Monday, January 3, 2011

John 6:62 (A Socinian Response)

A week or so ago, I had posted an entry dealing with Socinianism and John 6:62. Recently, a poster directed me to the following website and its comments on John 6:62.

The first thing they say is:
1. This verse is referring to the resurrection of Christ. This fact is clear from studying the context. Because the translators have chosen to translate anabaino as “ascend,” people believe it refers to Christ’s ascension from earth as recorded in Acts 1:9, but Acts 1:9 does not use this word. Anabaino simply means “to go up.” It is used of “going up” to a higher elevation as in climbing a mountain (Matt. 5:1; 14:23, et al.), of Jesus “coming up” from under the water at his baptism (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10), of plants that “grow up” out of the ground (Matt. 13:7; Mark 4:7, 8 and 32), or of even just “going up,” i.e., “climbing,” a tree (Luke 19:4). Christ was simply asking if they would be offended if they saw him “come up” out of the ground, i.e., be resurrected, and be where he was before, i.e., alive and on the earth.
 While it is true that the resurrection was very much in view here, to limit it to this would an error. John 6 is a very entertaining dialog and we shouldn't miss out on the small details found within it.

Most truly I say to YOU, Moses did not give YOU the bread from heaven, but my Father does give YOU the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” Therefore they said to him: “Lord, always give us this bread.” Jesus said to them: “I am the bread of life. He that comes to me will not get hungry at all, and he that exercises faith in me will never get thirsty at all. But I have said to YOU, YOU have even seen me and yet do not believe. Everything the Father gives me will come to me, and the one that comes to me I will by no means drive away; because I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me. (John 6:32-38)
Jesus says that "the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven." The "bread of God" is therefore a person; indeed, Jesus himself says "I am the bread of life." Clear identification, there's no mistake about it. Later on in the dialog he says that he has "come down from heaven." Admittedly, this can simply mean that he has come from God, but I don't think this is so (see below).
Therefore the Jews began to murmur at him because he said: “I am the bread that came down from heaven”; and they began saying: “Is this not Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it that now he says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?(John 6:41-42)
The Jews asked "is this not Jesus the son of Joseph...how is it that now he says, 'I have come down from heaven'?" Clearly, the Jews didn't believe that "come down from heaven" meant that he was sent forth by God in an inspired or prophetic sense. They understood Jesus literally. They were wondering, 'How can a man come down from heaven when we know he was born from Mary?' 

Jesus replies: 
“Stop murmuring among yourselves. No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him; and I will resurrect him in the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by Jehovah.’ Everyone that has heard from the Father and has learned comes to me. Not that any man has seen the Father, except he who is from God; this one has seen the Father. Most truly I say to YOU, He that believes has everlasting life. “I am the bread of life. YOUR forefathers ate the manna in the wilderness and yet died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that anyone 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, for a fact, the bread that I shall give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.” (John 6:43-51)
Once more, these 'came down from heaven' sayings can simply mean that he was commissioned by God in a special sense but I don't think this is so. Jesus' statement of nobody seeing the Father "except he who is from God" implies that he had seen the Father. This can't be just in some spiritual sense for prophets of old could claim the same thing, but see John 1:18. So we have (1) Jesus claiming to have come from heaven and (2) to have seen God. 
Just as the living Father sent me forth and I live because of the Father, he also that feeds on me, even that one will live because of me.This is the bread that came down from heaven. It is not as when YOUR forefathers ate and yet died. He that feeds on this bread will live forever.” These things he said as he was teaching in public assembly at Capernaum. Therefore many of his disciples, when they heard this, said: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were murmuring about this, said to them: “Does this stumble YOU? What, therefore, if YOU should behold the Son of man ascending to where he was before? (John 6:57-62)
While Socinians could appeal to verse 57 to suggest that 'coming down from heaven' simply means that Jehovah or the "Father" has "sent" Jesus "forth," they must still contend with Jesus' statement of seeing the Father and with verse 62. 

Verse 62 suggests that Jesus had been with the Father "before" he 'came down from heaven,' so that now, he has to 'ascend' to where he came from. If we view this entire dialog in light of verse 62, then not only do the 'coming from heaven' verses mean that Jehovah 'sent forth' Jesus in a special prophetic sense, but that he literally 'came down from heaven' so that he was no longer where he was "before." 

I think John 6 and especially John 8:58 are clear references to Jesus' pre-human existence.

3 comments:

  1. Thank you, that was excellent, I truly enjoyed it.

    In the book God and Christ - Examining the Evidence for a Biblical Doctrine, footnote page 28, D. Barron writes that those who reject Jesus' preexistence "commonly read any text referring to preexistence to mean that he existed only in an idea, but this is unwarranted. While numerous texts testify to his preexistence one of the most powerful is John 17:5. Jesus here confirms his existence “with” the Father before the world was created. He requests to have the glory returned to him that he then possessed. Suggesting that he was only ‘with God’ in his idea and that he is asking for the glory of the idea to be returned to him is nonsensical. We might simply ask, “If the reference is to the idea of Jesus and the glory held by the idea, would not Jesus in his human existence have possessed equal or greater glory?”

    (Have a look at the first part of how they treat John 17:5 over here:
    http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=106)

    In regard of Jesus' statement of seeing the Father, this is their explanation:
    http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=171
    (They say it just means that Jesus, being the one that "saw" God, 'fully understood' Him.)

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  2. They generally connect John 17:5 w/ 1 Peter 1:20
    "he was foreknown before the founding of the world"

    but "kataboles kosmou" does not relate to John 17:5 "kataboles" means throwing down as in seed, or conception (cf Heb. 11:11); not the creation of the World (as in the universe). In other words it was the conception of the World (when Adam & Eve had Cain) that 1 Peter 1:20 refers to, the same expression is used in Luke 11:50 and Matt 13:35, where the meaning is clearer

    ReplyDelete
  3. What were they really offended at? Seems clear from the context it was the idea of eating his flesh an drinking his blood, something not only gross when taken literally but also contrary to the Law which forbids consumption of blood in Leviticus 17:11. Therefore when they get offended, the answer "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" seems out of place, as it doesn't answer to what actually offended them. I'm bold enough to say its an obvious Trinitarian interpolation. Traditional Socinians would not dare. But that's because they were trying to build churches filled with Socinians, whereas I'm just one lone Socinian attending a predominately Trinitarian church. For me this is just my personal belief system, not the foundation of fellowship of Socinians, so I can allege an interpolation where they couldn't. But I think I am certainly on to something. Imagine people walking away "Ooo! Eating your flesh? That's gross!" And he answers "Oh yeah, what if you see me go back up to heaven?" How does that answer the objection? Obvious opportunistic Trinitarian throw-in. I just looked at the verse index in the Racovian Catechism, by the way, and John 6:62 is not addressed, although 6:63 is. So I think they were at a loss to do anything with this because of their commitment to accepting the text as is and never positing interpolation unless there was solid manuscript evidence for it (like 1st John 5:7).

    ReplyDelete