Let’s Change the Subject
Jesus had literally turned over the tables in the temple and had spent the Passover feast performing “miraculous signs.” (2:23). He was certainly getting the attention of the religious elite — the Sanhedrin. John refers to it as the “ruling council”, composed of two parties, the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Nicodemus was of the latter, generally known to be of the more conservative branch of Judaism. What is unclear in this part of the story is whether Nicodemus came for personal reasons or on behalf the Sanhedrin. May have been a bit of both.
“We know you are a teacher who has come from God …”. Hmm. At this juncture, Jesus is not recorded to have said anything that points to his divinity other than the riddle he threw out about rebuilding the temple in three days (2:18,19). It is arguable that the Pharisees may have been genuinely interested in Jesus, and there is historical evidence that there was certainly a faction of the Sanhedrin that were disgusted with the corruption in the temple exchange system, and were eagerly waiting for the appearance of a Messiah. So it is reasonable to assume that Nicodemus was speaking on behalf of a faction of the Sanhedrin. What he probably did not realize is that his notion of Jesus being “from God” was a bit short of the mark. Jesus was just not another prophet.
But regardless of Nicodemus’ motive, it was surprising how Jesus seems to have changed the subject. “No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” This is testimonial evidence that affirms John’s statement in 1: 13, about spiritual birth. Nicodemus wondered how this could be? At this point he may have thought that this was another riddle. You have to understand that the phrase “born again” was about as alien as it gets to the Jewish mindset. Nicodemus probably understood the meaning of being “awakened” into a deeper relationship with God, but this was from the perspective of someone who had received his faith as an inheritance from his parents. So he needed clarification.
Jesus was a bit frustrated with the guy, but for some reason decided to boldly lay out “the truth” to Nicodemus. Nicodemus started the whole conversation stating whether sincerely or not that Jesus must have “come from God” because of the things he had done. So Jesus now circles back to that theme. — “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven — the Son of Man.” I can only imagine what Nicodemus was thinking at this point. Probably approaching utter shock.
Jesus did not let up — “so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.” At this point Nicodemus was looking at a man who was speaking blasphemy unless he was truly the Son of God, the Messiah.
Jesus knew this. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
At this point it was unmistakable what Jesus was claiming about himself.
But what comes next is also tough for Nicodemus to swallow. Being Jewish was not enough. Being a serious student of the Torah was not enough. Being a religious ruler was not enough. Because if he did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, that he currently existed in a condition of condemnation. “… but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” “This is the verdict,” Jesus declares, “Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.”
And What Did the Baptist Say About This?
What is most interesting about this text of passage is why John mentioned it at all. He inserts into the narrative this side-story about John the Baptist. Recall that John was first a disciple of John the Baptist, so he was evidently privy to what the followers of the Baptist were thinking. They were evidently a bit confused regarding who Jesus was, and the Baptist had to clear the record.
Jesus was “one who comes from above”. He is “above all”. Anyone who accepts what Jesus is saying “has certified that God is truthful.” “The Father loves the Son, and has placed everything in his hands. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life …” Yet, again, we hear an echo of what Jesus said regarding the consequences, “Whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”
The Gospel of Death
I leave this as an open-ended discussion on the implications of the last statement made by John the Baptist, and the last thing that Jesus said to Nicodemus. What are the implications of “not believing?” This dialog makes senses when you are looking at the immediate circumstances of the recipients of those words. These were people who were actually seeing (or hearing of) Jesus work every day. If seeing was not believing, then what else was there?
I know of a missionary who served in Morocco and he was greatly troubled by the perception of many that these verses meant that there was no admittance into heaven unless a person believed in Jesus. Here he was in a country village where 95% of the people he met were Muslims. Upon hearing the gospel, and not believing, were they forever “living in condemnation?” In other words, what he was bringing to people was not a gospel of life, but a gospel of death. I believe that many years later he has not resolved this question.
What do you think? Jesus seemed to focus on people who did evil deeds. Is ignorance an evil deed? Are all that we do inherently evil? Is living in a state of condemnation evil in and of itself? If a person who never heard of Jesus was to die, but had lived a life where they never harmed another person, never stole and were faithful to their family, is it possible that they may have “lived by the truth?” What does it mean to “live by the truth?” Does Jesus’ focus on deeds run counter to the doctrine of unmerited favor (grace)?
These are tough questions, and probably best addressed as a separate study. But in your effort to answer these questions, place your perspectives on the scale of this important principle — “Scripture proves scripture.” This important principle is used to distinguish an “opinion” from a “doctrine.”
In my future studies on this topic I will be investigating the concept that God is outside of time, and in some respects so are our “lives”. We will all live for eternity. It is only a matter of under which condition. When Jesus said he was the Way, the Life and the Truth, and that no one could come to the Father except through Him, is it possible that he may have been speaking about what happens after Death? And if so, is it conceivable that “seeing the Truth” is something that can happen after death as well as in life? Just some food for thought.
