The One Descending from Heaven
As Jesus continues to speak, the
identity of the food that the Son of Man will give comes more clearly into
focus. This food is the true bread from heaven that the Father gives (6.32).
This bread descending from heaven gives life to the world (6.33). Jesus says,
‘I am the bread of life’ (6.35). He later states that the bread which he will
give is his flesh for the life of the world (6.51). In response to the dispute this
causes among the ‘Jews’, Jesus restates this declaration in 6.53:
ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ φάγητε
τὴν σάρκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πίητε αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα, οὐκ ἔχετε ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς
While there is no explicit
statement in John 6 that the Son of Man has descended from heaven, the
connection between Jesus as the Son of Man and as the bread of life implies,
among an umber of other things, that the Son of Man has descended from heaven.
The entire discourse places a strong emphasis on the bread’s, and hence
indirectly the Son of Man’s, origin in heaven (6.32) and descent from heaven
(6.33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58). This focus becomes especially underlined by the
grumbling that the heavenly descent causes among the ‘Jews’ (6.41, 42). Jesus
has already mentioned the Son of Man’s descent in 3.13, and the connection
between the two passages is clarified by the repeated wording of 3.13 and 6.51
(ο εκ του ουρανου καταβας).
The Son of Man’s descent from
heaven indicates that his origin is from heaven. The Son of Man is a heavenly
figure who has come to earth to give life to the world. The ‘Jews’ are
incapable of understanding this (6.41-43), as are some of the disciples
(6.61-65). They see Jesus as only a human being with a human father and mother,
and likewise they understand the food as earthly and not heavenly. Jesus says
that the manna in the wilderness was not bread from heaven but that Jesus the
Son of Man is. He is the heavenly Son of Man who has descended from heaven and
is sealed to give the life-giving food. (Benjamin E. Reynolds, The
Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John [Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2 Reihe 249; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007],
153-54)
The
Son of Man’s Ascent and Preexistence—John 6.62
As with the offense taken by the
disciples, the meaning of Jesus’ response to them is not entirely obvious. This
lack of clarity exists because Jesus’ statement is an aposiopesis, a
conditional statement that has a protasis but is missing an apodosis. Jesus
asks his disciples:
τοῦτο ὑμᾶς σκανδαλίζει; ἐὰν οὖν
θεωρῆτε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀναβαίνοντα ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον (6.61-62).
Since the statement lacks an
apodosis, there is no way of knowing for sure if the sight of the Son of Man
ascending will reduce the offense or increase it. Would the disciples be less
offended or more offended if they saw the Son of Man’s ascent? Lindars thinks
that the offense would be removed (Lindars, Jesus, 153), but it is more likely
that the offense will be greater (Bultmann, Gospel, 445), since the
evidence from John 6 indicates that seeing does not lead to belief or
understanding—the crowd does not come to Jesus because they saw the sign
of the feeding (6.26); Jesus tells the crowd they have seen him and have
not believed (6.36); and eternal life comes through seeing and believing (6.40).
Since seeing alone does not appear to lead to belief, these disciples will not
believe even if they see the Son of Man ascend to heaven (see 6.70).
For Moloney, the hypothetical
aspect of Jesus’ statement is not the sight of the Son of Man’s ascent, but the
ascent itself. His view is especially noticeable in the following statement
where the verb ‘to see’ is absent: ‘[Jesus] asks them if they would like “the
Son of Man” to ascend “to where he was before (οπου ην το προτερον)”. For the Fourth Evangelist,
there is no reason for Jesus to ascend, as other revealers are claimed as
having done’ (Moloney, ‘Revisited’, 195). In disagreement with Moloney, the
conditional element of Jesus’ statement depends upon whether or not the
disciples will see the ascent that will take place. The ascent is not
conditional, and it corresponds with his descent mentioned previously (6.33,
38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58). Jesus and the Son of Man has come down from heaven and
will return. There is an ascent (3.13; 20.17). The Son of Man, who is Jesus,
does not remain perpetually on earth or case to exist after the cross. He
returns to his glorious place with the Father, where he was before (6.62; cf.
1.1-2; 17.5). Even I the disciples were to see him return, they would not
necessarily believe in him (cf. Luke 16.31). In some sense they are already
able to see the angels of God ascending and descending on him now (1.51).
The ascent that is spoken of here
is Jesus’ return to heaven, and it is not a reference to his death on the cross
as Pamment and Lindars argue. The Son of Man can ascend to where he was before
(οπου ην το προτερον) because his origin is in heaven.
The ascent is the final part of the Son of Man’s lifting up, and it draws
attention to the Son of Man’s preexistence, and this is further highlighted by
the similarities with the ‘before’ language in the Similitudes (48.3, 6), the
return of the Messiah in 2 Baruch (30.1), and Revelation’s description
of the son of man figure as ο πρωτος (1.17) and η αρχη της κτισεως θεου (3.14). The Johannine Son of Man
was in heaven before, he descended, and is now on earth making eternal life
possible, and will ascend in glory, returning to heaven. (Ibid., 159-61)