John uses the same structure in Chapter 1, where he writes,
Jhn 1:15
John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
Jhn 1:16
And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
καὶ ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος·
Jhn 1:17
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωσέως ἐδόθη ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο
Jhn 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο
Jhn 1:19
And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰωάννου ὅτε ἀπέστειλαν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων ἱερεῖς καὶ Λευίτας ἵνα ἐρωτήσωσιν αὐτὸν Σὺ τίς εἶ
Jhn 1:20
And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
Whose words are the words
in bold red. Are they
John the Baptist's words? or are they
the apostle John's words, his comments parenthetically inserted after John's words, but introduced with
kai ?
Why cannot John be doing the same thing in chapter 3, interrupting Jesus words and inserting his own commentary introduced with kai?
Your example from John 1:15–18 does not establish that John 3:13 is the apostle John's commentary rather than the words of Jesus Christ.
First, I certainly recognize that the apostle John sometimes inserts his own explanatory commentary into the conversations he records.
Furthermore, there are specific words, larger clauses, and contextual indicators in both John 1 and John 2 that help us recognize when the apostle John is providing his own explanatory commentary that interrupts the flow of the normal narrative.
In John 1:16, for example, we read:
"And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace."
Now, let me ask you something. Who exactly has received this fullness and "grace for grace"? Are we talking about the Jews and other people living during the time of John the Baptist's ministry, or Christians looking back upon what they had received through Jesus Christ?
Notice the KJV expression "all we," which in modern English would be "we all," corresponding to the Greek ἡμεῖς πάντες. This is an important contextual indicator because it fits naturally with the apostle John speaking from the perspective of Christians looking back upon what they had received through our Lord, rather than merely continuing John the Baptist's testimony during his earlier ministry.
After all, the Christian community following Christ's earthly ministry had not yet developed when John the Baptist was baptizing.
Furthermore, John 1:15–18 is not even describing a living, back-and-forth conversation between individuals as we find in John 3. The apostle John is still presenting his introductory narrative concerning our Lord, His divine origin, and the testimony of John the Baptist. It is not until John 1:19 that we begin reading the fuller historical scene involving the priests and Levites questioning John the Baptist. So the apostle John is already presenting testimony and explanatory truths in a narrative setting, rather than interrupting an ongoing conversation between two individuals.
Taken together, the expression "all we," the larger explanatory clauses concerning Christ's fullness, the law given through Moses, and grace and truth coming through Jesus Christ, and the surrounding narrative context provide recognizable indications of the apostle John's explanatory commentary.
Likewise, consider John 2:19–21. After Jesus speaks about destroying the temple and raising it up in three days, John inserts this explanatory statement:
"But he spake of the temple of his body" (John 2:21).
This is clearly the apostle John's commentary, and we can recognize it from the wording itself, both in the Greek and in the English. John refers to Jesus in the third person and explains what Jesus meant by His previous statement.
The Greek uses the expression ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔλεγεν ("But he spake"), and the entire clause clearly steps outside the conversation to explain what Jesus meant by His earlier statement. So it is not merely a few isolated words, but the larger clauses themselves, their grammatical construction, and the surrounding context that make these explanatory statements recognizable in both Greek and English.
There is another important distinction you seem to be overlooking.
John 1:15–18 is part of the apostle John's introductory narrative, where he is presenting various historical and theological truths concerning Jesus Christ, His divine origin, John the Baptist's testimony, and His relationship with the Father.
However, John 3 is different. Here we are reading about a living scene involving an actual conversation between Jesus Christ and Nicodemus. Jesus is explicitly identified as the speaker in John 3:10, and He continues explaining earthly and heavenly things in verse 12.
Then, in verse 13, the subject naturally continues with the Son of man's unique relationship to heaven.
So you are comparing two different literary contexts. One involves an introductory narrative containing historical testimony and theological commentary, while the other involves a continuous conversation between two individuals.
Now, I am not saying that the apostle John could not insert commentary into such a conversation. What I am saying is that you have not demonstrated that he actually did so in John 3:13.
Second, the Greek conjunction καί (kai), meaning "and," does not establish a change of speaker. It can connect statements made by the same speaker just as easily as statements made by different speakers. So merely pointing to καί does not prove your interpretation.
For example, in John 5:20–23, Jesus continues explaining His relationship with the Father. In verse 20, the conjunction καί ("and") introduces another substantial clause: "and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel." Jesus then continues discussing His authority to give life, His authority in judgment, and the honour due to the Son (John 5:21–23).
Yet nobody would reasonably argue that the apostle John suddenly interrupts Jesus here simply because of καί. So why assume such an interruption in John 3:13? The conjunction itself proves nothing about a change of speaker. We must look at the larger clauses and their surrounding context.
Third, look at the immediate context of John 3:10–15.
In John 3:10, Jesus is explicitly identified as the one speaking to Nicodemus. In verse 12, Jesus says:
"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"
Then, immediately in verse 13, we read:
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
Notice the connection. Jesus has just been discussing His authority to speak about heavenly things, and the very next verse explains His unique relationship to heaven. The following verses continue discussing the Son of man and His being lifted up (John 3:14–15).
Where is the contextual indication that the apostle John suddenly interrupts Jesus here?
Again, where are the specific words, larger explanatory clauses, or contextual indicators that we find in John 1:15–18 and John 2:19–21, which help us recognize when the apostle John is providing his own commentary? There are no such comparable words or explanatory clauses here in John 3:13 that clearly establish a change of speaker. Instead, the passage naturally continues Jesus' discussion of heavenly things with Nicodemus. So why should we suddenly insert an interruption by the apostle John when neither the Greek nor the English provides the same kind of clear indication we find in the earlier examples?
If you were to go to BibleHub right now and read John 3:1–15 in the KJV, you would see that the natural flow of the passage does not support inserting the interpretation you are trying to force into the text. It sounds odd and out of place to suggest that the apostle John suddenly interrupts Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus in verse 13. So why are you doing this? Because you have a barrow to push, rather than simply allowing the passage to speak for itself.
I'm not interested in going back and forth on this anymore. It's obvious that you are doing backflip twists through hoops of fire while poodles are latched onto your fingers with their little teeth. I mean, we can maybe see one of the nine as an exception, but ALL nine of them needing to be explained away by some strained, oddball, crazy, forced, and unnatural theory is a bit too much. Just let the Bible speak to you naturally and plainly, and stop trying to fight against what the text plainly says. We see a clear pattern of Jesus having His own divine power during His earthly ministry. You may not like that idea, but it's what the Bible teaches plainly in nine places.
....
