John 3:13 examined: The Son of Man from heaven.

"No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man." (John 3:13)

Well known biblical unitarian Anthony Buzzard has an interpretation of John 3:13, and it is likely accurate. He says (in a youtube video called "John 3:13 Explained - "no man has ascended"?? - Anthony Buzzard & J. Dan Gill - Bible Commentary", which I'll link below)  that the context in John is spiritual understanding  (verse 12) and that nobody has ever reached the level of intimacy with heaven to the same degree that the man Jesus Christ has. Nobody's bridged the gap between heaven and earth or God and man like the one who came down from heaven has. He says this is poetic and typological language. This view is lent significant merit in Proverbs where the writer is, as Anthony puts it, "deploring the fact that he hasn't learned wisdom or gotten the knowledge he should have of the Holy One."

"Who has ascended to heaven and come down?" (Prov. 30:4)

The attainment of divine knowledge is the context. (Prov. 30:3; see also Deuteronomy 30:12)

Buzzard says:

"This contact point between God and man is now achieved by Jesus bridging the gap. I think that's the sense here." (in John 3:13)

So basically the poetic language of ascension to heaven is a depiction of intimate knowledge of and wisdom from God, and not a literal depiction of one's actual physical location or cosmic travel. We should be able to comprehend that because Jesus was so full of the spirit and hence the character and wisdom of his father that no one could match his goodness and perfection, in both action and knowledge. He's unique, special, different, set apart, and gifted. The father's wisdom incarnate. This is exegeted in John 1:18 for us:

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

"In the bosom of the Father" denotes intimacy, love, and affection. 

"Here it means that Jesus had a knowledge of God such as one friend has of another - knowledge of his character, designs, and nature which no other one possesses, and which renders him, therefore, qualified above all others to make him known." (Albert Barnes Commentary)

"For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel." (John 5:20)

"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9)

So Jesus, granted God's spirit with no limitation in measurement (John 3:34), knew the father more intimately than anyone could. He was constantly humble and eager for the father's will, spending great deals of time alone with his God, fasting and in constant prayer and worship. God revealed himself to Jesus fully, and revealed himself through Jesus just as fully. It was in that poetic sense that no one had "gone into heaven" quite like Jesus. The context for the phrase seems to always be an attainment of divine knowledge and not an indication of a literal locale.

Those quick to presume that such intimate knowledge of God could only come from a literal residence in a triune essence community with his father, if consistent, should also be quick to presume that our own intimate connection with and knowledge of God (John 17:3, Ephesians 3:19), though less impressive and thorough, would also require cosmic travel and a shared homoousiois with God himself. Senseless. Examine:

"Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights." (James 1:17)

Or as the New Living Translation says:

"Whatever is good and perfect comes down to us from God our Father, who created all the lights in the heavens."

"Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven." (John 6:32)

This "bread" was "flesh" that "came down" from heaven as any gift from God would, as opposed to a spirit that transmigrated. (John 6:51)

Additionally, when Christ said "I came forth from the Father and have come into the world", he was trying to let them know that he was indeed the "Christ, the Son of the Living God." (Matthew 16:16) Exactly who he always said he was. He never said "I was the Angel of the LORD" or "I am the same God (in being, not person) as the One who sent me." The revelation that he was the decreed Christ of Yahweh was and is a truth so important that if one can't or won't accept it, that one will "die in his sin." (John 8:24) That was the purpose and heart of the book of John. Because:

"Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist." (2 John 1:7)

Jesus wanted them to know that he was that "flesh" from heaven. The Messiah in the flesh, a true human being, from God himself, sent to save the whole world. The one from OT prophecies that would cause a stir. 

Further, John writes:

"Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.” Jesus answered them, “Do you now believe?" (John 16:30, 31)

Do you think Jesus was asking them if they now believed he preexisted or if they now knew for certain that he was the Christ of Yah? To "know all things" means Christ was full of the spirit of his father, truly "from God" as the prophesied Messiah to give life to the world, not that he existed for millenniums as another ontology. Again, I think the whole point is that he wasn't a false Messiah from some source other than Yahweh. Yes, the texts in question are about Jesus's identification as the true Messiah and that one's source as opposed to his pre-existing otherworldy locale as some being who was not yet Messiah.

There is quite literally no greater gift to mankind than Jesus from God. Jesus was "from above" like any other gift from God would be. He was and is the most exceptional one ever. Christ said, however, in the gospel of John, that his "flesh" came down. This would present a real problem for trinitarians considering they think it was a spirit that "came down." Yes, they think it was God who had no flesh who "came down" to receive flesh. Something Jesus in John's gospel definitively refutes.

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (John 6:51)

John's gospel also says that the Son of man descended. (John 3:13) Why wouldn't this present a real problem for trinitarians who maintain that God descended into a womb to become a man? According to John's gospel, again, it was a flesh man who came down. A man with flesh from heaven. Obviously, Christ and John incorporate figurative language because every good gift comes down from heaven. 

In conclusion and in consideration of John's gospel as a whole, what could be said about the identity of Christ poetically and captivatingly revealed therein? Was John's intention to highlight Jesus as the incarnation of an eternally generated preexisting Son of God, coequal and consubstantial with his own God? James Dunn is always thoughtful and articulate and says:

"It would be better to speak of the Johannine Christ as the incarnation of God, as God making himself known in human flesh, not as the incarnation of the Son of God (which seems to be saying something other.)" (xxviii Foreword to 2nd edition of "Christology in the Making" by James D.G. Dunn)

And also:

"Christ was the incarnate Logos, a self-manifestation of God, the One God insofar as he could make himself known in human flesh.--not the incarnation of a divine power other than God. Christianity was still monotheistic; the only difference was the belief that this God had manifested himself in and as human flesh; this Jesus now provided a definitive 'window' into the One God; he was (and is) "God" as the self-manifestation of God, not as one somehow other than God."(xxx foreword to 2nd edition of "Christology in the Making" by James D.G. Dunn)

In other words, Christ was the father's own self-revelation incarnate in human flesh, not a pre-existing Angel or "Son of God" incarnate in human flesh. And, no, just in case there be any misunderstandings, that point is not advocating a Modalist position. It's advocating God the father in his Son, a separate "being" and individual, through whom he made himself known as fully as an infinite, holy, and unseeable God possibly could. (2 Cor. 5:19, Col. 2:9)

The incredible book of John contains some of the most impressively lucid and inarguable creedal statements about Christ's identity than any other book. Ironically, that is, considering the prevailing misuse of it's sometimes poetic, proleptic, and figurative dialogue in a futile attempt to advocate a trinity. If I had been at the helm of any of those notorious historical councils, I would have quickly and unhesitatingly turned to John 17:3 and simply read it aloud to refute any opposing Platonically inspired philosophies that anyone could try and use to violently murder the simplicity and clarity of such uncomplicated revelations. I would herald from a pulpit:

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

 Also:

"These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31) 

That, my friends, was the entire intention of his stunning book! Yet, amazingly and bold-facedly enough, trinitarians will shamelessly promulgate the ridiculous lie far and wide that Jesus told people like me we would die in our sin if we don't accept the fact that he's the second person of God's triune essence, "true God" from "true God", putting words in his mouth that God never did. His words were from the father, so don't try to place your own in his mouth. He wouldn't have it! When they make such condemning unwarranted claims, what I hear, essentially, is:

"God is not the author of confusion, but either embrace the historical councils' confusing concoctions or die in your sin."

The salvific and terrific revelation of Christ's identity was a mystery revealed, not a mystery unknowable and eternally sustained. He was and is the prophesied savior of mankind and heir of the whole world! King and Lord. The Christ, the Son of the Living God. This we should all affirm without any conscience qualms, wholeheartedly and unreservedly. Anything beyond, like that he is the second person of a triune God homoousios, should have red flags attached, flowing in the wind of it's vacuity.

As Patrick Navas notes:

"Unlike the doctrinal formulations of the historic “creeds,” the disclosure of Jesus’ identity as “the Christ” and “Son of God” is neither an interpretation nor a theological inference, but a divinely-revealed truth upon which the gospel stands. This is the true article of the Christian faith, resting not on the traditions of men but on the testimony of God Himself."

He also says:

"All have access to the grace of God, as the Lord’s true people, not by conformity to a man-made creed or institution, but through faith in “the holy one of God,” Jesus, who alone has “the sayings of everlasting life”—for it is “through him” that we have “access in one spirit to the Father.” —John 6:68, 69; Rom. 5:2; Eph. 2:18; 3:12; 1 Tim. 2:5

If you have a dire aversion to that simplicity, that gospel by which the apostles made thousands upon thousands of coverts in the book of Acts, then you need to question the tradition that would make you.