Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that which we know, and we bear witness of that which we have seen, and ye receive not our witness.
Nicodemus had opened the conversation with a confident "we know." Now the Lord answers with a "we" of His own, and two hard questions follow: who does that "we" include, and how could anyone turn such a witness down?
The words "we speak of what we know" claim something no prophet ever claimed. One commentator draws out the force of the verb:
He speaks as One who is at home with God. He did not simply act for God; He spoke with God's authority, perfectly at home with Him. "We speak of what we know," He says, and the word implies intimate knowledge, personal knowledge that is His own. It is not knowledge given to Him, which a prophet might pass on once God had shown it to him. It is the knowledge of One who knew God and His glory consciously.
Commentators differ over the plural. The same writer sets out the options side by side rather than settling it:
The Lord takes up the "we know" of Nicodemus. "We" here seems to be Christ speaking of Himself, as in Mark 4:30. Theophylact took it that way long ago, and Ryle and McRory among more recent writers. If it means John the Baptist as well as Himself, it points back to the law's rule that two witnesses were needed. Luthardt, Godet and Westcott understand it of the disciples, whom the Lord joins with Himself.
Another writer hears the plural as the voice of God Himself, and notices who the "you" turns out to be:
It is the knowledge and language of deity: the Father in the Son speaking by the Holy Spirit. The leaders of the nation refused this divine testimony: "you do not receive our testimony." Yet Nicodemus evidently did receive it, even though he was "one of themselves" (see John 7:50; 19:39).
Nicodemus taught Israel, yet the Lord answers him as the One who has seen. He has seen the human heart and the heart of God alike:
Nicodemus and the leaders of Israel took the place of teachers, yet they did not know their own Scriptures. In contrast, the Lord spoke of truths He knew perfectly, and testified of things He had seen. He knows what is in man (John 2:25), and He also knows all that is in the heart of God. He knows how great our need is, and He knows how great God's grace is to meet that need.
The Lord never answers Nicodemus's "how." He moves past it:
The Lord did not win Nicodemus, and turning away from the "how" He states the certainty resting on His own testimony from God: "We speak of what we know." But it is not Nicodemus individually who is now in His thoughts — it is they: "You do not receive."
We can fairly question what any person tells us, because anyone's knowledge has limits. Rejecting this witness is a different matter:
We may well question the testimony of men, knowing it is only as good as their limited knowledge. But here One testifies who has perfect knowledge. When people reject that testimony, it proves how hopeless man's case is when left to himself.
The problem was never a shortage of evidence. One writer turns the verse on the reader:
Man does not care to believe God. You often hear people say, "I cannot believe." You cannot believe whom? Pick up a newspaper, read of some terrible crime or accident, and you believe every word of it. Pick up a railway timetable to plan a journey, and you trust it completely. But take up God's Word. It tells you that you are a lost sinner, and that God in love gave His Son for you. And you say, "I cannot believe it." Yours is a downright bad case. You cannot believe the God of truth! You can believe a man like yourself, but you say you cannot believe the living God. What an insight this gives us into man's heart!
- Known. The verb behind "we know" means personal, first-hand knowledge. It is not truth handed to a prophet to pass on. It is the knowledge of One at home with God.
- Seen. He testifies to what He has seen. He has seen what is in man, and what is in God's heart: the size of our need, and the size of the grace that meets it.
- Spoken. Commentators differ on the "we." Some read it as Christ alone. Others add John the Baptist, under the rule that two witnesses were needed, or the disciples. Others hear the Father speaking in the Son by the Spirit.
- Refused. The "you" widens past Nicodemus to the nation's leaders. The Lord drops the "how" question and states the certainty they were rejecting.
- Exposed. Rejecting a witness of perfect knowledge shows what man is when left to himself. He believes a newspaper without hesitation, yet says he cannot believe the God of truth. Nicodemus, though, did receive that witness.
If I have said the earthly things to you, and ye believe not, how, if I say the heavenly things to you, will ye believe?
Nicodemus came to Jesus as a respected teacher of Israel, yet he could not follow what he heard. Here the Lord separates two levels of truth — one his own Scriptures already held, one nobody had yet heard — and He names the real barrier: unbelief.
The phrase does not mean crude or material things. It means the part of God's kingdom that belongs to this earth.
The meaning of "earthly things" as contrasted with "heavenly things" in John 3:12 is not difficult. God's kingdom includes both. The Old Testament mainly opens up the earthly side. The New Testament dwells almost entirely on the heavenly side. The Lord teaches here that a Jew must be born again even to enjoy the earthly things of that kingdom. Compare Ezekiel 36:25-38. Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel, ought to have known this from it. Even Israel, as a nation, must be born again before they can have their earthly blessings in the coming thousand-year kingdom. If they did not believe this, it was pointless to speak of the higher part of God's kingdom.
The word marks a place, not a moral quality:
God's earthly things were not evil or sinful things. They were the promised earthly portion the Jews were to look for. In that coming day they must be sprinkled with water and receive a new heart from the Spirit before they can inherit. This Nicodemus should have known.
The earthly side was old news. The heavenly side was not, and one writer spells out what Nicodemus was missing:
How! says He, you a teacher in Israel! You ought to understand that Israel must have a new and purified heart to enjoy the promises. How is it that you do not know these things? If you will not take in My words — that you must be born of water and of the Spirit — and you do not understand these earthly things, how can anyone expect you to believe about heavenly things? … How will you grasp the glory of Christ exalted in heaven, and the church, His companion, in that heavenly glory?
The heavenly blessing is also wider than the nation Nicodemus taught:
Then there are the heavenly things, which are better. There is the sovereign acting of His grace. He will take any poor sinners of the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, and bring them into the blessing He has to give.
The two subjects differ in more than height. Anyone could test a claim about earth; only one Person could report on heaven.
Israel did not receive His witness, even when He spoke of things on earth, where they could test what He said in many ways. In this way new birth was well within their knowledge. The work of the Spirit in people had a voice, if they could hear it, and the prophets had also borne witness to it. Now if still they did not believe, how would they believe if He spoke of heavenly things? Of a realm where they would have no witness but His own? His own witness must stand alone.
Nicodemus and his fellow teachers held the Scriptures in their hands. Their failure had a deeper cause than missing information.
The leaders of Israel did not understand what their own Scriptures taught. The reason was simple: they had no real faith in God. How then, without faith, could they receive the "heavenly things" the Son of God had come to make known?
Whichever level of blessing is in view, the same starting point stands. The heavenly things do not replace new birth; they rest on it.
Nicodemus should have learned from passages such as Ezekiel 36:25-28 and Jeremiah 31:33 that new birth was necessary for Israel to have part in God's kingdom. Later in John 3 come the heavenly things of Christianity — the fruit of the cross, and the love of God. But there must be new birth as the foundation in man, whatever the blessing offered.
- Two departments. God's kingdom has an earthly side and a heavenly side. The Old Testament opens the first. The New Testament opens the second.
- Earthly first. Even Israel's promised blessing on earth needed new birth. Ezekiel and Jeremiah had written it down, so a teacher of Israel had no excuse.
- Heavenly next. Above that lay truth no one had heard: Christ glorified in heaven, the church joined with Him there, and grace reaching Gentiles as well as Jews.
- One witness. People could test earthly claims in many ways. For heaven there was no other reporter than the One speaking.
- One door. Unbelief blocked the higher truth, not any lack of clarity. New birth stays the foundation for every blessing God offers, on earth or in heaven.
And no one has gone up into heaven, save he who came down out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.
Nicodemus taught Israel, yet he had just stumbled over an earthly thing — the new birth. So the Lord raises a harder question: who can speak about heaven at all?
Heavenly things need a witness who has been there. No traveller had gone up and come back with a report — and the title that fits the One who can speak is not Messiah.
Nicodemus did not understand these earthly things of Israel's blessing. How then would he understand if the Lord spoke to him of heavenly things? No one had gone up to heaven, so no one could bring word of what was there, or of what was needed to enjoy it. No one, that is, except He who had come down from there. He spoke of what He knew, and bore witness to what He had seen. Not the Messiah — that title had to do with the earth — but the Son of man, who, as to His divine nature, was in heaven.
Scripture does record men reaching heaven. The difference here is not arrival, but right.
Two men, Enoch and Elijah, were taken up to heaven; they did not ascend in their own right and title. But Jesus, the Son of Man, belonged to heaven; it was His home. He came down from heaven, and He had the right to leave heaven because of who He was. No angel could come down from heaven by his own choice. To do so would be to leave the place first given him. Some angels did leave it, and they are kept in everlasting chains, waiting for the judgment of the great day.
So the claim is about witness. Nicodemus had no one else to check the report against:
It was plain that there was no one. He is speaking only of witness that men can reach — not of Enoch or Elijah or the spirits of the dead. No one had gone up to heaven to give any confirmation. His own witness must stand alone.
He says this while standing on earth, speaking to a man in a room at night. The phrase is not a slip; it is the clearest window in the chapter into who He is.
The divine-human Person comes out distinctly here, the One always in heaven, though a man on earth: of no created being could such a thing be said.
Taking a body did not shrink what He is. Commentators read the words as a plain claim to be everywhere at once:
Indeed, at that very moment when He was speaking on earth He was "the Son of man which is in heaven." He is God and as such He is present everywhere at the same time. The incarnation did not change this.
William Kelly puts it in terms of right of entry:
Nobody had gone up to heaven. God had taken more than one there, but no one had gone as of right. Jesus not only could go up, as He did later; He had also come down from there. Though man, He was the Son of man who is in heaven. He is a divine person, and His manhood brought no loss to His rights as God. Heavenly things, therefore, had to be natural to Him.
This is what shapes the whole Gospel of John:
These are the wonderful truths of the Gospel of John. Here we have the words of One from heaven, telling people on this earth what heaven is and what is in heaven. One came to this earth to give eternal life to men. He came to die for sinners on the cross of Calvary, so that there should be no judgment for them. But He came for more: to reveal to them what was in the heart of God, and what their portion was in heaven if they accepted Him.
The next verse turns from coming down to being lifted up. A new nature alone leaves man's guilt unanswered.
If God's nature was revealed, and man's sharing in it meant that he had to do with God, then there must be atonement as well as a new birth. The Son of man took up man's cause. As man He was to hold the inheritance of all things in man's nature. He must be lifted up, like the serpent in the wilderness, made sin for us, so that men might look on Him and live.
- Descent: No one climbed up to bring back news of heaven; the news came down, in a Person.
- Right: Enoch and Elijah were taken up; He came down — heaven was His home, and He left it by His own right.
- Person: He is God, present everywhere at once. So He could stand on earth and still be the Son of man in heaven, and His manhood cost Him nothing of His rights as God.
- Witness: No other voice could confirm Him, so His testimony stands alone. Heavenly things are natural to Him, not learned.
- Cross: The One who came down must be lifted up; a new nature meets what man lacks, atonement meets what man owes.