John 3:14-21 (NRSV)John 3:14-21 is part of a discourse that embraces verses 1-21, a discourse of Jesus with Nicodemus in Jerusalem, the first of the discourses in this gospel. In Chapter 2, Jesus was one who turned water into wine at a wedding and one who appeared in the courts of the temple to cleanse it. Now, we see Jesus as a patient and learned teacher. The story is unique to this gospel.
14 In addition, just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness (Numbers 21:4-9), so must, as in divine necessity and in the plan of God, God lift up the Son of Man. The Hebrews in the wilderness, hurt and in danger of death due to the bite of the serpents. In a comparable way, humanity hurts and is in danger of death. Lifting up Jesus in the cross, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus, God brings healing from the wound of sin. His bleeding and suffering brings our salvation, making the cross a bloody symbol of divine love. At the heart of the gospel is the blood of Christ. Such an image is far from pretty. Such an image is messy. His body, broken for us. His blood, the blood of the new covenant. It is central to our identity as Christians and our relationship with God. That is why some of the old hymns are not afraid to address the "blood-theology" of the cross.
What can wash away our sins?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
There is a fountain filled with blood,
Drawn from Immanuel's veins.
Jesus suffered. Jesus died. Like a snake on a pole, a criminal on a cross. He stops the bleeding of our souls. Here, John means “lifting up” in the sense of offering his life as a sacrifice, so that the sacrificial offering makes possible a new reality for others. Yet, given 3:13, it might be even more likely that he refers to the “lifting up” that John sees occurring in the resurrection and ascent of Jesus to heaven. Begetting, birth from above, is possible through the event and moment of the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. John can call the crucifixion the exaltation of the Son only in the light of the resurrection and the return to the Father.[1] All of this is in order 15 that whoever believes (πιστεύων) in him, Jesus, of course, may have eternal life (ζωὴν αἰώνιον). Here is the first occurrence of this phrase in John. Only God lives an eternal life. If human beings are to have it, the basis can only be that God wills to live in fellowship with humanity.[2] The certainty of this work of salvation has its basis in the plan of God, the goal of which is the giving of life to believers. True, we can think in the direction of the metaphorical language involved in the resurrection of Jesus. Yet, the resurrection refers to a real event. The new eschatological life, eternal life, is life in the full sense of the term, in comparison with each earthly life is such only with reservation.[3]
We could enter a discussion of believing. Some people believe and therefore become witnesses to the love that God has for the world.[4] Some people experience this as a one-time, bursting experience of newness, like a conversion experience. William James used the example of a shed roof in a snowstorm. Snow builds up until the stress on the roof reaches the last point beyond which it will not remain intact. Then one flake of snow, almost imperceptible in and of itself, acts as the final weight and the roof collapses. In conversion, any life experience may be that last snowflake. It is an illness, or a sunrise, or an inspiring worship experience, or an addiction which has finally become too much. Then the Holy Spirit breaks through to the person. For other people it may be more subtle, a slowly developing realization that Christ is real, that God does indeed work within us to heal and give life. Then in a moment of realization, one accepts Christ. Eternal life brings stability in life. It means that as we suffer and struggle, and as we laugh and feel good, we learn that in all things God is with us as God empowers and loves us, the divine presence when needed.
Bishop Ruediger Minor, from former East Germany, tells the following story. Two years before their collapse, the Communist Party called a special meeting. For 55 minutes a Marxist philosopher lectured on why communism was officially atheistic and why there is no God. When the official finished, most of the people simply stood with folded arms. A few applauded nervously. Then, Communist Party officials led a Russian Orthodox priest to the podium and told him he had three minutes for his response. The priest began his response by saying he did not need three minutes. He only needed three words. The three words were these, shouted at the top of his lungs: "Christ is risen." The people in that meeting shouted back, "Christ is risen indeed!" They did this three times. With that the priest turned from the podium and returned to his seat.
Some debate exists as to whether John intended the following verses to be from Jesus. Of course, that is possible. Yet, I would like to suggest another possibility. The actual dialogue portion ends at verse 15. John now turns to his readers and addresses himself to us in a personal way. He is becoming preacher. He is offering his witness as a believer. I believe Raymond Brown made this suggestion in his commentary. The suggestion has stuck with me.
16 Famously and memorably: “For God so loved (ἠγάπησεν), aorist tense and thus an act of love, the world (κόσμον) universe or cosmos as an orderly arrangement, an orderly, harmonious whole, as opposed to being chaotic.[5]“Cosmetics,” deriving from the same Greek word, refers to putting things into beautiful order. As John has already referred to the darkness of this world and its sin, the Father sent the Son to oppose the chaos and to bring the universe into beautiful, harmonious order. God loves us even when we are a mess, when we are guilty of disorderly conduct, when we are in emotional or spiritual disarray. We may think we can love the world. Some moments, we might even be at that point. Yet, most of us have quite different thoughts about the world. Martin Luther was aware of this when he said that if he were God, and humanity were as disobedient as it is, he would knock the world to pieces. We have a challenging time adopting “God’s eye-view” of the world. The love of God speaks to the election, guidance, help, and salvation that God offers.[6] God moves toward the world in an event or moment, working on the world God made by giving the divine self to it. The will of God is toward fellowship with the world God has made. Such love defines the doctrine of election. This verse demonstrates divine election. Election is the giving of the divine self to the work of God in creation. God has singled out Jesus as the object of divine election that demonstrates divine love for the world. Since the Father is so much with the Son, the Father is also with humanity. God wills to be with the world. Yet, the world responds with opposition, even while God responds with affirmation and salvation. Divine election affirms the divine will in creation. We see clearly the divine Yes toward humanity.[7] It speaks to a unique event that occurs within human history. The object of this love is the world. The world has rejected the light offered in the Son, but this did not alter the love of God for the world. We see the extraordinary nature of this love in the giving of the Son.[8] If we think in terms of the divine essence and existence, the Son reveals the existence of the Father, and by the sending of the Son, the Father reveals the divine essence, that is, divine love.[9] In contrast to Barth, the creation of the world is an expression of the love of God. The love with which God loved the world in the sending of the Son does not differ in kind from the fatherly love the Creator for the creatures God made.[10] God loved the world in such way that God gave. Even with such extraordinary love, such giving or even gifting is not self-evident. In gifting to the world the Son, God gave the divine self as a gift. Such a gift is a surrendering, a giving up, and an offering up. This type of gift exposes divinity to great danger. Self-revelation and self-realization in and for the world becomes an offering of divinity. The Christian message consists in the telling of this act of God, as God pledges divinity on behalf of those whom God has made. Humanity becomes a partner in the covenant, even while humanity lives as an enemy of God. God offered the divine self into the hands of the enemies of God.[11] In the classical doctrine of the Trinity a careful distinction to make is the distinction between the processions and the sending, whether of the Son, as here, or the Spirit.[12] In discussions of the Trinity in the early church, the East followed the terminology of John closely, distinguishing between the “generation” of the Son here and the “procession” of the Spirit in John 15:26.[13] God gave his only and uniquely loved Son. The giving of the Son arises out of the love of God for the world, suggesting that Jesus is truly the human being who is for others.[14] The result or purpose was so that no one who believes (πιστεύων) in him may perish. Why should anyone “believe” anything? John focus belief on Jesus. Jesus is the best reason to be a Christian. He is the only way to be a Christian. The best reason for believing in Jesus is Jesus. Christianity is fundamentally about a person. Yes, God humanity receives hints of grace in its quest for truth, its quest for goodness in personal and corporate life, in its hope for a better world, and in its love for others. God worked in a distinct way with a people through the events of their history to help make the Lord known. Yet, in the Christian view, we know God supremely in Jesus of Nazareth.[15] Those who believe become witnesses in this world to the event of divine love. Further, God is snatching the world away from destruction.[16] T. S. Eliot wrote, “Death has a hundred hands and walks by a thousand ways.” The good news is that instead of destruction, they may have eternal life (ζωὴν αἰώνιον).
God refuses to allow the world to descend toward death. God acts to reconcile and redeem creation. The background of this passage may well be the near-sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham in Genesis 22:2, 12. Assuming Jesus is still the teacher, he has distilled the gospel into a simple statement. The complexity of the heavenly and earthly identity of the Son combines with the simplicity and power of divine love. He has summed up the Christian message of redemption. The plan of the cross has its root in the immeasurable love of God for the world. The Son is the most cherished gift God had to give. John makes known the greatness of the act of God in the Incarnation and in the mission of bridging the chasm between God and world. God has revealed this love in the historical mission of the Son, to the extent of the cross. The purpose of this giving of the Son is life for others. God bridges the gap caused by human alienation and sin, bringing reconciliation. The sending of the Son into the world, that we might live through him, declares the love of God for us.[17]If we relate this notion to the infinity and holiness of God, we see the sending of the Son to save the world as aiming at the bringing of the world into the sphere of the divine holiness.[18] To summarize, we are reading of the love of God in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for us, the self-sacrificing of Jesus Christ is the embodiment and revelation of divine love for humanity, and that this occurs through the Holy Spirit.[19] Such love bridges a vast chasm. What God sees God loves, even though what God sees is on the way to death. God makes a bridge to that which, on its own, is moving toward abandonment and death. God becomes the light that shines darkness. Such is the miracle of divine love.[20]
17 “Indeed, God did not send the Son. The notion of sending here refers to the passion and death of Jesus, not to his birth.[21] The entire earthly path of the Son was from the outset a path to the crucifixion of Jesus according to the providence of God, which we can see here, even if it simply says that God “gave” the Son out of love for the world so that those who believe should have eternal life. Bultmann would limit the giving here to “gave up to death.” Yet, we can take it more broadly as a reference to the sending of the Son to the cosmos, though with the special nuance that God “gifted” the Son to the world.[22] When we combine verses 16-17, we should stress that the saving work of the Son was the purpose of the Father sending the Son.[23] The sending of the Son for incarnation in the one man Jesus had concern for others as well. God sent the Son into the world to save it. Thus, the goal of the sending of the Son is one we find in others.[24] We should also note that such notions of sending presuppose the pre-existence of the Son.[25] God did not send the Son into the world (κόσμον) to condemn the world (κόσμον). Rarely does the New Testament look at Jesus as judge. In fact, this passage states that Jesus came into the world to save it, not condemn it. Jesus will not personally condemn anyone, because he has come into the world to save it. Yet, his word and person are the standard by which the future judgment takes place.[26] Thus, the Father sent the Son in order that God might save the world (κόσμος) through him.
18 Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. We have here an example of realized eschatology, for judgment reserved for the future is already present. The work of the Spirit and the exalted Lord are parallel and seem interchangeable in content when we compare convincing the cosmos of sin in verses 18-20 and 16:8-11.[27] Clearly, the desire of God is to save, not judge. Unbelief brings self-condemnation. Despite the unbelief Jesus met with, Jesus in this gospel is always urging people to believe. Though there is present judgment, this does not rule out a future one. However, note that judgment is not the divine intent. Thus, unbelief becomes self-condemnation. By making this decision, humanity deprives itself of the last possibility of escaping from the realm of death. However, the Johannine theology can help to avoid too naïve ideas of the last judgment. It is nothing but the divine acknowledgment of the condition brought about by human decision, and the merciless disclosure of an existence long since vowed to destruction, already a victim of death.
In verses 19-21, John uses the metaphor of light and darkness to express realities concerning the revelation of God. Thus, he further defines 19 the judgment. True, the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. The reason for judgment is that people prefer darkness. We have personal responsibility. God has done everything possible to save people from judgment. This fact is bad enough for humanity. Yet, humanity is not darkness. We more rightly think of something within us that resists God. We champion resistance to God. However, we are not that darkness, for God speaks the word of grace to us. God attacks the darkness but does not attack humanity. God does so for the flourishing of human beings.[28] 20 For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. Jesus is the light. People who reject the messenger from God are foreign to God. The light of revelation falls upon them. Their deeds or unbelief unmasks them for what they are. Their hatred comes from a general attitude of corruptness. People prefer to remain blind to the truth. People would rather kill truth tellers than listen to what they have to say. With some good fortune, John does not end on a gloomy note. He concludes focusing on the clarity the light brings. 21 But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God." The psychological point of view seems to be once more in the foreground.
[1] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 365.
[2] Barth, CD, IV.1, 58.2, 111.
[3] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 347.
[4] Barth, CD, IV.2, 66.2, 511.
[5] Admittedly, both the Greek and English versions of the word can also mean “the world” in either the wide sense of the earth itself and all that’s in it or in the narrow sense of just the human inhabitants of the earth, but those are secondary meanings. It would seem that we usually understand the word in this verse to convey just that narrower definition, but there’s room to wonder.
As it happens, the Greek of John’s day included another word that can also mean “world” but specifically refers to the part of the earth that is inhabited. That word is oikoumene, which literally means “I inhabit,” but John didn’t use it in this verse.
There’s no doubt a reason he chose kosmos instead. In fact, he may have had two reasons:
One is that in John’s day, although oikoumene could be used to refer to all the inhabitants of the earth, it was more commonly used to mean the Roman world, the lands inhabited by civilized people, excluding, therefore, the areas where barbarians lived. Thus, we can see why John did not write, “For God so loved the oikoumene that he gave his only Son ...” That could be taken to mean that God loves only the beautiful people, the cultured class, people of old and new money — God loves those people, but not the marginalized, not the stranger and alien, not the poor and the uneducated, not the outsider, not the immigrant.
No, John certainly used kosmos instead of oikoumene because he wanted to be clear that no one anywhere was outside the realm of God’s love.
The second possible reason that John used kosmos instead of oikoumene is that John actually meant that God wants harmony and order and not chaos.
It’s worth remembering that in the beginning, when God created the earth, the first thing he did was to impose order on the formless, dark void that was there (Genesis 1:2), which is one definition of chaos. Likewise, God’s new creation at the end of time, so the Bible tells us, will be free of suffering, pain and death (Revelation 21:4) — all marks of chaos (21:1).Notice that the “sea [is] no more,” sea being a popular biblical metaphor for chaos.
[6] Barth, CD I.2, 18.2, 378.
[7] Barth, CD, II.2, 32.1, 26-7.
[8] Barth, CD, IV.1, 57.3, 70-1.
[9] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 358.
[10] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 144.
[11] Barth, CD, IV.1, 57.3, 71-2.
[12] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 305.
[13] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 305.
[14] Barth, CD, III.2, 45.1, 213.
[15] James W. Sire Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All? ([Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1994], 95).
[16] Barth, CD, IV.1, 57.3, 72-3.
[17] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 183.
[18] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 399.
[19] Barth, CD, IV.2, 68.2, 765.
[20] Barth, CD, II.1, 28.2, 278.
[21] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 301.
[22] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 397, 438, 444.
[23] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology volume 2, 441.
[24] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 320.
[25] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 369.
[26] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 614.
[27] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 450.
[28] Barth, CD, IV.3, 69.3, 251.
No comments:
Post a Comment