We talk about what we know (Part 1)

(John 3:1-21)

There was a man of the Pharisees, called Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This one came to Jesus by night and said…

Well, he thought he was proffering an olive branch. “Rabbi, we know that you have come from God, a teacher; for no-one is able to do these signs that you do, unless God is with him.”

And we could summarise the response he gets from Jesus as: “You haven’t got a clue.” Now, from anyone else, this would be verging on the insulting, but in fact, Jesus treats Nicodemus with far more seriousness and dignity than we may realise; which doubtless accounts for the fact that Nicodemus remains in the frame, speaking against the run of sentiment in the Sanhedrin (John 7:50) and helping Joseph of Arimathea with Jesus’ body in John 19.

Let’s break this down.

Jesus’ initial response to Nicodemus is as direct and uncompromising as I have already suggested. Nicodemus thinks he has given Jesus an endorsement; Jesus tells him that he has no chance of seeing (or understanding) the Kingdom unless he is begotten (not born) anew. The effect of this is definitely to dismiss what Nicodemus has said; if he thought he was building a bridge of flattery or even simple approval, Jesus makes it clear He has no time for such games. But: He does not dismiss Nicodemus.

When Jesus does not wish to talk to Pharisees, He ties them in knots and they have to back off. This Pharisee, He does indeed engage with. Nicodemus may have been struggling to keep up, but Jesus gave him more straight answers than the sum total of all His other interactions with Pharisees.

Firstly, Nicodemus asks how a man can be begotten when he is already old – can he enter into him mother’s womb a second time, so she can bring him forth? Jesus answers that unless someone is begotten of water and πνεύματος, he is not able to enter the Kingdom of God. Begotten of water we assume is a reference to the water of baptism, although this is not entirely obvious from the immediate context (although the passage from 3.22 to the beginning of 4 centres on Jesus, or rather His disciples, baptising more than John the Baptist); begotten of πνεύματος is likewise assumed to be the baptism of the Spirit, which again is a long way ahead in time and chapters, but which has already been alluded to by John the Baptist. The note we should take of course is that πνεύματος primarily means a “blast of wind”, and by extension “air”, and then “breathed air” and “the breath of life”. It does also mean spirit, but that is far from its primary sense. And Jesus is going to use this same word in a moment where it must at least mean wind. I am not seeking to overturn our traditional reading of γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, but I am trying to suggest that “begotten of water and wind”, or “water and breath”, may well have been what Nicodemus heard. And of course, when a word has multiple meanings, we have to seek clarification from context; but sometimes speakers – especially Jesus – are deliberately playing on the ambiguities.

He goes on: “that which is begotten of the flesh is flesh; and that begotten of the Spirit (which is now clarified by being set in opposition to “flesh”) is Spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, “You must be begotten anew.” The πνεῦμα blows where it wishes (which must mean at least wind; but maybe there is deliberate ambiguity, and we should be thinking of both wind and spirit here?), and you hear its voice, but you don’t know whence it comes nor where it is going. This is how it is with everyone who has been begotten of the πνεύματος” (which sounds more like spirit again, but Nicodemus might be hearing wind or even breath). And that probably is how we should hear this: God’s πνεῦμα is just like any other πνεῦμα you can name; unless you are begotten of that πνεῦμα, you just hear its passing and see its effects, but you haven’t got a clue where it came from or where it is headed.

No surprise then that Nicodemus is reduced to “How is it possible for these things to be?” (more properly, “to come into being?”)

And here is the real turning point in the passage. Jesus says, “You are the teacher of Israel and these things you have not observed?” And that last word is important. Yes, γινώσκεις, from γιγνώσκω, is “know,” but in the sense of “know or perceive by observation.” And that – seeing, observing – is going to be very important in a moment. It is easy to read “you are Israel’s teacher” as disparagement; but on the contrary, I find that Jesus takes this opportunity to instruct the teacher of Israel more comprehensively than He often instructs His disciples. And – to leap ahead – I think it also fits best with a reading of verses 16-21 In which we understand that Jesus is continuing His instruction of Nicodemus, and not – as most seem to have it – as John editorialising. (I am saying that if you have a “red letter” bible, John 3:16-21 should all be in red, too.)

In other words, Jesus tells Nicodemus why he cannot understand the Kingdom from where he is standing, but goes on to explain what he would understand if he took the journey and was standing in the Kingdom. And that makes what He says here, prime instruction for every one of us, also, if we wish to fully know, perceive and observe the Kingdom.

Jesus now switches to first person plural (we). Is He using the “royal we”? That would be a little out of character. I think He really means “we”, as in, “my disciples and I”. The Pharisees weren’t just seeing Jesus walking and healing and speaking; they saw men with Him who were – at least – seeing Jesus do all these things, but also themselves beginning to heal and speak and do whatever Jesus had taught them. So although He goes on to make the point that He (Jesus) is the only one who has seen heaven, at this point He is saying that there is a whole group of them who speak of what they know, and bear witness to what they have seen – which is the workings of the Kingdom, here on earth (which Nicodemus, the teacher of Israel, may have heard of and even seen, but hasn’t yet perceived). After all, Nicodemus’ opening statement referenced signs; Jesus is just saying there is a group of us who actually do and witness this stuff on a daily basis; “but you (plural, meaning the Pharisees) don’t accept our testimony”.

So here is the problem: “If I have spoken to you of earthly things (like the need to be begotten anew in order to see the Kingdom of God, and that flesh begets flesh) and you don’t believe me, how, if I speak to you of heavenly things, will you believe me?”

Why does that matter? Because there is only one person who has seen heaven – Jesus Himself – so if Nicodemus is struggling to believe things that have been happening in his own earthly realm, how will he get anything only Jesus has seen for Himself?

And then from verse 14 to 21, Jesus sets out for him exactly what he needs to understand about the agenda and assignment Jesus has been given, and for which the signs are simply a stamp of authority. Which I will break down in the next post.