[B-Greek] John 3:13-14 the narrative words of John?

Jason Kerrigan jasonandshon at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 13 21:57:37 EDT 2006


So far I have been pleased with the responses
  I have been getting (even though they have proven 
  me wrong in most instances). I was uncertain about
  the point I brought up to the group, and I wanted 
  them to either be vindicated or refuted. I want to try 
  out some points that I feel are somewhat stronger
  than the ones I have mentioned.
   
  In his commentary on the third chapter of John’s gospel 
  Marvin Vincent, the Trinitarian who authored Vincent’s 
  New Testament Word Studies, shows why he does 
  not believe that all of the "red letter" words in the third 
  chapter of John are Christ’s, saying: 
   
  The interview with Nicodemus closes with ver. 15; and 
  the succeeding words are John’s. This appears from the 
  following facts: 
   
  1. The past tenses loved and gave, in ver. 16, better s
  uit the later point of view from which John writes, after 
  the atoning death of Christ was an accomplished 
  historic fact, than the drift of the present discourse of 
  Jesus before the full revelation of that work. 
   
  2. It is in John’s manner to throw in explanatory comments 
  of his own (1:16-18; 12:37-41), and to do so abruptly. See 
  1:15, 16, and on and, 1:16. 
   
  3. Ver. 19 is in the same line of thought with 1:9-11 in the 
  Prologue; and the tone of that verse is historic, carrying the 
  sense of past rejection, as loved darkness; were evil. 
   
  4. The phrase believe on the name is not used elsewhere 
  by our Lord, but by John (1:12; 2:23;1Jhohn 5:13). 
   
  5. The phrase only-begotten son is not elsewhere used 
  by Jesus of himself, but in every case by the Evangelist 
  (1:14, 18; 1John 4:9). 
   
  6. The phrase to do truth (ver. 21) occurs elsewhere only 
  in 1John 1:6
   
  (- Marvin Vincent, Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, 
  John 3:15)
   
  The reasons Vincent gives for believing that John 3:16-21 
  contains the words of John rather than the words of Christ 
  are solid. However, I believe that Christ’s interview with 
  Nicodemus ended in John 3:12 (rather than John 3:15). 
  This would mean that John’s narrative begins from 
  John 3:13 onward rather than Vincent’s proposal of John 
  3:16 onward. 
   
  The fact of the matter is that there is nothing in 
  John 3:13-15 that cannot be grammatically attributed to 
  John’s narrative as well:
    

  In John 3:13 the phrase, "has gone up into heaven," is in the
   perfect tense (indicating a completed past event). John, who 
  penned John 3:13 long after Christ’s bodily ascension, could 
  have been referring to the completed post-resurrection bodily 
  ascension of Christ into heaven.
    
  

  Every time that the Bible speaks of Christ ascending into 
  heaven it is always spoken in reference to his post-resurrection 
  bodily ascension into heaven (c.f. Psalms 68:18, John 6:62, 
  20:17, Acts 2:34, Ephesians 4:8-10, Hebrews 9:24, 1Peter 
  3:22). 
    
  

  In John 20:17 Christ, speaking prior to his bodily ascension, 
  says:
   
  "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but 
  go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, 
  and your Father; and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17) 
    

  An early Christian belief that John was referring back to Christ’s 
  post-resurrection ascension in John 3:13 would give a better 
  account for the latter addition of the phrase, "who is in heaven." 
  This addition is present in Christian quotations of John 3:13 as 
  early as 140 AD (c.f. Tatian’s Diatessaron).
    

    

  In John 3:14 the phrase, "must the Son of man be lifted up," is 
  in the aorist tense, hence it can be referring to a past, present, 
  or future event. If John 3:14 truly contains the narrative of the 
  author then it should be understood of the past crucifixion.
    
  

  The verb, "dei," that is used when John 3:14 says, "must the 
  Son of man be lifted up," is in the present tense, but it can be 
  understood as the historic present tense. It is not uncommon 
  for John (or Mark) to use the present tense in reference to a 
  past event. This is clearly demonstrated by John’s usage of the 
  same present tense verb, "dei," in John 20:9, which says:
   
  "For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must (dei) rise 
  again from the dead." (John 20:9)
   
  John 20:9 contains John’s present tense narrative account 
  regarding a past event (namely the resurrection of Christ). 
  The NIV translates this present tense verb in the past tense, 
  saying:
   
  "They still did not understand from the scripture that Jesus 
  had to (dei) rise from the dead." (John 20:9 NIV)
   
  The usage of the present tense in the narration of a past event 
  is known as the historic present tense.
   
  "John... sometimes used the present tense when speaking of 
  the past." (- NIV Study Bible, Introduction to John’s gospel, 
  under the subheading, "Date.") 
    

  Although the phrase, "Son of man," is used eight times in John’s 
  gospel when quoting Christ this does not mean that John could 
  not have used the phrase in his own narrative of John 3:13-14. 
  John uses the phrase in his other writings (Revelation 1:13 & 
  Revelation 14:14). And with a contextual view of Christ’s humanity 
  it seems natural for John to have spoken of Christ in such a way. 
  Also, Christ refers to himself as the Son of man thirteen times in 
  the gospel of Mark, but although Mark only employs the appellation 
  in his narrative of Mark 8:31 & Mark 9:9 no one disputes the fact 
  that those words are genuinely his. 
    

  In light of these things I believe that John 3:13-14 contains the 
  narrative words of the apostle John, who was therefore referring 
  to Christ’s post-resurrection ascension into heaven. 
   
  What do yall think?
   
  Thanks,
  Jason Kerrigan

 		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.


More information about the B-Greek mailing list