20
Before Abraham Existed, the Messiah
Was Foreordained
Before Abraham Existed, the Messiah
Was Foreordained
In John 8:58, according to the ESV Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am” and according to the NET Bible this reads as, “before Abraham came into existence, I am!” (The “I AM” is capitalized in several translations). Word-for-word the UBS Interlinear reads: “Before Abraham came into being I am” (Gk ego eimi). So, this has been taken to mean that Jesus must therefore have pre-existed as God especially because of what is said in Exodus 3:14, where, according to some translations, “God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM.” Indeed, this statement is often used by Trinitarians to connect to Jesus’ words of “I am” and so to attempt to prove that Jesus is God. However, this rendering of “I AM WHO I AM” is incorrect. Certainly, the Hebrew phrase is the basis for God’s personal name Yahweh, but as with the footnote in the ESV this actually means “I Will be what I will be” and the Greek Septuagint (LXX) rendering of the Hebrew reads ego eimi ho hown meaning “I will become whatsoever I please” or “I am the One who Is” and therefore quite a different thought to the ego eimi phrase used by Jesus. Therefore, Jesus words in John 8:58 are not connected to Exodus 3:14. Yet, even if the standard rendering in Exodus 3:14 was correct Jesus’ “I am” statement in John 8:58 does not link with it because the statement in Exodus 3:14 was not revealed to Abraham but to Moses hundreds of years later. So, what does the Greek term actually mean in terms of Jesus’ existence? According to Hans Wendt, Professor of Theology at the University of Jena: “It is clear that John 8:58 and 17:5 do not speak of a real pre-existence of Christ. We must not treat these verses in isolation, but understand them in context.”
I am He - the Messiah
Additionally, we note that all other instances of this Greek phrase ego eimi are translated as “I am he” or “I am (he)” or “I am the one,” in John 4:26, 8:24, 8:28, 9:9, 13:9, and 18:5. This is known to be correct by all reputable scholars. So, there is no contextual reason to render 8:58 any differently. On this Edwin Freed comments that:
Jesus is reported as affirming his messiahship through the use of ‘ego eimi’”… and that John 4:26 is…“the clue to understanding all other passages where the words ‘ego eimi’ occur. … In John 8:24 ‘ego eimi’ (I am) is to be understood as reference to Jesus’ Messiahship… ‘If you do not believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.” EGO EIMI in John 8:24 in the Light of its Context and Jewish Messianic Belief, JTS 33, 1982, p. 163.
So, in John 8:58 what did Jesus mean? In John 4:25, 26 the woman at the well says: “I know that Messiah is coming (the one called Christ); whenever that one comes, he will proclaim all things to us.” Jesus said to her, “I, the one speaking to you, am he (Gk ego eimi)” (LEB). This is further proven by a comparison of “I am he” in Mark 13:6/Luke 21:8 with the parallel account in Matthew 24:5: “I am the Christ [or Messiah in the NAB].” So, Jesus is saying “I am he—the Messiah.” Therefore, in John 8:58 he is telling them the same thing, that is, that he is the Messiah. In his Concise Commentary Robert Young notes: “The I am or I am he, means a claim to Messiah, and implies neither divinity nor pre-existence.” Furthermore, Barratt in his famous Commentary on John says:
“Before Abraham’s coming, I am He,” that is, the promised Messiah. The simple phrase ‘I am He’ is used by Jesus 15 times, but in every case of the present it is rendered in the Common Version, ‘I am He’ or ‘It is I.’ See Mat. 14:27, Mk 6:50, 14:62, Luke 21:8, 22:70, 24:39, John 4:26, 6:20, 8:24, 28, 13:19, 18:5. 6, 8.”
NOTE: As shown above the phrase concerns the identity of the Messiah and does not concern the timing of his coming into existence. So, this cannot mean literal pre-existence, but only foreordination. The literal coming into existence of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God was at his conception (Luke 1:32, 35). Nevertheless, to change “I am he” in John 8:58 to “I AM” separates it from all the other phrases in John which mean “I am he” (the Messiah) and for no grammatical reason, but only for a theological reason.
The Messiah Was Foreordained
John 8:58 is also a case of Jesus’ being foreknown or foreordained in the “predetermined plan” of God as shown in Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:20. The subject here in its immediate context (8:53) is who is the greater, Abraham or Jesus. Who takes precedence, Abraham or the promised Messiah? The Jews ask: “Who do you claim to be?” By pointing out that he fulfils the role of the Messiah that was promised, he shows that he is greater than Abraham. The proof comes, that only in this foreordained sense did Jesus exist before Abraham, when Jesus said:
“Abraham your father rejoiced-greatly to see My day. And he saw it, (through eyes of faith or possibly a vision) and was glad” (John 8:56 DLNT).
This statement shows that Jesus did not literally exist at that early time because Abraham did not then literally see him. So, Abraham was privileged to see into the future—to Jesus’ day. He looked forward and saw the coming of the Messiah before its realization. So, when Jesus says, “Before Abraham came into being I am he” he is not making a statement about literal pre-existence, but simply claiming to be the One who was promised to come, which promise existed before Abraham was born and the fulfilment of which Abraham was privileged to see in his mind. Therefore, in prophetic terms, as Messiah, Jesus is before Abraham. Nevertheless, the Jews, as ever, misunderstand and think that Jesus was meaning that he—Jesus—had physically seen Abraham (8:57), whereas Jesus, in fact, is emphasizing that he takes precedence over Abraham because of his superior position in being the promised, foreordained Messiah and with that promise concerning the Messiah having existed, “before Abraham came into being...” that is, in the sense that the planned Messiah was in God’s mind (Gen. 3:15). So, J.A.T Robinson makes the point that:
to say that Jesus is “before” him is not to lift him out of the ranks of humanity but to assert his unconditional precedence. To take such statements at the level of “flesh” so as to infer, as “the Jews” do that, at less than fifty, Jesus is claiming to have lived on this earth before Abraham (8:52 and 57), is to be as crass as Nicodemus who understands rebirth as an old man entering his mother’s womb a second time (3:4). The Priority of John, p. 384.
Similarly, Revelation 13:8b in the UBS Interlinear refers to: “…the lamb having been slain from the foundation of the world.” It here speaks not of a literal pre-existence but of foreordination—ideal pre-existence. So, as now fulfilled in Jesus, the planned and promised Messiah existed in Yahweh’s mind before Abraham was born. Jesus’ fulfilling this role as Messiah is what made him greater than Abraham. Indeed, Professor Wendt provides the background in his clear explanation:
The saying in John 8:58, “Before Abraham came to be, I am” was prompted by the fact that Jesus’ opponents had countered his remark in v. 51 by saying that Jesus was not greater than Abraham or the prophets (v. 52). As the Messiah commissioned by God Jesus is conscious of being in fact superior to Abraham and the prophets. For this reason he replies (according to the intervening words, v. 54f.) that Abraham had “seen his day,” i.e., the entrance of Jesus on his historical ministry, and “had rejoiced to see” that day. And Jesus strengthens his argument by adding the statement, which sounded strange to the Jews, that he had even been “before Abraham” (v. 58). This last saying must be understood in connection with v. 56. Jesus speaks in vv. 55, 56 and 58 as if his present ministry on earth stretches back to the time of Abraham and even before. His sayings were perceived by the Jews in this sense and rejected as nonsense. But Jesus obviously did not (in v. 56) mean that Abraham had actually experienced Jesus’ appearance on earth and seen it literally. Jesus was referring to Abraham’s spiritual vision of his appearance on earth, by which Abraham, at the birth of Isaac, had foreseen at the same time as the promised Messiah, and had rejoiced at the future prospect of the greater one (the Messiah) who would be Israel’s descendant. Jesus’ reference to his existence before Abraham’s birth must be understood in the same sense. There is no sudden heavenly preexistence of the Messiah here: the reference is again obviously to his earthly existence. And this earthly existence is precisely the existence of the Messiah. As such, it was not only present in Abraham’s mind, but even before his time, as the subject of God’s foreordination and foresight. The sort of preexistence Jesus has in mind is “ideal” [in the world of ideas and plans]. In accordance with this consciousness of being the Messiah preordained from the beginning, Jesus can indeed make the claim to be greater than Abraham and the prophets. The System of Christian Teaching, 1907, Cp. Professor Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 1892, pp. 453-460.
Scholarly Comment on the “I am” Sayings
Dr. Harold H. Rowdon stated: “That the absolute use of ‘I am’ need not have connotations of divinity is clear from its usage by the man born blind at John 9:9. Jesus’ words, then, were not an unambiguous asseveration of divinity .... Christ the Lord, p. 172. Also J.A.T. Robinson (Church of England Bishop of Woolwich—deceased) tells us:
That Jesus is arrogating to himself the divine name is nowhere stated or implied in this gospel [of John]. Even the Jews do not accuse him of this—only of calling God His Father, and thereby implying equality with God or as H. Oldberg interprets this from Rabbinic parallels, rebellious independence being ‘as good as God’ (5:18). What they take to be the blasphemy of making himself ‘a god’ in 10:33 is again made clear to be a misunderstanding of Jesus calling Himself ‘God’s son’.... The worst that can be said of Him at the trial is that He claimed to be ‘God’s Son. The Priority of John, pp. 386, 387.
And C.K. Barrett in his celebrated commentary on John stated that:
EGO EIMI (“I am He”) does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. I am the one, the one you must look at, and listen to if you would know God” (Comm. On John, p. 342, cf. p. 98). “It is simply intolerable that Jesus should be made to say, ‘I am God, the supreme God of the OT, and being God I do as I am told,’ and in 13:19, ‘I am God, and I am here because someone sent me.”’ “Jesus’ Ego Eimi is not a claim to divinity.”
Scholarly Comment on the Other “I am” Sayings
Again J.A.T. Robinson writes:
Of the ‘I am’ sayings in this Gospel [John], those with the predicate ‘I am the bread of life’, ‘the door’, ‘the way’, ‘the good shepherd’, etc., certainly do not imply that the subject is God. As Barrett rightly says. ‘ego eimi does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to if you would know God.”
The Priority of John, pp. 385.
Clearly, John 8:58 concerns only Jesus’ foreordination as Messiah i.e., an ideal pre-existence as on who is superior to Abraham and not a literal pre-existence.
§
21
21
Messiah’s Future Glory Was Foreordained
In both John 12:41 and 17:5 Jesus speaks of his future glory.
Messiah’s Future Glory in John 12:41
Here Jesus says:
“Isaiah said these things because he saw his [Messiah’s] glory, and he spoke about him.” (LEB).
This verse is used in an attempt to prove either that Jesus is Yahweh (Trinitarian view) or that Jesus pre-existed with Yahweh in Isaiah’s time (Arian view). However, the question is: which part of Isaiah was John quoting from in John 12:41? So, it will be helpful to examine the two quotations from Isaiah in this passage:
John 12:38-41:
“...in order that the word of the prophet Isaiah would be fulfilled, who said, “Lord, who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (quoting Isa. 53:1). 39 For this reason they were not able to believe, because again Isaiah said, 40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn, and I heal them” (quoting Isa. 6:10). 41 “Isaiah said these things because he saw his [Messiah’s] glory, and he spoke about him.” (LEB).
For this quotation, all cross-reference Bibles give Isaiah 6:1 where it says, “I saw the Lord [Yahweh] sitting upon his throne, high and exalted. The train of his robe filled the Temple” as the reference for John 12:41. This is because the Isaiah 6:10 quote is nearest to it. There is, however, no direct proof that this is the reference that John had in mind. It seems more likely that John in 12:41 gives a reference to the many statements in Isaiah concerning the future Messiah, and in particular to Isaiah 52:13 which says, “Behold my servant shall understand, and be exalted, and glorified (Gk doxasthesetai) exceedingly” (Septuagint). So, this concerns the suffering servant and given the context of the suffering servant’s death (52:32, 33) and his glory (52:23, 28) this connection seems very strong and is most likely what John’s reference is in John 12:41. The following are a set of further reasons for coming to this conclusion:
There are many more points of contact between Isaiah 52:13-53:12 and John 12 than between Isaiah 6 and John 12. In The Pillar New Testament Commentary, The Gospel According to John Professor D. A. Carson noted that, in chapter 12, John: “may well be thinking of the Suffering Servant who was exalted…what makes it very likely is the dozen or so overtones of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 found within John 12 that show the Evangelist had the Servant Song in mind when he composed this chapter.” pp. 449-450.
Because the phrase “these things” is plural it refers to what is said in Isaiah 53:1 as well as 6:10. So the glory noted in John 12:41 is not the glory of Yahweh noted in the vision of Isaiah 6:1, but is the future glory of the Messiah described later in much of Isaiah, that is, in 9:6-7; 11:1-10; 16:5; 32:1; 33:17; 42:1-4; 52:13 to 53:12; and 61:1-3.
Isaiah 6:1 describes Yahweh, but the context of verse 10 is that of “who will go for us?” (vs. 8) and so concerns the negative response to the prophetic message and deeds of the chosen messenger of God [“the arm of Yahweh” in 53:1] and not the actions of Yahweh Himself.
The unbelief of the Jews is prophetic, making Messiah’s glory also prophetic and future. So Andreas Kostenberger Professor of New Testament and Director of Ph.D/Th.M. studies at South-eastern Baptist Theological Seminary commented that:
The first passage cited is Isa. 53:1 LXX (cf. Rom. 10:16). In the original context, reference is made to the Servant of the Lord, who was rejected by the people but exalted by God (cf. Isa. 52:13-15). In John, the verse is applied to Jesus the Messiah, who is that promised Servant and to the rejection of his message and signs (‘arm of the Lord’) by the Jews…In the wake of two Isaianic quotes in 12:38 and 12:40, the evangelist concludes that ‘Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory’ (cf. 8:56). In light of the preceding quotation of Isa. 6:10, some say that the background for the present statement is the call narrative in Isaiah 6. Yet though autou (his) probably refers to Jesus, John does not actually say that Isaiah saw Jesus, but that he saw Jesus’ glory. Hence, it is not necessary to conclude that the evangelist believed that Isaiah saw ‘the pre-existent Christ’ (Schnackenburg 1990: 2.416; cf. Talbert 1992: 180; D. B. Smith 1999: 244) or that he saw Jesus ‘in some pre-incarnate fashion’ (Carson 1991: 449). Rather, Isaiah foresaw that God was pleased with a suffering Servant who would be ‘raised and lifted up and highly exalted’ (52:13), yet who was ‘pierced for our transgressions’ and ‘bore the sins of many’ (53:5, 12) (see esp. Evans 1987). Hence, Isaiah knew that God’s glory would be revealed through a suffering Messiah—something deemed impossible by the crowds (John 12:34). Like Abraham, Isaiah saw Jesus’ ‘day’ (cf. John 8:56, 58). Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, pp. 390-392.
Certainly, it is incorrect exegesis when commentators make Isaiah 6:1 the reference for John 12:41 when, in fact, the only Scriptures quoted by John are Isaiah 6:10 and 53:1. Therefore, what is expressed in John 12:41 does not equate Jesus with God. Any such equation would mean that Jesus was actually “God the Father.” This then would be the heretical teaching of Modalism. Furthermore, John 12:41 does not concern an already literally existing being with a pre-existing glory. This verse may be similar to, “Abraham rejoicing at the prospect of seeing my [Jesus’] day, and he saw it” (John 8:56) through eyes of faith or possibly a vision. So, Isaiah’s vision of the future glory of Messiah concerned his ministry as “the suffering servant” and his death. This was what John referred to in 12:41. Clearly, John 12:41 does not concern any literal pre-existence of Jesus but only Isaiah’s foreseeing of Jesus as the suffering servant.
Messiah’s Future Glory in John 17:5
Jesus prays, “…and now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had with you before the world began” (Mounce).
This was the glory that was with God as a scripturally stated promise to the Messiah. It was a glory that was prepared for the_yet to come Messiah and is similar to the promise to “the sheep” of “inheriting the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34). Similarly, Romans 9:23 speaks of: “the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (ESV).
PROLEPTIC SAYINGS – THE PROPHETIC PAST TENSE
In John 17:3 Jesus used the Hebrew literary technique where the past tense is used of future events because they are certain of fulfilment in being fixed in God’s purpose and therefore such sayings give assurance of fulfilment to humans. Although anticipated they are spoken of as if they have already occurred. (Please see Figures of Speech used in the Bible. E.W. Bullinger). The following are examples of the use of this technique in the Scriptures.
PROLEPTICS IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES
“Then said Yahweh unto Joshua, ‘See, I have delivered into thy hand, Jericho and her king—mighty men of valour’” (Josh. 6:2 Rotherham).
This was stated before the city had been subdued by Joshua’s forces. Similarly, Jesus anticipates what he will later do for his brothers (John 17:22). Even the birth of Messiah is presented proleptically i.e., as having already occurred in Isaiah’s day: “For a child has been born for us; a son has been given to us. And the dominion will be on his shoulder…” (Isa. 9:6 LEB). This has the meaning of: a child will be born—it is future as in “will come to be upon his shoulder.” Furthermore, Isaiah presented Jesus’ death proleptically as: “he was pierced because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon him, and by his wounds we were healed” (Isa. 53:5 LEB). Yet at the time of writing the Messiah clearly had not been pierced, crushed or had carried out any healing. But because of the use of the prophetic past tense, it was guaranteed that he would do so.
PROLEPTICS IN JOHN’S WRITINGS
“The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand” (John 3:35 LEB). Yet clearly this had not occurred at the time Jesus said it because: “we do not yet see all things subjected to him” (Heb. 2:8 LEB).
“…but have courage! I have conquered the world” (John 16:33 LEB). Yet Jesus’ greatest trials to be overcome were in Gethsemane and on the cross both of which lay ahead.
“The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who disobeys the Son will not see life…”
(John 3:36 LEB).
“Truly, truly I say to you, the one who believes has eternal life… 54 The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:47, 54 LEB).
“I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, ever” (John 10:28 DLNT).
“And this is the testimony: that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.12 The one having the Son has the life. The one not having the Son of God does not have the life. 13 I wrote these things to you, the ones believing in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.…” (1 John 5:11, 13 DLNT).
However, at present Christians only have everlasting life in prospect, but actually having it for real is yet future. Because Jesus himself had not, at that time, been granted immortality it was not possible for him to give Christians everlasting life then. So, this is a promissory statement i.e., it is everlasting life in prospect. In fact, John Chapter 17 contains many proleptic sayings; but with a switching in and out of prolepsis. This follows the pattern of prolepsis elsewhere in the Scriptures.
PROLEPTICS IN JOHN 17 (DLNT)
Jesus says:
“I glorified you on the earth, having accomplished the work which you have given to me that I should do.” (vs. 4). Yet this work wasn’t finished until: “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3).
“…indeed all my things are yours, and yours, mine. And I have been glorified in them” (vs. 10). Jesus had yet to die and be resurrected before he would have God’s things and be glorified.
“And I am no longer in the world” (vs. 11). Yet he evidently still was in the world until he died.
“When I was with them, I was keeping them in your name… and none of them perished—except the son of destruction...” (vs. 12). Yet Judas, at this time, had not been destroyed.
“I also sent them forth into the world” (vs. 18). This was yet to happen at Pentecost.
“And I have given them the glory which you have given to me” (vs. 22).
“Father, as to what you have given to me, I desire that those ones also may be with me where I am, in order that they may be seeing my glory which you have given to me because you loved me before the foundation of the world” (vs. 24).
Neither Jesus nor his disciples had the glory at that time. Jesus was glorified at the time of his resurrection and the disciples will be glorified when Christ returns at the last day to resurrect them. Indeed, Jesus connects having eternal life with being raised at that last day.
Returning to JOHN 17:5
“…and now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had with you before the world began”
(Mounce).
It is not possible that Jesus would be asking his Father for a past glory because glory comes with exaltation and Jesus’ exaltation came after his life course of perfect obedience leading to his death. In all of the above texts Jesus speaks proleptically as though he were already living his future exalted life. This is because all these things had been promised by his Father and, therefore, were certain of fulfilment. So, the glory that Jesus “had before the world was” evidently was glory that was laid up for him as a deposit of potential glory in God’s plan. Indeed, it was a glory that pre-existed alongside the Father. It is not saying that the Son pre-existed. It was this glory that Jesus, in full confidence, knew would be his after he was resurrected and exalted. It is similar to Paul’s proleptic/anticipatory statement in 2 Corinthians 5:1 where (according to the literal Greek) he says: “we have a building from God.” So, Professor Wendt explains, in The System of Christian Teaching, 1907, and Cp. Professor Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 1892, pp. 453-460, that:
In John 17:5 Jesus asks the Father to give him now the heavenly glory which he had with the Father before the world was. The conclusion that because Jesus possessed a preexistent glory in heaven he must also have preexisted personally in heaven is taken too hastily. This is proven by Matt. 6:20 (“Lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven”), 25:34 (“Come, you blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world”), Col. 1:5 (“the hope which is laid up for you in heaven about which you heard in the word of Truth, the Gospel”), and I Pet. 1:4 (“an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, which does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you”). Thus a reward can also be thought of as pre-existent in heaven. Such a reward is destined for human beings and already held in store, to be awarded to them at the end of their life. So it is with heavenly glory which Jesus requests. He is not asking for a return to an earlier heavenly condition. Rather he asks God to give him now, at the end of his work as Messiah on earth (v. 4), the heavenly reward which God had appointed from eternity for him, as Messiah. As the Messiah and Son he knows he has been loved and foreordained by the Father from eternity (v. 24). Both John 8:58 and 17:5 are concerned with God’s predetermination of the Messiah.
NOTE: Jesus didn’t say ‘give me back the glory I had.’ Also, The Anchor Bible notes the possibility of a different reading of this verse: ‘“Among the Latin fathers and some Ethiopic Mss. there is support for the reading ‘that glory which was with you,’ reading een = ‘was,’ instead of ‘I had.’”
Conclusion
Evidently John’s gospel account concerning Jesus has been very much misunderstood perhaps from the time of the second century apologists because of the influence of Greek philosophical thinking rather than understanding the sayings of Jesus as being from a totally Hebrew mindset containing much metaphorical mysterious language, as is clear from the contexts of the various passages, and very little metaphysical language.
So, now we shall examine the ‘descending’ language found in John 3:13, 3:31, 8:23, and 6:33-58.
§
22
How Does the Son of Man
“Descend from Heaven”?
22
How Does the Son of Man
“Descend from Heaven”?
The descending from heaven language in John 3:13; 3:31; 6:33-58; 8:23; and 16:28 is viewed, by those who believe that Jesus had literally pre-existed, as indicating that he had lived in heaven before his conception in Mary. However, the language used by Jesus in the Gospel of John is often not literal, but provably figurative language.
“He Who Descended from Heaven”
John 3:13 is the first of these “descending” passages. Here Jesus says to Nicodemus:
“…no one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven [i.e., has his origin in God] the Son of man (ESV) [‘which is in heaven’ KJV].”
However, it is only a superficial or cursory reading of this verse that seems to suggest Jesus’ self–consciousness of any literal pre-existence. A more thoughtful and contextual reading reveals that Jesus doesn’t actually say what it is commonly supposed that he says. Indeed, it is not a literal descent according to the context:
Jesus spoke figuratively to Nicodemus about being “born again” or “from above,” but was misunderstood by him as referring to being literally born again. This, therefore, strongly adds to other indications that Jesus’ words in verse 13 are also figurative.
The phrase “has ascended” implies that the Son of man is, at that moment, in heaven. This cannot be literally so, since Jesus is with Nicodemus on earth.
Also, Jesus had not, at that time, literally ascended as he told Mary (John 20:17). A similar situation of humans being described as being in heaven and yet actually standing on earth is described in Ephesians 2:6 where believers at the time of writing are figuratively “seated with him [Jesus] in heavenly places” although they are actually here on earth.
Furthermore, the term “Son of man” means someone wholly human and not the incarnation of a spirit being. So, it was hardly the case that such a human literally came from heaven.
THE CROSS-REFERENCES TO JOHN 3:13 in the NASB are:
Deuteronomy 30:12 and Proverbs 30:3, 4 which give similar figurative usage of ascending/descending language:
“It is not in the heavens, that you should say, “Who will go up to the heavens to get it [this commandment] for us and tell us of it, that we may do it…No, it is something very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to do it...” (Deut. 30:12, 14 NAB).
“…nor have I the knowledge of the Holy One…4 Who has gone up to heaven and come down again…?”
(Prov. 30:3, 4).
In these two texts no one imagined that any ordinary human could literally ascend to heaven. Accordingly, they speak of a figurative ascension to bring “the knowledge of the Holy One” down. So, the Word Biblical Commentary makes the following points with reference to Proverbs 30:3, 4:
This is the first of five rhetorical questions similar to those asked of Job in 38-41. The obvious answer to the first four questions is: God ... But the fifth question is totally different from the previous ones. It concerns identity, and begins with “what” and not “who” ... But it is not clear why the name of the son is included with the question ... Agur is asked ironically to name a human being able to do these things.
THE MEANING OF JOHN 3:13
The Adam Clarke Commentary says regarding John 3:13: “This seems a figurative expression for ‘No one hath known the mysteries of the kingdom of God.’” So, in John 3 Jesus observes that Nicodemus fails to understand “earthly things” and then says to him: “how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” Jesus then elaborates by showing that he acts between heaven and earth for bringing down the “heavenly things.” These “heavenly things” are “the mysteries of the kingdom of God” which are communicated to Jesus. He, therefore, figuratively ascends to be in heaven in communication with his Father and then figuratively descends to provide this knowledge for others. So, this passage does not prove or indicate that Jesus had a life in heaven prior to his conception in Mary or that he descended into Mary’s womb.
“He That Comes from Above”
Similar to the above, Jesus speaks in John 3:31 and 8:23 of coming “from heaven” when he says:
“He who comes from above is above all...He who comes from heaven is above all” (3:31).
“You are from below. I am from above” (8:23).
Again, those with a belief in literal pre-existence take this to mean that Jesus was literally in heaven prior to his conception in Mary. Yet this reasoning fails to take into account the Jewish ways of thinking at the time. As with the phrase “the Kingdom of heaven” as meaning “the Kingdom of God” (Matt. 19:23-24) so, too, the Jews would often use the word “heaven” as a periphrastic reference to God. And so, in speaking of himself as coming “down from heaven” Jesus simply means that he has come from God. But, doesn’t this still mean that he was literally directly with God? Indeed not, because many prophets came from God but none came from heaven literally. In fact, Jeremiah and John the Baptizer were sent from God and as meaning that they were commissioned by God. Similarly, Jesus said: “As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world” (John 17:18 NAB). So, Jesus was sent from God in the same way that he sent forth his disciples, and no one would imagine that they were sent from any particular location. Therefore, being “from heaven” is simply a reference to Jesus as one who was commissioned by God. Also, because Jesus is “from above” he is in the higher spiritual position compared to these Jews who do not think God’s thoughts. It is the same as in John 3:3, 7 where Jesus encourages Nicodemus to be “born from above” Rotherham, and NAB.
“Bread from Heaven”
John 6:33-58 (DLNT)
John 6:33-58 (DLNT)
Here Jesus said:
33 “For the bread of God is the One coming down from heaven”
38 and 42 “I have come down from heaven”
41 and 58 “I am the bread having come down from heaven”
51 I am the living bread having come down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And indeed the bread which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh”
As with John 3:13 it is the human Jesus (“my flesh”) who “comes down from heaven” and yet a flesh body did not literally descend from heaven because Jesus came into existence in Mary (Luke 1:35 and see Matthew 1:1, 18 in Marshall’s Interlinear.
THE CONTEXT:
Nominal disciples were shocked at Jesus’ metaphor of eating “his flesh and blood.” More shocking to the Jews were his words that implied that he was greater than Moses and was uniquely associated with God. Concerning God’s miraculously feeding of their ancestors with the manna at verse 31 Jesus says: “He gave them bread from heaven to eat.” Yet the manna was not literally sent from God’s throne in heaven. At Exodus 16:4 Yahweh speaks figuratively that: “I will cause bread to rain down from heaven for you,” but what happens in reality is that: “When the dew had evaporated, there on the surface of the desert was a fine flaky substance, as fine as frost on the ground” (Ex. 16:14 CJB). Similarly, Jesus’ “coming down from heaven” means his being God’s provision for everlasting (permanent) life, in contrast to the bread that came through Moses (John 6:32) the eating of which did not give them permanent life (verse 49). There is a past and present aspect to this. Here Jesus is also stating that he is now the only channel through which life may be gained—he supersedes Moses.
THINGS WHICH ‘COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN’ METAPHORICALLY
Similar statements of things that figuratively “come down from heaven” are: ‘“…test me please in this,’ says Yahweh of hosts, ‘if I will not open for you the windows of heaven, and pour forth for you an overflowing blessing”’ (Mal. 3:10). However, no one would logically understand this to mean that God opens literal windows in heaven and literally pours blessings onto people from heaven. In fact: ___
“Every good gift, every perfect gift, comes from above. These gifts come down from the Father, the creator of the heavenly lights, in whose character there is no change at all” (Jas. 1:17 CEB).
Also “the wisdom from above is first pure, then...” (Jas. 3:17). Furthermore, Jesus asks: “...was the baptism of John from heaven, or from humans?” (Luke 20:4 DLNT). The Common English Bible correctly interprets this as: “Was John’s baptism of heavenly or of human origin?” So, of course, there were no baptisms literally in heaven that could come down to earth, but rather John’s commissioning to do a work of baptizing came from God. Indeed, all ‘descending’ language in the Gospel of John can be seen as expressed in Jewish figurative terms and so referring to the commissioning of Jesus by God for Jesus to act as God’s agent.
Jesus’ “Coming into the World”
Furthermore, the phrase: “have come into the world” does not mean travelling from outside of the world. G.E. Ladd notes that:
The earth is frequently referred to as the dwelling place of humanity in language that is paralleled in Jewish idiom: coming into the world (John 6.14; 9.39; 11.27; 18.37), being in the world (9.5a), departing out of the world (13.1; 16.28b). While some of these [Johannine] sayings acquire theological significance because of the context in which they are used, the idiom itself is familiar Jewish terminology. To come into the world means merely to be born; to be in the world is to exist; and to depart from the world is to die [H. Sasse, TDNT 3:888; see also 1Jn. 4.1, 17; 2Jn7; Heb 10.5; 1Tim 1.15]. A Theology of the NT, p. 261.
So, the references to Jesus as having come into the world mean exactly the same as for any other human, i.e., at the time of one’s birth.
§
23
23
Jesus Did Not Return to Heaven
No Greek Bible Text Says the Son Goes
Back to the Father
No Greek Bible Text Says the Son Goes
Back to the Father
Yes, Jesus literally ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father (Acts 1:9). However, this was not a returning as if he had lived in heaven prior to his birth. However, the following texts in many versions of John’s Gospel wrongly render Jesus’ words as “going back” or “returning” to the Father and so giving the impression that Jesus had a life prior to that which is reported by Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, and the writer to the Hebrews. Yet, the Greek text is very clear on this. There is no word for “back” in these texts or anything that implies ‘returning.’ Jesus simply says “I am going to the Father” in John 13:3 and similarly in John 14:12, 28; 16:10, 17, 28; and 20:17.
The Foreordained Messiah Is Seen Ascending
in Daniel’s Vision
in Daniel’s Vision
In John 6:62 Jesus says: “Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” (Mounce). Because of tradition many assume that “where he was before” refers to heaven. However, could the ideal human (i.e., “Son of man”) have been literally in heaven before his birth? As with 1 Peter 1:20 and Acts 2:23, Jesus’ words in John 6:62 provide a case of foreordination for Jesus. So, Jesus saw himself as fulfilling “the Son of man” (i.e., the human Messiah) program laid out in advance in the Scriptures as: “…how is it written of the Son of Man that He will suffer many things…?” (Mark 9:12 NASB) and “The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him” (Matt. 26:24 NASB).
The place where the Son of Man’s ascending is written about, as part of the Messianic program (Acts 2:23), is found in Daniel 7:13-14 where the human Messiah was first seen (i.e., before) in heaven in the vision and so in the future. So, Daniel says:
“As I continued to watch this night vision of mine, I suddenly saw one like a human being coming with the heavenly clouds. He came to the ancient one and was presented before him. Rule, glory, and kingship were given to him; all peoples, nations, and languages will serve him. His rule is an everlasting one—it will never pass away!—his kingship is indestructible” (CEB).
So, if John 6:62 is interpreted literally it would mean the impossible case of “the Son of Man”—a mortal human—having been in God’s location of heaven. An alternative understanding, presented by Greg Deuble in the second edition of his book They Never Told Me This in Church, is that by “ascension” Jesus is referring to his coming resurrection back to “where he was before,” namely, the land of Israel. In the full context of John 6, where the resurrection is a significant subject, “Jesus may possibly be announcing that his own resurrection from the dead would be proof that he is indeed “from God”” (p.216). However, one thing is certain—Jesus is not teaching that he had literally come down from heaven. Such an idea is impossible because the references in John 6 are to his “flesh” (vs. 51) and his being “the Son of Man” (vs. 62) i.e., a mortal human.
Indeed, none of these statements that we have examined in the last few chapters concerning Jesus speak of any literal pre-existence of him! Biblically, Jesus came into existence at his conception/ begetting in Mary’s womb (Luke 1:35). Indeed, leading theologian Colin Brown of Fuller Theological College states that:
It seems to me to be a fundamental mistake to treat statements in the Fourth Gospel about the Son and his relationship with the father as expressions of inner-Trinitarian relationships. But this kind of misreading of the Fourth Gospel seems to underlie much of social Trinitarian thinking ... when read in context, the statements are evidently statements about Jesus’ relationship with the Father on earth.
It is a common but patent misreading of the opening words of John’s Gospel to read it as if it said: “In the beginning was the Son and the Son was with God, and the Son was God” (John 1:1).
§