“`html
body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 2em; max-width: 800px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; }
h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 2em; }
h3 { margin-top: 1.5em; }
blockquote { background: #f9f9f9; border-left: 5px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 0; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-style: italic; white-space: pre-wrap; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; }
An Exegetical Study of John 3:9-14: Paragraph Division and Thematic Cohesion
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Study of John 3:9-14: Paragraph Division and Thematic Cohesion is based on a b-greek discussion from a recent online forum. The initial query observes that most English translations do not insert a paragraph break after John 3:12, despite an apparent abrupt shift in subject matter. The discussion with Nicodemus concerning earthly and heavenly things (vv. 9-12) transitions into a declaration regarding the Son of Man’s ascent and descent (v. 13). The inquiry seeks justification for the absence of such a textual division, given the perceived thematic discontinuity at the conclusion of verse 12.
The core exegetical issue concerns the delimitation of textual units, specifically whether John 3:13 initiates a new pericope or continues the preceding discourse. This decision profoundly impacts the interpretation of the thematic flow, the coherence of Jesus’s monologue, and the relationship between the discussion on being born again and the subsequent Christological declarations regarding the Son of Man’s unique origin and redemptive work. The presence or absence of a paragraph break significantly guides reader comprehension of thematic development and the logical progression of Jesus’s argument, raising questions about the continuity of Jesus’s response to Nicodemus’s questioning.
John 3:9-14 (Nestle 1904)
9 απεκριθη νικοδημος και ειπεν αυτω πως δυναται ταυτα γενεσθαι
10 απεκριθη ιησους και ειπεν αυτω συ ει ο διδασκαλος του ισραηλ και ταυτα ου γινωσκεις
11 αμην αμην λεγω σοι οτι ο οιδαμεν λαλουμεν και ο εωρακαμεν μαρτυρουμεν και την μαρτυριαν ημων ου λαμβανετε
12 ει τα επιγεια ειπον υμιν και ου πιστευετε πως εαν ειπω υμιν τα επουρανια πιστευσετε
13 και ουδεις αναβεβηκεν εις τον ουρανον ει μη ο εκ του ουρανου καταβας ο υιος του ανθρωπου
14 και καθως μωυσης υψωσεν τον οφιν εν τη ερημω ουτως υψωθηναι δει τον υιον του ανθρωπου
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- For John 3:9-14, the provided text (labelled as Nestle 1904) and the SBLGNT (2010) exhibit no substantive textual variants. Differences are limited to orthographic conventions such as capitalization and accentuation, which are not considered significant textual divergences.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)
Regarding textual criticism, the NA28 (Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed.) largely concurs with the provided Greek text for John 3:9-14, presenting no major variants that would alter the meaning or grammatical structure relevant to the paragraph division discussion. The textual tradition for these verses is remarkably stable, reinforcing the standard reading found in most critical editions.
Lexicographical analysis (cf. KITTEL, BDAG) offers insights into key terms:
- διδασκαλος (v. 10): This term signifies a “teacher” or “master.” In the context of Nicodemus, it highlights his respected position as an instructor of the Law in Israel, underscoring Jesus’s surprise at his lack of understanding regarding fundamental spiritual truths (BDAG, s.v. “διδάσκαλος”).
- επιγεια (v. 12): Meaning “earthly things” or “terrestrial matters.” This refers to concepts understandable from a human, experiential perspective, such as physical birth or religious practices, contrasted with heavenly realities (BDAG, s.v. “ἐπίγειος”).
- επουρανια (v. 12): Denotes “heavenly things” or “celestial matters.” These are spiritual truths originating from or pertaining to the divine realm, accessible only through revelation or divine agency (BDAG, s.v. “ἐπουράνιος”).
- αναβεβηκεν (v. 13): The perfect active indicative of ἀναβαίνω, meaning “to go up, ascend.” Its perfect tense emphasizes a completed action with continuing results, referring to an ascent to heaven. The statement asserts that no one *has ascended* and therefore *knows* heavenly things from that direct experience (BDAG, s.v. “ἀναβαίνω”).
- καταβας (v. 13): The aorist active participle of καταβαίνω, meaning “to come down, descend.” This highlights the singular event of the Son of Man’s descent from heaven, establishing his unique authority and knowledge of divine realities (BDAG, s.v. “καταβαίνω”).
- υψωσεν / υψωθηναι (v. 14): The aorist active indicative / aorist passive infinitive of ὑψόω, meaning “to lift up, exalt.” In John, this term often carries a significant double meaning, referring simultaneously to Jesus’s physical elevation on the cross and his subsequent exaltation and glorification (BDAG, s.v. “ὑψόω”; KITTEL, Vol. VIII, pp. 606-613). This dual reference is crucial for understanding the salvific implications of the Son of Man’s work.
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The question of a paragraph break after John 3:12 is primarily an issue of textual segmentation and its impact on the reader’s perception of thematic coherence. Most modern English translations (e.g., NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB) typically do not insert a full paragraph break at this juncture. Instead, they often signal a minor thematic shift through indentation or subtle spacing, maintaining a continuous flow of discourse.
Grammatical Analysis
The presence of the conjunction και (“and”) at the beginning of verse 13 (καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν) is a crucial grammatical indicator. While και can sometimes introduce a new, even loosely connected, thought, its primary function is connective, linking the current statement to the preceding one. Grammatically, it functions more as an additive or explicative conjunction here, suggesting a continuation of Jesus’s discourse rather than an abrupt disjunction. Jesus’s rhetorical question in verse 12 (“If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?”) sets up a logical demand for further explanation or a demonstration of the “heavenly things.” Verse 13 then introduces the unique qualifications of the Son of Man as the only one who can speak with authority about heavenly things because he is the only one who has descended from heaven.
Rhetorical Analysis
Rhetorically, the connection between 3:12 and 3:13-14 is profound and logical. Nicodemus, despite being a “teacher of Israel,” struggles to grasp “earthly things” like the necessity of spiritual rebirth. Jesus then challenges him with the difficulty of believing “heavenly things.” Verses 13-14 do not constitute an unrelated tangent; rather, they introduce the ultimate “heavenly thing”—the identity and mission of the Son of Man. His unique descent from heaven establishes his exclusive authority to reveal divine truths, and his subsequent “lifting up” (referring to his crucifixion and glorification) is the means by which these heavenly truths become salvifically efficacious for humanity. Thus, these verses provide the Christological foundation and theological justification for understanding and believing the very “heavenly things” Jesus refers to. The question posed in 3:12 is not left unanswered; instead, it is addressed by pointing to the unique authority and redemptive work of the Son of Man, thereby maintaining thematic cohesion and a logical progression of thought within Jesus’s monologue.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The argument for *not* placing a full paragraph break after John 3:12 rests on the strong thematic and rhetorical continuity within Jesus’s discourse. While there is a shift in immediate focus from Nicodemus’s direct comprehension to Christ’s unique identity and salvific work, this shift serves to clarify, elaborate upon, and ultimately answer the preceding statements about earthly and heavenly things. The connective και in 3:13, coupled with the logical progression from the *problem* of human inability to grasp spiritual truths (vv. 9-12) to the *solution* offered through the Son of Man (vv. 13-14), argues persuasively against a complete disjunction. The transition is not an abrupt change but an unveiling of the deeper Christological truth that underpins Jesus’s earlier teachings.
Based on this analysis, the following translation suggestions illustrate various approaches to rendering the connection between 3:12 and 3:13, balancing continuity with a recognition of thematic development:
-
“If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? And no one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.”
This option prioritizes a tight grammatical connection by rendering και as “And,” signaling direct continuation without a strong pause.
-
“If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? Yet, no one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.”
This translation uses “Yet” to introduce verse 13, implying a slight shift in emphasis while maintaining a logical link that clarifies the prior statement. It suggests that despite the difficulty of believing, there is a unique source of heavenly knowledge.
-
“If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? Indeed, no one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.”
Using “Indeed” provides a more emphatic, explanatory transition. It acknowledges a rhetorical shift where Jesus moves from a question to a foundational statement that undergirds his authority to speak of heavenly things, without severing the thematic bond.
“`
Hi Eddie,
There are several connections linking vv. 12-14 together in my view. Jesus makes the first statement contrasting earthly things with heavenly things in v. 12, the point being that Nicodemos can’t understand either of them. How is he supposed to? This is where v. 13 comes in, where Jesus is the only one who’s been there to be able to explain it. Verse 14 links back to a familiar OT picture, saying that Jesus will be lifted up in similar ways.
Take a look at the connectives in these clauses. Within reported speech, clauses are joined using asyndeton (i.e., no conjunction) unless there is some reason for doing so. If the relationship between the two is clear enough, no conjunction.
10απεκριθη ιησους και ειπεν αυτω συ ει ο διδασκαλος του ισραηλ και ταυτα ου γινωσκεις (ASYN) 11αμην αμην λεγω σοι οτι ο οιδαμεν λαλουμεν και ο εωρακαμεν μαρτυρουμεν και την μαρτυριαν ημων ου λαμβανετε (Previous 3 clauses added one to another by KAI, but the unit is linked to what follows by ASYN) 12ει τα επιγεια ειπον υμιν και ου πιστευετε πως εαν ειπω υμιν τα επουρανια πιστευσετε (End of Thought 1)
(Beginning of thought 2, added to the previous one with KAI) 13και ουδεις αναβεβηκεν εις τον ουρανον ει μη ο εκ του ουρανου καταβας ο υιος του ανθρωπου
(Beginning of thought 3, added to the previous one with KAI) 14και καθως μωυσης υψωσεν τον οφιν εν τη ερημω ουτως υψωθηναι δει τον υιον του ανθρωπου
This is not an argument that builds one layer upon another as in Paul or elsewhere in Jesus’ teachings, but three related statements that are added one to another. KAI can join words, phrases, clauses and paragraphs. I’d view the connections between 12 and 13 as the latter, joining the paragraph of 10-12 to 13 and then to 14.
Steven E. Runge, DLitt Scholar-in-Residence Logos Bible Software [email protected] http://www.logos.com http://www.ntdiscourse.org
It seems to me that a full break would do violence to the text. In 3.12 we see a question regarding one’s ability to speak regarding one’s knowledge of τὰ ἐπουράνια in contrast to the τὰ ἐπίγεια with the acceptance of the proposition that one can only speak regarding those things of which one has knowledge. In v 13 it asserts that there is only one who has had experience of τὰ ἐπουράνια, viz the one who came down from heaven — ὁ υἱος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, κτλ. Jesus is thereby claiming to be this son of man who has come down from heaven with a knowledge of heavenly matters concerning which he is therefore qualified to speak. A full break would therefore do violence to the argument.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus _________
________________________________ Sent: Tue, May 24, 2011 9:16:43 PM
Please see below John 3.9-14 for context.
Most translations I checked do not see a paragraph break after John 3.12. The abrupt change in subject seems too severe to me to join verse 13 to 12 as if we are to read verse 13 as the next sentence in this paragraph. What would be the justification for NOT seeing a full break at this 90 degree turn by John at the conclusion of verse 12? There is no continuation of previously developed material, right? Does anyone have a translation that does make a paragraph break after 3.12?
9απεκριθη νικοδημος και ειπεν αυτω πως δυναται ταυτα γενεσθαι 10απεκριθη ιησους και ειπεν αυτω συ ει ο διδασκαλος του ισραηλ και ταυτα ου γινωσκεις 11αμην αμην λεγω σοι οτι ο οιδαμεν λαλουμεν και ο εωρακαμεν μαρτυρουμεν και την μαρτυριαν ημων ου λαμβανετε 12ει τα επιγεια ειπον υμιν και ου πιστευετε πως εαν ειπω υμιν τα επουρανια πιστευσετε Full Break
13και ουδεις αναβεβηκεν εις τον ουρανον ει μη ο εκ του ουρανου καταβας ο υιος του ανθρωπου 14και καθως μωυσης υψωσεν τον οφιν εν τη ερημω ουτως υψωθηναι δει τον υιον του ανθρωπου
Eddie Mishoe
Without the connecting words at the beginning of v. 3 (Ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ), it would seem that there is really no connection between Nocodemus’ acollades in v. 2 and Jesus’ actual response (Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν … ἐὰν μή τις γενηθῇ ἀνωθεν …). The connection becomes obvious only because we know that Jesus did respond to Nicodemus in that manner, but certainly not because of any continuity of thought. In other words, here, too, one might say, there is a 90-degree turn. Yet we know that that’s how Jesus responded to Nicodemus.
In v.13 we may not have any connecting words (as we do in v. 3), but that does not necessarily call for a paragraph break. From a stylistic standpoint we might see v. 13 as the beginning of a new paragraph, but contextually we still see Jesus talking about heavenly matters and truths related to ἄνωθεν. I am not aware of any translation that shows a paragraph break here, though, in my opinion, a break would serve no purpose. Philemon Zachariou
________________________________ Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:56 PM
It seems to me that a full break would do violence to the text. In 3.12 we see a question regarding one’s ability to speak regarding one’s knowledge of τὰ ἐπουράνια in contrast to the τὰ ἐπίγεια with the acceptance of the proposition that one can only speak regarding those things of which one has knowledge. In v 13 it asserts that there is only one who has had experience of τὰ ἐπουράνια, viz the one who came down from heaven — ὁ υἱος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, κτλ. Jesus is thereby claiming to be this son of man who has come down from heaven with a knowledge of heavenly matters concerning which he is therefore qualified to speak. A full break would therefore do violence to the argument.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus _________
________________________________ Sent: Tue, May 24, 2011 9:16:43 PM
Please see below John 3.9-14 for context.
Most translations I checked do not see a paragraph break after John 3.12. The abrupt change in subject seems too severe to me to join verse 13 to 12 as if we are to read verse 13 as the next sentence in this paragraph. What would be the justification for NOT seeing a full break at this 90 degree turn by John at the conclusion of verse 12? There is no continuation of previously developed material, right? Does anyone have a translation that does make a paragraph break after 3.12?
9απεκριθη νικοδημος και ειπεν αυτω πως δυναται ταυτα γενεσθαι 10απεκριθη ιησους και ειπεν αυτω συ ει ο διδασκαλος του ισραηλ και ταυτα ου γινωσκεις 11αμην αμην λεγω σοι οτι ο οιδαμεν λαλουμεν και ο εωρακαμεν μαρτυρουμεν και την μαρτυριαν ημων ου λαμβανετε 12ει τα επιγεια ειπον υμιν και ου πιστευετε πως εαν ειπω υμιν τα επουρανια πιστευσετε Full Break
13και ουδεις αναβεβηκεν εις τον ουρανον ει μη ο εκ του ουρανου καταβας ο υιος του ανθρωπου 14και καθως μωυσης υψωσεν τον οφιν εν τη ερημω ουτως υψωθηναι δει τον υιον του ανθρωπου
Eddie Mishoe
Hi Eddie,
There are several connections linking vv. 12-14 together in my view. Jesus makes the first statement contrasting earthly things with heavenly things in v. 12, the point being that Nicodemos can’t understand either of them. How is he supposed to? This is where v. 13 comes in, where Jesus is the only one who’s been there to be able to explain it. Verse 14 links back to a familiar OT picture, saying that Jesus will be lifted up in similar ways.
Take a look at the connectives in these clauses. Within reported speech, clauses are joined using asyndeton (i.e., no conjunction) unless there is some reason for doing so. If the relationship between the two is clear enough, no conjunction.
10απεκριθη ιησους και ειπεν αυτω συ ει ο διδασκαλος του ισραηλ και ταυτα ου γινωσκεις (ASYN) 11αμην αμην λεγω σοι οτι ο οιδαμεν λαλουμεν και ο εωρακαμεν μαρτυρουμεν και την μαρτυριαν ημων ου λαμβανετε (Previous 3 clauses added one to another by KAI, but the unit is linked to what follows by ASYN) 12ει τα επιγεια ειπον υμιν και ου πιστευετε πως εαν ειπω υμιν τα επουρανια πιστευσετε (End of Thought 1)
(Beginning of thought 2, added to the previous one with KAI) 13και ουδεις αναβεβηκεν εις τον ουρανον ει μη ο εκ του ουρανου καταβας ο υιος του ανθρωπου
(Beginning of thought 3, added to the previous one with KAI) 14και καθως μωυσης υψωσεν τον οφιν εν τη ερημω ουτως υψωθηναι δει τον υιον του ανθρωπου
This is not an argument that builds one layer upon another as in Paul or elsewhere in Jesus’ teachings, but three related statements that are added one to another. KAI can join words, phrases, clauses and paragraphs. I’d view the connections between 12 and 13 as the latter, joining the paragraph of 10-12 to 13 and then to 14.
Steven E. Runge, DLitt Scholar-in-Residence Logos Bible Software [email protected] http://www.logos.com http://www.ntdiscourse.org
It seems to me that a full break would do violence to the text. In 3.12 we see a question regarding one’s ability to speak regarding one’s knowledge of τὰ ἐπουράνια in contrast to the τὰ ἐπίγεια with the acceptance of the proposition that one can only speak regarding those things of which one has knowledge. In v 13 it asserts that there is only one who has had experience of τὰ ἐπουράνια, viz the one who came down from heaven — ὁ υἱος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, κτλ. Jesus is thereby claiming to be this son of man who has come down from heaven with a knowledge of heavenly matters concerning which he is therefore qualified to speak. A full break would therefore do violence to the argument.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus _________
________________________________ Sent: Tue, May 24, 2011 9:16:43 PM
Please see below John 3.9-14 for context.
Most translations I checked do not see a paragraph break after John 3.12. The abrupt change in subject seems too severe to me to join verse 13 to 12 as if we are to read verse 13 as the next sentence in this paragraph. What would be the justification for NOT seeing a full break at this 90 degree turn by John at the conclusion of verse 12? There is no continuation of previously developed material, right? Does anyone have a translation that does make a paragraph break after 3.12?
9απεκριθη νικοδημος και ειπεν αυτω πως δυναται ταυτα γενεσθαι 10απεκριθη ιησους και ειπεν αυτω συ ει ο διδασκαλος του ισραηλ και ταυτα ου γινωσκεις 11αμην αμην λεγω σοι οτι ο οιδαμεν λαλουμεν και ο εωρακαμεν μαρτυρουμεν και την μαρτυριαν ημων ου λαμβανετε 12ει τα επιγεια ειπον υμιν και ου πιστευετε πως εαν ειπω υμιν τα επουρανια πιστευσετε Full Break
13και ουδεις αναβεβηκεν εις τον ουρανον ει μη ο εκ του ουρανου καταβας ο υιος του ανθρωπου 14και καθως μωυσης υψωσεν τον οφιν εν τη ερημω ουτως υψωθηναι δει τον υιον του ανθρωπου
Eddie Mishoe
Without the connecting words at the beginning of v. 3 (Ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ), it would seem that there is really no connection between Nocodemus’ acollades in v. 2 and Jesus’ actual response (Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν … ἐὰν μή τις γενηθῇ ἀνωθεν …). The connection becomes obvious only because we know that Jesus did respond to Nicodemus in that manner, but certainly not because of any continuity of thought. In other words, here, too, one might say, there is a 90-degree turn. Yet we know that that’s how Jesus responded to Nicodemus.
In v.13 we may not have any connecting words (as we do in v. 3), but that does not necessarily call for a paragraph break. From a stylistic standpoint we might see v. 13 as the beginning of a new paragraph, but contextually we still see Jesus talking about heavenly matters and truths related to ἄνωθεν. I am not aware of any translation that shows a paragraph break here, though, in my opinion, a break would serve no purpose. Philemon Zachariou
________________________________ Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:56 PM
It seems to me that a full break would do violence to the text. In 3.12 we see a question regarding one’s ability to speak regarding one’s knowledge of τὰ ἐπουράνια in contrast to the τὰ ἐπίγεια with the acceptance of the proposition that one can only speak regarding those things of which one has knowledge. In v 13 it asserts that there is only one who has had experience of τὰ ἐπουράνια, viz the one who came down from heaven — ὁ υἱος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, κτλ. Jesus is thereby claiming to be this son of man who has come down from heaven with a knowledge of heavenly matters concerning which he is therefore qualified to speak. A full break would therefore do violence to the argument.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus _________
________________________________ Sent: Tue, May 24, 2011 9:16:43 PM
Please see below John 3.9-14 for context.
Most translations I checked do not see a paragraph break after John 3.12. The abrupt change in subject seems too severe to me to join verse 13 to 12 as if we are to read verse 13 as the next sentence in this paragraph. What would be the justification for NOT seeing a full break at this 90 degree turn by John at the conclusion of verse 12? There is no continuation of previously developed material, right? Does anyone have a translation that does make a paragraph break after 3.12?
9απεκριθη νικοδημος και ειπεν αυτω πως δυναται ταυτα γενεσθαι 10απεκριθη ιησους και ειπεν αυτω συ ει ο διδασκαλος του ισραηλ και ταυτα ου γινωσκεις 11αμην αμην λεγω σοι οτι ο οιδαμεν λαλουμεν και ο εωρακαμεν μαρτυρουμεν και την μαρτυριαν ημων ου λαμβανετε 12ει τα επιγεια ειπον υμιν και ου πιστευετε πως εαν ειπω υμιν τα επουρανια πιστευσετε Full Break
13και ουδεις αναβεβηκεν εις τον ουρανον ει μη ο εκ του ουρανου καταβας ο υιος του ανθρωπου 14και καθως μωυσης υψωσεν τον οφιν εν τη ερημω ουτως υψωθηναι δει τον υιον του ανθρωπου
Eddie Mishoe