The “Year of Obscurity”: Jesus in the Shadow of John the Baptist

By David J. MacLeod [1]

Dave MacLeod is a member of the faculty of Emmaus Bible College and the Associate Editor of The Emmaus Journal.

Introduction

Some time ago Billy Graham was interviewed by talkshow host, Larry King. “What has been your biggest surprise about life?” King asked the famous evangelist. Then eighty years of age, Mr. Graham answered, “Its brevity!” It is not the length of a given life that matters, of course. Rather it is the impact of a life that counts—what that person did with his or her life.

As people ticked off the days of the calendar in the months, days, and hours leading up to January 1, 2000, there was much discussion in newspapers and magazines and on TV programs concerning the great people of the past hundred years or even the past thousand years. People discussed included figures such as Mohammed, Catherine the Great, Martin Luther, Karl Marx, Gandhi, Adolf Hitler, Franklin Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin. These and other people changed the lives of millions and evoked responses from worship through hatred.

Writing in Time magazine, novelist Reynolds Price remarked, “It would require much exotic calculation, however, to deny that the single most powerful figure—not merely in these two millenniums but in all human history—has been Jesus of Nazareth.” [2] When we consider the bare details of His life—a brief life of approximately thirty-four years—the impact He had is astonishing. [3]

James A. Francis set out the stark facts as follows:

[He was] born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman of a subject [nation]. [He was] brought up in another obscure village, working in a carpenter shop till He was thirty. He never wrote a book, never entered a college, never raised an army, never held an office, never had a family, never owned a home, never set foot in one of the world’s great capitals, never traveled [two] hundred miles from the place of His birth. Indeed, He never did any of the things that make men famous. 

For three years He was an itinerant preacher gathering a small band of disciples. After a brief, stormy ministry the tide of popular opinion and feeling turned fiercely against Him, His disciples all forsook Him, one denied Him, [and] another betrayed Him. He was turned over to His enemies, went through the mockery of a trial, was nailed on a cross between two thieves, and, when He was dead, was laid in a borrowed grave by the pity of a friend… 

[Twenty] centuries [have come and gone, and we know today that He is] the greatest moral force the world has ever known.… I am speaking well within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, all the parliaments that ever sat, and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the real life of man as much as the solitary [life] of Jesus [of Nazareth]. [4]

In this series of studies on the life of our Lord we have considered His birth, childhood, and young manhood. We have also considered the message of John the Baptist as well as the baptism of our Lord and His temptation by Satan in the wilderness. Now we have arrived at the years of His public ministry on earth. We may mark the beginning of His ministry with His victory over Satan at His temptation.

New Testament scholars differ on the dating of this ministry. Many say that it began in ad 27, but others say it began in ad 29. The same scholars disagree over the date of His death, some putting it in April, ad 30, but others in April, ad 33. [5] In any case, our Lord’s public ministry lasted approximately three and a half years and may be divided into three periods, which have traditionally been called “the year of obscurity,” “the year of public favor,” and “the year of opposition.” [6]

There is a similarity here, wrote Stalker, between the life of Jesus and the life of many reformers. In the first period of his career the new person on the scene gains a measure of recognition and fame. In the second period his doctrine or program for reform attains a measure of popularity. The third period, however, is often one of reaction when those whose interests and prejudices have been attacked by him turn on him and with the support of the crowds crush him. [7]

An excellent example of this is the noted Russian author and exile, Alexander Solzhenitsyn. He was cheered in America when he came to live here and write his articles and books exposing the terrible truth about the evils of the Soviet Union. But then he had the audacity in a commencement address at Harvard University (“A World Split Apart,” Spring, 1978), to turn his attention to the moral impoverishment of our Western Society. He questioned our materialism, our secularism, our manipulation of the law, our decadent art, and our lack of political courage in the face of totalitarianism. Suddenly, the intellectual elite that had praised him jeered him and condemned him. They did not want to hear his view that we are a corrupt, doomed society. They did not want to hear this friendly exile—especially at Harvard University—tell them that the answer to our moral and spiritual ills is to be found in the Christian faith. [8] Israel, too, was a decadent nation in Jesus’ day—a nation stricken with spiritual blindness, moral degeneracy, and political corruption (cf. Luke 3:1–20; John 12:37–50). The response of that nation to His ministry followed the familiar pattern. [9]

As we survey the first year of Jesus’ ministry, the “year of obscurity,” we discover a distinct difference between the Synoptic Gospels [10] and John’s Gospel.

The Synoptics describe the baptism and temptation of Jesus, and then they describe how He became John’s successor. They move directly from the temptation to the moment when John was arrested and Jesus carried on with John’s preaching in Galilee (Matt. 4:12–17; Mark 1:14–15; Luke 4:14–15). From this we might get the impression that Jesus went to preach in Galilee immediately after the temptation. When we turn to John’s Gospel, however, we learn that between the temptation and John’s arrest there was a period of from nine months to a year about which the Synoptics say nothing. This period, the so-called “year of obscurity,” is documented exclusively in John’s Gospel chapters 1–3. In this section of his Gospel, John offers us his own memories of the “preliminary history” to the Galilean ministry that is given such prominence in the Synoptics.

John’s material covers events from six significant days (all within the same one week period) at the very beginning of Jesus’ work (John 1:19–28; 1:29–34; 1:35–43; 1:44–52; 2:1–11). This week, culminating with the miracle of Cana, is believed by some to provide “an echo of creation week.” [11]

This important week is followed in John by a few incidents that took place afterward in Capernaum (2:12) and in Jerusalem (2:13–3:21). All that we know about the next eight months or so is that He was baptizing in Judea (3:22), “although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were” (4:2). [12]

As we read this section we note that it is bracketed at the beginning and at the end by the testimony of John the Baptist (1:19–28; 3:23–36). In fact, “all the events and conversations in these chapters are colored by the comparison between John and Jesus.” The comparison is designed to demonstrate what John the Baptist himself declared, namely, that Jesus is greater than John and that John has been sent to prepare the way for Jesus. [13]

The Manifestation of the Messiah to Israel: Six Significant Days (in One Important Week), John 1:19-2:11

Day # 1: The Testimony of John to the Religious Establishment, John 1:19–28

In the opening scene—the first day in this momentous week—a delegation from “the Pharisees” (v. 24) [14] was sent to question John about his identity. There were at least two reasons why the delegation was sent. First, the whole country was filled with anticipation that the time of the promised Messiah (“Anointed One”) was about to dawn. When He did appear, the people knew, other end-time figures would also appear, namely, Elijah (Mal. 4:5) and a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15–18). John confessed that He was not the Christ (= Messiah), nor was he either of the other end-time figures. In astonishing humility John quoted from the prophet Isaiah (40:3), “I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord’” (v. 23). In himself John was unimportant. He was conscious only that he is a voice, i.e., he had a message that prepared the way for the coming Messiah.

Second, and in light of John’s denials, the delegation from Jerusalem came to challenge his authority to baptize people. “Why then are you baptizing?”n(v. 25). The Pharisees (i.e., the “separated ones”) [15] viewed themselves as the guardians of the religious life of the Jews and the champions of the Law, and the oral traditions. John presented the religious establishment with a problem. He had not been trained in the official way. His preparation and lifestyle were unorthodox to say the least. Crowds of Jewish people—many of them people in good standing in the synagogue and temple—were flocking to John the Baptist, not the Pharisees, to confess their sins. The Pharisees, felt themselves threatened. [16] John replied that he did baptize and implied that he had the right to do so, but he used this authority question of the Jews to turn their attention to “He who comes after me” (v. 27), i.e., the Messiah—for now a hidden presence among them (v. 26). That is where the ultimate divine authority lies.

Day # 2: The Testimony of John to the Jewish People, John 1:29–34

The day after (“the next day,” v. 29) the visit from the Jerusalem delegation John saw Jesus coming toward him. He had baptized Jesus in the Jordan over a month earlier, and Jesus was perhaps just returning from His time of temptation in the wilderness. When John saw Jesus he said to those around him, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”

Modern Christians are so familiar with this title of our Lord that it is difficult for us to imagine that before His death, burial, and resurrection, it was not immediately obvious what John meant. [17] It is hard to say how thoroughly John grasped the meaning of what he said. Like Caiaphas the high priest, John perhaps spoke better than he knew (11:49–52). [18] But he was a prophet (Matt. 11:9) and no doubt spoke what was revealed to him, whether he understood clearly or not.

Some commentators [19] believe that John the Baptist was thinking of the apocalyptic lamb, the warrior lamb who is described in Jewish writings of the first century. [20] We do know that in his preaching John described the Messiah as coming in terrible judgment to clean up the sin of Israel (Matt. 3:7–12). He would take away [21] the sin of the world in judgment and destruction. It is possible that John was thinking of Jesus in that way. John the Evangelist, who wrote the Gospel several decades later, would certainly have had a greater understanding of the expression, for he had witnessed the sacrifice of Jesus at Golgotha. The New Testament certainly leaves scope “for a rising understanding” of these things among the early Christians. [22]

John the Baptist himself knew the Old Testament and saw his own role as herald of the Messiah foretold there (Isa. 40:3). When the Spirit told him that Jesus was the Lamb of God, it is quite possible that a number of Old Testament pictures came to his mind; they have certainly come to the minds of later believers. There was the lamb that God provided for Abraham (Gen. 22:8, 13). There was the Passover lamb, whose blood shielded the firstborn from the avenging angel of God (cf. Exod. 12:23). [23] The picture finds its climax in the lamb of Isaiah 53:7—the Suffering Servant who is led to the slaughter for the sins of God’s people. In fact, when John baptized Jesus he heard a voice out of heaven which included a reference to the Suffering Servant (Matt. 3:17=Isa. 42:1).

Finally, there was the daily spectacle in the temple of the sacrifice, morning and evening, of a lamb without blemish (cf. Exod. 29:38–46). “There was no image more familiar to a Jew’s mind” than this. [24]

Ultimately, then, the Lamb is a sacrifice given by God to take away the sin of the world. The thought is that the Lamb carries it off—He takes their guilt away. This also includes the idea of substitution. A lamb can only remove sin by vicariously bearing it, i.e., taking the burden upon Himself and dying for it. [25] John says “sin” (sg.) and not “sins” (pl.). Elsewhere the New Testament writers, when speaking of believers, say that the Lord bore their sins upon the cross (Heb. 9:24; 1 Pet. 2:24; cf. 1 Cor. 15:3). Here John is speaking of the world. If John had said that the Lamb bore away all of their sins, then every person in the world would stand forgiven, but that is not so. Rather the Lamb is slain to make provision for the totality of the world’s sin. And the evangelist can now assure all who believe that they will receive a pardon from God. But if they refuse this offer of forgiveness Jesus will later say, “You shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins” (John 8:21, 24). [26] The sacrifice of the Lamb is for “the world.” It embraces all without distinction of race, gender, religion, or culture (cf. John 12:32). [27]

Earlier in his ministry John spoke of the coming Messiah in very general terms. He was coming, but John did not know who He was (cf. v. 15). Now he can point to Jesus and say this is the preexistent man of whom I spoke (v. 30). John explains that his baptismal work was intended to introduce the Messiah to Israel (v. 31). In Old Testament times the prophets had foretold that the coming Davidic ruler of Israel would be anointed with the Holy Spirit (Isa. 11:1–2; 42:1; 61:1): “Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him” (Isa. 42:1). Not only would the Coming One be anointed by the Holy Spirit, but God promised that His people, too, would be cleansed of their sins and themselves given the Holy Spirit (Ezek. 36:25–27).

God had given to John the Baptist a sign that would enable him to identify the Coming One. When he saw the Holy Spirit descending upon a man as he was being baptized he would know that this was the promised Christ or Messiah (“anointed One”), the One who would pour out God’s Spirit upon the people (v. 33). John baptized people to initiate them into a readiness for the coming kingdom. Christ’s baptism would be better. It would initiate them into the very family of God (1 Cor. 12:13). [28] John then said that God gave him the promised sign. He saw the Spirit descend upon Jesus, and he now bears witness to Him. “This is the Son of God” (v. 34). [29]

The designation “Son of God” is an official title of the Messiah (cf. 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7). Due to the immediate context in which John the Baptist refers to Jesus’ anointing for the Messianic office, that is probably how he understood the expression. Jesus is David’s Son who is now adopted as God’s Son for His Messianic work. We must not forget, however, that in John’s Gospel the designation “Son of God” is also used of the essential relationship which Jesus bore to God. He was God’s Son before He was sent into the world as the last and greatest of God’s messengers (Mark 12:6; cf. John 3:16). As Bruce notes, Jesus’ Messianic Sonship was “grounded in His eternal Sonship.” [30]

Day # 3: The Meeting of Jesus with His First Disciples, John 1:35–39

John’s Testimony to His Disciples, verses 35–37

The next day, around four in the afternoon (“the tenth hour,” v. 39), [31[ John was standing with two of his disciples, namely, Andrew and another that most assume was the self-effacing author of the fourth Gospel, i.e., John. He again saw Jesus, and he directed their attention to Jesus by repeating the title he had given Him a day earlier, “Behold the Lamb of God!” (v. 36). It is unlikely that these two men, Andrew and probably John, understood the depth of meaning of that title, but they did understand that John was pointing this man out as the One of whom he had been preaching. They left John’s side at once to catch up with Jesus and learn more about Him.

There is a wonderful lesson in John the Baptist for anyone who would serve the Lord. “At a time when public trust in Christian leaders is at an all-time low, the world is in desperate need of preachers who are prepared to mortgage their personal ambitions and popularity out of a consuming concern for Jesus’ preeminence.” [32]

Jesus’ Invitation to John’s Disciples, verses 38–39 [33]

Jesus saw the two men following Him and asked, “What do you seek?” i.e., “What do you want?” (v. 38). The disciples were perhaps a bit shy, or they were afraid of appearing presumptuous, for they did not answer His question. Instead, they asked, “Where are You staying?” They addressed Him as “Rabbi,” which literally means, “my great one,” but which John translates according to usage (“teacher”). Toward the end of the first century the title “Rabbi” came to be applied to one officially ordained as a teacher after an appropriate course of rabbinical study. [34] At this time, however, it was used as a title of respect for someone recognized as a public teacher of divine subject matter. The two disciples recognize Jesus as a teacher sent from God (cf. John 3:1). [35]

Day # 4: The Naming by Jesus of a Leading Disciple, John 1:40–42 [36]

One of the disciples, Andrew by name, immediately became a classic role model for all who would witness for Christ. He began with his immediate family and brought his brother Simon to the Lord. “Witness, like charity, begins at home.” [37] Although John does not say so, this was the fourth day of this important week. Andrew and John met Jesus at four in the afternoon on the third day and stayed with him for the rest of that day (the day ended at 6 p.m.). This suggests that Andrew’s introduction of Simon to Jesus probably took place on the next day, or the fourth. [38]

He told Simon that he and John have found “the Messiah” (ὁ Μεσσίας, ho Messias, v. 41). This is a transliterated Hebrew or Aramaic word, and is a synonym for the Greek “Christ” (Χριστός).The word means “anointed,” and was linked in the Messianic expectation of the first century to a coming king who would rule Israel (cf. 1 Sam. 16:6). This, no doubt, is what Andrew meant, but Jesus would eventually prove to be the “anointed” par excellence, i.e., He would fill three roles—the anointed prophet, priest, and king. [39]

When Simon came to Jesus he was given a new name, “Cephas,” or “Peter,” which means “the rock man” [40] or “Rocky.” [41] Jesus not only sees us for what we are; He sees us for what He intends to make of us. He sees in Peter the potential of a life changed by God.

According to Canadian pastor and Bible teacher, Bruce Milne, there are three important and practical lessons in this paragraph. The first is drawn from John’s reiteration of Jesus’ title, “Lamb of God” in verse 36. The disciples’ encounter with Jesus begins with this title with its strong sacrificial meaning. “To follow Jesus necessarily begins with a recognition of His Savior-hood.”

The second lesson is expressed in Jesus’ question, “What do you seek?” i.e., “What do you want?” (v. 38). Sooner or later when we begin to take Jesus seriously we face the same question, “What do we want with Him, or from Him?” His question is a challenge to hypocritical unreality—to the mind-set that loves religion but rejects Christ. Following Christ may be a risky thing, and it isn’t for the religiously comfortable. C. S. Lewis illustrates with typical force:

There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that a real footstep in the hall? There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling in religion (‘Man’s search for God’!) suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse still, supposing He had found us? So it is a sort of Rubicon. One goes across; or not. But if one does…one may be in for anything. [42]

The third lesson is addressed to over-zealous Christians who feel the only valid response to the gospel is immediate conversion as soon as the gospel message and invitation is presented. We should note that Jesus does not press these men for an immediate response. He gives them an opportunity to spend time with Him before making a commitment. The parallel between the new birth and physical birth is relevant here. The crisis of birth is preceded by conception and a process of gestation. “To force a birth prematurely may have as disastrous repercussions in the spiritual order as in the physical.” [43]

Day # 5: The Encounter of Jesus with Philip and Nathanael, John 1:43–51

The Encounter with Philip, verses 43–44

On the next day (v. 43) the process of adding to the number of Jesus’ followers continued. “He purposed to go forth into Galilee, and He found Philip.” The NASB capitalizes the “he” in “He purposed” (ἠθέλησεν), understanding the subject to be Jesus. [44] It is more likely, however, that the “he” is Andrew. [45] He “first” brought Peter to the Lord (v. 41), and now he sought out Philip. Whenever we read of Andrew he is leading people to Christ (cf. 6:8; 12:22). When Andrew found Philip he brought him to the Lord, and Jesus invited him to become His follower.

The Encounter with Nathanael, verses 45–51

In verse 45 the process continued. Philip spoke to Nathanael [46] and told him that he had found Christ. This course of action is how the number of Jesus’ followers has gone on increasing down to the present day. [47] “One lighted torch serves to light another.” [48] Philip spoke of Christ as the One who fulfills all the Old Testament promises. He identified Him as, “Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” [49] That was how a person would be known in those days—to his personal name would be appended the name of his father (real or reputed) and the name of his home town.

Nathanael’s response was a bantering question, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (v. 46). Nazareth was small and unimportant, and he couldn’t conceive of the Messiah coming from such an insignificant place. [50] Philip answersed simply, “Come and see.” “Honest inquiry is a sovereign cure for prejudice.” Nazareth may have been all that Nathanael thought, but Jesus was the exception that proved the rule. [51]

Nathanael went to Jesus, and our understanding of their encounter will be greatly helped by a knowledge of an Old Testament story, the story of Jacob (esp. Gen. 28:10–17; 32:24–28). Jacob’s name means “he overreaches” and came to be associated with deceit (Gen. 27:35–36). Through craftiness he stole his brother’s inheritance. When he fled his home, the Lord God met him and in mercy changed him. While sleeping he had a dream and saw a ladder with angels going up and coming down the ladder. At the top was God who promised to give him the land of Palestine (Gen. 28:12–13). The ladder suggests communication between heaven and earth, and the vision of the angels is God’s assurance of protection even though he was leaving home (cf. Gen. 48:16). [52] He later wrestled with an angel, and the Lord gave him a new name, “Israel,” or “he who strives with God” (Gen. 32:28). The Jews came to interpret the word Israel to mean, “the man who sees God.” For all of his early deceit, these encounters with God changed Jacob’s character, and the new name “Israel,” marks that change. When Jesus saw Nathanael, He said, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!” (v. 47). Here is a true son of Israel, “an Israelite in whom there is no Jacob.” [53] He is a man without duplicity or deceit.

Nathanael perceived that Jesus knew a great deal about him and he asked, “How do You know me?” (v. 48). John abbreviates the story, so we can only surmise all of the details. Apparently Nathanael, earlier in the day, had gone under a fig tree to meditate. He was wrestling with God about the things he had been hearing about John the Baptist. It is possible that he received some spiritual impression at that time. [54] In light of what follows (v. 51), it may very well be that Nathanael for some reason found himself reflecting on the story of Jacob and the ladder with the ascending and descending angels. Then Philip came and spoke with him and brought him to Jesus, and Jesus miraculously knew what he was doing earlier in the day. “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.”

It was under a fig tree that Augustine sat weeping and grieving over his sins. He then heard a child playing in the neighboring house, and in the game he or she (Augustine couldn’t tell) was chanting over and over, as when young girls years ago played skip rope, “Take up and read! Take up and read!” He opened the Scriptures that were lying near by and began reading in Paul’s epistle to the Romans (13:13–14). When he read his soul was flooded with a heavenly light, and all his guilt and gloom of doubt vanished away. [55]

Nathanael found himself having a similar experience. “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.” He addressed Jesus respectfully as “Teacher,” but immediately acclaimed Him as the Messiah. He used two titles of Messiah that are conjoined in the second psalm (“I have installed My King.… You are My Son,” Ps. 2:6–7). Decades later when John the apostle wrote this Gospel, he had a more profound understanding of the name, “the Son of God.” It is not only a Messianic title; it is also a divine title that tells us something of His essential nature. Jesus is the eternal Son who was given by the Father to secure eternal life for His people. Nathanael, however, used it in the Messianic sense. [56]

Our Lord then assured Nathanael that he would witness “greater things than these” in the future (v. 50). Actually, Jesus changes from the singular to the plural “you” (from σοί to ὑμῒν) in verse 51 indicating that what He says is intended for all of Jesus’ disciples, not just Nathanael. Jesus then (v. 51) alluded to the story of Jacob’s vision of the ladder upon which angels were ascending and descending—a story about which, as I’ve suggested above, Nathanael may have been thinking as he sat under the fig tree. Jesus then applied Jacob’s vision to Himself. He is, as it were, the ladder up to heaven, and the angels are ascending and descending upon Him. He is the mediator between God and the human race.

The occasion to which Jesus pointed (“the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man”) was His crucifixion. Ironically, His enemies intended His death on the cross for degradation. But Jesus viewed it as a manifestation of His glory. “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He” (John 8:28). By the cross of Christ “heaven is thrown wide open, God draws near to man, and man is reconciled to God.” [57]

As to the pilgrim patriarch
That wondrous dream was given,
So seems my Savior’s cross to me
A ladder up to heaven. [58]

The Son of Man, Nathanael would learn, is “the point of contact between heaven and earth, the locus of the ‘traffic’ that brings heaven’s blessings to mankind.” He remains today “the meeting point between heaven’s fullness and earth’s need, even in the midst of the bustle and noise of our modern world.” [59]

The angels keep their ancient places;
Turn but a stone, and start a wing!
’Tis ye, ’tis your estrangd faces
That miss the many-splendored thing.

But (when so sad thou can’st not sadder)
Cry:—and upon thy so sore loss
Shall shine the traffic of Jacob’s ladder,
Pitched betwix Heaven and Charing Cross. [60]

The title, “Son of Man” is used thirteen times in John’s Gospel. [61] It was not used in Jesus’ day as a Messianic title as were designations such as “King of Israel” and “King of the Jews.” Jesus could therefore take it and use it without the risk of being misunderstood because of any preconceived notions in His hearers’ minds. Other than being a roundabout way of saying “man” or “human being,” they would have to wait for Him to explain further what He meant by the term. In Psalm 8:4 it is used generically of mankind. However, in Daniel 7:13–14 it is used of the man who is invested by God (“the Ancient of Days”) with universal authority. Jesus took this picture from Daniel and enriched it, fusing it with the figure of the suffering Servant found in Isaiah (42:1–53:12). In John’s Gospel Jesus used the title when speaking of both His crucifixion (e.g., 3:14; 8:28) and His future authority and glory (5:27; 9:39; 12:23). Nathanael would not know immediately exactly what Jesus meant by this expression. What the Lord was doing was gently re-orienting His disciples away from their immediate political expectations bound up with a title like “King of Israel” (cf. v. 49). [62]

Day # 7: The Marriage at Cana of Galilee, John 2:1–11

Two days later [63] Jesus and His new disciples had walked north to the town of Cana in Galilee where there was a wedding to which they had been invited. Mary, Jesus’ mother, was there which suggests that the wedding was that of a relative or close family friend. The festivities of such a wedding could go on for a week, and the expense was the groom’s responsibility. To run out of supplies would be very damaging to the reputation of the groom and his family. It may even have been damaging to his finances as lawsuits were not unknown in such cases. [64]

According to custom, wine was served. As the rabbis said, “There is no rejoicing save with wine” (cf. Ps. 105:15). [65] Due to some miscalculation or another the wine was all used up before the end of the wedding celebration (v. 3). Mary may have had some part in the catering of the feast, because she seemed to feel responsible for the shortage of the wine. [66] She told her son, but His response is surprising to modern ears. “Woman, what do I have to do with you? My hour has not yet come” (v. 4). He addressed her as “Woman,” which sounds gruff in our culture. That no disrespect was intended, however, is seen in the fact that Jesus called her the same thing when He tenderly commended her to the care of His beloved disciple at the cross (19:26). Bruce suggests that the Ulster expression, “Woman dear,” captures the flavor of Jesus’ remark, and Carson feels the southern (USA) expression, “Ma’am” is close. [67]

The rest of Jesus’ reply is difficult to translate. He said (literally), “What is it to me and to you” (Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, ti emoi kai soi)? The NIV paraphrases, “Why do you involve me? My time has not yet come.” In John’s Gospel, the “time” of Jesus or His “hour” (ὥρα, hōra) refers to His public emergence as Messiah (7:6, 8) and ultimately His death and the exaltation that is linked to it (12:23). [68] Only later, when He is on the brink of death, does He say that His hour has arrived (13:1; 17:1).

Mary’s behavior indicates that she was in the habit of instinctively turning to her eldest son whenever things went wrong. [69] He had lived at home until He was thirty, and had probably been the man of the family for some time. Yet she failed to recognize that something had happened since He had left home a few months earlier that would alter their former relationship. He had been anointed by the Holy Spirit and had received power to do the Messianic work the Father had given Him to do. The so-called “hidden years” or “silent years” in Nazareth were over, and He had begun His public ministry. Everything, including His family ties must be subordinate to this. So here He declared His freedom from any kind of human advice, agenda, or manipulation—even that of His loving mother. [70]

The text doesn’t say, but apparently Mary indicated in some way that she was prepared to adjust to the new arrangement. She accepted His rebuke, knowing at the same time that the situation was saved when she had committed it to Him. In verse 3 “Mary approaches Jesus as His mother, and is reproached;” in verse 5, “she responds as a believer, and her faith is honored.” [71] She went to the servants and told them, “Whatever He says to you, do it” (v. 5).

Standing there were six large stone waterpots “for the Jewish custom of purification” (v. 6). The water would be used by the guests to clean their feet as they entered the house, and it would be used for the washing of hands before meals and between courses. Jesus ordered that they be filled with water, and they were, “to the brim” (v. 7). They then contained over 120 gallons of water. He told them to draw some of the water and take it to the headwaiter. The headwaiter tasted it and went over to the groom. He mentioned the common practice of serving the best wine first. When the guests have been drinking for a while and are not in a condition to appreciate what they are drinking, the inferior wine is served. This groom, it appeared, had kept the very best for last.

John notes in verse 11 that this was the first of Jesus’ miracles. There are a number of words used in the New Testament to denote miracles. The word δυνάμεις (dynameis) is translated “miraculous powers” and draws attention to the power in the acts (Matt. 14:2; Mark 6:14). Another word, τέρατα (terata), is translated “wonders” and stresses the impression the miracle makes upon people (Matt. 24:24; Mark 13:22; John 4:48). [72] Jesus, in John’s Gospel, called His miracles simply “works” (ἔργα, erga). Cf. John 5:36; 7:21; 10:25, 32, 38. John prefers to call Jesus’ miracles “signs” (σημεῒα, sēmeia), the term he uses here (cf. 2:18, 23; 3:2; 4:52; 6:2, etc.). The term “sign” suggests that beyond the miracle there is a deeper reality that can be perceived only with the eyes of faith. [73]

What does this event tell us about Jesus? On the human level we see a young man—Jesus—who would not experience one of life’s chief joys (marriage), giving joy to a young friend by attending his wedding. And at that wedding He showed His care for that friend by willing that he not come to shame. “He willed, and so it was.” [74] Others have pointed out that Jesus’ presence hallowed married life and gave His approval of festive times. Jesus was not an ascetic monk, the “pale Galilean,” or an antisocial killjoy. Jesus never counted it a crime to be happy, nor should His followers. [75]

There is a deeper spiritual lesson here also as is indicated by John’s description of the miracle as a “sign.” The phrase “Jewish custom of purification” (v. 6) provides the clue to this spiritual meaning. [76] The lesson is perhaps twofold: First, there is the connection with John the Baptist. Jesus took John’s element, water, and turned it into wine. John was the forerunner of God’s anointed; Jesus was the Christ, the One anointed with the Holy Spirit and power. Reith cites the ancient saying, “The conscious water saw its Lord and blushed.”77 Second, there is the obvious contrast with ceremonial Judaism. The water “of purification” stands for the whole ancient system of Jewish ceremonies that Jesus was going to replace with something better. The stone waterpots were filled to the brim suggesting that the ceremonial observances of the Jewish Law had run their course. The ceremonies of Judaism could never truly relieve the conscious of its guilt. Jesus transformed the water of guilt and failure into the wine of forgiveness.

In His later teaching Jesus would picture His future millennial kingdom as a wedding feast (cf. Matt. 5:6; 8:11–12; Mark 2:19; Luke 22:15–18, 29–30).78 This miracle that stands at the beginning of His ministry, says that the best wine is that of the new Messianic age which will be inaugurated by our Lord Jesus Christ. [79]

In chapter one (v. 3) John speaks of the Logos as the One who at the beginning brought everything into being at creation week. Here, on the seventh day of His public ministry, Jesus turns water into wine. C. S. Lewis calls this a “miracle of the old creation.” Every year God makes wine out of water by natural processes. At Cana the incarnate God short circuits the process and makes wine in a moment. [80] Although it was a miracle of the old creation, it was a “parable of the new creation.” The old order was to be replaced by the new. [81]

John says that in this sign “Jesus manifested His glory.” The sign pointed to Jesus as the Messiah, the long-awaited king. Seeing the miracle, the disciples caught a “dazzling glimpse” of what He was. [82] John does not say anything about the effect of the sign upon the headwaiter, groom, guests, or servants. Some of the servants, at least, must have seen what happened, yet they did not comprehend. [83] The glory of the Lord is something that has to be revealed; it was revealed to the disciples, and they believed.

The Early Ministry of the Messiah in Judea: Some Significant Episodes, John 2:12-3:36

A Visit with His Family, John 2:12

Following the wedding Jesus and His disciples made the sixteen miles to Capernaum on the north-west shore of the Sea of Galilee. Cana was in the uplands, so our text properly says, “He went down.” It appears that His family had moved from Nazareth to Capernaum, and this town will serve as His headquarters for the greater part of His Galilean ministry recorded in the Synoptics. [84] While Jesus spent some time with His mother and brothers during this visit, it seems from John’s account that He spent very little time with them thereafter. Mary does not appear again in John’s Gospel until she stands with the beloved disciple at the foot of the cross (19:25–26). His brothers are mentioned only in chapter 7 (vv. 1–10), and John there says that they were not believers in Him. [85]

The Cleansing of the Temple, John 2:13–22 [86]

After a “few days” (v. 12) with His family, Jesus left for Jerusalem with His disciples (v. 22) because the annual Feast of Passover was about to begin. Passover, one of several annual feast days, celebrated the exodus from Egypt and the deliverance of the firstborn from the angel of death who “passed over” the homes that were protected by the shedding of the blood of a lamb or kid (Exod. 12). It was celebrated annually on the anniversary of that deliverance on Nisan 14 (at the March-April full moon). The Passover here in John 2 is probably that of ad 30. [87]

The population of the city was 25-30,000, but during the Passover that figure swelled to as many as 180,000 people. [88] Sacrifices had to be made at the Temple by the worshippers—it has been estimated that eighteen thousand victims were slain at Passover time. [89] This presented a problem and some corrupting solutions: Pilgrims to Jerusalem would not normally bring animals with them, so animals were sold in the Temple as a convenience. Furthermore, visitors would bring coins from all over the world, so moneychangers were there to exchange the foreign moneys into coinage that was acceptable. [90] They did this for a small fee. Later in His ministry Jesus will call these activities “a robbers’ den” (Mark 11:17), suggesting that some of the sellers and moneychangers were exploiting the people with dishonest practices.

But that does not seem to be what bothered Jesus here. Many of the pilgrims were Gentile proselytes, and they were only allowed in the Court of the Gentiles in the Temple, and the animal sales and money changing were all done there. It was not a scene to inspire worship. “Instead of solemn dignity and the murmur of prayer, there is the bellowing of cattle and the bleating of sheep. Instead of brokenness and contrition, holy adoration and prolonged petition, there is noisy commerce.” [91] Making a whip he drove out the animals, overturned the moneychangers’ tables, pouring their money on the floor, and told the dove sellers to take their birds away. This is not the “Gentle Jesus, meek and mild” of much poetry and art. It was a physically violent act. Yet it is not so much the physical force as the moral power He used that emptied the courtyard. “It was surely the blazing anger of the selfless Christ rather than the weapon which He carried which really cleared the Temple Court of its noisy, motley throng.” [92] “Stop making My Father’s house a house of merchandise” (v. 16). Jesus views their behavior as an act of desecration.

To fully grasp the significance of this scene we must take note of the references to the Old Testament in the passage. [93] First, in Jesus’ words there is an allusion to the prophet Zechariah’s vision of the millennial temple in the earthly kingdom of the Messiah. He wrote, “No merchant (or trader) shall again be seen in the house of the Lord of Hosts” (Zech. 14:21, cf. NASB mg.). [94]

Jesus was looking ahead beyond the abominable behavior in Herod’s temple. He was letting Israel know that He was taking action to insure that God would be glorified in His house and in the worship of His people.

But the new order would not be achieved merely through the ejection of the traders, but through that to which His action led, namely, the death of the Father’s Son. The second Old Testament reference, therefore, is a quotation in verse 17 of Psalm 69:9, a psalm of the Righteous Sufferer. This psalm is frequently cited in the New Testament with reference to Jesus’ death (Matt. 27:34; Luke 23:36; John 15:25; 19:28; Rom. 15:3). It is that action, His death on the cross, that will truly bring about the glory of God and the redemption of man. [95]

The Jews, probably the temple authorities or their representatives, then demanded a miraculous sign from Jesus to establish His authority for cleaning out the temple (v. 18). Jesus offered them one. He told them to destroy the temple and He would rebuild it in three days (v. 19). Anyone who could rebuild the temple miraculously would certainly have the authority to regulate its practices. [96]

It should be noted that there are two words for “temple” in this passage. In verses 14 and 15 the word ἱερόν (hieron) is used which refers to the whole temple complex, including buildings and courts. The word used in verses 19–21 is ναός (naos) which refers to the sanctuary, the holy house itself comprising the vestibule, holy place, and holy of holies. [97]

The Jews took Jesus’ words at face value. The sanctuary had been completed by Herod forty-six years earlier (18/17 bc). [98] “How can you possibly raise up in three days a temple (i.e., the sanctuary proper) that took a year and a half to build and has stood for forty-six years?” [99] Jesus was speaking on two levels, and the Jewish authorities did not understand; for that matter, neither did the disciples. He did mean the actual temple in verse 19, but He was also speaking typologically. The disciples came to understand this after His resurrection. The temple was the place of sacrifices for sins, and those Old Testament sacrifices were prophetic pictures of a sacrifice beyond themselves. Jesus saw the temple as a picture of His body—crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. This would be the ultimate and final sacrifice for sin. [100] The disciples came to understand that the Old Testament had foretold the resurrection (Ps. 16:10; cf. Acts 2:31; 13:35) as Jesus had, and they believed the Scripture and the word of their Lord (v. 22).

In summary, what are we to make of the action of Jesus at the temple? This action of Jesus—the cleansing of the temple—is “more than an example of prophetic protest against the corrupt religion; it is a sign of the end of all religion.” [101] By religion we mean earthly holy places with altars, priesthoods, and rituals. It is the teaching of the New Testament that the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ has put an end to all these external things. Yet His words are also a protest against corrupt religion. For Jesus worship is a matter of great importance, and in this passage He claims lordship over it.

A significant portion of the Bible is devoted to the regulation of worship, and people are sadly mislead if they imagine that the quality of what they offer in worship meetings/services, or the devotion with which they participate, are matters of small importance. Evangelicals look with dismay at the auctions, bingo, raffles, and bazaars that they see in other churches. Yet our own worship is often “irreverent, superficial, distraction-filled, cold, lifeless, sloppy, self-indulgent, hypocritical, ill-prepared, or theologically [shallow].” Too often our worship “detracts from the honor and glory of the living God through a concern for performance and self-display” by those involved in it. [102]

The Ministry During the Feast, John 2:23–25

During His stay in Jerusalem for the Passover feast Jesus performed a number of miracles, and “many believed in His name, beholding His signs which He was doing” (v. 23). Jesus did not entrust Himself [103] to them, however, because He knew their hearts and knew they were untrustworthy. [104] Did they have a saving faith? There have been three answers to that question:

First, the majority of commentators view the faith of these people as spurious. [105] These were neither stable nor adequate professions of faith. It was a temporary kind of thing. [106] They only believed “so long as they were beholding” the miracles. [107]

Second, a small minority represented by Zane C. Hodges, takes the exact opposite point of view, viz., the many who believed in verse 23 exercised true saving faith. Proponents of this view point out that the expression used in verse 23 (πιστεύω + εἰς) is the usual one in John’s Gospel for saving faith. [108] The view of these writers is that the people genuinely believed in Jesus, but they were hesitant about full-fledged public identification with Him. [109] Eternal life is a free gift to those who believe in Christ. But it is only those whose allegiance and obedience are beyond question that Jesus admits into the inner secret of His person and purpose (John 15:14). [110]

Third, yet another group of commentators, correctly I believe, takes a mediating position. They describe the reaction of the believers in verse 23 as “intermediary.” [111] Their faith was not yet complete faith; it was inadequate. To say that it is not complete faith does not mean that it was spurious. [112] Rather, “such faith is only the first step towards Jesus; it…is…not yet fully established.” [113] The immediate context (verse 22) provides a clue to what was lacking in these people. True saving faith requires more than conviction that Jesus possessed miraculous powers. [114] It requires further that people believe the Scriptures and in the message which Jesus proclaimed. [115] “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). In short, saving faith requires that a person believe the Gospel. [116] These people had not yet done that.

The Conversation with Nicodemus, John 3:1–21

The Dialogue with Nicodemus, verses 1–10

As an illustration of the kind of cautious, hesitant person John has been describing, he now tells the story of Nicodemus. [117] Sometime over the next three years Nicodemus would become a believer, but he would be for a while like his acquaintance, Joseph of Arimathea. Joseph, John tells his readers, was “a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one, for fear of the Jews” (John 19:38). Nicodemus was a man with impressive religious credentials. He was a member of the Sanhedrin, the ruling council of the Jews; a Pharisee (and therefore zealous for the Law and pure religion); and, verse 10 may suggest (“the teacher”), the most well-known and illustrious teacher among the Jews of his day. [118] He came at night, probably for reasons of secrecy. [119] He was a prominent man and careful of people’s opinions.

Nicodemus asked our Lord three questions (vv. 2, 4, 9). The first is unexpressed, but implied. He begins the conversation respectfully, addressing Jesus as “Rabbi,” and acknowledging that His signs mark Him out as someone sent from God. He probably intended to ask something like, “Who are you? Are you the Messiah? What can you tell me about the kingdom?”

Before he could get the words out of his mouth Jesus abruptly cut him off. Nicodemus like other Jewish rulers assumed that he had the ability to set up criteria to assess who Jesus was. Jesus at the outset wanted Nicodemus to know that he is spiritually unqualified to understand “heavenly things” (v. 12). [120] Jesus went right to the heart of the issue, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (v. 3).

In the Old Testament the kingdom is sometimes portrayed as God’s eternal and universal rule over the universe (Exod. 15:18; Ps. 103:19). That is not what Jesus is speaking of here. The kingdom of God or kingdom of heaven also speaks of the future age to come. It is the kingdom of Messiah, the millennial age, when Christ will actually sit on David’s throne in Jerusalem and rule over the nations (cf. Dan. 2:44; 7:14, 27; Luke 1:31–33).

For Nicodemus the kingdom was this future age of the resurrection, when God’s people would rise from the dead and enter life. Jesus agreed. Later in His teaching He would equate “entering life” with “entering the kingdom” (cf. Matt. 18:3, 8–9; Mark 9:43, 45, 47). Jesus would also speak of the millennial age to come as “the regeneration” (ἡ παλιγγενεσία, hē palingenesia, Matt. 19:28), i.e., “the new birth of the earth.” [121]

Jesus now tells Nicodemus that he may enter into the life of that coming age in this life. There is a regeneration for individuals as there will be for the world. In fact, one must experience that individual new birth if he/she is to enter the reborn world of the Messianic kingdom.

As a devout Jew of his time Nicodemus assumed that his place in that coming kingdom was assured by his race and circumcision. That he was a leading religious professional made his place doubly sure. Jesus then rocked this religious and sincere man to his very bones. “Unless one—and that includes you, Nicodemus—is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” The word translated “again” here (ἄνωθεν, anōthen) can either mean “again” or “from above.” It probably has both nuances here, “Unless a man is reborn from above.” We must be born a second time, and this second birth is from above. [122]

Nicodemus did not see this and understood Jesus in a literalistic way. He asked his second question, “How can an old man be born a second time?” (v. 4). Jesus sought to clarify what He had said and told Nicodemus that being born again is being “born of water and spirit.” [123]

Nicodemus was a teacher of the Old Testament (v. 10), and he should have now grasped what Jesus was saying. The prophet Ezekiel had spoken of this very thing when describing the age of the Messiah. He had spoken of water. “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols” (Ezek. 36:25). And he had spoken of spirit, i.e., the principle of life. “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you” (Ezek. 36:26).

The Greek text of verse 5 does not have the article, i.e., it does not say, “the Spirit.” We should drop the article, therefore, from our English translation, and we should drop the capital “S.” It is very unlikely that verse 5 refers to the Holy Spirit. Jesus is here speaking of the doctrine of regeneration or new birth which involves two elements: (1) cleansing or forgiveness of sins, and (2) the impartation of new life (a new “spirit”) to the sinner (cf. Titus 3:5). The person who is born again is cleansed, and he/she receives a new nature. His whole life is cleansed, and his heart is transformed. In verse 6 the Spirit is rightly capitalized, for it is the Holy Spirit who produces a new nature in man. Human birth produces earthly families; the new birth is divinely accomplished, and brings us into God’s family.

F. W. Boreham tells the story of a physician named Blund who lived in Bartown, “the wickedest little hole in all England.” Dr. Blund spent most of his time drinking gin and playing billiards in a pub named “The Angel.” Dr. Blund was a dreadful-looking rogue with his hairy, purple face and sunken eyes—a testimony to a life darkened by debauchery and drunkenness. As he lay dying his faithful wife called for the town rector, Richard Rodwell, who was not himself an evangelical believer.

Rather mechanically Rodwell spoke to the dying man about mercy, repentance, and forgiveness. “There’s something else!” gasped the doctor.

“There’s nothing outside the mercy of God,” replied the vicar.

“It’s in the Bible, what I mean,” said the dying man.

“What is it?” asked Rodwell soothingly.

“It’s a text: ‘Unless one is born again…’ You know the words, ‘born again.’ What does that mean?”

Dr. Blund had delivered dozens of babies in his professional career, and he had often seen a child draw its first breath, and had been impressed by its utter pastlessness. The newborn child had nothing to regret, nothing to forget. Everything was before it; nothing behind. And there was a text in the Bible that seemed to promise such an experience a second time! To be born again! What was it to be born again?

The young minister did not know what to say. He sputtered pitifully, and at last the doctor looked in his eyes, “Tell me, have you been born again?” Richard Rodwell hung his head, but the doctor would not stop. “Have you ever known in your life a moment when you felt that a great change happened to you? Are you pretending? Have you ever been conscious of a new birth in your soul?”

By now the doctor had seized Rodwell’s wrist. “Try to learn what those words mean,” he muttered. “‘Born again!’ It’s the bad man’s only chance.”

Rodwell left, and the two never saw each other again. Happily another Christian was able to tell the old sinner the answer to his question.

To be born again—to be past-less, and future-full! [124]

The new birth is not only the bad man’s only hope; it is the religious person’s only hope. Nicodemus was a religious man. Years ago Harry Ironside, the well-known Bible teacher, traveled by train with his family. As they crossed Colorado his little boy took some gospel tracts and went through the sleeping car and distributed them to the passengers. At a stop along the way a woman asked Mr. Ironside if the child who had given him the tract was his. When told that he was, she brightly said, “You can’t imagine how pleased I was to know there are other religious people on board besides myself. It is always a pleasure to meet those who are engaged in doing good.”

She invited the preacher to sit in her section and she told him at length of her church connections and of the various good works in which she was engaged. “It’s so nice that you love the Church and the Sabbath. So many people seem to have neither time nor taste for these things.”

Mr. Ironside interrupted, “Your last remark is very true indeed. May I ask if you have been converted yourself?”

A look of surprise, hurt, and embarrassment came over her face. “Why, I’ve always been interested in these things. My father was a class-leader, and I have an uncle and two brothers who are all clergymen.”

“Indeed,” Ironside answered. “And have you been converted yourself?”

“You do not seem to understand,” was her grieved reply, “these things have always interested me. My father was a class-leader for many years, and my uncle and two brothers are earnest clergymen.”

“Yes, madam, I understood all that; but I mean, have you been truly converted to God yourself?”

The woman was bewildered. “I guess it is I who do not understand you. I though, when I told you of my father, and my relatives who are clergymen, you would see that religion runs in our family, sir!”

The woman was so sincere that Mr. Ironside was momentarily at a loss for words. At last, he asked, “But have you not read the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, ‘Unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven’” (Matt. 18:3).

“Yes, sir, I remember the words,” she answered in a dazed kind of way, “but in a religious family like ours—do you think they have the same application as to others.”

Mr. Ironside then faithfully showed her that religion was not Christ. A moral and religious training are wonderful—especially if the textbook is the Bible; but morality and religion do not save sinners. Religion may be handed down from parent to child—it may “run in the family.” But the new birth is a very different thing. Grace is not inherited. To every single human being—even religious ones—Jesus says, “You must be born again” (John 3:5). [125]

Jesus and Nicodemus may have been sitting on the roof, and it is possible that they heard a gust of wind going up the road. This may have prompted Jesus’ remark in verse 8. It is helpful in reading this section to know that the same Greek word (πνεῢμα, pneuma) is translated “spirit” (low case “s”), “Spirit” (capital “S”), and “wind.” “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going.” “The operation of the wind is a parable of the work of the Spirit.” [126] The new birth, Jesus was saying, is supernatural and beyond human control or exhaustive human knowledge. Yet, like the wind, its effects can be experienced. [127]

Human nature produces only human nature, divine nature alone produces divine nature (v. 6). The new birth is a sovereign operation of God’s Spirit, irresistible and incomprehensible like the wind. Nicodemus believed that he would enter life by a host of man-made, thoroughly analyzable, human regulations. He was in error. The new birth is independent of human volition. [128] Jesus added a comment about the born-again person, “So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” “The person who is ‘born of the Spirit’ can be neither controlled nor understood by persons of but one birth.” Those who are born again have their “origin and destiny in the unseen God.” [129]

Nicodemus then asked his third question, “How can these things be?” (v. 9). Jesus’ answer is an indictment of the religious establishment, the teachers of the Law. Nicodemus was a teacher of the Bible, yet he did not understand the teaching of the Bible that entrance into Messiah’s kingdom could only be through the gateway of regeneration. In addition to Ezekiel’s explicit teaching, there were many figures of regeneration in the Old Testament that Nicodemus routinely read and taught: Noah’s safe passage through the flood to start life anew in a new world (Gen. 6:13–9:19), the redeemed Israelites’ crossing the Red Sea to the promised land (Exod. 14:15–15:21), and Naaman’s washing in the Jordan and having his flesh restored like the flesh of a little child (2 Kings 5:14). [130] All these things and more were there, but the darkened eyes of Israel’s great teacher could not see them.

The Explanation of Jesus, verses 11–15

At verse 11 the dialogue becomes a monologue. [131] Nicodemus’ problem was that he did not appreciate who Jesus really was. We know what we are talking about, Jesus said. The plural “we” may indicate that a few of His disciples (including John) were present for this discussion. [132] Nicodemus had begun this conversation with, “We know.” “Well,” says Jesus, “we (my fragile little band and I) know one or two things, too.”

Nicodemus could understand “earthly things,” i.e., basic teaching about the new birth. How then, Jesus asked, will he be able to understand the deeper truths of the kingdom? (v. 12).

Jesus could speak of heavenly things. He said, “No one has ascended into heaven” (v. 13), i.e., no one has gone to heaven and stayed there and learned of heavenly things. Only the One who has “descended from heaven,” namely, Jesus Himself (“the Son of Man”), is equipped to speak of these things.

At this point Jesus offered an object lesson and an invitation to Nicodemus (v. 14). He reminded him of the plague of poisonous snakes that had bitten many Israelites so that they died. At God’s instruction Moses had made a bronze snake and set it on a pole. If a snake bit anyone, he was to look at the bronze snake and live (Num. 21:5–9). In presenting this illustration Jesus was doing two things: First, He explained His own part in the new birth. The uplifted serpent was a picture of the lifting up of the Son of Man. This lifting up would include His crucifixion on a cross and the exaltation into heaven that followed. It is the crucified and resurrected Christ who will draw men to Himself.

Second, He explained to Nicodemus how he may experience the new birth. Just as the Israelites turned in faith to the bronze serpent, so Nicodemus was challenged to turn to Jesus in faith. He was told that if he believed in Him, he would have eternal life. The thought is that one must put his/her personal trust in Christ to do the thing He promised, viz., give the believing person eternal life. Only later, when Nicodemus saw Jesus on the cross, would he fully understand the meaning of our Lord’s words. [133]

The Reflections of John the Evangelist, verses 16–21

The Mission of the Son of God, verses 16–18. Verses 16–21 contain the comments of the elderly John as decades later he reflected upon and wrote about what Jesus said that evening. [134] His reflection begins with a sentence (v. 16) that more than any other sums up the message of the fourth Gospel: [135] “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” This “lifting up” of the Son of Man, John writes, is grounded in the love of God. The unfathomable intensity of this love is stressed by the adverb “so” (οὕτως, houtōs). [136] The thought is that He could not love more.

The scope of His love is seen in the word “world.” A Jew like Nicodemus knew that God loved Israel, but none of the Jewish writers he read ever said that God loved the world. [137] Jesus said, however, that God’s love is not confined to any national group or spiritual elite. It is all-inclusive and indiscriminate, embracing every man, woman and child. God’s love is not only to be admired because the world is so big, but also because it is so bad. In John the customary connotation of the word world is that of fallen mankind organized in rebellion against God. [138]

The result of His love is that “He gave His only begotten Son.” This giving has two senses in the Gospel. God gave His Son by sending Him into the world, [139] and He gave His Son by offering Him on the Cross. “The atonement proceeds from the loving heart of God.” [140] The purpose of His love is the salvation of those in the world who believe in Him. Whoever believes in the Son experiences the new birth (3:3, 5), has eternal life (3:15, 16), and is saved (3:17). [141]

It would be wrong to leave this text, “the best-known and most often preached” in the Bible, without stressing the invitation that is extended to all. Eternal life is given to “whoever” believes. Henry Moorhouse, the young evangelist who so influenced Moody’s preaching, enjoyed preaching on this verse. He would emphasize the all-inclusiveness of the words “world” and “whoever.” These terms, he liked to point out, make it clear that everyone and anyone who trusts Christ will be saved.

He said he was glad the word “whoever” appeared and not “Henry Moorhouse.” If it said, “Henry Moorhouse,” then he would not be sure it included him. Mr. Moorhouse once ordered a typewriter, but it was shipped mistakenly to another man named Henry Moorhouse at a different address. If John 3:16 had said that God loved Henry Moorhouse and if Henry Moorhouse believed he would have eternal life, then Mr. Moorhouse couldn’t be sure that it didn’t mean the other Henry Moorhouse. But since it says “world” and “whoever” there can be no mistake. He could be sure it included him. [142] All who repose in the Son of God will be rescued from destruction and blessed with life that is life indeed. [143]

In verse 17 John further clarifies the mission of the Son. God’s purpose in sending His Son was not to condemn the world, but to save the world, i.e., deliver the world from judgment. [144] The world into which Jesus came was not morally neutral; it was in a state of lostness. He came to deliver people from perishing.

A statement like verse 17 would surprise a Jewish reader. He would be familiar with a text like Daniel 7:11–14 where the coming of the Son of Man was linked to judgment. Surely, they would think, the Son of Man has authority to pronounce judgment. But when Jesus appeared He said that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sin (Mark 2:10). Not all accept His offer of forgiveness, but the responsibility for their rejection cannot be blamed on the “Savior of the world” (John 4:42; 1 John 4:14). [145]

John goes on in verse 18 to emphasize the importance of believing in Christ. He who believes is delivered from judgment, but the one who rejects Christ adds to his guilt by not believing in Christ.

When a person enters an art gallery to view a great artistic masterpiece, it is not the masterpiece but the visitor that is on trial. The viewer reveals his own taste or lack of it by his reaction to what he sees. Several years ago a rock star was reported to have said of the Mona Lisa that it was a “load of rubbish.” Actually he told us nothing about the Mona Lisa, but he told us much about himself. The person who does not appreciate Jesus Christ, who depreciates Him and thinks Him unworthy of His allegiance, passes judgment on himself, not on Christ. [146]

The Division of Mankind because of the Light. In verses 19–21 John describes the division of humankind that takes place because of the message of Christ. [147] There is a process of judgment [148] going on in this life—a separation that is taking place now between those who reject Christ (“everyone who…hates the light”) and those who embrace Him in faith (“he who…comes to the light”).

John divides his discussion between those who come to the light and those who love darkness. Why do people love darkness? There are two reasons: First, they are immersed in wrongdoing, and they have no wish to be disturbed. “They refuse to be shaken out of their comfortable sinfulness” (v. 19). [149] Second, they shun the light out of “fear of exposure, shame, and conviction” (v. 20). [150] The person who comes to the light and practices does not do so to parade his cocky self-righteousness. The lover of light, the Christian, is not so because he or she is an intrinsically better person. John does not teach salvation by works. No, that person walks in the light and loves the truth not because of something they have done for God. Rather, all that they do is because of something that God has done for them (“wrought in God,” v. 21). [151]

The Lessons of the Nicodemus Story. Two important lessons stand out in the account of Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus. [152] First, the passage clearly teaches the truth of regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Anticipated in the Old Testament (Ezek. 36:25–27; 39:29; cf. Isa. 32:15–20; Joel 2:28) and taught elsewhere in the New Testament (Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3, 23; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 14, 18), this doctrine stresses that salvation is a supernatural work of God involving a radical change of nature. This has serious implications. At a time when religion is in vogue (both old varieties and New Age kinds) the idea that religion cannot save is startling to our ears. Salvation is not a matter of religious ritual or activity, or mystical illumination. It is a matter of being spiritually born again. It also addresses the question of evangelistic methodology. Becoming a Christian is a miracle that cannot be manipulated by clever methods. This should make us more prayerful in our Christian witness. Second, regeneration divides the human race in two. We are either born again or we are not; we are either Christians or non-Christians; we have either come to the light or we are still in darkness.

The Baptizing of Disciples, John 3:22; 4:1–2

The narrative picks up again in verse 22. Sometime after the Passover Jesus was in the rural districts of Judea outside of the city. He was, no doubt, preaching and inviting people to be baptized. Chapter 4 (v. 2) specifies that He was not baptizing personally but left it to His disciples. This was a continuation of the work of John the Baptist (“John’s baptism,” Acts 19:3). His own work of baptizing in the Holy Spirit would not begin until after His ascension into heaven (John 7:37–39; cf. Acts 2:33).

The obscurity of Jesus’ first year of ministry is evident at this point for, after such a full description of the first few weeks, the next eight or nine months are empty of information—except for what we read in John 3:22. The explanation seems to be that His experience in Jerusalem convinced Him that the work of preparation needed to be extended for some time. So, for the rest of the year, He became, in effect, a colleague of John. [153] By carrying on this work of baptism, Jesus was also able to express His affirmation of John the Baptist’s preparatory ministry.

The Testimony of John the Baptist Concerning Two Principles of Ministry, John 3:23–30

The description of Jesus’ “year of obscurity” now comes full circle. [154] It began in John chapter 1 (vv. 19–28) with the testimony of John the Baptist, and it now ends in the same way. While Jesus’ disciples were baptizing, John was baptizing also. The evangelist ominously remarks that John had not yet been thrown into prison (v. 24). His readers would know, however, that imprisonment and death lay ahead for John.

The Synoptic Gospels do not begin Jesus’ ministry until after the imprisonment of John. John in his Gospel lets his readers know that there was an interval before John’s imprisonment when Jesus and John worked side-by-side, as it were, in the work of preaching and baptizing. [155]

John the Baptist’s final words about Jesus in this section were triggered by a dispute between his disciples and a Jew about Jewish ceremonial washing (v. 25). Precisely what they were debating is not altogether clear, [156] but verse 26 suggests that it had to do with the relative merits of the baptismal ministries of John and Jesus and their relation to Jewish ceremonial washings. [157] Whatever the nature of the debate, John’s disciples returned to him disquieted over what they perceived to be the competitive nature of Jesus’ ministry. John spoke well of Jesus, and John’s disciples found it intolerable that everyone (an “indignant exaggeration”) was now going to Him (v. 26).

John then set forth two principles of ministry that anyone tempted to jealousy in the Lord’s work should ponder. [158] First, God is sovereign in the allocation of gifts and ministries. “A man can receive nothing, unless it has been given him from heaven” (v. 27). It is arrogant sinfulness that wants a more prominent place than God has given or who envies the place God has given another. This principle is illustrated in the life of George Müller (1805–98), the founder of the famed orphan homes. Müller was also a preacher, and he and his friend, Henry Craik, labored together preaching at the same church in Bristol, England, for over thirty-three years. Müller explained their harmonious relationship in this way. He wrote, “When…I saw how some [of the congregation] preferred my beloved friend’s ministry to my own, I determined, in the strength of God, to rejoice in this, instead of envying him. I said, with John the Baptist, ‘A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven’ (John 3:27).” [159]

Second, Jesus Christ is to be preeminent. John, unlike his disciples, was not at all perturbed by Jesus’ growing popularity (v. 28). John described himself as the best man at a wedding (v. 29). The best man gets his greatest satisfaction from helping his friend’s important day go well. John has found fulfillment in advancing the cause of Christ. In short, in the determined will of God, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (v. 30). That this great and humble man is so highly spoken of by Jesus (Matt. 11:7–11) and the Evangelist (John 10:40–42) is not hard to understand.

The Exposition of John the Evangelist Of the Preeminence of Christ, John 3:31–36

The chapter closes (vv. 31–36) with John’s additional meditations or reflections on the significance of Jesus in light of John the Baptist’s words. The comments of the Evangelist are an exposition of the preeminence of Jesus Christ. [160] First, He is preeminent in origin. The Evangelist explains in verse 31 why Jesus must become greater than John (cf. v. 30). He is from above and is therefore superior to everything and everyone upon the earth. John the Baptist, like all others, is “of the earth” and subject to its sinfulness and limitations. John did not come down from heaven as the Son of God had.

Second, He is preeminent in word (vv. 32–34). Jesus does not come as a fallible teacher offering new theories for discussion. He taught what He knew. He was sent from the very presence of God. Because the words He spoke were God’s words they were true, even if people in general (“no man”) did not accept Him. This rejection (v. 32b) is not absolute; there are those who do accept Jesus’ words (v. 33). The verb “received” (λαβών, labōn, aor. ptc.) suggests a decisive act whereby a person decides to accept Jesus and His word. [161] The truthfulness of Jesus’ message is guaranteed by the fact that He was given the Spirit “without measure” (v. 34). [162] John, like the other prophets (Matt. 11:11–14), received the measure of the Spirit’s enabling that was necessary for him to carry out his task. At His baptism, however, Jesus was given the Holy Spirit without limit.

Third, He is preeminent in His resources. “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand” (v. 35). This love of the Father guarantees the unlimited powers of the Son. People may come to Him as they would come to the Father. As verse 36 makes clear, John is especially thinking here of the Son as the source of eternal life.

In verse 36 the Evangelist brings his account of the dialogue with Nicodemus and its aftermath to a close with a summary of Jesus’ teaching on the new birth. He again lays out the two alternatives that face all people. They may either believe in the Son or they may “reject” (NIV) Him. [163] Believing in the Son, i.e., trusting Him to bestow eternal life as He has promised, brings the new birth with its various facets: cleansing, the impartation of a new nature (“spirit,” 3:5), and supernatural, endless life in the future kingdom. Conversely, rejecting Christ and His offer of salvation, means that one has consigned himself/herself to the most terrible of judgments. They will not “see life,” they will not participate in the Messianic kingdom at the end of the age. Rather, they will face the wrath of God, i.e., His judgment against their sin. There is no third alternative—one may receive the Son or one may reject Him. To receive Him will bring eternal life; to reject Him will bring eternal ruin at the hands of a holy God. [164]

Conclusion:

At the end of John 3 the brief public ministry of the brief life of the Lord Jesus is almost one year old. He spent most of that time in the Judean countryside. The year ended with the arrest of John the Baptist’s and Jesus’ departure into Galilee (Matt. 4:12; Mark 1:14; Luke 3:18–20; cf. John 3:24). John mentions the departure into Galilee in chapter 4 (vv. 1–3), which coincides with the arrest of John the Baptist. He notes the sinister observation of the Pharisees that “Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John.” This observation can “constitute a genuine threat to Jesus only if John has already been seized” by Herod. It is at this point that Jesus comes out from under the shadow of John. [165] But He does so, the arrest of John grimly shows, in another shadow, i.e., that of “an awful coming event—the shadow of that most frightful of all national crimes which the world has ever witnessed, the rejection and crucifixion by the Jews of their Messiah.” [166]

The year began with the preaching of John the Baptist and His testimony to Jesus. In one important week, Jesus met His first disciples and performed His first sign, which symbolically suggested that the Lord was going to replace the ceremonies of Judaism with the wine of something far better. His cleansing of the temple announced His intention to replace the defective and corrupt religions of men with worship that is spiritual and true. His conversation with Nicodemus set forth the radical condition for entrance into His kingdom: a supernatural work whereby the sinner is forgiven his/her sins and given a new spiritual nature.

Striking throughout the “year of obscurity” are the many “honorific titles” [167] that were ascribed to Jesus, and a repetition of these will conclude this essay. [168] (1) “The Lord,” (1:23). In verse 23 John describes himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord.’” In the Old Testament context (Isa. 40:3), the prophet wrote, “Clear the way for יהוה (Jehovah or Yahweh) in the wilderness; make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.” John was sent to prepare the way for Messiah, who is Yahweh, God incarnate. (2) “The Lamb of God,” (1:29, 36). Jesus is the lamb without blemish who is sacrificed for the sins of His people. He takes their sin upon Himself and suffers in their place, and He bears their guilt away. (3) “The Son of God,” (1:34, 49). In His deity He is the eternal Son who was sent into the world to give people life. In His humanity He is the Son of David, the One who was anointed by the Spirit to the Messianic office, and given the official title, “Son of God.” (4) “Rabbi,” (1:38, 49). Jesus was immediately recognized as an authoritative teacher in divine matters. This evaluation was well justified, for He was sent directly from God Himself. (5) “Messiah/Christ,” (1:41). In Old Testament times there developed the Messianic hope, i.e., the hope of a Coming One who would deliver and rule over Israel. He would be the Messiah, i.e., “the anointed one.” At His baptism Jesus was anointed by God for this Messianic task. (6) “King of Israel,” (1:49). Messiah would come from the royal house of David. Jesus traced His lineage back to Israel’s greatest king. Nathanael rightly identified Jesus as this long-awaited Messianic figure. (7) “Son of Man,” (1:51). This is Jesus’ own favorite self-designation. Initially it would be a less explosive title than “Son of God” or “King of Israel.” Yet in the end His enemies would recognize at last the astonishing claim made by our Lord in using this title (cf. Mark 14:61–63). He was the Messianic man of Daniel 7:13–14 who will one day come to the earth in great glory to deliver His people and rule over the nations.

How well John the Baptist and the disciples initially understood these titles it is hard to say. That they grew in their appreciation of them is clear from the later pages of the New Testament. These “striking confessions,” says Temple, are “outbursts of an exalted hope rather than formulations of settled conviction.” They strike “the keynote of the Gospel.” In the course of time, of course, the disciples “passed from one state of comprehension to another.” [169]

Notes

1. This is the sixth in a series of occasional articles on the Life of Christ.
2. Reynolds Price, “Jesus of Nazareth Then and Now,” Time (Dec. 6, 1999): 86.
3. The present writer accepts the chronology of Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (rev. ed., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 345 and passim. Finegan places the birth of Jesus in mid-winter 3/2 BC and His death in AD 33. If He was born in January, 2 BC, and died in April, AD 33, then He would have been 34 at the time of His death.
4. James A. Francis, “A Full-Length Portrait of the Son of God,” in Northfield Addresses (Boston: United Society of Christian Endeavor, 1912), 45–46.
5. On the dating of Jesus’ ministry from ad 27–30, cf. Bruce M. Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content (2d ed., Nashville: Abingdon, 1983), 104–105. A dating of the public ministry from ad 29–33 is accepted by the present writer and is defended by Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 44, 114, and Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 362, 366–67.
6. Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content, 113–14.
7. James Stalker, The Life of Jesus Christ (1880; reprint ed., Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1949), 47.
8. Cf. Cheryl Forbes, “Solzhenitsyn: More Than Barking Dogs,” Christianity Today (July 21, 1978): 8, 11.
9. Cf. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “The Messiah’s Year of Obscurity: John 1:19–3:36, ” BBB (1987): 1.
10. The Synoptic Gospels are Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The word “Synoptic” comes from the Greek σύν (“together”) + ὄψις (“view”) and means “giving a common view.” The Synoptics share much of the same material in the same order with the same wording. This agreement, however, must not obscure their differences (content, outline, and style) which are considerable. Cf. F. V. Filson, “Gospels, Synoptic,” ISBE 2 (1982), 532.
11. D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 168.
12. Cf. the helpful survey of this material in Jakob van Bruggen, Christ on Earth: The Gospel Narratives as History, trans. Nancy Forest-Flier (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 96–98.
13. van Bruggen, Christ on Earth: The Gospel Narratives as History, 133–34. At the end of the first century and at the beginning of the second, there had developed a sect called the Hemerobaptists (ἡμεροβαπτισταί, hēmerobaptistai), lit. “daily-bathers,” that set up John as a rival Messiah to Jesus. He was no longer the forerunner to the Messiah; he was the Messiah (cf. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon [London: Macmillan 1879], 401–4; Frederick Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, trans. Timothy Dwight [New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1893], 1:214). A still later sect, the Mandaens, which still exists today in Iraq, venerated John, and treated Jesus as a false Messiah (cf. Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, trans. S. C. Guthrie and C. A. M. Hall [rev. ed., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963], 26–30). The Clementine literature of the early third century speaks of disciples of John who viewed him as the Christ (Recognitions of Clement 54, in ANF, 8:92; The Clementine Homilies 2.17, in ANF 8:232). It may be that when the Fourth Gospel was written (ad 80–85 or earlier) there were followers of John who were beginning to form a kind of “John the Baptist sect” that gave to John a rival or superior role to Jesus. This may be the reason for the Evangelist’s carefully constructed argument demonstrating Jesus’ superiority to John. One must admit that the existence of a Baptist sect at the time John’s Gospel was written has been questioned (cf. J. A. T. Robinson, “Elijah, John, and Jesus: An Essay in Detection,” NTS 4 [1957-58], 278–79).
14. John says “the Jews” sent the delegation (v. 19). Some modern scholars have seen in John’s use of this designation of those who oppose Jesus an evidence of anti-Semitism (cf. Urban C. von Wahlde, “The Johannine ‘Jews’: A Critical Survey,” NTS 28 [1982]: 33-60). An examination of John’s usage, however, demonstrates that John uses the term in a variety of ways: (1) Neutrally, of Jewish customs [e.g., 2:6], (2) Positively, of Jewish place in the history of salvation [4:22], (3) Positively, of Jesus’ racial identity—although the speaker may have spoken with contempt [4:9], (4) Positively, of Jewish believers in Christ [11:45; 12:11], (5) Positively, of some Jewish leaders [3:1; 7:50; 19:38–42], (6) Negatively, of the Jewish leaders who oppose Jesus [1:19; 7:1, etc.]. The charge of anti-Semitism is not a reasonable charge when one realizes that John the evangelist was himself a Jew. At the same time he was seeking to win his Hellenistic Jewish readers to Christ, and he used the failure of the Jewish leaders as a clear warning against unbelief. Cf. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 141–42.
15. Cf. R. J. Wyatt, “Pharisees,” ISBE 3 (1986), 822–29.
16. Bruce Milne, The Message of John, BST (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1993), 51.
17. Morris notes that at least nine suggestions have been made as to the meaning of “the lamb of God” in John 1:29: (1) the Passover lamb, (2) the “lamb…led to slaughter” in Isa. 53:7, (3) the Servant of the Lord mistranslated from John’s Aramaic as “the lamb of God,” (4) the lamb of the daily sacrifices, (5) the “gentle lamb” of Jer. 11:19, (6) the scapegoat, (7) the triumphant lamb of the apocalypses, (8) the God-provided lamb of Gen. 22:8, (9) a guilt-offering which sometimes was a lamb, and (9) a composite picture evoking several of the previous suggestions. Cf. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, NICNT (rev. ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 127–30.
18. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 148, 150.
19. C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 230–38; cf. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 150; George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC (Waco: Word, 1987), 24–25.
20. Cf. 1 Enoch 90:9–12; Testament of Joseph 19:8; Testament of Benjamin 3:8 (APOT: Pseudipigrapha, 256–57, 353, 356). In the Revelation John seems to combine two pictures, viz., the lamb as a victorious sacrifice (5:6; 7:14) and the lamb as Lord of Lords who will defeat the Beast (17:12–14). The word ἀρνίον is used as a title of the resurrected and victorious Christ in Revelation twenty-eight times. Cf. Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, NICNT (rev. ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 132–33 and passim. The word used here is ἀμνός, but there doesn’t appear to be any difference in meaning between the two words. Cf. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 126, n. 45.
21. The verb “takes away” (αἴρω) could have this meaning. While the more common word for bearing away sin is ἀναφέρω (Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 2:24), αἴρω is used for both the removal of guilt by the substitutionary bearing of a penalty (Col. 2:14) and of the removal of sin by means of expiation (1 John 3:5). Cf. J. Jeremias, “αἴρω,” TDNT 1 (1964), 186.
22. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 148.
23. Morris makes much of the fact that the Passover victim was not necessarily a lamb at all. It could have been a kid (The Gospel According to John, 127, notes 48 and 49). While this is true, it is also true that the NT writers seem to have picked the lamb as their figure of choice for the sacrifice of Christ (Acts 8:32 = Isa. 53:7; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5:8–9).
24. William Kelly, An Exposition of the Gospel of John (1898; reprint ed., Denver: Wilson Foundation, 1966), 26; cf. Edwyn Clement Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, ed. Francis Noel Davey (London: Faber and Faber, 1947), 176. Hoskyns notes that these daily sacrifices were maintained even during the siege of Jerusalem in spite of great difficulties.
25. Cf. G. H. C. MacGregor, The Gospel of John, MNTC (New York: Harper, 1928), 28.
26. Kelly, An Exposition of the Gospel of John, 27–28.
27. Cf. F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 53.
28. Milne, The Message of John, 54.
29. Some manuscripts, chiefly Western, read ὁ ἐκλεκτός τοῦ θεοῦ (“the chosen/elect of God,” or “God’s Chosen One” [REB]) instead of ὁ υἱός τοῢ θεοῢ (“the Son of God” [NIV, NASB]). This reading has commended itself to a number of commentators (e.g., C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John [2d ed., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978], 178; Morris, The Gospel According to John, 134–35; Carson, The Gospel According to John, 152). This reading is preferred because it is the harder one, i.e., it is more likely that “the chosen” would be changed to “the Son” than the other way around. If this view is correct, then John is saying that at His baptism Jesus was singled out as the divinely called Messiah. The age and diversity of witnesses (including the important manuscripts 66 and 75 [early 3d cent] tilt the argument in favor of ὁ υἱός, which the United Bible Societies’ Greek Testament committee gives a “B” rating. Haenchen suggests that early scribes changed the reading to ὁ ἐκλεκτός due to the influence of Isa. 42:1 on their understanding of this passage. Cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 200; Ernst Haenchen, John 1, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 154.
30. “This filial consciousness is a most impressive feature of His inner life, in so far as the Gospel records permit us to penetrate the shrine of His personal devotion.” Cf. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 55.
31. Westcott thinks that the event took place at 10 a.m. He argues that John used Roman time and that the Romans measured their days from midnight to midnight (Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes, 2 vols. [London: John Murray, 1908], 2:324–26). Pliny (Natural History 2.79.188) says that the Roman authorities defined the official day as lasting from midnight to midnight, but that the common people everywhere measured it from dawn to dark. Cf. Pliny, Natural History, 10 vols., LCL, trans. H. Rackham et al (Cambridge: Harvard, 1938), 1:320–21. Bruce (The Gospel of John, 66, n. 56) says the Romans divided the period of daylight into twelve hours, and the period of darkness into four watches (John 4:6, 52; 19:14). Cf. the conclusive note of Morris (The Gospel According to John, 138, n. 91). Among other things, Morris notes that (1) the Romans marked noon on their sundials with VI and not XII, and (2) the early Christian commentators on John [e.g., Chrysostom and Augustine] understood the evangelist to be speaking of late afternoon and not morning.
32. Milne, The Message of John, 57.
33. Barrett (The Gospel According to St. John, 179) argued that the call of the disciples in these verses cannot be harmonized with the later call found in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 4:18–22; 9:9; Mark 1:16–20; 2:13–14; Luke 5:1–11, 27–28). It is not at all clear, however, that we can even refer to this early meeting as a “call.” It was simply an occasion for getting acquainted. Carson wrote, “Indeed, the promptness with which the disciples, according to the [Synoptics], abandon their livelihood…in response to Jesus’ explicit call, is psychologically and historically more plausible if that was not their first exposure to Him…” Cf. The Gospel According to John, 154.
34. For further discussion of the title and activities of the Rabbis, cf. W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964), 422–25; Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, ed. Matthew Black et al (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987), 2:325–36 and passim.
35. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 56; Carson, The Gospel According to John, 155.
36. Peter does occupy a place of preeminence among the disciples, being placed first in each of the apostolic lists (Matt. 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; cf. Matt. 16:18–19; 17:1; Acts 1:15).
37. Milne, The Message of John, 59.
38. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 168.
39. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 57; Carson, The Gospel According to John, 155–56. In the OT the high priest is called “the anointed priest” (Lev. 4:3), and the patriarchs in their prophetic role are called “my anointed ones” (Ps. 105:15).
40. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 140.
41. Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew, A Commentary, 2 vols., vol. 2: The Churchbook (Dallas: Word, 1990), 573.
42. C. S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study (New York: Macmillan, 1947), 114.
43. Milne, The Message of John, 57–58.
44. The AV and NIV actually insert “Jesus” as the subject.
45. There are at least three reasons for this conclusion: (1) Jesus is named before the next verb in v. 43 as if there has been a change of subject. (2) The adverb “first” (πρῶτον) in v. 41 is given extra force if the “second” thing Andrew does is bring Philip. (3) Everyone else who comes to Jesus in this chapter does so because of someone else’s witness. However, if the “He” at the beginning of v. 43 is Jesus, then here only in chapter 1 does He take the initiative in seeking out Philip. Cf. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 157.
46. There has been some debate over Nathanael. Because the other men named in this chapter became apostles, it is generally assumed that Nathanael did also. In that his name does not appear in the lists of the twelve apostles it is supposed that he appears under the patronymic Bartholomew (i.e., the son of Tholomai or Ptolemy). In Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18 and Luke 6:14 Bartholomew is linked with Philip (cf. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 59). Others have disputed this identification arguing that there is no reason to identify Nathanael with an apostle. Jesus, they note, had other disciples outside the twelve (cf. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 143).
47. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 59.
48. Frederick Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2 vols., trans. Timothy Dwight (3d ed., New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1893; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), 1:332.
49. Philip’s words should not be taken as a denial of the Virginal Birth. Three observations are in order: (1) At this stage Philip would hardly know of the Virgin Birth. (2) Joseph was the legal father of Jesus. (3) The comment of Philip illustrates “the irony of St. John,” i.e., his practice of allowing people to state in his Gospel ideas that Christian readers know to be false. Cf. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 144.
50. Nathanael came from Cana (John 21:2) which, like Nazareth, was a small town in Galilee, and some have detected in his words the typical small town rivalry that grips small villages. Cf. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 145; Carson, The Gospel According to John, 160.
51. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 60.
52. Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 489; Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16–50, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1994), 222.
53. This translation is that of William Temple, Readings in St. John’s Gospel (London: Macmillan, 1952), 30.
54. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 61; cf. Temple, Readings in St. John’s Gospel, 30.
55. Augustine, Confessions 8.28-29, in NPNF, 1st Series, 1:127.
56. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 61. Morris argues that the use of the article (ὁ υἱὸς τοῢ θεοῢ) suggests that the expression is to be understood in the full sense of ontological Sonship, rather than in the minimal sense of Messianic Sonship. Cf. The Gospel According to St. John, 146–47. The use of the article could suggest either meaning. The context, i.e., the use of the designation by a man who has just met Jesus and who couples the title with “King of Israel” suggests the Messianic sense.
57. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 63.
58. Elizabeth C. Clephane, “Beneath the Cross of Jesus,” in Hymns of Worship and Remembrance (Kansas City: Gospel Perpetuating Publishers, 1960), 149.
59. Beasley-Murray, John, 30.
60. Francis Thompson, “The Kingdom of God,” lines 13–20, in Poems of Francis Thompson, ed. Terence L. Connolly (rev. ed., New York: Appleton-Century, 1941), 293. Thompson (1859–1907) spent three years as a drug addict and derelict in London. Charing Cross was the center of the city’s commercial activity and its most densely populated area. It was the scene of Thompson’s most tragic days before his rescue and restoration to the Christian faith. Originally Charing Cross was the site of one of the nine Gothic crosses placed by Edward I to mark the resting places of Queen Elenore’s funeral on the way to Westminster. Cf. Connolly, 556.
61. Cf. the full discussion in Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1981), 282–90.
62. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 63; Carson, The Gospel According to John, 164.
63. The Greek text reads τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ (“on the third day,” NASB) which is an idiomatic expression meaning “the day after the morrow.” It is probably to be counted from the day last mentioned, viz., the day on which Jesus spoke with Nathanael. Cf. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 190.
64. Derrett points to the strong element of reciprocity in ancient Near Eastern weddings. The groom would be expected later to give reciprocal wedding gifts to the young men in attendance who had given him gifts. If they left unsatisfied, the groom would eventually have to give each of them not only a wedding gift but compensation for the amount they had been deprived because of his insufficient provisions. Cf. J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Water Into Wine,” in Law in the New Testament (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970), 228–46 (esp. pp. 231–38).
65. Pesaḥim 109a in The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Moʿed, 4 vols., trans. I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1938), 2:563. As Epstein notes (561, n. 7), their wine was too strong to be drunk unmixed, so it was diluted before served, usually one part wine to three parts water.
66. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 70; Carson, The Gospel According to John, 169.
67. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 69; Carson, The Gospel According to John, 170.
68. Cf. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, 2 vols. (rev. ed., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 1:102.
69. Barclay, The Gospel of John, 1:101.
70. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 69; Carson, The Gospel According to John, 171.
71. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 173.
72. The word τέρας is only found in the plural and only in combination with σημεῒα in the New Testament. Cf. BDAG, s.v. “τέρας,” 999.
73. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 72; Carson, The Gospel According to John, 175.
74. Derrett, Law in the New Testament, 246.
75. Barclay, The Gospel of John, 1:100.
76. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 71.
77. George Reith, The Gospel According to St. John, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1889), 1:38. Temple has, “The modest water saw its God and blushed.” Cf. Readings in St. John’s Gospel, 37.
78. Beasley-Murray, John, 36.
79. Johnson, “The Messiah’s Year of Obscurity,” 3.
80. Lewis, Miracles, 163.
81. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 72.
82. Barclay, The Gospel of John, 1:99.
83. “The servants knew, and, doubtless, wondered. But only to His disciples (‘we beheld His glory’) was the glory manifest; and they believed on Him.” Cf. Temple, Readings in St. John’s Gospel, 37.
84. Jesus’ mother and brothers appear in Capernaum in Mark 3:31–33. In Mark 6:3 his brothers are named, but only His sisters are said to live in Nazareth. This might suggest that the sisters had married and were living in Nazareth, while the rest of the family had moved. Cf. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 164, n.48.
85. Cf. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 194.
86. The Synoptic Gospels record a cleansing of the temple, but they place it toward the end of Jesus’ ministry (Matt. 21:12–13; Mark 11:15–17; Luke 19:45–46). Many today assume there was only one cleansing and that John has moved it out of its actual chronological sequence to point out, at the very beginning of His ministry, that Jesus will deal with the issues of purification from sin and the offering of true worship. A good case can still be made, however, that there were two cleansings, one at the beginning and one at the end of Jesus’ ministry. Cf. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 166–69; Carson, The Gospel According to John, 177–78.
87. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, 44; Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 367. John keeps close track of the Jewish feasts. He specifically mentions three Passovers (2:13 [AD 30]; 6:4 [AD 32]; 11:55 [AD 33]), and probably alludes to a fourth (5:1 [AD 31]).
88. Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, trans. F. H. and C. H. Cave (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 83–84.
89. Josephus says there were 255,600 victims per year in the years ad 63–66 and that as many as 2,700,000 participated in the meals. Cf. Josephus, The Jewish War 6.422, in Josephus, 10 vols., LCL, trans. H. St. J. Thackery et al (New York: Putnam’s, 1928), 2:498–99. Jeremias’ careful calculations demonstrate that these figures are quite inflated. Cf. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 77–84 (esp. 82, 84).
90. Many Jewish men would use their Passover visit as an opportunity to pay the annual half-shekel for the maintenance of the Temple. This had to be done with Tyrian coins because of the purity of their silver content. Such coins bore heathen images, but they were acceptable because once they were thrown into the Temple treasury they were melted down and transformed into ingots. Cf. Bechoroth 8.7, in Mishnayoth: Order Kodashim, trans. Philip Blackman (Gateshead: Judaica Press, 1983), 287–88; I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917 and 1924; reprint ed., New York: KTAV, 1967), 1:83–84.
91. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 179.
92. H. E. W. Turner, Jesus Master and Lord (London: Mowbray, 1953), 325. Hengstenberg observed, “Jesus had a powerful confederate in the consciences of the offenders.” Cf. E. W. Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1865), 1:141.
93. Cf. Beasley-Murray, John, 39.
94. Instead of “merchant” the NASB reads, “There will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts.” The Jewish Targum reads “merchant” instead of Canaanite, but the sense is pretty much the same. The term כְּנַעֲנִי (kĕnaʿănî) can be used with either sense (cf. BDB, s.v. “ כְּנַעֲנִי],” 489, where “trader,” “merchant” is preferred). In ancient times the Canaanites, especially the Phoenicians, were known in the world as traders. Whether the term is used of the Canaanites as unclean and godless or of merchants or traders, nothing that defiles will disturb the peace of that house, i.e., the millennial Temple. Cf. David Baron, The Visions and Prophecies of Zechariah (London: Hebrew Christian Testimony to Israel, 1918; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1972), 532; Thomas McComiskey, “Zechariah,” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, 3 vols., ed. Thomas McComiskey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 1244. Baron preferred “merchant,” and McComiskey preferred “Canaanite.”
95. Beasley-Murray, John, 39.
96. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 181.
97. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 76.
98. The reconstruction of the temple was begun by Herod in 20/19 BC. The sanctuary proper (ναός) was completed in 18/17 BC. After 18/17 BC, forty-six years brings us to AD 29/30. Cf. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 348.
99. The building of Herod’s temple (ἱερόν), i.e., the whole complex, would continue until AD 62–64. The ναός itself, however, had been completed forty-six years earlier. The verb οἰκοδομήθη (aor. pass. “was built”) in v. 20 is best understood as referring not to a building program that was still going on, but to one that had been completed long before. Cf. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, 38–43; Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 348–49.
100. Cf. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 182.
101. Lesslie Newbigin, The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 33.
102. Cf. the thoughtful remarks of Milne, The Message of John, 70–71.
103. The verb “believe” in v. 23 and the verb “entrust” in v. 24 are the same Greek verb (πιστεύω).
104. It should not be missed that Jesus here uses the divine power of omniscience.
105. E.g., Carson, The Gospel According to John, 184. Westcott describes the reaction of the people in John 2:23 as “false faith.” Cf. The Gospel According to St. John, 1:97. Against this view is John’s use of the construction πιστεύειν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῢ, which elsewhere has a positive sense. Cf. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 164.
106. Luther describes their response as “a ‘milk faith,’ a young faith of such as enthusiastically accede, give in, and believe but just as quickly withdraw when they hear something unpleasant or unexpected.” Cf. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, vol. 22: Sermons on the Gospel of John, Chapters 1–4 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1957), 251.
107. This is how Strachan interprets the pres. ptc. θεωροῢντες in v. 23. Cf. R. H. Strachan, The Fourth Gospel (3d ed., London: SCM, 1941), 128.
108. E.g., 1:12; 3:16, 18, 36; 4:39; 6:29, 35, 40; 7:38, 39, etc. The construction πιστεύω + εἰς or πιστεύω + ἐπί is unknown in secular Greek and the LXX. Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, “πιστεύω,” TDNT, 6 (1968): 203. Moulton argued that it was developed in the early Christian church to distinguish between mere belief and personal trust or confidence in. Cf. J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 4 vols., vol. 1: Prolegomena (3d ed., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908), 68; W. F. Howard, Christianity According to St. John (1946), 155–57. The meanings of words and constructions are determined by usage, and the usage of the construction πιστεύω + εἰς in this context suggests something less than saving faith. Moulton’s conclusion should not therefore be taken as absolute.
109. Cf. Zane C. Hodges, “Untrustworthy Believers—John 2:23–25, ” BS 135 (April 1978): 139-52. Hodges takes issue with commentators who say that faith is inadequate if it is based on signs. He points to John 20:30–31 where the Evangelist indicates that one of the reasons he includes a record of Jesus’ signs is to elicit faith on the part of his readers (p. 141).
110. Hodges, “Untrustworthy Believers,” 146–48. Cf. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 78. There are four arguments that may be brought against this second view: (1) The pres. ptc. θεωροῢντες [“observing”] in v. 23 may indicate that their belief had only gone so far, believing that Jesus was a man sent from God who performed genuine miracles. (2) The belief described in v. 23 is not linked to the Word of God, i.e., to the message of the Gospel as is the belief in v. 22. (3) The hesitation of Jesus in v. 24 seems to suggest that their reaction to Him is less than adequate. Haenchen translates, “He did not trust them” [John 1, 192]. (4) Nicodemus, who is often regarded as an illustration of the response of 2:23, was not a believer in the full NT sense of the term when he spoke with Jesus in John 3—as Hodges himself admits (150, n. 12). It seems better to describe him as someone who had taken the first steps toward the Savior but had not yet fully believed the Gospel. Happily, John indicates that at some point he did become a true believer (7:50–52; 19:39–42).
111. Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John, 2 vols. (Garden City: Doubleday, 1966), 1:127.
112. “The Evangelist does not say that they pretended to be believers or anything like that; he does not deny that they believed. They believed in Jesus as a man sent from God, as, expressing the conviction of many, Nicodemus put it (“we know,” in 3:2), and they did this because, unlike many of the Jewish leaders, they did not question the genuineness of Jesus’ miracles (cf. 9:16; Matt. 9:34; 10:25; 12:24, etc.).” Cf. Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 122.
113. Beasley-Murray, John, 17. Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 131. Bultmann suggests that such faith is not yet “true faith.”
114. When John says in v. 23, “Many believed in His name,” the context would suggest that he means they believed Him to be a man sent from God (cf. 3:2), even the Messiah of popular political expectation. He does not appear to mean that they “received Him” (cf. 1:12), i.e., believed Him to be the Son of God and trusted Him completely to forgive their sins and give them life. Cf. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, 1:98.
115. Reformed theologians are no doubt correct when they speak of faith as having three elements: (1) An intellectual element [notitia, or “knowledge”], (2) an emotional element [assensus, or “agreement” and “approval”], (3) and a volitional element [fiducia, or trust]. Hence, saving faith includes knowledge of the facts of the Gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 15:1–8), understanding and agreement with them, and “trust in Jesus Christ as a living person for forgiveness of sins and for eternal life with God.” “Knowledge alone is not enough,” says Grudem, but it is necessary. The sinner must know what Jesus has done. Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Seminary, would tell his students, “Men, give them something to believe.” Quoted by S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “Systematic Theology, Lecture 50: ‘What is Faith, or What Does It Mean to Believe?’” (cassette tape, Dallas: Believers Chapel, 1970). On the elements of saving faith, cf. L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (4th ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 503–6; Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Leicester and Grand Rapids: Inter Varsity Press and Zondervan, 1994), 709–12.
116. John Marsh, Saint John, WPC (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 167; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), 223. Lenski wrote, “The signs and the Word belong together like a document and the seals attached to it.”
117. Brown, The Gospel According to John, 1:126. The hook word ἄνθρωπος provides a verbal bridge between 2:25 and 3:1. “[Jesus] did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man. Now there was a man….” Cf. Hodges, “Untrustworthy Believers,” 150.
118. The definite article with “teacher” in v. 10 (ὁ διδάσκαλος) has been interpreted in this way. Others have understood the article to designate, rather, that Nicodemus is a representative of the Jewish teaching office. Cf. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:383; Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, 1:113.
119. Bruce (The Gospel of John, 81) understands the reference to the time as a simple factual reminiscence. This is unlikely. Whenever John speaks of the night elsewhere it seems to have a moral or spiritual symbolism (3:2; 9:4; 11:10; 13:30; 19:39). Others believe that the reference to the night is intended to speak of the spiritual darkness out of which Nicodemus came into the presence of the light. Cf. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 205; Carson, The Gospel According to John, 186.
120. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 187.
121. C. G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, 2 vols. (2d ed., 1927; reprint ed., New York: KTAV, 1968), 2:270. Montefiore adds, “The new birth here [Matt. 19:28] denotes the world or Israel at the time of the second advent—at the Parousia. The son of man is Jesus, who sits upon his Messianic throne.”
122. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 189.
123. Carson has a good discussion of some of the more common interpretations of “water and spirit.” He discusses the following views: (1) natural and supernatural birth, with water referring to sperm or amniotic fluid, (2) Christian baptism and the Holy Spirit, (3) the repentance baptism of John and the Spirit birth of Christ, (4) water purification of the Essenes or Jewish ceremonies and Spirit birth, (5) the Torah/tradition and the Spirit, (6) water and wind as symbolizing God’s vivifying work, and (7) water and spirit as metaphors from Ezekiel speaking of cleansing and the impartation of a new life/nature. Cf. The Gospel According to John, 191–95.
124. F. W. Boreham, A Handful of Stars (Philadelphia: Judson, 1922), 149–53. Boreham’s story is an abridgement of an account found in Harold Begbie’s book, The Vigil.
125. H. A. Ironside, “The Only Two Religions,” and Other Gospel Papers (New York: Loizeaux, n.d.), 51–53.
126. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 85.
127. Milne, The Message of John, 76.
128. Cf. William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to John, 2 vols., NTC (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953), 1:135.
129. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 197–98.
130. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 86.
131. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 86.
132. Cf. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, 1:113.
133. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 202. Some have argued that the passage makes no sense. Jesus’ later teaching makes clear that the Holy Spirit, essential for the new birth, would not be given until Jesus was resurrected and glorified in heaven (John 7:37–39). How then could Jesus demand that Nicodemus experience the new birth when it was impossible at that moment? However, Jesus is not demanding that Nicodemus experience the new birth at that instant; “rather He is forcefully articulating what must be experienced if one is to enter the kingdom of God” (Carson, 195).
134. As Carson notes, scholars differ on where the transition from the words of Jesus to the comments of John takes place. Some end Jesus’ words at verse 10, others at verse 12, others at verse 15, and still others at verse 21. Cf. The Gospel According to John, 203.
135. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 89.
136. It is commonly accepted by the commentators that οὕτως in this context is an adverb of degree expressing the idea of infinite or limitless love. This has been challenged by Gundry and Howell who argue that in the present construction οὕτως is an adverb of manner and means, “in this way.” Cf. Robert H. Gundry and Russell W. Howell, “The Sense and Syntax of John 3:14–17 with Special Reference to the Use of οὕτως…ὥστε in John 3:16, ” NovTest 41 (Jan., 1999): 24-39.
137. Cf. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 203.
138. In his first epistle (2:15) the evangelist wrote, “Do not love the world.” There is no contradiction between that text and John 3:16. “Christians are not to love the world with the selfish love of participation; God loves the world with the selfless, costly love of redemption” (Carson, The Gospel According to John, 205).
139. That God gave His Son clearly implies that He was the Son before He was given. In short, John 3:16 speaks of Christ’s ontological or eternal Sonship.
140. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 203.
141. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 206.
142. Richard W. DeHaan, “Who’s Who in ‘Whoever’?” Our Daily Bread. The present writer has heard remarks similar to those of Moorhouse attributed to others such as Martin Luther and Richard Baxter.
143. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 90.
144. There is no contradiction, therefore, between John 3:17 and 9:39, “For judgment I came into this world.” It is true that because of the coming of Christ there will be a sorting out of humanity. Some will enter life, but some will cling to the darkness. Christ will judge all men, true, but those who are condemned will be lost because of their own rejection of the light.
145. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 90.
146. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 91; cf. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 207.
147. Beasley-Murray, John, 51.
148. The NIV’s translation “verdict” is misleading. In the context of v. 19 the word κρίσις (“judgment,” NASB) denotes the process of judging and not the sentence of condemnation. John is telling us how the process works in this present life. “People choose the darkness and their condemnation lies in that very fact” (Morris, The Gospel According to John, 206–7). Godet adds that God’s final verdict will have nothing more to do than to ratify this sentence, which the unbeliever pronounces upon himself (vv. 28–29). Cf. Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:398.
149. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 207.
150. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 208.
151. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 208.
152. Cf. Milne, The Message of John, 79.
153. Cf. Stalker, The Life of Jesus Christ, 51–52.
154. van Bruggen, Christ on Earth, 134.
155. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 210–11.
156. Morris says the verse is obscure. Cf. The Gospel According to John, 211.
157. Carson (The Gospel According to John, 210) says the dispute was not over the relative merits of Jesus’ baptism vis-à-vis John’s baptism.
158. Milne, The Message of John, 80–81.
159. George Mu/ller, “Introduction,” in W. Elfe Tayler, Passages from the Diary and Letters of Henry Craik of Bristol (London: J. F. Shaw, 1866), xiii.
160. Cf. Milne, The Message of John, 81.
161. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 217.
162. The clause, “for He does not give the Spirit by measure” (οὐ γὰρ ἐκ μέτρου δίδωσιν τὸ πνεῢμα) has been interpreted in three ways: (1) The Spirit does not give by measure, i.e., He gives liberally. Morris says that this view is “barely possible.” (2) The Son gives the Spirit to believers without measure. This view is theologically problematical and biblically impossible. It would be theologically problematical to say that believers have the Spirit in any way comparable to Christ. Such a view, implicit in some Pentecostal theology, seriously compromises the uniqueness of the Messianic office. It is biblically impossible in that it would contradict Eph. 4:7 where Paul says that believers have been given grace “according to the measure of Christ’s gift.” (3) The Father gives the Spirit to the Son without measure. This ensures perfect communion between them and it guarantees the truth of Jesus’ words. Cf. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 218.
163. The Greek text has ἀπειθῶν (pres. ptc., ἀπειθέω) which means “disobey.” The verb has been understood in two ways in v. 36: (1) It carries with it the implication that saving faith issues in conduct. True faith leads to the continuing attitude of obedience. In short, the verse undergirds the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints [cf. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 220]. (2) It simply means “to disbelieve” in this context. “Since, in the view of the early Christians, the supreme disobedience was a refusal to believe their gospel, ἀπειθέω may be restricted in some passages to the meaning, disbelieve, be an unbeliever. This sense, though greatly disputed (it is not found outside our literature), seems most probable in John 3:36.” Cf. BAGD, s.v. “ἀπειθέω,” 82. This important and valid observation has mysteriously disappeared in Danker’s third edition of Bauer’s lexicon. Cf. BDAG, s.v. “ἀπειθέω,” 99. In support of the older note in BAGD are the words of Jesus in John 6:29, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”
164. Milne, The Message of John, 82.
165. van Bruggen, Christ on Earth, 97–98.
166. Stalker, The Life of Jesus Christ, 53.
167. Haenchen, John 1, 154. On the titles, in addition to Haenchen, John 1, 154, cf. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3 vols., trans. Kevin Smyth (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 1:507–14; Morris, The Gospel According to John, 150; Carson, The Gospel According to John, 147.
168. John 1 is one of the richest, if not the richest, chapters in the New Testament for Christological titles. In addition to the seven titles mentioned above, there are five others in vv. 1–14: (1) the Logos [vv. 1, 14], (2) God [v. 1], (3) the Light [vv. 4, 9], (4) the Life [v. 4], and (5) the Only Begotten from the Father [v. 14, 18]. Schnackenburg adds the following descriptions which, although they are not titles, indicate important Christological or Messianic functions: (1) He who has a higher rank than John the Baptist [vv. 15, 27, 30], (2) He who existed before John the Baptist [vv. 15, 30], (3) He who is in the bosom of the Father [v. 18], and (4) He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit [v.33], and Morris adds: (5) He of whom Moses and the Prophets wrote [1:45]. The rich Christology of the Gospel must not detract from the Theology of its message. The Son came to bear witness to the words of God the Father (3:33–34), to do the works of God the Father (14:10), to manifest God the Father (17:6), and to glorify God the Father (17:1). Haenchen (John 1, 211) wrote, “Everything in the Gospel of John is about God and only about God and therefore about Jesus.”
169. Temple, Readings in St. John’s Gospel, 32.