The Son from Above. 3:1–36

IN THIS SECTION, JESUS REVEALS to Nicodemus that he is the Son from above (3:13, 16), and John reiterates this point (3:31, 35–36). Jesus likewise continues the theme of true purification (3:5) from 2:6, which again contrasts forcefully with mere Jewish water rituals (3:25), even those of the Baptist (3:22–26; 4:1–2). Nicodemuss partial faith continues the theme of 2:23–25, but contrasts starkly with the fully reliable witness of John (3:21–36) and the responsiveness of the sinful Samaritan woman (4:1–42).

The warning against untrustworthy believers depending merely on signs (2:23–25) leads directly into the following paragraph: Nicodemus professes a measure of faith in Jesus based on his signs (3:2, repeating the σημεία ποιείον of 2:23), but has not yet crossed the threshold into discipleship;⁴⁷⁴² he is at most a representative of some open-minded dialogue partners in the synagogues (hence perhaps the use of plural verbs, though cf. comment on 3:11).⁴⁷⁴³ John invites his audience to contrast Nicodemus's slow response here to the ready response of the Samaritan woman in 4:7–29, who is able to overcome her misunderstanding in the course of that dialogue.⁴⁷⁴⁴ (Several of Johns narratives involve the pattern of sign, misunderstanding, clarification, and response.)⁴⁷⁴⁵ In the course of the Gospel, however, Nicodemus, who came out of darkness into light (3:2,21), moves from secret discipleship (3:1–2; 7:50–52)⁴⁷⁴⁶ to true, complete discipleship (19:39–42).⁴⁷⁴⁷ John presents several models of a journey to discipleship, of which Nicodemus is one;⁴⁷⁴⁸ Nicodemus will eventually join the Samaritan woman among disciples.⁴⁷⁴⁹ If 3:1–21 is the discourse explicating the sign of 2:1–11, it shows that true relationship with God involves neither waterpots nor the earthly temple (a theme revisited in both cases in 4:10–14, 20–24, 28), but the water of the Spirit (3:5) and the revealer from above (3:11–21).

Because we lack other sources by which to test it, we can comment only briefly on the essential historicity of this narrative.⁴⁷⁵⁰ Its recurrent symbolic significance indicates considerable Johannine interpretation and idiom, but cannot be used to dismiss the possibility of a historical nucleus any more than, say, the Johannine features in his account of the feeding of the five thousand in ch. 6.⁴⁷⁵¹ Certainly the wordplays indicate a Greek-speaking audience,⁴⁷⁵² but Jerusalems aristocracy probably spoke mainly Greek,⁴⁷⁵³ and in any case no one argues for a verbatim transcription of the dialogue without a prior transposition into Johannine idiom. That Jesus historically spoke of a rebirth of some sort is likely.⁴⁷⁵⁴ Jesus probably spoke of some sent «from heaven» (i.e., from God; Mark 11:30) and viewed his own role as unique (see introduction, ch. 7). Beyond asserting a basic historical nucleus, however, it is impossible on purely historical grounds to determine the degree to which the dominant Johannine idiom has shaped that nucleus.

By appealing to what his community «knows» and broaching the matter of Christology (albeit from an inadequate starting point), Nicodemus's assertion sets the stage for the rest of the discourse.⁴⁷⁵⁵ Nicodemus suggests that Jesus is a teacher «from God,»⁴⁷⁵⁶ a phrase which for John's audience, familiar with Johannine idiom, would be equivalent to claiming that Jesus is «from above,» but which to Nicodemus within the story world undoubtedly would bear a less exclusive sense (cf. 1:6). The story includes a contrast between the «teacher of Israel» who fails to comprehend heavenly realities (3:10) and the teacher from God who reveals them (3:2).

Although no one doubted that some men of God could still work signs, the general Pharisaic view that prophets were rare or vanished may have contributed to Nicodemus being impressed with the testimony of Jesus» signs (despite their limited halakic value in the same tradition).⁴⁷⁵⁷ Nicodemus points out that «no one can» do signs like those Jesus has done (2:23) unless God is with him (3:2); Jesus develops Nicodemus's δύναται, which is repeated throughout the following narrative (3:3,4, 5, 9): what no one can do is enter the kingdom without rebirth–or, in more general terms, do anything of the Spirit by means of the flesh (cf. 15:5).⁴⁷⁵⁸

That John calls Nicodemus άνθρωπος, a «man» or «person» of the Pharisees (3:1), may be inconsequential (the term appears more than fifty times in the Gospel), but «a Pharisee» would have been simpler; this term appears nowhere else in the Gospel linked with Pharisees in the genitive. John probably employs the term here to make explicit the connection with the «people» (άνθρωπου … άνθρώπω) whose hearts Jesus knew in 2:25. The «ruler of the Jews» title connects him with the elite who oppose Jesus (7:48)–showing that in Johns narrative world, even some of the prime representatives of «the world» can ultimately become Jesus» followers (19:39). The rulers are not a Johannine invention (Luke 14:1; 18:18; 23:13, 35; 24:20), but John uses them to timely effect in contrasting the Judean elite with Jesus» Galilean followers. The few references to them might all imply the inclusion of Nicodemus (cf. 7:26,48), and they therefore appear less uniformly hostile than «the Pharisees» (12:42), although Nicodemus is also one of the Pharisees, and they, too, appear divided at points (9:16).

Because Nicodemus appears to be a prominent figure, some have suggested that John appeals to the prominent Nakdimon ben Gorion, who might have been a very young man in the time of Jesus, forty years before Jerusalem's destruction.⁴⁷⁵⁹ That Nakdimon was one of the wealthiest and most powerful aristocrats by the time of the Judean-Roman war⁴⁷⁶⁰ might fit John's portrait, but Nakdimon ben Gorion was also considered very pious by rabbinic standards,⁴⁷⁶¹ which would suggest that no one in that line of tradition noticed any faith in Jesus on his part. Nicodemus was not, however, an unusual name among Greek-speaking Jews; a prominent one from Rome is a case in point.⁴⁷⁶² Thus most commentators doubt an identification between John's Nicodemus and the son of Gorion.⁴⁷⁶³

What may be significant is that Nicodemus is named at al1. Certainly many other figures in the Gospel, such as the woman in 4:7–42 or the men in 5:5–15 and 9:1–38, remain anonymous. They may remain anonymous unlike Nicodemus because John's tradition would be more apt to preserve the events of their encounter with Jesus than their names, whereas Nicodemus was of such a stratum of Jewish society that the tradition would preserve his name as wel1. Yet it is also the case that Nicodemus must be named for literary reasons; it would be more difficult for any but the most diligent reader to recognize his recurrence in 7and 19if he remained anonymous, even if he were described by some other traits.

Nicodemus calls Jesus «teacher» (3:2), which is a correct term for disciples to employ (1:38; 11:28; 13:13–14; 20:16),⁴⁷⁶⁴ even if it is not a complete Christology by itself. Although the leaders may have thought themselves the appropriate guardians of sound teaching (9:34), Jesus teaches (6:59; 7:14, 28, 35; 8:20; 18:20), just as do the Father who sent him (5:20; 6:45; 8:28) and the Spirit who carries on his teaching (14:26). In this context, the most striking point is that Jesus is much more truly a teacher than the ignorant «teacher of Israel» who comes to him to learn (3:10). Although Nicodemus is not a completely reliable voice in the narrative, John elsewhere confirms Nicodemus's recognition that God is with Jesus (8:29; cf. 1:1–2).

Scholars propose various reasons why Nicodemus came by night. Jewish teachers often studied at night,⁴⁷⁶⁵ especially those who had to work during the day;⁴⁷⁶⁶ thus Nicodemus may have come to receive instruction from a greater sage, namely, Jesus. More likely, he comes at night to avoid being seen (cf. 7:51–52; 12:42–43; 19:38); night was the time for secret (sometimes antisocial) deeds and whatever one wished not to be known.⁴⁷⁶⁷ Nicodemus remains a secret believer at this point, not a disciple.⁴⁷⁶⁸ Nicodemus here remains in solidarity with those who fear to confess Jesus lest they be expelled from the synagogue (12:42).⁴⁷⁶⁹ In the story world, fear accounts for Nicodemus coming by night, but John probably also mentions «night» on a more symbolic level for his audience (cf. 13:30), bracketing the narrative with Nicodemus coming «by night» (3:2) and true believers leaving darkness to come to Jesus» light (3:21).⁴⁷⁷⁰ In so doing, John foreshadows Nicodemus's ultimate discipleship in 19:39–42.⁴⁷⁷¹

Jesus responds to Nicodemus's observation about Jesus» identity by calling him to a greater level of recognition.⁴⁷⁷² For this reason, some suggest that 3is a christological assertion. Philo portrayed Moses» ascent to the heavenly realm of spirit to receive the law as a sort of second birth, whereas Christ is the only true ascender in this passage (3:13).⁴⁷⁷³ In support of such an argument we may note that, in the whole narrative, it does become evident that Jesus is the one from above (3:13, 31), and that Jesus was «born» (18:37).⁴⁷⁷⁴ Nevertheless, it is also clear that being "born from above» refers not to Jesus, but to the community regenerated through him who is from above (1:13). The level on which 3responds directly to 3is a summons to a greater depth of insight: by being born «from above,» Nicodemus can truly «see,» that is, understand, the kingdom of God. «Teacher from God» is inadequate, as is a worldly understanding of Jesus» kingship (18:36–37); only supernatural insight can enable one to grasp the character of Jesus» identity. Jesus insists that Nicodemus be born from God–that is, become a child of God and of Abraham. The implication that Nicodemus did not already have this status proved inconceivable to Nicodemus and becomes the focal point of harsh debate between Jesus and Jerusalem leaders in 8:37–47.

The narrative is full of plays on words (such as άνωθεν; φωνή; and πνεύμα); paronomasia and other kinds of wordplays were a common technique in ancient texts, though advanced rhetoricians advised very restrained use.⁴⁷⁷⁵ John plays here on more than one sense of «see,» just as κατέλαβεν in 1suggested both «overcome» and «comprehend.» («Seeing» could refer to their future experience as in 3:36, but in John can also refer to spiritual perception; see pp. 247–51.) As Nicodemus's misunderstanding quickly confirms (3:4), one cannot «see» the kingdom in the sense of understanding it until one has been born from above. John's audience may recall that it was divine Wisdom that showed (εδειξεν; cf. 2:18) Jacob the kingdom of God (Wis 10:10),⁴⁷⁷⁶ just as Jesus as divine Wisdom (3:13) tries to reveal it to Nicodemus here (3:11–12, 31–33). Because Jesus» kingdom is «not of this world» (18:36), this world cannot understand it; only those who, like Jesus, were not from this world but from above, could do so.

Some early Jewish interpreters in the more mystic tradition may have also understood «seeing God's kingdom» in terms of visionary ascents to heaven, witnessing the enthroned king. Many pagans took for granted the postmortem ascent of the soul,⁴⁷⁷⁷ but some sought various forms of visionary ascents while alive.⁴⁷⁷⁸ One trajectory of Jewish ascent traditions, found in the Hekhalot literature (the antiquity of which is debatable),⁴⁷⁷⁹ provides instructions on how to participate in ascents.⁴⁷⁸⁰ Although some early Christians reported such visionary ascents (2Cor 12:1–4),⁴⁷⁸¹ and they must have been familiar in the Johannine community (Rev 1:10), the emphasis rests on the agency of the Spirit (Rev 1:10) rather than on instructions for ascent,⁴⁷⁸² and in any case falls far short of the experience of a revealer who descended from heaven to begin with (3:13). Moses became a prominent representative of this tradition of mystic ascents; see comment on 3:13.⁴⁷⁸³ Rabbinic tradition played down Enoch and Baruch, representatives from nonrabbinic visionary traditions, but emphasized Moses the lawgiver. If John considers such mystics at all in this passage, however, it is only to polemicize against them; for further discussion, see comment on 3:13, below.

Greek άνωθεν can mean «from above,» «anew,» or «again."Although Nicodemus will construe it only as «again» (as in, e.g., Gal 4:9), John's audience (especially if not hearing this Gospel or its stories for the first time) will understand that Nicodemus has missed the point. The most common sense of the term in Greek⁴⁷⁸⁴ and the normal usage of the expression in the Fourth Gospel (3:31; 19:11; cf. 8:23) will lead John's audience to understand the expression as «from above,» in terms of John's vertical dualism. Greek thinkers could speak of God or gods as «above,»⁴⁷⁸⁵ in terms of a vertical dualism; but Jewish texts were no less attracted to the portrait of God as «above»⁴⁷⁸⁶ and to a vertical dualism contrasting God's heavenly realm with the earthly.⁴⁷⁸⁷ «Above» or «the one above» in fact became standard Jewish circumlocutions for God,⁴⁷⁸⁸ as elsewhere in this Gospel (19:11), so birth from above means birth from God.⁴⁷⁸⁹ Birth «from above» conveys the same essential sense as «birth from Spirit» as opposed to fleshly birth: what is merely human is inadequate, and the chasm between divine and human power is infinité.

Granted, born άνωθεν can mean «born again» rather than or in addition to «born from above»;⁴⁷⁹⁰ but John's informed audience, familiar with his own usage, will find Nicodemus's more limited interpretation wanting. Secondary characters sometimes functioned as foils for primary ones in ancient Mediterranean stories, for example, Odysseus's foolish companions versus Odysseus, who alone would survive (Homer Od. 1.8); similarly, Dionysius of Halicarnassus feels he can best articulate Demosthenes» greatness by contrasting him with others (Demosth. 33). In this passage Nicodemus becomes a foil whose misunderstanding allows Jesus to clarify his point for John's audience (cf. 14:5,8).⁴⁷⁹¹

Jesus» words about a rebirth, a transformation of character (3:6) that is an essential prerequisite to understanding the things of the Spirit (3:8; 1Cor 2:10–16), are clear enough on their own terms.⁴⁷⁹² Nevertheless, a variety of proposals seeks to explain the broader context within which John's audience would have understood the expression and could have expected Nicodemus to have understood the expression.

Many have proposed a Hellenistic context of some sort.⁴⁷⁹³ Plato spoke of a soul being «born again» (πάλιν γίγνεσθαι), but referred to successive reincarnations.⁴⁷⁹⁴ Some Greek thinkers accepted the idea of reincarnation,⁴⁷⁹⁵ but reincarnation hardly comports well with Johannine eschatology (5:25–30; 6:39–40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48). Some have identified the language of rebirth in the Mysteries, which they suppose influenced early Christianity.⁴⁷⁹⁶ Thus, for example, Bultmann admits that «the expression … «born of God»… is not attested in the same form in the mystery religions and Gnosticism,» but nevertheless regards it as beyond doubt that Johannine language derives from such sources!⁴⁷⁹⁷ Yet apart from the language of some of the deities experiencing recuscitation or new birth,⁴⁷⁹⁸ much of the evidence for this language in the Mysteries derives from uninitiated church fathers who read the Mysteries through the grid of Christian experience,⁴⁷⁹⁹ or from texts about the Mysteries reflecting their syncretistic views long after Christianity had become a major competitor for adherents in the Roman world.⁴⁸⁰⁰

Thus the testimony for the use of παλιγγενεσία in the Eleusinian Mysteries comes from Tertullian.⁴⁸⁰¹ Later texts from the Isis cult suggest transformation⁴⁸⁰² and rebirth,⁴⁸⁰³ but again, the earliest obvious language to this effect stems from Christian writers.⁴⁸⁰⁴ Evidence for a permanent rebirth in the taurobolium, dedicated to Cybele,⁴⁸⁰⁵ stems from the fourth century, possibly reflecting Christian influence.⁴⁸⁰⁶ Orphic rebirth involved a process rather than an event,⁴⁸⁰⁷ and did not involve moral transformation.⁴⁸⁰⁸ Philosophic conversion, without making much use of such images, involved moral transformation far more than any initiation into the Mysteries did.⁴⁸⁰⁹ One might also wonder how many members of Johns audience, even if Gentiles, would have been familiar with such language, since teachings of the Mysteries were by definition supposed to be kept secret! Thus Nock, who thinks that Titus 3adopts Hellenistic language in place of the earlier Jewish eschatological image of a new creation, concedes that

παλιγγενεσία is not a characteristic mystery word. Plutarch uses it, De Is. et Os. 35 p.364F of the reanimation of Zagreus and Osiris–not of their worshippers; in De carnium esu I 7 p. 996C it refers to the destiny of the soul after death and elsewhere it is applied to transmigration… Usually παλ. describes transmigration or (more often) the periodic rebirth of the universe after a general conflaguration.⁴⁸¹⁰

The mystery language is rare, unattested as early as the first century, and relates primarily to deliverance from fate, not moral evi1.⁴⁸¹¹ That many early Christian writers employed the Greek language is not in dispute, but this hardly requires knowledge of terminology obtained only by initiation into the Mysteries!⁴⁸¹²

The image of rebirth appears in Mithraism,⁴⁸¹³ which connects it with deification and liberation of the soul from matter,⁴⁸¹⁴ but although it existed earlier, Mithraism as we know it became strong in the empire only after the spread of Christianity.⁴⁸¹⁵ Hermetic sources include a rebirth linked with divinization,⁴⁸¹⁶ but, as noted in our introduction, these sources are too late, including the influence of some Christian language.⁴⁸¹⁷

The earliest, most widespread sense of being begotten by God in Hellenism seems to have been being God's children by virtue of creation,⁴⁸¹⁸ language shared in Hellenistic Judaism, for instance in the Jewish Sibylline Oracles.⁴⁸¹⁹ For Philo, God as creator is γεννητής, «begetter»;⁴⁸²⁰ the whole universe is born from God after wisdom.⁴⁸²¹ But individual παλιγγενεσία, «rebirth,» for Philo, occurs at death.⁴⁸²² John's birth from the Spirit as well as from the flesh, however, implies a special kind of re-creation (3:6; 20:22).

Many streams of Jewish tradition speak of birth from God in terms of creation⁴⁸²³ or Israel's redemption.⁴⁸²⁴ The Essenes apparently thought that those predestined to be part of the elect community were born from the truth, «from a fountain of light» (1QS 3.19; cf. John 3:19). Early Judaism also employed the language of «new creation» in a variety of manners. It was first of all the eschatological world (Jub. 1:29; 4:26; 1 En. 72: l),⁴⁸²⁵ as one would expect from Scripture (Isa 65:17). Later rabbis applied this eschatological image to a forensic new beginning, implying the cleansing of past sin, on Rosh Hashanah,⁴⁸²⁶ though all direct support for this tradition is late. One whose sins were forgiven (a designation naturally applicable to proselytes) could be compared with a newborn child.⁴⁸²⁷ Perhaps relevant here is the idea that one who converted another counted as if he or she had created them.⁴⁸²⁸ In earlier texts, God would also «create» a new heart for his people (Jub. 1:20–21) and they could plead with God to «forgive» them «and create a new spirit» in them (4Q393, 1–2 2.5–6, alluding to Ps 51and Ezek 36:26).⁴⁸²⁹ Probably most significantly with regard to the earliest Christian imagery, God would deliver his people from all sin in the eschatological time, an idea abundantly attested both in broader early Judaism (Ezek 36:25–27; 1QH 11.13; Pss. So1. 17:32)⁴⁸³⁰ and in the later rabbis.⁴⁸³¹ (Given rabbinic emphasis on Torah's power to deliver from sin,⁴⁸³² it is not surprising that a few later rabbis also connected this deliverance with a new birth of Israel at Sinai.)⁴⁸³³

But our extant sources also suggest a particular sort of newness associated with conversion in Judaism. It must be admitted at the outset that the most complete sources available on the topic are rabbinic, hence considerably later than John. Nevertheless, various streams of evidence suggest this images probable antiquity. If the image proves early enough, and if we are correct in our general understanding of John's milieu and the Palestinian Jewish matrix of earliest Christianity, this is the association that would stand closest at hand for John, his tradition, and his audience. In this case, Jesus calls Nicodemus to be morally transformed by conversion just as Nicodemus would expect of a proselyte, albeit perhaps more ontologically: he invites Nicodemus to become fully Jewish in faith!⁴⁸³⁴ As Robinson suggests, the passage portrays Nicodemus s religious life as mere «flesh,» waiting to be transformed by Gods Spirit.⁴⁸³⁵

Later Jewish teachers opined that when a Gentile converted to Judaism, the proselyte became «like a new-born child.»⁴⁸³⁶ Thus in a sense proselyte baptism, when accompanied by circumcision, cleanses away Gentile impurity.⁴⁸³⁷ The rabbinic phrase «new-born child» is not precisely the language of «rebirth,»⁴⁸³⁸ but when applied to an adult convert certainly implies it. A more important objection against the parallel is that in the earliest rabbinic sources the phrase applies to a new legal status rather than to an ontological transformation.⁴⁸³⁹ Perhaps engaging in hyperbole to underline the newness of status, later rabbis took the new legal status of proselytes so seriously that in theory⁴⁸⁴⁰ they permitted marriage to onés «former» mother;⁴⁸⁴¹ but this was a matter of legal status akin to what occurred in Roman adoption. Roman law recognized adoptive ties so strongly that it prohibited incest even if ties were based only on adoption;⁴⁸⁴² children were freed from their father's authority if the father lost his citizenship, just as if he had died.⁴⁸⁴³ By adoption, the new son lost all status connections with his natural family and his former debts.⁴⁸⁴⁴ Likewise one who became a Roman might no longer be considered appropriate to inherit from a mother of another nationality.⁴⁸⁴⁵ Cotta, recalled from exile, claimed to be «born twice» into Roman citizenship.⁴⁸⁴⁶ Although there was never consensus, many Tannaim forbade proselytes to call Abraham their father;⁴⁸⁴⁷ but many early Christians certainly understood converts to the Jewish Jesus movement as fully grafted into Israel's heritage (Rom 2:25–29; 11:17; Gal 3:8–14).

By their nature, other sources unfortunately provide less detail about the legal status or ontological dynamics of conversion than the more voluminous body of rabbinic tradition. Yet sources from Philo and Josephus to Joseph and Aseneth indicate that people anticipated transformation of some sort as well as a change in legal status; proselytes turned completely from their former Gentile condition.⁴⁸⁴⁸ Various traditions of moral transformation suggest the possibility of that image: echoing the language of Saul's transformation (1Sam 10:6), Joshua and Kenaz each became «another person.»⁴⁸⁴⁹ More relevantly (if the document does not bear Christian influence), Joseph prays for the repentant Asenath as she converts to Judaism: «renew [άνακαίνισον] her by your spirit… revive [άναζωοποίησον] her by your life.»⁴⁸⁵⁰ The Covenanters held that a hostile angel left the convert who truly obeyed the law (CD 16.4–6). Thus some Jews may have viewed conversion more ontologically than others. But many Jewish people did not, and the early Christian view of re-creation by the Spirit thus demands a more explicit sort of supernatural intervention.⁴⁸⁵¹

Whatever Jewish people believed about the transformation of Gentiles in conversion, they believed that Israelites did not need this transformation of conversion (cf. Matt 3:9; Luke 3:8).⁴⁸⁵² Thus, for example, in later rabbinic thought Israel was already delivered from the mastery of the evil impulse⁴⁸⁵³ or from the evil powers of the stars.⁴⁸⁵⁴ Jewish people were born into the covenant by natural birth; requiring a second birth to enter it was beyond Nicodemus's understanding.⁴⁸⁵⁵ It is therefore not suprising that Nicodemus might not grasp what Jesus was demanding of him (3:4).

Nicodemus's failure to understand the nature of Jesus» allusion (3:4) provides the opportunity for Jesus to explain more fully: he means a spiritual rebirth, probably employing symbolically Jewish imagery for conversion (3:5–6). «Entering» the kingdom is familiar enough language from the Synoptic tradition,⁴⁸⁵⁶ but «birth from water and the Spirit» as a prerequisite resembles at best only one extant logion in that tradition (Mark 10:15; Matt 18:3–4).⁴⁸⁵⁷ The reader not familiar with other early Christian language for regeneration (Gal 4:19, 29; 1Pet 1:23; perhaps Jas 1:18), presumably widely known among John's circle (1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18), would nevertheless come to this passage with some understanding based on 1:12–13; Nicodemus, however, is naturally clueless.

Jesus» opponents in this Gospel maintain that they are born from God (8:41), whereas Jesus replies that they are born from the devil instead (8:44). In this Gospel's radical moral dualism, mere fleshly birth is inadequate and leaves one a child of the devil until one is born from above, from God by means of the Spirit.

Like most characters in the Fourth Gospel, especially Jesus» opponents, Nicodemus fails to understand Jesus» heavenly message (cf. 3:11–12).⁴⁸⁵⁸ Greek sages and others sometimes employed metaphoric language⁴⁸⁵⁹ and spoke in riddles.⁴⁸⁶⁰ Jewish sages were likewise expected to speak in and understand riddles (cf. Sir passim).⁴⁸⁶¹ Yet Jesus» interlocutors repeatedly fail to grasp the meaning of his riddles.⁴⁸⁶² Jesus» metaphors in this Gospel in general and this passage in particular function like the Synoptic parables,⁴⁸⁶³ many of which proved impenetrable to those outside Jesus» circle (cf. Mark 4:10–12). Nicodemus's failure to comprehend Jesus» point, which Jesus regards as inexcusable for a teacher of Israel (3:10), encourages the Johannine believers that their message is dismissed through ignorance rather than through the intellectual prowess their opponents» claim. The darkness could not apprehend the light (John 1:5).

Jerusalem's leaders and others often understand Jesus partly correctly–but only on a purely physical leve1. They cannot be reborn physically (3:4), nor can they eat Jesus» flesh physically (6:52), nor can one younger than fifty have seen Abraham (8:57), and so forth– their preunderstanding of what Jesus should mean makes it impossible for them to truly hear him.⁴⁸⁶⁴ Usually they misunderstand Jesus by interpreting him solely within the framework of their own culturés expectations,⁴⁸⁶⁵ even when Jesus seeks to accommodate their language by speaking «of earthly things» (3:12).

But those who think an ancient audiencés sympathy would have gone to the perplexed interlocutor rather than to Jesus the protagonist⁴⁸⁶⁶ miss the point. To be sure, the audience may identify with the perplexity of disciples in 14:5, for even the text has not yet clarified the point for the first-time reader. At the same time, the misunderstanding of the Jerusalem elite, as in 7or 7:52, merely confirms their ignorance; God had provided insight into his mysteries only to babes (cf. Matt 11:25; Luke 10:21). Further, the idea that an ancient audience would have identified with the interlocutors fails to reckon with ancient literary expectations, in which misunderstanding served a valuable literary function. It sometimes functioned as an ironic or suspense device, for instance, when characters interpret a literal statement too figuratively.⁴⁸⁶⁷ Such misunderstandings often provided the audience humor at the misunderstander's expense;⁴⁸⁶⁸ at other times they intensified the tragic pathos of a protagonist misunderstanding a warning that is clear to the reader or dramatic observer.⁴⁸⁶⁹

In the gospel tradition, including the Fourth Gospel, Jesus» own disciples take some of his literal statements too figuratively (e.g., Mark 9:10) and some of his figurative statements too literally (e.g., Mark 8:16; John 11:12). Such misunderstanding serves as a dramatic technique allowing the primary teacher the occasion to expound the point more fully.⁴⁸⁷⁰ Often secondary characters become foils for primary teachers; thus, for example, both allies and enemies typically misunderstood sages in philosophical biographies.⁴⁸⁷¹ In the Socratic tradition and broader realm of Greek sages, disciples usually proved unable to comprehend the teacher fully,⁴⁸⁷² like the disciples in Mark and John.⁴⁸⁷³ While we may doubt that John's audience would readily think of Plato in particular, Platós dialogues helpfully illustrate the point: Socrates often trapped learned people in their inconsistencies, learned people who for Plato merely served as foils for his Socrates and the views he espoused. One of the first dialogues a newcomer to Plato might read was «the Euthyphro, in which Socrates engages in conversation with a seer and religious expert… who, it turns out, really does not comprehend religious values at all (as with Nicodemus).»⁴⁸⁷⁴

Recipients of divine revelation often proved similarly incapable of digesting the messages given to them;⁴⁸⁷⁵ the literature is replete with oracles understood only in retrospect.⁴⁸⁷⁶ Biblical prophets also misunderstood and required explanation (e.g., Zech 4:5),⁴⁸⁷⁷ and the motif appears frequently in apocalyptic texts (e.g., 4 Ezra 5:34–35).

Because Nicodemus missed Jesus» point (3:4), Jesus explains what he means by birth from above, using what is probably an «earthly» analogy (3:12): the rebirth of which Jesus speaks is not physical birth, as Nicodemus supposed (3:4), but a spiritual birth (3:6).⁴⁸⁷⁸ By «born from above» (3:3) Jesus probably means born «from God,» so 3clarifies this claim with «born from the Spirit.» «Born of the Spirit» is clear enough in the context of early Christian teaching (Gal 4:23, 29; cf. 1Pet 1:3, 23), but what Jesus means here by «born of water» (and how this helps explain «born from God») is less clear, though it undoubtedly made sense to John s original audience.

Proposals include apocalyptic heavenly waters, waters of natural begetting (semen), or waters of baptism (those of Judaism, John the Baptist, or Christians). We will suggest that the entire phrase «born of water and of the Spirit» is equivalent to 3s «born from above,» that is, from God, and therefore refers to the activity of the Spirit (7:37–39). Yet even if water refers, as we argue, to the Spirit, its specific mention by this title may be for contrast or comparison with either natural birth (1:13; 3:6) or baptism (1:31, 33), and in view of Jewish usage and Johns context, I believe that the latter is far more likely.

One way to read «water» in this context is to suppose that it refers to natural birth,⁴⁸⁷⁹ so that 3expounds 3:5: one must be born of both flesh and the Spirit. This interpretation makes some sense of the following context, of the birth or begetting image, and could be supported by a reading of 1 John,⁴⁸⁸⁰ but it has two flaws. The first is that, natural as «water» would be to describe the eruption of embryonic fluid from the amniotic sac at birth, it is a very rare description in extant early Jewish texts (though perhaps because midwives were women and rabbis were men).⁴⁸⁸¹ One could circumvent this problem by reading instead «begotten from water and the Spirit,» referring to conception rather than birth,⁴⁸⁸² in view of the frequent use of water for semen.⁴⁸⁸³ But «water» could represent a variety of mostly transparent fluids,⁴⁸⁸⁴ and on the level of Johannine theology it is (as we shall argue below) explicitly associated with the Spirit, for which semen seems a less apt metaphor than baptism does (1 John3refers to the word, as in Jas 1:18; 1Pet 1:23; Luke 8: ll;⁴⁸⁸⁵ contrast the language of Spirit-baptism in early Christian sources). Further, as others have pointed out, «from blood» would have been a more natural metaphor for birth or conception than «from water» (cf. 1:13).⁴⁸⁸⁶

The second and more important problem is that this interpretation does not fit what 3says, perhaps echoing instead Nicodemus's misunderstanding. Jesus is calling Nicodemus to be born of water and the Spirit as prerequisites for entering the kingdom; the context indicates that Nicodemus has already been born of the flesh and needs no incentive to do so again (3:4); rather, Jesus wishes to encourage him to be born of the Spirit and not of the flesh (3:6). Born «from water and from the Spirit» explains «born from above» in 3:3.

Odeberg also proposed that the waters refer to the celestial waters around Gods throne in Jewish throne-visions;⁴⁸⁸⁷ this would correspond with «above» in 3and might fit the theme of «ascent» in the context (3:13). But given the multiple uses of the water image, this one, restricted largely to throne-visions, seems less than obvious for Johns audience, particularly given the absence of such waters in the opening throne-visions of Revelation.⁴⁸⁸⁸ In light of 3:8, Hodges suggests that we read «water and Spirit» in 3as «water and wind,» hence parallel to «above,» and by implication «heaven,» in 3:3.⁴⁸⁸⁹ Hodges's appeal to context is insightful, but because we read πνεύμα in 3as both «wind» and «Spirit"–that is, as a double entendre (see below)–and the nearer context of Spirit in 3offers no allusion to wind, we doubt that the allusion is clear in 3:5.

As we argue with regard to the relevant passages in this commentary, most «water» passages in the Fourth Gospel suggest some contrast with Jewish ritua1.⁴⁸⁹⁰ The following context points to conflict between regular Jewish lustrations and John's baptism (3:22–25), as well as the greater baptism of Jesus (3:26–4:1), though even Jesus» baptism is by implication distinguished from and greater than the mere water baptism administered by his disciples (1:33; 3:34; 4:2).

Jesus could allude in this context to the need for Nicodemus to submit to John's baptism as a prerequisite for the coming of the Spirit.⁴⁸⁹¹ But while John is certainly a foil and witness for Jesus (1:8, 15, 26–27) and his baptism fits the following context,⁴⁸⁹² in view of 2and 3we suspect that John's baptism becomes not the single foil, but merely the highest example of the inadequacy of Jewish purification rituals. Given how the Baptist is continually subordinated to Jesus in the Gospel and the possible abuse some may have been making of the Baptist's name (see comment on 1:6–8), it is improbable that the Fourth Gospel would here elevate his baptism to a prerequisite for birth from above.

Yet John's baptism may be seen in continuity with Christian baptism. Certainly John's baptism was incomplete without Jesus» gift of the Spirit, but John's death did not end the practice of baptism, which already had been adopted by the Jesus movement (4:1–3).⁴⁸⁹³ The proposal that John 3refers to Christian baptism also has much to commend it.⁴⁸⁹⁴

Like the image of becoming a newborn child, the command to baptism stems from earlier in the Jesus tradition.⁴⁸⁹⁵ Moreover, one can argue that baptism and faith typically occur together in Johannine thought; Potterie contends that faith elsewhere precedes (1 John 5:6), accompanies (John 19:34–35), and here follows Christian baptism.⁴⁸⁹⁶ Unfortunately, the baptismal character of these other references is also disputable,⁴⁸⁹⁷ and it is difficult to see that Christian baptism would be offering Nicodemus an earthly analogy he could grasp (3:10–12). Still, John and his audience clearly do presuppose some information which Nicodemus does not (such as the identification of water with the Spirit in 7:37–39), so it is not impossible that John intends a reference to Christian baptism. Whatever else the water here means, if it alludes to any kind of baptism (and it probably does), it alludes to the public crossing of social boundaries, which would transfer Nicodemus from one community to another.⁴⁸⁹⁸

It is hardly self-evident, however, that John's audience would presuppose Christian baptism here; even some interpreters who see Christian baptism in this text acknowledge that the Fourth Gospel includes no other clear references to the ritua1.⁴⁸⁹⁹ Further, in the context of his whole water motif, where Jesus frequently supersedes the water of Jewish traditions (see comment on 2:6; 4:10; 5:2; 7:38; 9:6; 19:34), including the water of John's baptism (1:33), we propose another interpretation as more likely.⁴⁹⁰⁰

One Jewish lustration ritual probably makes the most appropriate sense of the «earthly» analogy (3:12) that Jesus seems to offer Nicodemus: as noted above, converts to Judaism were apparently seen as newborn children, and proselyte baptism seems to have been a vital step in this conversion process. If this is the referent of «water,» it would certainly drive home a stark point: the teacher of Israel (3:10) himself needs to become a true Israelite (1:47), a true child of Abraham (8:39–40), one of the Lord's sheep (10:14–15).⁴⁹⁰¹

Proselyte baptism is almost certainly pre-Christian, as we argued on 1:26–27. An early, explicit connection between proselyte baptism and the point at which a convert becomes a newborn child is more difficult to prove, given the paucity of discussion of baptism in our earliest extant Jewish sources.⁴⁹⁰² By the third century C.E., however, the connection is explicit,⁴⁹⁰³ and it is far less likely that the rabbis would have borrowed this idea from the Christians than that the syncretistic Mysteries would have done so. If John alludes to a Jewish ritual here as in many of his references to water, the most likely is the one associated with conversion, which again seems to have been associated with the image of rebirth in Judaism. This is not to suggest, however, that the Fourth Gospel means by «water» what most of early Judaism meant: early Jewish Christians had long before transformed Jewish proselyte baptism into an act of Christian conversion (e.g., Acts 2:38,41 ),⁴⁹⁰⁴ and the gospel tradition had long before employed «baptism» as an image for entering the eschatological life of the Spirit (Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33).

Even scholars who apply the «water» image to literal baptism recognize that the emphasis of the passage is on the Spirit, for it is the Spirit which is repeated in the context (3:6, 8),⁴⁹⁰⁵ and it is the Spirit that emphasizes the parallel with «born from God.» But what is the relation between «water» (particularly as we have understood it, referring to prosleyte baptism) and the Spirit mentioned immediately after it?

Jesus uses the image of proselyte baptism for conversion, but the informed reader will remember that the real baptism Jesus had come to bring was not a baptism in mere water but in the Holy Spirit (1:33).⁴⁹⁰⁶ The one passage in which the Fourth Gospel explicitly interprets its water motif for the reader is 7:37–39, where water represents the Spirit.⁴⁹⁰⁷ Water represented various items in early Judaism; in the rabbis it especially pointed to Torah.⁴⁹⁰⁸ But John's own explicit statements are the clearest clue to his meaning, so we should take our cue from him and interpret the other passages accordingly. It is not unusual for this Gospel to prefer ambiguous language which must be explained (e.g., 14:4–5). Just as Jesus» parables in the Synoptic tradition required private explanation, Jesus» heavenly teaching in John (3:11–13) remains obscure except to disciples who persevere (8:31–32), to those who receive the insight of the Spirit (3:8; 14:17, 26).

Although the grammatical argument by itself is not decisive in 3:5,⁴⁹⁰⁹ John's explicit explanation of «water» as the Spirit in 7invites us to read the more ambiguous 3as a hendiadys:⁴⁹¹⁰ «since both nouns are anarthrous and are governed by a single preposition,»⁴⁹¹¹ the και likely functions here epexegetically, hence «water, i.e., the Spirit.»⁴⁹¹² The text probably «reflects the typical Johannine idiom of «pairs in tension.»»⁴⁹¹³ Thus Origen suggested that «water» differed from the «Spirit» here only in «notion» and not in «substance»; Calvin also identified the two.⁴⁹¹⁴ At the least the grammar suggests a close connection between «water» and «Spirit» here, «a conceptual unity» of some sort;⁴⁹¹⁵ but the full and explicit identification of water and the Spirit in 7probably suggests a full identification here as wel1. (This would answer the objection that the otherwise likely identification of «water» and «Spirit» here appears tautologous.)⁴⁹¹⁶

In other words, Jesus calls Nicodemus to a spiritual proselyte baptism, a baptism in the Spirit.⁴⁹¹⁷ Some streams of early Judaism, particularly Essene thought, associated the Spirit with inward purification.⁴⁹¹⁸ Ezek 36 provided ready biblical precedent for this association of the Spirit with purifying water, and usually appears as the clear basis for early Jewish teaching to this effect. It stands as an allusion behind early Jewish claims concerning eschatological deliverance from sin (Jub. 1:23).⁴⁹¹⁹ Some commentators, while acknowledging the similarity in Ezek 36:25–27, reject it as background here, preferring to emphasize unspecified Greek ideas.⁴⁹²⁰ Other commentators accept the far more likely interpretation that «water» here alludes to Ezek 36.⁴⁹²¹ Given the possible allusion to Ezek 36:26–27 in John 3(see below), it is possible (though not definite) that this passage even involves an implicit midrash on Ezek 36 (especially if 3alludes to the wind of Ezek 37).

An appeal to Ezek 36 reinforces the probable use of proselyte baptism as an illustration for Spirit baptism here. Qumran's Manual of Discipline connects Ezek 36 with an immersion in conjunction with repentance (1QS 3.8–9). In this context, the «Spirit of holiness» cleanses God's people from sin (1QS 3.7), cleansing them «like purifying waters»⁴⁹²² poured out on his chosen at the time of the end (1QS 4.21).⁴⁹²³ Later rabbis also read in Ezek 36 an eschatological, purifying immersion.⁴⁹²⁴ While Essene baptism required immersion rather than pouring, the image of God «pouring» his Spirit like water on his people (e.g., Isa 44:3; Ezek 39:29; Joel 2:28)⁴⁹²⁵ provides a foundational water image for early Christian teaching about a «baptism» in the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:17).

As in John 6and 8:15, «the flesh» in 3is inadequate and spiritually valueless; only what shares the nature of the Spirit can relate to the Spirit (4:24), and as in 6it is the Spirit that matters.⁴⁹²⁶ In that context, Jesus is explaining that the real meaning of «eating» him is not physical; so here with the water of John 3:5. John may well be opposing a false «sacramentalism» of sorts,⁴⁹²⁷ but more than likely it is Jewish rather than Christian proselyte baptism that he replaces with baptism in the Spirit. This is not to contend that he would not have applied the same principles to Christian baptism had the situation demanded (cf. 1Cor 10:1–6), but to doubt that this is John's primary focus.

While the Spirit would ultimately raise the bodies of the dead, in a text to which John would soon allude in v. 8 (Ezek 37:9–14),⁴⁹²⁸ John focuses on the resurrection life which the Spirit makes available in the present era (John 14:16–19). Ezek 36 promised that God's Spirit would provide a new heart or spirit to his people (36:26), a new heart which is connected in the context with both cleansing from sinful practices (36:25) and the coming of God's Spirit to enable one to obey his commandments (36:27). As noted in more detail below, «that which is born of the Spirit is spirit» hence implies that those born from God share his moral nature (1 John 3:6, 9; cf. Eph 4:24; 1Pet 1:23; 2Pet 1:3–4). New birth is more than a metaphor of social conversion from one group to another (although it includes that); it is an image of absolute transformation.

John contrasts this rebirth by the Spirit with merely natural, «fleshly» birth (the kind Nicodemus thought of in 3:4); Scripture had contrasted the weakness of mortal flesh with the power of God's Spirit (Gen 6:3; Isa 31:3),⁴⁹²⁹ and Judaism by John's day, followed by early Christianity, had developed further the biblical emphasis on the limitations of flesh.⁴⁹³⁰ The body was not by itself evil,⁴⁹³¹ but by virtue of its mortality and finiteness, such «flesh» lacked moral perfection, hence became susceptible to sin.⁴⁹³² Whether or not in conjunction with Hellenistic influence,⁴⁹³³ this emphasis is not an unnatural development of the terms semantic range.⁴⁹³⁴ Paul, an early Christian writer who shares many ideas with John, seems to have emphasized this moral frailty of flesh (Rom 7:5, 14, 18, 25; 8:3–13; 13:14). John, however, does not use flesh with necessary connotations of sin (e.g., 1:14); for him, flesh simply retains its biblical and early Jewish connotation of creaturely, human frailty. As with Paul, this frailty is inadequate for the true worship of God, for which only the Spirit is adequate (Gal 5:19–23; Phil 3:3). If Nicodemus like Paul would boast in the flesh, in his religious standing before God from a human perspective (Phil 3:4–6), he had to learn that trusting the flesh was vain, and he must worship in the Spirit (Phil 3:3; see comment on John 4:23–24).

When John interprets the new «spirit» of Ezekiel, born from God's Spirit, and contrasts it with human flesh, born from natural birth, he presumably means by this «spirit» something akin to what his contemporaries meant when they contrasted «spirit» (or its synonyms) with «flesh» (or its synonyms). Greeks for centuries, and later Romans, regularly differentiated soul and body,⁴⁹³⁵ usually emphasizing the immortality of the former⁴⁹³⁶ (although exceptions existed).⁴⁹³⁷ Some Greek thinkers denigrated the body, even regarding it as a tomb from which one might be released at death.⁴⁹³⁸ Contrary to common scholarly opinion, however, early Judaism generally accepted this differentiation between the soul and body. Such differentiation does not surprise us in Josephus (Ag. Ap. 2.203) and other hellenized sources,⁴⁹³⁹ but also appears in many sources traditionally viewed as less hellenized.⁴⁹⁴⁰ Jewish sources, both those traditionally regarded as more hellenized⁴⁹⁴¹ and other sources, also usually embraced the immortality of the soul;⁴⁹⁴² this seems to have posed little conflict in their minds with the doctrine of the resurrection. Some even used various forms of the Greek idea of the body as a tomb.⁴⁹⁴³ That Johns audience might recognize here an anthropologically dualistic assertion (without further implications of the body as a tomb, etc.) is thus not difficult to conceive.

At the same time, given «the ancient principle that like begets like,» rebirth from the Spirit presumably implies that a believer «takes on the same character as Gods Spirit.»⁴⁹⁴⁴ After other things brought forth according to their kind (Gen 1:11–12, 21, 24–25), God created people in his likeness and image (1:26–27), as his children (cf. Gen 5:1–3). Recreation of the human spirit by God's Spirit would naturally follow the same principle.⁴⁹⁴⁵ For Plutarch, whatever is born from corruptible matter will also be corruptible, ever changing.⁴⁹⁴⁶ In the first-century Greco-Roman world one familiar saying claimed that benevolence and truth reflected the likeness mortals shared with deities.⁴⁹⁴⁷ Ancients frequently applied this principle to the contrast between soul (or spirit or mind) and body. Although onés body was from earthly substances, the soul was like a foreign exile imprisoned within it.⁴⁹⁴⁸

These popular conceptions found a ready home in Hellenistic Jewish thought. Philo taught that, because God had no body, creating people in his image meant creating the human mind, the most important element of the human sou1.⁴⁹⁴⁹ Thus humans contained both mortal flesh and, in their mind, the immortal, divine spirit;⁴⁹⁵⁰ for Philo, humanity is both terrestrial and celestia1.⁴⁹⁵¹ John does not, however, refer to the breath of life in all humans, but the specific eschatological endowment of a heart for obedience in Ezek 36, as becomes clearer in 3:8. This new nature comes «from above,» «from heaven,» but only through faith (3:15–16) in the Son who came from heaven (3:13) and was lifted there again by way of the cross (3:14).

Birth must therefore be from above, from God's Spirit and not from merely human flesh. As in Pauline theology (esp. Rom 8:1–11), what is merely human cannot please God (Rom 8:7–8). The initiative and power for spiritual life must come from God alone, and so with the continuing in the Christian life (15:5); only fruit, not human merit, is appropriate (15:1–8; cf. Gal 5:22–23). In the same way, worship is inadequate apart from the Spirit (4:23–24). A merely human perspective on Jesus» identity and mission proves inadequate (7:24); human criteria that would favor Nicodemus over a sinful Samaritan woman prove untrustworthy; encounters with Jesus himself accomplish more than arguments (1:46; 4:29) for those who may come to the light (3:20–21).

The Fourth Gospel thus repeatedly emphasizes that even what seems to be the noblest of human religion is inadequate (he in fact generally portrays the Judean religious elite negatively); only the spiritual life birthed and nurtured by the Spirit, claimed by early believers but not by most of their competitors,⁴⁹⁵² was adequate. If religion does not come from God himself, it is to be rejected.

Nicodemus could not comprehend Jesus» analogies because he lacked experience with the Spirit (cf. 1Cor 2:14); just as one not yet born from above could not even «see» God's kingdom (3:3), one could not grasp the origin of the Spirit-born any more than one could grasp the origin or destination of the wind (3:8). Not only had prophets played on the ambiguity of the Hebrew term that means both «wind» and «Spirit» (esp. Ezek 37), but earlier Greeks had used the winds as an analogy for the gods: they are invisible yet we see their effects.⁴⁹⁵³ Gentiles also used the wind as an example of unpredictability (to «write in wind» or in water is to make a promise one might not keep; Catullus 70.4). One would expect a comparison strictly between the Spirit and the wind, but the comparison here is technically between the wind and those born from the Spirit.⁴⁹⁵⁴ In this context, however, the application is apropos: those born of the Spirit replicate the Spirit's character (3:6), making their origin and destiny as mysterious to outsiders as their Lord from above, whose identity confounded the «world.»

Jesus summarizes his case so far in 3:7. Not surprisingly, «amazement» commonly accompanied miracles,⁴⁹⁵⁵ and it was a common response to Jesus in this Gospel (4:27; 5:20; 7:15, 21). More surprisingly, Jesus enjoins Nicodemus not to be amazed, though this, too, represents Johannine idiom (1 John 3:13), perhaps implying that the true heavenly matters will be even more shocking to Nicodemus's sensibilities than he may expect (5:28; cf. 3:10–12).⁴⁹⁵⁶ When Jesus summarizes his earlier statement about the necessity of rebirth more tersely and demandingly in 3:7, he uses the plural pronoun: «all of you» must be born from above (presumably because all of you are flesh, 3:6). Just as Nicodemus claimed «we know» (3:2) and just as more hostile synagogue leaders would later speak in similar language (9:24, 29), Jesus also speaks to the community that Nicodemus represents.⁴⁹⁵⁷ This makes good sense of Jesus» language of rebirth, since in both Jewish and many pagan circles, conversion entailed integration into a new community.⁴⁹⁵⁸ Nicodemus, a «secret» believer who is part of the powerful elite (3:1), will identify instead with the marginalized followers of Jesus.⁴⁹⁵⁹ Still, «we know» (in all but two cases οϊδαμεν) is a common Johannine phrase, often used ironically (3:2, 11; 4:22, 42; 6:42; 7:27; 8:52; 9:20, 21, 24, 29, 31; 14:5; 16:30; 20:2; 21:24), and Jesus» own «we» here makes sense on the story level; cf. comment on 3:11.⁴⁹⁶⁰

The blowing⁴⁹⁶¹ of the wind «where it wills»⁴⁹⁶² may imply what the inadequacy of fleshly birth did in 3:6: by definition, one cannot be born from above on the basis of onés own ability; one must look to the cross, as the Israelites looked to the serpent in the wilderness (3:14–15).⁴⁹⁶³ The destiny of the wind proves as mysterious as its origin.

Jesus emphasizes the mystery of where those born from the Spirit came from: God's own children, miraculously birthed into the world, could pass unrecognized by a world not equipped to detect their presence and difference. In comic portrayal, one who was lost might not know where one was from (unde) or headed (quorsum);⁴⁹⁶⁴ here it is the world that is lost in its understanding of intrusive visitors from above. Origin affected identity; one of the most basic questions a visitor would be asked is, «Where are you from?»⁴⁹⁶⁵ This question often matched another that is relevant in this context: «What is your parentage?»⁴⁹⁶⁶ (Indeed, in many cases the question, «Where are you from?» was best answered by naming onés father.)⁴⁹⁶⁷ One determined to live outside society's confines might delight in thwarting the intent of the question; Diogenes the Cynic replied that he was a «citizen of the world» (κοσμοπολίτης).⁴⁹⁶⁸ The Fourth Gospel emphasizes Jesus» origin «from above» (3:31; 8:23), making issues like an origin in Bethlehem or Galilee secondary questions (7:42). It seems to have been a commonplace that the wind was difficult to trace;⁴⁹⁶⁹ the rhetorical form of the comparison is also not unusua1.⁴⁹⁷⁰

Thus 3refers to the origin and destination of those born from the Spirit: they are from above and will remain with Jesus (14:3), but this entire realm remains obscure to the world (3:11–12, 19–20; 14:21–24). The world did not know where Jesus was from (8:14; 9:29–30) or where he was going (6:62; 8:14, 22); for that matter, this Gospel was not the earliest Christian work to claim that Jesus could not be understood solely from a fleshly framework but only by those re-created by God (2Cor 5:16–17). At the same time, Hebrew often contrasted opposites to imply everything between them (e.g., Gen 1:1; Deut 6:7), and Jesus probably implies that the entire character of the Spirit-led life is mysterious to those who have no experience of it (cf. 1Cor 2:14–15); Jesus models this mysterious, divinely-led life in this Gospel (e.g., 7:6–10).

There can be little doubt that «hearing the sound of the wind» involves double entendres between the sense most likely for Nicodemus to have grasped and the deeper sense available to Johns informed audience (for wordplays, see comment on 3:3). Especially after the connection between the Spirit and water (3:5), the informed reader will likely recognize «wind» as a significant OT metaphor for God's life-giving Spirit (esp. Ezek 37:9–14, which follows naturally after the allusion to Ezek 36 in John 3:5),⁴⁹⁷¹ an image further reinforced by the Gospel's climactic pneumatological passage (20:22).⁴⁹⁷²

Further, John's other language is decisive in favor of finding a double entendre here. John frequently employs άκούω in a theologically loaded sense.⁴⁹⁷³ Jesus hears the Father (3:32; 5:30; 8:26,40; 15:15; cf. 8:38); the Spirit hears Jesus (16:13), and others must hear Jesus (or in some texts, the Father or the Spirit; 3:8, 29; 4:42; 5:24–25, 28, 37; 6:45; 8:43, 47; 10:3, 8, 16, 20, 27; 12:47; 14:24; 18:37).⁴⁹⁷⁴ John sometimes uses hearing as an image spiritually synonymous with vision (e.g., 8:38). The φωνή, or «sound,» of the wind is also its «voice,» the usual sense of the term in John.⁴⁹⁷⁵ Friends of the bridegroom rejoice at his voice (3:29), and Jesus» sheep know his voice (10:3–5,16, 27); Jesus» voice raises the dead (5:25,28). Although God's voice occurs in other forms (12:28,30), by virtue of his being God's word, Jesus is in effect God's voice, his form, his sent one, and the embodiment of life (5:37). One who rejects his message cannot «hear» God (8:47). Everyone who is from the truth hears Jesus» voice (18:37); hence only those born from the Spirit know the voice of the Spirit.

Thus Jesus speaks not only of the «sound of the wind,» but of the «voice of the Spirit,» continuing his emphasis on the Spirit from 3:5–6. This particular pun works in Hebrew as well as (or even more clearly than) in Greek: קול רוח can refer either to the sound of the wind or to the voice of the Spirit.⁴⁹⁷⁶

Because a potential association between God's Spirit and wind in Ezek 37 follows di־ rectly upon an association between God's Spirit and purifying water in Ezek 36, a biblically literate teacher of Israel like Nicodemus should have caught both allusions by the time Jesus finished the second one; but he did not (3:9).

Only one born from above (3:3) could «see» God's kingdom, and only who came from above (3:13) could testify firsthand about heavenly realities (3:11) and so reveal heavenly things (3:12). Nicodemus and John's hearers can be born anew to eternal life only through the uplifting of Jesus on the cross (3:14–16);⁴⁹⁷⁷ the revealer from above must return above so that rebirth from the Spirit will be possible (7:39).

Nicodemus's use as a foil through whose questions Jesus will reveal insights to John's audience is nearly complete, so Nicodemus offers a final, general, «How can (πώς δύναται) these things be?» (3:9). Jesus responds in 3:10–13. Some argue that Jesus» use of the plural in 3represents the voice of the Johannine community;⁴⁹⁷⁸ in the whole context of this Gospel, however, it is more likely that it represents the joint voice of Jesus and the Father who bears witness with him so that he is not alone in his witness (5:31–32, 36–37; 8:13–14,17–18). Speaking against divine witness and attestation was a serious matter (3:32).⁴⁹⁷⁹

At the same time, Jesus» shift from addressing the «teacher of Israel» (3:10) to «you» (plural) who «do not receive our witness» (3:11) suggests that Jesus addresses the community of which Nicodemus at this point remains a part. Nicodemus nowhere recurs after this point, but Jesus» words profit the reader.⁴⁹⁸⁰ So clearly do these words address the reader directly that one scholar has even argued (implausibly) that the passage originally immediately followed the prologue, the language of which it shares.⁴⁹⁸¹ Still, the passage may reflect the words of the Johannine Jesus through 3:21; John functions like the Paraclete in applying Jesus» words afresh, and Jesus often speaks of himself in the third person in Son of Man sayings (e.g., 1:51; 3:13–15; 8:28).⁴⁹⁸²

Nicodemus was a «ruler» of Israel (3:1) and recognized Jesus as a teacher from God (3:2), but his own lack of understanding as a «teacher of Israel,»⁴⁹⁸³ one who claimed to teach others, proves shameful (3:10).⁴⁹⁸⁴ Even if one takes Jesus» words «Are you a teacher of Israel?» (3:10) as an expression of astonishment,⁴⁹⁸⁵ they undoubtedly represent reproof as wel1.⁴⁹⁸⁶

Jesus reproves Nicodemus for his failure to understand (see comment on 3:10). Jesus may reinforce the shame with a qal vaomer argument: Nicodemus cannot understand the «light» (what is earthly); how can he understand the «heavy» (what is heavenly; 3:12)?⁴⁹⁸⁷ Ancient rhetoric would have found acceptable the use of earthly analogies to communicate divine realities;⁴⁹⁸⁸ philosophic logic also reasoned from the known to what was not yet known.⁴⁹⁸⁹ The «earthly» things were probably such analogies as wind and the «water» of proselyte baptism.⁴⁹⁹⁰ Thus when in the Testament of Job Baldad challenges Job's knowledge of the heavens, Job stumps Baldad with a question and concludes, «If you do not understand the functions of the body, how can you understand heavenly matters (επουράνια)?»⁴⁹⁹¹ Similarly, Ezra could not answer the angel's questions about wind, fire, or a past day; how could he answer questions about heaven or hell?⁴⁹⁹² When Ezra struggles to fathom Israel's intense punishment, 4 Ezrás theodicy is that earthly people understand only earthly things, and only celestial beings understand things above.⁴⁹⁹³ The specific model for this passage is undoubtedly from the Wisdom of Solomon, probably circulated in most recensions of the Greek Bible in the Diaspora: «For the corruptible body weighs down the soul, and the earthly tabernacle weighs down the mind which has many considerations. And we barely figure out the things on earth [τα επί γης], and find the things at hand only with toil; but who has discovered the things in heaven [τα … έν ούρανοΐς]?»⁴⁹⁹⁴

The meaning of «heavenly» revelations depended on the circles in which one moved. Some Greek philosophers emphasized that they lived according to heaven's values revealed in nature, rather than according to earth's values in society.⁴⁹⁹⁵ They generally believed that the soul was of heavenly substance and was progressively freed from the corrupt material world by philosophy, and ultimately by death.⁴⁹⁹⁶ In the Testament of Solomon a demon's lecture on «heavenly matters» (των επουρανίων) is basically folk magic,⁴⁹⁹⁷ but in most texts «heavenly matters» are divine (see comment on 3:3). In apocalyptic texts, heavenly revelations could include meteorological data from the lower heavens,⁴⁹⁹⁸ but especially revelations focusing on the vision of God on his throne, as in other Jewish mystical traditions.⁴⁹⁹⁹ In John, things above are simply the things of God which Jesus shares with the disciples (cf. 16:13–15; Col 3:1–3); like Jacob's Ladder, Jesus was the one who bridged heaven and earth (1:51).⁵⁰⁰⁰

Nor would ancient hearers have paused long over the claim that people often rejected such revelations of heavenly matters (3:11). Thus Romans found unbelievable the supposed eyewitness accounts about heaven based on Drusillás ascent there.⁵⁰⁰¹

Jesus and the Father testified, but Nicodemus and his allies did not receive their witness (3:11). As such, Nicodemus, not yet truly a disciple, functions as a representative of the world that fails to receive Jesus» witness (3:32; cf. 1:10–11). The Baptist will confirm that Jesus is the one from above (3:31); earthly people like Nicodemus could understand and speak only of earthly matters (3:31).

Though Nicodemus was a leader in a movement that emphasized traditions more than the attestation of experience,⁵⁰⁰² Jesus» signs had communicated to Nicodemus and his colleagues Jesus» divine origin; now Jesus attests his revelation on the basis of his own origin and experience.⁵⁰⁰³ That only someone from heaven could truly reveal heavenly matters (3:13; cf. 6:46) would have functioned as a logical argument in Mediterranean antiquity.⁵⁰⁰⁴ This is true in part because the heavenly-earthly contrast would have been familiar to an ancient eastern Mediterranean audience. Many sources attest the view of some Greek philosophers that human souls, like the gods, were heavenly, whereas matter was earthly and perishable.⁵⁰⁰⁵ Influenced by Hellenism, later rabbis also opined that the soul was from heaven and the body from earth; thus doing God's will made people like angels.⁵⁰⁰⁶

But John speaks of a the descent of a particular person, not merely the souls of humanity or a divine spark within humanity, who is from heaven. His language of ascent and descent (e.g., 6:33, 62; see introduction on vertical dualism, ch. 4) closely resembles early Christian imagery for Jesus» incarnation or death and resurrection or exaltation (e.g., Eph 4:9–10; Phil 2:5–11).⁵⁰⁰⁷ Some have appealed to a descending redeemer from a gnostic myth here,⁵⁰⁰⁸ but this myth is far too late to provide reasonable background for John.⁵⁰⁰⁹ Talbert presents better candidates for Greek and Roman ascending and descending redeemers,⁵⁰¹⁰ but though these examples are superior to, and less anachronistic than, proposed gnostic redeemers, most of these parallels also prove inadequate: the visit of Zeus and Hermes in Ovid Metam. 8.626–721 appears no different from the visit of divine messengers in Gen 18:1–16; Serapis's message to Ptolemy and subsequent ascent in fire (Tacitus Hist. 4.83–84) appears little different from biblical traditions about the angel of the Lord (e.g., Judg 6:21–22).⁵⁰¹¹ He cites other examples that include a descent (human born, sent from the gods to help humanity) without an ascent. But when Talbert turns to the descent of Wisdom in Jewish sources, we have returned to familiar Johannine ground: Wisdom descends from heaven,⁵⁰¹² and in another line of tradition leaves earth during eschatological suffering.⁵⁰¹³

Johns direct source in 3probably follows his direct source for his claim that the earthly cannot understand the heavenly (3:11–12, following Wis 9:15–16), in Wis 9:17: the only way anyone could understand the heavenly ways was because God gave that person wisdom and sent his holy spirit from heaven.⁵⁰¹⁴ In the context of the Fourth Gospel, Jesus is not here merely one recipient of such wisdom and Spirit, a description that better befits his followers; rather he is divine Wisdom incarnate, having descended from heaven (3:13; cf. 1:1–18).⁵⁰¹⁵ When Israel needed salvation, God s all-powerful Word (λόγος) came from heaven (άπ» ουρανών ), from (έκ) the royal throne, to slay the firstborn of Egypt (Wis 18:15).⁵⁰¹⁶ Likewise later rabbis harshly condemned anyone who denied that the Torah or any part of it came from heaven.⁵⁰¹⁷

This image of Wisdom reinforces the emphasis on Jesus as Gods agent or «sent» one in the Fourth Gospe1. No mortal could initiate his coming: «Who has ascended to heaven (άνέβη εις τόν ούρανόν) and taken her [Wisdom] and brought her from (εκ) the clouds?» (Bar 3:29).⁵⁰¹⁸ God alone knows Wisdom (Bar 3:31–32), hence God alone could send Wisdom, as God alone in the Fourth Gospel sends his Son (cf. 3:17); cf. also Q material in Matt 11/ Luke 10:22. Solomon beseeches God to send Wisdom forth from his holy heavens (Wis 9:10).⁵⁰¹⁹

One could argue that Jesus has come from heaven after first ascending there, as Moses did to receive Torah, according to many Jewish traditions. Although later rabbinic traditions develop the theme in great detail,⁵⁰²⁰ the original story of Moses» heavenly ascent probably did circulate in the first century,⁵⁰²¹ and various commentators on this passage stress the story of the ascent of Moses.⁵⁰²² Wayne Meeks treats this theme most thoroughly, arguing that 3may polemicize against this idea by arguing that only Jesus has ascended.⁵⁰²³ We should also observe that, unlike Moses (cf. 6:32–33), Jesus did not merely witness heaven; he is "from heaven» (3:13, 31; 6:38, 41–42, 50–51, 58), from God's realm (1:32; 3:27; 6:31–33; 12:28; 17:1). In this context Jesus is not a Moses figure himself but the instrument through which Moses brought salvation (3:14). The context emphasizes that he is greater than Moses (cf. also 1:17; 5:46; 6:32; 9:28–29),⁵⁰²⁴ divine Wisdom itself.⁵⁰²⁵ Evidence suggests that mystics in Johns day already claimed to experience heavenly revelations (see comment on 3:3) and to attribute such ascents to figures of the past; some suspect that John here polemicizes against Enoch literature and other ascent texts about heroic mediators⁵⁰²⁶ or visionary mystics.⁵⁰²⁷ Given the polemic against such figures in rabbinic literature, a polemic against them here is not impossible; in view of the rest of the Fourth Gospel, however, the central polemic probably exalts Jesus above Moses. Philo declares that the Sinai revelation worked in Moses a second birth which transformed him from an earthly to a heavenly man;⁵⁰²⁸ Jesus, by contrast, came from above to begin with and grants others a birth «from above» (3:3).

For John, birth from above depends on the exaltation to heaven of the revealer from above. If Jesus is God's agent, then people must «come» to him through faith in his cross. Most people, however, do not do so, because they prefer to live in darkness.

This passage clarifies the prerequisite for birth from above: not mere faith in Christ in an abstract sense, nor faith despite the crucifixion, but faith in the crucified Jesus. Not only is Jesus greater than Moses because Jesus parallels the Torah or Wisdom which Moses merely mediated (see comment on 3:13), he is greater than Moses because he parallels the instrument of salvation which Moses merely lifted up (3:14).

The passage about the serpent (Num 21:8–9) which John uses in the Nicodemus story comes from a context which he probably mined for other information: the account of the well in the wilderness which follows in Numbers (Num 21:16–18) may inform John's following story about the Samaritan woman at a wel1.⁵⁰²⁹ Although the passage about Moses» serpent does not seem to have been a prominent favorite, early Jewish texts do recall it.⁵⁰³⁰ None of the extrabiblical traditions associated with that passage appear widespread enough for us to assume them as background for this passage, although it is tempting to consider Philós exegesis of the serpent going on his belly: he symbolizes pleasure, looking «downward.»⁵⁰³¹ Some very late traditions linked the serpent in the wilderness with the evil serpent of Genesis 3,⁵⁰³² though this probably illustrates midrashic techniques by which such a link might appear natural rather than a tradition on which John may have drawn.⁵⁰³³ Gnostic sources inverted the typical Jewish use of serpents (based on Gen 3) as symbols for evil into a positive symbol;⁵⁰³⁴ but these sources are late and in any case an unlikely source for John's thinking. They are no more valuable than the standard associations of serpents with particular pagan deities⁵⁰³⁵ and may be less valuable than the widespread use of snakes as an image of something hideous.⁵⁰³⁶ One should not press details as if Jesus becomes a symbol of evil crucified (cf. 2Cor 5:21)⁵⁰³⁷–in which instance those who crucified him would be compared to Moses (8:28).

Probably more helpfully, some interpreters saw Moses» serpent as a positive alternative to the hostile ones that had bitten the people, which had more in common with the serpent in Eden.⁵⁰³⁸ (Egyptians used images of snakes as prophylactic magic against snake bites.)⁵⁰³⁹ If this tradition is not ad hoc and might be known by John's audience, he may play on positive connotations of Moses» serpent. Another possibility is that the Son of Man bears humanity's judgment in death just «as the deadly serpents were representatively judged in the bronze image.»⁵⁰⁴⁰

Then again, the most natural midrashic interpretation would connect Moses» bronze serpent (Num 21:8–9) with his rod that became a serpent (Exod 4:3; 7:9–10, 15), hence functioned as a sign;⁵⁰⁴¹ in this case, Jesus» crucifixion is itself a «sign» (cf. 2:18–19). Moses stood the serpent on a σημείου, a standard (Num 21:8–9 LXX; cf. John 2:11, 18; 3:2);⁵⁰⁴² thus everyone (πάς) bitten, seeing it, would ζήσεται, live (cf. 3:15). As some rabbis interpreted «live» in terms of eternal life when convenient,⁵⁰⁴³ so here John can midrashically exegete «live» as «have eternal life.» Given material resembling Wisdom of Solomon in the preceding verses (3:12–13), an allusion to that work here would also make sense; in Wis 16the bronze serpent symbolizes salvation (σύμβολον … σωτηρίας), thus again functions as a «sign.»⁵⁰⁴⁴ Because John emphasizes soteriological vision (see introduction), one might suppose that he emphasizes looking on the serpent, hence on Jesus;⁵⁰⁴⁵ but while John might have approved of such an application, it is less clear that he intended it. Given his own emphasis on vision, it is all the more striking that he leaves it unmentioned here; it remains a very possible interpretation, but not conclusively so.

For John, however, the central element of the image is probably the «lifting up,» which he emphasizes elsewhere (cf. 8:28; 12:32), rather than any comparison with the serpent.⁵⁰⁴⁶ «Lift up» certainly refers to the crucifixion here as elsewhere in the Gospel, a usage it can bear very naturally in Palestinian Aramaic⁵⁰⁴⁷ and in ancient Mediterranean thought.⁵⁰⁴⁸ It is possible also that «lift up» may represent another double entendre; the term or its equivalents can mean exalt⁵⁰⁴⁹ by praise.⁵⁰⁵⁰ The Hebrew Bible often associates «lifting» with a «standard» or «ensign» used to gather God's people, usually translated σημεΐον («sign») in the LXX, as noted above on Num 21:8–9.⁵⁰⁵¹ (A bronze serpent as an «ensign» need not be viewed as an unusual image; before the LXX was translated, Persiás king used a golden eagle as his σημείον.)⁵⁰⁵² More clearly, in light of the vertical dualism of the passage (3:3, 13), «lift up» seems to connote «to heaven,»⁵⁰⁵³ but in John s Gospel this occurs by way of the cross.⁵⁰⁵⁴ Because John clearly refers to Jesus» crucifixion (12:32–33), he most likely derives the image from Isa 52(containing both ύψόω and δοξάζω), the context of the Suffering Servant.⁵⁰⁵⁵ (Traditions preserved in the Targumim may shed some light on John's usage, but those traditions may also be later;⁵⁰⁵⁶ the early Christian tradition may have been independent.) Given other associations, such as the Passover lamb in 1:29, John likely assumes an expiatory theology (1 John 2:2; cf. Rom 3:25).⁵⁰⁵⁷ (For the divine necessity implied in δεί, see comment on John 4:4.)

In the story world, if Nicodemus (assuming he has not already faded from the picture) has not understood preceding allusions to Ezek 36 and 37, he probably cannot understand this point, either. The Gospel itself gradually clarifies the meaning of the Son's «uplifting» and the probable allusion to Isa 52:13; John 8is somewhat clearer, and 12:32–33 is explicit.⁵⁰⁵⁸ But like the would-be disciples of Mark 4:9–20 and Matt 13:9–23, only those who pressed into the inner circle, who persevered long enough to understand Jesus» enigmatic sayings in the context of his whole ministry or his private teachings to his closest disciples, would understand. Jesus» enigmas are cleared up only to those who continue in his word (8:31).

In the context of the Son of Man being «lifted up» in crucifixion, the aorist εδωκεν plainly refers to Jesus» death on the cross, which this passage defines as the ultimate expression of divine love for humanity (cf. Rom 5:5–8).⁵⁰⁵⁹ The expression «unique Son»⁵⁰⁶⁰ adds pathos to the sacrifice, drawing on an image like Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac.⁵⁰⁶¹ Some could understand English translations (God «so» loved the world) as intending, «God loved the world so much»; but John's language is qualitative rather than quantitative. Οΰτως means, «This is how God loved the world»; the cross is the ultimate expression of his love.⁵⁰⁶² Nowhere in this Gospel does God say, «I love you»; rather, he demonstrates his love for humanity by self-sacrifice (13:34; 14:31), and demands the same practical demonstration of love from his followers (e.g., 14:15, 21–24; 21:15–17).⁵⁰⁶³ (See the fuller breakdown of John's uses of «love» in our introductory section on Johannine theology.)

«Give» occurs so frequently in the Fourth Gospel (sixty-three times) that it constitutes one of Johns motifs, though it is linked explicitly with love only on occasion (3:16, 35; 17:24). In some texts God specifically gives (usually either authority or the disciples) to the Son (3:35; 5:22,26–27,36; 6:37,39; 10:29; 11:22; 12:49; 13:3; 17:2,4,6, 7,8,9,11,12,22,24; 18:9,11). In these texts the Father grants Jesus disciples (6:37,39; 10:29; 17:24; 18:9); life in himself (5:26); works to do or commands to obey (5:36; 12:49), including his death (18:11); glory (17:24); supreme authority (5:22,27; 17:2); and (as an expression of that authority) all things (3:35; 13:3; cf. 11:22). God gives to others;⁵⁰⁶⁴ in these texts he gives the law (1:17), his Son (3:16); authority (19:11) or a role in his plan (3:27); the true bread (6:32, i.e., Jesus); the opportunity for salvation (6:65); the Spirit (14:16); and whatever Jesus» true followers request (15:16; 16:23).

Jesus is the giver in other texts, granting authority to become God's children (1:12); the Spirit (3:34, if understood thus);⁵⁰⁶⁵ the water of eternal life (4:7,10,14,15); the food of eternal life (6:27, 34); his own life as the food of eternal life (6:51–52); eternal life (10:28; 17:2); an example (13:15) and a command (13:34); peace (14:27); God's words (17:8, 14); and God's glory (17:22). The predominant christological usage is soteriologica1. In some cases the giving explicitly progressed from the Father's gift to Jesus to Jesus» gift to his disciples (e.g, 17:8, 22). Some uses appear inconsequentia1.⁵⁰⁶⁶

When John's audience thought of God «giving,» they may have thought of his gift most frequently mentioned in Deuteronomy, the land.⁵⁰⁶⁷ Perhaps (if members of John's audience would be inclined to make any comparison with their heritage at all) the most relevant comparison for them would be between the gift of God's Son and the «gift of Torah» (cf. Exod 24:12; Lev 26LXX; Deut 4:8; 4MT; 5:22,29; 9:10–11; 10:4; 11LXX; 31:9) emphasized in much of early Judaism.⁵⁰⁶⁸ But whereas in biblical and Jewish teaching Israel alone received that gift (see comment on 1:11; cf. Rom 3:2), here God gives the gift of his Son to the world (see comment on 1.T0).⁵⁰⁶⁹ This love is of the same sort as the Father's love for the Son (3:35; 15:9; 17:23) and is exemplified on a narrative level in Jesus» love for his friends by which he entered the realm of hostility to bring them life (11:5, 7–8), and by the cross (13:34). It also provides the model for believers» self-sacrificial love for one another (13:34–35; 15:12; 1 John 3:16; 4:11,19). This special love from Father and Son was an early Christian conception (e.g., Rom 8:37; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:4; 5:2, 25; 2 Thess 2:16) undoubtedly treasured in John's circle of believers (1 John 3:16; 4:10,19; Rev 1:5; 3:9).

Although John's portrait of divine love expressed self-sacrificially is a distinctly Christian concept, it would not have been completely unintelligible to his non-Christian contemporaries. Traditional Platonism associated love with desire, hence would not associate it with deity.⁵⁰⁷⁰ Most Greek religion was based more on barter and obligation than on a personal concern of deities for human welfare.⁵⁰⁷¹ Homer's epic tradition had long provided a picture of mortals specially loved by various deities,⁵⁰⁷² but these were particular mortals and not humanity as a whole or all individual suppliants to the deity. Further, deities in the Iliad have favorite mortals, debating back and forth who should be allowed to kill whom. But they do not knowingly, willingly sacrifice themselves (though some like Ares and Artemis are wounded against their will); Hera and others back down when threatened by Zeus, and even limit their battles with one another on account of mortals (cf. Il 21.377–380). Achilles complains that the deities have destined sorrow for mortals yet have no sorrow of their own (Il. 24.525–526). By this period, however, popular Hellenistic religion was shifting away from traditional cults toward personal experience,⁵⁰⁷³ bringing more to the fore a deity's patronal concern for his or her clients. Thus a few deities, especially the motherly Demeter and Isis, are portrayed as loving deities.⁵⁰⁷⁴

Jewish tradition often stresses God's abundant, special love toward the righteous or Israe1.⁵⁰⁷⁵ This tradition stems from biblical teachings about the covenant (Deut 7:7, 13; 10:15; 23:5; 33:3; Isa 63:9; Hos 11:1); without abandoning his ethnic universalism Isaiah could speak of the restoration after judgment in terms of God's special love for Israel (e.g., Isa 43:4; 63:9). In some early Jewish traditions God even entered into his peoplés sufferings, for example, sharing their exile.⁵⁰⁷⁶ Some second-century teachers felt that God cared more for an individual Israelite than for all the nations.⁵⁰⁷⁷ It was impossible for God to hate Israel;⁵⁰⁷⁸ in one late tradition God loved Israel so much that he made himself unclean once, revealing himself in a place of idolatry, to redeem them.⁵⁰⁷⁹ Some streams of Jewish tradition do point out that God loved (έφίλησεν) all humanity he created.⁵⁰⁸⁰ Other texts, however, indicate that, in the absolute sense, God loves (άγαπά) no one except the one who abides with wisdom,⁵⁰⁸¹ or that Israel was the sole object of his love in the world.⁵⁰⁸² Most texts simply do not address God's love for the disobedient.

John, however, emphasizes not only God's special love for the chosen community (e.g., 17:23), but for the world (cf. 1 John 2:2; 1Tim 2:4; 2Pet 3:9). The «world» in the Fourth Gospel is sometimes identical with «the Jews» (15:18–16:2), but refers to the Samaritans in the following narrative section (4:42). Jesus as a «light to the world» (8:12) may be Isaiah's «light to the nations» (Isa 42:6; 49:6; cf. 60:3), so in Johannine theology God's love for the «world» represents his love for all humanity. This remains a love for potential believers that is qualified by wrath toward those who refuse to respond to his gracious gift (3:36).⁵⁰⁸³ Nevertheless, that God gave his/Son for the world indicates the value he placed on the world. Some interpreters argue that God's love for the world here «exceeded even His love for His beloved Son.»⁵⁰⁸⁴ \

One might question whether John's interpretation remains consonant with the Jesus tradition here. Would such universalistic sentiments derive from the historical Jesus in any sense? Jesus did, after all, avoid the cosmopolitan, Hellenistic cities of Galilee⁵⁰⁸⁵ and seemed less than eager to accommodate Gentiles who came to him (Mark 7:27; Matt 8:7; 15:23–24).⁵⁰⁸⁶ But the early Christians may have been correct that Jesus» reticence stemmed from his immediate mission rather than his lack of concern (e.g., Mark 7:27; Rom 15:7–12); some other secure elements in the Jesus tradition probably indicate a concern for Gentiles.⁵⁰⁸⁷

Faith in the crucified Jesus yields eternal life (3:15–16),⁵⁰⁸⁸ life initiated at a birth from above (3:3–5). Although this was by definition eschatological life (Dan 12:2), John employs a present active subjunctive in 3to indicate that through faith a person experiences the birth that initiates the new, eschatological life.⁵⁰⁸⁹ (For further discussion of «eternal life,» see the section on «life» in our introduction.) In the context of the whole Fourth Gospel, however, it becomes clear that mere «signs-faith» can prove inadequate (e.g., 2:23–25); though sometimes starting with signs-faith, one must develop the sort of faith that perseveres to the end (8:31–32,59), that ultimately trusts Gods gift of eternal life so fully that it is prepared to relinquish the present life (12:25; cf. 12:9–11). Modern readers of 3:15–16 who assume that it rewards passive faith with eternal life, apart from perseverance, read these verses in accordance with a very modern theological understanding that is utterly foreign to their Johannine context.⁵⁰⁹⁰ «Perishing» (άπόληται; cf. 6:27, 39; 10:10, 28; 11:50; 12:25; 17:12) applied naturally to physical destruction (e.g., Mark 3:6; Matt 8:25; Acts 5:37; 27:34), but already had long appeared in early Christian texts for eternal destruction (Matt 10:28; 18:14; Rom 2:12; 14:15; 1Cor 1:18; 8:11; 2Cor 2:15; 4:3; 2 Th 2:10; 2Pet 3:9; probably Luke 13:3, 5; Jude 11).

The Father sent Jesus «into the world» at his birth (18:37) and he would leave the world at his glorification (16:28). «Into the world» is a frequent Johannine phrase (3:19; 6:14; 10:36; 11:27; 12:46; 16:28; 18:37) which, though it can connote a normal humans entrance into the world at birth (16:21) or one of Jesus» followers saved from the world being sent back to preach (17:18), usually fits well into this Gospel's high Christology, in which Jesus relinquished his heavenly glory to become mortal (17:5); see comment on 1:19.

That Jesus did not come to condemn does not mean that the world will not be condemned; in John's theology, the world is condemned already and only those who respond to God's gift in the cross will be saved.⁵⁰⁹¹ Salvation is a central aspect of Jesus» mission (3:17, 35–36; 4:22, 42; 5:21–24, 34; 6:40; 10:9; 12:47), though the language of salvation is hardly distinctly Johannine in early Christianity. Only the Samaritans call Jesus σωτήρ (4:42; as in 3:7, it applies to the «world»),⁵⁰⁹² and only in his conversation with the Samaritan woman does Jesus speak of σωτηρία–where he recognizes that it is «from the Jews» (4:22).⁵⁰⁹³ By contrast, the verb σώζω (like verbs for knowing, seeing, and believing) occurs more frequently, usually with reference to Jesus» mission and usually without explicitly specifying from what danger one is saved, though the context in two cases (and through these the others) suggests salvation from the realm of sin and from eternal judgment (3:17; 5:34; 10:9; 12:47).⁵⁰⁹⁴ Other early Christian writers apply the term more frequently, but often in a similar sense that suggests a degree of continuity in the early Christian use of this salvific language (e.g., Rom 5:9–10; 8:24; 10:9–10,13; 11:14, 26; 1Cor 1:18, 21; 3:15). This early Christian emphasis on God actively seeking to restore to himself, at great cost to himself, those alienated from him by their rebellion was a distinctive position in Mediterranean antiquity of this period.⁵⁰⁹⁵

But judgment also appears as a central motif in this Gospel (κρίσις in 3:19; 5:22, 24, 27, 29, 30; 7:24; 8:16; 12:31; 16:8, 11; κρίνω in 3:17, 18; 5:22, 30; 7:24, 51; 8:15, 16, 26, 50; 12:47,48; 16:11; 18:31). Jesus» present mission is not judgment (3:17–18; 8:15; 12:47), but the world apart from him stands under judgment (3:18–19; 12:31; 16:8, 11). Jesus will judge in the end, and the way people respond to him in the present determines their destiny (12:48); those who do not embrace him face eternal judgment (5:24,29). When Jesus judges, his judgment is just (5:30; 8:16), like the Father's (5:22; 8:50), who authorized him as judge (5:22, 27; 8:26). By contrast, unlike Jesus, the Father (8:50) and the law (7:51), Jesus» adversaries judge unrighteously (5:30; 7:24; 8:15; 18:31). Judgment occurs in the context of Jesus» ministry as peoplés hearts are exposed by how they respond to him and his message (9:39; cf. 12:31). John does not borrow this picture from Hellenism; Dodd in fact doubts that any adequate Hellenistic parallels exist to this picture of judgment accompanying the revelation of light.⁵⁰⁹⁶ For believing in Jesus» «name» see comment on 1:12.

The fundamental image behind 3:19–21 is the transcultural commonplace that activities conducted in daylight are visible, hence publicly known, whereas activities conducted when one cannot be seen can remain secret.⁵⁰⁹⁷ John's use of «light» and «darkness» would make especially good sense in his milieu (see comment on 1:4–5). In some diverse images in Jewish tradition, most of humanity was under darkness,⁵⁰⁹⁸ including the nations who rejected Torah.⁵⁰⁹⁹ Most significantly, even a first-time reader or hearer or the Gospel might well recall the stark illustration from the prologue: light is in conflict with and banishes darkness (1:5). They cannot coexist, and it is darkness that must retreat. (Modern readers may miss the shocking apparent incongruity of a small sect such as Qumran or the Jewish Christians identifying its own movement with triumphant light, with the rest of the world in darkness and evil–cf. 1 John 4:5–6; 5:19.)

Although John's Jewish contemporaries would agree that God can judge sins in the present time,⁵¹⁰⁰ they would emphasize that a person's works would be publicly exposed in the eschatological time;⁵¹⁰¹ but John's Christology leads to a realized eschatology in which that judgment and revelation occur in the present (11:24–26; 12:44–50).⁵¹⁰² This is not to claim that John denies future eschatology here (cf., e.g., 5:28–29; 6:39–40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48); rather, ones future state depends on how one responds to Jesus in the present. John's illustration of intrusive light for realized eschatological judgment may play on the eschatological «day of the Lord» (as in Rom 13:11–12; 1 Thess 5:2, 4–5);⁵¹⁰³ then again, he also exhibits no prejudice against mixing metaphors (e.g., 3:5, 8).

In this context the world's love for darkness (3:19; cf. 1 John 2:15) contrasts emphatically with God's love for the world (3:16); if the world is alienated from God, it is because it has stubbornly refused his self-sacrificial offer of reconciliation.⁵¹⁰⁴ This preference for the world's values rather than God characterizes Jesus» enemies, religiously committed though they may be (5:42; 12:25,43; 15:19);⁵¹⁰⁵ even Jesus» disciples would be tested in the priorities of their love (21:15–17). Ancient moralists might recognize that not everyone «loved the truth,»⁵¹⁰⁶ but emphasized that people should.⁵¹⁰⁷ John claims that only those who practice the truth will come to the light. This claim suggests that Jesus confronts people with the character they already have.⁵¹⁰⁸ Thus, for example, Nathanael is already a «true Israelite» when he confronts Jesus, and responds accordingly (with faith demonstrated by a correct Christology; 1:49).

Some read this as a statement of John's predestinarian outlook (cf. 1 John 2:19).⁵¹⁰⁹ Granted, some segments of early Judaism included a heavy predestinarian element, albeit usually not to the exclusion of human responsibility.⁵¹¹⁰ In 1 Enoch, those «born in darkness» who were not «of the generation of light» will be thrown into darkness, whereas the righteous will shine forever (J En. 108:11–14).⁵¹¹¹ Early Jewish sources particularly emphasize the chosenness of Israel or (especially in the Dead Sea Scrolls) its righteous remnant (Deut 4:37; 10:15).⁵¹¹² But just as Jesus» predestinarian language about his parables in Mark 4:11–12 and Matt 13:11–12 invites hearers to choose to become part of the group of persevering disciples, so does Jesus in John (e.g., 8:31; 15:5–6). Most Jewish groups affirmed human responsibility alongside God's sovereignty,⁵¹¹³ at least when it became an issue in dispute in the determinist mood of late antiquity.⁵¹¹⁴ In contrast to some systems then and later, most Jews probably viewed predestination and human responsibility as compatible.⁵¹¹⁵

Most importantly, in contrast with some of the Hellenistic views noted above, the Fourth Gospel explicitly requires a point or process of turning rather than simply being invested with a particular nature at onés natural birth: everyone needs a new birth to acquire the new nature (3:3–6). On this count, a sinful Samaritan woman (4:23, 29) might fare better than those exposed to Torah all their lives (e.g., 7:47–52). The probable inclusio between «night» (3:2) and «darkness» (3:19–21; cf. 7:7) suggests that Nicodemus belonged on God's side. But that belonging was still not in effect (3:3) until he believed (3:16), and was not secure until he persevered as a disciple (19:39–42). «People loved darkness» (3:19) seems to articulate general human depravity, which could reinforce Jesus» perspective on Nicodemus in the narrative: rather than commending him for coming, he challenges his evasive misunderstandings (3:4, 9).⁵¹¹⁶ One should not read too much into the general statement; the following narrative both affirms that all are coming to Jesus (3:26) and that no one receives his witness (3:32), statements which cannot both be true in the absolute sense. What confirms that Nicodemus has come only partway to the light, lest his deeds be exposed (3:20), is his role in the rest of the Gospel; only after further works of truth (7:50–51; 19:39–42) would he be ready to «come» to Jesus fully (3:21).

Some earlier interpreters, relying too much on the apparent predestinarian character of the passage, claim that John's interest is not ethical, but in two classes of humanity in some semi-gnostic sense, «children of light and children of darkness.»⁵¹¹⁷ This sort of choice between ethics and preordained classes is no longer tenable; the Qumran Scrolls divide humanity into just such groups but emphasize appropriate works and entrance into the community. Terms like ελέγχω,⁵¹¹⁸ ποιέω,⁵¹¹⁹ and often αλήθεια⁵¹²⁰ are the language of ethics; one may likewise compare a Qumran scroll in which «the people of truth» (האמת) are those who practice Torah⁵¹²¹ (עושי התורה). Stoic philosophers likewise divided humanity into the wise and the unwise, expecting the «wise» to actualize their status, in a sense, by progressing in wisdom.⁵¹²²

Jewish ethics in general, like John's, emphasized righteous works;⁵¹²³ Wisdom would lead one to works acceptable before God (Wis 9:12). Greek and Roman writers⁵¹²⁴ and Jewish tradition (e.g., Wis 1:16) concurred that people should act in accordance with their teaching, not simply speak; they also recognized that, despite pretense, onés true nature would come out in the end (Livy 3.36.1). In John, people demonstrate their character, either as part of the world or as those born anew from above, by their «works.» Works appear in a variety of senses: evil works (3:19–20; 7:7; cf. 2 John 11; φαϋλα in John 5:29) or good works, works of truth (3:21; 8:39); the creative works of the Father and Jesus (5:17, 20, 36), and Jesus» works, which often refer to signs (7:3, 21; 9:3–4; 10:25, 32–33, 37–38; 14:10–12; perhaps 15:24). As signs, such works should elicit faith (10:37–38; 14:11); those who embrace Jesus» works by faith will also do works (14:12).

For John, the central «work» yielding the new, eternal life is faith (6:27–30), but for Jesus, God's «work» is also obedience to his will and mission (4:34, 38; 17:4). Once one is truly in the light, one will keep God's other commandments (14:15,23–24), especially the central one, loving onés fellow disciples (13:34–35). One does the works of the one whose nature one shares (8:39, 41), hence birth from God's Spirit remains necessary for genuinely good works (3:6). Thus for John, the emphasis on works does not allow salvation outside of obedient faith in Christ.

In this passage John the Baptist again testifies for Jesus, as in the opening of the Gospel (1:6–9,15,19–36), framing encounters with prospective disciples like Nathanael (1:45–51) and Nicodemus (3:1–21); it also contrasts John's wilderness witness with elite Nicodemus's incomprehension.⁵¹²⁵ The passage opens with a contrast between Jesus» baptism and Johns (3:22–23, 26), and becomes a discourse full of Johannine Christology but which, unlike most Johannine discourses, appears in the mouth of the Baptist rather than of Jesus. This passage may address those who exalt John the Baptist too highly (3:26);⁵¹²⁶ it may also address those in the synagogue community who reject Jesus» deity but accept John as a prophet.

Central to the setting is the matter of ritual purification; John's disciples disagree with traditional views about purification (3:25), as does the Fourth Gospel's author (2:6; cf. 11:55).⁵¹²⁷ Yet his disciples, perhaps like some of his followers in the late first century, also held an inadequate view of purification; they may have seen Jesus as competition (3:26). As in 1:29–37 John again needs to point his disciples to the greater one (3:27–30). John, who offers the best form of Jewish purification, offers merely purification in water; Jesus offers a baptism in the Spirit (1:31–33; 3:5).⁵¹²⁸ That purification and baptismal questions are central to this section is clear from its unity with 4:l-3.⁵¹²⁹ Μετά ταϋτα (3:22) is a frequent transitional device in John (5:1,14; 6:1; 7:1; 19:38; 21:1)⁵¹³⁰ and Revelation (1:19; 4:1; 7:9; 9:12; 15:5; 18:1; 19:1; 20:3) which also occurs seven times in Luke-Acts and on only two other occasions in the NT.

Regardless of the applicability to followers of the Baptist in the time in which the Fourth Gospel was written, a historical reminiscence likely stands behind the tension between John's and Jesus» followers.⁵¹³¹ The Synoptics allow for little overlap between John and Jesus, presenting Jesus as John's successor and the fulfillment of his message. One might suppose that John, whose story world extends the ministry of Jesus to two or three years, overlaps Jesus and John the Baptist. For an apologetic against followers of the Baptist, however, the chronology followed in the Synoptic tradition would have worked well enough. (John apparently knew the tradition circulated through Mark and his Synoptic followers; 3seems to explicitly respond to it.)⁵¹³² The Fourth Gospel thus allows the tension between the two movements to stand as early as Jesus» ministry, but clarifies the appropriate place of the Baptist movement through the Baptist's own words. The Synoptics may well have suppressed the overlap as a potential embarrassment,⁵¹³³ although there is less evidence of tension with a Baptist community at that point.

Jesus came into Judea (3:22), which either refers to «Judea outside of Jerusalem» (thus the presence of γήν) or implies that the author refers to a point after that of 3:1–21, with an unmentioned elapse of time and return to Galilee. If his proximity to John is implied, he may be in the Jordan Valley (3:23).

According to the most common reconstruction,⁵¹³⁴ «Aenon» («springs») near Salim, the place with much water, is probably near the modern Ainun («little fountain»); though Ainun lacks water, many springs remain in the region. Most significantly, this location lies east of Mount Gerizim and the ancient Shechem, now the leading center of Samaritan habitation.⁵¹³⁵ This means that Jesus» ministry in «unclean» Samaria (4:9) in a sense followed his predecessor's precedent of ministering near that region.⁵¹³⁶ Early Christian texts from Lukés as well as John's tradition indicate that Jesus was more open to Samaritans than most of his contemporaries (Luke 10:33; 17:16; Acts 1:8) and that the Samaritan mission was largely successful (Acts 8:5–25).⁵¹³⁷ Would John's audience, perhaps retaining some roots in Galilee, recognize the Samaritan place names?⁵¹³⁸

Although it remains possible that the Fourth Gospel's audience knew something of Galilean geography (perhaps at least Salim), John lacks much theological incentive to create Aenon. Historically it seems likely that John the Baptist baptized in this region for at least three reasons: First, John drew adherents especially from Judea, but also from Galilee.⁵¹³⁹ Second, a location near Perea, with its many Nabatean inhabitants, would render politically sensitive his denunciation of Antipas's affair with Herodias. That affair had led to severely damaged relations with the Nabatean kingdom, whose ruler Antipas had carelessly insulted by preferring Herodias to that king's daughter whom he had planned to divorce.⁵¹⁴⁰ (Nabateans also were known for securing water in the desert, which had enabled them to surpass other Arab tribes;⁵¹⁴¹ it is possible that this information might be relevant for the Baptist when away from the Jordan.) Third, John was probably executed at Antipas's fortress, Machaerus, near this region.⁵¹⁴²

This aside serves several functions. First, it notifies members of an audience perhaps familiar with the Markan tradition preserved in the Synoptics that the author of the Fourth Gospel is not unaware that John would be imprisoned; it simply had not happened at this point in Jesus» ministry, as one might gather from the Synoptic abbreviation (Mark 1:14). Second, it serves as a prolepsis for those familiar with that tradition; the Gospel must mention it here because it will not be narrated later.⁵¹⁴³ Finally, the aside sounds much like an earlier aside in Jer 37:4, augmenting the prophetic identity of John and the reliability of his witness.

Once arrested, John was imprisoned in the fortress Machaerus,⁵¹⁴⁴ which was in Perea, the region «across the Jordan» where the Fourth Gospel places much of John s public ministry (1:28; 3:26; 10:40). Even outside Palestine, Machaerus was known as one of the strongest fortresses of Judea.⁵¹⁴⁵ Just as the Synoptic tradition may have abbreviated the overlap between Jesus and John, Josephus appears to have simplified the account of John s martyrdom. Whereas in Josephus John's execution appears to follow his arrest quickly, Mark (6:17,21) and Q (Matt ll:2/Luke 7:18) both suggest that Antipas kept John imprisoned for some time before executing him.⁵¹⁴⁶ John's imprisonment may function to foreshadow Jesus» impending arrest (though not as clearly as in Mark 6:14–29); this was an accepted and ancient literary technique.⁵¹⁴⁷

The Fourth Gospel portrays Jesus» purification by the Spirit as superior to John's by water (1:33), but John's is also the best of all Jewish purifications, from which it is here distinguished⁵¹⁴⁸ and to which Jesus» work is also far superior (2:6; cf. 3:5). Purification rites were common throughout the Mediterranean world (see comment on 1:25–26, 31), and early Judaism, which had developed biblical purification rituals, was no exception. Various baptistic sects, most notably the Essenes, may have competed in the wilderness,⁵¹⁴⁹ and these may have challenged the character of the Baptist's immersions; but these sects and the Pharisees also condemned one another's baptisms.⁵¹⁵⁰ In the context of this Gospel, the «Jew» with whom John's disciples here clash⁵¹⁵¹ probably means one of more Pharisaic, Jerusalemite persuasion.

The Fourth Gospels portrait of baptism by Jesus» disciples (3:26) makes sense. Because Christian baptism is presupposed in our earliest sources (Paul, e.g., Rom 6:3–4; 1Cor 1:14–17) and our depictions of the earliest events (Jesus» postresurrection commission in Matt 28:19; the first Christian sermon in Acts 2:38), it seems more likely that Jesus, who moved in the Baptist's circle, actually instituted the rite, than that later urban Jerusalem Christians or Galilean Christians more chronologically and geographically distant from the Baptist would have done so. If John demanded immersion as a sign of repentance and Jesus regarded him as a prophet, presumably Jesus would have carried on the same tradition.⁵¹⁵² Moreover, if John the Baptist practiced the rite, there is no reason that Jesus» earliest disciples could not have done so. Yet the lack of evidence for the practice in the Synoptic tradition is telling; whether the Synoptics de-emphasize it to avoid comparisons with the Baptist, or whether Christian baptism represents a postresurrection mandate, is unclear. At the same time, the Fourth Gospel appears to have more reason to downplay it than the Synoptics, and may report accurate historical tradition that, in the earliest stage of Jesus» ministry, which overlapped with that of John in a comparable region, Jesus» disciples supervised others» baptisms under his supervision. The author is careful to report that Jesus himself did not practice baptism (4:2), which might help explain why it does not appear in Synoptic tradition. Further, the baptism of Jesus» followers at this stage would have appeared to outsiders as merely a continuation of the Baptist's practice by one of his former disciples.⁵¹⁵³ The author's primary purpose in recording that Jesus himself did not baptize, however, is undoubtedly to retain the primary emphasis on baptism in the Spirit (1:33). The announcement that «all» are coming (έρχονται) to Jesus (3:26) may displease John's disciples who came (ήλθον) to John (cf. the warning in 11:48).⁵¹⁵⁴ By contrast, the report of «all» coming to Jesus pleases John (3:27), both because Jesus is «above all» (3:31) and because John's mission was to testify to the light that «all» might believe the light (1:7).

Gossip networks were common, so it is not surprising that matters thought to be of interest were often reported to teachers.⁵¹⁵⁵ The Fourth Gospel recounts the disciples» report to John the Baptist, however, to provide the setting for John's ready acknowledgment that Jesus holds the supreme authority (3:27–36).

Ancient literature reports numerous rivalries, for instance among philosophical schools, dramatic poets, and politicians (see comment on 17:21–23); rivalries also appeared among first-century Christian workers (1Cor 1:11–12; Phil 1:15–17; 4:2–3; cf. Matt 24:45–51). But once past figures had attained the status of public heroes, the tendency was often to reduce the tensions between the schools. Thus Seneca the Stoic could explain that Epicurus was not so bad as Epicureans.⁵¹⁵⁶ Likewise, Aulus Gellius could point out that, despite the common belief that Plato and Xenophon were rivals, in reality their followers, out of zeal for their heroes, were rivals. Plato and Xenophon worked together, but their followers tried to show one or the other to be greater.⁵¹⁵⁷ It would not be surprising if some had made Jesus and the Baptist rivals, especially among the latter's disciples who did not become part of the Jesus movement (see comment on 1:6–8);⁵¹⁵⁸ but John lays such suspicions to rest as in 1:19–36.

John's ambition was to fulfill God's purpose as Jesus» forerunner, not to seek his own glory.⁵¹⁵⁹ (Just how pervasive this Johannine emphasis is may be surmised from the contrast with Q: whereas John in prison later sends disciples to confirm Jesus» identity, here he confirms it in response to his disciples» information.)⁵¹⁶⁰ He acknowledges that any significance in his own role is nothing but a matter of divine gift, hence not a cause for boasting (3:27). That a divine gift was not appropriate grounds for self-boasting was often recognized (cf. 1Cor 4:7).⁵¹⁶¹ «Heaven» was a Jewish surrogate title for God,⁵¹⁶² but like «above» (3:5), again reiterates John's vertical dualism, which emphasizes in turn the infinite distance between God and humanity crossed only in Christ (1:51). In contrast to John, Jesus not only receives from heaven but is from heaven (3:12–13); the rest of the Gospel indicates that what the Father gave Jesus, in fact, was authority over all (3:35; 5:27; 13:3; 17:2), especially those the Father had «given» to him (6:39; 10:29; 17:2, 9; 18:9). John reiterates his earlier claim (1:20–27; see comment there) that he was merely sent before the Messiah (3:28).

Naturally John will rejoice in the news about Jesus» growing following (3:29). John adds a new illustration based on the responsibility of the bridegroom's friends to rejoice with him.⁵¹⁶³ As Jesus provided joy for his friend's wedding (2:6–11)–even at a great price (2:4)–so those who follow him should rejoice in his honor at the banquet his Father has prepared for him. In at least some Mediterranean cultures, friends or relatives of the bridegroom could offer speeches of encouragement at the wedding banquet.⁵¹⁶⁴ The bridegroom's «friend» here may be the shoshbin⁵¹⁶⁵ (sometimes compared with our modern «best man»), a highly honored position that involved much joy.⁵¹⁶⁶ (A shoshbin would undoubtedly be chosen with more forethought than the ruler of the wedding banquet in 2:9.) The shoshbins of bride and groom functioned as witnesses in the wedding,⁵¹⁶⁷ normally contributed financially to the wedding,⁵¹⁶⁸ and would be intimately concerned with the success of the wedding.⁵¹⁶⁹ Some have linked the shoshbin with the marriage negotiator.⁵¹⁷⁰ This was probably sometimes the case; agents (shaliachim) often negotiated betrothals,⁵¹⁷¹ and sometimes these agents were probably significant persons who might also fill a role in the wedding, which might fit the image of John as one «sent» by God.⁵¹⁷² But such agents were sometimes servants,⁵¹⁷³ not likely to become shoshbins.⁵¹⁷⁴

The text's χαρά χαίρει («rejoice with joy») is emphatic. Joy was so important at weddings (see comment on 2:1–3) that many later rabbis insisted that a bridegroom, the shoshbins, and the guests were free from most daily prayers⁵¹⁷⁵ and the obligation of living in tabernacles during the Feast of Sukkoth.⁵¹⁷⁶ Just as one was expected to mourn with mourners, piety demanded rejoicing with the groom at a wedding;⁵¹⁷⁷ «gladdening» bride and groom was an obligation.⁵¹⁷⁸ To illustrate the importance God attached to the joy of weddings, Jewish teachers reported that God himself acted as Adam's shoshbin, his best man.⁵¹⁷⁹

Although the same image of wedding joy underlies Mark 2:19–20, one hardly need suppose that this passage reflects the influence of that one; the custom was pervasive. Especially for the Fourth Gospel, the image of Jesus as the bridegroom might stem from the earlier biblical image of God as Israel's groom.⁵¹⁸⁰ A closer connection may be with the wedding scene in John 2,⁵¹⁸¹ where Jesus underlined the significance of the feast's joy by allowing it to continue.⁵¹⁸²

The focus of the wedding illustration is joy (which appears associated with friendship also in 15:11–15). Greeks thought of joy in a variety of ways,⁵¹⁸³ and Jewish people often connected it with keeping God's commandments.⁵¹⁸⁴ In John's Gospel, joy applies espedaily to the postresurrection relationship the disciples would have with God (15:11; 16:20–24; 17:13; 20:20).⁵¹⁸⁵ Heroes of the past like Abraham (8:56) and John the Baptist (3:29) rejoiced with Jesus; all who sowed would rejoice with his reaping and that of the disciples (4:36), and his disciples should also rejoice with his restoration to the Father (14:28). Johns joy, like that of others in the Gospel, thus appears paradigmatic for believers who wish to exalt Jesus. John also «hears» Jesus (3:29), which reinforces his paradigmatic significance in the Gospel (e.g., 3:8; 10:3).

The Gospel's perspective on sacrificial friendship (15:13) may invest the image of the bridegroom's «friend» here with commitment to martyrdom, although the connection is not explicit and may be inferred only because the Gospel draws from a larger ancient tradition of characteristics of friendship. In any case, desiring to subordinate himself to his Lord, John was willing to become less prominent. This could imply his willingness to face imprisonment (3:24) and martyrdom,⁵¹⁸⁶ but Jesus, too, would face hostility and death. The most essential part of his submission was his subordination to Christ.

This passage is consummate Johannine Christology,⁵¹⁸⁷ bringing together more diverse Johannine themes than even the prologue (though less integrative ones). The view that these verses represent the author's «theological reflection» on the Baptist's testimony is therefore not unlikely.⁵¹⁸⁸ At the same time, the Baptist's testimony does not clearly break here; if these are not his words, the writer takes them as the logical implications to which the Baptist's testimony must point. John is a model for witness: even at onés own expense, causing one to decrease (1:20–37; 3:30), one must seek to glorify Jesus and point people to him; this is the work that the Spirit empowers (15:26–27; 16:14).

The passage explains why the Baptist must decrease but Jesus» ministry increase: Jesus is the one from heaven, whose witness is essential (3:31–32); see comment on 3:12–13, to which this passage alludes (for the rejection of his witness, see comment on 1:10; 3:19–20).⁵¹⁸⁹ Jesus is the one from above (3:13), whereas Nicodemus, a representative of inquirers from the Judean elite and the world, was from below (cf. 8:23) and could only understand and speak of earthly things (3:12). In view of 3(see comment there), Jesus is also greater than Moses,⁵¹⁹⁰ and so also greater than John. Just as the one who was before John chronologically precedes him in rank (1:15), so also the one from heaven has rank over all the earth, including over John the Baptist. That those who behold and hear testify (3:32) is good Johannine language (John 19:35; 1 John 1:1–2), but here refers specifically to Jesus» claim to testify what they had seen (3:11).

Jesus already bears God's seal of approval (6:27). That one who accepts Jesus» witness has «sealed» it with the testimony that God is true (3:33) seems to imply that those who receive him become further witnesses attesting the veracity of his claim. Persons of means typically offered their seal by means of a signet ring,⁵¹⁹¹ sometimes to attest who enacted a transaction,⁵¹⁹² who made an official decree,⁵¹⁹³ or who witnessed the execution of a document.⁵¹⁹⁴ One could employ the term figuratively for an ancient, quoted authority's testimony.⁵¹⁹⁵ In Jewish tradition charity could provide a divine seal (σφραγίς) before God meriting reward (Sir 17:22), and one could be perfected by the seal (σφραγίς) of martyrdom (4 Macc 7:15); these seals refer to God's seal on people. Here, however, people also affix their testimony to God's faithfulness, his truth in Jesus the Messiah (e.g., 1:7–8,15, 32,34; 3:26; 4:39; 15:27).⁵¹⁹⁶ But while Jesus accepts such other witnesses (5:33–35), his final, critical attestation continues to be from God himself (5:31, 34, 36–39; 8:16–18; esp. 6:27).⁵¹⁹⁷ Some later rabbis declared that God needed no one to attest his decrees but his own seal, which is truth (ΠΏΚ).⁵¹⁹⁸

In 3:34, Jesus speaks God's words (cf. 8:47; 12:47; 14:10,24) because God attested him by the Spirit (cf. also 1:32–33; 15:26); this declaration is primarily christological but also supplies a model for Jesus» followers, who will speak his words because the Spirit is with them (15:26–27; 20:22). Jesus might be the dispenser of the Spirit to humanity (cf. 15:26),⁵¹⁹⁹ just as the waterpots in 2were to be filled «to the brim.» Jesus is the giver in 4:10; 6:27; 14(cf. Rev 2:7), and the Son indeed exercises delegated authority to carry out God's works («all things into his hand,» 3:35; 13:3).⁵²⁰⁰ In the nearest of the texts in which Jesus is giver, he gives living water, presumably the Spirit (4:10).

Conversely, if the subject and object of «give» are the same in 3and 3:35, then the Father gives Jesus the Spirit in limitless measure to Jesus in 3:34.⁵²⁰¹ The Father is the giver to humanity in 3:16,27, to the disciples through Jesus» intervention in 14and 16:23, but specifically to the Son in 3:35; 5:26; 11:22; 13:3; 17:2. That Jesus has the Spirit «without measure» would indicate that the Spirit abides on him (1:32–33) and could contrast him with the prophets, who, even according to later rabbinic tradition, had the Spirit only «by weight,» that is, by measure, meaning that each prophet spoke only one or two books of prophecy.⁵²⁰² Jesus provides a well springing forth within each believer (4:14), but the unlimited rivers of water flow from him (7:37–39).

If this Gospel leaves a hint that these words reflect John's thought, John's words about the Spirit probably allude to his own witness of the Spirit attesting Jesus in 1:32–33. In this context the Son is clearly the special object of the Father's love (see comment on love in the introduction), which the Father demonstrates by entrusting all things into his hand (3:35; cf. 5:27; 17:2). But the lack of specified object for «gives» (and perhaps its present tense) might support the idea of giving to the world, so in the end it is difficult to settle on the preferred interpretation; but «receives» the Spirit without measure might fit Jesus as the recipient better. The Father's enormous love for the Son (3:35) becomes the Johannine measure of God's love for the disciples (17:23), as Christ's sacrifice attests (3:16).

The wrath of God against an unrighteous world (3:36) fits Jewish teaching;⁵²⁰³ here, however, the line of demarcation between righteousness and unrighteousness is faith in Jesus (3:36). The contrast between the fate of the believing (see comment on 3:15–16)⁵²⁰⁴ and the disobedient⁵²⁰⁵ develops further the teaching in 3:19–21; that the contrast between faith and unbelief can also be expressed in terms of obedience points again to the practical rather than merely theoretical nature of genuinely salvific faith in the Fourth Gospe1. Whereas the Spirit «abides upon» Jesus (1:33) and Jesus will abide in his disciples (15:4,7), wrath «abides upon» those who disobey him through unbelief (3:36).