[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 Johns gospel
Marvin Vincent, the Trinitarian who authored Vincents
New Testament Word Studies, shows why he does
not believe that all of the "red letter" words in the third
chapter of John are Christs, saying:
The interview with Nicodemus closes with ver. 15; and
the succeeding words are Johns. 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 Johns 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, Vincents 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 Christs interview with
Nicodemus ended in John 3:12 (rather than John 3:15).
This would mean that Johns narrative begins from
John 3:13 onward rather than Vincents 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
Johns 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 Christs 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 Christs
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. Tatians 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 Johns 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 Johns 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 Johns gospel,
under the subheading, "Date.")
Although the phrase, "Son of man," is used eight times in Johns
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 Christs 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 Christs 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