Daniel and Mark: Son of Man

One of the influences of the 2 BCE portion of Daniel (chapters 7-12) was its reinterpretation of the phrase 'Son of Man.' As I said before, Hebrew Bible scholars are somewhat divided on what, exactly, the phrase Son of Man meant when it was used in the Hebrew Bible, but it looks to me like most of the references are to actual humans. Psalm 8:4, for example, seems to be speaking of one generation and the next generation of humans (the words are literally 'man' and 'son of man', although the NRSV translates them as 'human beings' and 'mortals' respectively).

In Daniel, the Son of Man is depicted as 'coming with the clouds of heaven', which would not be something that most humans are capable of doing. I can't, even on a really cloudy day. The Son of Man (Daniel 7:9-14) comes before The Ancient One on the throne and is given an everlasting dominion, which is not something that I would hope The Ancient One would grant to any human that I've ever met! If 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,' then even Gandhi or Mother Teresa would turn ito a tyrant with a coronation of this sort. I'm glad that Daniel is using 'Son of Man' to refer to a not-quite-human person, a cloud-rider, instead of a dirt-walker like most persons I know. No, Daniel's "Son of Man" is no ordinary human.

However, the phrase "Son of Man" is, by its very nature, not a brand name for a diety either. Within the ancient world, including foundational stories of many different religions, there were divine-human figures, who bridged the gap between things infinite and things finite; things cosmic (in heaven, for instance) and things earthly; things divine and things human. And that seems to be how Daniel is using the phrase 'Son of Man' here. It is not a strictly human term; but neither is it a strictly divine term. Again, like other religious expressions of his time, Daniel seems to be using the term as a bridging between the divine and the human, a salvific figure who will be unlike the other grotesque rulers that he is describing.

I truly think the point of these divine-human figures is not that we take them literally, but that they show the inherent connection between things on earth and things in heaven, things doing on right now in my existential existence and things that are universally and eternally significant. These folks weren't stupid and they didn't live in an age when weird things actually happened on a daily basis. The biggest difference between them and us is how they expressed themselves with symbolic language and how we tend to literalize that language.

Here's something to keep in mind about Daniel. Daniel uses 'not-quite-human; not-quite-divine' language not only to describe the Son of Man, but also to describe enemies- like the Greek rulers and their ilk. Daniel is using symbolic language throughout the book to show the Cosmic Significance of the events that are going on in his day. Remember, when Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the temple (169 BCE), that was THE horrendous act of their lifetime for the person writing chapters 7-12 of Daniel (the actual historical Daniel had been dead for 400 years). It was a crime of the century, a political catastrophe, a destruction of all things precious and holy, it was awful and it required both an explanation (if such henous crimes can be 'explained') and a response that could restore hope. Daniel 7-12 is a politically realistic proclamation of hope, set in fantastic language that befits its cosmic significance.

And, in the midst of this scenario, Daniel says that a Son of Man, a human-like figure, will be granted everlasting dominion, unlike the perilous but fleeting dominion of the beast-like leaders Daniel's people are suffering. THAT'S the real, essential difference between the Son of Man and the other similarly depicted divine-human symbolic figures in Daniel. The Son of Man is for real, his dominion is dependable; these other scary, real, and seemingly unconquerable rulers that are terrorizing the Hebrews in the 2nd century BCE are NOT here to stay. "Here today, but not here to stay"- that is Daniel's word of hope, which accepts the bloody realism of his day, yet looks both forward and upward (references to time and space; eternity and cosmos) to say that God will save.

My sense is that Daniel's use of "Son of Man"- a term typically depicting a human- is important so that Daniel doesn't come across as just speaking of God in terms of some nebulous plan that is going on way out there in the heavens somewhere. The bridging symbol of a divine-human Son of Man seems to be an attempt to make God's plan something real in this world, and not just a 'pie-in-the-sky' plan in the cosmos (which is what post-modern critics criticize as meaningless 'meta-narratives'). For Daniel to use a familar term in an unfamiliar way, a human term in a divine sort of way, is an attempt to be hopeful and realistic, bringing the eternal hope of heaven into the temporal realm of earth.

So, it is significant that the gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke, anyway) use the term Son of Man a lot-about 80 times. Typically, it is the way that Jesus refers to himself, to emphasize his humility. In one case it describes Jesus as a dependent, non-home-owner, "Foxes have holes, birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head." In several place, it describes Jesus as one who is rejected, despised, and put to death, as well as to rise again and to come in glory. In some ways, the gospels are using this phrase in ways that deliberately contest against a popular understanding of Daniel in their day, that the Son of Man will be a military general who beats Rome at its own game. NO! say the gospels. The Son of Man will conquer Rome in ways that Rome cannot even begin to fathom- through redemptive suffering.

We have to remember, that by the time Jesus says, in Mark 13, that they will see "the Son of Man coming in the clouds," the title "Son of Man" had been thoroughly defined in that gospel as the suffering one, who would be crucified, dead, and buried; as opposed to simply a pumped up warrior. Mark is using Daniel's fantastic imagery to say that Jesus' suffering and death are not ultimate defeat, but redemptive.

Tomorrow, we'll look at Mark 13 with respect to the situation facing Mark's community, and then see how it changes when Matthew and Luke re-tell it later. On Friday, we'll do some review and definition as we try to pull the whole wad together a bit more.

Daniel and Mark: Intertextuality at Work

My name is Mark and my Seminary roommate- up until he fell in love and got married to the world's most beautiful woman- was named Dan. When we got formal, I'd call him 'Daniel' and he'd call me 'Mark.' So, today's blog is in honor of Dan the Man and his lovely wife Helen of Troy, "the face that launched a thousand late night conversations."

Last week, I described some of the significant developments in Jewish theology that became evident around the 2nd century BCE. With texts written from the middle of a national crisis, which was also a crisis of faith, the language of God's faithfulness became increasingly a language of hope which would be fulfilled in some sort of cosmic re-ordering of the world.

George W. E. Nickelsburg says that it is questionable whether the kind of apocalyptic thinking that we see in the latter half of Daniel (chapters 7-12) is widespread among Judaism in the 1st century. You may recall that the Sadducees, for example, did not believe in the afterlife. In that sense, they were the traditionalists, defending the older way of thinking.

Two places where apocalyptic expectations were very strong were the Qumran community (where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found) and the early church. It's very important to understand the rise of apocalyptic expectation in the latter half of Daniel because both the language and rising apocalyptic thinking of Daniel are very heavy influences in the Gospels (three of them, anyway, Mark, Matthew, and Luke) and in Revelation.

Son of Man
Two phrases that Daniel introduces are key to seeing how, by the time the gospel of Mark is written, this apocalyptic theology was well entrenched. The first is the phrase "a son of man coming with the clouds..." (see Daniel 7:13). The title “Son of Man” appears periodically in the Hebrew Bible, but its precise meaning is a little slippery. By and large, it seems to refer to a human, which is why the New Revised Standard Version translates the Aramaic term as “human being” and puts the literal words “son of man” in a footnote. But, Hebrew Bible scholars are not all agreed on what Son of Man means, since it seems that when it is used, the writers assume that the readers know the referent and do not spell it out for idiots like me who happen not to know what they’re talking about.

In Daniel’s text, the “Son of Man” appears ‘with the clouds,’ as a sign of redemption. It COULD be- bear in mind, I’m no Daniel expert- but it COULD be that the tension is quite deliberate: Daniel uses a term that typically emphasizes human origin, to describe a redemptive figure. The dual reference to a human/divine, weak/strong, lamb/lion, crucified/resurrected and exalted figure of a redeemer is rather common in the New Testament.

Abomination that Desolates
The second phrase that is introduced in Daniel and used later as a key phrase in Mark is "an abomination that desolates," (9:27, 11:31, 12:11). In Daniel, this seems to be referring to that sacrilegious act when Antiochus Epiphanes set up an image of Zeus and sacrificed a pig in the holy place of the temple around 168 BCE. We don’t have to assume that Daniel is foreseeing some other great abomination, in order to understand the severity of this text. What A.E. did was horrendous, especially for a people who took the word ‘holy’ seriously. He should have been zapped dead on the spot, but it didn’t happen. (That alone made many people go, "Hmm... is God with us or not?") Daniel’s visions assure his wearied and despondent people that God's justice and redemption will happen, even if for now and the near future it appears unlikely.

The Gospel of Mark
Mark inherits, uses, and re-defines these terms from Daniel (see the definition of intertextuality from last week). “The Son of Man” is, in Mark’s gospel, the primary way that Jesus speaks of himself. “The abomination that desolates” appears in Mark’s 13th chapter, which we will study tomorrow. But, it is important to understand that, when Mark was written (69-70 CE), the situation was quite different from when Daniel was written (169 BCE). The empire of Greece has been displaced by the empire of Rome. The temple had been rebuilt into one of the architectural wonders of the world, worship had been restored, and a strong system of management had been developed around the temple (hence the often-repeated phrases ‘chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Sanhedrin, guards, etc.’). Significantly, Rome was established as the temple’s protector. In fact, there was an image- a golden eagle- perched on the temple gate as a constant reminder that the worship of YHWH was under Rome’s watch.

What? Rome had an image on the temple gate? (See the 2nd of the 10 Commandments to grasp just how awfully ironical this gesture had to appear to Torah-loving Jews.) Yes! And that is the point of tension where we will pick up tomorrow. Stay tuned!

Prelude to a Parable

The gospel reading for the 4th Sunday of Lent (year C) is Luke 15:1-3, 11-32. 
If you are looking for a translation and commentary on Luke 15:1-10, click here. 

The parable of the Prodigal Son is well known and it is not clear to me that a translation of it is the best approach to understanding it, particularly with reference to preaching it. So, instead, I offer a translation to the prelude of the parable, verses 1-3, and below that a presentation of Karl Barth's powerful interpretation of this story. 

Luke 15:1-3

¹ ησαν δὲ αὐτῷ ἐγγίζοντες πάντες οἱ τελῶναι καὶ οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀκούειν 

αὐτοῦ. 

Then the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to him to hear him.

ησαν: IAI 3p, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

ἐγγίζοντες : PAPart npm, ἐγγίζω, 1) to bring near, to join one thing to another  2) to draw or come near to, to approach

ἀκούειν: PAInf, ἀκούω, 1) to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf

1. I don’t know Greek grammar well enough to know if the verb “to be” plays the role of a linking verb, “were ... drawing near,” making the present participle, in effect, part of the past tense verb, or not. That is how most translations interpret the verb ησαν and its relation to the participle ἐγγίζοντες , so who am I to argue? However, if I were the one to argue, I might make this more like, “Then there were, drawing near to him, tax collectors and sinners, to hear him.” But that’s kind of lumpy, so I’ll go with the experts on this one.

2. The point, I think, is that these folks were coming to Jesus and so Jesus has a choice whether to welcome them or to tell them to turn around and clean up or to despise them. Hmm... how will Jesus react to the errant, the lost, the undeserving?

²καὶ διεγόγγυζον οἵ τε Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς λέγοντες ὅτι Οὗτος 

ἁμαρτωλοὺς προσδέχεται καὶ συνεσθίει αὐτοῖς.

And the Pharisees and also the scribes were murmuring having said “This one welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

διεγόγγυζον: IAI 3pl, διαγογγύζω, 1) to murmur  1a) either of a whole crowd, or among one another  1b) always used of many indignantly complaining 

προσδέχεται: PMI 3s, προσδέχομαι, 1) to receive to one's self, to admit, to give access to one's self

συνεσθίει: PAI 3s, συνεσθίω, 1) to eat with, take food together with 

1. Note that the complaint is not that Jesus has been rousing the rabble or saying the kinds of things that draw this wrong crowd, but that when this crowd draws near to him Jesus welcomes them and eats with them. I suppose they expect him, instead, to excuse himself. I’m remembering Peter’s expressed discomfort when entering the gentile Cornelius’ house in Acts 10. The first thing he says is, “I’m not supposed to be here, you know” as if distancing his personal sanctity from what the vision he had experienced was telling him to do. Perhaps that is what the Pharisees and scribes expected of good, law-abiding Jews – to distance themselves somehow from these errant, lost, undeserving folk. Far from distancing himself, Jesus welcomes and eats with this wrong crowd.

 ³ εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην λέγων,

But he said to them this parable, saying,
1. As we’ve seen over the last few weeks, Luke uses “δὲ” a lot. Each time the translator has the joy of interpreting the nuance of it. “But he said to them ...” “Then he said to them ...” “And he said to them ...” are all perfectly legitimate.

2. However we interpret the “δὲ”, it is the connective tissue between the murmuring of the Pharisees against Jesus for welcoming sinners and the parables that follow. Significantly, v.11 introduces the Parable of the Lost Son/Elder Brother with the same word.

3. It becomes important, then, to remember these three verses when interpreting the parable. The occasion is the Pharisee’s refusal to rejoice in the fact that tax collectors and sinners are gathering to listen to the preaching and are finding welcome. 

                  Karl Barth's Exegesis of the Prodigal Son

                  D. Mark Davis 1/16/2010

Karl Barth was one of the most significant Protestant theologians of the 20^th century.  His most influential works, Church Dogmatics, measures about 6 feet long on the bookshelf and is a strongly written, massively detailed explanation of Christian theology that is thoroughly grounded and centered on the God who is made known to us in Jesus Christ. 

Pages 20-154 of Karl Barth’s second part on reconciliation are entitled, “The Homecoming of the Son of Man.” Already in that title we get a sense that Barth is speaking of the Doctrine of Reconciliation with the language of the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). But, of course, to make this parable a story of the homecoming of the “Son of Man” is almost completely contrary to how we often read it - an issue that Barth acknowledges quite freely. So, I want to explore four different ways that Barth reads this Parable, with particular attention to the interpretive strategy behind his fourth, Christological reading of it. 

Prior to this section on “The Homecoming,” Barth has been summarizing his first chapter on reconciliation and has already employed other phrases that he borrows from the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

 For example, he describes the doctrine of atonement as God’s free turning to “the [human] who had turned away from Him and was therefore lost.” In that sense, Barth is using the Parable’s language in a fairly traditional way, as describing humanity’s waywardness and need of redemption. 

But, then he says, “We recognized the true Godhead of Jesus Christ in the humility of the obedience in which He, the eternal Son of the eternal Father, humbled Himself in the omnipotence of His mercy, and went into the far country, and was made flesh, and took our place as a servant in our cause …”(p.4, emphasis mine.) These two uses of the language of the Parable to describe, first, humanity’s turning away from God and, second, Jesus’ act of reconciliation are keys to what follows, as Barth recognizes the primacy of the traditional interpretation, but also works toward interpreting it Christologically.

The section entitled “The Homecoming of the Son of Man” is part of Barth’s explanation of the reconciliation that Jesus brings between us and God. Having begun this section with obvious reference to the Parable of the Prodigal Son –by using the language of family and geographical from that parable – Barth turns to that small-print annotation commentary of his to address the parable directly. In doing so, he gives four different meanings of the parable, using the term ‘exegesis,’ which is one of our guild terms for ‘the interpretation of texts.’ 

The first exegesis of the parable is what Barth calls a ‘direct’ exegesis. It takes into account the fact that this parable is the last of three parables addressing lost things, preceded by the parables of the lost coin and the lost sheep. Within this context, the direct meaning of the parable is that it speaks of the sin of humanity and the mortal threat which comes to us in consequence, of our repentance and return to God, and of the overwhelming grace with which we are received back by the God whom we spurned. 

Within this direct reading, the younger and elder sons take on roles, again determined by the context of the parable. The younger son gives a view of the “publicans and sinners” (from vv. 1-2) who come to Jesus and hear Him and whom he receives, just as the father received back his lost son. In contrast, the elder gives us a view of the “Scribes and Pharisees” who seem to shun Jesus for receiving sinners, and out of anger refuse to participate in the feast prepared by the father. The “direct reading” of the story, then, talks about the turning away and turning back of sinful humanity to God, in which there is not only no lessening but indeed a heightening of the father’s attitude toward the wayward one. And this is all that we can say “directly” according to Barth, based on exegesis of the text. 

Second, Barth turns from a direct exegesis of the text to an ‘indirect’ one. He plainly notes that it is riskier to do this, but also that it is necessary to do so in order to show what is truly stated indirectly in the text. Relying on an interpretation of the text that Augustine emphasized years ago, the ‘indirect exegesis’ of this text shows that the lost-then-found younger brother, as well as the publicans and sinners (to which he directly refers), can be interpreted to refer to the Gentile world as it turns to the Gospel. Likewise, then, the elder brother, as well as the scribes and Pharisees to which (he directly refers), can be interpreted as Israel, which excludes itself from the Messianic feast. 

Barth frankly admits that “There is no explicit mention of the Gentiles in the text.”(p.22) But, he argues that the theme is everywhere in the New Testament and especially in the mind of Luke, with his very pronounced universalistic interest. So, while the relationship to the Gentiles is not in the text ‘directly,’ we actually fail to do full justice to the text if we leave out this relationship simply because it is not given directly in the exegesis of the text. 

So far we have a direct interpretation and an indirect one, both of which are important to hearing the text rightly. Now, Barth refers to a third reading of this parable, which he denounces. It is the interpretation offered by Adolph von Harnack (in Essence of Christianity, Lecture 8), which points out that this parable is a story of redemption that is based simply on God’s overwhelming love, without reference to the person and work of Jesus Christ. Likewise, the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee (Luke 18:9f) and the parable of the Sheep and Goats (Matthew 25:31f) do not mention the person and work of Christ and yet are about redemption. So, Harnack concludes, it is not the Son and the atonement that the Son accomplished, but God’s own goodness that unites the soul to God. And, Harnack points out, this is precisely the reconciliation that Jesus himself preached, a reconciliation that is grounded in God’s love and not in Christ’s atoning life, death, and resurrection. 

Now we get to the fourth interpretation of this parable, the “Christological Exegesis” of it. If you know Barth’s theology, you would know that Harnack’s interpretation of this parable is precisely what Barth struggles against. Harnack has argued that Christ is not necessarily a part of redemption because, as this parable shows, redemption is grounded in God’s good will, not Christ’s person and work. Barth’s target, in his fourth interpretation of this parable, is not the traditional way of reading it, but Harnack’s reading of it. But there is a problem here: Barth has to admit that in the plain and ‘direct’ exegesis of this text, the redemption of this story does indeed rely solely on the Father’s good will. There is nothing ‘redemptive’ about the wayward son; rather, he is the one who needs redeeming. Now we can see why it was important for Barth to demonstrate interpretation #2, the ‘indirect’ reading of the story, to show how an indirect reading has integrity and might even be necessary to bring out what is truly said ‘indirectly’ in a text. This fourth reading of the story – the Christological reading – intends to be another indirect but valid reading of this parable. 

To understand this reading, we have to remember how seriously Barth took the words of the Council of Chalcedon that described Christ as “fully human and fully God.”

  

And here it goes: Barth begins his section on “The Homecoming of the Son of Man” with reference to John 1:14, “The Word was made flesh and lived among us.” He said that if we focus on the word “flesh” in this text, then it is a statement about God: “We say – and in itself this constitutes the whole of what is said – that without ceasing to be true God, in the full possession and exercise of His true deity, God went into the far country by becoming [human] in His second person or mode of being as the Son – the far country not only of human creatureliness but also of human corruption and perdition.”(20) In other words, it is Jesus, who is and remains fully God, who goes into a ‘far away country’ by becoming fully human. 

On the other hand, he says, if we focus on the word “Word” in John 1:14, we make it a statement about humanity. We say that “without ceasing to be man, but assumed and accepted in his creatureliness and corruption by the Son of God, humanity – this one Son of Man – returned home to where He belonged, to His place as true man…” In what Barth calls two elements of a single action, the atonement is that action where God in Christ “goes into a far country” and humanity in Christ “returns home” (p.21) In other words, when Jesus is reconciled with God all of humanity is reconciled with God because to say that Jesus, as ‘fully human,’ is ‘true humanity.’ 

So, in this indirect but necessary Christological reading of the Parable of the Prodigal Son, Barth sees the movement of ‘God with us’ in the son going out into a far away country; and the movement of us reconciled to God in the return and acceptance of the Son in his Father’s house. 

There is much more that can be said about Barth’s interpretation, but just one last word about his exegetical method: Barth acknowledges that his ‘indirect’ interpretation is open to criticism biblically and theologically. It is ‘indirect’ and it is a ‘feeble representation of the doctrine of reconciliation. But, he say, there are in fact some inescapable ‘direct’ references in this story that give us reason to look at it Christologically:

The Light that Exposes and Reveals

Below is my initial translation of John 3:14-21. It seems to me that the temptation of this pericope is to treat John 3:16 as something special in and of itself, simply because it is so familiar as either a 'memory verse' or a 'slogan' by many persons. Despite that popularity, I think it is incredibly important to keep v.16 within the context of all of these verses. In fact, I think the pericope should be longer, to include the entire conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus (1-21). But, nobody asked me and probably for good reason.

Once again, your comments or suggestions are very welcomed! Please be mindful that over time I have updated my study of and reflections on this text. The latest of my thoughts are gathered here: 

Facing Evil, Coming to Light. 

14 καὶ καθὼς Μωϋσῆς ὕψωσεν τὸν ὄφιν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, οὕτως ὑψωθῆναι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,
And just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so it is necessary for the son of man to be lifted up. 
ὕψωσεν: AAI 3s, ὑψόω, 1) to lift up on high, to exalt  2) metaph.  2a) to raise to the very summit of opulence and prosperity  2b) to exalt, to raise to dignity, honor and happiness
δεῖ: PAI 3s, δέω, 1) to bind tie, fasten  1a) to bind, fasten with chains, to throw into chains
ὑψωθῆναι: APInf, ὑψόω, 1) to lift up on high, to exalt  …
1. The term “son of man” in John. 
88 x in NT; Mt – 30x; Mk – 14x; Lk – 27x; Jn – 12x
2. The verb ὑψόω, could be a simple physical elevation or a metaphorical exaltation. The comparative “just as” is an indicator that the meaning here is determined by one’s reading of the story from Numbers 21. In the NRSV translation below, it simply says that Moses put the bronze serpent on a pole, indicating a physical elevation. 
4. The verb δέω (“it is necessary for”) is used 9x in John. A customary translation is “must.” My problem with that – born of ignorance, I’m sure – is that when we translate it ‘must’ then the accusative case often takes the form of the subject of the verb (in this verse, “the son of man must …”). If we translate it as ‘it is necessary for,’ then the accusative keeps its normal place as the object of the verb (“it is necessary for the son of man …”) and the agency is left in question. The actual meaning of δέω – as one can see above – is a fastening, a binding of some sort. Maybe “It is binding that the son of man be lifted up.”  
Joh 3:7 ...unto thee, Ye must be born again...
Joh 3:14 ...wilderness, even so must the Son of...
Joh 3:30 He must increase, but I...
Joh 4:4 And he must needs go through Samaria...
Joh 4:20 ...the place where men ought to worship.
Joh 4:24 ...that worship him must worship him in...
Joh 9:4 I must work the works...
Joh 10:16 ...them also I must bring, and they...
Joh 12:34 ...Son of man must be lifted up...
3. The fact that “lift up” here means to physically mount Jesus on a pole, isn’t the happiness of the song, “Lift Jesus Higher” a bit misplaced?  
Numbers 21:4-9
From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom; but the people became impatient on the way. The people spoke against God and against Moses, ‘Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we detest this miserable food.’ Then the Lord sent poisonous serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, ‘We have sinned by speaking against the Lord and against you; pray to the Lord to take away the serpents from us.’ So Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Make a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live.’ So Moses made a serpent of bronze, and put it upon a pole; and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live.

15 ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐν αὐτῷ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
In order that anyone who believes in him will have life eternal. 
πιστεύων: PAPart nsm, πιστεύω, 1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place  confidence in  1a) of the thing believed  1a1) to credit, have confidence  1b) in a moral or religious reference
ἔχῃ: PASubj 3s, ἔχω, 1) to have, i.e. to hold  1a) to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, to have  (hold) possession of the mind (refers to alarm, agitating  emotions, etc.)
1. The people who looked at the bronze serpent that Moses elevated on a pole in the wilderness lived, despite being bitten by poisonous serpents. Whoever believes in the son of man lives. 
2. The qualification here is “life eternal,” as opposed to simply being healed of a life-threatening poison. 

16 Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ' ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
For in this way God loved the world, that [God] gave the only generated son, in order that anyone who believes in him would not [be] destroyed but have life eternal.
ἠγάπησεν: AAI 3s, ἀγαπάω, 1) of persons  1a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly  2) of things  2a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing
ἔδωκεν: AAI 3s, δίδωμι, 1) to give  2) to give something to someone  2a) of one's own accord to give one something, to his advantage
πιστεύων: PAPart nsm, πιστεύω, 1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place  confidence in  1a) of the thing believed  1a1) to credit, have confidence  1b) in a moral or religious reference
ἀπόληται: AMSubj 3s, ἀπόλλυμι, 1) to destroy  1a) to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin  1b) render useless  1c) to kill  1d) to declare that one must be put to death  1e) metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell  1f) to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed  2) to destroy  2a) to lose
ἔχῃ: PASubj 3s, ἔχω, 1) to have, i.e. to hold  1a) to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, to have  (hold) possession of the mind (refers to alarm, agitating  emotions, etc.)
1. Some modern translations begin this verse, “God loved the world so much…” , but that is a mistranslation of oὕτως. It can mean ‘so,’ as the KJV and NRSV translate it, but ‘so’ not in the sense of “so much” as in the sense of “in this way.” A better modern option would be, “Here’s how God loved the world …” 
2. The word  would be transliterated mono-genes. The phrase “only begotten son” in the KJV is more accurate than the “only son” in the NRSV. It seems like the uniqueness of ‘only’ qualifies the ‘genes’ more than the ‘son. 
3. There are two types of historical contexts at play in the phrase “only begotten son.” One is the Roman context of John’s day, when various Caesars – dead or alive – would be declared a “son of God.” (See John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan Reed’s In Search of Paul for a discussion of this issue.) The second historical context is the Christian theological tradition over this phrase. The exegete needs to be aware of this ongoing conversation when consulting lexicons and other tools. The “lexicon” in greattreasures.org, for example, has an extended definition of this term which goes far beyond word study and argues for and against certain post-biblical interpretations. I have no problem with people commenting on the meaning of words (I’m doing it!), but I do have a problem with resources that portend to be giving historical data lapsing into ongoing theological arguments. [End of rant.]
4. By the way, why does the NRSV treat this sentence as a paragraph? There is nothing grammatical that suggests that this verse should stand out from its context. Is it the Billy Grahamification of the NT? Are they suggesting that John did not know how important this verse was, since for John its meaning is inherently connected to the previous verse (as indicated by the oὕτως)? [Okay, now it’s the end of the rant.] 
5. The verb ἀπόλλυμι is in the middle voice. It is contrasted with having life eternal. If we think about it, ‘having’ is something of a middle voice also (although technically it is active). The customary use of a middle voice might suggest, “destroys himself”, but some lexicons insist Paul and John use this to mean the passive, “be destroyed.” I guess I will yield to them, but I wonder… [See this rant was sidestepped.]
6. Unlike the verb δέω in v.14 above, the verbs ἀγαπάω and δίδωμι have a subject – God. God loves, God sends, but does God require that Jesus be lifted up on the cross? 

17 οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλ' ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι' αὐτοῦ.
For God did not send the son into the world in order that [God] might judge the world, but in order that the world might be rescued through him.
ἀπέστειλεν: AAI 3s, ἀποστέλλω, 1) to order (one) to go to a place appointed  2) to send away, dismiss  2a) to allow one to depart, that he may be in a state of  liberty  2b) to order one to depart, send off  2c) to drive away
κρίνῃ: AASubj 3s, κρίνω, 1) to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, choose  2) to approve, esteem, to prefer  3) to be of opinion, deem, think, to be of opinion  4) to determine, resolve, decree  5) to judge
σωθῇ: APSubj 3s,
σῴζω, 1) to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction  1a) one (from injury or peril)  1a1) to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one  suffering from disease, to make well, heal, restore to health  1b1) to preserve one who is in danger of destruction,  to save or rescue
1. My phraseology is a bit wooden here, but it is an attempt to pick up on the subjunctive verbs, which often follows “in order that” (ἵνα). The subjunctive mood speaks of possibilities, rather than declarations of fact (like this indicative mood). 
2. Personally, I find this verse to be as important as the previous one. 
3. The word I translate as “judge” (κρίνω) is often translated ‘condemned.’ That is a valid choice, but pay attention to the fact that κρίνω does not necessarily have a negative connotation. “Condemn” is a good choice if one is making a contrast between κρίνω and σῴζω (to rescue). 
4. I assume the ‘him’ refers to ‘the son’ and not to ‘God.’ 

18 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται: ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ.
The one who believes in him is not judged; but the one who does not believe has already been judged, because that one has not believed in the name of the only generated son of God. 
πιστεύων: PAPart nsm, πιστεύω, 1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place
κρίνεται: PPI 3s, κρίνω, 1) to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, choose  2) to approve, esteem, to prefer  3) to be of opinion, deem, think, to be of opinion  4) to determine, resolve, decree  5) to judge
πιστεύων: PAPart nsm, πιστεύω, 1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place
κέκριται: PerfPI 3s, κρίνω, 1) to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, choose  2) to approve, esteem, to prefer  3) to be of opinion, deem, think, to be of opinion  4) to determine, resolve, decree  5) to judge
πεπίστευκεν: PerfAI 3s, πιστεύω, 1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place
1. The verb and participles translated “believe” (πιστεύω) here and in v.16 are compelling. But, does this text tell us what, exactly, one is to believe when believing ‘in him’, or, in believing ‘in his name’? 
2. The language of these verses makes it hard to imagine that they are being said in Jesus’ time. With the use of the 3rd person, John seems to be commenting on Jesus, via the mouth of Jesus. I would suggest that is the case for this entire pericope, beginning with v.11. 
3. The word κρίνω, as I noted in v.17, does not necessarily mean ‘condemn,’ as most translations have it. It can mean something good, like to honor. But, in this text it is contrasted with ‘rescue,’ so it would mean something perilous. I am using “judge” because that English word has the ambiguity of the Greek word, whereas ‘condemn’ is solely negative. 

19 αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ κρίσις, ὅτι τὸ φῶς ἐλήλυθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἠγάπησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος ἢ τὸ φῶς, ἦν γὰρ αὐτῶν πονηρὰ τὰ ἔργα.
Yet this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world and the people loved the darkness more than the light, for their works were evil. 
ἐστιν: PAI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present
ἐλήλυθεν: PerfAI 3s, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come  1a) of persons  1a1) to come from one place to another, and used both of  persons arriving and of those returning
ἠγάπησαν: AAI 3p, ἀγαπάω, 1) of persons  1a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly  2) of things  2a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing
ἦν: IAI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present
1. The word “judgment” (κρίσις) has the same root a the verb for ‘judge’ in verses 17 and 18. This verse clarifies what it means to say that those who do not believe are already judged. 
2. Having seen how God loves, v.16, now we see how those who reject Jesus love – they love darkness more than light.  
3. Does the “for” (γὰρ), indicate that the evil works are the evidence or the reason that the people loved darkness more than light? 

20 πᾶς γὰρ ὁ φαῦλα πράσσων μισεῖ τὸ φῶς καὶ οὐκ ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα μὴ ἐλεγχθῇ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ:
For the one who practices evil acts hates the light and does not come to the light, in order that his works may not be exposed. 
φαῦλα: APN, φαῦλος, 1) easy, slight, ordinary, mean, worthless, of no account   2) ethically, bad, base, wicked
μισεῖ: PAI 3s, μισέω, 1) to hate, pursue with hatred, detest  2) to be hated, detested
πράσσων: PAPart nsm, πράσσω, 1) to exercise, practise, to be busy with, carry on  1a) to undertake, to do  2) to accomplish, perform  2a) to commit, perpetrate  3) to manage public affairs, transact public business  3a) to exact tribute, revenue, debts  4) to act
ἔρχεται: PMI 3s, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come  1a) of persons  1a1) to come from one place to another, and used both of  persons arriving and of those returning
ἐλεγχθῇ: APSubj 3s, ἐλέγχω, 1) to convict, refute, confute  1a) generally with a suggestion of shame of the person convicted  1b) by conviction to bring to the light, to expose  2) to find fault with, correct  2a) by word  2a1) to reprehend severely, chide, admonish, reprove  2a2) to call to account, show one his fault, demand an explanation  2b) by deed  2b1) to chasten, to punish
1. The hatred of evil doer toward the light is because the light reveals one’s evil deeds. It is more a matter of shame and hiding than something like an inborn hatred of God.  
2. A translation challenge with this verse and the next is that ‘the works’ (τὰ ἔργα) is a plural but the verb ἐλέγχω is singular. 

21 ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα φανερωθῇ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα ὅτι ἐν θεῷ ἐστιν εἰργασμένα.
Yet the one who does the truth comes to the light, in order that his works will be revealed, because it is in God they are worked. 
ποιῶν: PAPart nsm, ποιέω, 1) to make  1a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct,  form, fashion, etc.  1b) to be the authors of, the cause  1c) to make ready, to prepare
ἔρχεται: PMI 3s, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come  1a) of persons  1a1) to come from one place to another, and used both of  persons arriving and of those returning
φανερωθῇ: APSubj 3s, φανερόω, 1) to make manifest or visible or known what has been hidden or unknown,   to manifest, whether by words, or deeds, or in any other way   1a) make actual and visible, realised   1b) to make known by teaching
ἐστιν: PAI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present
εἰργασμένα: PPPart npm, ἐργάζομαι, 1) to work, labour, do work  2) to trade, to make gains by trading, "do business"  3) to do, work out  3a) exercise, perform, commit  3b) to cause to exist, produce  4) to work for, earn by working, to acquire
1. John speaks of one who “does the truth” as opposed to “knows the truth.” And “truth” seems to be in contrast with “evil” from v.20, where one “practices evil acts (plural)” and the other “does the truth (singular).” 
2. The phrase “they are worked” is awkward, but I want to show the connection between the noun “works” (τὰ ἔργα) and the verb “are worked” (ἐργάζομαι). 
3. I like the contrast in vv.20-21 between evil acts which are “exposed” (ἐλέγχω) by the light and good works which are “revealed” (φανερόω) by the light.