John 3:1-17 (Second Essay); Going Deeper in Faith

The text says that Nicodemus came to Jesus by night. Then, his opening sentence also reveals something about him. What does it reveal? I think he is trying to be politic in his approach to Jesus. The coming by night is so that people won't see him and won't begin the endless rounds of speculation about what this meeting might "mean." But Nicodemus' opening statement is interesting to me. He says, literally, "Rabbi, we know (is this the "royal we" or is he speaking for a bunch of other people?) that you have come as a teacher from God; no one could do these signs that you do unless God was with him" (3:2). What is going on in this question? I think that Nicodemus is trying to cover all his bases, so to speak. He praises Jesus as a teacher from God; he calls him an honored name; he gives reasons for why he holds Jesus in esteem. His statement is a "bridge-building" statement, a kind of olive branch thrown to Jesus, a sort of softball throw to the plate that Jesus could then easily hit out of the park. Nicodemus is a clever man, because so far he hasn't had to abandon or even identify where he stands on almost anything; he is simply buttering up Jesus as a prelude, perhaps, to bring Jesus under his influence.

Jesus, in response, will have none of this type of conversation. Perhaps this is the way that talks go in the political world of mutual influence-peddling and maneuvering, but it won't be Jesus' modus operandi. Jesus responds to him in a direct and unequivocal manner, "Unless you are born again (or from above), you cannot see the Kingdom of God." He isn't interested in joining forces with the Pharisees or in forging some kind of political or religious alliance. In John's portrait of him, Jesus is interested solely in the Kingdom of God. But his phrase is enigmatic. What does it mean to be born from above/again? The one way to stop an influence pusher is to speak language that confuses him. No doubt this language confuses Nicodemus and, in terms of power relations, he now has to come into Jesus' verbal playground in order to continue in the conversation. Praise won't do the trick; he has to engage Jesus in the realm of ideas.

So, Niocodemus employs the classic method of trying to "handle" someone who has tried to change the focus of the conversation--he tries to point out the ridiculous implications of what the person is saying. In particular he decides to "take Jesus literally." He doesn't do this, in my judgment, because what Jesus says is opaque; he does this because he still wants to gain the upper hand in dialogue and he can do this by exposing Jesus' words as rhetorically over-the-top or easily misconstrued. Thus, his response in v. 4 is a sort of gently-chiding response, a sort of avuncular, 'Now Jesus, let's be reasonable. Carrying your words to the logical conclusion leads to complete confusion.' He is showing himself as the "grand" person in the conversation, since he willingly tries to come on to Jesus' "turf" and join in the conversation. But he does so for a reason--to expose the loose way in which Jesus is speaking.

Jesus then "clarifies" his response in v. 5 in words that Dr. Michaels in his commentary points our are anything but clear. What began as a statement about being born anew/from above now is made more complex by reference to water and spirit, by mention of the wind and spirit, by reference to being born of the spirit (vv. 5-8). Indeed, if I were in Nicodemus' place at this point I would be thoroughly nonplussed. Jesus has been pretty resistent to the bait of Nicodemus. Any leader of the Pharisees had to pride himself on considerable political charm but, in this instance, it appeared that this ability was getting Nicodemus nowhere. But why would Jesus be playing so 'hard to get', so to speak? Why isn't he coming clean and being clear to Nicodemus? One answer, and a good one (as Dr. Michaels suggests) is that John is mixing words and arguments from Jesus' lips and from the proclamation of the earliest Johannine community--perhaps to show that there is an unbridgeable gulf between the Jewish and early Christian communities. Another might be derived from human psychology--that there really was no way to be straightforward to Nicodemus about what he stood for without Nicodemus' twisting it for his own advantage. Jesus maintained his distance for a simple reason that John had just explained:

"But Jesus on his part would not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to testify about anyone; for he himself knew what was in everyone," 2:24-25.

Jesus kept his own counsel because he knew the mixed, multifarious and less than munificent inclinations of the human heart. Thus, when Nicodemus simply said, "How can this be?" (v. 9), Jesus mocked him gently (v. 10) before retreating into language that is both revelatory and hidden (we need an English word such as "concealatory" at this point--there is none that I can divine. So, let's just invent the word concealatory for those of you that have ears to hear). John 3:11-15 are only clear to us because we have heard them repeated to us for decades. If these indeed were words originally heard by Nicodemus, as the passage tries to present, there is no way that he could understand. Jesus is taking him on a verbal ride to his special language of secrecy and witness. But then, the sun breaks through the clouds.

II. The Basic Principle of Faith

Just when Jesus has retreated to obscure OT typologies (about Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness as a type or "grotesque imitation"--Michaels, p. 41--of Jesus' crucifixion), he pulls back and states the basic principle of faith in v. 16. The "giving" is more specific than the "sending" of v. 17, but it is qualified by the phrase "everyone who believes." Thus, the issue of the text is not if Jesus is a teacher sent by God; the issue is a decision of faith in him who was given by God for the sake of the world.

We have no information on how Nicodemus reacted to this conversation. Perhaps he went away as confused as he seems to be throughout the encounter. Perhaps, however, something "stuck." But Jesus stood his ground, refusing to be pulled into the vortex of a political/religious leader and his movement. Instead of standing for the political or religious life of the people of Israel, Jesus would bring "a new kind of life, a new order of existence that characterizes even now the person who believes in Jesus and is born again," Michaels, p. 41.

That, friends, is the life that is available to us at Lent this year. Will you embrace it?

3288