Love On John's Terms (part 13)

When it comes to the question of love on display, the fifteenth verse of John’s sixth chapter informs the reader that “Jesus, because He knew they were going to come and seize Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone” (6:15).  How does this show love?  There is a marked and remarkable self-restraint on the part of this man Jesus, as He refuses to succumb to the people’s desire to make Him king; and perhaps even the temptation to receive the acclimation must at least partially stem from the fact that an acclimation of Him as king is going to come with a declaration of war against Rome. 

Of course, the author writes from a position of the knowledge of what happened when the Jews rebelled against Rome a few decades preceding the time of the written composition of this work (though it is a possibility that the oral tradition that eventually took this written form preceded the written work by a number of years), whereas Jesus is presented as having an implicit knowledge of what will happen if He allows Himself and His people to travel the path that will follow from their desire to make Him king.  Not only will destruction come to Israel, but the plans for the kingdom of the Creator God, and how it is to be brought about, will be nullified.  Here, through this withdrawal, Jesus preserves His disciples, these people, and His nation, in a way that does not derail the purposes of the kingdom that He believes begins and is to be found in unity with Him.  So indeed, this could be looked upon as an example of love to be worked out, understood, and manifested by the community of those that claim allegiance to Jesus.   

The use of “miraculous signs” in the second verse of the sixth chapter of John has been mentioned, as it is this instance that took this study down this particular path.  The sixth chapter contains another usage of the phrase, and it occurs following the story of the feeding of the five thousand.  There, when pressed as to how it is that He had been able to make it to the place at which He was now encountered, Jesus says “I tell you the solemn truth, you are looking for Me not because you saw miraculous signs, but because you ate all the loaves of bread you wanted” (6:26).  To that He adds, “Do not work for the food that disappears, but for the food that remains to eternal life” (6:27a).  Here, as in the third chapter and the conversation with Nicodemus that stemmed directly from His actions in the Temple as they were recorded in the second chapter, the witness of miraculous signs is tied to “eternal life,” which the hearers of this story know is linked to the need for belief in Jesus as the harbinger of the kingdom of Israel’s God. 

The notion that Jesus’ miraculous signs, especially as they relate to the provision of bread, are connected to the kingdom of God, is given further concretion by the people’s response, which is “What must we do to accomplish the deeds God requires?” (6:28b)  This, of course, comes as Jesus expresses the love of His God, and as there is a desire on the part of the hearer or reader to know what it means to express love to and for one another in aspiration towards discipleship, as this is what Jesus is said to desire from His people.  Relating to the belief in Jesus in connection to the presence of the kingdom of the Creator, Jesus simply offers “This is the deed God requires---to believe in the one whom He sent” (6:29). 

Here, Jesus insists that belief must take on the form of a loyal allegiance to the Creator God and to His purposes to lead His people in an exodus (eternal life---the life of the age to come invading the present) and to bring them into that which He has promised to them, as the statement makes a push towards the previously mentioned reference to Moses.  This push towards Moses culminates with the response to Jesus’ statement about the deeds required by God, which is “Then what miraculous sign will you perform, so that we may see it and believe you?  What will you do?  Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” (6:30-31) 

Love On John's Terms (part 12)

To this point, the observation of “miraculous signs” has been limited to the plural.  However, its usage in the singular must not be overlooked.  It cannot be said that the singular phrase is limited to the Gospel of John alone, as a singular use is also to be found in Luke’s Gospel.  However, as it is a single instance, it does not appear to play a role in the overall structure and movement of Luke, but this most certainly cannot be said of its role in the Gospel of John. 

Adding the uses of the singular “miraculous sign” to that of the plural, one finds an additional five instances of its role in the Gospel, thus bringing the total number of “miraculous sign” language to fourteen instances.  Clearly, it is a key component of what is being communicated by this author.  This makes sense, especially when reflecting on the fact that the pre-supposition of this Gospel is a very high Christology, operating on the premise that Jesus is the incarnation of Israel’s covenant God.  The hearers then, especially with this presupposition at play in their own community, are not going to be surprised that miraculous signs follow Him. 

“Miraculous sign” makes its first appearance in the fourth chapter, following the healing of the son of a royal official.  This is recorded as “His second miraculous sign when He returned from Judea to Galilee” (4:54).  It makes two of its five appearances in the sixth chapter, which is heavy with “sign” language.  All told, between the singular and the plural, the listener and the reader encounter this language four times in this chapter.  Considering the fact that the chapter contains the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus making His walk on the water, and His discourse related to bread (which ultimately springs from the feeding), this is unsurprising.  Does love play a role in any of this?  In this chapter that is filled with miraculous signs, and references to the same, is it possible to make any additions to an understanding of what “love” means on John’s terms?  As is almost always the case, the qualifying answer is “perhaps.” 

In the fourteenth verse the author writes “Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, ‘This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.’”  This is an allusion to a statement from the book of Deuteronomy---a key component of the Hebrew Scriptures that weighed heavily on Jewish self-understanding in the second Temple period.  In the eighteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, as Moses continues to address Israel, he can be heard saying that “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you---from your fellow Israelites; you must listen to him” (18:15). 

Because Moses, of course, was understood as the man that the Creator God had raised up to lead Israel out from under Egyptian oppression, these words, as reported by John, must be seen and heard in that light and context.  The people were affirming Jesus as the new Moses.  Therefore, He must also be the one that is going to lead them out from under Roman oppression and occupation.  For the crowds, this Moses-like leadership is confirmed by the fact that Jesus has miraculously provided bread to a multitude of people there on the mountainside, just as Moses (though it was Israel’s God at work---one can say the same for Jesus from the perspective on offer by John) miraculously provided bread to the nation of Israel in the wilderness following their exodus.

This is not simply conjecture, because it is rather obvious that this is the way these things are meant to be understood.  To this point, later on in the sixth chapter Jesus is heard to say “I tell you the solemn truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but My Father is giving you true bread from heaven” (6:32).  This explicit mention of Moses (in the wake of the implicit mention of Moses in the fourteenth verse) in the midst of a section of the Gospel full of references to miraculous signs, calls attention to the single use of the plural “miraculous signs” that is to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures.  That use is in the one hundred fifth Psalm.  There, within a context of the Psalmist speaking about Moses and Aaron and the display of divine power that precipitated the Creator God’s delivery of Israel from Egypt, the Psalmist writes “they executed His miraculous signs among them” (105:27a).  Thus, one can surmise that John’s “miraculous sign” structure, especially here in the sixth chapter, plays on the exile and exodus motif (perishing and eternal life) that was established in the third chapter during the conversation with Nicodemus. 

Love On John's Terms (part 11)

It is then appropriate to take a look at the uses of “miraculous signs.”  In the second chapter of John, this term is used in conjunction with the changing of the water into wine, as the author writes that “Jesus did this as the first of His miraculous signs” (2:11a).  This was said to have been a way in which “He revealed His glory, and His disciples believed in Him” (2:11b).  Consequently then, the presentation of the signs are often linked to the issue of belief. 

In the twenty-third verse of the same chapter, the author reports that “while Jesus was in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover, many people believed in His name because they saw the miraculous signs He was doing.”  Interestingly, this mention of miraculous signs is not specifically connected to any particular account of the performance of miraculous signs.  It is simply an assertion on the part of the author that seems to rely on the knowledge of the miraculous as part of the Jesus tradition in the community for which this Gospel was composed. 

At this point in the record offered by the author of John, all that Jesus is said to have done in Jerusalem was the driving out of those changing money and selling animals (2:15), along with making a statement about the Temple being His Father’s house (2:16).  These would hardly be defined as “miraculous signs” in any respect.  In response to His activity in the Temple, unsurprisingly, Jesus is questioned by the Jewish leaders, with a demand to know why, and under what authority, He had done what He had done.  In fact, as it relates to the purposes of this study at this point, it is even asked of him “What sign can you show us, since you are doing these things?” (2:18b)  Here, the use of “miraculous” is not offered.  Jesus is said to have responded to the query with the highly subversive and quite obviously proleptic “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again” (2:19), but there is certainly nothing in this story that approaches the level of “miraculous sign”. 

From there, John immediately moves to the story of an encounter between Jesus and a Jewish leader named Nicodemus.  With no chapter breaks in the original composition, and with it most likely designed to be delivered as an oral performance at a single setting, the listener is taken directly from Jesus speaking to a group of Jewish leaders, to Jesus speaking with one Jewish leader.  Presumably then, it is reasonable to understand Nicodemus as coming to Jesus as a direct result of what took place in the Temple.  It is probable then, for the purpose of this Gospel and its author, that the listener is supposed to presume that Nicodemus was himself present at the event in the Temple and heard what Jesus said. 

In his opening statement to Jesus, Nicodemus says “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God.  For no one could perform the miraculous signs that you do unless God is with Him” (3:2b).  Once again, this talk of “miraculous signs” presumes a shared knowledge within the Johannine community, for there is nothing in the Jerusalem-situated narrative, to that point, that could truly be labeled as such. 

Jesus’ response to Nicodemus contains the first reported use, in the Gospel of John, of the all-important phrase “kingdom of God.”  Jesus said to Him, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (3:3).  This will go on to tie in quite well with Jesus’ talk, within the same conversation, of perishing and eternal life (which, as has already been established, is linked to conceptions of exile and exodus, both of which speak to the nature of the rule of the Creator God over His people, and through them, the whole of creation), and of the salvation and redemption of the world that is part of the Creator’s design and purpose for the Christ.  Naturally, Jesus then goes on to speak about the need for belief (3:12,16,18), thus relating Nicodemus’ use of “miraculous signs” with belief. 

Only Son (part 23)

The root of the issue, when it comes to condemnation (exile, perishing), or the opposite of condemnation (exodus, eternal life), is belief in the God of creation.  That belief is inseparable from the Creator’s purposes for His divine image-bearers and the world that He had created, in accordance with His covenant promises, which fundamentally point to undoing and reversing the damage done by Adam.           

Later on in the third chapter of Gospel of John, John the Baptist can be heard speaking about Jesus.  Some of John’s disciples were concerned that people that had previously come out to follow John were now going to Jesus.  John’s initial response to this was “No one can receive anything unless it has been given to him from heaven” (3:27a).  John, who has been previously recognized by Jesus (in the text) as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29), and who seems to well understand the role to which he believed himself to have been appointed, sees the crowds gathering to Jesus as right and proper. 

It would seem that John recognizes that the time has come for Jesus to enter into His ministry, and that this ministry has been ordained by Israel’s God to supersede and supplant his own, as he had sown the seeds of the new exodus movement (into the new promised land in which the God of Israel would rule all through His Messiah) that would be taken up by Jesus.  So to this concern of his disciples, John responds by saying “He must become more important while I become less important” (3:30). 

Going further, John echoes the words that were previously spoken to Nicodemus by Jesus, as he says “The Father loves the Son and has placed all things under His authority” (3:35).  By this, John demonstrates his apparent understanding of the pronounced son of God tradition within Israel, as this love, along with all that goes with it, is the very thing that had been true of Adam, of Israel, and of Solomon.  Adam had been given complete authority over the whole of creation, Israel had been given authority over the promised land, and Solomon had been given authority over the Creator God’s people.  Perhaps more importantly, Solomon had been, at least according to Israel’s history, granted authority to build the Temple of God.  All of these things had been an outworking of the love of the Creator God, which had been directed towards these particular sons of God. 

Jesus’ cousin goes on to speak in a very similar fashion to Jesus Himself, doing so in the context of the long history of sonship and saying “The one who believes in the Son has eternal life.  The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him” (3:36).  Once again, the text draws a contrast between eternal life versus condemnation.  Believing in the Son, or believing “in the name of the one and only Son of God” (3:18b), which is another way of saying “believing in the faithful, covenant God because of the Son,” is what allows one to participate in the kingdom of God, which is participating in the rule of the Creator God on earth (the outworking of eternal life). 

So if all of this is properly understood both contextually and historically, what is implied for those that seek to comprehend the message of this Gospel?  Well, it should definitely change the way one approaches John 3:16, never allowing for the possibility of looking at it the same way again.  In particular, it should crystallize one’s thinking concerning what it is that the Creator God has purposed for those that confess an allegiance to Jesus, calling Him the Son of God, and appropriately vesting that title with divine attributes in conjunction with understanding Jesus as the Messiah for Israel.   One is best able to do so by thinking in terms of the Temple of God, especially if the Temple of God is rightly thought of as that place where the Creator God dwells (rests). 

Only Son (part 22)

If one was to accept that Jesus (at the time that He is speaking) intends Nicodemus to understand His words according to the historical-redemptive plans of the Creator God for His people and His creation, rather than as Jesus somehow obviously referring to Himself as the second person of the trinity (which would be contrary to the author’s intent at that point), then it is also possible to discover how Nicodemus is supposed to make sense of the words that followed. 

With his mental registration of the well-understood, oft-repeated, all-important, and self-defining story of Israel in mind, owing to Jesus’ use of the son of God terminology, Nicodemus can rightly grasp that “God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through Him” (3:17).  Quite unfortunately, as has been seen, Nicodemus would be well aware that condemnation for the world, with further and further condemnation for the world, had been the result of the best efforts of those sons (Adam, Israel, Solomon) that had been sent. 

“Saved,” of course, is not to be restricted to a sense of gaining assurances concerning the ethereal, after-death location of one’s immortal soul , nor is it to be restricted to the realm of humanity alone.  The use of “saved” is, above and beyond most every other usage, exodus language.  As exodus language, rooted in the narrative history of Israel that stretches back to the story of Adam, it implies an entrance, along with a maintenance following that entrance, into the Creator God’s purposes for both human beings and the whole of the physical, created world.  Each of the sons of God that have been reviewed heretofore had a particular purpose, with that purpose being to fulfill a set of covenant obligations and to cause the whole of the world (people and the creation itself) to be deluged with the blessings (saved, eternal life) of the covenant God, but the desired result never materialized. 

Rather, as has been noted, condemnation is what had materialized, with that condemnation (perishing) seemingly always rooted in an idolatry which represented a fundamental dis-belief in the promises of the Creator God.  The desired belief, of course, was to start with the being made in and as the Creator God’s image, with the blessings associated with that belief flowing to the remainder of the groaning creation (to quote Paul’s words from Romans, which itself is also a reference to the groaning of the son of God Israel in their Egyptian subjugation).  However, just as Adam had dragged the creation down with Him into death, so too did the failing sons continue to dam up what were supposed to be the readily available blessings of the Creator God, which had the effect of keeping themselves, humanity, and the whole of creation in bondage. 

Following from the words recorded in the seventeenth verse concerning condemnation, Jesus goes on to say “The one who believes in Him is not condemned.  The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of the one and only Son of God” (3:18).  Not believing in the Name of the one and only Son of God is, in essence, the same as saying that one did not believe in the Creator God, as the idea of one person coming in the name of another person, as a representative of their power (here, one can consider the delegation of royal emissaries that speak for and represent a ruler), would have been, and still is, well understood.  

Only Son (part 21)

Why did the Creator God raise up Solomon and gift him with such wisdom and wealth?  Presumably, it was so that His people Israel, along with all peoples and nations, would come to believe in Him.  Solomon, as a son of God, was yet another example of the Creator God’s love for the world, and it would appear that, as an example, he was said to be gifted in such a profound way so that He would be blessed, so that Israel would be blessed, and so that Israel would, in turn, be a blessing to all peoples of the world by being an example of unparalleled divine blessing. 

The Creator God’s design in this was to cause all peoples, through His people, to forsake their idolatry and turn in worship to the One that was their Creator, as and in Whose image they had been created.  In so doing, the tide of evil would be stemmed and the ongoing and ultimately unnecessary perishing of the peoples of the world and the creation could be restrained. 

The divine blessings (reflective of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28) granted to Solomon and Israel were representative of the gifts of eternal life that the covenant God desired to grant to all peoples, restoring them to the place and status from which Adam had fallen.  Unfortunately, though Solomon had experienced his God’s power and presence (on two occasions---1 Kings 11:9), much like Adam and Israel had experienced that power and presence, he did not truly believe his God.  What was the result?  He fell into the aforementioned idolatry.  Because of that, Israel, as a unified body of people adequately representing their God to the world, effectively perished, and the blessings of their God that had been so strong upon them (eternal life) would be lost.            

While one could certainly continue moving forward from the history of Solomon, wading into and through the inter-testamental literature that sets the stage for the second Temple Judaism into which Jesus came and spoke, doing so in order to more fully develop the “son of God” theology and frame of reference, to engage in such would merely belabor the point.  Based on the examination of the clear “son of God” traditions embodied in Adam, Israel, and Solomon, it is now quite possible to understand the full import and impact of Jesus’ words when He speaks of His God’s love of the world and the sending of His one and only Son for the purpose of belief and eternal life.  The historical examples provided heretofore, stand in stark contrast to the Creator God’s expectations and intentions for the role that His son (whoever that son may be) would play in and for the world. 

Though, with reflection, one can see that Jesus is referring to Himself (as the author of the Gospel would seem to desire), it is not necessarily the case that Jesus is demanding that Nicodemus come to this conclusion.  Rather, an observer might be better served by considering that Nicodemus was to remember this conversation with Jesus, and upon His crucifixion realize that Jesus was referring to Himself with His cryptic comments that “the Son of Man must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life” (John 3:14b).  This would seem to be a reasonable proposition. 

It is this believing in Jesus as the Son of Man (the Messiah-King and embodiment of Israel’s God) that then becomes equivalent to believing in the Creator God in the way that was expected of Adam and Israel and Solomon.  It is through believing in the lifted-up-Son-of-Man, with the efficaciousness of such belief equivalent to the reversing of the exilic-oriented and death-bringing curse of the serpents in the wilderness, that the blessings that the Creator God intends for His people (renewal, restoration, reconciliation, re-creation, exodus, rescue, deliverance, liberation, resurrection---eternal life) are to be enjoyed. 

Only Son (part 16)

This scene first introduced into the Scriptural narrative through the Adam story, would repeat itself, on the whole, with Israel.  Primarily, the covenant people would repeatedly fall into idolatry.  Therefore, rather than perpetually enjoying the blessings of their God (though the record suggests that there were times of great blessing), times of cursing were their regular lot.  The cursing was exile, meaning they were relegated to a place outside of their God’s purposes for them.  This generally meant subjection to a foreign power (whether inside or outside of their promised land, though even in the exiles, the land was not emptied), which can be regularly seen from the time of the Judges (following the death of Joshua), right on through the entirety of their history that led up to Jesus. 

Their God’s cursing meant death, destruction, shame, and exile, which meant that Israel, which defined itself as a people according to their exodus, was in almost constant need of exodus.  Because shame and exile were the equivalent of death, Israel was constantly in need of resurrection.  They were in constant need of eternal life, which would mean rescue, deliverance, redemption, salvation, restoration, and new creation (not an endless eternity in heaven after death), all of which are well summed up in “resurrection.”  Their position however, because they did not trust a God that is shown forth as having continually proved Himself to be faithful in both blessing and cursing, was that of constant perishing. 

The Creator God’s intention for Israel was for it to be a light to all the world.  Not only does their history suggest that did they not achieve this, but by the time of Jesus, Israel is shown to have turned almost completely inward, choosing only to be a light for itself, to what would appear to be the exclusion of the rest of the world.  Clearly, this was not what the covenant God intended for His one and only son, be it Adam or Israel.  Thus, taking all of this into consideration, as would Nicodemus, it could be said that the Creator God of Israel loved the world that He had created so much, that He raised up Israel, His son (after the failure of Adam), and gave him a commission and an ordination to be the representative of His love and power into the world. 

This, of course, would be completely contingent on Israel believing in Him and in His covenantal promises.  Had they believed, then they, and the world through them, would have enjoyed eternal life.  However, they are shown to have not believed wholeheartedly in their God, so ultimately, the perishing of an almost continuous exile had been their experience.  Because of that, the world did not experience the Creator God’s glory and redemption, but remained in its perished condition as well.          

It has been demonstrated that both Adam and Israel were positioned as sons of God.  This has been done so that it would be possible to rightly comprehend the engagement between Nicodemus and Jesus, with its rooting in Jewish hope and expectation according to the history of the world and the history of Israel.  Both of those histories are related to the redemptive history that had been playing out according to the Creator God’s covenant faithfulness, and this is the framework that has been built for an understanding of Jesus and His mission. 

By using the language that is to be found in John 3:16, one can not only find that Jesus understands Himself along this historical-redemptive line, but that Jesus also wants Nicodemus to understand His purposes according to the historical-redemptive pattern set forth in the history of Israel as a nation, and in that of mankind as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures. 

Only Son (part 15)

When a teacher of Israel, be it Nicodemus or Jesus, spoke of their God’s son, such language would not be restricted to thoughts of messiah and kingship, or to Adam alone.  Speaking in such a way would also direct one’s thoughts to Israel itself.  This would be in connection with Israel’s most powerful, popular, and deterministic story---that of the Egyptian exodus, which was believed to have been personally conducted by the Creator God via the instrument of Israel’s greatest leader, that being Moses. 

In the fourth chapter of Exodus, Moses is given his instructions.  He is said to have been told by the Lord God of Israel, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the wonders I have put under your control.  But I will harden his heart and he will not let the people go” (4:21).  This is the pretext for the especially important statement (for purposes of this study) that follows, which is “You must say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Israel is My son, My firstborn, and I said to you, ‘Let My son go that he may serve Me’”’” (4:22-23a). 

So here, quite importantly, as it relates to the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus, and what it is that Jesus seems to be attempting to communicate to Nicodemus about Himself and about His place within the Creator God’s long running redemptive plan for His creation, Israel can be found being referred to as the son of God.  With this, Israel, in a sense, is picking up the narrative from where it was left off by the first being to be recognized as the son of God, that being Adam. 

The son of God that was Adam, according to the story of Israel, was exiled from the garden and dragged all of humanity and creation down with him.  Here in Exodus the reader meets up with the son of God that is Israel, as they find themselves in an exilic state of oppression and subjugation.  This son, Israel, is going to be liberated from his bondage.  Following the liberation (essentially a restoration and a resurrection), this son of God is going to be brought under a covenant and given responsibilities related to that covenant.  That covenant comes to be known as “the law”; and the responsibility with which they have been charged, in essence, is to rightly bear the divine image and reflect their God’s glory into the world in such a way that it will cause all men to seek their God, especially as they see the blessings that are enjoyed by this particular people, Israel (understood as the “only son” of the Creator God). 

Israel was to be the representative of the Creator into the world.  Like Adam, they were given a realm of dominion that they were to occupy, in which they were to have dominion, and which they were to steward as a foretaste of the renewed creation to come.  Whereas for Adam the realm of dominion was the whole of the creation, Israel’s realm of dominion was the land that had been promised to them through the Creator God’s covenant with Abraham---the firstfruits of an entire creation that was to be redeemed (a microcosm of what would eventually come to be true, again, of the entire cosmos). 

There, in that place of dominion, they were to be fruitful and multiply.  Their successful occupation of their land, and all that went with it, would be accomplished by their adherence to the basic premises of the covenant, which were to avoid idolatry, to reverence the sanctuary, and to keep the Sabbaths that their God had ordained for them.  It was understood to be the case that if they succeeded in these areas, they would be blessed.  On the other hand, if they failed they would be cursed. 

On the whole then, this was a matter of trust.  In this area, Israel (son of God) would stand alongside Adam (son of God).  Adam’s successful occupation of the land would be accomplished by adherence to the premises of the covenant that the Creator God gave to him, which was to freely eat of all the trees of the garden, save one.  Blessing or cursing would result.  Of course, the narrative record indicates that Adam chose to violate the covenant, so it would be the curse (rather than the blessing) that came upon him and the creation. 

Only Son (part 14)

Eternal life, therefore, must be understood to be a part of the Creator God’s intentions for the beings that He created in and as His image, as well as the creation over which that being was set in rule.  For man, this can be extrapolated from the existence of the tree of life and the point made to bar the way of the fallen image-bearer from accessing the tree.  For the creation, this can be extrapolated from the insistence that all of the creation fell from a state of eternality of life when Adam (its steward) fell. 

The Apostle Paul would seem to be making an explicit reference to this type of understanding in the eighth chapter of Romans, when he writes that “creation was subjected to futility---not willingly” (8:20a), while also going on to make the point that the creation awaits a time of restoration when it “will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God’s children” (8:21).  If only Adam had believed the Creator---trusted, relied upon, adhered to the commandment while believing in the associated promise---it could be surmised that neither he nor the creation would have experienced decay and death.  If he had believed, he would not have perished. 

Having covered so much ground, and having done so much to at least partially construct a more appropriate mindset in which to hear the words of Jesus, it is now possible to connect some of the dots, discovering part of what is being communicated in the Nicodemus/Jesus dialogue, and interpreting John 3:16 in light of the experience of Adam as revealed in the Hebrews Scriptures and as told as part of Israel’s historical self-understanding and as part of their God’s overall purposes for mankind, to which Jesus appeals in order to legitimate His mission as that of the promised and long-awaited Son of Man. 

The Creator God indeed loved the world that He is understood to have created and set in order.  He loved it so much that He made a being in His own image (as His image)---a son---and placed that being in the world.  As part of His creation, He also loved this son.  He is understood to have given that son responsibilities and a commandment, asking that son to believe in Him, so as to be able to faithfully and rightly perform His duties in the world, before his Creator.  If that son did in fact believe in the God that had created Him and given him his position, then we would have eternal life.

If he did not believe in his Creator, and did not exhibit trust in His word such that he did not live up to the terms of the covenant that had been set for and with him, then the result of that dis-belief and the forsaking of His expressed purpose in and for the world, would be that He would perish.  His fate would be shared by the much loved realm over which he had been set.  He would be exiled from that place of purpose, forfeiting access to that which granted eternal life, which, in reality, is the unbroken relationship with the Creator as His exact image, and thereby losing eternal life itself.  What ultimately perished was trust, and therefore his union with his Maker, which was the source of that life.  Quite naturally then, to perish at the hands of death was the only logical result.  Such was the history of the Creator God’s initial sending of His son into the world.  Coming to grips with this provides a portion of the much-needed framework for an understanding of Jesus’ mission. 

With all of this said and hopefully absorbed, one becomes able to more effectively peer into the historical context that surrounded these famous words of Jesus, reflecting on the fact that the Creator God’s love for the world, His sending of His Son, the necessity of belief, and the subsequent reception of eternal life, could and would cause Nicodemus to hearken to the “beginning of the story,” and the story of Adam and his fall.  

Only Son (part 13)

In the twenty-sixth verse of the first chapter of Genesis, after God has pronounced everything as good and established an order in this world that He so obviously loved, He takes one final step and says “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth” (Genesis 1:26). 

Yes, the Creator God loved the world, and He showed forth that love by creating a being in and as His own image that would reflect His glory into the creation and be a reminder of His creative power and His rule.  He created Adam.  He sent the one originally understood, as part of the story of the covenant people, to be His one and only son into the world to rule the creation in proxy for Him.  If this is understood, then the one that has that understanding is one step closer to appreciating the full impact of Jesus’ words to Nicodemus. 

Genesis insists that “God created humankind in His own image, in the image of God He created them, male and female He created them” (1:27).  Furthermore, in relation to being created in and as the image of the Creator God, so as to bear that image in and for the whole of the creation, the language of covenant is employed when the author confirms that “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply!  Fill the earth and subdue it!” (1:28a)  What follows from that report is rounded off with “God saw all that He had made---and it was very good!” (1:31a) 

So humankind (Adam) is given a charge by their Creator.  It could easily be said that the covenant God of Israel loved His good creation (world).  Owing to that love, He created a son (Adam) in His own image and sent that son into the world with a specific purpose.  What was that purpose?  It was to rule and steward and subdue and represent the Creator to the world.  Ultimately though, there was something underlying all of that.  The foundation on which those purposes rested was belief.  It was trust. 

Trust in what?  “The Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (2:16-17a).  This was an obvious commandment and a test.  The Creator God loved the world and sent His one and only son into the world, and set up a perimeter to see whether or not His Son would follow the commandment as part of the charge to be reflect his Father’s glory into the world.  Would the word of the Creator be believed?  Of course, all live with the sad result of the failure associated with this relatively simple commandment, which was that it was not something to which Adam (the one originally thought of as the son of God) adhered. 

The corollary to the Creator God’s commandment to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is well known, as it was said “for when you eat from it you will surely die” (2:17b).  Genesis reports that Adam, as the divine image-bearer, had been offered up the fruit of every tree of the garden, save one.  One of those trees was the tree of life (2:9).  When Adam and Eve were exiled from the garden after violating their God’s clear commandment (thereby finding themselves outside of their God’s purpose for them), careful attention is paid to this tree of life. 

This demonstrates that the tree of life is of special concern to the Creator God, thus it is said that “When He drove the man out, He placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life” (3:24).  This is explaining in the report of the Creator saying “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever” (3:22).  Clearly then, it is being communicated that the covenant God did not want His now fallen image-bearer to live forever in a state of corruption, so He made a move to limit access to the tree of life.  Apparently, it is to be taken that the fruit of this tree was designed to render possible such an eternal existence. 

Only Son (part 12)

Not only would these things be foreign concepts, but they also represent something of an inward, anthropocentric focus, whereas Israel, and especially Jesus, had a theo-centric focus, being fully concerned with what their Creator God had done, was doing, and was going to do for His people and for the world that He had created and that they understood He had promised to redeem and renew (beginning with their own land). 

Though it’s often difficult for the contemporary, western, individualistic mind to grasp, their eyes were cast upon their God and His plans and purposes, rather than upon themselves.  A “personal relationship with God” would have been an odd thought, and the notion that “God has a special plan for my life” would likely not have been on the table.  The covenant people were defined by, and defined themselves by the community, the role of the covenant people, and what their God was doing to do for and through the covenant people.  Naturally, the presence and operation of an honor and shame culture, in which one’s status was defined by the community, did not lend itself to isolated individualism. 

So even though Israel as a generalized whole thought about their God from inside the context of a separation from the nations, they certainly did not think about their God inside a counter-intuitive isolated individualism that was extremely personal in scope.  Now this is not to say that personal improvement, achievement, reflection, and excellence is not something that should be encouraged, or that it should not be valued, or that it is unbecoming for a believer (as individuals do indeed comprise a community), but it should be recognized that such thinking would not serve the purposes of their God that loved the world and sent His Son into the world because of that love. 

So if Adam is the son of God, how is one to think about him in light of Jesus’ statement which is so routinely thought of as nothing more than a self-referential evidentiary proposition that Jesus thought of Himself as the Son of God, and merely used this meeting with Nicodemus to inform him (with the author also informing his readers) that He was indeed the second person of the divine trinity?  Well, the answer lies in Genesis.  Israel’s God created the world. 

Regardless of what it was that was happening and is recorded in the first two chapters of Genesis, the fact of the matter, which was well-accepted by Israel and obviously by Jesus, was that Israel understood and insisted that their God was the Creator of this world, and that He was a providential God that held all things together by His power.  To them, He evidenced His presence by dramatic and powerful interventions in the affairs of the world, doing so primarily because He was a covenant-making-and-keeping God.  To that way of thinking, the very first verse of Genesis show forth a God that created the heavens and the earth (i.e. everything).  Together with that, the narrative goes on to present, over and over again, a God of restoration.  There is a consistent pronouncement, throughout the Genesis account and beyond (if one is attentive to it), that the Creator God saw His work as being good. 

In addition to that, from the very beginning one finds a God that speaks in the language of covenant.  In the first chapter, when God repeatedly says “Let there be,” this can be understood as an approximation of covenant language.  To get one’s mind around that, it is possible to think of the Creator God’s covenant with Abraham and hear Him saying “Let it be so,” as He declares the covenant that sets forth His purpose for Abraham, for His descendants, and for the world.  

Only Son (part 11)

With Adam?  Is the reader of the Gospel supposed to think that when Nicodemus heard Jesus speaking of the Creator God’s love for the world, the Son of God, belief, and eternal life, that he was not only supposed to be having ruminations along the lines of the exodus (because of the reference to Moses), but that he was also supposed to connect Jesus’ words all the way back to the beginning of Genesis?  Is this what Jesus had in mind? 

The case has been made that Jesus is grounding this conversation with Nicodemus in the history of Israel.  Since Israel’s history and purpose is wrapped up with the Creator God’s purpose for the world, one can be fully justified in understanding that Jesus grounded His mission within His God’s purposes and plans that He would certainly have believed stretched all the way back to Adam, from whence His mission derives the fullness of its purpose.  Naturally, Jesus’ statement is multi-faceted, and this study is now positioned to explore the Adamic-oriented premise of these wonderful words. 

So how is it that Nicodemus is going to connect all of these things to Genesis?  How can it be insisted that Jesus is making the same connection?  It has to do with Jesus’ use of the “one and only Son.”  Turning then to the third chapter of the Gospel of Luke (though John is not relying on knowledge of Luke, Luke presents material that would have been familiar to a member of the nation of Israel, thus a modern reader needs to be able to position himself or herself to operate with the same type of knowledge that would have certainly been held by a Pharisee and member of the ruling council), the first piece of the puzzle can be found.  There, Luke provides the genealogy of Jesus. 

For purposes of the point being here made, it is not Jesus’ genealogy that is important, but rather the information communicated in the presentation of the genealogy that reflects what would have then been general knowledge within the defining narrative of the covenant people.  Luke’s genealogy begins with Jesus and works its way backwards.  For what it’s worth, there is another genealogy in Matthew.  It begins with Abraham and makes its way to Jesus.  Luke’s genealogy is more extensive, as it traces Jesus’ lineage beyond Abraham, taking it all the way back to Adam. 

Significantly, in his genealogy, Luke refers to Adam  as “the son of God.”  If Luke refers to Adam in such a way, one can rest assured that this is not a novel concept.  It is quite likely (and probably certain) that Adam is widely thought of in this way by those that fill the role of teachers of Israel.  If Adam is thought of as the son of God, then is it possible that Jesus is referring to Adam when He speaks of God sending His “one and only Son”?  One would have to respond that it is absolutely possible that Jesus is making such a reference.  This is especially so in light of the historically grounded lens through which Jesus is causing Nicodemus to look at Him and to consider the mission of the Son of Man, as He answers the questions that have been posed to Him by Nicodemus.  This is even more obviously the case when one takes the time to think about the fullness of Jesus’ statement, and that with which it begins, which is “For this is the way God loved the world,” which is followed by “He gave His one and only Son.” 

Again, it simply cannot (and should not) be imagined, when Jesus says this to him, that Nicodemus is supposed to connect the statement exclusively to Jesus.  If that is so for Nicodemus, then those that would hear these words through John’s report of them are most definitely not supposed to think solely along the lines of a personal salvation experience.  This would not have been the mental framework of Jesus, of Nicodemus, or of the author.  Such thinking would make no sense, as a personal, world-escaping salvation experience, contexted by the usual, short-sighted dichotomy between the alternative eternal choices of either heaven or hell, carried absolutely no theological weight inside the Judaism of that day.  

Only Son (part 10)

How so?  What thoughts would Nicodemus have had upon Jesus’ use of these words?  Well, reference has already been made to the long-standing Jewish hopes of the kingdom of God, the resurrection of the righteous dead, and their God’s restoration of the fallen creation, but there is more.  It has been made quite clear that eternal life, as Jesus uses it (as a first century Jew) and as Nicodemus understands it (as a first century Jew), has nothing to do with the idea of escaping the physical world so as to enjoy eternity in a state of dis-embodied bliss that could only be enjoyed by soul and spirit.  No, that was Greek thought.  That was pagan thought.  To whichever culture such thinking is assigned, and though Jesus and Nicodemus (and the author of John) could certainly have been aware of that worldview, Jews were highly resistant to such ideas, and in general were fervently opposed allowing such ideas to creep into their particular worldviews.   

The dominant Jewish worldview affirmed the absolute goodness of their God’s perfectly created (though fallen) physical world, whereas the other dominant worldviews of the day (Platonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Buddhism, etc…) largely held the physical world to be sub-standard and second rate.  Judaism, in large part (though there were groups like the Sadducees that denied this worldview, though their denial may not have been completely legitimate and deeply held, perhaps owing to the fact that they were in collusion with the Roman powers---this is significant because they were partially charged with keeping peace and tranquility in Israel, whereas the hope of resurrection and restoration was very much a motivating factor for Israel in their long-running opposition, both passive and active, to foreign dominance) stood against “other-worldliness,” and embraced a “this-world” view. 

It could be insisted upon with a great degree of certainty then, that when Jesus speaks of the kingdom of God and eternal life, He is decidedly not speaking to Nicodemus about going to heaven.  In that same light then, the author would most certainly not be asking his readers to consider the possibility that Jesus is speaking about going to heaven, and thereby promoting an escape from this world---an idea rooted in so much anti-Jewish, anti-Biblical thought. 

How can this be known?  It can be known because “eternal life” is the language of exodus.  Exodus meant more than simply leaving Egypt.  Exodus, for Nicodemus (and for all who count themselves among the covenant people) meant rescue, deliverance, liberation, redemption, salvation, resurrection, restoration and more.  Eternal life as exodus was a powerful notion.  Exodus meant that Israel’s God was establishing His kingdom, through and for His chosen people, for the purpose of accomplishing His purposes for the world, through and for them.  Exodus meant that Israel’s God was not only rescuing, delivering, liberating, redeeming, saving, resurrecting, and restoring the beings that had been created to bear the image of the Creator and reflect His glory into His world, but it meant that He was doing the same thing for the whole of His world (and by extension the cosmos) as well. 

Therefore, it must be insisted upon that all of these things, for a first century Jew, when spoken and heard inside a long-running narrative by which a people defined and understood themselves and their place in the world, had a decidedly this-worldly reference.  Thus, when Jesus said these words, and when Nicodemus heard these words, the entire scope of the Creator God’s plan of salvation (exodus) was brought into the picture.  This plan did not begin with Jesus, but rather, with Adam.    

Only Son (part 9)

When one speaks of Israel and the idea of resurrection, it is to be remembered that the resurrection of the righteous dead, which went hand in hand with the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth (of which Jesus has already spoken), was a prominent hope of the people of Israel.  There must be an awareness of the fact that the covenant people were not looking for an escape from this world, with an eye to joining their God in some type of far-off heavenly abode.  They were looking for their creative, providential, covenant God to fulfill His promises to His people, establish His kingdom with and through and for them, and in so doing begin the long-expected restoration of His creation. 

This is what Nicodemus, as a Pharisee, would have been thinking when Jesus spoke of eternal life, especially as Jesus did so in the context of the kingdom of God.  Eternal life was not something that was to be enjoyed after one’s life was over, “over there,” but in the midst of the creation.  The fact that Jesus puts an emphasis on His being lifted up, so that belief could be properly placed and that eternal life could be had, and doing this in connection with the Moses story, simply reinforces the long-treasured Jewish hope that was apparently shared by both Nicodemus and Jesus (probably along with the rest of Nicodemus’ compatriots).  

Jesus has couched the entirety of the reported part of His conversation with Nicodemus in the history and hope of Israel.  Naturally, this is the only way that it is possible to understand Jesus and His mission.  He has broached the subject of eternal life with Nicodemus, with this eternal life being connected to a trust in, essentially, the covenant faithfulness (according to the promises) of Israel’s God.  Having done this---set His words in the context of the long history of Israel, of Israel’s hope, and of the working of Israel’s covenant God, it would only makes sense that He is continuing to do that very thing when He goes on to say “For this is the way God loved the world: He gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). 

In essence, this is a repetition of what was said in the previous verse, with the addition of “will not perish.”  It is very much akin to what happened in the story of Moses and the serpent.  It is for that reason that it is impossible to separate out this verse so as to make it seem as if it is only a reference to Jesus Himself, independent of what comes before and after, and independent of the entire story of Israel.  It is impossible to imagine that Nicodemus would have thought in this way (John 3:16 being isolated and standing on its own), and it is impossible to imagine that Jesus wanted Nicodemus to understand it in this way.  It must, however, be a component of what Jesus wants to be understood, but if it is to be comprehended correctly, it must also fit well with the story that would have been playing out in the mind of Nicodemus as he converses with Jesus and hears these words. 

Removing this popular and important verse from its surroundings (both in the text and its historical context) devalues its content, as it rips Jesus’ life and ministry away from the roots from which it grows, is nourished, and is almost entirely dependent if it is to have true meaning and efficacy.  If this verse is removed from the historical context that has been provided, and seen only as Jesus saying that it is He that must be believed, so that eternal life (in the way that so many generally think of eternal life---going to heaven when upon death) can be had, then those that hear it or read it will miss out on the over-arching purpose and plan of salvation that the Creator God has for His world and His image-bearers.  Just as certain “trigger words” have been used throughout the conversation---words that would have assuredly sparked certain thoughts and ideas in the mind of Nicodemus (as a Pharisee, member of the ruling council, and “teacher of Israel), Jesus’ use of “eternal life” (twice) is another one of those trigger words. 

Only Son (part 8)

The promise communicated to and through Solomon, long-cherished by the covenant people of the Creator God and recorded in the second book of the Chronicles, follows from the Creator God saying to Solomon “When I close up the sky so that it doesn’t rain, or command locusts to devour the land’s vegetation, or send a plague among My people” (7:13).  Significantly, this causes the promise to fit into the overall narrative, thus providing a context that is so often lost in much popular use, because when these things are mentioned, Solomon and those to whom these words would be communicated would naturally think of Egypt and the exodus. 

Connected to that, (and regardless of when these works reached their final form, as Nicodemus and his contemporaries, like the modern reader, would have been familiar with these texts as part of Israel’s historical narrative) it is likely that such things would also call to mind the Levitical and Deuteronomic curses that were offered up as Israel’s fate, principally for the sin of idolatry.  Because of that, these words would ultimately be tied to the idea of exile. 

So, making the connection, when the serpents (as recorded in the book of Numbers) attack the people, a people in the process and state of exodus becomes, briefly, a people in exile.  Returning to that story then, after Moses prayed for the people, “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Make a poisonous snake and set it on a pole.  When anyone who is bitten looks at it, he will live.’  So Moses made a bronze snake and put it on a pole, so that if a snake had bitten someone, when he looked at the bronze snake he lived” (Numbers 21:8-9). 

Now, getting back to Nicodemus and Jesus, it would not be unreasonable to think that Jesus expected Nicodemus to have all of these things in mind, and that Nicodemus did, in fact, have such things in mind.  Otherwise, why would the author include this exchange in a story that itself would be so thoroughly dependent on the Israel narrative for its own meaning?  That considered, one is also reminded that Jesus spoke of believing in Him and having eternal life, just as was the case with Moses and the serpent (eternal life understood as the life of the age to come entering into the present---the idea of living forever in heaven would not here be present). 

Those that looked at the serpent did so, presumably, because they then believed their God and believed Moses.  Those who looked were healed.  They were snatched away from their brief state of exile, experiencing a new exodus.  Though many were said to have died, and though, to be sure, many more were going to die if their God did not mercifully intervene, those who looked at the serpent received something akin to a resurrection.  Their movement from exile, as they regained their exodus, was a movement from death to life. 

This analysis then helps to provide some context for Jesus’ usage of the story.  With this reference to the story of the poisonous serpents that were said to be a dramatic memory of Israel’s wilderness experience, Jesus would seem to be informing Nicodemus that the covenant people of Israel, in their own day, were in the same position as the Israel that was suffering from the bite of poisonous serpents.  They were not truly trusting their God.  They were not believing Him and aligning themselves with His kingdom ways.  They were a people in exile, in need of another exodus---a resurrection. 

Only Son (part 7)

Returning to Jesus making reference to Moses and the serpent (John 3:14), it is in connection with this that Jesus first makes mention of believing in Him and having eternal life (3:15).  Jesus, who would appear to be referring to Himself as the Son of Man, compares His own coming time of being lifted up to that of the serpent in the wilderness.  Because of that, it is very much worthwhile to pay a visit to that story.  Not only is it worthwhile, but it seems to be highly necessary, as it would be well-nigh impossible to grasp what Jesus is communicating about Himself and about the eternal life that is on offer through allegiance to Him, without a basic understanding of that story. 

Even though Jesus mentions the story of Moses and the serpent to somebody that He refers to as a “teacher of Israel” (3:10), one can be quite confident that this was another one of those stories with which the whole of the people of Israel were quite familiar, and which they probably told quite often.  This should not be terribly surprising, as it is a story of which there is a general knowledge even in this day, as it is quite the dramatic tale.  Of course, it is often thought of as a story of rebellion and judgment and merciful healing, making it all the more memorable.  Assuredly, Israel remembered the story as well.  However, because it is ensconced within the narrative of Israel’s Egyptian exodus, it undoubtedly meant a great deal more to them.  

In the twenty-first chapter of Numbers one  is able to find the story of the “fiery serpents” and read “Then they,” meaning Israel, “traveled from Mount Hor by the road to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom, but the people became impatient along the way.  And the people spoke against God and against Moses, ‘Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness, for there is no bread or water, and we detest this worthless food’.” (21:4-5) 

Here is where the rebellion portion of the story is to be found.  The rebellion was against both their God and Moses.  It occurred in the midst of their exodus-related “wanderings” in the wilderness.  They had promises from their God and they had repeatedly seen mighty displays of His power, yet they are said to be complaining.  This, of course, is while they have the promise of a land of their own which had been long since promised to Abraham; and their exodus out of Egypt, with its attendant movement towards that promised land, was taken to be the realization of the very sign that had been promised to Abraham.  Still, they are shown to have doubted. 

Consequently, “the Lord sent poisonous snakes among the people, and they bit the people; many people of Israel died” (21:6).  This is the judgment, and it fell because the people were questioning the covenant faithfulness of their God that had already done so much to reveal to them His mighty hand.  “Then,” it can be read, “the people came to Moses and said, ‘We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you.  Pray to the Lord that He would take away the snakes from us.’  So Moses prayed for the people” (21:7). 

This should put the modern reader in mind of the famous words of 2 Chronicles 7:14.  Now, these words had not yet been spoken or written at the time of the serpent incident, as they were connected to Solomon and the dedication of the Jerusalem Temple, but just as they are familiar to the modern reader, they would have been quite familiar to Israel and to the Pharisee Nicodemus at the time of Jesus.  The promise said to be made to and through Solomon was “if My people, who belong to Me, humble themselves, pray, seek to please Me, and repudiate their sinful practices, then I will respond from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land.”  This is what can be seen from the people of Israel when they were being afflicted by the serpents, which demonstrates that the promise that the Creator God made to Solomon was already well-rooted in Israel’s history. 

Only Son (part 6)

Now, putting aside the statements about being born from above and born of water and spirit, what would probably have been more significant for Nicodemus was Jesus’ multiple use of the term “kingdom of God.”  This would have been Nicodemus’ concern.  It is likely that this is what he was after---that which he desired to see.  To that end, he would be asking “Was Jesus the Messiah?”  Was He the One through Whom the Creator God of Israel was going to work to usher in His kingdom and set all things right? 

As one ponders the thoughts and emotions that these possibilities would have been potentially stirring in Nicodemus, his seemingly ludicrous response about a man entering into his mother’s womb and being born a second time (John 3:4b) almost comes off as an effort to focus on something besides Jesus’ talk about the great Jewish hope, with this being an attempt to obfuscate his own tremendous excitement at what this might very well mean for him, for his people, for their land, and for the world. 

The same thing could possibly be said about Nicodemus’ question of “How can these things be?” (3:9a)  Remember, Nicodemus was not necessarily there for a theological and philosophical dissertation.  He came, based on his relationship with Jesus, for a conversation concerning expectations.  He came for information.  The Gospel record attempts to make it obvious that Nicodemus wanted to know what Jesus thought about Himself.  His concern was the kingdom of God, and whether the God of Israel was now and finally fulfilling His long-standing promise through this man that had quite recently been so incredibly demonstrative at the Temple, and who was said to have done many signs while at the feast of Passover. 

This too is significant.  Passover is always crucial, and due to the crowds that the celebration would bring to Jerusalem, the events of Passover would regularly be seized upon for those wishing to draw attention to themselves and their causes by making grand, symbolic statements.  Thus, one should not lose sight of the fact that the signs to which Nicodemus is referring were being performed by Jesus in association with Passover.  Passover, of course, was the yearly celebration of the Creator God intervening on behalf of His oppressed people, conquering their enemies, and leading them out of Egypt (in dramatic confirmation of His promise to Abraham) under the leadership of their great deliverer, Moses. 

The juxtaposition of performing signs at Passover, combined with His actions in the Temple, would not have been lost on anybody who was in the least bit culturally and religiously aware, especially a Pharisee who was also a member of the ruling council.  A person doing what Jesus was said to have done, in conjunction with the feast that was conducted on an annual basis in celebration of the time when the covenant God gave His people liberation from their oppressors who were keeping them outside of the promised blessings of their God, was effectively declaring that he was, at the least, a messianic figure.  This could very well serve to inspire great hope and arouse great passions among a significant portion of the people. 

Naturally, this sparking of hope and passion could take different paths.  One path would be the establishment of the heaven-come-to-earth kingdom of the God of Israel, through a glorious display of His saving power against the enemies of Israel (not unlike that which was said to have been witnessed by the Egyptians).  The other way would be a rebellion that would inevitably result in being crushed by Rome, along with an executed messiah.  Accordingly, Nicodemus needed to know more from Jesus.  That is why he was there.        

Only Son (part 5)

Before one can attempt to delve into what Nicodemus is supposed to think when he hears Jesus say “This is the way God loved the world…” (John 3:16a), it is necessary to examine other parts of the conversation, as this is a building process.  Jesus does not just make this lone statement, but gets there over the course of a relationship and a conversation (of which we have only a glimpse).  In the Gospel record, Nicodemus has already spoken to Jesus about the signs that He is doing, with an indication of an assent on his own part that Jesus “has come from God” (3:2b).  Again, it cannot be said enough that this was a time of great expectation.  Israel is expecting their God to act on their behalf.  They are expecting some type of a messiah to make his presence felt. 

A widely-held (though certainly not exclusive) understanding about the messiah was that he would somehow be the physical embodiment of Israel’s God.  When Nicodemus speaks of Jesus as coming from God, Nicodemus speaks from within this expectation.  Nicodemus seems to be making a rather subtle inquiry as to whether or not Jesus was (or at least thought He was) the messiah.  His own words about the Creator God of Israel being with Jesus would seem to indicate that he believes that this is a strong possibility. 

How does Jesus respond to what Nicodemus says?  He responds by making reference to the Jewish, messianic hope that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was certainly going to fulfill His promise and establish His kingdom.  Keeping things simple, this would entail firstly the removal of Roman oppression, and secondly the subjugation of Rome to Israel, as Israel was to be elevated above all nations, with its messiah installed and recognized as king.  Jesus, presumably, is fully aware of the Jewish hope and would have shared in that hope.  Indeed, by His own words that are to come, one can see that He believes that He is fulfilling the Jewish hope of kingdom. 

In demonstration of this awareness of the kingdom hopes harbored by Himself and by His people, Jesus says to Nicodemus: “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (3:3).  After a response from Nicodemus which serves to reveal just how truly puzzling this statement was, with its inclusion of being “born from above,” Jesus continues and says, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (3:5). 

Clearly, Nicodemus is confused by Jesus’ speech here, and one would have to imagine that he would not be alone in his confusion.  Even Jesus’ own disciples, though they are with Him all the time and had the chance to hear Him speak (and likely expound on His thoughts) on a regular basis, as He likely made similar intriguing and potentially confusing statements on that same regular basis, were routinely perplexed by what He had to say and found themselves in need of private explanations. 

Granted, as a Pharisee and an esteemed member of the Jewish ruling council, Nicodemus was no doubt part of the elite and educated citizens of Israel.  It is unlikely that he was an intellectual and theological slouch.  However, the Gospels report that Jesus routinely stumped even the most elite with His statements and His questions.  As he hears the words of Jesus, one can surely envision the confused expression that rested upon Nicodemus’ face, prompting Jesus to say “Do not be amazed” (3:7a) at these things that I have said to you. 

Only Son (part 4)

As one attempts to gain a more thorough and properly rooted understanding of what Jesus means with the words that have come to be designated as John 3:16, it must be borne in mind that not only are the words offered in the context of what must be a larger discourse and long-running relationship between Jesus and Nicodemus (of which the author surely provides only a small portion), but that they are offered in a political, historical, cultural, social, and theological context as well.  So understanding the context will take quite a bit more than simply examining the verses that come before and after.  The context is far more complex than that.  Rather, the entire setting in which the words were spoken must be taken into consideration, which will allow the reader to gain an insight into the potential mindset of Nicodemus. 

This is to be done so that one can understand first what Nicodemus may have thought when Jesus spoke these words, and along with that, the things to which Jesus might be referring upon speaking these words.  Then, if this material has been traversed correctly, though relatively briefly (and certainly not exhaustively), the words will have a more correct and perhaps deeper meaning for the reader as well, as the way in which they fit into what it is that it is the great and over-arching plan of the Creator God for this world and for the beings that had been made in and as His image can now be properly grasped.

In the story as presented in this Gospel record, the very first thing that Nicodemus says to Jesus is “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God.  For no one could perform the miraculous signs that you do unless God is with him” (3:2b).  There is, of course, a great tradition of the giving and receiving of signs within Israel’s history.  Abraham asked for a sign from his God.  Moses asked for a sign that would demonstrate that the One speaking to him was truly the God of his forefathers.  Gideon would request and receive a sign from Israel's God.  There are numerous other instances of people asking for signs, so this was not simply limited to Jesus’ day and to the people of the time.  With his statement then, Nicodemus fits neatly into this long tradition.  First, he acknowledges that Jesus seems to be quite special, and then makes his reference to signs.  It is worth noting that, up to this point, the record of the Gospel of John does not have Jesus performing a large number of “signs.” 

What were the signs, according to what has been presented by the author, of which Nicodemus would be aware, and to which he would be making reference?  In the second chapter is the story of Jesus turning water into wine, which was not only miraculous on the surface, but was also a dramatic social and cultural statement by Jesus, centered upon meal practice, that did much to upend the honor and shame culture while also forever providing a cue to the followers of Jesus and what was to expected of them (the truly miraculous occurrence was not the transformation of liquid).  John reports that “Jesus did this as the first of His miraculous signs, in Cana of Galilee.  In this way He revealed His glory, and His disciples believed in Him” (2:11).  Following that, the Johannine narrative presents Jesus’ dramatic actions in the Temple.  It was this that drew the attention of the Jewish leaders to Jesus.  They said to Him, “What sign can you show us, since you are doing these things?” (2:18b) 

In response, Jesus speaks about the destruction of the Temple and its being rebuilt in three days.  He offered this as a sign.  The reader then goes on to find that “while Jesus was in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover, many people believed in His name because they saw the miraculous signs he was doing” (2:23).  So it is possible to come to the conclusion that it is His activities in the Temple, together with the signs (symbols of Messiah-ship?) that He was performing during the feast, that prompts this particular conversation with Nicodemus.      

Only Son (part 3)

So what was it that Nicodemus was supposed to understand from these famous words of Jesus?  Almost undoubtedly, when Jesus speaks these words about the lifting up of the Son of Man, he is being self-referential.  However, two thousand years of familiarity with the story of Jesus should not be allowed to cause one to imagine that the self-referential nature of the statement was supposed to be immediately clear to Nicodemus.  To think such a thing would be an unreasonable assertion on the part of the reader. 

Additionally, to treat Nicodemus as anything less than a well-learned, well-respected individual, simply because of what seem to be odd responses on his part to the questions and statements that Jesus is reported to be putting to him, would be an unwarranted reading based on theological and doctrinal pre-suppositions (and unfortunately ill-informed prejudices), along with the tangible benefit of the theological treatise of the Gospel of John, back on to the Scriptures. 

One of the bottom lines that must here be recognized is that Nicodemus is no fool, though some want to take the path of portraying him as such.  When he is first introduced into the story, he is identified as a Pharisee.  Not only that, the reader is informed that he a “member of the Jewish ruling council” (John 3:1b).  Too often, a caricature of Nicodemus as something of a less-than-fully-aware fool in the presence of Jesus, produces a similarly unfortunate caricature of the Jewish ruling council, all of which were too dense to recognize what was slapping them in their face in the person and ministry of Jesus.  It is to be remembered, that even Jesus’ disciples are shown to have failed to grasp who and what Jesus was. 

So as a Pharisee, Nicodemus would not only have been well-versed in the history of Israel, but he would have also stood as a guardian of its covenant-related identity markers.  At the very least, he would have seen himself as a guardian.  Accordingly, he would have been very much concerned and very much looking forward to the time at, and the means by which, Israel’s God would intervene on behalf of His chosen and faithful people, delivering them from their long-running exile (foreign subjugation, which was connected to their God’s curses upon His people for their failure to obey His commands and to fulfill His purpose for them). 

As a Pharisee, and therefore as a member of the group of people that was informally charged with the maintenance of the faithfulness of the people when it came to the marks of Jewish identity (covenant markers: circumcision, food and purity laws, Sabbath-keeping), it is likely that he would have found the existing situation, with Israel suffering under the oppressive heel of Rome and its Caesar, to be an untenable and highly undesirable circumstance.  This was likely to have been the case regardless of how many benefits Rome might bring (or claim to provide), and no matter how much “freedom of religion” was offered to them by their Roman overlords.  Ultimately, anything short of total autonomy, with Israel ruling itself and determining its own place in the world, was unacceptable. 

As a member of the Jewish ruling council, Nicodemus would have been in an officially sanctioned position of religious and civil influence among the people, walking in the world of Judaism (religious) that was somewhat desperately attempting to keep the people faithful to their covenant God as they lived in a state of great expectation, while also attempting to keep those same expectant people from running afoul of Rome and its power (civil), while they awaited another exodus (with the foreign powers leaving the land of Israel this time) similar to that which Israel experienced under Moses.