Wednesday, May 18, 2022

Benjamin E. Reynolds on the Personal Preexistence of Jesus/The Son of Man in John 6

  

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)