Nicodemus
answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered and said to
him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? Most
assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen,
and you do not receive Our witness. If I have told you earthly things and you
do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one
has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man [*who is in
heaven*]”. (John 3:9-13)
*These words are not included in any manuscript preceding the 9th
century. Not one of the thousands of sources that predate this time include the
expression, thus rendering it unreliable.
When Jesus was having the above conversation with
Nicodemus, where were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Where were Sarah, Rahab and
Ruth? One of two answers is commonly given: they were either in Heaven or they
were in another place of happy, conscious existence, known as Abraham’s Bosom.
The underlined statement within this passage, however,
seems to cast doubt on the first option: Heaven. ‘No one has ascended to heaven’. Had no one ever entered Heaven
prior to this time? This would seem to be the natural understanding.
Would this understanding be invalidated by the surrounding
context? By extracting one small clause from a much larger conversation, am I
guilty of misrepresenting the words?
I would think that, yes, there is always a danger of
misunderstanding literature of any kind when reading a statement that is separated
from its context. The context informs us who
is saying the words, to whom and when, as well as revealing the
subject-matter. Perhaps by
re-examining the context of John chapter three I would discover that Jesus (or
the author John) had provided us with a new understanding of what ‘heaven’ and/or ‘Son of Man’ mean, in which case this one sentence I have
highlighted would take on a new meaning. Perhaps the context has established a
less than common understanding of the verb ‘ascend’. Again, this would be cause
for reinterpreting the highlighted statement.
However, given that the context does not suggest
uncommon meanings for these words, it makes the statement plain and simple: ‘No one has ascended to heaven but He who
came down from heaven’. I encourage the reader to study the context
carefully, being confident that the same conclusion will be reached.
That said, it seems that one important fact has been
obscured by all the major English translations (including the New King James
Version used in this essay). There is an assumption that it is Jesus who was
speaking in verse thirteen. Careful consideration of several features of John
chapter three should lead us away from this conclusion.
First of all, one needs to be aware that the earliest
Greek manuscripts from which we derive our translated New Testaments do not
(and never did) use punctuation, including the use of speech marks. The
translators assumed that, since Jesus was conversing with Nicodemus up to this
point, it was He who was continuing to speak in verse thirteen.
If so, then picture this scenario: Jesus, perhaps a
couple of years prior to His death, burial, resurrection and ascension, says to
Nicodemus, “no one has ascended
[perfect tense] to heaven but...the Son of Man”. In other words, if it is Jesus speaking in
verse thirteen then we should believe that He spoke about His future ascension
as an act already completed. Though this is not impossible, it should not be
our conclusion if a more immediately sensible interpretation exists.
Is it not more likely that John, the author of the
book, begins to write his own comments from verse thirteen? He is writing from
the vantage point of someone living years after the ascension. Also note the
use of past tense verbs prior to verse thirteen: they are all by John (“came to Jesus by night...”;
“Nicodemus said...”; “Jesus answered...”). At no point do
Jesus or Nicodemus use a past tense verb in their recorded dialogue. John
records their conversation as if everything was spoken using the present tense.
This helps to distinguish between the words of the conversation and John’s own
words. After verse thirteen the past tense is repeatedly used, including the
famous verse sixteen. In other words, a change occurs between verses twelve and
thirteen.
Furthermore, in verse twelve (which I believe to be
the final words of Jesus in this section), Jesus tells Nicodemus that he is
unlikely to believe heavenly things if he cannot grasp the earthly things. Why
would Jesus then proceed to explain the heavenly things to Nicodemus? That
would be a waste of breath given what Jesus has just concluded about Nicodemus’
state of mind. It is more likely that John explains these things, not for the
sake of skeptical Nicodemus, but for the believing readers of his gospel many
years later.
The issue of who spoke the words in verse thirteen, to
my mind, actually solidifies further the unlikelihood of any one going to
Heaven except for Jesus. Why? Not only had no person ascended to Heaven when
Jesus was conversing with Nicodemus, the truth still stood when John was
writing his gospel, long after the actual ascension.
Nevertheless, even if it is accepted that John wrote
these words rather than Jesus who spoke them, some could still argue that there
is a deeper meaning to “no one has ascended...”
than a simple ascension from below to above. It is assumed by some that there
is a depth of meaning behind the verb ‘ascended’ that renders it more like
this: no one has ascended in this
manner, except the Son of Man. Quite what that manner is, however, is
unclear. One would think that a ‘simple’ ascension from earth to Heaven is
impressive enough without requiring an added depth of meaning.
Rather than going to such measures to interpret the
text, we should ask why the original statement needs to be qualified in the first place. It makes sense by itself. It does not require any special
scrutiny. Are we not seeking to qualify it because, taken plainly and simply,
it contradicts a predetermined theology? The context is important, yes, but the remark is
nonetheless unequivocal in its meaning.
Contextually, Ephesians chapter
five is not about the drinking of alcohol; but ‘do not be drunk with wine’ (v18) is still categorical and can
exist as a fully understood stand-alone statement. It is an absolute:
'don't be drunk!' In and of itself, it does not explain the thought-process
behind Ephesians chapter five but the command doesn't require an
appreciation of the surrounding context in order to be obeyed.
Such is the case with John
3:13. The statement is an absolute. How can the words be taken any other
way? There was a contextual purpose for saying it – I agree – but
the statement stands on its own as a truth. Nicodemus could not understand ‘heavenly things’ (the deeper truths that Jesus knew) if he were
unable to grasp the ‘earthly things’
that he had already heard. Irrespective of the context of what those ‘things’ were, John qualifies why only Jesus
could know them: nobody had ascended to
Heaven except for Him.
Many have come to this same conclusion but, because
they view the words of verse thirteen as belonging to Jesus, their agreement is
that, at that point, no one had
ascended to Heaven except for Him. However, such a conclusion does not, to
these people, disprove the overall theology of intermediate existence. It is
widely believed that, though dead saints were not in Heaven at this time, they
were still consciously experiencing bliss in a place called Abraham’s Bosom.
It is a view with which I am a little familiar as, in
the past, I found it convincing. The saints would be comforted in this
particular area of Sheol (or Hades
in Greek) while everyone else suffered in the remainder of Sheol. The account of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) is
used to support this theological assertion. I object to such an interpretation
of this passage but will leave that for a more protracted discussion later.
Throughout this essay there will be challenges to the
belief in this alleged former afterlife location, not least when questioning
the nature of the soul. But it is worth asking straight away how this view
correlates with the general understanding of Ecclesiastes 12:7, which says that
‘the spirit will return to God who gave
it’. Given the most common interpretation of ‘spirit’ (a definition with which I disagree: the immortal conscious
self) this would mean that saints went straight to Heaven even under the Old
Covenant (i.e. prior to Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus).
It will also be a common feature of this essay to
challenge the belief about Abraham’s
Bosom as if it were the same argument as those who believe that saints always went to Heaven at death. I am
aware that there are important differences between these two views, and I do
not wish to discredit either view by misrepresenting it, but I will critique
both together because they believe the same thing about where dead saints are today: Heaven. They also believe the
same things about the nature of man’s soul.
Proponents of the Abraham’s
Bosom view believe that, upon His ascension, the Lord Jesus brought the
residents of Abraham’s Bosom to
Heaven with Him. He had paid the redemptive price and was ‘setting the captives
free’. I have heard Ephesians 4:7-10 used to support this contention.
But
to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
Therefore He says: ‘When He ascended
on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men.’ (Now this, ‘He ascended’—what does it mean but that He also first descended
into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is also the One who
ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.) (Ephesians 4:7-10)
I do not wish to make my argument stronger by building
a ‘straw man’ on behalf of the opposing view so I should accept that there is
possibly more Scripture than the above used to support the idea that Christ
brought the righteous dead with Him to Heaven after His victory over death.
However, to date, this is the only argument of which I am aware, and again it
seems to forge an unnatural meaning into words that do not expressly state this
doctrine.
When Christ was leading ‘captivity captive’ was He leading the righteous dead to Heaven?
Does the language not suggest the opposite: the taking of a prisoner? When Christ ‘descended into the lower parts of the earth’
was He in Abraham’s Bosom? Could the
‘lower parts of the earth’ not simply
refer to the grave – a reference to His death?
As I see it, the ‘captivity’
which Christ was leading ‘captive’
involved the principalities and powers of which He had made a public spectacle
(Colossians 2:15). Furthermore, the Scripture that Paul quotes (Psalm 68:18) is
taken from a context where the captives are the enemies of God. There seems no inherent idea of the ‘captive’ being His own people. This seems
a more natural reading to me as the text does not mention Christ leading people or souls from underneath the earth. The only Person mentioned is
Christ Himself.
In conclusion, I think that John 3:13 is a very strong
indication that nobody went to Heaven prior to Jesus’ conversation with
Nicodemus. Indeed, properly punctuated, it should indicate that nobody except
Jesus went to Heaven prior to John
writing his gospel. I further believe that there are many weaknesses
with the doctrine that says that the saints were instead happily conscious in Abraham’s Bosom. To me, this is an
unlikely alternative location for Abraham, Sarah, etc. (though admittedly it
may require the reader to view further arguments in this essay before being
equally convinced of this).
In short, one single sentence should cause us
to seriously examine our beliefs about who goes to Heaven.
