Skip to main content

John 3:1-21: The Cause of Genuine Faith

Normally I post the text of the passage in the post, but this passage is a little long so I will just link to it, here.

Nicodemus comes to visit Jesus at night. It is hard to say if this was to keep the visit a secret. It may have been. Certainly, as Moloney suggests, it represents movement by Nicodemus from darkness into the light. He was one of those who was attracted to Jesus by his signs. Would it result in genuine faith? We have to wait until later in the narrative to find out, but in the meantime we can learn where true faith springs from.

What did Nicodemus want to ask Jesus? We'll never know, as Jesus cuts him off prior to asking anything.[1] Jesus' response indicates that Nicodemus has misunderstood something. Something is inadequate in his statement in verse 2. What Nicodemus needs is a divine birth, a moral transformation where he shares in God's moral nature.[2] Nicodemus is completely baffled. He thinks Jesus is demanding two births, a physical impossibility. Jesus continues by stressing that he's talking about a different kind of birth all-together, a spiritual birth. Only then can one enter the kingdom of God. God's eschatological salvation will only come to those who possess the Spirit. Jesus expresses his disappointment that one who knew the Scriptures so well could misunderstand him.[3]

Verses 11-12 confirm that there is something inadequate about Nicodemus' faith at the moment.[4] What he failed to understand is that Jesus alone (and presumably those filled with his Spirit) possessed true revelation from God. All encounters with God, whether they be those of Moses or of the various figures like Enoch in apocalyptic literature were qualitatively different than those of the pre-existent Messiah. This means that Jesus alone is authoritative. But the sign of his authority is not what one would expect. His sign will be being placed on a sign, like the bronze serpent.[5] Presumably the resulting salvation of those who place their trust in Jesus also will function as a sign.

Now we come to the most well known passage in the Bible. It was interesting studying it and seeing just how different the meaning is from how it is popularly conceived. If one were to read just verses 16-18 one would get the following picture. Jesus came because of God's love for the world. He did not desire to judge the world but to save it. All one has to do is trust Jesus and she or he will be saved. When we read the following three verses we find that the last sentence needs to be completely revised and we need to fill out the sentence prior a bit more, too. Jesus himself did not come to the world to condemn it. It already stood condemned.[6] It stood condemned because the world was in darkness and was evil, except for a few. Those who were doing good deeds saw Jesus for who he was and had faith. Those who were doing evil rejected him confirming the condemnation that had already been declared. Thus, far from exalting faith alone, this passage fully integrates faith and works or perhaps better put - character - but works are given precedence over faith![7]


--------------------------------------
[1] This seems to me to be a sure place where editing happened, especially since the words of Jesus don't exactly respond to Nicodemus' earlier comment. They move the discussion onto another plane or dimension.

[2] The way misunderstanding is so heavily relied upon makes me think the NRSV rendering "born from above" is preferable to "born again," which is how Nicodemus understands Jesus. The Greek is ambiguous. Hebrew could not have been here, making it likely (unless Jesus and Nicodemus had this conversation in Greek which is unlikely but not impossible) that this narrative is the invention of the gospel writer (von Wahlde assigns this to the second stage of composition).

[3] Of course one presumes John has Ezekiel 36 in mind here and perhaps channeling that through Jeremiah 31:33-34.

[4] Though certainly he isn't really the target of this critique. It seems to be clearly aimed at those in the synagogue who had interest in Jesus but did not come to full faith.

[5] So, Michaels.

[6] So, Keener, whose comments here and elsewhere in this passage proved immensely helpful to me.

[7] A point Michaels makes clearly.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…