◀ All Reading Plans / Revised Common Lectionary (Semicontinuous) / Isaiah 6:1-8 (Isaiah’s vision and call); Psalm 29 (Worship God in holiness); Romans 8:12-17 (Living by the Spirit); John 3:1-17 (Entering the reign of God) (New English Translation)

Prev Day

May 26, 2024

Next Day

Use the calendar to view readings from this devotional.

May 2024
Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Return to today's reading

Revised Common Lectionary (Semicontinuous)

Daily Bible readings that follow the church liturgical year, with sequential stories told across multiple weeks.

Duration: 1245 days

Isaiah 6:1-8

Isaiah’s Commission

6 In the year of King Uzziah’s death,^[a] I saw the Lord^[b] seated on a high, elevated throne. The hem of his robe filled the temple. ²Seraphs^[c] stood over him; each one had six wings. With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet,^[d] and they used the remaining two to fly. ³They called out to one another, “Holy, holy, holy^[e] is the Lord of Heaven’s Armies!^[f] His majestic splendor fills the entire earth!” ⁴The sound of their voices shook the door frames,^[g] and the temple was filled with smoke.

⁵I said, “Woe to me! I am destroyed,^[h] for my lips are contaminated by sin,^[i] and I live among people whose lips are contaminated by sin.^[j] My eyes have seen the king, the Lord of Heaven’s Armies.”^[k] ⁶But then one of the seraphs flew toward me. In his hand was a hot coal he had taken from the altar with tongs. ⁷He touched my mouth with it and said, “Look, this coal has touched your lips. Your evil is removed; your sin is forgiven.”^[l] ⁸I heard the voice of the Lord say, “Whom will I send? Who will go on our behalf?”^[m] I answered, “Here I am, send me!”

Footnotes

Isaiah 6:1 sn That is, approximately 740 b.c.
Isaiah 6:1 tn The Hebrew term translated “Lord” here and in vv. 8, 11 is אֲדֹנָי (ʾadonay).
Isaiah 6:2 tn Hebrew שָׂרָף (saraf, “seraph”) literally means “burning one,” perhaps suggesting that these creatures had a fiery appearance (cf. TEV, CEV “flaming creatures”; NCV “heavenly creatures of fire”). Elsewhere in the OT the word “seraph” refers to poisonous snakes (Num 21:6; Deut 8:15; Isa 14:29; 30:6). Perhaps they were called “burning ones” because of their appearance or the effect of their venomous bites, which would cause a victim to burn up with fever. It is possible that the seraphs seen by Isaiah were at least partially serpentine in appearance. Though it might seem strange for a snake-like creature to have wings, two of the texts where “seraphs” are snakes describe them as “flying” (Isa 14:29; 30:6), perhaps referring to their darting movements. See the note at 14:29.
Isaiah 6:2 sn Some understand “feet” here as a euphemistic reference to the genitals.
Isaiah 6:3 tn Some have seen a reference to the Trinity in the seraphs’ threefold declaration, “holy, holy, holy.” This proposal has no linguistic or contextual basis and should be dismissed as allegorical. Hebrew sometimes uses repetition for emphasis. (See IBHS 233-34 §12.5a; and GKC 431-32 §133.k.) By repeating the word “holy,” the seraphs emphasize the degree of the Lord’s holiness. For another example of threefold repetition for emphasis, see Ezek 21:27 (Heb. v. 32). (Perhaps Jer 22:29 provides another example.)sn Or “The Lord of Heaven’s Armies has absolute sovereign authority!” The basic sense of the word “holy” is “set apart from that which is commonplace, special, unique.” In this context the Lord’s holiness is first and foremost his transcendent sovereignty as the ruler of the world. He is “set apart” from the world over which he rules. Note the emphasis on the elevated position of his throne in v. 1 and his designation as “the king” in v. 5. At the same time his holiness encompasses his moral authority, which derives from his royal position. As king he has the right to dictate to his subjects how they are to live; indeed his very own character sets the standard for proper behavior. He is “set apart” from his subjects in a moral sense as well. He sets the standard; they fall short of it. Note that in v. 5 Isaiah laments that he is morally unworthy to be in the king’s presence.
Isaiah 6:3 tn Perhaps in this context, the title has a less militaristic connotation and pictures the Lord as the ruler of the heavenly assembly. See the note at 1:9.
Isaiah 6:4 tn On the phrase אַמּוֹת הַסִּפִּים (ʾammot hassippim, “pivots of the frames”) see HALOT 763 s.v. סַף.
Isaiah 6:5 tn Isaiah uses the suffixed (perfect) form of the verb for rhetorical purposes. In this way his destruction is described as occurring or as already completed. Rather than understanding the verb as derived from דָּמַה (damah, “be destroyed”), some take it from a proposed homonymic root דמה, which would mean “be silent.” In this case, one might translate, “I must be silent.”
Isaiah 6:5 tn Heb “a man unclean of lips am I.” Isaiah is not qualified to praise the king. His lips (the instruments of praise) are “unclean” because he has been contaminated by sin.
Isaiah 6:5 tn Heb “and among a nation unclean of lips I live.”
Isaiah 6:5 tn Perhaps in this context, the title has a less militaristic connotation and pictures the Lord as the ruler of the heavenly assembly. See the note at 1:9.
Isaiah 6:7 tn Or “ritually cleansed,” or “atoned for” (NIV).
Isaiah 6:8 tn Heb “for us.” The plural pronoun refers to the Lord, the seraphs, and the rest of the heavenly assembly.

Psalm 29

Psalm 29^[a]

A psalm of David.

29 Acknowledge the Lord, you heavenly beings,^[b]
acknowledge the Lord’s majesty and power.^[c]
²Acknowledge the majesty of the Lord’s reputation.^[d]
Worship the Lord in holy attire.^[e]
³The Lord’s shout is heard over the water;^[f]
the majestic God thunders,^[g]
the Lord appears over the surging water.^[h]
⁴The Lord’s shout is powerful,^[i]
the Lord’s shout is majestic.^[j]
⁵The Lord’s shout breaks^[k] the cedars,
the Lord shatters^[l] the cedars of Lebanon.^[m]
⁶He makes them skip like a calf,
Lebanon and Sirion^[n] like a young ox.^[o]
⁷The Lord’s shout strikes^[p] with flaming fire.^[q]
⁸The Lord’s shout shakes^[r] the wilderness,
the Lord shakes the wilderness of Kadesh.^[s]
⁹The Lord’s shout bends^[t] the large trees^[u]
and strips^[v] the leaves from the forests.^[w]
Everyone in his temple says, “Majestic!”^[x]
¹⁰The Lord sits enthroned over the engulfing waters,^[y]
the Lord sits enthroned^[z] as the eternal king.
¹¹The Lord gives^[aa] his people strength;^[ab]
the Lord grants his people security.^[ac]

Footnotes

Psalm 29:1 sn Psalm 29. In this hymn of praise the psalmist calls upon the heavenly assembly to acknowledge the royal splendor of the Lord. He describes the Lord’s devastating power as revealed in the thunderstorm and affirms that the Lord exerts this awesome might on behalf of his people. In its original context the psalm was a bold polemic against the Canaanite storm god Baal, for it affirms that the Lord is the real king who controls the elements of the storm, contrary to pagan belief. See R. B. Chisholm, Jr., “The Polemic against Baalism in Israel’s Early History and Literature,” BSac 150 (1994): 280-82.
Psalm 29:1 tc Heb “sons of gods,” or “sons of God.” Though אֵלִים (ʾelim) is vocalized as a plural form (“gods”) in the MT, it is likely that the final mem is actually enclitic, rather than a plural marker. In this case one may read “God.” Some, following a Qumran text and the LXX, also propose the phrase occurred in the original text of Deut 32:8.tn The phrase בְּנֵי אֵלִים (b^ene ʾelim, “sons of gods” or “sons of God”) occurs only here and in Ps 89:6 (89:7 HT). In Ps 89 the “sons of gods/God” are also called “the assembly of the holy ones” and “council of the holy ones.” The heavenly assembly, comprised of so-called “angels” and other supernatural beings, appears to be in view. See Job 5:1; 15:15 and Zech 14:5, where these supernatural beings are referred to as “holy ones.” In Canaanite mythological texts the divine council of the high god El is referred to as “the sons of El.” The OT apparently borrows the Canaanite phrase and applies it to the supernatural beings that surround the heavenly throne.
Psalm 29:1 tn Or “ascribe to the Lord glory and strength.”
Psalm 29:2 tn Heb “ascribe to the Lord the glory of his name.” The Hebrew term שֵׁם (shem, “name”) refers here to the Lord’s reputation. (The English term “name” is often used the same way.)
Psalm 29:2 tn That is, properly dressed for the occasion.
Psalm 29:3 tn Heb “the voice of the Lord [is] over the water.” As the next line makes clear, the “voice of the Lord” is here the thunder that accompanies a violent storm. The psalm depicts the Lord in the role of a warrior-king, so the thunder is his battle cry, as it were.
Psalm 29:3 tn The Hebrew perfect verbal form is probably descriptive. In dramatic fashion the psalmist portrays the Lord coming in the storm to do battle with his enemies and to vindicate his people.
Psalm 29:3 tn Traditionally “many waters.” The geographical references in the psalm (Lebanon, Sirion, Kadesh) suggest this is a reference to the Mediterranean Sea (see Ezek 26:19; 27:26). The psalmist describes a powerful storm moving in from the sea and sweeping over the mountainous areas north of Israel. The “surging waters” may symbolize the hostile enemies of God who seek to destroy his people (see Pss 18:17; 32:6; 77:20; 93:4; 144:7; Isa 17:13; Jer 51:55; Ezek 26:19; Hab 3:15). In this case the Lord is depicted as elevated above and sovereign over the raging waters.
Psalm 29:4 tn Heb “the voice of the Lord [is] accompanied by strength.”
Psalm 29:4 tn Heb “the voice of the Lord [is] accompanied by majesty.”
Psalm 29:5 tn The Hebrew participial form draws attention to the durative nature of the action being described.
Psalm 29:5 tn The prefixed verbal forms with vav (ו) consecutive here and in v. 6a carry on the descriptive function of the preceding participle (see GKC 329 §111.u). The verb שָׁבַר (shavar) appears in the Qal in the first line of the verse, and in the Piel in the second line. The verb, which means “break” in the Qal, appears thirty-six times in the Piel, always with multiple objects (the object is either a collective singular or grammatically plural or dual form). The Piel may highlight the repetition of the pluralative action, or it may suggest an intensification of action, indicating repeated action comprising a whole, perhaps with the nuance “break again and again, break in pieces.” Another option is to understand the form as resultative: “make broken” (see IBHS 404-7 §24.3).
Psalm 29:5 sn The cedars of the Lebanon forest were well-known in ancient Israel for their immense size. Here they may symbolize the arrogant enemies of God (see Isa 2:12-13).
Psalm 29:6 sn Sirion is another name for Mount Hermon (Deut 3:9).
Psalm 29:6 sn Lebanon and Sirion are compared to frisky young animals (a calf…a young ox) who skip and jump. The thunderous shout of the Lord is so powerful, one can see the very mountains shake on the horizon.
Psalm 29:7 tn The verb normally means “to hew [stone or wood],” or “to hew out.” In Hos 6:5 it seems to mean “cut in pieces,” “knock down,” or perhaps “hack” (see F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea [AB], 428). The Ugaritic cognate can mean “assault.” In v. 7 the verb seems to have a similar meaning, perhaps “attack, strike.” The phrase “flames of fire” is an adverbial accusative; the Lord’s shout is accompanied by “flames of fire,” that is, lightning bolts.
Psalm 29:7 sn The Lord’s shout strikes with flaming fire. The short line has invited textual emendation, but its distinct, brief form may highlight the statement, which serves as the axis of a chiastic structure encompassing vv. 5-9: (A) the Lord’s shout destroys the forest (v. 5); (B) the Lord’s shout shakes the terrain (v. 6); (C) the Lord’s shout is accompanied by destructive lightning (v. 7); (B´) the Lord’s shout shakes the terrain (v. 8); (A´) the Lord’s shout destroys the forest (v. 9).
Psalm 29:8 tn The Hebrew imperfect verbal forms are descriptive in function; the psalmist depicts the action as underway.
Psalm 29:8 sn Kadesh. The references to Lebanon and Sirion in v. 6 suggest this is a reference to the northern Kadesh, located north of Damascus, not the southern Kadesh mentioned so often in the OT. See M. Dahood, Psalms (AB), 1:178.
Psalm 29:9 tn The Hebrew imperfect verbal form is descriptive in function; the psalmist depicts the action as underway.
Psalm 29:9 tc Heb “the deer.” Preserving this reading, some translate the preceding verb, “causes [the deer] to give premature birth” (cf. NEB, NASB). But the Polel of חוּל/חִיל (khul/khil) means “give birth,” not “cause to give birth,” and the statement “the Lord’s shout gives birth to deer” is absurd. In light of the parallelism (note “forests” in the next line) and v. 5, it is preferable to emend אַיָּלוֹת (ʾayyalot, “deer”) to אֵילוֹת (ʾelot, “large trees”) understanding the latter as an alternate form of the usual plural form אַיָּלִים (ʾayyalim).
Psalm 29:9 tn The verb is used in Joel 1:7 of locusts stripping the leaves from a tree. The prefixed verbal form with vav (ו) consecutive here carries the descriptive function of the preceding imperfect. See GKC 329 §111.t.
Psalm 29:9 tn The usual form of the plural of יַעַר (yaʿar, “forest”) is יְעָרִים (y^eʿarim). For this reason some propose an emendation to יְעָלוֹת (y^e’alot, “female mountain goats”) which would fit nicely in the parallelism with “deer” (cf. NEB “brings kids early to birth”). In this case one would have to understand the verb חָשַׂף (khasaf) to mean “cause premature birth,” an otherwise unattested homonym of the more common חָשַׂף (“strip bare”).sn The Lord’s thunderous shout is accompanied by high winds which damage the trees of the forest.
Psalm 29:9 tn Heb “In his temple, all of it says, ‘Glory.’”
Psalm 29:10 tn The noun מַּבּוּל (mabbul, “flood”) appears only here and in Gen 6-11, where it refers to the Noahic flood. Some see a reference to that event here. The presence of the article (perhaps indicating uniqueness) and the switch to the perfect verbal form (which could be taken as describing a past situation) might support this. However, the immediate context indicates that the referent of מַּבּוּל is the “surging waters” mentioned in v. 3. The article indicates waters that are definite in the mind of the speaker and the perfect is probably descriptive in function, like “thunders” in v. 3. However, even though the historical flood is not the primary referent here, there may be a literary allusion involved. The psalmist views the threatening chaotic sea as a contemporary manifestation of the destructive waters of old.
Psalm 29:10 tn The prefixed verbal form with vav (ו) consecutive here carries the descriptive function of the preceding perfect.
Psalm 29:11 tn The imperfect verbal forms in v. 11 are either descriptive or generalizing.
Psalm 29:11 sn Strength. This probably refers to military power; see the use of the noun in 1 Sam 2:10 and Ps 86:16.
Psalm 29:11 tn Heb “blesses his people with peace.” The Hebrew term שָׁלוֹם (shalom, “peace”) probably refers here to the protection and prosperity experienced by God’s people after the Lord intervenes in battle on their behalf.

Romans 8:12-17

¹²So then,^[a] brothers and sisters,^[b] we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh ¹³(for if you live according to the flesh, you will^[c] die),^[d] but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. ¹⁴For all who are led by the Spirit of God are^[e] the sons of God. ¹⁵For you did not receive the spirit of slavery leading again to fear,^[f] but you received the Spirit of adoption,^[g] by whom^[h] we cry, “Abba,^[i] Father.” ¹⁶The Spirit himself bears witness to^[j] our spirit that we are God’s children. ¹⁷And if children, then heirs (namely, heirs of God and also fellow heirs with Christ)^[k]—if indeed we suffer with him so we may also be glorified with him.

Footnotes

Romans 8:12 tn There is a double connective here that cannot be easily preserved in English: “consequently therefore,” emphasizing the conclusion of what he has been arguing.
Romans 8:12 tn Grk “brothers.” See note on the phrase “brothers and sisters” in 1:13.
Romans 8:13 tn Grk “are about to, are certainly going to.”
Romans 8:13 sn This remark is parenthetical to Paul’s argument.
Romans 8:14 tn Grk “For as many as are being led by the Spirit of God, these are.”
Romans 8:15 tn Grk “slavery again to fear.”
Romans 8:15 tn The Greek term υἱοθεσία (huiothesia) was originally a legal technical term for adoption as a son with full rights of inheritance. BDAG 1024 s.v. notes, “a legal t.t. of ‘adoption’ of children, in our lit., i.e. in Paul, only in a transferred sense of a transcendent filial relationship between God and humans (with the legal aspect, not gender specificity, as major semantic component).”
Romans 8:15 tn Or “in that.”
Romans 8:15 tn The term “Abba” is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic אַבָּא (’abba’), literally meaning “my father” but taken over simply as “father,” used in prayer and in the family circle, and later taken over by the early Greek-speaking Christians (BDAG 1 s.v. ἀββα).sn This Aramaic word is found three times in the New Testament (Mark 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6), and in each case is followed by its Greek equivalent, which is translated “father.” It is a term expressing warm affection and filial confidence. It has no perfect equivalent in English. It has passed into European languages as an ecclesiastical term, “abbot.” Over the past fifty years a lot has been written about this term and Jesus’ use of it. Joachim Jeremias argued that Jesus routinely addressed God using this Aramaic word, and he also noted this was a “child’s word,” leading many to conclude its modern equivalent was “Daddy.” This conclusion Jeremias soon modified (the term on occasion is used of an adult son addressing his father) but the simplistic equation of abba with “Daddy” is still heard in some circles today. Nevertheless, the term does express a high degree of closeness with reverence, and in addition to the family circle could be used by disciples of a much loved and revered teacher.
Romans 8:16 tn Or possibly “with.” ExSyn 160-61, however, notes the following: “At issue, grammatically, is whether the Spirit testifies alongside of our spirit (dat. of association), or whether he testifies to our spirit (indirect object) that we are God’s children. If the former, the one receiving this testimony is unstated (is it God? or believers?). If the latter, the believer receives the testimony and hence is assured of salvation via the inner witness of the Spirit. The first view has the advantage of a σύν- (sun-) prefixed verb, which might be expected to take an accompanying dat. of association (and is supported by NEB, JB, etc.). But there are three reasons why πνεύματι (pneumati) should not be taken as association: (1) Grammatically, a dat. with a σύν- prefixed verb does not necessarily indicate association. This, of course, does not preclude such here, but this fact at least opens up the alternatives in this text. (2) Lexically, though συμμαρτυρέω (summartureō) originally bore an associative idea, it developed in the direction of merely intensifying μαρτυρέω (martureō). This is surely the case in the only other NT text with a dat. (Rom 9:1). (3) Contextually, a dat. of association does not seem to support Paul’s argument: ‘What standing has our spirit in this matter? Of itself it surely has no right at all to testify to our being sons of God’ [C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans [ICC], 1:403]. In sum, Rom 8:16 seems to be secure as a text in which the believer’s assurance of salvation is based on the inner witness of the Spirit. The implications of this for one’s soteriology are profound: The objective data, as helpful as they are, cannot by themselves provide assurance of salvation; the believer also needs (and receives) an existential, ongoing encounter with God’s Spirit in order to gain that familial comfort.”
Romans 8:17 tn Grk “on the one hand, heirs of God; on the other hand, fellow heirs with Christ.” Some prefer to render v. 17 as follows: “And if children, then heirs—that is, heirs of God. Also fellow heirs with Christ if indeed we suffer with him so we may also be glorified with him.” Such a translation suggests two distinct inheritances, one coming to all of God’s children, the other coming only to those who suffer with Christ. The difficulty of this view, however, is that it ignores the correlative conjunctions μέν…δέ (men…de, “on the one hand…on the other hand”): The construction strongly suggests that the inheritances cannot be separated since both explain “then heirs.” For this reason, the preferred translation puts this explanation in parentheses.

John 3:1-17

Conversation with Nicodemus

3 Now a certain man, a Pharisee^[a] named Nicodemus, who was a member of the Jewish ruling council,^[b] ²came to Jesus^[c] at night^[d] and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs^[e] that you do unless God is with him.” ³Jesus replied,^[f] “I tell you the solemn truth,^[g] unless a person is born from above,^[h] he cannot see the kingdom of God.”^[i] ⁴Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?”^[j]

⁵Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth,^[k] unless a person is born of water and spirit,^[l] he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ⁶What is born of the flesh is flesh,^[m] and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. ⁷Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must all^[n] be born from above.’^[o] ⁸The wind^[p] blows wherever it will, and you hear the sound it makes, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”^[q]

⁹Nicodemus replied,^[r] “How can these things be?”^[s] ¹⁰Jesus answered,^[t] “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you don’t understand these things?^[u] ¹¹I tell you the solemn truth,^[v] we speak about what we know and testify about what we have seen, but^[w] you people^[x] do not accept our testimony.^[y] ¹²If I have told you people^[z] about earthly things and you don’t believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?^[aa] ¹³No one^[ab] has ascended^[ac] into heaven except the one who descended from heaven—the Son of Man.^[ad] ¹⁴Just as^[ae] Moses lifted up the serpent^[af] in the wilderness,^[ag] so must the Son of Man be lifted up,^[ah] ¹⁵so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”^[ai]

¹⁶For this is the way^[aj] God loved the world: He gave his one and only^[ak] Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish^[al] but have eternal life.^[am] ¹⁷For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,^[an] but that the world should be saved through him.

Footnotes

John 3:1 sn See the note on Pharisees in 1:24.
John 3:1 tn Grk “a ruler of the Jews” (denoting a member of the Sanhedrin, the highest legal, legislative, and judicial body among the Jews).
John 3:2 tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
John 3:2 tn Or “during the night.”sn Possibly Nicodemus came…at night because he was afraid of public association with Jesus, or he wanted a lengthy discussion without interruptions; no explanation for the timing of the interview is given by the author. But the timing is significant for John in terms of the light-darkness motif—compare John 9:4; 11:10; 13:30 (especially), 19:39, and 21:3. Out of the darkness of his life and religiosity Nicodemus came to the Light of the world. The author probably had multiple meanings or associations in mind here, as is often the case.
John 3:2 sn The reference to signs (σημεῖα, sēmeia) forms a link with John 2:23-25. Those people in Jerusalem believed in Jesus because of the signs he had performed. Nicodemus had apparently seen them too. But for Nicodemus all the signs meant is that Jesus was a great teacher sent from God. His approach to Jesus was well-intentioned but theologically inadequate; he had failed to grasp the messianic implications of the miraculous signs.
John 3:3 tn Grk “answered and said to him.”
John 3:3 tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”
John 3:3 tn The word ἄνωθεν (anōthen) has a double meaning, either “again” (in which case it is synonymous with παλίν [palin]) or “from above” (BDAG 92 s.v. ἄνωθεν). This is a favorite technique of the author of the Fourth Gospel, and it is lost in almost all translations at this point. John uses the word 5 times, in 3:3, 7; 3:31; 19:11 and 23. In the latter 3 cases the context makes clear that it means “from above.” Here (3:3, 7) it could mean either, but the primary meaning intended by Jesus is “from above.” Nicodemus apparently understood it the other way, which explains his reply, “How can a man be born when he is old? He can’t enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?” The author uses the technique of the “misunderstood question” often to bring out a particularly important point: Jesus says something which is misunderstood by the disciples or (as here) someone else, which then gives Jesus the opportunity to explain more fully and in more detail what he really meant.sn Or born again. The Greek word ἄνωθεν (anōthen) can mean both “again” and “from above,” giving rise to Nicodemus’ misunderstanding about a second physical birth (v. 4).
John 3:3 sn The kingdom of God is a major theme of Jesus’ teaching. The nature of the kingdom of God in the NT and in Jesus’ teaching has long been debated by interpreters and scholars, with discussion primarily centering around the nature of the kingdom (earthly, heavenly, or both) and the kingdom’s arrival (present, future, or both). An additional major issue concerns the relationship between the kingdom of God and the person and work of Jesus himself. But what does Jesus’ statement about not being able to see the kingdom of God mean within the framework of John’s Gospel? John uses the word kingdom (βασιλεία, basileia) only 5 times (3:3, 5; 18:36 [3x]). Only here is it qualified with the phrase of God. The fact that John does not stress the concept of the kingdom of God does not mean it is absent from his theology, however. Remember the messianic implications found in John 2, both the wedding and miracle at Cana and the cleansing of the temple. For Nicodemus, the term must surely have brought to mind the messianic kingdom which Messiah was supposed to bring. But Nicodemus had missed precisely this point about who Jesus was. It was the Messiah himself with whom Nicodemus was speaking. Whatever Nicodemus understood, it is clear that the point is this: He misunderstood Jesus’ words. He over-literalized them, and thought Jesus was talking about repeated physical birth, when he was in fact referring to new spiritual birth.
John 3:4 tn The grammatical structure of the question in Greek presupposes a negative reply.
John 3:5 tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”
John 3:5 tn Or “born of water and wind” (the same Greek word, πνεύματος [pneumatos], may be translated either “spirit/Spirit” or “wind”). sn Jesus’ somewhat enigmatic statement points to the necessity of being born “from above,” because water and wind/spirit/Spirit come from above. Isaiah 44:3-5 and Ezek 37:9-10 are pertinent examples of water and wind as life-giving symbols of the Spirit of God in his work among people. Both occur in contexts that deal with the future restoration of Israel as a nation prior to the establishment of the messianic kingdom. It is therefore particularly appropriate that Jesus should introduce them in a conversation about entering the kingdom of God. Note that the Greek word πνεύματος is anarthrous (has no article) in v. 5. This does not mean that spirit in the verse should be read as a direct reference to the Holy Spirit, but that both water and wind are figures (based on passages in the OT, which Nicodemus, the teacher of Israel should have known) that represent the regenerating work of the Spirit in the lives of men and women.
John 3:6 sn What is born of the flesh is flesh, i.e., what is born of physical heritage is physical. (It is interesting to compare this terminology with that of the dialogue in John 4, especially 4:23, 24.) For John the “flesh” (σάρξ, sarx) emphasizes merely the weakness and mortality of the creature—a neutral term, not necessarily sinful as in Paul. This is confirmed by the reference in John 1:14 to the Logos becoming “flesh.” The author avoids associating sinfulness with the incarnate Christ.
John 3:7 tn “All” has been supplied to indicate the plural pronoun in the Greek text.
John 3:7 tn Or “born again.” The same Greek word with the same double meaning occurs in v. 3.
John 3:8 tn The same Greek word, πνεύματος (pneumatos), may be translated “wind” or “spirit.”
John 3:8 sn Again, the physical illustrates the spiritual, although the force is heightened by the word-play here on wind-spirit (see the note on wind at the beginning of this verse). By the end of the verse, however, the final usage of πνεύματος (pneumatos) refers to the Holy Spirit.
John 3:9 tn Grk “Nicodemus answered and said to him.”
John 3:9 sn “How can these things be?” is Nicodemus’ answer. It is clear that at this time he has still not grasped what Jesus is saying. Note also that this is the last appearance of Nicodemus in the dialogue. Having served the purpose of the author, at this point he disappears from the scene. As a character in the narrative, he has served to illustrate the prevailing Jewish misunderstanding of Jesus’ teaching about the necessity of a new, spiritual birth from above. Whatever parting words Nicodemus might have had with Jesus, the author does not record them.
John 3:10 tn Grk “Jesus answered and said to him.”
John 3:10 sn Jesus’ question “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you don’t understand these things?” implies that Nicodemus had enough information at his disposal from the OT scriptures to have understood Jesus’ statements about the necessity of being born from above by the regenerating work of the Spirit. Isa 44:3-5 and Ezek 37:9-10 are passages Nicodemus might have known which would have given him insight into Jesus’ words. Another significant passage which contains many of these concepts is Prov 30:4-5.
John 3:11 tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”
John 3:11 tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “but” to show the contrast present in the context.
John 3:11 tn The word “people” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied in the translation to indicate that the verb is second person plural (referring to more than Nicodemus alone).
John 3:11 sn Note the remarkable similarity of Jesus’ testimony to the later testimony of the Apostle John himself in 1 John 1:2: “And we have seen and testify and report to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was revealed to us.” This is only one example of how thoroughly the author’s own thoughts were saturated with the words of Jesus (and also how difficult it is to distinguish the words of Jesus from the words of the author in the Fourth Gospel).
John 3:12 tn The word “people” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied to indicate that the verb is second person plural (referring to more than Nicodemus alone).
John 3:12 sn Obviously earthly things and heavenly things are in contrast, but what is the contrast? What are earthly things which Jesus has just spoken to Nicodemus? And through him to others—this is not the first instance of the plural pronoun, see v. 7, you must all. Since Nicodemus began with a plural (we know, v. 2) Jesus continues it, and through Nicodemus addresses a broader audience. It makes most sense to take this as a reference to the things Jesus has just said (and the things he is about to say, vv. 13-15). If this is the case (and it seems the most natural explanation) then earthly things are not necessarily strictly physical things, but are so called because they take place on earth, in contrast to things like v. 16, which take place in heaven. Some have added the suggestion that the things are called earthly because physical analogies (birth, wind, water) are used to describe them. This is possible, but it seems more probable that Jesus calls these things earthly because they happen on earth (even though they are spiritual things). In the context, taking earthly things as referring to the words Jesus has just spoken fits with the fact that Nicodemus did not believe. And he would not after hearing heavenly things either, unless he first believed in the earthly things—which included the necessity of a regenerating work from above, by the Holy Spirit.
John 3:13 tn Grk “And no one.”
John 3:13 sn The verb ascended is a perfect tense in Greek (ἀναβέβηκεν, anabebēken) which seems to look at a past, completed event. (This is not as much of a problem for those who take Jesus’ words to end at v. 12, and these words to be a comment by the author, looking back on Jesus’ ascension.) As a saying of Jesus, these words are a bit harder to explain. Note, however, the lexical similarities with 1:51: “ascending,” “descending,” and “son of man.” Here, though, the ascent and descent is accomplished by the Son himself, not the angels as in 1:51. There is no need to limit this saying to Jesus’ ascent following the resurrection, however; the point of the Jacob story (Gen 28), which seems to be the background for 1:51, is the freedom of communication and relationship between God and men (a major theme of John’s Gospel). This communication comes through the angels in Gen 28 (and John 1:51), but here (most appropriately) it comes directly through the Son of Man. Although Jesus could be referring to a prior ascent, after an appearance as the preincarnate Son of Man, more likely he is simply pointing out that no one from earth has ever gone up to heaven and come down again. The Son, who has come down from heaven, is the only one who has been ‘up’ there. In both Jewish intertestamental literature and later rabbinic accounts, Moses is portrayed as ascending to heaven to receive the Torah and descending to distribute it to men (e.g., Targum Ps 68:19.) In contrast to these Jewish legends, the Son is the only one who has ever made the ascent and descent.
John 3:13 tc Most witnesses, including a few very significant ones (A^[*^] Θ Ψ 050 ƒ^1,13 M latt sy^c,p,h), have at the end of this verse “the one who is in heaven” (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ho ōn en tō ouranō). A few others have variations on this phrase, such as “who was in heaven” (e sy^c), or “the one who is from heaven” (0141 sy^s). The witnesses normally considered the best, along with several others, lack the phrase in its entirety (P^66,75 א B L T W^s 083 086 33 1241 co). On the one hand, if the reading ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is authentic it may suggest that while Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus he spoke of himself as in heaven even while he was on earth. If that is the case, one could see why variations from this hard saying arose: “who was in heaven,” “the one who is from heaven,” and omission of the clause. At the same time, such a saying could be interpreted (though with difficulty) as part of the narrator’s comments rather than Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus, alleviating the problem. And if v. 13 was viewed in early times as the evangelist’s statement, “the one who is in heaven” could have crept into the text through a marginal note. Other internal evidence suggests that this saying may be authentic. The adjectival participle, ὁ ὤν, is used in the Fourth Gospel more than any other NT book (though the Apocalypse comes in a close second), and frequently with reference to Jesus (1:18; 6:46; 8:47). It may be looking back to the LXX of Exod 3:14 (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν). Especially since this exact construction is not necessary to communicate the location of the Son of Man, its presence in many witnesses here may suggest authenticity. Further, John uses the singular of οὐρανός (ouranos, “heaven”) in all 18 instances of the word in this Gospel, and all but twice with the article (only 1:32 and 6:58 are anarthrous, and even in the latter there is significant testimony to the article). At the same time, the witnesses that lack this clause are very weighty and must not be discounted. Generally speaking, if other factors are equal, the reading of such mss should be preferred. And internally, it could be argued that ὁ ὤν is the most concise way to speak of the Son of Man in heaven at that time (without the participle the point would be more ambiguous). Further, the articular singular οὐρανός is already used twice in this verse, thus sufficiently prompting scribes to add the same in the longer reading. This combination of factors suggests that ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is not a genuine Johannism. Further intrinsic evidence against the longer reading relates to the evangelist’s purposes: If he intended v. 13 to be his own comments rather than Jesus’ statement, his switch back to Jesus’ words in v. 14 (for the lifting up of the Son of Man is still seen as in the future) seems inexplicable. The reading “who is in heaven” thus seems to be too hard. All things considered, as intriguing as the longer reading is, it seems almost surely to have been a marginal gloss added inadvertently to the text in the process of transmission. For an argument in favor of the longer reading, see David Alan Black, “The Text of John 3:13, ” GTJ 6 (1985): 49-66.sn See the note on the title Son of Man in 1:51.
John 3:14 tn Grk “And just as.”
John 3:14 sn Or the snake, referring to the bronze serpent mentioned in Num 21:9.
John 3:14 sn An allusion to Num 21:5-9.
John 3:14 sn So must the Son of Man be lifted up. This is ultimately a prediction of Jesus’ crucifixion. Nicodemus could not have understood this, but John’s readers, the audience to whom the Gospel is addressed, certainly could have (compare the wording of John 12:32). In John, being lifted up refers to one continuous action of ascent, beginning with the cross but ending at the right hand of the Father. Step 1 is Jesus’ death; step 2 is his resurrection; and step 3 is the ascension back to heaven. It is the upward swing of the “pendulum” which began with the incarnation, the descent of the Word become flesh from heaven to earth (cf. Paul in Phil 2:5-11). See also the note on the title Son of Man in 1:51.
John 3:15 tn This is the first use of the term ζωὴν αἰώνιον (zōēn aiōnion) in the Gospel, although ζωή (zōē) in chap. 1 is to be understood in the same way without the qualifying αἰώνιος (aiōnios).sn Some interpreters extend the quotation of Jesus’ words through v. 21.
John 3:16 tn Or “this is how much”; or “in this way.” The Greek adverb οὕτως (houtōs) can refer (1) to the degree to which God loved the world, that is, to such an extent or so much that he gave his own Son (see R. E. Brown, John [AB], 1:133-34; D. A. Carson, John, 204) or (2) simply to the manner in which God loved the world, i.e., by sending his own son (see R. H. Gundry and R. W. Howell, “The Sense and Syntax of John 3:14-17 with Special Reference to the Use of Οὕτως…ὥστε in John 3:16, ” NovT 41 [1999]: 24-39). Though the term more frequently refers to the manner in which something is done (see BDAG 741-42 s.v. οὕτω/οὕτως), the following clause involving ὥστε (hōste) plus the indicative (which stresses actual, but [usually] unexpected result) emphasizes the greatness of the gift God has given. With this in mind, then, it is likely (3) that John is emphasizing both the degree to which God loved the world as well as the manner in which He chose to express that love. This is in keeping with John’s style of using double entendre or double meaning. Thus, the focus of the Greek construction here is on the nature of God’s love, addressing its mode, intensity, and extent.
John 3:16 tn Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12; 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna theou), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 18; 3:16, 18).
John 3:16 tn In John the word ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi) can mean either (1) to be lost (2) to perish or be destroyed, depending on the context.
John 3:16 sn The alternatives presented are only two (again, it is typical of Johannine thought for this to be presented in terms of polar opposites): perish or have eternal life.
John 3:17 sn That is, “to judge the world to be guilty and liable to punishment.”

New English Translation (NET)

Prev Day

Top

Next Day

Use the calendar to view readings from this devotional.

Log in to read this devotional and:

Revised Common Lectionary (Semicontinuous)

Isaiah’s Commission

Footnotes

Psalm 29[a]

A psalm of David.

Footnotes

Footnotes

Conversation with Nicodemus

Footnotes

Psalm 29^[a]