John 3:13

[rota]

Hi guys!

I would appreciate your ideas and insight on the following verse. Would be interested in your personal views as well as to see if the Bible Wheel can give us some additional insight:

John 3:13

"No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." - NASB

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man [...]" - KJV

"and no one hath gone up to the heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down -- the Son of Man [...]" - YLT

Regards,


Michael

[rota]

anyone out there...? gg

[joel]

Some initial thoughts that come to mind;

1.) The Son of Man is a distinct title for our Lord, Jesus Christ.
2.) The word son, huios, is connected with inheritance issues. He is not just a descendant, but, occupies a special capacity.
3.) He is representative of all of humanity as the Son of Man. Otherwise, you would say son of man, or son of Man. But, as Son of Man, He is distinctly unique.
4.) His distinct uniqueness is carried to a higher level when He says that no other "son of man" (no one) can ascend into heaven, and no "son of man" can descend from heaven, except the Son of Man Who came out of heaven.
5.) This says that man's uniqueness, which began "in heaven", and which was brought to earth (through Adam), comes out of Christ Jesus, the Son of Man.
6.) He descended when He came to earth and was born of woman, and was placed on earth in the likeness of sin's flesh. When He went to the cross He became the last Adam.
7.) He ascended into heaven after the resurrection as the "second man".
8.) He will descend again to complete the reconciliation of all things, and will subdue all rule. He will be, in completeness what no "son of man" could be, the "New Man".

Joel

[Trumpet]

Hi Michael,

Why did you leave off the rest of verse 13? - "is in heaven". It's part of what it means. At His baptism, when the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus, He entered Heaven, (or went up to heaven). I don't think of heaven so much as a place that is out there in outer space, but a place of a different dimension that occupies the same space that we are in. When Jesus uses the word "up", I take it to mean not a direction, but a climb in glory, hence, from His baptism on, Jesus was "in" heaven, because heaven comes with the Holy Spirit, and the kingdom of Heaven is "here" right now.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Michael,

Why did you leave off the rest of verse 13? - "is in heaven". It's part of what it means. At His baptism, when the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus, He entered Heaven, (or went up to heaven). I don't think of heaven so much as a place that is out there in outer space, but a place of a different dimension that occupies the same space that we are in. When Jesus uses the word "up", I take it to mean not a direction, but a climb in glory, hence, from His baptism on, Jesus was "in" heaven, because heaven comes with the Holy Spirit, and the kingdom of Heaven is "here" right now.

Hey Don,


As it turns out, the final clause "who is in heaven" is missing in some of the Alexandrian texts, so the modern textual scholars voted to leave it out. Here is what Metzger says about it in his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament:

On the one hand, a minority of the Committee preferred the reading avnqrw,pou o` w'n evn tw|/ ouvranw|/, arguing that (1) if the short reading, supported almost exclusively by Egyptian witnesses, were original, there is no discernible motive that would have prompted copyists to add the words o` w'n evn tw|/ ouvranw|/, resulting in a most difficult saying (the statement in 1.18, not being parallel, would scarcely have prompted the addition); and (2) the diversity of readings implies that the expression o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou o` w'n evn tw|/ ouvranw|/, having been found objectionable or superfluous in the context, was modified either by omitting the participial clause, or by altering it so as to avoid suggesting that the Son of Man was at that moment in heaven.

On the other hand, the majority of the Committee, impressed by the quality of the external attestation supporting the shorter reading, regarded the words o` w'n evn tw|/ ouvranw|/ as an interpretative gloss, reflecting later Christological development.

That last red clause exemplifies the primary error of modern textual critics. They approach the Bible as if it and the message it contains evolved over time as scribes and other Christians invented their "Christology." Of course we know that the theological understanding of the Church developed over time. For example, it took centuries for the doctrine of the Trinity to be fully articulated, but the underlying text of the Holy Bible that demands and defines that docrine appeared fully formed in the first century under the direct inspiration of Almighty God. This is what the unbelievers amongst the modern textual critics are fighting against. They must prove a late date on the Gospels or their theory of "Christological evolution" fails, and if they can't prove it through naturalistic evolution, then they have no explanation for why a bunch of Jewish fishermen and tax collectors and even many priests and pharisees started running around jumping up and down joyfully abandoning their own lives in the extasy of their declaration that their God YHVH had just walked in their streets healing the sick and raising the dead and who had himself died and rose again bringing everlasting salvation to all who would call on His Name!

From a scholastic point of view, we really need an explanation of how that proclamation "evolved" over time, or we just might feel compelled to believe it, and everyone knows that believing is for kids, not high minded intellectuals! Silly rabbis!

Richard

[rota]

Thanks for the post, Richard, I was looking up the details. I'm currently a bit stressed and will reply more to this topic later.

Agape,


Michael

[joel]

Another way to look at the verse, is;

And not-yet-one has-up-stepped into heaven
if no the out of-the heaven down-stepping
the Son of-the human

The word has-up-stepped is anabaino.
"an" would be the prefix, Up.
"baino" is "walk", or "step".

Down-stepping is katabaino, with the prefix kata meaning "down".

Jesus, who was up, came down.
After being down, he ascended up.
He came out of heaven.
He returned to heaven.

No one else can make this claim.
This statement in John 3:13 is a central point in Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus, and is included in the explanation of difference in fleshly birth, and spiritual birth.

I cannot see how the inclusion, or exclusion of the last words "which is in heaven" alter the meaning. It appears that the preponderence of scholarly opinion is to eliminate that section.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Another way to look at the verse, is;

And not-yet-one has-up-stepped into heaven
if no the out of-the heaven down-stepping
the Son of-the human

The word has-up-stepped is anabaino.
"an" would be the prefix, Up.
"baino" is "walk", or "step".

Down-stepping is katabaino, with the prefix kata meaning "down".

Jesus, who was up, came down.
After being down, he ascended up.
He came out of heaven.
He returned to heaven.

No one else can make this claim.
This statement in John 3:13 is a central point in Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus, and is included in the explanation of difference in fleshly birth, and spiritual birth.

Hey there Joel!

That's how I understand it too. Christ said those words as part of His explanation as to why He is qualified to speak of "heavenly things."

But I'm not sure how helpful it is to string together the literal meanings of the etymological roots. It would be like explaining the meaing of "understanding" as "standing under." Do you stand under what I mean?

For example, interpreting katabaino as "down stepping" seems like an excessive literalism because Christ's decent from heaven did not involve any literal "stepping" did it?


I find it very interesting that the ascending/descending to/from heaven is linked in a variety of passages:

Genesis 28:12 12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.

John 1:51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Ephesians 4:9-10 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

I cannot see how the inclusion, or exclusion of the last words "which is in heaven" alter the meaning. It appears that the preponderence of scholarly opinion is to eliminate that section.

Joel

I don't think they alter the meaning much either. I was just quoting the scholastic opinion on the matter as an opportunity to show their assumptions and methodologies. And this why the "preponderence of scholarly opinion" needs to be weighed in light of the preponderance of their capitulation to atheistic presuppositions. It is essentially verboten in "The Academy" to suggest that God had anything to do with the formation of the Biblical text. The entire scholastic enterprise is based on the supposition that every feature of the the Bible can and must be explained in purely naturalistic terms, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

How often do you read a scholastic article published in "The Academy" that speaks of the fulfillment of genuine prophecies in the Bible?

Richard

[Trumpet]

Thanks all,

It's good that you have this web-site Richard. You come across to me as someone that is interested in the truth, even at the expense of what you personally may believe, and that's worth more than gold. It's also nice to know that you have a better understanding of the old languages and texts than I do. I have an interlinear Greek N T, which is helpful, but I don't have the time OR knowledge that others do.

Thanks for that other tid-bit Joel. I hadn't looked at the Greek on that one, but "stepping up" reminds me of something that the Father would say to His Son, as in "I am well pleased with you Son. Now would you please step up to the Throne." Like what happened at His baptism in Matt 3:16,17.

The fact that "scholars" would omit "is in heaven", is a sad thing indeed. When I first saw those words many years ago, my Spirit within me took a leap, and I realized just how close heaven is. It explains how Jesus spent 3 1/2 years doing the will of The Father, and how Jesus only did what He "sees" the Father doing. Jn. 5:19 But then again, I'm just an average, honest, hard-working American, and since there is nothing true about a "Holy Spirit" working in God's people, what could I know that is of any value?

[joel]

Thanks for that other tid-bit Joel. I hadn't looked at the Greek on that one, but "stepping up" reminds me of something that the Father would say to His Son, as in "I am well pleased with you Son. Now would you please step up to the Throne." Like what happened at His baptism in Matt 3:16,17.

Trumpet,

Tid-bits are sometimes very worthwhile.

The way the Greek has been presented is sometimes very helpful in seeing what a verse is really saying.

I suggest that all serious students of scripture seek to use a Greek lexicon when they are seeking to understand any verse.

What we commonly read is translated from the Greek to the Latin to English. In the process, we often lose we original meaning.

Joel