The apparent contradiction of John 3:13

by EdenOne 43 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  rawe

  Hi EdenOne,

  Interesting observation.

  Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man - John 3:13 NWT

  No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven - John 3:13 NKJV. Includes a footnote on regarding who is in heaven.

  No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. - John 3:13 NASB

  and no one hath gone up to the heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down -- the Son of Man who is in the heaven. - John 3:13 YLT

  No man in existence has gone up to heaven, except the Son of man who has come down, whose home is heaven - Your suggested translation.

  AND(kai) NOT-YET-ONE(oudeis) HAS-UP-STEPPED(anabebEken) INTO(eis) THE(ton) heaven(ouranon) IF(ei) NO(mE) THE(ho) OUT(ek) OF-THE(tou) heaven(ouranou) DOWN-STEPPing(katabas) THE(ho) SON(huios) OF-THE(tou) human(anthrOpou) THE-One(ho) BEING(On) IN(en) THE(tO) heaven(ouranO) - http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh3.pdf

  One of the problems with your suggested translation is the verse does not contain the Greek word for "home". John 14:23 has the word "home", as per scripture4all.org it is the word "monEn" which is translated as "REMAIN", but also as "abode."

  Certainly, it is easy to see why NWT would prefer to have the "who is in the heaven" reference removed from the verse, since as you point out it could be used to support a divine nature of Jesus being both on earth and in heaven at the same time. If one reads the verse as if Jesus is speaking each word to Nicodemus, then this "in the heaven" could be problematic. However, if one simply suggested the "in the heaven" is an after-thought added by the author of John it could be addressed in that way. Especially considering John was written long after death of Jesus.

  Does this verse support the idea that Jesus is saying no person on earth had gone to heaven, as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses? Maybe, but I don't think the verse absolutely requires that. 2 Kings 2:11 contains the account of Elijah who it is said ascended in a windstorm to the heavens. There is of course many folks who have addressed the John 3:13 contradiction of 2 Kings 2:11. Personally I think the least expensive way is simple to say the author of John wasn't thinking about the Elijah account at the time. In fact we know what the author of John was reflecting on, because it is in the very next verse...

  And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone believing in him may have everlasting life. - John 3:14, 15 (see also Numbers 21:9).

  So... the emphasis is not just where Jesus was (heaven) and was going (also heaven), but on the katabas and anabebEken (descending and ascending). That is, the ascending of Jesus was the key thing for Christians to look to, like the Israelites that looked up to the copper serpent. My view is the ressurection of Jesus was both a difficult doctrine for Christians to accept yet at the same time a primary to the faith (1 Cor 15:12-14). The next verse of John is one most often cited by Christians, namely John 3:16. In contrast the most often cited scripture in Watchtower publications is Matthew 24:45 ;-)

  Cheers,

  -Randy
• 

  EdenOne

  Randy,

  John 3:13 is quite a challenging text. You're right, the term "home" isn't in the original text. I was only using the Waymouth New Testament as an example of a possible transliteration because I think it grasps the idea correctly, but resorts to a non-literal expression. Perhaps a better formulation would be "... who exists [is] in heaven". It's less problematic from the interpretation point of view [i.e more neutral].

  I also think that this particular text doesn't rule out the possibility that resurrections into the heavenly realm might have ocurred before Jesus. The case of Enoch being the one that strikes me as more relevant. Plus, the fact that Jesus taught:

  "even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' and He is not a God of dead men, but of living, for all live to Him." - Luke 20:37, 38

  Eden
• 

  rawe

  Hi Eden,

  I should have mentioned that I understood your suggested translation was really a paraphrase, intended to make the meaning more clear. I.e., use of "home" is merely a minor point. Nonetheless it shows the challenge of both getting a correct word-for-word translation as well as translate the actual meaning.

  As Witnesses we were taught Jesus comments at Luke 20:37, 38 represent a guarantee of a future resurection, rather than a literal truth these men had been ressurected to heaven. This view draws on the "to Him" at the end of the verse.

  The account of the resurection of Lazarus might hold they key to understanding the Jewish view of the day, as well as any possible adjustments made by Christians.

  Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. [ d ] Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” - John 11:24-27 ESV

  So lets say Martha reflects the nominal Jewish view, namely that escape from death was in a future resurection on the "last day." Christians would be forced to adjust this view at least for the hero of Christianity -- Jesus. Otherwise the object of their worship would be dead, even if in some future era he is resurrected. The next statement of Jesus "though he die, yet shall he live" doesn't reveal a time context other than one event (death) follows the other (live). But... does "who lives" followed by "shall never die" adjust things? I think it does. It tends to reflect the idea of an instant resurection in the Christian era for those that believe in Jesus.

  This latter view of course contrast with the Witness view that instant resurrection is limited in scope and pushed to a future era "last days" (plural).

  Alas, in real life, what we experience with death is loss. Religious ideas about escaping death, to me, reflect our evolutionary drive to survive.

  Cheers,

  -Randy
• 

  EdenOne

  I think we may agree there, Randy ... :)

  Eden