John 3:16-21 — Are they the Words of Christ, or the Words of John?

[Ed Walsh]

Greetings,

In Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus in John 3, is it clear that verses 16-21 are a continuation of that discussion, or are they the words of John? It has always sounded to me like John added them, but I think most believe that they are the words of Christ to Nicodemus. Which is correct?

Who can help me out here?

Thanks

John 3:16-21
16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.
20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.
21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God."​

 

[hammondjones]

We are going through John, our pastor mentioned this in a sermon a few months ago. He thought it likely a gloss based on the shift in the language. Starting about 3:30.

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?m=t&s=82619143344676

 

[Ed Walsh]

We are going through John, our pastor mentioned this in a sermon a few months ago. He thought it likely a gloss based on the shift in the language. Starting about 3:30.

Thank you very much. Very helpful. Maybe I'm not crazy.
If these are the words of Jesus, they are unlike anything else He ever said in any of the Gospels.

 

[timfost]

But according to my divinely inspired red letter edition...

Seriously, though, this is an intriguing question. Jesus starts out by pointing Nicodemus to the need for regeneration in which the person is passive. Verse 12 first brings in believing which property belongs to conversation in which the person is active.

My gut feeling is that it is Jesus speaking the entire time, pivoting from passive regeneration to active faith. Nicodemus may have left just waiting for something to happen if Christ left him only with the first eleven verses, but rather Jesus proceeds with the call/offer of the gospel, leaving Nicodemus with the great responsibility of believing the message, unsettling him to his core, seeing that the teacher in Israel needed to be taught.

Looking forward to seeing responses from others.

 

[jambo]

As the NT was not written with any punctuation let alone using quotation marks, it is a bit ambiguous as to whether they were Christs words or John's words of explanation. The important thing is the teaching of the passage rather than who spoke the words. Personally my own view is that these are Christ's words, and like Tim above is not influenced by red letter editions!

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Carson thinks they belong to John. Here is what he writes:

In two passages in this Gospel, both in this chapter (3:15–21 and 3:31–36), the words of a speaker (Jesus and John the Baptist respectively) are succeeded by the explanatory reflections of the Evangelist. Because the ancient texts did not use quotation marks or other orthographical equivalents, the exact point of transition is disputed. In the first incident, Nicholson (p. 89) thinks the dialogue ends at v. 10, with all of vv. 11–21 being the comment of the Evangelist. This is unlikely: the title ‘Son of Man’ is so characteristically reserved for Jesus’ lips as a form of self-identification that it is unthinkable that he ended before v. 15. The same problem attends the view of Beasley-Murray (p. 46), and others before him, that makes 3:12–21 structurally parallel to 3:31–36. Some argue that Jesus’ monologue extends to the end of v. 21. But vv. 16–21 read more plausibly as the Evangelist’s meditation. For instance, the expression ‘one and only’ (monogenēs) is a word used by the Evangelist (1:14, 18; cf. 1 Jn. 4:9), and is not elsewhere placed on the lips of Jesus or of anyone else in this Gospel. Nor does Jesus normally refer to God as ho theos (‘God’).15

D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 203–204.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Personally my own view is that these are Christ's words, and like Tim above is not influenced by red-letter editions!

If you are right, it is possibly the most out of character thing I ever remember hearing Jesus say. He always referred to Himself as the Son of Man. Never as God's only Son. (μονογενής – monogenes)

 

[a mere housewife]

If you are right, it is possibly the most out of character thing I ever remember hearing Jesus say. He always referred to Himself as the Son of Man. Never as God's only Son. (μονογενής – monogenes)

But He does call Himself the 'Son' in connection with the Father, clarifying his usage 'Son of Man' as distinct from the Sonship primarily in view, 'Son of God' (ie, chapter 5:19-23;25-27, particularly v. 25).
It makes sense that perhaps the gospel writer would have introduced this special phrase to describe Jesus, having heard it from Jesus to describe Himself?

Dale Bruner titles these verses "Jesus' Nicodemus sermon" in his commentary (so he clearly takes these as the words of Jesus!). He says in the historical discussion: 'Lindars, 159, reminds us, too that this is the first use of the important word "love" in John's Gospel, and (with several commentators) that there is probably an allusion in the phrase "One and Only Son" to Abraham's (near) sacrifice of Isaac, the son Abraham loved so much (Genesis 22:2, 12, 16: cf: Westcott, 120).'

The commentaries cited are B. Lindars, John (1972)
& B.F. Westcott, John, 2 vols. (1880 [1908])

 

[a mere housewife]

... Nor does Jesus normally refer to God as ho theos (‘God’).15

D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 203–204.

I wish I understood better what Carson said about Jesus not usually using that language for God. A blueletterBible search pulls up enough instances of Jesus using 'theos' that it doesn't seem *uncommon* in his speech in John -- but maybe something I don't understand about a particular article or tense makes a difference?

(The Bruner commentary I'm currently reading above regularly cites Carson's, and what he cites is always very illuminating -- I hope to get Carson's someday too.)

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Never as God's only Son. (μονογενής – monogenes)

Well that’s not what monogenes means, so.

 

[Herald]

Well that’s not what monogenes means, so.

God's unique one-of-a-kind Son.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Well that’s not what monogenes means, so.

So... enlighten me, please.
I pasted the lemma - the manuscript is τὸν μονογενῆ - I just quoted the Scripture and did not give a textbook definition.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Below is a snippet from an excursus on monogenēs by Colin G. Kruse. It is taken from his commentary on the Johannine Epistles in the Pillar New Testament series. Please forgive the improper citation. The Logos mobile app does not include that information when copying.

The word (monogenēs), translated ‘one and only’ here in the NIV, is in some other translations rendered ‘only begotten’. That the word is correctly translated as ‘one and only’ in the NIV is confirmed by an examination of its usage elsewhere in the NT, where it is found a total of nine times. It is found three times in the Gospel of Luke: once to describe the widow of Nain’s ‘one and only son’ (Luke 7:12); once to describe the ‘one and only daughter’ of Jairus (Luke 8:42); and once to describe the ‘one and only son’ of the man who sought Jesus’ help with his demonpossessed boy (Luke 9:38). It is found once in Hebrews, where Isaac, whom Abraham was about to sacrifice, is described as his ‘one and only’ son (Heb 11:17). In each of these cases the expression is used to add poignancy to a story by highlighting that it was the person’s ‘one and only’ child who was in dire need, threatened, or had died. The stress is not on the fact that the person was begotten of the father or mother concerned, but on the fact that the father or mother had only one child, and that child was the one who was so sadly affected.
In the Fourth Gospel monogenēs is used four times, and in each case it is used in relation to Jesus as God’s Son. In John 1:14 we read that the Word (later identified as Jesus Christ) became flesh, and ‘we have seen his glory, the glory of the One and only (hōs monogenous)’. In John 1:18 we are told that ‘No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only (monogenēs), who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.’ And in John 3:16 we find: ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only (ton monogenē) Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life’. Finally, in John 3:18 we read: ‘whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only (monogenous) Son’. In each case monogenēs denotes, not that the Son was ‘begotten’ of the Father, but rather his uniqueness as God’s ‘one and only’ Son. Thus, in John 1:14, 18 the emphasis is upon Jesus’ unique role as the bearer and revealer of the glory of God, and in John 3:16, 18 the emphasis falls upon the sacrifice made by the Father in giving his only Son for the salvation of all who believe, and the seriousness of not believing in the ‘one and only’ Son whom God gave.

 

[Taylor]

All the words of Scripture are the words of God (2 Tim. 3:16).

Jesus is God.

Therefore, all the words of Scripture are the words of Jesus.

Therefore, John 3:16-21 are the words of Jesus.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

All the words of Scripture are the words of God (2 Tim. 3:16).

Jesus is God.

Therefore, all the words of Scripture are the words of Jesus.

Therefore, John 3:16-21 are the words of Jesus.

And Taylor flies in out of nowhere to end this discussion with a technicality. If only there were a "drop the mic" emoji.

 

[Taylor]

And Taylor flies in out of nowhere to end this discussion with a technicality. If only there were a "drop the mic" emoji.

I kid, I kid. I do understand the textual issue and question here. I found the Carson above helpful, and I tend to agree.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I tend to agree with Carson on this - but ultimately (to the point to which Taylor alludes) I don't have a whole lot of emotional energy in the question due to the fact that whether they are the words of Jesus or of John... ALL Scripture is God breathed... and is therefore equally authoritative, etc.

What I *do* have emotional energy in is the matter of the inspiration and authority of ALL of Scripture. I have consistently found that those who love "red letter Bibles" find SPECIAL importance in Jesus' words, as if they're ULTRA or SUPER authoritative or somehow more inspired than the rest of Scripture. That's just not true. So whether Jesus said the words of John 3:16-21 in his discussion with Nicodemus, or whether they are John's inspired reflection/commentary, it makes no practical difference for us.

Of course, scholars need jobs, and debating these kinds of things gives them job security.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

This thread is a good prudential argument against red-letter Bibles. While I am not saying that they are inherently wrong, and, sadly, it is difficult to get an NKJV in the UK without red-letters, they are not helpful for several reasons.

 

[Ed Walsh]

This thread is a good prudential argument against red-letter Bibles. While I am not saying that they are inherently wrong, and, sadly, it is difficult to get an NKJV in the UK without red-letters, they are not helpful for several reasons.

I have always preferred a red-letter Bible, but not at all because I consider the words of Christ are somehow more holy or important. It helps me find passages more easily. Of course, I agree with the posts that say that ALL Scripture is ... etc." I only asked, in the OP, because I thought the words seemed out of character for how Jesus usually speaks. I think it would be awsome if Jesus said these verses to Nicodemus. It would have been, in my opinion, the clearest presentation of the Gospel He ever delivered.

Thanks, everyone for your input so far.

Ed