only to those who believe in Jesus (vv. 9–21). This is another way of saying that begetting through the Spirit can come about only as a result of Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension.103 The structure of the text is as follows:
1. Introduction (v. 1)
2. The first question and answer: the fact of begetting (vv. 2–3)
3. The second question and answer: the how of begetting (vv. 4–8)
4. The third question and answer: Rebirth is only possible due to the ascension of Christ on the cross—which at the same is the sacrifice of love (vv. 9–21).
Nicodemus’ opening statement looks like an assertion: “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God” (v. 2). But it is more than this; it is Nicodemus’ quest for salvation. The following dialogue indicates that Jesus takes Nicodemus seriously in his honest search for the truth, even when he is correcting him at certain decisive points.
In his first response Jesus states the conditions for entering into the Kingdom of God: “No one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above” (v. 3).This statement shows that Jesus does not settle for merely fulfilling Nicodemus’ expectations. He is not like any other rabbi; he is the teacher who reveals the true character of God. And his message, the good news about the Kingdom of God, is not just a fulfilling of the religious quest. God’s kingdom is not a prolongation of human longings, it is about a totally new beginning.
Understandably, Nicodemus is unable to make sense of how “man can be born again,” so Jesus elaborates his response by using metaphors. His point is that an existence based on that which belongs to this world—“what is born of the flesh is flesh. . . .”—is fundamentally alien to itself and is contrasted with an existence that has its origin in God and his word: “What is born of the Spirit is spirit” (v. 6). Flesh and spirit are contrasted in v.6, just as begetting in an earthly sense is contrasted with begetting from above. But the contrast between flesh and spirit has nothing to do with a contrast between material and spiritual, as presupposed in the gnostic distrust of the material world as such. “Flesh refers to man as he is born into the world, and in this state he has something both of the material and of the spiritual, as Gen ii 7 insists. The contrast between flesh and Spirit is that . . . between man as he is and man as Jesus can make him by giving him a holy Spirit.”104
According to John 3 participation in God’s new order is not possible through ancestry and circumcision; it is made possible only through the Spirit. In v. 8 John uses an analogy which involves a play on words. Both in Aramaic and Greek the same word means “spirit,” “breath,” and “wind.” And who can control the wind or say whence it comes and whither it goes? The breath of life is sovereign and supremely free. Spirit moves among us like the wind, entirely free of human control.
On Nicodemus’ third question, “How can these things be?” (v. 9), Jesus explains that the new situation has come about because of the arrival of the Son of Man. Thus from v. 10 onwards there is a reference to the event that is the precondition for the rebirth. The language in v. 13 may sound gnostic, but the following verse makes it evident that the focus is on the Crucified (v. 14) and the real answer to Nicodemus’ question about the Kingdom of God is found in v. 16: This verse underlines that God manifested his love to the world by sending his Son. Life in the Kingdom of God is a boundless love. The divine glory is the sacrifice of that love, and this is realized through the death of Jesus on the cross.
Continuity and Discontinuity—on the Relation to Judaism and Hellenism
In John 3 we have an example of the longings and aspirations uttered by a representative from one of the religious traditions (Judaism). However, the concept of rebirth itself conveys such a longing. It is the longing for a totally new being, a longing to transcend oneself. In New Testament times many people dreamed of such things, indeed the dream seems as old as the human race.105 In Hellenistic literature rebirth means a process of divinization.106 In their new being the reborn are in fact the All in All, made up of all powers, cf. Corpus Hermeticum, the tractate “On Rebirth” (XIII, 2). Some trends within modern psychotherapy and new religious movements point in the same direction.107 This idea of divinization is not found in John 3. By contrast, the main emphasis is on the element of discontinuity. Rebirth means a radical transformation and it is not something that can be attained through human effort.
Thus, there is an innovation in John’s thought when compared with both Judaism and Hellenism. The Jewish religion which Nicodemus represents cannot move forward continuously into the Kingdom of God. A moment of discontinuity, comparable with physical birth, is essential. Humankind as such, even the Jew, is not by nature able to enter into God’s Kingdom. John also differs from Judaism by saying that the Kingdom has already been manifested in the person and work of Jesus. The language of rebirth borrowed from Hellenism helps John to express his realized eschatology: Eternity is now! But John also differs from Hellenism by insisting on the incarnation and the historical character of Jesus Christ (vv.14–16). He does not just take over the concept of rebirth; he incorporates it into his proclamation of Christ without subscribing to the Hellenistic idea of divinization.
In addition, it has often been argued that v.13 reflects the redeemer-myth in Gnosticism—cf. the verbs for ascending and descending—but the similarity with Hellenistic ideas should not be overemphasized, since at the most crucial points John differs from the redeemer-myth. He insists that Jesus is a historical person. The description of Jesus as the “one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man” refers to the incarnation. The crucial point in v. 13 is the same as in 14:6 and 1:51. No one has ascended into heaven but the Son of Man. Christ alone is the link between God and men (cf. 1:51). There is no access to God independent of him (14:6).
This understanding of v.13 is supported by the fact that v.16 refers to Jesus as “the only begotten” Son of God. The importance of these words can be seen by a comparison. The famous Hindu Swami Vivekananada has argued that there is no “only begotten” son of God. There is a plurality of avatars, i.e., there are many “sons of God.” God has incarnated himself a number of times. This is a pivotal point in the encounter of Eastern and Western spirituality, as Vivekananda takes issue with Christians, who maintain that the “Lord can manifest himself only once; there lies the whole mistake.”108 Vivekananda’s position resembles that of early Gnosticism, but it differs substantially from that of John, in whose understanding the uniqueness of Jesus Christ is beyond question.
“Seeing” the Kingdom of God
In John 3 the author makes use of an unusual phrase: “to see the Kingdom of God” (3:5). This reflects the centrality of the word “seeing” in the Fourth Gospel, as can be noted in “we have seen his glory” (1:14) or “come and see!” (1:38–39; 4:29; cf. the paragraph “Come and see!” in Part Two. Right to the end the Gospel emphasizes the importance of seeing—as with Thomas: “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe” (20:25). In general we may speak of three ways of using the term “seeing”:
5. seeing in a literal sense (i.e., 1:38; 6:2; 9:8; 20:25)
6. seeing with the eyes of faith—in a figurative sense (1:39.50–51; 19:34)
7. seeing God whom no one has ever seen (1:18; 6:46); whoever sees Jesus, sees the Father (12:45; 14:7).
The transition between the two last meanings is fluid. To interpret what Jesus says and does is to “see” the revelation of the Father “full of grace and truth” (1:14). The literal and the figurative meanings of “seeing” should not be contrasted. Robert Kysar correctly speaks of John’s “sensory theology,” the suggestion that faith grows out of immediate, everyday physical experiences;
