John 3: 1-9
3 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’ The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” 9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can this be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this? (RSV)
This unconventional narrative is captured in the Gospel of John only. Its starling omission from the other synoptic gospels raised questions about the reasons that led to such absence. A good amount of detail is recorded of their exchange as this is increasingly attending on Jesus’s very identity. This frequently visited biblical scripture narrates the personal encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus. Since its early recording, the narrative captured the imagination of countless expositions. Nicodemus wants to meet Jesus. He is an educated man with a well-respected religious standing. The formal ties of his credentials are contrasted with Jesus on his respective lack of formal recognition. In entering a conversation with a religious figure Jesus allows to be subjected to formal questioning about his identity. Nicodemus carries formal training in what we identify today as ‘critical thinking’. He is interested in asking systemic questions, challenging assumptions, seeking to differentiate the substance from the appearance of things. The appearance of Jewish official vising Jesus during the evening stimulated several speculations about the reasons of such late visit. Nicodemus is interested in who Jesus is despite the undesirable reputation such event could generate for his public position and standing between other religious leaders.
Ἦν δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων, Νικόδημος ὄνομα αὐτῷ, ἄρχων τῶν Ἰουδαίων
The chapter begins with the words ‘ην δε’ which translates as ‘it was’. It prepares the reader for what is to follow. The word ‘δε’ (hereby) describes the individual entering into Jesus’s personal terrain. He is presented with the noun ‘άνθρωπος’ translated as ‘man’. At first the writer does not disclose the person’s identity in spite having knowledge of who he is. However, the generic description is designed to attract the reader’s attention to the credentials immediately follow, namely, (a) a Pharisee, and (b) has power of the Jews. The word ‘άρχων’ establishes the formal credentials. It comes from the word ‘αρχή’ and captures the beginning or rulership. The state of rulership is not designated. For example, we are not told that this person servers as a High Priest. However, he has a position of ranking within the Pharisees as a religious community dedicated to the study of the Pentateuch as well as other writings (e.g. Mishnah). In re-stating the event of his coming (ούτως ήλθε) the gospel writer establishes the significance of the physical event as an occurrence. Hence, is not hearsay that such an encounter could happened but that it has happened. The word ‘προς’ describes the direction of the person’s coming. It is the Pharisee leader who seeks to meet Jesus rather than Jesus seeking an encounter. The passage establishes the first introductory announcement with the frequently used term ‘ραββί’ (rabi). However, Jesus is not recognized as rabi among the religious establishment. Such a proclamation establishes a position of recognition that remains partial before the rest of the religious community yet subjected to considerations about the person’s standing and integrity.
ῥαββί, οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐλήλυθας | that you have come from God
The plural use of the word ‘saw’ (οίδαμεν) describes some knowledge about Jesus’s identity. Such knowledge remains collective rather than a concern of one’s own point of view. As Jesus does not enjoy the general support from his contemporaries, the use of a plural tense characterises its formal tone. It integrates the collective.
The Jewish leader makes an opening statement recognising Jesus’s acclaimed origins in spite such origins being subjected to contestation by the majority of his contemporaries. Especially so, by the religious leaders that demonstrate a growing sense of suspicion about his true intentions.
The word ‘ελύλυθας’ is transliterated as ‘coming from’ implying a source of origin. However, Jesus’s destin from God is subjected to conflicting views. Nicodemus’s own view about ‘this’ person’s position remains exemplary. He recognises qualities that set Jesus apart from the rest of his contemporaries. Nicodemus might not be fully confident in acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah or seeking to make such public pronouncement. However, in formally stating a collective recognition of the obvious (you have come from God) he allows for the first formal steps of his introduction to take precedence in anticipation of what is to follow.
Nicodemus demonstrates consideration of one’s sovereignty that lacks in Jesus’s formal education and credentials. Jesus is not coming from God in a way that allows people to understand and become fully persuaded for his origins. Nicodemus recognizes that the unique properties ascribed to Jesus cannot go unnoticed even though a full explanation of such origins cannot be produced.
The encounter demonstrates a curiosity of Jesus’s identity. It emerges from suspicion or interest. However, it develops into a more tangible enquiry and demands from the person to consider the possibility of having a partial view of reality. Nicodemus can be described for exploring the ‘other side’ by allowing himself to become susceptible to what is not fully known during this encounter. A question of origins could become a much greater subject of debate as Jesus does not enjoy formal recognition from religious leaders. Hence, the conversation could have shifted to the reasons on which Nicodemus takes such partial view since he is interested in Jesus’s identity. However, a conversation of origins is not given much development during this brief encounter. This is likely because Jesus recognizes the right of ambiguity in Nicodemus to want to develop an ‘informed view’. Moreover, such encounter reveals that an understanding of God is not a structured event that can be disseminated in a disciplinary way. Understanding about God can be learned and experienced but it is not institutional constituted through rites and rituals.
οὐδεὶς γὰρ δύναται ταῦτα τὰ σημεῖα ποιεῖν ἃ σὺ ποιεῖς, ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ ὁ θεὸς μετ’ αὐτοῦ.
Nicodemus’s formal interest in Jesus is demonstrated in his appreciation of the evidence. Such evidence affirm claims and incidents already produced that cannot be denied in their entirety. Whereas the legitimacy of claims cannot be established in Nicodemus demonstrates an acute interest in specific developments that require further attention. For example, if Jesus happens to have supernatural powers to produce miracles, then, such powers require consideration for how they were sourced and materialised during this particular period in society. Moreover, the possibility the power might signify something greater of what is recognized also begs for consideration about other information and data that needs to be acknowledged. Nicodemus demonstrates his inquisitive skills in considering the information already disclosed but also seeking further credentials to enhance a more credible understanding about Jesus.
The affirmative ‘ουδείς’ (nobody else) qualifies a special privilege of access in knowing Jesus’s identity. However, not many people share this view. Starting with a position that designates ‘certainty’ than ‘doubt’ Nicodemus exposes himself to public criticism. He does it in order to prepare the conversation for the information he seeks to mine. Yet, such affirmation offers some insights into a state of enquiry produced by such a religious leader.
The contrast between formal recognition and credentials situated between the conventional religious leaders of the day with Jesus is clear. It is Jesus who does not have the credentials! The mystery about this man is the capacity to produce such unexplainable outcomes whilst lacking formal qualifications. This lines thinking stimulates an interest in Nicodemus and carries two possibilities.
On the one hand, the possibility of ignoring why someone with no credentials could achieve so much attention might backfire in the future. Especially so, in case some of his statements prove to be genuine. Hence, a concern of the ‘unknown’ and the possibility for a remote truth intensifies what a community is able to do with the facts currently available.
On the other hand, the remote possibility of this individual ‘originating’ from God stimulates interest about the wider consequences for how current contestations were managed. Hence, imagining that there is a possibility that this person might tell the ‘truth’ creates a growing sense of accountability for how information is assessed. After all, the actual events cannot be questioned for the legitimacy of their occurrence. A limitation of capabilities on the parts of the religious leaders might contrast a lack of credentials, in Jesus’s part. The ambiguity of origins harbours a good amount of doubt but also pushes enquiry to seek explanation.
ταῦτα τὰ σημεῖα ποιεῖν ἃ σὺ ποιεῖς
Nicodemus shows evidence of formal training communicating a line of reasoning that begins with evidence. It becomes a point of publicly accepted enquiry that recent events cannot be disputed as ‘hearsay’. The word ‘ταυτα’, ‘these’ underlines ‘evidence’ in the plural tense. A concern for whatever has preceded so far occupies Nicodemus’s thinking as a continuum that connects spoken words as well as events.
The word ‘signs’ (σημεία) refers to demonstrable evidence. As a Jew with formal training and education Nicodemus remains aware of the wider significance of empirical events. The word ‘έργα’ could have substituted the word ‘σημεία’ as an equally competitive notion that gathers attention between public audiences. However, such use of the word ‘σημεία’ would not have succeeded in raising a religious curiosity on the eschatological motif of Jesus’s works. Whereas Nicodemus is not able to dismiss Jesus by refuting verbal pronouncements on his identity as the ‘Messiah’ there is a wider prelude of testimonies that carry words and actions. In contrast to popular belief Nicodemus considers the possibility of the larger population’s difficulty in understanding the large scheme of things. Whereas a direct affirmation of Jesus’ Christology is treated with consideration the text reveals an engagement about personhood that transcends prophecy.
In stating ‘ποιείν α συ ποιείς’ the evangelist establishes a linguistic continuum between manners or typologies that makes the originator of these works stand out. The word ‘ποιείν’ suggests the capacity for an authentic development of ‘something’ that could not have existed without such prior intervention. The workings of a masterful technician are associated with figuring a design because of the experience and knowledge such individual has. To ‘ποιείν’ suggests a narrative of engagement that considers stages of progress between what is envisaged and what is carried out as an actual outcome. The text ‘α συ’ suggests ‘the way in which’ you perform them. Such comparative contrast creates interest about Jesus’ consideration before a religious leader. In affirming a personalizing statement that is of a clear direction e.g. what ‘you’ make/produce) Nicodemus is furthering an anticipation for knowing more about the type of individual Jesus really is.
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ῥαββί, οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐλήλυθας διδάσκαλος·
In stating to him ‘Rabbi’ Nicodemus uses a formal title that could be assigned to individuals that obtained formal training. A ‘rabbi’ is recognized for his capacity to give information for educating others about life and their relationship with God. Here, Nicodemus is not only speaking of his own behalf but also of his other associates. The word ‘οίδαμεν’ (saw) is in the plural and indicates an affirmative state of knowing.
ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐλήλυθας διδάσκαλος
In furthering a welcoming statement that seeks reciprocation, the religious leader makes a description of Jesus’ origins. However, such statement deters the generic anticipation the larger population holds about Jesus. The community is not identifying with him as the Christ. Rather, they remain obnoxiously frustrated with the possibility someone can make such claim. The statement does not only welcome a position of service for Jesus, but also, gives away the personal doubts of Nicodemus. He seems that varied claims about this person resist prior testaments. The word ‘ελήλυθας’ translated as destined or ‘came’ sustains a privileged position of access to God. In establishing that a divine descendance supports an accreditation of the unique acts already demonstrated, Jesus remains ;divine-sent’ but he is still to pass the test of being the Messiah. This gap in anticipating from Jesus to demonstrate the difference in being a teacher from being the Messiah. This difference remains significant for understanding the subsequent flow of the conversation. On the one hand, Jesus cannot be a liar by making claims that remain unrepresentative of his being. His acts demonstrate significance on origins that follow a trajectory of development. It overall authenticity needs to be attested. In this sense the intermediate state of Jesus having to demonstrate who he really is, remains a challenge as well as an opportunity. Hence, Nicodemus is making an implicit request for establishing an additional accreditation of the identity of such origins by noting that a descendance from God is acknowledged but also requires further fulfilment so that it can be demonstrated for who he ultimately is.
3 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.
In recording Jesus’s reaction to Nicodemus, the evangelist presents in vivid colours a sequence of repetitive affirmation. A much anticipated response is now emerging in a way that Nicodemus was not in the position to consider prior his encounter. Without demonstrating evidence of an intention for entering into any other discussion that warmly acknowledges Nicodemus’s reasons for wanting to see Jesus, the conditional pronouncement remains simple and direct. It shutters Nicodemus’s much awaiting state of preparation for entering into a reasonable dialogue. The emphatic repeated ‘αμήν, αμήν’ ‘amen’ can do little to hide the challenging demands about to follow.
The statement ‘ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν’ (if someone does not get born from above) expresses a conditional demand that concerns the very essence of human existence. The ambiguity of this calls is evident of the many commentaries produced about Jesus’s intentions. To give birth to another human being is a natural process that depends on certain biological conditions that determine the process throughout its stages of development. Contraception is necessary for birth to become a likely natural event in society as well as in the rest of the animal kingdom.
Jesus reacts in a way that does not engage in dialogue. Rather, it is a statement that demands further consideration as it offers a conditional state that leads to seeing the kingdom of God. Why is Jesus making a statement that follows up the introductory remarks by challenging Nicodemus’ understanding about seeing the kingdom of God? If seeing the kingdom of God remains the ultimate outcome of one’s experience with God, then being ‘born’ from above shutters the fulfilment of such anticipation. The word ‘γεννηθή’ to ‘be born’ raises the heights of interpretation by placing ambiguity where it is not seemingly needed. In recording this pronouncement, Jesus demonstrates a connection that bridges two distanced points: (a) one’s self-origins and (b) one’s self-fulfilment.
Jesus refers to becoming ‘born into’ a different reality than the ‘physical’. However, such a statement is made without addressing the absurdity of such an invitation. The reality of one’s birth remains a physical incident. It is not understood by the person that comes into the world but by the people whose whiteness its coming. For someone to have an awareness of one’s own existence seems erroneous and unnecessary once it has taken place because it is not needed. A description of divine origins does not in itself suggest access to divine descendancy (e.g. being a god). However, it denotes that to be born from a realm that remains distinctively different from the physical realm then such possibility demands consideration of the actual occurrence of the event. Hence, a birth from ‘above’ brings into parallelism Nicodemus’s earlier claims of divine origins applying to Jesus. Yet, in this case this statement is not used to affirm Jesus’s own position as a Messiah per se. Instead, it is used to indicate conditions that becomes equally integral for a person’s experience for understanding and knowing God who remains beyond physical attestation. Hence, the question is how can someone have the knowledge of being born from ‘above’? The answer to this question cannot be easily given by a third party. Rather, it is a personal experience that remains ‘known’ by the person who experienced it as an event and as a process.
Being born from above
There is little doubt of how Jesus’s opening statement becomes a window on a dimension that transcends an actual event. The ‘divine’ and the ‘physical’ exist as two parallel dimensions that differ in their content as well as organizing in what is produced by them and in them. For example, a cause-effect relationship remains specific because people are able to understand how the natural sciences work. For example, the laws of physics demonstrate that there are stable relationships involving mass and energy that make gravity possible. Hence, the occurrence of physical birth is an outcome of conception that demands human participation.
In this passage the affirmation of origins of above is only partial in revealing what else might lie in such dimension. The word ‘above’ is descriptive and summarises a state conditions outside the physical realm as experienced in our daily lives. However, in spite the absurdity of the event as ‘birth’, the allegorical significance remains adequate enough to explain how this event can be achieved.
To be born from ‘above’ is to identify with properties that remain outside the time and space as we know them. Nicodemus is a religious scholar who understands about scriptures and how they have come to be accomplished through human efforts in working in partnership with the divine realm. It should not be difficult for such an individual to accept a statement that remains outside the merits of logic and reason as he has known it. However, the crucible in Jesus’s statement is in personalizing the experience of ‘birth’ as a prerequisite to seeing the kingdom of God. Such experiences challenges the boundaries of abstracted realm of ideas, data and information. It is an event that personalizes a constellation of events as a single event that can be personalized and become feasible by the individual self.
The Spirit and God’s origins
One of the assertions of this website is that God’s forms of manifestation as Father, Son, and Spirit remain humanly made categories that remain too limited for explaining God as a single entity. A separation between functions is made possible only come to terms with the nature of God. Such effort is not about explaining the origins of God but the functions of God towards humanity. There is little doubt in the separation between the Father and the Son as two entities that can be co-existing with each other as two separate irreducible entities. However, there is equally little doubt in our limitations for explaining the unity between the Father and Son as being part of a single God.
When Jesus explains to Nicodemus that a conception form ‘above’ is needed such statement asserts a state of relatedness that can penetrate into the core of one’s existence. Such change does not equate the person with God for becoming God. The function of God’s providence is found in its delivery mechanism of making that which is ‘unknown’ to become ‘known’. However, such knowledge does not demand a transferability of ontological properties between the two entities that people become little gods. Rather, it is establishing a relationship of existence that can identify with another source that is responsible for all life and its distribution to the world as know it.
A contrast between the two ‘realms’ finds its position of becing realized as essentially a different set of properties that acquire their significance as they belong to two different domains, namely, body and spirit. In the following verse the word ‘γεγεννημένον’ adds intensity of what can only come to life through ‘birth.’ The word γεγεννημένον’ derives from γίνομαι. It is third-person plural perfect mediopassive indicative of γίγνομαι (to become) (to become by becoming born into). An emphasis on existence and becoming through birth highlights the different outlets of being as well as their respective origins. Put simply, ‘that which can become through birth via the body that which can become through birth via the spirit’.
6τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit
As the discussion gets more complex between origins and their respective courses of fulfilment, the religious leader’s natural enquiry meets a new level of response about the reality of the process and the tangible effect it produces in the human experience. In the following verse Jesus provides the following explanatory remark in an effort to simplify the process of ‘becoming’ and to shed further light on what is already stated.
8 τὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ καὶ τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκούεις, ἀλλ’ οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει· οὕτως ἐστὶν πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος.
The comparison between the ‘wind’ with the ‘spirit’ remains the closest parallelism through which an individual can identify with the entity that is deriving from another realm. However, such explanatory remarks become useful for also understanding the initial challenge often described as God’s triune nature. The properties of the wind are considered for their physical effect rather than source of origins. Forecasting reports give information on the direction of the wind because the patterns already known from previous data. Such reports are not claiming to know the direction of the wind within every neighbourhood of a city. Hence, a forecasting report provides a large description of the flow of the wind because of information already available from previous reports. In suggesting that God is like the ‘wind’ Jesus introduces Nicodemus to the workings of this other ‘dimension’ he formally trained as a teacher but now needs to consider as a personal act of personalization.
There is no chance of human efforts controlling the direction of the wind because by default such entity remains outside the powers of human remit. Yet, the actions and outcomes of the wind can be understood because of the effect it produces. God is able to assist humanity not because humanity understands the properties of God’s origins but because humanity understands its own limitations.
Debates about God’s triune nature centre on the core properties of God as if they can be easily and logically separate into functions. Such endeavour misses out the purpose of understanding the ‘features’ that make God’s providential nature significant for humanity’s interests. The best way to describe God’s formal condition is through the word spirit that remains equally elusive. It is interesting how Jesus does not deflate the previous assertion in response to the Nicodemus’ demands for receiving an adequate explanation. Moreover, the discussion is intensified with another statement that provides an example as a form of illustration. This development asserts that Jesus raises a question of experience and self-understanding that challenges the accumulation of knowledge as ‘information’ and ‘data’. To experience God through some form of transcendence demands an awareness of the different ‘contexts’ as well as the workings that happen within such contexts.