenly things?” (3:12). The key issue in this discourse is that Jesus spoke from a heavenly perspective, while Nicodemus understood things only from an earthly perspective (3:12). At first glance, one would think that Jesus was referring to the earthly setting (Morris) or to the illustrations, such as physical birth, water, and wind (Westcott, Hoskyns)—but Nicodemus was hardly refusing to believe those things. In fact, that is exactly where his mind had been. Therefore, the “earthly” must relate to Jesus’ teaching about salvation through “birth from above” because it involves the conversion of earthly beings. Even though it is a heavenly reality, it takes place on earth (Hendriksen, Beasley-Murray, Witherington). The “heavenly” realities then are the apocalyptic truths about the coming Kingdom and the heavenly world that Jesus both came from and was going to. That is the subject of 3:13-14. Jesus’ first statement (“No one has ever gone to heaven”) is puzzling in light of Enoch, who was translated to heaven (Gen 5:24), and Elijah, who went up to heaven in a fiery chariot in a whirlwind (2 Kgs 2:11). Also, Jewish tradition said that Moses was taken up to heaven at his death (so Brown, Whitacre). Jesus, in a sense, was denying all of this. The NLT’s rendering, “gone to heaven and returned,” provides part of the answer. Jesus was saying that only he had access to heaven and had brought heaven to earth (Cf. 1:51). Carson says, “Jesus insists that no one has ascended to heaven in such a way as to return to talk about heavenly things” (1991:200-201).

But Jesus had “come down from heaven.” Heaven is his origin and therefore his home. No one else can speak of heavenly realities except the Son of Man. This is an important dimension of John’s “Son of Man” sayings. He is not only the representative human but also the God-man whose glory centers on the fact that he is a heavenly being who came from heaven and thus speaks of heavenly truths (cf. also 1:51). This introduces the “ascent-descent” imagery in John. Jesus “has come down” or “descended” from heaven (3:31; 6:33, 50, 51, 58); at his death and resurrection, he would “ascend” back to his Father (6:62; 13:3; 16:5; 20:17).

Jesus then alluded to another Old Testament image, which Nicodemus should have recognized. According to Numbers 21:4-9, Moses “lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness” (3:14). Israel had grumbled against God, so God sent poisonous snakes that killed many of them. When the people repented, God had Moses put a bronze snake on a pole, and whoever looked at it lived. The incident became an illustration of the life God gives to those who repent and believe. Jesus centered on the image of the snake being “lifted up” and used double meaning to connect this with the divine necessity (dei [TG1163, ZG1256]; Cf. 3:7) of the Son of Man being “lifted up,” which connotes the exaltation and glory of Jesus (the verb is used in this way in Acts 2:33; Phil 2:9). This is the first of the three “lifted up” sayings (with 8:28; 12:32-34) in John. Where the Synoptics contain three passion predictions (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34 and parallels), John has instead the three “lifted up” sayings, which are in effect passion predictions centering on the Cross as Jesus’ exaltation. In other words, when Jesus is “lifted up” on the cross, he will be “lifted up” in glory. Hollis (1989:476-477) thinks the use of the Hebrew nasa’ [TH5375, ZH5951] in Genesis 40 and Isaiah 52:13 provides the background. While the Greek hupsoō [TG5312, ZG5738] does not normally connote the idea of death, it carries that symbolic thrust (cf. Gen 40:19) in those Old Testament passages. Jesus’ humiliation is at the same time his exaltation. In fact, his glory demands the Crucifixion, for that is the divinely necessary plan, the only possible basis for salvation.

This salvific purpose is made clear in 3:15; as a result of the Cross, “Everyone who believes in him will have eternal life.” Through faith-decision, we are given a new authority as God’s children (1:12), and we see his glory (2:11). Apart from his being “lifted up,” there would be no belief. This is the first time in John that “eternal life” appears, and it too is a major theme (17 times in John and 6 times in 1 John). It refers not only to future life in eternity, but in John’s Gospel it is a present possession that belongs to the believer now. It is indeed a life after death (cf. Dan 12:2 as background), but it is also a present reality—the life that infuses the child of God at the time of the new birth.

3:16 God loved. “Love” is a major theme in John, with three related terms occurring 116 times in his writings (56 in the Gospel). In John, the two main verbs, agapaō [TG25, ZG26] and phileō [TG5368, ZG5797], are synonymous (though he uses agapaō 36 times and phileō only 13). As Brown points out (1966:498), both verbs are used for the love of the Father for the Son, for Jesus’ love for the disciples, for Jesus’ love for Lazarus, for the beloved disciple, and for Christians as beloved. For John, it is a deep focused love that unites the Godhead and the believers into a single family and also launches their mission to the world. For an excellent discussion on the love of God, see Carson (2000). The third term in this group is agapē [TG26, ZG27], a noun for “love” that occurs 7 times in John’s Gospel.

3:17 sent his Son. For an excellent argument for the synonymous use of the two Greek words for “sending” in John (and a history of the debate), see Köstenberger (1998a:97-106). Cf. note on 1:6.

not to judge. The statement that Christ came not to condemn but to save is also found in 12:47, but it appears to contradict what is said in 5:22 (“absolute authority to judge”), 5:30 (“I judge as God tells me”), and 9:39 (“I entered this world to render judgment”). At first glance, it appears to be an absolute contradiction, but when one considers the contexts, the statements can be reconciled. The solution is in 8:15-16, which says, “I do not judge anyone,” and yet, “if I did, my judgment would be correct.” Jesus did not enter this world to judge, but his coming caused every person to encounter the challenge to make a faith-decision. Those who put their faith in him were saved, but Christ became judge to those who rejected him.

3:19 people loved the darkness. Whitacre (1999:93) brings out that John especially has in mind the Jewish opponents. They believe that they know God’s ways, but they are living a lie, for their rejection of Jesus and opposition to him are evil deeds that stem from the evil one, as Jesus says in 8:44.

Virtually all scholars (e.g., Westcott, Tenney, Bruce, Morris, Blomberg, Keener) recognize this section as John’s own commentary, which provides a theological summary of the implications of the first three chapters. Tenney (1960:352-362) wrote the classic article on this and found 59 such “footnotes” added by John, occurring in nearly every chapter (except 13:31–17:26), with ten types: explanatory notes, time/place, custom, author, recollection, situations, summaries, identification, knowledge of Jesus, and theological commentary. This passage encompasses both summary and theological commentary. In ancient writing, there were no quotation marks to signify the end of a quote, so decisions about where quotations end are often difficult. The key here is that “Son of Man” is used only on the lips of Jesus in John, so 3:15 is probably part of Jesus’ words. In 3:16-21, the tone changes, and there are three terms found only in editorial sections in John—“one and only” (3:16, 18), “believes in him [lit., his name]” (3:18), and “do what is right” (3:21).

As John sums up the implications of chapters 1–3, he begins with what is today one of the best known verses in the Bible. The words “God loved the world so much” (see NLT mg) tell us that the Cross was a loving act on the part of God (cf. Rom 5:8), whose deep love for the very world that rejected him (1:10) led to his great gift to mankind. Gundry and Howell (1999) translate this “This is how much God loved the world, with the result that he gave . . .” The world does not love God (5:42), but God loves the world so much that he gave “his one and only Son” to be a sacrifice on the cross. Interestingly, this is the only place in John that speaks of God’s love for the world (his love for the disciples is featured more), but it is at the heart of his message, for the entire mission theme flows from this (cf. “Major Themes” in the Introduction). This message is explained perfectly in 1 John 4:8 (“God is love”) and 1 John 4:9 (“God showed how much he loved us by sending his one and only Son into the world so that we might have eternal life through him”). The first passage shows God’s character, the second his resultant action. The twin ideas of God giving (3:16) and sending (3:17) his Son refer both to the Incarnation and the Cross. Still, the only way to experience this gift is via a faith-decision (cf. Rom 3:21–4:25, where “faith” appears 18 times). The gift is then defined further—eternal life. Here for the first time the idea is expressed both ways—“not perish but have eternal life” (Cf. 5:24; 6:39; 10:28; 12:25). This hardly means that none will die—rather, that none will experience the “second death” (Rev 2:11; 20:6), eternal punishment in the lake of fire. Note there are only two final states—eternal life and eternal punishment. There is no other possibility.

For the first time, we are told that God sent his Son. John the Baptist was “sent” as God’s envoy (1:6; 3:28), but Jesus is the true envoy or agent of God “sent” to the world (this is said 41 times in John; see van der Merwe [1997:354-357] and Anderson [1999:36-40] for detailed studies of Christ as divine agent in John). A “sent one” builds on the Jewish idea of the shaliach (cf. TDNT 1.414-420), a representative or ambassador who is the very voice of the sender. At the same time, it emphasizes the dependence of Jesus upon the Sender, another major Johannine theme. Köstenberger (1998a:96, 107) shows how often “send” is paired with Father-Son terminology (3:16-17; 5:23, 30, 36; 10:36; 12:49) and how frequently they occur in contexts of controversy (5:30, 36, 43; 7:16; 8:14) and witness (1:6-8; 5:30-39; 8:18). Thus, it is at the heart of the mission theme. This also fits the theme of Jesus as the “living revealer” of God (cf. commentary on 1:10-18) quite well. As the Sent One, Jesus’ mission was not judgment, for God “does not want anyone to be destroyed” (2 Pet 3:9; Cf. 1:4, 7, 9). Thompson (2001:126-127, building on Harvey 1987) asserts that a juridical term is behind the idea of sending, which also is linked to (1) the unity of the work of the Father and Son (5:17-18; 10:29-30); (2) the obedience, even subordination, of the Son to the Father; and (3) the call to honor the Son as well as the Father (5:23).

This is also the first time “save” appears, and it is clearly synonymous with “have eternal life” in 3:16. The idea is to be rescued from death. There are two sides to the offer of eternal life—salvation and judgment. The judgment side is developed in 3:18. For those who do come to faith, there is no condemnation. They stand before God justified (Rom 3:21-26), declared right with God in his courtroom. The unbeliever, on the other hand, “has already been judged” at the moment he or she rejected God’s “one and only Son.” This is not the Great White Throne Judgment at the end of history (Rev 20:11-15) but the condemnation that typifies those who refuse to come to Christ. Here God is the judge. Note the centrality of “believe”; it is found three times in this verse. Every person is brought to a faith-decision as a result of the “true light” of Christ (1:9; 8:12). The decision to accept or reject Christ’s offer determines one’s destiny.

The process of light encountering darkness is traced in 3:19-21, and condemnation is explained in 3:19-20 as a judicial verdict (“the judgment is based on this fact”). God has condemned unbelievers, and his decision is just because they have rejected the Light. Jesus, the Light of the World (8:12), the Light that shines in the darkness (1:5) and encounters every person (1:9), came into the world (the world of mankind, not just believers), but “people loved the darkness more than the light” (3:19). The world has made an emphatic choice. Note the progression between 3:16 and 3:19: God loved the world, but the people of the world loved darkness. This is easily demonstrated in the world today. Night scenes dominate; cities like Las Vegas come alive at night. The reason people love darkness is that their actions are “evil” (3:19). Evil is the action side of darkness. The priorities of the people of the world have no place for God or Christ. They do not just prefer darkness; they “hate the light” and “refuse to go near it” for an obvious reason: “Their sins will be exposed.” When the light shines in the darkness, it cannot be “extinguished” (1:5), and evil is always “exposed.” The darkness of any sin city is always cloaked in artificial light (the red-light district, the neon lights of Las Vegas). The light of Christ removes this pretense, however; it exposes darkness for what it is. Those who reject the Light are guilty, and God’s verdict of condemnation is just. As Witherington says (1995:103), “This is a portrait of humanity, with a guilty conscience and yet not prepared to give up its sin.”

In contrast, “those who do what is right” are drawn to the Light (3:21). Note the emphasis on their action; it is assumed that they love the Light, so they “come” to it and “do” it. In Romans 12:2, Paul says that the person with a “transformed” or renewed mind literally “proves” that the will of God is “good and pleasing and perfect”; the idea is similar. The person of light wants “others [to] see that they are doing what God wants.” They become witnesses to the value of following the will of God. The Greek text adds another nuance. They want people to see that everything they do is done “in God”—that is, through his strength. They are not trying to show off but to help others realize that only a God-centered life is worth living. This is a critical lesson for believers who are living a divided life, serving themselves as they try to serve God. There is no greater sorrow than a Christian living half in darkness, half in light.

3:23 Aenon, near Salim. Some see a symbolic aspect in John’s ministry at the “springs” (the meaning of “Aenon”) that produce “peace” (the meaning of “Salim”). This may be present, but the place names are primarily geographical.

3:24 before John was thrown into prison. The Evangelist wanted us to know that this event took place “before John was thrown into prison.” Carson (1991:210) points out that the writer’s purpose may have been to clarify that this event took place before the events recorded in the synoptic Gospels. Mark 1:14 tells us that Jesus’ Galilean preaching ministry began after John was imprisoned, and the original readers could have seen a conflict with John’s dating and that of the Synoptics. The Evangelist was clarifying a potential discrepancy.

3:25 a certain Jew. Some ancient mss read the plural “some Jews” (66 א* 038 f1,13 ite syrc cop); however, the singular has equal support (75 א2 A B L Ws 037 044 070 086), and it is the more difficult reading, since John prefers plurals. In other words, later copyists probably switched to the plural in keeping with John’s regular practice. The singular is more likely.

For the final time, John the Baptist bears witness concerning Jesus (Cf. 1:6, 15, 19, 29, 36). Carson (1991:208-209) points out that this is the fourth successive passage to show how Jesus was surpassing Judaism. In 2:1-12, the purification rites of Judaism were surpassed by the new wine of Jesus; in 2:13-25, the Temple was displaced by the Messiah, who became the ultimate mediator between God and man; in 3:1-21, the new birth in the Spirit displaces Jewish rites as the only way to salvation. Now Jesus surpasses John’s baptism as God’s final envoy.

First, we see Jesus and his disciples leaving Jerusalem and going to the “Judean countryside,” where they minister and baptize people (3:22). Only here in the Gospels are we told that Jesus and his disciples engaged in baptism. This is clarified in 4:2, which adds that only his disciples did so. This was natural, for some of the disciples had been followers of the Baptist and would continue that “baptism of repentance” for a time. The picture is of an unhurried time in which Jesus got to know his disciples better (so Morris). Nearby, “at Aenon, near Salim” (possibly a site in Samaria where there were plenty of springs), the Baptist was also engaged in his ministry of baptism, and it was quite successful. It could well be that he had been forced to move north from Judea because of persecution from Herod and the Jewish leaders. Jesus then would probably have been in the northern part of Judea, not far from him.

A controversy emerged (3:25) when John’s disciples began to debate a Jew about “ceremonial cleansing,” possibly Jewish rites of purification, like the washing of hands (Mark 7:1-5) or the Qumran practice of daily washings. It could also have included debate over the merits of John’s baptism versus that of Jesus (so Beasley-Murray, Whitacre). This is viable because when John’s disciples came to him, they did not discuss the debate but reported how Jesus was also practicing baptism and, more importantly, how “everybody is going to him instead of coming to us” (3:26). The “certain Jew” then is one who was leaning toward Jesus, and they were clearly upset. Notice that John’s disciples called Jesus “the one you identified as the Messiah.” They were not believers, and so there was jealousy and worry. They were being eclipsed. They did not want to accept the fact that John predicted that very thing (1:15, 30).

John responded by elaborating on his earlier prediction (3:27-30). He began with an aphorism, or general truth, that “no one can receive anything unless God gives it from heaven” (3:27). This applied to both Jesus and himself. God had given each the ministry he intended. John rejoiced in his ministry of preparing for the Messiah. His disciples should have also been happy. (Note how relevant this is to many today who are unhappy with their lot in life!) John reminded his disciples of his previous statement that he was not the Messiah (1:20) but the forerunner, the one who would clear the way (1:23). This is a remarkable testimony of one whose ministry was about to end, yet who was perfectly content with what God had for him.

To drive the point home, John the Baptist used the illustration of the best man or “the bridegroom’s friend” (3:29). In Jewish weddings, his duty was to oversee most of the wedding details and lead the procession that brought the bride to the groom’s home for the ceremony. While the groom was the focus, the best man was “simply glad to stand with him.” Behind this is also the imagery of Israel as the bride of Yahweh (Isa 62:4-5; Hos 2:16-20) and the church as the bride of Christ (Eph 5:25-27; Rev 21:2, 9). John the Baptist had handed God’s people over to the Messiah and was thrilled to do so. He concluded by clarifying what he meant when he said Jesus was the “greater” one who would surpass him (1:15, 30): God’s sovereign will is that Christ “become greater and greater,” while John becomes “less and less.” Neyrey and Rohrbaugh (2001:467-468, 482-483) say that John’s declaration fits the cultural idea of the “limited good” that mediates the feelings of pain and loss and solves the problem of envy among his followers. He was not just content but overjoyed with his diminished role because God had determined that it be so. The divine plan is everything, and he was privileged just to serve.

3:31 and is greater than anyone else. This is omitted in some ancient mss (75 א* D, as well as all Old Latin versions and some Syriac and Coptic versions). The UBS committee placed it in brackets because it is uncertain whether later scribes might have deleted it as redundant or added it due to inattention (Metzger 1994:175). However, it is present in a number of mss and should be considered authentic (cf. further discussion in Comfort 2007:[John 3:31]).

3:31-36 It is commonly believed (e.g., Morris, Beasley-Murray, Carson, Michaels, Whitacre, Keener) that this is the reflection of the Evangelist because these verses seem to weave together many of the themes from the chapter (as is the case with 3:16-21). Though not quite as evident here, this is still quite viable, for the verses go beyond the theme that the Baptist was addressing in 3:27-30 and include one of the typical statements of the book: “Anyone who believes in God’s Son has eternal life” (3:36).

3:34 God gives him the Spirit without limit. It is possible to construe this with Jesus as the subject, “He (Jesus) gives the Spirit without limit.” Since Jesus is filled with the Spirit, he then becomes “the distributor of the Spirit” (so Burge 1987:55). However, this does not make as much sense in this context, in which God is both sender and giver.

3:36 obey the Son. Note the emphasis on obedience here. This is another theme in John, appearing 29 times in the book; belief must lead to obedience, the ethical result of true faith. The person who does not bear fruit for God has not truly been converted (15:1-8).

Loader (1984:191-192) states that this section contains all of the five major characteristics of John’s Christology: Jesus as the Son of the Father, coming from and returning to the Father, sent by the Father, given all things by the Father, and revealing the Father. As such, Loader concludes that the section introduces the “central structure” of John’s Christology. The exaltation and glory of Christ has been a major theme of this chapter, and the Baptist highlighted it by testifying that Jesus would become “greater and greater.” This section tells why Jesus is greater, beginning with the fact that Jesus “has come from heaven” (lit., “comes from above”; Cf. 1:51; 3:12-13). The Greek word for Jesus’ origin here is anōthen [TG509, ZG540] (from above, again), the same word used in the phrase “born again” or, “born from above” in 3:3. The basis of heavenly rebirth is the heavenly one, and thus he is indeed “greater than anyone else” (lit., “above all”) and is the source of divine revelation as the Word of God (1:1-18). In contrast, the earthly person can only “speak of earthly things.” This especially refers to John the Baptist but also includes the earthly perspective of Nicodemus. The Baptist (and the OT prophets before him) could speak of earthly situations and call the nation to repentance; they could prophesy, but they had no access to heavenly secrets and no control over “birth from above.” The One from above has “seen and heard” these heavenly truths firsthand (3:32) and has “testified” of them, but “few believe what he tells them.” The people of the world reject these truths (1:10-11). The most important witness that the world will ever hear spoke, and he was greeted with unbelief.

Those who “accepted” (1:12) the witness—namely, Jesus’ followers (the tense of the verb points back to their conversion)—“can affirm that God is true” (3:33). It is God who has sent his Son and provided the plan of salvation; so, while Christ is truth (14:6), so is God. “Affirm” (sphragizō [TG4972, ZG5381]) is a legal term for sealing a legal document or certifying that it is a true, valid document. In the ancient world, the seal authenticated a legal decision (so Godet, Morris, Michaels); thus “anyone who accepts his testimony” becomes a legal witness to the truth of God and his divine revelation in Jesus (on the “witness” theme, see 5:31-47; 8:13-18). Since Jesus is the Word, or living voice, of God, to authenticate God is to authenticate Jesus as the one who “is sent by God” and “speaks God’s words.” Jesus is the divinely sent herald or ambassador from heaven and, as the shaliach (cf. TDNT 1.414-420; m. Berakhot 5:5), speaks with the voice of God. Moreover, God “gives him the Spirit without limit” (or measure). A later rabbi said that the Spirit rested on the prophets according to the “measure” of each one’s assignment (Leviticus Rabbah 15:2). There is no measure or limit to Jesus’ calling and no limit to the Spirit that descended on him (1:32-33). Note the Trinitarian tenor of this passage: God has sent his Son and given to him the limitless Spirit. Moreover, because “the Father loves his Son” (Cf. 5:20; 10:17; 15:9; for Christ’s love of the Father, see 14:31), he has “put everything into his hands.” This goes back to the Word as Creator (1:3-4); Jesus the Creator is cosmic Lord over “everything.” This implies the conferral of universal power and authority on Jesus (so Schnackenburg).

As in 3:19-21, there are only two responses a person can have to Jesus: unbelief (loving darkness) or belief (coming to the Light). Verse 3:36, with its emphasis on the response to Christ, provides a fitting climax both to this section and to chapter 3 as a whole. It corresponds, in fact, to the primary message of the book (20:31, “these are written so that you may continue to believe”; Cf. 3:18; 5:24, 29; 6:47). As stated often, John’s is an encounter Gospel, calling readers to a faith-decision that will determine their destiny. Jesus has authority to give life (5:21, 26) and to pronounce final judgment (5:22, 27). Every person has to make a choice to believe or to reject God. Those who believe have “eternal life” as a present possession (it is theirs now, as well as at the final resurrection), but those who disobey remain under God’s “angry judgment.” This is the only place in John where the word orgē [TG3709, ZG3973] (wrath) is used, but it is in keeping with the recurring theme of judgment. God is both loving and just (these are the two foci of his holiness), and these two attributes are interdependent. The God who loves is also the God whose righteousness demands justice, and that judgment involves wrath on all who spurn his offer of salvation and disobey.