Revisiting Nicodemus's Question in John 3.9

ownloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.
1093/jts/fly168/5321167 by Washington University, Law School Library user on 23 February 201

The Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 00, Pt 0, December 2019
REVISITING NICODEMUS’S QUESTION

IN JOHN 3:9
OLE JAKOB FILTVEDT

MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society
Ole.J.Filtvedt@mf.no
Abstract
There are good reasons for questioning the overtly negative interpreta-
tions of John 3:9 that prevail in current scholarship. A helpful place to
start is to ask what kind of question 3:9 is. There are three options: (i) a
question of modality, asking in what way birth from above takes place;
(ii) a rhetorical question, the purpose of which is to question that birth
from above can take place; or (iii) a real question about the conditions
under which a birth from above could take place. The present article
claims that 3:9 is a real and legitimate question that is given a substantive
answer by Jesus. Many of the negative claims made about Nicodemus
based on 3:9 are either unwarranted or questionable. Nicodemus is not
critiqued for asking the question in 3:9 or for not knowing its answer, but
for thinking that he already knew who Jesus was and for not adequately
realizing his own need to be born from above.
INTRODUCTION
πῶς δύναται ταῦτα γενέσθαι; These are Nicodemus’s last words in
John 3 and are therefore of immense importance to our concep-
tion of Nicodemus and our understanding of the train of thought
in 3:1–21.1 As Otfried Hofius correctly stated: ‘Das rechte
Verst€andnis dieser Frage ist f€ur die Interpretation der ganzen
Nikodemus-Perikope von grundlegender Bedeutung.’2 Most
scholars see 3:9 as contributing to a negative portrayal of
Nicodemus. The aim of the present article is to question that
I would like to thank my colleagues Matthew Monger, Karl Olav Sandnes, and
Glenn Wehus for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.
1
For a defence of the unity of 3:1–21, see Otfried Hofius, ‘Das Wunder
der Wiedergeburt: Jesu Gespr€ach mit Nikodemus Joh 3,1–21’, in O. Hofius
and H.-C. Kammler (eds.), Johannesstudien (WUNT 88; T€ ubingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1996), pp. 33–80, at 34–5). The question of whether 2:23–5 should be
included is not relevant here.
2
Hofius, ‘Wunder’, p. 53.
# The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. 1 of 31
For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
doi:10.1093/jts/fly168
ownloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jts/fly168/5321167 by Washington University, Law School Library user on 23 February 201
2 of 31 O L E JA KO B F I LT V E D T
conclusion and, at the same time, offer a fresh interpretation of

how 3:9 functions within 3:1–21.
As a means of advancing the discussion, we will ask a question
that is generally overlooked among scholars: what kind of question
is 3:9? Is it (i) modal, focused on the way in which ‘these things’
can happen? Is it (ii) rhetorical, implicitly asserting that ‘these
things’ cannot happen? Or is it (iii) a real question about the con-
ditions under which it is possible for ‘these things’ to happen?
When compared to other πῶς questions in the New Testament,
and when read in the light of its literary context, there are good
reasons to suggest that 3:9 should be read as a real question about
the conditions under which birth from above can take place.3
Arguably, Jesus provides the answer to this question in 3:13–16.
Moreover, a close analysis of 3:9–12 suggests, contrary to the pre-
vailing scholarly opinion, that 3:9 is also a legitimate question. To
be sure, Jesus’ reply in 3:10–12 does contain critique of
Nicodemus, but Nicodemus is not criticized for asking the ques-
tion in 3:9 or for not knowing its answer. He is criticized for
thinking that he already knew who Jesus was and for not ad-
equately realizing his own need to be born from above.
NEGATIVE EVALUATIONS OF THE QUESTION IN 3:9

Scholars tend to view 3:9 as contributing negatively to the char-
acterization of Nicodemus, with interpretations such as those out-
lined below.4
The question reveals Nicodemus’s puzzlement, perplexity, and
incomprehension.5 The source of Nicodemus’s bewilderment is
3
Whether ἄνωθεν means ‘from above’ or ‘again’ is disputed, but not import-
ant here. I am most persuaded by the arguments in favour of translating
ἄνωθεν as ‘from above’. For discussion, see J€ org Frey, Die Johanneische
Eschatologie3 vols. (WUNT 96, 110, 117; T€ ubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997–
2000), vol. 2, p. 258.
4
Some commentators simply fail to comment on 3:9; e.g. Walter Bauer,
Das Johannesevangelium (HNT 6; 3rd edn.; T€ ubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1933),
pp. 50–61; Edwyn C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (2nd edn., ed. Francis N.
Davey, London: Faber and Faber, 1947), p. 202; George R. Beasley-Murray,
John (WBC 36; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), p. 49.
5
J€
urgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes: Kapitel 1–10 (OTK; €
Gytersloh: Gytersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1979), p. 138; Ernst Haenchen, in
Ulrich Busse (ed.), Das Johannesevangelium: Ein Kommentar (T€ ubingen: J. C.
B. Mohr, 1980), p. 220; Jerome H. Neyrey, ‘John III: A Debate over
Johannine Epistemology and Christology’, NovT 28 (1981), pp. 115–27, at 121;
Robert Kysar, John (ACNT; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986), p. 53; Bryan Born,
‘Literary Features in the Gospel of John (An Analysis of John 3:1–21)’,
REVISITING NICODEMUS’ QUESTION 3 of 31
his failure to make sense of the concept of ‘birth ἄνωθεν’, even

after Jesus explains this as birth through the Spirit.6 Nicodemus
ought to have known the answer to the question, since he is the
teacher of Israel who knows the Scriptures.7 Instead of
Direction 17 (1988), pp. 3–17, at 9; John Painter, ‘Quest Stories in John 1–4’,
JSNT 41 (1991), pp. 33–70, at 57; Martin Schmidl, Jesus und Nikodemus:
Gespr€ach zur johanneische Christologie. Joh 3 in schichtenspezifischer Sicht
(Biblische Untersuchungen, 28; Regensburg: Pustet Verlag, 1998), pp. 209–10;
Paul Julian, Jesus and Nicodemus: A Literary and Narrative Exegesis of Jn.
2,23–3,36 (European University Studies, 711; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,
2000), p. 69; Jerome H. Neyrey, The Gospel of John (The New Cambridge
Bible Commentary; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 79;
John F. McHugh, John 1–4, ed. Graham N. Stanton (ICC; London: T&T
Clark, 2009), p. 230; R. Alan Culpepper, ‘Nicodemus: The Travail of Rebirth’,
in S. A. Hunt, D. F. Tolmie, and R. Zimmermann (eds.), Character Studies in
the Fourth Gospel (eds. S. A. Hunt, D. F. Tolmie, and R. Zimmermann;
WUNT 313; T€ ubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), pp. 249–59, at 256; Hartwig
Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium (HNT 6; 2nd edn.; T€ ubingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2015), p. 193.
6
Charles K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John: An Introduction with
Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (London: SPCK, 1962), p. 176;
Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John (3 vols.; Herder
Theological Commentary; London: Burns & Oates 1982), vol. 1, p. 375; Gabi
Renz, ‘Nicodemus: An Ambiguous Disciple? A Narrative Sensitive
Investigation’, in John Lierman (ed.), Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of
John (WUNT 219; T€ ubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), pp. 255–83, at 262.
7
G. H. C. Macgregor, The Gospel of John (MNTC; London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1928), p. 74; R. H. Strachan, The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance
and Environment (3rd edn.; London: SCM Press, 1941), p. 137; Sigfried
Mendner, ‘Nikodemus’, JBL 77 (1958), pp. 293–323, at 301; Barrett, John, p.
176; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 1, p. 375; Frederick F. Bruce, The Gospel of
John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983),
p. 86; Xavier Leon-Dufour, Lecture de l’evangile selon Jean: Tome I (chapitres
1–4) (Paris: Seuil, 1988), p. 296; Donald A. Carson, The Gospel according to
John (Grand Rapids, Mi: Eerdmans, 1991), p. 198; Ben Witherington III,
John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: The
Lutterworth Press, 1995), p. 98; Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John
(rev. edn.; NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 195; Craig
Blomberg, ‘The Globalization of Biblical Interpretation’, BBR 5 (1995), pp. 1–
15, at 7; Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 192; Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel
of John (SP 4; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), p. 94; Benedict
Schwank, Evangelium nach Johannes (St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1998), p. 108;
D. Moody Smith, John (ANTC; Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1999), p. 96;
Don Williford, ‘John 3:1–15 – γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν: A Radical Departure, A New
Beginning’, RevExp 96 (1999), pp. 451–61; Craig Keener, The Gospel of John:
A Commentary (2 vols.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), vol. 1, p. 559; Udo
Schnelle, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (3rd edn.; Leipzig: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 2004), p. 84; Jan G. van der Watt, ‘Knowledge of Earthly
Things? The Use of ἐπίγειος in John 3:12,’, Neot 43 (2009), pp. 289–310, at
304; Susan E. Hylen, Imperfect Believers: Ambiguous Characters in the Gospel of
progressing in insight, Nicodemus reiterates his question from

3:4.8 The question shows that Nicodemus thinks in an earthly
way, attempting to rationalize divine mysteries and fit them into
human categories.9 Nicodemus will not accept that there are cer-
tain things that cannot be fully understood.10 As a Jew who relies
on the Torah, he stands without an answer to the question of
human salvation.11 As a Jew he would have been offended by the
deep divisions between humans that Jesus describes in 3:8.12 The
question reveals that Nicodemus is incredulous,13 or at least scep-
tical.14 Nicodemus’s question is an attempt to present Jesus’
John (Louisville, LY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), pp. 31–2;
Culpepper, ‘Nicodemus’, p. 256; Thyen, Johannes, p. 193; Marianne M.
Thompson, John: A Commentary (New Testament Library; Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2015), p. 83.
8
J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel accord-
ing to St. John (2 vols.; The International Critical Commentary on the Holy
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1928),
vol. 1, p. 108; Mendner, ‘Nikodemus’, p. 300; Siegfried Schulz, Das
€
Evangelium nach Johannes: Ubersetzt und erkl€art von Siegfried Schulz
(G€ottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), p. 57; Frey, Eschatologie, vol. 2,
p. 259; McHugh, John, p. 230; J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John
(NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), p. 189; van der Watt,
‘Knowledge’, p. 303. Culpepper, ‘Nicodemus’, p. 256.
9
Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel according to John, trans. G. R. Beasley-
Murray (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), p. 137 and pp. 143–4; Schulz,
Johannes, p. 57; Schnackenburg, Johannes, vol. 1, p. 374; Moloney, John, pp.
€
93–4; Ulrich Wilckens, Das Evangelium nach Johannes: Ubersetzt und erkl€
art
von Ulrich Wilckens (G€ ottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), p. 69;
Michaels, John, p. 189; Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John
(3 vols.; Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010),
vol. 2, p. 129; van der Watt, ‘Knowledge’, p. 303; Jason S. Sturdevant, The
Adaptable Jesus of the Fourth Gospel: The Pedagogy of the Logos (NovTSup
162; Leiden: Brill, 2015), p. 117; Jean Zumstein, Das Johannesevangelium:
€
Ubersetzt und erkl€
art (KEK 2; G€ ottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016),
p. 141.
10
Haenchen, Johannes, p. 220; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 1, p. 374; van der
Watt, ‘Knowledge’, p. 302.
11
Schulz, Johannes, p. 57.
12
Haenchen, Johannes, p. 220.
13
Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (2 vols.; AB 29; New
York: Doubleday, 1966/1970), vol. 1, p. 144; Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of
John (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1972), p. 154; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 1, p.
374; Born, ‘John’, p. 9; Carson, John, p. 198. William C. Grese, ‘“Unless One
is Born Again”: The Use of Heavenly Journey in John 3’, JBL 107 (1988), pp.
677–93, at 691.
14
Ludger Schenke, Johannes: Kommentar (D€ usseldorf: Patmos Verlag,
1998), p. 68.
views as absurd15 or challenge Jesus’ authority as a teacher.16 The

question is buffoonery that seeks to hide Nicodemus’s true inten-
tions.17 Nicodemus merely functions as a foil that allows Jesus to
address readers.18
Despite these different and at times conflicting suggestions
regarding what precisely Nicodemus’s problem is, most scholars
agree that, on the basis of 3:9, Nicodemus is characterized as dull,
unintelligent, incredulous, inattentive, dissembling, lacking in hu-
mility, or locked up in his own categories.19
THE INTERPRETATION OF 3:9 AND LARGER ISSUES IN JOHANNINE

SCHOLARSHIP
The negative interpretations of 3:9 are clearly not built merely
on this verse interpreted in isolation, for the wording does not
seem to betray that there is anything wrong with what Nicodemus
says. However, if read in the light of the gospel as a whole, there
appear to be good reasons to presuppose that there has to be some-
thing wrong with what Nicodemus says, even though it is not ob-
vious exactly what this is. After all, it seems that the Johannine
characters are primarily vehicles through which the author invites
readers to faith in Jesus.20 In the prologue (1:1–18), readers are
given privileged insights that were only made available after the
resurrection (cf. 2:22; 12:16), through the guidance of the Spirit
(14:26; 16:12–15). This retrospective point of view creates a sense
of irony, as characters routinely misunderstand things that are
clear to those who know the full truth.21 Thus, Jesus’ encounters
with characters take on symbolic meaning, pointing to some
15
Mendner, ‘Nikodemus’ ,p. 301; Bultmann, John, pp. 136–7, n. 1.
16
Neyrey, John, p. 79.
17
Michael R. Whitenton, ‘The Dissembler of John 3: A Cognitive and
Rhetorical Approach to the Characterization of Nicodemus’, JBL 135 (2016),
pp. 141–58, at 152.
18
Schenke, Johannes, p. 68; Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh,
Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress
Press, 1998), p. 84; Frey, Eschatologie, vol. 3, p. 259; Keener, John, vol. 1,
p. 558.
19
Thomas L. Brodie, The Gospel according to John: A Literary and
Theological Commentary (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 198,
offers a more positive reading of 3:9, but he does not present a sustained argu-
ment to support his case.
20
R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary
Design (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), p. 145.
21
Paul D. Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta, GA: John Knox
Press, 1985).
deeper truth that readers recognize but characters overlook.22

Moreover, all persons in John seem to be either insiders or out-
siders.23 The divide is expressed through different dualities:
light–darkness, above–below, truth–falsehood/evil, being of the
world–not being of the world, hate–love, and so on.24 Therefore,
it might seem self-evident that Nicodemus’s question in 3:9
somehow expresses a misunderstanding that readers should
avoid, or a stance of incredulity.
Yet, we should be alarmed by the fact that this conclusion
seems self-evident, even before we have looked at the text itself.
Although few would doubt that there is much truth in the views
outlined above, one should not allow generalizations to replace
detailed examination of specific passages. Before firm conclusions
can be drawn, it is necessary to ask questions such as the follow-
ing: Do all Johannine narratives follow the same pattern? Do all
the characters make exactly the same mistakes? Are all characters
flat, and can they all be easily categorized as either insiders or out-
siders? Does it necessarily disfavour a Johannine character if it
exposes the limits of its own knowledge? If interpretations that
seem self-evident at first sight are not subject to critical scrutiny,
there is a danger that preconceptions concerning how the
Johannine narrative is supposed to function become self-
confirming and replace detailed examination of specific texts.
Moreover, when it comes to Nicodemus, scholarly opinions are
much more nuanced than the current interpretations of 3:9. He is
sometimes construed as an ignorant and disbelieving representa-
tive of the world and/or Judaism,25 or as a foil, which is meant to
let the readers feel smart.26 However, others see him as a
secret believer,27 as an example of someone who is afraid of the
22
Dorothy Lee, The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay
of Form and Meaning (JSNTSup 95; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994).
23
I will refer to the Gospel and its author as ‘John’ as a matter of conveni-
ence, although I do not mean to make a claim about historical authorship.
24
On the Johannine dualities, Richard Bauckham ‘Dualims and Soteriology
in Johannine Theology’, in B. W. Longenecker and M. C. Parsons (eds.),
Beyond Bultmann: Reckoning a New Testament Theology (Waco, TX: Baylor
University Press, 2014), pp. 133–54.
25
Marinus de Jonge, ‘Nicodemus and Jesus: Some Observations on
Misunderstanding and Understanding in the Fourth Gospel’, in Jesus: Stranger
from Heaven and Son of God (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), pp. 29–47.
26
Wayne A. Meeks, ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’,
JBL 91 (1972), pp. 44–72, at 53.
27
J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (3rd edn.;
Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2003), p. 88.
Jews.28 Some also construe him as a proto-believer who is moving

in the direction of faith.29 It is significant that Nicodemus appears
two other times in the gospel (7:51; 19:39–40) and seems to be
characterized more positively there than in 3:1–21. The most sali-
ent recent trend has been to view Nicodemus as inherently am-
biguous.30 It is not easy to determine precisely what his problem
is; whether he progresses in faith, or if he eventually ends up as
an insider, an outsider, or something in between. Thus,
Nicodemus challenges the assumption that all Johannine charac-
ters are flat and easily categorized. It seems to follow that one
cannot know beforehand that there has to be something wrong
with what he says in 3:9.
The tension between the overtly negative interpretations of 3:9
and the disputed and presently unsettled question of how
Nicodemus should be characterized is very striking and seems to
invite investigation. Is it really true that 3:9 characterizes
Nicodemus in a negative way? Are the arguments in favour of this
conclusion as strong as the scholarly consensus seems to indicate?
In exploring these issues, we will begin by asking a question that
28
Steven A. Hunt, ‘Nicodemus, Lazarus, and the Fear of “the Jews” in the
Fourth Gospel’, in G. van Belle et al. (eds.), Repetitions and Variations in the
Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation (BETL 223; Louvain: Peters, 2009),
pp. 199–212.
29
J. N. Suggitt, ‘Nicodemus – The True Jew’, Neot 14 (1981), pp. 90–110;
Debbie Gibbons, ‘Nicodemus: Character Development, Irony and Repetition in
the Fourth Gospel’, Proceedings: Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Bible
Societies 11 (1991), pp. 116–28; Frances Back, ‘Die r€atselhaften “Antworten”
Jesu: Zum Thema des Nikodemusgespr€achs (Joh 3,1–21)’, EvT 73 (2013), pp.
178–89, at 186.
30
This is correctly pointed out by Culpepper, ‘Nicodemus’, pp. 252–3. See
Jouette M. Bassler, ‘Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel’, JBL
108 (1989), pp. 635–46; Wimsome Munro, ‘The Pharisee and the Samaritan
Woman: Polar or Parallel?’, CBQ 57 (1995), pp. 710–28; Jean Marie Sevrin,
‘The Nicodemus Enigma: The Characterization and Function of an Ambiguous
Actor of the Fourth Gospel’, in R. Bieringer et al. (eds.), Anti-Judaism and the
Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Louven Colloquium, 2000 (Assen: van Gorcum,
2001), pp. 357–69; Colleen M. Conway, ‘Speaking through Ambiguity: Minor
Characters in the Fourth Gospel’, BibInt 10 (2002), pp. 325–41; Renz,
‘Nicodemus’; Hylen, Imperfect, pp. 23–40; Raimo Hakola, ‘The Burden of
Ambiguity: Nicodemus and the Social Identity of the Johannine Christians’,
NTS 55 (2009), pp. 438–55; Craig R. Koester, ‘Theological Complexity and
the Characterization of Nicodemus in John’s Gospel’, in Christopher W.
Skinner (ed.), Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John (LNTS
461; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), pp. 165–81; Cornelis Bennema,
Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of John (Lanham, MD:
Fortress Press, 2014), p. 84.
has been largely overlooked by scholars, but is arguably of great

significance to the interpretation of 3:9.
WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS 3:9?

When it comes to the meaning and reference of the words used
in 3:9, there is some disagreement among scholars.31 Although it
is possible that ταῦτα refers specifically to the imagery used in 3:8,
most scholars correctly assume that it refers to the entire teaching
on birth from above.32 There is also disagreement in the English-
speaking world about how to translate γίνομαι. In contrast to what
seems to be the case in most other languages, and contrary to how
γίνομαι is usually translated, the majority of English Bible transla-
tors and commentators translate γίνομαι as ‘be’ rather than
‘happen/take place’. However, this is arguably a mistranslation
and it is not without interpretative significance.33 If 3:9 is ren-
dered ‘how can this be?’ it sounds as if Nicodemus is questioning
the possibility of what Jesus says; but if rendered ‘how can these
things happen?’ the question sounds more open.34 Thus, the
question of how 3:9 should be translated points to the issue of
what kind of question 3:9 is.35
Most scholars betray no awareness of the fact that there is more
than one way to define what Nicodemus asks in 3:9, but the differ-
ent usages of πῶς imply that 3:9 could be taken in more than one
way.36 The question could either be about possibility or
31
Schmidl, Nikodemus, p. 209, implausibly claimed that both ταῦτα and πῶς
in 3:9 lack reference to specific themes in the context, and he thus proposed
that 3:9 gives expression to a non-specific lack of insight.
32
33
Correctly Barrett, John, p. 176; Carson, John, p. 198. For a thorough
treatment of the issue, with reference to Bible translations in different lan-
guages and a detailed examination of the use of γίνομαι in John, see Ole Jakob
Filtvedt and Glenn Wehus, ‘The Mistranslation of John 3:9’, forthcoming.
34
Thus Hylen, Imperfect, p. 31. See also Lindars, John, p. 154, who im-
plausibly argued that 3:9 means how can these things exist?
35
In the following, translations from John are my own, while other biblical
quotations follow NABRE.
36
Johannes Bauer, ‘Πῶς in der griechischen Bibel’, Nov 2 (1958), pp. 81–
91, provides a helpful overview of how πῶς is used in the New Testament and
the Septuagint. He mentioned some usages of πῶς that are not relevant for 3:9,
and will not be discussed in the following. In Luke 10:26, πῶς seems to fill the
same function as τί. In Mark 4:30 we have a real dubitative deliberative ques-
tion, where πῶς could be translated as ‘to what?’
modality.37 If 3:9 is modal, Nicodemus asks in what way ‘these

things can happen’.38 If 3:9 is about possibility, there are two dif-
ferent options: either Nicodemus asks a rhetorical question that
seeks to undermine or question that ‘these things can happen’,39
or he asks a real question, about the conditions under which
‘these things can happen’.40 This leaves us with three options,
which will be discussed in the following.41
WHY 3:9 IS PROBABLY NOT A MODAL QUESTION

The majority of modal πῶς questions in the New Testament
are found in John 9:10–26 and are focused on the way in which
the blind man’s eyes were opened. That the questions in 9:10 and
9:15 are modal is evident from the fact that they are answered by
a detailed description of what Jesus did. The πῶς question in 9:26
is qualified as modal through a parallel question: what did he do
to you?42 There are no comparable indicators in the context of 3:9
that encourage us to understand Nicodemus’s question as
modal.43 Instead, 3:9 is similar to the one πῶς-question within
37
Among the few who recognize this are Schnackenburg, John, vol. 1, p.
374; Zumstein, Johannes, p. 141, n. 43. Curiously, however, they did not dis-
cuss which option they find more likely.
38
This is what Bauer (‘Πῶς’, p. 82) calls questions about ‘Art und Weise’.
39
In the following, ‘rhetorical question’ is understood as a question that
does not expect an answer, but instead implicitly makes a claim. Thus, ques-
tions that carry rhetorical functions beyond merely seeking information, but
that still expect an answer, are not defined as ‘rhetorical question’, even though
many ‘real questions’ are certainly ‘rhetorical’ in a broader sense of the term.
40
Bauer contended that, when containing a verb in the future tense or
δύναμαι (as is the case in John 3:9), πῶς questions in the New Testament are
always rhetorical (‘Πῶς’, p. 81). In his conclusion, however, he stated that this
is ‘fast durchwegs’ the case (‘Πῶς’, p. 88), without offering examples of pos-
sible exceptions. We will argue that John 3:9 is one such exception.
41
Even if the distinction between these categories is clear enough, some
questions are hard to categorize. For instance, it is possible to construct a
question that is phrased modally, but intended rhetorically, because the ques-
tioner assumes that there are no ways in which a given thing can happen or be
the case.
42
Cf. the use of double questions in Rom. 4:10 and 1 Cor. 15:35.
43
The question in 9:19 is difficult to assess. The Jews ask ‘how then he
now sees?’ if it is true that he was born blind. This question could be rhetoric-
al, implying that the parents must be lying, but the parents seem to answer the
question as if it was modal: they know for a fact that this was their son, and
that he used to be blind, but did not know how it is that he now sees, or who
it was that opened his eyes (9:21). However, even this answer could be taken
to be about possibility rather than modality. The phrase πῶς δὲ νῦν βλέπει could
9:10–26 that is clearly not modal, namely 9:16.44 Some of the

Jews claim that Jesus cannot have come from God since he breaks
the Sabbath. Others ask: πῶς δύναται ἄνθρωπος ἁμαρτωλὸς τοιαῦτα
σημεῖα ποιεῖν; the issue here is not how it happened, but whether it
is possible that Jesus did it. As in 3:9, the question in 9:16
employs the verb δύναμαι. If Nicodemus wanted to inquire about
the specific way in which ‘these things happen’, it would be nat-
ural to have γίνομαι in the present tense as the only verb.45
Therefore, fact that δύναμαι is used, even though the structure of
the question does not demand it, should attract our attention, es-
pecially since δύναμαι is one of the most important terms in 3:2–5,
and figures as part of a discussion about what is and is not pos-
sible. The use of δύναμαι in 3:9 clearly shows that the question is
concerned with possibility rather than modality.46
Therefore, Nicodemus is not naı€vely seeking a description and
explanation for what cannot be fully described or explained (cf.
3:8). Either Nicodemus asks a rhetorical question that evinces a
radical degree of doubt about the possibility of what Jesus says, or
he asks a question that at least entertains the possibility that what
Jesus says is possible.
COMPARING 3:9 TO RHETORICAL ΠῶΣ QUESTIONS IN JOHN

Rhetorical πῶς questions in the New Testament generally make
explicit what the questioner seeks to expose as illogical, incoher-
ent, immoral, impossible, or unfitting.47 Regardless of the syntac-
tical structures of the sentences, it is always possible to
either mean: ‘how it is possible that he now sees’ or ‘how it came about that
he received his sight’.
44
Whether 9:16 is a real or rhetorical question depends on how one inter-
prets the ‘schism’ in question, and how unlikely it would have been, from the
perspective of the Jews, that a sinner could have performed a miracle (see dis-
cussion in Carson, John, p. 368). In any case, it is clear that the question is
not modal.
45
Since δύναμαι is typically translated with ‘can’, it is easy to overlook that
3:9 employs a specific verb denoting possibility. The author did not have to in-
clude δύναμαι, since the verb ‘can’ is already implicit in the structure of the
question (cf. Luke 1:34).
46
Contra Leon-Dufour, Lecture, p. 295.
47
Cf. Matt. 7:4; 12:26, 29, 34; 16:9–11; 22:43–5; 23:33; 26:53–4; Mark 3:23;
4:13; 12:35; Luke 6:42; 11:18; 20:41–4; Rom. 3:6; 6:2; 8:32: 10:14–15; 1 Cor.
14:7, 9; 15:12; 2 Cor. 3:8; Gal. 2:14; 1 Tim. 3:5; Heb. 2:2–3; 1 John 3:17.
Although rhetorical πῶς questions in the New Testament generally follow a
‘given x, πῶς y’ structure, this does not imply that all questions so structured
are rhetorical. The following questions could be rhetorical, but need not be:
Matt. 22:12; Luke 1:34; 12:56; John 4:9; 9:16, 19; Gal. 4:9.
reconstruct their logical content as being: given x, πῶς y? The ‘x’

in this structure stands for a premiss that is taken for granted,
whereas the ‘y’ stands for something that is taken to be incompat-
ible with this premiss and therefore makes the question impos-
sible/unnecessary to answer. Thus, the rhetorical questions can be
paraphrased as propositions rather than real inquires, as can be
shown in the following examples from John.
Since a grown man cannot re-enter his mother’s womb, it is im-
possible for him to be born (3:4).48 Since you do not even believe
when I speak of earthly things, you will definitively not believe if
I speak of heavenly things (3:12). Those who only seek glory from
each other, instead of from God, cannot believe (5:44). If the Jews
do not believe Moses’s Scriptures, neither will they believe Jesus’
words (5:47). Given the fact that Jesus’ earthly parents are well
known, it makes no sense for him to claim that he has come down
from heaven (6:42). Since the Jews have never been slaves to any-
one, it makes no sense for Jesus to claim that he can set them free
(8:33). Since Christ, according to the Law, is to remain forever, it
makes no sense for Jesus to say that the Son of Man must be lifted
up (12:34). Since the disciples do not know where Jesus is going,
they cannot possibly know the way (14:5). Since the one who sees
Jesus sees the Father, it makes no sense for Philip to ask Jesus to
show them the Father (14:9).
It is significant that 3:9 does not follow a ‘given x, πῶς y’ struc-
ture and that the question itself does not contain anything to sug-
gest that it does not expect an answer. The only other candidate
for a rhetorical πῶς question in John that does not follow the
‘given x, πῶς y’ structure is 6:52: πῶς δύναται οὗτος ἡμῖν δοῦναι τὴν
σάρκα [αὐτοῦ] φαγεῖν; This question employs both πῶς and δύναμαι,
just as 3:9 does.49 Is 6:52 rhetorical? Much depends on 6:52a:
48
One could argue that this rhetorical question also contains an implicit
modal question. Since it is clearly impossible for a grown man to be born a se-
cond time, and since Nicodemus is probably not wondering how this can be
possible, he might be construed as asking: ‘if this is not what you are talking
about, then in what way can this birth take place?’ Jesus’ description of birth
from above as taking place through water and Spirit could be seen as answer-
ing this implicit question.
49
The fact that 3:9 uses δύναμαι is not in itself an indication that the ques-
tion is rhetorical or illegitimate. Although there are several δύναμαι questions in
John that seem to be rhetorical (1:46; 3:4; 5:44; 6:60; 9:16), there are also
δύναμαι questions in John that are probably not rhetorical, but even display
some degree of faith (cf. 11:37; 13:37). Note also 10:21, where some Jews de-
fend Jesus on the grounds that it would have been impossible for a demon-
possessed man to open the eyes of a blind man (cf. μὴ δαιμόνιον δύναται τυφλῶν
ὀφθαλμοὺς ἀνοῖξαι;). In other words, the fact that δύναμαι is used in 3:9 does not
Ἐμάχοντο οὖν πρὸς ἀλλήλους οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι λέγοντες. Is there real confu-

sion among the Jews?50 Are there even differing opinions about
how 6:52 b should be answered?51 If so, then 6:52 is not a rhet-
orical question. However, 6:52 a could also mean that ‘in vehe-
ment mutual discussion they gave vent to their astonishment and
displeasure’.52 Two further factors must also be considered. How
absurd is Jesus’ claim? And how improbable is it that the Jews re-
gard what Jesus says as possible? In other words, in deciding
whether a question seeks an answer we cannot look only at its
structure, but must also attempt to reconstruct the attitudes of
the one to whom and/or by whom the question is posed.53 The
context in John 6 makes it clear that Jesus’ words were highly of-
fensive, also to the disciples (6:60), and that the Jews are pictured
as not believing (6:36). Thus, it seems probable that 6:52
is rhetorical.
Even if there are some striking similarities, there are also some
important differences between 3:9 and 6:52. Whatever one makes
of Nicodemus, he is presented in a more positive light than the
Jews in 6:31–59. When he reappears later in the Gospel he seems
to be characterized in quite a positive way (7:50; 19:39), a fact
which calls into question a very negative reading of 3:9.54 It is
prove that Nicodemus regards ‘these things’ as being impossible, and it does
not show that the question is either rhetorical or illegitimate.
50
Michaels, John, p. 393.
51
Barrett, John, p. 246.
52
Ridderbos, John, p. 239.
53
If Luke 1:34 is read on its own, it is tempting to regard this as a rhet-
orical question; however, if it is read in the light of 1:45—where it is explicitly
said that Mary believed what was said to her—it seems more plausible that
Mary actually believes that the tension inherent in her question can somehow
be solved by God. Thus, Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 69: ‘Mary has become the recipient of God’s
grace, so neither we nor she entertains any doubt that the angel’s words can be
realized. The only question is, How?’
54
For the claim that 7:51 is more than a common-sense legal principle, and
instead points to a theological understanding of the conditions for judging
Jesus, see Severino Pancaro, ‘The Metamorphosis of a Legal Principle in the
Fourth Gospel: A Closer Look at Jn 7,51’, Bib 53 (1972), pp. 340–61. For a
more pessimistic reading of 7:51, see de Jonge, ‘Nicodemus’, pp. 34–7. The
claim that participation in Jesus’ burial characterizes Nicodemus negatively,
since it shows that he did not expect Jesus to be resurrected (e.g. Dennis D.
Sylva, ‘Nicodemus and his Spices’, NTS 34 [1988], pp. 148–51), is in my view
weakened by the fact that no one in John expects this to happen, not even the
disciples (Koester, ‘Complexity’, p. 179). For an optimistic interpretation of
Nicodemus’s development, see Nicholas Farelly, ‘An Unexpected Ally:
Nicodemus’s Role within the Plot of the Fourth Gospel’, TRINJ 34 (2013),
pp. 31–43.
also significant that the hostility of the Jews increases throughout

the chapter. Initial sympathy (cf. 6:14–15) turns to disbelief as
people are faced with Jesus’ offensive claims about himself (6:60–
3). In 6:34 the Jews want to receive the bread Jesus has to offer,
and even call him κύριος, but in 6:36 Jesus claims that they do not
believe. In 6:41–3 they begin to grumble among themselves, so we
are led to assume that their attitude in 6:52 is even more hostile
than in 6:41–3. In the case of Nicodemus there seems to be a posi-
tive movement from 3:4 to 3:9. In 3:4 he discusses birth only in
terms of what is possible for humans to do, whereas 3:9 is articu-
lated in a way that is open to the possibility that God must act for
‘these things’ to take place.55 The question in 3:4 does not expect
an answer, but attempts to expose Jesus’ claim as impossible. The
question in 3:9 is more open.56 Nicodemus does not simply repeat
his initial question.57
COMPARING 3:9 TO REAL ΠῶΣ QUESTIONS

If 3:9 does not look like the majority of rhetorical πῶς questions
in the New Testament or in John, this raises the question of
whether it looks like real πῶς questions that are concerned with
possibility. There seem to be four such questions in the New
Testament.58
First, Matt 21:20 reads: πῶς παραχρῆμα ἐξηράνθη ἡ συκῆ;59 Here,
the disciples seem to be asking for an explanation for what they
have seen, and Jesus’ reply contains just this, in that it posits a re-
lationship between faith, prayer, and extraordinary events (Matt.
21:21–2).
55
So Daniel Patte, ‘Jesus’ Pronouncement about Entering the Kingdom like
a Child: A Structural Exegesis’, Semeia 29 (1983), pp. 3–42, at 18.
56
van der Watt (‘Knowledge’, p. 303) wrote that in ‘3:9 Nicodemus again
uses δύνασθαι to describe his own inability to accept the words of Jesus’.
However, δύναμαι refers to the possibility of ταῦτα taking place, not
Nicodemus’s inability to accept this.
57
Correctly Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 144; Brodie, John, p. 198, Ridderbos,
John, p. 132.
58
There is no way of determining absolutely whether a question expects an
answer. In several cases, the decision hinges on an attempt to ascertain how
certain the premiss in the question is, as seen from the perspective of the one
who poses the question, and how improbable a given state of affairs is, if the
premiss in the question is true.
59
Bauer (‘Πῶς’, p. 82) explained that he leaves this text aside because πῶς
here stands together with an adverb, but I fail to see why this should
be decisive.
Secondly, in Mark 9:12 Jesus says: ‘Elijah will indeed come first
and restore all things, yet how is it written regarding the Son of
Man that he must suffer greatly and be treated with contempt?’60
That this is not a rhetorical question is evident from the fact that
Jesus provides the answer: ‘Elijah has indeed come, and they did
to him whatever they wished, just as it is written of him.’
Thirdly, in John 7:15 the Jews ask: πῶς οὗτος γράμματα οἶδεν μὴ
μεμαθηκώς; They seem to assume that Jesus really does know
γράμματα,61 even if he has never been trained. The answer to their
question could be that one or both of the premisses are false, but
that only shows that that the question could be answered.
Thirdly, in Acts 2:8 those who witness the outpouring of the
Spirit ask: καὶ πῶς ἡμεῖς ἀκούομεν ἕκαστος τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ ἡμῶν ἐν ᾗ
ἐγεννήθημεν; The tension builds on the premiss in 2:7, that those
who are speaking are Galileans. We might imagine that this prem-
iss turns out to be false—maybe these people were not from
Galilee after all? Again, however, that only shows that this is a
question that seeks an answer.
All of these questions concern whether something is possible
and arise in response to something astonishing, surprising, or
paradoxical. Despite the astonishment, all these questions seem to
expect an answer. There is no reason to doubt that 3:9 is spoken
in astonishment, or to deny that the concept of birth from above
transgresses the limits of Nicodemus’s imagination, but these
facts alone do not show that 3:9 is rhetorical.
CONTEXTUAL REASONS SUGGESTING THAT 3:9 IS A REAL QUESTION

The above discussion provides some reasons for thinking that
3:9 is probably a real question. The fact that 3:9 is structured as
an open question, that Nicodemus is not altogether negatively
portrayed in John, and that he seems to display some degree of
positive progress from 3:4 to 3:9 all speak against 3:9 being rhet-
orical. We will now argue that the flow of 3:9–16 is better
accounted for if 3:9 is a real question.
We may begin by asking whether Nicodemus’s question was
answered. We have already seen that many commentators think
that the question is redundant because it was already answered in
3:5–8. Birth from above is made possible by the Spirit. However,
60
Bauer (‘Πῶς’, p. 82) implausibly claimed that πῶς here stands for τί, just
as in Luke 10:26.
61
Literally: ‘letters,’ but often taken to refer to knowledge of the
Scriptures. See discussion in Carson, John, p. 311.
from the point of view of Johannine theology, the answer to 3:9

cannot be construed without explicit reference to Jesus, and 3:5–8
contains no explicit mention of Jesus.62 The Spirit remains un-
available before Jesus is glorified (7:39) and departs (16:7). To say
that birth from above is made possible by the Spirit is to beg the
question of how the Spirit is made accessible to humans.63 Even if
Nicodemus could not have known these facets of Johannine the-
ology, it is possible to imagine that someone with his kind of back-
ground information could have made a distinction between what
the Spirit can and will do, on the one hand, and what will make
this possible, on the other. Jesus has claimed that spiritual birth is
a prerequisite for entering and seeing God’s kingdom. If
Nicodemus associated this with the eschatological era (cf. Joel
3),64 it would not be unnatural for him to inquire further and ask
what will inaugurate this era and make possible what Jesus has
just described.65 Therefore, his question in 3:9 is hard-
ly redundant.
Instead of thinking that 3:9 was answered in 3:5–8, it is more
plausible to see 3:13–16 as providing the full answer to the ques-
tion in 3:9.66 Birth from above is possible because the Son of
Man, who himself is from above, has descended to earth (3:13),
thereafter to be lifted up (3:14). The lifting up of the Son of Man
must be understood as Jesus’ crucifixion (8:28; 12:32–4). It is the
crucified (19:30)67 and resurrected (20:22) Jesus who gives the
Spirit. Those who put their faith in Jesus ‘have eternal life’
(3:15), which is the preferred Johannine idiom for describing
62
Correctly Roland Bergmeier, ‘Gottesherrschaft, Taufe und Geist: Zur
Tauftradition in Joh 3’, ZNW 86 (1995), pp. 53–73, at 58.
63
This is clearly shown by Troels Engberg-Pedersen, John and Philosophy:
A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017),
pp. 123–8.
64
Thus, Brown, John, vol. 1, pp. 140–1.
65
Obviously, we are not concerned here with ‘the historical Nicodemus’ and
his thoughts, but with the presuppositions it makes sense to attribute to
Nicodemus, understood as a character in the Johannine plot.
66
As recognized already by Aquinas, who therefore argued that
Nicodemus’s question is asked from a desire to learn, and that he deserved to
be instructed. See St Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of John:
Chapters 1–5, trans. F. Larcher and J. Weisheipl (Washington, DC: Catholic
University of America Press, 2010), p. 174, number 459. Aquinas was probably
influenced by the more positive image of Nicodemus that prevailed in premo-
dern times, partly due to the existence of The Gospel of Nicodemus. For refer-
ence to ancient interpretations of Nicodemus, see Renz, ‘Nicodemus’, pp. 272–
3, n. 76.
67
Note the use of παραδίδωμι for Jesus’ giving over the Spirit.
what is called seeing and entering God’s kingdom in 3:3–5.68 The

ultimate source of all this is God the Father, who so loved the
world that he gave (δίδωμι) his Son in order that those who believe
would have eternal life (3:16). This could either be understood in
terms of the Son being sent to the world (3:17) and/or more spe-
cifically in the sense that God gave his Son up to be crucified
(3:14).69 When the Son ascends to the Father again (3:13), he will
send the Spirit (16:8). John 3:13–16 contains the entire teaching
about Christ’s heavenly origin, his descent, his death, and his re-
turn to the Father. On this basis those who believe will receive
eternal life, the Spirit is made available, and humans can be born
from above. Accordingly, there is a close correspondence between
the δεῖ in 3:7 and in 3:14. Humans must be born from above (3:7),
and therefore the Son of Man must be lifted up on the cross
(3:14). This is the full Johannine answer to the question of how
birth from above can take place (3:9).70
There are also other reasons for thinking that 3:9 was not fully
answered already in 3:5–8.71 There are three ‘amen, amen’ say-
ings in 3:1–21, said in response to Nicodemus’s statements, and
they all point forward. The first (3:3) establishes the theme of the
dialogue (3:3–9), while the second (3:5) introduces the theme of
the Spirit that is further developed in 3:6–8. The third (3:11),
which is said in response to 3:9, points forward to the christo-
logical exposition in 3:13–21. If 3:9 and 3:11 only point back to
3:2–8, then 3:13–21 loses contact with the dialogue. This is not
only problematic because it calls the coherence of 3:1–21 into
question,72 but also because it overlooks the close relationship be-
tween Christology and birth from above, established already in
3:2–9.
68
Note also the structural similarities between 3:3, 5 and 3:15–16. Frey,
Eschatologie, vol. 3, pp. 260–1.
69
J€
org Frey, ‘Zu Hintergrund und Funktion des johanneischen Dualismus’,
in Die Herrlichkeit des Gekreuzigten: Studien zu den Johanneischen Schriften I
(WUNT 307; T€ ubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), pp. 410–82, at 458–9.
70
Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 145; Back, ‘R€atselhaften’, p. 185; Frey,
Eschatologie, vol. 3, p. 260.
71
Julian, Nicodemus, p. 68; David F. Ford, ‘Meeting Nicodemus: A Case
Study in Daring Theological Interpretation’, SJT 66 (2013), pp. 1–17, at 11.
72
Some have proposed that material in chapter 3 has been rearranged (e.g.
Rudolf Schnackenburg, ‘Die situationsgel€ osten Redest€
ucke in Joh 3’, ZNW 49
[1958], pp. 88–99), but it is still reasonable to assume that the person(s) re-
sponsible for editing the chapter (more or less) in the form that we now have
it believed that the chapter was coherent.
Nicodemus begins not with a question about how one enters

the kingdom of God, but with a statement about Jesus.73 The fact
that Jesus changes the subject does not mean that his identity is
irrelevant to the dialogue in 3:2–9. If we compare 3:2 and 3:3 it is
evident that Jesus’ answer mirrors Nicodemus’s comment.
The formal relationship between 3:2 and 3:3 points to a the-

matic relationship between the identity of Jesus and the possibil-
ity of seeing God’s kingdom. The notion of birth from above,
which is the condition for seeing and entering God’s kingdom,
points to Jesus’ origin from above (3:31). The mysterious
‘whence’ and ‘whither’ that describes those born of the Spirit (cf.
3:8) alludes to the coming and going of Jesus himself (cf. 7:28–9;
8:14, 19; 9:12, 29–30; 13:36; 14:5; 16:5; 19:9).74 Therefore, birth
from above is discussed in terms that allude to the question about
Jesus’ identity, the topic with which Nicodemus addressed Jesus
in 3:2. The dialogue about requirements for seeing and entering
the kingdom (3:3–9), which at first sight appears to disregard
Nicodemus’s statement in 3:2, is tightly interwoven with the issue
of who Jesus is.75 Both themes are present in 3:9, which is a ques-
tion about birth from above that must be answered christological-
ly.76 This creates an eloquent irony, in that Nicodemus in 3:9
unknowingly asks about what he erroneously thought he knew al-
ready in 3:2, namely Jesus’ identity. In this way, 3:9 functions as a
bridge between the dialogue (3:1–12) and the monologue (3:13–
21). The question is rooted in 3:3–8 and the concept of birth from
above, but it anticipates a christological answer that is developed
in the monologue.
73
The idea that this statement contained an implicit question (Hofius,
‘Wunder’, p. 39) is implausible. Thus Back, ‘R€atselhaften’.
74
See Karl Olav Sandnes, ‘Whence and Whither’, Bib 86/2 (2005), pp.
153–73.
75
Back, ‘R€atzelhaften’, p. 184.
76
Therefore, we have good reasons to claim that 3:9 should be

read as a real question about the conditions under which it is pos-
sible for birth from above to take place.77 Although the question
reveals that Nicodemus lacks the post-Easter perspective of faith,
as did the disciples at this stage of the narrative (cf. 2:22), the
question is still meaningful, and a substantive answer is given.78
However, even if the question is given a legitimate answer, one
could still imagine that it was asked for illegitimate reasons. This
hypothesis must be examined in the light of 3:10–12. Is
Nicodemus here critiqued for asking his question, or for not
knowing its answer?79 If not, it follows that we have good reasons
for thinking that 3:9 is a real and legitimate question.
WHAT THE TEACHER OF ISRAEL DOES NOT KNOW (3:10)

Some interpret 3:10 as being critical of Nicodemus for not
understanding what Jesus has said about birth from above.80 This
is curious, for in 3:9 Nicodemus does not ask about or misunder-
stand what birth from above is. Nicodemus asks how ταῦτα can
happen (3:9), and Jesus replies that Nicodemus does not know
ταῦτα (3:10). Thus, Nicodemus’s lack of knowledge regarding
ταῦτα (3:10) is qualified by the question in 3:9. The point is not
that Nicodemus knows nothing in relation to ταῦτα—which here
refers to birth from above—or does not understand what ταῦτα
means, but that he lacks knowledge about how it is possible for
ταῦτα to take place. The issue in 3:9–10 is the ‘how’ of birth from
above, not the ‘what’. After Jesus explains birth from above in
terms of spiritual birth (3:5–8), nothing indicates that Nicodemus
still did not understand what Jesus meant by birth ἄνωθεν.
Most scholars interpret Jesus’ response in 3:10 in the sense that
Nicodemus ought to have known the answer to his own
77
Frey, Eschatologie, vol. 3, p. 259.
78
Correctly Karl Barth, Erkl€ arung des Johannes-Evangeliums (Kapitel 1–8):
Vorlesung M€ unster Wintersemester 1925/26, wiederholt in Bonn, Sommersemester
1933 (Gesamtausgabe, 2; Akademische Werke, 9; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag,
1977), p. 215; Hofius, ‘Wunder’, p. 53.
79
Schmidl (Nikodemus, p. 209) discussed the option that 3:9 might express
a positive wish to be instructed, but he understands 3:10 as precluding this
interpretation.
80
Schnackenburg, John, vol. 1, p. 375, Barrett, John, p. 176; Renz,
‘Nicodemus’, p. 262.
question.81 However, the structural argument presented above al-

ready renders this interpretation unlikely. If 3:9 is a question that
is answered in 3:13–16, it follows that Nicodemus could not have
known the answer to his own question.82 No one, not even the
Baptist (cf. 1:31), had the kind of insight that 3:13–16 presup-
poses, apart from a specific divine revelation. Only when
Scripture is reread in the light of this revelation does it testify to
its truth. In 3:13–21, for the first time in the narrative, Jesus
expresses the kind of insights that readers were given already in
1:1–18, meaning that no character in the narrative can be blamed
at this point for not knowing these truths.83
Moreover, it is worth emphasizing that 3:10 contains no explicit
critique of Nicodemus, but literally only says ‘you are the teacher
of Israel and you do not know this’. The first and second part of
the sentence are connected with καί, and not set in explicit con-
trast. However, Jesus’ statement seems to be doing more than
simply stating a matter of fact, and commentators correctly as-
sume that there is some kind of conflict between the fact that
Nicodemus is called ‘the teacher of Israel’ and the fact that he
‘does not know this’.84 The clue to a correct interpretation of this
conflict is arguably to interpret 3:10 in the light of 3:2.
Nicodemus, who first called Jesus a teacher and rabbi, is now
himself called ‘the teacher of Israel’, but Jesus adds that he does
not know what he is talking about. This creates a stark contrast to
Nicodemus’s professed knowledge in 3:2.85 Nicodemus’s confi-
dent ‘we know’ is set in contrast to ‘you do not know’. The point
is not that, as a teacher of Israel, he ought to have known how
birth from above can be possible, but that even though he is the
teacher of Israel, he does not know this. Not that Nicodemus
81
See n. 8 above. Jan G. van der Watt (‘Knowledge’, p. 304) rightly claims
that there is ‘considerable consensus’ about this.
82
Correctly Bultmann, John, p. 144; Hofius, ‘Wunder’, pp. 55–6; Gitte
Buch-Hansen, ‘It is the Spirit that Gives Life’: A Stoic Understanding of
Pneuma in John’s Gospel (BZNW; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), p. 317.
83
The relationship between 3:13–21 and the prologue is demonstrated
plausibly by Lars Kierspel, ‘Dematerializing Religion: Reading John 2–4 as a
Chiasm’, Bib 89 (2008), pp. 526–54, at 547.
84
The statement could be punctuated with or without a question mark
(Michaels, John, p. 190). However, the difference between these two alterna-
tives is not great; if 3:10 is a question, it must be a rhetorical question contain-
ing an implicit claim.
85
Culpepper (‘Nicodemus’, p. 254) claimed that the ‘we know’ in 3:2 does
not ironically expose the ignorance of the one who makes the claim (cf. 9:24;
16:30), but this seems very improbable in the light of 3:10–11.
ought to have known more than he did, but that he knew less than
he imagined.86 Jesus’ reply in 3:10 anticipates the notion that he
has unique access to divine truth, which, as we will see below, is a
key theme in 3:11–13.
Professing to know things about which one is ignorant is always
negatively portrayed in John, and sometimes stands in the way of
recognizing Jesus (6:42; 7:27; 8:52; 9:24; 11:49; 19:10).87
Overconfidence in one’s own ability to ‘see’ is explicitly men-
tioned as a condition for judgement in 9:41. Being ignorant of
something, on the other hand, does not necessarily render one an
outsider (cf. 12:16; 13:7, 28; 14:9). Some of the characters in John
that are most favourably characterized openly confess their own
ignorance (9:12), or the limitations of their perspective (3:31).88
Given the juxtaposition of Nicodemus and the Baptist in John 3,
it is particularly noteworthy how Nicodemus’s οἴδαμεν (3:2) stands
in contrast to how the Baptist twice recognizes the limits of his
own insight: Κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν (1:31, 33). Believers too ask
questions that expose their ignorance (cf. 1:38, 48; 9:36; 13:36).
The fact that 3:9 reveals the limitations of Nicodemus’s know-
ledge should not automatically lead to the conclusion that the
question should not have been posed. In fact, it should arguably
be counted in Nicodemus’s favour that he moves from a confident
assertion of knowledge (3:2), via a rhetorical question (3:4), to an
open question that implicitly concedes his need for instruc-
tion (3:9).
WHO BEARS TESTIMONY AND WHAT IS ITS CONTENT? (3:11)

If there is no solid basis in 3:10 for thinking that Nicodemus’s
question in 3:9 was illegitimate, what about 3:11? Here Jesus
criticizes Nicodemus by saying: ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, we
speak of what we have come to know and testify to what we have
seen, but you do not receive our testimony.’ This verse poses sev-
eral problems to the interpreter. Why does Jesus suddenly speak
in the plural form? What is Jesus referring to as known and seen,
spoken about, and testified to? When was this testimony rejected,
86
Jason S. Sturdevant, ‘Incarnation as Psychagogy: The Purpose of the
Word’s Descent in John’s Gospel’, NovT 56 (2014), pp. 24–44, rightly claims
that Jesus first needs to ‘make Nicodemus recognize the poverty of his current
level of awareness’, before he can instruct him (p. 39).
87
Although some of these statements contain partial truths, they still stand
in the way of full recognition of Jesus.
88
Here, we presuppose that 3:31 is spoken by the Baptist, who recognizes
that he, in contrast to Jesus, is of the earth.
and by whom? Depending on how such questions are answered, it

is possible to construe the train of thought in the dialogue in quite
different ways. For our purposes, the crucial question is whether
3:11 should be read as a specific critique of Nicodemus for not
having received Jesus’ testimony, and whether Jesus’ testimony
should be construed with reference back to what he already said in
3:3–8.
One interpreter argued that ‘Jesus’ words in verse 11 imply
that Nicodemus has ultimately not grasped the heart of the con-
versation’.89 This interpretation of 3:11 also has implications for
our understanding of 3:9. If Jesus critiques Nicodemus in 3:11
for not having received (in faith) what Jesus said in the dialogue,
it becomes more plausible to interpret Nicodemus’s question in
3:9 as an expression of incredulity—as a question that testifies to
the fact that he continues asking questions concerning something
that Jesus has already testified about, but which he has failed to
receive in faith (cf. 8:25; 10:25–6).90
However, we will now argue that the content of the message the
‘you’ (plural) does not receive is not Jesus’ teaching about birth
from above, but the full truth about Jesus’ identity and mission.
This implies that Nicodemus’s problem in relation to the revela-
tion is not simply that he fails to make sense of or believe a specif-
ic metaphor used by Jesus to describe how one receives eternal
life (birth from above). The problem is more fundamental, having
to do with who Jesus is and what he has come to accomplish. It
follows that 3:11 cannot be interpreted as a critique of the fact
that Nicodemus posed the question in 3:9.
A helpful place to start is to look at the key terms in 3:11—
μαρτυρέω, ὁράω, οἶδα and λαμβάνω. These are all typically used in
John with reference to the revelation of the truth about Jesus,
which can be known, seen, testified to, and received. Although
each of these terms can occasionally be used for other purposes, it
seems very likely that they do refer to christological content when
they are used in conjunction. Consider the following passages. In
1:31–4 the Baptist is moved from not knowing Jesus to knowing
89
Hylen, Imperfect, p. 32.
90
‘Denn die Frage in V. 9 wird sachlich abgewiesen und anschließend als
Nichtannahme des Zeugnisses kommentiert (V. 11), bzw. als Unglaube (V. 12).’
Harald Hegermann, ‘Er kam in sein Eigentum: Zur Bedeutung des
Erdenwirkens Jesu im vierten Evangelium’, in E. Lohse (ed.), Der Ruf Jesu
und die Antwort der Gemeinde: Exegetische Untersuchungen Joachim Jeremias zum
70sten Geburtstag (G€ottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1970), pp. 112–31,
at119–20.
him and testifies on the basis of what he has seen. In 3:31–3 Jesus
himself testifies on the basis of what he has seen, but his testi-
mony is not received. It is clear from 3:34–6 that the issue at stake
is not specific aspects of Jesus’ teaching, but faith in Jesus as the
Son who speaks the words of his Father. In 8:12–14 Jesus testifies
about himself as the light of the world and claims that he can le-
gitimately do so because he knows his own origin and destiny. In
12:44–50, which is Jesus’ climactic last public proclamation of his
own identity, Jesus speaks about seeing him (12:45), believing in
him (12:44, 46), and hearing him (12:47). This is set in contrast to
rejecting Jesus (12:48) and not receiving the words he has spoken
(12:48). In 17:8, using similar terminology, the disciples are iden-
tified as those who have received the words Jesus has spoken, and
thereby come to know who Jesus is. In both 19:35 and 21:24, a
link is made between seeing and testifying and both passages
clearly refer to the truth about Jesus. These passages all compel
us to hold that 3:11 refers to the central truth about Jesus, rather
than some specific aspect of his teaching.91
With regard to ὁράω, the argument above is not simply based
on how this term happens to be used in John, but also a more gen-
eral consideration. While it is possible to construe Jesus’ teaching
in 3:5–8 as an object of knowledge, speech, testimony, and recep-
tion, it is very difficult to see how Jesus’ teaching on birth from
above can be described as something that either he or someone
else has seen.
In addition to these arguments based on the terminology in
3:11, two further considerations point in the same direction.
First, it seems likely that 3:11, just like 3:10, is meant to echo
Nicodemus’s initial statement in 3:2. Nicodemus thought he rep-
resented a ‘we’ that knew the truth after having seen the signs.
However, the ‘we’ in 3:11, which does not include Nicodemus,
claims to possess the truth on the basis of what it has seen. These
links between 3:11 and 3:2 suggest that the same kind of issue is
at stake in both verses, namely Jesus’ identity and mission.
Secondly, all the ‘amen, amen’ sayings in 3:1–21 are elaborated
in what Jesus continues to say. This pattern encourages us to ask
whether the content of 3:11 is developed in what Jesus has not yet
said. The obvious candidate would be 3:13–16, where Jesus puts
forward truths that fit the kind of terminology used in 3:11.
This way of construing the meaning of 3:11 implies that Jesus
here does not fault Nicodemus for having already failed to receive
91
Cf. also 1 John 1:1–3.
his testimony in the preceding dialogue. The fact that Jesus

addresses his critique to ‘you people’ in the plural, rather than
Nicodemus alone, suggests that the point is not confined to
Nicodemus’s degree of attentiveness in 3:3–9, but addresses a
more general point.92 Negative generalizations concerning the re-
ception of Jesus are found in several texts in John (cf. 1:10–11;
3:32; 12:37). In each of these texts, the negative generalizations
are followed by exceptions (1:12; 3:33; 12:42). This indicates that
the point of the generalizations is not to prescribe in detail how
individual humans will respond or have responded to Jesus, but
to present disbelief as the normal and typical human response to
Jesus. In 3:11, Jesus situates Nicodemus as belonging to a larger
group: the ‘you’ that generally does not receive the truth about
Jesus. This is where Nicodemus belongs, despite the positive
statements about Jesus he made in 3:2. The full truth about Jesus
is not available to Nicodemus qua teacher of Israel (3:10). He
must receive it through the testimony of someone who, unlike
Nicodemus, has seen and come to know. This someone is arguably
Jesus himself.93
However, many commentators tend to read 3:11 as the confes-
sion of the believing community.94 One can hardly object to this
proposal on the grounds that it would imply an anachronism, for
the charge of anachronism carries little force in John, whose work
often exhibits a blending of different temporal horizons.95
However, a change of speaker in 3:11 is something more than an
anachronism. It requires the sudden introduction and then the
92
Note that λαμβάνω is in the present tense, both in 3:11 and in the closely
parallel statement in 3:32, where the term clearly refers to the general tendency
that Jesus’ message is not received, rather than some specific expression
of disbelief.
93
Hofius, ‘Wunder’; Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 132; Carson, John, pp. 198–9.
94
For example, David Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating
Community (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1988), p. 38; Zumstein,
Johannes, p. 142. There are also other proposals: that Jesus’ disciples have been
present with Jesus and are now included; that Jesus and the Baptist testify to-
gether; that the whole chorus of apostolic witnesses now speak; or that the
Father and/or the Spirit testifies with Jesus. See discussion in Hofius,
‘Wunder’, p. 57. For the view that Jesus in 3:11 testifies with the Spirit, see
Benjamin E. Reynolds, ‘The Testimony of Jesus and the Spirit: The “We” of
John 3:11 in its Literary Context’, Neotestamentica 41 (2007), pp. 157–72.
95
See Christina Hoegen-Rohls, Der nach€osterliche Johannes: Die
Abschiedsreden als hermeneutischer Schl€
ussel zum vierten Evangelium (WUNT 84;
T€ubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996).
sudden disappearance of a new character in the dialogue.96 Both

3:10 and 3:12 are obviously spoken by Jesus himself. It is inher-
ently improbable that the believing community speaks in 3:11 and
only worthy of consideration because the speaker in 3:11 employs
the plural ‘we’ (cf. 1:14). However, this fact is sufficiently well
explained on the assumption that 3:11 is designed to echo and ape
3:2, where Nicodemus uses the ‘we’.97 What Nicodemus errone-
ously imagined that he knew about Jesus, Jesus now claims that
he alone knows.
Thus, we have a satisfactory explanation for the only argument
in favour of seeing someone else than Jesus as the speaker of 3:11,
and there is also a strong positive argument that supports the
view that Jesus is the one who testifies in 3:11 about himself. This
argument is based on a comparison between 3:11–13 and 3:31–
2.98 The similarities between these two passages are impressive,
as shown in Table 1.
These similarities suggest that both passages describe one and
the same fact, with slightly different terms, which means that
3:31–2 can be used to clarify some things that are not stated expli-
citly in 3:11–13. On the basis of 3:31–2, it becomes clear that the
testimony referred to in 3:11 should be understood as τὰ
ἐπουράνια, which Jesus speaks of in 3:12 and is uniquely equipped
to speak about because of his descent from heaven (3:13).99 What
Jesus has seen and come to know (3:11) must be understood as
insights into the heavenly. As is made emphatically clear in 3:31–
2, Jesus alone is in a position to testify in this way, since he alone
is from above; or, to phrase it in terms taken from 3:13, since he
alone has ascended and descended from heaven.100 Thus, the
96
There are other noticeable plurals (4:22; 9:4) that might suggest that the
confessing community is allowed to speak through Jesus. So Frey, ‘Dualismus’,
p. 475.
97
A less likely explanation (Bultmann, John, p. 146; Michaels, John, p. 191)
of why Jesus uses the ‘we’ is that it is too early in the gospel for Jesus to speak
with a forthright ‘I’ since the author wants to retain an air of mystery
around Jesus.
98
Keith Vande Vrede, ‘A Contrast between Nicodemus and John the
Baptist in the Gospel of John’, JETS 57 (2014), pp. 715–26, at 722.
99
On Jesus as apocalyptic seer in John, see Johannes Beutler, Martyria:
Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Zeugnisthema bei Johannes
(Frankfurter theologische Studien, 10; Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1972), pp.
307–38.
100
Some interpret 3:13 in the sense that ‘no one has ascended into heaven,
but one has descended, the Son of man’. However, this is not the most natural
construal of the Greek text. From a Johannine point of view, it is entirely pos-
sible to imagine that Jesus refers to events that are still to take place within
TABLE 1. Comparison of motifs between John 3:11 13 and 31 2
Motif 3:11 13 3:31 2
Jesus’ uniqueness καὶ οὐδεὶς Ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος

ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς ἐπάνω
τὸν οὐρανὸν πάντων ἐστίν
Jesus’ origin ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ
καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς οὐρανοῦ ἐρχόμενος
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.
The basis for οἴδαμεν καὶ ὃ ἑώρακεν
Jesus’ testimony ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἤκουσεν
Jesus’ testimony λαλοῦμεν . . . τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ
μαρτυροῦμεν
The difference be- Εἰ τὰ ἐπίγεια εἶπον ὁ ὢ ν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκ
tween heavenly and . . . ἐὰν εἴπω ὑμῖν τῆς γῆς ἐστιν καὶ
earthly speech τὰ ἐπουράνια ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαλεῖ
The negative recep- τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμῶν οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει
tion of οὐ λαμβάνετε
the testimony
speaker of 3:11 has to be Jesus. Even if there is no distinction

when it comes to the content of the testimony, if one compares
Jesus’ self-testimony to the testimony of the believing community
(cf. 1: 4), it is still theologically significant for John that Jesus’ tes-
timony is prior to all other testimonies, since these can do no
more than to confirm the truth in Jesus’ own words.101
The idea that 3:11 should be construed as Jesus’ own heavenly
testimony, based on what he has seen, heard, and come to know in
heaven, might seem to count against the suggestion that the con-
tent of this testimony concerns Jesus’ own identity and mission as
spelled out in 3:13–16. Judging from 3:11–13 and 3:31–2, one
may have expected Jesus to transmit heavenly visions and secrets
to humans, but he does no such thing in John. The idea that
‘narrative time’ (Frey, Eschatologie, vol. 2, p. 254). For alternative interpreta-
tions, see John Asthon, ‘The Johannine Son of Man: A New Proposal’, NTS
57 (2011), pp. 508–29; Madison N. Pierce and Benjamin E. Reynolds, ‘The
Perfect Tense-Form of the Son of Man in John 3.13: Developments in Greek
Grammar as a Viable Solution to the Timing of the Ascent and Descent’,
NTS 60 (2014), pp. 149–55.
101
Schnackenburg (John, vol. 1, p. 376) makes a similar point.
Jesus’ testimony is heavenly probably draws on the apocalyptic

trope of chosen mediators of revelation who are permitted access
to the heavenly through visions or journeys (1 Enoch 14:8–25;
70–1; Test. Abr. 10; Test. Levi 2–5; 2 Bar. 4:4; 6:5; 3 Baruch 6–
7).102 In John, this trope has been thoroughly reconfigured. The
object of the vision that is enabled by the open heavens is Jesus
himself (1:50–51), and Jesus’ testimony is ultimately about him-
self.103 This is clearly seen in the three passages in John that de-
scribe Jesus as testifying: 3:11, 3:32, and 8:13. A brief look into
the contexts of these passages soon reveals that they are not about
‘what it looks like in heaven’, but, paradoxically, about what tran-
spired on earth: Jesus’ descent into the realm of flesh as the re-
vealer, his being lifted up on the cross, and his return to his
Father. Therefore, the notion that this testimony is built on what
Jesus has seen in heaven has nothing to do with the content of
what he says. It is a way of articulating the pre-eminent authority
and truthfulness of Jesus’ words, which is guaranteed by Jesus’
origin with God.
HEAVENLY AND EARTHLY THINGS (3:12)

We have now argued that neither 3:10 nor 3:11 should be inter-
preted as Jesus criticizing Nicodemus for something he had failed
to believe or understand in the previous dialogue, but which he
should have believed or understood. Accordingly, there is no solid
basis in 3:10–11 for claiming that Nicodemus’s question in 3:9
was illegitimate or redundant. What then of 3:12? Here, Jesus
faults Nicodemus for not believing when he speaks about τὰ
ἐπίγεια. Could it be that the question in 3:9 provides the basis for
this accusation? Is Nicodemus’s query about how birth from
above is possible evidence that he has not believed τὰ ἐπίγεια?
Several considerations speak against such a conclusion. To
begin with, it seems difficult to assume that the question of how
birth from above can be possible should be classified as insights
102
Grese, ‘‘Unless’, p. 689; Christopher Rowland, ‘Things into which
Angels Long to Look: Approaching Mysticism from the Perspective of the
New Testament and the Jewish Apocalypses’, in C. Rowland, C. R. A.
Morray-Jones (eds.), The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New
TestamentC. Rowland, C. R. A. Morray-Jone (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum
ad Novum Testamentum, 12; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009), pp. 3–201,
at 131.
103
For a more detailed exploration, see Ole Jakob Filtvedt, ‘The
Transcendence and Visibility of the Father in the Gospel of John’, ZNW 108
(2017), pp. 90–118, at 97–102.
having to do with τὰ ἐπίγεια, or that Nicodemus had not needed to

pose his question in 3:9, had he only believed what Jesus has said
concerning τὰ ἐπίγεια. Instead, the fact that Jesus qualifies the
birth he is talking about as being ἄνωθεν and ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος
seems to presuppose that knowledge about how such birth is pos-
sible belongs to insights pertaining to the heavenly, what Jesus
refers to in 3:12 as τὰ ἐπουράνια. For any human of the earth, such
as Nicodemus, the origin and destiny of those born by the Spirit
will remain a mystery (3:8). Thus, Nicodemus’s query in 3:9 can
hardly be classified as pertaining to earthly things.
Moreover, as we have already argued, the full answer to
Nicodemus’s question in 3:9 is not given in 3:3–8, but found in
3:13–16, where Jesus gives the kind of self-testimony that he
alone is equipped to give (3:11) because he alone has ascended
and descended from heaven (3:13). Since Jesus’ testimony is
authorized by his heavenly origin and destiny, it is this self-
testimony that must be regarded as the referent of what Jesus in
3:12 cryptically refers to as τὰ ἐπουράνια.
Thus, the function of 3:12 is not to blame Nicodemus for hav-
ing posed his question in 3:9, but to point out to Nicodemus that
his question is going to take him well beyond the limits of his
understanding. Nicodemus has inquired about the heavenly and
he is hardly going to believe what Jesus is going to say, since he
has already failed to believe Jesus when he spoke about the earthly
things. Thus, the logic of 3:12 moves from the lesser to the
greater: if Nicodemus cannot even believe Jesus when he speaks
of accessible and easily comprehensible things, earthly matters, he
will definitively not believe if Jesus moves on to explore the heav-
enly mysteries.104 Wayne Meeks plausibly contended that the
statement in 3:12 alludes to a cliche in revelatory ancient litera-
ture (cf. Diogenes Laertius 1.34; Ps. Callisthenes, Life of
Alexander 1.14; Cicero De Republica 1.30; Wis. 9:16; 4 Ezra
4:2),105 describing humans who seek knowledge beyond their
reach.106 Thus, in 3:12 Jesus continues to emphasize the limits of
Nicodemus’s knowledge and again, as in 3:10–11, it is plausible to
104
Hofius (‘Wunder’, p. 58) correctly noted that ἐὰν in 3:12 is an eventualis
rather than irrealis.
105
Meeks, ‘Man From Heaven’, p. 54. Meeks also went a long way to sug-
gest—less plausibly in this interpreter’s opinion—that the reference of τὰ
ἐπίγεια and τὰ ἐπουράνια is irrelevant for the interpretation of 3:12, and pro-
posed that the point is simply to distinguish between different levels
of knowledge.
106
Meeks, ‘Man From Heaven’, p. 54
interpret this as a critique of Nicodemus’s pretention to know

who Jesus was in 3:2. Claiming to know the identity of Jesus is, in
effect, claiming to have access to heaven and to know the heaven-
ly; however, as Jesus points out in 3:13, such access is restricted
to one human being alone, the Son of Man. Therefore, 3:12
should hardly be read as Jesus blaming Nicodemus for not know-
ing the answer to his own question in 3:9.
However, even if Nicodemus cannot be blamed for not knowing
the answer to his own question, maybe he can be blamed for pos-
ing his question in the first place? Maybe he should have known
that his question was unanswerable? Jan G. van der Watt argued
along such lines when discussing the meaning of the phrase τὰ
ἐπίγεια. He correctly noted that many of the suggested interpreta-
tions of τὰ ἐπίγεια—things said by the historical Jesus, Jesus’ use
of metaphorical speech, things that transpired on earth—fail to
account for the train of thought in 3:1–21,107 and he pertinently
emphasized that τὰ ἐπίγεια has to refer to something in the dia-
logue that Nicodemus should have believed but did not.108 Van
der Watt’s own proposal is that τὰ ἐπίγεια refers to the insight that
humans cannot fully understand how birth from above takes
place,109 but there are at least three reasons why this proposal fails
to convince.
First, his proposal seems to presuppose that 3:9 should be
understood as a modal question concerned with the way in which
birth from above takes place. We have already argued that it is
very unlikely that 3:9 should be understood in this way. If we are
correct in maintaining that 3:9 asks what ultimately makes birth
from above possible, and in holding that this question is answered
by Jesus in 3:13–16, one can hardly claim that the question is un-
answerable or should not have been posed. In other words, there
is a crucial distinction to be made between the issue of whether
humans are able to know the answer to the question in 3:9 apart
from divine revelation, and the issue of whether humans may le-
gitimately ask the kind of question Nicodemus asks in 3:9, and
then hope to receive divine instruction.
Secondly, van der Watt’s proposal is rendered improbable by
the fact that it does not adequately explain Jesus’ use of the phrase
107
For discussion of such alternatives, see van der Watt, ‘Knowledge’, pp.
291–5.
108
Van der Watt, ‘Knowledge’, p. 297. The verb πιστεύω is mostly used in
John for belief in Jesus or claims about Jesus, but it can also refer to other
kinds of propositions (e.g. 4:21; 8:45; 9:18).
109
Van der Watt, ‘Knowledge’, p. 308.
τὰ ἐπίγεια. For van der Watt, it is not the experience of birth from
above that constitutes τὰ ἐπίγεια, but the insight that this experi-
ence cannot be explained in human terms. However, it is unclear
why Jesus would refer to this insight as τὰ ἐπίγεια.
Finally, van der Watt’s proposal seems to presuppose that Jesus
is criticizing Nicodemus for trying to make sense of a heavenly
phenomenon on human terms, and for not realizing that there are
some mysteries that resist such explanation. However, in 3:12
Nicodemus is precisely not criticized for thinking in a too earthly
way, or for trying to fit heavenly mysteries into earthly catego-
ries.110 His problem is not that he has misunderstood or miscon-
strued τὰ ἐπουράνια, for Jesus has not yet spoken of this. His
problem is that he does not even believe τὰ ἐπίγεια.
Therefore, there are good reasons for entertaining other inter-
pretative options, the most plausible being that τὰ ἐπίγεια refers to
the human condition that makes birth from above necessary.111
That this is something Nicodemus had trouble understanding or
accepting is clear from 3:7, where Jesus urges him not to be
amazed by the fact that humans (note the plural in 3:7) need to be
born from above. This is actually the only critique leveled at
Nicodemus in 3:3–8. He is never criticized for his failure to make
sense of the phrase birth ἄνωθεν or his unwillingness to believe
that such birth is possible. The distinction between τὰ ἐπίγεια and
τὰ ἐπουράνια arguably builds on 3:6, where the human condition is
spelled out in terms of the duality between σάρξ and πνεῦμα. That
humans are flesh and can therefore only give birth to flesh can
plausibly be described as insights having to do with τὰ ἐπίγεια.
The fact that 3:12 uses τὰ ἐπίγεια and τὰ ἐπουράνια, rather than
σάρξ and πνεῦμα, can be explained by the fact that 3:12 prepares
for the statement about the Son of Man’s descent from heaven
(cf. the καί in 3:13).
The statement in 3:12 is not designed to show that the question
in 3:9 was illegitimate, that Nicodemus ought to have known its
answer already, or that it cannot be answered. It is designed to ex-
plain why Nicodemus will most likely reject the answer to his le-
gitimate question. Someone who does not even realize that he
needs to be born from above will have great problems accepting
an answer to the question of how such birth can be possible.
Jesus’ πῶς in 3:12 picks up on Nicodemus’ πῶς in 3:9: how could
110
Contra the scholars listed in n. 8 above.
111
Beasley-Murray, John, p. 50; Hofius, ‘Wunder’, pp. 58–9; Zumstein,
Johannes, p. 142.
Nicodemus possibly believe the (heavenly) answer to the question

about how birth from above can be possible, if he has not even
believed τὰ ἐπίγεια? How could he possibly understand that the
Son of Man must be lifted up (3:14) if he does not understand that
humans must be born from above (3:7)?
THE FLOW OF THE ARGUMENT IN 3:9–16

Given the discussion above, the flow of the argument in 3:9–16
can be construed as follows. In 3:9 Nicodemus asks what ultim-
ately makes birth from above possible. In 3:10, Jesus indicates
that this is not the sort of question one can answer by virtue of
knowing the Scriptures, even if one is the teacher of Israel. Then,
in 3:11, Jesus goes on to assert that the answer to Nicodemus’s
question depends on a certain kind of knowledge and testimony,
which is qualified in 3:12 as being heavenly. In 3:13 Jesus offers a
reason why Nicodemus cannot answer his own question, even
though he is the teacher of Israel: Jesus alone has access to the
heavenly realm from which the answer is given. Only one who
knows and has seen the heavenly, and who can testify to what he
has seen, heard, and come to know, can explain how birth from
above is possible. However, the answer to Nicodemus’s question
is not an account of what it looks like in heaven, but a correct ver-
sion of what Nicodemus erroneously imagined that he knew al-
ready before he encountered Jesus. Only a correct understanding
of who Jesus is and what his mission entails can explain what
makes birth from above possible. In 3:13–16, Jesus offers
Nicodemus just this by explicating his divine origin, his descent
to the realm of flesh, his being lifted up on the cross, and his re-
turn the Father.112 This is the heavenly testimony that only Jesus
can give, and also the answer to Nicodemus’s query in 3:9.
CONCLUSION
There are good reasons for questioning the overtly negative
interpretations of 3:9 that prevail in current scholarship. For ex-
ample, Nicodemus here shows himself to be a rationalist who
seeks explanations for the unexplainable; he demonstrates disbe-
lief in response to what Jesus says; he is unable to understand the
concept of birth ἄνωθεν, even when the concept is explained to
112
On the notion that 3:13–16 corrects the content of Nicodemus’s confes-
sion in 3:2, see Frey, Eschatologie, vol. 3, p. 246.
him; he merely reiterates his initial question in 3:4; he is unable to

understand things he ought to have understood because he was
the teacher of Israel; and he does not accept Jesus’ authority as
teacher. These interpretations of 3:9 have been found to be either
unwarranted or questionable.
In comparing 3:9 to other πῶς questions in the New
Testament, and having examining 3:9 within its literary context,
we have argued that 3:9 is almost certainly not concerned with the
way in which birth from above takes place, and that 3:9 is prob-
ably not a rhetorical question that seeks to undermine the possi-
bility of birth from above. Instead, we propose that Nicodemus
asks about the conditions under which it is possible for birth from
above to take place.
If this is Nicodemus’s question, is it legitimate? The answer to
this question is largely determined by how one reads the train of
thought in 3:10–12. We have argued that nothing in 3:10–12 sug-
gests that Nicodemus has posed an illegitimate question, that he
is blamed for posing it, or for not knowing its answer. The ques-
tion is legitimate and answered in 3:13–16. This answer is not
something one knows by virtue of being the teacher of Israel
(3:10), but something one must receive through divine revelation
(3:11–13).
Ironically, the answer to Nicodemus’s question is only available
to someone who actually knows what Nicodemus professed to
know in 3:2, namely Jesus’ identity and the purpose of his com-
ing. Since Nicodemus already thought he knew who Jesus is (3:2),
and since he has not adequately realized his own problem (3:6–7,
12), Jesus predicts that he will not believe the heavenly answer to
his own question (3:12). The full truth about Jesus answers the
problem Nicodemus failed to realize that he had, by giving the
kind of insight that Nicodemus believed he already possessed.

Revisiting Nicodemus's Question in John 3.9

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revisiting Nicodemus's Question in John 3.9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ownloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.

1093/jts/fly168/5321167 by Washington University, Law School Library user on 23 February 201

REVISITING NICODEMUS’S QUESTION

OLE JAKOB FILTVEDT

conclusion and, at the same time, offer a fresh interpretation of

NEGATIVE EVALUATIONS OF THE QUESTION IN 3:9

his failure to make sense of the concept of ‘birth ἄνωθεν’, even

progressing in insight, Nicodemus reiterates his question from

views as absurd15 or challenge Jesus’ authority as a teacher.16 The

THE INTERPRETATION OF 3:9 AND LARGER ISSUES IN JOHANNINE

deeper truth that readers recognize but characters overlook.22

Jews.28 Some also construe him as a proto-believer who is moving

has been largely overlooked by scholars, but is arguably of great

WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS 3:9?

modality.37 If 3:9 is modal, Nicodemus asks in what way ‘these

WHY 3:9 IS PROBABLY NOT A MODAL QUESTION

9:10–26 that is clearly not modal, namely 9:16.44 Some of the

COMPARING 3:9 TO RHETORICAL ΠῶΣ QUESTIONS IN JOHN

reconstruct their logical content as being: given x, πῶς y? The ‘x’

Ἐμάχοντο οὖν πρὸς ἀλλήλους οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι λέγοντες. Is there real confu-

also significant that the hostility of the Jews increases throughout

COMPARING 3:9 TO REAL ΠῶΣ QUESTIONS

CONTEXTUAL REASONS SUGGESTING THAT 3:9 IS A REAL QUESTION

from the point of view of Johannine theology, the answer to 3:9

what is called seeing and entering God’s kingdom in 3:3–5.68 The

Nicodemus begins not with a question about how one enters

The formal relationship between 3:2 and 3:3 points to a the-

Therefore, we have good reasons to claim that 3:9 should be

WHAT THE TEACHER OF ISRAEL DOES NOT KNOW (3:10)

question.81 However, the structural argument presented above al-

WHO BEARS TESTIMONY AND WHAT IS ITS CONTENT? (3:11)

and by whom? Depending on how such questions are answered, it

his testimony in the preceding dialogue. The fact that Jesus

sudden disappearance of a new character in the dialogue.96 Both

Jesus’ uniqueness καὶ οὐδεὶς Ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος

speaker of 3:11 has to be Jesus. Even if there is no distinction

Jesus’ testimony is heavenly probably draws on the apocalyptic

HEAVENLY AND EARTHLY THINGS (3:12)

having to do with τὰ ἐπίγεια, or that Nicodemus had not needed to

interpret this as a critique of Nicodemus’s pretention to know

Nicodemus possibly believe the (heavenly) answer to the question

THE FLOW OF THE ARGUMENT IN 3:9–16

him; he merely reiterates his initial question in 3:4; he is unable to

You might also like