Bible Commentaries

CHAPTER 3

John 3:2. Instead of αὐτόν, the Elzevir has τὸν Ἰησοῦν, in the face of decisive testimonies. The beginning of a new section and of a church lesson.

John 3:2. The position of δύναται immediately after γάρ (Lachm. Tisch.) is supported by preponderating testimony.

John 3:5. For τ. θεοῦ Tisch. reads τῶν οὐρανῶν, upon ancient but yet inadequate testimony (א* Inst. Hippol. etc.).

John 3:13. ὁ ὢν ἐν τ. οὐρ.] wanting in B. L. Tb. א. 33. Eus. Naz. Origen; deleted by Tisch. But these mysterious words may easily have been regarded as objectionable or superfluous, because not understood or misunderstood; and there was nothing to suggest the addition of them.

John 3:15. μὴ ἀπόληται, ἀλλʼ] is deleted by Tisch. after B. L. Tb. א. Min. Verss. Fathers. Rightly so; it is an addition borrowed from John 3:16.

The readings ἐπʼ αὐτόν (Lachm.), ἐπʼ αὐτῷ and ἐν αὐτῷ (Tisch.), have indeed less support than the received εἰς αὐτόν, but this latter forced itself in as the most current form of expression, and ἐν αὐτῷ is, following B. Tb. Codd. It., to be preferred.

John 3:19. The order αὐτῶν πονηρά has preponderating evidence in its favour.

John 3:25. The Elzevir has Ἰουδαίων instead of Ἰουδαίου, in the face of decisive testimony. The plural evidently was inserted mechanically.

John 3:31 f. The second ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστι has against it very weak testimony, viz. D. א. Min. and some Verss. and Fathers. But the following καί (bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch.) is omitted not only by the same testimonies, but also by B. L. Min. Copt. Pers., and must be regarded as an interpolation, the absence of which originally led more easily to the omission of ἐπάνω π. ἐ.

John 3:34. ὁ θεός after δίδωσιν is wanting in B. C.* L. Tb. א. Min. 3 :Brix. Cyr.; bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. A supplying of the subject, which seemed uncertain.

John 3:1-2. Prominence is now given to a specially important narrative, connected by the δέ which continues the discourse,—a narrative belonging to that first sojourn in Jerusalem,—viz. the conversation with Nicodemus, wherein Jesus more fully explains His person and work. No intimation is given of any inner connection with what precedes (Lücke: “now comes an instance of that higher knowledge possessed by Jesus;” De Wette, Lange, Hengstenberg: “an illustration of the entire statement in John 2:23-25;” Tholuck: “an instance of the beginnings of faith just named;” Luthardt: “from the people collectively, to whom Jesus had addressed Himself, a transition is now made to His dealing with an individual;” Ewald: “Nicodemus appears desirous to make an exception to the general standing aloof of men of weight in Jerusalem”).

ἄνθρωπος] in its most ordinary use, simply equivalent to τὶς; not “un exemplaire de ce type humain que Jésus connaissait si bien” (Godet). It is quite independent of John 2:25, introducing a new narrative.

Νικόδημος, a frequent name as well among the Greeks (Demosth. 549. 23, and later writers) as among the Jews (נַקְדָם or נַקְדִימוֹן, see Lightfoot and Wetstein). We know nothing certain of this man beyond the statements concerning him in St. John (comp. John 7:50, John 19:39).[148] The Nicodemus of the Talmud was also called Bunai, must have survived the destruction of Jerusalem, and was known under this latter name as a disciple of Jesus. See Delitzsch in the Zeitschr. f. Luther. Theol. 1854, p. 643. The identity of the two is possible, but uncertain. The so-called Evangelium Nicodemi embraces, though in a doubtful form, two different treatises, viz. the Acta Pilati and the Descensus Christi ad inferos. See Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr. p. 203 ff.

ἄρχων] He was a member of the Sanhedrim, John 7:50; Luke 23:13; Luke 24:20.

He came to Jesus by night,[149] being still undecided, in order to avoid the suspicion and hostility of his colleagues. He was not a hypocrite (as Koppe in Pott, Sylloge, IV. p. 31 ff., holds), who pretended to be simple in order to elicit from Jesus some ground of accusation; a circumstance which, if true, John would not have failed to state, especially considering what he says of him in John 7:50 and John 19:39 : he was, on the contrary, though of a somewhat slow temperament, a man of honourable character, who, together with others (οἴδαμεν, comp. ὑμᾶς, John 3:7), was in a general way convinced by the miracles of Jesus that He must be a divinely commissioned and divinely supported Teacher, and he therefore sought, by a confidential interview, to determine more exactly his to that extent half-believing judgment, and especially to find out whether Jesus perhaps was the very Messiah. His position as a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrim shows how strongly and honestly he must have felt this need. Comp. John 12:42.

For the entire section see Knapp, Scripta var. arg. I. 183; Fabricius, Commentat. Gott. 1825; Scholl in Klaiber’s Studien, V. 1, p. 71; Jacobi in the Stud. u. Krit. 1835, 1; Hengstenberg in the Evang. K. Z. 1860, 49; Steinfass in the Meklenb. Zeitschr. 1864, p. 913.

That the disciples, and John in particular, were with Jesus during the interview, has nothing against it (as De Wette and most others think), for Nicodemus came to Jesus by night only through fear of the Jews; and the vivid and peculiar features, with the harmonious characteristics of the narrative, even if touched up by the pen of John, confirm the supposition that he was a witness. If not, he must have received what he relates from the Lord Himself, as it impressed itself deeply and indelibly upon his recollection. As to the result of the interview, nothing historically to be relied upon has come down to us, simply because there was no immediate effect apparent in Nicodemus. But see John 7:50, John 19:39.

ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐλήλ. διδάσκαλος] that thou art come from God as teacher. The expression implies the thought of one divinely sent, but not the idea of the Logos (as Bretschneider holds).

ταῦτα τὰ σημεῖα] emphatic, haecce tanta signa.

ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ ὁ θεὸς μετʼ αὐτοῦ] ὅτι οὐκ ἐξ οἰκείας δυνάμεως ταῦτα ποιεῖ, ἀλλʼ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ, Euthymius Zigabenus. From the miracles (John 2:23) Nicodemus thus infers the assistance of God, and from this again that the worker of them is one sent from God.

[148] According to Baur, p. 173, he is a typical person, representing the believing and yet really unbelieving Judaism, just as the Samaritan woman (chap. 4) represents believing heathendom; thus leaving it uncertain how far the narrative is to be taken as fact. According to Strauss, the whole owes its origin to the reproach that Christianity made way only among the common people (notwithstanding 1 Corinthians 1:26-27). weisse rejects at least the truth of the account, which De Wette designates “a poetical, free, and highly spiritualized reproduction.” See on the other hand Brückner. According to Hilgenfeld, the whole conversation cannot be understood “unless we view it from the evangelist’s standing-point;” according to which, we see that the design is simply and solely to explain how Christianity essentially distinguished itself from Judaism. According to Scholten, we have here set forth the power of Christianity triumphing over the slowness of heart and prejudices of the learned,—this merely, without any historical basis of fact in the story.

[149] A symbolical reference to “the still benighted mind” must not be attributed to this simple historical statement (against Hengstenberg).

John 3:3. In John 3:2 Nicodemus had only uttered the preface to what he had it in his mind to ask; the question itself was to have followed. But Jesus interrupts him, and gives him the answer by anticipation. This question, which was not (as Lange thinks, in contradiction of the procedure of Nicodemus on other occasions) kept back with remarkable prudence and caution, is to be inferred solely from the answer of Jesus; and it was accordingly no other than the general inquiry, “What must a man do in order to enter the Messiah’s kingdom?” not the special one, “Is the baptism of John sufficient for this?” (Baeumlein), for there is no mention of John the Baptist in what follows; comp. rather Matthew 19:16. The first is the question which the Lord reads in the heart of Nicodemus, and to which He gives an answer,-—an answer in which He at once lays hold of the anxiety of the questioner in its deepest foundation, and overturns all Pharisaic, Judaistic, and merely human patchwork and pretence. To suppose that part of the conversation is here omitted (Maldonatus, Kuinoel, and others), is as arbitrary as to refer the answer of Jesus to the words of Nicodemus. Such a reference must be rejected, because Jesus had not given him time to tell the purpose of his coming. We must not therefore assume, either that Jesus wished to lead him on from faith in His miracles to that faith which effects a moral transformation (Augustine, De Wette, comp. also Luthardt and Ebrard); or that “He wished to convince Nicodemus, who imagined he had made a great confession in his first words, that he had not yet so much as made his way into the porticoes of true knowledge” (Chrysostom); or that “He wished to intimate that He had not come merely as a Teacher, but in order to the moral renewal of the world” (Baumgarten Crusius, comp. already Cyril, and Theophylact); or, “Videris tibi, O Nicodeme, videre aliquod signum apparentis jam regni coelorum in hisce miraculis, quae ego edo; amen dico tibi: nemo potest videre regnum Dei, sicut oportet, si non, etc.” (Lightfoot, approved by Lücke, and substantially by Godet also).

ἐὰν μὴ τις γενν. ἄνωθεν] except a man be born from above, i.e. except a man be transformed by God into a new moral life. See on John 1:13. What is here required answers to the μετανοεῖτε, etc., with, which Jesus usually began His preaching, Mark 1:15. ἄνωθεν, the opposite of κάτωθεν, may be taken with reference to place (here equivalent to ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ; comp. Xen. Mem. iv. 3. 14; Symp. vi. 7; Thuc. iv. 75. 3; Soph. El. 1047; Eur. Cycl. 322; Bar 6:63; Jam 1:17; Jam 3:15), or with reference to time (equivalent to ἐξ ἀρχῆς); Chrysostom gives both renderings. The latter is the ordinary interpretation

Syriac, Augustine, Vulgate, Nonnus, Luther, Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Maldonatus, etc. (so likewise Tholuck, Olshausen, Neander, and substantially Luthardt, Hengstenberg, Godet)—because Nicodemus himself (John 3:4) thus understood it. Accordingly, ἄνωθεν would be equivalent to iterum, again, anew, as Grimm (on Wis 19:6) also thinks. But this is already unjustifiable upon linguistic grounds, because ἄνωθεν when used of time does not signify iterum or denuo, but throughout, from the beginning onwards[150] (and so Ewald and Weiss interpret it), Luke 1:3; Acts 26:5; Galatians 4:9; Wis 19:6; Dem. 539, 22. 1082, 7. 13; Plat. Phil. 44 D; and, conformably with Johannean usage, the only right rendering is the local, not only linguistically (John 3:31; John 19:11; John 19:23), but, considering the manner of representation, because John apprehends regeneration, not according to the element of repetition, a being born again, but as a divine birth, a being born of God; see John 1:13; 1 John 2:29; 1 John 3:9; 1 John 4:7; 1 John 5:1. The representation of it as a repeated, a renewed birth is Pauline (Titus 3:5, comp. Romans 12:2; Galatians 6:15; Ephesians 4:23-24; Colossians 3:9) and Petrine (1 Peter 3:22). Ἄνωθεν, therefore, is rightly taken as equivalent to ἐκ θεοῦ by Origen, Gothic Vers. (ïupathrô), Cyril, Theophylact, Arethas, Bengel, etc.; also Lücke, B. Crusius, Maier, De Wette, Baur, Lange, Hilgenfeld, Baeumlein, Weizsäcker (who, however, adopts a double sense), Steinfass.

ἰδεῖν] i.e. as a partaker thereof. Comp. εἰσελθεῖν, John 3:5, and see John 3:36, also ἰδεῖν θάνατον (Luke 2:26; Hebrews 11:5), διαφθοράν (Acts 2:27), ἡμέρας ἀγαθάς (1 Peter 3:10), πένθος (Revelation 18:7). From the classics, see Jacobs ad Del. epigr. p. 387 ff.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 343. Not therefore: “simply to see, to say nothing of entering,” Lange; comp. Ewald on John 3:5. It is to be observed that the expression βασ. τοῦ θεοῦ does not occur in John, save here and in John 3:5;[151] and this is a proof of the accuracy with which he has recorded this weighty utterance of the Lord in its original shape. In John 18:36 Christ, on an extraordinary occasion, speaks of His kingdom. The conception of “the kingdom” in John does not differ from its meaning elsewhere in the N. T. (see on Matthew 3:2). Moreover, the necessary correlative thereto, the Parousia, is not wanting in John (see on John 14:3).

[150] This, and not “again from the beginning,” as Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, II. 11) arbitrarily renders it, is the meaning of ἄνωθεν. It is self-evident that the conception from the beginning does not harmonize with that of being born. Nor, indeed, would “again from the beginning,” but simply “again,” be appropriate. Again from the beginning would be πάλιν ἄνωθεν, as in Wis 19:6; Galatians 4:9. The passage, moreover, from Josephus, Antt. i. 18. 3, which Hofmann and Godet (following Krebs and others) quote as sanctioning their rendering, is inconclusive. For there we read φιλίαν ἄνωθεν ποιεῖται: “he makes friendship from the beginning onwards,” not implying the continuance of a friendship before unused, nor an entering again upon it. Artemidorus also, Oneirocr. i. 14, p. 18 (cited by Tholuck after Wetstein), where mention is made of a dream of a corporeal birth, uses ἄνωθεν in the sense not of again, but as equivalent to coelitus with the idea of a divine agency in the dream (Herm. Gottesd. Alterth. § 37. 7. 19).

[151] ‘The expression, moreover, βασ. τῶν οὐρανῶν (comp. the Critical Notes) is not found in John.

John 3:4. The question does not mean: “If the repetition of a corporeal birth is so utterly impossible, how am I to understand thy word, ἄνωθεν γεννηθῆναι?” (Lücke); nor: “How can this ἄνωθεν γενν. take place, save by a second corporeal birth?” as if Nicodemus could not conceive of the beginning of a new personal life without a recommencement of natural life (Luthardt, comp. Hofmann); nor: “How comes it that a Jew must be born anew like a proselyte?” (Knapp, Neander, comp. Wetstein; for the Rabbins liken proselytes to new-born babes, Jevamoth, f. 62. 1; 92. 1); nor again: “This requirement is as impossible in the case of a man already old as for one to enter again, etc.” (Schweizer, B. Crusius, Tholuck, comp. Baumgarten and Hengstenberg). These meanings are not in the words, they are simply imported into them. But the opinion that Nicodemus here wished to “entangle Jesus in His words” (Luther), or that, under excited feelings, he intentionally took the requirement in a literal sense in order to reduce it ad absurdum (Riggenbach), or “by a stroke of Rabbinical cleverness in argumentation” to declare it to be too strongly put (Lange, Life of Jesus p. 495), is opposed to the honourable bearing of this straightforward man. According to the text, what Nicodemus really asks is something preposterous. And this is of such a nature, that it is only reconcilable with the even scanty culture of a Jewish theologian (John 3:10), who could not, however, be ignorant of the O. T. ideas of circumcision of heart (Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4), of a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel 11:19-20; Ezekiel 36:26-27; Psalm 51:12; Psalm 86:4 ff.), as well as of the outpouring of the Spirit in the time of the Messiah (Joel 2; Jeremiah 31), upon the assumption that, being a somewhat narrow-minded man, and somewhat entangled by his faith in the miracles, he was taken aback, confused and really perplexed, partly by the powerful impression which Jesus produced upon him generally, partly by the feeling of surprise at seeing his thoughts known to Him, partly by the unexpected and incomprehensible ἄνωθεν γεννηθῆναι, in which, however, he has an anticipation that something miraculous is contained. In this his perplexity, and not “in an ironical humour” (as Godet thinks, although out of keeping with the entire manifestation), he asks this foolish question, as if Jesus had spoken of a corporeal birth and not of a birth of one’s moral personality. Still less can there be any suspicion of this question being an invention, as if John merely wished to represent Nicodemus as a very foolish man (Strauss; comp. De Wette and Reuss),—a notion which, even on the supposition of a desire to spin out the conversation by misapprehensions on the part of the hearers, would be too clumsy to be entertained.

γέρων ὤν] when he is an old man; Nicodemus added this to represent the impossibility with reference to himself in a stronger light.

δεύτερον] with reference to being for a time in the mother’s womb before birth. He did not take the ἄνωθεν to mean δεύτερον, he simply did not understand it at all.

John 3:5. Jesus now explains more fully the ἄνωθεν γεννηθῆναι onwards to John 3:8.

ἐξ ὕδατος κ. πνεύματος] water, inasmuch as the man is baptized therewith (1 John 5:7-8; Ephesians 5:26) for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:33; Acts 22:16; 2 Corinthians 6:11), and spirit, inasmuch as the Holy Ghost is given to the person baptized in order to his spiritual renewal and sanctification; both together[152]—the former as causa medians, the latter as causa efficiens—constitute the objective and causative element, out of which (comp. John 1:13) the birth from above is produced (ἐκ), and therefore baptism is the ΛΟΥΤΡῸΝ ΠΑΛΙΓΓΕΝΕΣΊΑς (Titus 3:5; comp. Tertullian c. Marc. i. 28). But that Christian baptism (John 3:22; John 4:2), and not that of John (B. Crusius; Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, II. 2. 12; Lange, who, however, generalizes ideally; and earlier comm.), is to be thought of in ὕδατος, is clear from the Κ. ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς joined with it, and from the fact that He who had already appeared as Messiah could no longer make the baptism of His forerunner the condition, not even the preparatory condition, of His Messianic grace; for in that case He must have said ΟὐΚ ἘΞ ὝΔΑΤΟς ΜΌΝΟΝ, ἈΛΛᾺ ΚΑΊ. If Nicodemus was not yet able to understand ὝΔΑΤΟς as having this definite reference, but simply took the word in general as a symbolical designation of Messianic expiation of sin and of purification, according to O. T. allusions (Ezekiel 36:25; Isaiah 1:16; Malachi 3:3; Zechariah 13:1; Jeremiah 33:8), and to what he knew of John’s baptism, still it remained for him to look to the immediate future for more definite knowledge, when the true explanation could not escape him (John 4:2, John 3:22). We are not therefore to conclude from this reference to baptism, that the narrative is “a proleptic fiction” (Strauss, Bruno Bauer), and, besides Matthew 18:3, to suppose in Justin and the Clementines uncanonical developments (Hilgenfeld and others; see Introduction, § 2). Neither must we explain it as if Jesus were referring Nicodemus not to baptism as such, but only by way of allusion to the symbolic import of the water in baptism (Lücke; Neander, p. 910). This latter view does not satisfy the definite γεννηθῇ ἐξ, upon which, on the other side, Theodore of Mopsuestia and others, in modern times Olshausen in particular, lay undue stress, taking the water to be the female principle in regeneration (the Spirit as the male)—water being, according to Olshausen, “the element of the soul purified by true repentance.” All explanations, moreover, must be rejected which, in order to do away with the reference to baptism,[153] adopt the principle of an ἓν διὰ δυοῖν, for water and Spirit are two quite separate conceptions. This is especially in answer to Calvin, who says: “of water, which is the Spirit,” and Grotius: “spiritus aqueus, i.e. aquae instar emundans.” It is further to be observed, (1) that both the words being without the article, they must be taken generically, so far as the water of baptism and the Holy Spirit are included in the general categories of water and Spirit; not till we reach John 3:6 is the concrete term used;—(2) that ὕδατος is put first, because the gift of the Spirit as a rule (Acts 2:38) followed upon baptism (Acts 10:47 is an exceptional case);—(3) that believing in Jesus as the Messiah is presupposed as the condition of baptism (Mark 16:16);—(4) that the necessity of baptism in order to participation in the Messianic kingdom (a doctrine against which Calvin in particular, and other expositors of the Reformed Church, contend) has certainly its basis in this passage, but with reference to the convert to Christianity, and not extending in the same way to the children of Christians, for these by virtue of their Christian parentage are already ἅγιοι (see on 1 Corinthians 7:14). Attempts to explain away this necessity—e.g. by the comparative rendering: “not only by water, but also by the Spirit” (B. Crusius; comp. Schweizer, who refers to the baptism of proselytes, and Ewald)—are meanings imported into the words.

[152] Weisse, who does not regard the rite of baptism by water as having originated in the institution of Christ, but considers that it arose from a misapplication of His words concerning the baptism of the Spirit, greatly errs when he declares that to make regeneration depend upon baptism by water “is little better than blasphemy” (Evangelienfrage, p. 194).

[153] Krummacher, recently, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p. 509, understands by the water the working of the Holy Spirit. How untenable! for the Spirit is named as a distinct factor side by side with water.

John 3:6. A more minute antithetic definition of this birth, in order further to elucidate it.

We have not in what follows two originally different classes of persons designated (Hilgenfeld), for the new birth is needed by all (see John 3:7; comp. also Weiss, Lehrbegriff, p. 128), but two different and successive epochs of life.

τὸ γεγεννημ.] neuter, though designating persons, to give prominence to the statement as general and categorical. See Winer, p. 167 [E. T. p. 222].

ἐκ τῆς σαρκός] The σάρξ is that human nature, consisting of body and soul, which is alien and hostile to the divine, influenced morally by impulses springing from the power of sin, whose seat it is, living and operating with the principle of sensible life, the ψυχή. See on Romans 4:1. “What is born of human nature thus sinfully constituted (and, therefore, not in the way of spiritual birth from God), is a being of the same sinfully conditioned nature,[154] without the higher spiritual moral life which springs only from the working of the divine Spirit. Comp. John 1:12-13. Destitute of this divine working, man is merely σαρκικός, ψυχικός (1 Corinthians 2:14), πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν (Romans 7:14), and, despite his natural moral consciousness and will in the νοῦς, is wholly under the sway of the sinful power that is in the σάρξ (Romans 7:14-25). The σάρξ, as the moral antithesis of the πνεῦμα, stands in the same relation to the human πνεῦμα with the νοῦς, as the prevailingly sinful and morally powerless life of our lower nature does to the higher moral principle of life (Matthew 26:41) with the will converted to God; while it stands in the same relation to the divine πνεῦμα, as that which is determinately opposed to God stands to that which determines the new life in obedience to God (Romans 8:1-3). In both relations, σάρξ and πνεῦμα are antitheses to each other, Matthew 26:41; Galatians 5:17 ff.; accordingly in the unregenerate we have the lucta carnis et MENTIS (Romans 7:14 ff.), in the regenerate we have the lucta carnis et SPIRITUS (Galatians 5:17).

ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος] that which is born of the Spirit, i.e. that whose moral nature and life have proceeded from the operation of the Holy Spirit,[155] is a being of a spiritual nature, free from the dominion of the σάρξ, and entirely filled and governed by a spiritual principle, namely by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:2 ff.), walking ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος (Romans 7:6).

The general nature of the statement forbids its limitation to the Jews as descendants of Abraham according to the flesh (Kuinoel and others), but they are of course included in the general declaration; comp. John 3:7, ὑμᾶς.

In the apodoses the substantives σάρξ and πνεῦμα represent, though with stronger emphasis (comp. John 6:63, John 11:25, John 12:50; 1 John 4:8; Romans 8:10), the adjectives σαρκικός and πνευματικός, and are to be taken qualitatively.

[154] The sinful constitution of the σάρξ in itself implies the necessity of a being born of the Spirit (vv. 3, 7); comp. 1 John 2:16. The above exposition cannot therefore be considered as attributing to John a Pauline view which is strange to him. This is in answer to Weiss, according to whom Jesus here merely says, “as the corporeal birth only produces the corporeal sensual part.” Similarly J. Müller on Sin, vol. I. p. 449, II. 382. See on the other hand, Luthardt, v. freien Willen, p. 393.

[155] The ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος, implying the ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος (after ver. 5), and the meaning of which is clear in itself, is not repeated by Jesus, because His aim now is simply to let the contrast between the σάρξ and the πνεῦμα stand out clearly.

John 3:7-8. To allay still more the astonishment of Nicodemus (John 3:4) at the requirement of John 3:3, Jesus subjoins an analogy drawn from nature, illustrating the operation of the Holy Spirit of which He is speaking. The man is seized by the humanly indefinable Spirit, but knows not whence He cometh to him, and whither He leadeth him.

ὑμᾶς] individualizing the general statement: “te et eos, quorum nomine locutus es,” Bengel. Jesus could not have expressed Himself in the first person.

τὸ πνεῦμα] This, as is evident from πνεῖ, means the wind (Genesis 8:1; Job 30:15; Wis 13:2; Hebrews 1:7; often in the classics), not the Spirit (Steinfass). It is the double sense of the word (comp. רוּחַ) which gave rise to this very analogy from nature. For a similar comparison, but between the human soul, so far as it participates in the divine nature, and the well-known but inexplicable agency of wind, see, e.g., Xen. Mem. 4. 3. 14. Comp. also Ecclesiastes 11:5; Psalm 135:7. On the expression τὸ πνεῦμα πνεῖ, see Lobeck, Paral. 503.

ὅπου θέλει] The wind blowing now here, now there, is personified as a free agent, in keeping with the comparison of the personal Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:2).[156]

ποῦ] with a verb of motion. Comp. Hom. Il. 13. 219; Soph. Trach. 40: κεῖνος δʼ ὅπου βέβηκεν, οὐδεὶς οἶδε; and see Lobeck ad Phryn. 45; Mätzn. ad Antiph. 169, § 8. Expressing by anticipation the state of rest following upon the movement. Often in the N. T. as in John (John 7:35, John 8:14, John 12:35) and Hebrews 11:8.

οὕτως ἐστὶ πᾶς, κ.τ.λ.] A popular and concrete mode of expression (Matthew 13:19, etc.): so is it, i.e. with reference experimentally to the course of his higher birth, with every one who has been born (perfect) of the Spirit. The points of resemblance summed up in the οὕτως are: (1) the free self-determining action of the Holy Spirit (ὅπου θέλει, comp. 1 Corinthians 12:11; John 5:21), not merely the greatness of this power, Tholuck; (2) the felt experience of His operations by the subject of them (τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκ.); and (3) yet their incomprehensibleness as to their origin and their end (ἀλλʼ οὐκ οἶδας, κ.τ.λ.), the latter pertaining to the moral sphere and reaching unto eternal life, the former proceeding from God, and requiring, in order to understand it, the previously experienced workings of divine grace, and faith ensuing thereupon. The man feels the working of grace within, coming to him as a birth from above, but he knows not whence it comes; he feels its attraction, but he knows not whither it leads. These several elements in the delineation are so distinctly indicated by Jesus, that we cannot be satisfied with the mere general point of incomprehensibleness in the comparison (Hengstenberg), upon the basis of Ecclesiastes 11:5.

[156] Concerning the personality of the Holy Spirit as taught in John, see especially 14–16.

John 3:9-10. The entire nature of this birth from above (ταῦτα) is still a puzzle to Nicodemus as regarded its possibility (the emphasis being on δύναται); and we can easily understand how it should be so to a learned Pharisee bound to the mere form and letter. He asks the question in this state of ignorance (haesitantis est, Grotius), not in pride (Olshausen). Still, as one acquainted with the Scriptures, he might and ought to have recognised the possibility; for the power of the divine Spirit, the need of renewal in heart and mind, and the fact that this renewal is a divine work, are often mentioned in the O. T. Jesus therefore might well ask in wonder: Art thou the teacher, etc.? The article ὁ διδάσκ. and the τοῦ Ἰσρ. following designate the man not merely in an official capacity (Ewald), which would not mark him out individually from others, but as the well-known and acknowledged teacher of the people. See Bernhardy, p. 315; Winer, p. 110 [E. T. p. 143]. Hengstenberg puts it too strongly: “the concrete embodiment of the ideal teacher of Israel;” comp. Godet. But Nicodemus must have held a position of influence as a teacher quite inconsistent with this proved ignorance; there is in the article a touch of irony, as in the question a certain degree of indignation (Nägelsbach on the Iliad, ed. 3, p. 424).