Shaolin
Active
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2021
- Messages
- 733
3. Jesus indirectly claims to be Yahweh God in the flesh:
Matthew 12:6
But I tell you, one who is greater than the temple is here.
The temple of God was God’s dwelling place on earth. The ONLY one who could be greater than God’s temple, was Yahweh Himself. The priests in the temple, performing the daily venues of temple worship (worship in the temple, not that they were actually worshipping the temple), shows that the temple was not subservient to the sabbath.
This is an ablative comparison between the greater-ness of God over His temple, another indirect claim that Jesus made regarding Himself as being Yahweh in the flesh – “One who is greater than the temple is here,” speaking of Himself. Speaking of Himself as the God of the temple...which is made more evident in verse 8...
Matthew 12:8*
“Because the Lord of the Sabbath is the Son of Man.”
What does “Lord of the Sabbath” mean? It means that the Lord Christ was over the Sabbath, and as commencing over the Sabbath, He was not amendable to it. Jesus says that the Son of Man is the Lord over the Sabbath, but God is the one who instituted it and handed down to Moses the rule of law regarding the Sabbath. He created the Sabbath, and therefore has the right (the only right) to hand down any rule of law having to do with the Sabbath. Here, again, Jesus demonstrates that He is God in the flesh, because only God is above the Sabbath that He ordained for men.
Yet Jesus also says that He is greater than the temple, because this second temple had not the ark of the covenant whereupon God’s presence rested – yet He Himself was the presence of God in their day but they refused to acknowledge that fact because of their bias and greed for power in their present religious system.
The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath - Notice that the word Lord is the first word in the Greek sentence which gives strong emphasis to His Lordship. Son of Man is clearly a Messianic title. He had used this same Name in Matthew 9 where He had first forgiven the lame man's sins and then authenticated His authority to forgive sins by healing him declaring "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”–then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.” (Mt 9:6). In that passage He left no doubt that He was not just claiming to be God, but that He was in fact God, for no mere man could heal a lame man. So the Pharisees were aware of the significance of His use of the term Son of Man in this passage. He was saying in essence "I am God and I am the Lord of the Sabbath!" And because of Who Jesus is He could determine what the rules for Sabbath observance should be! The implication also is that as the One Who instituted the Sabbath, He knows the correct meaning of the Sabbath...
it would have been impossible for the Pharisees to miss Jesus’ clear declaration of divinity and His declaration as the One having authority over the Sabbath! Why is Jesus making this statement which is found in each synoptic account? Remember He is still addressing the accusation of the Pharisees that His disciples broke the Sabbath law. Since Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath, He alone has the authority to interpret the law. He is saying that He is Sovereign Ruler over the Sabbath day. He is the Master of this day for He as Creator made it. [preceptaustin.org/ matthew-12-commentary]
Jesus repeatedly ignored all of the Pharisees rules concerning the sabbath observance – not the sabbath laws themselves as originally given by God to Moses, but the Pharisaic rules they burdened people with that arose after the destruction of the temple of God. The sect of the Pharisees arose during what is called the Intertestamental Period (between the last OT book of Malachi, and the first NT book of Matthew), where Scripture does not cover.
Although the documents from this period of time are extrabiblical, they give us a great deal of information on how the Judaism of the first century came about – which was not the Judaism that God handed down to Moses for Israel to follow. During this time period, because Judaism was centered around temple worship but the temple had been destroyed by the Babylonians, a more law-enforced obedience doctrine arose surrounding the concept of the Synagogue, which had not been abandoned once the temple had been rebuilt.
Basically, Jesus asserts that He is the master of the sabbath because He was the one in the past who handed down the sabbath laws to Moses at Mt. Sinai...
“In case the Pharisees mistook his lack of reverence to their rules for ignorance he added: ‘The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath’ (Matt 12:8). That is, he will decide what is legal and what fulfills God’s will for the Sabbath. But who has the right to declare the one correct interpretation of God’s law? God alone. Therefore, by claiming to provide the correct interpretation of God’s law, Jesus asserts his deity.” [The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels; Daniel Doriani; JETS 37/3 (September 1994) pg. 343] (emphasis mine)
4. Jesus is Yahweh in the flesh, demonstrated by things that He did and said:
- He received religious worship (not as homage to a king):
Matthew 14:27-33*
But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take courage! I AM! Do not be afraid” ...And those in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are truly the Son of God!”
First, we need to get the background on this text. The disciples were out in a boat in the middle of the lake, in the middle of a storm – seasoned fishermen all, fearful that their boat would flounder and they would drown. Then, Jesus comes walking to them upon the sea, something no mere human being could do. Then He calls out to them, “Take courage! I AM!...”
To those who delight in perverting the Word of God, they will say that He actually says “I am He,” which makes no logical sense in the text at all. What? The mere human messiah has the power to walk on water? No, only the God-Messiah foretold by the OT Scriptures. By telling them “I AM” He was making a direct claim to being Yahweh in the flesh, in order to comfort them.
Peter responded that if it was indeed Him, “Lord, if it is You, command me to come to you on the water.” Peter used the word kurios (lord) in the understanding of Jesus being God in the flesh, because if He was God in the flesh, then He could call Peter out onto the water as He was walking on the water...something impossible to do for a mere human being. And, if Jesus was Lord, then He could cause Peter to be able to walk on water, too.
Peter may have been in doubt at that point by saying, “Lord, if it is You...” but after having walked upon the water because of the power that Jesus exuded for Peter to do so, he had a better understanding of who Jesus was, which was why the disciples said, “You are truly the Son of God!” and by that realization, they reacted by worshiping Him. Both their words and actions demonstrate that they understood that Jesus was Yahweh God in the flesh...they were Jews, they knew the law against worshiping anything other than God – yet they willingly and freely worshiped Him instantaneously.
Furthermore, because some pervert the clear meaning of the Scriptures, proskuneo (worship) here does not mean paying homage to a superior in rank out of respect. The text demonstrates that there was absolutely no reason for them to simply, and suddenly, feel the need to pay respect to Jesus – what they were doing was actual worship...something forbidden to anything or being other than Yahweh God.
Matthew 28:9*
And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Joy to you!” And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him.
Again we must remember that the meaning of a word is based upon how it is utilized in the text itself, then in its immediate context, and if need be, even wider in context of the entire chapter, book, covenant Scriptures (OT/NT), and even the entirety of the whole Word of God. Furthermore, we must also take into consideration the attitude of the person bowing down, why they are bowing down, and to whom/what they are bowing down to, in order to get the proper and accurate interpretation of the scene.
Here, in this text, the two women come to the tomb to find it open and empty, and then Jesus appears to them in physical form. Out of joy to see Him alive, they bow down (“took hold of His feet”) and prosekunhsan (worshiped) Him. Whenever we find a person bowing down + the word proskuneo, the text implies not respectful homage as to a king or person of higher rank; rather the combination of bowing down with proskuneo directly implies an act of religious worship, an act strictly forbidden to anyone or anything other than God.
The text demonstrates that Jesus received religious worship (not respect of social or religious rank), and act that was reserved for God alone. He does not rebuke these women and tell them not to worship Him. If Christ was not God, and He allowed them to worship Him, then He would have deceived them, making them continue to think that He was Yahweh if He, in fact, was not, and that act alone would have disqualified Him from being the Savior as a deceiver.
John 9:35-38
Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” He answered, “And who is He, sir, that I may believe in Him?” Jesus said to him, “You have seen Him, and it is He who is speaking to you.” He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped Him.
Firstly, this text gives us some important information concerning the title “Son of Man” and the Jewish mindset and understanding of that title. This man, a Jew, who had undoubtedly been taught and heard all of his life that only Yahweh God was worthy of religious worship, yet something in the title “Son of Man” told this Jewish man that the holder of such a title was worthy of religious worship that belonged to God alone.
How do we know that what this man was doing was actually worshiping Jesus and not, as the unitarians claim, that he was only offering to Jesus respectful homage as a godly man and Rabbi? First, this man evidently understood two different titles used in the text: Jesus calls Himself by the title “Son of Man,” which concerned His humanity. The title that refers to one’s humanity, if that was all that He was, a mere human being, would have been oddly self-redundant.
This title that Jesus gave to Himself in many conversations with the Jews, pointed out His deity clothed in His humanity...and this formerly blind man apparently understood that title and what it meant. Second, he calls Jesus “Lord,” which (again) as used in this manner was a direct implication of His equality with God in essence and nature.
Wilson agrees with others in deliberating on this verse, saying that “it appears he concluded that the person bearing this title [Son of Man] was worthy of worship as God” [Is Belief in Christ’s Deity Required for Eternal Life in John’s Gospel?; K. Wilson; Chafer Theological Seminary Journal, Vol. 12 (Fall 2006), pg. 74].
Harris concurs in his deliberations and meticulous study on the subject of the deity of Christ: “The evangelist thereby indicates that the acknowledgment of the messiahship of Jesus (20:31) necessarily involves belief in his deity” [Jesus as God; Murray Harris; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992; pg. 289].
Thus, observing what was worshiped, and the attitude and understanding of the person doing the action of worshiping, it is clear that understanding who Jesus was led to the act of giving Him religious worship, not simply paying Him some kind of lesser homage. This was no mere earthly lord standing before him, this was the Messiah who had just opened the eyes of a man born blind, by His own power. This man understood who Jesus was, and reacted in kind.
Hebrews 1:5-6
For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are My Son, today I have begotten You"? Or again, "I will be to Him a father, and He shall be to Me a son"? And again, when He brings the firstborn into the world, He says, "Let all of God's angels worship Him."
In verse 6 the author continues from the previous verse, saying, “And again, when He (God) brings the firstborn (speaking of His preeminence, not His creation) into the world (of His incarnation), He says, ‘Let all of God’s angels worship Him.’”
Worship is reserved specifically, and only, for Yahweh alone – for God to tell His angels to worship the incarnate Christ, is prima facia evidence that the Son is Yahweh God in the flesh. God says that we are to worship no one but Himself (Exodus 34:14; Jeremiah 13:10).
Acts 10:25-26
When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am a man."
Revelation 19:10
Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Revelation 22:8-9
I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
No Jew, knowing the prohibitions of worship, that it belonged to Yahweh alone, would have fallen to the ground and worshiped a mere human being. All accounts in the OT of men falling down before other men are accounts of the rendering of kingly homage – NOT worship...the two attitudes and actions are as different as metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. People may kneel before a person in both instances, but what they are doing is not the same thing...just as when people sit on the toilet is different from sitting in their vehicles.
Furthermore, if Jesus was not God, by accepting religious worship which is only supposed to be given to God, then He would not only have been a deceiver...letting people continue in their erroneous belief if He wasn’t God in the flesh...then He could not have been the Messiah because He would have sinned through that deceit. The fact is, Jesus is the Savior, the Messiah; therefore, He is also Yahweh God in the flesh.
- He healed people by His own power and authority:
Matthew 8:1-3
When Jesus came down from the mountain, great crowds followed Him. And behold, a leper came to Him and knelt before Him, saying, “Lord, if You will, You can make me clean.” And Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
All of the healings and miracles that Jesus did, He did by His own power, we never hear that He ever invoked the name of Yahweh in any way, shape, or form...like believers today can heal “in the name of Jesus.” Jesus did not have to invoke the name of Yahweh in order to perform His works of power, because He was Yahweh in the flesh. Here, Jesus says, “I will” and then heals the leper...He healed the leper by His own power and authority, demonstrating His deity.
But what about when Scripture says that He couldn’t do many miracles in His hometown because of their unbelief? God always works through a person’s faith. It wasn’t that He “couldn’t” perform for lack of power, but the constraining aspect was their lack of faith, because He has already ordained that He will work in the world through people’s faith. In effect, He constrains Himself according to the ultimate purpose of His will.
- He forgave sin, a prerogative that belongs only to Yahweh:
- He “knew” their thoughts (Omniscience)
Matthew 9:2-4 (Mark 2:5-8; Luke 5:20-22)
And behold, some people brought to Him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Take heart, My son; your sins are forgiven.” And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” But Jesus knew what they were thinking, and said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?”
In the texts, particularly in Mark, when Jesus says that the man’s sins “are forgiven,” the word for this (aphiemi) is in the Present Passive Indicative, representing that the action of the forgiveness was accomplished upon the man at the moment Jesus spoke the words. In other words, the grammar of the text demonstrates that Jesus was the one – as the context directly implies – who forgave the paralytic. Some try to press the Passive voice in saying that because Jesus was speaking, if it was Him actually forgiving the man, it would be in the Active voice.
However, the Passive or Active addresses the action being accomplished upon the subject, and Jesus is NOT the subject of the discourse, the paralytic is the subject. Jesus says, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” The man Jesus addresses in His sentence, “son,” is the subject. All the Passive tells us in this text is that the man was not the one acting upon himself – he was forgiven from outside of himself, in this case, by Jesus, just as He stated.
Jesus specifically implied that He could forgive sin, a strict prerogative of God alone (since God is the one sinned against – while I can forgive myself of sinning against God or someone else, my forgiving myself has absolutely NO IMPACT upon the one sinned against; I cannot forgive myself on behalf of the one that I sinned against, only they can forgive me in that area). In this act of forgiving this man, Jesus demonstrates that He is Yahweh God in the flesh, and the scribes understood that silent, indirect claim full well, which is why they reacted in the way that they did.
“...blasphemy! Who can forgive sin but God alone?” They said this because they understood Jesus to be assuming a divine prerogative, and their logic and understanding was absolutely correct...
Exodus 34:6-7
Yahweh passed before him and proclaimed, “Yahweh, Yahweh, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.”
Isaiah 43:25
“I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for My own sake, and I will not remember your sins.”
Micah 7:18
Who is a God like You, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of His inheritance? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in steadfast love.
The only flaw in their determination was the fact that Jesus held a peculiar relationship with God which justified His claim.
The word “blaspheme” originally means to speak evil of anyone; to injure by words; to blame unjustly. When applied to God, it means to speak of him unjustly; to ascribe to him acts and attributes which he does not possess; or to speak impiously or profanely. It also means to say or do anything by which his name or honor is insulted, or which conveys an “impression” unfavourable to God. It means, also, to attempt to do, or say a thing, which belongs to him alone, or which he only can do. This is its meaning here. Christ was charged with saying a thing in his own name, or attempting to do a thing, which properly belonged to God; thus assuming the place of God, and doing him injury, as the scribes supposed, by an invasion of his prerogatives...None of the prophets had this power; and by saying that “he forgave sins,” Jesus was understood to affirm that he was divine. [Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible; electronic edition]
Next, Jesus “knew” their thoughts, demonstrating omniscience, another attribute of God alone. Matthew uses the word eido (to see, figuratively to know) in the Perfect Active Participle, meaning that He absolutely knew their thoughts. The Active demonstrates that Jesus KNEW, not that He received this knowledge from God or the Holy Spirit...He knew.
Both Mark and Luke use epiginosko (to know fully in a complete sense, to have full knowledge of) in the Aorist Active Participle form. Both words (eido and epiginosko), because of their grammar, come to equal the exact same sentiment – Jesus had complete knowledge of their thoughts the moment the scribes thought them. And again, both grammars show in the Active voice, meaning that Jesus knew their thoughts; that knowledge of their thoughts was not given to Him by God or the Holy Spirit. Demonstration, again, of His omniscience – deity.
- Divine nature demonstrated by what He said:
Matthew 5:21-22
"You have heard that it was said to those of old [by God], 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.
Here Christ takes on the position of taking up the commandments of God into Himself, and then re-giving them as the law-giver of the New Covenant. Giving the law Himself, out of Himself, rather than saying “thus says the Lord,” demonstrates His identity. If He was a mere human man, then He had no right or authority that may be observed in Scripture to change the law as given by God. But, because He was God in the flesh, He had the right and authority. His changing the law, as only God could since it was His law, demonstrates that Jesus was Yahweh in the flesh. Since He was the original law giver, He had the only right to expound on it or to change it as He pleased.
Furthermore, He taught on His own authority as God, and not like mere humans. For example, the OT prophets always prefaced their words with “Thus says the LORD...” but Jesus, over 70 times in the gospels (30 in Matthew; 13 in Mark; 6 in Luke, and 25 in John) says both “Truly, truly, I say to you...” and “Amen,” which asserts authority, certainty, and potency. By their prescriptions, the OT prophets denied authority of what they said, pointing back directly to God. By Christ’s prescriptions, He asserts His authority to speak because He is God in the flesh, and what He says is true because of who He is.
Further still, all people in Jesus’ day referenced authorities in their dogma’s to show that what they were teaching was Biblical and true. For example, when the Pharisees would quote or reference Moses in their chidings with Jesus – but Jesus never, not once, made reference to a higher authority than Himself...because for the simple reason that as Yahweh in the flesh, there was no greater authority than Himself.
John 3:13*
“No one has ascended into heaven except He who descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven.”
1. “He who descended from heaven” –
What is Jesus saying here? He is saying that before His incarnation, He existed in heaven in eternity past. The title, “Son of Man,” speaks of this and every time He uses it of Himself, He points to this meaning – that He is from heaven and existed with God before creation. This is why John opens his gospel with what he says about Christ in 1:1-3...those were John’s words describing what Jesus tells us about Himself here and in other places. John almost seems to be making a direct reference to Proverbs 30:4...
Proverbs 30:4-6
Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name? Surely you know! Every word of God proves true; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar.
The passage both rings with a Messianic tone (although it is not considered as such by many) and comes with a stern warning that is very valid today. Those who would add to God’s Word, trying to change the intended meaning of His Word, are liars twisting His Word to suit their own carnally minded, unregenerate biased false doctrines.
All attempts at explaining away the clear meaning and implication of the text are futile and a fool’s errand, and ridiculous. The Son of Man, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, was in heaven before His incarnation, and came down out of heaven. Yahweh, and His divine Son according to the flesh, but Yahweh Himself incarnate.
This is a clear statement and claim about Christ’s pre-existence before His incarnation in His own words. Alone this claim would not amount to very much, but taken together with other passages concerning His deity, it bolsters and reinforces the Biblical teaching that Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh.
2. “Who is in heaven” –
We begin this section of our examination of this text by acknowledging that there is one variant reading of this verse, where “who is in heaven” is not present. Historically and geographically, this variant is only found in a localized area from the Alexandrian text, which over the years has lost its hold on scholars’ and theologians’ minds as being a “pure” form of Scripture.
Consistently scholars have uncovered copy errors and changes by scribes to the NT texts which the scribes found offensive doctrinally and theologically. Having this information statistically demonstrated since the 1970’s with the discovery of older texts, the Alexandrian texts: the uncials Sinaiticus (x) and Vaticanus (B).
Examination of the external and internal evidence for the reading of John 3:13 indicates that the longer reading (which includes the clause ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ) should be regarded as authentic. This longer reading has extensive external attestation. Furthermore, transcriptional probabilities and John’s style and theology lend strong internal support for this reading. Therefore, John 3:13 is a proof of the omnipresence of the earthly Jesus. [The text of John 3:13; David Black; Grace Theological Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1985), pgs. 49-66]
The phrase “ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ” is far more likely to be part of the original text, excised in the Alexandrian text-stream by a copyist prone to relieve perceived difficulties, that it is to have originated as a scribal expansion. The absence of this phrase in the fifth edition of the UBS/Biblica Greek New Testament, and in the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testatementum Graece, is an echo of previous compilers’ reliance upon poorly represented data combined with a preference for manuscripts that happened to be stored in a dry climate. In the Sinaitic Syriac and the Curetonian Syriac and the Old Latin Codex Palatinus (and in the uncial 0141, in which the closing phrase states that the Son of Man is from heaven) we see copyists surrendering to the temptation to alter the text in order to resolve a perceived difficulty; the manuscripts that lack the phrase echo the work of an early scribe who took things a little further. [John 3:13: The Son of Man Who is in Heaven; James Snapp, New Testament Textual Criticism, Feb 28, 2018]
Furthermore, when we compare the treatment of the text (John 3:13) in different editions of Greek New Testaments, we find that their use of resources for their translations does not build confidence in their manuscripts. One of these resources is the UBS Greek New Testament in which the first edition of 1966, the Ethiopic version was listed as a source for not including the phrase “who is in heaven,” while the Arabic Diatessaron and Georgian versions were listed as source witnesses for including the phrase.
Then came a change of plans with the fourth edition which came out in 1993, where the same Georgian and Arabic Diatessaron versions were now listed as supporting the removal of the phrase, and Didymus (who was previously listed as a witness for the validity of both readings) was not listed as giving support for only the removal of the phrase. The Ethiopic version also “switched sides” favoring the inclusion of the phrase. [Snapp] “It appears that the strongest evidence in favor of the shorter reading is the fact that the words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ are lacking in the early Alexandrian manuscripts (x and B)” [Black].
The external evidence shows almost the entire ancient tradition supporting the disputed phrase (including the Old Latin [Itala], which establishes the date of the longer reading as at least the last quarter of the second century)...the testimony of the Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and Church Fathers thus forms, as it were, a strong three-cord strand which is not easily broken... therefore, the reading which is both early and supported by independent witnesses from a wide geographical area is more likely to be [the] original. [The text of John 3:13; David Black; Grace Theological Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1985), pgs. 49-66]
The evidence for the inclusion of the words is as follows. The phrase is found in nearly all the uncial and minuscule manuscripts of the NT as well as in nearly every ancient version, including the Bohairic of lower Egypt. Support for the longer reading is also found in the great majority of the earliest patristic witnesses, including Origen himself...moreover, this reading is not limited to manuscripts of only one geographical area, as is its omission. The reading was accepted as genuine over a wide geographical area, encompassing most of the then civilized ancient world. [The text of John 3:13; David Black; Grace Theological Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1985), pgs. 49-66]
Regarding the Internal evidence of the text:
The clause contains features which, taken at face value, seem faithfully to reflect the apostle’s characteristic style, grammar, and vocabulary...the inclusion of the disputed words is the best solution since it is supported by significant external and internal evidence...given the strength and diversity of the external attestation, the improbability of an accidental omission, and the intrinsic probability favoring the inclusion of the phrase...the cumulative effect of the data can hardly be ignored. [The text of John 3:13; David Black; Grace Theological Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1985), pgs. 49-66]
Therefore, with all of the evidences, external and internal, taken together, the overwhelming data dictates that the longer version is far more likely than not to be the original writing of John the Apostle. Along with the fact that the only reason why an Alexandrian scribe would have taken the phrase out during his transcription, would have been because his own theological misgivings were playing his bias and caused him to remove the phrase, which is a tragedy. When men take it upon themselves to tamper with the Word of God because they don’t like what a particular text says...I would hate to be in that man’s shoes when he stands before God on judgment day.
As further evidence of the implication of the full reading of the text under examination, we also have a clue two verses earlier which, when first we come upon, doesn’t really to make a whole lot of sense...
John 3:11
Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony.
Jesus speaks in the plural, taking up the meaning of Elohim from the OT, in part of a new section of His dialogue with Nicodemus...which He alludes to with finality in verse 13. He is both standing before this Pharisee of faith in human physical form, and at the same time in heaven, the “we” and “our” attesting to His plurality – Yahweh God in heaven and Yahweh manifest in flesh as Jesus the God-Messiah. Over and again, John depicts Jesus as existing in union with God at all times...because He is God and man at the same time.
There is no other reason that can stand up against scrutiny of the facts, why Jesus all of a sudden speaks of Himself in the plural. He begins here in this verse to hint at Nicodemas of who He really was, and then finishes that hint in verse 13 by telling him that He was both standing before him in conversation, and...at the same time...sitting in heaven upon His throne from which He ruled the creation. Jesus had also hinted at this in verses where He claimed that when He spoke, God was speaking...
John 3:34
He whom God has sent utters the words of God, because God gives Him the fulness of the Spirit.
John 14:24
Whoever does not love Me does not keep My words, and the words that you hear are not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.
When Jesus speaks, it is the words God spoke through His lips of flesh; because Jesus and God are one and the same. The end of the matter on this text, is that Jesus claims that He was both standing before Nicodemas holding their conversation, and at the same time – manifesting His deity through His omnipresence – was in heaven.
John 6:62
Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
First, we need to look at the text within its context:
John 6:48-51, 58
I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh...This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."
It is abundantly clear that Jesus makes the statement that He is the “bread” and that this bread “came down from heaven.” What He is saying is that, for our purposes, He came down from heaven. In this context He then asks “what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending back to where He was before?”
“down from heaven” where ek (from) speaks of an object or person which was beforehand in something or somewhere else but are presently separated from where they once were, such as an egg yoke taken out of the egg shell. In Biblical Greek, if something is separated from where it once was, then that separation ‘from’ it is expressed with ek; while if that something was only near it, on it, or with it, then that separation is expressed with apo.
ek is used in respect to either place, time, source, or origin – in this case, when Jesus uses it, He uses it in respect to origin. Its base definition is out of, or separation from. When used of origin, ek implies “likeness.”
The word translated as “down” is the verb katabainw, and what is interesting about its use here, is its grammar – it is in the present active participle. What this tells us is that Christ was in a constant present state of “coming down” from heaven, in allusion to being presently in heaven and on earth at the same time, mirroring the statement in John 3:13. This speaks of the omnipresence of Christ as God, who was both in heaven and walking the earth at the exact same time.
This is a clear statement and claim about Christ’s pre-existence before His incarnation in His own words.
Matthew 12:6
But I tell you, one who is greater than the temple is here.
The temple of God was God’s dwelling place on earth. The ONLY one who could be greater than God’s temple, was Yahweh Himself. The priests in the temple, performing the daily venues of temple worship (worship in the temple, not that they were actually worshipping the temple), shows that the temple was not subservient to the sabbath.
This is an ablative comparison between the greater-ness of God over His temple, another indirect claim that Jesus made regarding Himself as being Yahweh in the flesh – “One who is greater than the temple is here,” speaking of Himself. Speaking of Himself as the God of the temple...which is made more evident in verse 8...
Matthew 12:8*
“Because the Lord of the Sabbath is the Son of Man.”
What does “Lord of the Sabbath” mean? It means that the Lord Christ was over the Sabbath, and as commencing over the Sabbath, He was not amendable to it. Jesus says that the Son of Man is the Lord over the Sabbath, but God is the one who instituted it and handed down to Moses the rule of law regarding the Sabbath. He created the Sabbath, and therefore has the right (the only right) to hand down any rule of law having to do with the Sabbath. Here, again, Jesus demonstrates that He is God in the flesh, because only God is above the Sabbath that He ordained for men.
Yet Jesus also says that He is greater than the temple, because this second temple had not the ark of the covenant whereupon God’s presence rested – yet He Himself was the presence of God in their day but they refused to acknowledge that fact because of their bias and greed for power in their present religious system.
The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath - Notice that the word Lord is the first word in the Greek sentence which gives strong emphasis to His Lordship. Son of Man is clearly a Messianic title. He had used this same Name in Matthew 9 where He had first forgiven the lame man's sins and then authenticated His authority to forgive sins by healing him declaring "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”–then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.” (Mt 9:6). In that passage He left no doubt that He was not just claiming to be God, but that He was in fact God, for no mere man could heal a lame man. So the Pharisees were aware of the significance of His use of the term Son of Man in this passage. He was saying in essence "I am God and I am the Lord of the Sabbath!" And because of Who Jesus is He could determine what the rules for Sabbath observance should be! The implication also is that as the One Who instituted the Sabbath, He knows the correct meaning of the Sabbath...
it would have been impossible for the Pharisees to miss Jesus’ clear declaration of divinity and His declaration as the One having authority over the Sabbath! Why is Jesus making this statement which is found in each synoptic account? Remember He is still addressing the accusation of the Pharisees that His disciples broke the Sabbath law. Since Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath, He alone has the authority to interpret the law. He is saying that He is Sovereign Ruler over the Sabbath day. He is the Master of this day for He as Creator made it. [preceptaustin.org/ matthew-12-commentary]
Jesus repeatedly ignored all of the Pharisees rules concerning the sabbath observance – not the sabbath laws themselves as originally given by God to Moses, but the Pharisaic rules they burdened people with that arose after the destruction of the temple of God. The sect of the Pharisees arose during what is called the Intertestamental Period (between the last OT book of Malachi, and the first NT book of Matthew), where Scripture does not cover.
Although the documents from this period of time are extrabiblical, they give us a great deal of information on how the Judaism of the first century came about – which was not the Judaism that God handed down to Moses for Israel to follow. During this time period, because Judaism was centered around temple worship but the temple had been destroyed by the Babylonians, a more law-enforced obedience doctrine arose surrounding the concept of the Synagogue, which had not been abandoned once the temple had been rebuilt.
Basically, Jesus asserts that He is the master of the sabbath because He was the one in the past who handed down the sabbath laws to Moses at Mt. Sinai...
“In case the Pharisees mistook his lack of reverence to their rules for ignorance he added: ‘The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath’ (Matt 12:8). That is, he will decide what is legal and what fulfills God’s will for the Sabbath. But who has the right to declare the one correct interpretation of God’s law? God alone. Therefore, by claiming to provide the correct interpretation of God’s law, Jesus asserts his deity.” [The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels; Daniel Doriani; JETS 37/3 (September 1994) pg. 343] (emphasis mine)
4. Jesus is Yahweh in the flesh, demonstrated by things that He did and said:
- He received religious worship (not as homage to a king):
Matthew 14:27-33*
But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take courage! I AM! Do not be afraid” ...And those in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are truly the Son of God!”
First, we need to get the background on this text. The disciples were out in a boat in the middle of the lake, in the middle of a storm – seasoned fishermen all, fearful that their boat would flounder and they would drown. Then, Jesus comes walking to them upon the sea, something no mere human being could do. Then He calls out to them, “Take courage! I AM!...”
To those who delight in perverting the Word of God, they will say that He actually says “I am He,” which makes no logical sense in the text at all. What? The mere human messiah has the power to walk on water? No, only the God-Messiah foretold by the OT Scriptures. By telling them “I AM” He was making a direct claim to being Yahweh in the flesh, in order to comfort them.
Peter responded that if it was indeed Him, “Lord, if it is You, command me to come to you on the water.” Peter used the word kurios (lord) in the understanding of Jesus being God in the flesh, because if He was God in the flesh, then He could call Peter out onto the water as He was walking on the water...something impossible to do for a mere human being. And, if Jesus was Lord, then He could cause Peter to be able to walk on water, too.
Peter may have been in doubt at that point by saying, “Lord, if it is You...” but after having walked upon the water because of the power that Jesus exuded for Peter to do so, he had a better understanding of who Jesus was, which was why the disciples said, “You are truly the Son of God!” and by that realization, they reacted by worshiping Him. Both their words and actions demonstrate that they understood that Jesus was Yahweh God in the flesh...they were Jews, they knew the law against worshiping anything other than God – yet they willingly and freely worshiped Him instantaneously.
Furthermore, because some pervert the clear meaning of the Scriptures, proskuneo (worship) here does not mean paying homage to a superior in rank out of respect. The text demonstrates that there was absolutely no reason for them to simply, and suddenly, feel the need to pay respect to Jesus – what they were doing was actual worship...something forbidden to anything or being other than Yahweh God.
Matthew 28:9*
And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Joy to you!” And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him.
Again we must remember that the meaning of a word is based upon how it is utilized in the text itself, then in its immediate context, and if need be, even wider in context of the entire chapter, book, covenant Scriptures (OT/NT), and even the entirety of the whole Word of God. Furthermore, we must also take into consideration the attitude of the person bowing down, why they are bowing down, and to whom/what they are bowing down to, in order to get the proper and accurate interpretation of the scene.
Here, in this text, the two women come to the tomb to find it open and empty, and then Jesus appears to them in physical form. Out of joy to see Him alive, they bow down (“took hold of His feet”) and prosekunhsan (worshiped) Him. Whenever we find a person bowing down + the word proskuneo, the text implies not respectful homage as to a king or person of higher rank; rather the combination of bowing down with proskuneo directly implies an act of religious worship, an act strictly forbidden to anyone or anything other than God.
The text demonstrates that Jesus received religious worship (not respect of social or religious rank), and act that was reserved for God alone. He does not rebuke these women and tell them not to worship Him. If Christ was not God, and He allowed them to worship Him, then He would have deceived them, making them continue to think that He was Yahweh if He, in fact, was not, and that act alone would have disqualified Him from being the Savior as a deceiver.
John 9:35-38
Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” He answered, “And who is He, sir, that I may believe in Him?” Jesus said to him, “You have seen Him, and it is He who is speaking to you.” He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped Him.
Firstly, this text gives us some important information concerning the title “Son of Man” and the Jewish mindset and understanding of that title. This man, a Jew, who had undoubtedly been taught and heard all of his life that only Yahweh God was worthy of religious worship, yet something in the title “Son of Man” told this Jewish man that the holder of such a title was worthy of religious worship that belonged to God alone.
How do we know that what this man was doing was actually worshiping Jesus and not, as the unitarians claim, that he was only offering to Jesus respectful homage as a godly man and Rabbi? First, this man evidently understood two different titles used in the text: Jesus calls Himself by the title “Son of Man,” which concerned His humanity. The title that refers to one’s humanity, if that was all that He was, a mere human being, would have been oddly self-redundant.
This title that Jesus gave to Himself in many conversations with the Jews, pointed out His deity clothed in His humanity...and this formerly blind man apparently understood that title and what it meant. Second, he calls Jesus “Lord,” which (again) as used in this manner was a direct implication of His equality with God in essence and nature.
Wilson agrees with others in deliberating on this verse, saying that “it appears he concluded that the person bearing this title [Son of Man] was worthy of worship as God” [Is Belief in Christ’s Deity Required for Eternal Life in John’s Gospel?; K. Wilson; Chafer Theological Seminary Journal, Vol. 12 (Fall 2006), pg. 74].
Harris concurs in his deliberations and meticulous study on the subject of the deity of Christ: “The evangelist thereby indicates that the acknowledgment of the messiahship of Jesus (20:31) necessarily involves belief in his deity” [Jesus as God; Murray Harris; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992; pg. 289].
Thus, observing what was worshiped, and the attitude and understanding of the person doing the action of worshiping, it is clear that understanding who Jesus was led to the act of giving Him religious worship, not simply paying Him some kind of lesser homage. This was no mere earthly lord standing before him, this was the Messiah who had just opened the eyes of a man born blind, by His own power. This man understood who Jesus was, and reacted in kind.
Hebrews 1:5-6
For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are My Son, today I have begotten You"? Or again, "I will be to Him a father, and He shall be to Me a son"? And again, when He brings the firstborn into the world, He says, "Let all of God's angels worship Him."
In verse 6 the author continues from the previous verse, saying, “And again, when He (God) brings the firstborn (speaking of His preeminence, not His creation) into the world (of His incarnation), He says, ‘Let all of God’s angels worship Him.’”
Worship is reserved specifically, and only, for Yahweh alone – for God to tell His angels to worship the incarnate Christ, is prima facia evidence that the Son is Yahweh God in the flesh. God says that we are to worship no one but Himself (Exodus 34:14; Jeremiah 13:10).
Acts 10:25-26
When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am a man."
Revelation 19:10
Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Revelation 22:8-9
I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
No Jew, knowing the prohibitions of worship, that it belonged to Yahweh alone, would have fallen to the ground and worshiped a mere human being. All accounts in the OT of men falling down before other men are accounts of the rendering of kingly homage – NOT worship...the two attitudes and actions are as different as metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. People may kneel before a person in both instances, but what they are doing is not the same thing...just as when people sit on the toilet is different from sitting in their vehicles.
Furthermore, if Jesus was not God, by accepting religious worship which is only supposed to be given to God, then He would not only have been a deceiver...letting people continue in their erroneous belief if He wasn’t God in the flesh...then He could not have been the Messiah because He would have sinned through that deceit. The fact is, Jesus is the Savior, the Messiah; therefore, He is also Yahweh God in the flesh.
- He healed people by His own power and authority:
Matthew 8:1-3
When Jesus came down from the mountain, great crowds followed Him. And behold, a leper came to Him and knelt before Him, saying, “Lord, if You will, You can make me clean.” And Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
All of the healings and miracles that Jesus did, He did by His own power, we never hear that He ever invoked the name of Yahweh in any way, shape, or form...like believers today can heal “in the name of Jesus.” Jesus did not have to invoke the name of Yahweh in order to perform His works of power, because He was Yahweh in the flesh. Here, Jesus says, “I will” and then heals the leper...He healed the leper by His own power and authority, demonstrating His deity.
But what about when Scripture says that He couldn’t do many miracles in His hometown because of their unbelief? God always works through a person’s faith. It wasn’t that He “couldn’t” perform for lack of power, but the constraining aspect was their lack of faith, because He has already ordained that He will work in the world through people’s faith. In effect, He constrains Himself according to the ultimate purpose of His will.
- He forgave sin, a prerogative that belongs only to Yahweh:
- He “knew” their thoughts (Omniscience)
Matthew 9:2-4 (Mark 2:5-8; Luke 5:20-22)
And behold, some people brought to Him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Take heart, My son; your sins are forgiven.” And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” But Jesus knew what they were thinking, and said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?”
In the texts, particularly in Mark, when Jesus says that the man’s sins “are forgiven,” the word for this (aphiemi) is in the Present Passive Indicative, representing that the action of the forgiveness was accomplished upon the man at the moment Jesus spoke the words. In other words, the grammar of the text demonstrates that Jesus was the one – as the context directly implies – who forgave the paralytic. Some try to press the Passive voice in saying that because Jesus was speaking, if it was Him actually forgiving the man, it would be in the Active voice.
However, the Passive or Active addresses the action being accomplished upon the subject, and Jesus is NOT the subject of the discourse, the paralytic is the subject. Jesus says, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” The man Jesus addresses in His sentence, “son,” is the subject. All the Passive tells us in this text is that the man was not the one acting upon himself – he was forgiven from outside of himself, in this case, by Jesus, just as He stated.
Jesus specifically implied that He could forgive sin, a strict prerogative of God alone (since God is the one sinned against – while I can forgive myself of sinning against God or someone else, my forgiving myself has absolutely NO IMPACT upon the one sinned against; I cannot forgive myself on behalf of the one that I sinned against, only they can forgive me in that area). In this act of forgiving this man, Jesus demonstrates that He is Yahweh God in the flesh, and the scribes understood that silent, indirect claim full well, which is why they reacted in the way that they did.
“...blasphemy! Who can forgive sin but God alone?” They said this because they understood Jesus to be assuming a divine prerogative, and their logic and understanding was absolutely correct...
Exodus 34:6-7
Yahweh passed before him and proclaimed, “Yahweh, Yahweh, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.”
Isaiah 43:25
“I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for My own sake, and I will not remember your sins.”
Micah 7:18
Who is a God like You, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of His inheritance? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in steadfast love.
The only flaw in their determination was the fact that Jesus held a peculiar relationship with God which justified His claim.
The word “blaspheme” originally means to speak evil of anyone; to injure by words; to blame unjustly. When applied to God, it means to speak of him unjustly; to ascribe to him acts and attributes which he does not possess; or to speak impiously or profanely. It also means to say or do anything by which his name or honor is insulted, or which conveys an “impression” unfavourable to God. It means, also, to attempt to do, or say a thing, which belongs to him alone, or which he only can do. This is its meaning here. Christ was charged with saying a thing in his own name, or attempting to do a thing, which properly belonged to God; thus assuming the place of God, and doing him injury, as the scribes supposed, by an invasion of his prerogatives...None of the prophets had this power; and by saying that “he forgave sins,” Jesus was understood to affirm that he was divine. [Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible; electronic edition]
Next, Jesus “knew” their thoughts, demonstrating omniscience, another attribute of God alone. Matthew uses the word eido (to see, figuratively to know) in the Perfect Active Participle, meaning that He absolutely knew their thoughts. The Active demonstrates that Jesus KNEW, not that He received this knowledge from God or the Holy Spirit...He knew.
Both Mark and Luke use epiginosko (to know fully in a complete sense, to have full knowledge of) in the Aorist Active Participle form. Both words (eido and epiginosko), because of their grammar, come to equal the exact same sentiment – Jesus had complete knowledge of their thoughts the moment the scribes thought them. And again, both grammars show in the Active voice, meaning that Jesus knew their thoughts; that knowledge of their thoughts was not given to Him by God or the Holy Spirit. Demonstration, again, of His omniscience – deity.
- Divine nature demonstrated by what He said:
Matthew 5:21-22
"You have heard that it was said to those of old [by God], 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.
Here Christ takes on the position of taking up the commandments of God into Himself, and then re-giving them as the law-giver of the New Covenant. Giving the law Himself, out of Himself, rather than saying “thus says the Lord,” demonstrates His identity. If He was a mere human man, then He had no right or authority that may be observed in Scripture to change the law as given by God. But, because He was God in the flesh, He had the right and authority. His changing the law, as only God could since it was His law, demonstrates that Jesus was Yahweh in the flesh. Since He was the original law giver, He had the only right to expound on it or to change it as He pleased.
Furthermore, He taught on His own authority as God, and not like mere humans. For example, the OT prophets always prefaced their words with “Thus says the LORD...” but Jesus, over 70 times in the gospels (30 in Matthew; 13 in Mark; 6 in Luke, and 25 in John) says both “Truly, truly, I say to you...” and “Amen,” which asserts authority, certainty, and potency. By their prescriptions, the OT prophets denied authority of what they said, pointing back directly to God. By Christ’s prescriptions, He asserts His authority to speak because He is God in the flesh, and what He says is true because of who He is.
Further still, all people in Jesus’ day referenced authorities in their dogma’s to show that what they were teaching was Biblical and true. For example, when the Pharisees would quote or reference Moses in their chidings with Jesus – but Jesus never, not once, made reference to a higher authority than Himself...because for the simple reason that as Yahweh in the flesh, there was no greater authority than Himself.
John 3:13*
“No one has ascended into heaven except He who descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven.”
1. “He who descended from heaven” –
What is Jesus saying here? He is saying that before His incarnation, He existed in heaven in eternity past. The title, “Son of Man,” speaks of this and every time He uses it of Himself, He points to this meaning – that He is from heaven and existed with God before creation. This is why John opens his gospel with what he says about Christ in 1:1-3...those were John’s words describing what Jesus tells us about Himself here and in other places. John almost seems to be making a direct reference to Proverbs 30:4...
Proverbs 30:4-6
Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name? Surely you know! Every word of God proves true; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar.
The passage both rings with a Messianic tone (although it is not considered as such by many) and comes with a stern warning that is very valid today. Those who would add to God’s Word, trying to change the intended meaning of His Word, are liars twisting His Word to suit their own carnally minded, unregenerate biased false doctrines.
All attempts at explaining away the clear meaning and implication of the text are futile and a fool’s errand, and ridiculous. The Son of Man, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, was in heaven before His incarnation, and came down out of heaven. Yahweh, and His divine Son according to the flesh, but Yahweh Himself incarnate.
This is a clear statement and claim about Christ’s pre-existence before His incarnation in His own words. Alone this claim would not amount to very much, but taken together with other passages concerning His deity, it bolsters and reinforces the Biblical teaching that Christ is Yahweh God in the flesh.
2. “Who is in heaven” –
We begin this section of our examination of this text by acknowledging that there is one variant reading of this verse, where “who is in heaven” is not present. Historically and geographically, this variant is only found in a localized area from the Alexandrian text, which over the years has lost its hold on scholars’ and theologians’ minds as being a “pure” form of Scripture.
Consistently scholars have uncovered copy errors and changes by scribes to the NT texts which the scribes found offensive doctrinally and theologically. Having this information statistically demonstrated since the 1970’s with the discovery of older texts, the Alexandrian texts: the uncials Sinaiticus (x) and Vaticanus (B).
Examination of the external and internal evidence for the reading of John 3:13 indicates that the longer reading (which includes the clause ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ) should be regarded as authentic. This longer reading has extensive external attestation. Furthermore, transcriptional probabilities and John’s style and theology lend strong internal support for this reading. Therefore, John 3:13 is a proof of the omnipresence of the earthly Jesus. [The text of John 3:13; David Black; Grace Theological Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1985), pgs. 49-66]
The phrase “ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ” is far more likely to be part of the original text, excised in the Alexandrian text-stream by a copyist prone to relieve perceived difficulties, that it is to have originated as a scribal expansion. The absence of this phrase in the fifth edition of the UBS/Biblica Greek New Testament, and in the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testatementum Graece, is an echo of previous compilers’ reliance upon poorly represented data combined with a preference for manuscripts that happened to be stored in a dry climate. In the Sinaitic Syriac and the Curetonian Syriac and the Old Latin Codex Palatinus (and in the uncial 0141, in which the closing phrase states that the Son of Man is from heaven) we see copyists surrendering to the temptation to alter the text in order to resolve a perceived difficulty; the manuscripts that lack the phrase echo the work of an early scribe who took things a little further. [John 3:13: The Son of Man Who is in Heaven; James Snapp, New Testament Textual Criticism, Feb 28, 2018]
Furthermore, when we compare the treatment of the text (John 3:13) in different editions of Greek New Testaments, we find that their use of resources for their translations does not build confidence in their manuscripts. One of these resources is the UBS Greek New Testament in which the first edition of 1966, the Ethiopic version was listed as a source for not including the phrase “who is in heaven,” while the Arabic Diatessaron and Georgian versions were listed as source witnesses for including the phrase.
Then came a change of plans with the fourth edition which came out in 1993, where the same Georgian and Arabic Diatessaron versions were now listed as supporting the removal of the phrase, and Didymus (who was previously listed as a witness for the validity of both readings) was not listed as giving support for only the removal of the phrase. The Ethiopic version also “switched sides” favoring the inclusion of the phrase. [Snapp] “It appears that the strongest evidence in favor of the shorter reading is the fact that the words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ are lacking in the early Alexandrian manuscripts (x and B)” [Black].
The external evidence shows almost the entire ancient tradition supporting the disputed phrase (including the Old Latin [Itala], which establishes the date of the longer reading as at least the last quarter of the second century)...the testimony of the Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and Church Fathers thus forms, as it were, a strong three-cord strand which is not easily broken... therefore, the reading which is both early and supported by independent witnesses from a wide geographical area is more likely to be [the] original. [The text of John 3:13; David Black; Grace Theological Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1985), pgs. 49-66]
The evidence for the inclusion of the words is as follows. The phrase is found in nearly all the uncial and minuscule manuscripts of the NT as well as in nearly every ancient version, including the Bohairic of lower Egypt. Support for the longer reading is also found in the great majority of the earliest patristic witnesses, including Origen himself...moreover, this reading is not limited to manuscripts of only one geographical area, as is its omission. The reading was accepted as genuine over a wide geographical area, encompassing most of the then civilized ancient world. [The text of John 3:13; David Black; Grace Theological Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1985), pgs. 49-66]
Regarding the Internal evidence of the text:
The clause contains features which, taken at face value, seem faithfully to reflect the apostle’s characteristic style, grammar, and vocabulary...the inclusion of the disputed words is the best solution since it is supported by significant external and internal evidence...given the strength and diversity of the external attestation, the improbability of an accidental omission, and the intrinsic probability favoring the inclusion of the phrase...the cumulative effect of the data can hardly be ignored. [The text of John 3:13; David Black; Grace Theological Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1985), pgs. 49-66]
Therefore, with all of the evidences, external and internal, taken together, the overwhelming data dictates that the longer version is far more likely than not to be the original writing of John the Apostle. Along with the fact that the only reason why an Alexandrian scribe would have taken the phrase out during his transcription, would have been because his own theological misgivings were playing his bias and caused him to remove the phrase, which is a tragedy. When men take it upon themselves to tamper with the Word of God because they don’t like what a particular text says...I would hate to be in that man’s shoes when he stands before God on judgment day.
As further evidence of the implication of the full reading of the text under examination, we also have a clue two verses earlier which, when first we come upon, doesn’t really to make a whole lot of sense...
John 3:11
Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony.
Jesus speaks in the plural, taking up the meaning of Elohim from the OT, in part of a new section of His dialogue with Nicodemus...which He alludes to with finality in verse 13. He is both standing before this Pharisee of faith in human physical form, and at the same time in heaven, the “we” and “our” attesting to His plurality – Yahweh God in heaven and Yahweh manifest in flesh as Jesus the God-Messiah. Over and again, John depicts Jesus as existing in union with God at all times...because He is God and man at the same time.
There is no other reason that can stand up against scrutiny of the facts, why Jesus all of a sudden speaks of Himself in the plural. He begins here in this verse to hint at Nicodemas of who He really was, and then finishes that hint in verse 13 by telling him that He was both standing before him in conversation, and...at the same time...sitting in heaven upon His throne from which He ruled the creation. Jesus had also hinted at this in verses where He claimed that when He spoke, God was speaking...
John 3:34
He whom God has sent utters the words of God, because God gives Him the fulness of the Spirit.
John 14:24
Whoever does not love Me does not keep My words, and the words that you hear are not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.
When Jesus speaks, it is the words God spoke through His lips of flesh; because Jesus and God are one and the same. The end of the matter on this text, is that Jesus claims that He was both standing before Nicodemas holding their conversation, and at the same time – manifesting His deity through His omnipresence – was in heaven.
John 6:62
Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
First, we need to look at the text within its context:
John 6:48-51, 58
I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh...This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."
It is abundantly clear that Jesus makes the statement that He is the “bread” and that this bread “came down from heaven.” What He is saying is that, for our purposes, He came down from heaven. In this context He then asks “what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending back to where He was before?”
“down from heaven” where ek (from) speaks of an object or person which was beforehand in something or somewhere else but are presently separated from where they once were, such as an egg yoke taken out of the egg shell. In Biblical Greek, if something is separated from where it once was, then that separation ‘from’ it is expressed with ek; while if that something was only near it, on it, or with it, then that separation is expressed with apo.
ek is used in respect to either place, time, source, or origin – in this case, when Jesus uses it, He uses it in respect to origin. Its base definition is out of, or separation from. When used of origin, ek implies “likeness.”
The word translated as “down” is the verb katabainw, and what is interesting about its use here, is its grammar – it is in the present active participle. What this tells us is that Christ was in a constant present state of “coming down” from heaven, in allusion to being presently in heaven and on earth at the same time, mirroring the statement in John 3:13. This speaks of the omnipresence of Christ as God, who was both in heaven and walking the earth at the exact same time.
This is a clear statement and claim about Christ’s pre-existence before His incarnation in His own words.
