“He was first, before me”
John 1
15 John is testifying concerning Him and has
cried, saying, "This was He of Whom I said, 'He Who is coming
after me, has come to be in front of me,' for He was first, before me…"
26 John answered them, saying, "I am
baptizing in water. Now in the midst of you One stood of Whom you are not
aware.
27 He it is Who, coming after me, has come
to be in front of me, of Whom I am not worthy that I should be loosing the
thong of His sandal."
28 These things occurred in Bethany, the other
side of the Jordan river, where John was, baptizing.
29 On the morrow he is observing Jesus coming
toward him, and is saying, "Lo! the Lamb of God Which is taking away the
sin of the world!
30 This is He concerning Whom I said,
'After me is coming a Man Who has come to be in front of me,' for He was First,
before me.
In a Nutshell: The word translated “first” in verses 15 and 30 should be
understood to mean “foremost in importance.” Understood in this way, these
verses affirm the preeminence/superiority of Christ in relation to his cousin,
John, rather than the idea that Christ was alive before he was generated.
Expanded Explanation: When John stated that Jesus “was first, before me,” he
was simply acknowledging the fact that Jesus had always been superior
in rank to, and of greater importance than, he himself. John later stated that
Jesus “must be growing” but that it was his (John’s) place to be inferior (John
3:30). Similar to the word translated “first” in Col. 1:18 (prōteuō), the word translated “first” in John 1:15 and 30 (prōtos) can convey the idea of
superior rank, or of being “foremost in importance.” Strong’s Concordance, for
example, defines prōtos as follows: “foremost (in
time, place, order or importance).”
Understood as referring to importance and rank, Jesus had always been “first” before his cousin, John. That is, Jesus had always been “foremost in importance” in relation to John. And this is something that would be true - and would’ve been true for John to have affirmed - irrespective of whether Jesus was alive before John or not.[1] Even some Christians who affirm the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ have acknowledged this fact. Consider, for example, the following remark on John 1:15 from John A.T. Robertson in his commentary: “[Christ] had always been (ēn imperfect) before John in his Pre-incarnate state, but “after” John in time of the Incarnation, but always ahead of John in rank immediately on his Incarnation” (emphasis mine). As is clear from the quote, Robertson (like all Christians) affirmed the view that Christ was alive in a “pre-incarnate” state. And yet Robertson did not understand the sense in which Christ was “first” or “before” John to have pertained to Christ’s pre-incarnate state. Rather, he understood John to have been saying that Christ was “always ahead of” him (John) in rank “immediately on his Incarnation” (i.e., from the time that Christ entered the world at conception, and began life as a human).
Understood as referring to importance and rank, Jesus had always been “first” before his cousin, John. That is, Jesus had always been “foremost in importance” in relation to John. And this is something that would be true - and would’ve been true for John to have affirmed - irrespective of whether Jesus was alive before John or not.[1] Even some Christians who affirm the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ have acknowledged this fact. Consider, for example, the following remark on John 1:15 from John A.T. Robertson in his commentary: “[Christ] had always been (ēn imperfect) before John in his Pre-incarnate state, but “after” John in time of the Incarnation, but always ahead of John in rank immediately on his Incarnation” (emphasis mine). As is clear from the quote, Robertson (like all Christians) affirmed the view that Christ was alive in a “pre-incarnate” state. And yet Robertson did not understand the sense in which Christ was “first” or “before” John to have pertained to Christ’s pre-incarnate state. Rather, he understood John to have been saying that Christ was “always ahead of” him (John) in rank “immediately on his Incarnation” (i.e., from the time that Christ entered the world at conception, and began life as a human).
Moreover, even if one wanted to say that John
the baptist understood Jesus as being “first” in relation to him even before his
conception, it would not require the belief that Christ was alive before his
conception. For, consider that it could also be said that
Jesus had always been “foremost in importance” in relation to John with
respect to his foreknown and prophesied role in God’s plan. Thus, whether
we understand Jesus’ being “first” in relation to John to be something that had
been true of Christ ever since he was generated/conceived, or whether we
understand it to have been true of Christ before both he and John came into
existence on earth, there is no good reason to understand John’s words as
supporting the idea that Jesus was alive before he was generated in the womb of
his mother.
“He who descends out of heaven”
John 3
13 “And no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out
of heaven, the Son of Mankind Who is in heaven.”[2]
John 6
33 “…but My Father is giving you Bread out of heaven, the true, for
the Bread of God is He Who is descending out of heaven and giving life to the
world.”
38 “…for I have descended from heaven, not that I should be
doing My will, but the will of Him Who sends Me.”
50 “This is the Bread which is descending out of heaven that anyone
may be eating of it and may not be dying.”
51 “I am the living Bread which descends out of heaven. If anyone
should be eating of this Bread, he shall be living for the eon. Now the Bread
also, which I shall be giving for the sake of the life of the world, is My
flesh.”
58 “This is the Bread which descends out of heaven. Not according
as the fathers ate and died; he who is masticating this Bread shall be living
for the eon.”
In a Nutshell: If understood literally, Jesus’ claim to have “descended out
of heaven” would mean that the Son of God descended out of heaven as a
flesh-and-blood, mortal being (John 6:51, 58). However, as is the case
throughout chapter six (such as when Jesus spoke of his flesh being eaten and
his blood being drank) Jesus was using figurative imagery here. Specifically,
Jesus’ “descent from heaven” imagery is the same sort of figurative imagery
that is found elsewhere (in James 1:16 and 3:15), and emphasizes his
supernatural origin as the Son of God.
Expanded Explanation: The “Bread of God”
which descended out of heaven and gives life to the world is clearly the man,
Jesus Christ. But notice that Christ further clarified the “Bread of God” as
being his flesh. In verses 51 and 58 we read, “I am the
living Bread which descends out of heaven. If anyone should be
eating of this Bread, he shall be living for the eon. Now the Bread
also, which I shall be giving for the sake of the life of the world, is My
flesh…This is the Bread which descends out of heaven. Not according as
the fathers ate and died; he who is masticating this Bread shall be
living for the eon.”
If
we take Christ’s words to mean that he literally came down from heaven from a
pre-existent state, then, to be consistent, we must also believe that it was
Christ as a mortal, flesh-and-blood human who pre-existed and
then came down from heaven. However, no one who
believes in the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ would affirm that a
mortal, flesh-and-blood human literally came down out of heaven and was
“incarnated.” Thus, what Christ declared in John 6 ends up “proving too much”
with regards to providing support for the view that Christ pre-existed as a
celestial spirit-being before he was conceived.
But if Christ wasn’t saying that he literally descended from
heaven as a flesh-and-blood human, then what is the meaning of these verses? It
was, apparently, an idiom among the Jewish people to say that something came
down from heaven if God was its direct source. For example, the brother of our
Lord wrote that “all good giving and every perfect gratuity is from
above, descending from the Father of lights” (James 1:17). Similarly, in chapter 3, we are told that the wisdom
that should characterize those to whom James wrote is that which is “coming down from above” (v. 15) and which is “from
above” (v. 17). This wisdom that
“comes down from above” is contrasted with that which is “terrestrial,
soulish, demoniacal.”
These verses do not, of course, mean that the good things in our
lives literally come down from heaven (much less that they undergo some kind of
mystical transformation before we receive them). What James meant is clear: God
is the author and source of the good things in our lives (including the wisdom
by which the saints should live). And just as God is the direct source of “all
good giving and every perfect gratuity,” so God was the direct source of the
ultimate blessing: his Son, Jesus Christ (Luke 1:34-35).
A similar idiom can be found in Matt. 21:25, when Christ asked the
Jewish people, “John’s baptism – whence was it? Of heaven or of men?” The
way that John's baptism would have been “of heaven” was if God - rather than
man - was the source of the revelation and practice. John did not get the idea
on his own or from some other human individual; it was “of heaven.”
In light of how such language is used in Scripture, Jesus’ words
in John 6:38 and elsewhere are clear: Jesus, who was generated supernaturally
in the womb of his mother, Miriam, “descended from/out of heaven” and is “from
above” in the sense that God is his Father, and the direct source from whom he
originated.
Later in John’s account, we read the following exchange between
Christ and his disciples: “I came out from the Father
and have come into the world. Again, I am leaving the world and am going to
the Father.” His disciples are saying to Him, “Lo! now with boldness art
Thou speaking, and not one proverb art Thou telling. Now we are aware
that Thou art aware of all and hast no need that anyone may be asking Thee. By
this we are believing that Thou camest out from God.”
What was previously spoken of more figuratively as Christ’s
“descending from heaven” is, in these verses, more plainly stated as Christ’s
simply coming “out from God.” Jesus could declare that he “came out from the
Father” because, as the one responsible for the miraculous conception in his
mother’s womb (Luke 1:35), God was his direct source. Jesus “entered the world”
when he was conceived, and left the world and went to the Father at his
ascension.
There are also verses that say Jesus was “sent from God,” a phrase
that also emphasizes God as the ultimate source of that which is sent. John the
Baptist is also said to be a man who was “sent from God” (John 1:6). The idea
of coming from God or being sent by God is clarified by Jesus’ words in John
17. There, we read, “As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world” (v. 18).
We understand perfectly what Christ meant when he said, “I have sent them into
the world.” He meant that he commissioned his disciples, or appointed them. No
one thinks that Jesus' disciples were in heaven with God and incarnated into
the flesh. Christ said, “As you have sent me, I have sent them.”
John 6:62
62 If, then, you should be beholding the Son of
Mankind ascending where He was formerly -- ?
In a Nutshell: When Jesus referred to the Son of Mankind as “ascending where
He was formerly,” he had in view Daniel 7:13-14. In the prophetic vision
described in these verses, the “Son of Mankind” was seen by Daniel as ascending
to heaven and being presented before God in the heavenly throne room.
Jesus was, therefore, speaking enigmatically about fulfilling this particular
prophecy (which is also the origin of the title “Son of
Mankind” which Jesus so often applied to himself during his earthly ministry).
Expanded Explanation: In response to this
enigmatic question, the question naturally arises, “Where was the Son of
Mankind ‘formerly?’? I believe the key to answering this question is found in
the expression “Son of Mankind.” When we understand the prophetic significance
of this title, the meaning of Christ’s words in v. 62 will, I think, become
clearer. The expression “Son of Mankind” (or “Son of Man”) is not original to
Christ, but is derived from a prophetic passage found in the book of Daniel. In
Daniel 7:13-14 we read, “I was perceiving in the visions of the night,
and behold, with the clouds of the heavens one like a Son of Mankind was
approaching. He went up to the Transferrer of Days and was escorted before him.
To him was given ruling authority, honor, and a kingdom, that all the peoples,
nations, and language groups shall serve him.”
Every usage of the title “Son of Mankind” by Christ points back to
this key passage, and may thus be understood as having been Christ’s way of
identifying himself with the prophesied Messianic figure seen by Daniel in the
night visions. Moreover, it must be emphasized that the title “Son of Mankind”
refers to a human descendent of Adam and Eve and not to some sort of
pre-existent celestial spirit-being that God created before the creation of the
universe. As such, the “Son of Mankind” had no existence outside of Daniel’s
vision until Jesus was conceived in the womb of his mother, Miriam.
And yet, there is a sense in which the Son of
Mankind can be said to have been somewhere “formerly.” In the aforementioned
vision given to Daniel, the Son of Mankind was in heaven, having ascended there
and been presented before his God and Father. This, then, is what
Christ had in mind when he referred to the Son of Mankind as ascending to
”where he was formerly.” “Formerly” means at the time when Daniel received his
vision of the Son of Mankind ascending to heaven and being presented to God.
And when Christ Jesus – the one whom Daniel saw in his vision – ascended to God
forty days after his resurrection, he fulfilled the prophecy found in Daniel
7:13-14.
John's Account, Part Three: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2017/11/a-consideration-of-passages-thought-to_90.html
John's Account, Part Three: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2017/11/a-consideration-of-passages-thought-to_90.html
[1] On the other hand, the mere fact that someone was alive
before (and thus older than) John did not, in and of itself, mean that John was
less worthy or less important than they were; on the contrary, according to
Christ in Matt. 11:11, “not among those born of women has there been roused a
greater [prophet] than John the baptist” (cf. Luke 7:28).
[2] It
should be noted that there is disagreement among students of scripture as to
where, in the third chapter of John’s account, Christ’s discourse actually
ends. The Greek manuscripts have no standard way of indicating where a
quotation ends, and so it is uncertain whether verses 13–21 are the words of
Christ to Nicodemus (or perhaps to a wider audience on another occasion) or the
words of the narrator (John) that were added as an editorial comment.
Some scholars see verse 13 as the beginning of John’s own words
in this chapter, rather than a continuation of the words
of Christ to Nicodemus (the Concordant Literal New Testament, for
example, has the words of Christ ending in v. 12). Others, however, see
Christ’s words as ending with v. 15, and v. 16 as marking the beginning of
John’s comments (see, for example, the New English Translation, the RSV, the Lexham
English Bible and the NIV 2011). Still others believe Christ’s words continue
all the way to v. 21 (e.g., Moffatt, J.B. Phillips, NEB, ESV, NASB, NRSV,
HCSB and NIV 1984). I see the first view as most plausible (i.e., that
Christ’s discourse concludes with v. 12, and that John’s commentary begins with
v. 13 and continues all the way to v. 21).
No comments:
Post a Comment