IN THIS ISSUE... • Modern Christians: Exclusivists in an Inclusivist World • Are Jesus and John the "we" of John 3:11? | ||||
|
When we encounter people of other faiths—Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Baha'is, etc.—observing their obvious devotion to what their religious convictions and the inner peace they seem to have and the gentleness, it makes us want to make a place for them in the kingdom of God. Our Western culture promotes pluralism of all kinds--racial, ethnic, political, and religious. Anyone who argues for one Way as the exclusive way of salvation our society opposes, ridicules, and fears. Of course, God, in His sovereignty, may choose to save anyone He wants. In the exercising of His wisdom, justice, and mercy, He certainly has the prerogative that human judges often exercise: of allowing for extenuating circumstances and the attitude of the defendant. What's more, He can factor in the confluence of a multitude of cause-effect relationships wholly unknowable to humans. We are confident that if He makes such allowances, they will be decisions that will only serve to magnify His holiness, His grace, and His righteousness. We are not in a position, however, to second-guess or to make reliable predictions about what He will and will not do in His role as Judge of All the Earth beyond what He has revealed to us. Biblical history yields examples when He granted pardons (2 Sam. 12:13; Ps. 32:1-5; Jonah 3:10) or overlooked shortcomings and failures (2 Chron. 30:17-20; 2 Kings 5:15-19), but it also reports that at other times, He demanded exacting obedience and punished failures to comply to the smallest detail (Lev. 10:1-7; 2 Sam. 6:6-7). It is not for us to attempt to predict, much less to demand, what He will do or choose in specific cases. Our task is only to proclaim what He has revealed in His Word. Jesus Himself said, "No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). His apostle, Peter, restated the same principle: "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Paul adds: "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:31). For us to grant even hypothetical pardon to anyone who has not responded to the gospel of Jesus Christ seems tantamount to calling Jesus (and Peter and Paul) a liar. If He is truly my Lord--if He is truly yours--we cannot call Him a liar or contradict His express statements. We must, instead, obey His call to "Disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19-20). If that makes us Christians exclusionists, so be it. If that means our stance is a stumbling block to the world, that's all right. The cross has been a stumbling block and foolishness to an unbelieving world throughout the entire history of Christianity. Yet, to those who are being saved, "it is God's power and God's wisdom. For the foolisness of God is wiser than man's wisdom and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength" (1 Cor. 1:24-25).  Bengel’s Interpretation of John 3:5The variety of interpretations of the phrase in John 3:5,1 “born out of water and Spirit” (gennêthê ex hydatos kai pneumatos), resolves into two categories: baptismal and non-baptismal.2 Those choosing the interpretation that it refers to baptism in the name of Jesus Christ face the challenge of explaining how this would have been immediately meaningful to Nicodemus, living as he was before the cross and the outpouring of the Spirit made Christian baptism relevant.3 Perhaps the most historically consistent interpretation is also the least disruptive of the context of chapter 3: that for Nicodemus, “water” refers to the baptism of John4 and “Spirit” to an impartation of the Spirit by Jesus; while for the original readers of the Fourth Gospel (FG) as well as for us modern readers, living after the cross and the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost, these two elements combine in the significance of water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. This interpretation, first espoused by J. A. Bengel, was taken up successively by B. F. Westcott, Edwyn Hoskyns, J. A. T. Robinson, and George R. Beasley-Murray, among others.5 Perhaps its lack of supporters in recent times is due more to growing doubts about the historicity of the discourses in the FG than to the superior contextual suitability of its rival interpretations.6 I seek to demonstrate that Bengel’s interpretation of John 3:5 helps to resolve the conundrum of 3:11: Jesus’ seemingly enigmatic switch from first-person singular verbs and pronouns (“I”) in the preceding context to first-person plurals (“we” and “our”) in this sentence: ‘‘Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen; but you do not receive our testimony"7 (amên, amên, legô soi hoti ho oidamen laloumen kai ho heôrakamen martyroumen, kai tên martyrion hêmôn ou lambanete).8 The question to decide is, who are the referents for the first-person plurals of John 3:11. Who is included in the "we" and the "our"? Does Jesus employ an inclusive first-person plural here, including Nicodemus with himself and perhaps others? Or does Jesus use an exclusive first-person plural, excluding Nicodemus but perhaps including others?  Including John in the first-person plurals of 3:11, serves to validate Bengel’s interpretation of 3:5, suggesting that reference to John lies behind the entire dialogue with Nicodemus. In other words, I seek to establish that though John remains unnamed in the Nicodemus dialogue, his presence just beneath the surface is both historically and contextually plausible, and if this is true, unlocks our understanding of the phrase in 3:5: “born out of water and Spirit.” I also hope that this entire exercise will serve as a model for anyone who desires to learn how to explore the context of a passage to gain insights from a proper exegesis of Scripture. Determining the meaning of “we”: A process of elimination1) Inclusive “we” ruled out—possible referents for “we” in 3:11Scholars have proposed no fewer than seven referents for “we” in 3:11. They would all agree that it cannot refer to both Jesus and Nicodemus (inclusive first person plural); the contrast between “we” and “you” makes such an understanding impossible.9 Ruling out that possibility from the start, here are the suggested referents:  Before focusing on the eighth, each of the others merits a brief evaluation. 2) Jesus only10The use of the editorial “we” (also called the literary or epistolary plural), easily demonstrable elsewhere in Scripture,11 is a possibility in 3:11. The parallel statement in 3:32 retains the singular throughout.12 Many examples of this stylistic change to the plural exist in both Greek and Hebrew literature.13 Against this view is the lack of any definite example that Jesus ever employed the editorial “we.”14 Also, no explanation has been forthcoming for the change beyond the Fourth Evangelist’s concern for stylistic variation. The change is all the more perplexing in view of the introductory formula, “Truly, truly, I say to you,” in which no shift to the plural occurs. “I say to you, we...” suggests a stronger reason for switching to “we” than literary variation. 3) Jesus and the Father, the Spirit, or both15In the early Johannine discourses Jesus again and again associates himself with the Father. In the Farewell Discourse, he reveals his additional association with the Spirit. The immediate context repeatedly paints a contrast between the divine and the human.16 Yet, against this interpretation is the difficulty of identifying what either the Father or the Spirit had seen that could be part of their testimony. To say, “We testify to what we have seen,” necessarily means that the testimony is derivative, not originating with the witness, as would always be true with deity. Any referent for “we” and “our” in addition to Jesus, therefore, would have to be human. Furthermore, even in those passages where the Father and the Spirit are clearly discussed, including Jesus with one or the other in a first-person plural is rare.17 4) Jesus and the disciples with him18Certainly Jesus occasionally includes his disciples when saying “we,” even in the FG.19 But just as in the case of Nicodemus’ first-person plural (3:2), the first-person plurals of 3:11 more likely refer to a person or persons regarded as being in a peer relationship with the speaker. The other occasions in which Jesus includes his disciples in “we,” he is speaking to them, not to a third party. In other words, in the other cases, he employs an inclusive first-person plural, not an exclusive one. Furthermore, the preceding context says nothing of the disciples’ testimony,20 and instead of their “knowing,” they are constantly misunderstanding Jesus.21 5) Jesus and the Church (or the “Johannine Community")22This seems to be the view of most Johannine scholars today. They believe that the Fourth Evangelist creates an anachronism, momentarily leaving the historical situation of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus and jumping to a post-Pentecost perspective.23 What evidence have proponents of this view provided in support of this view beyond their unproven assumptions about the Fourth Evangelist’s theological agenda and perspective? As Carson so aptly points out again and again,24 the Fourth Evangelist seems consciously concerned to distinguish what was known during Jesus’ ministry from what was learned only after the resurrection.25 Such an abrupt change of perspective would require contextual justification stronger than has been forthcoming from the proponents of this view. 6) Jesus and earlier prophets (including Moses and, perhaps, John)26At least in the case of Moses and the prophets, scattered references in the FG before and after could serve as conceptual links to the first-person plurals of 3:11. Neither the reference in 3:14, however, nor the Prologue’s comparison of Moses with the Logos in 1:17 dovetails with 3:11’s concept of delivering testimony. Philip’s reference to messianic predictions by Moses and the prophets (1:45) is more appropriate, but the word-group “testify/testimony” does not occur. Only the reference to Moses’ testimony in 5:39–4727 is sufficiently similar to suggest a link. The preceding context, however, is more relevant for determining referents of pronouns and the understood subjects of verbs. We call them “antecedents,” after all, not “postcedents.” 7) The Fourth Evangelist and the Johannine Community28Involved here is the whole issue about where the dialogue ends and the Fourth Evangelist’s commentary begins. A few would take all of 3:1–21 as being from Jesus.29 Most, however, would end the quotation of Jesus with 3:15, making 3:16–21 the Fourth Evangelist’s meditation on Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus. A few others would begin the meditation as far back as 3:13.30 Taking it back that far would make the Fourth Evangelist ascribe to Jesus the title, “Son of Man,” his favorite self-description, but almost never ascribed to him by someone else.31 To carry the meditation all the way back to 3:11 would involve a similar, but even greater difficulty: usurping for the Fourth Evangelist the uniquely dominical phrase, “Truly, truly, I say to you.”32 8) Jesus and John33In contrast to the difficulties of the alternative interpretations, identifying Jesus and John as the referents for the first-person plurals of 3:11 has the support of several considerations, each of which merits examination. After an exploration of the flow of the context, each element of the verse will contribute its part: the amen formula, the terms of epistemology (oidamen and heôrakamen), the testimony motif (laloumen, martyroumen, and martyrian), and the rejection of that testimony by those described by the second-personal plural (“you”). The Evidence for Jesus and John as Referents1) The flow of the contextEven a short summary of the various attempts to outline the early chapters of the FG is beyond the scope of this essay. No consensus emerges among those that would seek to understand the text as it stands, not to mention those who advocate rearranging or editing verses, paragraphs, or even whole pericopes.34 At least there seems to be a growing awareness that the Fourth Evangelist’s conscious organization seems to have involved a pedagogical repetition of themes35 and an arrangement of material that is Semitic in character.36 With regard to the recurring themes, Gary M. Burge37 has pointed out the use of “water” in the FG. Excluding weak variants, “water” occurs 21 times in the FG,38 several times associated with “living/life,” or “Spirit,” or both.39 The “water” of 3:5 thus links the Nicodemus discourse with John’s baptizing ministry, mentioned both before (1:19–33) and after (3:22–36). In fact, the only other times “water and Spirit” are found together are in the testimony of John in chapter 1 and in John’s testimony at the end of chapter 3.40 With regard to possible Semitic structure, Godfrey Nicholson, for example, sees the Prologue as successively introducing the themes of later chapters: 1:1–5 for 1:1–18; 1:6–8 for 1:19 – 4:54; 1:9–13 for 5:1 – 12:20; and 1:14–18 for 13:1 – 20:31.41 This would make 1:6–8, the first testimony of John in the FG, a significant introduction to the Nicodemus discourse. John Bligh believes the Nicodemus discourse itself consists of three chiasms: 2:23 – 3:2, 3:2–11, and 3:12–21.42 This would make the verses corresponding to 3:11 in the chiasms 2:23, 3:1–2a, 3:10–12, and 3:19–21. All of these concern the receiving of testimony (on which, see below). Jeffrey Wilson has shown the close parallels between what he calls the “discourse of Jesus” (3:1–21) and “the discourse of John the Baptist” (3:25–36), simplified as follows:43
Wilson concludes that the Fourth Evangelist organized chapter 3 in such a way that he gives John equal status with Jesus just long enough for him to testify to his thoroughly subordinate position. He does this, apparently, to convince some who revere John and would otherwise reject the testimony of Jesus.44 Edwin C. Webster sees the Nicodemus discourse and the accompanying material in the rest of chapter 3 as tied closely to the Samaritan woman pericope of chapter 4. He calls them “baptismal dialogues,” notes their nearly identical length (88 lines in the Nestle-Aland text), and points out the synonymous and antithetical parallelism between them. He observes that both discussions concern water and Spirit.45 The link between the two chapters, 3:22 – 4:3 concerns John and Jesus’ independent efforts to cooperate and to avoid competition. The flow of context, therefore, suggests strong ties between Jesus and John, leading up to and flowing from the Nicodemus discourse. This would tend to justify making John the additional referent of the first-person plurals in 3:11. But the wording of 3:11 itself provides additional evidence. 2) The amen formulaThe amen affirmation of Jesus, its double-amen form unique to the FG, has received considerable scholarly attention.46 For our purposes, the significance of the double-amen formula in 3:11 is two-fold: to emphasize the importance of what is affirmed, and to reinforce the forensic background of the testimony being discussed. Sydney Temple divides the 25 occurrences in the FG into three categories: “balanced teaching,” “important saying,” and “to strengthen argument.”47 He places 3:11 in the third category. Although others would disagree with this classification of 3:11,48 it remains undeniable that within all of chapter 3, the only other verses introduced with the double-amen formula (3 and 5) are unquestionably important. Its use in 3:11 serves to emphasize the accompanying saying above the other verses in the immediate context.49 If this is true, what makes verse 11 so important? The answer awaits an analysis of the rest of the verse. Rejecting as he did the common Jewish habit of taking oaths,50 Jesus likely intended the amen formula to serve as an acceptable substitute—his version of “I solemnly swear to tell the truth.”51 This is perfectly compatible with the attendant discussion of testimony and consistent with the Fourth Evangelist’s pervasive use of legal teminology.52 3) The epistemological termsAccording to Jerome H. Neyrey, the two issues of chapter 3 are religious epistemology and Christology, as introduced by Nicodemus’ statement (v. 2): “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God....”53 The exchanges between Nicodemus and Jesus keep focusing on who knows (and does not know) what:
The epistemology of the Nicodemus discourse has been the subject of much study, especially whether Jesus’ descent and ascent constitutes a “heavenly journey,” echoing a theme common to both Judaeo-Christian and pagan religious texts.54 In the FG, the epistemology motif springs from the Prologue55 and courses its way through the book.56 Particularly relevant are the epistemological terms in the narrative of John’s testimony (1:19–34): “you do not know” (ouk oidate, v. 26); “I myself did not know him” (kagô ouk êidein auton, v. 31 ); “that he might be revealed” (hina phanerôthêi, v. 31); “I myself did not know him” (kagô ouk êidein auton, v. 33); “you see” (idêis, v. 33); and “I have seen” (kagô heôraka, v. 34). Knowing and seeing—these are the same terms that recur in 3:11. 4) The testimony motifAssuming Jesus is the speaker in 3:11, his use of legal terminology, beginning with the double-amen formula, suggests that he understands his encounter with Nicodemus not just as a private conversation, but as a part of his on-going trial before the Jews. To put it from the Fourth Evangelist’s perspective, Jesus pleads his case before the watching world.57 As a part of that trial, Jesus testifies, and others join in that testimony. The “witness/testify” word group (martyr-) is a prominent feature of the FG’s forensic perspective.58 Likewise terms for speaking (e.g., legô and laleô) are sometimes used in the FG as synonyms for testifying. In chapter one these same terms are used to describe John’s testimony: “for testimony, to bear witness” (eis martyrian, v. 7); “to bear witness” (hina marturêsêi, v. 8); “testimony” (martyria, v. 19); “He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed” (hômologêsen kai ouk êrnêsato, kai hômologêsen, v. 20); “bore witness” (emartyrêsen, v. 32); “I... have borne witness” (memartyrêka, v. 34). After such a cluster of “testify” words, the next time the word-group appears is in 2:25, the introduction to the Nicodemus discourse. The time after that is 3:11. This word-group recurs later in the chapter, as John renews his testimony (vv. 26, 28). The Son’s testimony is also mentioned (vv. 32–33). 5) Rejection of the testimonyOnce more, the Prologue introduces a theme that comes up again and again throughout the FG: “the world knew him not... his own people received him not” (ho kosmos auton ouk egnô… oi idioi auton ou parelabon, 1:10–11).59 Understanding 3:11’s “you do not receive testimony” as referring to Jesus and John transforms it into the key for explaining what hinders Nicodemus from entering God’s kingdom. John’s baptism was based either on the priestly washings, proselyte baptism, or both.60 If the former, then to submit Nicodemus would have to admit he was unclean. If the latter, he would have to see himself as no closer to God than a Gentile. Either way would involve a radical humbling quite alien to the pride-engendering life of a rabbi. Having rejected John’s ministry and baptism, Nicodemus was unprepared to accept Jesus as more than “a teacher come from God.” When temple officials later wanted to know by what authority Jesus cleansed the temple, he asked about the baptism of John, not as a smoke-screen, but because their submission to John or lack thereof was the gateway or the barrier to their acceptance of his answer. When they replied, “We don’t know” (epistemology surfacing once more), Jesus refused them an answer.61 Reception of Jesus was inextricably tied to reception of John. To reject the one automatically meant rejection of the other: “Our testimony you do not receive.” ConclusionTo summarize, both the flow of context up to, through, and out of the Nicodemus discourse, as well as every word of 3:11 seem to favor making Jesus and John the referents of the first person plurals. Understanding these words as including John serves to confirm the two-then-one understanding of 3:5’s phrase, “born out of water and Spirit.” In the context of the historical conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus, the New Birth was a two-stage process. Jesus apparently wanted Nicodemus to humble himself and submit to baptism at the hands of John. Only then would he be spiritually prepared to learn what he needed to know, see what he desperately had to see, and enter where he longed to enter, God’s kingdom. Only by submitting to John’s call for repentance would Nicodemus be prepared to accept John’s testimony about Jesus as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” and “he who baptizes in the Spirit.” After accepting that testimony, Nicodemus would be ready to submit to Jesus himself, who imparts God’s gifts, eternal life and the Holy Spirit. In John 3 Nicodemus did not know, could not see, did not enter. Later, perhaps, he did.62 In the modern application, to all of us on this side of the Cross and the Empty Tomb, these two stages combine into one New Birth involving both the physical and the spiritual. “Born out of water” is the physical, outward aspect, in which we are dipped in water. “Born out of Spirit” is the spiritual, inward aspect, in which we become saturated in the Spirit--we are dipped in the Holy Spirit and we drink deeply of the Spirit.63 These are the two aspects of the same physical/spiritual event. It is the “new birth” that Paul refers to as “the washing of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”64 As a post-resurrection experience, the two are the inseparable initiation of the Christian life that is the universal experience of all saved believers.65 This point is critical to our understanding of Christian conversion. The water-bath of the outer person is symbolic of the inner cleansing simultaneously taking place by the power of the blood of Christ. As our bodies emerge from the “watery grave,” our old person, who was “dead in sin,” undergoes a spiritual resurrection.66 Although our situation is different from that of Nicodemus, and the application of Jesus’ words for him as a sinner is different than it is for us, the spiritual principle remains the same. A new birth is absolutely necessary for any of us to enter God’s kingdom. We cannot participate in His reign without a radical transformation of our whole being. We cannot accomplish this transformation on our own. We must look to Christ to grant us “power to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.”67 What's new at DeeperStudy?DeeperStudy is growing! Here are some of the latest additions:
Free Christian books!You can select any six of the more than 200 titles of Christian books we have on hand, and we promise to send you four of them for one penny, plus $4.94 shipping/handling! These books are in good to like-new condition and cover a wide variety of topics. And more are coming! Look down through our list and select your six choices right now! Get four for a penny, plus $4.94 shipping/handling! What a bargain! Our earlier offers (still good):
or desire to be taken off our mailing list, you may unsubscribe here. We will promptly remove your e-mail. |
