A few people have been asking me whether I plan to do regular posts on New Testament Sunday School topics, as I had been doing with the OT.  I would have to say that my tentative answer is either “maybe” or “probably not.” While I would love to do so, this semester at school is proving to be my busiest ever and I can’t imagine myself having enough time to dedicate to writing anything that would be worthwhile sharing. However, I do hope to find relevant materials that I can point you to as often as possible.

The content of this post was prepared and sent to me by my friend Dean Hunsaker. I appreciate him taking the time to research this important question.

The Problem of John 3:13

John 3:13

NIV No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

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

NLT No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man has come down from heaven.

NRSV No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

KJV And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Is Jesus saying that no one ever has ascended into heaven?

What about OT ascent stories like — Enoch (Genesis 5:24; Hebrews 11:5), Moses (Exodus 24:9–11; 34:29-35); Elijah (2 Kings 2:11); Isaiah (Isaiah 6:1–8); or Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1; 10)?

Further, what is the point of the thrice-yearly ritual ascent to the temple to “see the face of the LORD” (Exodus 23:15, 17; 34:20, 23, 24; Deuteronomy 16:16; 31:11; 1 Samuel 1:22; Psalms 42:2; Isaiah 1:12) when real ascent isn’t possible?

What about other ascent into heaven stories:

New Testament (Acts 8:39; 2 Corinthians 12:2, 4; 1 Thess 4:17; Revelation 1-22).

BoM (1 Nephi 1:8; 11:1, 19; 14:13; 15:1; 2 Nephi 4:25; Alma 19:6; 3 Nephi 28:13, 36; Ether 3:1-14).

D&C (D&C 76; 137).  PoGP (Moses 1:1; Moses 6:64; Moses 7:27).

Other (Apocalypse of Moses 37:5; Apocalypse of Abraham 12:10; Wisdom of Solomon 4:11; 1 Enoch 39:3-4; 52:1; 2 Enoch 7:1; 3 Apocalypse of Baruch 2:2).

Is Jesus saying that it is impossibile for human beings to ascend into heaven — no one has or ever will? Does he agree with the Midrash on Exodus 19:20 “Neither Moses nor Elijah ever went up to heaven, nor did the Glory ever come down to earth”? (Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael, trans. J. Z. Lauterbach [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1976], 2:224; compare Deut 30:12; Baruch 3:29; 2 Esdras 4:8).

.
Does the Greek text Help?

Greek /English

kai / And

oudeis / no man

anabebeken / hath ascended up

eis ton ouranon / to heaven,

ei me  / but

ho / he

ek tou ouranou / that from heaven,

katabas  / came down

/even

ho huios / the Son

tou anthropou / of  man

ho on en to ourano / which is in heaven.

.

Greek Helps:

GR “anabebeken” means literally “to go up” and is commonly translated “arise,” “ascend,” and “climb.”

GR “ei me” means literally “if not” and is commonly translated, “but,” “except (that).”

.

What does the text mean?
1. NLT: No one else has ever gone to heaven and returned, but Jesus.
2. Local Context: Jesus doesn’t mean “no one” throughout time, he means there is “no one” Nicodemus can talk to that has ascended to heaven, but Jesus.
3. Context: The new birth isn’t brought on through heavenly ascent and descent of Moses or Elijah, but by the ascent and descent of the Son of Man.
4. D&C 88:6: The purpose of ascent into heaven is to descend and teach what was learned, like Jesus did.
5. Prov 30:4: Jesus is inviting Nicodemus to answer the question, Who can of their own power ascend into heaven, or descend? What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know! (BTW, Moses, Enoch and others were “taken up” they did not “climb” on their own power).

—————–

Dean has presented the question here very well and offered some possibilities for how we can interpret Jesus’ words. Does anyone have any further insights into this question?  Was Jesus denying the possibility of heavenly ascent or did he mean something else altogether?

I won’t offer my own explanation at this point, but I just recently read a great answer to the question posted by BYU Professor William Hamblin as part of his “An Enigmatic Mirror” column on Patheos. You can check out the specific post here.

If interested, please check out the post at: http://www.millennialstar.org/psalm-24-temple-gates-and-guardians/

I found the following a while back and just recently looked at it again and thought it would be great to post here. British scholar Crispin Fletcher-Louis, in his book All the Glory of Adam, had the following to say about the early Jewish belief that all of humanity was meant to, and and eventually could, be divine:

Studies driven by New Testament concerns have tended to focus attention on the singular angelomorphic hero of old or the future messiah whose identity prefigures early Christian beliefs about Jesus. However, the fact that so often the angelomorphic identity is grounded in that of Adam before his exit from Eden, the existence of a continuity of angelomorphic identity through the generations of God’s elect and the focus on Israel as an angelomorphic people of God speaks for a theological perspective which should not be missed: there seems to be a claim which is usually implicit, but, as we shall see, is at other times explicit, that true humanity, as it is restored among the elect, is both angelomorphic and divine. In the rush to explain the origins of early Christian beliefs about Jesus sight can be lost of the fact that the peculiarly divine, angelic or exalted status of a particular righteous individual is fundamentally an expression of a universal theological anthropology. (Crisping Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 12)

(Note: angelomorphic = being or appearing in the form of an angel/divine being)

The posts by Roberts that Davila is commenting on can be found here:

Echoes of Wisdom and the Divinity of Jesus: Part 1

Echoes of Wisdom and the Divinity of Jesus (Part 2)

Echoes of Wisdom and the Divinity of Jesus: Part 3

Davila addresses Roberts’ thoughts on Jesus as the Son of God:

Jesus as the Son of God

This piece takes the evidence in directions that I don’t think are entirely warranted, notably here:

If Jesus had openly proclaimed himself as Son of God, his contemporaries would not have thought of this as a claim to divinity. They might have understood only that Jesus was touting his own righteousness. More likely, they would have heard a claim to be the promised Messiah, the human being who would lead Israel to throw the Romans out of God’s land once and for all.

There is plenty of evidence that the phrase “son of God” could mean an angel or a divine being (cf. Job 1, Deuteronomy 32:8). And the assertion earlier in the essay that the Israelite kings were not divinized is debatable. Note that Solomon was enthroned on the throne of YHWH as king according to 1 Chronicles 29:23 and that the king is arguably addressed as God or a god in royal rites in Isaiah 9:5 (Evv 9:6) and Psalm 45:7 (evv. 45:6).

Davila’s comments regarding the Son of Man discussion are also very interesting:

Jesus and the Perplexing Son of Man

The Son of Man in the Judaism of Jesus

The treatment of the Son of Man is good, apart from the discussion of “the one like a son of man” in Daniel 7:13:

While still dreaming, Daniel approached one of the divine attendants, asking for the interpretation of the dream. He learned that the four beasts represent four kingdoms that shall dominate the earth. But when the Ancient One finally executes judgment upon the all four beasts, the saints will be exonerated. In fact,

The kingship and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them (Dan 7:27).

Therefore, the “one like a son of man” represents the faithful people of God who endure oppression and ultimately share in God’s rule over the earth.

The problem here is that the vision in chapter 7 comes in three parts: the allegorical vision of the four beasts in vv. 1-8 a second vision of the heavenly throne room consisting of God and his angels (who are evidently watching the first vision) in vv. 9-16; and the angel’s interpretation of the allegorical vision in vv. 17-17. The difficulty with Dr. Roberts’s interpretation is that the one like a son of man comes in the second part of the vision. He is a figure in the heavenly throne room, which is “real,” that is, not part of the allegory. The kingdom of God will be given to the Jewish people (“the people of the holy ones of the Most High” in v. 27), but the one like a son of man is not an allegorical representation of them. He is a heavenly figure in his own right, perhaps the angels Michael or Gabriel (who appear elsewhere in Daniel) or – my best guess – the glorified patriarch Enoch.

Daniel 7 is arguably based on Enoch’s ascent vision in the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 14), along with Ezekiel chapter 1. In Enoch’s vision he ascends on the clouds and is brought before the throne of God, and it seems likely to me that Daniel had him in mind here. Confirming this, the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) explicitly says in chapter 71 that Enoch is the Danielic Son of Man.

(I am currently teaching a course on the book of Daniel and these matters are near and dear to my heart. For more details on the reading of Daniel 7 given in the previous paragraph, see the magisterial Hermeneia commentary on Daniel by John Collins.)

[...]

————————-

I would just add my own personal note here regarding Davila’s position on the Son of Man. I find his opinion refreshing and exciting — he asserts that the Son of Man figure should not be seen as representing the collective people of Israel (a common view), but as a specific character in the heavenly court. I totally agree with this. Davila chooses to identify this exalted human figure as the patriarch Enoch, which makes great sense in light of what is found in the Book of Enoch (at least parts of which are dated by scholars to have been written at roughly the same time as Daniel) — including, as Davila notes, the fact that Enoch may even be somehow identified with the Son of Man sitting on the throne.

I would, however, mention that, IMHO, it seems that Enoch only becomes identified with the enthroned figure at a certain point, and that the Son of Man figure is initially separate from Enoch until this “mystical union” is accomplished. But what is happening here is very debatable and seems to be interpreted in different ways in later texts. It seems to me that the “one like a son of man” that is enthroned in heaven is, in early Jewish literature, an ideal figure that was understood to be in heaven, having been seated on God’s throne. It appears that he was thought to be either an angel or an exalted human being (if there’s a difference!), but there wasn’t a consensus on who exactly he was. Throughout the literature (and over time), there are a number of different figures that are “plugged into” this Son of Man slot, including Enoch, Adam, Jacob, and others. Davila’s instincts are probably correct in thinking that Enoch would have been the most likely figure to fill this slot in the minds of many Jews at this time. However, I don’t believe that this imagery starts with the Book of Enoch. I think it goes further back to the time of the royal cult of the pre-exilic monarchy and before. Again, I can’t go into it here, but I think the idea that a human-like figure (Son of Man) could be enthroned on God’s throne as his vice-regent is a very ancient notion.

I present here my notes from her lecture.  As always, please realize that these are my own notes and do not fully represent the material that Dr Tiemeyer presented. She is publishing a much larger work on this topic (unfortunately I didn’t catch the title).  Please bear with the incomplete nature of these notes.

———————————————–

Dr Lena Sophia Tiemeyer on Isaiah 40-55

 Challenging the concept that one person wrote Isa. 40-55 during the Exile in Babylon

 –She is arguing that it was written in Judah during Exile

 Do the scholarly claims support a Babylonian setting? She argues that they only presuppose it — nothing necessitates a Babylonian-based author

 Methods: Shemaryahu Talmon’s four principles for comparative studies:

1) priority of biblical parallels over extra-biblical

2) proximity in time and space: contemporary societies should be used for comparisons

3) correspondence of social function: examples in Judah over outside

4) holistic approach vs. atomistic

Examples in biblical texts should be sought before Mesopotamian examples

Barr offers these guidelines for comparisons:

1) sources nearer to the Hebrew Bible in time

2) geographic closeness

3) Semitic sources

———

Because of their conquests of the region, we should expect to find a great degree of Mesopotamian influence over Judah during the time of Exile. Mesopotamian rulers lived in Judah — so it would be natural that we should see their influence there. Judahite scribes and possibly even regular people had a good idea of Mesopotamian religious ideas and practice since 6th-7th Century BCE.

–So there is not a good argument for the Assyrian/Babylonian elements in the Bible to have actually come from those places –such usage would have been known in Judah.

It is possible to detect Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian language) influence in Deutero-Isaiah — however, we would need to see if there are more Akkadian loan-words than are found in other texts.

–Kittel compares 2Isaiah to cuneiform literature (Akkadian) — lists parallels betwn Babylonian texts and 2Isa.

–there are similarities in vocabulary between these texts – but these could be cognates — we should look for inner-biblical parallels first

–we can also find many similarities between Isa. 60-62 and Babylonian texts although scholars wouldn’t claim authorship of these chapters in Babylon

–You didn’t need to be living in Babylon to know name of Cyrus

–Regarding some of the thematic elements in 2Isa: It is more likely that authors were influenced by Book of Exodus rather than Babylonian texts

Most texts in Hebrew Bible have Akkadian influence (not just 2Isa) — Amos has a large number of Akkadian loan words, but no one argues that Amos was in Babylon

–Akkadian was the politically dominant language of the time — it had significant influence on the local languages — it is natural that we find Akkadian elements throughout the Bible.  Language cannot be used to argue for a Babylonian setting — there are no more loan words in 2Isa than in the rest of the Hebrew Bible

–Ezekiel claims to have been written in Babylon, but has less loan words than Isa. or Jeremiah!

–we should note that there are also Ugaritic cognates in 2Isa — Dahood even argued that parts of 2Isa were written in Phoenicia!

–Akkadian was not even the major language during the Neo-Babylonian period — Aramaic was more used

–There would have been no need for the authors of 2Isa to know Akkadian if they were not part of the Babylonian royal court or cult

The presence of Akkadian cognates in the Heb. Bible is not evidence of the author’s presence in Babylon, but that loan words were known in Judah – evidence of Assyrian influence over conquered city-states

–”Self-Predication Formula” (“I am YHWH — the First and the Last”, etc.) — scholars argue that this comes from Babylonian influence — they argue that this is reminiscent of Sumerian hymns learned in Babylon

–again we should give precedence to biblical parallels — the authors likely drew from their own already existing self-presentation formula in their scriptures — maybe it ultimately stems from Sumeria, but can be found in Hebrew prophetic texts — the influence is likely pre-exilic Palestine

– There is no evidence of Assyrian prophetic texts having an influence in Babylon — there must have been earlier interaction between the people of Marduk and people of YHWH

–Isa 40-55 follows the pattern of earlier Isa chapters — We cannot conclude (from the above linguistic arguments cited) that authors must have been residents of Babylon

Another argument is that the passages in 2Isa that refer to religious practices (instructions for making of idols, etc.) are claimed to be related to Babylonian practices. –There are direct references to Babylonian deities

–tendency to worship idols is not novel to the Babylonian period  — you don’t have to be living in Babylon to know about their gods and practices

–all the terms used are attested to elsewhere in the  Heb. Bible — there are no details that would lead us to conclude that authors knew anything beyond what was commonly known

–no local features or local individuals are mentioned — a prophet in Judah would have been able to envision all of this

–Isa 46:1–2 — the picture of Babylonian gods depicted here does not fit the picture of what was going on in Babylon — King Nabonidus was replacing Marduk with moon-god Sin — this is not mentioned in 2Isa

–There is nothing in this material to warrant the conclusion that author of 2Isa was in Babylon — Jews would have known the customs of their conquerors.

The following tidbits come from the Q&A period after her presentation. I did not take note of the questions asked.

— There are many differences between the theology of 2Isa and the theology of Ezekiel — how could they come from contemporaries in the same group in Babylon?

– Evidence for the conflict between those who remained and exilees comes mainly from later texts, not contemporary

–***She says: We should first go to Psalter before we start considering Mesopotamian sources for these things*** (She said this subsequent to my asking if she had considered parallels between 2Isa and the biblical Psalms)

–Flora and fauna mentioned (plus coming of rain) — (e.g. Isa. 41:18–19) — seem to fit Israel/Judah better than Mesopotamia (In response to a question from Prof N.T. Wright) 

—Isa 48:11–12; 52 — talk about return from Babylon — but the majority of such passages in 2Isa talk about return from worldwide diaspora — so not necessarily written from perspective of those in Babylon

– The implications of this study are important. If 2Isa was written in Palestine, this changes a lot about how we understand these chapters and their relationship to other biblical literature written in the same period. If all chapters of Isaiah were written in Palestine, this has implications for our understanding of the unity of the Book of Isaiah as a whole (in response to a question by Allen Jones regarding what this research ultimately means for our understanding of 2Isa)