# John 3 paragraph break



## KMK (Apr 2, 2007)

Where is the paragraph break in John 3? And how does the break (if any) affect the flow of the chapter?


----------



## py3ak (Apr 3, 2007)

Are you asking where the words of Jesus end?


----------



## KMK (Apr 3, 2007)

py3ak said:


> Are you asking where the words of Jesus end?



Yes. And also, does the transition affect the flow of the passage?

If there is no break in the flow, then it would seem to me that Jesus' answer to Nicodemus' question, "How can these things be?" runs from vs. 10-17 (at least). I have read that some believe that around 13 or 14, Jesus' answer stops and John's narrative begins. All of the red letter version I have seen take Jesus' answer all the way to vs. 21.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 3, 2007)

Personally, it seems to me that the logical ending point for the conversation is v.15. It finishes the thought of v.14 where the title "Son of Man" is used, which is Jesus' primary self-designation. But in v.16 and forward it speaks of him as God's Son, which my instinct (which is often wrong) suggests that the rest is then comment: a theological exposition of Jesus' words.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Apr 3, 2007)

As you know, the “red letter” editors are not inspired any more than the individuals who gave us chapter and verse divisions many years ago. Commentators often dispute where exactly Christ’s words end and where John begins to offer his explanatory reflections. 

I tend to think that Jesus’ words end with verse 15 and John picks up at verse 16 with his own exposition in light of what Christ was saying to Nicodemus. I also see some textual reasons for locating the break here: (1) the words, “son of man,” used in verse 15, are words Jesus almost entirely uses as a self-identification, and (2) the word _monogenes_ translated as “only begotten” in verse 16, is nowhere else placed on the lips of Jesus. It is a title used by John to describe Jesus, never by Jesus to describe himself. 

Furthermore, the words of 3:16 and following to 3:22, speak to events that are in the past -- which would be consistent with John looking _back_ at Christ’s ministry and work on the Cross.


----------



## KMK (Apr 4, 2007)

Matthew Henry seemed to believe that it was Christ speaking through vs. 21. 

Robertson's Word Pictures calls vs. 16-21 a recapitulation 'in summary fashion the teaching of Jesus to Nicodemus.' 

The 1611 has paragraph breaks at vs. 14, vs. 16, and vs. 18. 

The NASB (1995) has quotation marks through vs. 21. 

The NIV has quotation marks through vs. 21 but has a paragraph break at vs. 16. 

Calvin certainly held the view that it was Jesus speaking through vs. 21: From his commentary on John, "Christ employed the word truth, because, when we are deceived by the outward lustre of works, we do not consider what is concealed within." 

What I am trying to figure out is how far removed is Jesus on the Cross from Nicodemus' original question, "How can a man be born again?" If there is no break in the flow then you have this:

Jesus Christ died on the cross as heavenly fulfillment of the earthly serpent on the pole in Num 21.

This example is given to show Nicodemus that he does not understand how the earthly types and figures of the OT (of which he was a supposed master) point to heavenly truths that are fulfilled in Jesus Christ Himself.

Thus demonstrating to him that the Spirit has as of yet listed not in Nicodemus' direction.

And because the Spirit listeth not in Nicodemus' direction, he has not entered into, nor seen the kingdom.

And this is all because Nicodemus has not been born anew from above.

Therefore, Nicodemus is no different than the rest of the Jews who were astounded by Jesus' miracles but did not believe His word.

I am trying to wrap my mind around the entire discourse instead of John 3:16 in isolation. Verse 16 teaches a great deal all by itself but it cited by Jesus (or John) as an example to prove a point to Nicodemus. Right? And that point falls in line with a large portion of Jesus' teaching in John that you either have the Word of God abiding in you or you don't. 

Thoughts?


----------



## KMK (Apr 4, 2007)

John J. Owen in his commentary on John:



> Verse 14: ...Stier remarks...now the discourse begins to deal with the central mystery of the kingdom of God...This is true, but yet leaves the connection of thought unexplained, I am inclined therefore to adopt Bloomfield's suggestion, that the lifting up of the Som of man is adduced as an example of the 'heavenly things', which the Lord Jesus Christ came to reveal.
> 
> Verse 16: The continuity of thought is so close and apparent, and so incomplete would be our Lord's discourse with Nicodemus, were it to break off at vs. 16, that we cannot for a moment believe that vs. 16-21 are *not* the words of Jesus Himself.



Is there any prevailing view adopted by the church on this in the last 100 years?


----------

