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.