Читать книгу The Gospel of John and the Religious Quest - Johannes Nissen - Страница 9

Historical perspectives

The pattern which is recognizable in the Prologue—a movement from the universal to the specifically Christian—reappears in a number of other episodes throughout the Gospel.98 An obvious example is the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus (3:1–21). The figure of Nicodemus can be interpreted in two ways: On the one hand he symbolizes “man as he is”; cf. the use of “man” (Greek: anthrōpos) in v. 1. On the other hand he is a communal symbolic figure representing those Jews who have some sympathy for Jesus but who nevertheless hesitate to join him.99

The Figure of Nicodemus

a. Nicodemus—a symbol of “man as he is.” The first of these interpretations puts the emphasis on the existential and individual aspect. Nicodemus is described as the thoughtful seeker of truth. He symbolizes “man as he is,” in need of an entirely new origin for his salvation and yet unable to see the possibility of it.100 In this view, Nicodemus’ need, and the transformation that is offered to him, is essentially an inner and individual one.

Two things are characteristic for religious seekers. First, they are living “at night,” a term that has a double meaning. It has a literal aspect denoting the fearfulness and insecurity of Nicodemus, and it has a symbolic aspect denoting his lack of understanding. The discourse in John 3 is held together by an inclusion, beginning with Nicodemus coming to Jesus at night and ending on the theme that people have to leave the darkness and come into the light (vv. 19–21)—probably a reference to 1:5. The note that Nicodemus comes “at night” is repeated in 19:39. This suggests that he does not walk in the light.

Second, a religious seeker will often be content with a “teacher.” In v. 2 Nicodemus addresses Jesus as follows: “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God.” A teacher is a person who helps us to a better understanding of our existence and guides us to the way we should follow.

b. Nicodemus as representing a group. Recent studies have opened up the possibility of seeing in Nicodemus something more than just “man as he is.” Various aspects of the text support the interpretation that he occupies the role of a communal symbolic figure. First, Nicodemus speaks to Jesus in the plural, and Jesus likewise addresses him in the plural, e.g., “We know . . .” (3:2), “You people must be born again . . .” (3:7; NRSV: “You must . . .”). In vv.11–12 there is an abrupt switching from the dialogue between Nicodemus and Jesus to the writer/reader relationship. Here it is even more evident that the Johannine community is speaking to its opponents, e.g., “We speak of what we know and testify to what we have sent and you do not receive our testimony” (3:11).

Second, most scholars agree that Nicodemus also stands for a specific group, though they disagree on its character. Nicodemus is known from two other scenes: 7:45–52 and 19:38–42. But there are contradictory signals in John’s description. Some interpreters emphasize his characterization as one who comes to Jesus “at night” (3:2 and 19:39). “Nicodemus appears as a man of inadequate faith and inadequate courage, and as such represents a group that the author wishes to characterize in this way.”101

Others think that Nicodemus develops as a character. When he first meets Jesus he is afraid and does not understand at all (3:11), but later we see him speaking up indirectly for Jesus to the Pharisees (7:50). His final appearance might be seen as an illustration of the words of Jesus in 12:33–34: “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself . . .” Nicodemus comes forward publicly after the crucifixion to bury Jesus (19:39). He is linked to Joseph of Arimathea, who has been a secret disciple of Jesus “for fear of the Jews,” but who in asking for the body of Jesus, is now making his faith public, 19:38.102

Whether or not Nicodemus represents the “secret Christian Jews” or the “Crypto-Christians,” there is little doubt that we are dealing here with a borderline group. And it is interesting to notice that the stories in John 2:14—4:42 are all about just such socially important groups in the Johannine community: first the unbelieving Jews (2:14–22), then Jews who had some sympathy for Jesus or “secret Christian Jews” (2:23—3:21), then followers of John the Baptist (3:22–26) and finally the Samaritans (4:1–42).

The Dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus

The conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus illustrates the interplay between the human religious quest and the response of the Gospel. The dialogue focuses on the meaning of “begetting” from on high, as can be seen from the context. Here we must look at the structure of 3:1–21, which may be divided in two parts.

In the first part it is argued that begetting from above through the Spirit is necessary for entrance into the Kingdom of God—natural birth is insufficient (vv. 2–8). In vv. 2–3 the fact of begetting is illustrated. In the second part the point is that the begetting is made possible only when the Son has ascended to the Father—and it is offered 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; it is precisely why the sacraments are central to Christian thought.109

What, then, are we “seeing” in Jesus? The answer is a new and different reality that is revealed in the midst of the old reality. From the analogy between the wind and the Spirit we learn that they are both realities that are perceived only in their effects. In the Gospel of John these effects are clearly visible in the new way of life in the community of the disciples, who being born of the spirit are free as the wind. They are not dependent on others’ ideas, criticism, and approval, but are moved solely by the Spirit to love each other. This is their new identity.

Entering into God’s New Order

The Gospel of John calls for a public transfer of allegiance. Those who refuse to believe in Jesus constitute themselves as “the world,” the realm of darkness, untruth, and death. Passing from that world to the new identity is only possible through a reorientation so profound as to constitute a new birth (3:5–8). By physical birth one is born into the world and has to accept its order. To be born again “from above” means to “see” God’s kingdom and the new order. To see, then, is to experience, to encounter, to participate in.110 Moreover, John uniquely relates this rebirth to the Kingdom of God not as a replacement for life in this world but as a new world within this world, the most natural explanation being that John sought to underline the social components of salvation.

Thus the Kingdom of God is a social category. The goal of rebirth is entrance into the Kingdom, and the confession of Jesus as Messiah means that the disciple already lives in the Kingdom under the kingship of Jesus—a kingship that is not of this world, and whose unworldly character is expressed precisely in his servants’ refusal to take up arms in defense of Jesus: “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from here” (18:36). This kingship, which is neither established nor defended by acts of violence, is the kingship under which the messianic community lives out its love for one another; cf. 13:34–35.

The close relationship between rebirth and the Kingdom of God underlines its communitarian character.111 The rebirth implies not only personal faith, but a change of social location as well. To be born “from above” is to be part of a new community. The worldly community represented by Nicodemus must undergo a change of social location by openly acknowledging the messiahship of Jesus and in so doing will become part of the messianic community. They are called on to abandon the world and its continuing self-centeredness and to be integrated into the community of love.

Contemporary perspectives

New Gnosticism and Reincarnation

The conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus is one of the Johannine texts that have attracted great interest among the new religious movements. According to Steiner, the conversation reflects a deep secret regarding the development of humankind, and he would translate the words of Jesus in 3:5 thus: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and air he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”112 The argument is that in New Testament times pneuma (Spirit) meant “air,” and had “exactly that meaning.”113

If we wish to characterize the significance of this evolutionary process, we may say that formerly, when the human being was still living with the gods, his physical and ether bodies were fluidic and gaseous in form, and were only gradually, simultaneously with the solidification of the earth, condensed to their present material form. That is the descent, but just as he has made this descent, so will he also ascend again. After he has had the experiences that are to be in solid substance, he will again mount into those regions where his physical body will be fluidic and gaseous. He must bear within him the consciousness that if he wishes to unite himself again consciously with the gods, his true existence will be in those regions from which he has sprung. He has become condensed out of water and air and he will again become diffused into them. He can only spiritually anticipate this condition today by gaining within his inner nature a consciousness of the future state of his physical body. Only by becoming conscious of it today, however, will he gain the power to do so.114