CHAPTER III.

Ch. 3:1-21. CHRIST’S CONVERSATION WITH NICODEMUS.--THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES: ITS STRENGTH AND ITS WEAKNESS ILLUSTRATED (verse 2).--CHRIST MORE THAN A TEACHER, A LIFE-GIVER; CHRISTIANITY MORE THAN A SYSTEM OF TRUTH, A NEW LIFE.--THE CONDITION OF SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE, A NEW SPIRITUAL LIFE.--THE SPIRIT OF SKEPTICISM ILLUSTRATED (verse 4).--THE TRUE METHOD OF ANSWERING SKEPTICISM, NOT BY ARGUMENT, BUT BY PERSONAL ASSURED CONVICTION (verse 5).--THE TWO CONDITIONS OF ENTERING CHRIST’S KINGDOM: A NEW SPIRITUAL LIFE, AND A PUBLIC CONFESSION OF CHRIST (verse 5).--LIKE BEGETS LIKE.--THE KNOWN AND THE UNKNOWN IN THEOLOGY (verses 8, 11): THE KNOWN, WHAT TAKES PLACE ON EARTH; THE UNKNOWN, WHAT TAKES PLACE IN HEAVEN.--THE IGNORANCE OF THE WISE; HE IS NO MASTER WHO HAS NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE NEW BIRTH.--THE POWER OF SALVATION: A CRUCIFIED CHRIST; THE CONDITION OF SALVATION: FAITH IN HIM; THE CONDEMNATION OF SINNERS: THEIR LOVE OF DARKNESS AND REJECTION OF THE LIGHT.

Christ’s interview with Nicodemus is described only by John. It occurred immediately after the events described in the preceding chapter, and before Christ had inaugurated his missionary labors, which he did not begin till the imprisonment of John the Baptist (Mark 1:14). In studying this passage, the following considerations will prevent the student from falling into the perplexities and errors into which some learned and orthodox commentators have fallen. (1) The conversation was had at the commencement of Christ’s ministry, before he had explained, even to his own disciples, the principles of his kingdom; we cannot therefore safely assume that Nicodemus was familiar with those principles, nor can we interpret Christ’s teachings here by the later apostolic teaching, except in so far as that was developed from this as from a germ. (2) Nicodemus was a Pharisee, therefore a formalist, and pre-eminently a Jew. We may safely assume that Christ’s object was in part to correct Jewish and Pharisaic errors, and our first object must be to understand, if we can, Nicodemus’ understanding of our Lord. (3) There is no evidence that John was present at this interview; and it is not probable that we have a full verbatim report of it. The structure of the narrative indicates that only so much of the conversation is reported as was necessary to make clear Christ’s discourse founded thereon.

1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus,[85] a ruler of the Jews:

[85] ch. 7:50, 51; 19:39.

=1. There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus.= Of Nicodemus nothing is known except what John tells us. He is not mentioned by the other Evangelists; and subsequent traditions are untrustworthy. There is a Nicodemus referred to in the Talmud; but there is nothing to identify him with this one, for the name was common among the Jews. The only incidents related of him are this conference, his protest against condemning Jesus unheard (ch. 7:50-52), and his participation with Joseph of Arimathea in the burial of Jesus (ch. 19:39). There is a spurious Gospel of Nicodemus, the author of which is, however, unknown. The designation of him here as a _ruler of the Jews_ indicates that he was one of the Sanhedrim, and this indication is confirmed by ch. 7:50. On the character of the Pharisees, see Matt. 3:7, note. Among them there were some pure and honest souls, sincere but not courageous seekers after the truth (Mark 12:28-34; 15:43; Acts 5:34-39; 15:5; Phil. 3:5); to this class of the Pharisees Nicodemus seems to have belonged.

[Illustration: A MODERN JEWISH RABBI.]

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God, for[86] no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God[87] be with him.

[86] ch. 9:16, 33; Acts 2:22.

[87] Acts 10:38.

=2. The same came to Jesus by night.= Why _by night_? The reason generally assumed is fear of the Jews; but this is not asserted by the Evangelist, and at this time there had not been developed any pronounced hostility on the part of the Judeans to Jesus. Nicodemus may have had a natural reluctance to commit himself to an unknown Rabbi, till he had learned more of his doctrine; he may have simply sought a quiet and personal conversation, such as he could not obtain in the busy day-time.--=Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher.= The plural is not used here for the singular number; Nicodemus expresses not merely his own personal conviction, but that of the Pharisees as a class. That they did, even much later, recognize Christ’s superhuman character and mission is clear from such passages as Matt. 12:23, 24; John 9:29-34; 11:47, and this even when they resisted him most bitterly.--=For no man can do these miracles=, etc. This is the argument from miracles put in the tersest possible form. Comp. Acts 4:16, 17. And this is all that miracles prove, namely, the commission and authority of Christ; they do not of themselves show his _character_. Nicodemus then regards Christ as a _prophet sent from God_; and John, who in ch. 1:6, etc., has drawn clearly the distinction between the prophet and the Light and Life, reports in this conversation with Nicodemus a discourse of Christ in which he emphasizes the same distinction. Nicodemus impliedly asks to know what _new doctrine_ Christ has to teach; Christ replies in substance that the world needs not new doctrine, but _new life_. The key to the understanding of this conversation is the contrast between the two conceptions of religion, as a system of doctrine, and as a new and spiritual life.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except[88] a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

[88] ch. 1:13; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:1; Tit. 3:5; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 2:29; 3:9.

=3. Verily, verily.= With Christ these words are a common precursor of any especially weighty and solemn declaration (Matt. 5:18, note).--=Except a man be begotten anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.= On the meaning of this sentence, it is to be observed that, (1) The word (γεννάω) here rendered in our English version _born_, more properly signifies the act of begetting. Here therefore Christ’s language carries Nicodemus back to the very beginning of life. (2) The word (ἄνωθεν) rendered here in our English version _again_, is certainly mistranslated. It means either _anew, i. e., from the beginning_ or _from above_. Both meanings are attached to it here by the best scholars. According to the first definition, Christ simply implies that the life must begin anew, that the character must be rebuilt from the foundation, without however implying how; according to the other idea, he indicates in the use of this word not only a new but a spiritual and divine birth. The word is used in the first sense in Luke 1:3, where it is rendered _from the very first_; in the second sense in James 1:17; 3:15, 17, where it is rendered _from above_. It is clear that Nicodemus understood it in the former sense merely, and therefore I have so rendered it here. (3) The word rendered _see_ (ἰδεῖν) is not equivalent to _enter into_ (εἰσελθεῖν), as Meyer interprets it. The declaration is explicit that a new spiritual life is necessary, not only to enter into but even to form any correct conception of the kingdom of God. And with this agrees the teaching of Christ elsewhere (Matt. 13:14, 15), and of Paul (1 Cor. 2:9, 14, 15). Christ thus declares to Nicodemus that he cannot even understand the spiritual teachings of the new religion without first beginning a new life. In other words, _a new spiritual life is the condition precedent to a correct spiritual apprehension of Christ’s teaching_. It is further to be observed that light is thrown on the meaning of this declaration by a consideration of previous Rabbinical and of later Apostolic teaching. The new birth was a familiar metaphor with the Rabbis. They held that a Gentile in becoming a Jewish proselyte, and submitting to circumcision and baptism, was born again. Old things passed away; all things became new; it was even maintained that the proselyte might marry his nearest kin without offence, because the old relationships were annulled by his new birth. Christ employs this metaphor, familiar to the Jewish Rabbi, without interpreting it, and declares that no man, _Jew or Gentile_, could see the kingdom of God without undergoing a change as radical. This truth, that a man may bury his old life and begin a new one, with something of the freshness and hope of youth, is also foreshadowed in the O. T. (Isa. 1:18, 19; Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 11:19, 20; 36:26), and underlies the teaching of the N. T. (Rom. 6:8; 8:3; 12:2; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Ephes. 2:1-8; Col. 3:9, 10; Titus 3:5); and the metaphor itself frequently occurs in the teaching of the apostles (Rom. 8:15; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:3; 1 John 3:9).

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

=4. How can a man be born when he is old?= It seems to me clear that this question is asked in a spirit of irony. So Godet, Alford, Luther, and others. Considering that the metaphor was a common one, as Lightfoot has shown, and that the doctrine of a new life inspired from God could not have been unknown to any devout student of the O. T. (see references above), it is hardly possible to suppose that Nicodemus took Christ literally. This is however Meyer’s interpretation of the question; but it represents Nicodemus as not only “a somewhat narrow-minded man,” but also as a grossly ignorant and stupid one; and so, in truth, Meyer represents him throughout.

In the following verses (5-8), Christ answers Nicodemus’ threefold question: _first_, by simply reasserting his declaration that no man can see the kingdom of God unless he is born anew; _second_, by declaring the nature of this new birth, as the commencement of a new spiritual life, not of a new physical or fleshly life; and _third_, by borrowing an illustration from nature to indicate the degree of knowledge attainable by man on this subject; he can perceive the results of the operations of the spirit of God, but he cannot trace them to their source nor comprehend their laws.

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water[89] and _of_ the Spirit,[90] he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

[89] Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38.

[90] Rom. 8:2; 1 Cor. 2:12.

=5. Born of water and of Spirit.= Governing ourselves by the cardinal canon, that we are to understand Christ as Christ expected his auditor to understand him, it cannot be difficult to understand this declaration. The Jewish proselyte, as a sign that he put off his old faiths, was baptized on entering the Jewish church. John the Baptist, employing the same symbolic rite, baptized Jew as well as Gentile, as a sign of purification by repentance from past sins. The Sanhedrim were familiar with his baptism, and had sent a delegation to inquire into it (ch. 1:19, 25), and he had told them prophetically of the baptism of the Spirit which Christ would inaugurate. Nicodemus then would certainly have understood by Christ’s expression, “born of water,” a reference to this rite of baptism, and by the expression, “born of the Spirit,” a reference to a new spiritual life, which however he could have only imperfectly apprehended. The declaration then is that no man can enter the kingdom of God except by (1) a _public_ acknowledgment and confession of sin, a _public_ putting off of the old man and entering into the new; and (2) a real and vital change of life and character wrought by the Spirit of God in the heart of the believer. By the one act he enters into the visible and external kingdom; by the other, into the spiritual and invisible kingdom. That a _public_ confession and consecration is essential is clearly indicated elsewhere in Christ’s teaching (Matt. 10:32, 33). Observe the difference in phraseology here and in verse 3. He cannot _see_ the kingdom of God, except his eyes are opened by the Spirit of God; he cannot _enter_ it, except by a public and complete abandonment of the old and a spiritual consecration to the new life (2 Cor. 5:14-16).

6 That[91] which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

[91] 1 Cor. 15:47, 49; 2 Cor. 5:17.

=6. That which is born of flesh is flesh.= The connection is this: even if a man when he is old could enter again his mother’s womb and be born, it would avail nothing; that which is born of flesh is always flesh; only that which is born of the Spirit partakes of the Spirit of God. (Comp. Rom. 8:5-9.) The declaration here, coupled with John’s explicit declaration in ch. 1:14, that the Word was made flesh, implies that the birth of Jesus was supernatural, though he narrates none of the circumstances of that birth.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

=7. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.= The original, by its construction, puts an emphasis on the word _ye_. And it was this which surprised Nicodemus; not that men must be born again, but that this necessity was laid on him, a child of Abraham, and an honored ruler and teacher among the Jews. Observe too that he says _ye_, not _we_. “The Lord did not, could not say this of Himself. Why? Because, in the full sense in which the flesh is incapacitated from entering the kingdom of God, He was not born of the flesh. He inherited the weakness of the flesh, but his spirit was not like that of sinful man, alien from holiness and God, and therefore on Him no sentence hath passed; when the Holy Spirit descended on Him at His baptism, the words spoken by the Father were indicative of past approval, not of renewal. His obedience was accepted as perfect, and the good pleasure of the Father rested on Him. Therefore He includes not himself in this necessity for the new birth.”--(_Alford._)

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so[92] is every one that is born of the Spirit.

[92] 1 Cor. 2:11.

=8.= It is very difficult to convey the exact meaning of the original of this verse; for in the original the same word signifies _wind_ and _spirit_; there is thus a verbal felicity in the metaphor, a certain play upon the word itself, which cannot be transferred from the Greek into another language. As in nature we see the operation of the summer breeze, that comes we know not whence, and goes we know not whither, so in the kingdom of grace we see the effects of the Spirit of God, in changes wrought in the individual character and in the community (Gal. 5:22), but are unable to comprehend the nature of the influence or the laws according to which it operates. Christ by this metaphor certainly indicates something more than the mere incomprehensibleness of the Spirit’s work (comp. Eccles. 11:5); he indicates also the realm in which we are to conduct our investigations, and that from which, by the nature of the case, we are excluded. We can study to advantage the _results_ of the Spirit’s operations; but all endeavors to know _how He_ operates, what are the occult laws of _His_ being and work, are in vain. A humble acceptance of this teaching would eliminate many useless discussions from theology. Alford notices that the Greek word used for wind (πνεῦμα) indicates the gentle breath of summer, not the violent gale. “It is one of those sudden breezes springing up on a calm day, which has no apparent direction, but we hear it rustling in the leaves around.” Observe also in the language, _where it listeth_, an indication of the fact that the divine operations are free, unconstrained, and not answerable to man, nor subject to his control. Comp. Rom. 9:15, 16.

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

=9, 10. Nicodemus answered, ... how can these things be?= He is sobered by the moral power and earnestness of the Lord, lays aside cavilling, and asks seriously for clearer light. For similar effect of Christ’s personal power on a skeptical nature, compare his conference with the Samaritan woman (ch. 4:11 with 25), and with Pilate (ch. 18:33-38 with 19:9-12); compare also account of Paul before Festus and Agrippa (Acts 26:31, 32). Observe that Christ does not overcome Nicodemus’ skepticism by arguing against his objections, but by the mere power of his own personal assurance of the truth.--=Thou art the teacher of Israel; and dost thou not know these things?= There is certainly in this declaration and question a touch of irony and of rebuke. The necessity of a radical change of heart and life, for Israelite as well as Gentile, is abundantly taught by the O. T. (see ver. 3, note, for references); Nicodemus, as a professional teacher of the religion of the O. T., ought not to have been surprised at Christ’s reiteration of the truth; and the less because the doctrine of a new birth and a public baptism as a symbol of it were taught by the Rabbis to the Gentiles. The language here, _The_ teacher of Israel (ὁ διδάσκαλος) indicates that Nicodemus was a well-known teacher; perhaps that he prided himself on his pre-eminence.

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We[93] speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

[93] 1 John 1:1-3.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you _of_ heavenly things?

=11, 12. We speak that we do know=, etc. Christ has spoken hitherto only of that which is matter of common observation, viz., man’s need of a new and divine life, and the apparent results of it in character and conduct. He now speaks of that which is matter of personal experience with Him, the new life in the soul. He now becomes not merely an interpreter to facts that are patent, but also a _witness_ to facts that are not. Christian teaching, to be effectual, must always be founded on personal experience of the truth taught (1 Cor. 2:12, 13).--=Earthly things ... heavenly things.= The connection of these verses with the preceding interprets the contrast which Christ here indicates. Nicodemus has impliedly asked for an exposition of Christ’s system of truth. Christ has replied by saying that no man can understand the truths that pertain to the kingdom of God unless he is born again. This necessity of a radical change in heart and life in order to appreciate divine things is an earthly fact, easily tested by an observation of men; a striking evidence of it is afforded by the question of Nicodemus in verse 4. He then immediately goes on to ask how such a change can be effected. But this, the method of God’s work in anew creating the heart, is a heavenly thing, not a matter of observation; and Christ says, If you do not believe me when I tell you a truth which you can easily verify by studying the earthly life of men, what use is there in my telling you the secrets of God’s working, the truth of which disclosure you have no means of verifying. Observe the implication that the things which are earthly, literally, _upon the earth_ (ἐπίγεία), belong to us to study and know, and the things which are heavenly, literally, which take place _in the_ heavens (ἐπουρανια), belong to the secret counsels and work of God, and do not belong to us to investigate (Deut. 29:29). And yet by far the largest proportion of theological conflicts have taken place respecting these hidden things, concerning God’s eternal counsels not man’s present duty.

13 And[94] no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, _even_ the Son of man which is in heaven.

[94] Eph. 4:9, 10.

=13.= The key to the interpretation of this verse is to be found in its context and connection. Christ says: How shall ye believe if I tell you of things which take place in heaven; yet no one else can tell you, for no one has ascended into heaven, and no one therefore can report its secrets, except he who has descended from heaven and is in continual communion with heaven. So interpreting it, observe, (1) The declaration, _No one_ (not merely no man) _hath ascended up to heaven_, means no living person; it does not militate against the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, nor imply an unconscious or even an intermediate state. It is by the connection limited to those living on the earth, for they alone could reveal the secrets of heaven if acquainted with them. (2) _He that came down from heaven_ plainly implies the pre-existence and supernatural character and origin of Jesus Christ (comp. ch. 8:58). He contrasts himself with other men, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, as the _only one_ who has descended to earth from heaven. (3) _Which is in heaven_ indicates not merely, as Meyer apparently interprets it, that Christ’s proper abode and home were in heaven, but also that he maintained a vital and continuous communion therewith, dwelling in the Spirit in heaven, even while in the flesh upon earth. The Christian’s experience interprets, though it does not fully measure, this mystery of the heavenly life in the flesh (Phil. 3:20; Ephes. 2:6; Heb. 12:22).

14 And as[95] Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

[95] Numb. 21:9.

15 That whosoever[96] believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

[96] ver. 36; Heb. 7:25.

=14, 15. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness.= The reference here is to the event recorded in Num. 21:4-9. The account there should be carefully studied and compared with the spiritual interpretation which Christ affords here. What species are there indicated by the description “fiery serpent” is not very clear; probably the title was given from the burning sensations produced by their bite. Travelers describe a large serpent, said to abound in the Arabian peninsula, full of fiery red spots and undulating stripes, and regarded as one of the most poisonous of the serpent kind. Excruciating heat and a burning thirst are among the symptoms produced by the bite of this serpent. The brazen serpent described in Numbers is thought to have been put upon a pole and carried throughout the camp, so as to bring it within the sight of all the people. It was carefully preserved and carried into the Holy Land, where it became an object of idolatry and was destroyed in the reformation instituted under Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:4). A Roman Catholic church at Milan, Italy, however, still claims to possess the original brazen serpent.--=Must the Son of Man be lifted up.= Why _must_? What is the necessity? That question Christ does not answer here, nor, so far as I can see, does the N. T. anywhere. It simply represents the atoning sacrifice of Christ as a necessity, without explaining the grounds of that necessity (comp. Luke 24:26). That it is in the divine economy of grace an inexorable necessity is indicated even by the types of the O. T. (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22). The phrase “Son of Man” was a common Jewish designation for the Messiah. It would have been so understood by Nicodemus (Matt. 10:23, note).--=Be lifted up.= Not only _on the cross_, but _by the cross unto glory_. It is the cross which lifts up Christ to be the object of adoration for the whole creation (Phil. 2:9; Rev. 5:9).--=Should not perish.= These words are wanting in the best manuscripts. But the doctrine implied, that those who do not believe will perish, is clearly taught in verse 16, from which it was probably borrowed and inserted here by some early copyist.--=Eternal life.= The same Greek words are rendered everlasting life in the next verse (ζωὴν αἰώνιον). Comp. ch. 10:10. Eternal life is the life of the soul which disaster cannot impair nor death destroy--a present possession, not a future inheritance, except that it is a possession which grows in value and importance in the future.

In studying Christ’s language in these two verses observe (1) That we have Christ’s authority for the doctrine that the O. T. history is intended to indicate, by types or object-teaching, the great truths of the Gospel. This he assumes elsewhere in his ministry (Luke 22:15, 19, 20; John 6:49-51), and it is directly asserted by Paul (1 Cor. 10:11), and underlies the Epistle to the Hebrews. The history of the brazen serpent is then a parable of the Gospel; parabolically it points out the way of salvation. (2) The serpent is throughout the Bible an emblem of Satan, and its poison an emblem of the deadly and pervasive effects of sin (Gen. 3:1, 14, 15; Deut. 32:33; Psalm 58:4, 5; 140:3; Rom. 3:13; 2 Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9). It is a fitting emblem--slight in its first wound, affecting the blood, the current and fountain of life, pervading the whole frame with its subtle poison, a poison for which there is no human remedy, and resulting in certain death. (3) For the human soul, poisoned by sin, the end whereof is death (James 1:15), there is lifted up One who, though he knew no sin, was made in the likeness of sinful flesh (2 Cor. 6:21), so that in him the enemy himself was, as it were, nailed to the cross (Col. 2:15). Thus, as the brazen serpent represented the fiery serpent, yet had in him not poison but healing, so Christ represented sinful flesh, but had in him no sin but redemption from the poison of sin in others. (4) The one only condition of healing to the poisoned Israelite was that he _look on_ the brazen serpent; and this simply as an act of obedient faith. To this fact Isaiah had reference in his interpretation of the divine condition of salvation, “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else” (Isaiah 45:22). So here to “believe in him” is not to believe some doctrine about the Messiah, but simply to trust in him, to look unto him (Acts 16:31; Heb. 12:2). (5) The work of heralding the Gospel is the work of Moses in the wilderness. It is a simple pointing to the Saviour, lifted up that the sinner, by looking unto him, may be saved. The work of instruction in the precepts of Christ and the principles of his kingdom comes after, not before, salvation (Matt. 28:19, 20, note).

16 For God[97] so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[97] 1 John 4:9.

=16.= Some scholars, including Olshausen and Tholuck, suppose that Christ’s discourse ends with the preceding verse, and that the remainder, to verse 21, are added by John; but the grounds for such an hypothesis seem to me quite insufficient, and the objections to it quite conclusive. The grounds are (_a_) _That all allusion to Nicodemus is henceforth dropped_. But Nicodemus is only introduced as an interrogator, because his questions elicit the instruction of Jesus; and only so much of his share in the conversation is recorded as is necessary to make Christ’s language intelligible. (_b_) _Thenceforth past tenses are used._ This might, however, well be the case, even if the events were future, the discourse being prophetic. But the events were not future, but past. The love of God, the sending his Son into the world, the opening of the door of salvation through Him--all this was already accomplished; and the passion is not described in detail as an event past. (_c_) _The phrase “only begotten” is said to be peculiar to John._ But Stier well replies that John probably obtained the phrase from Christ. The objections to the view which supposes that Christ ends the discourse at verse 15, and that the rest is John’s are, (_a_) That the discourse breaks off abruptly, if ended at verse 15, leaving Nicodemus in entire ignorance of the way of salvation. The same necessity which, on this hypothesis, led John to complete it, would much more have led Christ to complete it. (_b_) There is nothing to indicate a break at verse 15; and to suppose John guilty of adding to the discourse of our Lord his own words, without indicating that it is an addition, is to accuse him of imposture, if not forgery, and casts discredit over his whole narrative. Lange, Stier, Meyer, Alford, all hold the discourse to be our Lord’s to the end, at verse 21. The verse itself has been well called by Luther “The little gospel,” for it embodies the whole gospel in a single sentence. It declares the divine nature--love (1 John 3:9, 16); the nature of that love, a love unto self-sacrifice, the sacrifice of his Only Son; the object of that love--the whole world; the result of that love--the gift of the Messiah; the divine nature of the Messiah--God’s only begotten Son; the object of that gift--salvation; the sole condition of securing the benefits of that gift--trust in the Saviour; the proffer of that salvation--to all that believe in him; the effect of rejecting it--perishing; the effect of accepting it--everlasting life. Observe, (1) that all attempts to limit the meaning of the word _world_ (ὁ κόσμος) to the elect, or the church, are inconsistent with the original and with other parallel passages of Scripture. See particularly 1 John 2:2, and Matt. 13:38, note; (2) the cause of the atonement is traced here not to the wrath but to the _love_ of God, a fundamental fact often lost sight of in presenting that doctrine; (3) in the original an emphasis is put upon the word _so_, which is not preserved in the English version. The wonder of the Gospel is not that God loved the world, but that he loved it with such a love, a love which only the sacrifice of an only begotten Son can interpret.

17 For God[98] sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

[98] Luke 9:56.

=17. Not ... to condemn the world.= The Jews believed (see _Lightfoot_) that the Messiah would save Israel and judge the Gentile nations. It was a Rabbinical interpretation of Isaiah 21:12, “The morning cometh and also the night.” “It will be the morning to Israel (when the Messiah shall come), but night to the (Gentile) nations of the world.” This error Christ refutes, in this his first private preaching of the Gospel, as subsequently in his first public preaching (Luke 4:25-27); he declares that he brings salvation to the whole world. Alford notices the peculiar construction of the close of the verse, not, That he might save the world, but, That the world through him might be saved. “The free will of the world is by this strikingly set forth in connection with verses 19, 20. Not that the Lord is not the Saviour of the world, but that the peculiar cast of this passage requires the other side of the truth to be brought out.”

18 He[99] that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

[99] ch. 6:40, 47.

=18.= The connection is this: Though God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, yet he is even now judging it and condemning its unbelief, though not in the way Nicodemus had anticipated; his mere presence is a judgment. His fan _is_ in his hand (Matt. 3:12); for he that trusts in Christ is thereby taken out from judgment, while he that rejects Christ condemns himself. The next verse states the ground and the nature of this condemnation. The Light has come into the world, and men by refusing the Light attest their love of darkness; and it is for this, not for the darkness but for their _love_ of it, that they are condemned.--=Is not condemned.= But “is passed from death unto life” (ch. 5:24).--=Is condemned already.= The sinner is condemned, not by Christ but by his own act; he is _self-condemned_ (Tit. 3:11). Observe, that throughout the N. T. both condemnation and salvation are represented as _present_ realities, not as future possibilities. The last judgment _decides_ nothing; it simply announces publicly the results of the judgment now forming. _Life is the true judgment-day._--=Because he hath not believed.= Men are not condemned for their deeds but for their desires. The way of escape from the evil is provided and declined; and for this the soul is condemned. Thus it is true that the Lamb of God taketh away the sin of the world (ch. 1:29) and yet condemns the sinner (ch. 15:22), because the condemnation is not for the past sin, but for the present rejection of the Saviour from sin.--=In the name of the only begotten Son of God.= The name is Jesus, _i. e._, Saviour, and was given to him because “he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). To disbelieve in that name is to reject that salvation. “The ‘only begotten’ also here sets before us the hopelessness of such a man’s state; he has no other Saviour.”--(_Alford._)

19 And this is the condemnation, that light[100] is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

[100] ch. 1:4; 9:11.

=19. And this is the condemnation.= Not merely, This is the cause of the condemnation; Christ has already stated that in the preceding verse; he here states the nature of the condemnation. He that loves darkness rather than light is given over to his own choice; this is the sentence pronounced against him (Hosea 4:1-17; Rom. 1:28; Rev. 22:11).--=Men loved darkness rather than light.= Not merely _more_ than light; they chose darkness. For illustration of this deliberate choice of darkness see Matt. 13:14, 15; 28:12-14; John 6:66; 12:10, 11; Acts 4:16, 17; 2 Tim. 4:10. This is not always, however, a conscious and deliberate choice. See John 12:43; 2 Tim. 3:4.--=Because their deeds are evil.= _Corrupting to others._ This is the force of the Greek word (πονηρὰ), which is different from that rendered _evil_ in the next verse. The corrupting power of sin lies in its secreting its evil character and purpose; hence it avoids the light; hence too it is called in Scripture the power of darkness (Luke 22:53; Col. 1:13; Rev. 16:10). Observe the secret cause of unbelief here indicated; men are willfully ignorant of the truth. It is not the intellect, but the will which is perverse. “The source of unbelief is immorality.”--(_Meyer._)

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither[101] cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

[101] Job 24:13, 17; Pr. 4:18, 19.

=20. Every one that practiseth evil.= _Worthless things_ (φαῦλα) not as in the preceding verse, _things corrupting_. But corrupting include worthless things, for they are not only worthless but worse than worthless. The evil here characterized is parallel to the idle words of Matt. 12:36, and it is opposed to the truth which is always fruitful in goodness and love.--=Hateth the light.= It has been supposed by some that there is in these words a covert rebuke of Nicodemus for coming to Christ secretly by night. This seems to me improbable. Christ was not accustomed to conceal his rebukes so deftly.--=Lest his deeds should be reproved.= Not necessarily by words of condemnation, but by the mere exposure of their worthlessness when brought to the light. See Luke 3:19, 20; John 8:8, 9; Compare Ephes. 5:11-13.

21 But he that doeth[102] truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought[103] in God.

[102] 1 John 1:6.

[103] John 3:21.

=21. But he that doeth the truth.= Man _practises_ the evil (πράσσω), he _does_ the truth (ποιέω). Compare ch. 5:29, where the same distinction is observed: “they that have _done_ good (shall come forth) unto the resurrection of life, they that have _practised_ evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” “He that _practises_ (πράσσω) has nothing but his _practice_, which is an event, a thing of the past, a source to him only of condemnation, for he has nothing to show for it, for it is also worthless (φαῦλον); whereas he that _does_ (ποιέω) has his _deed_--he has abiding fruit; his works do follow him.”--(_Alford._)--=Cometh to the light.= Not merely is willing and desirous to come to the light, but is also enabled to come to it, and to appreciate and receive it (Prov. 4:18; John 7:17). Observe that throughout the N. T. truth is represented not merely as an abstract philosophy to be intellectually received, but as a _life_ in harmony with the eternal verities of God’s law and character. Thus the incarnation is the fundamental doctrine of Christianity; as Christ is himself emphatically the Truth, so every Christian must be in a smaller measure an embodiment and incarnation of divine truth, manifesting it less by his words than by his life. So, on the other hand, Paul catalogues the vices of life, as the things which are contrary to “sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:10). For an exemplification of what it is to do the truth, see Psalm 15.--=That they are wrought in God.= The Christian comes to the light, not for self-glorification, but to glorify God; his desire is not to manifest the goodness in himself, but the goodness in God which has triumphed over the evil in himself (Matt. 5:16; 1 Cor. 15:10).

* * * * *

Ch. 3:22-36. FURTHER TESTIMONY FROM JOHN THE BAPTIST TO JESUS.--THE OFFICE AND THE JOY OF THE MINISTRY--CHRIST CONTRASTED WITH HIS HERALD--THE HUMAN CONFIRMATION OF DIVINE TRUTH--THE CONDITIONS OF SALVATION--THE GROUND OF CONDEMNATION--THE DANGER OF AND THE DEFENCE FROM ENVY.

22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judæa; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.[104]

[104] ch. 4:2.

=22. After these things.= Not necessarily immediately after. There is nothing to indicate how much time elapsed between the conversation with Nicodemus and the events recorded in the latter part of this chapter, except the note of time in verse 24.--=And baptized.= Christ did not baptize (ch. 4:2), and the baptism could not have been in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, for the Holy Ghost was not yet given (John 7:39), that is, in such measure as to be the common heritage of all disciples. The probable explanation of the statement here and in ch. 4:1, 2, is that of Chrysostom: “Both parties (John and the disciples of Jesus) alike had one reason for baptizing, and that was to lead the baptized to Christ.”

23 And John also was baptizing in Ænon, near to Salim,[105] because there was much water there: and they[106] came, and were baptized.

[105] 1 Sam. 9:4.

[106] Matt. 3:5, 6.

24 For John[107] was not yet cast into prison.

[107] Matt. 14:3.

=23, 24. In Enon near to Salim.= The site of both places is uncertain. For different hypotheses see _Smith’s Bible Dictionary_, article _Ænon_. Jerome and Eusebius both affirm that Salim existed in their day eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis near the Jordan. Van der Velde found a Mussulman oratory called Sheyk Salim about six miles south of Scythopolis, and two miles west of the Jordan. Dr. Hackett seems to think this the more probable site. This places it near the northern border of Samaria.--=Because there was much water there.= Rather _many_ waters, _i. e._, many springs. Whether this spot was chosen because the water afforded conveniences for baptizing, or because the springs afforded conveniences for the pilgrims that flocked in such numbers (Matt. 3:5) to the baptism of John, is uncertain. Nothing respecting the form of baptism can be deduced from this expression.--=For John was not yet cast into prison.= For chronology of this period, see Matt. 4:12, note. The events recorded in John, chaps. 2, 3, and 4, seem to have occurred between the temptation and the first preaching of Jesus recorded in Matt. 14:3-12; Mark 6:14-29. See notes there.

25 Then there arose a question between _some_ of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying.

26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest[108] witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all _men_[109] come to him.

[108] ch. 1:7, 15, etc.

[109] Ps. 65:2; Isa. 45:23.

=25, 26. Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and a Jew about purifying.= Not _the Jews_, but _a Jew_, an indication that the difficulty, whatever it was, started with him. Various conjectures have been proposed respecting the nature of this question. The discussion of them is unprofitable. The fact of the question is merely stated to explain how the instructions of John the Baptist came to be given.--=And they came.= Some of the disciples of John came.--=Said unto him.= What they said was evidently in the nature of a complaint. “He who also was with thee,” said they, “as one of thy disciples, has started off on a mission of his own, and is eclipsing thee.” There was possibly a little personal jealousy in this complaint. To their minds Jesus was but a disciple of the Baptist like themselves.

27 John answered and said, A man[110] can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

[110] 1 Cor. 2:12, 14; 4:7.

28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said,[111] I am not the Christ, but that I[112] am sent before him.

[111] ch. 1:20, 27.

[112] Luke 1:17.

=27, 28. A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven.= Some, as Alford and Maurice, suppose that John refers to himself, saying in effect: I cannot take more than God has given me, viz., the mission of a herald; others, as Chrysostom, that he refers to Jesus. This latter seems to me clearly the true view, which has been abandoned, perhaps, from a reluctance to apply the principle involved in it to Christ, that whatever power he possessed was not independent but derived from the Father. The connection seems to me to be this: “If he whom I baptized is drawing all men unto him and is conferring on them spiritual gifts greater than I conferred, it is because his spiritual power, heaven bestowed, is greater. For, in the spiritual realm no man can usurp; no man can receive what heaven does not give.” In other words, spiritual results are always an all-sufficient justification for any spiritual work. No question of its regularity, or of the authority or the right of the worker is to be entertained.--=Ye yourselves bear me out.= He turns their words, “to whom thou barest witness,” against themselves. See for his witness Matt. 3:11, 12; John 1:20, 25-27.--=I am sent before him.= As a herald before a king (Luke 3:3-6).

[Illustration: TRADITIONAL SITE OF ENON.]

29 He that hath the bride[113] is the bridegroom: but the friend[114] of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

[113] Cant. 4:8-12; Jer. 2:2; Ezek. 16:8; Hos. 2:19, 20; Matt. 22:2; 2 Cor. 11:2; Ephes. 5:25, 27; Rev. 21:9.

[114] Cant. 5:1.

30 He must increase, but I _must_ decrease.

=29, 30. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom=, etc. In the East, etiquette forbids any meetings between the bride and groom prior to marriage. Often they do not even see each other. All communications between them are carried on by one answering to our groomsman, and who is designated as the friend of the bridegroom. See Matt. 25:1-13, Prel. Note. To this custom John refers. The Church is the bride (Matt. 9:15; 25:1-13; Rev. 21:9); in a sense every individual Christian is the bride (Jer. 3:14; Isa. 54:5); Christ is the bridegroom; every one who brings Christ to his Church, or to the individual soul, is a “friend of the bridegroom.” The practical lesson for us is that we are to rejoice to be lost in the Master; to rejoice when our mission is ended for the Church or the individual, and those whom we have been teaching are able to say to us, as the Samaritans to the woman (John 4:42), “Now we believe, not because of thy saying; for we have heard him ourselves, and know that it is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.” “I know scarcely any words in all the Scriptures which have a deeper and diviner music in them than these, or which more express all that a Christian minister and a Christian man should wish to understand and feel; and should hope that some day he may understand and feel as he who first spoke them did.”--(_Maurice._)--=Who standeth and heareth him.= Stands ready to do the bridegroom’s bidding.--=He must increase, but I must decrease.= This is with John the Baptist a subject not for resignation, but for rejoicing. His decrease in the increasing of Christ is the evidence that his work and his faith have not been in vain. For him to live is Christ; hence the more Christ and the less John, the greater his joy.

31 He that cometh from above[115] is above all: he[116] that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

[115] ch. 6:33; 8:23.

[116] 1 Cor. 15:47.

32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man[117] receiveth his testimony.

[117] ch. 1:11.

=31-32.= It has been supposed by some critics that the discourse of John the Baptist ends with the preceding verse, and that what follows is a comment by the Evangelist, (so Bengel, Olshausen, Tholuck); and by others that although it is in form the Evangelist’s report of the Baptist’s words, it has been so transformed in the reporting that it is in effect the Evangelist’s, (so Lucke and De Wette.) It must be confessed that the style is far more like that of John the Evangelist than like that of John the Baptist, so far as we have reports from other quarters, of the latter’s discourses; but there is no indication of any transition here from a report to a comment on it; and the closeness of the connection in thought forbids the idea that any such transition exists. I therefore (with Alford and Meyer) regard the whole discourse as in substance that of John the Baptist, though probably in phraseology largely that of the Evangelist.--=He that cometh from above is above all.= The Baptist emphasizes the contrast between Christ and himself. Christ, from above and above all, speaks what he knows and has seen (comp. John 3:11); John the Baptist from the earth, and possessing the earthly nature, can, like all other human teachers, only declare the truth as it has come to him in his earthly condition and as seen through the earthly atmosphere. The teachings of Christ are the highest even in the Bible, for they are free from that admixture of earthiness which belongs essentially to all mere earth-born teachers.--=No man receiveth his testimony.= A sorrowful comment (comp. ch. 1:11); but not literally true, nor is it intended to be literally taken. This is evident from the next verse.

33 He that hath received his testimony hath set[118] to his seal that God is true.

[118] 1 John 5:10.

34 For he[119] whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure[120] _unto him_.

[119] ch. 7:16.

[120] ch. 1:16; Ps. 45:7; Isa. 11:2; 59:21; Col. 1:19.

35 The Father loveth the Son,[121] and hath given all things into his hand.

[121] Matt. 28:18.

=33-35. He that hath received his testimony hath sealed that God is true.=--The seal was in ancient times, as in modern, attached to any document in confirmation and attestation of it. John the Baptist declares that whoever accepts heartily the testimony of Jesus Christ becomes himself a confirmation of its truth to others, by his own life. The meaning is interpreted by Matt. 5:14; and 2 Cor. 3:2. A pregnant and suggestive metaphor; that we put the seal to God’s testimony.--=He whom God hath sent.= The question of Christ’s relation to the Father is not in issue here. John’s disciples complain that Jesus teaches at all; John replies that the divine effects of his teaching are the attestation of his divine ministry; and that having been divinely sent, he can speak no other than divine words. Compare ch. 7:16.--=For the Father giveth not the Spirit by measure.= Alford sustains the addition of the English translators, _unto him_; to me it seems, as to Meyer, quite arbitrary. The meaning is not, God has distinguished Christ from all other teachers by his unmeasured gifts of grace to him; but, when God gives he does not stint, nor measure, nor parley, but gives abundantly more than we can ask or think (Ephes. 3:20); therefore, when he sends one into the world to reveal divine truth, we are not to be afraid of his teaching, and to put limitations upon and hindrances about him, lest he go astray. The truth that God has given immeasurably more into the hands of his only begotten Son than to any created being appears in the next verse, not in this. Our English version destroys the climax, and makes ver. 35 little more than a repetition of ver. 34.--=And hath given all things into his hands.= Observe that throughout the N. T. the power and authority of Christ is represented as derived from the Father, not as original or independent of him. See for example, John 5:26; Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:9.

36 He[122] that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath[123] of God abideth on him.

[122] ver. 15, 16; Hab. 2:4.

[123] Rom. 1:18.

=36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.= An assertion, not a promise. The declaration is not that everlasting life shall be given to him in the future as a reward for his act of faith, but that faith at once inducts him into spiritual life, which is alone everlasting. Compare ver. 18 above; Rom. 6:23; 1 John 3:2. Observe what faith confers is _life_, _i. e._, the highest development and activity of the whole being (John 10:10), the reverse being death.--=He that believeth not the Son.= Two different Greek words are translated in the two clauses of this verse by the English word _believe_. The force of the original is impaired, if not destroyed, by this mistranslation; but it is not easy to find in English the exact equivalent for the distinction which is noted in the original. The passage may perhaps be rendered, _He that hath faith in_ (πιστεύων εἰς) _the Son hath everlasting life; but he that will not be persuaded by_ (ἀπειθων) _the Son shall not see life_. Beware of considering _Believe on the Son_ as equivalent to either _Believe correctly about the Son_, or even _Believe the Son_. See Matt. 18:6, note.--=Shall not see life.= Not only shall not have it, but cannot even comprehend it. Spiritual life is only spiritually discerned, and faith is the first condition of spiritual discernment. See ver. 3 and note.--=The wrath of God abideth on him.= Remains, as something previously resting upon him and not removed. See Ephes. 2:3.

[Illustration: SYCHAR.]