Question of Bible Interpretation
I noticed a change between the New NIV and the old one the other day and I'm curious to know what you think about it.
The New NIV presents John 3:16-21 as John's commentary on the encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus. The old version presents it as words Jesus said to Nicodemus.
The NLT agrees with the old NIV. So do the Message, the NASB, the NCV and even the NRSV. The old Revised Standard Version agrees with the New NIV.
Having thought about it, I'm inclined to agree with the New NIV and that changes, in a very significant way, my understanding of John 3:16.
How do you read it?
posted by bill Sloat at 8:42 AM
7 Comments:
Interesting. Thanks for noting this. I hadn't thought deeply about it before. Although it seems as though it would be possible to interpret it either way, it 'seems' like John's voice.
I primarily use the updated NIV myself.
the passage does seem to be very similar in verbage and tone to John 1, particularly in reference to "the light".
i'm not sure it makes much difference, if Jesus said this to nicodemus, or if the Holy Spirit spoke it through john. either way, it's God's truth, and it stands as the theological backing to Jesus' earlier comments in John 3.
M and walt,
Thanks for caring about truth.
The "Word" time in our last two gatherings has been focused on John 2:23 (where I think the passage begins) and John 3:21. We've had two riveting conversations centered around the question, "What does it really mean to be born again?" I cut the first one off after about an hour and five minutes. I cut the second one off after about 45 minutes. And, we're still going.
Since you have some freedom, walt, I wish you had been there.
In the past, I've made the point here that the past tense verb 'gave' in John 3:16 means that the Father's giving of the Son happened, not on the cross in the atonement, but with the incarnation because when Jesus said it, He was a long way from going to the cross.
However, if these words are John's then, based on Jesus' words in verse 15, the past tense verb refers to Jesus being 'lifted up' on the cross as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness.
Being the missional, incarnational person I am, I'd love read my prejudice into the passage and for John 3:16 to refer to the Word becoming flesh and making His dwelling among us. But, as I look more deeply and passionately into the passage, I can no longer believer that.
I'm concluding that John 2:23-3:21 is a Nicodemus sandwich with John's comments about belief coming before and after His account of the encounter between Nicodemus and Jesus.
I think it makes a huuuuuuge difference.
Is there any possibility that 'lifted up' could refer to the ascension, with all the mention of heaven in the preceding verse (13).
Cross - Resurrection - Ascension.
I had always assumed that it referred the the cross and probably still does, but I just thought I'd throw that our there.
M
Awesome question.
Now that I think of it, I see that verse 13 has significant meaning. However, and perhaps this is because of what my own prejudices lead me to want to see in the Word, it seems to me that 13 would refer to the incarnation rather than the acension.
The verbs are past tense in verse 13 as well. The incarnation was a historical reality when Jesus and Nicodemus talked. The cross was not. What Jesus is talking about in verse 13 had already happened, at least as I read the verse.
Bill - I'm wondering whether you are making too much of the tense.
I can't see how 'as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, even so must the Son of Man lifted up' refer to the incarnation?
I'm willing to consider / believe it, but how is 'lifted up' related to the idea of incarnation?
M,
I can't see how 'as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, even so must the Son of Man lifted up' refer to the incarnation?
Same here.
What I can see having to do with the incarnation is 'No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man'
Post a Comment
<< Home